Traditional press conference of the President of the Republic of Slovenia,
Milan Kucan, on the occasion of National Day (Draft translation of transcript)
Ljubljana, 15.06.2001

MILAN KUCAN
Ladies and gentlemen, we're in the same hall we were in ten years ago, I see many familiar faces from Slovenia and abroad, many old friends. I am glad to be able to welcome you here today, ten years on, and thank you for what you have done for Slovenia at that time and what you have been doing for Slovenia as you continued to watch us after our country had been born. My initial assessment of the 10 years gone by is that those 10 years were successful for Slovenia. Many objective results bear witness to that, results which Slovenia achieved in this time, results achieved in the political sphere. Today Slovenia is a stable political democracy with developed institutions, it is based on the rule of law and a high level of promotion and protection of human dignity and human rights. This assessment can also be justified by economic achievements, both macro-economic ones and those that are objectively comparable in an international context and which are also contained in international ratings. It can be justified by achievements in the international arena, in light of the fact that today Slovenia is member of all major international institutions and that it is standing on the threshold of the European Union and NATO, and also in terms of its development potential, which is high. I will not burden you with figures, they are all available to you and I will leave their interpretation up to you.

What has been achieved is a result of the work done to date by all Slovenian Governments, ministers, members of parliament, other state institutions, enterprises, and primarily a result of the understanding and involvement of the citizens of the Republic of Slovenia. I find it particularly important to stress this as Slovenian public opinion polls ever since 1991 have also included this question: "If you had the possibility of choosing the country you live in, would you choose Slovenia?". This year again, 90 percent of those surveyed answered they would chose Slovenia and that percentage has remained virtually unchanged throughout the ten years. I am mentioning this because there is a difference between an objective assessment and a subjective one, or rather between the objective state of affairs and a subjective opinion. Considering our Slovenian character, the subjective assessment is usually worse than the objective situation. In this case, however, it is very positive and encouraging.

An assessment of the success of these 10 years is also found in the comparison of what has been achieved with the expectations invested in the Slovenian state at its birth. Expectations ran high then and were to a high extent underpinned by the situation in the erstwhile Yugoslavia. Allow me briefly to remind you of it. At that time, 10 years ago, the situation in Yugoslavia saw no way out and had no prospects. The state was in a profound economic and political crisis. Time ran a different pace in Yugoslavia than in Europe. At that time, Europe was already tearing apart the seams of the erstwhile block division; it was the time of bringing down the Berlin wall, the time of Germany's reunification, the time foretold by the profound changes in the Soviet Union of the time. Europe set it eyes on the future . The idea of a united Europe, liberated of its historic mortgages, suddenly seemed very realistic, Europe was lifted by a giant wave of optimism. Perhaps there was more optimism as to Europe's future at that time than there is today. In contrast to Europe, Yugoslavia at that time set its eyes on the past, it was fighting battles of the past. The crisis triggered a historical process of the formation of the ethnic communities living in Yugoslavia into nations, a process held back by life in the former common state. Yet these nations never relinquished their sovereignty. The federal structure enabled and ensured this. In a situation of violent intervention into the principles of equality and sovereignty of nations through political violence, in a situation of economic, political and social crisis, Slovenia reached for its right to self-determination, which it had never relinquished, and which was also guaranteed by the Constitution of 1974/1975. The Croats acted the same and were soon also followed by the Macedonians and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Yugoslavia in those times appeared as a historical anachronism. Europe was uniting, the nations of Yugoslavia we disassociating. It is important to state, though, that they were disassociating in order for those who saw their future in European integration to also be able to do so. Unfortunately, not all wanted this. Slovenia did. Yugoslavia then also fought battles to keep the past using historically overcome means of integrating a multinational community. The instruments it used were ideology, the communist party, and the army. It was not capable of establishing new relations of equality, based on a platform allowing Yugoslavia's participation in European trends and clearing the road to European integration. It should have been a platform of democracy, human rights, free market and development. It could have been a platform which would have reintegrated the country on new foundations and enabled a new quality of relations between the nations that lived in that country. This was the objective interest of all nations, but it was not the interest of Yugoslavia's political elite, as such a platform and such an orientation would necessarily also intervene in the inherited and acquired privileges of the erstwhile party, state and military structures. In spite of this and in spite of such a discouraging situation in the Yugoslavia of those times, Slovenian expectations at the birth of its new country were much more ambitious and affirmative. It was not simply a desire to rid oneself of the shackles of the old state, it was not only a negation of all that was negative in that state. It was a desire for Slovenia's integration into processes of European integration. The fact that this ambition was possible is mainly the merit of Slovenia's openness, of the fact that the people living in Slovenia were able to compare their situation with the situation in Austria, in Italy, in our direct vicinity, which was part of the erstwhile European West. This desire was contained in all documents, which we call "Slovenia's independence documents". In the first one, the Statement of Good Intention which is very important and which led to the Slovenian plebiscite in 1990, then in the Fundamental Constitutional Charter and in the Declaration o Independence adopted on 25 June 1991. That is also where our ambition of entering the European Union, then still the Community, and NATO stems from. On our path towards where we find ourselves today, Slovenia had to make a step further. We had to create our own state, all its institutions and functions; we had to defend that state against a war forced on it immediately after its birth; we had to undergo peace negotiations; we had to replace the lost markets; we had to achieve international recognition; we had to enforce our own truth in the world about Yugoslavia's disintegration. In other words, we had to strive for the understanding of Slovenia's arguments and reasons for the disintegration of the common state. Let me also remind you that the circumstances in the world at that time were not favourably inclined to our action. It was difficult to understand what was going on in Yugoslavia, for a very long time Yugoslavia was present on the political map of the world as a factor of stability in the historically otherwise unstable Balkans. Yet we persisted. We had problems with finding understanding, there were also many speculations, which drag on to this day. Back then, it was not about gaining support for Slovenia against the others whom we lived with in Yugoslavia until then. It was about getting the world to understand what was going on. Some came to understand sooner, others later, yet I believe that there are very few of those left who wouldn't understand this today.

