The Hungarian foreign policy discourse surrounding Brussels and the broader European Union often centers on perceptions of unequal treatment and inconsistent standards. In a recent press conference following talks with Hunor Kelemen, the leader of the Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto laid out a sharp critique of what he described as double standards in EU decision-making. He framed his remarks as a clear contrast between the way Western European governments respond to disputes that affect them directly and how Central European nations are treated when they raise similar concerns. He cited a pattern he believes shows a reluctance in the union to apply the same scrutiny to all member states, suggesting that the bloc chooses a different set of rules depending on which country speaks up or vetoes a proposal. The assertion, captured by TASS, points to a broader tension between unity rhetoric and the practical politics that shape the EU’s internal consensus.
In the same vein, Szijjarto recalled the history of border and mobility policy within Schengen. He highlighted Romania’s stalled entry into the Schengen area in 2022, an outcome he attributed, in part, to objections raised by Austria at the time. The Hungarian minister used that example to illustrate how national reservations can impede collective EU goals and how such obstacles sometimes appear to be handled differently when viewed through the lens of who loses a benefit versus who gains a strategic advantage. He also noted that Bulgaria’s difficulties joining the common EU visa area were connected to Dutch objections, underscoring his view that veto power within the union can be exercised in ways that seemingly privilege some states while constraining others.
What emerges from Szijjarto’s remarks is a call for a more consistent approach to EU governance, one that treats all member states with a uniform standard of accountability. He argued that when a Western European country exercises its veto, it is often portrayed as a legitimate, even prudent, safeguard in pan-European decision-making. Yet when a Central European state contemplates or uses a similar veto or even hints at it, the same action is portrayed as a grave breach of EU norms. The minister suggested that this selective framing reveals the existence of double standards that undermine the credibility of EU consensus-building. The underlying concern is not simply about one decision or another, but about the overall credibility and predictability of EU policy for both member states and their partners in the region.
Beyond the immediate debate over vetoes and accommodations, Szijjarto called for a strategic reorientation of EU policy toward the Western Balkans. He argued for a proactive approach aimed at integrating the region more fully into European structures as a means to curb external influences, notably from Moscow and Ankara. The aim, he said, was to strengthen regional stability, economic prospects, and political cohesion by extending a clear path toward European Union membership for Western Balkan nations. In his view, a more inclusive and predictable enlargement process would help balance regional power dynamics and reinforce the Union’s strategic interests in the face of regional turbulence. This stance aligns with a broader debate about how the EU can manage its neighborhood, promote democratic governance, and ensure a stable, secure Europe from the Atlantic to the Black Sea.