Member of Hungarian Parliament, Vice President of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Jobbik political party.
These are historic times for Europe. The events of recent months have clearly revealed the fault lines and shown the different paths which had been barely analysed or even mentioned in academic political and economic essays so far. In Hungary, the so-called “Eastern Opening” policy has been known for the general public as well as politicians and academic research groups due to the rise of China, India or Turkey and the decline of the United States’ power. However, the question has become one of the most pressing issues of the present, not the distant future. It has been increasingly obvious that we are facing the war of two world orders.
Emerging powers have become real challengers of the old establishment. The ongoing war between them and their respective backers has economic, political as well as important philosophical and cultural aspects. Not only are we witnessing the emergence of new powers, we can also observe a significant conceptual difference between the United States and its European allies, the advocates of liberal democracy and their challengers, who build upon traditional values. It is clear that the two approaches can no longer tolerate each other within their own spheres of influence, the transitional period will soon conclude and a new world order will be established. What kind of new world order is it going to be, and where can we find its roots?
It was a long road from the organic world order to the current situation. Throughout human history, the powers of Earth were typically organized into a multipolar system. However, the 20th century brought about a completely new situation: the political and military dominance of the two superpowers created a new, bipolar system, and the hegemons of each pole divided the whole world into two. The two forces were trying to achieve a monopoly in their own respective territories so that their political, social and economic systems could be the only long-lasting and sustainable one, which all other societies would eventually have to adopt.
In this particular aspect, both approaches, i.e. communism and liberal democracy were quite similar: both of them were characterized by an intensive presence of messianism, an unshakeable belief in having the best possible system and a complete lack of understanding the idea that different societies could develop along different courses. However, the existing form of communism has become obsolete by the 1990s, leading to the collapse of the part of the communist block which was directly controlled by the Soviet Union. For a brief historic moment, it seemed that the liberal West had won, and a monopolar world order could be established.
The arrogance of the liberal democratic block led by the United States of America was quite clearly demonstrated when it was heralding the end of all real power struggles in the world and the monopoly of the Western, Euro-Atlantic world order, drawing inspiration from Marxism’s concept of linear history and class struggle. Western think tanks seem to have fully believed the platitudes of their own propaganda machine. In their arrogance, they imagined that the fall of communism would enable them to subdue the whole world in an everlasting monopolar system centred around the US and the West.
However, the downsides of the liberals’ overwhelming optimism in the 90’s were soon uncovered. The religious and ethnic conflicts breaking out over the ruins of the communist block and the economic failures of the post-communist countries were the first signs to show that a considerable part of the world is unable to adopt the neoliberal doctrines. Such new powers as Russia, China, India, Brazil or South Africa, which emerged in the first decade of the millennium, clearly demonstrated that not only were they unable to toe the monopolar Washington line, but they were not willing to do so, either.
Transition into a multipolar world order: war or peace?
As I wrote above, the nature of the current transition is not merely political. The reasons for the decline of the Euro-Atlantic world and liberal democracy do not exclusively lie in the inability of the United States and its close allies to continue financing their role as the world’s policemen (although it is a substantial reason indeed), but in the deep intellectual crisis of the West. Perhaps this intellectual burnout was the most difficult factor for Western ideologists and political leaders to comprehend and digest.
Western philosophy, which had abandoned medieval traditionalism and relied more and more heavily on Anglo-Saxon imperialism as the global colonization process advanced, has always been intolerant of other civilisations. Regardless of historical eras and ideologies, it established an ego- and West-centred belief system, according to which the imperialist European powers were not only waging wars for material gains, but they conducted a messianic civilisational struggle to deliver culture to the “barbarian peoples”. The enslavement of South American, Asian or African nations was presented as a cultural mission for the people of the Western countries.
