2 October 2015

Éva Kocsis: We have Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in the studio. Good morning!

Good morning!

You did not exactly come straight from the UN General Assembly, but near enough; you have just returned from the United States. Let us begin with this: you said that we must create peace and devise economic development plans in our countries. What role could Hungary play in this, for instance, in the resolution of the situation? I primarily mean the humanitarian side of it.

We may agree to play a proportionate role, as there are bigger boys out there on the pitch than ourselves. Hungary cannot believe that any proposal can be viable without or instead of the United States, Russia, China, or the rich Arabic countries. We have one duty: when the leaders of the world gather together in order to review the situation and to find a way out, we must share our own experiences sincerely and in a straightforward manner. I went to New York, the UN General Assembly, to tell them about the Hungarian experiences which are not theoretical, do not come from books, and are not based on mere statistical data, but are personal, day-to-day experiences. We know what we are talking about, we know what the phenomenon we are facing today is, and we also know what it is that works and what it is that does not.

What you observed at the UN General Assembly, does that point in the direction of some sort of resolution?

I had mixed impressions. From among the leaders of Europe, the Maltese and Hungary proposed the introduction of global quotas wholeheartedly and, let us put it this way, courageously; in other words, that everyone should take in some of the refugees, and should provide them with proper living conditions until they may return to their own countries. The rest of the European countries presented the same two-faced approach that we, here in Europe, are so familiar with. So Europe is divided, and this is one of the causes of our problems. It is not just the migrant crisis, but the lack of unity in the response that it calls for. This is at least as big a problem as the challenge itself.

When you raised the issue of global quotas, what did the leaders of Europe tell you outside, in the corridor?

This is like in a family at home. When everyone is sitting at the table, there is one opinion, and when we talk to each other one to one, there is another. This is the situation here, too; at present, the world’s mode of speech is extremely unfavourable and unrealistic. It is full of good intentions and bleeding hearts, but it knows very little about the true nature of the problem. For instance, that there is an illegal business of human trafficking employing thousands of people, a massive business model has been developed, and without breaking this, we cannot manage the situation. This is an untold story, we do not see any traces of it in the US press; we can only see a pale imprint of the whole thing. Or that around 80 per cent of migrants are young men who resemble more an army than destitute asylum-seekers, most of them are completely uneducated, and many of them only speak Arabic. The problem is that hardly any of them has any job experience, and almost no one talks about the difficulties of a future life together which are unfolding already at this point in time. So I must say, this topic has not been dominated by an air of reality.

What is the difference between the European and the global quotas?

You see, it is not fair that Europe, despite all its good intentions, should want to take on all the troubles of the world, and imagines itself to be able to resolve them. We must say in absolutely clear terms that we are unable to do this, or if we do this or attempt to do this, we shall crush the form of life, the framework, values and strengths of our lives which we have worked for in the past few hundred years in Europe. We have worked for a form of life, we have worked for a standard of living, we also had to work for freedom, we had to create the conditions of a free life to determine how to shape our relationships with one another and our sovereign systems, so that our citizens may in the meantime enjoy freedom to the fullest possible extent; these are all the results of hundreds of years of struggle. If we believe that we can carry burdens which we cannot, then we shall destroy everything that we have already achieved. In other words, we shall not help the people who need help but shall deprive our own children of a chance of the life which we, our parents and grandparents have worked so hard for in Europe.

Fine, but the same problems emerge in the case of the global quotas as with the European ones, meaning that it is not certain that a given asylum-seeker, migrant, economic migrant would like to choose that particular country in another part of the world.

This is a basic problem. The international agreements referred to as the Geneva Conventions make it clear that people who are in trouble are entitled to help and assistance, but – as they say – there is no á la carte refugee. In other words, a person who is in trouble cannot say that a certain safe country does not suit him and wants to go to another one. There is no such thing. International law does not permit this. Therefore, if we believe that Greece is a safe country, and it is a member of the European Union, or Croatia is a safe country, as Croatia is also a member of the European Union, or if we believe that Serbia is a safe country as it is a candidate country of the European Union, and the refugees have already arrived there, they may only proceed from there to another country if there is a country which takes them in because they are not otherwise in danger any more. This principle must be enforced in practice, but it is not being enforced because some leaders of the European Union create the impression, and I often even get the feeling that they sincerely believe it, that they are happy to see their countries being flooded by tens of thousands of foreigners who are arriving in a completely uncontrolled manner.

