Rezsó Bányász, Foundation for a Neutral Hungary
As a long-time diplomatist, having served Hungary both on important bilateral posts (Stockholm, London, Dublin, Ottawa) and at the Head-quarters of the United Nations in New York, I readily accept the idea, that nowadays it is very difficult to survive as a small, independent country. Globalisation is the universal quick-fix of things these days, which is partly a necessity, partly a dogma or just an empty slogan. It is easy to understand that in the would of high-technology the most up-to-date solutions can be found only at a global level. Imports and exports of goods should be co-ordinated at the highest possible international level as well.
The trouble starts when statesmen in our region are globalising their duties, because globalisation in their vocabulary does not mean more - at least in my interpretation - that looking at a certain Great Power, asking for its goodwill and hoping to get its golden smile. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been victorious in the cold war. And since the "winner takes all..." many believe that the safest way to happiness is to join NATO, led by that Great Power - the United States of America. "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
I have learned myself, of course, that it is not too easy to represent a small country's case abroad. As Hungary's Ambassador to Canada mon nice day I paid an official visit to the Governor of the Province of Alberta. During the very charming introductory exchanges the Governor put to me the following question: "... and tell me , Mr Ambassador, how big are you actually in that part of Europe?" and I answered him, that Hungary makes-up about 93,000 square-kilometres. The Governor was thinking a bit, then gave me the following reaction: I see... here in Alberta, in the northern part of the Province we have a nature conservation area with exactly the same size ... well, it might be a little larger."
And it was not the very first time I had to realise our place on the Globe. During many international conferences, bilateral meetings, stressing the formal equality of states in the international community, I have often met the well-known "arrogance of power" in West and East alike. The high-handed refusal and the indulgent patronage were (in many cases) manifestations of the basically same great-power attitude.
This is why the general mood, the voice of the street in the early 1990's in Hungary expressed a basically negative attitude towards the establishing of new blocks in Europe: "If we can be free of the Warsaw Pact and no foreign troops will stay on Hungarian soil, we should never again join any other military pacts." Neutrality has been a welcomed alternative - at least for a while.
And still - after only a few years - outside pressure and Government propagandists, spending billions of Porints of our tax-money, succeeded in convincing many Hungarians to vote for NATO-membership. The national referendum, held on November 16, 1997 gave misleading results. More than 50 percent of voters refused to participate in the referendum. Those participating in the votes voted by 85 percent for joining NATO, 15 percent against. And while it was clearly a minority of the population who was preferring NATO-membership, Hungarian Governments still refer to he result of this national referendum as a complete support of their actions within NATO.
In Hungary everybody remembers well that in the time of arguing for NATO-membership, Governments propagandists spoke day and night about the changed nature and role of the western military alliance. They all stressed that through our membership we shall feel eternal peace and complete security. More than that, our membership in NATO will immediately promote Hungary's joining the European Union, which is practically the common goal of all Hungarians. But it took only two weeks after out entry into NATO and Hungary became a partner in a tragic, unjust war against a sovereign neighbouring country - Yugoslavia.
This war has really shocked Hungarian public opinion. Although no Hungarian soldiers took a direct role in the war, the Hungarian Government opened the whole Hungarian air-space for NATO-bombers and gave an air base in Taszár (South-west Hungary) to the American Air Force. More and more people are expressing their doubts about the wiseness of our participation in NATO's military alliance. This can be quite well documented by official statistics as well.
The Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs asked for a public opinion poll about NATO's backing in the population after the Yugoslav war in March 2000. according to this official poll only 50.2 percent would vote for NATO membership - if a national referendum was made today! A year ago this figure was 61 percent. Those decidedly against made 16 percent, and those undecided made 33.8 percent. In my opinion this last group of people are representing those Hungarians who feel the tragic results of NATO's war not only for the present, but for the years to come.
More and more Hungarians are asking the questions which might be embarrassing t the leading personalities of NATO and their representatives back home. First of all: can it be accepted as a historic trend that NATO's 19 countries take international justice in their own hands; they give themselves the right to intervene anywhere, any time with the internal affairs of other countries, other people?
The way of bypassing the United Nations in the days of bombing Yugoslavia by NATO created a lot of headaches for intellectuals, believers o international justice. It is easy to understand that the USA did not want to face the Russian or Chinese veto in the Security Council of the UN. You might have different opinions about the veto-right or about the states having veto-right, but still this has been the institution that kept the world alive during the most threatening years of the cold war.
People should not forget that after World War 2, after the innumerable tragic losses on all continents, mankind wanted to start a new path of history with the foundation of the United Nations. Those 51 countries whose representatives signed the Charter of the United Nations in 1945, sincerely believed in the Spirit of San Francisco, i.e. in the possibility of maintaining peace and security for the generations to come. They believed in the equality of all nations, all people, all races. And they were deeply confident that all their noble aims can be reached by peaceful means.
The United Nations Organisation is still today the greatest international achievement of the family of nations in the 20th Century. Mighty military organisations, building on national hatred or desire for territorial expansion have partly disappeared already from the international scene or should vanish soon, to give way for real peaceful, global co-operation in the 21st Century. Nations, smaller or bigger countries should not be put into the impossible choice: to choose between the Spirit of San Francisco or loyalty to NATO.
As a retired Ambassador I often remember the wise words of Mr János Kádár told to a meeting of Hungarian Ambassadors in the early eighties. (Mr Kádár, who led Hungary through 30 difficult years, is held by most Hungarians still the greatest statesman of our Century.) Mr Kádár referred in his statement to certain cold war notes coming this time from Moscow, stressing the need of buying new military hardware. His answer was very simple and clear: "When it is raining in Moscow, you must not open an umbrella in Budapest."
…. time mostly in Washington and at Brussels. I am convinced, that we Hungarians - and we Europeans in general - should not let a new era of rearmament take over our small continent. All people should stand up for peace, because peace is the most important human right.