I understand that Hungary has the highest suicide rate in the world.
Could somebody briefly explain why this is the case?

Boris Bjelica > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 1995  wrote:
>
>
> Hereby, I would like to respond to Mr. Bila Liptak's article, and to
> clarify some historical facts wrt Vojvodina region.  It seems that that
> there have been some misinterpretations of the facts.  I will do a sort
> of reply since I believe it's good to "face" a Serbian and a Hungarian
> point of view on an issue such as this.
>
> >         Bila Liptak >         84 Old N. Stamford Road, Stamford, CT
06905-3961
> >         T:203-357-7614, Fax:203-325-3922,
> >          E-Mail: 
> >
> > It might seem that the Holbrooke-Milosevic pact will deliver justice, as it
> > makes the Bosnian Serbs to taste their own medicine. Unfortunately, the
> > domino-effect of this pact creates worst problems than what it solves and
the
> > new victims are innocent third parties: Hungarians and Albanians. Because
the
> > American public is totally unaware of this, I prepared the attached OP-ED
> > piece. If you need it, I can also fax you maps: Bila Liptak.
> >
> >
> >         The Balkan Tragedy: Our Blind Spot For Vojvodina
> > Vojvodina's population is greater than Bosnia's. A multi-cultural tapestry
of
> > Hungarian, Croatian, Serb, German, Roma, Slovak, Romanian and Ruthenian
> > cultures flourished here for centuries. Yet, many maps don't even
distinguish
> > Vojvodina from Serbia and few know what is happening there, because few
> > reporters ever visit Vojvodina. Yet, the process of ethnic cleansing, which
> > caused the Bosnian tragedy, has also reached Vojvodina. The majority of the
> > over 200,000 Serbs dislodged from the Krajina region of Croatia and from
> > southern Bosnia are being used to extricate the Hungarian population of
> > Vojvodina.
> >        Why is it, that by attempting to solve one problem (Bosnia), we
manage
> > to create two: the de- stabilizing of both Vojvodina and Kosovo? Why is it,
> > that the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina Serbs from Croatia, which our
State
> > Department called  a window of opportunity for peace , and the ethnic
> > cleansing of the south-Bosnia Serbs, which is a byproduct of NATO's
bombing,
> > might not facilitate peace, and in fact, could draw the neighboring
countries
> > of Hungary and Albania into the conflict. Why is it, that in order to make
> > Slobodan Milisevic to sign on to the American-led Contact Group's peace
> > proposal, he has to be offered a trade-off, at the expense of the
Hungarians
> > in Vojvodina and of the Albanians in Kosovo?
>
> A little remark.  First of all, Albanians in Kosmet currently make 90% of
> the population (about 1.8 million).  There are only 2,000 Serbs who went
> to Kosovo.  That can't in any way change anything.  Albanian
> natality is the highest of Europe (38 promiles).  Their population
> rised from 200,000 in 1945 to 2 million in 1991.
>
> Problems of Kosmet and Vojvodina are two separate and different
> problems.  The problem with Kosmet is historical because Serbs face the
> extermination at their historical region.  Albanian way of life counters
> the Serbian, and a compromise is very hard to find except some
> territorial division.
>
> Vojvodina is quite different.  Both Andras Agoston and Ferenc Csubela
> (leaders of Hungarians in Serbia) advocate forms of autonomy which don't
> oppose Serbian sovereignty.  They have wisely stated that it's more
> important to solve Hungarian problem for all of Vojvodina by providing
> three forms of autonomy - personal, territorial (for all of Vojvodina),
> and ethnical.  All three exist on the paper, but they are not implemented.
> All in all, Vojvodina problem can easily be solved if Serbia shows
> neccessary flexibility.  Those days are coming as Milosevic is leaving.
> Serbia as a whole can prosper only if decentrilized and not directed
> through Milosevic's office.
>
> >       To find the answers, we have to understand the mind-set of the
> > bureaucrats in the State Department. In the Kissinger-Eagleburger cookbook,
> > the recipe for solving international problems is to mix one part of
selective
> > justice with two parts of alternating determination against and appeasement
> > of the aggressors. The recipe avoids the salt of an overall plan or of a
long
> > range regional concept. Bureaucrats believe that only the victors deserve
> > justice and only the losers can be found guilty. Therefore the Serbs
deserve
> > full autonomy within Bosnia, but the minorities in Serbia, or elsewhere in
> > Central Europe do not.
>
> Incorrect.  Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not a "minority".  Or to
> put it your way, there are 3 minorities in BH - Muslim, Croat, and Serb.
> All three have the right to self-determination.
>
> Minorities in Serbia do deserve the autonomy, though.
>
> >        For most of the last 1100 years, Vojvodina was part of Hungary. Only
> > after the dismemberment of the Hungarian Kingdom and the creation of such
> > unnatural entities as Yugoslavia in 1918-20, did Vojvodina become an
> > autonomous region of that federation. According to the 1974 Yugoslav
> > constitution, Vojvodina should be an autonomous province of Yugoslavia (not
> > Serbia!) This autonomy, and that of Kosovo, were arbitrarily rescinded in
> > 1990.
>
> This paragraph is very much misleading.  The fact is that region k.a.
> Vojvodina has been mostly part of Austrian and Hungarian countries.  But,
> the region of original Vojvodina (Banat, Backa, Baranja) declared its
> unification with Kingdom of Serbia in 1918.  First it became a part of
> the Kingdom of Serbia (which militarilly took over the region), and then
> Kingdom of Serbia got united with Austrian dominated areas of Yugoslavia
> to form the SCS Kingdom ("Yugoslavia").
>
> Your statement w.r.t. Vojvodinian autonomy as part of Yugoslavia, but not
> Serbia is a misinterpretation.  Since 1918, Vojvodina ("the land of
> Dukes" in Serbian) was in every Serbian constitution regarded as its
> integral part.
>
> The "yogurt" revolution in 1988 (NOT 1990!!!) led to the Vojvodinian loss
> of the previous form of autonomy.  The "revolution" was led by
> Vojvodinian politicians loyal to Milosevic, primarily Mihaly Kertesz and
> Nedeljko Sipovac.
>
> After all, your country (U.S.) has taken an active part on dismembering
> Yugoslavia, so why do you refer to a "Yugoslav" constitution which was
> heavily violated by the U.S.?
>
> >        Vojvodina is the breadbasket of Serbian-Yugoslavia. It is already
it's
> > most densely populated region, consisting of the Srem, which was part of
> > Croatia-Slavonia until 1918, Backa, which was part of Hungary and the
western
> > part of Banat, also part of Hungary. The Hungarians did not get involved in
> > the Bosnian war. They did not side with any of the warring factions.
> > Consequently they are being treated as enemies by all.
>
> Srem was a part of Austria until 1918.  Parts of Belgrade (Zemun, Novi
> Beograd) are in Srem.
>
> It is not true that Vojvodina is most densely populated region. It is
> Kosovo and Metokhia (not just "Kosovo").  Kosmet, twice smaller in size,
> has 2 mill. people as well as Vojvodina.
>
> >      Today Croatia and Serbia are getting ready to fight over the Hungarian
> > villages of Eastern Slavonia. Croatia is also furthering her ethnic purity
by
> > quadrupling the taxes on the Adriatic vacation homes of Vojvodina
Hungarians,
> > which, under the present economic conditions is the same as confiscating
> > them. Yet, this is nothing compared to what the Serbs are doing to the
> > Vojvodina Hungarians.
>
> Appendix: "Comparing" is always a bad business.  Hungarians have paid a
> big price in Slavonia once already.  Their villages in Baranja region were
> emptied in 1991 when Serbs and Croats clashed.
>
> >        At the time of Hungary's dismemberment in 1920, Vojvodina's Serb
> > population was only 25%. Through expulsions, and other forms of uprooting
of
> > the non-Serb population and by importing Serb colonialists, the Serbian
> > population by 1948, has increased to 55%. During the Communist era, this
> > ethnic cleansing process has further intensified, and by 1991 the Hungarian
> > population of Vojvodina was reduced to 17%.  Today, only 350,000 Hungarians
> > remain in Vojvodina and the only compact cluster of Hungarian presence that
> > survives is in the north-central part, along the Tisza river. It is this
> >  problem  that the Serb refugees from the Krajina and south-Bosnia are
