ABSTRACT: Marco Pannella speaks of the proposal advanced by the Radical party of Hungary joining the European Community, analyzing the reasons the reasons which have led the Radical party to their struggle for the United States of Europe.

(Magyar Hirlap - Budapest, 30 March 1990)

1. Why does the transnational Radical party wish for Hungary to join the European Community as soon as possible?

Because we want the United States of Europe. You see, we have this small defect of wanting to be realists, in consequence of and accordance with what has been forecast unremittingly for forty years by prominent scientists, prestigious political leaders, whether on the "right" or "left", in the "West", "East" or "Center" of Europe. The point is that it is no longer possible to provide satisfactory answers to the great political, social, economic questions, or to those relating to the safeguard of our environment, our society, or our values within the narrow framework of our national borders. This has been recognized in principle (and not only in principle) by Germany, France, Italy, i.e. by countries of a significant dimension, as early as the Fifties. Great Britain used to deem this by now overriding truth unnecessary, but they have finally been forced to concede the obvious.

Undoubtedly then, at a time when Hungary is breaking with a heritage, with traditions and customs, many of these, such as membership in the Warsaw pact, have been shown to the very "tenants de l'Ancien Régime" to be a total failure. And at the

very time when Hungary is about to resume its ties in the market economy, it would irrealistic and inconsequent, aside from suicidal, to assume or cause others to assume that there exists a Hungarian or national road towards a perestroika in Hungary.

This is why, we feel, plain and simply, that Hungary and not only Hungary should join the EEC as soon as possible.

2. What does "as soon as possible" mean?

It means, first of all, choosing a method. The EEC must become immediately and unilaterally the frame of reference for all the

reforms, legislation, measures and regulations awaiting the next Hungarian government. Unlike those who argue EEC membership is to be the conclusion of at least a lengthy reform process, we maintain that EEC membership must ne the main, central and seminal means. And if this is the method which is chosen, then the official membership request naturally becomes the first manifestation of this choice. The second point would be to stage a referendum, were it decided necessary to stregthen this choice in the eyes of Hungary's citizens and the members of the EEC.

3. There are known to many incompatibilities between Hungary and the EEC. These incompatibilities are invoked by the "communalists" in order to reject the membership of eastern countries. In your opinion, do the confedation schemes of Mr. Mitterrand or those regarding federation of Mr. Delors show any signs of change in this negative attitude?

There surely exist, as is repeated endlessly, great differences between the economies of EEC countries and Hungary's economy. There is also no doubt that when it comes time to settle into membership negotiations, that economic experts and political authorities will be up against a very demanding task. But that is what these experts are for abd history shows that when the political willingness exists, troubles of this kind may be worked out.

As for Jacques Delors, his current stance unquestionably suggests a shift in views. He claims, if I have properly construed his rationale, that in the face of the incredible happenings in Central and Eastern Europe, that the European Community is today unable to provide adequate answers. It is necessary for the Coomunity to gather strength and turn into a true political federation. This is his final pronouncement, which allows no appeal, to the effect that building Europe on the basis of economic integration has outlived itself. And since he still states that before enlarging, the Community must be strengthened,

it seems to me that it would take very, very little for him to realize that the EEC membership of Hungary, and likely Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, would provide just the catalyst needed to strengthen the Community, the "x" factor which would prompt the member states to decide to move to the constituency stage of the United States of Europe.

We are not only dealing with a "community" problem, as is too often incorrectly assumed. Efforts are currently under way in Central America to reconstruct, politically and institutionally,

national democratic states. This process is felt to be, in terms of plain instinct and also the history of law and liberty, suicidal. I am somewhat amazed by party ideology, by the national introversion of those who are today about to gather the heritage of the so-called Socialist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. Aside from the refusal to look at the differing shapes of democracy, history has added partitocracy, a form of democracy which runs the risk of becoming what real socialsim used to be vis-à-vis the ideals of socialist and liberal humanism. In Italy, the Radical party has often denounced the "anti-fascist" post-fascists as being the true heirs of fascism and not of anti-fascism. The Party has documented the fascism of those anti-fascists.

And today, when Delors states - although nobody has written about this - that in May, the Community may risk experiencing, for lack of conscience and federalist determination, the gravest crisis ever, we are even more effected by hostile attidues, by our

"displacement", by the censuring of our existence by new subjects of the establishment or those about to become so, than we were at the time when we were totally banned, denounced and harassed by the former regimes.

4. What is the international or inter-European background to your rationale?

There is no background. Only what we see every day. The rising tension between Romanians and Hungarians, between Hungarians and Slovaks, between Germans and Poles, between Orthodox Bulgarians and Bulgarian Muslims, between Slovenes and Serbs, between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, between English and Irish, Basques and Spaniards, etc. Then there is Africa and the Third world whom we are unable to deal with in a responsible fashion. There is also the life of our planet, which is in peril of death, there is the prohibitionist plague on drugs, with its procession of evil which undermines persons, states, laws and those who couldn't care less about borders,...The choice is clear. We either opt for fractionalism, for another Versailles, with all the ensuing risks and impotence this entails, or else we strive to invent something new which is capable of meeting the challenges of our times: the United States of the citizens of Europe.

5. Is there some kind of agreement between you and other politicians regarding Hungary's proposed membership in EEC and if so, with whom?

I am convinced there is a very broad and clear feeling in the EEC about trying to understand each other and subscribing to a proposal of this kind. This is true of public opinion as it is in political spheres. It is necessary, as it is every time something important is at stake, or something involving sacrifice which may change our everyday life, that people be made aware, that they be informed. I am thankful to you for giving the readership of Magyar Hirlap this opportunity.

But since I think you want names, I don't think I would be too far off track if I were to mention such men and women as Giulio Andreotti, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Helmut Schmidt, Felipe Gonzalez, Geoffrey Howe, Otto Habsburg, Mark Eyskens, Simone Veil, Oskar Lafontaine, Achille Ochetto, Michel Noir, ...Francois Mitterrand perhaps, Jacques Delors for certain. These are the people who are already able to look ahead and realize the importance of this goal.

6. Does the unification of Germany provide the driving force behind the achievement of your current proposals?

We started talking about Hungary joining the EEC a long time before the sacred cow of German unity arose. As regards Yugoslavia, records from the European Parliament clearly show that this is a matter I have been triying to place on the EEC agenda for ten years. And the fact that others have felt the wall would be eternal, or at least a lot harder to knock down, is incontovertible. And that they wished for this to be so "à leur coeur défendant" is also quite likely. This may well explain why the issue has taken them by surprise and caught them unprepared. As far as I am concerned, only the expeditious creation of the United States of Europe will be able to prove a strong and credible reply to the tremendous risk of reawakened national-democratic trends, whether German or Hungarian.

But for this to come about, political entities must urgently be set up which are not of nationalist making or party-made internationals. I must also emphasize that today the Radical party is the only political reality which is thinking and acting in this sense. There are Radicals fron 14 countries on the Federal Council I preside over which represents all shades of the political spectrum. And as for the Italian members, for instance, we have deputees, senators, Socialdemocratic party leaders, Greens, Communists, ...The Radical party is the only federalist and European international advocating direct and individual membership. It is the only nonviolent, Ghandian organization, which, for over 50 years has been confronting issues which seem to have been blatantly ignored. It is an organization which costs those who belong two florins per day, one fourth the price of a metro ticket. It is an organization whose headquarters in Budapest are in Tanacs krt 11.