Lecture by the President, on the teme "Minority Issues in the Changing Europe"

Tainach, 5.6.2009  |  speech

Lecture by the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Danilo Türk, on the theme "Minority Issues in the Changing Europe"
Tainach (Tinje), 5 June 2009


Dear Professor Peter Filzmaier,
President Dr Heinz Fischer
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Europe yesterday and today

President Fischer and I opened today's programme by laying a wreath at the memorials dedicated to victims who died in the Mauthausen concentration camp on both sides of the border, in Slovenia and Austria. This act has a multiple symbolic meaning and represents a significant point of reflection at the beginning of this lecture.

Mauthausen is a symbol of suffering and death, and even more, a symbol of the denial of human rights and violence inflicted by Nazism. It is also a symbol of the atrocities of the Second World War, the farthest reaching and most crime-ridden war in the history of mankind.

The victims of this war are not and may not be forgotten. One should also not forget that Europe and the rest of the world indeed owe all their post-war development and welfare to the victory over Nazism and Fascism in the Second World War. It is right that here, in Carinthia (Koro¹ka / Kärnten), we recall the contribution of the Carinthia partisans (koro¹ki partizani) to the victory over Nazism. A new and a more stable and lasting international order emerged from this victory over Nazism and Fascism. The road to this order was certainly not linear and without difficulties. Europe spent a significant part of this time tied up in the chains of the Cold War. However, the achievements of the victory over Nazism and Fascism were lasting. The irreversibility provided for by international law was given to these achievements through the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which are among the most important cornerstones of the contemporary international order. Human freedom and the self-determination of nations have thus become essential subject matters of regulation in the modern world.

In Slovenia, this historical message is understood very well. At the end of the Cold War, Slovenia made a swift transition to the system of a parliamentary and pluralistic democracy, and provided conditions for full implementation of human rights. This historical shift enabled the country to gain its independence quite quickly and in a relatively painless manner, to constitute itself as a sovereign state, to become member of the UN and to successfully complete the economic transition. Slovenia was also successful in joining NATO and the European Union. Becoming a Member State of the European Union in 2004, it was the first among the new Member States to join the Schengen group, the first to adopt the euro and also the first to assume the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Indeed, this was a great success and, retrospectively, we may today clearly see how rapid development has been in recent years.

There are, however, two other facts that are quite obvious and fundamental.

First, during this process, we were supported by friendly countries and benefited from the advantages of European solidarity. Among the countries that supported us throughout this period of time, a special place is held by Austria, as our neighbour, which understands Slovenia well, and as a country with which we maintain political, economic and cultural links.

Second, the process of European integration has not yet been completed. There are numerous tasks ahead of us. Among them, the top priority is given to further institutional development of the EU. As one of the first countries to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, Slovenia hopes that the new solutions provided for by the Treaty come into force as soon as possible. Among the tasks for the future, a particular importance is attached to further enlargement of the European Union, both in South Eastern Europe and further east. The EU must be aware of the urgency of this enlargement process if it wishes to become a successful global player in the future. The EU must also consider the imperative demand that the candidate countries meet the membership criteria. Although this will not be always easy, this approach is essential if we wish the EU to be solid and stable in the future. It is well known that every chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This also applies to the EU.

In our common effort to further develop the EU, some historically important and demanding tasks await us. Particular attention will have to be paid to the elaboration of adequate solutions regarding issues of common existence in an ethnically heterogeneous community. In Europe there is no single nation: there is neither a single European demos nor a single European ethnos. Consequently, Europe does not have a clearly defined political basis for its institutional development. Solutions should be searched for with a delicate knowledge of our long European history and with a good sense of new solutions that will consider our European reality. As a modern political community, Europe is not the result of immigration. On the contrary, it is the result of co-operation between sovereign states and historically established ethnic communities – nations and national minorities. And precisely this must be considered as central in building the Europe of tomorrow.

Here in Tinje/Tainach, we have a very good reason to view this significant aspect of the ethnic image of Europe with care and to reflect on concrete answers to various specific questions. These answers should be given by looking ahead, yet also by considering the historical aspect. When we speak about national minorities as part of European ethnic pluralism, it is right to take into account the development of the protection of minorities that in the past, that is in the 20th century, created the basis for solutions of the present and the future.

Minorities in Europe: general historical context

The entire development of minority systems in Europe of the 20th century can be divided into three most significant periods, which coincide with the largest changes of the 20th century. In each of these periods, minority rights had their place.

