At 07:40 PM 23/02/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I agree. I enjoyed the friendliness of everybody in Val Morin, the food in
>the 4 fork restaurant at Far Hills.  People in Montreal seemed less friendly
>when I approached them in English.
[...]
Whoops .... I just sent a message asking about where you skied in Que?
 .... servers?  Eventually they too will get things organized?
>
>>As for Mr.Chretien,sometimes again in diplomacy there are nice words,and
>>different feelings.
>
>That is why I am an engineer and not a diplomat.

>>Now how about Cuba?
>
>Well, he (Castro) is not on my list of favorites and Chretien's nice words
>about him are..., well I am staying nice, as you suggested..
[...]
cute Gabor .... to each of the last two comments!
Regards
Aniko
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>

At 07:44 PM 23/02/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Good news. According to the AFP G. Funar was ousted from his position of
>leader of the Romanian National Unity Party. He is still the Mayor of
>Kolozsvar/Cluj, hopefully not longer than until the next elections.
[...]
When is the next election? (thanks for sharing, btw)
Regards,
Aniko
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>

It seems that the tide is really turning, hopefully for the better. It is inter
esting that Funar enjoyed some general popularity as Mayor because just as  Mus
solini "made the trains run on time" Funar made sure that Kolozsvár was particu
larly clean and tidy, or so I have heard.
On the other hand he made sure that only those aspects of culture got promoted 
that were explicitly Romanian. Thus Hungarian language theatre, Hungarian museu
ms and even Hungarian-related archeological digs were stifled under Funar.

Regards
Dénes 



----------
From:  Aniko Dunford[SMTP:]
Sent:  Monday, 24 February 1997 14:15
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: Funar is out

At 07:44 PM 23/02/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Good news. According to the AFP G. Funar was ousted from his position of
>leader of the Romanian National Unity Party. He is still the Mayor of
>Kolozsvar/Cluj, hopefully not longer than until the next elections.
[...]
When is the next election? (thanks for sharing, btw)
Regards,
Aniko
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>

At 05:37 PM 2/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 02:14 PM 2/21/97 -0500, Joe Szalai quotes the Globe and Mail.
>
>>Prime Minister Jean Chretien keeps adding to the list of countries he
>>wants to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization even as Canada cuts
>>back its own involvement in the military alliance.
>
>I hope I am not offending any Canadians with the following story. I spent
>the last week in Quebec, skiing, and I listened to CBC radio every day.  I
>was troubled by the reaction of Prime Minister Chretien, who had only words
>of praise for the deceased Deng Xiao Ping of China, the one who ordered the
>massacre of the students. (I am not sure what the official American reaction
>was, but if it was similar to this, I am also troubled by it).
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>

Andy Kozma wrote :
>Gabor:I sincerly hope you enjoyed your skiing vacation inQuebec.It is a
>beautiful place,with friendly people,and very good restaurant.
>It is too bad,that the politicians,again trying to put a vedge between
>Quebec,and the rest of Canada.
>As for Mr.Chretien,sometimes again in diplomacy there are nice words,and
>different feelings.


>Now how about Cuba?

Was there a place of Heaveanly Peace, as well?

Miklss

Johanne wrote:

>I tend to think NATO membership would provide Hungary more security against
>possible future Russian expansionism (which, sooner or later, is a good
>possiblity, I think we would all agree), than she would have any other way.

Janos Zsargo wrote
<I agree with you completly. And I think we (the Hungarians) would need the
<NATO membership not only for national security, but for compatibility also.
<The most important goal of Hungary is the EC membership (in my opinion), the
<majority of the EC countries are NATO member as well (with the exception of
<France,

Whoop! Yes, France is a member of the NATO, even if they emphasise being
a rather special member.

Janos Zsargo wrote
<Austria and Sweden), so the security issues of the EC are the same
<as those of the NATO. I don't think it is possible to be neutral and EC
<member in longer term. Beside who would take such a 'neutrality' seriously?
<Not the Russians for sure.
<So in other words, I consider the NATO membership as an important (and
<necessary) step toward the EC.

Johanne wrote
>So, I believe it would be a Good Thing from that point of view. On the other
>hand, what I have seen of Madeleine Albright's comments suggests that the
>U.S. is saying, "Oh, we'll limit the size of the forces in each country to
>such-and-such a level," and so on and so forth. Which looks to me like the
>U.S. is acting like the 800-pound gorilla again. Which begs the question of
>whether Hungary and the other countries of Central Europe will in fact be
>better off being under the thumb of the larger (and richer) countries of the
>West, or whether they wouldn't in fact be better off in some form of
>Danubian Confederation, arranging their affairs more in light of their
>common interests.

Janos wrote
<I think it is almost irrelevant how big force would actually stationed in
<East Europe. What is important the guarantee that comes with the membership.
<I.e any agression against the smallest NATO member is considered agression
<against the whole NATO.

Very important point, indeed. ( I am serious! )

Janos wrote
<So for example in theory, war against the Nederlands
<means war against the US. Like the three musketeers, "One for everyone and
<everyone for one".(:-))

<As far as Spain is concerned, I cannot provide any statistics. I heard,
<however, that Spain is one of the most dinamically growing economy of the
<EC and she and other countries like Portugal, Greece receive millions
<of dollars yearly from the richer EC members. As far as I know

some of

<the main
<opposition against the acceptance of East-Europian countries in the EC
<comes from the poor members, as they don't want to share these benifits.

There are remarkable activities of Burgenland ( State of the Federal Republic
of Austria, neighbouring with Hungary, until Versaille/Trianon part of Hungary 
)
trying to convince the Austrian government to veto Hungaries admittance. They
clearly and frankly express naked economic interests. One must know, that the
opening of the border brings windfall profits for Burgenlands economy. They jus
t
want to get but not share.

MKM

 on Sat Feb 22 19:00:03 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #922:

> I am getting  terribly fed up with the overheated nationalism I
>hear day in and day out on the Internet. I find it out of step with the
>times.

