EUROPE IN A CHANGED WORLD – AN OUTLOOK FROM SLOVENIA
Official visit to United Kingdom - speech in Chatam House - Royal Institute of Insitute of International affairs

London (United Kingdom), 10 December 2001


The recent violent outbreak of international terrorism is a brutal warning that the world is changing fundamentally. It has become different. However, these changes did not occur overnight; we were just not able or willing to recognise or acknowledge them. It clearly took the 11th of September to shift the focus of our perception of the world and force us to think about its great contradictions and the great interdependence it contains. The future of human civilisation, and even the survival of life itself on our planet, have found themselves at a crossroads more than ever before. Europe wants to and must play an active role in the alleviation of these contradictions and the search for solutions. It must be capable of forming common European positions on the questions of its own future and the future of the global world.

It is with particular purpose that I underline this. It was, namely, on European soil, in the former Yugoslavia, that political and state terrorism erupted, with far-reaching consequences that are still with us today. It took years for European and world politicians to approach recognition of the essence of the problem. It took the horrors of Vukovar and Dubrovnik to sound the alarm. It took the horrific images of Serb concentration camps in Bosnia-Herzegovina to shake the tranquillity of still safe European and American homes. Only the former Belgrade government's gamble on differences among European powers, between Europe and the United States, finally instilled the understanding that even terrorism wearing state clothing is nothing but terrorism, and that aggressive nationalism is a dangerous relative of Nazism. Only then did the long journey to recognition that there is no negotiating with terrorists come to an end. The Taliban of the Balkans finally lived to see their condemnation and the military intervention of the Euro-Atlantic alliance. It was the judgement of American rather than of European politicians that tipped the scales in favour of this long-delayed decision. Yet all these actions have still not reached to the very roots of evil. Events in the western Balkans never cease to surprise. There is still a situation of »neither peace nor war«.

The fall of the Berlin Wall unshackled the world from bipolarity. For some time now, Europe has no longer been the master of the world. Civilisations that were suppressed or marginalized have now stepped onto the world stage with grand steps, with their own understanding of the essence of life, of spirituality, as well as of the significance and rule of human rights. European civilisation faces others, the non-Christian, the different, merely as one of many equal and equally legitimate human civilisations.

But is this really a conflict of civilisations, a conflict between the world of good and the rogue world? In order to prevent this, we must ensure dialogue between civilisations on those issues that these civilisations value differently. We would thus be able to build a common world of values, a world acceptable to all of humankind, without anyone imposing their own world of values on others. With the modern technology of war and violence, a battle of civilisations would lead to catastrophe.

The challenges of the global world demanding common thought and answers are well-known. They mainly lie in the divisions of this world, in the division into owners of capital, knowledge, ideas and information technology one the one hand, and the billions who have no access to all of this and are therefore condemned to hopeless vegetating. The challenges lie in the increasing financial weakness of many states, continents even, which have no developmental potential or prospects. They also lie in the relentless growth of the power of global capital, whose autonomous logic and influence have long seen it reach far beyond the borders of nation states, yet it assumes no responsibility for people's social position, for their prospects, for sustainable development and for the damage done to the environment, for freedom and democracy, for solidarity, development, security, and for the future. Responsibility is left to state administrations. Challenges also lie in the monopolistic economy. In an extremist understanding of competitiveness that leads to the provision of products and services with an ever decreasing labour force, without sensitivity to nature, to life on the planet, its future, without sensitivity to man himself, his dignity and his rights. They also lie in fundamentalisms of all sorts, fundamentalisms that exclude all difference through ruthless authority, power and violence. One could go on and on. If these and other challenges remain without real and timely answers then our world will be divided into two worlds at micro and macro levels, two worlds that will not understand one another and that will be incapable of communicating any other way than through violence. The marginalized world will not accept its degrading position.

Answers to the questions of the global world must be ambitious. They must state what we want to change, such as hopeless poverty or the careless and solely profit-oriented attitude toward nature. They must also clearly state what achievements of human civilisation we do not want to lose, such as the universal rule of human rights, the rule of law, the right to be different, tolerance, solidarity, the welfare state.

