Balazs Orban: If Europe Wants Peace, Now's the Time to Work on Changing Course

Today we are the only ones who can negotiate with all parties, Balazs Orban told Magyar Nemzet in an interview regarding Viktor Orban's peace mission. The Hungarian prime minister's political director emphasized that their task now was to convince the EU member states of PM Orban's plan. He also spoke about the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, saying that for some, nothing is too expensive when it comes to silencing pro-peace voices.

Balazs Orban, the political director of Hungarian PM Viktor Orban (Photo: Istvan Mirko)

Kyiv, Moscow, Beijing, Washington. These are the stops on Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's peace mission so far. How do you assess the fact that in just two weeks the Hungarian prime minister has visited such key locations?

There are two warring sides, Ukraine and Russia, and there are three or four major or middle powers that can play a decisive role as mediators. These are the United States, Europe, China, and Turkey, which helped to bring about the only partial agreement so far, regarding the Black Sea grain corridors. These countries are the key players if one has real peace-making in mind. We set out everywhere with the aim of mapping out how much and what chances there are for peace. The peace mission's first stop was in the two war-torn countries. From these trips, it is clear that Ukraine and Russia are very determined to continue their fight, so without the entry of external mediators, we will unfortunately see some very brutal destruction in the months ahead. We then set out to negotiate with potential mediators. China and Turkey are committed to peace. Donald Trump is also committed to peace, so if he becomes President of the United States again, he will soon create peace himself. But the Europeans and the current US administration are in favor of continuing the war. PM Orban sent a written notice to the European Council's leaders on the talks and his experience regarding the first phase of the peace mission and Hungary's proposals. If Europe wants peace and wants to have a decisive say in the settlement of the war and an end to the bloodshed, it must now work out and implement a change of course.

Am I right in understanding that this is an "Orban plan" that sets out ways and means for peace to be achieved?

Yes, it is in fact an "Orban plan" which is now on the table of every EU prime minister. A realistic assessment of the situation, realistic goals, and a proper timetable - this is what our approach is based on.

 What are the chances of Hungary playing a mediating role in this?

Our role should not be over- or underestimated. We know exactly what the country's strength is and isn't enough for, but from day one of the conflict we have been credible agents for peace, while being the only one able to negotiate with all parties. The fact itself that these meetings took place within two weeks shows that Hungary may have a serious role in mediation. Most countries in the world are waiting many years just to have such a meeting. In politics, experience counts. During the negotiations, I can personally see that Hungary's prime minister is considered the "doyen" of European politics, the politician with the most experience and the broadest personal network of contacts, and this opens many doors that would never open for others. Hungary is a capable mediator, as the last two weeks have shown, and our task now is to put together this new approach and try to convince the EU's member states of Viktor Orban's plan.

Where may the next stop of the peace mission be?

We are convinced that - in political terms - we should use the entire period of Hungary's EU presidency to establish the right conditions for peace negotiations. If the EU does not act now, it may not be able to act later. There are several players in international politics with whom it is worth negotiating and encouraging them to act together. So we still have journeys and discussions ahead of us, and we're in the middle of a very intense period.

What's your take on criticisms coming from EU leaders against the Hungarian prime minister's peace mission?

These statements fully reveal who is simply just talking about peace, and who is serious about it. Anyone can say that they disagree with Hungary's approach, but if we really want peace, we must communicate with each other. Mounting despicable attacks on this communication is rather self-revealing.

In reality, there are political forces that are pro-war, so they don't want peace in Europe. This is why it bothers them that Hungary is demonstrating not just to the Hungarian electorate, but also to the European electorate, that we can take a different approach.

We see through the sieve and refuse to accept a policy of self-exemption because, during the European Parliament elections, Hungarian voters have reaffirmed our belief that we must do everything we can for peace. If one starts to work seriously on peace-building, one can - in a very short amount of time - change the context that's been frozen in a pro-war mentality so far.

How can our country use the EU Presidency to build peace?

The technical task of the Presidency is to move the EU dossiers forward and try to reach compromises on them. The other task is to take political initiatives. Therefore, we are not standing still, waiting for the other 26 member states to agree on something and then tell us, the holders of the EU Presidency, what we have to do. We can come up with proposals and submit these for discussion. Of course, these proposals can be labeled bad, and even be rejected, but this leads to having no common EU position on any particular issue. Discussions may only be held on elaborated, thought-out, and realistic proposals that can be implemented. 

Hungary's prime minister has briefed EU leaders in detail on his visits. These trips have been very important because, at the moment, Hungary is the only country that has fresh and concrete information on how the warring sides and the key players in the mediation think, and how to navigate between the different interests. If we are serious about peace, then this is how we can formulate a plan that has at least a minimal chance of being implemented.

When might there be a change in the approach of pro-war leaders?

