Cernobbio Forum 2023
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for having me. It’s always a pleasure to be among such excellent people. I don’t know if I’m invited as a black sheep but I like to be with you anyhow. And actually we Hungarians like to play that role sometimes, it’s very much joyful. No worries about that.
I’m relatively new to European politics, and I have to admit that it can feel like navigating through a storm without a compass – or without Google Maps, if you want to be more modern.
But I often get to talk to my Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who has been in European politics for 35-years now. Out of these years, he has served as Prime Minister for nearly two decades, and also led Hungary’s negotiations with the EU back in the 90s. As you can imagine, this gives him plenty of stories to tell.
He often says that while European politicians come and go, Council meetings remain quite the same with one exception: the ability of leaders to recognize crises on time and address them effectively. Sometimes it is better, sometimes it is worse – you feel it in the room. This is what we can also call political leadership.
While EU bureaucracy tends to downplay the importance of individual leadership in favor of institutions, this approach isn’t always helpful. Institutions can be effective in some situations, but in more cases than not, strong political leadership is absolutely necessary. This is also something that even DeGasperi noted when he said that if we disregard the importance of what he called “the higher political will” and focus on just creating shared institutions only, we risk the possibility of creating a European project that is cold, lifeless, and oppressive.
Why I am saying this? Because today, we came together to discuss “a future vision for Europe” in one of the founding member states of the European Union – the best place for this kind of conversation. And I think it is crucial to do so because, otherwise, as the Hungarian saying goes, our issues will burn under our fingers.
It is obvious that the EU is at a crossroad and in this turbulent time it shouldn’t only be led by bureaucrats who are driving it in an autopilot mode. They kept telling, I have heard it many times these days as well, that “War is okay. China is not okay. Migration is okay. Connectivity is bad. The direction is good, we just have to do it better.”
Meanwhile we have just seen the figures which are showing it very clearly that something is going on. But the decisions are already made, these are decided questions, but I think these are not decided questions, so I try to keep you awake and tell some things about the current challenges, at least as we see it in Hungary.
The first challenge is what we mentioned several times today as well is the changing world order and the million-dollar question of how Europe should respond to it?
We all agree that in the last 30 years, the world has changed a lot. There have been big shifts in politics and the economy.
Now, there is a real competition between the West and the Rest – as the wonderful Sir Roger Scruton called it once. The international institutions that the West created to shape global rules are losing influence. The idea that the United States, as the most powerful country, would work with Europe to promote the neoliberal political and economic model for a more peaceful world is fading. The center of the world’s economy is probably going to move more towards the East.
There are two ways to approach this shift. Some people think it is an identity issue, we should treat it emotionally and do whatever it takes to stop this and should do everything possible to resist. Others look at this issue more neutrally, treat it like a natural phenomenon, where our goal is to adapt to it.
In Hungary, we favor the second approach and address it without being overly emotional about it. We understand that we are experiencing a period with at least two dominant forces in the world, like having two suns in the sky: a situation where we Europeans must use to our advantage.
The EU’s interest according to our understanding is clear: save the Single Market, keep our economies open, avoid bloc formation, maintain global connections so we can stay competitive. Unfortunately, instead of sticking to this goal, we’re getting involved in a tricky geopolitical struggle that could end up breaking apart the world economy. If Western and Eastern powers drift apart, Europe will definitely be at a disadvantage. So, we really need to come up with a new strategy. If we don’t, Europe might miss a golden opportunity to boost its power and competitiveness.
The second problem is, and I don’t want to be too over-politicized, but it’s migration. For quite some time now, Europe has been dealing with more and more people coming here illegally. Every month, thousands of people cross Europe’s borders, which quickly adds up to millions every year and tens of millions over a decade. Surprisingly, Europe still hasn’t figured out a strong, united way to deal with this issue.
They came up with something called the Migration Pact, which, honestly, to be frank among friends, is a joke, it is not working. It’s actually the worst possible choice. Nobody really takes it seriously, and nobody thinks it’s the solution we’ve been waiting for.
Brussels tried to find a middle ground for what’s essentially a yes-or-no problem: either you let illegal migrants in, or you don’t. The Migration Pact tries to do both, and in the end, it just leaves everyone unhappy.
It’s kind of like a challenge I face at home sometimes: I love Hungarian goulash, while my wife prefers a classic Italian pizza. Now, if we can’t decide what to have for dinner and end up mixing the two together, I can guarantee you that everyone’s going to bed hungry.
Another challenge is to have a sensible, strategic discussion about climate and energy. Unfortunately, this has been almost impossible in recent years because extreme ideologies have captured the issue.
We understand that we have a problem. While the US is in a slightly better position because of its shale oil and gas reserves, the geographical reality is that most of the world’s raw materials and energy resources are outside Europe. This makes us less competitive.
We agree that something must be done. We all agree that green innovation could be one solution. But the question is: at what cost? Is it worth pursuing cheap energy if it comes at the expense of our citizens and industries?
We in Hungary don’t think so. We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater – while we sort out our energy problem we cannot impoverish our people and destroy our industry in the process.
The fourth issue is the war. There is absolutely no doubt that in this conflict, Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is the victim. Seeing so many people dying on the battlefield, sacrificing their lives for their homeland, is heartbreaking.