Ferenc Novak wrote :
<OK, Eva, you are upset.  But please remember, others may also be upset (even,
<using your own words, "terribly fed up" with) you and your views.
<Nevertheless, one's state of mind does not excuse using imprecise or
<incorrect terminology.

Hugh! he spoke.

One certainly should, if possible, try to use "correct terminology".
Only, I am afraid, - see remarks about communications in an other note
( Wittgenstein ) - as it is, there is really ( let me say, almost ) no
such thing as - totally - correct terminology. And you better convey your
state of mind by the wording you use. The question, of course, is whether
the "other side" can listen to undertunes...

So what did I say, Ferenc? Peace be with you!
Miklss

""
> wrote:

>The struggle with new technologies...and I had believed,
>I was one of the heralds of them...Eventually, you grow
>humble...
>Miklos


><At 10:17 PM 2/18/97 +0100, Miklos wrote, quoting Lippai and Dominus:
>>
>>
>>Wenn schon, Vaterland, bitte.
>>>

Lippai wrote :
>>>> Eva, Eva, Eva,...
>>>> In Hungarian it's motherland. -- Anyaorszag, anyafold.
>>

Miklss wrote :
>Maybe, I was always a bit nai:ve.

>Poor Eva, if she is not patriotic enough, is she at least
>matriotic? That would fit to motherland. I have problems with
>parentland ( how wonderfully evenhanded! it doesn4t fit in the
>age of womenlib, however. ( PLEASE DESREGARD. I DON4T DARE TO OPEN UP A
>NEW FRONT! )) ( szueloefoeld ), as well.

>Well, balancing parantheses was a matter of luck in maths in the
>gimi.
>I better stop, before we go neurotic. Or did we leave the
>point of no return?


<Oh Lorrrdie me!
<Everybody is paranoid in this group?

Relax, I don4t think so.

Dominus Noster wrote:

<Miklos (it's not you, but almost everybody else),
<you are

<almost

as we mostly are...

<right!  I tried: "Anyaorszagom szep hatara /
<Meglatlak-e valahara"..., es sehogysem stimmel!
<You know, the Hungarian language is like a Scotish "R" , you
<have to roll it in your mouth, you must taste it, to smell
<it before you outhale it; it's so unlike with (yes, with)
<any other languages.
<Also Erdely , vagy a Dunantul lehet Szulofoldem, de
<Anyaorszagom nem. Az elcsatolt teruleteken gyakran mondtuk,
<hogy "az Anyaorszagiak", ami sohasem jelentette a
<Felvidekieket, vagy Bacskaiakat. (My apologies to George,
<but one cannot sound out the nuances in any other language,
<but only on the original).

Indeed, there are infinitely fine differences in nuances.
Therefore, translaters and interpreters don4t really have a real
chance...Already Wittgenstein pointed out that ( real )communi-
cation is only possible in the same "Sprachspiel"...( now, how
do I translate THAT? ) not only in the same dialect, but in the
same community, group exercising discours everyday ).

Best regards:

Miklss

Gabor Farkas wrote :
<My understanding of the problem is that individual entrepreneurs were
<compelled to pay Social Security taxes (not to be confused with the U.S.A.
<version!). This means the cost of government provided health insurance,
<pension, disability insurance, etc. All this was considered to be free
<until now,

Not quite, but they had to pay substantially less.
The point is that with the new regulation they would have
to pay a minimum ( HIGH ) charge, regardlessy how low the
earnings are.

In the meantime, - see Hungaian press of Friday, maybe Thursday -
the government admits, motivation was to increase government
revenues.

<and as soon as the government asked the entrepreneurs to
<contribute their share, they had no choice but to fold. The question is (in
<my mind): What is the solution to this? After all the government's only
<resources for this kind of socialism are taxes. If the entrepreneurs are not
<taxed for this,

They want to be taxed depending on their earnings.

<where is the money to come from? Are these enterprises viable
<if they cannot pay their taxes?

No enterprise can survive with confiscatory taxes.

<If their taxes are subsidized by the
<government, who should pay for it?

I didn4t have the impression the government was subsidizing
them. Mind you, we are talking about small individual enter-
prises. ( This would be typical for those starting in a car
garage. )

Miklss

<Good news. According to the AFP G. Funar was ousted from his position of
<leader of the Romanian National Unity Party. He is still the Mayor of
<Kolozsvar/Cluj, hopefully not longer than until the next elections.

There are still good news these days!
BTW, today Hungarian press ( ...www.magyarnemzet.hu, www.mhirlap.hu,
www.nepszabadsag.hu... ) do cover the story! Funar4s first word was
"conspiracy"
MKH

At 08:11 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        Although I am not a student of the American congress I have never
>heard of people called upon a congressional committee not to show up! Or to
>refuse to answer questions. However, I have a vague recollections that if
>someone refuses to show up or to answer questions he/she is in contempt of
>congress. And that is punishable by a jail sentence.

<As far as I know, there is an exception to this in the US: if someone is
<invoking his/her Fifth Amendments right to avoid self incrimination, and
<based on that refuses to cooperate. This happened with Oliver North, just
<yesterday with Hubbel and Wang. The Congress than has the option of giving
<them immunity, which eliminates their right to be silent but makes them
<immune from prosecution based on anything they say (Oliver North did get
<this immunity and avoided being convicted).

As aready mentioned, it is similar in Germany.
MKH

Gabor farkas wrote
<That is why I am an engineer and not a diplomat.

Are you sur ewe are better? Than please, make me believe...
Miklss

Szia, Miklos!

