On August 15 The New York Times published an article by Patrick Kingsley, the paper’s international correspondent based in Turkey, titled “Hungary’s Leader Was Shunned by Obama, but Has a Friend in Trump,” which naturally reverberated in Hungary. Kingsley has been reporting on Hungary frequently since the beginning of the year and shows considerable familiarity with the current Hungarian political situation.

The article is basically about a possible shift in U.S. policy toward Viktor Orbán’s illiberal regime. During the previous U.S. administration the relationship was in a deep freeze. Now, Kinsley has learned from various U.S. sources, a new tactic will be employed. Washington will begin a constructive dialogue which, the State Department hopes, will achieve tangible results, with a final goal of strengthening Hungary’s ties with the Atlantic alliance.

Before I get to my own assessment of current U.S.-Hungarian relations, I want to give a sampling of the headlines that appeared in the Hungarian media in the wake of the New York Times article. According to the government paper, Magyar Idők, “Trump sees an ally in Viktor Orbán.” Sztarklikk goes so far as to announce that “Orbán conquered America.” In HVG’s opinion, “Trump at last takes Viktor Orbán seriously,” while azonnali.hu wonders whether “Trump is the new friend of the Hungarians.” Pesti Srácok gleefully announced that “such a spectacular improvement in U.S.-Hungarian relations must be thanks to the steadfast foreign policy of Viktor Orbán and the Hungarian government,” adding that even the liberal New York Times had to, however reluctantly, report on it. The conclusion is that “President Trump looks upon Viktor Orbán as his natural ally.” Of all the headlines I found, only one avoided the sensational: 24.hu simply stated that “The United States no longer finds Orbán’s isolation a good idea.”

First of all, the claim that the U.S. State Department, with the appointment of Wess Mitchell as assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, is contemplating a different kind of foreign policy toward Hungary is not new. Charles Gati and Heather A. Conley jointly published an opinion piece in The Washington Post in which they reported that “this administration believes that offering high-level contacts and withholding criticism will improve an authoritarian regime’s behavior.” The article by Gati and Conley was translated into Hungarian. Moreover, I devoted several posts to negotiations between Washington and Hungary, starting with Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó’s visit to Washington in mid-January of this year. Following that meeting, there was silence, but about a month later Wess Mitchell traveled to Paris to mediate between Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin and Szijjártó. The United States wanted to convince Budapest to drop its hard-line opposition to Ukraine’s moving closer to NATO and the European Union. Washington obviously offered something in return: perhaps an invitation to Viktor Orbán to meet his soulmate in the White House and better relations between the two countries in general.

Whatever transpired in the three meetings between Mitchell and Szijjártó from January to May, the Hungarian government hasn’t moved an inch on the Ukrainian issue. Not even the high-level meeting between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Szijjártó at the end of May changed the Hungarian position. The recent article in The New York Times doesn’t go into the substance of the conversation between the two diplomats, which may nuance the nature of present U.S.-Hungarian relations. I already quoted a summary of the conversation, but I think it is worth republishing it here:

Secretary Michael Pompeo met with Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto in Washington on Wednesday. The two discussed areas of mutual interest and opportunities for our countries to increase cooperation. The Secretary underscored the importance of maintaining a vibrant civil society. The Secretary also emphasized the urgent need to help Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, including the importance of facilitating and supporting Ukraine’s engagement with NATO, and the need to counter Russian malign influence in Central Europe. Both sides agreed that Europe should diversify its sources of energy and discussed increasing U.S. investment in Hungary. The Secretary and Foreign Minister committed to concluding a Defense Cooperation Agreement in the days ahead.

Since that meeting, relations between Hungary and Ukraine have become even worse. It’s enough to think of Ukraine’s angry reaction to Orbán’s speech at the Tusványos Free University in which he declared that Ukraine’s “membership in NATO and the prospects for their EU membership are virtually zero.” The appointment of a ministerial commissioner for Zakarpattia’s “economic development” caused a furor in Kiev. Nothing has moved Orbán on the Ukrainian issue despite U.S. concessions. For example, Washington reversed itself on a $700,000 grant for independent media outlets in rural Hungary.

The Hungarian side also refuses to sign off on the issue of the Central European University in spite of the fact that the new American ambassador, David Cornstein, made it abundantly clear that this signature is a precondition for better U.S.-Hungarian relations.

And so, I wouldn’t take it for granted that a new era in relations between Washington and Budapest has arrived. The Orbán regime, at least for the time being, is not inclined to fulfill the stated preconditions for improved relations. Of course, it is possible that in the next couple of months we will see an entirely different Viktor Orbán, one who is utterly reasonable and does not block Ukraine’s engagement with NATO and who will sign the agreement reached between the State of New York and the Hungarian government almost a year and a half ago. But such a transformation is unlikely.

I don’t share the views of those who, like András Simonyi, former Hungarian ambassador to Washington, think that the U.S. should “make a real effort to keep these guys in our Western orbit.” Given Viktor Orbán’s well-demonstrated duplicity, such efforts will most likely not succeed. The final result may be the abandonment by the United States of the cause of human rights and democratic institutions in Hungary and the continuation of Viktor Orbán’s double game in his relations with Russia and Ukraine.

U.S. policymakers should listen to those who are more familiar with both Viktor Orbán and his regime. They will have to deal with a shrewd man who has neither moral scruples nor an affinity for the truth. Orbán has far-reaching plans that pose a danger for Europe and even the United States. Just the other day Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz, in an interview he gave to the conservative weekly Sieci, called attention to a “certain convergence of Hungarian with Russian policy” which may “lead to revisionism.” To me it is clear that Orbán has hopes for territorial revision along the Hungarian-Ukrainian border when the time is ripe. U.S. diplomats should keep their eyes and ears wide open and be very cautious.

Source: Hungarian Spectrum