We also had to undergo the process of determining succession to the former common state of Yugoslavia. This procedure took a very long time, until it ended a few weeks ago in Vienna at negotiations led by Sir Watts and which still require a few specific agreements. However the principle has been adopted and that is important. And finally, all of this was happening after prolonged efforts of seeking understanding and support in Yugoslavia and abroad to achieve a peaceful dissolution of the former state. We were aware of the fact that Yugoslavia could disintegrate in a violent and tragic manner. That is why we proposed solutions which would have enabled us to have avoided violence. Those proposals, which most of you are aware of, included proposals on an asymmetric federation, a confederation, and primarily a proposal of an agreement on peaceful disassociation of the common state, all of which were unfortunately rejected. Aggressive Serb nationalism had a different understanding of the very essence of Yugoslavia and of its future. The state was dissolved, yet this fact was only recognised with the position of the so-called arbitration commission within the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia, headed by the former President of the French Constitutional court, Mr Badinter.

In making that step further, Slovenia also had to carry out all other reforms - economic, political and social - just like all the other so-called transition countries. In these processes Slovenia restructured its social system by consistently applying the principle of separation of powers. It limited the functions and the strength of the political system and provided for the independence of social subsystems: economy, culture, education, health, science. Today, these systems function relatively independently. All of this has ended well, yet this does not mean that there aren't any great weaknesses, mistakes and disadvantages. What Slovenia still has to complete is the process of privatisation, and in doing so try to maintain a high level of social cohesion which is under threat from differentiation stemming from that very process of privatisation, the consequences of which are also mentioned by the human development report, regardless of the fact that Slovenia has still maintained a high level of social cohesion and thus responded in its own way to last year's European Union summit in Lisbon, where this problem was discussed as one of the central challenges for a European Union of the future.