At 09:46 24/02/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Johanne wrote:
<snipped first part>

>Janos wrote
><I think it is almost irrelevant how big force would actually stationed in
><East Europe. What is important the guarantee that comes with the membership.
><I.e any agression against the smallest NATO member is considered agression
><against the whole NATO.
>
>Very important point, indeed. ( I am serious! )

I watched Madeleine Albright on the *This Week*  program on ABC today, with
Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. Ms. Albright was asked if the Czech
Republic and other Eastern European countries joined NATO, if it would still
be the doctrine of *if one is attacked, all are attacked,* as NATO has stood
for since it was founded. She explicitly said in answer to that question
that we are talking about a *new NATO*, not the *old NATO.* Now, she said
the new NATO stands for *stability* - and she noted how the drive to join
has led to the historic agreements between the Hungarians and Romanians and
theCzechs and the Germans.

I still can't help wondering if the U.S. isn't so anxious to placate the
Russians that the countries of East and Central Europe won't be sold a bill
of goods - thinking that they will be getting one thing from NATO and
getting something else. And maybe losing autonomy in the process. Another
factor, of course, is that Albright was speaking primarily to the American
audience - which is not sophisticated in matters of foreign policy.
Therefore she has to couch the increase in the size of NATO in terms which
will be acceptable to the American public as well as to the Russians -
namely that it will result in increased regional stability - thereby
minimizing the possibility that a threat to one or a few members might
actually necessitate an armed response by the U.S. in Europe.

>Janos wrote
><So for example in theory, war against the Nederlands
><means war against the US. Like the three musketeers, "One for everyone and
><everyone for one".(:-))

That's usually translated as "All for one and one for all" in English,
Janos. ;-)

<snipped the rest of Miklos' and Janos' messages>

Tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Gabor farkas wrote
<That is why I am an engineer and not a diplomat.

Are you sur ewe are better? Than please, make me believe...
Miklss

This is certainly the day of my TYPING ACCURACY

Tisztelt honfitarsam!

Nagyon kerem, hogy ha egyetert az alabbi levellel, ugy azt, vagy egy ahhoz
hasonlot kuldjon el (Meg ma!) Albright Asszonynak. Fontos az, hogy amikor a
kulugyminiszter asszony visszaer Kinabol, azonnal jelentsek Neki, hogy a Duna
ugye ezreket kesztetett es kesztet tovabbra is levelirasra. Kerjuk arra is,
hogy e formalevelet terjessze barati es ismeretsegi koreben.

Koszonom azoknak akik mar irtak Gore alelnok urnak, hogy megtettek azt, s
kerem, hogy e levelek irasat se hagyjak abba. Jo eselyunk van, hogy a
Kompromisszum Terv reszletes megismerese celjabol szemelyesen is fogad majd
az alelnok ur, de ez kizarolag a leveleken mulik.

Mig mas orszagokbol ezrevel, Magyarorszagrol alig egy tucat levelet kapott az
alelnok ur (ugyan e nehany levek alairoi kozott olyan neves, a
vilagpolitikaban tajekozott szemelyisegek is vannak, mint peldaul Jeszenszky
Geza.). Nagyon fontos, hogy ez a helyzet megvaltozzon. Nagyon fontos, hogy e
helyzet megvaltozzon, hogy megszolaljon vegre a magyar tarsadalom egesze.
Nagyon fontos, hogy a Szigetkoz megvedese ne tunjon valami "ellenzeki"
akcionak, hogy megszolaljanak a part-orulettol meg nem fertozott, hiteles
magyarok Kosary Domokostol Jancso Miklosig, Nyers Rezsotol Mecs Imreig, hogy
1956 szellemeben vegre megint egyszer kepesek legyunk OSSZEFOGNI!.

Ezert kerem a magyar sajtot, a magyar kornyezetvedoket (szemely szerint volt
diakomat Illes Zolit, a Duna Kor, a Reflex, az MKA embereit), hogy ertessek
meg a sajtoval es rajtuk keresztul a magyar neppel a "nema gyerek igazsagat."
Ertsek meg, hogy nem lehetnek nema szemleloi a nyugati magyarsag
igyekezetenek, mert azzal megtorpedozzak azt. Kerem ertessek meg a magyar
neppel, hogy itt a tettek ideje, hogy nekik kell AZ ELSOKNEK lenniuk ahhoz,
hogy a vilag lassa es megertse a kulonbseget az utonallok es az aldozatok
kozott.

Vegul kerem, hogy a mellekelt level elso mondatat csak azok hasznaljak a
jelen formajaban, akik amerikai allampolgarok. Mindenki mas a kovetkezo
mondatot, vagy ahhoz hasonlot helyettesithet annak helyere: "Please accept my
congratulations on your well deserved appointment, which gives a special ray
of hope to the people of Central Europe."

Oszinte tisztelettel: Liptak Bela

Kelt Stamfordban, 1997 februar 24-en, New York-i ido szerint reggel 8-kor
feladva
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
( E-Mail:  )

RE: First Environmental Lawsuit (Danube) in The Hague

Dear Madame Secretary,

Please accept my congratulations on your well deserved appointment, which to
us Americans with Central European roots gives a special ray of hope. We hope
for even greater American understanding and compassion for the people of
Central Europe, for their progress and stability.

Madame Secretary, you now have a great opportunity to set a new tone for
American policy in connection with the Danube lawsuit, which is beginning
next week in the Hague. This new tone would be  consistent with the US policy
of expanding Western structures to Central and Eastern Europe, and to engage
the US more actively in helping resolve emerging inter-country conflicts in
the Region by (i) urging your West European partners to assist more
pro-actively; and (ii) calling on both parties (Hungary and Slovakia) to
accept the Compromise Plan prepared by the environmental NGOs and thereby
cooperate in the quest for a solution that can set an example for the future.

Your help in resolving the Danube problem would also be consistent with the
present US policy based on a global approach to environmental issues and on
seeking to mobilize all relevant political (multilateral, international,
non-governmental and civic society) forces to assist in avoiding
environmental catastrophes caused by bilateral agreements that had been drawn
up by non-representative governments under a regional policy framework which
was imposed by Moscow.

