Zsolt Törőcsik: Greetings from Washington, from the Hungarian Embassy, and greetings to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Good evening, good morning, good afternoon!
Yes, we’re recording this conversation a few hours in advance of its broadcast. As we speak it’s Thursday evening here in Washington, so you’ll be meeting with US president Donald Trump tomorrow. The last time you were on an official visit here – almost exactly six and a half years ago – you also met with Donald Trump. At that time, you said that the countries’ alliance relations had been strengthened in a number of important areas. Then came four years of Democratic rule. How different will the atmosphere be at this meeting, compared to the one in 2019?
Everything will be different. The true value of an alliance lies in its being tested. It’s not worth much if it only exists on paper and in a few declarations. But the more battles that are fought together, the stronger and more valuable the alliance is. And this is what the current US–Hungarian alliance is like. We could refer back to Biden, but perhaps we need to go even further back in time. In 2010 something happened: there was a country in Europe, in the Western world – and that country was Hungary – which said that the direction in which the West was heading, the direction in which Western governments were leading the Western peoples, was a dead end. It said that it was heading straight into a wall, that it would end in great strife, and that so-called liberal, globalist governance had exhausted its reserves and could no longer provide answers to the questions most important to ordinary people. There was unemployment, lack of competitiveness, a rising cost of living, and the financial crisis. Then within a few years migration entered the scene, and anti-family gender ideology was unleashed. So, starting in the 2010s, it became clear that in order to have peaceful, secure, balanced, happy lives, people needed something else. And it was the Hungarians who first raised this question and answered it by saying that what was needed wasn’t liberal, globalist governance, but conservative Christian national governance. At that time we were the only ones in the Western world who took this path. In 2016 we received a great affirmation when Donald Trump, who thought exactly the same as us, won the presidency in America, saying that the direction of the Western world needed to be changed – or if that wasn’t possible everywhere, then at least some nations should depart from that bad trajectory. This is what the Hungarians did on a small scale, and the Americans did on a large scale. And he tried. He got somewhere with it, but lost the following election. The globalist, liberal Democrats came back here to America, and at that moment, the American–Hungarian relationship – which until then had been working so well – suddenly broke down. And they imposed sanctions on us – partly political sanctions, and partly financial sanctions: they tried to make our nuclear power plant construction impossible, they prevented us from accessing some modern weaponry using American technology, and they allowed the double taxation treaty between the two countries to expire without being renewed. So the Americans punished us in every area. That came to an end this year, when Donald Trump took office again in January, and we returned to where we were in 2016 – with the difference that today the American president is much better prepared: he had time to prepare, he assessed the scale of his undertaking – that is, the task of changing the Western world’s governmental culture – and he spent years recruiting people for it here in the United States. We also participated in the development of their programme. And now, having returned, he’s once more on the global political stage, fully armed – and, despite being of advanced years on paper, displaying youthful energy, like a Trump tornado. And that’s good for us Hungarians. Well, that’s our shared story in a nutshell.
You say that this is good for us Hungarians. What exactly does that mean? And, of course, almost ten years ago – in your 2016 speech in Tusnádfürdő – you were the first leader in office to stand up for him; and you’ve done so repeatedly since then, no matter how much Trump has been attacked, and no matter how much you’ve been attacked for it – whether in Hungary or in Brussels. So how much payoff could the past ten years bring – even in tomorrow’s negotiations?
First of all, there are 1,400 American-owned companies operating in Hungary. And collectively these companies provide about 100,000 jobs for the Hungarian economy – which means that the incomes of 100,000 Hungarian families depend on people working for companies in Hungary owned by Americans. So this isn’t insignificant in economic terms. Furthermore, most of these companies are equipped with modern technology, meaning that they belong to the future rather than the past, and they bring not only jobs to Hungary, but also technology. This year seven major investments have already been made, worth more than 100 million dollars, or more than 100 billion forints; and we expect another three or four significant American investments to come to Hungary before the end of the year. This is not unrelated to the fact that the system of US–Hungarian relations has changed. If there was ever a golden age for US–Hungarian relations, it is now. If Hungarians have ever had the opportunity to do business in America, it is right now. And if American companies have ever wanted to come to Hungary and try their hand at contributing to the Hungarian economy, then that time is right now. Cooperation between universities is excellent, cooperation between research institutes is excellent, and even at the highest political level there’s complete harmony between the two governments on issues such as peace, war, immigration and migration, and the protection of family values. At present this is a collegial relationship – given that, of course, the American president represents the interests of the American people, and I represent the interests of the Hungarian people.
