W E E K Lthe

c e n t r a l e u r o p e a n u n i v e r s i t y

YAn independent newspaper by CEU students and alumni March 4, 2015, Year 5, Issue 58

crosstalk2- Hungarian

foreign affairs

6 - Budapest open debating tournament

4-5 - an opinion on Student union funding practices

3 - euroscepticism

(pol

itico

m.co

)

THE CEU WEEKLY

2

Hungarian News

The Prospects and Pitfalls of Hungarian Foreign Policy

On Monday evening, February 24, one of the lecture halls at the Faculty of Law of the Hungarian Eötvös Lóránd University was packed with students from all around Budapest. They came to witness the debate between Péter

Szijjártó, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, and Péter Balázs, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary in 2009-2010 and who is now a professor in the Department of International Relations and European Studies at CEU.

After a slightly awkward start—Szijjártó arrived a few min-utes late and interrupted the opening speech of the represen-tative of the event organizers—both speakers were asked to provide their views on the current standing of Hungarian for-eign affairs. They agreed that this policy area has moved to the center of public debate, and Szijjártó even asserted that it has become part of domestic politics. They also jointly highlighted the need for more flexible and faster reactions by the executive when facing international crises.

But the two disagreed over the Hungarian approach to-day. Understandably, Szijjártó defended the current govern-ment and Prime Minister. When asked how he saw the current situation, Szijjártó responded with the claim it is ‘obviously, extremely posi-tive’. Then he switched to a more administrative style by outlining five priorities of the Hungarian government in foreign policy.From these five priorities,

the one that triggered most disagreement was definitely the suggestion of the need for a ‘pragmatic relation-ship with Russia.’ Although both speakers agreed that interests are the first to con-sider in foreign politics, Ba-lázs warned against taking any steps that would run contrary to a country’s val-ues. Particularly, he stressed that when Minister Szijjártó spoke about Hungary’s offi-cial standing behind the sov-ereignty and territorial integ-rity of Ukraine, this differed from Orbán’s passivity at the recent press conference with Putin during in Budapest in mid-February. While in Bu-dapest, Putin sent messages suggesting that the Ukrainian

army should surrender to the rebels, allegedly in the name of a ceasefire, without Orbán saying a word in defense of Ukrainian ’sovereignty and territorial integrity.’The event, though being cut

short because Minister Szijj-ártó had to leave early, gen-erally unfolded in a cordial manner—Péter Balázs even called the Minister by his first name—with a few sarcastic remarks, as can be expected from diplomats and profes-sional in rhetoric. However, especially when evaluating the Minister’s arguments, it is more than reasonable to look at what is actually happening and compare the often nicely sounding words with reality. Only then we can get a better understanding of the status quo in Hungarian foreign af-fairs today. For anyone interested in see-ing the debate, who could not attend, it can be viewed (in Hungarian) at: http://bit.ly/1Am3Y4g. Photo credits: http://on.fb.me/1aASMMq.

~ Max Steuer, IRES,

Slovakia

ISSUE 58

3

Op-Ed

DEFEATING THE EUROSKEPTIC ARGUMENT MEANS TAKING IT SERIOUSLY

It’s fair to say, now more than ever, that nobody supports the Euro-

pean Union unconditionally. From the external and internal effects of the Common Agricultural Policy, the enormous failures of the Euro proj-ect, overregulation and excessive bu-reaucracy, and (whatever the cause) a major deficit in democratic account-ability, plus anything else you care to mention: there are big things to hate wherever you fall on the political spectrum. I mention this, because it’s easy to re-duce Euroscepticism to old-fashioned nationalism, to impermanent eco-nomic misfortune, or simple, outra-geous xenophobia. Of course it can be this. But Euroscepticism does have an acceptable face - an argument to make – which can’t be entirely ignored, or dismissed. There is no political move-ment in the world which isn’t debased by supporters who support it for en-tirely the wrong reasons, and ideas are seldom defeated by attacks on their perverted and polluted forms. Civilised antagonism is the best form of politics, both morally and pruden-tially. Eurosceptics are enjoying unprec-edented success in national and Eu-ropean polls and elections throughout the Union. Perhaps the reason why it’s

