FURTHER INFLAMING OF THE ATMOSPHERE
On Slovenian-Croatian relations at the 10th festival of non-commercial radio stations
The President of the Republic of Slovenia in an interview with a Radio Celje reporter

Ljubljana, 22 October 1999


Natasa GERKES LEBNIK: A lot has been written and said lately about the statements made by Croatian President Tudjman, who has been dishing out statements at Slovenia’s expense, that the Bay of Piran is Croatian, that the Slovenians partnered with Milosevicand sold out Croatia. What interests me now is why you haven’t rejected any of this in public so far, even though many a political party is demanding publicly that you do so.

Milan KUCAN: Well, the parties have their own logic and you have to let that logic run its course. As far as I’m concerned, my position ever since independence and later has always been that Slovenians and the Slovenian state have a vital interest in keeping a good neighbour on our southern border, maintaining sound relations with them, and on this basis we will be able to put forward common initiatives in the world. I am convinced that Zagreb feels the same way. After all, I received confirmation of this in the official position as well as in the talks held fourteen days ago, exactly fourteen days ago, when the Croatian prime minister was on an official visit to Slovenia with the ministers for foreign and economic affairs, and when we signed an agreement relating to property law. This will and this interest was officially confirmed at that time on behalf of the governments of both states. It therefore seems detrimental to turn up the heat on the often agitated atmosphere in any way, thus preventing a sober consideration of real interests and the search for the best solution which is in the interest of both states. Of course, one can’t use ultimatums to come to an agreement.

But let me focus on the actual statements themselves. In line with what I said, I would prefer not to comment on them. But since you’re asking, I believe this is about three things, the first of them being the Bay of Piran. On 25 June ’91 both countries declared independence, and recognised each other within the existing borders. These were the borders that had until then been in force within the common Yugoslav state and provided the basis for *marking, and not for the demarcation of the border. The border at sea, and I’m deliberately not saying in the Bay of Piran, but the border at sea between the two republics was not defined and therefore needs to be defined. Naturally, we need to find a solution that will take the interests of both countries into account. If we were to discuss the historical justifications and the legal system that was in place until the independence of our two countries, then such reasoning would tend to argue in favour of the assertion that this sea belongs to Slovenia. As alreday mentioned, as long as we are negotiating this and searching for the formula of a solution, repeating these arguments doesn’t seem worthwhile or sensible to me.

As for the other question regarding Slovenia making deals at the expense of Croatia with the then and current Serbian political leadership, this certainly requires at least a few additional sentences to what I said about the Bay of Piran. First of all, the fundamental clash, if I may label it as such, between Slovenia and Serbia dates much further back than to 1990 or ’91. This clash focused on the issue of democratisation of society and thereby on the democratisation of life in our common, multinational state. An essential component of democratisation had to be a modern federal system, a system based on the full principle of national equality. As the crisis became more complex, Slovenia offered several solutions in order for the crisis to be resolved in a democratic and peaceful way. These solutions ranged from a modern federation, to an asymmetric federation, and finally a confederation, but Slovenia remained without support. It was only then, at the beginning and towards the end of 1990, that Croatia joined this discussion and this confederative approach.

The meeting with the Serbian leadership was held on 23 January 1991 in Belgrade, if my memory doesn’t deceive me, more than a month after the Slovenian plebiscite, and the first month of the six-month deadline for independence. This is important in order recall properly the kind of conditions in which this took place. In my opinion, an essential part of the communiqué or press release following this meeting was that the leaders of both republics undertook to seek a way out of the Yugoslav crisis in a democratic and peaceful way, in a way that would not put human lives at risk. On the basis of the justification of the Slovenian plebiscite, the view was also adopted that each nation has the right to self-determination, provided it does not consume this right to the detriment of the same right of other nations. *This message of the right to one’s own state and to self-determination where this is not gained at the expense of the equal and identical right of another nation, was left out by Tanjug, which published the official statement while we were on our way home. I see this, as I have often said, as a posthumous victory for Tanjug. We all know what kind of agency it was and who really controlled Tanjug. Since the content of the talks truly was important, we stopped off in Zagreb on our way home, where we held talks with President Tudjman at the airport, presenting him with our views and a copy of the original statement.

I am not mentioning this in order to polemicise. I’m talking about it because I believe that these events were so important that it is right to know the truth, and for the truth to remain in our conscience and in that of future generations. Something that was written about this in an improper, not to say falsified way, should not serve as the truth. You see, governments change, presidents change, people come and go, and human memory tends to simplify and forget. It is right, therefore, for the truth to stay. And this is the only reason why I answered your question – to make it clear, not for the first time, what truly happened. Coming back to my starting position, our interest lies in having good relations with Croatia and, sooner or later, we will have to come to realise together that time is working neither for the Croatians nor the Slovenians, if these issues were to remain unresolved.