Does the global quota, does speech about the global quota serve the purpose of inducing the advanced countries of the world to show their true colours?

This is not a polite way to put it; this is not the tone we strike at international meetings. We tend to choose some other tone. It is not fair that the United States does not take in refugees, or if I see correctly, only takes in perhaps 10 or 15 thousand people, the rich Arabic countries seem to hesitate, Israel does not take in refugees at all, Australia does not take in refugees at all, and then everyone is turning their regard towards Europe because someone sent refugees or economic migrants on this path. Once we are over the worst and there is less pressure on us, it will be enlightening to look into how these people actually set out, how this whole thing started, because it all happened too suddenly, and it is all taking place in too organised a fashion. At times like this, one must ask oneself a few questions, or must draw a few question marks to comprehend the nature of this whole movement. But whichever way it is, I would like to return to the issue that the problem is that there is no agreement in the European Union regarding the nature of this phenomenon; some regard it as a refugee crisis, I personally do not, and as far as I can see, the majority of Hungarians do not either. We see a mass migration here. There is no agreement regarding its dimension, regarding its extent. Some continually talk about the consequences of the war in Syria, while the facts are that migrants have arrived in Hungary from 101 countries, so we are facing a global phenomenon. There is thirdly no agreement in Europe whether what is happening is a good thing or a bad thing. French politics, or the Italian Government’s policy clearly takes the view that what is happening is a good thing. Their societies do not see a challenge or a threat in this, but an opportunity. The European Commission’s own recently circulated document – which we must debate in mid-October – is closed on the tone, which I cannot accept at all, that we must convince our citizens that what is happening right now is not a bad thing but a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Europe to remedy its demographic problems, the decline of its population. I refuse this stance on philosophical grounds, and also as a father, a Hungarian man and a European citizen. I do not believe that this is how we should solve our demographic problems; at least, not in Hungary, that is for certain. I do not dispute the right of a single European country to seek to address its demographic difficulties with young, warrior-looking men from the Arabic world; if the people of that country share this view, they should be free to opt for this solution. But we cannot accept this approach being forced on Hungary, or that we should think about something negative as if it was something positive for us. This same idea also emerges in other countries; I have recently read some of the statements made by President, or former President, Sarkozy which are very powerful and which stem from very similar philosophical and political roots to the Hungarian approach and sharply diverge from the official French position. So we can see that there are major debates going on in other countries as well. This is the situation in Hungary, too; the socialists here, or some of them, I am sorry, some politicians on the left regard this as a great opportunity. The party of the former Prime Minister, and a few smaller liberal parties believe that what is happening is not a threat but a good thing for Hungary. I believe this is a fatal mistake, but this line of thought represented on a larger scale and by larger countries is indeed present in European politics, and prevents us from coming to an agreement.

You referred to the responsibility and intervention of the great powers at the beginning of the interview. If we now look at one of the aspects, the resolution of a civil war, the case of Syria, experts say that Russia’s intervention – even if Russia is an unavoidable player – is adding fuel to the fire. How do you see this?

We do not know, I do not know whether we could have a bigger fire than what we have already. It is certain that the great powers of the world have not succeeded in coming to an agreement on what should be done in Syria for a very long time. But it is an even bigger problem that, also earlier, there was no agreement on what should be done in Iraq, and then there was likewise no agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan. It is not my duty to share Hungary’s wisdom with the great political actors of the world; I would like to avoid this bad or misunderstood role, but it is not a problem if we speak the truth: those who are on their way today or are about to set out are economic migrants. The Polish President in the European Commission who has been to these countries and camps in person openly stated that tens of millions of people are preparing to set out because they know that Europe welcomes them. All I want to say is that these people, though they present a threat to the European lifestyle – and then we have not even mentioned terrorism – are, at the end of the day, victims. Because they are the victims of the bad policies of their own bad governments as they cannot stay and live in their own homes. But we should not forget that international political decisions, too, played a part in the fact that these people were compelled to leave their own countries. We are talking about the Afghanistani policy, the Iraq policy, the Syrian policy, the „Arab spring” policy, the Libyan policy, and I would not venture to say about any of them that they were successful international policies.

