Thursday, November 20, 2014

Why is the West so upset with Viktor Orbán?




by Philip George. Bucharest
The prime ministers and presidents of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have been accused numerous times in the U.S. media lately for coordinating movements against American influence in the region. 
Is someone still wondering why people are on the streets of Budapest shouting “freedom!”, “Europe!” and other senseless things like that? There is a strong resemblance with the Euromaidan style Soros & Co. backed protests in Ukraine, although Hungary is already a democratic country and a full member of the European Union and NATO. Was the internet tax really a reason for people to turn against a government which was… inefficient or anti-social? On the contrary, the Orbán government was highly efficient and under its leadership Hungary’s economy and the living standards of its citizens considerably improved. 

In the context of the current conflict with Moscow, it is vital for the Western powers to have their pawns placed in key positions in countries situated near the Russian Federation, in order to assure that these countries will be disciplined and obedient in following U.S., NATO and EU directives. The bigger a country’s autonomy is, the better are the chances of it to dissociate from some strategies conceived by Washington and Brussels. So, an autonomous policy (focused on national interests, not on NATO’s priorities) is the last thing the West wants, considering the fact that it already has big problems, in this regard, with states like Turkey, Czech Republic and Slovakia. A relatively independent leader that manifests hesitations towards the intransigence against Russia such as Orbán Viktor in Budapest, Miloš Zeman in Prague, Robert Fico in Bratislava or Erdogan in Ankara, who also censor Western directives depending on the national interests they represent, is a great source of trouble for the major powers that want to control the world.  
Why is the West so upset on Viktor Orbán? For his right-wing radicalism? Not at all, this would even be pleasing for the neoconservative U.S. republicans and many other Western right forces. What’s unacceptable is the fact that the Hungarian leader always sets the interests of his country above the priorities of the major powers. This thing will not be forgiven. 
The best proof of Western intransigence towards autonomous regimes (with policies focused on national independence in relation to major strategic actors) is, as indicated by most analysts, the systematic undermining, by the United States, of Arab modernizing regimes in North Africa and the Middle East. All these regimes were not only oriented towards modernization, but were also nationalist regimes, which meant that they were also capable of initiating independent policies and become potential regional powers following the exploitation and selling (at fair prices) of the vast resources under their possession (mainly oil and gas). This is exactly what the Western powers could not allow and could not forgive; this is what led to the (mostly violent) overthrowing of these regimes, even at the cost (which we can see nowadays) of an explosion of Islamic radicalism which took their place and is now ruling in these regions.  
Who is to follow? Probably the Czech Republic and Slovakia, since Erdogan is still useful to Washington in their proxy war against Syria.
IOUCO TEAM
the truth will set us free

No comments:

Post a Comment

ST

Please Like Us On facebook