VALUABLE TESTIMONIES FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE STUDIES OF THE PROCESS OF SLOVENIA'S GAINING OF INDEPENDENCE
Opening of the international scientific conference on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of independence and the departure of the last troops of the Yugoslav Army
Scientific Research Centre Koper

Koper, 25 October 2001

At today's ceremony President Milan Kucan reminded of the key characteristics of Slovenia's gaining of independence. In President Kucan's opinion the birth of the Republic of Slovenia of today is most closely linked to law. »It came into existence and established itself in international life by consciously basing itself on law and its application.« Kucan also added, that »this orientation and the principle of legality were first and foremost a consequence drawn from the cognition in the erstwhile state-political structure of Slovenia that it is legal argumentation and not the politics of force and accomplished facts that count in a modern world which justifies itself and its relations on the rule of law and human rights".
In closing his address, the President also touched on current topical issues and voiced his positions on the state's response regarding the overcoming of the consequences of events during World War II and the mass summary executions immediately thereafter. Inter alia, he said that »there is no excuse for collaboration and there is no excuse for summary executions.« »A crime is a crime. The perpetrators must be held responsible. The dead deserve our dignified memory and peace, regardless of the varied judgments as to their possible errors. This has to be done and a mature nation is capable of doing so.«

The initiative of the Scientific Research Centre in Koper to prepare, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of an independent Slovenian state and the departure of JNA units from Slovenia, a scientific conference on this probably the greatest act we Slovenes have accomplished in the process of our maturing into a nation, is deserving of praise. It was with pleasure that I took over the patronage of this conference. Granted, ten years are not very long, at least not long enough to be able to objectively and critically evaluate from a certain distance in time the events and the circumstances in which and due to which these events occurred. In a way, this time gone by is nevertheless still our present time; in these ten years the past and the present have not yet broken their link, a link so fateful in many respects, as this past is still alive and still has a strong influence on our conscience and on our present actions, on the positions we take and the value judgments we make. But nevertheless, the elapsed time of these ten years already gives the science of history an opportunity to objectively research and evaluate - from an adequate distance and applying its scientific methods and instruments - Slovenia's efforts for an independent state, the internal and external circumstances dictating and enabling it, as well as the objective course of action and behaviour of the erstwhile institutions of Slovenian government and its leaders. Back then, Slovenia's act stimulated and today continues to raise interest abroad, as is proven by the participation of esteemed foreign experts at this conference. I should like to welcome and thank them most particularly.

Today, quite tidy written and other material sources from that period are available, although still not all of them, for some have been alienated for different but definitely unacceptable reasons and are now in private hands, while many very important documents are in the archives of the former federal state and will only become accessible with the entry into force of the agreement on the succession of successor states. Nevertheless, even those material sources that are available constitute a valuable contribution and corrective factor to the subjective, memory-based views, which prevailed to date as to the events of the time, their explanations and valuations. Memory and personal understanding are without a doubt an extremely important and precious source for the presentation of erstwhile events and for their comprehension. It is good that such conferences, harbouring expert and even scientific ambitions, are also an opportunity to hear the views and interpretations of those directly involved in the events, who saw independence also as their own personal project and who identified themselves with it. These testimonies will definitely be valuable to all current and future studies of the course of Slovenia’s gaining of independence, the dilemmas related to it, the uncertainties and anxieties, the political, legal, diplomatic and other backgrounds, the decisions and the decision-making itself, the relations as well as the mistrust between those directly involved in the decisions. A living person is a completely different witness from a piece of paper.

Ten years is a period after which the memory is still relatively fresh and comprehensive, and its accuracy still reliable. Unfortunately, human memory is fallible and becomes increasingly selective over the years. Regardless of that, I am convinced that the results of this conference, together with those from a similar conference in Bre¾ice this spring, will provide an important new contribution to serious historical analysis also of the more profound reasons behind the dissolution of the former common state and the justification of Slovenia's decision in favour of disassociation and independence. Such an analysis would also answer the many misunderstandings and wrong interpretations that continue to exist throughout the world with regard to the erstwhile events on the territory of the former Yugoslavia as well as to Slovenia's role.

It is my firm belief that it is not only the phenomenon of Slovenian independence but also the manner of gaining this independence that is of interest to history as well as other disciplines of science, such as law, political science and sociology. It is a well-known fact that Slovenia based and justified its decision on the right to self-determination, as provided by the then Yugoslav Constitution as well as international documents, particularly the UN Charter. It is less known, however, what the political, economic, security and other circumstances in Yugoslavia were at that time, circumstances which put Slovenia in a position where it practically had no other choice but to materialise that right. On could say that the maturing process of Slovenia's decision for an independent state developed and gained in strength within the process of an escalating general crisis in the erstwhile Yugoslav society and state, that the prospect of independence grew clearer with the disintegration of prospects for the common state, its survival and confirmation of its justification in new historical and international circumstances. It is also rather less known what the actual international circumstances and interests were that dictated the positions, assessments and attitudes of the international community as to Yugoslavia, as to the crisis which was shaking and relentlessly scorching it in a manner sufficiently recognizable also to the international community, and where the reasons were – at least at the beginning – for the strict and unfavourably disposed position towards Slovenia's project of independence in spite of its high legitimacy and moral justification. Was it just a shock provoked by an unexpected conflict at a time when it seemed that after the fall of the Berlin Wall a long-awaited period of mutual understanding and co-operation had come to reign over Europe, a consequence of the traumatic coming to terms with the fact that war had come to Europe once again after 50 years, or did the reasons lie elsewhere?