But what European leaders should ask themselves is this: How can we ensure the safety of our citizens and the security of our continent? Isn’t it in our interest in Europe to prevent the re-emergence of another iron curtain? Why do we believe that the current strategy will result in Ukraine’s victory when the Russians have gained control over more territories than they did 18 months ago?
And when we see European citizens struggling financially, economically, we should question if the sanctions policy is truly the most effective tool we have.
Additionally, recent polls show that European citizens are skeptical about Brussels’ approach, yet Brussels continues to press forward, further fueling the conflict.
In Hungary, we continue to call for an immediate ceasefire and urge peace talks as soon as possible. Almost everyone, including the United States, Russia, and China, can gain from the war, except for Europe – we can only lose. And the longer the war lasts, the more we lose.
The fifth issue is enlargement. While we often discuss this in the context of the war in Ukraine, we should not forget about the future of another, more developed region: the Western Balkans.
There’s a growing consensus that expanding the Union to include more countries, possibly reaching 35 Member States, could bring a fresh energy to the EU. However, this can only succeed if we reduce the strong bureaucratic control.
But many argue that enlargement requires deeper integration even in the field of foreign policy, where they propose a switch from unanimous decisions to qualified majority voting. This doesn’t make any sense. Foreign policy has always been a key part of state sovereignty. We Hungarians were fighting for it for 1000 years, it is impossible to accept the idea to give it up voluntary.
We should also ask ourselves if this approach would encourage Balkan countries to aspire to join the EU? I doubt it. Proposing such a change could alienate these candidate countries and delay the entire enlargement process.
What we need is a more flexible integration model, emphasizing the importance of open discussions, constructive debates, and opportunities to keep up an independent profile among member states so that we can bring in new countries.
Are we surprised that the rest of the world is not in line with us, in Africa, Arab countries, South America. Are we really surprised? We’re using our soft power to lecture these countries for like decades. They don’t have any problem with our money, but they disagree with almost everything what we are telling them.
The next issue I have to mention is the economy. In 1990, the European Union represented 23% of the global GDP. Today, this figure is only 14%. If you think about it, it’s quite shocking. When the Meloni government came into power, it was great to see the establishment of a Ministry dedicated to promoting “Made in Italy”. But now, we have to ask ourselves if we’ll keep seeing “Made in Italy,” “Made in Germany,” or “Made in Hungary” in the future at all?
Deindustrialization has had a devastating impact, leading to the erosion of our manufacturing capabilities and a reduction in our export markets. And in the middle of these challenges, instead of using European financial resources for impactful initiatives enhancing competitiveness or helping our companies with the skyrocketing energy prices, resources have been used to send it to a country which is not part of EU, supporting migration or putting political pressure on Member States. I doubt that this should the best way to deal.
And now the final point, probably the biggest agreement we have is on this: Europe’s need for military independence. I can say probably more loudly and less diplomatically, but we’re talking about these issues. It’s well-known that we rely way too heavily on our American friends for our own defense. Their conditions are clear: they’ll protect us if we align our interests with theirs and follow their lead on various foreign policy and economic matters. It’s a fair point from their side. But questioning this arrangement isn’t anti-American; it’s a sensible question that looks out for Europe’s interests.
Shouldn’t we invest in our own European military capabilities? Shouldn’t we use our European resources for this? I think the answer is yes. We should do that.
In Hungary, we are doing that and we are part of all European discussions.
The ability to defend ourselves is essential. If we are capable of defending ourselves, we would not only become stronger but would also contribute to a fairer distribution of responsibilities within the transatlantic alliance system.
So the conclusion: I’ve mentioned several issues, but what’s keeping us from addressing them?
Firstly, a difficult political landscape. Brexit has been a significant loss, as the UK always played a role in balancing the Union. Without them, it’s challenging to maintain the balance between federalist and sovereigntist voices, which was always a cornerstone of European integration.
Besides Brexit, other powerful countries face their own problems. Germany is struggling with a coalition government, Southern countries have limited room to maneuver due to financial constraints, and France, despite its best efforts, is finding hard to fill the leadership gap in the EU.
Central European states like Poland and Hungary face exclusion rather than integration due to ideological differences. Brussels tries to impose its political agenda on them, further deepening internal divisions.
According to our understanding, we need stronger political forces advocating for the idea that a successful European Union relies on the cooperation of independent and sovereign Member States with strong leaders. We can only strengthen Europe by having a better balance between federalist and sovereigntist voices. The upcoming European elections offers an excellent opportunity for this.
Paradoxically, even those who don’t typically support sovereigntists would benefit from voting for them, while even those leaning towards federalists would be worse off if they voted for them.
Lastly, we need to answer this question: when things get tough, who should make the final decisions on strategy? Should it be the bureaucrats – even if they are wonderful – in Brussels, or the leaders of our countries? In Hungary, we’re pretty clear about our position: it should always be the political leaders of Europe who have democratic legitimacy, the trust of their citizens, and who represent their opinions and interests, in France, in Italy and in Hungary.
I am not a big fan of quotes but there is this one quote from Konrad Adenauer, which is more relevant and important than ever before: “We all live under the same sky, but not all of us have the same horizon.”
We may not always see eye to eye on everything, but instead of fixating on our differences and attempting to persuade each other on every single issue, we should be able to have a fresh and frank discussion, which is sometimes uncomfortable, but I think it’s inevitable.
This is precisely what we’re accomplishing at this forum during these few days. I want to express my gratitude to the organizers for establishing this wonderful panel.
Thank you very much for having me.
