Menu
Zsolt Törőcsik: Welcome from Ohrid in North Macedonia, and I welcome Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to our external studio. Good morning.
Good morning.
As was pointed out in the introduction, we’re talking to each other here because this is the venue of the North Macedonian–Hungarian joint government meeting. What’s the reason for this, and what’s the significance of North Macedonia for Hungary?
Indeed, we’re here now near a lakeside town called Ohrid. We know very little about North Macedonia, but when you come here, you become interested in learning more about it. It’s a fantastic country, the size of Transdanubia, but with more than two hundred mountain peaks rising to over 2,000 metres. I recommend making the trip here to everyone whose life, time and money enable them to do so. As the name of the country itself clearly suggests, North Macedonia is a complicated place. It has emerged through a conflict. It used to be called Macedonia, but then they had to change the name to North Macedonia because of the conflict with the Greeks. I too have to be careful not to make a mistake on that, because it could lead to an international fracas. And now they’re in a dispute with the Bulgarians, who are blocking their EU membership process, also because of ethnic, national, minority disputes. Hungary is holding the rotating presidency of the European Union, so I’d say that it’s obligatory to go to those countries that are in the most difficult situations, that are in a difficult position in terms of joining the EU, and to help in resolving ongoing conflicts. This is one of the reasons we’re here, but there are more important reasons; because the EU Presidency will pass like the common cold, but there are issues – such as migration – that won’t leave us so easily. Perhaps not everyone remembers this, but during the great migration rush and invasion of Europe and Hungary in 2015–16, the migration route that came from Serbia to Hungary came up from here, from Macedonia, towards Serbia. So we’re talking about an important country, because it lies on the busiest route for illegal migration. And at that time the Macedonians were of great help to Hungary, and without them we probably wouldn’t have been able to control the migrant invasion. And then good cooperation developed between us, because we were able to send Hungarian border guards to the southern border of Macedonia, so that together we could protect our borders and ourselves from migration. And there’s a third reason that we’re here. This is the importance of the country’s geographical location, in economic terms. North Macedonia is crossed by very important freight, traffic and trade routes. If we want to get our products, our goods from Hungary to the sea, one of the most important routes is through the Balkans, through North Macedonia, to Greece, to the Greek ports. This is why it’s important to have good economic cooperation between our two countries.
How does the development of economic relations fit in with this – even with the policy of economic neutrality, which you spoke about at length at a conference on Wednesday?
Well, economic neutrality is a new term, which we’re all still getting used to – even I am, and I’m trying to introduce it. I suppose it will take some time for the listeners to get used to this, and to understand and incorporate this unusual term into their thinking. But I’m convinced that the many changes – pandemics, wars, energy crises, inflation and the simultaneous rise of Asian economies – that have taken place in the recent past have all combined to change the world economy. And I think that those who don’t adapt, who don’t change themselves, who don’t try new things, will be the losers in this change. And, just as it won the previous decade, the decade between 2010 and 2020, we would like Hungary to be able to win the decade ahead, the decade we’re in now. To do so we’ll need new tools, new methods, and a new economic policy. We call this new economic policy an economic policy of neutrality or a neutral economic policy. What this means is that Hungary must protect itself against the trend that we see in the world today, whereby the world economy is being broken up into blocs. I’m probably not the only older listener, and near a radio now there are others besides me who remember what the Cold War was like. And what’s happening now, what’s happening economically, is very similar to that – or will lead to the same result. The great powers are dividing the world economy in two, and it seems that there will be a Western world economy and an Eastern world economy. And there will be great pressure on every country to choose which half of the world economy it wants to belong to. Economic neutrality means that we must avoid this pressure, we must protect ourselves from it. Hungary cannot join any bloc, any economic bloc. It’s in Hungary’s interest to have vigorous, robust and deep trade and economic relations with both of the two emerging economic blocs. Economic neutrality is the practical implementation of this idea.
So how can this be done? And what’s needed to make it successful, including in the long term? Because now it’s true that a German company is locating here alongside a Chinese company, and the French and the Russians can work together on the Paks [Nuclear Power Plant] expansion, but it’s already clear that there are points of disagreement, and there’s pressure on companies – even state pressure – to not necessarily cooperate.
