| (The interviewer was Martin Ehl; questions are in Italics)
These days one can’t escape starting a conversation without mentioning the Benes decrees. What is your government’s opinion of the demonstrations staged in front of Slovak embassies? Let us begin with the decrees. A majority of them deal with the statehood of Czechoslovakia and Slovakia, and we accept that this is very important for Slovakia. But the decrees do contain a small part, which discusses the collective guilt of Hungarians and their collective punishment—the basis on which they were expelled from Slovakia after World War II or punished in some other way. For Hungarians this is very painful and concerns a large mass of people—about one hundred thousand families, or a total of some one million people. After all that it is rather awkward to come forward with the Benes decrees, even if Slovak Parliament had declared that it rejects the principle of collective guilt. But again, it has voted for something which revives all the pain attached to it. And what would be acceptable for Hungary? Only to speak openly about the fact that a section of the Benes decrees attacked people and that it is unacceptable to start talking again about such reactions as an endorsement of the principle of collective guilt. But this would be very dangerous for Central Europe, for example because of German-Polish, Czech-German relations… …. But this is after all a part of history. We must speak about what happened between Germany and Poland. Doing so does not signify financial compensation; this must be distinguished from moral or emotional redress. On the one side there is Ján Slota, on the other the Hungarian Guard and the affairs in the village of Pilisszentkereszt/Mlynky, where Slovak organisations have lost their offices in the Slovak House. How do you assess current relations between Hungary and Slovakia? There is a very big difference here: Ján Slota is the leader of one of the parties of the governing coalition. The Hungarian Guard is not in the Hungarian government. We all have our radical nationalist movements. Our government has reacted unambiguously: we seriously condemned all of the Hungarian Guard’s activities. The Hungarian prime minister personally asked the chief prosecutor to investigate the Hungarian Guard and the circumstances of its foundation. He also attended a demonstration against the Guard in person. Ján Slota holds a government position. And from time to time his remarks incite hatred, which is punishable under European law. The problem is not that such things happen or that such groups exist, but whether they are in a governing position or in opposition. That secures for them an entirely different legitimisation. And what about the office affair in Pilisszentkereszt/Mlynky? That is a very interesting case. There is some kind of connection between Slota’s remarks and the situation of the ethnic Hungarian community in Slovakia. When there were problems in Slovakia, the Slovak government did not accept Hungary’s interpretation, i. e. this was not an issue of bilateral relations but a minority affair which should be put to a European forum: the European Council. It is also questionable whether the state of the “motherland” (in our case the Republic of Hungary vis-à-vis the Hungarian minority in Slovakia) may or may not voice its opinion in defence of the minority group when something happens. This has always been a problem. And now, in the case of Pilisszentkereszt/Mlynky, the Slovak government has done an about-turn, doing what the Hungarian government did earlier - turning to international organisations. The most interesting thing is that it is out to protect the interests of the minority local government of Pilisszentkereszt/Mlynky. However, the minority council and its operations are based on the collective rights of minorities, which Slovakia does not recognise. Hungary has granted these rights to its minorities; they have their own local self-government, their own cultural and educational autonomies. The case of Pilisszentkereszt/Mlynky has shown that Slovakia has launched a political campaign for something which it rejected when Hungary asked for something similar. And the case is all the more complicated because the village in question has a Slovak majority and 8 of the minority council’s 10 members are also Slovaks. So a decision taken by the village’s local government, which has a majority of ethnic Slovaks, can hardly be regarded as anti-Slovak in sentiment. Are you satisfied with the current situation of ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia? We have been promised that the status quo will remain in place, although several contradictory phenomena are apparent. However, I think that the ethnic Hungarian minority in Slovakia has a strong position, and I see only one problem: a lack of legal guarantees. These are a part of democracy’s essence. I have made a point of it several times that a law on minorities—which Slovakia lacks—would help a great deal. And have you been informed that the situation could change, either in a positive or negative way? It is interesting that on the level of civic relations the situation has improved. There are strong ties between universities, ordinary people, traders, investors. The problem