Euronews Briefing Making sense of the Hungarian presidency By Jorge Liboreiro - 11 July 2024

Euronews Briefing 

Making sense of the Hungarian presidency

By Jorge Liboreiro

“What a Hungarian presidency semester, huh?” sighs a weary Captain Haddock.

“Captain, it’s been 11 days,” interjects a quick-witted Tintin.

The Haddock-Tintin meme is well-known among social media users, as it’s been adapted countless times to express a variety of feelings, such as fatigue, despondency and downright perplexity, in reaction to a powerful event that has distorted our time-space perception. In the aforementioned case, the creation (courtesy of DG Meme) perfectly encapsulates the start of Hungary’s presidency of the EU Council, which in less than two weeks, has provided us with a wealth of scandal and outrage.

Let’s set the scene: Hungary took over the six-month rotating presidency on 1 July, succeeding Belgium. Prior to that, the government had unveiled its programme, focused on broad priorities such as competitiveness, migration management, cohesion policy and demographic challenges, under the slogan “Make Europe Great Again” (MEGA). The choice of words left people scratching their heads, wondering how a man as divisive as Viktor Orbán could accomplish such a goal.

On 2 July, one day after taking the Council’s reins, Orbán made a surprise visit to Kyiv (his first since the start of the war), met face-to-face with President Zelenskyy and proposed, in his words, a “deadline-bound ceasefire.” The body language between the two leaders was icy and the encounter led to no breakthroughs, although the fact it happened was seen as a positive sign. The trip took place “in the framework of the Presidency,” as Orbán said on social media.

Then, things went awry. On 5 July, Orbán landed in Moscow and was received by Vladimir Putin, a man wanted for war crimes. The meeting prompted an exceptionally furious reaction from EU leaders, who publicly rebuked the prime minister for having “no mandate to engage with Russia” on behalf of the bloc. Finland’s Petteri Orpo called it “disturbing,” Estonia’s Kaja Kallas spoke of “exploitation” of power, and Sweden’s Ulf Kristersson said it was “irresponsible and disloyal.” The fact that Orbán advertised the trip as part of a “peace mission” only added insult to injury: a few days later, Russian troops bombed a children’s hospital in Kyiv.

After Moscow, Orbán participated in an informal summit of the Organisation of Turkic States, which includes the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” that only Turkey recognises, prompting fresh condemnation. Later, he flew to Beijing and held talks with Xi Jinping as part of his “peace mission,” prompting – you guessed it – fresh condemnation. Notably, at the end of the promotional videos Orbán posted about Moscow and Beijing, he added the logo of the Hungarian presidency. 

Did this tour fall strictly under bilateral diplomacy or was it a task the rotating presidency had imposed upon itself without consulting anybody? Hungarian officials insist this was all bilateral but the timing of the trips (all in the first week of the presidency), the selected countries (Ukraine, Russia, China), the use of the logo, and the fact that Orbán sent EU leaders a letter containing his findings and conclusions (as if he were reporting back from an assignment) blurred the line. 

“We, just like all member states of the European Union, believe that we need to fully support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” János Bóka, Hungary’s Minister of EU affairs, told Euronews. “I think this is beyond question, but I also believe that a sustainable security architecture is not possible without engaging Russia through diplomatic channels.”

Seething from the voyages, ambassadors called Hungary to order in a meeting on Wednesday. The exchange was “frank” and “heated,” a diplomat said, noting that member states had taken turns to voice “unprecedented” criticism. Only Slovakia, which is governed by one of Orbán’s closest allies, Robert Fico, stood silent.

Although no decision was taken, all options remain on the table. One of them, already seen this week, consists of sending low-ranking envoys, rather than ministers, to the informal meetings organised in Hungary. This boycott is meant to “make Orbán less visible,” as another diplomat put it, but it’s still too early to tell if this will become a regular pattern. At any rate, its value is contested: informal meetings have, by default, scarce media coverage as they don’t lead to formal decisions, so the regular absence of ministers will be easy to manage. 

The radical option of “cancelling” the presidency using Article 236, which has again gained traction, can have unpredictable consequences and embolden Orbán to veto every file that comes his way, which will only make things worse for everybody. If member states really want to bring Budapest into line, they will need to think outside the box and find alternative without dismantling the presidency. Brussels knows that, with Hungary, there’s never an easy fix.