In our latest podcast, Mikuláš Dzurinda – President of the Wilfried Martens Centre and former Prime Minister of Slovakia – discusses the changes that EU membership has brought to Slovakia; reflects on the recent rightward shift in Europe and how this might influence the EPP’s priorities; analyzes potential changes in Slovak foreign policy and the relationship with Hungary; and argues for Ukraine’s NATO accession.
The conversation was recorded on September 19, at the Budapest Forum for Building Sustainable Democracies
Mikuláš Dzurinda has been serving as President of the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the think tank of the European People’s Party, since December 2013. He is former Prime Minister of Slovakia (1998-2006) and held various other positions in Slovak governments. As Prime Minister, he introduced far-reaching reforms which enabled Slovakia to begin the process of joining the EU and NATO. During his second term as PM, Slovakia became a member of both in 2004. More recently, from July 2010 to April 2012, he was Minister for Foreign Affairs in Slovakia. In 2000, Dzurinda was among the founding members of the Slovak Democratic and Christian Union – Democratic Party (SDKÚ-DS) and was Chairman of the party from 2000 to 2012. From 2012 to 2016 he was a member of the Slovak Parliament. In 2007 he was awarded the F.A. Hayek International Prize for reforms and fight against bureaucracy. He is also a marathon runner.
Ferenc Laczó: This year sees the 20th anniversary of the EU’s so-called Big Bang enlargement into Central and Eastern Europe. You were Prime Minister of Slovakia back then and played a crucial and we might also say a historic role in this process. How would you assess the changes that Slovakia’s EU membership have brought over the past 20 years?
Mikuláš Dzurinda: The change has been fundamental and fantastic. You can see it with your bare eyes, and it is possible to demonstrate the progress via figures. It is visible on the new facades in every city and every village, and on the numerous new constructions or buildings. People got richer and the level of well-being is much higher than 20 years ago. From my point of view,
the main success of the enlargement lies in the fact that there has been something like national emancipation.
I was dreaming a long time ago that one day my nation could be or should be completely emancipated. Entry into the European Union and the implementation off the single currency was not only a technical confirmation of the progress which has been made in Slovakia, but also a pure expression of our national emancipation. This is why I am really satisfied. The country is economically doing well, our young generation is free to travel, there is an Erasmus program, which is fantastically popular and successful. I’m happy that Slovakia is a full-fledged member of our reunited European family.
Robert Nemeth: You have been the president of the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies for over a decade. The European People’s Party has been the largest political party in the European Parliament since the late 1990s. It has even managed to increase its mandate share during this year’s European elections. What do you see as key reasons behind the long-standing successes of the party across the continent? What might have made the EPP perform even slightly better this year than during the previous election in 2019?
MD: You are right to describe the European People’s Party as a successful composition of political forces – we won the last six consecutive elections. But we should be honest and realize that the tendency is that we are gradually going down, from 280 to 188 mandates. This year’s election was the first time when we didn’t drop further.
I am not disappointed or frustrated because we all realize how difficult 15 years have been passing and how many unprecedented crises we have been dealing with: since 2008 there has been a global financial crisis, then huge immigration, then the Covid-19 pandemic, now the war of Russia against Ukraine, green difficulties, floods in Budapest, in Bratislava, and in substantial other parts of Europe. And the EPP has been in power in all those 25 years. One can understand that we are paying a bit the price, but we are still successful, we are still winning.
Why? I believe that it is thanks to our ideological ground. We are a composition of political parties that believe in our traditional Judeo-Christian foundations and values, and also in the values of humanism.
Many people underestimate this dimension, but if you believe in values, you can be strong also in a time of crises and can be resilient enough.
This is a main feature of the EPP. Then, of course, we always emphasize not only the communication aspect of politics, but mostly questions of substance. We are the composition of reformers. I jumped into politics not only due to power but with a dream to change what doesn’t work. We are people promoting reforms and people appreciate that. We are fighting for this position, trying to resist both the extreme left and the extreme right.
I remember Helmut Kohl who began every single speech with the emphasis on two things: values and the young generation. If we continue with this approach, I believe, we can offer another 25 positive years for Europe.
FL: There have been many discussions in recent years about a potential rightward shift in Europe. Forces to the right of the European People’s Party have indeed gained some more ground at this year’s European Parliamentary elections, even if less than they had hoped for, whereas liberals and greens – who are more to the left side of the spectrum – have lost some ground. Would you expect this slight shift to the right to influence the priorities of the European People’s Party? How would you expect the EPP to act in this new cycle?