We’ll talk about the issue of war and peace in a moment, but another important topic of the negotiations is energy. A few days ago Mr. Trump said that you’d requested exemption from Russian sanctions, but hadn’t received it; and on the plane coming here you said that’s it’s only a slight exaggeration to call this a matter of life and death. Given that Mr. Trump is familiar with the country’s geographical situation and conditions, which you discussed on the phone a few weeks ago, what will it take to convince him that Hungary should be exempted?
I’ll be able to answer that question tomorrow afternoon. For Hungarian households, Hungarian families and Hungarian companies, this is the most serious and important of the topics currently under discussion. And tomorrow I must achieve results on it.
Can we offer something that might make the American president more accommodating?
I don’t want to give anything away in the business sense, because this isn’t about asking the Americans for a gift or something unusual, but simply asking them to recognise that the system of sanctions they recently imposed on Russian energy creates an impossible position for countries like Hungary, which have no sea coast. And I’ll ask the President to acknowledge this. I have a solution to propose – actually, more than one – and I’ll ask him to accept one of them. I don’t want to achieve this on a business basis, but on the basis of common sense and understanding. There are other issues on which I’ll take a different approach. There the emphasis will be on mutual benefit: a bit of “You give, I get; I give, you get’, depending on the situation. So the task will be to map out our common interests. There are energy and other business issues that we’d like to discuss tomorrow on a commercial basis. But issues related to energy, to Russian energy, aren’t those kinds of issues – on those I’ll be asking for the President’s understanding.
Let’s talk about the issue of war and peace. On this issue your basic positions are the same. What can you say to the President that might bring the parties closer to negotiations? Because that would be the first step – for Putin and Trump to enter into negotiations again.
The most important thing for us Hungarians to realise is that the American president is a man of peace. And this isn’t a political ploy on his part, because I’ve known him for a long time, and regardless of all the controversy surrounding him, I can say that he’s a Christian who believes that war is wrong. And anyone who has the means and the opportunity – because God has given them talent, a position or influence – has the duty to bring their strength, their influence and everything they’ve received to bear so that people don’t die, and so that there’s peace instead of war. And Americans are convinced that free economic relations between people ultimately lead to happiness. We Europeans, we Central Europeans, tend to think about this in a slightly more complicated way, but that’s not relevant to the matter at hand. The fact is that the American president – who’s described by the Left as almost diabolically powerful – is actually a decent man, convinced in his heart that bad things must be eliminated, and that of all bad things the worst is war. He sincerely believes this, and he’s looking for a solution to end wars. In eight months he’s been able to resolve eight minor and major conflicts. But the biggest task still lies ahead of him: ending the Russo–Ukrainian war. This is a major challenge even for an American president.
What do you think it will take for there to be a peace summit in the foreseeable future?
I think the summit will happen, since it’s been announced. As the point of negotiations is to bring us closer to agreement and peace, the question is whether the summit is intended to bring us closer to peace, or whether they’ll wait until they can agree on all issues, and at the meeting we won’t be brought closer to peace, but instead the agreement will be announced. This hasn’t been decided yet. So there will be a peace summit. Whether it will be the last – one that finally brings a solution – or one that brings an important step towards peace, is something that we don’t yet know.
At the same time, here’s Europe, and if we look at the issue from this perspective, Brussels continues to see support for Ukraine as the possibility for resolving the conflict. This week saw the release of a report which states that, to continue the war, Ukraine would need a sum in dollars equivalent to 140 trillion forints over the next four years. For comparison, this is almost double Hungary’s total annual economic output. Where would Europe get – or where does it have – enough money to finance this?