> > supposed to  solve .
>
> This is more less correct.  But you disregard that today's Vojvodina
> includes Srem (which was predominantly Serbian prior to 1918) and
> excludes Baranja.  In 1920, there were 29% of the Serbs in Baranja,
> Banat, and Backa.  Today's Vojvodina has 57.7% of Serbs. The number of
> "Serbian" Hungarians is higher than stated (they number about 450,000), but
> many have left Serbia due to war draftings (as well as 250,000 young Serbs).
> Milosevic' regime still doesn't grant them amnesty, but amnesty is a part
> of the Holbrooke-Milosevic deal.
>
> It is quite true that different methods of colonialism were introduced to
> Vojvodina, but it's silly to blame only Serbs for that.  First of all,
> Banat region had some 450,000 Germans which were all brutally expelled in
> 1945 due to "their involvement in Nazi genocide", as Tito's Communists
> stated. That was a genocide itself because today no traces of German
> culture can  be found- churches, cemetaries, etc. -traces of German
> culture are not detectable anymore.
>
> Please note that colonialism which took place in 1945-1950 was mainly
> directed towards these formerly German regions.  It's quite clear today
> that Croat Josip Broz Tito started bringing Krajina and Bosnian Serbs to
> these regions in order to "homogenize" Croatia.  The fact is that
> Hungarians and others pay the price, but things are not black-white; it
> wasn't exactly the Serbs who should be blamed.
>
> >  According to the Democratic Community of Hungarians in Vojvodina:  The
> > Hungarians of Vojvodina are facing the danger of a FINAL SOLUTION, because
> > Vojvodina is being purged of its non-Serb popula tion.  According to them,
> > the Croat victory in the Krajina and in south-Bosnia was so swift, because
> > this  population transfer  has already been agreed to by both the Serbs and
> > the Croats.
> >        Bila Csorba, a Hungarian MP in the Serb-Yugoslav Parliament,
described
> > the ethnic cleansing of a small Hungarian village named Svilojevo
(Szilagyi)
> > in this manner:  The Krajina Serbs cruised up and down the streets of
Apatin,
> > Sombor, Sonta and Svilojevo. On August 11, 1995 homes were confiscated from
> > their owners. By the time we have arrived to investigate, the village was
> > almost completely abandoned by its original inhabitants.
>
> That is unfortunately an outcome of the war.  Criminals should pay for
> that, and people should go back home.  "Highlander Serbs" (as Bosnian and
> Krajina ones are called) certainly should go back home.  But it
> unfortunately seems unlikely as long as Tudjman's regime is in place, and
> as long as Milosevic is in power.
>
> To my knowledge, Serbian police has kicked the refugees out, and houses
> were given back to their owners.  But your point is clear -  it is very
> hard to feel free when things like that happen.
>
> >        Part of the problem is due to the difference in the personalities
> > between the Krajina Serbs and the Vojvodina Hungarians. The Krajina Serbs
> > have a warrior mentality, they carry guns, for centuries they have been in
> > uninterrupted conflict with the Croats, their view of life is based on
> > constant struggle and hate for one's neighbors, their personality
corresponds
> > to the rugged terrain they have inherited. The placidity of Vojvodina
> > Hungarians corresponds to the openness of their fertile plains. Yet, their
> > friendly and mild personality does not mean, that their patience is
> > unlimited. They are a strong and determined people. Monica Seles is a
> > Vojvodina Hungarian.
>
> Absolutely true.  The same is for Vojvodinian Serbs.
>
> >        Politicians who push Hungarians to the limit, should remember 1915,
> > the only time when Serbia was occupied in this century, or 1956, when the
Red
> > Army learned, what happens, when Hungarians lose their temper. Hungary has
> > already accepted some 50,000 Hungarian and some 100,000 non-Hungarian
> > refugees from the disintegrating Yugoslavia. This economic burden, combined
> > with the loss of Hungary's southern markets, is testing her frail economy
to
> > the limit. She has already protested the ethnic cleansing of Vojvodina and
> > will have no choice, but to defend her interests more forcefully if this
> > process continues.
> >      So what should be done in the microcosm of Vojvodina and in the
> > macrocosm of Central Europe?
> >      To Vojvodina, UN and NATO observers should be dispatched immediately,
> > and the restoration of her autonomy should be made an integral part of any
> > overall peace agreement.
>
> Autonomy should be redefined, that's for sure.  But if "NATO" or any
> other Serbian declared enemies (NATO killed more than 1,000 Serbs,
> wounded several thousand, destroyed bridges, communications, and many
> civilian buildings) come, that's certainly not good. That will only stir
> the Balkan mixture even more.  Think about it.  "Dispatching" troops or
> "observers" won't change anything.  If Krajina Serbs and other radical
> elements remain in Vojvodina, they will even more frighten the minorities
> by their individual actions, and that will lead to an even worse
> situation for Hungarians.  The solution must be found in democraticizing
> Serbia.  Americans all think that humiliating Serbs and Serbia is the
> answer.  That's been proven wrong last 5 years and indirectly caused
> horrible sufferings of the Balkan peoples.  Serbs as whole are quite
> different by the region they come from, but all have one thing in common -
> that is "pride".  Even usually peacefull Vojvodina Serbs have shown
> to be very nationalistic with regard to the war.
>
> >      As to the whole of Central Europe, it is essential to replace the
> > practice of selective justice and appeasement of aggressors with  clearly
> > defined overall goals and with uniform standards that are applicable to
all.
> > Richard Holbrooke is right, when he wants to provide group rights to all
> > three ethnic groups in Bosnia, but he is wrong, if he wants to limit these
> > rights only to Bosnia. There will be no peace in Central Europe, until all
> > ethnic groups are guaranteed their autonomy.
> >      On the other hand, once the ethnic tensions are eliminated through the
> > universal guarantee of cultural autonomy, the root cause of the upheavals
in
> > the Balkans can also be solved. It is  power vacuum  in the region.
> > Throughout history, the Balkans were stable only, when a local power in the
> > Danubian Basin guaranteed it. The present power vacuum can only be
eliminated
> > through the formation of an economically self-sufficient, politically
stable
> > and militarily neutral Danubian Confederation.
>
> You are right, but contradict yourself.  Your way is "slap Serbia, and
> then it's all OK".  Yes, from a Hungaro-centric point of view, you are
> right.  All you wrote would be so great if it didn't have negative
> consequences to it.  The history can't be reversed, and Serbs will never
> get their "heart" back (Kosmet, the heart of medieval Serbia), they are
> kicked out of their Krajina (the "fender" Austro-Hungarian empire against
> the Turks).  Also, Vojvodinian pop. ratio from 1918 can't be reclaimed.
> The least civilized people can do in Serbia is fight through the democratic
> institutions.  Serbia needs help, it needs democracy.
>
> >        In 1920, President Wilson felt, that only through the formation of a
> > Danubian Confederation can a peaceful and prosperous Central Europe be
> > reestablished. It would be a tribute to Wilsonian vision, if President
> > Clinton, when, on the 26th of September, he meets the President of Romania,
> > he would use the occasion to express his support for the Danubian
> > Confederation.
>
> Only closer ties between Serbia and Hungary (which can be materialized
> through such a confederation) can fully solve the problem.  Giving
> Hungarians their personal autonomy, territorial where needed (in counties
> of Backa), and all other forms of autonomy which are of both their and
> Serbian interest, is the way to go.  That's for sure.
>
> Thanks for the article.  I suggest you introduce this to the Serbian
> news-groups or organizations because only dialogue can solve the problem.
> You see what bad has done ignoring of others' interests in the Balkans'
> case.
>
> > Bila Liptak is a former Yale professor, who has published many technical
> > books and has recently been invited to Budapest as a Fulbright Scholar.
>
> Boris Bjelica
> native of Montenegro and Belgrade
> senior in Electrical Engr. at Oregon State University
Dear Mr. Bjelica