Granted, the diplomatic aspect of independence was particularly interesting and important, but it only became possible or gained full validity with the conclusion of the military conflict in June and July of 1991. We first had to win that war. How that victory was possible remains an equally important yet still unanswered question, interesting without a doubt also for historians. Shedding light on these answers would most probably help in understanding at least in part the problems that the international community has been facing to this very day despite the undisputedly high level of involvement in the stabilisation of the situation on the territory of the former Yugoslavia and in all of South-Eastern Europe.

Allow me to raise attention to two crucial characteristics – to my mind - of the manner of Slovenia's gaining of independence, which were not sufficiently recognised and evaluated in similar fora to date. The first is the consistent insistence on the principle of legality throughout the process of gaining independence. The birth of the Republic of Slovenia of today is most closely linked to law. It came into existence and established itself in international life through consciously basing itself on the law and its application. This orientation and the principle of legality was first and foremost a consequence of the cognition in the erstwhile state-political structure of Slovenia that it is legal argumentation and not the politics of force and accomplished facts that count in a modern world, which justifies itself and its relations on the rule of law and human rights. They were also a consequence of the cognition that the legal justification of Slovenia's political action in the dispute with Belgrade ever since the mid eighties was the most reliable guarantee for preventing federal authorities from wiping out the achievements of democratic development in Slovenia by proclaiming a state of emergency. In terms of decisive political factors the cognition prevailed, although not in a simple way, that carrying out this unique historic act legally was important not only for the act of independence itself, but also for the further internal development of the state and its society, for the international recognition of the Republic of Slovenia, for its position in the international community and its chances of participation in international integration processes.

The decision for the path of legally justifying the right to self-determination and its implementation was confirmed as correct and successful. Already the amendments of 1989 to the erstwhile Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia provided the legal basis for securing the permanent, integral and inalienable right of the Slovenian nation to self-determination and democratic political and economic reforms. The then Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia thus gained the authority to adopt measures for the protection of the constitutionally defined status of the Republic of Slovenia in the event that the federal authorities would intervene into Slovenia's constitutional status thus violating their own constitutionally defined competencies. The constitutionally regulated status and position of the Republic of Slovenia in the framework of the common state of Yugoslavia as an internationally recognised entity and the constitutional path towards disassociation from the former common state were instrumental in the international community's recognition of Slovenia's status as an entity of international law following its independence, in recognising the borders that the Republic of Slovenia as part of Yugoslavia had with Italy, Austria and Hungary as well as the neighbouring Republic of Croatia.

The fact that the decision for the Republic of Slovenia to become an independent and sovereign state was adopted at a plebiscite as regulated by law and by the constitution was decisive in the process of the Republic of Slovenia developing into an independent and sovereign state. The will of the people was thus convincingly expressed in the most democratic and legally acceptable manner. The law on the plebiscite on the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Slovenia regulated in legal terms the relationship between the legality and the legitimacy of this act. Following long political discussions, it was finally also legal arguments that prevailed alongside political ones. The solution that was adopted was that a plebiscite decision would be valid if the majority of the electoral body and not only of those that cast their votes was in favour. This gave the plebiscite such a high level legality and legitimacy that it turned out as the crucial argument in the later efforts for international recognition of Slovenia in generally quite unfavourably disposed external circumstances.

The commitment to law came to the forefront in several documents in the process of Slovenia's developing into an independent and sovereign state. Let me just mention the Statement of Good Intentions at the occasion of the plebiscite, the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on Independence and Sovereignty of the Republic of Slovenia of 25 June 1991, the Constitutional Law for the implementation of this fundamental charter, and the Declaration of Independence. Through these acts the Republic of Slovenia legally took on all those rights and obligations which were transferred to the federal bodies of the SFRY by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and the Constitution of the SFRY; it took over the application of international treaties concluded by Yugoslavia and pertaining to the Republic of Slovenia; it regulated the application of those federal regulations which were in force in the Republic of Slovenia at the time, provided they did not counter its system of laws. And, what is of particular importance, it guaranteed the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms to all persons on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, regardless of their ethnicity, without discrimination, in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia then in force and in line with the international treaties in force. It particularly guaranteed all rights to the Italian and Hungarian ethnic communities and their members in the Republic of Slovenia. It was these very decisions that made it possible for Slovenia to be rapidly and unproblematically accepted to the UN in 1992 and the Council of Europe in 1993.

