Zsolt Törőcsik: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will be meeting in Budapest to discuss ending the Russo–Ukrainian war. The peace summit in Budapest could take place within two weeks, and the US president has confirmed that the host will be Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whom I welcome to the studio. Good morning.
Good morning.
When, how, and from whom did you learn that Budapest would be the venue?
I spoke with the US president on the phone last night, but somehow the news had already leaked out, so I knew that I’d be home late. I told my wife not to wait up for me. Last night I spoke at length with the President, we also spoke with the Russians, and I’ll be speaking with President Putin this morning, sometime this morning. That’s how it was. But I also spoke with the President in Sharm el-Sheikh at the Middle East peace summit. And we’re also putting the finishing touches on preparations that are in the pipeline for an official Hungarian–American meeting in Washington. So right now things are on the boil everywhere.
What reasons did Donald Trump give for choosing Budapest, or what reasons do you see behind it?
The American president isn’t the kind of person who usually explains his decisions. If you think about it, there wasn’t really any other option if they wanted to hold it in Europe. There are many places outside Europe where such a meeting could be held – look at Alaska, where the first meeting took place. But if they want it in Europe – and the Russo–Ukrainian war is, after all, a war taking place in Europe – and they look at the map and look at the leaders, then it quickly becomes clear that Budapest is essentially the only place in Europe today where such a meeting can be held. First of all, it’s because Hungary is almost the only country that’s pro-peace. We’re now cooperating with the Slovaks on the issue of peace, but for three years we’ve been the only country that’s consistently, openly, loudly – and indeed actively – stood for peace. Let’s not be unfair to the Vatican. I regret that Pope Francis didn’t live to see this moment; because when we were under the most severe attack, including me personally, he was the one who always encouraged us most strongly to stand firm for the good cause and to be steadfast. So if we look at the political map of Europe, there’s only one country that’s consistently and always been pro-peace. I say this with due modesty. This was also the case with migration. So it was as if we were driving against the traffic on the motorway, and sometimes you start to wonder whether you’re doing the right thing. But from time to time God sends us signs to show us that no, we’re on the right track – as in the case of migration and peace. So I believe that if Europe wanted to do this, it could only be done in the only country that’s committed to peace, and its capital is Budapest. What’s more, there’s also the advantage that the Hungarian prime minister has been in office for a very long time. I know everyone, everyone knows me, we’ve always been loyal partners, and we’ve always stood by our friends – we’ve never gone back on our word, and we’ve never given up any friendships for tactical advantages. Of course this has many disadvantages, but sometimes it also has advantages. So if you’re looking for a safe place in terms of peace, where things will be technically in order and where you won’t be surprised by political developments, in other words if you’re looking for a predictable environment, then Budapest seems like a logical choice.
Will there be enough time for preparations? Because, according to Trump, the meeting could take place within two weeks.
Yesterday the President told me that we should prepare for a meeting between the two foreign ministers. He had a long conversation yesterday with the Russian president, which he said was direct and successful. They decided that the two foreign ministers would try to resolve the outstanding issues within a week, and then they could be here in Budapest in another week. Yesterday evening, or late last night, I issued instructions to set up the organising committee, we defined the most important tasks, and the work began.
You’ve mentioned the attacks that Hungary has faced because of its pro-peace stance – or simply because it’s held talks with the parties involved, including Vladimir Putin. By contrast, the first comments on yesterday’s announcement have now appeared, with the Daily Telegraph, for example, writing that this will be a painful blow to the European Union. Could there be an easing of the criticism from the European Union and the pressure we’re experiencing from it due to our pro-peace stance?
