3rd Danube Geopolitical Summit keynote speech
Dear Mr. President Klaus, Distinguished Guests, Ambassadors, Dear Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends from Heritage Foundation, form Danube Institute, welcome and good morning.
I am really happy to be here today. It is an honor to me to be with you and make the keynote speech on the second day.
If I can be honest with you, I was not sure if I should accept this invitation. But ultimately I came to the conclusion that there is no better opportunity than this to engage in an open and honest dialogue with you today.
As you probably know, we Hungarians are not very easy people and it is not very easy to deal with us. We are quite outspoken, sometimes controversial, but we like it that way. And I just wanted to share with you, that this is not a new phenomenon, it goes back to centuries.
A famous 19th century British author, John Pageat, once wrote about the Hungarians that “they speak openly and boldly about issues their neighbors dare not even whisper about. As for the reluctance to express honest opinions, which we, the English, often encounter in other continental countries, well, it is just as absent in the Hungarians as it is in us.”
I think things didn’t change too much since the 19th century, but in the next few minutes I will continue my remarks in the spirit of this bold Hungarian tradition.
THE WORLD TODAY
Now, let’s start by exploring the current state of affairs. We often hear that we are living in an age of tectonic change. It is almost a cliché to say so, but it’s true. The world is going through what we can only describe as a perfect storm.
We witness a war on the European continent, geopolitical fragmentation, mass migration, climate change, natural disasters, and some rising income inequality. These trends show that we are navigating a period of rapid and profound changes in the international political landscape.
The global order was transformed in front of our eyes: the unipolar moment of the 1990s and the 2000s is drawing to its close. The erosion of the prevailing Western hegemony, and the growing competition between the East and the West are marked by the formation of blocs and growing global instability.
The West’s dominance over international relations used to rest on three key pillars:
- The first pillar was the West’s long-held position as the global economic powerhouse for over two centuries.
- The second pillar was about the West creating global institutions to manage international politics and trade, giving them the power to set the rules for globalization.
- The third pillar counted on the United States, as the dominant superpower after the Soviet Union’s fall, working with Europe to spread the neoliberal model for politics and economics, aiming for a safer, more peaceful world.
Back then, many believed we had reached “the end of history.” But today, we see all three foundations of Western power crumbling.
And what do we see instead? The world economy’s center of gravity is increasingly shifting eastward.
Non-Western states have already surpassed the West in terms of production capacity, and have much larger reserves of critical raw materials.
Technological competition is essentially a dead heat.
In terms of population, the West accounts for just one-seventh of the global total.
The only area in which the West still truly excels to this day is military power, although this advantage is somewhat hollow in a world overshadowed by nuclear deterrence and the specter of mutual destruction.
While having a powerful military force may seem like good news at first glance, it also has inherent risks, as a superpower losing its hegemonic position may resort to military solutions more rapidly.
Meanwhile, the new challengers to the existing order are actively constructing alternative institutions for managing diplomatic and trade relations, forming new alliances, and establishing new platforms to address conflicts.
The post-1990 global system is currently unraveling, shaped by a complex interplay of rising powers, resource-rich nations, and changing dynamics, with the West’s own actions undermining the system it created.
WHAT WERE THE CONCLUSIONS?
Alright, most of us are likely witnessing this change. And what did Western thinkers and political strategists make of this transformation?
They concluded that the current international order no longer serves the interests of their countries. That globalization and connectivity as well as the promotion of free trade backfired, so they need a new strategy.
They started categorizing countries into “good” and “bad” again, with the “good” ones feeling a moral duty to join forces against the “bad” ones.
In this worldview, they wanted to split economies, infrastructure, and institutions into separate camps, forming blocs in the process disregarding the fact that this would be a catastrophic outcome for many.
I argue that taking such an approach would isolate potential allies and create avoidable sources of disagreement.
The idea of economic “decoupling” or “de-risking” carries a substantial price tag and, in the long run, doesn’t enhance but diminishes the West’s standing in the global economic arena.
Returning to the storm metaphor, while it is true that in one way or another we all feel the storm’s impact, but not everyone feels it to the same extent.
Some countries are more exposed to the storm, while others are less affected. This difference is understandable due to factors such as their size, history, culture, influence, and their level of involvement in the matter.
I come from a small country with a population of 10 million, and speak a strange language almost nobody else understands. Naturally, I cannot say how the current geopolitical changes may be perceived by the United States.
But I can see the reason why this topic is of great concern to American and Chinese thinkers, as well as political strategists alike, and serves as the lens through which they observe the world.
But for a small Central European country like ours, this is not the case. Therefore, understandably, we have a distinctly different perspective on the situation.
SMALL COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE
In today’s global landscape, smaller nations like Hungary and many others (probably 150 other countries) are pursuing three crucial goals:
- Acknowledge the current geopolitical reality with the changing structure of the world order and adapt to the evolving environment;
- prevent the war at any cost;
- and strive for economic prosperity.
We are a dedicated member of NATO, and therefore, in line with Article 5, we would view an attack against one Ally as an attack against the Alliance.
But when it comes to economic questions, or political questions, or cultural questions we do not want to take sides. We do not want decoupling. We do not want to be put under political or economic pressures.
Our goal is to live in peace and to have the freedom to pursue a domestic and foreign policy that are supported by our people, and are aligned with our national interest.
And so we support political forces that enable us to uphold these principles and oppose those that seek to undermine them.
HUNGARIAN STRATEGY
Now allow me to discuss Hungary’s perspective on the current situation and our aspirations for the future.
We have no intention of adopting foreign ideas; rather, our aim is to understand them and adapt them to create value for our nation. We love our freedom, and we refuse to be mere instruments serving the interests of great powers.