Slovenia also remains indebted to sustainable development, environmental protection, which it will have to focus on more closely. It is clear now that what Slovenia needs for its development is primarily knowledge, emphasis has to be placed on education, regardless of the amount now provided for this purpose - and this is the only figure that I will state - which is 8.5% of the gross domestic product. This percentage must be increased and, most importantly, used more rationally if we want Slovenia to become a state whose openness will provide for its own laboratories of ideas, if we want for those ideas to be based on a high level of knowledge and on our ability to produce new knowledge. Due to the aforementioned social cohesion, solidarity and relatively low levels of social exclusion, Slovenia is sufficiently solid to face the challenges and the traps of globalisation and competition. Increased technological development and along with it economic growth which we want to achieve are not an end in themselves, they are an efficient means of ensuring quality and human development. This is one of the ambitions that was born along with our country. In order to achieve this, though, it is imperative for all of us in this country, from its citizens to those managing the state to start thinking in a different way.

Firstly, we must move from satisfaction with the relatively successful macro-economic indicators towards the formation of a new concept of development; this concept is not fully defined in Slovenia. we are moving from a comparison of Slovenia with transition countries towards a much more ambitious comparison with European Union member states. Not those nearest to us or those that travelled a similar path to that of Slovenia, but those that are among the best developed, whereby it is clear that our ambitions must be above average, high quality and excellence based on knowledge.

Furthermore, we must move from investing into the past, into maintaining what exists, particularly existing economic and entrepreneurial structures, towards investment into the future, into change and development.

Furthermore, we must move from a consumer society to a creative society of individuals, where all have an opportunity and where the role of the civil society is particularly important.

Also, we must move from a highly politicised society, which is probably due to the manner in which this country came into existence, through negative selection and mutual exclusion, toward a society of positive selection, creative competition and co-operation. To move from a society dominated by partial and group interests, toward a society seeking the best possible consensus in defining and resolving crucial national, strategic problems and developmental goals, to move from a relatively closed and often needlessly xenophobic and provincial society into a open and competitive global economy and a learning society of internationally educated people who are open to the world, cosmopolitan and who bear their own national identity. And to move from a society of social rights guaranteed by the state and taken for granted, toward ensuring social cohesion based on lifelong learning, economic capacity and a shared responsibility of the people for their own development and for coexistence with a state that will also enable and encourage this shared responsibility. I firmly believe that, although it is not easy, we are capable of such active efforts for change thanks to the very nature of our people. There will certainly also be opposition. Strategic aspects of development and action for change usually break down the existing centres of power, of party-politics and economic decision-making as well as their privileges. They change the significance and the influence of individual lobbies and structures, in some aspects they change the system of values in life and in professional activity, and in social promotion. All of this is understandable, but it is not acceptable. Changes thus remain the main challenge for the next decade. I am trying to say that Slovenia not only has the institutions in which such changes can occur legitimately, legally and transparently, but also a transparent political environment where such changes can occur. This political environment is now undergoing a process of defining the profile of Slovenia's political parties. Not only the ideological profile, which had defined them to date, but also in terms of the social structure of the electoral body, since the Slovenian society is also very clearly already defining its profile, encouraged by the very process of privatisation and social differentiation. It is important, however, that this process overcomes the rather atypical definition of the profiles of political parties we had witnessed to date in terms of left and right, because the fundamental factor in parties' profiles in this respect remains their attitude towards the past.

I would like to stress that the process of forming a party democracy has unfortunately sucked in a large part of the civil society as the foundation of establishing a citizens' state. Now this civil society is being reborn, it has been particularly re-awakened by the referendum Slovenia will be voting on this Sunday. The civil society can be an important ally to these changes and it would be only right therefore, if we were to witness faster development on its part.

In these ten years all of the major Slovenian political parties have had their turn in power, in various coalitions. During the time it was in power, each of them demonstrated its own understanding of power, its patterns of governance, its interpretation of democracy. I am sure you too have your opinion on this, that Slovenian voters have an opinion on this, distributing their confidence to one party or the other. The fact is, that the latest elections have given Slovenia a strong, stable government with a strong parliamentary majority which it will keep for another three years. This, of course, will allow Slovenia to adopt more easily certain important decisions and prepare those decisions to be upheld by referendum - I am referring mainly to Slovenia's accession to the European Union and NATO enlargement. With such a stable government, it will be easier for Slovenia to reach consensus not only by way of a parliamentary majority, but also through this majority's position striving for very high precision in procedures, through achieving majority public support for their decisions and through efforts to generate the highest possible levels of support in public opinion.