Modern political, economic, social and ecological dramas are all an expression of the interaction of a host of social and natural forces and phenomena in the worlds of economics, politics, ecology, genetics, finance, the information society, international crime, terrorism, and so on. They are like epidemics. They cannot be contained within the borders of one or several nation states. Whatever happens anywhere in this world, including international crime and terrorism, also happens to all of us. They cannot be swept away by the logic of pragmatism that prevails in contemporary politics. The contradictions are too strong. It is these contradictions and conflicts of the modern world to which anti-globalisation movements are also drawing attention. They are a serious warning, even a violent warning, but they offer no answers. These still need to be found, through dialogue and by lending an ear to these warnings, however unpleasant they might be. The fight against terrorism and opposing anti-globalisation movements are not enough. We are also committed to the fight against terrorism, but we must not overlook the fact that terrorism, too, is a reflection of the problems confronted by the modern world. It is something we will be facing for a long time, just as its roots developed over an extended period.

The fight against terrorism is a struggle for our world's culture. Terrorism in the American case, as in the Balkan one, is in its very essence an act against democracy and the rule of human rights. Which is why fighting it is also a battle for the freedom of the individual, for his dignity, rights and security. The anti-terrorist coalition is underpinned by a foundation of universal values. Hence, too, the great dilemma of the democratic world of how to fight terrorism without infringing on universal human rights in the process. Insensitivity would enable the terrorists to achieve their goal, to steer the world away from its democratic tradition, its achievements and universal values. This huge dilemma also surfaced with the otherwise completely justified NATO air raids on Milosevic's Serbia and Yugoslavia. It is a dilemma the world is now again facing with the military strikes in Afghanistan. It is a difficult dilemma, since any hesitation would be seen by the terrorists as weakness on the part of the democratic world in confronting the terrorist evil. This was also seen in the Balkans, in Milosevic's political game, in which he constantly taunted his international collocutors, believing them incapable of reaching a consensus on military intervention.

Global challenges demand an understanding of the global nature of problems and global responsibility. Global responsibility is trailing far behind globalised markets, globalised technology, information, ecology and other contemporary phenomena. It is obvious that existing mechanisms, too, the structure and possibilities of the UN, cannot carry out this responsibility. Hence also occasional subsidiary coalitions, such as the present anti-terrorist one. Global responsibility starts with the responsibility of every single state. Every state is responsible for what it does at home, that its actions do not pose a threat to other countries and common values. At the same time, every state must responsibly respond to such action on the part of other countries that could pose a threat to common peace, security and prosperity. Global responsibility means that states may not, in the name of a pre-modern interpretation of sovereignty, undertake actions within their own borders that are in conflict with the values of the democratic world and that threaten the security of other states, the security of the international community and of life on the planet. They cannot, for instance, commit systematic mass violations of human rights through state or para-state terror, as was the case recently in Kosovo. Nor can they ignore such activity and isolate themselves behind the virtual security of their own borders. The principle of sovereignty and non-interference, protected by international law as a fundamental principle, must acquire a more modern interpretation.

This issue was debated at last year's Millennium Summit at the UN General Assembly. Humanitarian intervention by the international community into the actions of states that threaten the fundamental values of civilisation through systematic mass violations of human rights is now in principle acceptable. The International War Crimes Tribunal for Ruanda and the former Yugoslavia is also a step in this direction.

It is obvious that a global world also requires global governance. The world has become a single, great, interconnected society, full of contradictions but with practically no common, binding rules. Those that may exist in the declarative documents of the UN, for instance, are not entirely appropriate. No society, let alone a global one, can exist without subjecting itself to certain rules. Its potential chaos otherwise subjects it to the rule of force and the superiority of the stronger.

More than ever before we must reflect, together with the UN, on an instance or a system of instances common to all states, whereby nation states would grant that system full authority - based on their own global responsibility – to act to the benefit of a dynamic developmental balance and the positive effects of a globalised world for all.

This might seem utopian, but it is so only at first glance. In the times ahead, we will require legitimacy for the system of institutions with the authority and competence to prescribe common rules binding on us all, rules whose application these institutions will be able to oversee; in order, too, for these institution to set rules limiting global crime, drug trafficking, child labour and other deviations of globalisation; in order for the advantages of a global world not to be first abused by international terrorism and crime, as has regrettably already happened.

In order to ensure a balanced development of the global world, co-operation must be added to competition as the leading principle of coexistence of the several human worlds and as the main driving force of development. This goes both for the world of politics and the world of economics. A world of disappearing borders between countries does not lead automatically to co-operation and integration. A world without borders can also lead to loss of human and cultural identity and loss of security. All of us have a home somewhere, each of us has a home port in some spiritual and social tradition. Forced uprooting leads to rejection, resistance and violence. A global world, therefore, also requires global democracy. For it is first and foremost democracy that is now under threat and attack. Democracy can no longer be established merely as partial democracy in just a single country, or just one part of the world. It is also not just the sum of the will of nation states' political elites.