Meanwhile, we have passionate debates at home about the direction we are taking. Currently, we see a unique opportunity to pursue our dual objectives:
- To join the camp of the most developed countries.
- To assume a regional mid-power role.
On the economic front, our goal is to break free from the middle-income trap and emerge as a developed and prosperous nation at the heart of Europe.
This means maintaining high productivity, investing in infrastructure, public services, and education, nurturing our national economic champions, and becoming a global hub for innovation.
Politically, our aim is to become a regional middle power capable of exerting diplomatic influence beyond our borders, shaping regional processes, and leading in regional cooperation and stability.
How can we achieve these long-term goals? It all boils down, according to our understanding to connectivity.
Hungary must become a keystone state — a nation with extensive relationships, active participation in complex alliance systems, integration into the global economy, and significant political, military, economic, and cultural influence.
As we see it, at least three factors make us an ideal keystone state: our geographical location, cultural heritage, and economic complexity.
Strategically located at the intersection of important trade routes, Hungary has a long history of being well-connected. Today, we are a vital entry point to the European Union for goods from the East. Hungary’s position also aligns with the key goals of Central and Eastern European countries to create important trade paths connecting the northern and southern regions. Additionally, our western borders are directly linked to the larger European Union, making it easier to do business and reinforcing our role as a key player in regional trade.
Due to our history and culture enables us to serve as a kind of a bridge – although we Hungarians do not like this metaphor, but I use it for you, because it easier to understand it – to serve as a bridge between the West and the East. Hungary’s land-taking in the Carpathian Basin began from the East, which makes us well-acclaimed in both the East and West. This enables us to strengthen the representation of traditional Western values in the Western world while also establishing connections with non-Western states.
And lastly, our export-oriented economy, characterized by high complexity, offers plenty of opportunities for global engagement. According to Harvard’s Economic Complexity Index, we are ranked 11th globally. Hungary has the 11th most complex economy in the world. Besides Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria we also engage in significant trade with Western countries, and now with Eastern countries as well. Just over the past decade, among Netherland, Germany, United States, South Korea has increased its investment in Hungary by eightfold, China by 3.5 times, Singapore by three times, and Japan by 2.5 times.
To leverage these attributes and achieve the status of a keystone state, we must continue aiming to be a central meeting point for trade, innovation, sports, culture, and politics.
And last but not least, the state itself must also adapt its operations to fulfill its role as a keystone state.
We think there is a strong likelihood that we can achieve these objectives by the early years of the next decade. While we are on the right path, there is still much work to be done, which is why I have decided to dedicate my forthcoming book to outlining Hungary’s connectivity strategy.
Throughout our history, we have thrived by embracing openness, mediating between the East and the West, promoting peace, and engaging in fair trade.
Only by recommitting to these principles can we overcome current challenges and forge a stable, prosperous future for our citizens.
BILATERAL RELATIONS
And so, when it comes to our bilateral relations and potential cooperation, we would prefer to see a partner across the Pond who, instead of pressuring us to pick sides, acknowledges our position and assists in nurturing connections between our nations.
This is in stark contrast to the approach followed by American liberal foreign policy in recent years, which may eventually lead to less rather than more allies for the United States.
Unfortunately, at present, we observe that the liberal administration is burning instead of building bridges, causing potential partners who might otherwise support your cause to hesitate.
The strategy of exerting political pressure on your allies, lecturing them on values and ideologies, and then expecting them to align with your objectives is, in my view, fundamentally flawed.
What they also overlook is that their policy distances ordinary Hungarian citizens too. The current administration has implemented policies that obstruct American companies from investing in Hungary and create obstacles for Hungarians looking to engage in business in the United States. These actions make it even less likely to persuade Hungarians to prioritize American interests over their own.
Considering the challenging geopolitical circumstances, what we genuinely need is an increase, rather than a decrease, in connections.
A pragmatic economic collaboration should serve as the driving force of our partnership, fostering common interests that can lead to greater alignment among our nations.
I would like to emphasize Hungary’s full commitment to this approach, and we remain optimistic that the 2024 elections will inject renewed energy into our cooperation.
CONCLUSION
I have probably taken enough of your time this Friday morning, so I will wrap up now. I typically hesitate to use quotes in my speeches, but there is one by Henry Kissinger that I found particularly clever. He once said: “The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously.”
I believe this is an important point: for countries like Hungary – and actually for countries like the United States, but it’s not up to me to say this – but for countries like Hungary blindly following the dictates of any major power and consequently sacrificing our national interests in pursuit of a better future for our citizens is not a viable option.
This also applies to our stance within Europe, where we won’t allow Brussels to impose their views on us regarding for example mass illegal migration, or gender ideology, or even in the war in Ukraine.
Regarding the war in Ukraine, we all condemn Russian aggression. It is clear: in this conflict Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is the victim. Nevertheless, Hungary has a unique position, which we believe is the only rational approach. We must advocate for an immediate ceasefire and peace negotiations. We firmly believe that there is no military solution to this conflict, and the solution – this is very important – lies in the hands of the United States. Peace can only be achieved with America’s support. If America wants to have peace, there is going to be peace, if America wants to have the continuation of the war, there will be a long term war.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, we have quite a few challenges ahead, but I remain optimistic.
Our task is to pave a way to solutions that allows us to navigate the turbulent waters of 21st-century geopolitical changes, while seeking mutually acceptable outcomes.
I firmly believe that gatherings like the summit these days present an excellent opportunity to progress towards these solutions.
So this is why I’m extremely thankful to Danube Institute and to Heritage Foundation, that they made it possible to happen.
I wish you a productive discussion today and a pleasant stay in Hungary.
Thank you very much.
