Popularity growth of the extremely right parties in both Hungary and Romania elevates the pressure on Ukraine

Alexander Valeriyevich Sushko, the scientific director of the Institute of Euro-Atlantic cooperation, reply to questions on situations with massive issuance of Romanian and Hungarian passports.

- What’s your attitude toward the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary concerning the inspections of the Security Council, which were conducted with citizens, who received the Hungarian passports, supposedly, is it unlawful that Budapest won’t allow such attitude towards already Hungarian citizens in Ukraine?

In my view, both sides, both Ukrainian and Hungarian, in this issues show significant political wisdom. There are trends, which appear in relation to whatever party rises to power in Hungary. Nowadays, there is a right government, for whom one of the “trump cards” is to support Hungarians, which live abroad. They do it not only in Ukraine, but also in Romania, Serbia, and Slovakia. A huge scandal between Hungary and Slovakia about this theme took place. The Slovakians also approved laws of similar doubtful quality, which led to scandals at EU level.

In this case it is important that the Hungarian passport is a very important thing for citizens of Ukraine, because it gives the opportunity of visa-less entrance to the most developed countries. At the same time, the Constitution of Ukraine outlaws double citizenship. On the other hand, there are no sanctions in legislation in regards to people, who received another passport. Many countries do not require waiver of previous citizenship to receive their ones. That’s why many persons are able to receive the citizenship of Hungary, Romania; also there are a lot of people, who live in Sevastopol that possess the Russian passports. There is a collision of laws, which is related to the fact that citizenship issues in this case are sensitive issues, they are also related to both the political issues, and extremely pragmatic circumstances. It is no fact that the owner of the Hungarian or the Romanian passport is a patriot of these countries, because it is very convenient to have such passport for both business and personal goals.

It will be very hard for the Ukrainian party to eliminate this growing trend, using repressive methods. Unfortunately, in large measure these governments create problems for citizens. These problems are caused by the deficiency of the trust between the administrations of countries, which do not support a dialogue between them adequately. That’s why the marginal persons are the inhabitants of the Hungarian-speaking villages, but it’s not the solution of this issue. I believe that this issue is for a diplomatic dialogue, so positions could be explained. If there is not any understanding at the level of the Hungarian administration, one should submit this issue for consideration of the European Union. Because the European Union isn’t excited that the passports of member-countries of Schengen agreement are hand out to the citizens of the countries that are beyond this agreement. Not all diplomatic mechanisms for this situation resolving were used. As result the simple citizens were affected.

- Don’t you think that acting in this way, Romania and Hungary do not proceed from the one-step strategy, and it presumes some kind of further aggressive actions in relation to Ukraine?

If one sees the balanced picture, then one must say that not only these two countries issue passports. We have many citizens, who possess passports of other states. There are citizens of the Russian Federation, Israel and other countries. In the case of Hungary it is noticeable because there is also ethnic hint – the compact residence of the Hungarian and the Romanian minority. However, in general about this issue, concerning double citizenship and related to it risks it is possible to speak only in broader context. While at our place some talk only about the Russian passports, and the other ones only about the passports of the member-countries of EU. There is a discrepancy of rather rigid requirements of the Ukrainian Constitution about single citizenship with laws of other countries that allow multiple citizenship, and it is used by those people, who can’t receive it. But it is the international problem.

What touches upon the goals of those countries, then they aren’t similar. Naturally, there are some right powers, which employ the fact of compatriots. The Diasporas are used as an additional factor of influence on situation in those countries, where these Diasporas reside. We believe that it is not the entirely friendly policy, because it washes out the identity of the Ukrainian citizenship, but this issue doesn’t only concerns Romania or Hungary. This address the issue that the Ukrainian passport doesn’t give sufficient possibilities on the international arena. Realization of the own goals is the important tool for those persons, who want to work in EU or Russia. Only the minority of these citizens receive passports per both identity considerations and political views.

Certainly, what concerns far-reaching plans, we aren’t far from forecasting some serious movements as to the changing the borders in Europe. But currently it is unlikely regarding the borders of Ukraine with the member-countries of EU. Of course, there are extremely right parties in Hungary and Romania, but they exist in every country. What’s interesting those extremely right parties: “Svoboda” Ukrainian party and “Yobeck” Hungarian party had signed the agreement as to the good-fellowship. It’s unclear how they come to understanding if both parties exploit extremely nationalistic views. But, nevertheless, on the international arena they are friends. But, despite the fact that those parties have some kind of influence in their countries, while there is some fashion for these ultra-right views, it’s unlikely that they will be so influential that the administration of some country would raise the question concerning abnormality of the post-war boundaries.

- Won’t the issued passports become some foothold, in order to dictate their demands to Ukraine, on the part of both Hungary and European Union?

