NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO JEOPARDISE THE VALUES OF AN OPTIMISTIC EUROPEAN FUTURE
Working meeting between Presidents Kucan and Havel
Statement by President of the Republic Milan Kucan at joint press conference


Ljubljana, 27 April 2000



MILAN KUCAN
I am glad that this is one of those opportunities that allows for a frank discussion not only on issues of concern to both of our countries, but also on issues regarding Europe and its future, and in many aspects also the future of humanity.

President Havel and I have been maintaining working contacts for a number of years now. We've particularly tried to hold such meetings prior to meetings of Presidents of Central European States that take place in one of the countries of Central Europe every year.

Our meetings were a confirmation of good and friendly relations between our two states as well as an encouragement to strengthen these relations. I believe that it is also thanks to these meetings and our discussions that many a misunderstanding between the two countries was removed. It would be far too light-minded for smart and responsible politicians to renounce such cooperation and such meetings.

Today's discussion mainly touched upon issues concerning the future of Europe. Overcoming the consequences of former divisions, leaving the past to history books, and taking a look into the future, which, in our opinion, should have a strong foundation in European values. These values, if articulated and practiced, would disable the recurrence of the tragic past that the peoples of Europe lived in in the past century. From this aspect we discussed European Union and NATO enlargement, both strategic interests of our two countries and to our minds also a vital interest for all of Europe and also of the world in general. We are firmly convinced that enlargement must have a solid basis in the values proper to the European Christian civilisation, democratic tradition, and these should be our common values, binding us to action and respect, and this should constitute our common direction. This would be Europe's answer to the challenges of a modern world, to the laws of globalisation, to imminent individuation and urgent capacity building in Europe for it to be able to have an influence in a polycentric world and for its civilisation, tradition and values to have a presence.

In our talks we were both of the opinion that no one has the right to jeopardise the values that represent a guarantee for a kind and optimistic European future. Any attempt at threatening these values or acting counter to these values must trigger a reaction.

In this context we also talked about the position of the European Union vis-à-vis the events in Austria – not in terms of the relationship with Austria, but with the policy which, if implemented, could pose a threat to these values.

We also discussed Chechnya, South Eastern Europe, the Balkans.

Our discussion also focused on NATO as the specific European structure that also has a Euro-Atlantic dimension and which was first to step across the former dividing line between blocks with its enlargement, thus making a moral confirmation to the people of Europe, particularly those who lived on the other side of the iron curtain, that this past is definitely over and that it is justifiable to expect that others, those who are still just aspiring to enter this Euro-Atlantic defence and security structure, will also be a part of such a future. In this context we also discussed the necessity of European Union enlargement, underlining that this cannot just be a pragmatic interest but must also be supported by moral considerations and that the prospect of accession must become a realistic one. It is understandable that the European Union wishes to carry out its institutional reforms and deepen its relations in order to become capable of enlargement. Both of us believe that accession or negotiations should in fact be a technical process, which would simply verify whether or not the criteria are met. Negotiations should not contain a political dimension and bilateral conditioning, particularly with issues that Europe has settled in the past.

In a way, this already represents the groundwork for tomorrow's meeting of Presidents of Central European States in Székesfehérvár in Hungary, where the topic of discussion will be “The Foundations of Coexistence in the Third Millennium”.

Thank you.



JOURNALIST
Could you tell us what could be the consequences of a delay in European Union enlargement, which now seems to be a possibility following recent signals coming from Austria and Germany? If a delay indeed were to occur, would both countries also postpone its EU accession strategies?

MILAN KUCAN
There's nothing to add to this from my part. All our countries, often referred to as candidate countries for full membership in the European Union, should, if they want to become modern states, carry out reforms and the transition regardless of whether or not EU membership is in their strategic interest. European Union membership is just an additional motor accelerating these reforms. As for Slovenia, the promise made to the citizens at the plebiscite in 1990 as to what an independent state of Slovenia would be should the citizens opt for independence, was a state with all the economic, social, political, democratic and cultural attributes that European Union member states have. That is how I see the function of the date of accession. I do not absolutise it and I therefore see its function as being only one of not giving the European Union an alibi, making a move forward with institutional reform at an accelerated pace, forming common policies, not just monetary policy, also defence, foreign and security policy, fight against organised crime, etc. I also see it in the function of not giving candidate countries an alibi to slow down reforms, particularly the most demanding reforms. I see the target date of accession as an orientation point and as an expression of will on both sides that EU enlargement should indeed occur. Stalling, delaying, making up ever new conditions, allowing special bilateral conditions could in the final consequence lead the candidate countries to ask the question whether they are truly wanted in the company of European Union member states, whether they are interesting only as an increased market, as an increase in the purchasing power, and whether they are interesting only provided they do not generate competition for jobs in existing EU member states.

It is also true that the current round of enlargement is not an easy one for the European Union. Countries are now entering that have a different pedigree, countries that lived on the other side of the iron curtain, in a different economic and political system, giving rise to a different mentality, countries that lagged behind in terms of technology and development. It is therefore understandable that one needs to prepare for the accession of these countries. However, as I mentioned earlier, this is no reason for an alibic postponing of dates on either side

JOURNALIST
It is well known that in the case of Haider's entry into the Austrian government Slovenia did not react as strongly as the Czech Republic. What is your opinion on this?

This is counter to the past, when the Czech Republic did not react that strongly in the case of President Waldheim, when Austria was in a similar situation as it is now.

MILAN KUCAN
If you'll allow me just a comment to your question. Slovenia had differing opinions, and even Mr Haider was kind enough to notice that.


JOURNALIST
Counter to the previous EU indicators, the Czech Republic is much more popular with EU citizens than Slovenia. Slovenia has found itself at the tail of the charts. I would like to ask President Kucan where he sees the reasons behind this. For President Havel, perhaps a word of advice to Slovenia on how to become more visible and penetrating for EU citizens?

MILAN KUCAN
I don't think a lot about the reasons why Slovenia is persistently last on the charts of popularity among the citizens of EU member states. I think Slovenia would do most for its affirmation and greater popularity if it were present with indicators of development, capacity to settle relations with its neighbours, and demonstrating even more than it already has that it is capable of realistic initiatives for a long-term stabilisation of the situation in South Eastern Europe. True, if I were to think about it, I could say that one of the reasons is that Slovakia, Slovenia and Slavonia have similar names. That we still carry an image of war and the vicinity of the unstable southeastern part of Europe, particularly the Balkans. The manners of intervention in the Slovenian political sphere are also not always very attractive for people who have their own image of an established democracy. But this is more or less speculation, not supported by exact and empirical data. In my view the path toward recognition and desirability of Slovenia lie in its transition results.