Zsolt Törőcsik: Several important agreements were reached at last week’s Hungarian–American summit in Washington, of which the agreement on exemption from energy sanctions and the financial “protective shield” sparked the most debate here at home. I’ll be asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about these issues. Good morning.
Good morning. Is there any debate surrounding these issues?
At least in relation to the sanctions there definitely is, so on that let’s get straight to the point. On Tuesday you said that it [the exemption from sanctions] would remain in effect as long as you’re Prime Minister and Trump is President. Yesterday, however, the US Secretary of State said that this exemption would last for one year. How can these two statements be aligned, or how can this contradiction be resolved?
Just as in life: whoever’s on top has the final say. The President is on top.
So that’s how…
That’s how it is. So we have to expect that the reductions in household energy bills will remain in place as long as Donald Trump is the President of the United States and there’s a national government in Hungary – we have to be modest, because ultimately it’s not about me, but about what kind of government we have. If any element of this changes, creating a new situation, then the reductions in household energy bills will be toast. So this is a personal agreement between two leaders. The bureaucrats will write what they write, but it has no significance.
So does this mean that now, while you’re Prime Minister and Trump is President, energy and fuel prices will remain unchanged?
Well, if this weren’t the case, if this weren’t the way things were done, then now, from the end of November, every Hungarian family would be paying around three times as much for their utility bills. So there’s no need to think about complicated diplomacy: as a Christmas present every Hungarian family would get energy bills at triple their current price, and petrol prices would nudge towards or reach 1,000 forints per litre. That’s the situation! Hungary had to be saved from this, and we succeeded in that. I don’t think there’s any debate about that. It’s good news – it’s good news for all Hungarians. Everyone has guiding principles in government. I try to put it in simple terms, and in 2022 I said that even those who don’t vote for us will be better off with us. So it’s not that Fidesz supporters pay low petrol prices and lefties pay high petrol prices: this applies to everyone, we’ve achieved this for everyone. This is specifically an issue on which there’s no room for party political debate, because every Hungarian has benefited from it.
Most recently, both when we spoke and after the meeting, you said that you hadn’t given Trump anything in exchange for the exemption. But critics of the agreement say that Hungary is paying the price for this exemption through military and nuclear energy purchases and LNG [liquefied natural gas] purchases. Is this why these purchases are being made, or would they have been necessary anyway, as dictated by market logic?
We didn’t pay a penny for this exemption, because the President of the United States likes Hungarians. Why this is so is something for psychologists to figure out. The point is that the President is first and foremost a Christian, who believes that it’s good when good things happen in the world, when life is easier, rather than bad things, when life is increasingly difficult. This is why he hates war. So it’s not that he wants to make peace, but rather that we’re talking about a man who sees war as senseless, hates it, and therefore feels that it should be eliminated. That’s the first thing. Second: if he can do good, he’s happy to do so. Now, in terms of disciplining Russia, our purchases are insignificant: Hungarian energy from Russia accounts for perhaps 0.2 per cent of Russia’s total foreign sales – in other words a small portion. Much more significant are the energy purchases made on the sly by Western European companies that are loudly anti-Russian, but that secretly wheel and deal in Russian oil and gas behind the scenes. He’s said this himself, by the way: I’ve quoted him. His wife is Slovenian, she’s from Central Europe, so when he looks at the situation in Central Europe the American president has every reason to want a fair and equitable solution. He wants to hurt or squeeze the Russians, but he doesn’t want to abuse the people he likes. It’s no more complicated than that. He’s given his word on this, and we can trust that.
What’s the significance of other energy purchases, such as nuclear power or LNG – or technological cooperation, which is also being discussed a lot?