Democratic governance of the future world has to see the involvement of all its crucial factors, including global capital, and they must all accept their share of responsibility. This also applies to the already globalised civil movements that raise their voice against the profiteering linearity of global capital, resisting the 'robbing' of nature, monopolistic handling of information and which support the protection of children's rights, equality of women, universal health standards on all continents, and so on. These movements respond to the problems of globalisation in a different way than political elites. Nevertheless, in a democratic discourse, they could tread common ground with democratic state authorities and global financial and political institutions, as well as a fundamentally reformed UN,.

In today's world, the United States bear a major share of the responsibility for the future of mankind; but Europe, too, has its share of responsibility that it cannot forego. There would be no excuse for that. Europe must take an active part in the dialogue on the future of the world. It will complete this mission provided it is autonomous in its peculiarities and as a result of its peculiarities. In order to do so, though, it must first engage in dialogue with itself, a dialogue among the differences and those who are different within Europe. A Europe divided and antagonised, a Europe with remnants of old, or even buds of new, divisions cannot be successful in such dialogue. Joining the anti-terrorist alliance, which was decided on by states individually and not by Europe as a whole, also demonstrates that we remain primarily Slovenes, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, etc. rather than Europeans. Such a Europe stubbornly resists the demands of the new era. True, Europe as a specific civilisational and geographic entity lives with the plurality of its own political environment, national differences, ethnic minorities, the influx of population from other continents, racial coexistence, the presence of numerous, not only Christian religions, the still gaping abyss between occidental and orthodox Christianity and, not least, with a large number of small nation states. But circumstances support the expectation that Europe will truly become and area of respect for differences, tolerance and cooperation, that the dialogue among all, both large and small, will enable it to consolidate its views and positions as to its own future and the future of the world.

The processes of EU and NATO enlargement can therefore be seen primarily as processes of overcoming and alleviating European divisions and strengthening European integration. With all due understanding of the difficulty of institutional and other internal changes within the EU, the slow pace and inconsistency of reforms nevertheless cannot face up to the evident urgency of enlargement. So much more so if we view enlargement as an enlargement of the area of common democratic values, peace, security, development and prosperity. In this case, the unilateral conditions set by individual member states to individual candidate countries, thus closing the door to the EU notwithstanding the general requirements, also become unacceptable. So the recent intervention of the European Commission into Austria's demands over several years towards the Czech Republic regarding the Temelin nuclear power station is so encouraging. The message this intervention sends is clear and optimistic: no member state may use bilateral issues to prevent a candidate country's accession if that country meets the criteria that are common and equal for all.

Russia holds a particularly sensitive position in a future Europe. It is becoming increasingly clear that Russia, as a Eurasian country, cannot be excluded from the European arena. It is precisely the anti-terrorist alliance that has demonstrated how useful and indispensable an ally Russia is. Its special position cannot affect EU enlargement, nor even NATO enlargement, unless it is still understood as an anti-Russian pact. Now is the opportunity for both NATO countries and Russia to prove by way of co-operation that such an understanding of NATO is a thing of the past.

Europe, too, requires a single instance to decide on behalf of European values and interests. That could be the European Union, provided its internal reforms are carried through, provided it has its own 'constitution' and provided enlargement does occur at the announced dates. A dialogue on the future of Europe is already under way within the EU. A step forward must be made by introducing into the dialogue on European positions and views on the future of the global world and its challenges the cognition that not only peace is indivisible, but also nature, prosperity, social justice and the right to different views on the meaning of life for humans, as individuals and as members of different religious and ethnic groups or races.

The question that remains is whether Europe, such as it is now, is capable of responding to the challenges of a global world through synergy. It is responding to this question with its positions and actions in its south east. The fact is that an extraordinary amount of international effort and funding has been invested into bringing peace and long-term stability to the Balkans, but nevertheless the situation has not developed much further than a state of 'neither war nor peace'. This cannot be justified solely by the complexity of the situation. Sooner or later a critical look at the international community's, the EU's and individual European states' actions will have to be taken. At this point, however, I believe that it is essential to answer two fundamental questions:

1. Are the Balkans truly so different a part of Europe that the principles and relations applying elsewhere in Europe since the adoption of the Helsinki charter do not apply there, and
2. Is it possible to accept the frequent statement by the politicians of nations in the region that 'they can never live together again'?