30 October 2015
Éva Kocsis: Good morning. It’s 7:34 and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is with me in the studio.
Viktor Orbán: Good morning
Talks on the migration crisis continued in Madrid today and there was also a mini-summit in Brussels for the Member States which are most directly involved in this issue. A total of 17 points were discussed at that meeting, and when reading those 17 points, one cannot help seeing that the intent will be to try to make conditions more humane for migrants’ arrival here, rather than stopping or slowing down the flow. Now it is rather difficult to see this as a solution or a path towards a solution.
A debate is still going on in the European Union. We Hungarians do not quite understand this debate, since we live in a different time zone: we have already resolved a problem, while others are still seeking a solution. Nine out of ten Hungarians find it perfectly natural that a border is a good thing, that a border needs to be protected and that a border which is protected provides security. Control must be kept over who enters a country and when they do so. Otherwise one sees a situation like that in quite a number of European countries now under invasion, with tens of thousands of people of unknown identity pouring into the territory of the EU, day in day out. Meanwhile, the European Union is still unsure on whether to accept the Hungarian standpoint, the standpoint of common sense, that the borders need to be protected. Now, while we have already answered this question and have been acting accordingly, they are still debating whether it is the right starting point. This is why one gets the feeling that we are just producing document after document, while in the meantime reality is crashing onto Europe.
Are we truly over this? What if the process of returning migrants to their original countries of entry gets under way? Under the relevant treaties we must take back those who were registered in Hungary.
First of all, we should recognise that we are in big trouble. Though it is true that compared with quite a few other EU Member States today Hungary is an island of stability, there are still dangers and threats shared by most European countries – in terms of the economy and public safety, but also in terms of the migration crisis. The first danger is an increased threat of terrorism. There are various estimates as to how much the danger of terrorism in Europe has grown. My position is that even one terrorist is one too many. The second issue is the changed public safety situation evident in the news from Europe of public order and public safety being disrupted by high numbers of immigrants and their own internal conflicts. In other words, in addition to the danger of increased crime in Europe, there is also the danger that we are allowing – indeed, we are even inviting – the Middle East’s particular internal conflicts into the European Union. I say this because the many causes of clashes between migrants nowadays are not rooted in Europe, in social circumstances here, but in conflicts which they have brought here from the places they come from: the internal conflicts of their own world, which are now being replayed on the territory of Europe. A third thing to be faced is that the nations of Europe are waking up; they are beginning to realise – or they have already realised – that of course what we do with migrants is a difficult social issue, and a tough security issue, but first and foremost it is a cultural issue. Our identity and way of life, our customs, the way we have lived up to now, are all at stake. Can we continue to live in the way we have up to now? This is a matter of identity, a question of culture, and this is what an increasing number of people see being threatened; this is why European nations are beginning to raise their voices in relation to events currently unfolding before their eyes. Let me say it again: the nations of Europe are beginning to wake up.
But what is your opinion on migrants being returned? János Lázár has said that they cannot return here, but under some treaties those whom we have registered will be sent back here.
Two different types of challenge need to be faced. One is on the question of whether those who have been registered here can be deported back to Hungary. Our standpoint is that they cannot, because the rules do not say that they have to be returned here, but to the country where they first entered the territory of the European Union. That country is Greece. Greece, by the way, is today the key to the whole issue. Many see Turkey as the key, and this is also true to an extent, but this aspect is beyond the EU's control, as Turkey is not a member of the Union. Greece, on the other hand, is a Member State, and if the Greeks defended their southern borders, then migrants could not make their way to the interior of the continent. But the Greeks refuse to carry out this task, although they argue that they are doing so, and this has been the subject of heated debates in the Union – at the latest conference. I do not think they are doing their job in this regard. Indeed part of what they should be doing is completely beyond their ability, and perhaps they cannot even understand why they should be doing the rest. In both Brussels and Greece, and among those who seek to promote migration rather than halt it, there is also a very strong activist – I mean human rights activist – attitude. Now it is not possible to both protect a border from those who want to cross it illegally, and at the same time help them to cross it. Instead, it should be made crystal clear that we can only help those who respect the law. At present this is not the dominant way of thinking in Greece. Coming back to your question, Greece is a member of the European Union – indeed Greece is also the southern gateway to the Schengen Area of free movement, and as such that is the country in which every migrant has entered the Area. Therefore when migrants are returned, it is the country which first admitted them which will have to take them back. This is one issue, and we will discuss it with the other Member States of the Union. But there is another question – one with much more serious implications. I am referring to what is commonly known as the quota issue; but now we are discussing something more than the original quota issue, because that earlier proposal involved a certain number of people who entered Europe illegally being distributed among Member States according to certain quotas. We oppose this, firstly because we see it as unlawful, secondly because we see it as irrational, and thirdly because we see it as unfair. Inviting people to come to our country, letting them in and then allocating them to others: now that is something I do not see as a fair thing to do at all. But now that quota initiative has grown to become an even bigger threat, as now they are saying that this would not be a one-off transfer, but a permanent mechanism. The proposal is to turn it into a permanent legal mechanism, the essence of which is that those entering Europe would be automatically distributed across EU Member States according to some formula. Well that is something we reject absolutely! This is in sharp contrast to the opinions and the interests of Hungarian people. For the rest of the year, therefore, as far as one can modestly predict, these two themes – how to protect Hungary from the quota and from the permanent distribution scheme – will dominate political debate.