Well, I tend to conclude agreements in the interests of the Hungarian economy which are good for the Hungarian economy not as a package, but individually, one by one. That’s also the case here. We’ve agreed on a five-year liquefied natural gas purchase. Over five years, the Hungarian economy will need five times nine billion cubic metres of natural gas, so 45 billion cubic metres of natural gas, and over those five years the amount we’ll be purchasing in liquefied form from the Americans will be 2 billion. So the ratio will be 45 to 2. But it’s good, it’s important – it’s said that we need to diversify, and the more places gas or oil comes from, the more security it gives Hungary. We don’t usually talk about this, but the fact is that after 2010 we created a lot of connections, pipeline connections. No one remembers it now, but opposition MPs tore strips off me when we built the Slovak–Hungarian interconnector, for example. Lots of clever experts said that there was no need for it, it would never pay for itself, and so on. Of course, when answering the question of when something will pay for itself one has to take into account the fact that it’s not just about price, but also about security. If it weren’t for the Slovak–Hungarian interconnector, we’d be in much bigger trouble today. We’ve built the necessary pipelines in all directions, with varying capacities, so Hungary is now a country that buys most of its gas from Russia under a long-term contract, and MOL also buys most of its oil from Russia; but we also have other secondary, supplementary options that provide security. For the time being we can’t replace the largest capacity pipelines that run from Russia with anything else, but we’re also operating other links on a supplementary basis.
An agreement has been reached on the financial shield. In an interview on Tuesday, you said that we’ll draw on it when and in whatever form we want. The opposition is accusing you of creating a debt burden for the country with this, saying that it’s a gigantic loan, and they’ve drawn parallels with the 2008 IMF loan. Firstly, is this parallel valid? And secondly, what kind of specific situation could there be in which such a protective shield would be useful?
It’s not my job to think like the opposition, but I’ve never heard such nonsense as I’ve heard about the trip to the US. How could a financial safety shield be bad for the country? In the case of the IMF loan they took out, that could have been the case: old sins cast a long shadow, and they’re still explaining themselves. It’s possible, and IMF loans are about receiving credit in return for which they expect all kinds of internal, domestic economic measures. Taking away the thirteenth month’s pension, for example. Or taking away the thirteenth month’s salary – which is what they did. So it’s true that left-wing governments concluded agreements with the IMF that contained measures with drastic effects on the Hungarian people. That’s why I sent the IMF home. We’re a hospitable country, and even the IMF can have dinner with us, but it’s not acceptable for them to create a financial situation that then forces our governments to harm the Hungarian people. That’s why I sent them home. This is an old story. The IMF is a credit facility with domestic political and economic preconditions. That’s not the case here. What we’re talking about here is the existence in the international financial world of four or five instruments that can be used by countries that are on friendly terms with one another to help one another if one of them gets into trouble. In theory this is a mutual mechanism, but I’m not saying that if the United States gets into trouble we’ll help them, and indeed the reverse is more likely: we regularly see runs on the forint, the Hungarian forint coming under attack from international speculation. That’s when these instruments will come into play. There are four or five instruments that have been developed in international financial and economic practice, which are used partly by central banks and partly by governments. These are currently being taken stock of. We’re outlining their broad contours, and when one of them is needed, we’ll check in with the Americans, and draw on it.
Several international newspapers have highlighted the ideological similarities between you two as a reason for the negotiations being successful, or why they could have been successful. How much do you think this mattered?
This is the essence. Everything depends on it. So why does the United States consider Hungary a friendly country? And why did the previous US administration, the left-wing US administration, consider Hungary an enemy? We didn’t attack them, we were unable to cause them any harm that would make them hate us or be on bad terms with us. And yet we had a bad relationship with the previous left-wing US administration, while we have a good relationship with the current right-wing – or let’s say nationalist, Christian or conservative – US administration. The reason for this is that we see the world in a similar way. We identify our problems, each of us our own, we see that there are many similarities between them, and we learn from each other – or we adopt each other’s solutions, and we look at how each of us solves them. So, let’s say that one of the pillars of American politics today – perhaps the most important pillar – is that America must be protected from illegal migration. But the Hungarian government is also based on this principle! We say that those who can come here and live with us must be only those whom we allow in, and not those whom Brussels sends here or forces upon us. So this is why, for example, criticism of Brussels from Washington and Budapest revolves around the same issue: that an external power mustn’t force migration policy on a country that wants to reject migration. Similarly, Christian values are extremely important to the US government. In this respect they’re perhaps in a better position than we are – the spiritual condition of the United States can perhaps be said to be more solid than that of Hungary. Of course this is difficult to measure accurately, but one gets that feeling; and we too are running a Christian government – a modern Christian government. The same applies to peace policy: the United States is convinced that peace is good for America. In the case of the Ukrainian–Russian war, this is completely clear when looking at Hungary. We also need peace in our neighbourhood, for both humanitarian and economic reasons. And I could continue by talking about the other elements that are the same. Family support: finally, there’s a family-friendly government in America. The previous American government was pro-LGBTQ, explicitly supporting – including financially – suspect, complicated, unnatural forms of cohabitation, and allowing LGBTQ activists to influence the upbringing of children, in contradiction with parents’ wishes. That’s now a thing of the past: they have the same family-friendly policies as we do here, protecting families, children, parents’ rights, and so on. So this agreement provides the basis for economic cooperation.