With regard to yuor very constructive comments to Mr. Liptak'a
article, I would like to clarify some points leading
to Vojvodina becoming part of Yugoslavia after WW I.


1. The Great Assembly (Velika narodna skupstina) of the Serbs,
 Bunjevaci and other Slav population of Banat, Bacska, and
Baranya, held in Novi Sad on October 25, 1918,
has made its decision based of the representation by the minority
 Slav population of Vojvodina. (At that time Slav population of
Vojvodian amounted to 38.119% of the total
population of Vojvodina.
The majority-61.879% of the non-Slav population of Vojvodina,
the Hungarians, Germans, Rumanians and others were denied the
opportunity to participate in the decision about the future
status of Vojvodina. According to the census of 1921 the
Serbs constituted only 28.5% of the total population of Vojvodina.
 For this reason, the decision made at the above "Great Assembly" is an
illegitimate
Dictate imposed by a minority.
The right for self determination has not been made accessible
under equal conditions for the rest of the majority population of Vojvodina.
2. Many of the delegates who participated and voted in the "Great Assembly" of
1918
represented areas, which according to the final document of
joining Vojvodina with Serbia, later did not become part of the Kingdom of
Serbs Croats and Slovenians.
3. Prior to the resolve of the "Great Assembly," a decision was
made by the National Council of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenians on
November 24, 1918, in Zagreb regarding
the union of the Kingdom of Serbia and Montenegro. Since October
29, 1818,  the legitimate authoritative body dealing with the status of Serbs
living on territories of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire was the above National Council of Serbs, Croats and
Slovenians, and not the "Great Assembly".
4. Regardless of the desires and the decision of the "Great
Assembly," Banat, Bacska and Baranya, (the territories largely
equated with today's Vojvodina), by the
International Peace Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920) Vojvodina
was allotet to the
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, and not to Serbia.
Yet all of the above is in essence irrelevant, because the rights
of people to exist on the land where they have lived and
prospered for centuries are not based on the ups and downs of
history. Today, the big challenge for Serbs in Serbia proper
is wheather or not they can demonstrate their ability to coexist
with other people, or not.
I hope and trust they can.
Greetings:
Peter Kaslik
Hungarian Human Rights Monitor, Toronto