Therefore please exert your influence on the outcome of the first
international environmental lawsuit in human history. You would not be
interfering in the operation of the International Court of Justice, but would
be fulfilling an American obligation by so doing. This is, because it was the
Paris Peace Treaty which set the border between Czechoslovakia and Hungary
and it was that  Treaty which named the Great Powers as the guarantors of the
integrity of the two nation's territories. The Treaty also stated that the
two nations DO NOT have the right to make changes, unless the Great Powers
first approve of the change. Yet in 1977, under Soviet direction, the two
nations signed a contract to move the Danube, previously their border river,
into an artificial canal on Slovak territory. For so doing, they did not ask,
 nor did they receive the approval of the Great Powers.

Madame Secretary. The International Court of Justice must be advised that the
Moscow initiated 1977 Contract was and is INHERENTLY INVALID, because it is
in conflict with the Paris Peace Treaty. It is both the legal obligation and
the moral duty of the United States to fulfill her role as a guarantor of the
Paris Peace Treaty. Even more importantly, it is in the interest of the
United States to make sure that the Danube is returned into its riverbed and
thereby the stability of the region is maintained.

Madame Secretary, a single statement from you will resolve this issue. Please
make that statement.

Respectfully yours,

Your name, address, title

Szia Janka!
you wrote:
<snip

>Janos wrote
><I think it is almost irrelevant how big force would actually stationed in
><East Europe. What is important the guarantee that comes with the membership.
><I.e any agression against the smallest NATO member is considered agression
><against the whole NATO.
>
>Very important point, indeed. ( I am serious! )

<I watched Madeleine Albright on the *This Week*  program on ABC today, with
<Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. Ms. Albright was asked if the Czech
<Republic and other Eastern European countries joined NATO, if it would still
<be the doctrine of *if one is attacked, all are attacked,* as NATO has stood
<for since it was founded. She explicitly said in answer to that question
<that we are talking about a *new NATO*, not the *old NATO.*

I am a bit concerned about her statement. She is not wrong. It is a *new NATO*.
But I would think it would be unwise advising everybody that we are not so
serious about aggression against a member country. That would be the invita-
tion to a new salami campaign.

<Now, she said
<the new NATO stands for *stability* - and she noted how the drive to join
<has led to the historic agreements between the Hungarians and Romanians and
<theCzechs and the Germans.

Which is wery much true and is stressing the sense of the "expansion" of
the NATO. Letting them down now would mean the West was doing durty cheat.

<I still can't help wondering if the U.S. isn't so anxious to placate the
<Russians that the countries of East and Central Europe won't be sold a bill
<of goods - thinking that they will be getting one thing from NATO and
<getting something else. And maybe losing autonomy in the process. Another
<factor, of course, is that Albright was speaking primarily to the American
<audience - which is not sophisticated in matters of foreign policy.
<Therefore she has to couch the increase in the size of NATO in terms which
<will be acceptable to the American public as well as to the Russians -
<namely that it will result in increased regional stability - thereby
<minimizing the possibility that a threat to one or a few members might
<actually necessitate an armed response by the U.S. in Europe.

>Janos wrote
><So for example in theory, war against the Nederlands
><means war against the US. Like the three musketeers, "One for everyone and
><everyone for one".(:-))

<That's usually translated as "All for one and one for all" in English,
<Janos. ;-)

Well, we never stop learning, until we are dead.

<snipped the rest of Miklos' and Janos' messages>


I hope, they4ll get it done soon.

Kezcsokom
Miklos

At 12:01 PM 2/23/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>OK, Eva, you are upset.  But please remember, others may also be upset (even,
>using your own words, "terribly fed up" with) you and your views.
> Nevertheless, one's state of mind does not excuse using imprecise or
>incorrect terminology.

        Incorrect terminology? Which one do you have in mind? "Fatherland,"
perhaps? Because it is not an incorrect terminology. It is a perfectly
legitimate English word, meaning "one's native land or country." And yes, I
find it upsetting that a fair number of Hungarians at the end of the
twentieth century talk as if we lived in the middle of the nineteenth. Their
nationalistic feelings and verbiage are out of step with the times. But, of
course, if you insist we can always follow the footsteps of the people of
the former Yugoslavia.

        Eva Balogh

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
    The Danube lawsuit  at the International Court in The Hague will 
start on March 3. This lawsuit will adjudicate on the dispute between 
Hungary and Slovakia concerning the rerouting of the Danube onto 
Slovak territory.  
    It is essential that we gain publicity to the lawsuit and the
support of world public opinion. Especially the support of American 
politicians such as the Secretary of State, MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, would 
mean a lot for our matter.

What to do:
  Please help to convince the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 
to make a statement in favour for the Danube. Feel free to use the 
attached form letters (letter #1 for Americans, letter #2 for 
non-Americans).  
  Madeleine Albright is currently in China. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT 
ALBRIGHT HAS THOUSANDS OF LETTERS IN HER MAILBOX WHEN SHE IS BACK. 
The first thing she should hear from her assistant is that the World 
is worrying about the Danube.  
  Therefore please make a chain letter of this call for action. Send
the it to at least 5 of your friends. PLEASE ACT!!

e-mail address of Madeleine Albright:
 


*************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #1 for Americans:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
( E-Mail:  )

RE: First Environmental Lawsuit (Danube) in The Hague

Dear Madame Secretary:

Please accept my congratulations on your well deserved appointment,
which to us Americans with Central European roots gives a special ray
of hope. We hope for even greater American understanding and
compassion for the people of Central Europe, for their progress and
stability.

Madame Secretary, you now have a great opportunity to set a new tone
for American policy in connection with the Danube lawsuit, which is
beginning next week in the Hague. This new tone would be  consistent
with the US policy of expanding Western structures to Central and
Eastern Europe, and to engage the US more actively in helping resolve
emerging inter-country conflicts in the Region by (i) urging your West
European partners to assist more pro-actively; and (ii) calling on
both parties (Hungary and Slovakia) to accept the Compromise Plan
prepared by the environmental NGOs and thereby cooperate in the quest
for a solution that can set an example for the future.