Respect for law, the principles of constitutionality and legality as well as for international law is not a one time act which occurred in the historical process of the gaining of independence of the Republic of Slovenia. The legally regulated and justified manner of Slovenia's independence is interesting also in comparison to the independence processes in other republics of the former Yugoslavia. This path towards independence is not only a great achievement and a valuable experience, it also forms the basis and the yardstick for evaluating any subsequent actions in the Slovenian state. The adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia in December 1991 undoubtedly constituted the legal pinnacle of forming an independent and sovereign Republic of Slovenia, while its international recognition in early 1992 was confirmation of its being an entity of international law. Certain important issues remained open, particularly the issue of legal succession to the former common state of Yugoslavia, succession to the Austrian State Treaty and the fulfilment of all obligations from the Osimo Treaties, both of which are of extreme importance to Slovenia and to Slovenes, as well as the legal regulation of open issues with the Republic of Croatia, including the border at sea, which was not defined in the Yugoslav federation.

The second characteristic of Slovenia's independence is the implementation of this decision as a disassociation and not as secession. Thus Slovenia followed its historical decisions on a voluntary association into a common state in 1918, at the second session of AVNOJ in 1943 and a host of subsequent constitutional decisions in the new common state. Unfortunately the legal offer for an amicable disassociation of the Republic of Slovenia from all the members of the federation was not accepted. I am firmly convinced that consent to the proposals put forward by the Republic of Slovenia for an amicable disassociation could have prevented the tragedies of war taking many human lives and causing great material damage on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, of which I became convinced also by the numerous subsequent meetings with the key players in the events of the time in other republics of the former common state and their central bodies. It would have allowed for all the issues of succession to be settled to everyone's benefit. We could have gone down in history along with other examples of amicable disassociation, such as Sweden and Norway in 1905, the former Soviet Union in 1991, as well as Czechoslovakia in 1992. This is certainly one of those aspects of Slovenia's independence, which could be of great interest to historians, also in light of the interesting circumstance of the coming into existence of the former Yugoslavia, the sequence of its continuity and discontinuity during and after World War II. This differentiation between secession and disassociation bears more than just theoretical importance for the state forming history of Slovenians and for practical consequences, also as regards the state's legal succession,.

It would be going beyond the purpose of such a scientific conference, but it will not be possible to fully steer clear of the question to what extent the image of Slovenia today, an independent state of Slovenia, coincides with the expectations of the citizens who voted in favour of independence at the plebiscite referendum in December of 1990. This depends on the expectations, which differed, for sure, at a personal level. Yet the state should have responded with more sensitivity in at least two issues. Firstly, regarding the relentless process of social stratification of the Slovenian society, which pushed part of our citizens or even whole groups of them to the social margins, to the edge of poverty and a life without a future, although one cannot say that the key processes of transition, particularly the process of privatisation, failed to take account of the threshold of social stamina of the Slovenian people or even that Slovenia is not a welfare state. The state should also have responded more sensitively and responsibly with regard to overcoming the events during World War II and the summary executions immediately thereafter, which continue to divide Slovenians today and exceedingly turn attention towards the past. I believe that now, 10 years into its life, the state is mature enough to undertake the necessary actions to put an end to these disputes and exclusionist divisions. Several attempts at achieving this were already made. The plebiscite itself was the most authentic act of this kind. Even before that a reconciliatory ceremony was held in Rog, followed later by very concrete proposals adopted formally by the National Assembly on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and with the adoption of the Law on the Rectification of Injustices. But all these acts were not successful and the conclusions were not implemented. It seems as though we were not mature enough for such an act of moral strength of a nation, that we weren't capable of it or that there was not sufficient political interest. Yet we must do so. We have to face our past, accept it and not allow it to continue burdening ourselves and dividing new generations. This must be done with all reverence for the dead and by relinquishing the bad habit of the dead serving the living for their political encounters, of the accusations of ones serving as justification for others. There is no excuse for collaboration and there is no excuse for summary executions. A crime is a crime. The perpetrators have to be held responsible. The dead deserve our dignified memory and peace, regardless of the varied judgments as to their possible errors. This has to be done and a mature nation is capable of doing so. At the same time this will provide the answer as to where we want to place our past. To what extent will we allow our past to exert pressure on our present. The past cannot serve as our platform. Living in the past means only accepting the curse of never-ending vengeance, which time and again forces sons to punish the sons of others for their fathers' sins. Staying in the past and continuing the battles of the past would be forgetting ourselves, forgetting that we are our own people, the people of our time, that we carry the responsibility for our time and that we must be open to the challenges of the future. Immense tasks lie ahead of us in order to secure and develop Slovenian national identity and ensure a future for Slovenehood inside the EU and in a global, often coarse world. We owe this to the generations to come, we owe this to all those generations who dreamt the dream of an independent Slovenia and we owe it to ourselves and to our decision at the plebiscite 11 years ago, which gave birth to the independent state of Slovenia. It is namely not true that we Slovenians share completely the same views as to the future and that we differ only in our understanding and our valuation of the past. It would be more true to say that we seek arguments for differing views on our future in the past. That is why – and also because the state has not fully completed its task – we so traumatically extend this past into our present and do not want to hand it over to history, to you distinguished historians.

I wish you every success in your work and a pleasant and kind stay in Slovenia to our guests from abroad.