True, the opposition in Slovenia is not very numerous, but that is not at issue. What is important is the quality of its work, the way in which it performs its function of the opposition as the controller of government. Both are needed for success: the quality of effective government and a sound, mature and responsible opposition. Slovenia now has the chance to strengthen both one and the other.

To summarise, I wish to emphasise that our decisions and our action in these ten years have ensured peace and stability for ourselves and for the world in this small part of Europe. I find it utterly important to stress that every nation bears responsibility for itself, for its development, peace and prosperity, co-operation with others and for the community. With independence, Slovenia assumed this responsibility towards itself and towards others. It did not do what it did at the expense of anyone else, nor to the detriment of the equal rights of others. It has also assumed responsibility towards others, for it sought and is still seeking, it offered and is still offering solutions that are legitimate and legal, which were based on the respect of fundamental values of democracy, on the principles of international law and the rule of law. Today, it is still involved in the efforts of the international community in seeking solutions for the long-term appeasement of the Balkans. It is involved in the Stability Pact, in the Royaumont initiative and in peace operations. It did so when Slovenia was at stake, loyal to its principles and consistent in its loyalty. What it does today is done with the same loyalty to these principles, also when the problems of others are being resolved, regardless of whether this is understood everywhere or whether it is welcome or sometimes even not welcome.

I would also like to stress that what we have achieved in ten years was achieved mainly on our own. When we went through the most difficult of times we had no Stability Pact, no financial assistance. What we had were friends in the world, countries which understood and supported us and worked together with us. We continue having these friends today, we are grateful, very grateful to them. We also made new friends, which bears witness to Slovenia's reputation and to its being a credible partner abroad. It was sometimes difficult for Slovenia to find its way, today this way is open and there are many friends who come and visit. After the initial reservations the world has recognised our being right. We are very proud of this recognition that we acted correctly then and that we are acting correctly now. The fact that the world changed its attitude toward Slovenia was also influenced by the developments in the former Yugoslavia, but it was mainly influenced by the successful path Slovenia has travelled. There is one more aspect I would like to introduce to you in conclusion. It is Slovenia's ambition regarding European integration, regarding EU and NATO membership. You are aware of these ambitions, they are built into the birth of the Slovenian state. Earlier, I mentioned Slovenia's European dimension as the crucial ambition that was innate into its birth. We wish to be a part of Europe for the sake of ourselves and for the sake of our future. We know, as many others in Europe know, that Europe has no other sound alternative, That is why I am an optimist. My optimism for the future is based on my conviction that no minutely responsible person in Europe - be it a politician or a statesman - doesn't want the alternative. The alternative would be a repetition of the past with all of the unkind and tragic circumstances it brought onto the people of Europe. We therefore want Europe to enlarge, we know the consequences of divisions in Europe and we also know and are afraid of the consequences of new divisions. We also wish for Europe to be able to carry its share of the responsibility for the development of mankind, in order for Europe to become one of the centres of a rising new human civilisation, for it to be capable of helping formulate answers to many a dilemma, which is perhaps only sensed today rather than being fully transparent on the horizon of what humanity will be facing and what it is already facing. Also important to us is the moral aspect of enlargement. Accession of Slovenia and other countries that lived in Europe's political east for 50 years to these two structures - the European Union and NATO - would constitute their ultimate return to the authentic civilisational environment of the western European civilisation where these nations and these states were historically formed. To us it would mean the ultimate recognition of the fact that the block divisions of Europe are over. After Nice, we believe that the European Union will enlarge, that this is an irreversible process. We understand the member states' dilemmas: this enlargement is qualitatively different from all the previous ones. There are many unknowns, but there are also answers. What is needed, of course, is courage on both sides. That is why I see enlargement as a parallel process directed toward the same goal: gradual enlargement of the European Union to all of Europe. Europe has its part to play in this process and each of the candidate countries has its part to play. The aim is enlargement by 2004, in time for European Parliament elections. Slovenia is completing its part of the task and will be ready by 2004. It is important that the European Union have criteria whereby every candidate country can assess on its own whether it is ready for accession in terms of meeting these criteria. Slovenia estimates that we are on a good track, that negotiations are going well and that we will soon be able to say that we have closed more than the 20 negotiating chapters we have closed to date. We therefore expect a de facto enlargement, an inclusion of the candidate countries into the debate on the future of the European Union. To us, it is not only essential when and how we enter the European Union, but also what kind of Union we will be entering. We expect to be judged by our own merits and do not want any country to be taken hostage by another country's lack of readiness, although we have never understood enlargement as a race between the candidates, but individual treatment is a great motivation for us. We would be glad if as many countries as possible would be prepared for enlargement at the same time. We do not want membership to be conditioned or prevented by any sort of unsolved issue in bilateral relations.

