The development of the independent peace movement The Hungarian independent peace movement is young, but already has considerable experience. The Peace Group for a Dialogue was created in 1981 in the hope that the gradual liberalisation of the Hungarian regime in recent years would favour the organisation of an independent peace movement (see IV, No 33, June 27, 1983).
It was even prepared to pay a high political price in order for its activities to be tolerated. The group pledged itself not to oppose in an open way the government's foreign policy in relation to defence. Such loyality would allow the activists, or so they thought, a relative organisational independence in their work.
Some leaders of the group even considered it necessary to make an extra effort to prove themselves, and openly took their distance from the 'dissidents' of the democratic opposition. The Dialogue group under its samizdat name of 'Beszelo' had the strong impression that the regime of Janos Kadar, the first secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party,
The orientation of this official peace body consists, amongst other things, of supporting the provisions for military steps the Soviet Union might deem necessary to counter the Western military buildup.
As the price for a pseudo-independence for his group, Koszegi demonstrated his readiness to keep quiet about all such problems. Members of the 6-4-0 group are not automatically required to become members of the Peace Council, which allows them to retain an appearance of independence.
By capitulating in this way to the diplomatic policies of the regime, Koszegy presents himself in Western Europe as the official 'independent' representative of the regime.
At the international peace movement conference that took place in Perugia, Italy, in July 1984 (see IV, No 61, October 16, 1984), Hungary became the first country in the Eastern bloc to institute the policy of sending a mixed delegation made up of traditional official delegates and 'independent official' delegates.
For the occasion, since they still had not been able to draw in enough people from the old Dialogue group, Koszegi got an escort of two old wolves from the Hungarian political establishment. The fact that these people had never had anything to do with the peace movement did not bother anyone. The regime's image was rescued. The Hungarian media could, with some concrete arguments, proudly announce to the population that democratisation of society was following its.course.
For their part, the foreign press was only too happy to note, with great satisfaction, yet another sign of the renewal of the reform policy. A good proportion of the Western peace movement was hoodwinked by this.
Some peace movement leaders even thought it necessary to safeguard the links with this different sort of regime, to reserve special treatment for Hungary.
With great difficulty, the members of the old independent peace group, Dialogue, managed to reorganise. A good proportion of the old members continued to meet. The Budapest group even decided to ignore the ban and to keep the name of Dialogue. They had to confront a new situation. Today it is impossible for this group to organise public activities in a continuous way. The most innocent activity brings unrelenting repression.
• For example, Vermezo Park in Budapest was declared a nuclear-free zone on Sunday afternoon July 27, and within minutes the police moved in, forcibly removing white flags and banners. Furthermore, the tenant of the apartment where the group used to meet was interrogated by police, and eventually had to move. Several members of Dialogue have been interrogated by police under various pretexts.
It is very difficult to define a new orientation in such circumstances. Any
International Viewpoint 14 January 1985 would tolerate such an experiment. Antoine DELAGRANGE
The rest is well-known. The Dialogue groups became more and more popular with the youth of Budapest and several other Hungarian towns. The regime saw a real danger in their growth: the political stability of the preceding years was still fragile. And the Dialogue groups' orientation, combining a determination to take a loyalist attitude toward certain aspects of the regime's policy with independence in action, could not offer sufficient guarantees for the regime in the long term for it to be able to tolerate such activity.
The celebrated Hungarian reforms have been in the economic and cultural fields but not in the military domain. Not only was this peace group med. dling in taboo political subjects but its growing influence and ability to organise could sooner or later have effects on the basis of Dialogue's programme itself.
The determination to maintain a loyal attitude to the regime played up by the original leaders of the group was not enough to reassure the Kadarist regime. A political bureau of gerontocrats could not have much faith in adolescents who were newcomers to big-time politics. In the beginning, representatives of the regime participated in meetings and public debates organised by Dialogue. But once it became clear that this would not be enough to reintegrate peace groups into the official structures, the political bureau decided to act, putting a stop to this experiment of independence.