is in the political sphere. Another interesting subject connected to Hungary concerns reforms. In the past year, when we talked to your prime minister about health-care reform, he called it the basis of reforms. But when it comes to reforms, the current government is paralysed. What will become of this? The health-care reform went though several phases. Earlier, health care concentrated on hospitals, so the first step was to reduce the number of hospital beds and to make the whole system patient-centred. This has essentially succeeded. After this, there were plans to regionalise the health-care insurance system. Today it is a disputed issue whether to allow private capital to enter the regional insurance system. There is a risk of yet another referendum, which should best be avoided, since it is not good to spend four billion forints twice a year on holding a referendum. And this was where coalition troubles stemmed. For the liberals, allowing private companies to enter the arena of health-care insurance is crucial. The Socialists see it otherwise. First create the system, which can monitor services and distributes subsidies, then we can see whether we should involve private firms. But since this was the most important thing for the liberals, they threatened to leave the government. How do you see the future of the government then? We are waiting for a decision from the liberals. If it is a negative one, the next step is a minority government. I am sure that, being Czech, you understand this... It is enough to buy some MPs.... Well, I don’t know what road we shall take. There are only five votes needed; the Socialists are almost in a majority. I do not know what the outcome of talks will be. Perhaps some MPs will agree to support the government. Maybe on key issues, such as the budget, the liberals will vote with the government. Negotiations are still under way. Is there a chance of the current government coalition and opposition working together on reforms? Very little. The opposition is not constructive enough; it does not recognise the fact that for Hungary reforms and the so called convergence programme are the only road to take. The opposition takes to populism and this creates a very bad situation for Hungary. They don’t hurt the government - governments come and go - but the country. Another important topic for the Czech Republic, which is discussed in connection with Hungary, is energy security. On the one hand it seems that Hungary is working very closely with Russia’s Gazprom, but on the other hand the CEZ (Cesky Energeticky Zavod – Czech Energy Works) have helped Hungary’s MOL to fend off the hostile takeover planned by Austria’s OMV. What is your energy security policy? It is a historically given fact that Hungary is very gas-dependent, and this is largely a dependency on Russian gas. The whole country operates on gas heating. This is why it is in our interest to keep up good relations with Russia, which is our main source of gas. At the same time, Hungary works hard on energy solidarity, and not only on a verbal level. This means connecting systems within a region; co-operation between CEZ and MOL is but one example. I hope it is clear that such co-operation aims to improve the position of both companies. Why, then, is your government so afraid of OMV? Because it started as an attempt of hostile takeover. I would not consider this a big problem if there had been a thoroughly negotiated agreement. But if there is a hostile attempt, that is risky for Hungary. Although MOL is privatised, the company is still considered Hungarian and serving Hungarian energy security. So what is your energy security policy like on a wider spectrum? We are in search of new sources and gas pipelines in addition to the networks mentioned in connection with MOL. Hungary is in talks with Russia about participation in the South Stream gas pipeline project. For the moment there is only a framework agreement, and we do not know the exact details, but Hungary has storage capacity, which is also important from the point of view of energy security. The other project, the European Union’s Nabucco, also means diversification of sources. We are trying to accelerate Nabucco, but know that there are many problems there. Many experts state that support for the South Stream on Hungary’s part in practice means the death of the Nabucco project. They will not be compatible; there will not be a sufficient amount of gas for both projects and companies will have crossed interests… Hungary considers itself a sufficiently influential country—but not to that extent. The Nabucco will mean a five percent increase of gas services for Europe compared to the current level. The South Stream gives another five percent extra. This is diversifying sources and pipelines, but Europe will need much more than the ten percent. So I do not understand why they should be mutually exclusive. Are you weary of Russia’s development? Hungary has a rather pragmatic relationship with Russia. Besides energy, Russia is a substantial market for Hungary. There is a kind of mutual dependency between the EU and Russia. The EU needs Russian energy resources and Russia needs the income generated from the EU. It is important for Russia to be a reliable partner. (April 28, 2008) |