MD: I remember that five years ago, the forces to the right of the European People’s Party occupied 19% of the seats in the European Parliament. Now, after this year’s election, they occupy almost 30%, so one should not underestimate the increase. But if we take the votes of the two extreme right parties – because I wouldn’t put ECR into this category –, the Patriots for Europe and the Sovereigntists have together 84 plus 25 seats, that means 109 in total. The European People’s Party and its traditional partners like the Socialists, the Macronists and the Greens have 454. So, we still enjoy a comfortable majority, almost 60%, which is offering us the majority to manage legislation and to promote necessary changes. But we should not underestimate the trend because it is substantial, and it is a huge challenge also for my party family. We are preparing for the next period of time to remain successful.
We currently have 13 of 27 commissioners, including the president, Madame Ursula von der Leyen. My think tank is doing a lot to help our leaders with substance, with policies. A few years ago, we offered our ten commandments for immigration, and this new legislation dealing with immigration is tapping into our research a lot. I visited Commissioner Schinas in person and gave him our policy paper. We are behind the idea of European defense since 2016. A few years ago, I was challenged by my old friends from America, “What do you want now in Brussels? Are you unhappy with NATO?”
I am very happy with NATO, but what was enough yesterday is not enough today, especially in light of the war of Russia against Ukraine.
So, I strongly believe that in the Martens Centre we are capable and strong enough to reflect reality, but also to anticipate the future and provide our leaders with recommendations and policy advice.
RN: Slovakia has been experiencing rather turbulent times since the return of Robert Fico to power, which has clearly been aggravated by the assassination attempt against the Prime Minister. Next to discussions of the internal transformation of Slovakia, the potential reorientation of Slovak foreign policy has also emerged as an international concern. What has really changed in Slovak foreign policy in recent months? Would you say that an alliance between the current Slovak and Hungarian governments is emerging?
MD: My answer about foreign policy changes is that it is nothing substantial, just rhetorics.
Robert Fico is a man who is telling one thing in Bratislava, but something completely different in Brussels or when meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart.
He’s a cynic who is playing for the home crowd. So, in reality Slovakia continues to support Ukraine despite the fact that Fico is telling that the government will not sell weapons, but it is private enterprises that are selling weapons. So, our support is continuous, nothing substantial is changing in Slovak foreign policy.
Concerning the second issue: there is something which unites the governments of Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico, and this is the foreign enemy.
Autocrats in politics need an enemy, at home but also abroad. If there is no one suitable at home, they are looking for someone external.
Mr. Soros is such an enemy, and so is “bad Brussels.” If there is need for money, then Brussels is good… If there is a warning, Brussels is bad. This is something that unites Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico. But I don’t believe that Fico will surrender to Viktor Orbán on substantial issues. He will defend his personal interests maybe even more than Slovak national interests.
FL: Since we are talking here on the occasion of the Budapest Forum, I wanted to ask you a bit about your views on the Hungarian situation as well. This year has witnessed quite some political change in the country. We have seen the rapid rise of a new opposition leader, Péter Magyar, whose party, the Tisza party, has actually joined the EPP more recently. This happened some three years after the ruling party of Hungary, Fidesz, left the alliance once it had already been suspended. How do you see the relationship between the Tisza party and the EPP? How might the EPP benefit from Tisza’s membership? And what can the party alliance offer to Magyar’s party?
MD: It is a quite sensitive issue. I have always been careful when criticizing the government of a neighboring country, especially when I am there, as is the case today. What I am allowed to say is that I have always been defending the European interest. We need Europe, we need collaboration, we need our family, just as we need good neighborly relations.
This is why I always support forces that act in the direction of being centripetal, not centrifugal. We need better cohesion in Europe. Not because of “bad Brussels,” but because we need reforms and new resources.
1% of GDP, what does it mean? What can you do with that in the future? We need a lot of money these days. There is a green transition. There is the need for defense. We need to be more competitive economically and we have to invest heavily. So we need new resources. To succeed in this effort,
we need to change our rules, our constitution. Unanimity is the issue. In foreign policy and defense, we need to decide, not only to struggle for compromise all the time. The latter is not only painful, but is not working, especially vis-à-vis the aggression of Russia against Ukraine.
Last but not least, there is the question of enlargement. Ukraine is waiting, Moldova is waiting, Georgia is interested, we have the Western Balkan countries… To be able to enlarge the European family, we need more flexible decision making. This is why we need a more cooperative leadership also in this country.
