Website of the Hungarian Goverment

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s reply in Parliament on the 16th of November in 2015.

Honourable Speaker,

I myself am not so sure whether I should respond at all to any of the comments made. This is a particularly sensitive time, when mourning counsels moderation. At the same time we must not delay, because we do not know whether failure to act will result in what happened on Friday happening again one day. Therefore it is perhaps better to speak, rather than simply mourn in silence.

I would first like to respond to the argument from my fellow Member of Parliament Mr. Schiffer. I have observed that there is a reflex. Perhaps you will allow me to label this as a negative reflex. Whenever one comes across a major problem it is the reflex to point out that in the modern world everything is interconnected. This labelling of the problem as a global one tends to suggest that, if it is global, it can only be resolved globally. And we are the size we are, and as long as there is no agreement in the European Union and across the entire world, we do not have much to do. I would like to say that this reference to the global nature of things should not mean that our debates conclude that we have nothing specific to do here, and should instead wait for a common solution.

Here, in the European Union, this is what we did from the first attack in Paris right up to the Hungarian government’s decision on construction of the fence. We had meetings, we looked for common solutions, and everyone said that the problem could only be solved jointly. We did this up until the point when we said that it was quite obvious that nothing had been achieved within this common effort. So everyone should do as much as their capacity, abilities, circumstances and obligations allow. This is what Hungary did. So while I, for my part, accept your line of thought on the global nature of the challenge, I ask where our place is in this global crisis, and what obligations arise from the particular position which we occupy. And those obligations must be met. That which the Hungarians are able to do must be done here and now; the Hungarian government is driven by this conviction.

Also interesting was the second remark, on the need for cooperation between secret services. I do not dispute this,  but I would point out that, in this situation, the problem was not caused by lack of cooperation between secret services. As I mentioned in my introductory thoughts, everyone had already pointed this out months ago; there was not a single security and secret service chief in Europe – including in Hungary and Germany – who had not. There was not a single police chief in the whole of Europe who would not have said that the question was not whether an act of terrorism would occur, but when and where it would. Because nothing that is happening can have any other outcome. This was obvious. We cannot defend ourselves, and not a single European leader can defend themselves, by saying that some information was not available. This is because the problem and the troubles inevitably spring from the nature of immigration: people from war zones are pouring into our world of peace in an unregulated and uncontrolled manner. What did we think was going to happen, Ladies and Gentlemen? So while we are urging for cooperation between our law enforcement, border security and secret service organisations, we should not deceive ourselves by claiming that in order to avoid trouble this is what was needed.

Something else which stood out for me was the claim that Hungary, too, is responsible. I think that Hungary is surely responsible for a lot of things, and I would be the last person to describe my own kind as being without fault. I would also be the last person to say that not only in this instance are we without fault, but have always been. I think we Hungarians are perfectly aware of our historical responsibility, and we are also aware of our capabilities; not only of our virtues, but also of our shortcomings. But in a situation like this, when in my view there was a single country which did what it had to do in good time, should we really be talking about our own culpability? What kind of a self-hating reaction is this? Why should we hate ourselves? I am not saying that the opposition should praise us. I am not saying that they should point out that there was one government in Europe which warned that we should take this seriously. I do not expect that, because it would be contrary to the nature of party politics. But for the opposition to say that Hungary bears responsibility? Why do we hate the Hungarian people – ourselves – so much? What is the reason for this? I would like to propose that, in keeping with the gravity of the situation, we should jointly attempt to practice the virtue of moderation.

Honourable Fellow Members of Parliament,

I would like to thank the Jobbik leader for his comment that security is not a party political issue – on the government benches we all agree on that. We shall seek opportunities for cooperation arising from this when the need emerges. Here and now, I would only point out that the Hungarian government is absolutely opposed both to forced resettlement – that is, mandatory quotas – and to cross-border migrant returns from neighbouring countries. I would like to inform every citizen of Hungary that, as long as this government has breath in its body, there will be no quotas, and there will be no cross-border migrant returns from other countries.

I found the comment from the Christian Democratic People’s Party intriguing and worthwhile, because at some point in time – but perhaps not now because the events are too recent – we must talk about the question as put by the Honourable Member of Parliament. He did not talk about the future of the European Union, which is in any case a very important and intriguing question, but about the future of European civilisation. This perhaps offers us a wider perspective – a wider horizon. Not now, but at some point in time it will be worth considering what will happen to our European civilisation by the middle or end of the 21st century, if things continue like this. And if we link this to the issue of immigration, we must ask whether a civilisation is able to sustain itself if the people who created it are replaced with different kinds of people. Those who are interested in the answer should study the history of the United States. But this is another debate, perhaps for later, for some other time.

