„We have to widen Hungary’s room for movement” - an interview with Gergely Prőhle.

Foreign policy editor Gábor Stier interviewed Deputy State Secretary Gergely Prőhle. The interview was published in Magyar Nemzet on 31 July 2013. 

We have to widen Hungary’s room for movement

Deputy State Secretary Gergely Prőhle is on the opinion that consolidation of the country relations with the European institutions is indispensable.

The world does not and in many cases is not willing to grasp the changes unfolding in Hungary. Therefore most of the efforts of Hungarian diplomacy during the past three years have had to be invested in warding off such criticisms. The sometimes hostile atmosphere created around the country was not only detrimental to us. Its impacts went deeper, because in many cases it distorted social conscience, what is visible from the sometimes quite confrontational reactions lacking humour and grace. All this also diverted the attention from many issues, including classic foreign policy, the effect of which is much more lasting than the political ripples created by warding off such criticisms. We discussed this situation with Gergely Prőhle, Deputy State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

– I will tell you very honestly, I do not envy you. You must have had some difficult negotiations as the Ministry official responsible for bilateral relations, press and cultural diplomacy during recent times. You are received with some tough questions in Vienna, Berlin might be uncomprehending at the most and even the government circles of the otherwise friendly Warsaw are cautious when it comes to Hungary. Are there any destinations left that you travel to filled with good feelings?

– Let us first state for the record that one does not choose a career in foreign relations because of any pleasure trips. Although it sounds pathetic, it is no coincidence that this activity is called diplomatic service. This work has its nicer and tougher sides. Of course it also has to be added that fate has spoiled us during the past decades. Hungary was already considered successful, reform minded and western oriented even before the political changes and we were dubbed as the “happiest barrack”.  We were top of the class – outsiders told us - even when joining the EU; however this situation has changed from the middle of the last decade. An image emerged of Hungary as a country in a state of social excitement, economically on the decline, along with other social problems that we disregarded earlier. This was only compounded by privatization and the contradictions of EU accession. 

– While the Hungarian society felt more and more frustrated …

– Yes, the most spectacular sign of which were the 2010 election results. The two-third majority of the ruling party and 16% of the votes going to a radical party both attest to the disillusionment of the society, coupled with a shaken confidence in established, democratic processes.

– This is why the social subconscious has an increasing desire for success, for strengthened self-esteem, without which foreign policy cannot be successful either. Do you agree with this statement?

– Self-image indeed has a significant role in shaping foreign policy and a false image will unfortunately lead to false assumptions when it comes to assessing our room for movement.

– Now that you mention room for movement, let me say that it seems there are some misconceptions about this in the society. Part of this is rooted in the fact that they hold the diplomatic service responsible for the criticisms aimed at the country. How big is diplomacy’s room for movement in the current situation?

– Indeed there are some – even on the political right – who make a sport of mopping the floor with Foreign Ministry officials, sometimes calling them softies, some other times outright calling them, calling us communists. I am not saying that everybody stood up to these new challenges perfectly, but it would be worth pointing out a few facts to critics. When judging the manoeuvring room available to diplomacy it should not be forgotten that since 2010 government policy consciously undertook conflicts, which were justified from the country’s perspectives, which opposing forces criticised whenever they could. However the world cannot consist of conflicts only, therefore we have to limit these as much as possible. The way to do this is to clarify the objectives set by the country, the background of social phenomena and the motivations driving decisions. This requires personal credibility, a network of relations, as well as a thorough knowledge of processes in Hungary, but first and foremost, what is needed is patriotic commitment in the practical sense of the word, which is not equal to pro-government party sentiments by all means. I will say that this is what characterizes the majority of our diplomats.     

