LONGTERM AND STABLE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES
Section of interview with President Kucan for Radio 2 - Klagenfurt
(Editor: Marica Stern Kusej)
/unapproved transcript/

Ljubljana, 20 December 2001


Question - Marica Stern Kusej: Distinguished Mr President, first of all thank you very much for taking the time for us and for our audience. I did have a somewhat different scenario in mind in preparing for this interview, but the current debate regarding the bilingual topography of Carinthia virtually forces me to start with this pressing issue. Reactions in Carinthia, particularly by the Landeshauptmann, were very emotional and nervous, because of the fact that the President of the Constitutional Court Dr Ludwig Adamovich met with you a few weeks earlier as part of your official visit to Vienna. According to the Landeshauptmann, your discussions focused also on the then upcoming decision of the Constitutional Court. What happened that 6th day of November in Vienna?

MILAN KUCAN: The best scenarios are those written by life itself and I see nothing wrong in your starting off with a question that is certainly most topical at this time for Slovenes living in the Republic of Austria.

I have known Dr Adamovich for a long time and I have great regard for him as a lawyer and as a person. It is also for this reason, it is because of my good manners and it is because I know how one must talk to people one respects that I would not and did not want to talk to Dr Adamovich about issues related directly to his work and his decisions, or issues that in any way interfere with his professional independence and human dignity. As a lawyer and as President of the Republic of Slovenia I was interested in certain purely professional legal issues and in the experience of Dr Adamovich and the Austrian Constitutional Court, which has a long tradition with the very issues that are presently also topical for Slovenia. We discussed three sets of very interesting professional issues. Firstly, the relationship between national legislation and EU law. This is a question that is extremely interesting for us who are at the threshold of the EU. We then also talked about the experience of the Austrian Constitutional Court with the European Court of Human Rights in view of the fact that people who believe that their human rights are being violated in their state have the possibility of complaining with the European Court of Human Rights after having exhausted all legal recourse in their country. This is also happening with the decisions of the Slovene Constitutional Court. The third, also professional issue I was interested in was the role of the President of the Republic under Austrian law and the Austrian constitution in terms of the execution of constitutional court decisions in light of the fact that certain decisions of the constitutional court are being implemented with delays in our country, even when such execution is ordered to the Parliament or the Government.

As to the issues related to the disputes the Austrian Constitutional Court is deliberating or had deliberated, they were not brought up. As I already mentioned, I did not want to discuss that myself and I suppose that Dr Adamovich would also have declined any such discussion. As a matter of fact I am convinced that he would have declined a discussion on those issues.

Question: In light of the polemic that has emerged and in view of recent events where the President of the Constitutional Court Dr Adamovich himself initiated proceedings for his own dismissal with the comment that the allegations are a lie from A to Z, that he wanted to clarify them in this way; was it wise or politically dexterous to have met with the President of the Constitutional Court in Vienna so shortly before the sensitive decision of the Constitutional Court?

MILAN KUCAN: Had I acted otherwise then I would have unwillingly negated the fact that Austria was a country governed by the rule of law, that it had a structured system of legal redress, that it had a constitutional court, that courts and judges in Austria were independent and that politics did not intervene in the decisions of the courts and of the Constitutional Court. The fact that it was impossible to avoid political interpretation and to avoid the drawing of courts into political games was clear to me. That also happens in Slovenia. I do believe, however, that a democratic political structure cannot accept that. It has a duty to reject that. On a personal note I very much regret that Dr Adamovich has been placed in such an unfortunate position because of his talks with myself. I have already expressed my apologies to him for that and I do so again. However, I believe that the procedure for his dismissal is not linked to this. As far as I know, his term in office is expiring and he unfortunately cannot hold office for another term.

Question: How do you think will the current debate influence relations between Austria and Slovenia?

MILAN KUCAN: I believe that what is happening in Klagenfurt right now cannot affect relations between Slovenia and Austria. Our interests here are long-term and stable. We are neighbours. We must steer our relations sensibly. We have many common interests. Also with regard to the future we know that we must be good, reliable and credible partners for the European Union. Also the negotiations on the 25 chapters that Slovenia had already closed in accession negotiations are proof that Austria is gaining a very reliable partner with Slovenia in pursuing its interests. That this would be jeopardised because of a few hot heads is something that I do not find highly likely in this world and this Europe of today.

Question: Slovenia has proven itself in the ten years of its independence. It has become a sort of an example of an open society and also an example of a cordial neighbour. Why do you think do such debates under the slogan of a primal fear, why this primal fear has such fertile ground in Carinthia?