Your help in resolving the Danube problem would also be consistent
with the present US policy based on a global approach to environmental
issues and on seeking to mobilize all relevant political 
(multilateral, international, non-governmental and civic society) 
forces to assist in avoiding environmental catastrophes caused by
bilateral agreements that had been drawn up by non-representative
governments under a regional policy framework which was imposed by
Moscow.

Therefore please exert your influence on the outcome of the first
international environmental lawsuit in human history. You would not be
interfering in the operation of the International Court of Justice,
but would be fulfilling an American obligation by so doing. This is,
because it was the Paris Peace Treaty which set the border between
Czechoslovakia and Hungary and it was that  Treaty which named the
Great Powers as the guarantors of the integrity of the two nation's
territories. The Treaty also stated that the two nations DO NOT have
the right to make changes, unless the Great Powers first approve of
the change. Yet in 1977, under Soviet direction, the two nations
signed a contract to move the Danube, previously their border river,
into an artificial canal on Slovak territory. For so doing, they did
not ask, nor did they receive the approval of the Great Powers.

Madame Secretary. The International Court of Justice must be advised
that the Moscow initiated 1977 Contract was and is INHERENTLY INVALID,
because it is in conflict with the Paris Peace Treaty. It is both the
legal obligation and the moral duty of the United States to fulfill
her role as a guarantor of the Paris Peace Treaty. Even more
importantly, it is in the interest of the United States to make sure
that the Danube is returned into its riverbed and thereby the
stability of the region is maintained. 

Madame Secretary, a single statement from you will resolve this issue.
Please make that statement.

Respectfully yours, 

<Your name, address, title>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #2 for non-American citizens:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
( E-Mail:  )

RE: First Environmental Lawsuit (Danube) in The Hague

Dear Madame Secretary:

Please accept my congratulations on your well deserved appointment, 
which gives a special ray of hope to the people of Central Europe. We 
hope for even greater American understanding and compassion for the 
people of Central Europe, for their progress and stability.

Madame Secretary, you now have a great opportunity to set a new tone
for American policy in connection with the Danube lawsuit, which is
beginning next week in the Hague. This new tone would be  consistent
with the US policy of expanding Western structures to Central and
Eastern Europe, and to engage the US more actively in helping resolve
emerging inter-country conflicts in the Region by (i) urging your West
European partners to assist more pro-actively; and (ii) calling on
both parties (Hungary and Slovakia) to accept the Compromise Plan
prepared by the environmental NGOs and thereby cooperate in the quest
for a solution that can set an example for the future.

Your help in resolving the Danube problem would also be consistent
with the present US policy based on a global approach to environmental
issues and on seeking to mobilize all relevant political
(multilateral, international, non-governmental and civic society)
forces to assist in avoiding environmental catastrophes caused by
bilateral agreements that had been drawn up by non-representative
governments under a regional policy framework which was imposed by
Moscow.

Therefore please exert your influence on the outcome of the first
international environmental lawsuit in human history. You would not be
interfering in the operation of the International Court of Justice,
but would be fulfilling an American obligation by so doing. This is,
because it was the Paris Peace Treaty which set the border between
Czechoslovakia and Hungary and it was that  Treaty which named the
Great Powers as the guarantors of the integrity of the two nation's
territories. The Treaty also stated that the two nations DO NOT have
the right to make changes, unless the Great Powers first approve of
the change. Yet in 1977, under Soviet direction, the two nations
signed a contract to move the Danube, previously their border river,
into an artificial canal on Slovak territory. For so doing, they did
not ask, nor did they receive the approval of the Great Powers.

Madame Secretary. The International Court of Justice must be advised
that the Moscow initiated 1977 Contract was and is INHERENTLY INVALID,
because it is in conflict with the Paris Peace Treaty. It is both the
legal obligation and the moral duty of the United States to fulfill
her role as a guarantor of the Paris Peace Treaty. Even more
importantly, it is in the interest of the United States to make sure
that the Danube is returned into its riverbed and thereby the
stability of the region is maintained. 

Madame Secretary, a single statement from you will resolve this issue.
Please make that statement.

Respectfully yours, 

<Your name, address, title>

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
    The Danube lawsuit  at the International Court in The Hague will
start on March 3. This lawsuit will adjudicate on the dispute between
Hungary and Slovakia concerning the rerouting of the Danube onto
Slovak territory.
    It is essential that we gain publicity to the lawsuit and the
support of world public opinion. Especially the support of American
politicians such as the Secretary of State, MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, would
mean a lot for our matter.

What to do:
  Please help to convince the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
to make a statement in favour for the Danube. Feel free to use the
attached form letters (letter #1 for Americans, letter #2 for
non-Americans).
  Madeleine Albright is currently in China. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
ALBRIGHT HAS THOUSANDS OF LETTERS IN HER MAILBOX WHEN SHE IS BACK.
The first thing she should hear from her assistant is that the World
is worrying about the Danube.
  Therefore please make a chain letter of this call for action. Send
the it to at least 5 of your friends. PLEASE ACT!!

e-mail address of Madeleine Albright:



*************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #1 for Americans:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
( E-Mail:  )

RE: First Environmental Lawsuit (Danube) in The Hague

Dear Madame Secretary:

Please accept my congratulations on your well deserved appointment,
which to us Americans with Central European roots gives a special ray
of hope. We hope for even greater American understanding and
compassion for the people of Central Europe, for their progress and
stability.

Madame Secretary, you now have a great opportunity to set a new tone
for American policy in connection with the Danube lawsuit, which is
beginning next week in the Hague. This new tone would be  consistent
with the US policy of expanding Western structures to Central and
Eastern Europe, and to engage the US more actively in helping resolve
emerging inter-country conflicts in the Region by (i) urging your West
European partners to assist more pro-actively; and (ii) calling on
both parties (Hungary and Slovakia) to accept the Compromise Plan
prepared by the environmental NGOs and thereby cooperate in the quest
for a solution that can set an example for the future.

