Hungary's EU presidency and its implications - lessons from Singapore and the rest of Asia

What we can expect and what that teaches us about globalist institutions

Hungary is in the spotlight lately. Partly, because of its unexpectedly lacklustre performance in the EURO 2024 soccer tournament, where it was relegated in the group stages (ouch!), but mostly because of its upcoming EU presidency, which will start in a couple of days and last until the end of the year. For those that are unaware of the inner workings of the European Union, which would be most people even in Europe, real power in the EU is held by the council of the European Union, which includes the leader of each EU nation and is chaired by a rotating presidency, lasting 6 months. It’s Hungary’s turn, so it can set or rather steer the EU’s entire agenda until the end of the year.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth preceding this turn of events as the EU and other EU nations did everything they could think of to stop Hungary from assuming the EU presidency, but ultimately the EU’s own bureaucratic quagmire stopped them from achieving their aim.

So here we are, and Politico, a publication with a strong anti-Hungarian bias, is already running a special on how terrible the next six months will be and what we can expect. Its liberal leaders have all ordered an ample supply of smelling salts, I’m told, bracing themselves for the horrors to come.

You can read the whole series of articles here:

https://www.politico.eu/special-report/hungary-presidency-eu-council/

Just keep in mind, that Politico has form on anti-Hungarian bias, I have never seen them write anything positive about the country and its government and they frequently twist the facts, publish unsubstantiated rumours as truth and even outright lie, when it suits them. I still recommend reading their specials on Hungary as it betrays the globalist mindset as to how and why they see this otherwise unremarkable and unassuming country as a serious threat.

For a more balanced approach, I recommend this piece from Prince Michael of Liechtenstein, who examines what we can expect without the usual bias:

Make Europe Great Again: Hungary’s presidency – GIS Reports (gisreportsonline.com)

A few excerpts:

Providing personal freedom, security and prosperity for the people is the duty of any political leadership. Free people in a prosperous and secure environment are what make a country or a region great. This is exactly what Hungary means with its motto “Make Europe Great Again.” …

Redressing Europe’s competitiveness on the global stage is precisely what the continent needs, and that is what Budapest says it seeks to achieve through the seven priorities of its presidency. The European integration process, the single market and overcoming enmities between European states are huge achievements. Nevertheless, the old continent finds itself in a spiral of decline that, to date, Brussels and member states have sought to remedy through technocratic regulation and increasing centralization. This needs to be stopped, as does the political and intellectual elite’s ideological self-praise of “European” values and its efforts to become the leading global regulator, as well as widespread general “Europessimism”.

Hungary is not the most cherished member state in Brussels nor is it popular with a number of national governments. Some narrow-minded politicians have even proposed impeding the Budapest EU presidency, fearful that the Hungarian government would obstruct the integration process. Many people are criticizing the “Make Europe Great Again” motto because of its association with former United States President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, there is substantial room for improvement in Europe and knee-jerk reactions should not debase the motto’s meaning.

Unfortunately, these critics too often ignore the important variety of nations and views on the continent and substitute healthy integration with frequently harmful one-size-fits-all harmonization and technocratic centralization. This, combined with dogmatic beliefs, leads to very unfortunate rules that are in fact “making Europe small,” such as the superficially well-intentioned but ultimately detrimental supply chain guidelines, AI regulation and renaturation law.

In contrast to the many self-important declarations that Europe has become used to, the Hungarian presidency appears quite hands-on, targeting essential issues to boost European competitiveness, address the continent’s declining security situation and tackle immigration. Control of external borders has to be strengthened and agreements with third countries reached.

Another important area on Budapest’s EU presidential agenda is agriculture policy, a pressing issue that has unfortunately lingered since the inception of the integration process and has lately been put on the back-burner. This crucial sector – once privileged in certain areas – is now confronting excessively growing bureaucratic burdens and harmful limitations. The political class in many countries, recruiting strongly from urban intellectuals, subsequently has a dwindling grasp of rural needs and concerns.

While premature praise is not warranted, we should, however, recognize that the Hungarian motto of restoring greatness – ensuring freedom, prosperity and security for the people of Europe through hands-on measures amid the old continent’s declining global significance – is more than justified.

Can’t really disagree with any of that. The real question is what the Hungarian government can achieve from their agenda, given the open hostility towards them from most EU governments.

I would insert a few geopolitical realities, or rather, observations, of my own here. It is absolutely true, that Europe has suffered from a loss of competitiveness. There are many reasons for it, some of them structural, like high tax rates and policies that punish innovation and risk-taking. However, those are hardly new, so the question is what has changed in the past few years, that has put Europe on the backfoot and diminished its importance on the world stage, economically, geopolitically and militarily?