MILAN KUCAN: Speaking of primal fears seems to me like talking about prehistory. People using the terminology of primal fear belong there, they do not belong to the modern world and they certainly do not belong in the future.

If already I had to think in those terms myself, then I would say that we Slovenes have much greater reason to be thinking of a primal fear of sorts. We had never threatened anyone in history, we were never a danger to anyone. It often happened to us, though. But that is the past. If we burden ourselves with the past then we will definitely miss all the trains for the future. That is why I find it much wiser to think of our common future in a perspective that is not so very unreal anymore. Europe is now without borders. It is without borders that would physically, politically, culturally, socially separate peoples. Some of them are setting up barriers because they simply aren't able to offer common prospects.

My experience shows that people who turn to the past are people who aren't capable of offering anything for the future, not even for present day. Unfortunately, one cannot live off the past.

Question: Following reconciliations in the past, a commission of historians will definitely be needed, composed of Austrian and Slovene historians and lawyers, a commission that will be capable of finding prospects for the future, provided politics will allow it to conduct research without political influence?

MILAN KUCAN: There have been many opportunities for Slovenia and Austria to clean up the past. The question is, was there enough political will for this to happen. To my mind it is not the people of Slovenia and Austria that do not wish to put away the past. The question is, whether politics are sufficiently mature. Whether politics are mature enough to definitely draw the line under the past. If this commission of historians works in this function, then it is useful and welcome. That of course means, that one needs to be very precise and see whether the two countries agree exactly as to the task of historians: that is to arrive at the historic truth of what relations between Slovenes and Austrians were in a broader context, what the relations between Slovenes or Slavs and Germanic peoples were in the previous century, a century that was quite unpleasant for all of Europe, to find out which issues they agree on, where their differences lie and what argumentation is used to justify these differences. If their task on the other hand would only be only to seek arguments in favour of the politics or the politicians of one country or the other, then that would only serve as an alibi by way of which politics would try and conceal its lack of responsibility or its immaturity.

Our experience with a similar commission that was established a while ago with Italy yielded good results. Politics were not there to set the requirement: you must discover this or that; instead they said: applying the scientific criteria of history, please find out what was going on between Slovenes and Italians during the past century, mainly following the end of World War I.

A similar commission was also established by the Germans and the Czechs, although I am not fully familiar with its work. It is therefore not a completely unique solution. It can, however, be of great assistance to politics if that is what politics also genuinely expect and if it is not just an alibi to cover up the lack of true will to put away the past, as I said earlier.

Question: In your assessment, are Austria and Slovenia politically mature enough to put the past away like that?

MILAN KUCAN: I am speaking for Slovenia. We have stated so several times and we also did the things we believed had to be done. I am not saying we have done everything. Perhaps joint deliberation will show that more still needs to be done. I shouldn't like to judge the intentions of Vienna. It will have to do so on its own. Following all that I have heard in Vienna on the occasion of the official visit a few weeks ago, I have no reason to doubt that.

Question: Coming back to Carinthia and the issue of bilingual topographic signs. For some the demand for putting up additional bilingual road signs remains a Rubicon that no-one may cross . They revert back to the high standard of minority protection here, saying that there is none better in Europe. As for bilingual road signs, they say that they are a visible sign of a permanent potential for conflict. An offer has now been voiced for Slovenes to give up this right and in exchange receive more funds for bilingual kindergartens, education, media, etc. What do you make of such an offer?

MILAN KUCAN: First of all, I become very attentive and prudent when I hear someone saying that they had implemented something, a legal, human, moral or whatever kind of standard at a level higher than was implemented or realised anywhere else. I also become very attentive when someone says that their minority protection is at a far higher level than anywhere else. It's sort of like saying 'I can jump higher than anyone else in the world' without setting the bar higher than the actual world record and then also making that jump. What I am trying to say is that it is certain that the legal protection of the minority in Austria is at a high level. As to how much real life coincides with the legal solutions, that is something to be judged by those who are the subject of such protection, minorities that is. If they estimate that there is a difference between the formal legal status and the actual status then a democratic state governed by the rule of law such as is Austria has competent institutions, including the Constitutional Court, whose judgment they abide by after having requested a review. That is also how I understand the logic of the rule of law in our country as well. There is no reason for me to think otherwise when other countries are at issue and this includes the neighbouring and friendly Austria.