Your help in resolving the Danube problem would also be consistent
with the present US policy based on a global approach to environmental
issues and on seeking to mobilize all relevant political
(multilateral, international, non-governmental and civic society)
forces to assist in avoiding environmental catastrophes caused by
bilateral agreements that had been drawn up by non-representative
governments under a regional policy framework which was imposed by
Moscow.

Therefore please exert your influence on the outcome of the first
international environmental lawsuit in human history. You would not be
interfering in the operation of the International Court of Justice,
but would be fulfilling an American obligation by so doing. This is,
because it was the Paris Peace Treaty which set the border between
Czechoslovakia and Hungary and it was that  Treaty which named the
Great Powers as the guarantors of the integrity of the two nation's
territories. The Treaty also stated that the two nations DO NOT have
the right to make changes, unless the Great Powers first approve of
the change. Yet in 1977, under Soviet direction, the two nations
signed a contract to move the Danube, previously their border river,
into an artificial canal on Slovak territory. For so doing, they did
not ask, nor did they receive the approval of the Great Powers.

Madame Secretary. The International Court of Justice must be advised
that the Moscow initiated 1977 Contract was and is INHERENTLY INVALID,
because it is in conflict with the Paris Peace Treaty. It is both the
legal obligation and the moral duty of the United States to fulfill
her role as a guarantor of the Paris Peace Treaty. Even more
importantly, it is in the interest of the United States to make sure
that the Danube is returned into its riverbed and thereby the
stability of the region is maintained.

Madame Secretary, a single statement from you will resolve this issue.
Please make that statement.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #2 for non-American citizens:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
( E-Mail:  )

RE: First Environmental Lawsuit (Danube) in The Hague

Dear Madame Secretary:

Please accept my congratulations on your well deserved appointment,
which gives a special ray of hope to the people of Central Europe. We
hope for even greater American understanding and compassion for the
people of Central Europe, for their progress and stability.

Madame Secretary, you now have a great opportunity to set a new tone
for American policy in connection with the Danube lawsuit, which is
beginning next week in the Hague. This new tone would be  consistent
with the US policy of expanding Western structures to Central and
Eastern Europe, and to engage the US more actively in helping resolve
emerging inter-country conflicts in the Region by (i) urging your West
European partners to assist more pro-actively; and (ii) calling on
both parties (Hungary and Slovakia) to accept the Compromise Plan
prepared by the environmental NGOs and thereby cooperate in the quest
for a solution that can set an example for the future.

Your help in resolving the Danube problem would also be consistent
with the present US policy based on a global approach to environmental
issues and on seeking to mobilize all relevant political
(multilateral, international, non-governmental and civic society)
forces to assist in avoiding environmental catastrophes caused by
bilateral agreements that had been drawn up by non-representative
governments under a regional policy framework which was imposed by
Moscow.

Therefore please exert your influence on the outcome of the first
international environmental lawsuit in human history. You would not be
interfering in the operation of the International Court of Justice,
but would be fulfilling an American obligation by so doing. This is,
because it was the Paris Peace Treaty which set the border between
Czechoslovakia and Hungary and it was that  Treaty which named the
Great Powers as the guarantors of the integrity of the two nation's
territories. The Treaty also stated that the two nations DO NOT have
the right to make changes, unless the Great Powers first approve of
the change. Yet in 1977, under Soviet direction, the two nations
signed a contract to move the Danube, previously their border river,
into an artificial canal on Slovak territory. For so doing, they did
not ask, nor did they receive the approval of the Great Powers.

Madame Secretary. The International Court of Justice must be advised
that the Moscow initiated 1977 Contract was and is INHERENTLY INVALID,
because it is in conflict with the Paris Peace Treaty. It is both the
legal obligation and the moral duty of the United States to fulfill
her role as a guarantor of the Paris Peace Treaty. Even more
importantly, it is in the interest of the United States to make sure
that the Danube is returned into its riverbed and thereby the
stability of the region is maintained.

Madame Secretary, a single statement from you will resolve this issue.
Please make that statement.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title>

At 07:40 PM 2/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 07:13 PM 2/23/97 -0500, Andy Kozma wrote:
>
>>>Gabor:I sincerly hope you enjoyed your skiing vacation inQuebec.It is a
>>beautiful place,with friendly people,and very good restaurant.
>
>I agree. I enjoyed the friendliness of everybody in Val Morin, the food in
>the 4 fork restaurant at Far Hills.  People in Montreal seemed less friendly
>when I approached them in English.
>
>>As for Mr.Chretien,sometimes again in diplomacy there are nice words,and
>>different feelings.
>
>That is why I am an engineer and not a diplomat.
>
>>Now how about Cuba?
>
>Well, he (Castro) is not on my list of favorites and Chretien's nice words
>about him are..., well I am staying nice, as you suggested..
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>Gabor:I think diplomacy sometimes.brings good result.I never visited
Cuba,and I don't think I will,but if we don't open any dialogue,what left?
By the way,did you watch Schindlers list last night?I do not know what was
the reason (except maybe rating)to show this very disturbing movie.
It just brings back memories,entirely unpleasant.Tos ay the least.
Andy.

From:

I am new to this list, and am doing a genealogy search.

Need to find relatives in Vors, hungary who may be the family of Joseph and Mag
gdaline Futo, who migrated to U.S. in early 1900's, any information that can me
 find Hungarian genealogy research. Thanks!

> ================================================================

My name is Rajna Katalin.  I'm 17 years old.  I'm from Slovakia.
I live in a small town with my parents and my brother.  My
parents are doctors - my father is a pediatrician and he also
teaches at the University of Medicine in Kosice.  My mother is an
internist in our town.  My brother is 21 years old, and he'd like
to be a doctor too, so he studies at the University of Medicine.

