Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

DRAGOº PETRESCU1989-94 (Boulder: Social Science Monographs, 1995), pp. 415-419 and pp. 436-440.43 For a collection of Romanian and international documents concerning thetreatment of minorities, including the text of the 1996 treaty between Romaniaand Hungary, see România ºi minoritãþile: Colecþie de documente (Romaniaand minorities: A collection of documents) (Tîrgu-Mureº: Editura ProEuropa, 1997). See also Gáspár Bíró, “Bilateral Treaties Between Hungaryand its Neighbors After 1989,” in Ignác Romsics and Béla K. Király, eds.,Geopolitics in the Danube Region: Hungarian Reconciliation Efforts, 1848-1998(Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999), pp. 365-374.44 Mungiu-Pippidi, Transilvania subiectivã, p. 178.45 Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed, pp. 55-76.46 Regarding the European, American and UN diplomatic response to the war informer Yugoslavia, and the complicate process that led to the General FrameworkAgreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, known as the DaytonPeace Accords (21 November 1995), see International Commission on theBalkans, Unfinished Peace: Report of the International Commission on theBalkans (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1996).See also David Owen, Balkan Odyssey (London: Indigo, 1996).47 The dispute between Romania and Hungary concerning the application of the“Law on Hungarians Living in Neighboring Countries,” adopted by the HungarianParliament on 19 June 2001, confirms the functioning of the new triangularrelational nexus. Romanian authorities have refused to support the applicationof the law on Romanian territory, and have sent letters of protest to theEuropean Union with regard to the adoption of the law by the Hungarian Parliament.As a consequence, the two countries have initiated consultationsregarding the application of the law, and EU assistance is expected. Inside thenew “triadic relational nexus,” composed of Romania, Hungary and internationalorganizations, HDUR has placed itself very close to Hungary, the externalhomeland. Considering the characteristics of the process that led to thesigning of the “basic treaty” in 1996, I would argue that a reasonable compromisewill be reached when the relational nexus resembles an equilateral triangle,with HDUR somewhere in its central area. The English version of the “ActLXII of 2001 on Hungarians Living in Neighboring Countries” is availablefrom http://www.htmh.hu/law.htm; Internet; accessed 2 August 2001.48 Leon Festinger, professor of psychology at Stanford University, developed his“theory of cognitive dissonance” in order to analyze the possibilities of changingthe attitudes detrimental to development in a given society. See Leon Festinger,A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson andCompany, 1957). Albert O. Hirschman summarizes Festinger’s “theory of cognitivedissonance” as follows: “A person who for some reason, commits himselfto act in a manner contrary to his beliefs, or to what he believes to be hisbeliefs, is in a state of dissonance. Such a state is unpleasant, and the personwill attempt to reduce dissonance. Since the ‘discrepant behavior’ has alreadytaken place and cannot be undone, while the belief can be changed, reductionof dissonance can be achieved principally by changing one’s beliefs in thedirection of greater harmony with the action.” Drawing on the concept of cognitivedissonance, Hirschman observes that development can be promoted by296