All right, but one prerequisite for any permanent mechanism is that Europe has a clear view of certain things. Such as, for example, the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question which the German weekly Der Spiegel put some time ago to all the experts that count: how will such a distribution scheme work when a migrant refuses to go to Prague or Budapest?
Yes, this is an important question. This is why I say that the very proposition underlying an allocation scheme is irrational. But its irrationality is not the only problem. A rational approach is important enough, but there are certain fundamentals which are even more important – such as the question of who can force a sovereign country to let people enter its territory whom it does not wish to allow in, and on what grounds they can force that country to do so. Being a Member State of the European Union does not mean that anybody anywhere can say to Hungary, against Hungary’s wishes, things like this: “Well, my dear Hungarian friend, you must take in the following number of people whom you do not wish to take in, people who entered Europe illegally at some earlier time.” This is nonsense! Not only does it make no sense, but it also calls into question the foundations of a Europe built on nations. And the most crucial lesson we have learnt now is that we cannot expect a solution from Brussels. Even though everyone is talking about some common solution from Brussels, we cannot really expect anything of the kind. It is up to the nation states to solve this problem – the way Hungary, for one, has already done, fulfilling its obligations.
What are you going to do if and when the quota system is introduced and is applied to Hungary as well?
There is bound to be fierce debate over the matter, and the Hungarian parliament is now discussing the question. In Europe national parliaments have a say, governments also have their say, and we will represent our position. We are not alone in having such views. Just look, not only are the nations of Europe waking up, but even an increasing number of governments are beginning to say that borders are not a bad thing, and that borders should not be open but guarded. And then there is another question, which is growing more important with time: who has mandated Europe’s leaders – or some of its leaders – to pursue such policies? When, and who? This is a democratic continent; when was there a vote, and who voted to have millions of people from all over the world enter our territory, only to be distributed among Member States at some later point? When did we make such a decision? Such decisions were never made in any national election, nor were such issues discussed during the European parliamentary elections. What is happening now has no democratic basis. This process may be liberal – as is thought by many in Brussels – but it is in no way democratic. People’s opinions cannot be downplayed and ignored. People’s opinions must, to some extent – preferably as much as possible – be integrated into the political decision-making process. No European policy is possible without respecting the opinions of the Member States’ citizens. And this is the case in Europe now, and this may lead to internal democratic political tension and a crisis of democracy in Europe – something which we should avoid. And there is one more phenomenon which should be mentioned: what, after all, is our continent so proud of? Of course Europe is proud of its scientific discoveries, high culture, its wealth and, though our economy’s position in global competition has been weakening, Europe is still one of the world’s best continents to live in. There are things we can be proud of, but what we used to be most proud of was that speech here was free, that there was freedom of thought, opinion and speech. Now look where we are: the word “fence” cannot be used. This is not because the Austrian chancellor does not know this word, or because his vocal chords suddenly failed him. This is because in Europe we have seen the development of a climate of opinion, a dominance of mainstream thought, a pressure, a suppression of opinion which politicians representing another approach dare not speak out against. “Border”, “fence”, “controls”, “nation states”: today these are dangerous expressions for elected political leaders in Europe to use. So this is where we are now.
Let us talk about the contradiction you mentioned earlier on. For months on end Germany was arguing that nation states should not look for solutions individually, because there would be a broad, joint European solution, and that everyone should please comply with the Dublin Regulation. And now the President of the European Commission delivers a speech in Paris, explaining that the Dublin system is not functioning – and if it isn’t, then it cannot be applied. So what rules are in place now?
