CNN Newsroom: Global View

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ CNN Newsroom: Global View / CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso / txt / fbis / fbis1091.002 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-05-02 | 8KB | 150 lines

<text> <title> Discussion of Media Role, Nationalism in Hungary </title> <article> <hdr> Foreign Broadcast Information Service, October 30, 1991 Hungary: Gyula Discusses Media Role, Nationalism </hdr> <body> [Report on a debate organized by Laszlo Robert, editor of the Hungarian-language edition of LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE, at the headquarters of the National Federation of Hungarian Journalists on 19 October: "Media and Lies--The Abandoned Region". Budapest MAGYAR HIRLAP in Hungarian 25 Oct 91 p 5] [Excerpt] [passage omitted] Gyula Horn, former Hungarian foreign minister and chairman of the Hungarian National Assembly's Foreign Affairs Committee: "I have often dealt with the relationship between the press and politics. My impression is (and this is not a new impression) that the power and the authorities have not changed much in their attitude toward the press: The authorities want to position themselves above the press. The press and media staff try to fight against this, as do those who do not have a share in power. It is this kind of struggle that we are witnessing here in Hungary at the moment, as well as in the whole area of Central and Eastern Europe. I do not know of any politician or political line that has won a battle against the press. As far as I can tell, it is always the press that gains the upper hand. Any politician who does not take that into account is shortsighted. "The euphoria experienced by the Western world in relation to our changes was largely extended by the media. On the other hand, I now think that a significant proportion of the Western press does not know how to deal with this region and with the very contradictory developments that are taking place here. "For example, I do not think it extraordinary that nationalism has grown stronger in our region. Nationalism has always existed here, and it is only its success, its strength, and its manifestations that have changed from period to period. Nationalism exists in all those places where democracy does not exist. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that, in this region, we failed to see the development not only of the institutions of democracy, but also of the characteristics (and hence the traditions) of democracy. It is extremely difficult to make a distinction between nationalist manifestation and rightful claims and efforts aimed at gaining autonomy for a specific nation, national group, minority, or organization form. For example, can we speak of nationalism in the case of the 17 Soviet cities that have proclaimed their cities as republics? I stress that we are talking about cities, not regions or ethnic groups. "I find nationalism really dangerous, or even fatally dangerous--I base this on the events that are taking place along our southern border and in our southeastern region--if they are elevated to the level of official politics. It is common knowledge that the war in Yugoslavia is clearly linked to Serbian nationalism. "In our region, we can expect similar consequences of lesser or greater force in all those areas where no satisfactory solution was found over the past decades for state structural forms, or where state alliances were formed without expressing the real will of every single participant. That is why I am particularly worried by the developments that are taking place in the Soviet Union and the prospects for these developments--apart from the fact that I do not know of a single problem that has been solved with peaceful means over the Soviet Union's more than 70-year-long history. Violence and confrontation were always given priority over other forms of solution. I would like to add that, naturally, the things that are happening in this region are the responsibility of the nations and peoples who live here, but the West also bears an enormous responsibility for the situation and future of our region. "It seems to me that the West does not know how to handle the developments that are taking place here. One of the reasons why this is difficult to accept is because, for decades, the West encouraged (at least through the media) those who lived here to fight for democracy. However, now I do not really see the same kind of positive interference. What am I referring to in concrete terms? "The West--save a few exceptions--is almost tacitly accepting the fact that Romania is about to pass a constitution that is markedly nationalist and hostile toward national minorities. The new constitution will make the situation for national minorities even worse than it was under previous regimes. For years, we have been suggesting that if the countries of Central and Eastern Europe want to join Western Europe, the West should make it a prerequisite that these states completely fulfill requirements concerning human rights and democracy. We even have the legal basis to do this, because all these states (without exception) are signatories to the international agreements that stipulate these requirements. However, there has been no concrete reaction in this area. "I think that this region has been left to itself to a large extent. It is common knowledge (perhaps it is even a cliche) that the main reasons behind the nationalism and domestic problems encountered here--the very serious anomalies linked to our change of regime and situation--are of an economic and social nature. To be quite honest, at the moment, I do not know how the West relates to our economic transition and change of regime. I wish to stress that I am not talking about providing aid (except in the case of the Soviet Union perhaps). I am talking about the West assisting us in our economic transition and our adhesion to the group of developed economies. For example, what can we do when leading Western politicians successively tell us that Hungary and the others should not expect to join the EC before the turn of the millennium, because we are not ready for that yet? On what basis can anyone establish deadlines? One can state that these countries will only be able to accede once they have changed and transformed their internal system so that it falls in line with the EC's situation. That is an acceptable viewpoint. I find this particularly important because we are not just talking about economic issues. I am convinced that our belonging to Western European integrationist organizations (particularly the EC) is also a political matter--in relation to the nationalist manifestations mentioned previously, as well. "France has always been of crucial importance for Central and Eastern Europe, as has the success of a joint Franco-German foreign policy directed toward us. Today I find that Germany is busy with its own problems--with the recovery of eastern Germany--and there is no clearly outlined French foreign policy as regards Central and Eastern Europe either. This is also true, to a certain extent, for Great Britain's foreign policy. In other words, Western Europe is fairly divided, and it is mainly passive as regards developments over here. I think the West is faced with a dilemma. Either it stays as far away as possible from the developments in Central Europe, the wars, the nationalist tendencies, and the economic problems (and this appears in the form of a new kind of autarchy)--or it recognizes the fact that if it fails to play an active role in the formation of developments over here, the situation of our whole continent could be in great danger. One cannot allow a lasting unstable situation to develop in these parts and at the same time talk about creating a united Europe." [passage omitted] </body> </article> </text>