The first period is connected with the disintegration of three multi-ethnic empires: the Austro-Hungarian, the Ottoman and the Russian empire after the Great War. Typical of the transformation that followed was the formation of nation states with large national minorities. After the Great War, more than 25 million people belonged to national minorities in Europe. At that time, a system of protection of national minorities was devised within the League of Nations. This system defined a number of legal rules, both substantive and procedural, which from then on have remained at the heart of minority protection and also significantly influenced the subsequent design of the UN system for the protection of human rights. Today, the period of the League of Nations is more or less forgotten and greatly underestimated, but in terms of minority protection it remains important – as a historical platform and as a content criterion. The lasting value of solutions from those times is also reflected in the fact that in the current Austrian legal system, the minority provisions of the Treaty of Saint-Germain (1919) are still applicable.

The second stage followed the end of the Second World War. The minority issue was at that time placed in a new context, the context of universal protection of human rights. This was an important step motivated by the historical requirement for a definition of a modern society: the latter simply requires the provision of fundamental human rights for all people, without any discrimination. This basis also enables members of minorities to benefit from better solutions and, in particular, a better real-world situation than that they had known in the previous period. Minority rights are placed in a new philosophical and legal context, which in principle also facilitates a better practical implementation. However, the development of this practice was not without diversions. It was accompanied by two problems: First, the political mistrust of minority protection as a consequence of the manipulation of minorities, and in particular of German minorities in the Sudetenland and Poland prior to the Second World War during Nazi times, and, second, the illusion that individual human rights sufficiently and somehow automatically ensure the resolution of the minority issue. These two major obstacles were compounded by further problems such as: the illusion within Communist systems that socialism can also resolve the national issue, including minorities (this illusion had grave consequences, particularly during the disintegration of the SFR of Yugoslavia). Another problem was the state practice of disguising the nationalism of majority nations in the language of human rights accompanied by policy of involuntary assimilation of minorities.

During this period, new and territorially defined minority arrangements under international law were few. However, their importance was not reduced. The efforts of the minority in South Tyrol to safeguard their rights reflect this importance well. Article 7 of the Austrian State Treaty has become a symbol of minority protection and still remains to be considered as such.

The third period followed the end of the Cold War and is still present today. This period saw the disintegration of Communist state systems alongside three socialist federations (the Soviet Union, the SFR of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia). One of the results of these developments was the increasing significance of the minority issue. The end of the Cold War also did away with ideological limitations in international discourse and the minority regulatory system. In 1992, the UN adopted a special declaration on the rights of persons belonging to national and ethnic minorities. The CSCE/OSCE adopted several instruments on minorities and established the office of High Commissioner for National Minorities, whose practice substantially contributes to the development of standards of protection and promotion of minority rights. The Council of Europe adopted, among other things, the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (1992) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1994). These developments following the end of the Cold War facilitated a wider debate and practical activities. The pre-existing international treaty regulations regarding the status of minorities were given new support. The number of minority situations attracting international interest has also increased. Certain long-suppressed issues, such as the issue of the Roma people, appeared at the forefront. The need for a comprehensive approach to minority issues, covering not only cultural and language identity, but also economic existence, social mobility, media inclusion and several other minority-related areas, is today understood more than ever.

It looks as though a way towards the answer to philosophical questions on the relation between individual and collective aspects of human rights, a way so important to members of minorities, was slowly being paved. Earlier on, this question was radicalised by the predominance of the markedly individualistic interpretation of human rights. The ideological concepts of the 20th century, arguing that individual protection also automatically solves the status problems of a group such as a national minority or, on the other hand, that a socialist society and its solutions create a true and permanent balance between the individual and the collective, belong to the past. The 21st century offers a real possibility for policy-making and practice providing for fullness of life of national minorities, based on respect for individual human rights of persons belonging to minorities and on the permanent efforts for the implementation of collective minority rights.

The case of the Slovenian national community in Austrian Carinthia: Four priority issues

It is in this context that the case of Slovenes in Carinthia is interesting and of consequence for Europe. Firstly, this is a minority that has for a long time already been enjoying the advantages of living in a society where human rights are inscribed in the bases of the constitutional order and were respected. Further, this is a minority which has, in compliance with international law and the constitution, a series of special minority rights, defined as lex specialis. This creates a favourable environment for regulating the status of the minority and realising their special rights in the context of seeking new relations between universal human rights and special minority rights, and between individual and collective rights. In this light, four areas appear to be of essence.