A summer peace camp organised in 1983 by Dialogue on an island in the Danube between Buda and Pest that brought together Dutch and Hungarian peace activists and a delegation of women from Greenham Common (in England) was brutally attacked by police. The foreigners were forcibly escorted out 24 of the country. Then the Dialogue group was banned outright. Its members were not prepared for such an eventuality. They had been convinced that they could become an accepted part of Hungarian political life. They never imagined that despite their loyalty they could be put outside the law. The Kadarist regime, of course, had to take account of the negative consequences of their decision. Repressive action threatened to tarnish their image both in the eyes of the Hungarian people, as well as abroad.
The minor policy differences that exist between Hungary and its neighbours in the East are very important for a regime that has succeeded in uniting a large part of the population around a project of limited but real reforms. This distinction has enabled the Hungarian government, in fact, to obtain more favourable treatment from the capitalist countries. In order to legitimise repression of the peace movement, the Kadar regime, therefore, resorted to an ingenious strategy. One of the leaders of Dialogue, Ferenc Koszegi, was authorised to organise a new group under a new name.
This new group is called 6-4-0 with the numbers six and four representing the number of years that the First and Second World Wars lasted [for Hungary] and zero, the hope that there will not be another one. Its aim was to appeal to and organise young peace activists who had been responsive to the language and arguments of Dialogue and who the Peace Council, the official peace organisation, was utterly incapable of attracting.
Granting legality to the former group could seem to justify banning competing ones. With a bit of luck, this game might even convince the outside world that the regime in Hungary really was different.
Koszegi played along with this game, announcing that he would follow the policy of the Peace Council from then on.
hope of becoming a legitimate movement in the eyes of the authorities is now lost. But a majority of Dialogue members still do not want to let themselves be pushed into the shadows of political life and to have to face repression.
The choice which presents itself to them is a painful one: either to continue them is a paintul one: eitner to continue the struggle and risk being completely pushed into a corner, or to withdraw from all political activity.
In the first instance the majority of Dialogue members tried to avoid this dilemma by substituting for political activity and discussion more discreet actions (such as symbolic actions, internal activities, etc.) which did not seem so likely to atrract the attention of the minister of the interior. But this could not suffice, nor could it last.
Dialogue was obliged to redefine its own identity in relation to the Kadarist regime. The group, therefore, decided to organise programmatic discussions on perspectives for action.
The division of Europe into two antagonistic blocs, the military occupation of Hungary by the Soviet army, the military policy of their own government -on all these questions Dialogue was forced to take positions. Under these conditions, it was no longer feasible for it to maintain a loyalist stance toward the regime. Contact between peace activists and the democratic opposition is being renewed. Dialogue no longer feels obliged to take its distance from the dissidents.
Dialogue also feels part of the international peace movement. But the failure of sections of the Western peace movement to define a political orientation on the peace question acceptable to the peoples of Eastern Europe means that not only must the independent peace movement in Hungary raise criticisms about this but also that there has to be an ongoing discussion between peace activists in the East and West.
On this political basis, a new orientation in public activity will become possible. Dialogue runs the risk of drawing the wrath of the ministry of the interior again, of course. This is mainly because it still has the potential for regaining the following it had two years ago.
But Dialogue also holds some real trump cards. Its members have no illusions this time about the goodwill of the regime. The group will, therefore, be stronger and more prepared to stand up to the regime.
The Western peace movement carries a huge responsibility for mobilising to counter such a perspective of repression. The forces of repression will have a great deal of difficulty in defeating a group with structured links with the international peace movement. The price will be even higher for a regime whose international image is under threat.
The non-official independent peace ac: tivists of Hungary have not been present at meetings of the international peace movement such as the one in Perugia. International Viewpoint 14 January 1985
Before the banning, Dialogue had only just started to build links with the European peace movement. Western peace activists, on the other hand, have the means to bring sufficient pressure to bear to get guarantees from the Kadarist reCZECHOSLOVAKIA.