– It also needs to be added that in the present atmosphere surrounding the country, hearing sometimes exaggerated criticisms, people expect a greater degree of aggressiveness, also forgetting sometimes that the efficiency of protecting national interests is not measured in volume of tone and that just as politics, diplomacy is also an art of compromise…

– It is true that arguments should not be won on volume and verbal “self-excitement”, but while rejecting unfounded allegations, it is not a shame to sometimes accept that our critics are right. The negative atmosphere created around Hungary can be explained by several factors. On the one hand, these criticisms have a party political aspect, which – like it or not – make professional reasoning difficult as well. This is sometimes palpable in the press as well, where things having absolutely nothing to do with reality can also be published. If a paper with a global outreach publishes something then it soon becomes a fact and assumes a life of its own. Beside this, there are business interests, which have in recent times often suffered because strengthening the country’s economic sovereignty led to this. It is worth studying the arguments with European institutions in a wider perspective. The desire to review EU competences is raised more and more – most recently in a Dutch document – which is a good sign of the movement in the system and that there is going to be a need for new clever and viable compromises.     

– We have some grounds for optimism, since after all the troubles, Hungary achieved two successes. One was the lifting of the excessive deficit procedure as recognition of the government’s efforts, the other one the successful steps in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to block a monitoring procedure against the country. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and you personally played an important role in this latter. This was followed by the Tavares-report in the European Parliament, which again condemned Hungary. What constitutes the difference in the attitude of these two forums?

– These two procedures are good examples of how the system operates. While the CoE Parliamentary Assembly has representatives, who have actual electoral constituencies, thus they are accountable to their voters, the European Parliament has members who have been elected on lists, thus only adhere to party discipline. Although Hungarian diplomacy represented national interests at both forums with the same arguments and dedication, the results are still different. Mainly because personal contacts mattered much more in the CoE, along with rational, legally justified reasoning and persuasion, while party interests superseded everything in the EP. This latter, as we have seen will easily lead anybody into repeating statements – on both sides. However there is also room for a certain degree of intellectual self-reflection in the CoE and our reasoning was also supported by the fact that Hungary was represented by János Martonyi, who is an acknowledged European lawyer at the session of the Venice Commission - created by the CoE to deal specifically with legislative issues – that discussed the report on fourth amendment of the Hungarian Fundamental Law. In Strasbourg, I worked to complement the efforts of Hungarian MPs and to use my contacts from my time as an Ambassador in Berlin and Bern to reason with my Liberal and Social Democrat friends. Among others I could also tell them that criticising Hungary purely on the basis of preconceptions is also putting the credibility of the European public opinion and the value sets at risk. 

– Let us also add that the CoE is a wider forum than the European Union, thus the Western European approach tends to prevail with less force there. We could also say that this forum replicates the changes taking place globally and is more open to accept approaches that are different from the traditional. Did this come into play at all?

– If you are alluding to what the left’s media has been repeating, namely that we could only block the monitoring process with the Russian, Azeri or Turkish votes, then you are wrong. Those voting against the motion would have been in majority, even if we only narrowly considered states that are in Europe. It is a fact however that the diversity of Europe that we like so much is much better represented in the Council of Europe than the European Union. 

– The diversity you mention is not only characteristic of Europe, but also of Hungary and within it, the supporters of the governing party. It includes national conservatives just as much, as moderate liberals, Eurosceptics and those that remain pro-EU even in troubled times. However hearing the fundamentally domestic policy driven rhetoric, we sometimes have the feeling that the target audience is only a small slice of this group. Don’t you think that a more articulate European communication capable of reaching a wider audience would be better placed to dispel any doubts about Hungarian aspirations?

– The diversity of such a huge political camp is completely natural. What concerns fine tuning the Hungarian public opinion from a foreign policy point of view, it would really be in need of some strengthening. Sometimes I have the feeling that we seemed to be in a better position before the change of the political system in such terms. Back then we looked on the free world as a treasure of endless opportunities, which is worth our attention, because we stand to learn from it. It is worth remembering the times when Euro-Atlantic integration was an unquestioned objective and we did not see an enemy in the Western world. Not diminishing the significance of the East, we strengthened our belief that we have belonged to the West for a thousand years. Let us not forget with respect to the often quoted eastward opening – and this is what they told me in China as well – that Hungary is an interesting partner only with a strong European background. It is in this context that we have to define our own Hungarian and regional interests.