First, there is the linguistic aspect and bilingual education. The European Union and Europe as a whole are based on the principle of linguistic pluralism, a principle which both intends to preserve and further develop beyond the limits of the current national arrangements. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) is one of the expressions of this will. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice (The "Luxembourg court") has already pronounced a judgment, whereby an individual has the right to use the language of a minority as an official language although he or she is not a national of the country where the minority whose language is recognised as an official language lives. (*Case C-274/96 fo November 1998) This judgment opens the way for further expansion of the use of minority languages as official languages within the European Union.

Language pluralism should be an encouragement for seeking efficient solutions for linguistic situations in nationally mixed territories. The lex specialis arrangements (such as the second paragraph of Article 7 of the Austrian State Treaty) may be a good starting point, yet additional efforts are needed for their implementation in present times which are, in truth, more open to such approaches than any other period of our recent history.

From this point of view, and considering the fact that in recent years there has been an increase in the enrolment in bilingual education here in Carinthia, we could say that the time has come to make a resolute step forward. In doing this, it is paramount to address problems and discuss potential solutions in a realistic way and without reservations. The level of knowledge of the Slovenian language of children entering primary schools is relatively poor, which indicates that, in order to provide adequate pre-school linguistic education, a reform of kindergarten financing is probably needed. After elementary school, the Slovenian language is almost non-existent in secondary and high schools – with the exception of the federal high school for Slovenes in Klagenfurt. At this point, the question arises of how to cultivate the language of the minority at this level.

This situation – in particular increased enrolment in bilingual education – indicates that the attitude towards Slovene is generally positive, but that more may and should be done in the areas of school organisation, didactic methods and educational methodology. The issue is of interest not only in view of the realisation of minority rights (lex specialis) but also in the context of the European perspective of linguistic pluralism. A setting up of a research project on issues of bilingual education would be in order. Such a research programme should, of course, not be a scholarly matter alone and could not be carried out exclusively by research organisations. Its aim should be to find and implement practical improvements for the existing system. When defining the goals for improvements in the areas of educational methodology and didactic methods, sharing and comparing experience would be extremely welcome. It would be advisable, therefore, for the ministers responsible for education in Austria and Slovenia to come together and discuss these goals, as in Slovenia we have significant experience with bilingual education, in particular in the areas where the Hungarian national community resides. These issues would probably need to be discussed in the framework of a serious international conference, perhaps under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which is becoming more and more involved in these questions.

The second area where progress should be considered is the use of a minority language as an official language, and bilingual topography. In this field, Slovenia and Austria each have their own experience. In Slovenia, bilingual topography has been accepted as a natural arrangement, something that makes the landscape in the bilingual areas interesting. In Austria, however, due to specific historical circumstances, this issue (regulated in the third paragraph of Article 7 of the Austrian State Treaty) is politically particularly sensitive and controversial.

I fully agree that, presently, for concrete solutions regarding bilingual topography, the relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Austria are of decisive importance. The principle whereby decisions of the Constitutional Court are enforced in spite of their political sensitiveness has often proved to be the essential element of the principle of the rule of law and good democracy. This is also the experience of Slovenia. A little more than a year ago, I addressed the Slovenian parliament and advocated steadfastness in enforcement of the decisions of the Slovenian Constitutional Court, including those concerning the situation of so-called "erased persons". Many agreed with me and, this year, the problem is starting to be solved. The question is not only the constitutional praxis and the constitutional principles of an individual country. What is at stake is the all-European commitment to the principle of constitutionality, which in the current situation demands consistent and vigorous implementation, also in relation to minority rights issues. The strengthening of constitutionalism as the basic skeleton of its own future is the immanent interest of Europe. It is not a surprise that the specific issues linked to human rights, in particular issues of minority rights, are among the more important contemporary areas of modern constitutionalism.

This very circumstance proves the increasing importance of the minority issue, which no longer raises earlier political conflicts; however, it is still not dealt with intensively enough and is even still insufficiently known. This is an additional reason for the increasing significance of the third area, the area of the mass media, where the presence of minorities has become an increasingly important dimension of the status of minorities. In this respect, Slovenia has diverse experience, which is particularly interesting in the bilingual territory at the coast, where the Italian national community lives. There, the local Koper/Capodistria radio and TV stations have played a key role in integrating the neighbouring nations. Of course, this model cannot be transposed into another environment; however, it is interesting from the aspect of media techniques and also from the aspect of integrating minority members into media programme management. In any case, the aforementioned example proves the importance of innovation and experience. Innovative media policy could also enhance bilateral understanding elsewhere. Slovenia and Austria are in need of such co-operation. The national television stations – TV Slovenija and ORF – could probably also contribute to better co-operation in the future.

