|
OFFICIAL VISIT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE LEONID KUCMA TO SLOVENIA
Joint press conference
Statement by President of the Republic of Slovenia Milan Kucan
Ljubljana, 30 March 1999
ABOUT SLOVENIAN - UKRAINIAN RELATIONS
To begin with I would like to say that the geopolitical position of Ukraine, its economic potential, and its spiritual, cultural and scientific creativity are sufficient reasons for Slovenia to wish to develop the best possible and widest reaching cooperation with this friendly country.
This visit has been planned for a long time. It is taking place at a time that is crucial for European and world peace; indeed, a time that is important for the future world order. What I have in mind is, of course, the developments in Kosovo. It is therefore understandable that the major part of our talks has been devoted to what is going on in Kosovo and to discussing the prospects of a peaceful solution.
The talks also expressed both sides’ interest in increasing the level of cooperation between our countries. We have established that cooperation is good and that there are no open questions or problems between our countries but that, nevertheless, we cannot be completely satisfied with the current level of cooperation.
There is an interest in reinforcing the political dialogue between our two countries. In the eyes of Slovenia, Ukraine is a country that is a factor of stability in eastern Europe, and for this very reason Slovenia believes that every opportunity must be taken to consider the future of Europe together with this country. There are a number of reasons which support this interest:
- Our countries share a similar experience in more recent history, and have lived in similar conditions in the post-Berlin Europe. Both are undergoing a process of profound internal transformation, accompanied by changes taking place in Europe in general;
- We have pursued similar foreign policy goals, such as inclusion in European integrations, although the negotiating positions for this are somewhat different and our countries are in different stages of approximation to these integrations. We are looking here at the final goals and interests that we have in common. Slovenia has given all our support to Ukraine’s efforts, where we aim to express this support in the form of concrete action rather than just verbally. This is because we are both aware of the danger of the new division of Europe, which has not as yet completely reached beyond the consequences of former ideological and
- political partitions. In addition, it has not become conceptually integrated. Our countries have both been subjected to divisions, and we are both reluctant to face new divisions against our will,
- irrespective of whether we might be forced to be part of a division which we do not want to be part of or part of a division to which we do not belong historically.
- Great interest has been expressed in cooperation, chiefly in the economic area. The level of this cooperation is growing. It nevertheless calls for the setting up of a legal infrastructure which would provide the cooperation with stability and security. In this context we have discussed in particular the fifth European transport corridor.
In summary, the talks between our delegations and the talks held with the Slovenian prime minister showed that Slovenia understands the fifth transport corridor to be a route linking south-west Europe to eastern Europe and vice versa, a corridor which, in other words, links Ukraine to south-west Europe. Of course, we Slovenes wish to become part of the economic, political, cultural and spiritual community of eastern Europe, and to use this community as a springboard to enter the Asian part of the former Soviet Union and the countries situated in this region. We firmly believe that it would not make sense to bypass Ukraine in doing this; rather, it is our belief that it would be rational and beneficial for us to enter this region together with Ukraine, which adds special weight to our cooperation.
ABOUT THE BALKAN CRISIS
The talks expressed a high degree of similarity in our opinions on the reasons for and ways out of the Balkan crisis, and especially the current Kosovo crisis. Neither Slovenia nor Ukraine have taken the side of either of the parties in dispute in Kosovo. We recognise that all countries have their own legitimate interests and rights, which are based on the principle of equality of all nations, and which should not be subject to any form of discrimination. We also condemn any violence against both individuals and peoples. We demand that individuals and human rights, rights which Slovenia considers to be above all other interests, be respected. After all, the universal nature of human rights and their protection have been laid down in UN documents.
I firmly believe that this understanding of human rights is the foundation on which the new world relations associated with global responsibility must be based, an issue which first and foremost depends on the respect of people and human rights within individual countries, and which extends to their commitment not to threaten the security and peace of other countries. In addition to the fundamental right to human life and dignity, I consider the rights to peace, stability, welfare, and security also to be such human rights. The failure of the international community to safeguard and protect these rights would result in the renouncing of all common objectives and means for ensuring coexistence and development.
We have also come to the same conclusion that the responsibility for settling the dispute is borne by both parties, assisted by the international community’s understanding, support and guarantees. Our position is that the short-term goal of the international community’s involvement is to put an end to the violence in Kosovo, stop the humanitarian catastrophe and halt the airstrikes on FRY non-military facilities, where all this can be achieved by bringing the parties in dispute to the negotiating table to sign a peace agreement, and supporting this agreement with international guarantees. We understand NATO’s military intervention to be in the function of creating the conditions for finding a peaceful solution and a political settlement, and for reaching an agreement to observe UN Security Council resolutions, and therefore restore and protect the authority of both the UN and the Security Council. For, if the authority of this universal organisation is bypassed, the world remains without a guarantee for peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation.
We believe, however, that the short-term solution will not be sufficient in the long run. I have again brought up the idea, which I elaborated in October in Vienna where I was invited by President Klestil, that sooner or later Europe must recognise that European nations must convene a common conference and jointly reflect on the political future of the Balkans. Short-term solutions may result, as we have witnessed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in a state of no-peace-no-war. They cannot, however, eliminate all the reasons and causes which are incessantly destabilising the Balkans and along with them Europe, and which, as in this case, are drawing into conflict the entire world.