so easy to reduce these movements to mere populism and generic resentful nationalism is that they so radically differ in their political positions, and their stated reasons for rejecting the EU. The far left anti-austerity plat-forms of Podemos and Syriza, the focus on accountability and direct de-mocracy of the Five Star Movement, and the libertarian anti-immigration cocktail offered by AfD and UKIP, hardly seem likely allies on any issue. Yet these movements have all arisen at the same time, and in spite of the differences, it’s tempting to look for a common thread in these arguments. They all share populism, they all share charismatic leadership, they all share strong anti-establishment sentiment: but do they share anything which should be taken more seriously? When asked this way, the only cred-ible answer to that question is that they all advocate radical approaches to economic management. Even in the UK, where the focus on internal EU migration is strongest, the argument is justified in terms of pressures on wag-es, housing, and public services, and (UKIP’s leadership, at least) works very hard to distance itself from xeno-phobic views and rhetoric. This side of Euroscepticism - the side which has seen the crash and the Euro crisis, and

concluded that something has gone badly wrong with the way we man-age our economies – doesn’t deserve to be treated as morally illegitimate. It deserves to be treated as an argument that has a place in the public square, and should be taken seriously as an account of how we would do well to organise ourselves. With the probable exception of op-ponents of austerity in places like Greece and Spain, the Eurosceptics are, of course, wrong. However mis-conceived the Euro project may have been in the beginning, and however much damage it has done, any coun-try leaving the single currency would be a disaster for that country, Europe, and the world. Likewise, those out-side the Euro who advocate complete withdrawal from the Union are ad-vocating a major blow to their own country’s economic performance, which throughout the Union is now inextricably tied to the single market and free trade. The arguments for this position are strong, but they’re complicated, and involve the hesitant defence of ideas which have in the past done a lot of damage, but are worthwhile for the sake of the long term. But such an ar-gument has no greater moral standing than the populist, simplistic, easily di-gested arguments of the Eurosceptics. They’re saying false things, but not bad things, and that distinction matters. Telling someone they’re feeling wrong will never get you anywhere; telling them they’re thinking wrong, and you’ll have a fruitful and productive conversation, from which both sides can learn, and in which progress can be made. We have to be able to talk to Euroscepticism as a position worthy of respect, or it’ll never go away.

http://www.lastampa.it/

~ Dan Hartas Philosophy

United Kingdom

THE CEU WEEKLY

4

Op-Ed

HOW YOUR STUDENT UNION (UNWITTINGLY?) WASTES YOUR MONEY

Most of you may be aware that our Student Union’s (SU) annu-

al budget of €13,200 comes from our enrolment fees of €200. But you are probably unaware that the SU recent-ly gave away €1,500 (almost 70% of the total money available for student clubs). This is newsworthy because all of this money (your money!) went to a single club, the Debate Society (DS) to fund their annual debate tournament, which takes place this weekend and hosts some 125 students from other European universities. ‘Newsworthy’ takes on a whole new meaning (scandalous, perhaps?) when I tell you that this event and thus your money will barely benefit CEU stu-dents. According to the DS’s own admission, about ten club members are participating in this event. They expect other CEU students to come along as audience but since this takes place over the weekend (when CEU is at its emptiest) and as most of us are cramming like crazy, their expectation is painfully naïve. But let me bring you up to date on the background to this ridiculous sto-ry. The tournament plans (apparently having been in the pipeline at least since last November) came to broader light in late January, when the DS sub-mitted their first funding application to the Student Union Board (SUB),

who decide on applications for un-der €500. However, the SUB couldn’t consider this because the DS asked for a whopping €2,000 (90% of the total dispersible club money) and anything above €500 must be voted on by the Student Union Assembly (SUA).