First of all, the most important thing is that we don’t lose our step, rhythm or sense of proportion. So these negotiations won’t be about us. Of course everyone here in Hungary is excited, because God knows when we last hosted a diplomatic event of such importance – one in which we’re not merely acting as hosts, but where simply maintaining the conditions that make Budapest a suitable venue for a peace summit counts as a political achievement in itself. So I understand that everyone’s excited and curious, but I ask everyone to exercise restraint, because this negotiation isn’t about us, but about peace. For me the lesson, the three-year history of peace – or our struggle for peace, our fight for peace – clearly demonstrates this: that many things are necessary in politics, many virtues, abilities and knowledge, but in big matters the most important things are always perseverance and humility. So you must pursue good causes and always consider the cause you serve to be more important than you are yourself. If you succeed in this, and I think we’ve succeeded in the cause of peace, if you have perseverance and humility, then sooner or later, even in the darkest hour, things will turn out well – God will correct or remedy things. This was the case with migration, it’s the case now, and there are many other issues. But I also think the issue of family protection is one such example. So there’s still a Hungarian position that’s being represented in the face of such strong headwinds, and we must not give in. Now, if we look at how the EU fits into the picture, well, since everyone except us is pro-war, it’s logical that they’ve been left out of this summit. But they shouldn’t be left out of the peace. So I continue to urge that we Europeans do the same as the American president. We should negotiate with the Russians – and not just in the shadow of the Americans, not just as the American president’s support team. That’s not a bad thing, although for the time being we’re not the American president’s support team, but instead the EU is continuously trying to pull President Trump over to the side of the warmongers. But even if we were a support team, it wouldn’t be enough, because Europe would still have to stand up for its own interests and operate its own diplomatic channels, just as Hungary has done. Because ultimately, from a foreign policy and professional perspective, if we look at why this summit is being held here I can put it this way: we’re the only European country that from the outset has said that the war is bad, but that’s no reason to shut down diplomatic channels. If there are no diplomatic channels, if we don’t keep them open, there will never be peace. So the most important lesson for Europeans is that what we’re doing is wrong, our war strategy is flawed, and we need a peace strategy: we need to help the American president, and we also need to open an independent European–Russian diplomatic channel.
Now, in contrast to this, the European Commission has prepared a defence document stating that we must be ready for war with Russia by 2030. Could this mood change at the next EU summit? And, of course, here at home there’s also a petition against Brussels’ war plans. In a situation like this, when we can see how determined the EU is, what good are signatures?
Europe shouldn’t be preparing for war, but for peace. And behind that peace it should have a military force and a system of military cooperation between European countries, let’s say a collective security system, with which it can defend itself in case of trouble. But it’s not war that should be at the forefront, but always peace. What’s Europe’s biggest problem today? Its biggest problem is the war. Continuing the war means continuing the problem. The European Union has directly sent 180 billion euros to this war. If we try to get our heads round it, this is such a huge number – and if I convert it into forints, there isn’t even enough room on the table in front of me for all the zeros. So in this war we’ve burned through 180 billion euros so that Christians on the edge of Europe can kill each other. We’ve spent 180 billion euros on this, while the European economy is weak, sickly, coughing, stumbling and limping along. That money should have stayed here in Europe, and then the European economy wouldn’t look how it does – because the war and its consequences, sanctions and so on, are blocking economic development. War is always the enemy of economic development. The European economy has many problems, with these problems stemming from several root causes, but the deepest root is still what we call war, which is blocking Europe’s economic development – including Hungary’s. If there were no war the pace of Hungarian development would automatically double or triple. And this war can only be halted through peace. If we continue the war, it will consume even more money and we’ll be in an even worse economic situation. I feel that it will be worth the cost and the inconvenience that the people of Budapest will have to endure. I respectfully ask them to show patience during the summit, because it will be worth it for Hungary: we can’t earn as much money in wartime as we can in peace, because the war is taking our money away. If there’s peace, then a new phase of economic development can begin, and that will be in the interest of every Hungarian family – even those who have never read or heard a single sentence about foreign policy in their lives. So today it’s in the interest of all Hungarian families that the meeting in Budapest between Presidents Trump and Putin brings peace.
But to what extent would this override the European Commission’s plans, or to what extent could a petition shape them?