Boris Bjelica > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 1995  wrote:
>
>
> Hereby, I would like to respond to Mr. Bila Liptak's article, and to
> clarify some historical facts wrt Vojvodina region.  It seems that that
> there have been some misinterpretations of the facts.  I will do a sort
> of reply since I believe it's good to "face" a Serbian and a Hungarian
> point of view on an issue such as this.
>
> >         Bila Liptak >         84 Old N. Stamford Road, Stamford, CT
06905-3961
> >         T:203-357-7614, Fax:203-325-3922,
> >          E-Mail: 
> >
> > It might seem that the Holbrooke-Milosevic pact will deliver justice, as it
> > makes the Bosnian Serbs to taste their own medicine. Unfortunately, the
> > domino-effect of this pact creates worst problems than what it solves and
the
> > new victims are innocent third parties: Hungarians and Albanians. Because
the
> > American public is totally unaware of this, I prepared the attached OP-ED
> > piece. If you need it, I can also fax you maps: Bila Liptak.
> >
> >
> >         The Balkan Tragedy: Our Blind Spot For Vojvodina
> > Vojvodina's population is greater than Bosnia's. A multi-cultural tapestry
of
> > Hungarian, Croatian, Serb, German, Roma, Slovak, Romanian and Ruthenian
> > cultures flourished here for centuries. Yet, many maps don't even
distinguish
> > Vojvodina from Serbia and few know what is happening there, because few
> > reporters ever visit Vojvodina. Yet, the process of ethnic cleansing, which
> > caused the Bosnian tragedy, has also reached Vojvodina. The majority of the
> > over 200,000 Serbs dislodged from the Krajina region of Croatia and from
> > southern Bosnia are being used to extricate the Hungarian population of
> > Vojvodina.
> >        Why is it, that by attempting to solve one problem (Bosnia), we
manage
> > to create two: the de- stabilizing of both Vojvodina and Kosovo? Why is it,
> > that the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina Serbs from Croatia, which our
State
> > Department called  a window of opportunity for peace , and the ethnic
> > cleansing of the south-Bosnia Serbs, which is a byproduct of NATO's
bombing,
> > might not facilitate peace, and in fact, could draw the neighboring
countries
> > of Hungary and Albania into the conflict. Why is it, that in order to make
> > Slobodan Milisevic to sign on to the American-led Contact Group's peace
> > proposal, he has to be offered a trade-off, at the expense of the
Hungarians
> > in Vojvodina and of the Albanians in Kosovo?
>
> A little remark.  First of all, Albanians in Kosmet currently make 90% of
> the population (about 1.8 million).  There are only 2,000 Serbs who went
> to Kosovo.  That can't in any way change anything.  Albanian
> natality is the highest of Europe (38 promiles).  Their population
> rised from 200,000 in 1945 to 2 million in 1991.
>
> Problems of Kosmet and Vojvodina are two separate and different
> problems.  The problem with Kosmet is historical because Serbs face the
> extermination at their historical region.  Albanian way of life counters
> the Serbian, and a compromise is very hard to find except some
> territorial division.
>
> Vojvodina is quite different.  Both Andras Agoston and Ferenc Csubela
> (leaders of Hungarians in Serbia) advocate forms of autonomy which don't
> oppose Serbian sovereignty.  They have wisely stated that it's more
> important to solve Hungarian problem for all of Vojvodina by providing
> three forms of autonomy - personal, territorial (for all of Vojvodina),
> and ethnical.  All three exist on the paper, but they are not implemented.
> All in all, Vojvodina problem can easily be solved if Serbia shows
> neccessary flexibility.  Those days are coming as Milosevic is leaving.
> Serbia as a whole can prosper only if decentrilized and not directed
> through Milosevic's office.
>
> >       To find the answers, we have to understand the mind-set of the
> > bureaucrats in the State Department. In the Kissinger-Eagleburger cookbook,
> > the recipe for solving international problems is to mix one part of
selective
> > justice with two parts of alternating determination against and appeasement
> > of the aggressors. The recipe avoids the salt of an overall plan or of a
long
> > range regional concept. Bureaucrats believe that only the victors deserve
> > justice and only the losers can be found guilty. Therefore the Serbs
deserve
> > full autonomy within Bosnia, but the minorities in Serbia, or elsewhere in
> > Central Europe do not.
>
> Incorrect.  Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not a "minority".  Or to
> put it your way, there are 3 minorities in BH - Muslim, Croat, and Serb.
> All three have the right to self-determination.
>
> Minorities in Serbia do deserve the autonomy, though.
>
> >        For most of the last 1100 years, Vojvodina was part of Hungary. Only
> > after the dismemberment of the Hungarian Kingdom and the creation of such
> > unnatural entities as Yugoslavia in 1918-20, did Vojvodina become an
> > autonomous region of that federation. According to the 1974 Yugoslav
> > constitution, Vojvodina should be an autonomous province of Yugoslavia (not
> > Serbia!) This autonomy, and that of Kosovo, were arbitrarily rescinded in
> > 1990.
>
> This paragraph is very much misleading.  The fact is that region k.a.
> Vojvodina has been mostly part of Austrian and Hungarian countries.  But,
> the region of original Vojvodina (Banat, Backa, Baranja) declared its
> unification with Kingdom of Serbia in 1918.  First it became a part of
> the Kingdom of Serbia (which militarilly took over the region), and then
> Kingdom of Serbia got united with Austrian dominated areas of Yugoslavia
> to form the SCS Kingdom ("Yugoslavia").
>
> Your statement w.r.t. Vojvodinian autonomy as part of Yugoslavia, but not
> Serbia is a misinterpretation.  Since 1918, Vojvodina ("the land of
> Dukes" in Serbian) was in every Serbian constitution regarded as its
> integral part.
>
> The "yogurt" revolution in 1988 (NOT 1990!!!) led to the Vojvodinian loss
> of the previous form of autonomy.  The "revolution" was led by
> Vojvodinian politicians loyal to Milosevic, primarily Mihaly Kertesz and
> Nedeljko Sipovac.
>
> After all, your country (U.S.) has taken an active part on dismembering
> Yugoslavia, so why do you refer to a "Yugoslav" constitution which was
> heavily violated by the U.S.?
>
> >        Vojvodina is the breadbasket of Serbian-Yugoslavia. It is already
it's
> > most densely populated region, consisting of the Srem, which was part of
> > Croatia-Slavonia until 1918, Backa, which was part of Hungary and the
western
> > part of Banat, also part of Hungary. The Hungarians did not get involved in
> > the Bosnian war. They did not side with any of the warring factions.
> > Consequently they are being treated as enemies by all.
>
> Srem was a part of Austria until 1918.  Parts of Belgrade (Zemun, Novi
> Beograd) are in Srem.
>
> It is not true that Vojvodina is most densely populated region. It is
> Kosovo and Metokhia (not just "Kosovo").  Kosmet, twice smaller in size,
> has 2 mill. people as well as Vojvodina.
>
> >      Today Croatia and Serbia are getting ready to fight over the Hungarian
> > villages of Eastern Slavonia. Croatia is also furthering her ethnic purity
by
> > quadrupling the taxes on the Adriatic vacation homes of Vojvodina
Hungarians,
> > which, under the present economic conditions is the same as confiscating
> > them. Yet, this is nothing compared to what the Serbs are doing to the
> > Vojvodina Hungarians.
>
> Appendix: "Comparing" is always a bad business.  Hungarians have paid a
> big price in Slavonia once already.  Their villages in Baranja region were
> emptied in 1991 when Serbs and Croats clashed.
>
> >        At the time of Hungary's dismemberment in 1920, Vojvodina's Serb
> > population was only 25%. Through expulsions, and other forms of uprooting
of
> > the non-Serb population and by importing Serb colonialists, the Serbian
> > population by 1948, has increased to 55%. During the Communist era, this
> > ethnic cleansing process has further intensified, and by 1991 the Hungarian
> > population of Vojvodina was reduced to 17%.  Today, only 350,000 Hungarians
> > remain in Vojvodina and the only compact cluster of Hungarian presence that
> > survives is in the north-central part, along the Tisza river. It is this
> >  problem  that the Serb refugees from the Krajina and south-Bosnia are
> > supposed to  solve .
>
