Hungary threatened by Maidan-style protest

Budapest has been shaken by several days of mass street demonstration against plans by Viktor Orban’s government to introduce a tax on the internet. According to the media, 100,000 Hungarians came out onto the streets of Hungary’s capital to tell the prime minister “no”.

In and of itself, the internet tax is a weak excuse for the organisation of 100,000-strong demonstrations. And, of course, demands to abolish the tax turned into demands for the resignation of Hungary’s ‘dictatorial’ and ‘corrupt’ government. Attacks were also launched on government buildings: as one, internet users pelted them with stones, notebooks and mobile phones.

Other signs of a ‘Hungarian Maidan’ were also evident: demonstrators defiantly jumped around chanting “He who does not jump pays the tax” (the Ukrainian version of this standard spectacle is “He who does not jump is a Moskal”). Local human rights defenders declared that introducing a tax on the internet is an assassination attempt on freedom of speech unacceptable for a democracy.

Among the demonstrators was the U.S. charge d’affaires in Hungary, Andre Goodfriend, who previously reported that the US authorities had banned six Hungarian nationals close to the Hungarian prime minister from entering the country.

It appears that Washington was protesting against the corrupt practices of these Hungarian nationals and expressed its displeasure to Viktor Orban in Brussels. On her Twitter page, the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, backed the street demonstrations and called for those who still had not done so to join them.

Western media write that Orban is under the influence of Putin. Orban himself has had to state more than once that he is not a pro-Russian but a pro-Hungarian politician, but he continues to be accused of yielding to pressure from Moscow. And no wonder: he has introduced restrictions on the work of foreign companies in the country, has too much power concentrated in his hands, and has approved Hungary’s neoliberal Constitution.

Orban is guilty before European democracy in a number of ways. As the father of five children, he resolutely opposes attempts to register the cohabitation of same-sex couples as ‘marriage’. He was also opposed to economic sanctions against Russia, calling them nonsensical, and saying they would do more harm to EU countries than to Russia. In addition, he is calling for compensation from Brussels for the losses incurred by Hungarian manufacturers as a result of curtailed cooperation with their Russian partners.

The head of the Hungarian government is not able to withstand all pressure, however. It was not long before Orban had to declare that Hungary stood with Germany in its assessment of events in Ukraine, and that the introduction of sanctions was a justified move.

It is easy to conclude that the change in the Hungarian prime minister’s initial position was a consequence of pressure from Berlin.

Thus, representatives of Deutsche Telekom’s subsidiary Magyar Telekom, Hungary’s largest internet company, have expressed their outrage at Orban’s plans to introduce a tax on the internet. Berlin is also putting pressure on Orban in other ways. Following German Minister of State for Europe Michael Roth’s visit to Budapest during the street demonstrations, the Hungarian prime minister declared that the government had listened to the people and the tax would not be introduced.

Yet the battle formations of a Maidan-style protest movement in Hungary remain ready to go. The leader of the protests, liberal Balazs Nemes, has reported that the protesters are in touch with each other and are ready to go back out onto the streets the instant that the authorities decide to launch an offensive on their civil rights. Balazs Nemes has referred to Viktor Orban’s leadership style as “the most appalling tyranny”.

The Hungarian prime minister’s independence, including with regard to Russia, has long irritated both Brussels and Washington.

Viktor Orban’s statements regarding his intention of finding allies in Europe capable of opposing the introduction of new sanctions against Russia together have not gone unnoticed.

Western capitals have been particularly outraged by the fact that on 4 November 2014, the Hungarian parliament passed a law allowing the construction of the South Stream pipeline to take place in Hungary, despite the position of the European Commission. Thanks to this law, Hungary now has a legal basis for refusing to comply with the requirements of the EU’s Third Energy Package.

Protests in Budapest against “the most appalling tyranny” are a warning to Viktor Orban, and a reminder of the fate of another Viktor – Viktor Yanukovych.

