THREATS TO PEACE AND SECURITY DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE NEUTRALITY
Official visit of the President of the Republic of Latvia, Dr Vaira Vike-Freiberga
Statement by the President of the Republic of Slovenia at joint press conference

Ljubljana, 17 April 2002


Madam President, Ladies, Gentlemen; it is with pleasure that I am hosting the President of the Republic of Latvia on behalf of Slovenia today, thus returning the kind hospitality extended to me two years ago in Latvia.

This visit is taking place at a very important and fortunate point in time when it is being decided whether the doors to European and Euro-Atlantic integration structures will open, thus creating an opportunity for both the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Latvia to realise their strategic interests and goals. Not only because of our identical interests in this context but also due to the similarities between our two countries our talks were very frank and profound, different from what is perhaps usual.

Our talks reassured me in my conviction that it is worthwhile to continue with our efforts to see the door to the European Union and NATO open for Slovenia, regardless of the fact that perhaps certain reasons behind this are different and that – in a not too distant future – we can look forward to not only a rapprochement, but also an overlapping of the European Union and the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Today security is our greatest value. In this global and interdependent world security has become an indivisible value, just like peace. No one can still live with the illusion that they can ensure a safe island of security for themselves, no one can console themselves with the illusion of beautiful isolation. This is something that modern threats to peace and security in the world simply do not allow for, just as they neither acknowledge nor allow neutrality. Today security is no longer defended solely on the borders of one's own country, nor is it defended by classical means. Instead, peace and security can only be ensured globally. Today one can only speak of peace and security in terms of us all having that peace and security or no one having them. That is also the experience the world so clearly encountered following September's events in the United States.

I believe that both with regard to the European Union and NATO we need to abandon the traditional demeanour of considering only the interests of one's own country, which is something we were used to, and to take a look at the world from the perspective of the entirety of relations and the shape of that world that we are seeing today, seeking solutions that will allow Europe to have its needed and desired influence in the world, that it will be able to provide for that influence with changed internal relations, that it will appear all over the world as a particular political entity maintaining and creating a common identity from a multitude of national identities, thus also developing its common positions. Thus the erstwhile divisions and the consequences of these divisions would be seen as a major hindrance in achieving that goal and many an issue now presented in negotiations as protection of one's interests – often in the form of national egotism – will be withdrawn in order for us all to gain what we long for: that desired role for Europe, a continent of peace and cooperation offering security to all its citizens, ensuring their prosperity and development. By analogy that would also apply to NATO and the provision of a security component. If that is what we want then it is also necessary to consider a more rapid transformation of the European Union from the economic community which it originates form and whose mentality still has a very strong presence if not prevalence, into a political community as well, a community that would also develop its foreign-policy, security and defence functions, thus ensuring its influence in the world.

Madam President and I also spoke extensively about negotiations with the European Union. I believe that Latvia deserves our congratulations and every commendation. It has achieved very much, particularly taking into account the fact that it entered these negotiations at a much later point than other candidates and is today, like Slovenia, practically in the final stages of negotiations concerning the most demanding financial chapters. If these negotiations are to achieve a rational conclusion they will require the specific treatment of each candidate, more so than with other chapters. In other words I am speaking of individual treatment.

We also discussed the Convention, the expectations around the Convention that will have to resolve the key dilemmas about what the European Union is, what Europe's future is and what kind of internal relations in Europe would provide for this, hoping that this integration structure would expand over the entire European region as soon as possible and that both the European Union and NATO would also come up with specific relations and forms of cooperation with the important factor of Russia, as we cannot imagine a European future without settling relations with this large country.

All of these are demanding and important issues. We were not able to talk about everything, but I am confident that during the two days of the visit we shall certainly have many an opportunity to discuss these issues in greater depth. Thank you.

* * *
Question: Slovenia's expectations for the November NATO Summit in Prague?

Milan Kucan: There are certainly many reasons for an optimistic expectation that a decision on the enlargement of NATO will be adopted in Prague and that both of our countries would be invited to join the Euro-Atlantic alliance. In the past year, almost a year, many a thing changed and questions that were being asked in the past have become futile. What does the Alliance gain with countries such as Latvia and Slovenia? It gains a greater guarantee of common security. It has namely turned out that no one is able to provide for their own security on their own anymore, that it can only be ensured within a system of collective defence. Of course, within such a system you cannot only expect others to defend your security while you yourself would not be prepared to contribute anything. In other words, no one can only be a consumer of security, as Madam President put it, without actively contributing to security not only for themselves but for everyone. National egotism and collective defence have nothing to do with one another. Also, I believe that it is necessary and useful to pay greater attention to the fact that NATO enlargement also constitutes an enlargement of the area of application of those values for which NATO was created in the first place in the past, in a different world. These values remain unchanged, though, they have become the property of a much larger share of humanity than before, also a much larger part of Europe.

Since the situation had changed it would be useful to reiterate the position Slovenia has had throughout this time, although at this time it might already be less important. No European country should be prevented from ensuring its own security and peace within the Euro-Atlantic alliance by their neighbours' or any other country's interests. I believe that with the good relations between Washington and Moscow, with good relations between NATO and Moscow this question is less topical than it was in the past.

Question: Does the drop in Slovenian public support for NATO membership represent an obstacle in this process?

Milan Kucan: No. I would not say it's an obstacle. It is, however, a great challenge for Slovenian politics, which defined European Union and NATO membership as their strategic goal and strategic task. It should be noted that during our confrontation with Belgrade, in deciding for independence at the plebiscite, in seeking alliances around the world for international recognition, also in the war with the Yugoslav Army, we Slovenes always adopted all our big decisions in search of the greatest possible consensus with the public opinion. Slovenian politics at the time adopted its decisions with a high consensus among the citizens of Slovenia. That also applies to the European Union, where Slovene politics have made much more of an effort to inform the citizens about the European Union, about the substance of negotiations, about which interests it has been able to defend and which ones it has not, what the advantages and the potential problems preying on Slovenia or on individual parts of Slovene life European Union membership brings along.

With NATO this was somewhat neglected. The debate that is now very intensively under way is perfectly legitimate, as are the positions voiced in that debate. I firmly believe that in spite of certain opinions not supporting Slovenia's NATO membership and serving primarily internal political relations within Slovenia and in spite of the people spearheading these opinions, it remains a duty of Slovenia and of Slovenian politics to see Slovenia into NATO membership. I find this to be very important since all the arguments in favour of Slovenia's NATO membership do not resound with equal benefit for Slovenia's NATO membership. In recent months the debate has intensified. Also intensifying is Slovene politics' involvement in clearing up the reasons in favour of Slovenia within NATO.

I am convinced that at the end of this debate a sound consideration of the necessity of Slovenia's membership in NATO will prevail if Slovenia wants to ensure its security and peaceful development, taking account of all circumstances which I have already mentioned and taking into account the fact that peace and security are values without which all else is of no import. Without these values it makes no sense to speak of development, of social inclusion, of developing our national culture, education, etc. The world today is such that the first and fundamental value that every country and polity has to ensure for its citizens is peace and security.