Today, the problem of national minorities in Ukrainian-Hungarian relations can be accurately described by a Chinese proverb: “If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by.”
Unfortunately, the enemy is becoming less figurative, as it has shed all disguises and openly sided with the Russian Federation. This conclusion is drawn from recent statements by Prime Minister Viktor Orban. In an interview with the German newspaper Bild (June 27), he claimed that Ukraine has supposedly lost its political sovereignty and is incapable of defeating Russia on the battlefield. He does not consider Putin a war criminal, even though the International Criminal Court has recognized him as such for committing genocide against Ukrainian children.
Politically similar statements indicate the weight of compromising material that Moscow holds against Orban. They also demonstrate the level of humiliation towards Hungary and the Hungarian people, to which their leader resorts in order to seek Putin’s favor. It’s disheartening.
The body referred to in the Chinese proverb is the official policy of Budapest towards Ukrainians of Hungarian descent and Transcarpathia as a whole. It includes claims of “oppression” of the Hungarian minority, “violations” of international law by Ukraine, “disregard” for European standards and obligations. And based on these claims, there is the blocking of our country’s integration with NATO and the EU, denial of sanctions against Russia, undermining Ukraine’s efforts for comprehensive international assistance, and promoting peace at any cost. Essentially, at the expense of Ukraine itself.
The scandal surrounding the release of 11 Ukrainian military personnel from Russian captivity nullified these claims, revealing the true nature of Orban’s government’s policies. For him, Hungarian ethnic communities have become instruments of foreign policy and means to implement the project of restoring the “Great Hungary.”
The methods of implementing this policy are also clear: using national minorities as hostages, interfering in the internal affairs of neighboring states, disregarding their legislation and basic interests. It involves trampling on international law, including the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
In other words, the situation is like a joke: a thief shouting, “Someone is stealing my money,” while keeping his hand in someone else’s pocket.
Ukraine should put an end to the Orban’s game, which is directed against our country — the victim of a genocidal war waged by Russia, for which Hungary remains a partner and almost an ally. To stop Budapest’s anti-Ukrainian policy, we have all the legal and political tools, as well as a factor whose significance is hard to overestimate: the pro-Ukrainian stance of the absolute majority of Ukrainians of Hungarian descent.
Hungary must act in accordance with international law
First, let’s talk about the key facts regarding the prisoners. On June 8, the following announcement appeared on the website of the Russian Orthodox Church: “With the blessing of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and as part of inter-church cooperation at the request of the Hungarian side, the transfer of a group of Ukrainian prisoners of war of Transcarpathian origin who participated in combat operations took place.”
In the statement, every word carries significance, especially for the legal qualification of the actions of the participants in the process.
The release of Ukrainian servicemen from Russian captivity took place at the request of Hungary, confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén on June 9.
“All of this is a gesture of the Russian Orthodox Church towards Hungary, and these people owe their freedom to it,” he said.
The government official emphasized that his participation in the release was his “human and patriotic duty.”
He explained his rationale by pointing to Ukraine’s “hostility”: “The eleven Transcarpathians are no longer prisoners of war in Hungary; they are free people. If I were a representative of Ukraine, I would say thank you for this.”
Being consistent, he should have expressed gratitude to the Moscow church. What does Ukraine have to do with it? No information was provided about the participants from Ukraine in the release.
In normal circumstances, one could shrug and acknowledge that the Hungarian Deputy Prime Minister went too far. However, for almost ten years, Russia has been waging a genocidal war against Ukraine. Therefore, the words used by the parties involved carry significance.
The Russian Orthodox Church and Hungary did not use the term “Ukrainian prisoners of war,” only referring to them as “Transcarpathians by origin” or simply “Transcarpathians.” This effectively separates the group from Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian people. For Budapest, the word “Transcarpathians” is synonymous with Hungarians from Transcarpathia. In the imperial ideology of the “Russian world,” anyone of “Transcarpathian origin” implies a hint at the restoration of the historical reality of the “Hungarian Ruthenia.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine stated that our government was not informed about the negotiations between the Hungarian and Russian sides regarding the “release of Ukrainian prisoners of war of Hungarian origin.” Official Kyiv learned about the negotiations from the statements of Deputy Prime Minister Semjén, and therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs invited the temporary chargé d’affaires of Hungary “for a substantive conversation.” Ukraine requested “detailed information about its citizens and urgent provision of access to them for the Ukrainian consul to assess their health status and provide consular assistance.”
The European Commission has taken a firm stance, stating that the Hungarian authorities “must clarify the details and their involvement in the release of Ukrainian citizens held by Russia as prisoners of war, as well as Hungary’s communication on this matter with the Ukrainian authorities.”
Budapest’s cunning “maneuver”
Dmytro Lubinets, the Authorized Representative of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) on Human Rights, reached out to the Hungarian ombudsman requesting information regarding the presence of Ukrainian prisoners of war on Hungarian territory, as well as their status, means of transportation from Russia to Hungary, their location and conditions of detention, and the reasons for preventing Ukrainian diplomats from accessing them. Not receiving any response, the Ukrainian ombudsman “referred the matter to an international institution that can assess the ombudsman’s actions.” The Hungarian government has also been informed that Ukraine is preparing a lawsuit to be filed with the European Court of Human Rights regarding the unlawful deprivation of freedom of Ukrainian citizens.