You’ve mentioned the war. There’s been little talk over the past week about what progress has been made on that, or what’s happened in the negotiations. You said that you offered your own capabilities – Hungary’s capabilities – in order to help Trump achieve peace. What are these capabilities? Has there been any progress?
I don’t want to talk about specifics here, as preparations are underway for a major peace summit in Budapest. Hungary’s value and contribution to the cause of peace is that we’re the only European country that’s kept diplomatic channels with Russia open. We’re the only country that’s in constant contact with them, negotiating with them, and I’m the only prime minister in Europe who’s able – willing and able – to talk to the Russian president when necessary. This is a very important skill in terms of preparing for peace, because if you’re not in communication with someone, how can there be peace? And today, for various reasons, Hungary has this ability – although it’s perhaps not worth going into those reasons now, as there’s too much of a personal element to them. I’ve devoted more than ten years of my life to ensuring that – despite the negative historical background – Russian–Hungarian relations remain reasonable, and that they’re beneficial to both countries, especially to the Hungarians. And now, in this unexpected situation, this unexpected war situation, all the energy I’ve invested over more than a decade is paying off. This is why we’re in this situation.
Speaking of Europe, after the exemption from sanctions Brussels announced almost immediately that from 2027 Russian oil would no longer be allowed to be imported into the European Union. What’s the point of the American exemption if we don’t get the same from Brussels?
So far in the fight for protection of the reductions in household energy bills we’ve been fighting on two battlefields: one was an American left-wing government and the other is Brussels, the world of Brussels bureaucrats – which overall is even more left-wing. We’ve consolidated the American front line, but the Brussels front is still open, and we still have to fight there. This is an intellectually interesting debate, although it’s a bloody one – which is perhaps more important than intellect, because the level of utility bills is a matter of families’ livelihoods, so one that’s deeply felt. The Brusselites have devised a strategy, because I’ve vetoed all sanctions against Russian energy. So when they wanted to impose sanctions against Russian energy that would have been bad for Hungarian households I’ve always vetoed them – mostly on my own, 26 to 1. I’ve played this match several times, I held out longer, and I’d continue to veto it, but what they’re doing is saying that from now on it’s not a sanction: the ban on imports of Russian energy into Europe is no longer a sanction, but a trade policy measure. And while sanctions require unanimity, trade policy only requires a majority decision. This is the game they’re playing. This is a blatant violation of European law, the rule of law, and the idea of European cooperation: it’s a circumvention of everything on which cooperation between European states is based. It’s the worst thing that Brussels is doing. They’ll pay a very high price for this, because Hungary is a smaller country, but now everyone who puts their name to this will suffer later, because they too can be bypassed at any time with a solution that’s contrary to European constitutionality, as is the case here. Of course we’re taking legal action, so we’re not accepting this. I’m fighting on the Brussels front line for Hungary’s interests, using a variety of means. One of these is that we won’t accept this clearly unlawful and anti-European solution chosen by Brussels to sideline a national government that disagrees with it, namely Hungary. And we’re turning to the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, I’m looking for other, non-legal means to dissuade Brussels from this intention. There are such possibilities, but if you’ll allow me, I won’t reveal them now, but after the battle.
The European Union considers sanctions and the ban on Russian oil imports to be one way of supporting Ukraine, but yesterday it also transferred another 6 billion euros in aid to Ukraine, even though Ukraine is currently being rocked by a huge corruption scandal. What conclusion should Brussels draw from this, given that a great deal of aid seems to be involved in this case?