> This is more less correct.  But you disregard that today's Vojvodina
> includes Srem (which was predominantly Serbian prior to 1918) and
> excludes Baranja.  In 1920, there were 29% of the Serbs in Baranja,
> Banat, and Backa.  Today's Vojvodina has 57.7% of Serbs. The number of
> "Serbian" Hungarians is higher than stated (they number about 450,000), but
> many have left Serbia due to war draftings (as well as 250,000 young Serbs).
> Milosevic' regime still doesn't grant them amnesty, but amnesty is a part
> of the Holbrooke-Milosevic deal.
>
> It is quite true that different methods of colonialism were introduced to
> Vojvodina, but it's silly to blame only Serbs for that.  First of all,
> Banat region had some 450,000 Germans which were all brutally expelled in
> 1945 due to "their involvement in Nazi genocide", as Tito's Communists
> stated. That was a genocide itself because today no traces of German
> culture can  be found- churches, cemetaries, etc. -traces of German
> culture are not detectable anymore.
>
> Please note that colonialism which took place in 1945-1950 was mainly
> directed towards these formerly German regions.  It's quite clear today
> that Croat Josip Broz Tito started bringing Krajina and Bosnian Serbs to
> these regions in order to "homogenize" Croatia.  The fact is that
> Hungarians and others pay the price, but things are not black-white; it
> wasn't exactly the Serbs who should be blamed.
>
> >  According to the Democratic Community of Hungarians in Vojvodina:  The
> > Hungarians of Vojvodina are facing the danger of a FINAL SOLUTION, because
> > Vojvodina is being purged of its non-Serb popula tion.  According to them,
> > the Croat victory in the Krajina and in south-Bosnia was so swift, because
> > this  population transfer  has already been agreed to by both the Serbs and
> > the Croats.
> >        Bila Csorba, a Hungarian MP in the Serb-Yugoslav Parliament,
described
> > the ethnic cleansing of a small Hungarian village named Svilojevo
(Szilagyi)
> > in this manner:  The Krajina Serbs cruised up and down the streets of
Apatin,
> > Sombor, Sonta and Svilojevo. On August 11, 1995 homes were confiscated from
> > their owners. By the time we have arrived to investigate, the village was
> > almost completely abandoned by its original inhabitants.
>
> That is unfortunately an outcome of the war.  Criminals should pay for
> that, and people should go back home.  "Highlander Serbs" (as Bosnian and
> Krajina ones are called) certainly should go back home.  But it
> unfortunately seems unlikely as long as Tudjman's regime is in place, and
> as long as Milosevic is in power.
>
> To my knowledge, Serbian police has kicked the refugees out, and houses
> were given back to their owners.  But your point is clear -  it is very
> hard to feel free when things like that happen.
>
> >        Part of the problem is due to the difference in the personalities
> > between the Krajina Serbs and the Vojvodina Hungarians. The Krajina Serbs
> > have a warrior mentality, they carry guns, for centuries they have been in
> > uninterrupted conflict with the Croats, their view of life is based on
> > constant struggle and hate for one's neighbors, their personality
corresponds
> > to the rugged terrain they have inherited. The placidity of Vojvodina
> > Hungarians corresponds to the openness of their fertile plains. Yet, their
> > friendly and mild personality does not mean, that their patience is
> > unlimited. They are a strong and determined people. Monica Seles is a
> > Vojvodina Hungarian.
>
> Absolutely true.  The same is for Vojvodinian Serbs.
>
> >        Politicians who push Hungarians to the limit, should remember 1915,
> > the only time when Serbia was occupied in this century, or 1956, when the
Red
> > Army learned, what happens, when Hungarians lose their temper. Hungary has
> > already accepted some 50,000 Hungarian and some 100,000 non-Hungarian
> > refugees from the disintegrating Yugoslavia. This economic burden, combined
> > with the loss of Hungary's southern markets, is testing her frail economy
to
> > the limit. She has already protested the ethnic cleansing of Vojvodina and
> > will have no choice, but to defend her interests more forcefully if this
> > process continues.
> >      So what should be done in the microcosm of Vojvodina and in the
> > macrocosm of Central Europe?
> >      To Vojvodina, UN and NATO observers should be dispatched immediately,
> > and the restoration of her autonomy should be made an integral part of any
> > overall peace agreement.
>
> Autonomy should be redefined, that's for sure.  But if "NATO" or any
> other Serbian declared enemies (NATO killed more than 1,000 Serbs,
> wounded several thousand, destroyed bridges, communications, and many
> civilian buildings) come, that's certainly not good. That will only stir
> the Balkan mixture even more.  Think about it.  "Dispatching" troops or
> "observers" won't change anything.  If Krajina Serbs and other radical
> elements remain in Vojvodina, they will even more frighten the minorities
> by their individual actions, and that will lead to an even worse
> situation for Hungarians.  The solution must be found in democraticizing
> Serbia.  Americans all think that humiliating Serbs and Serbia is the
> answer.  That's been proven wrong last 5 years and indirectly caused
> horrible sufferings of the Balkan peoples.  Serbs as whole are quite
> different by the region they come from, but all have one thing in common -
> that is "pride".  Even usually peacefull Vojvodina Serbs have shown
> to be very nationalistic with regard to the war.
>
> >      As to the whole of Central Europe, it is essential to replace the
> > practice of selective justice and appeasement of aggressors with  clearly
> > defined overall goals and with uniform standards that are applicable to
all.
> > Richard Holbrooke is right, when he wants to provide group rights to all
> > three ethnic groups in Bosnia, but he is wrong, if he wants to limit these
> > rights only to Bosnia. There will be no peace in Central Europe, until all
> > ethnic groups are guaranteed their autonomy.
> >      On the other hand, once the ethnic tensions are eliminated through the
> > universal guarantee of cultural autonomy, the root cause of the upheavals
in
> > the Balkans can also be solved. It is  power vacuum  in the region.
> > Throughout history, the Balkans were stable only, when a local power in the
> > Danubian Basin guaranteed it. The present power vacuum can only be
eliminated
> > through the formation of an economically self-sufficient, politically
stable
> > and militarily neutral Danubian Confederation.
>
> You are right, but contradict yourself.  Your way is "slap Serbia, and
> then it's all OK".  Yes, from a Hungaro-centric point of view, you are
> right.  All you wrote would be so great if it didn't have negative
> consequences to it.  The history can't be reversed, and Serbs will never
> get their "heart" back (Kosmet, the heart of medieval Serbia), they are
> kicked out of their Krajina (the "fender" Austro-Hungarian empire against
> the Turks).  Also, Vojvodinian pop. ratio from 1918 can't be reclaimed.
> The least civilized people can do in Serbia is fight through the democratic
> institutions.  Serbia needs help, it needs democracy.
>
> >        In 1920, President Wilson felt, that only through the formation of a
> > Danubian Confederation can a peaceful and prosperous Central Europe be
> > reestablished. It would be a tribute to Wilsonian vision, if President
> > Clinton, when, on the 26th of September, he meets the President of Romania,
> > he would use the occasion to express his support for the Danubian
> > Confederation.
>
> Only closer ties between Serbia and Hungary (which can be materialized
> through such a confederation) can fully solve the problem.  Giving
> Hungarians their personal autonomy, territorial where needed (in counties
> of Backa), and all other forms of autonomy which are of both their and
> Serbian interest, is the way to go.  That's for sure.
>
> Thanks for the article.  I suggest you introduce this to the Serbian
> news-groups or organizations because only dialogue can solve the problem.
> You see what bad has done ignoring of others' interests in the Balkans'
> case.
>
> > Bila Liptak is a former Yale professor, who has published many technical
> > books and has recently been invited to Budapest as a Fulbright Scholar.
>
> Boris Bjelica
> native of Montenegro and Belgrade
> senior in Electrical Engr. at Oregon State University
Dear Mr. Bjelica