I study at a secondary school in the second biggest town of my
country, Kosice.  I'm in my last year, so at the end of the year
I'll have final exams.  I have to do exams from Hungarian and
Slovak languages.  I didn't mention that I'm Hungarian and I
study at a Hungarian secondary-school.  And I'd like to do exams
also from English, History, and philosophy.  This school year
I'll get my driving license if I'll do the driving exam.

What about my future plans?  This is a difficult question.  I
still haven't decided what I want to be.  But I know one thing,
that I'd like to study, to know foreign languages, especially the
world languages.  As I was in London, I've met people who didn't
know English before and they know English now very well.  So
that's why I'd like to spend a longer period in an English
speaking country, especially the United States.  It would be
great to study in America and to do there exams too.  I'd like to
study languages, history, philosophy, geography, music, and art.
and I hope after one year in America, I'll be able to choose a
suitable university in Slovakia for myself.  I'm very fond of
literature and I'm thinking about becoming an interpreter of
literary works.  I would like to translate books written in
England and America in English languages into Hungarian and
Slovak languages.  But I'm not sure of the future yet.

I like adventure, learning new things.  I'd like to meet new
people.  My big dream for the future is to go on a world tour.  I
like very much sports, especially swimming and skiing.  So I'm
looking for a good, nice family who can assure me a wonderful
home in America for one year.  Maybe I can be a big sister.  I
can give you a picture, an idea of Europe.  I think I can add
something new in your life.

I've many good qualities, I'm a friendly person, almost always
smiling.  I'm an optimist, I'm sensitive and so on.  But I don't
want to praise myself.  So give me a chance please and answer my
letter.

Rajna Katalin

Notes:
Doctors in Slovakia don't make a lot of money in Slovakia -
about the equivalent of $350 a month.  Katalin's parents can
spend the money to send her to America and back, but not much
more.  They believe a year's study in America would help her very
much and are willing to make the sacrifice.

Katalin is proficient in English.  Nothing was changed in this letter
except for the last sentence in the third paragraph where she
translated directly a Hungarian metaphor which we don't have in
English.

Anyone who would like to host Katalin for the 1997-98 school year
can contact her at >.  I will try to answer
your questions or refer them to Katalin.  I have known her for
six years and believe she is very capable of a year's study at an
American high school.

At 10:38 AM 2/23/97 +1100, Denes wrote:
>Dear list members,
>I have been regularly following Hungary list since the start of this year.
I have seen none of the anti-Hungarian sentiments complained of by Mr Lippai
in that time.

        I am not surprised, because there aren't any. Only in Mr. Lippai's
imagination. And there are a few others whose "national sensibilities" can't
stand any kind of objective analysis of history, politics, and the like.

        Eva Balogh

At 07:44 PM 2/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Good news. According to the AFP G. Funar was ousted from his position of
>leader of the Romanian National Unity Party. He is still the Mayor of
>Kolozsvar/Cluj, hopefully not longer than until the next elections.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

        That's great! Altogether I am very happy about the Romanian
developments. I do hope that the new government is not going to be despised
very soon because of the austerity measures they must take.

        Eva Balogh

Janos Zsargo took the trouble and found all my writings on the topic
of NATO and the Hungarian left and right. Rereading it, I guess I am
satisfied with the contents of these letters. It sounds very reasonable to
me although the "interpretation" it received from Janos in his earlier
letter it sounded a bit primitive but I am satisfied with the originals.
        As for left and right and in between, of course, there are many
shades of left and many shades of right even within the same parties. But I
am fairly satisfied that the hard-core anti-NATO people came from the two
ends of the spectrum, although there are some people who mostly for reasons
of "the heart" as someone put it recently find it difficult to see Hungary
belonging again to a military alliance. As I said it earlier: on some level
I understand that but these are not matters which should be decided by the
heart but by rational thinking.

        Eva Balogh

At 10:55 PM 2/21/97 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:

>Slovakia is planning, I understand, to hold a referendum like the one
>mentioned here in regard to Hungary as a bad idea: the three questions
>would be: Are you in favor of Slovakia joining NATO?  Are you in favor
>of the positioning of nuclear weapons on Slovakia's territory?  Are you
>in favor of establishing NATO military bases on Slovakia's territory?

        Well, the Slovaks are far too sanguine about all this. A referendum
is a waste of money in Slovakia because as far as I can see Slovakia is not
even mentioned among the first hopefuls. On the other hand, Slovenia really
should be because otherwise Hungary is standing alone without bordering on
any state belonging to NATO. I wish the Romanians could get in, and it seems
that the Hungarian government is also would like that, but again, it is
unlikely.

>Also, the news on the radio as I drove to work today included a big story
>(NPR) about what they presented as a rising tide of US _opposition_ to the
>concept of NATO enlargement, starting with George Kennan, and running through
>former ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock, and Michael Mandelbaum of
>Johns Hopkins Universities School of Advanced International Studies, all
>of whom say its a bad thing, it's re-drawing a line across Europe, hardening
>divisions, etc. etc.
>
>I thought it was pretty much a done deal, at least for the three top
>states, but...??

        I think it is a done deal but political scientists and former
diplomats like to second-guess the American government.

        Eva Balogh

At 05:16 PM 2/23/97 +1100, Denes wrote:
>It is also sad that a person like him can turn some readers and
contributors completely off and thereby lower the tone of a newsgroup.
>I have read some of his contributions and they are, to put it mildly,
pathetic. He butts in on a thread and contributors become too engrossed in
responding to him to follow the thread through.

        I am happy to announce that through my "secret channels" I received
news that Mr. Lippai will no longer argue with us about our anti-Hungarian
stance. Let's hope he keeps his word.

        Eva Balogh

Health care, pensions, etc. may have been stated to be free, perhaps were
even believed to be free, but will anyone who lived in Hungary in the
1980's seriously argue that they were?

As a practical matter, government disburses about 40% of what it collects,
which begs the question -- why not leave the money in the hands of those
who earned it, and let them pay for those services they use.  Elsewise,
you have people who don't get sick being forced (taxes are compulsory) to
pay the hospital costs of those that do, and those with no children
supporting the education of the offspring of others.