The sanctions policy that many European companies – many thousands – are suffering from, for example, is itself part of this bloc formation phenomenon. But the most important thing is first to be clear about ourselves, and then we’ll fight our battles. I’m therefore pleased that now there’s a debate on the content of economic neutrality, because if we firmly commit ourselves and set a course, then in each specific difficult conflict we’ll be able to develop a position that’s in line with Hungarian interests. But first we need to be clear about ourselves and our own interests. And the heart of this, the heart of economic neutrality, is that we must not be forced to look at the economy through a political lens. We must view the world economy and the issues that arise in it solely through the interests of the Hungarian economy. This means that we should only take from the West and from the East what is useful and reasonable. What is not good or useful for Hungarians should not be adopted. And we should reject all pressures and initiatives that harm the future of the country. When we’ve strengthened ourselves in this, and when we’ve taken this starting point, then from there we’ll find the answers to all the specific questions about how to fend off political and economic pressures from the East or the West that are unfavourable to us.
You’ve talked about specific points that are elements of this policy of economic neutrality. One is that growth next year should be closer to the top end of the 3–6 per cent range. How does this relate to neutrality? And, in order to try to achieve this objective, how do government instruments, actions and planned measures relate to it?
First of all, it’s perhaps worth remembering that bloc formation always slows down the growth of the world economy as a whole; it’s not good for the world economy, and it’s not good for nation states. What is good for nation states, nations and communities – including Hungary – is if all the players in the world trade and cooperate as freely as possible with one another in the economic sphere. The moment disruptions, prohibitions and sanctions come into play we all lose out, we lose economic dynamism. This means that our economies grow at a slower pace. I think that Europe is on a suicidal path, and travelling quite quickly, when it responds to the rise of Asia and its own economic difficulties with bloc formation. All the more qualified European economists agree that politicians who want to form blocs in the world economy are taking the European people and the European economy in the wrong direction. Most recently this fact has been brought into sharp focus by a study by the former President of the European Central Bank, President Draghi. I’m trying to convince my colleagues in Europe that we shouldn’t go down that path, but they’re under a lot of pressure, and economic neutrality is not yet as close to everyone’s heart, or as visible to them, as it is in Hungary. Let’s not forget that here our disadvantage is in fact our advantage. We used to live in a world economy that formed blocs. Well, we remember socialism, we remember Comecon, when there was a capitalist world economy and a socialist world economy. And then there was CoCom, which was a technology list, according to which certain products couldn’t be transferred to us from the West. Therefore Hungary didn’t have access to the latest technology, and was left behind, left out of Western development. So we have personal experience of what bloc formation leads to, and how in the end everyone loses. Now, to return to your question, we must make it clear that, however the world economy forms into blocs, it’s in our interest for Hungary to remain at the forefront of technological development. We must continue to insist that the best cars in the world are made in Hungary, and that the cars of the future are made in Hungary. It’s important that the most modern cutting-edge technologies for the production and storage of green energy are present in Hungary – and, if possible, we should produce them here. It’s important that we produce and export such energy and such equipment. It’s important that we aren’t left behind in the digitalisation wave, which is the next major stage in the development of the world economy. We should have the highest number of digital official documents and the most extensive digital public administration. So, regardless of whether an idea, a device, an invention or an innovation comes from the East or the West it’s important to us that if it’s good – or indeed the best – Hungary should somehow be part of it. When we talk about this new economic policy, new era, new situation, new economic policy, we need to think about things that we’ve not tried before. For example, I’ll say one simple thing. We’ve always laid emphasis and spent a lot of money on supporting Hungary’s students who want to study. We have a very broad student loan programme. But up until now there’s been no attention or effort directed towards giving a start in their careers to those who haven’t gone to university, but who are young people in skilled trades, for example. So there’s certainly the need to start a workers’ loan programme for young people. Then there’s the question of access to a home, to owning a home. A new approach, which is what I’m talking about here, also means that it’s not enough to strengthen the old elements in this, but that young people must also be given the opportunity to own their own home through new instruments. In addition, we must continue to assert that after all the basis of the economy is the family; and therefore, if we get our economic policy right, we must double the tax credit for families with children in one or two steps, as early as next year, in 2025. And there will be a number of other elements in this new economic policy, such as opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, and state programmes for capital provision, in which we try to alleviate the traditional lack of capital for small and medium-sized enterprises – especially for competitive SMEs. If all this works together, then we’ll see what you’ve mentioned: the Hungarian economy can grow in the 3–5 per cent range. We’re now above 1 per cent, somewhere between 1 and 2 per cent. Even with this, we’re among the frontrunners in Europe. This doesn’t cast the other European countries in a very good light, and even with this small growth we’re still at the forefront. But we don’t want to get stuck in the growth rate that I think Europe will suffer from in the next few years, where they can only achieve zero, 1 or 2 per cent growth. Despite the unfavourable circumstances, Hungary must try to climb up to a growth band between 3 and 6 per cent, with the help of a policy of economic neutrality. I’ve been able to lead a government that succeeded in this before, and I believe that it will succeed again. Hungary and the Hungarian government can do it.