The street protests organised in the Hungarian capital should also be regarded as a warning to eastern European ‘Russophiles’ like Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico or Czech President Miloš Zeman, since their attitude towards anti-Russian sanctions and events in Ukraine is much like that of Orban.

Source: Ron Paul Institute

China says US behind Hong Kong protests

A commentary in the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party on Saturday accused the U.S. of trying to foment a “color revolution” in Hong Kong.

The commentary, which was entitled “Why is the U.S. so keen on ‘Color Revolutions’?”, appeared on the front page of the The People’s Daily overseas editions on Saturday. The People’s Daily is the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party.

The commentary deems it “inevitable” that the U.S. actions towards Hong Kong “will be associated with the US involvement in the ‘Color Revolutions’ in the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere.” The People’s Daily then slams the U.S. for pretending to be interested in democracy when it is really only trying to advance its “strategic interests.” For the United States, the commentary claims, a “‘democratic’ country is one that conducts its affairs in line with American interests.”

The commentary ends by stating that “U.S. may enjoy the sweet taste of interfering in other countries’ internal affairs, but on the issue of Hong Kong it stands little chance of overcoming the determination of the Chinese government to maintain stability and prosperity.”

Although China has strongly implied that foreigners were secretly controlling the Hong Kong protests in recent weeks, the commentary was the first time it so explicitly accused the U.S. of being behind the movement. Its support for this accusation is not very compelling, however, as it mostly focuses on the coverage of independent different media outlets, one of which appears to be a Hong Kong-based online publication.

The commentary begins by noting that, “according to media reports,” Louisa Greve, National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) the Vice President for Asia, Middle East & North Africa, and Global Programs, met with “key people” in Occupy Central “several months ago” to “talk about the movement.” The unidentified media reports the article references likely refers to an earlier report published in a “Hong Kong-based pro-Beijing newspaper,” according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post. The allegations themselves are most likely based on a NED-hosted public discussion on democracy in Hong Kong between Occupy Central leaders Martin Lee and Anson Chan that was held in Washington, DC in April of this year. Louisa Greve mediated the hour long talk, a video of which is available on YouTube.

The National Endowment for Democracy is a democracy promotion organization that, while administered as a private non-profit organization, receives the bulk of its funding from the U.S. government. In 2013 it gave two grants that together totaled less than $300,000 to two organizations for work on Hong Kong. Only one of those organizations is based in Hong Kong.

However, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a subsidiary of the NED, does maintain a tiny office in Hong Kong. The Diplomat has learned that NDI’s Hong Kong office typically employs one international staff member and occasionally hires one or two locals to help out when needed. Most of NDI’s work in Hong Kong focuses on holding workshops attended by young leaders from all interested political parties that focus on building skills in areas like public speaking, campaign strategy, message development and message delivery. The Diplomat has learned that NDI has regularly worked with pro-Beijing political parties in Hong Kong who, like all political parties, hope to prevail in local elections. Local Hong Kong press have occasionally accused NDI of being a front for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the past.

Beyond NED, the People’s Daily article notes that three former U.S. Consuls General to Hong Kong had “recently united” to write an open letter to Hong Kong Chief Executive CY Leung.

Most of the People’s Daily’s claim that the U.S. is trying to foment a color revolution in Hong Kong, however, is based on mainstream newspapers using the term “Umbrella Revolution” in their coverage of the Hong Kong protests. For example, it notes that the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal had used the term “Umbrella Revolution” in their Hong Kong coverage. Neither organization is affiliated with the U.S. government.

The People’s Daily commentary also claimed the “The Times Asia” had used the Umbrella Revolution phrase. It wasn’t entirely clear which publication the commentary was referring to, but it most likely it meant Asia Times Online. Asia Times Online is a Hong Kong-based online publication that grew out of a former Hong Kong and Bangkok-based daily print newspaper. Asia Times Online claims to cover issues “from an Asian perspective; this distinguishes us from the mainstream English-language media, whose reporting on Asian matters is generally by Westerners, for Westerners.”

Source: The Diplomat