“The calculations

did not add up ... In short, the

application was utter

nonsense...” I can’t shake off the suspicion that the SUB members were relieved to not have to make the call on this one. On the one hand, the DS and their tour-nament are rumoured to be highly favoured by the Rectorate, plus one of the SUB members is heavily involved with the DS. On the other hand, the incredible justification for wanting

Student Union Representative Tamara Szűcs provides her take on recent funding requests before the Student Union

€2,000 was basically this: “give us mo-niez so that we can partaaay!” They seriously expected the SU to part-fund the three parties they are throw-ing during the weekend, with an aver-age price tag of €2,700 per party. Yes, you read that right – and it’s not even for a CEU crowd. As a reminder, the Intercultural Festival cost just over €1000 and included hundreds of CEU students… In the original application the DS ignored a bunch of regulations (and the SUB let them get away with it). The application was handed in past the deadline and most of the money was asked for food and drinks, which is a no-no. Crucial details were miss-ing, like how much the co-organisers ELTE and Corvinus are pitching in. The calculations did not add up, the budget was a very vague estimate, there was no data on their €50 per person registration fee income, etcet-era. In short, the application was ut-ter nonsense (for your entertainment, The CEU Weekly is making this docu-ment available online). But the SUB lent credibility to this nonsense by not punting it straight back to its authors and accompanying it with a hearty laughter. Yet the SUB didn’t seem to want to take responsi-bility for a verdict either; instead, they expected us clueless student reps to make an informed decision on such big-ticket spending. The SUB, of course, would say that they just ad-hered to the rules. But if it was pos-sible to waive rules for the DS appli-cation, the least the SUB could have done was listen to their conscience and speak up before asking the stu-dent representatives to vote on this. So SUB shied away from any poli-tics and put this up for voting at the February SUA meeting, which all 85 student reps were required to attend. But five days before the voting, the DS came forth with a revised application, graciously reducing their request to €1500. (Oh, truly? How kind.) Sadly, the application was still bleeding from

ISSUE 58

5

Op-Ed

~ Tamara Szűcs Student Union Representative

Gender Studies Hungary

multiple fatal wounds. It was still for a very narrow circle of CEU stu-dents and the budget was still shady, although the outrageous party costs magically disappeared and the items the SU was to cover went through cos-metic surgery to make them look ‘ac-ceptable’. (Why, thank you for asking, of course we’ll make this document available too.) But with barely 30 student reps show-ing up for the SUA (you might want to start holding your representatives to account – where were they?), where after a half-hearted attempt at a debate the majority of reps voted yes just so the meeting would end, and where the SUB seemed to collectively abstain, it’s no wonder that this joke of an ap-plication passed (16 reps voted yes, 11 voted to modify the amount, and one rep voted no). This is also the result of structural problems: the voting proce-dure was a farce that had to be repeat-ed three times, there was no roll call so there are no records of the voting and minutes have not been published either, and many student reps barely had an understanding of or interest in the entire issue. For instance, nobody was bothered by the completely unnecessary €7000 bill for the three-star hotel hosting the debate tournament participants. You see, other debate organiser universi-ties – for instance that most venerable institution, the University of Oxford – expect people to pay for their accom-modation on top of their fees (which, might I add, is set at twice of what the DS asked for) or only offer up the bare floor in the rooms of their own dorm-dwelling students. Not CEU, nope, we splash out because – didn’t you hear? – we are a bloomin’ rich university! (We are not, by the way.) Other tournament organisers also don’t dine and wine participants at ev-ery single meal. But the DS pays for three full course meals per day for 125 non-CEU students, most of whom could very well buy their own meals. Look, an external student who can afford a weekend jaunt to Budapest and is able to debate at academic-level English should not be the primary beneficiary of the paltry student club

money that our Union presides over. It’d be different if the DS had a bursary system to support participants from less privileged backgrounds, but the DS clearly only cares about ‘network-ing opportunities’ and polishing their own CVs. While squandering your money, of course.