– When we talk about the different mind-sets of those backing Fidesz – not going further than you, who as a former leader of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation is a documented liberal – then is seems to be a mistake to not build on the opportunities that this provides. Don’t you think that in this sense we are the ones, who are limiting our own room for movement?

– Hungarian intellectual life is really diverse, which is a fantastic characteristic going back several centuries and should be appreciated by everyone. The real question is finding the common denominator between all these different trends with a view to promoting the real welfare of the public. How much we can realize this is going is one of the biggest measures of efficiency.

– Our reasoning is also weakened by the fact that we often tend to take our internal, party political conflicts out into the international arena…

– This is unfortunately true, while there are many examples of domestically diverse opinions; our neighbours leave these behind the moment they go beyond their borders. Contrary to this, we are unable to harmonise our positions even in the most fundamental questions, which in many cases conveys a self-destructive image.

– In our conversation we have mentioned the most recent debates over Hungary in the European Parliament and the CoE Parliamentary Assembly several times. Can any conclusion be drawn whether a protagonist approach, which does not shy away from criticising the EU or a compromise driven attitude, is more fruitful?

– My upbringing stops me from saying anything else but that clever compromises are more purposeful in Hungarian history and in contemporary European politics then the “No, no, never” or the “Ugocsa non coronat” type of positions. This is all the more important because all that we have discussed so far also serves to widen our room for movement in foreign policy. This is what preoccupies me the most. 

– I understand you, because amidst all the attacks against the county we have barely mentioned classic foreign policy, when in fact the emphasis should be on this. Hungary has assumed the Presidency of the V4 from the first of July and is also serving as the Presidency of the Central European Initiative from the beginning of the year. How can the country benefit from all this, if meanwhile its room for movement has also diminished because of the economic performance and the constant criticism?

– We are in an exciting race with time. There are more and more commentaries which not only describe Hungary’s unorthodox politics – or whatever you want to call them – purely as intent to pick a fight, but also admit that there might just be a chance of success. The improvement of macro-economic indicators is indeed important, just as the lifting of the excessive deficit procedure and the satisfactory resolution of debates with European institutions. The fact that many consider several measures introduced by the Hungarian government to be worth following should contradict the bad image created about us because of political reasons. We should not forget at the same time that from a civilizational perspective there is also a very interesting race going on in this transforming world. Let us consider how the value debates currently going on in the European Union will influence the demographic development of the continent. We may find out in the end that traditional values turned out to be the most modern… 

– Do you mean to say that the negative image emerging or created about our country might just be contradicted by the changes occurring globally, to prove that Hungary in many ways did correctly sense the logic of change?

– Yes. My discussions with European colleagues almost confirm such a statement. 

– At the same time would this also grant an opportunity among others to promote Hungarian ideas aimed at strengthening Central Europe or global opening in the foreign policy field?

– Yes. Although this is not what reports have concentrated on, during the past three years Hungarian foreign policy has come forward with substantial ideas aimed at strengthening the weight and the capability of Hungary to assert its interest. What specifically concerns that areas that I oversee, I can mention the Central-European idea or reinforced Visegrád cooperation, which is a predominant Hungarian and also a regional interest. This is a region, which represents one third of Hungary’s foreign trade, one that could be the engine of European economic growth. If we consider the issue of strengthening the identity and the solidarity of the region, then this is a Central-European interest, which places a special responsibility on us in a pan-European context. Standing in the centre of downtown Budapest we can sense why this city is destined to be aware of its regional significance. It is a metropolis rooted in diversity, which owes its development to the fact that it has been traditionally able to amalgamate Central-European values and to make use of the creativity stemming from diversity.

(Ministry of Foreign Affairs)