MONACO WORLD FORUM
Speech by teh President of the Republic of Slovenia Milan Kucan

Monte Carlo (Monaco), 20 November 1999



The winds of war have died down in Kosovo and Serbia. For some time now they have been replaced by the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. This pact should bring to the Balkans new foundations for coexistence, security, renewal and development. In this way the international community has chosen a path to stabilise that flashpoint of crisis. Via the Pact, Europe is reaching into its own south eastern part, so that all the countries of that region may in time more easily enter into Europe and its integrations and institutions. It is still too early to judge whether this idea will be successful. Yet it is not too late to ask ourselves what the circumstances were behind the setting up of the Stability Pact, and what the possibilities are for it to successfully complete its mission and end centuries of conflict. These are still key questions, for we have yet to hear any concerted response to them from all those who assumed responsibility for resolving the crisis in South Eastern Europe. Without this response we will never be able to say: “We understand the past, and we may therefore look to the future with confidence in our work”.

It is not possible at one single meeting to formulate a precise answer to these questions. But such deliberation does make great sense, if it can ultimately lead to a common recognition of the causes of today’s circumstances in South Eastern Europe and of the urgent measures of the international community to ensure that the bloody history of the Balkans will never be repeated.

It is a thankless task to delve into the past, unless you are a historian. But political leaders should take account of historical records in order to grasp the reasons for current and recent events. After all, it is politicians who have caused the tragic events in the Balkans, where the consequences are now expected to be eradicated by the international community by means of the Stability Pact.

Political circles – and by this I mean the string of winners of the numerous Balkan wars – have in that part of the world employed diktat to draw political maps, to determine the borders between states and identify the masters. But they have given no regard to ethnic boundaries and to people's cultural identity. For this reason there is no other area in Europe where nations are so mixed within individual states as they are in the Balkans. I can say in all certainty that, south of Slovenia, there simply are no ethnically homogeneous territories, let alone countries. Slovenia itself has two autochthonous minorities, albeit small in number, from 3,000 to 12,000 people, and it also has more than 100,000 naturalised Slovenians. Their ethnic rights, which differ in quality for the autochthonous minorities and for immigrants, are one of the fundamental conditions for stability and democracy in the society and country that I come from. At the same time Slovenia also has ethnic communities in Italy, Austria and Hungary, and people of Slovenian origin live on the Croatian side of the border with Slovenia.

In this multiethnic area, the second half of the present century has seen a national awakening of the sort that marked Europe in the nineteenth century. The recent belated rise of the nationalist idea appears anachronistic and also conceals the clash with a totalitarian regime, which is using the nationalist idea as its political manifesto, especially in the area of the former Yugoslavia, yet this idea is a reality, which in the final analysis, and partly through a lack of understanding in the international community, has caused the bloody conflicts. Even people who opposed the aggressive nationalism of their totalitarian political elite were drawn into the maelstrom of war, or else they were punished or had to emigrate.

Furthermore, those who drew the political maps of the Balkans neglected the fact that the Balkans is a meeting point of three major religions and their associated civilisations – the Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims. They had at their disposal two simple choices: to draw a boundary line along the meeting point of civilisations, or to foresee the consequences of civilisations interweaving in each of these countries. The first solution would not have been realistic, for there are no clear boundaries which could serve to lay out Yalta Conference lines or other forerunners of the Berlin Wall. And the second solution seems to be too demanding for politicians when they think that they are making history, while in truth they are carving up spheres of interest.

The consequences are here and now. The Balkans is not accustomed to life with ethnic and religious minorities. In nationalist doctrines, minorities are a blemish on the nation’s body, and must be removed. The Serbs of Knin did not want to become a minority in the Croatian nation-state, and the Croatians were not capable of giving the Serb minority the rights which would have guaranteed them security and autonomy. The Hungarians of Vojvodina are demanding economic autonomy. The Montenegrins want their own state in order to survive, for the present totalitarian state will not allow development. The Muslims of Sand¾ak are demanding a high level of autonomy or else secession from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Ten years ago the Serbs stripped the Kosovo Albanians of formal autonomy, and completely excluded them from public and economic life, and a few months ago they used state terror to expel them from Kosovo or kill them. The military intervention by Nato, with its humanitarian motivation, was therefore deeply justified. Western civilisation could not tolerate such aggression against ordinary people. But the pacification of one aggression is now being followed by the pay-back aggression of others.

Why so many words about the past? There are two reasons. Firstly, we must understand the past in order to determine a policy for the future. Secondly, I wish specifically to draw attention to the fact that Europe shares responsibility for the situation in the Balkans. Together with its allies across the Atlantic, it has so far been fulfilling its responsibility through the Dayton accords, the Nato intervention and the arrival of a civilian administration in Kosovo.

Today we can state that the situation there is better than it was, although still far from what we all wish for South Eastern Europe, and in particular the western Balkans.

