Hungary Banned from EU Meeting Over Ukraine Position
In a bold diplomatic maneuver that underscores growing tensions within the European Union, Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief, has made the unprecedented decision to relocate an upcoming meeting of foreign and defense ministers from Budapest to Brussels. This move, stripping Hungary of its traditional hosting rights as the current holder of the rotating EU Council presidency, comes in direct response to Hungary's controversial stance on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
The decision, announced by Borrell on Monday, has sent ripples through the EU's diplomatic circles. It marks a significant departure from established protocol and highlights the increasing frustration among EU member states with Hungary's approach to the war in Ukraine, particularly in light of Prime Minister Viktor Orban's recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
Borrell, addressing reporters, emphasized the symbolic nature of the decision, stating, "We have to send a signal, even if it is a symbolic signal." He pointedly criticized Orban's post-meeting comments accusing the EU of maintaining a "pro-war policy," countering, "If you want to talk about the war party, talk about Putin."
The move has garnered widespread support within the EU, with 25 out of 27 member states backing Borrell's decision. Only Slovakia has aligned itself with Hungary in this dispute. However, Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel voiced a dissenting opinion, arguing for engagement rather than isolation. Bettel contended that boycotting Budapest would be "nonsense" and stressed the importance of direct dialogue to express the EU's discontent.
Hungary's response to the snub was swift and acerbic. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto took to Facebook, dismissing the EU's action as "completely childish" and likening it to behavior in a kindergarten. This reaction underscores the deepening rift between Hungary and its EU counterparts.
The controversy stems from Orban's self-described "peace mission," which included meetings with leaders of Ukraine and China, as well as former U.S. President Donald Trump, alongside the contentious Putin meeting. This diplomatic foray, launched just days after Hungary assumed the EU Council presidency, drew sharp criticism from EU leaders. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen characterized it as "nothing but an appeasement mission," while other European leaders questioned Orban's authority to negotiate on behalf of the EU and criticized the message it sent to Ukraine.
This episode is but the latest in a series of disagreements between Hungary and the EU regarding the appropriate response to Russia's actions in Ukraine. Since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022, Hungary has frequently found itself at odds with the majority EU position. Orban's post-election rhetoric in April 2022, identifying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as someone he would have to "battle" in his fourth term, set the tone for Hungary's divergent stance.
Further straining relations, Hungary has repeatedly wielded its veto power to delay crucial financial aid packages to Ukraine, including a substantial €50 billion non-military assistance program last year.
The decision to relocate the August 28-30 meetings to Brussels represents a significant escalation in the EU's approach to internal dissent. It signals a willingness to take concrete actions, beyond mere verbal condemnation, to address what many perceive as Hungary's undermining of EU unity and values.
As the EU grapples with the challenges posed by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and seeks to maintain a united front, this unprecedented step highlights the complex dynamics at play within the bloc. It raises questions about the limits of national sovereignty within the EU framework and the balance between maintaining unity and respecting diverse national perspectives.
The coming months will likely see continued tension between Hungary and its EU partners as the bloc navigates the delicate balance between internal cohesion and effective external action in the face of geopolitical challenges. This episode serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggles within the EU to forge a coherent and unified approach to critical international issues, particularly in times of crisis.