I have no objection to the wealthy freely providing service and assistance
to the less fortunate.  Evidence is strong that if left alone, most of the
well-to-do will make sizeable donations to worthwhile causes.  But I do
object to being forced to pay taxes, and being castigated for being
"insensitive" when I desire not to.  I also reject the notion that
government is better able to take care of the people than the people
themselves are.

Am I alone here?

Kristof

>By the way,did you watch Schindlers list last night?I do not know what
was
>the reason (except maybe rating)to show this very disturbing movie.
>It just brings back memories,entirely unpleasant.Tos ay the least.
>Andy.

Andy, I didn't watch it on TV, but I saw the movie.  Don't forget, this
movie has not been made for us, the survivors.  It has been made for the
new generations.  And - for me at least - the main message of the film is
that there were people who remained decent during an era when being
indecent was in style.

Agnes

At 10:34 PM 2/24/97 GMT, you wrote:
>>By the way,did you watch Schindlers list last night?I do not know what
>was
>>the reason (except maybe rating)to show this very disturbing movie.
>>It just brings back memories,entirely unpleasant.Tos ay the least.
>>Andy.
>
>Andy, I didn't watch it on TV, but I saw the movie.  Don't forget, this
>movie has not been made for us, the survivors.  It has been made for the
>new generations.  And - for me at least - the main message of the film is
>that there were people who remained decent during an era when being
>indecent was in style.
>
>Agnes
>
>Agnes;I saw both.Somehow it didn't do justice on TV,compared to the movie.
There were unfortunatly very few,especialy in Poland,decent people.
It is aleays unfortunate,if you can not turn against communism,but you can
allways turn against Jews.
Well as the so called "Chosen people"what have we done to hate us?
I am not able to hate anyone,regardles of race colour and religion.The
attrocities wich were comitted,are not supposed to occur in a so called
civilised country,whose inhabitans supposed to be HUMAN beings?
Andy.

As I explained privately to Mr. Lippai, I was not intending to imply that
Hungarian cyberspace is dominated by Nazis.  My intention was to ensure
that this discussion of xenophobic behavior doesn't focus on Hungarians to
the exclusion of, say, Americans, who have as much inexcusable hatred of
the "other" as any culture I've ever seen.  America does try to present
the "melting pot" image, but alas, America has also melted in a large
number of theose who would put a lid on the pot, and from their cast-iron
positions take shots at those who disagree with them.

We must not allow hatred to dominate our discussions, nor must we who live
in glass houses be so anxiously engaged in lobbing stones.


Kristof

At 09:35 PM 2/24/97 GMT, Kristof/Chris whose Hungarian is, by the way, very
good, wrote:
>As I explained privately to Mr. Lippai, I was not intending to imply that
>Hungarian cyberspace is dominated by Nazis.  My intention was to ensure
>that this discussion of xenophobic behavior doesn't focus on Hungarians to
>the exclusion of, say, Americans, who have as much inexcusable hatred of
>the "other" as any culture I've ever seen.

        There are Hungarians and Hungarians. And there are Americans and
Americans. Yes, there are many xenophobic Americans and meny xenophobic
Hungarians. We are just hoping that we are neither of these.

        Eva Balogh

At 09:43 PM 2/24/97 GMT, Kristof wrote:

>Health care, pensions, etc. may have been stated to be free, perhaps were
>even believed to be free, but will anyone who lived in Hungary in the
>1980's seriously argue that they were?

        Today they might not be thinking that it was free but then they
didn't waste too much time thinking where the money was coming from. And
even today there are many people who don't ask hard questions. About a year
ago we had a discussion on another HIX list on pensions in Hungary and I
brought up the hard fact that our own own social security payments in the
United States are not really sufficient to pay for the benefits we will get
from social security if we live long enough. Most people wouldn't believe
that they are paying most likely less than they receive. Thus, there is some
kind of mental block when the qeustion comes up. People--and I am talking
about all of us here--are funny. They usually look upon themselves as very
hard-working, exploited, overcharged, and so on and so forth. Rarely do they
admit that perhaps they don't really work so, so hard; they are not really
so, so poor; they are not paying as much as they think; and they perhaps get
more in social security then they paid in.

>As a practical matter, government disburses about 40% of what it collects,
>which begs the question -- why not leave the money in the hands of those
>who earned it, and let them pay for those services they use.

        I cannot agree more. But in Europe a form of welfare state developed
in the last thirty or forty years which takes away about fifty percent of
one's earnings and "redistributes" them in forms of social services. The
United States is a welfare state also but to a much lesser degree. What I
call an exaggerated "welfare state," the kind one can find in Western
Europe, in my humble opinion is bankrupt. The burden on the employer is so
high that it has become seriously counterproductive. Larger companies either
hire foreigners (see Germany) or simply move their businesses abroad because
they are unable to thrive at home. I'm afraid this trend is going to
continue in Western Europe. There is already a very serious economic decline
in Germany, France and some other countries, but when France and Germany
tried to cut back on "social services" the population had a violent
reaction. Of course, one is not surprised at their reaction. It is not very
pleasant to lose one's benefits and, of course, one is going to fight tooth
and nail to keep them. Governments should learn that one a privilege is
given the privileged will not easily give up its privileges. Look at what is
happening with the farmers in Hungary at the very moment. The agricultural
sector has been a fairly pampered lot for many, many years. Lately, for
example, their first 1 million-forint income was not at all taxed. The
government now tried to make these guys--who are quite well off, by the
way--pay their fair share of taxes. Result: fighting tooth and nail and
organizing road blocks all over Hungary. Meanwhile, they refuse to negotiate
with the government. Their representative simply don't show up because they
know that a roadblockade will be devastating for the country and sooner or
later the government will give in. Meanwhile, you hear that Hungarian
agriculture receives twice as much money as Hungarian education!

        Eva Balogh