The tyranny of the self-important Western world reached its peak upon the collapse of the colonial system. Raising the banner of liberal democracy and denying their own nationalist past and national “grandeur” derived from the exploitation of others, the former colonizers dealt the cards again, hiding behind “human rightism” this time. Offering the false promise of freedom, they created dysfunctional, religiously and ethnically divided countries behind unrealistic, arbitrarily drawn borders. Thus they sowed the seeds of war and instability in Africa as well as the Arab world for several decades. They seemingly pulled out, but they continued to blackmail the elites they had put into power, never failing to apply the principle of “divide and rule”. A typical sign of their arrogance is that they regularly accuse other countries of being undemocratic and call them to account for Western values, even though these countries have been living according to the norms of a completely different civilisation. Moreover, many of them were deprived of a chance for democratic development due to the Western powers’ prior actions to incite internal tensions and immorally support local oligarchs.
On a geopolitical scale, Western strategy has hardly changed since the age of colonization. Back then they achieved their goals through invasions, openly boasting about their modern nationalism. Now they are doing so by way of political arm-twisting with the help of propaganda machines, non-governmental organisations and foundations functioning as agents to incite coups d’état and revolutions. The outcome is the same: trampling upon the sovereignty of states, gobbling up countries and subjugating them into their sphere of influence.
Although the nationalist crest was soon repainted, it is still a question whether the seemingly liberalized West can truly abandon its narrow-minded approach and its delusions of grandeur and perfection. These two questions may be of key importance in the next few years. There are two reasons for that.
One is the intellectual decline mentioned above. Western liberalism has drifted so much apart from its own roots and the reality by now that its anti-traditional and anti-family approach as well as the promotion of deviant behaviours has created societies that are incapable of self-sustenance. Immigration issues and the deterioration of the celebrated multiculturalism into an underlying internal war of civilisations both derive from the fact that Western European and North American societies are unsustainable without immigrants, but the valuelessness of these societies prevent them from being able to integrate foreigners.
The other reason is that the new challengers clearly see the decline of the West and they know that the token of their own rise lies in confronting the Western culture which has staggered to the brink of annihilation by depriving itself from all high values. Russia, China, or even the successful states of the Arab world are quite aware that a solid future can only be built upon the foundations of their own national cultures. More and more non-Western countries and societies have woken up and begun to question the world order brought about by the end of the cold war. In the meantime, their economic, political, social and military achievements justify their scepticism about Euro-Atlantism.
So the transition is knocking at our doors. Emerging non-liberal powers have already appeared in the scene and have been strikingly successful. The ever-shrinking US-centred block is constantly losing key positions. The question is whether they realize that they have lost their privileged, monopolistic status and that they would have to withdraw behind a sustainable border. If they do, will they accept a new status quo or continue to defend their declining empire “to the last bullet”? Their attitude will define whether the transition can be peaceful or not.
In spite of being European, Hungary is one of the countries that have suffered the most from the arrogance of great Western powers. Today’s Hungary and Central Europe still bear the consequences of the narrow-minded Western approach up to this day. The Trianon Pact, which concluded World War I, was devised by the same powers that are the spearheads of liberal democracy today. These powers crushed an organic structure based on the traditions of a millennium. The territory of Hungary, which had been the key to regional stability until the early 20th century, was split up in order to create artificial state formations. It is not hard to realize that Central Europe’s internal conflicts are mostly rooted in this act: conflict-ridden makeshift country formations were in fierce rivalry with each other, exposed to the mercy of the great powers. Eventually, when they could not be held together any longer, they disintegrated.
In spite of the above, Hungary has canonized the subservient support of Western and Euro-Atlantic interests. Although Hungary’s national wealth was stolen under the aegis of privatization, which is considered as the cornerstone of neoliberal economic policy, and then the remaining industry was destroyed by forcing us to turn our backs on the post-Soviet region, and then we were required to abandon the Hungarian communities living outside our borders, yet the Hungarian governments, regardless of their ideological stance or the parties forming them, remained dedicated followers of Euro-Atlantism.
