A Pre-Election Reflection
Hungary and Democratic Decay
Thomas O. Melia was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (2010-2015) and Assistant Administrator of USAID (2015-2017) during the Obama Administration, and is currently a fellow at the George W. Bush Institute and a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
show comments

    Hungarians know better than most what it’s like to live under the authoritarian Communist thumb. They know precisely what it’s like to have their country taken over by hostile foreigners. I’m going to go ahead and believe the Hungarian folks I know when they tell me they see too many similarities between their recent history of oppression and the EU. Specifically, we are talking about The several EU countries with no freedom of speech and trying to foist hordes of illegal migrants in states like Poland and Hungary.

    Sorry. Hungarians actually know better, and if for no other reason than they’ve seen the rapes and pickup trucks cruising through the Christmas markets. Hungarians don’t want to succumb to the same fate.

    • Uncooked Vanilla

      Put more simply, if you import millions of foreigners who are very tribal and have a strong in-group preference, then that tends to create a similar reaction among the native population. It seems to really burn this author up that white people would have such a reaction, or that there will indeed be a place where it’s OK to be white whether it’s in some Eastern European country, or certain parts of certain states at least in the US. Yeah. We are not all self-hating, post-modernist loons.

    • D4x

      Melia is the last person to trust when he concludes: “Let’s see what Hungary says.” This post was cleverly written to avoid the sovereignty versus ‘EU uber alles diktats’ issue, and the migration issue, that keep bringing European electoral results so distressing to the foreign policy chattering chinstraps that use TAI as a test platform for their “comprehensive strategies”.
      Hungarians do not want the USA to meddle in their elections. They want the USA to respect the concept of sovereignty as the fundamental basis for a nation-state to enjoy the security that leads to prosperity.

      When Melia writes: “We also call on the U.S. Congress to convene hearings on the issue and to work with the Administration “to put in place a comprehensive strategy that dramatically increases diplomatic engagement, development assistance, and security cooperation in support of democracy in transatlantic and NATO countries.”” that is just another attempted coup by the blob that wants Obama’s ‘bloated with Special Envoys talking in Geneva State Department while handing out grants to our favorite NGOs’ back. They can not stand getting their Federal contracts cut, or seeing the bi-partisan Wilsonist ‘democracy is everything’ voices lose so much influence in the Executive Branch.
      The attempted coup masked as ‘resistance’ now re-branded as “in support of democracy” because, after fourteen months, they still refuse to believe the Trump administration has been successfully deploying THEIR foreign policy strategy that values energy and water security for sovereign nation-states, and bypasses the overhead of this treacherous blob of ‘experts’.

      Unmasking this dangerous network of foreign policy ‘experts’ is the only reason I still read this stuff.
      TAI should pay me to cancel my subscription 🙂

      • Mavwreck

        Is there a reason you use the term “nation-state” multiple times – rather than a simpler term?

        • D4x

          Not every Nation has a State. Sovereignty issues, between political units and a federal authority, or with the jurisdiction of a transnational organization like the EU or UN, require precision. There is a difference between ‘nation’ and ‘state’ and ‘nation-state’. When I write about the USA, the word ‘state’ is best. When it is the EU or UN, I use ‘nation-state’, although ‘member-state’ is technically more precise. In my post here, I used ‘nation-state’ because that is more precise for Hungary, a nation defined by a people with a unique language in geographic borders established: “Post-Treaty of Trianon (1920) borders of greater Hungary. The Treaty annexed 71.4% of the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918)” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3de8ede74e2187fcae1e5cb18b3dc0c9ead486037f0ee84575f7ae39aa8aaf27.jpg Hungary was part of the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire, one of the most difficult Empires to map because it changed so much over it’s 500-year duration. So many new nation-states were created in the aftermath of World War 1, which saw the collapse of four land empires, and the concept of ‘self-determination’ gave rise to borders that did not follow the topography that made those borders physically defensible. The War to End All Wars led to more wars. The wars in Europe today are fought in the ballot box, and with words like Melia uses.

          My nit-picking with words comes from academic training in political geography, i.e. map-making; and a longtime interest in UNPO.org, the Unrecognized Peoples and Nations Organization, where members aspire to diplomatic recognition of their ‘nation’ as a ‘state’. I find it necessary to try to be precise in my use of words, in an increasingly ‘labelled’ world. Refrring to Hungary as a member-state of the EU probably is more precise, but does not capture the sovereignty or border issues.

          https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog128/node/534 “What is a State?”
          A State is an independent, sovereign government exercising control over a certain spatially defined and bounded area, whose borders are usually clearly defined and internationally recognized by other states.
          States are tied to territory
          Sovereign or state as absolute ruler over territory
          Have clear borders
          Defends and controls its territory within those borders
          Is recognized by other countries (diplomatic recognition, passports, treaties, etc.)
          States have bureaucracies staffed by state’s own personnel
          Has a national bureaucracy staffed by government personnel (legal system, educational system, hierarchical governmental units, etc.)
          States monopolize certain functions within its territory (sovereign)
          Controls legitimate use of force within its territory
          Controls money at national scale (prints currency; collects taxes)
          Makes rules within its territory (law, regulations, taxes, citizenship, etc.)
          Controls much information within its territory
          States try to form nations within their borders (through symbols, education, ‘national interest,’ etc.).

          So, what is a Nation?
          A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared cultural or historical criteria. Nations are socially constructed units, not given by nature. Their existence, definition, and members can change dramatically based on circumstances. Nations in some ways can be thought of as “imagined communities” that are bound together by notions of unity that can pivot around religion, ethnic identity, language, cultural practice and so forth. The concept and practice of a nation work to establish who belongs and who does not (insider vs. outsider). Such conceptions often ignore political boundaries such that a single nation may “spill over” into multiple states. Furthermore, states ≠ nations: not every nation has a state (e.g., Kurds; Roma; Palestine). Some states may contain all or parts of multiple nations.

          And what about a Nation-State?
          A Nation-State is the idea of a homogenous nation governed by its own sovereign state—where each state contains one nation. This idea is almost never achieved.
          see also:

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.