The question is a good one. In fact, our thoughts should now revolve around two different questions at the same time, and each on its own is quite complicated. The first is how to prevent the war from spreading, so that it doesn’t draw in or drag in the Europeans, and so that – due to some bad decision or accident – we don’t find ourselves in a situation in which Europe suddenly finds itself directly involved in this war. Today it’s only indirectly involved, providing weapons and money. But this policy is pushing at the limits of risk tolerance: as they say, one wrong move and the war will spread, there will be an escalation, and there could be unpredictable consequences leading to World War III. This is the first thing we must think about. But we Hungarians, who think ahead, know perfectly well that, God willing, there will be a ceasefire and peace. And then this question arises: What will happen after that? As they used to say in the era of the commies, “We know what will happen, but what will happen until then?” So the question is whether, once the war is over, Ukraine will be able to exist as a self-sustaining state. And today the answer to that is more gloomy than encouraging. Today the prevailing opinion is that Ukraine won’t be able to survive without foreign financial aid – not only due to the ravages of war, but also because of other weaknesses. And who will pay for this? And how big will the bill be? This is the second issue we need to consider. We need to find a solution that will allow the Ukrainians to stay afloat, but at the lowest possible cost to Europe.
But is there such a solution? Because right now it seems that Europe isn’t thinking along these lines.
Europe isn’t thinking along these lines because it isn’t focusing on the second question – if it were, it would have stopped supporting the war long ago. It still believes that it can win the war. Europeans think that the war can be resolved on the battlefield, that the Ukrainians will win, defeat Russia, and that Russia can be forced to pay reparations. And then the Russians will retroactively pay the price of this war, as well as the costs of enabling Ukraine to continue functioning. This is the European idea. From a Hungarian perspective, this is miles away from reality. So in my opinion the idea of making the Russians pay for the cost of the war, the reconstruction of Ukraine, and the functioning of the Ukrainian state is an illusion that no serious person should entertain. But at the moment Europe is still indulging in this illusion. There’s no answer to the question of what will happen if the assumption of a victorious Ukraine forcing Russia to pay turns out to be false. If that doesn’t happen, who will pay, and how much? Because the bill has been drawn up, and someone has to pay it. Until now, the European people have been paying: 185 billion euros have gone, and now another 40 billion would need to be sent. Hungary is trying to prevent this, because the Hungarians’ money would also be sent to Ukraine, and I want to prevent that at all costs. So we’re already talking about huge sums of money. But the figures you’ve quoted are small amounts compared to what analysts are talking about for the coming years. And Europe doesn’t have the money to pay this. So what will happen if Europe doesn’t have the money, and we can’t force the Russians to pay? This is the great dilemma facing the West. Between you and me, this isn’t our problem, because we’re not participating in this war: we’re helping the Ukrainians from a humanitarian point of view, but we have no obligation to send them soldiers, weapons or money. From the outset we’ve said that we wouldn’t do that. So I’m right to fight to ensure that Hungarian money doesn’t go to Ukraine. But how will those who have supported Ukraine so far back out of this dead end? This will be the big question for European politics over the next six months.
And how much pressure is there on Hungary – both from within the country and from outside – for it to fall in line with what’s happening in Brussels?
The pressure is the greatest imaginable; I can’t even express it in physical terms. Everyone’s working to push Hungary into this war, to get Hungary to fall in line, for Hungary to give weapons, to send soldiers if necessary, and to give money to Ukraine – just as the pro-war governments of Western countries are doing. I don’t want that. This is what’s at stake in this battle.
Can this be counterbalanced by the anti-war petition that’s currently underway?
How can we counterbalance it? First of all, there’s the anti-war petition, the essence of which is the Hungarian people’s united stand for peace. We can counterbalance it by working together with the Americans to create peace – or at least a ceasefire. And, in addition to the unified stance of the Hungarian people, American relations and tomorrow’s negotiations should give the current Hungarian prime minister enough strength to withstand even the greatest pressure and maintain a course that serves the interests of the Hungarian people.
This week saw the emergence of an interesting twist or subplot in relations with Ukraine: the data of 200,000 users was leaked from the Tisza Party’s mobile phone application, and it may have ended up in Ukraine. You’ve ordered an investigation into the matter, while Péter Magyar believes that data theft took place, but denies any Ukrainian dimension. What’s the current status of the investigation you’ve ordered? Do we know anything more?
