Opinion | How the E.U. and NATO should respond to Hungarys authoritarian Orban – The Washington Post

Enlarging the European Union and NATO after the Cold War raised hopes it would unleash an important advance for freedom in a part of the world that had enjoyed little. Integrating former Eastern Bloc countries into keystone Western institutions and requiring democratic and market-oriented reforms for them to join exclusive clubs of wealthy nations would discourage anti-Western nationalism and intolerance. For the most part, this strategy has worked, with countries that once suffered behind the Iron Curtain now vibrant democracies.

Yet the strategy came with risks, chiefly that countries would regress after joining the Western order and undermine from within the Wests commitment to promoting freedom and democracy. So it is with Hungary, whose nationalist and authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, has built what he calls an illiberal state and has spoiled European efforts to advance democracy in Ukraine. European leaders meet Thursday to discuss what to do; anything but determination to curb Mr. Orban would signal European weakness at a time when strength is essential for global security.

The E.U., which Hungary entered in 2004, is devoted to building societies in which pluralism, nondiscrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. NATO, which Hungary joined in 1999, seeks to create a lasting peace in Europe based on members common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Mr. Orban has sabotaged both.

The latest example is his foot-dragging on Swedens admission to NATO, a proposed enlargement of the alliance spurred by Russias aggression in Ukraine. Mr. Orban has pledged that Hungary will approve but has stood by as the parliament he controls has delayed action. Hungary now is the last holdout in the alliance. On Jan. 23, Mr. Orban invited Swedens prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, to Budapest to negotiate on Swedens ascension, an unseemly extension of his hand for an undeserved reward.

Mr. Orbans behavior in the E.U. is equally as troubling. In December, he abstained from a vote on allowing Ukraine to begin the process of membership, stepping out of the room as the other 26 members of the bloc voted a green light. But at the same summit, Mr. Orban directly blocked a $55 billion E.U. aid package for Ukraine and vowed to fight it well into the future, saying there are about 75 occasions when the Hungarian government can stop this process.

Thus, the E.U.'s consensus-based process enables Mr. Orban to serve Russian President Vladimir Putin, who would like nothing better than to paralyze the European Union as he seeks to destroy Ukraine. It was Ukraines strong desire to join the European club, and not be under Mr. Putins thumb, that led to Mr. Putins invasions of Ukraine, in 2014 and 2022. Should Mr. Orban continue to block Ukraine aid, E.U. members can use bilateral channels to send help, effectively bypassing Hungary, but this could take longer and would be more unwieldy.

When it began, Hungarys Fidesz party was made up of young people committed to progressive values. But under Mr. Orbans leadership in the 1990s it shifted to a conservative right-wing outlook, and after a landslide election victory in 2010, he neutered the constitutional court and drafted a new constitution that reflected a collectivist, nationalist worldview, no longer basing its system of fundamental rights on the individual, according to Zsuzsanna Szelnyi, author of Tainted Democracy, a 2022 book about Mr. Orban. Mr. Orban nationalized much of the economy, undercut free and fair elections and human rights, and enabled allies to take over most of the national media. His rhetoric bristles with hostility to immigrants, LGBTQ+ people and the European Union.

There is no E.U. mechanism to suspend or expel a member, but the bloc can withhold funds and suspend voting rights. Largely out of concern over Mr. Orbans poor rule-of-law record, the European Commission had withheld funds for Hungary; but in December, at the time of the Ukraine discussion, the commission released approximately $11 billion, saying that Hungary had met conditions for judicial independence. The commission continues to lock up about $23 billion. Continued financial pressure is critical to deliver the message that a member cannot corrode the blocs values.

Members of the European Parliament and some others have called for exploring a more severe option: suspending Hungarys voting rights. Doing so risks diminishing the bloc in the future, should populists take power in other E.U. nations. A better option is to make the E.U. less vulnerable to Orban-like manipulation, reforming voting rules so that fewer decisions require unanimity. Majority or supermajority rule would suit a bloc devoted to democracy and curb the likes of Mr. Orban from destroying from within one of the Wests most successful institutions.

Original post:
Opinion | How the E.U. and NATO should respond to Hungarys authoritarian Orban - The Washington Post