Yes, and perhaps, I think, the most important thing is how it translates at the level of people. But for this to happen the European Union also obviously needs to take action and change. How open is Europe to the idea that the Hungarian position on, say, economic neutrality or competitiveness can prevail?
There are big debates between the leaders of the European states. Hungary participates in these debates, and we represent Hungarian interests and the Hungarian position. I believe that, as a result of these discussions, there’s a good chance that in November we’ll be able to finalise an agreement between the European states which can improve the European economy’s economic competitiveness. We’re already negotiating the elements of this, and I hope that by the end of the Hungarian Presidency, by the end of December at the latest, we’ll be close to its adoption – and that it may even be possible to have it adopted in Budapest at the European Union summit in November.
Since you’ve mentioned the debates, there’s another issue on which there’s a dispute between Budapest and Brussels. Recently the Commission announced that it will start deducting the 80-billion-forint [200-million-euro] fine that it’s imposed on account of Budapest’s migration policy from the payments due to Hungary. In the meantime, at the level of nation states, we see that countries that have so far been very open – Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany – are also tightening up their immigration policies. Where’s the tension now related to opposing views on migration within the European Union?
In the migration debate, this Hungarian wisdom is particularly true: “Speak the truth and you’ll lose your head.” In this we’re not alone. I’ve recently had a visit from the second most senior figure in the Italian government, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Matteo Salvini. He’s in an even worse position than I am: I’ve only been hit, kicked, mauled and criticised; but they want to imprison him for his position on migration. When he was Interior Minister he didn’t allow boats carrying illegal migrants to dock in Italy, and now they want to sentence him to six years in prison for that. This series of court hearings has begun in Italy. We stand wholeheartedly with Mr. Salvini. He’s our hero, and we need European politicians like him, who want to stop illegal migration at all costs, and at personal risk. In the meantime it’s also true that, despite the criticism of Hungary, despite the judicial proceedings against Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister, more and more countries are saying, “But these guys were right.” So in Brussels and Europe it’s now taken for granted that they’re hitting and punishing the Hungarians, but at the same time they all know that we were right, that we are right – because the only chance we have of a better future is if we don’t let migrants in, if we don’t let illegal migrants into the European continent. And while on the one hand they’re criticising us, let’s say badmouthing us, on the other hand they’re forming their own policies similar to ours, effectively complimenting us. Germany is copying the policy of strict border control from Europe. This is why I said to the German Chancellor, “Welcome to the club”, welcome to the club of politicians who want to defend their countries.
These days it’s not just debates on migration that are intensifying, but also debates on the war – whether at home or abroad. What could be the outcome of these increasingly heated debates and conflicts between the pro-war and pro-peace camps?
