Everyone has an angle on Covid-19. For some it provides
opportunities to push the envelope of power and Hungary's Viktor Orban has done
just that. In light of Orban's attempt to seize emergency powers, cries of
dictatorship prevailed and the EU started to take further action against the
wayward government in Budapest.
But with the decline of Covid-19 the Orban government has
walked back the 'rule by decree' authority granted to him as prime minister.
But what does it all mean? Was it a false alarm?
Some see it as an opportunistic episode on Orban's part, a
move made in order to push through several key pieces of legislation. Perhaps.
More likely it was an experiment, a testing of the waters to see how Brussels
would respond but more importantly perhaps – the reaction of the Hungarian
street.
Orban is undoubtedly flirting with authoritarianism and has a
fascist flavour to his ruling ethos. He has become the leading power in the V4
– the EU's dissident bloc that on the one hand resists the authority of Brussels
but in other cases embraces the benefits of being part of the European project.
While US leaders decry the moves made by Budapest and Warsaw vis-à-vis the EU,
the truth is in many respects Washington supports these players as a means of
countering EU aspirations. Washington's on again off again ambivalence toward
the EU is perfectly expressed in its response to V4 dissidence. For the most
part Washington has viewed a strong EU as a rival, even a threat but in light of
tensions with Russia – Washington wants the EU to remain solid and somewhat
unified – but not too unified or strong. And hence the embrace of V4
ambivalence. There is of course a spectrum of views within Washington, some
more committed and devoted to the approach of Atlanticism and thus more likely
to be upset by the actions of the V4. Others believe Atlanticism has morphed –
no longer a US dominated project, it has become an arrangement of equals which is
to them an intolerable prospect. And thus they support friendly forces within
the EU that will temper Brussels' reach.
It's complicated but the Washington Post and outlets like it
represent the Atlanticist Establishment and thus in general terms their take on
Orban will be negative – and such articles are meant not only to condition the
American public but they are also a shot across the bow at Orban – a warning
that he doesn't have blank check when it comes to American support.
Orban is furthering his agenda and carving out a special
niche by forging close ties with Washington even while he also does some
business with Beijing. He's reaching out to Belarus in an attempt to strengthen
the bloc which in reality is in opposition to both Moscow and Brussels. Winning
Belarus over to his side would mark a significant diplomatic victory.
In recent days much has been made of the nationalistic
statements and displays regarding the centenary of the Trianon Treaty which
partitioned Hungary and has left millions of ethnic Hungarians as citizens of
neighbouring nations. The truth is – some of this alarmism on the part of
Western media is really hype. This has been a huge issue in Hungary since the
World Wars. It's not something that originated with Orban. This is what led the
regent Miklos Horthy (whom Orban has praised) to form an alliance with Hitler.
During the Cold War the Hungarian-Romanian border was often described as being
more intense and restrictive than the Berlin Wall. And even during the 1990's irredentist
maps of the historical Kingdom of Hungary were on sale at tourist kiosks on the
streets of Budapest. Again, the sentiments are not new and are not unique to
Orban. But he's certainly playing them and amplifying public anger. Comparisons
are being made to Hitler and his quest to unite the Greater German Volk of
Central Europe. Hitler was trying to create a Germany that had never really
existed – a kind of re-casting and expansion of the defunct Holy Roman Empire
(with an emphasis on its German aspect). Orban on the other hand can point to a
kingdom, a political entity that existed for roughly one thousand years – that
was broken up at Trianon – a move that some considered just and justified but
few would laud the way the breakup was prosecuted.
Several outlets have been running stories on Orban's irredentist
rhetoric, the Washington Post is no exception. It reflects the views of the
Washington Establishment. Again many within that Establishment support Orban
and the V4 in general but they certainly do not want to see him push this line
and destabilise the region. Right now, Washington wants stability in Central
Europe – it needs it and so this aspect of Orban's rhetoric will be opposed.
And the Times, Post and other outlets will start pushing the line. Atlantic
Council scholars will be called on and the likes of Anne Applebaum will be
trotted out to offer their rather skewed expertise on the region and its politics.
I found the Post article's language regarding the post-World
War II 'restoration' of Transylvania to Romania an interesting argument. It's
as if Hungary's claims are illegitimate because their reconquista took place under the aegis of an alliance with the
Nazis. It implies that the land rightfully belongs to Romania. Now, Romanians
certainly lived there but the truth is there was no 'Romania' until the 19th
century. Transylvania on the other hand belonged to Hungary for roughly a
thousand years from the establishment of the kingdom in the 900's to its
removal in the aftermath of WWI. A century has passed but the Hungarians are
still upset by this move – perhaps even more than their losses to Slovakia,
Croatia, Serbia and Austria.
There's no doubt that Orban is 'making trouble' with regard
to the Hungarian diaspora and while the comparisons to Hitler can be made – the
truth is that today's Hungary is hardly like 1930's Germany. I think there's
little fear of Orban seizing territory and expanding Hungary – but there are
fears that others such as Russia and China will seek to capitalise on the
instability he's creating.
Domestically he continues to consolidate his power and these
recent Covid-19 moves are flirtations with a further power grab. He's playing the
long game and given his ideology and history – people are rightly alarmed.
For my part his moves are in harmony with historical patterns
and expectations. His moves possess a certain logic even if it is in defiance
of the EU's confused and unrealistic vision for the post-war order – a vision
that has been entangled by and sometimes hindered by Atlanticism and further
troubled by NATO expansion.
I am however greatly concerned by Evangelicalism's embrace of
Orban and how such thinking is playing out in both European and American
quarters. His pseudo-Christian nationalist anti-globalism has energised some
and he's being looked to as an ideal Christian political leader. But to most
Europeans he's a would-be fascist tyrant and enemy of Classical Liberalism. The
latter political order is not Christian but at the same time Orban's views vis-à-vis
New Testament Christianity are wanting and in terms of the Church subversive.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.