These measures have yielded results as five prisoners of war have been returned to Ukraine, while the rest remain on Hungarian territory for now.
Encountering Ukraine’s and the EU’s firm stance, as well as due to the professional actions of our diplomats, Hungary began to “play tricks.” Information emerged in the media suggesting that the initiative to release the prisoners of war was a personal undertaking of Deputy Prime Minister Semjén. It was claimed that Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó was allegedly uninformed about the matter. And to top it all off, it was supposedly unknown whether Prime Minister Orban was aware of everything.
In support of these “sensational revelations,” during the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe session on June 19, Szijjártó stated that the transfer of Ukrainian prisoners to the Hungarian side occurred as a result of “discussions between the church and religious organizations,” and the state of Hungary was “absolutely not involved” in the process.
We can assert that Hungary is “absolutely” involved. This is evidenced not only by the statements of government official Semjén but also by undeniable facts such as Hungary granting permission for Ukrainian citizens to enter its territory, their placement in special facilities, and the denial of access to Ukrainian diplomats, among other things.
Szijjártó himself put the political and legal dot on the “i” in the case during his speech at the PACE forum. He noted that the escalation of the war in Ukraine poses the greatest threat to Hungarians because Hungary is Ukraine’s neighbor.
“I represent a nation whose representatives are dying in this war,” said the minister, emphasizing that the Hungarian national minority in Ukraine consists of 150,000 people.
He expressed outrage that members of the Hungarian minority, “as Ukrainian citizens, are being mobilized into the Ukrainian army, with the majority being sent to the front lines and, unfortunately, many are dying.” Therefore, it is necessary to end the war and “establish peace in the neighboring country as soon as possible” through negotiations.
“The problem is that the Ukrainians will run out of soldiers before Russians, and that will ultimately be the decisive factor,” Orban provided further details in an interview with a German newspaper.
This argumentation forms a circular reasoning. Ukraine is losing because it may have fewer soldiers than Russia. And in order to reduce the number of Ukrainian military, Hungary has decided to stand up for its compatriots who are being called upon by a state that has “lost its sovereignty” to join its army and be sent to their death.
Articles violated by Hungary
In this way, the leaders of the Hungarian state have triggered international legal proceedings (including the European Court of Human Rights) by violating several articles, including the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Council of Europe from 1995. This document’s provisions are constantly invoked by Hungary when discussing the alleged “oppression” of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine.
Article 2 of the Convention states: “The provisions of this Framework Convention shall be applied in good faith, in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, and in accordance with the principles of good neighborliness, friendly relations, and cooperation between states.”
Hungary’s actions regarding the Ukrainian prisoners of war were motivated by their belonging to the Hungarian minority and took place in violation of the principles of good neighborliness, friendly relations, and cooperation towards Ukraine.
Article 3 states that “every person belonging to a national minority has the right to freely choose to be identified as such or not, and no disadvantage should arise from exercising this right or from the exercise of the rights associated with that choice.”
Ukrainian servicemen were deprived of this right because they were released from Russian captivity based on their ethnic identity, in violation of international laws regarding prisoners of war. Moreover, this was done without informing the Ukrainian state, which, in the process of releasing its servicemen, does not discriminate based on ethnic or any other characteristic.
Article 20 establishes that “any person belonging to a national minority shall respect the national legislation and the rights of others, in particular those belonging to the majority population or to other national minorities.”
Hungary’s actions have led to a situation where Ukrainian prisoners of war, without their knowledge and consent, have violated Ukrainian and international legislation. Furthermore, as stated by the Ukrainian ombudsman, they have effectively been deprived of their freedom in Hungary. Additionally, by singling them out based on their national identity, Hungary has created a division between the released servicemen and other Ukrainian prisoners of war and soldiers, regardless of whether they identify themselves as ethnic Ukrainians or members of national minorities.
Finally, there is Article 21, which states that “nothing in this Framework Convention shall be interpreted as conferring any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.” This includes activities or actions that contradict the fundamental principles of international law, including the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and political independence of states.
The actions of the Hungarian government towards Ukrainian prisoners of war and the statements made by Orbán and Szijjártó leave no doubt that official Budapest is using the Hungarian minority to grossly violate international law. The Hungarian government has taken actions that contradict the sovereign equality of signatory states to the Convention (the release took place without informing Ukraine), territorial integrity (ethnic Hungarians should not be defending Ukraine), and political independence (the fate of Ukrainian servicemen is being decided without involving Ukraine).
Hungarian (un)phantom pains after Trianon
In media and expert analyses of Hungary’s foreign policy towards ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries, it has long been noted that it mirrors Russia’s policy towards “Russian-speaking populations,” “near abroad,” and “historical territories.”