It’s on track. I haven’t dealt with this matter since I issued the order, but the next government meeting will be on Wednesday, and I expect the relevant ministers to report then. Until then, I can’t give you any details. What I can say is the following. The Hungarian legal system is very clear – and indeed the moral requirements in the minds of Hungarians are also clear: if someone undertakes to request data from others, if they collect data, then they become the controller of that data and assume responsibility for its proper handling. If they’re unable to do so, then they’re in serious breach of their legal obligations and are unfit to handle and safeguard the sensitive information and data of others, or to manage it in any way. This is the situation that’s arisen here: a data controller – everyone’s talking about an opposition party, but that’s not what’s important right now – has proved incapable of handling the data entrusted to them under appropriate conditions, and that personal data was made public without the consent of those to whom it relates. So it’s not certain that they consented to this – and in fact I can say with a high degree of certainty that they didn’t; because most people don’t like to see the public release of their name, telephone number, address, geolocation data of their whereabouts, and – God forbid – previous financial contributions. Generally people don’t live like that, but instead want their personal data to be handled confidentially. They have good reason to want that, as it makes them feel safe. The Ukrainian connection plays a role here, because the development and operation of that entire data management system can be traced back to Ukraine. We can say this based on the facts, since the data management system itself was developed by Ukrainians – or Ukrainians were also involved in its development. In addition, some of the companies connected to the Ukrainian government, as well as certain privileged data controllers, are located in Ukraine. So the person who handled this data also entrusted its handling to someone in Ukraine. Ukraine is a country at war. What’s more, Ukraine’s in dispute with Hungary over whether the latter should support it, if so, how, and after that over what Hungarians should decide about Ukraine’s membership of the European Union. It’s in the Ukrainians’ interest to convince the Hungarians to provide soldiers, weapons and money, and to allow their country to join the European Union. The Ukrainians are obviously collecting data, information, people and names that they can later use to influence decisions on these matters – for example when it comes to an election, since it’s in Ukraine’s interest for there to be a pro-Ukrainian government in Hungary. Today Hungary has a pro-Hungarian government, one that’s not friendly to Ukraine, because the relationship between Ukraine and the current Hungarian national government is tense and it’s characterised by opposing interests on many points. The Ukrainians want a change of government. They’re looking for people, agents, parties, journalists and voters who can help Ukraine in this, because they expect a pro-Ukrainian government to bring Hungary closer, to involve it in the war, and to give Ukraine more help than the current Hungarian government is giving. This is a logical line of thinking, and the data collection case can also be interpreted in this light.
Staying with the Tisza Party, we’ve heard their official line that they’d reduce taxes and increase pensions. At the same time, this week András Kármán, their economic policy expert, said that support for businesses should be cut back and special taxes [on large players in certain sectors] should be reduced. There are also other experts associated with Tisza who refer to and speak about regulatory amendments and austerity measures. Why do they want these things? One of the justifications they’ve offered is that the budget cannot cope with what’s happening now.
Over the past thirty-five years I’ve learned that in Hungarian politics essentially two types of economic policy have been competing with each other. For the sake of simplicity, we call one “left-liberal” and the other “national conservative”. The essence of left-liberal economic policy is always to raise taxes and to cut back on things that they think people aren’t entitled to. For example, they took away the thirteenth month’s pension and thirteenth month’s salary. The Right, on the other hand, always thinks that taxes should be reduced: it’s not up to the Government to decide how people should spend their money; it’s better if people have as much money as possible, and are able to decide for themselves how to live their lives and spend their money. And to this end the Government creates the conditions by levying only the lowest possible taxes on families. In fact, where possible, it supports families through family tax allowances; because raising children isn’t just a private matter, but a shared matter for the whole nation. Let there be as many children as possible, let their living conditions be good, and let their parents be able to raise them well, so that ultimately they become healthy, strong and successful Hungarians. So in the economic policy of the Right there’s always an element of family support. Today, as we move closer to the election, this formula is again emerging before our eyes: there’s the economic policy of the Left, represented by DK and Tisza; and there’s the economic policy of the national Right, based on tax cuts and family support, represented by Fidesz–KDNP.