There’s the fundamental question, and there are the details. The fundamental question is this: what’s better for Europe – peace or war? My answer is that peace is better for Europe. Therefore all efforts should be directed towards peace. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with us Hungarians on this. There are many countries that identify their own interests in such a way that war is better for them than peace. In doing so they’re taking a huge risk, pushing Europe step by step into this war. They’re providing weapons, money and technology; and the question of whether to provide soldiers – and if so, how – is on the agenda. Thus the risk of the war spreading is a daily reality, due to the warmongering leaders of Western European countries. Brussels, incidentally, is playing a key role in the rise of the warmongers. So that’s the basic situation. Everything else is secondary. So if the basic situation is that you’ve placed the pieces on the chessboard incorrectly, then you won’t be able to play well – you’ve ruined the game. And now the pieces are placed incorrectly on the board. Europeans need to rearrange the chessboard, turn around, and move toward peace instead of war. They must understand every single measure in this way, otherwise they’ll bring war to Europe, send the money out, and destroy the European economy. They’ve burned through more than 185 billion euros. That’s a huge amount! If that had gone into the European economy, the European economy wouldn’t look like it does today. And they want to burn through tens of billions more, again and again, even though we’ve long since run out of money. What are they doing? They want to take out loans, which means they’re going to sink the whole of Europe in debt. Not only is our current standard of living suffering as a result of their bad policies, but our children and grandchildren will also suffer the consequences of this misguided, bad war policy. That is why I’m fighting so stubbornly, if I may put it that way. Rationally, considerately, but without giving up my position, so that we can somehow bring it about – not alone, because that won’t work, but by finding allies to take the Europeans off the path of war.
Well, in the current economic climate, this week the decision was made to pay out the first instalment of the fourteenth month’s pension, and pension supplements will also be paid out this week. What factors are being considered in these decisions? Because many people believe that such generous support poses too great a risk to the budget, especially in the current situation.
One could look at it that way. I don’t want to say that in what they’re saying the left-wing parties – DK [Democratic Coalition] and Tisza – don’t have anything worth considering; because you’re taking on a long-term financial commitment when you enact such long-term measures as giving mothers complete tax exemption, or making infant support benefit and childcare allowance tax-free, or introducing a fourteenth month’s pension. And in order to do that, you need to have some kind of vision, some kind of refined vision of the future; because it may be feasible this year, but what about next year and the year after that? This is why this is an open-ended debate: no one here can say that only I am right or only you are right; but the question is whether or not the considerations on which you base your decisions are themselves well-founded. And I argue that our decisions have a solid basis, they have a financial and economic basis, they’re acceptable, and they must be done – even in the face of opposition from the Left. Yes, it’s true that Tisza and DK don’t support the fourteenth month’s pension. They want to transform the pension system. That’s a bad idea; the fourteenth month’s pension is a good idea. They don’t support the form of family support that would give tax exemptions to mothers with at least two children. We think it’s affordable. They don’t support doubling the tax credit for families with children because they don’t believe it’s feasible. We believe it is feasible. And I could go on. This is a real debate.
Yes, but, for example, officially the Tisza Party says that it’s not talking about such things, and that it’s the experts who are talking about them. But recently a political scientist, addressing precisely these experts, has said that now isn’t the time to say what anyone thinks about the world: now is the time to focus on winning this election. How can we have a real debate like this? How can voters clearly see what everyone really thinks?