Let us also pay attention to another aspect. The preamble to the Convention states that it was adopted by the Council of Europe “considering that the turbulent events experienced by European history confirm that the protection of national minorities is of crucial importance for ensuring stability, democracy, and peace on this continent.
The term “turbulent events” refers to the 1920s and 1930s when national minorities were used as instruments by revisionist states and held as hostages. Examples that everyone knows from history lessons include the issue of German minorities in Czechoslovakia and Poland, as well as the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia (actually in Carpathian Ukraine), Romania, and Yugoslavia.
See also: The Ministry of Truth of Orban. How do anti-Ukrainian and anti-European propaganda work in Hungary?
“The protection of national minorities and the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities form an integral part of the international protection of human rights and as such constitute one of the dimensions of international cooperation,” Article 1 of the Convention states to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Therefore, protection pertains to national minorities as groups of citizens. However, the subjects of rights and freedoms associated with this protection are individual persons, not collective minorities. To emphasize this fact, the Convention specifies that the rights and freedoms are exercised by individuals belonging to national minorities “in conjunction with others.”
Hungary disregards these fundamental principles of international law, considering Hungarian national communities as part of the Hungarian nation unjustly divided by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. The scandalous release of the 11 Ukrainian prisoners of war demonstrated that for official Budapest, the matter of revising (revisiting) Trianon has moved from historical sentiment and political rhetoric to practical implementation.
For now, it’s a tentative step, but the situation may change when the current government in Budapest loses its grip. Therefore, Ukraine must act decisively and firmly, utilizing all available tools to challenge Hungary’s actions before international courts. Drawing on the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, among others.
Pope’s meetings with Hilarion and Anthony
And finally, the issue of Budapest’s allies, which include not only Moscow but also the Vatican. Let’s recall that in the statement from the Moscow Patriarchate on June 8, it was mentioned that the release of the prisoners of war took place “with the mediation of the Russian Orthodox Church” and “within the framework of inter-church cooperation.” Later, it became known that the partner of Patriarch Kirill’s Church was the Sovereign Military Order of Malta — a Catholic charitable organization with roots dating back to the Crusades of the 11th-13th centuries.
The Order has an international legal personality (note that the Ambassador of Ukraine to the Vatican also serves as an ambassador to the Order of Malta), but it is strictly subordinate to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, all questions regarding the role of the Knights of Malta in the release of Ukrainian servicemen should be addressed to the Apostolic see and personally to Pope Francis. For Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio, “inter-church cooperation” with the Russian Orthodox Church is one of the defining goals of his pontificate.
In February 2016, jointly with Patriarch Kirill, they signed the so-called Havana Declaration, which outlined their vision of the world, Europe, and Ukraine. In paragraph 26, they called upon “our Churches in Ukraine work towards achieving social harmony, refrain from involvement in the confrontation, and not support further development of the conflict.”
The hierarchs were supposed to meet for the second time in June 2022 in Jerusalem, but due to sharp criticism of the Pope’s statements regarding the war in Ukraine, the Vatican postponed the meeting, although it did not reject the idea of such a meeting. Likewise, it did not abandon attempts to present its own peace initiative regarding the end of the war in Ukraine.
Two months ago, the Pope moved from ideas to actions. Upon returning from his visit to Hungary (April 28-30, 2023), he cryptically hinted that a “peace initiative” was being prepared. A month later, it became known that the Pope had appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi of Bologna as his special envoy to Kyiv and Moscow.
He visited Ukraine on June 5-6 and Russia on June 28-29. In Ukraine, the cardinal declared that he did not bring any “peace plan” because his task is to listen. Before his visit to Moscow, the Vatican press office issued a communiqué stating that the goal of the peace initiative is “to encourage gestures of humanity that can contribute to resolving the current tragic situation and find ways to achieve a just peace.”
It can be assumed that the release of the Ukrainian prisoners of war was precisely the “gesture of humanity” that the Pope discussed in Budapest with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, the Budapest and Hungarian Metropolitan, whom he referred to as his “old friend.” It is possible that the Pope spoke about this release (as a significant step towards peace and his visit to Moscow).
Until June 2022, Hilarion served as the head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), and his transfer to the capital of Hungary may have seemed like a demotion or exile. However, I believe that it is not the case, but that is a subject for another conversation.
The Pope has already received Metropolitan Anthony Sevryuk, Hilarion’s successor, in several audiences, most recently in May and June of this year. The intensity of these contacts and conversations indicates that Francis is getting closer to his goal: to meet with Putin in Moscow, look him in the eye, and in this way, bring peace to Ukraine. From this perspective, the Pope’s trip to Kyiv is just an intermediate station.
The scandalous circumstances of the release of Ukrainian prisoners of war and the aura of mystery that surrounds it require special attention from the Ukrainian authorities and society. We should not trust anything, we should check everything. That is why our diplomacy needs to turn to the Apostolic see for clarification of its role and the role of the Order of Malta in the transfer of Ukrainian prisoners of war to Hungary.
Originally posted by Mykola Kniazhytskyi on Espreso. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