I think we should expect such debates to intensify in the coming days and weeks. This is quite simply because we’re approaching an event and a time that’s critical for the whole world. And that event is the US presidential election. The US presidential election at the beginning of November could decide whether the world continues down the path of wars, leading to increasingly bitter fighting, or whether it stops, turns back and declares peace and tries to establish ceasefires – not only in the Ukraine–Russia war, but also in every other hotspot, every other world conflict hotspot. It’s no coincidence that when he was in office President Trump was a president of peace, that he didn’t start a war, that he took steps to resolve long-standing conflicts in the interest of solutions for peace. And it’s no coincidence that – regardless of political views – the peace-loving, peace-seeking part of the world is rooting for the man of peace to become President of the United States again. Yet there are pro-war people not just in America, but all over the world, who are cheering for the Democrats to succeed, because they want to continue the war. This debate will continue to intensify up until the election. And we cannot escape this either: in Hungary, too, I see that there are pro-war people, typically politicians on the Left; and there are pro-peace people, politicians on the Right or on our side. And the debate between them is becoming increasingly heated. Now, most recently, I can see that they’ve managed to involve the 1956 Revolution in this debate over war and peace. We too must be on our guard. So when we’re talking about such sensitive issues, we have to express ourselves very precisely, and leave no doubt about our position. My political director has just expressed himself in a manner which could be misunderstood. In this context this was a mistake, because our community is rooted in the 1956 Revolution, and grew out of it. This would not be our political community but for the heroes of ’56. Therefore the debate on war and peace should not involve the events and heroes of Hungarian history that to us are sacred and inviolable, such as 1956 and the heroes of ’56. They should be kept out of the debate. So I don’t want the shadow of the Ukrainian–Russian war to be cast over the memory of the freedom fighters of 1956. To them we owe a debt of gratitude, and we should rather focus on their glory; because wherever heroes are not forgotten, new heroes can be born. I have no doubts about the political views of any leading figure in Fidesz. If history dictates that we must fight for our country again, I’m sure that [political director] Balázs Orbán will be together with us in Corvin Passage [a 1956 battlefront]. In any case we must take care to ensure that, when they arrive in Hungary, international debates about war and peace do not divert, eliminate or derail otherwise important domestic political debates.
Yes, in connection with this I also wanted to ask whether one can conclude from what he said that Hungary wouldn’t defend itself, as certain media outlets have interpreted.
Hungary will always defend itself. It has defended itself in the past, it is defending itself today, and it will continue to defend itself in the future by every possible means – just as the Hungarian Constitution obliges every Hungarian to do.
We have also had to defend ourselves in recent weeks. So let’s talk about the flood that has just passed, because over the past two weeks it’s been the floodwater on the Danube that’s determined public discourse and defence in general. How do you assess the past two weeks in terms of protecting human life and material assets, and in terms of the organisation of the defence operations?
On this subject perhaps the first thing to do is to express our thanks, because once again Hungary has united in an exemplary way. Somehow, in times of calm this is less possible, but in troubled times and when trouble strikes Hungarians are perhaps more capable of uniting than anyone else in Europe. When we say that the country has united in an exemplary way, we’re putting it mildly. So the first word of thanks must go to the volunteers, the water management experts, the police, the disaster relief workers, the firefighters, the soldiers: to everyone who assisted in the defence operations. Hungary has once again managed to defend itself. And there were many people working in the background, taking care of the supplies, transport and so on for those working on the flood defence front lines. This was probably the second biggest Danube flood in Hungary’s history. Just as now, in 2013 it was my duty to direct the defence operations during the biggest ever Danube flood. And the comparison I can make is that now the Hungarian state is in much better condition than it was in 2013. We managed to defend ourselves against that big one, but this time we managed to avert disaster more easily. So, compared to ten years ago, the Hungarian state is now more efficient, better organised and better prepared. In the past ten years we’ve supplemented our defence lines, built several kilometres of mobile flood barriers and prepared for the rapid construction of temporary defences. Even now, in just a few days, we threw two million sandbags into the path of the flood and reinforced flood barriers, using 55,000 tonnes of sand. Thousands of people were involved in the work, and this produced results; because you can see that in surrounding countries the floods caused a lot of damage and claimed lives. In neighbouring countries between twenty and thirty people have died as a result of the floods, the floods on the Danube, and there’s been very serious material damage. In Hungary there was no loss of life and only moderate material damage. I can say that Hungary has passed the flood defence test with flying colours, and it had the heart and expertise to succeed.
Not much time has passed, and I don’t know how much time there’s been for review, but at what points – either on the flood barriers or in other areas – do you see the possible need for further reinforcement? So what are the lessons that can be used in the coming period?
I don’t want to bore the listeners with the details of our work, but after a flood the Government always receives a report from the water management authority. This is always a serious technical document, in which the water management authorities clearly describe what was good, where the weak points were, what needs to be done quickly in the coming period and what needs to be done in the medium term. The Government then turns the water management authority’s recommendations into an action plan and we take the necessary steps. This has been the case with all previous floods, and it will be the case again.
In the last half an hour I have asked Prime Minister Viktor Orbán questions about economic neutrality, migration and flood protection.
