BUDAPEST–These days, as far as Europe is concerned, most eyes are fixed on the discussions about the financial aftershocks of the crisis, namely the debate on Greece. Other aspects, among them the social effects, remain sidelined. Struggling under increased pressure, most decision-makers seem to overlook that in many new member states, there has been a troubling growth in extremism and social exclusion that indicates much deeper tensions in these societies. The fact that the character of some of Europe’s democracies is at stake is being disregarded.

If one takes Hungary, for example, the dust has just settled after the country elected a new government in April–and voted for a far-right party in unprecedented numbers (the party got 12 percent of the vote). While many–especially the international press–frantically expressed concern, they seemed to overlook the fact that tensions had already outgrown party politics.

It seems that 20 years after the fall of communism, Hungary has to learn that the success story of its democratic transition has another, darker side. For most Hungarians, it remains beyond doubt that the formal fabric of their democratic institutions is solid–a notion confirmed in a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, which found that 66 percent of Hungarians think that”democratic values are very important.” But while Hungarian support was the highest among the eight Central and East European publics surveyed, it is also obvious that there is a long way to go in terms of a bigger challenge: cultivating a deeper and more profound culture of democracy.

A series of shocks have made the above clear as the country has witnessed a robust entrée of extremism lately. Last year, in a series of widely reported, racially motivated killings, perpetrators gunned down six Hungarian Roma. Since these supremacists hoped to threaten the Roma community as a whole, their act also qualifies as domestic terrorism. At the same time, a homegrown extreme-right militia–the so-called “Hungarian Guard”–marched throughout the country with the purpose of “defending Hungarians against Roma crime.” Additionally, a group of semi-amateur conspiracists tried to exert pressure on politicians by repeatedly targeting their homes with live rounds of ammunition and Molotov cocktails. Added up, these are clear distress signals. A post-communist society with a shattered social fabric, further torn by current political and economic crises, has to renew itself and redefine its understanding of being an inclusive, liberal democracy.

There is no room for misconception: these incidents are not simply inevitable side-effects of modernization or minor disturbances generated primarily by the financial crisis. No, these are critical symptoms of much deeper tensions with which the country struggles. Hungary is at a crossroads–with some other countries in the region–and must choose which course to follow. If it follows the current one, it has a fair chance of becoming a”dual society,” one part of which could be found in a Manhattan Starbucks or in a boutique on Rue de Rivoli, and another part that spends its days in the worst non-formal segregation, violence, and poverty that one would never imagine in the heart of 21st-century Europe. The other course is to realize that the current tensions are already an obstacle of further development and that these tensions can also become direct threats to democratic institutions–hence the necessity to reverse the most harmful tendencies.

To achieve lasting change, it is clear these countries have to face the challenge primarily by themselves. As tasks are immense, most players–from”corporate citizens” to NGOs–have to gear up and champion a more active role, and those influencing the public debate have to abandon the historical cultural reflex of”deserting through complaint.” On the other hand, it is also obvious that the upcoming government must provide leadership: while building momentum, its primary task will be to repair the integrity of the law enforcement and intelligence communities as their members are at the forefront in any struggle against the most destructive forms of domestic extremism. But in itself, this will not be enough. As the challenge has already outgrown the phase in which it could be regarded as a simple policing issue, more fundamental answers need to be found in fields ranging from education to the social welfare system.

Without doubt, these efforts must be indigenous to have serious impact. But there are steps that the European Union and the United States can and should take–even if they concentrate on other, more troubled regions of the world. The United States and the EU should assist new member states to modernize, not just in terms of economics or infrastructure, but in their values and attitudes too.

The new leadership in Brussels should raise its voice and make clear that Europe will not be able to accomplish its global aspirations if it cannot counter challenges to its core values at home. Beyond symbolic gestures, there is more serious work to do: it is high time to reconsider the role the European Union plays in the post-accession period. Maybe it is time to have fewer–less and less credible–debates about European competitiveness in general (sorry, but no one needs another Lisbon Strategy) and pay more attention to specific solutions. Why not partially restructure EU funds and make them available to governmental and non-governmental actors in a streamlined process, generating room for”rapid reaction?” Why not encourage greater competition within the European civil society by building up a mechanism for assisting start-ups?

At the same time, Washington should capitalize on the leverage and credibility it built up in the past decades while creating a more inclusive, multi-colored society at home. U.S. Ambassadors, following their predecessors who played an important role in ’89, should look for opportunities for engagement. They should also push for broadening the channels of learning and adapting best-practices–why isn’t there anything like a”Roma History Month” anywhere in the region? These steps combined would certainly amount to a substantial contribution, but also a feasible way to maintain the United States’ commitment toward its Central and East European allies.

At the end of the day, however, Hungary has both a chance and the responsibility to form its own future and decide what its values are. Its new government has to prove that it will indeed open a new chapter and not simply administer another period of stagnation–leadership and statesmanship will both be required to meet the challenge.

Kristof Domina is a foreign policy analyst based in Budapest, Hungary. He was a Marshall Memorial Fellow of the German Marshall Fund in 2009.