With regard to yuor very constructive comments to Mr. Liptak'a
article, I would like to clarify some points leading
to Vojvodina becoming part of Yugoslavia after WW I.


1. The Great Assembly (Velika narodna skupstina) of the Serbs,
 Bunjevaci and other Slav population of Banat, Bacska, and
Baranya, held in Novi Sad on October 25, 1918,
has made its decision based of the representation by the minority
 Slav population of Vojvodina. (At that time Slav population of
Vojvodian amounted to 38.119% of the total
population of Vojvodina.
The majority-61.879% of the non-Slav population of Vojvodina,
the Hungarians, Germans, Rumanians and others were denied the
opportunity to participate in the decision about the future
status of Vojvodina. According to the census of 1921 the
Serbs constituted only 28.5% of the total population of Vojvodina.
 For this reason, the decision made at the above "Great Assembly" is an
illegitimate
Dictate imposed by a minority.
The right for self determination has not been made accessible
under equal conditions for the rest of the majority population of Vojvodina.
2. Many of the delegates who participated and voted in the "Great Assembly" of
1918
represented areas, which according to the final document of
joining Vojvodina with Serbia, later did not become part of the Kingdom of
Serbs Croats and Slovenians.
3. Prior to the resolve of the "Great Assembly," a decision was
made by the National Council of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenians on
November 24, 1918, in Zagreb regarding
the union of the Kingdom of Serbia and Montenegro. Since October
29, 1818,  the legitimate authoritative body dealing with the status of Serbs
living on territories of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire was the above National Council of Serbs, Croats and
Slovenians, and not the "Great Assembly".
4. Regardless of the desires and the decision of the "Great
Assembly," Banat, Bacska and Baranya, (the territories largely
equated with today's Vojvodina), by the
International Peace Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920) Vojvodina
was allotet to the
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, and not to Serbia.
Yet all of the above is in essence irrelevant, because the rights
of people to exist on the land where they have lived and
prospered for centuries are not based on the ups and downs of
history. The greatness of a nation is reflected
in its ability to coexist with other people as part of
the human family. Today, the big challenge for Serbs in Serbia
proper is wheather or not they can demonstrate
the ability to guarantie the future survival of 350,000 ethnic
Hungarians in Vojvodina.

I hope and trust they can.
Greetings:
Peter Kaslik
Hungarian Human Rights Monitor, Toronto

I apologize to Bela Liptak for criticising his Net manners, and suggesting
that "he does not read, and he certainly will not stoop to respond".  He
does, he did, and I was wrong.  I am sincerely sorry.

I like the paragraph much better without the gratuitous comment on the
Krajina Serbs' evil ways.  It is infinitely preferable to deliver the
message without bashing other ethnic groups, if at all possible.  Rather
than beating that particular dead horse, I'd like to reflect on your
comments about using the Net for discussion and argument.

You describe and contrast two possible uses of the Net.  One is "to debate
issues, look at their pros and cons, in that process show how articulate,
well informed, or clever we are, and eventually reach some sort of
consensus or majority view".  A second purpose is "to make the quick and
effective joint action of the Hungarian Lobby possible."  The people
participating "are not interested in debating fine points, they know the
facts, they agree on the need to protect the human and cultural rights of
the indigenous Hungarian minorities and therefore they want to act".

I agree that both of these uses of the Net are legitimate and practical,
but I think the first is a prerequisite for the second.  I submit that,
even if there is unanimous agreement on the need to protect Hungarian
minorities, and everyone wants to do the Right Thing, it is not always
clear what the Right Thing is.  Issues of fact, issues of tactics, issues
if timing, and issues of presentation are all open to argument.  Each
approach has its costs and benefits.  The Net may be a wonderful tool for
organizing a Hungarian lobby, but decisions on what such a lobby is to do
can only be arrived at by discussion and debate.  What other method is there?
There is more at issue than mere technicalities of implementing a perfectly
clear strategy.  To say that we need to act, rather than arguing about
*how* to act, is to pretend that the issues at stake can be depoliticised.
But this is impossible.  One of TGM's essays (published last month)
explains why this is so:

  The unfortunate illusion governing East European politics is still the
  dream of Lenin, in which the task of governing is reduced to managing
  a world of objects.  In other words, a world where politics is just
  a matter of routine administration.  Let's drop the idle chatter,
  said the government of Horn and Kuncze (meaning, in this case: let's
  drop the nationalist rhetoric); instead, let's get to work and fix
  "the problems".  But defining "the problem" through argument is what
  politics is all about.  When the problem is regarded as a given,
  then the attempt to find a technical solution is just a matter of
  administration and bureaucratic management.

  [Kelet-Europa politikai alma me'g mindig - sajna - Lenin alma: a "dolgok"
  kormanyzasa az "emberek" kormanyzasa helyett, azaz: a politika - igazgatas.
  Hagyjuk az ures dumat (a mi esetunkben: a nacionalista retorikat) - mondta
  a Horn-Kuncze kormany - ehelyett "oldjuk meg a problemakat".  Vitatkozni
  arrol, hogy *micsoda* is a problema: ez politika.  *Adottnak* tekinteni a
  problemat, es kiserletet tenni technikai megoldasara: ez kozigazgatas
  vagy igazgatasmenedzseles.]