“...the voting procedure

was a farce that had to be repeated three

times, there was no roll call ... and

the minutes have not been

published either...”

The result of this decision is that other student initiatives that are potentially more deserving may not receive any funding now. There is no money left in the €2200 student club budget. In ad-dition to what’s been gobbled up by the DS, the running club got €175 to pay for the marathon fees of a dozen stu-dents (although it’s unclear how this benefits the wider CEU student com-munity, which is the main condition for receiving funding). And two other clubs, including The CEU Weekly re-cently had funding approved. In full disclosure, €454 has been ring-fenced for CEU’s student newspaper to fund a long-term investment, where the entire student population will reap

benefits for at least 12 months – no exclusive weekend tournament for us at the paper! But what if others who are not as self-valorising as the DS also require major funding? What if the CEU Care for the Homeless project would like to help the rough sleepers just outside CEU’s main entrance but doesn’t have funds? What if the newborn Free The Slaves CEU group needs money to teach us about buying ethically traded stuff? What if the group working on improv-ing conditions for student parents wants to fund an informal day-care to allow parents to attend classes without having to bring along their children (because they don’t have access to state-subsidised nurseries here)? Will the Debate Society, the SUB, or the student representatives who blind-ly voted yes to giving away €1500 in one go explain to other clubs and the students they represent that “sorry, ze pot iz empty because we just couldn’t be bothered to think responsibly”? Mind you, the SUB will tell us to chill as their budget has a €1000 buffer for ‘unforeseen costs’ and there’s another €1000 left from last year that we can apparently pour into the emptily echo-ing student club kitty. But this doesn’t justify the selfishness of the DS or the uninterested apathy of the SUA. And there are future SU events that could have really used this ‘buffer’ money (the Spring Ball, the Sports Day, or the Graduation Ball, for instance). We need to ask some tough questions about how our Student Union oper-ates and then we need to have con-structive conversations about what we can do to improve our functioning and our commitment to the students we are supposed to represent (you!). And then we actually need to follow through.

THE CEU WEEKLY

6

Student Clubs

THE CLUB THAT TAKES YOU PLACES

If you are a CEU student, it must have crossed your mind that you are

living in a bubble. That is how Brendan Duprey and Shane Markowics felt a few years ago, when they were completing their PhD studies at CEU. Knowing that Hunga-ry has much more to offer than Szent István Bazilika or the ruin pubs (and the residence center and Örs vezér tere for dormitory folks), the pair initiated the CEU Magyarnaut Hik-ing and Traveling Club in September 2012. For the past two and a half years, the Club has attracted a rapidly growing membership, which reached 1,211 as of the end of February 2015. While most members are CEU students and alumni, others are family members or friends of CEU students who also share the club founders’ passion for hiking and travelling. According to Edlira Majko, a CEU alumnus and key member of the

Club’s organizing team, the Club or-ganizes, on average, around 32 hikes during each academic year. Destina-tions range from the Buda hills in Bu-dapest to the Börzsöny hills in Kisma-ros, from Eger in the north to Pecs and Szeged in the south. In past summers, the Club has gone mountaineering in areas of Slovakia, Poland and Austria. Coming together on the basis of shared passion, the Club’s members get to discover Hungary’s beautiful landscape, history and culture. Yet, few people know how the organizing team makes each hike possible. Before every hike, Edlira and Margaryta Ry-marenko, who is currently a PhD can-didate at CEU and has recently joined the organizing team, would spend time finding the best way to plan the hike itinerary, to time the hike so that no one gets left behind in the middle of nowhere (which has never hap-pened!), and to gather information about the history of places to share with the hike participants. With ever

more eager participants joining the Club each year, the organizing team welcomes new members to join the organizing team to plan even greater excursions. “It is a great way for students to dis-cover Hungary while they are study-ing. It reconnected me with the uni-versity and the number of my friends started to grow”, said Edlira about the Club. For those reading who want to ex-plore even farther than Hungary, the Club is now announcing plans to hike at the Peaks of the Balkans, a trail between three countries—Kosovo, Montenegro and Albania—during the coming summer. For more infor-mation, visit the CEU Magyarnaut Hiking and Traveling Club Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/501763836503762/.