By contrast, however, allow me to refer to a sentence from the Honourable Leader of the Socialist Party (MSZP), to the effect that those responsible for terrorism are the terrorists. This is an important sentence, I think. I hardly think that any of us would call into question the truth of this sentence. The only problem is that it does not stand on its own: it falls flat. This is because the sentence is missing its other leg: that of course the terrorists are responsible for committing acts of terrorism, but who is responsible for protecting us? We ourselves are. Minimising the threat of terrorism, preparing and taking preventive action, doing everything we reasonably can to minimise the risks: these are all our responsibility. And leaders who not only said “yes” to immigration, but transported migrants from the war zones into Europe, did not do everything they should have done in the interest of the security of the European people. This is the truth.

I know that our grief is too fresh, and that it is too soon to raise the issue of responsibility – particularly if one feels that one has no share in it – and to do so is perhaps not in the best of taste. But sooner or later we must ask this question. We must ask this question of those who brought these people here, because again I would like to repeat that today migrants are not just coming to Europe, but we are sending vehicles to bring them here. We are not putting pressure on the Greeks to observe their agreement. Migrants are entering there, and then we send vehicles to transport them here. And the only debate going on in the European Union is how to provide safer and more humane travel conditions for them. Meanwhile we have no way of knowing whether or not we are actually transporting here the terrorists who will then commit the atrocities we all witnessed later in Paris. I therefore believe that we must ask the question – calmly and with moderation – whether the leaders of Europe have done everything that is conceivably possible to protect the security of the European people. This is even though they are not otherwise responsible for the terrorist acts – because as the MSZP has also pointed out, it is the terrorists who are responsible. This, however, does not mean that we have no responsibility at all. We shall have to talk about this later.

But there is an even bigger problem here, Honourable Member of Parliament. The question your contribution raised is whether or not this was an accident. Whether all that happened was just a derailment, an extraordinary incident, or whether it was the result of a systemic failure. Whether what we have here – and I think we could discuss this today, and I do not want to use ideological categories, because that would divert the course of our debate in the wrong direction – is the ideological thinking which has always characterised the European intelligentsia. Europe’s intelligentsia has always expressed a great and powerful need to participate in European politics, into which it has therefore imported ideology, side-lining pragmatism and the laws of common sense. The question is whether what we have here is an example of this kind of approach being given too much emphasis in European politics, and whether a kind of suicidal tendency has come to overpower us. What else could we call this? I shall repeat, and I am sorry if I bore you with this. We are at war with Syria; European powers are at war with the Government of Syria. Members of the European Union. We are conducting military operations in the territory of Iraq. We are conducting military operations in the territory of Afghanistan. And then we let people in from those regions without any controls, without identification, without knowing who they are, whether they have ever held a weapon, whether they have ever killed anyone or whether they are members of any terrorist organisation. We let them in without knowing whether they have received any military training, or knowing anything at all about them; we ourselves are bringing in these people from war zones to our peaceful homeland. What can you say to this? This is a systemic failure. This is not just a mistake. This is not just a bad decision, but a distorted way of thinking; and if we think wholly within our system, it prevents us from taking action against this threat. This is why I said that, in my view, we need a new European policy. It is not just that an error should be corrected with a better flow of information. No – we must change the way we think about our lives and our future. In other words, we need a different policy, because otherwise we shall not be able to defend ourselves, and the suicidal tendencies of the European intelligentsia will overwhelm us.

And, of course, I do not wish to labour this point, because at the same time the European left – including the Hungarian left – is always right to say that there is no politics without intellectual drive and intellectual innovation. And without these life cannot be successful and meaningful either. But Europe must realise that this is not the first time it has made a mistake. If European politics is not strong enough, the crazy ideas of certain ideological tendencies will overcome the continent. Well, this has already happened in the past, and this is not the first time we have faced this.  It happened when European intellectuals believed that the European people could be categorised according to race. And this turned into what it turned into: National Socialism and racial theories. Then some clever people in Europe thought it would be a good idea if we were all equal. And this then turned into Homo Sovieticus and Stalinism. And now, I think, there are some who believe that we shall be happy, that life will be beautiful in Europe, if we eliminate nation states: if we switch them off. This is at least as crazy an idea as the previous ones were. This is why we must firmly stand up for the Europe of nations and a European Union which is organised on the foundations of nations. I believe that this is where our duty lies, and this is the task we must accomplish in the period ahead.