Ethnically mixed areas now need the kind of politics and states that are different from the traditional nation-state. But they do not need economic nationalism, which in many respects still prevails even in the advanced parts of Europe, as a remnant of political nationalism at the end of this century and the start of the next one.

So what are the possible measures that could bring to South Eastern Europe more lasting security and stability, and facilitate renewal and development? We will never be able to foresee all of these measures, but we can at least formulate some that are more important and realistically most feasible at this moment. Each one of these measures will be simply one stepping-stone on a long and steep path towards the establishing of European standards in South Eastern Europe. Nothing will be changed overnight, and nothing will be different in ten years, if the international community does not take carefully considered measures right now. Permit me to set out some of these measures which to my mind deserve special attention:

1. A common consideration, by all countries that are prepared to help, of the historical causes of the incessant conflict in the Balkans, in order to understand the state of mind there and to avoid certain stereotypes, such as the supposed genetic defect of the Balkan peoples and their genocidal nature.

2. A common consideration with the countries of South Eastern Europe on the paths that can lead to a substance and form of democracy in these areas that will be founded on universal values but which will at the same time accommodate the traditions of these nations. Even in the widest possible diversity, the cornerstone is a state ruled by law and human rights, since without such a state there can be no prospect of stability. Such a state might also relieve people of the need to have a deity on Earth, and free them from being eternally subordinated to the idea of the greater nation as the supreme idea.

3. Helping to ensure that the heads of the three major religions in the crisis areas together assume their share of responsibility for security, tolerance, solidarity and the coexistence of diversity.

4. Under the aegis of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, promoting those activities which will enable the people, nations and states of this area to channel their enormous energy towards their own development. People in that area now need work rather than simply humanitarian aid, they need investment for development rather than missionaries.

5. Stabilising, at least for the time being, the current borders between states, even though the desires and interests in the circumstances of that region are against this. Together with the peoples of those states, deliberating the position and role of minorities, who may either be a subject of dispute and conflict, or a positive point of contact between nations. Stable borders are also a condition for security, and thus for the renewal of the Balkans, renewal which should establish European standards of life and politics. Different borders in the future may only be brought about in line with the Helsinki Final Act, given the sensitivity of changes for peace and stability, and particularly for the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Dayton accords. In other words, only with the consent of those affected, or in the very last resort so that an ethnic community may free itself from totalitarian hegemony in multiethnic states, by exercising the right to self-determination.

6. Endeavouring to secure the values of a modern citizens’ state, with the guaranteed equality of citizens, and with concern for the preservation of the national identity of all the peoples in its territory. Borders open for goods, services, capital, people and ideas are a condition for the development of such states. Openness of borders also accords with the fact that states are no longer simply accountable to themselves for their actions, but also to others, for in our globalised world nothing takes place any longer in one country without it influencing other countries.

7. Coming to agreement on the aims, interests and method of assistance from Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance – without which military conflicts would still be raging – if such assistance is to be effective. The unity of the international community is the primary condition for security and renewal in the Balkans. This is the decisive point upon which the world will justify in the long term the historic sense of the Nato intervention.

8. Training the UN civilian administration in Kosovo to operate for a long period of time. During this time the administration must make up for the trust that has been destroyed between the largest ethnic groups, set up new foundations for coexistence, guarantee high standards of protection for minorities, establish conditions for the normalisation of life, especially the legal order, democratic institutions, records, administration, justice, security, local self-government, the financial and banking system and mechanisms for preventing international organised crime and corruption, ensure cooperation with the international war crimes tribunal and incorporate into the administering of Kosovo the political representatives of all ethnic groups.

9. Supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Montenegrin people to political emancipation, democracy and market freedom, aspirations that are a response to pressure from the unyielding authoritarian political regime in Belgrade. The possibility of opting for an independent Montenegrin state should be understood only as an ultimate way out, when all other possibilities for the democratisation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have been exhausted. In any event, the international community must provide assistance so that democracy in Montenegro can gain a legitimate opportunity.

Slovenia lies on the stable margins of the unstable Balkans. For this reason it is all the more ready to cooperate in establishing security and renewal in the Balkans. Seventy years of political experience in this part of Europe provide a solid background for Slovenia’s commitment here.

We are discussing the future of the Balkans exactly ten years after the demolition of the Berlin Wall. And we would not be demonstrating due responsibility to this great event, if we were to forget that the bricks of that wall still lie among the people of Europe; and that responsibility is borne by all of us to ensure that these bricks will not be used to build new walls between the peoples and countries of Europe, not even in the Balkans and not to exclude South Eastern Europe. Cooperation and solidarity among nations must render impossible any thought of war. Responsibility for this lies across all of Europe, and therefore in the Russian Federation, too. But that is another story, which in view of events in Chechnya, and whether we like it or not, demands increasing attention.