~ Giang Vu Public Policy

Vietnam

CEU HOSTS INTERNATIONAL DEBATING TOURNAMENT FROM MARCH 6-8

Hubert H. Humphrey once said, “Freedom is hammered out on

the anvil of discussion, dissent and debate”. This weekend, 180 youth from over 50 institutions, representing 30 countries, spread across 4 continents, will come to CEU, to celebrate their love of debating. The CEU Debate So-ciety along with our partners, ELTE and Corvinus University, is organiz-ing the fourth annual Budapest Open Debating Tournament (BPO), from March 6th to 8th. Hosting this tournament has been a reality since 2011 because of the sus-tained enthusiasm of the members of the CEU Debate Society. During the year, members gather every Wednes-day at 19:00, regardless of deadlines or exams. Those who started debating this academic year were soon infected by the energy of the senior members, who double up as our debate coach-

es during training sessions. Within a span of few months, the novice mem-bers even won the Vienna Fresher’s Tournament in November 2014. Debate-training sessions, run by the members, are being integrated into courses run by the university, such as in the Department of Public Policy, a testament to the club’s growing influ-ence and popularity on campus. The BPO presents a unique and di-verse environment that challenges people to debate on issues that affect us all, regardless of our age, gender, de-partment and nationality. It promotes tolerance, dissent, and inclusion - val-ues that CEU inherently nurtures. Io-ana Stupariu (LEGS ’15), a prominent CEU debater remarks, “Having met thousands of people from all over the world during my seven years of debat-ing, BPO exemplifies how debate can make a change, if not in the world,

at least in people”. Last but not least, the CEU Debate Society is grateful to CEU and the Student Union for their continued support. How can you participate?1) Register at debatehungary.com. The registration fee of 25 EUR pp is waived for CEU teams.2) Join the debating workshop hosted by Michael Shapira (World Cham-pion, 2011) on Friday at 5 pm at the Auditorium. There is no registration fee for CEU students.3) Walk into to the debates on Satur-day, which will happen all day in the Faculty Tower rooms.4) Come witness the exciting semi-finals and finals on Sunday afternoon (at the School of Public Policy).

~ Varun Santhosh Environmental Sciences

India

ISSUE 58

7

Environment

The Arctic is often associated with frost and darkness, but it is surely much more than that. First of all, it is extremely rich in natural resources, including oil and gas. It is a site where eight states share borders, so international coopera-

tion is a priority. The Arctic is home for indigenous peoples who reside in different states but are often united by similar problems. Moreover, this area is the most visibly affected by global warming.

So, the Arctic needs to be developed, but at the same time its environment and indigenous communities must be protected, and the cooperation be-tween powerful states should remain peaceful. Balancing all these tasks re-sembles catching the northern lights: you may think they are right above, but the moment you find your camera the sky is empty and dark again.

Still, the ways to reach this fragile balance are discussed every year at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Trom-sø, Norway. It is an important event divided into three sections: policy, business and science. This year ap-proximately 1,400 people attended the conference, among them scientists, politicians (not only from the eight Arctic states), indigenous leaders, company representatives, NGO activ-ists and Prince Albert II of Monaco who created a Foundation with a spe-

cial focus on Arctic issues. This year the word “security” was

inevitably present in all the discus-sions. It was disappointing to see that less than 30 conference participants were from Russia, among them no high-ranking politicians. This was not the case before. The speech of Artur Chilingarov, First Vice-President of the Russian Geographical Society and a board member of Rosneft, stating “We don’t feel any kind of effects of the political tensions in the Arctic”, was met with disbelief. At the same time, there were positive examples of cooperation: the Prime Ministers of Finland, Norway, and Sweden pre-sented a new common report on sus-tainable growth in the Arctic.