While the United States plays a key role, European politics has become completely devoid. On this issue, European strategic autonomy is nothing but a myth. Europeans are following the Biden administration, which is busy fighting for political survival. Now, the most pressing question for them is whether Joe Biden can even remain in the presidential race, so they're not at all concerned with foreign policy. It would be very optimistic to expect a change on their part. In contrast, Donald Trump is openly campaigning with the message of peace. He says the war should never have erupted and that, had he been president, the conflict would not have started. I was also present at the meeting where he reaffirmed that his priority is creating peace. First, however, the crucial thing for him is to regain political authority, so we expect no initiative in this direction in the coming months. And this is precisely why we are suggesting to Europe that if we want to play a decisive role in reaching a settlement, then now is the time to act.

Why does NATO want to continue to play an active role in supporting Ukraine, a country that is not a member of the military alliance?

Dark clouds are looming. International politics is becoming increasingly complex, with a growing number of organizations that do not respond well to the changing balance of power in the world, making it very difficult to maintain cooperation. Just take a look at the problems in the UN Security Council, the top body of multilateral diplomacy! Look at how many problems there are in the European Union, where 27 member states should cooperate in more than thirty policy areas. In comparison, NATO is an extremely simple organization with a very efficient structure. The starting point is that if one member state is attacked, it is defended by the other member states. To this end, the member states coordinate in terms of military policy, and jointly develop their armed forces. Otherwise, it is irrelevant what foreign policy each member state pursues, how it sees the world, and what its views are on various major social and economic processes. It is dangerous if this well-functioning approach changes.

At the last NATO summit, 31 member states except Hungary agreed to prepare a mission outside NATO, which entails a huge security risk and poses the danger of escalation. But we agreed both with current NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and future NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Hungary will stay out of this, so we will not become a warring party.

So far so good, but we can see that NATO wants to force member states to act together in more and more areas. They want to have a common security doctrine for the Pacific region or a common doctrine for how we trade with non-NATO countries. These issues should not be part of the NATO negotiations. If we turn the defense alliance into an organization that supports the formation of blocs and the new Cold War logic, if it becomes an organization that regularly conducts active military operations outside its territory, then we will be in big trouble in the coming decades. This process is taking place, but we need to engage in this debate, state our position, and keep a course in line with NATO's original goal. All of the Hungarian prime minister's speeches on NATO served this purpose, but he also published an article about this in Newsweek, one of the most prestigious American weekly papers. This is the message we want to get across to our allies from all directions.

How can the forming of blocs be stopped?

We need to understand that the former neoliberal world, which was characterized by a particular ideology in international politics, has come to an end. The era of sovereignty has come, which means that the world has changed with different centers of power emerging. They have different political, social, economic, and civilizational backgrounds, which must not be suppressed, but a framework for cooperation must be established and a new balance of power created, otherwise the world will be thrown into chaos and a third world war will be inevitable. If anyone sees their own allies as actors who define themselves in relation to others and position themselves as being solely on the good side of history, then they are moving events in the direction of hostility.  Therefore, our approach is that war conflicts and creating blocs in economic terms - with the associated sanctions policies and trade war - are not conducive to a stable, new world order that is important for everyone in the coming decades. Obviously, the strengthening of like-minded Western actors is a key issue here.

How can we guarantee that Hungary's agreements with the outgoing and future NATO secretary general will be respected in the long term?

The conditions for this were set out in writing and we received a guarantee. It is not usual for a member state to receive guarantees signed by the NATO secretary general. For us, NATO cooperation has a number of dimensions that are very important for Hungary's defense strategy. We believe that the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty are important, and in accordance with the regulations, we spend two percent of our GDP on defense. Outside Hungary's territory, there are missions aiming to maintain regional stability, for example in the Balkans, and Hungary makes its contribution in cooperation with other countries.  But what we see at the moment is that NATO's mission in Ukraine is a gamble that does not contribute to the security of the region, but undermines it, because no one knows when it will turn into a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. We would definitely like to stay out of this.  In this respect, the European Parliament elections on June 9 were important, where we received a solid mandate from the Hungarian people, and based on this we can build to implement this policy. Our opponents are waiting for our stable domestic political backing to break, because then they could finally sweep Hungary's opposition off the table. We must not let this happen.

What do you make of the fact that after Robert Fico, Donald Trump, another pro-peace leader, was attacked?

– We, Hungarians, are familiar with the nature of pro-war propaganda: nothing is too expensive when it comes to silencing and discrediting pro-peace voices. This approach is sending ripples through public life, followed by a succession of similar acts of violence.

We had dinner with President Trump two days before the assassination attempt. He was aware that everything would be done to prevent his return and his efforts to restore order. Even then, it was clear that he possessed the strength and inner drive that would not allow him to succumb easily. Any lucky for us, this is how things panned out. 

Cover photo: Balazs Orban, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban's political director (Photo: Istvan Mirko)