I see three main threads here, that we need to look at:

1, The pandemic

This one’s obvious, but it must be noted that Europe was perhaps the worst in handling it overall. Unnecessary lockdowns, ineffective and dangerous vaccines (AstraZeneca, whose vaccine was never approved in the US, due to catastrophic vaccine injuries during its trial there, has just pulled its vaccine from the market after admitting that it can have deadly side effects. This was the main vaccine used in many European countries, like the UK or Sweden), draconian rules restricting freedom of movement and freedom of speech and policies that favoured large corporations and killed small businesses. Here in Sopron, my hometown, the majority of restaurants and cafes closed down during the pandemic, as have many other small businesses. Most are gone for good and their once enticing storefronts remain empty. At least they don’t have to be boarded up like in other countries, since there is no real danger of someone breaking the windows. Laws are by and large respected and enforced in this country, which must come as a shock to most foreign visitors.

2, Brexit

Another obvious one, an act of self-harm, if there ever was one, on both sides. Brexit was never inevitable and it had no upsides. It came about due to Tory internal party politics and the pig-headedness and arrogance of the EU, which refused to acknowledge the threat Brexit posed to them and made zero concessions to the UK, which could have headed off the Eurosceptic surge. The end result is an overall loss of competitiveness and diminishment on the world stage, for both parties.

3, The Ukraine war and the EU’s economic sanctions on itself

This is the most proximate cause of Europe’s precipitous economic decline. Europe’s economy was essentially built on Germany importing cheap energy and raw materials from Russia, manufacturing high-quality finished goods, which were thus competitively priced and exporting them to the rest of the world. The whole of Europe benefited from this economic model. It is what underlies the strength of the Euro currency and keeps the lights on in the EU itself. Countries to the east of Germany were the primary beneficiaries of this economic model as they received huge investments from Germany, Russia and their partners, like China.

The Ukraine war brought this whole economic model to a screeching halt. Not due to the war itself, which is really just a post-Soviet civil war over the incompetence of Soviet Bureaucrats in drawing internal borders. The territories currently contested, like the Donbass and Crimea, were originally part of Russia and should never have been given to Ukraine, but that’s Soviet communism for you. Not many people know this, but they had a policy of favouring ethnic minorities over the majority Russian population, so in effect, Russians were frequently discriminated against during Soviet times, an experience more and more white, Christian Europeans and Americans are becoming acquainted with in their own countries. Some of the most brutal leaders of the Soviet Union, like Stalin, for instance, weren’t even Russian and were responsible for ending the lives of millions of Russians through their policies. I often wonder if Westerners, particularly Americans will have to endure a similar experience in the near future.

However, the real reason for the economic damage done to Europe is due to the sanctions Europe decided to place on itself. Some geniuses thought, that the best way to punish Russia would be to deprive European citizens and companies of the cheap energy and raw materials, that their entire economic model depended on. This was wholly unnecessary, as time has proven, since it made no difference to the war, but it killed entire industries, that the continent’s economy depended on. For instance, BASF, the German chemical conglomerate, that has dominated Europe for over a century, is now closing all of its German operations and moving them to North America and the Middle East, where cheap energy and raw materials needed for chemical engineering and manufacturing are plentiful. This is doubly stupid, because Ukraine actually benefits from transit fees on pipeline exports going through its territory. Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and to a lesser extent, Italy, are still heavily dependent on Russian pipeline exports through Ukraine. Ukraine in turn charges their energy companies excessive transit fees. The first three countries in particular have provided no military aid to Ukraine, preferring to take a more neutral stance, though only Hungary has been criticized for it, as the loudmouth of the trio.

So, we can surmise, that Hungary’s aim as EU president, is to restore some of this lost competitiveness and to steer the great ship of the EU state in a different direction, away from the icebergs and into calmer, more prosperous waters. It aims to do this through pragmatism and by steering clear of the ideological self-harm that the EU has inflicted upon itself in recent years. Viktor Orbán, like his icon, Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of modern Singapore, believes in policies that work and not ones, that serve the interest of ideologues, foreign powers or globalist institutions.

An experience I had when living in Singapore, during the late 2000s, was the contrast between how the foreign media depicted the country and what life there was actually like as an ordinary citizen or legal resident. Foreign headlines were always sensationalist and tried to portray Singapore in a bad light. You saw headlines and catchphrases, like:

• Disneyland with the death penalty

• They’ll jail you for chewing gum!

• It’s a dictatorship with no freedoms and an oppressed citizenry

• It’s dull, boring and just an offshore base for multinational corporations

• Lee Kuan Yew is a brutal dictator, who took away Singaporeans’ freedom

• Singapore is barbaric, because it punishes anti-social behaviour with caning, executes drug traffickers, rapists and murderers and does not allow any illegal immigration on its territory, with harsh punishments for those that break the laww and enter illegally.

Does that sound familiar? It’s the sort of thing countries and states run by right-wing governments are routinely accused of, including the one in Hungary. I’m not saying there is no truth whatsoever in the above accusations against Singapore, it is after all a right-wing, mildly authoritarian state, that does not have a fully functioning democracy. However, you only ever get one side of the argument and you never see the flip side of the accusations, namely, how is life like for the average citizen and are they unhappy with their situation?

You really have to look at the nuance in this case.

For instance, it is true that Singapore has draconian drug laws, with a mandatory death penalty for traffickers. However, this has made the country the safest in Asia, possibly the world. On a couple of occasions, I left my rucksack by the side of the road, in an outdoor eatery, with my camera, documents and cash inside. Every time I went back to retrieve my property, it was there, or the cashier had stowed it away safely. On one occasion, I could only go back the next day and still found all my stuff intact. Can’t imagine there are a lot of other places in the world, where you can do that.