WASHINGTON — When I traveled abroad as an American Marshall Memorial Fellow in October 2008, I discovered something most people wouldn’t notice. The notion of an attorney with his partner, a dog guide, draws attention on both sides of the Atlantic.   I recall one individual claiming that disability law, policy, or concerns have no part of the transatlantic relationship.   This is an inaccurate claim, especially in light of both the European Community and President Obama signing on to the international United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol.

I have engaged in many discussions with organizations and individuals on transatlantic disability law and policy — both during the fellowship and since — and brought up the Convention, which scholars have called the first human rights treaty of the 21st century.

In December, an annual celebration of the Convention is held at the United Nations during the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.   With this celebration approaching once again, providing a description of the Convention and elucidating its importance for organizations working in the transatlantic space to be leaders in this segment of the transatlantic relationship is a valuable use of the pen.

Article 4 of the Convention elucidates the general obligations of state parties, or those nations that have ratified the Convention.   State parties agree that they will ensure the equality of “rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind.”   As such, the Convention not only provides lofty, hortatory language, but also states, in Article 4, that the principles of the Convention are to be implemented by state parties through: (a.) legislation and regulatory enactment and promulgation; (b.) policy formulation; and (c.) research and development.   Additionally, state parties, in furtherance of the Convention, are to furnish proactively reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities.   Similar to the body of legal issues in the United States known as “affirmative action,” Article 5 of the Convention provides that state parties are to undertake measures to accelerate “de facto equality of persons with disabilities.”   In addition to these obligations for state parties, there are many other substantive Articles of the Convention that impose affirmative obligations on governments.

Article 25 in particular may be noteworthy in light of the pending reform of the American healthcare system.   This Article mandates that state parties ensure equal, accessible, and affordable healthcare services, reimbursement systems, and insurance to persons with disabilities.   Notably, the Convention provides that people with disabilities are to enjoy enhanced access to rehabilitation services, equal rights to reproductive health services, and increased access to affordable technologies that aide in daily functioning.   Furthermore, the Optional Protocol to the Convention provides “teeth” to the underlying covenant in so far as it establishes a review body — the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — at the United Nations to receive communications and complaints relating to implementation by state parties.

Since the Convention was brought into force in spring 2008, there have been 71 ratifications of the Convention and 45 ratifications of the Optional Protocol.   For instance, European Union aspirants Serbia and Turkey as well as established EU states like Germany and Belgium have ratified the Convention.   Consequently, scholars in disability law and policy, including Michael Ashley Stein and Janet E. Lord, have heralded the Convention as a new paradigm for disability rights and as a positive force for social integration and inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Despite the positive nature of this Convention as a discussion vehicle, if nothing else, the United States did not warmly receive the Convention, at least not until recent months.

The administration of President Bush was regularly castigated by disability advocates for not undertaking a leadership role on the Convention.   This lack of leadership was regrettable, as the Convention is imbued by concepts and principles encompassed in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.   However, in summer 2009, arguably reclaiming our leadership on global disability policy, President Obama had the new ambassador to the United Nations ensure that the federal government is a signatory to the Convention.

In sum, the disabled and able-bodied can mutually benefit from opportunities to enhance their perspective on foreign law and public policy.   The important influence of organizations like the German Marshall Fund of the United States and others in fostering transatlantic cooperation, here at home, and abroad, is irrefutable.   I suggest to these organizations that the next item on the transatlantic agenda should be international disability policy, which has been overlooked too long.

U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders of the rest of the G-20 won’t arrive in Pittsburgh for the summit until Thursday, but there’s plenty of excitement in the air already. A flurry of last-minute road resurfacing projects wrapped up over the weekend. The first protest marches on Sunday went off without a serious hitch.

For me, a native Pittsburgher, the sign that everything would be all right came Friday, when I saw the city’s iconic fountain spouting again. The fountain at the Point, where the city’s three rivers meet, has been shut down for renovations for many months, and will be again once the week is over. But showing off our city without its signature ornament is akin to wearing sweatpants to the plenary session, so the powers that be got it running again temporarily.

The same can’t be said for Market Square, a pleasant lunchtime gathering spot that was bulldozed two weeks ago. The official reason is a redesign that will be unveiled next year, but that seems an insufficient explanation to tear up one of the few places downtown where you can eat lunch under a tree. Some suspicious folks wonder if Market Square’s transformation from park to construction zone is really a measure to deprive potential protesters of a natural congregating space in the heart of the central business district.

Of course, nobody relishes the idea of rampaging hordes and smashed windows. There are understandable measures needed for security, not to mention expediting the arrival of 20 motorcades. We’re still digesting the announcement last week that the entire downtown will be essentially closed to traffic for Thursday and Friday. But it’s ultimately a fair trade for the good press Pittsburgh stands to garner.

The city has become something of an adopted home base for Barack Obama. While the president has no ties to the city, he utterly captivated longtime Steelers owner Dan Rooney, a lifelong Republican, during the primaries. When the Steelers won the Super Bowl in early February, the normally taciturn Rooney praised Obama from the 50-yard line while holding up the Lombardi trophy. Rooney is now ambassador to Ireland.