And finally, the fourth area that determines, to a great extent, existential aspects of the status of minorities, is cross-border co-operation, free movement of goods and ideas and free movement of people. In this respect, the European Union has already made significant progress, but the question arises of whether we have done enough and whether we have clearly defined the goals. Slovenia's accession to the European Union and the introduction of the Schengen border regime have created conditions for improved movement of goods and services. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether we have enough projects that could better connect border areas, both economically and socially. The answer will probably be negative. The states should invest more in cross-border co-operation and develop concepts that would be suitable for the present time. We should provide stronger support to organisations, such as the Slovene Economic Organisation, the "Slowenischer Wirtschaftsverband", which is based in Klagenfurt. Such organisations could serve as information centres, as contributors of experience and as intermediaries connecting economic partners. Other initiatives that transfer information on opportunities across the border should also be supported.

The national community as an entity

The aforementioned four areas: education, official language including bilingual topography, the media and cross-border co-operation could constitute the core of a programme of co-operation between Austria and Slovenia, which would certainly be to the benefit of the Slovenes in Austrian Carinthia and Styria. Nevertheless, the fundamental principle that needs to be considered in this regard is that decisions about a national community cannot be made without the community’s co-operation and consensus. This, however, requires an appropriate organisational structure of the national community and an adequate level of programme maturity in its action. In a pluralistic society, it is understandable that the national community is also organised pluralistically. However, pluralism for the sake of pluralism itself, or for preserving existing organisations, is not an optimum solution. The needs and possibilities should be clearly assessed and appropriate organisational structures found. This, of course, is the task of the national community itself. And this task should not be too demanding, as today's reality already clearly reflects priority tasks, and on their basis an appropriate degree of unity could be created. Unity is required if we truly wish to achieve good results.

Conclusion

The results that can be achieved on the basis of co-operation in the four main areas would benefit everyone involved: the Slovenes in Austrian Carinthia and Styria, as well as the states of Austria and Slovenia. The main beneficiaries would certainly be the national community and the people in Carinthia and Styria. But co-operation would also be favourable for Austria, the country whose loyal citizens the Slovenes of Carinthia and Styria are, as well as Slovenia as the homeland of Slovenians and their protecting force under the Austrian State Treaty. It is essential, however, that mutual relations not be interpreted as conflict relations but rather as co-operative relations. This is made possible by the contemporary European political context. Therefore, it would be useful to think about common projects in the four areas, where tripartite co-operation could be established.

A good example of such an opportunity is education, where a project of bilingual education development in Austrian Carinthia could be prepared within the framework of the Council of Europe. The Austrian State Treaty constitutes a starting point. However, this is not enough. We should take advantage of the contemporary European context. The introduction of an international project also involving experts from other European countries, which would be aimed at developing the methodology and didactics of bilingual learning, could be interesting for all three participating sides, and for Europe as a whole. Perhaps Austrian Carinthia could be the first to develop ideas that might also help others in Europe and, of course, take into consideration the experience of others.

The same applies to the other three areas. The European context enables us to deal with them in a more relaxed way, at an international level or – to use a more appropriate expression – more European-like. This very opening, which I would call "creative internationalisation", is the most interesting opportunity offered to minorities through European integration. It could also contribute to the integration of individual human rights with collective minority rights. The progress achieved would be of European as well as international importance.

Dear participants,

My reflections today are devoted to the issue of national minorities. Of course, the topic of European integration and of the opportunities brought about by these processes in our environment is much more extensive. However, the narrower focus on the chosen issue, which is symbolically as well as historically and geographically connected to the place of today's meeting, gives the topic of European integration particularly interesting content. Every international community has its own interesting story, but common denominators between all can also be considered. It is particularly interesting if common denominators can be developed, through serious debate and efficient work, to the benefit of a particular national community. And my reflections today are devoted to this very objective. I hope you have also found something of interest in them.

Thank you.


* " ...6 Article 6 of the Treaty precludes national rules which, in respect of a particular language other than the principal language of the Member State concerned, confer on citizens whose language is that particular language and who are resident in a defined area the right to require that criminal proceedings be conducted in that language, without confeering the same right on nationals of other Member States traveling or staying in that area, whose language is the same." (Case C-274/96 of 24 November 1998)