I suggest – or I think – that if there’s an agreement on peace, then the European plans must be thrown out the window and everything must be recalibrated. We’ll need a European security and military build-up plan – not because we’re at war with the Russians, but because, based on experience, peace must always be backed up by some kind of military capability. This isn’t the case in Europe today: we’re far more dependent on the Americans than we should be. More precisely, our nuclear capability won’t be as great as that of the Americans, that’s almost certain. We don’t need to develop our nuclear capabilities, but we need to bring our conventional weapons capabilities up to a level whereby we feel safe on the eastern edge of Europe, wherever and whenever a conflict breaks out. This is so that the question of whether we can defend ourselves if the eastern front moves west never arises. So we must show strength, because peace requires strength. This means that we need a military industrial and military development programme. But this shouldn’t be placed at the top of our agenda or strategy – it should play a supporting role, and instead peace and the relaunch of economic development should be placed at the apex of our strategy. This is why the EU will have to come up with a peace plan. The war plan must be scrapped and replaced with a peace plan that also has a security component. I hope this will happen, and then things will be put right – although that virtue is very rare in politics. Or at least I very rarely see a situation in which more than two dozen politicians advocating a war strategy simultaneously say that they’ve chosen the wrong direction and should now turn in the opposite direction, because after all that’s the way forward. But let’s not rule it out: if peace in the Middle East has been achieved, the hostages have been able to return home, and there’s going to be a Trump–Putin presidential meeting in Budapest, then why shouldn’t we believe that Europeans will also take the path of common sense?
Let’s talk about the impact of the war on the economy that you mentioned, let’s talk about economic issues, domestic economic issues. Because there’s an ongoing debate about the tax system and taxation issues – and recently pensioners have also become involved in this, which we’ll talk about separately. This is why the Government has launched a national consultation on taxation and energy issues. But if the difference between the two sides’ positions is clear on this issue at least, what do you expect from the consultation? From this point of view, what’s the need for consultation?
There’s a classic debate going on in Hungary right now. It’s been a long time since there was such a debate; somehow, in 2010, the era of those debates came to an end. I’d call this a classic Left–Right debate. By 2010, the Left and its economic policy had bankrupted Hungary. That’s when we came in with a two-thirds majority and launched a right-wing, national, civic, Christian economic policy – at a time when peace didn’t seem to be an important feature of it. Back then the focus was on full employment, creating one million jobs, tax cuts, a work-based economy, and family protection. And since then, we’ve essentially gone through these fifteen years without being challenged at an intellectual level. Of course there were elections, there was jostling, there were struggles – even fierce and sometimes painful struggles. But this type of debate – that a country always has two economic policy options, one of the Left and one of the Right – was not as clear as it is now. Now it has emerged. So, after fifteen years, there’s once again an intellectually grounded debate about the future of the Hungarian economy. This has once again been articulated by the old guard, of course, but it’s also been articulated by the Left, behind the Tisza Party. And there’s a government that’s pursuing its own right-wing economic policy. And the essence of left-wing economic policy is always tax increases: the belief that money must be taken from people and redistributed according to what the state thinks is good, resulting in a more successful economy and a fairer world. This is opposed to the view of the Right, which says that we should leave as much money as possible with people; there are public services that need to be financed, so let’s take the money needed for them, but it’s best to leave money with people and businesses, because they always know how to use it better and more efficiently than the state would. So these two ways of thinking are becoming ever more sharply divided every day. And Tisza and DK [Democratic Coalition] are bringing in classic left-wing economic policy, and now they want to tax pensions – because while we’re implementing tax cuts, left-wing economic policy always means tax increases. So from one side Hungarians will get a punch in the gut: a pension tax, which is the latest; corporate tax increased from 9 per cent to 25 per cent; and multi-rate instead of flat-rate income tax – so an income tax increase. And from the other side, from the Right, Europe’s largest tax reduction programme is now underway. I think the best way to conduct this debate is through a national consultation.
Let’s pause for a moment and elaborate on that a little further, because pensioners have also become involved in this debate, as there are indeed proposals – proposals formulated by experts – that would tax part of people’s pensions. By contrast, János Lázár and you have indicated that the Government is working hard on the fourteenth month’s pension. How realistic is this, and what would it take to pay for it? Meanwhile the Tisza Party has also officially spoken about raising the level of pensions at the lower end.