You went to the Brussels summit with proposals. One of them concerned humanitarian aspects, for instance, you also mentioned the camps in Turkey. Can you imagine that the deservedly renowned Hungarian expertise in the resolution of humanitarian crisis situations could perhaps be imported in the good sense of the word, inasmuch as we could take responsibility in these camps?

We can help, but today the problem is not that there is no sufficient expertise in these camps. It is more that there is not enough money, and there is even less will on the part of Europe to tell the residents of these camps that Europe will not take them in. I am telling you seriously, pondering the case from this studio, that it seems almost incredible, but people in the tens of millions believe that there is a continent which lives in prosperity and which can hardly wait for them to come. They will remedy their existential difficulties with, but even more so, without work, they will welcome them with friendship, and they will give them the good life they saw at home on TV, the life that people in the advanced western countries lead. This image is there in the heads of tens of millions of people, and as far as I can see, European politicians do not feel the pressure or the responsibility that every discourse we conduct on this issue is seen from the viewpoints of two different mindsets: from ours, as we speak about these issues, and from that of these tens of millions of people. When we speak about quotas, when we speak about compassion, when we speak about humanitarian issues, and when we speak about similar European Christian values – which are, of course, very important –, they see this as an invitation. So if it is not stated in no uncertain terms right at the beginning of a sentence that Europe cannot take everyone in and does not accept any uncontrolled process because everyone has to undergo certain procedures where it is decided whether they can come to Europe or not – and these procedures should not take place in Europe but outside Europe –, and therefore it is not worth marching across half the world and coming to Europe in an uncontrolled manner, by relying on human traffickers, because there is no happy life at the end of this, they will keep coming.

But to relay this message, it is necessary for the neighbouring countries, for Europe to take a united stance. Do any of the neighbouring countries take a stance which tallies with the Hungarian direction?

The Visegrád four are fine. I believe that our instincts function well; there is no lack of reality in the approach of the Visegrád four. There is a problem with the more remote countries, and the countries which take a more ideological stance. Let me repeat this: the French and the Italians, and a section of the German and also of the Austrian political elite, too, clearly see what is happening now as a positive phenomenon, and therefore encourage it.

For that reason, it is necessary to settle relations with Croatia. You met with the Croatian head of state in New York. She, too, expressed commitment to the resolution of the situation.

The Croatian situation is a very difficult affair. First of all, we lived in a state for 800 years in such a way that Croatia always had its independence, and therefore there are no bad historical memories that would poison the co-existence of the two nations. Sure enough, there were worse days or periods, but these are nothing compared with the positive experiences. So we have a neighbour – which is not particularly frequent here, in the Carpathian Basin – with whom history has demonstrated the good side of living together. There is consequently no obstacle to friendship, and I am not talking about simple, reasonable cooperation, but friendship which also has emotional foundations. What is happening now destroys this. I did not once say anything untoward to the Croatian Prime Minister because I believed that there are certain rules in international relations – manners, diplomatic courtesy – which one should not violate because, while this may appear to be beneficial in the short term, our own people will eventually pay the price in the longer term. But the truth is that I can only tell the Hungarian people, our esteemed listeners, that we should not bear a grudge against the Croatian people for what they are doing. The things that the Croatian Prime Minister says we do not regard as the opinion of the Croatian people. The Croatian Prime Minister and his party are members of the Socialist International, and the parties of the Socialist International support immigration; they are the ones who believe that it is a good thing. Their leaders – and I think the people much less – follow the instructions and the assignments of the Socialist International. I therefore beseech the Hungarian people that when they hear the Croatian Prime Minister, they should not hear the voice of the Croatian people but rather that of an agent of the Socialist International whose duty it is to attack Hungary.