In this regard a national consultation has also been launched. What should the Government do when the results are in, or will there be any long-term obligations as a result?
The point of the national consultation is to try to bring clarity to the situation. So at the moment there’s such a cacophony of election rhetoric that in order to keep up you have to be permanently alert. It wasn’t like that in the past. You may be too young to remember, but in the past you couldn’t deny on Tuesday what you’d said on Monday, and then say a third thing on Wednesday. That wasn’t possible in the past because people would be held accountable for it, or perhaps they’d feel ashamed. But somehow it just wasn’t possible – anyone who did that, who talked nonsense, saying one thing and then another, was punished by the voters. Now there’s such cacophony all over the world – this isn’t just a Hungarian phenomenon – that it’s very difficult to figure out exactly what anyone wants. The National Consultation will help to clarify a few vital issues. Should taxes be raised or not? Should pensions be taxed or not? Should household energy price reductions remain in place? Should the family support system remain in place? So I think that the national consultation is helping the Hungarian people to express their position today on a number of issues in a clear and understandable way. In fact it’s creating the opportunity for a dialogue based on common sense.
What is certain, however, is that in the coming days 250,000 mothers with three children will receive their first pay packets free of income tax. What’s the Government’s calculation on the expansion or potential expansion of the financial leeway of the families concerned?
Well, everyone is driven by something, and that includes politicians. I too am driven by certain things – by passions, commitments or missions. And one of the things that drives the entire Right – and therefore me as well – is that we should do everything we can to ensure that those who have children don’t find themselves in a financially more difficult situation than those who don’t have children. We’ve already taken several steps in this direction. A good example is the tax allowance for families with children. But what’s really close to our hearts is the current decision. This is because we know that mothers are at the heart of the family, and that their financial stability and security determine how many children they have – and, ultimately, the future development of our community, the future of our national community. This is why we’ve now reached the point at which we’re not only giving a general family tax allowance – the value of which we’re doubling, having already increased it by 50 per cent from 1 July, and now increasing it by another 50 per cent from 1 January. But now in addition to this we’ve introduced a special measure to support mothers who have had at least three children, regardless of the age of those children: such mothers will be exempt from paying personal income tax for the rest of their lives. This now applies to 250,000 Hungarian mothers. And from 1 January the next step will be to grant lifetime income tax exemption to mothers of two children, to those who have given birth to at least two children. In 2027 we’ll also exempt mothers under the age of 50 who have given birth to at least two children, in the following year we’ll exempt mothers under the age of 60 who have given birth to at least two children, and following that all other mothers who have given birth to at least two children. So in the end we’ll reach the point at which Hungary will be a country with one million mothers who have lifetime exemption from paying income tax. For the rest of their lives they won’t pay income tax, because by giving birth to children, by raising them, bringing them up, making them part of our community and guiding them into the world of work they’ve created value that our society rewards, recognises and honours. Tax exemption is an example of this recognition. This is one of the Right’s most important spiritual driving forces or energies. I’m glad that after sixteen years of government we’ve been able to get this far. We have a few more similar plans in store, and I hope we’ll be able to implement them after the next election.
The experts I mentioned earlier are warning against continuing this and extending it to mothers of two.
When it comes to this the Left are foaming at the mouth. First of all, for the Left, you – and all of us – are just taxpayers. To them, therefore, we only exist as individuals: the Left believes that society exists as a collection of individuals. There’s some truth in this. We believe that society, or the nation, consists of a collection of families. We think it’s closer to real life if we see a family as a single unit, not as three or four separate individuals. And if we consider families as single units – as they are in real life – and adjust the tax system accordingly, determining how and in what ways we can support them according to their needs, then we’re benefiting families. Meanwhile the Left’s approach to economic policy can’t even deal with this aspect, with people living together to form families. This is why the Left will always eliminate all family-based support.
Among the subjects I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about were the Hungarian–American summit, the possibilities for ending the war, and the scandal involving the leaking of Tisza supporters’ data.
More news