At the moments there are no cases of armed defense of own citizens in other governments in EU. In Europe 7% of citizens live beyond those countries, in which they are citizens. It is quite a big quantity. In CIS it is about 1%. Hypothetically, it all may take place, only if it gets further development of popularity of the extremely right views as to the political values. With ultra-right values these views may be somewhat popular. As a matter of principle, the parties of other directivity in Europe do not use the factor of citizens’ residence beyond own national territories as a factor of the political involvement in the life of these countries.

The protection of citizens has its legal framework and trends. Naturally, if it is about the violation of the accepted rights, for example, those, which were documented in the universal declaration of the human rights, then the countries, would pay attention to these facts. However, we aren’t talking about some kind of exclusive violation of the passport holders’ rights, but rather the general civil rights. There are many cases, when people used to talk about the violation of the rights of the Hungarian speaking and Romanian-speaking population, but in Ukraine in this situation everything is relatively unharmed. Because there are a lot of Romanian and Hungarian schools. At the lowest level during all these decades there were not any ethnical conflicts in those regions, where they live. In my opinion, it’s unlikely to provoke the origin of somewhat serious tensions in this direction.

- In your opinion, do the actions of VO “Svoboda”, which were demonstrated by this party during and after the events of 9 May in Lvov, present the real danger for political and social stability of Ukraine? While, nowadays, on the part of this party statements are heard as to the necessity of displacing of both the current reign and govern construct in Ukraine.

In every country there are extremely right powers, which try to exploit the certain moods of some citizens. “Svoboda” is a party, which relies on the support of around 5% of population. Unfortunately, its popularity grows as the result of citizens’ disappointment in traditional parties. But, after all, the main danger isn’t in what the marginal party does, but in that the administration does a lot of the things incompetently at its best, and often it is seen as intentional actions to introduce the discord within community. For example, the events of 9 May in Lvov did not begin on 9 May, but in April in Kyiv, when the law as to the red flag was approved. Certainly, for those regions of Ukraine, where this flag is associated with terror and repressions, any allusions to hoisting of this flag, so much official are not accepted. We can address it differently, but the reality is like that. And any tries to do it, even under the pretense of 9 May celebrating for them are inadmissible. That’s why, naturally, the current administration, by rendering such decisions, had placed the bombs that could be activated in Lvov.

If the administration tries to be the governance in Ukraine, then it should take into account the diversity of this country. And all previous administrations have strived to take it into account. We didn’t have any fights on 9 May for 20 years of independence. It was the understanding that it is everyone holiday and anyone could understand it differently, but never this aggressive wave was introduced. Always they tried to conciliate and smooth the edges somehow. And here the administration went by the way of enforcing certain symbolic and immediately the one had received the answer in this sense. That’s why “Svoboda” – it is just a reaction, and we see that the administration understands it, because of what it goes to retrogradation in this question.

And that irregularity of society, which is associated with the heterogeneity of the historical past of Ukraine, had become more expressed at present time. It is the result of the fact that during the late years, politicians strongly, by their electoral positions enhancing, had tried to mobilize their parts of the electorate in opposition to the other parts of electorate. By all means, it didn’t promote the creation of somewhat common platform. As a result, we see considerably nervous situation, which appeared on 9 May. The society is electrified. However, I think that nowadays the striving for peaceful life in the Ukrainian society is much stronger that war instinct after all. There are many problems. In particular, it is the fact that the current administration, first of all, is engaged in the cementing their own. Lo and behold when the term to leave will come, it, of course, will have consequences. It isn’t the question about red flag, foreign involvement; it is the question about what the political forces do in this case.

- During this year the variety of contradictory decisions were made by the managing party. It is seen that the management, as they say, is carried out non-professionally or intentionally contradictory. In our judgment, the managing forces that are at the helm in Ukraine under what influence of trends and forces build their managing activity – are they internal forces, oligarchic structures, or the external influence on the side of Europe or Russia?

I believe that the internal factors are the dominant ones. Because, the internal factors - are money, stability of condition, power and resources. External factors also play their role. For the external players there is the space for influence. But in either way, if the internal interest and the external influence enter into contradiction, then the internal interest enters into force first of all. Other case is that this internal interest is not always unidirectional one. And in this case the internal and the external influences may coincide. Then the chance of realization just this way sharply increases as a result of this association. Certainly, there are business-interests, and there are interests of power. But it is impossible here to build a rule, relying only on someone’s external political support. If there are not any serious internal grounds, then the external factor won’t work. The external factor in this country may be supplementary one, catalyzer or obstacle. But on its own it isn’t the decisive one. That’s why I think that the internal factors are dominant ones in both political and economic events. The significancy of the foreign influence is exaggerated at our place pretty frequently. Because it is conveniently to write everything off on it. In point of fact any process in this country wasn’t made, if it wasn’t relied on serious internal reasons. And the reasons, as the result of made decisions by the administration, of that contradictive system of management that was formed, rest within the country, within those groups of influence that relate to the administration.