This is why we have the national consultation. This is why recently millions of Hungarians have received questionnaires, which I ask them to read, think about, fill out and send back – because this is the debate itself. The fact that there is scheming in politics and that a party seeking power – backed by Brussels – doesn’t want to reveal its intentions shouldn’t cause any intellectual difficulty. Tisza and DK are both left-wing parties, so they pursue left-wing economic policies – mainly supporting tax increases and dependence on Brussels. These are two very big mistakes, but that’s what makes them left-wing. So everyone can see this – it’s not rocket science, even the simplest Hungarian understands what’s going on here. On the other side there’s a national government. That’s how things stand. We say that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it’s a duck. So the situation is that DK and Tisza are left-wing parties. Period. They want to implement left-wing economic policies with Brussels’ approval. I think Hungarians understand this. We can have this debate, even if DK and Tisza want to hide their real intentions. First of all, they’ll be exposed anyway. There’s an old saying that the most damage in a person’s life is caused by the smallest part of the body: the tongue. So the kind of politics in which one must speak sooner or later brings things out, teases them out, makes them seen; and every week instead of defending what they think they get caught out when they scheme and speak in half-truths. This doesn’t work, as people see through it. What’s more, experts can’t be kept under any kind of control. Experts make a living from being experts: from expressing and presenting their expertise. I think it’s as clear as day, the national consultation is bringing all this to the surface, and as we move towards the election, it’s becoming increasingly clear that there’s the left-wing economic policy of DK and Tisza, and there’s the national economic policy of Fidesz. There’s national foreign policy based on sovereignty, the policy of Fidesz; and there’s policy – such as that of DK and Tisza – based on subordination of the nation, subordination to Brussels. These things are becoming clearer every day. The whole point of the campaign is to clarify these issues so that people can make decisions based on real understanding and insight into the situation. The consultation is helping.
Let’s talk about another issue. The basic allowance for adoptive parents is being doubled. How does this fit in with the child protection measures of recent years? Because in recent months the opposition has attacked the Government perhaps most fiercely in this area.
I can’t say that there’s no truth in what they say. We’re talking about a very difficult area. We’re talking about children who, for whatever reason, no longer have their parents, and have been removed from the network of links formed by their biological family. Because when someone loses their parents, they have their uncle, aunt, grandfather, godfather, godmother, someone within the family who’s there to help them in such situations. But there are difficult situations when even this isn’t available, when there’s no safety net, and the child is removed from their biological family. And then the question is about what should happen. And, of course, in European culture – and I think in the hearts of Hungarians too – it’s in our system of instincts that children mustn’t be left to fend for themselves. So we don’t want to see street children. I could name countries where such children are neglected, or where the state doesn’t consider it to be its duty to provide for their upbringing. But we are, after all, a decent Hungarian society. Children are more important than anything. Every Hungarian feels this way: when they see a child, they think of their own, and so obviously if the child is in distress they want to help, don’t they? That’s how we are. And that’s why the Hungarian decision is that at times like this the state must step in. But these are very difficult situations. So here it’s very difficult for the state to function well. Because the parents may appear after all. And it’s very difficult to raise children without parents. Everyone who has raised children knows this – it is difficult enough with your own children, let alone those without parents. These institutions are never at the centre of politics, and often don’t receive the recognition they deserve. Many of these children with difficult backgrounds become delinquents, which is why dark, mafia-like figures appear. So it’s a very difficult situation. But the state mustn’t give up on its mission – it must stand firm, even in such difficult circumstances. What’s our response? Our response is that it’s good to find families for as many children as possible. We call this the adoption system. And although these children don’t grow up in their biological families, they still grow up in families. And these parents, these adoptive parents, who do a fantastic job, a very difficult job, are given recognition – partly through moral support, which hasn’t been a problem so far, and also through financial support. We’re now doubling the amount paid per child to adoptive parents. Even after this, however, there will still be children whom no one has applied to adopt. Although we’re confident, based on all kinds of estimates we’ve made, that if we increase the state allowance paid to adoptive parents by such a significant amount, the number of such parents will increase and we’ll be able to give even more children the chance to grow up in families. But there will always be some children for whom no one comes forward. They will have to be raised in institutions. From that point on, we can go in two directions. The first is to place our trust in the churches. I, for example, trust the churches, which have fantastic experience and moral commitment in this area. So I’d be happy if as many children as possible in institutions were in church-run institutions, of which there are many. But even after that, there will still be other children, and we have to care for them in state-run institutions. And there, all kinds of rules must be put in place to protect them, to educate them well, to raise them properly. Part of that involves discipline, because raising children isn’t just about loving them, but about loving them well. And from time to time these decisions must be reviewed and reinforced. And in recent weeks politics has been dealing with this a lot, and the Government has dealt with it a lot. We’ve made decisions, and these are great and sound decisions – good for the children, and good for the adoptive parents too.
I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about subjects including his experiences at the Hungarian–American summit, Brussels’ war plans, and the situation of pensioners.
More news
