Interview

Public appearances

LEAVING THE STAGE
Interview with President of the Republic of Slovenia Milan Kucan for TOL - by Jerremy Druker
As Slovenian President Milan Kucan prepares to step down, he talks to TOL about NATO and what it means for his country.

Prague (Czech Republic), 29 November 2002

PRAGUE, Czech Republic--This weekend’s second round of presidential elections will mark the end of an era. Milan Kucan has been president of tiny alpine Slovenia since the country gained its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. After serving two five-year terms, the longtime power figure will step out of the public limelight and allow a new president to take his place.

A recent TOL editorial pointed out that “in the 15 years that future historians will be tempted to call the Kucan era, Slovenia moved with apparent ease from the most liberal republic of the former Yugoslavia to the most advanced NATO and EU candidate.” Kucan can claim much of the credit for that. Along with his likely successor, Prime Minister Janos Drnovsek, Kucan jump-started reforms in Slovenia even before the all-important events of 1989.

Just weeks before his exit from the presidential suite--and only minutes after his country received its long-anticipated invitation to join the NATO alliance--Kucan sat down with TOL editor in chief Jeremy Druker to talk about Slovenia’s successful bid.

TOL: Why do you think NATO should invite Slovenia into the alliance?

Slovenian President Milan Kucan: I suppose the most credible explanation of the reasons could be given by the member states that are issuing the invitation, but I presume that Slovenia in all aspects--political, economic, defense, and security, and also in terms of its values--can be a credible partner for the Euro-Atlantic alliance. And it can contribute its own share to the strengthening of the defense and security of the alliance and the overall defense and security situation in Europe, and it can also help in integrating this area of this region that was so divided during the Cold War.

TOL: What do you think Slovenia’s role should be within NATO?

Kucan: There are several aspects regarding Slovenia’s accession to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. First of all, with its size, it will relatively strengthen the defense and security structure. Also, it will form a link on the southern flank of the alliance between Italy and Hungary, which had no direct contact until now. It can also provide its experience from the former Yugoslavia and its efforts in finding a long-term solution for peace, security, prosperity, and democracy in the region, and also contribute to the expansion of the values to which it is committed, and to the defense of the values for which the alliance was created in the first place.

TOL: What do you think NATO’s role should be in the future?

Kucan: First of all, let’s remind ourselves of what NATO Secretary-General Lord [George] Robertson said in his introductory speech today at the beginning of the summit. He called this summit a summit of change for NATO, and NATO will thus have to adapt more quickly to the security and political situation in today’s global and interdependent world. In this interdependent world, we have new threats that are emerging--new threats to peace, security, and even to the existence of mankind as such.

These new threats are no longer classical war but various forms of international organized crime, including international terrorism, and that means that the threats we are facing have become global and transnational. It also means that the security of states is not being defended anymore on the borders of these states, but at the source of these threats. That is the role of NATO within the United Nations and its efforts for peace to prevent these threats from emerging, and that is where I think the prospects for NATO lie.

TOL: What do you think still needs to be done before a possible referendum, given the very mixed view of NATO accession that Slovenia’s citizens seem to have these days? You now have the invitation in hand, so what still needs to be done to persuade citizens that the “yes” vote is the right answer?

Kucan: The referendum would not mean that the Slovenian leadership would in any way be transferring the responsibility for accession onto its citizens. It means that it is the responsibility of the leadership to clarify, to explain to the citizens of Slovenia, what NATO is today and what the prospects for NATO are, what Slovenia’s obligations within NATO will be, and what Slovenia has to gain [regarding] security, peace, development, and prosperity in the future. [It means] that the Slovenian people want to hear rational arguments in favor of NATO, and they want to do away with the sensation of injustice that was delivered in Madrid five years ago [when Slovenia did not receive in invitation in the first wave] and that needs to be corrected. I think that with rational argumentation and through dialogue, the decision in the referendum should be a positive one and we have nothing to fear.

And I think it’s great to explain to the citizens of Slovenia how invaluable the role of NATO was in bringing down the Berlin Wall and bringing an end to the ideological, political, and bloody divisions of the continent in the past and in bringing to Europe democracy, a market economy, and the role of human rights, which enabled Slovenia to fulfill its age-old desire of creating our own independent state.

TOL: How do you think a possible intervention in Iraq would affect the results of a referendum? Consider that the situation could be somewhat similar to the case of the first wave of aspirants [the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland], which became members and 11 days later had to decide on their role in the war in Kosovo?

Kucan: You have to take into account the fact that Slovenia is a member of the United Nations and is committed and bound by the decisions of the United Nations. We are also bound and committed to cooperation in peacekeeping operations and in operations aimed at doing away with the evils that pose a threat to the peace and security of mankind, and to the very existence of mankind, on this planet. That is why I see no reason why any possible escalation in the confrontation with Iraq could influence Slovenian public opinion before the referendum.

LEADING THE CHARGE

TOL: Regarding your role in putting the NATO issue more on the map in Slovenia: You’ve taken a more forceful role this year, giving some important speeches, including on independence day in June. What prompted you to take more of a central role? Was it declining public opinion--a call from the foreign minister for politicians to play a stronger role?

Kucan: My role here is first defined in the context of the role of the Slovenian political leadership. The Slovenian political leadership’s main task is to create conditions for a peaceful and secure life for its citizens and to create conditions for peaceful development that will lead to prosperity and social and legal security for people. We assess that nowadays there is no better way to reach those goals but to go for EU and NATO membership, and therefore it necessary for us to conduct a continuous dialogue with our citizens on the reasons why we make such assessments and why the activities that lead up to these objectives have to be undertaken. So my role here as a moral authority to the citizens is to explain this to the Slovenian people to support their public opinion, and that is where my role is most important.

