By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hungary’s intelligence agency reportedly searches the hotel rooms of visiting EU delegations and copies data from their laptops, a practice confirmed by the government. This action follows previous accusations of hacking targeting journalists, activists, and opposition figures, including the confirmed purchase of Israeli spyware. While the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) declined to comment specifically, it underscored the importance of unhindered investigations into EU financial interests. OLAF reaffirmed its commitment to impartial investigations adhering to the rule of law.
Read the original article here
The recent reports alleging that the Hungarian intelligence agency spied on EU officials have sparked a flurry of reactions, ranging from disbelief to cynical acceptance. The initial phrasing itself, referring to the agency as the “Hungarian CIA,” immediately draws attention. While perhaps intended for brevity or impact, it feels reductive and even slightly insulting; it’s simplistic and arguably dumbs down the sophisticated world of international espionage for the reader. The term “Hungarian intelligence” would have been far more accurate and professional.
This isn’t to say the reports themselves are inherently surprising. The reality is that international espionage is commonplace, and allies frequently spy on each other. It’s a basic tenet of geopolitical strategy; countries gather intelligence to safeguard their national interests, regardless of their relationships with other nations. The fact that Hungary, particularly under the leadership of Viktor Orbán, has been engaging in such activities shouldn’t come as a shock, given his government’s often controversial approach to both domestic and international affairs.
Indeed, the news feels less like a revelation and more like confirmation of an already understood reality. Numerous examples exist of major powers engaging in similar activities. The revelation that the US and other intelligence services also engage in spying is not exactly breaking news either. This alleged Hungarian activity, therefore, falls within the established pattern of international espionage. The more relevant question is whether Hungary was caught in the act, not whether the spying itself occurred.
The reaction to the news highlights a larger issue: the accepted norms of international espionage are rarely scrutinized unless something goes wrong. When such actions are disclosed, the response depends heavily on the actors involved. While the reported activities of the Hungarian intelligence service are alarming, the very nature of espionage makes definitive confirmation or denial of these specific claims challenging. It is quite likely that similar activities are undertaken by many intelligence agencies globally, including those of the EU member states.
Furthermore, the reporting’s focus on the Hungarian agency’s alleged practices, including searching hotel rooms and downloading data from laptops of visiting EU delegations, underscores the potential risks inherent in international collaboration. These actions represent a potential threat to the integrity of EU processes and could undermine the trust necessary for effective cooperation. The European Union’s response to these allegations, while stressing the importance of unimpeded investigations, also highlights the difficulties in directly confronting such covert actions.
The lack of strong, immediate international condemnation could be interpreted in several ways. Perhaps it reflects a reluctance to openly criticize a member state, potentially escalating existing tensions. Or, it may indicate a tacit acceptance of such behavior as part of the inherent risks within the international system, a cynical understanding of realpolitik. The reported internal power struggles within Hungary’s own intelligence services further complicate matters, suggesting potential internal leaks and a possible struggle for influence within the Orbán government itself.
Ultimately, the “Hungarian CIA reportedly spied on EU officials” story raises important questions about the balance between national security and international cooperation. The lack of widespread outrage suggests a degree of fatalism: spying is part of the game, and the real news is when it’s discovered. While the specific allegations require further investigation, the underlying issues of espionage within international alliances remain a complex and persistent challenge. The incident serves as a reminder of the constant tension between nations, even within supposedly collaborative frameworks like the European Union. The question isn’t necessarily whether spying occurred, but rather the implications of such actions for the future of the EU and the nature of international relationships.