In a similar vein, you can let teenagers and even younger children roam free, take public transit and walk about even in the worst neighbourhood at 3 am, without worrying about their safety.

So yes, Singapore’s laws may be draconian, but they serve the interest of the average, law-abiding citizen, disadvantaging criminals and sociopaths instead. That’s one kind of freedom, freedom from violent or even petty crime and the ability to reclaim the streets and other public spaces for law-abiding citizens. In most cities in the world, violent gangs and other criminal elements dominate the streets and ordinary law-abiding citizens can barely venture outside, without risking their lives or their property. Isn’t that a sort of prison in itself? Call me a fascist if you will, but I prefer the sort of society, where the criminals are behind bars, or in the ground, whilst ordinary citizens have the freedom to roam and go wherever they want, whenever they like, without fear.

The point I’m trying to make, is that the Hungarian government are pragmatists, whereas the governments of most other EU and NATO allies are ideologues, which presents a problem in terms of how the two sides view problems and look for solutions.

This is a somewhat similar divide to how conservatives and liberals view the world, though it’s not a perfect analogy. Liberals are often accused of being idealistic and unable to see the world for what it is, rather than what they’d like it to be. Conservatives, on the other hand, are accused by liberals of being callous and cruel, presuming the worst of people. You can see this divide in almost every issue dividing our societies today, with immigration being perhaps the most prominent.

Conservatives are very much aware of the refugee racket and how globalist institutions, NGOs and left-wing political parties seek to exploit it to their benefit. Liberals, on the other hand, counter by labelling right-wing politicians and governments fascistic, uncaring and cruel, as well as a host of other -isms, which have now been so overused in a veritable example of -ism inflation, that they have lost all meaning.

Completely overlooked in this debate, is how Asia manages illegal immigration. In one word, very harshly and with draconian crackdowns. Just a few examples:

• Singapore canes (a euphemism for flogging, if there ever was one) illegal migrants and then deports them. This may even include those that entered legally, but overstayed their visa or were caught working illegally. Anyone involved in the drug trade in any way is executed, no exceptions.

• Japan only allows immigration by people of Japanese descent, from places like Peru and Brazil. There is a limited guest worker scheme for temporary workers from the Philippines and South Korea, but those workers are rarely allowed to stay long-term and there are no family reunification programmes or birthright citizenship

• Thailand has strict rules on immigration, wealthy foreigners can apply for investment or retirement visas and some skilled migrants are allowed with onerous requirements. Each foreign worker hired must be accompanied by four Thai workers in new positions created for this purpose. Illegal immigrants, for instance, those from Burma or Bangladesh, are sometimes put on rafts and put out to see, in the hope that they will drown. That’s often what happens.

• China allows almost no immigration at all, with the exception of English teachers and key technical specialists. In fact China doesn’t even allow unrestricted migration within its own borders. Migrants born in one province, who then move to another are essentially breaking the law, making them and their children ineligible for education, healthcare and social security services.

• India is deporting millions of bangladeshi migrants and building a long barb-wired fence on their common border, despite the fact, that Bangladesh is just East Bengal, that somehow accidentally became a country of its own (long story).

• Pakistan has deported millions of Afghan migrants back to their own country, even some that were there since birth, but aren’t eligible for citizenship.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Asians are pragmatic and have no interest in idealism. They see the world as it is, not as they’d like it to be. The exceptions to this would be communist countries, like China and North Korea, but then they display the typical paranoid, conspiratorial thinking of far-left totalitarian regimes.

This is exactly the kind of pragmatism, that Viktor Orbán has injected into European politics, partly explaining his popularity with right-wing, pragmatic Europeans (you’d be surprised how many are fans, at least in private) and his pivot to building relationships with other Eurasian powers, that may share his way of viewing the world.

It is very easy to criticize him, which I often do, but it is also a useful exercise to try and understand his thinking and what and who inspires him. I’m told Lee Kuan Yew is a big inspiration and I can see why. If you ever get your hands on a copy of his autobiography, I’d heartily recommend it. There is just so much common sense in his writings, no wonder he is an inspiration to generations of politicians today.

What most people miss when examining the direction of the current European right-wing, is how much Singapore’s example has inspired its direction and vision. Even Tony Blair admitted in a recent interview, that he saw LKY as a major inspiration, and he’s not exactly right-wing. Brexiteers were openly coveting Singapore’s economic policies and expressed a desire to turn the UK into Singapore-On-Thames. China’s opening and economic liberalisation policy under Deng Xiaoping was also inspired by Singapore’s example and so many other countries tried copying it, though none have been as successful.

What is it, that makes Singapore so special and resilient, able to withstand global shocks and punch above its weight geopolitically and militarily? Examining all that would take a book, but once you realise, what those highly pragmatic and effective policies are, you will start seeing them pop up all over the place, as other governments try and implement them. Viktor Orbán is trying something similar, even at the European level, but it remains to be seen, whether he will be successful. Only time will tell.