One truly essential characteristic of Europe and the European Union as a structure is its foundation of carefully designed and finely elaborated legal solutions, and when the Union strays from the path of legality, in no time it can find itself in anarchy. Now either we follow that path or we are condemned to sink into a mire of chaos. In other words, today we are shifting from an ordered, lawfully operating European Union towards anarchy, and the reason for this is our failure to comply with the rules we have adopted. Some argue that those rules cannot be followed – but this is not true. This is not a philosophical question, but a matter of practice. Hungary is the proof that the rules can be observed. Both the Schengen rules and the Dublin rules can be complied with. We may want to change them, which is something we can discuss; there is a procedure for suspending a set of rules, opening a debate on devising a new set of rules or introducing interim rules. There are various options, but one thing we must avoid – and which we are witnessing right now – is the European Union wandering into the realm of illegality, with our own leaders unilaterally declaring that agreements and treaties earlier adopted together do not now apply. Who said that the system was not working? Where was that discussed and agreed? Where are the opinions of the Member States? How do we intend to arrive at compromise agreements? Let me repeat: when our leaders accept a state of illegality as something natural, they harm their own communities, and in my view those who say such things today harm the community of European peoples.
Just one more issue concerning migration: let us talk about the Turks and the Greeks. You also mentioned the role of Turkey, a role that is key in the eyes of everyone. Yet they were not invited to this meeting in Brussels; moreover, Turkey seems set to claim quite a hefty price from Europe for cooperation. This seems to be something of a checkmate situation. Then here is Greece, and nobody quite understands why they have still not had any kind of reprimand from the European Union. Are they incapable of complying with the rules, are they unwilling to, don’t they know how to? What other reasons might there be for them not fulfilling their obligations?
In my view, this flow of refugees, this flood of migrants – indeed, this invasion – is being driven by two forces. One is pure business. In other words, it is not war, extreme poverty or uncertainty which are the primary drivers of the migration, as people have started to come from non-war zones as well, while people from war zones have already fled to refugee camps, where their lives are not directly threatened. So people whose lives are not in imminent danger are flooding into Europe, and the reason for this is that an entire network of tens of thousands of people smugglers has been developed. In Germany some estimates have even been published showing how much this business is worth globally – and particularly in Europe. We are talking about astronomical amounts of money, and as we have seen in quite a number of other areas of the world, in areas of life today, business and money are driving this flow. People are virtually being recruited to set out on their journeys. The other force is that of activists. There is a philosophy in America and Europe, in the West, represented by a comprehensive network of activists. We Hungarians also merit a mention here, as George Soros is part of this. Of all names, his might perhaps be the most iconic for those who support anything and everything that could or will weaken nation states, anything that contributes to changing the established European way of life, from lifestyle attitudes to immigration. The activists who help migrants are in fact unwittingly becoming part of this illegal international people smuggling network. These two factors are driving masses of people into Europe, while people in Brussels sit around looking helpless, producing papers and documents instead of decisions; among those in Brussels, by the way, are also quite a number of individuals with an activist mind-set. They do not look at this process from the perspective of national responsibility, a responsibility towards their own nations and a responsibility towards Europe’s cultural identity, but from quite a different angle. Their way of thinking is abstract and human rights-focused. This particular viewpoint has its body of theory, elaborated in writing and published. What I am talking about is not in my imagination – it is a current of thought on which a vast body of literature has been published, a very serious and highly-regarded conceptual framework, discussed in writings by European philosophers and sociologists drawn to the political left. From this perspective, the current phenomenon – this flood of migrants – is not bad but good, taking them nearer to realisation of the Europe they envision. This is something we do not understand, because it runs counter to sound reason. Our way of thinking is utterly different. It is difficult to explain to a Hungarian what is happening: that the cultural identity of our continent and our own country is being changed from the outside, against our will, by means of an invasion. What good is there in this? We do not understand it, but there are people who make their living from concocting theories, writing books, training activists, keeping them stationed all over the world and employing them in this spirit. This is part of the modern world today.
Isn’t the fact that we cannot understand their way of thinking probably because we cannot imagine why a country should want to undermine the power of a stable region? You have spoken about American activists. There is another American who has given Hungary a dressing down, and that is the US Ambassador to Hungary.
What you are asking me about now is an issue of a different nature: I need to decouple it from the previous question. What I was talking about previously is not on the whole an American phenomenon, though the trend has major representatives over there too, but it is also very much a European phenomenon. What you are asking me about now is Realpolitik, the politics of power, the world of interests. This is not about intellect or ideology, nor is it an issue of “what we see as a good or bad society”, but it is blatant national or imperial interest. Indeed, today the United States of America does not support the immigration policy represented by Hungary, according to which border controls must be maintained. Nor does the US support protection of European cultural identity, which is, for historical reasons – and this is not a matter of ideologies, it is a hard fact – a Christian cultural identity, since this is the origin of the Enlightenment, and this is what it is built on and suffused with. It is not supportive of this approach. The US has different views on what an immigration policy should look like, and they talk about it openly. I heard the arguments of the US Ambassador to the UN in New York during the recent summit, and from those it was quite clear that they do not see a sudden influx of millions – or even tens of millions – of immigrants into Europe from war-torn regions of the world as something unwelcome. It is not against their interests – quite the contrary.
Let us talk a little about domestic political issues.