All the experts who want to tax pensions have come out from behind DK and Tisza, and now they’ve come out into the open, which is why this debate has erupted. This is what they always wanted. It takes us back to the Bokros Package [of the Socialist government in the mid-1990s]. No pension system is ever perfect; I’ve never seen one that is. There’s always some element that’s debatable – and this is true of the Hungarian system as well. But it’s true that the Hungarian pension system is based on two pillars: on the one hand, how much time you’ve spent working, how long you’ve been employed; and on the other, how much you’ve paid in contributions. The combination of these factors determines how much pension you’ll receive. It’s extremely risky to tamper with this and introduce new elements into the calculation of pensions, because external intervention may seem fair to one selected group, but other groups will feel that it’s unfair and unjust to them. I made such an intervention during our first term in office, with the best of intentions. It was one of my most unsuccessful political decisions; because we only made a small change to the system, but at that moment such an internal debate erupted over smaller pensions, larger pensions, longer and shorter periods of employment, that it was impossible to make sense of it. And everywhere I looked there were people who had been offended. Everyone felt that an injustice was being done. So I suggest that we don’t introduce any pension reforms. Let’s adjust this system, make minor adjustments if necessary, and keep it going for as long as possible. Well, if more children are born, then this system can be maintained for a very long time. Undoubtedly, in twenty to twenty-five years – depending on the demographic situation – it will be worth thinking about the pension system again in the long term. But now this isn’t necessary. As it stands the pension system is viable, and we can guarantee pensioners that their pensions won’t lose their value – the Hungarian economy can guarantee it, the Government can guarantee it, and I personally can guarantee it. We put this down on paper in an agreement in 2010. In fact, when the economy was doing better, we always raised the value of pensions, and we even restored the thirteenth month’s pension – so we’ve done this once before. I’ve done this before, restoring a pension element that had existed previously but had been taken away by left-wing economic policy. Therefore the introduction of the fourteenth month’s pension isn’t an unfamiliar task for us: I’ve seen it before, we’ve done it before. So what I want to say is that we shouldn’t allow mathematicians, theoretical economists and left-wing utopians to have a say in the pension system, because they’ll implement unfair changes to it. Let’s try to see the pension system in terms of generations, let’s see ourselves in it – not before too long, because we’re also getting older and approaching retirement age. But let’s see our parents in it – and grandparents if they’re still alive; and let’s see in it the civilizational achievement that those who carried the country on their backs their whole lives can live the last twenty to thirty years of their lives in a dignified old age. And what we must always keep in mind is not some mathematical theoretical model, but always these two and a half million Hungarians who deserve to have a stable, predictable income in the last twenty to thirty years of their lives. This must be our starting point, and then suddenly people will put down their pens, pencils and paper, and won’t want to draw up a different pension system. Of course, the fourteenth month’s pension requires economic strength, which is linked to peace – although I’d add that currently there’s a war, and even in this period of stalled economic growth we’re running three programmes, each of which would be a world sensation in its own right. Because we’re running a 3 per cent loan programme to help people buy their first home, a fixed 3 per cent loan programme for small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time we’re implementing Europe’s largest tax cut for families. And we’re doing all this while the war is blocking economic growth. So we’re capable of great things even in these circumstances. But for the fourteenth month’s pension we need peace. Obviously, we need to learn from the reintroduction of the thirteenth month’s pension. We were able to do this by giving back one week’s pension every year, so over four years, the thirteenth month’s pension system was phased in a week at a time. The same logic can be applied to the fourteenth month’s pension, which can thus be implemented over two, three or four years. So we’re keeping the fourteenth month’s pension on the agenda, and people are working on it. This isn’t pension reform: we don’t want to interfere with the system, but rather to look at what additional benefits we can provide, preferably in a fair manner. The thirteenth month’s pension is fair, I think Hungarian society has accepted it, it doesn’t interfere with pension conditions, it’s felt that it leaves everyone to live their lives, and it doesn’t take anything away from anyone. The fourteenth month’s pension can be based on the same logic.
We don’t have much time, but let’s talk about two more topics. Yesterday the Hungarian Standing Conference was held, the most important forum for Hungarians living abroad. There you said that forces that pursue policies against Hungarians living abroad can no longer come to power in Hungary. Twenty or twenty-one years ago we were talking about a failed referendum, and we’ve come a long way since then. What had to happen for the public mood to change so much?