I understand that not everything that comes from Brussels is good. When I am listening how they preach, how they ignore the principle of subsidiarity, especially in the area of cultural issues, even when it comes to Hungary, I get angry. The EU should stick to competencies that belong to the communitarian level. And this is what Viktor Orbán is playing with fantastically. Because sometimes the European Parliament acts crazy, sometimes European politicians or communitarians at this level do not act responsibly. They are teaching and preaching. We have competencies clearly divided – what belongs to the communitarian level and what is a competence on the national level. We should understand and stick to this division.
About Péter Magyar, I am happy that he has decided to join us. I believe that this is also the question of values on his side. What can we offer? Our experience, our knowledge, our substance. I already described the situation at the Martens Centre. We are completely at the disposal of our friends, current friends and potential future friends.
RN: What can organizations like the Martens Centre do to promote democratic resilience and counter authoritarian trends, especially taking into consideration that even many Member States are facing challenges to democratic norms?
MD: You are opening another dimension of our mission. The main dimension in my head is to serve our leaders – we are a classical political think tank in that respect. But this dimension is also important. We organize a lot of conferences for the public. In time of social media, it is possible to spread a lot of information, and we are doing that. Our member foundations, such as the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Hanns Seidel Stiftung, or Politische Akademie in Austria, do a lot of public education with young people. But also regardless of the age, we invite people, talk with them, give them the chance to ask questions and try to respond.
So, we operate in these two dimensions: helping our leaders with the content of their politics and reaching out to people to argue why democracy is much better a perspective than autocracy. I delivered a few ideas during my speech here at the Central European University, arguing that, for instance,
if Mr. Putin was able to listen to any oppositional view, he would not have unleashed such madness. It would have been impossible to do that in a democracy.
Democracy is great and it is our mission to help people understand this reality.
FL: Next to the question of democracy, perhaps the single most important issue of the moment is the future of Ukraine. Earlier this year, you were among the signatories of the International Task Force on Ukraine’s Security and Euro-Atlantic Integration that recommended that NATO leaders open negotiations to have Ukraine access in NATO in the interest of lasting peace and security in Europe. What have been your reasons for signing this important document? And how do you view the future chances of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO?
MD: I don’t only belong to the signatories of this paper, I also belong to the group of people who have been invited by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to join the group and I influenced what is in the paper, not only signed it. This invitation came naturally. With the Martens Centre we started operating in Ukraine immediately after the Maidan with our project Ukraine Reform which ran between 2014 and 2018.
I sent some 50 former leaders from the EU to Ukraine, especially from post-communist countries. I invited reformers from the Visegrad Four countries, including Gordon Bajnai, to go to Kyiv. And not only to Kyiv, we also sent those leaders to Dnipro and Kharkiv.
I had a lecture at the University of Kharkiv where I met people and entrepreneurs. The goal of this mission was to share the best experiences from promoting reforms, and we influenced reform processes in Ukraine a lot. Then President Poroshenko invited me, and I was serving as his foreign policy advisor for five years.
Rasmussen invited me a few years ago, before the current war, when there were tensions between separatists and Kyiv. We visited Dnipro, and we were very close to the line of contact. And we continue in our mission, even in these days, because you know that the situation on the battlefield will not offer any potential resolution soon. So, we will try to come up with some policy recommendations in the meantime.
The second issue is very forward-looking, but very rational as well.
I believe in Ukraine’s NATO membership because my experience is that gray zones offer no potential and no perspective.
In a gray zone, you can create a lot of uncertainty. The second issue is, as in our case, the right of Ukraine to decide its future. Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999 when Slovakia was excluded. When I met for the first time President Clinton, I said to him “I have a great dream, invite us, please. I want to have my country safe.” And do you know how he answered? He told me “You missed the train.” But I said that my nation wanted to join, that we were capable and eligible, and loyal to values of the transatlantic community. The same should apply vis-à-vis Ukraine.
Last but not least, look at political reality. Who would have said a few years ago that Finland and Sweden will be keen on joining? Look at Switzerland these days, there is a hot debate there too. I am waiting for the day when such a debate will start in Austria too.
People now understand that it is not enough to be wealthy and enjoy high standards of living. We are equally obliged to defend ourselves.
There is nothing better than NATO. These are the three main reasons why I will support Ukrainian ambitions as much as I can.
The transcript has been slightly edited for length and clarity. In cooperation with Adam Hushegyi (audio editing) and Susanna De Stefani (transcript).