Oh sorry, let me add that while of course this is not contrary to their best interests, I would be intrigued to see if someone who attempted to get into the United States without a visa could make it alive. It’s hardly a possibility. Or would someone trying to enter a South American country succeed? Hardly, I should say. Or to any Arab country? Again, hardly likely. So today Europe is alone in the world in viewing as a matter of conscience an issue which is not regarded as such by anyone else anywhere in the world, because it is clear for everybody else that borders are there in order to make it possible to guarantee the safety of the people living within them. In the United States of America this enjoys priority over any other consideration, they build fences and walls and there are orders to open fire. While they are busy criticising us, if we did half of what the United States does, we would have been hauled over the coals.
I assume that was addressed to the US Ambassador.
No, I was answering your question.
Let us talk about domestic political matters. We know the latest data released by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (CSO) on employment and the retail sector. More or less at the same time the economics weekly Figyelő also put together a list, summing up the opinions of the largest multinational enterprises operating in Hungary, confirming, in essence, the data released by the CSO. They are employing more people, their turnover has increased, yet compared with retailers they are more pessimistic. What, do you think, may be the reason for this contradiction?
Well, when three people in Hungary sit down to have a discussion, the three of them will represent four different opinions; I see this more as a proof of historic continuity. It is the facts that count and there is no debate over facts, they are accepted by all: things are moving in the right direction. Everybody accepts that the Hungarian reforms are working, and everyone accepts that the Hungarian government has managed to find tools enabling it to increase the number of people living from work. Such tools include the Job Protection Action Plan, involving nearly a million people in Hungary, along with public employment and the taxation system, aimed at encouraging Hungarian small and medium-sized enterprises to employ as many people as possible. These instruments are working well. We have good reason to say this with confidence, but of course with due modesty, as never since the fall of communism have so many people in Hungary been in work as are today. Well over four million people have jobs now – nearly four million three hundred thousand – and the number is still increasing. Nonetheless, we should not sit on our laurels, and I am already seeking additional instruments to enable at least another half a million more people to find jobs over the coming years. You may remember that we promised one million new jobs in Hungary over a ten-year period, and today we are making progress in that direction. And I am also seeking ways to create yet more new jobs by modifying the taxation system for small and medium-sized enterprises; by simplifying tax procedures under agreements with employers – primarily Hungarian entrepreneurs; by improving wages; or by giving additional impetus to residential construction. This is where our future lies, and in Hungary it is being increasingly recognised and accepted that you don’t get something for nothing, but you can get something for something. Accordingly, everyone must do something to get by and get on in life. The Government cannot redeem and direct people’s lives, but it can create chances and opportunities. Once someone starts doing something, one can make progress; this is the policy and this is the way of thinking that finds support in Hungary today.
We have very little time left to discuss one last topic. Last year in Gödöllő, at the national assembly of the delegates from local organisations of Magosz (the National Association of Hungarian Farmers’ Societies and Co-operatives), you said that the structure of land ownership should be changed in Hungary, so that smallholdings form a majority of approximately 80%. Today, in relation to the sale of state-owned arable land, this is one of the issues – or the issue - which is most fiercely attacked by the political opposition. Just one of the accusations against you related to the sale of state-owned land is that of “distributing land to your pals”.
Yes, it is right not to refer to it as a thought, because these are barefaced lies and slander, not worth referring to as thoughts. Now the laws adopted in Hungary are clear-cut. No individual may own more than 300 hectares of land, and now that we are going to sell state-owned tracts of land in transparent public auctions, only farmers who actually work and live as farmers, who do not live more than 20 km. from the land being auctioned, and do not – and after the auction will not – own more than 300 hectares may purchase land. No private individual may own more than 300 hectares of land in Hungary, as is clearly laid down by an Act adopted by Parliament with a two-thirds majority; this is the most important rule applying to the auctions being held. I see no other long-term solution on Hungarian land – which, by the way, I see as a matter of sovereignty, like immigration – since the only way for us to be safe is to have the land owned by farmers. We must prevent foreigners from acquiring Hungarian arable land, while observing the rules adopted by the European Union; this will be quite a feat, by the way. Let us not forget: had the policies pursued by the socialists been continued, now half, if not all, of Transdanubia would be owned by foreigners through bogus contracts. There are countries where foreigners own significant proportions of the arable land, but we would not like to see that in Hungary. This is not because we have a problem with foreigners. It is because we have Hungarian farmers and Hungarian traditions. We have Hungarian families who know how to farm, who have always managed land ownership well in Hungary and who are able and qualified to make a living from working the land; and we can provide hundreds of thousands of people with a living if we can enable them to own land. In pursuing this farming policy we are therefore protecting Hungarian interests, and I think this is in the interest of Hungary at the level of the national economy as a whole.
You have been listening to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.