End of TGM quote.  Let me list some examples of the kind of questions
that cry out for discussion:

o What specific policy is the Op-Ed article urging the U.S. to adopt in
  defense of the Vojvodina Hungarians?  Are we asking Holbrooke to throw
  this issue into the pot now?  Is this realistic?  Is this possible?
  Are the Serbs to be made to give up something?  In return for what?

o There are two ways of urging the U.S. to adopt a particular foreign
  policy.  One is to appeal to the audience's sense of justice, fair
  play, and committment to human rights.  The other is to persuade the
  audience that some U.S. national interest is at stake.  Which one
  applies to the situation in Vojvodina?

o If the intent is to use the human rights argument, then the issue needs
  to be cast without reference to 1,100 years of history, past ownership
  of the land, and Hungary's historical grievances.  These points only
  detract from the human rights argument.  Armed men break down people's
  doors, rob and terrorize people, and throw them out of their homes.
  The victims are Croats, Muslims, Hungarians, Serbs.  The human rights
  argument must be universal, or it is not a human rights argument.

o If the intent is to appeal to some U.S. national interest at stake,
  then the past grievances and the 1,100 years' worth of history are not
  germane to the issue at hand.  What U.S. national interest is involved?
  More importantly, is it in Hungary's national interest to draw the
  Western powers into the ethnic conflicts we are party to?  Isn't it
  the case that every time the great powers took an interest in Hungary's
  conflicts with her neighbors, the result was a disaster for Hungary?
  Yalta and Trianon come to mind.

o The purpose of the letter writing campaign during the Iliescu visit was
  to make MFN status conditional on Romania' ethnic policies.  One of the
  possible outcomes of such an effort is to keep Romania isolated and
  impoverished for many more years.  What will this do to the Hungarian
  minority in Romania?  Will they be trapped inside a country that we
  helped turn into a poor, embittered, backward place?  Shouldn't we be
  trying to improve their lot, instead of contributing to their misery?

These are not rhetorical questions.  I would love to hear the answers
you have arrived at, having thought about these problems for years.
I am ready to be persuaded.  But persuasion does require more than a
statement of goals, however noble.  It requires dialogue and argument.
Anything less is just preaching to the choir.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

K.Siddall ) wrote:
: I understand that Hungary has the highest suicide rate in the world.
: Could somebody briefly explain why this is the case?

1. Read-up on Maslow, Chomsky and Koestler.
2. Check-out non-Euclidian para-Aristotelian non-Polish notation
3. Summarize 1-2 above with Zen (ala Watts, McLuhan and Hornstein)
4. Mix 1-3 above with good doses of Piaget and NLP
5. Presto! Nothing much left to say except: Szerbusz (Goodbye)
20 million Hungarians can't be wrong! :)

Please put me on your email list for more information.  I'm a writer who
will be in Budapest from December.  Are you there?  I would like to meet
other writers and artists of course to share our information and insights.
Thanks very much.   

K.Siddall ) wrote:
: I understand that Hungary has the highest suicide rate in the world.
: Could somebody briefly explain why this is the case?

Dear Ferenc,

Andra1s didn't misspell Be1la Lipta1k's name. If you had paid just a little
more attention you might have noticed that those "1"-s were not els. Andra1s
is a great believer in writing with proper Hungarian spelling. As we all
know, this is not possible on the Internet due to the lack of diacritics.
Therefore, he uses numbers to indicate accents: 1 for acute, 2 for umlaut;
and 3 for the peculiar long umlaut in Hungarian. I am afraid, you have a
tendency to jump to conclusions too quickly, especially when you think that
the "Hungarian cause," or the "honor of the nation" are being attacked. No
one wants to attack Be1la Lipta1k (with whom I worked in the past): we simply
expressed our concerns about a couple of the passages in his intended piece
for the New York Times. After all, Be1la himself asked for input. Speaking
for myself, I think that the particular paragraph in question would not be
well received by the American readers of the New York Times. I realize that
Be1la finds this theory attractive, but I bet that most readers' reaction
would be fairly similar to that of Ga1bor Fencsik and Andra1s Kornai; that
is, negative.

Eva Balogh

As enthusiasm for selling off MVM's assets to the private sector spreads up
and down in the Hungarian parliament,the alleged benefits of terminating one
of the most reliable public Power Co. grow to nearly mythic proportions.If
you listen to the privatization services industry, which would make hundreds
of millions of dollars in transactions fees from just such a privatization,
practically all of MVM's fiscal problems could be solved if we vould just
hand over the MVM to competent-profitdriven-management.Here are some reason
they may not be giving us the whole story.
(1)It's been proven in the US.-Public Power is cheaper than private.It's
often said that we Hungarians want to see something working in the US.before
we'll adopt it here.If this is the case,then the Americans who have always
had a mix of public and private utilities-have given us no evidence that
profitoriented electrical corporations are better in any way than than publc-
ly -owned electricity co.In fact,almost all independent US. studies on this
subject in recent years have concluded that public utilities are more effi-
cient and charge less to consumers.Those who are pushing for MVM's privatiza-
tion also don't know how to explain why residential costumers of privatelly-
owned utilities in the US. are charged,on average,33% more than those who
buy from public utilities.
(2)The inevitable loss of rate equity.Rate equaty means that no matter where
in Hungary you live,or your business is located,you will pay essentially
the same electricity rates as all others in your customer class,everywhere
else in Hungary.MVM has always operated this way,even though,it's usually
more expensive to provide reliable electrical service to less populated regi-
ons.A privatelly-owned,competetive utility industry would always be pushing
to abandon this historical rate equity.As they do in the US.,they would say
in Hungary: "Let the users pay the full cost of their services" why should
lower-cost customers in say,Budapest,subsidize ratepayers in the region of
Szabolcs?
(3)Ther is no reason for private utility to encourage energy efficiency.
Privat businesses are all about making money.There is nothing wrong with
this,ofcourse,except when it clearly conflict with the public interest.In a
privately owned utility,for example,money is made by selling more,not less,
electricity.By encouraging customers to use energy more efficiently,a privat
utility would be actively cutting its own bottom line,which is unnatural
business behaviour.
Toth Laci

