What is underway at the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs may prove to be more than a simple change of leadership: it could amount to a restructuring that reaches to the institution’s foundations.
The institute has been transferred from the Prime Minister’s Office back to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its new director-general is Botond Feledy, while András Rácz has been appointed his deputy, responsible for research and academic affairs.
Both researchers have been outspoken critics of the Orbán governments in recent years, condemning their confrontational approach towards the EU and conspicuously close ties with Russia. In an interview, they have now outlined the priorities they believe should guide Hungary’s foreign policy — and the role they envisage for a revitalised Institute of International Affairs.
A complete break with Orbán’s foreign policy
Feledy told InfoRádió that the institute was being rebuilt “from the ground up”. The aim is to create a background institution that does more than communicate political decisions after they have been taken. Instead, it would support the Foreign Ministry with analysis and expertise before decisions are made, bringing perspectives into the process that are less prominent within the ministry’s own structure.
In an interview with 444, also published yesterday, the pair said they were planning a complete break with the American- and MAGA-focused foreign policy direction associated with Balázs Orbán, the Prime Minister’s political director. Rather than operating along ideological lines, the new leadership wants the institute to focus on preparing decisions and to draw a clear distinction between professional analysis and political propaganda.
The changes could also involve staff. Feledy said some employees would remain at the institute, while others would be asked to leave. The organisational structure would not simply be imposed from above, however: the new system would be developed together with the institute’s staff.
The leadership also intends to retain the institute’s status as a non-profit private limited company, arguing that this could provide greater flexibility when testing new technologies, including the use of artificial intelligence in public administration.
The EU may once again become a central concern
One of the most significant shifts in foreign policy is likely to concern Hungary’s relationship with the European Union. Feledy said that the institute had accumulated little expertise on EU affairs in recent years, and that this would have to change.
Hungary is a member of both the EU and NATO, he noted, meaning that advancing the country’s interests within the Union is not an ideological question but a fundamental national interest. Some 80 per cent of Hungary’s trade is conducted in that direction, he said.
The institute therefore plans to build new research capacity, primarily in EU affairs. Greater attention could also be paid to issues that have received less prominence in Hungary’s foreign-policy debate, including digital sovereignty, cyber and economic security, the protection of critical infrastructure, migration and the geopolitical consequences of climate change. Water management could also become a priority, given both the climate crisis and the current water-related emergency.
At the same time, the institute would retain its traditional strengths, including research into the Balkans and the post-Soviet space. It also plans to develop new expertise on China and East Asia.
Rebuilding relations in central Europe — particularly with Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia — could likewise receive greater emphasis.
Hungary’s foreign policy strategy may also be renewed. The current strategy, drawn up in 2011, would be replaced by a new document, in the preparation of which the institute would play a role. The leaders said civil-society organisations and other professional bodies would also be involved.
No break with Russia, but servility is over — and Ukraine must be rebuilt
In the case of Russia, the proposed shift would involve a change in the style of the relationship rather than a complete foreign-policy reversal.
Rácz said there was no short-term alternative to maintaining pragmatic relations, primarily because of Hungary’s energy dependence. But he argued that there was no need to maintain such a close and “servile” relationship with the Russian leadership as that demonstrated by the ties between former foreign minister Péter Szijjártó and Sergei Lavrov in recent years.
The researcher added that the relationship between Szijjártó and Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, had been even closer than the Hungarian public currently realised.
Have you read this one? Did Minister Szijjártó brief Lavrov during EU talks and offer to forward documents? Leaked recordings here!
The approach to Ukraine is more cautious. The new leadership does not expect a rapid breakthrough, but Rácz said that “something has already begun”.
On minority rights, the priority should be the implementation of existing agreements rather than the conclusion of new ones. They also said that the concessions secured in this area had been achieved not by the Orbán governments but through pressure from the EU.
The change, therefore, would not take the form of a single dramatic foreign policy U-turn. Instead, it points to more professional and less ideological decision-making focused on the EU, stronger regional ties and a more pragmatic approach to relations with Russia and Ukraine.
The reformed Institute of International Affairs could become one of the main centres of expertise behind that new foreign policy direction.
Orbán-Putin call transcript leaked: Hungary the mouse will aid Russia’s lion “in any matter”
