EU boycotts Orbán: justified or jejune?
The EU Commission and several northern European countries are reacting to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's unilateral moves in the area of foreign with boycotts. Orbán visited Putin, Xi and Trump at the beginning of his country's EU Council Presidency. EU commissioners and representatives of several EU states have now said they won't attend ministerial meetings in Budapest. Europe's press debates whether this is the right approach.
Punitive measures are possible
Former diplomat Harri Tiido reviews Brussels' options:
“The European Union has in fact provided for retaliatory or punitive measures in cases of abuse of the EU Council presidency. One such measure would be a simple qualified majority decision to change the presidency timetable under Article 236 of the EU Treaty. This would allow the Polish presidency to start earlier, for example in September. There is also a somewhat more complicated solution involving Article 7. However it's to be feared that the EU will at best limit itself to a low level of participation in the informal meetings in Budapest. Experience to date shows that the West is still too hesitant.”
Dutch government in a dilemma
The Netherlands has not joined the boycott and now finds itself in a difficult position, NRC comments:
“The PVV [led by far-right populist Geert Wilders] now sits in the same group in the European Parliament as Orbán's Fidesz. ... But the MEPs of the moderate coalition partners NSC and VVD want to go one step further and, along with dozens of other MEPs, are calling for Hungary to be stripped of its presidency. ... For non-aligned Prime Minister Dick Schoof such a divided coalition is complicated. He is expected to adopt a single clear position on behalf of the entire government at European meetings and on the world stage.”
Boycott makes von der Leyen look bad
Pro-government newspaper Magyar Nemzet defends Orbán's mission:
“Ursula von der Leyen can make the boycott of the Hungarian presidency the main theme of her re-election campaign, but in doing so she also exposes herself. Her childish reaction to the Hungarian prime minister's peace mission makes her pro-war mission as clear as day. ... But rather than making Hungary or Orbán look bad this boycott makes the globalists who seek destruction and killing look bad. The old-new masters of Europe are also the traitors of Europe.”
He puts no demands on Russia
Hvg isn't surprised that Viktor Orbán is viewed very critically abroad:
“Did missionary of peace Orbán tell Russia to stop deploying so many weapons in Ukraine? No: once again that was not the case, and hasn't been the case for two and a half years. How interesting! It's becoming clear that Ukraine should please give up territory for peace, but for some reason the brave Sir Robin hasn't asked the Russians to take a single step back. ... The ruling party's peace policy has a completely sick peculiarity: it regards Russia as a natural power that can neither be influenced nor demanded to do a thing.”
Putin's useful disruptor
The rest of the EU has every reason to be annoyed with the Hungarian prime minister, The Times chimes in:
“Mr Orban believes this temporary status allows him to play peacemaker in a troubled world. His fellow autocrats, with no genuine interest in mediation or challenges to their power, seem content to treat him as a useful disruptor. ... Mr Orban's summary of his trip, delivered to Brussels, was little more than a shopping list from Mr Putin. ...Hungary's leader wants to undermine the whole concept of a liberal Europe. His dark ally in that project is Vladimir Putin.”
Like a teenagers' conspiracy
For Kurier, Brussels' attitude towards Hungary is childish:
“Even the first measures against Hungary that were concocted in Brussels, but also in EU capitals, had the whiff of a teenagers' conspiracy against a disliked classmate. Deliberately scheduling EU summits in Brussels so that they take place at the same time as those in Budapest and EU ministers are therefore absent is a pretty infantile prank. ... The EU should proceed according to the letter of its laws, not according to political judgement and political tricks. That can be left to Orbán.”
No need to harp on about Hungary as outsider
This reaction seems exaggerated to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
“Foreign and security policy is not communitised in the EU. Orbán can visit Moscow, Beijing or Trump, just like any of the other 26 heads of state and government; when Scholz and Macron spoke to Putin on the phone, they weren't criticised for not having a formal mandate to do so. It was made clear in Brussels that Orbán was not speaking for the EU when he was with Putin. That was legally correct and politically sufficient. There is no need to constantly dwell on Hungary's outsider position on the Ukraine issue.”
Come up with a sensible plan, please!
The EU must develop a fixed procedure for such situations, Sydsvenskan demands:
“Democracy is in decline all over the world, authoritarian forces are gaining strength, and those who think like Orbán can also be found in the EU. The bloc therefore needs a long-term plan for periods in which autocratic member states hold the presidency - and it needs one fast, so that Hungary can be kept in check for the remaining five months of its presidency.”
Orbán as a divisive force in Europe
Radio Kommersant FM sees Orbán's role as having a divisive rather than peace-making effect:
“The EU College of Commissions declared that no one had asked Orbán to mediate, that he himself had not consulted anyone, and that in general his actions contradicted the position of the absolute majority of the member states. ... As far as Orbán's mission is concerned, it seems that his intention is to divide the EU, or the entire West, rather than achieve real peace. This is already happening to a certain extent. Hungary is going against the rest and the prime minister doesn't particularly care about sanctions against him. This is hardly surprising, since he feels supported by external actors such as Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.”