After the conference PhD students departed to a short seminar on proj-ect management held at the Lofoten

islands in Norway. The seminar, in my opinion, was a great example of how interdisciplinary Arctic research can be - and should be. Many current problems of the polar regions require different perspectives and fields of ex-pertise, and that is why a political sci-entist and a marine biologist from dif-ferent countries can work side by side in the Arctic.

The Arctic is, however, much more than I have just written. For me it means mountains going high into the sky, houses with the smell of wood and coffee, songs about reindeer and saying goodbye to new friends. And even frost and darkness – sometimes.

~ Anna Varfolomeeva, PhD candidate at Environmental

Sciences and Policy, Russia

Catching the Northern Lights of Cooperation

8

The CEU Weekly is a student-alumni initiative that seeks to provide CEU with a regularly issued newspa-per. The CEU Weekly is a vehicle of expression for the diversity of the perspectives and viewpoints that in-tegrate CEU’s open society: free and respectful public debate is our aim. We offer a place in which current events and student reflections can be voiced. Plurality, respect, and freedom of speech are our guiding principles.

About the CEU Weekly

Want to getpublished?

aSend your article toceuweekly@ceu.hu

Distribution Points: Reception Nádor 9, Nádor 11, Nádor 15; Library, Cloakroom & CEU Dorm ceuweekly.blogspot.com

Editor in Chief: Eszter Kajtár Managing Editor: Aaron KorenewskyContributors: Giavana Margo, Giang Thi Huong Vu, Varun Santhosh, Max Steuer, Alexandra Medzibrodszky, Jacob Verhagen, S.A. Siwiec, Tamara Szűcs, Lindsey Zemler, Daniel Hartas, John McLean, Tamara Szűcs Christina E. Herrmann and Anna Varfolomeeva.

Like us on Facebook!www.facebook.com/TheCEUWeekly

~ Anna Varfolomeeva, PhD candidate, Environmental Sciences, Russia

(http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/green_maple_leaves-wide.jpg)

Upcoming EvEnts

The Hate Speech MonologuesCEU’s annual student- and faculty-organized performance takes place

on March 12, Thursday at 7 pm in the Nádor 9 Auditorium.

March 15th - Revolution Day It is a national holiday in Hungary commemorating the Revolution of 1848. This year in Budapest the program will begin at Kossuth Lajos square at 9 AM when the Hungarian flag will be raised in front of the Parliament.Later at 10:30 AM, the celebration will continue at Hungarian National Museum, and from there a procession will head to the Buda Castle where the visitors will see the exhibitions and take part in various workshops. All the venues will have no entrance fee throughout the day. More info: http://marcius15.kormany.hu/enImportant to know: on March 15 many museums and exhibitions welcome visitors for free, so use the chance!

VinCE Budapest is a great event for wine lovers; it will last for three days, and more than 100 wineries from various regions of Hungary and neighboring countries will offer their best products. The program in-cludes wine exhibitions and tastings, com-petitions and workshops. When: March 6-8, 11 AM - 8 PMWhere: Corinthia Grand Hotel RoyalCosts: from HUF 2,000More info: http://vincebudapest.hu/en

This event is a photo exhibition by Belgian-born reportage photographer David Verberckt, who currently lives in Budapest. He will be presenting on stories of temporary housing arranged in Arme-nia for those who suffered from 1988 earthquake. Over the years these temporary shelters evolved into permanent settlements on the outskirts of the

cities. When: March 5, 7 PM

Where: Brody studios, Vörösmarty utca 38Costs: free

More info: https://www.facebook.com/events/1536866463204954

VinCE Budapest“Temporary permanence”

exhibition opening