The Croatian Prime Minister does not criticise your words, but rather your decisions, the closure of the border. Is this what you refer to as an exchange of messages?

There are countries which believe that a country can also exist without borders. There may be such illusions, let me say, liberal illusions, but reality is something else. A country which has no borders, which is unable to protect them, which is unable to identify the people for whose fate it bears responsibility, well, such a country is, in fact, no country at all. While the European Union has diminished the significance of these borders, it has never done away with them. It has made free travel possible, but has never said that there is no Germany, Austria or France any more or that Hungary has ceased to exist. As long as there is territorial jurisdiction, as long as there are elected parliaments and governments which define the rules which regulate co-existence in a given territory, there must be borders as well. It is an illusion to believe that nations, countries can also exist without borders.

What about the Austrian corridor? The Austrian Chancellor said, in your words, that if the migrants can only be stopped with a fence, we might as well let them through.

As we can see, the Austrian position, too, is changeable. There will be elections there, one by one; they just had elections in Upper Austria. These are state elections, not municipal elections, and are therefore more serious than municipal elections or there is more at stake, even if they are not national elections. Elections will be held in Vienna soon – I think on 11 October – and political life there is currently in a state of turmoil, in a state of excitement. We must acknowledge this, and must seek to find ways to cooperate with the Austrians as well. At the end of the day, all I can tell our Austrian friends that it is not fair that, while their border, Austria’s southern border, is partially on the southern border of Hungary, as we are both within the Schengen zone, and we attempt to protect this border, they are shooting us in the back with friendly fire. This is not right. This is not conducive to the cooperation of the two peoples, to friendship, and is ultimately not helpful. I asked them instead to discuss this situation calmly, and if they seriously believe that economic migrants pose a threat and a risk and must be stopped somewhere sooner or later – and if Greece does not stop them, though this would be its duty – then they must be stopped somewhere at the borders of Hungary, as we did at the Serbian-Hungarian border. This is also in their best interests, and if that is the case, they must help us.

We have very little time left for internal political affairs and issues. Who will be the new state secretary for health care?

We shall have a cabinet meeting at 2.00 o’clock this afternoon, and a decision will be taken once we have reviewed the situation with the Minister of Human Capacities.

Do you have a name though in your head?

It should not be in my head but in the Minister’s head, and knowing him, I am sure there will be a name, perhaps, more than one, I think.

Structural changes have been made and are being continuously implemented within the government. What is it you hope to achieve with them?

I would have always liked this, but I was unable to implement it before. Even at the time when we won the elections in 2014, I held the view that, in order for the government to function well and for me personally to do my job well – which is not a personal affair but an affair of the country – or in other words, to serve the Hungarian people’s interests well, I need more assistance than I had before. But we were unable to remove the head of the Fidesz parliamentary group from his position because unity within the parliamentary group is extremely important after the elections, at the beginning of the cycle; that is what provides a government’s political support. The electorate’s support is enforced through the parliamentary group. They represent the people, without whom one cannot govern. Consequently, we were unable to remove Minister Antal Rogán – we may soon call him that – from his position as head of the parliamentary group because the stability of the parliamentary group was more important. But a year has passed now, and in my view, things have taken a promising turn, in particular, as regards the Hungarian economy, though we have a lot more to do. I feel that the time has come when we may change the head of the parliamentary group, and I may as a result obtain the assistance which I need in my work as head of the government.

Did you not receive this type of assistance, the type of support you are talking about?

I did, but less of it. If one man does two jobs – this must be the same in the radio business as well –, so if someone is head of the parliamentary group and simultaneously coordinates the Prime Minister’s political work, it is probably not the same as if he only concentrated on one thing or the other. And in the past year, the head of the parliamentary group has been tasked with two duties: lead the parliamentary group and assist me. I have been very much looking forward to having a whole man on the job.

You have been listening to Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s Prime Minister.

(Prime Minister's Office)