Dr. Michael A. Weinstein's article, "A Small Victory for Europeanism," appeared recently in Power and Interest News Report. As the publishers describe it, "The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks, as objectively as possible, to provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader."
We at MBK feel that Dr. Weinstein has taken a very one-sided stand on this issue. Therefore - without making "moral judgments," - we are publishing our own comment on his "report", which we feel is not free of personal "moral judgment."
For the original text of this article [3], click here.
To facilitate the interested reader's understanding of the complex issues involved, we refer him/her to the article "We, the Peoples of Europe..."(Foreign Affairs, December 2004, pp. 97-102, unfortunately in hardcopy only) by Prof. Kalypso Nicolaïdis [4], currently at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris [5]. Prof. Nicolaïdis has lectured at Oxford, and was an advisor to G. Papandreu, at the time the foreign minister of Greece.
Nicolaïdis correctly points out that the European Union, still at a fledgling stage but about to adopt a formal constitution, is divided into two camps: those she calls "intergovernmentalists", who hold that "nations,which are bound by a common language, culture, history, and often ethnicity, are the only credible foundations of polities; and the "supranationalists," who "belive that it is both possible and desirable to aspire to a single European demos. In other words, they strive to "recreate a national mystique on the European level."
Nicolaïdis argues for a third way of understanding Europe: as "a transnational pluralism... rather than ... some extended notion of the nation-state." Weinstein, on the other hand, is clearly a supranationalist, with no patience for nation states of any kind. And he interprets the result of the "Hungarian referendum of December 5 as a vote for supranationalism." (His hero is Mr. Gyurcsány, the billionaire-socialist prime minister and Europeanist, his devil the nationalist ex-prime minister, Mr. Orbán.) He concludes: "The defeat of the Hungarian referendum on dual citizenship was a temporary victory for the E.U., but also a reminder that unresolved problems from the past can surface having the potential of disturbing European integration. The success of the E.U. design to westernize Eastern Europe depends more than anything else on robust economic growth and broad distribution of its benefits in the region. If rising expectations are not met, nationalist sentiments that can be exploited politically remain close to the surface."
From a Hungarian perspective, Weinstein has written a decidedly anti-Hungarian report, full of personal bias. Most regrettably, he has taken sides in internal Hungarian party politics. But we feel he fails to understand the essence of the European Union. In that context he also ignores the fact that the dual citizenship measure was not a revanchist, revisionist step, but the result of the failure of the system established after World War I, which was supposed to protect ethnic minorities as ethnic minorities, not as individuals whose only option in seeking equality and democracy was to become not merely good citizens (or subjects) of the so-called successor states, but to give up their language, their religion, their ethnic identity.
Louis Elteto, Professor
Portland State University
| A Small Victory For Europeanism | Belépés/Regisztráció [6] | 1 hozzászólás | ||
|
| ||
| Minden egyes hozzászólás a szerző saját nézőpontját tükrözi. A honlap üzemeltetője semmilyen felelősséget nem vállal annak tartalmáért. |
Re: A Small Victory For Europeanism(Értékelés 1)Írta: FülöpL [7] (Fulop_Laszlo@mbk.org) Időpont: 2004. dec. 18., 18:41 (Felhasználó adatai [8] | Üzenetküldés [9] |
|
2004.12.16 Laszlo Fulop's response to Dr. Michael A. Weinstein's article Dr. Weinstein has tackled a Central European issue of considerable complexity - and not in the spirit the Power and Interest News Report (PINR) professes. "...PINR is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe". The article he wrote is analytical, all right, but not objective. Oh, it does make superficial runs at objectivity, however the tone of the article - especially in the "The Referendum: Nationalism Versus Europeanism," in the "International Complications" and the "Conclusion" parts - is subtly and persistently anti-Hungarian. For example, statements that are negative, or suggest negative characterization, thereby influencing the reader negatively - are placed at the end (the concluding, or transitory sentence) of a paragraph. Writers learn early that this is the place where the writing can impress the reader. At these paragraph endings Dr. Weinberg places such phrases as: "...atmosphere of partisanship, fractiousness and polarization that has characterized the closely divided Hungarian political forces" or alluding to Hungary's neighbors: "...is perceived by those states as a threat to their sovereignty." Or, referring to Hungary "...nationalist sentiments that can be exploited politically remain close to the surface." Each of these statements could be challenged and compared to examples of other Western democracies, but that would sidetrack the attention this article should receive. To be fair, there's exception to the placement of such "points", but there he makes summary judgment (!) when he characterizes "the referendum: "...the only advantage seemed to be the satisfaction of nationalist sentiment." The only merit to this exclamation, of course, is the brevity by which he degrades opposition of the argued subject. It shows total insensitivity to the existential problems (including discrimination, forced assimilation, dispossession of properties, forced dislocations, forced change in nationality, physical assaults, political exorcise, and the like) of 2.5 - 3.0 million people living in minority status. But there are problems with the pairing of historical facts as well. Dr. Weinstein's figures are not accurate, but approximate. That cavalier attitude -, but one tends to be casual with the pains and possessions of others - can be accepted and his continuous shaving the figures of Hungarian minorities downward - swallowed, although that sort of distortion does not serve the reading public right. But mentioning the Trianon Treaty and pairing it up with today's population data is a more significant, albeit subtle belittling of the magnitude of the national trauma. By the way, Hungary lost not two thirds of its territories, but 71.5% and not 60% of its population, but 63.6% (102,181 km2 and 1,704,000 Hungarians to Romania; 63,497 km2 and 563,000 Hungarians for Yugoslavia; 4,026 km2 and 64,000 Hungarians to Austria; 63,004 km2 and 1,084,000 Hungarians for Czechoslavakia; the port of Fiume to Italy). A notable tenet of social sciences is that significant characteristics of human societies are the development of language and the level on which language is used. Indeed, it was language-based communication that contributed most to what we today understand as culture. Both language and culture are the product of human communities. One may also argue convincingly that each process and manifestation, as well as development of our human society should be evaluated in light of the survival of human communities. This is a truism not only when we strive to understand Minoan culture, but also today. Thus, from the Hungarian - and humane - viewpoint, the survival of these communities (in terms of language and other manifestations of their culture) is absolutely vita |