I thank Gabor Fencsik for his constructive and valid points, demonstrating
that he does care for our oppressed brethren and is trying to help them, just
as much as I do. It is important that we learn to listen to each other,
because by so doing, we discover, that the person talking, is not an
opponent, but an ally (possibly a valuable and smart one at that.) It is
equally important to forget about labels and code words, which only serve to
poison our inter-Hungarian relations. (This was not a comment on Gabor
Fencsik's letter, but on some other writer, who  put quotation marks around
"patriotic." It so happens that.I am writing a book on Istvan Angyal, an
Auswitz survivor and one of the greatest Hungarian patriots of the 20th
century, so I am sensitive about code words.)
        You are absolutely right in stating that the two roles of the Net are
 related, that actions should be preceeded by planning, and in the planning
phase it is very useful to debate alternate approaches. So, if debate, for
the sake of debate, or as a substitute for action is excluded, I certainly
agree that joint planning is desirable. (I agree with your quote of TGM. Is
he my old friend T.G. Madarasz?)
         On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with X.Y. using the Net to
announce a particular action, project, effort and ask for help from those
readers, who agree with it, without becoming a reader/debater himself or
herself.
        Now, to your specific questions: I wrote the Op Ed piece, because the
NYT map did not even show Vojvodina and I felt that it was time to bring
world attention to that unfortunate province, before it is too late. In the
article, I asked for UN observers, the stopping of the settling of Krajina
and Bosnian Serbs and the return of autonomy (which was suspended in 1988,)
as part of the overall Holbrooke-Milosevic "deal".
         Both fair play and US interest apply in Vojvodina. The first is
self-evident, the second is stability (war is expensive and makes the
powerful feel guilty if they act as idle observers).
         The issue of group rights (paragraph 11 of Recommendation 1201 of
EC) is a little broader, than the way you view individual human rights.
Humans have not only homes, they also have communities and in those
communities there are churches, schools and theatres, which is some ways are
more important, than their personal dwellings. In this respect, we have a lot
of work ahead of us, particularly in the United States, a nation of
individualistic emigrants. In doing this right, you could help us a lot with
your advice. People like prof. Borbala Kiss at Princeton, who is a specialist
in this field, could benefit from your advice. Being an environmentalist, 10
years ago, this is how I dedicated one of my books:
         "After the First World War Hungary was dismembered. Millions of my
people became persecuted minorities without moving from their homeland,
because national boundaries were redrawn around them. I would like to
dedicate this book to the coming age when international public opinion
protects not only the endangered animal species but also the cultural
identiry and heritage of national minorities."
          Of the 25,000+ people who purchased that book, the majority of them
Americans, not one wrote to me to say that the above was hard to understand.
          My article on Vojvodina is one piece of a larger puzzle, which aims
at turning the sails of the little boat of our nation, into the prevailing
 wind-direction of the great powers. (I have written on this subject in some
depth, but those essays are too long for this forum.) The essence, in a
nut-shell is: US interest in Central Europe is stability, because war is bad
for both great power business and ego. History teaches us, that stability
existed in Central Europe only, when LOCAL POWER existed. (Foreign occupiers:
Turks, Germans, Russians, Nato/UN, etc. only delay the explosions, they don't
solve the underlying problems.) Peace and stability existed when the power
vacuum was filled by either our kingdom or later by the Monarchy. Therefore
the Great Power interest is to assist in the reestablishment of local power.
This should and could not occur under any nation-state, it must occur by the
formation  of a federation.
         Before a federation can be formed, ethnic tensions must be
eliminated through autonomy. This is in the interest of everybody in the
region (including the Hungarians, who through the transparency of the
federation's borders, would in effect be reunited), but it is also in the
interest of the 1-200 million people of the region, who would be taken much
more seriously (by banks, EC, Nato and others), if they were united. A
Danubian Confederation could also be a strong economic partner for the USA,
which could balance the present exploitive and colonialist tendencies of
Western Europe.
         I for one never asked for the denial of MNF for Romania. Making the
extension conditional on living up to the minimum standards of group and
individual human rights is not the same thing. Those rights are in the
interest of all Romanians.
        Gabor, there is one thing I know: Benes had only two dozen
supporters, a tragically biased and bad concept, and he still succeeded in
gaining American support. Compared to that, we are in a much better position:
The historical moment is here, (Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Democrats
learned history from Jancsi Decsy, Kati Marton, the wife of Richard
Holbrooke, is one of the speakers at the Hungarian Coalition's Washington
meeting on the 3rd of November....), we have the brains, the connections, the
plan and we want to hurt nobody, we want the same thing that Kossuth, Jaszi
and Bibo wanted, we want justice, reconciliation, mutual respect, prosperity
and if we stick together, we can, we will achieve it.

With best personal regards: Bela Liptak

Eva Balogh wrote:

In article > you write:

>I am returning to the topic of Dr. Antal Endrey with some reluctance but I
>feel I should correct some misinformation concerning this case. Originally we
>were told that Dr. Endrey is planning to sue the World Bank or the IMF at the
>American Supreme Court. Later the story changed: Dr. Endrey already sued but
>at an appropriate American district court. As it turns out this is not so, at
>least according to the October 3, 1995 issue of *168 ora.* According Laszlo
>Bartus, a journalist, Dr. Endrey sued Michael Camdessus (head of the IMF) at
>the city court of Hodmezovasarhely (ho1dmezo3va1sa1rhelyi va1rosi bi1ro1sa1g)
>for 100 thousand forints ($1.00=133 Fts; thus $751.80) for damages.
>
> Antal Endrey
>lived in Australia until 1989 where he was pesident of a right-wing
>organization, the Ausztra1liai Magyar Szo2vetse1g (Australian Hungarian
>Association). In addition, he was editor-in-chief of two right-wing
>publications: Ausztra1lia Magyarsa1g and Nemzeti U1jsa1g.

Eva,
for goodness' sake, it's not a crime to be a right winger!  Yet you are
citing it as something at least equivalent to being a Nazi.  But I
suspect in this case Dr. Endrey earned that title for simply being a
nationalist.  How dares he?

 After his return to
>Hungary, he became a member of the KDNP (Christian Democratic People's Party)
>and ran unsuccessfully for parliament. Soon he left the KDNP and started an
>organization of his own: Magyar Kereszte1ny Mozgalom (Hungarian Christian
>Movement). In 1994 he and his party joined the Kereszte1ny Nemzeti
>O2sszefoga1s (Christian National Unity) (a group associated with Jo1zsef
>Torgya1n's Smallholders). Since then, he broke with Torgya1n.
>
>Endrey denies any connection with Mo1nus, but the two men live only a few
>yards from each other in Ho1dmezo3va1sa1rhely.

Is that a proof of being his friend?  I myself have been wondering what
it is about Hodmezovasarhely that attracts (at least) two such prominent
right wingers for setting up a residence there.  So far I could only
figure out two possible reasons:
they both may have been born and raised there, so they decided to retire
there, too.  The other reason may be that there is some kind of
retirement village ("Honfoglalas?"), primarily catering to Western
emigre retirees.  Does anybody have a better idea or info on this?
(I am not that far from retirement myself, you know. ;-)

Joe Pannon