The fact of the matter is that current relations or the current developments in Kosovo, together with developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina, are redefining the political map of this region, and that equality and legitimacy of the interests of all political, cultural, and ethnic entities in this region must be observed. New relations must be established in the region and based on the rule of individual and collective human rights, which, as I have stressed before, must be understood as a universal value. Of course, all this must be accompanied by international guarantees relating to the re-distribution of military and political power, and including this in the context of competition between countries to become regional superpowers, ambitions which do not favour peace and cooperation.
This will of course also call for economic aid programmes, aimed at providing the region and the people with a new developmental momentum and the prospect of prosperity, without which peace and coexistence are not possible, and to the greatest extent possible build a basic trust, which currently is completely destroyed but which is a prerequisite for coexistence.
I also believe that another important thing must be borne in mind: the European future must be opened up to all nations in this region or, in other words, an opportunity for inclusion in European integrations for all countries under the same conditions. The reason for this is that the exclusion or isolation of these countries from European processes would be a bad sign not only for the people living in this region but also for lasting peace and stability in Europe.
Finally, international institutions will also have to deal with the issue of crimes against humanity and other forms of criminal offence, for which there can be no statute of limitation. They will have to conduct trials against the people who are responsible for the current situation.
At the end of our talks president Kučma invited me to visit Ukraine. I was pleased to accept his invitation, especially since on 14 and 15 May Lvov will be the host of a meeting of Central European presidents, which will discuss all the topical issues which we discussed during our meeting. Thank you.
ANSWERS BY PRESIDENT KUCAN TO THE QUESTIONS BY JOURNALISTS
About a conference about the future of the Balkans
I have discussed the issue of an international conference about the future of the Balkans with president Kučma. I believe that the conditions for discussing this initiative are not in place yet, since the first reaction and interest of all of us are now concentrated on how to stop the violence in Kosovo, and how to assert a clear understanding that NATO’s intervention is reasonable only in the function of creating conditions for finding a peaceful solution, for the observation of UN decisions, where it should not take the side of any of the parties to the dispute. This therefore is a campaign against violence. Once this goal is achieved, there will be enough time to consider whether this initiative is acceptable. Personally, I am encouraged by the fact that this proposal has also been talked about by President Havel, with whom I have already held talks about it. I have also noticed that the initiative has been recently mentioned by the new president of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, with whom I have also discussed this issue during his visit to Slovenia.
About the NATO intervention:
Slovenia does not believe that NATO’s intervention can result in a solution to the Kosovo problem. We believe, however, that it can create conditions for finding one. Conditions which have to be of a political nature. Although I do not consider this conflict to be a war in the classical sense of the word, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all of us that every war is followed by peace negotiations. Here I feel it is important to stress that in the beginning of the intervention those who triggered it said the following: No one should think that the objectives of the operation can be achieved in one hour or one day. They said that the achievement of the objectives takes time. That violence and the perpetrator do not react immediately.
In our statement following the beginning of the military operation we said that in our experience the violence spreading over the Balkans, the same violence which disintegrated the former Yugoslavia, can be confronted by nothing but force. We proposed this when we were victims to this violence, when the violence transferred to Croatia, when it manifested itself in the bloody war against Bosnia-Herzegovina, and now when it rages in Kosovo. It would not be right, in our consideration of what to do, to forget that this violence has its history in this region, that Europe and the world have been confronted with it for practically ten years, and that from an explicitly political violence, the attempt to suppress the interests of individuals and the peoples in the former Yugoslavia, the interests of unilateral policy, it has transformed into physical violence, including the use of weapons. Perhaps this is the only difference between the stance of Slovenia and the stance of Ukraine. I would like to mention one more thing.
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, three countries, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, disintegrated in Europe. Everyone, including Slovenia, feared the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, however, disintegrated relatively peacefully, as did Czechoslovakia; only Yugoslavia disintegrated and is still disintegrating with bloody violence, and there must be a reason for this.
About the role of the Security Council and the UNO
The Republic of Slovenia condemns the use of force and violence, irrespective of who is responsible for it. We are well aware that among the victims of the violence in Kosovo both peoples living there can be found. We are also aware that both peoples rely on very similar concepts, concepts based on an ethnically pure state, an ethnic state, and therefore on an ethnically pure territory; as a result, they are making use of ethnic cleansing to achieve their objectives. We condemn this. We see NATO’s military operation exclusively in the function of preventing the realisation of these concepts; throughout the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina we insisted on the standpoint that war should not result in a fait accompli, and militarily achieved objectives must not be considered final.
I think that the role of the UN and the Security Council remains entirely unchanged, but it radically draws attention to the need for reform of the United Nations organisation, in particular for reform of the Security Council in terms of the right to veto; and secondly, it calls for common consideration by the entire international community. And I see no better place for this than the United Nations itself. Consideration of what consequences for the world order are called for by the current recognition humankind has of the values and universality of human rights, and what kind of relationship is established by this understanding with the classical understanding of national sovereignty; in other words, with the classical understanding of a state as a nation-state rather than citizen-state. These are of course both theoretical and practical considerations. And I firmly believe that the time has come to stop delaying these considerations and face the related consequences if we wish to protect the authority of the United Nations.
|