Established in 2003, Jobbik Movement for a Better Hungary was the only political force to confront this idea. Jobbik announced a completely new political agenda and emphasized the importance of Eastern opening, opposing the value-deprived West. Jobbik was the only party to realize and state that Western liberalism would complete the nation’s economic destruction, which would then be followed by cultural, demographic and linguistic annihilation unless we change the direction of our foreign policy.
Undoubtedly, Jobbik was the party to include the criticism of the Euro-Atlantic power axis in the public discourse as well as to represent a new aspect which centred around the protection of Hungarian sovereignty and the open representation of our national interests. Due to the reasons detailed above, this policy can only be implemented if it is coupled with a foreign policy of Eastern opening.
We have been representing these values in the Hungarian Parliament since 2010, and our efforts were not in vain. Although Jobbik has been working as an opposition party so far, we have grown into the second largest political force and were able to exercise sufficient pressure on Fidesz-led governments to consider, albeit half-heartedly, the ideology represented by Eastern emerging countries.
Of course, it has never been easy to accomplish the mission undertaken by Jobbik. Backed by seemingly unlimited funds, the Western propaganda machine has spared no effort to contain us. The reason behind our stigmatization has been obvious: while we were accused of racism, nearly all Western countries have experienced the rise and popularity of truly xenophobic forces. However, their Euro-Atlantic commitment has always protected them from the revenge of liberal propaganda. Meanwhile, Jobbik was constantly under attack, not for its alleged extremism but for its criticism of the West.
The greatest challenge for us currently is to get rid of manipulation and misinformation as well as to plant a new voice in the public discourse against the monopolistic views of Euro-Atlantism. The ongoing Ukrainian conflict was the grounds for us to do so. Jobbik was the only Hungarian political force to speak out for the rights of ethnic minorities living in Ukraine and to condemn the genocidal leadership of Kiev. While the other parties either remained silent or, betraying the ethnic Hungarian community of the Lower Carpathians, kept repeating pro-Kiev Western slogans, Jobbik called public attention to what was really at stake in Ukraine. The stakes are high: to extend Western hegemony over the territory of Ukraine and to provoke the emerging Russia and force the country into an open conflict. We felt it was our duty to voice our clear opinion about this issue. It was not only the concern for the Hungarians of the Lower Carpathians that prompted us to do so. It was obvious for us that there is more at stake for us than the future of great powers: our region, Central Europe and even the entire continent may suffer great losses if the United States manages to destroy our relationship with Russia.
Contrary to the statements of US-controlled propaganda, Europe and Russia belong next to each other. Europe is not complete without Russia while Russia as a European power cannot turn away from Europe. Especially because Europe is in trouble.
The Western part of the European continent is controlled by the European Union, a conglomerate serving Washington’s interests. This organization is working relentlessly on depriving our continent from all the values that shaped it into what it is now. Europe is Americanized at an astounding pace: it is losing its roots and it is deteriorating from a community of national states into a pastless and futureless community of rootless consumers disowning their own nations. Albeit unconsciously, Central Europe still stands in defiance of this trend, but the region has no more powers left to openly confront liberal destruction. Of all European countries, Russia is the only one that has the necessary economic, military and political authority. Therefore it is Russia’s historical duty to set Europe back on the track of traditions.
Of course, it is not only an intellectual interdependence. Europe relies on Russia in strategic and energy related issues as well. While the idea of Europe without the United States is conceivable, Russia is indispensable for our continent. After the unnatural dividedness of the cold war, the United States now intends to create a new dividedness in order to isolate Russia from its natural environment, while also keeping Europe in a state of unilateral dependency.
The political agenda currently followed by most European countries is absurd, since the anti-Russia sanctions are contrary to their own interests. They cause enormous damage to their own economies, rendering themselves even more vulnerable to the United States. If the countries of the European Union do not intend to perish as American puppets, they must realize that the division of our continent is unnatural and is caused by the machinations of an external force.
Jobbik is taking on the mission to influence the current government of Hungary in such a way that enables our country to meet what is perhaps the greatest European challenge of the 2010s. That is to shake up the continent and make Europe realize: It is not going to work without Russia.