The same applies to NATO. Here, too, we believe that neither Europe nor the United States have a better solution. We see no contention between transforming the European Union into a political and defence union on the one hand and NATO on the other hand. NATO is a factor of peace and security, it is an integration expanding the sphere of stability and of values on which such stability is based to South East Europe and to the East. There was a lot of talk as to how enlargement is to take place and what Europe's vision should be in this respect on the occasion of US President George Bush's visits in Brussels and also yesterday in Gothenburg. This will also be the case in Warsaw, and I am convinced also tomorrow in Slovenia.

The criteria for accession to NATO are now stricter than they were a few years ago in Madrid. Not the political criteria, but mainly those pertaining to the candidate countries' defence and military readiness, particularly the army's capabilities. Slovenia is seriously and responsibly taking on this problem. A few days ago the session of the National Security Council took place, where measures were presented for Slovenia's defence - particularly the Slovenian Army - to develop its capacity and become interoperable with the armed forces of NATO member states. These measures were endorsed, shortly they will also be endorsed by the government and then by Parliament.

As you know, the NATO summit will be taking place in Prague next year. For the first time, it will be held to the east of the former block division. This fact in itself bears messages, very important messages for Europe's future. These messages would also be confirmed in material terms if invitations were issued to new member states. Following all that has been said, this will obviously also happen.

Slovenia is a country that is a centre of stability, it can contribute to stability in this part of Europe. It will be ready and therein lies the reason for optimism, since Slovenia has also received favourable assessments for its experience in peace operations, its participation in Partnership for Peace, and its political involvement in seeking solutions for peace in the Balkans.
Allow me to conclude. Against all that has been said, I will now return to my point of departure that these 10 years have been a success for Slovenia. Slovenia is entering a new decade with solid values and institutional foundations. The challenges are great, but manageable. I see them in four main areas:

1. Slovenia must form and establish an internally solid, worldly identity for Slovenia in Euro-Atlantic integrations, while providing for social cohesion in the Slovenian society and a high level of internal human solidarity.
2. It must establish and strengthen its high ambitions for excellence, creativity and life in a competitive global world, where there are no or will be no borders to information, goods, knowledge, capital, services and people.
3. It must develop its capacity for equal competition in co-operating in the search for answers to the dilemmas humanity is facing and which are brought about by the development of information, biomedical and other technologies. It must ask itself the question of what is the responsibility of people today for life on this planet; what is the responsibility for maintaining this life for future generations; how will it solve the increasingly escalating conflict between the rich and poor and what attitude towards the environment to take.
4. It must strengthen its co-operation and influence in Euro-Atlantic endeavours for peace, security and development in our direct vicinity in the South East of Europe.

It is through these challenges that Slovenians' stateforming capacity will mature. The sense of responsibility for the state will mature, as well as respect for its symbols and institutions. Also the sense that those measures which allow for the state to be kind to its citizens will mature. When asked in ten years time whether they would choose to live in Slovenia, the people of Slovenia will again choose Slovenia.