As for the road markings themselves, they have increased the temperature many times in the past already. The putting up of these bilingual topographic signs is provided for by the Austrian State Treaty, that is by an act of law. I believe it is positive that the minority had left the arena of political squabble in its efforts for the enforcement of its rights and for the protection of its status, and that it had accepted the logic that it lives in a democratic state governed by the rule of law where it can enforce in the sphere of law its rights as laid down in the legal acts of the Austrian state. That means that it tries to have them enforced through Austrian courts if it believes that these rights had been violated. I believe that this is a very important shift. It is no longer a question of political confrontation, but an issue of the legal system and respect of the law.

Let me go beyond that and take a look at the substance. I myself come from a bilingual area, from a part of Slovenia where Slovenes and Hungarians live side by side and I know that also external signs of the fact that people of different ethnic backgrounds, people of different cultures live together are very important. That is a sign of freedom in the area. It speaks of the level of democracy in a society and in a state that is capable of visibly marking the multicultural nature of the area. Slovenes in Lendava, or in Koper for instance where they live side by side with the Italian minority, live both in Koper and in Capodistria. It is not such that the Italians live in Capodistria and the Slovenes live in Koper. Both communities live in the same city with two names, one Slovene and one Italian.

I don't know of a rational reason why one would feel at a loss or why one's national pride would be hurt if, let me put it this way, another name is used, a name used or customary in the language of one's fellow citizen but which is different and shows that they know the city or town under another name. I wouldn't like to venture further in thinking about this issue. I believe that marking a space – a multicultural space inhabited together by people of different ethnicities – is rather a great benefit than grounds for dispute provided, as we mentioned earlier, that people who are not members of the majority community are not seen as a disturbing factor to a level where every sign of their living there needs to be deleted. There is a lot of proof as to where that had lead to in Europe's past, where it lead to in the Balkans recently, in the former Yugoslavia. I think this is not something one would wish for.

Question: But even certain – let us say – moderate and sagacious circles of the majority community exhibit quite a lack of understanding as to why Slovenes want bilingual topographic signs, since, after all, they all speak German. There are also a few Carinthian Slovenes who would rather have more funding for kindergartens and who do not even see bilingual signs as so very necessary.

MILAN KUCAN: No one can force this on Austria or on Carinthia out of Slovenia. What I wanted to say was that the obligation to put up bilingual signs was an obligation laid down in the Austrian State Treaty, an act that has the power of a fundamental legal act, i.e. a constitution.

I have already stated my opinion about the signs being disturbing for the majority community.

I would not even venture into a discussion about the argument that also members of the minority speak the language of the majority as being a serious argument.

What I think is worth mentioning is that there are also people of the majority whose democratic demeanour has them wanting to learn the language of the minority. I know that that would be idealistic. It would be unrealistic to expect that everyone will understand their compatriot when he or she speaks in their mother tongue.

Slovenia once had the concept of bilingual education, where children of parents from the majority community didn't learn just a few hours a week the language of the minority, but instead classes were held in both languages. Children who graduated from such a school, concretely the one in Lendava, spoke both languages relatively fluently. Today that could be looked upon as a sort of experiment; it was a very successful experiment. Perhaps this is the future of Europe. It would be very positive for Europe if that would first be put in place in those areas where the linguistic, cultural and ethnic frontiers of different peoples converge. It would be a sign of our living in a different Europe. I do hope that some day this will happen.

Question: Minorities are the point of contact between two nations; they are also a bridge between two nations. Some see this as futile talk since it is precisely minorities that are often the small change in settling larger scores. Let me just mention the example of the enforcement of the rights of Carinthian Slovenes and in contrast to that the rights Slovenia reserves for to the German ethnic community in Slovenia.

MILAN KUCAN: Europe is full of minorities, also ethnic minorities. That is the product of history. There is not one country and not one nation that wouldn't have a minority, that wouldn't have part of its national body in other countries or that wouldn't have parts of other nations in its own country. In the Balkans, which are the most acute case in point, the substance of the conflict can be seen through the prism of understanding or lack of understanding and rejection of the phenomenon of ethnic minorities. There one thinks only in categories of ethnically pure states, which sooner or later brings along a process of very violent or less violent ethnic cleansing, migrations and shifting of borders. If Europe accepts the logic of »We can never live with them again«, then Europe is finished. That would be the end of any ideas of a united Europe and not least of the European Union.

Because Europe is aware of this it has set standards with certain fundamental charters within the Council of Europe for the protection of language minorities, for the protection of collective rights, not only of language and ethnic minorities, but also religious and other minorities. States who want a peaceful Europe and a peaceful future have committed themselves through these documents to enforce and enact this as part of their national legislations. This includes Slovenia.