When Obama’s spokesman announced Pittsburgh would host the G-20, the White House press corps broke out in guffaws. Pittsburghers are used to being the butt of jokes. The city, which visitors have often called one of the most stunning in North America, built such a reputation as an industrial giant in the early 20th century that its complete transformation in the last several decades is still news to people on the coasts.

Something I do sense in Pittsburgh over the last decade, and the G-20 caps it beautifully, is that residents have finally shed an inferiority complex. Ten years ago, the thought of holding a major world summit in town would have struck many of us as bizarre. But today we get what those reporters at the White House still don’t.

Mark Houser, a 2002 alum of GMF’s American Marshall Memorial Fellowship (MMF), is the MMF coordinator in Pittsburgh and is assisting with the official media center downtown during the G-20.

Commentators in the United States speculate that the 2008 presidential election will be a close one once again.   With many states in play, candidates will turn to the some 54 million disabled to shore up their vote tallies in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

For example, in the 2000 presidential election, the reported voting age population (VAP) of people with disabilities in Pennsylvania was 837,397, of whom, an estimated 43.0% cast ballots, and in Ohio, the reported VAP of people with disabilities was 241,449, of whom 39.0% cast ballots.

It is probably in recognition of the increasing voting power of the disabled that, in November 2007, a national forum on the positions of the Presidential primary candidates took place, and that, on July 26, a second moderated forum with the Presidential candidates or their surrogates was hosted in Columbus, Ohio.

And as further  evidence of the importance of the disabled to presidential politics, Kareem Dale, founder and CEO of The Dale Law Group of Chicago, Illinois, and an attorney with a vision disability, was recently appointed as Senator Barack Obama’s Disability Vote Director. The Obama campaign has an extensive plan and platform for disability issues that  includes four elements:

1. Provide Americans with disabilities with the educational opportunities they need to succeed, such as; fully funding what is called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA;
2. End discrimination and promote equal opportunity, which would be accomplished through, among others, a national Presidential advisor on disability and support for passage of what is called the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act that is presently working its way through Congress;
3. Increase the employment rate of workers with disabilities, which would be accomplished through, among others, reconstituting an Executive order signed during the Clinton administration to actively hire federal employees with disabilities; and
4. Support independent, community-based living for Americans with disabilities.

The campaign has also pledged that, if elected, Senator Obama would have his administration commit the United States as a signatory to and urge the ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, thereby reclaiming the United States’ global leadership on disability policy issues. The United States did not sign the treaty under the Bush administration, which did not even send a diplomatic representative to the discussions.

Senator John McCain does not appear to have issued a formal statement on whether he would sign the United States on to the Convention, but he is likely to receive questions on this point from the disability community.

But to be fair to McCain, who does not seem to have as many formal policy positions or statements on disability related questions, he is the one of the two presidential candidates argued as actually living with disabilities. According to an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times during the primaries, McCain retired from the military on a full disability discharge and with a 100% disability pension.   During the Vietnam War, he suffered such injuries as a shattered knee and two broken arms, injuries that he still deals with today.

Commemorating the 18th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the American Association of People with Disabilities and the Ohio Disability Vote Coalition sponsored the National Forum on Disability Issues, a nonpartisan forum on national disability policy on July 26 in Columbus, Ohio.   This was an historic dialogue, as it was the first–or one of the first–such forum between the two leading presidential candidates that Americans with disabilities from across the United States attended, either in person or via webcast, and it was moderated by a renowned journalist.   McCain attended the forum via satellite video, and Obama,  who was returning from his travel abroad, was represented by former Senator Tom Harkin, a national health and disability policy expert and sponsor of the ADA.

At the forum, Harkin stressed that electing the president plays a critical role in the long-term civil rights of people with disabilities, as any president, but especially, the next one, will have the opportunity to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court.   Since the passage of the ADA, its original coverage has been narrowed by decisions of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, which have been redefining people as non-disabled – and therefore not protected from discrimination – if they could function effectively with mitigating measures.   Harkin’s  remarks  reflected that, should conservatives prevail, there is the chance that conservative activist judges and Justices would be appointed to the federal court system who will continue to narrow the coverage of disability civil rights related protections.   He also emphasized the importance for a national disability policy advisor to the President.

This author speculates that, in an Obama administration, Senator Harkin would be considered a leading candidate for Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, a critical ministry of the United States on public health, health care reimbursement, and welfare benefits that directly impact the disabled, among others.

A priority of a McCain administration would be ensuring that the Veteran’s Administration focuses on providing specialized care for service-related conditions and that veterans receive improved health care.

A burgeoning disability civil rights movement and expanding set of legal obligations in Europe governs the rights of Europeans with disabilities.   As many American disability advocates suggest, the United States has a critical role in sharing its experiences on the fuller inclusion of people with disabilities with the international community, and especially with  its transatlantic partners.   This author consequently hopes that a change in leadership by either of the candidates will alter the record of the Bush administration when it regards American support of the Convention and many other critical disability policy questions.

Gary C. Norman, Esq., is an American Marshall Memorial Fellow and an attorney partnered with a dog guide.