I don’t remember the referendum on dual citizenship as a failure; because although it undoubtedly didn’t receive as much support as we’d have liked, which surprised many people, I think I was less surprised. I come from “deep Hungary”, and I know how much support there is – or rather how little there is – for such abstract issues as dual citizenship. But I still considered it a great success that the number of “yes” votes exceeded the number of “no” votes. And I said that the fact that more people said “yes” to dual citizenship than “no” would be very significant in the future. And this political and legal fact – the number of “yes” votes exceeding the number of “no” votes – was the basis for the constitutional amendment which, when our right-wing, national Christian civic government came to power, immediately granted dual citizenship to Hungarians. And with a constitutional amendment we suddenly turned something bitter – because that’s how it remained in our memory – into something sweet. And I believe that since then, even those living in deep Hungary who aren’t concerned with political theory have come to understand that they themselves are better off if we imagine the Hungarian economy not as the economy of a country of ten million people, but as the economy of a national community of thirteen, fourteen or fifteen million people. Slovakia has become our third most important trading partner, which is obviously related to the economic activity of the more than half a million people of Hungarian origin or Hungarian ethnicity living there. Our economic cooperation with Romania has grown at breakneck speed, which cannot be independent of the fact that there’s a significant Hungarian community living there, who also have economic ties with “Little Hungary”. And in Vojvodina/Vajdaság we’ve established excellent cooperation with the Serbs, and this has also increased the scope of the Hungarian economy. So what I want to say is that, in my opinion, even among those groups, strata and families that are least receptive to national issues, it’s clear that every Hungarian family living in Hungary would be better off if we conceived our economic policy not in terms of the country, but in terms of the nation. We’ll have a larger economy that can create greater prosperity and make many more families happy and satisfied than if we were to pursue an economic policy limited to Little Hungary. This is why I say that in today’s open social debate it’s no longer possible to win, to achieve victory, with a position that seeks to cut Hungary off from Hungarians living beyond the borders.
Let’s jump back to the beginning of this eventful week, because from the Government’s point of view it all started in Gödöllő, where it was announced that the state and OTP would jointly renovate the Grassalkovich Palace. Why is it necessary to involve private capital in such an investment?
We’re talking about 40 billion forints, which won’t be spent in one lump sum, but over several years – as dictated by the logic of the work and the pace of the specialists involved. This is always painful. I think most Hungarians, not just me, feel the same way when we walk past a building that reminds us of our former glory and confronts us with the dilapidated state of such buildings today. This is painful not only because people don’t like to see deterioration and decay, but also because it always has an effect on our self-esteem when we see how great our forebears were, what they were capable of, and how unworthy we are of them, being unable to even maintain what they started – let alone build on it. So I include the condition of many of our prominent historic buildings as part of our national self-esteem. And this is a very large sum. So spending 40 billion on monument protection is almost impossible, especially in an economic situation which is blocked by the war. And at times like this we need patrons. We need partners, and over the past fifteen years, as a result of civil governance, large, strong companies have been created and wealthy families and individuals have emerged who can afford to do so. And I’m glad if they feel that it’s their duty, their duty to their country, to give some of their wealth – whether it belongs to their companies or to themselves – to causes that are important but can’t be funded from the state budget. And I think that giving the Grassalkovich Palace to the university a few years ago was the best thing for us to do: we didn’t keep the entire palace as state property, but gave it to the University of Gödöllő, and so it’s been integrated into the Gödöllő University ecosystem, into the campus. If I attended university I’d like to be a student where the Grassalkovich Palace was part of my campus and living space. So when the entire palace is completed I think students will also have a fantastic experience. What’s more, there’s a huge arboretum or park, which can be easily linked to agricultural education. So things in Gödöllő have come together for the best. But I encourage not only Sándor Csányi and OTP, who have now taken the first step, but also all other major Hungarian companies, wealthy families and individuals – if they see a good, serious cause – to consider getting involved without hesitation and taking on financial burdens for the benefit of the community. This of course is in addition to paying their taxes – which is the minimum we expect from them – and providing jobs for people, which is very good and also expected of them.
I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about topics including the peace summit in Budapest, pensioners, and the Hungarian Standing Conference.