We have regulated the status and the protection of our two, as we call them, indigenous minorities in our constitution. These two minorities have particular historical importance in this area that we jointly inhabit. Our constitution also guarantees members of ethnicities or languages or cultures those fundamental rights that are provided for by European charters.

In order to create a better atmosphere of mutual trust we embarked on concluding a special cultural agreement with Austria, a large portion of which pertains to the special protection of those Slovene citizens whose mother tongue is German, regardless of whether they originated from Austria or north of that, from other German lands. These are not new rights, they are however compiled in the agreement. It must also be stated that this community does not live in concentrated areas as do Slovenes in Austrian Carinthia or Styria along the border with Slovenia. They are dispersed throughout Slovenia. It is therefore different from the Italian or Hungarian ethnic community living in compact areas along the Hungarian or Italian border. Nevertheless, things are moving ahead and if the political will exists, if a high level of mutual trust exists, then things can be settled, for the standards have been set.

Question: The status of minorities and the protection of minorities are also external signs of the level of democracy in a country. We have already spoken about this. But when is a minority actually equal? In this context you also spoke of positive discrimination, what exactly did you have in mind?

MILAN KUCAN: There is a well-known slogan or saying that democracy is always democracy in the eyes of others. If we are therefore talking about minorities and democracy for minorities, then we always have to ask the minority about equality; does it feel equal, does it feel to be living in a democratic environment. Ever since I have been coming into contact with the issue of minorities in my work, and I emphasise that these are not only ethnic minorities, I have upheld the principle that in order to demonstrate its democratic stance and to have true equality, the majority must provide the minority more rights than it demands for itself, because the minority is in principle discriminated against. This can be achieved through so-called positive discrimination. On the other hand this sets very high standards of responsibility for the minority not to abuse these extra rights in relation to the majority. In very simple terms: when there is no need for a Slovene to speak Slovene in Klagenfurt, where he is convinced that he can speak German without in any way jeopardising his sentiments of national belonging, in such a case speaking Slovene would be an exaggeration. When, however, his fundamental rights are at stake, for instance when seeking protection for these rights in court, then I think it is normal for the state to enable him to speak and exercise that right in his mother tongue. It is up to him whether he will exercise this right or not. Transposing this to our situation, it is my duty as President of the Republic to make sure that an Italian who is our citizen, living in Koper, is able to speak his mother tongue, Italian, in court. In doing so I must not be interested in whether he will do so or not. My presumption is that it is my duty to provide this and that he will also want to exercise that right.

But life itself brings wise solutions and the greater the level of confidence, the stronger the coexistence among people, the less there are marginal cases where people want to exercise to the very last bit all that they are guaranteed. The more infringements there are, the more attempts there will be at consistent enforcement of what must be provided for by the state.

As mentioned, fortunately relations between Slovenia and Austria are settled at other levels, not only on the route between Ljubljana and Klagenfurt.

Question: What about your moral duty to look after the enforcement of minority rights also of Slovenes in Carinthia or Styria...

MILAN KUCAN: Slovenia is a successor to the former Yugoslavia, which was party to the Austrian State Treaty. Article 7, Article 27, these articles have become anthological as far as [inaudible] is concerned, to which the Slovene state is committed as regards the question of Carinthian Slovenes. Regarding Slovenes living in the Republic of Italy, this is settled by the Osimo Treaties. We signed a special agreement with the Hungarians, and we are still talking to Croatia about the status of Croats in Slovenia and Slovenes in Croatia. Granted, these talks are not very intensive, because other issues are at the forefront right now. The Slovene Constitution binds us to provide for the cultural and linguistic presence of Slovenes in countries they had historically inhabited, and this is also provided for by European documents, those pertaining to minority rights that is. This certainly does not allow for infringements in the so-called internal rights of a state. I myself do not want to see this. You asked about my moral duty. Of course, I could not concede to anyone from the outside meddling in the internal affairs of Slovenia, save when pointing out that commitments and legal acts are not respected. Then of course they have every moral right, also the possibility of complaining against Slovenia in European fora.

Question: To date Slovenia has not notified legal succession as party to the Austrian State Treaty. Why, actually? I think that if that were done, Slovenia could legally be a protector of the Slovene minority in Austria.

MILAN KUCAN: I believe that we are that protector, regardless. The issue of notification remains open and no final decision has been made here.

Question: Are things inclined in the direction of notification?

MILAN KUCAN: No, at this point in time there is not much thought in that direction. To me this is an outstanding issue that Slovenia and Austria will have to come to agreement on sooner or later.