I view my role as mainly as explaining to citizens that we live in a very interdependent world today, and everything that happens on one end of this interdependent world has consequences also for our own situation. That is why solidarity is a must if we want development and prosperity, and we cannot go and pursue these goals at the expense of others, nor can we transfer responsibility for that onto the shoulders of others, so we expect solidarity and support from others and we are also prepared to share and to contribute to the solidarity for others.

TOL: Was your support for NATO something you had to intellectually work out or was it something that came instinctually, from the beginning, that you were going to support full on? Or was it something where you had to weigh the pros and cons and figure out where you stood?

Kucan: In order to understand this, you need to understand the circumstances in which the Slovenian state was born. When the plebiscite [about independence in 1990] took place, it was the very critical period of the breakup of Yugoslavia, and people had expectations at the very birth of the country that the independent state would be able to provide them with the goods that Yugoslavia was not able to provide, those goods being security, peace, prosperity, social security, and legal security and also openness to the world and to everything that is happening in the world, and that of course also included our integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. Since our country was also being born in war, that meant the perception of direct threat was very high, and that is why people also expected that their decision to form an independent state would find support in the international community and also within NATO. So the reasons why we opted for NATO, why we are in favor of joining NATO, are very rational and aren’t emotional ones. We are not joining NATO to counter anybody, we are joining to work for certain goals together with others, not against them.

TOL: So on a personal level, your own thinking followed from the situation in the early 1990s, or was it something that came to you later in the decade?

Kucan: Our situation was quite different than that of the Baltic states, for instance. You always need to look at things and to assume positions according to the concrete circumstances that you find yourself in. But Europe and Slovenia in the ’80s underwent great changes, saw the end of the Cold War, the end of the bloody division of the world, and saw great changes throughout the world--and that meant we had to reconsider the world as a whole and also the role and position of Slovenia within this world. My consideration of NATO, which also started changing and adjusting its role to these new circumstances in the world--my consideration of NATO was a really rational one, just as was my consideration of the political position of Slovenia and the political perspectives of Slovenia in that world.

TOL: Do you believe that intellectual debate of what it means to be in NATO has taken place yet in Slovenia? Part of the explanation behind the mixed reaction with the first wave countries and the war in Kosovo has been tied to the failure of the political elite to consider more than just the prize of entry and to focus on the obligations. Has that happened yet in Slovenia?

Kucan: This debate is quite intense now and that is only understandable, just as it is understandable that there is also some skepticism about Slovenia’s membership in NATO and about NATO in general. But the debate is sometimes also very abstract and burdened with emotions and with the understanding of NATO as it is seen by the generation of those who are in their 40s right now, people who in their youth were protesting the Vietnam war, etc. But this is only normal and legitimate in any democratic society. Part of this discussion is also linked to Slovenia’s role in NATO’s intervention in Kosovo. Slovenia knew very well the nature of the conflict there, and it knew that the violence could not be stopped or prevented in any other way than a threat of an intervention and then through intervention itself. You ask me if that is the price we have to pay. Well, peace and security in the world don’t come for free. You have to get involved, there is a price you have to pay, and you need to work against the threats that the world is posing in this day and age to peace and security.

TOL: You have come out in support of Mr. Drnovsek in the presidential elections. Is that also connected to your feeling that he is someone very much in support of integration into European structures and that he is someone who can carry that moral role after you retire? How much is your support of him tied to the domestic situation and how much is tied to that foreign policy role he has played in your footsteps?

Kucan: Certainly, in my experience, Slovenia wanted always to enter NATO and the European Union, and the formal path to this started with the plebiscite for independence. That path is now ending, and that is why I’m glad that my turn is expiring when Slovenia is entering these two structures; of course these were objectives. Now these objectives are turning into means, into tools to improve the quality of life for citizens, for us to improve the peace and the security and the prosperity our citizens are enjoying, for them to be able to enjoy life based on their private values. My support [for] Dr. Drnovsek is based on the fact that now we need to continue with life in our state with these new tools in our hands, and our future will depend on how Slovenia will be able to make use of these tools within NATO and within the European Union in order to pursue its own interests. So I see this as a continuation of the path that will guarantee Slovenia the future that it desires.

TOL: You and your friend Czech President Vaclav Havel are retiring after around 12 years in office (with Havel having a short break before the division of Czechoslovakia). Havel has said he is going to write again once he leaves office. I’ve heard that you have said you will stay involved in politics to some extent; I’ve heard that you said you are going off to “paint your house” because you don’t have a formal post-presidential residence; and I’ve heard speculation that you might head a think tank and stay involved on the international level in that way. Where do you go from now?

Kucan: The things that I have been striving for in my political program have been implemented to a large extent, so in that perspective I will be leaving with satisfaction. I also believe that it’s time for a generational change in Slovenian politics. That of course doesn’t mean that I won’t help in doing whatever Slovenia requires or expects of me and needs from me in light of my experience, and I will view that as a duty of mine, but I also believe once your term is completed, it’s time to say farewell to that office once and for all.

With President Havel, it’s somewhat different because he was a strong moral authority which reached far beyond the borders of the Czech Republic and of Europe. And Europe and the world will certainly miss his activities, his judgements, and of course the very strong values that he stood for.