archived page

Lecture "Peace, Stability & Prosperity of the Western Balkans"

New Delhi, 4.2.2010  |  speech


Alert  To view this content, JavaScript must be enabled, and you need the latest version of the Adobe Flash Player.

Download the free Flash Player now!

Adobe Flash Player



Lecture by Dr Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia, at the Indian Council of World Affairs: "Peace, Stability & Prosperity of the Western Balkans"
New Delhi, 4 February 2010


President Türk  gives a lecture at the Indian Council of World Affairs entitled "Peace, Stability and Prosperity in the Western Balkans" (photo: Tina Kosec/STA)Thank you very much for this introduction and for the honour that was bestowed on me, and thank you for your hospitality. It’s a great honour and privilege to have the opportunity to speak at the Indian Council of World Affairs. I’m sure that every speaker who comes here does so with a degree of trepidation. This is a world known institute, an organisation, which has great experience with a variety of international issues, all the most important global issues and the first question which arises for a speaker is whether the choice of the subject of his speech is correct.

I suggested a speech relating to Western Balkans, that’s an area, which I know to some extent. Slovenia is in a way part of the region although it is not entirely defined as a Balkan state. It has a variety of identities - Central European, Mediterranean and obviously Western Balkan as well. We are committed to peace, prosperity and stability and we would like to help that to happen in the entire area of Western Balkans. We are constantly seeking solutions to problems that exist in that part of the world. But in order to understand today's situation properly, we have to remind ourselves of historic context with which I do not wish to bother you extensively but which I think I have to refer to nevertheless.

I think it is important to keep in mind that Europe, specially Central Europe and the Balkans, has undergone three major reorganisations in the course of one century. If one looks at the map of Europe at the end of the 19th century one would say this is a continent dominated by great empires - Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman and German. But all those empires have suffered defeat during World War I and collapsed and as the result the map of Europe changed. As a result of that change Europe became more than before a system of nation states and the place with large national minorities. One has to remember that minority issue that resulted from World War I was one of the key political issues for Europe in the period that followed.

The second reorganisation happened at the end of World War II, which was a brutal war, affecting the entire continent and many other parts of the world and one which led to further changes. The nation states were reshaped, consolidated, huge transfers of populations happened, not always well reported or well understood, but this was a huge tragedy. World War II ended in a division of Europe into two opposing ideological blocks but still organised on the basis of nation states.

The third reorganisation happened at the end of the 20th century with the end of Cold World framework, which ended with the collapse of Soviet Union and the resulting collapse of states in Eastern Europe. The three socialist federations disintegrated - Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Each of these cases of disintegration was different. The world was afraid of the disintegration of Soviet Union because that was perceived as a threat to the international peace and security in general. What happened in Soviet Union was much less violent than it could be. I am not saying that it was not violent but it was much less so than it could be. What happened in Yugoslavia was much more violent than it could be. We have seen changes that have reshaped the entire European map. Changes with the collapse of Yugoslavia were a part of that.

I’m saying this because sometimes the Western Balkans is perceived only in the context of specific conflicts that happened in places like Bosnia and Herzegovina and before that in Croatia - Slovenia had a very short and very small conflict - and this, I believe, is a very limited perspective. I think that in order to understand the nature of changes, one has to see Europe as a whole and one has to see the entire period of the 20th century to understand the dimensions of change.

This obviously is the background for a discussion on the situation today. Things today are much more stable. They are moving towards a new organisation of the entire area of Western Balkans and that organisation depends on the question of how well and how quickly will the countries of that part of Europe integrate with the major European integration process, with the European Union. That’s the key. We are all looking for solution to problems of Western Balkans in the context of expansion of European Union. That is something that Slovenia has already accomplished. We are a member of the European Union since 2004. Slovenia is a member of Eurozone since 2007. In 2004 Slovenia also became a member of NATO. And NATO is changing its nature and this is something, which we may discuss in the course of our meeting today.

Other countries are in different situations vis-à-vis European Union. Croatia is a candidate country and is likely to complete its negotiations during the course of this year - 2010, maybe going slightly to 2011 - but it will then soon start the process of ratification of the agreement of membership in the European Union. Other countries are in different situations.

If I wanted to define a single most important question in this regard I would say that the single most important requirement for all countries in the Balkans is adjustment to the economic and legal system of the European Union. That’s the key for everybody and that’s the key to a long-term stability, peace and prosperity in the region. That of course is in the interest of Europe as a whole. That is in the interest of the European Union. However, adjustment, a single word, means a complex task, which includes a major reshaping of entire legal and economic systems. It also requires careful work with regard to some of the arrangements that affect people very directly.

Very recently we had an experience of a discussion between countries of Western Balkans and European Union on visa regime. Sometimes these things are seen as technical or something of minor importance. But let us think for a moment about this. Yugoslavia, when it existed as a single state, was quite successful in creating the type of relations with Europe and with the rest of the world, which allowed its citizens to travel freely practically everywhere. This has changed and post Cold War period was much more inimical to free travel of people from that part of Europe.

It was only at the end of 2009 that European Union abolished visas for people in Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. This obviously was a major step forward for people concerned because one should never forget that visas have to do with freedom of movement and freedom of movement is a basic human right. In Europe, which is a small region and one which is used to intense communication, the limitations to the freedom of movement are a very severe constraint to human freedom and human prosperity. Therefore the importance of visa liberalisation cannot be overestimated. It obviously hasn’t been done in a complete fashion because there are still countries, which need further work to obtain the visa-free regime. They include Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo. That has to happen in the year 2010. I hope this process will be completed.

I’m giving this example of visa-free travel as an example to show how difficult the path to European Union and its integrative force is for the countries of the Western Balkans. Because the integration will take many measures, which will require total adjustment of their legal and economic systems and where the basic elements, such as freedom of movement, require special work and attention.

The European Union sees the Western Balkans as a part of Europe, which belongs to European Union. But the processes of integration are slow and one talks these days a lot about the "expansion fatigue" or "integration fatigue". I think we have to address this question quite directly and quite honestly. I think that it is understandable that European Union is feeling a degree of expansion fatigue. After all, European Union was very considerably expanded in 2004. That expansion was a big success. It was expanded further with Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. That was also successful but not without difficulties. I think that it would be a mistake if European Union allowed the integration fatigue to prevail and to determine the subsequent steps. It is important to overcome that fatigue because from the economic and strategic point of view European Union can only gain if Western Balkans as a whole is integrated. European Union cannot allow to have a black hole in the middle of Europe for a very long time. That would create tensions and problems, which would eventually create additional difficulties to the European Union.

So there are good reasons both political and economic to work hard for the integration of those countries, which are not yet close to membership, to expedite the process towards full membership in the European Union. In this process the countries concerned will have to overcome several specific problems. And I would like to refer to them briefly and then invite you to ask questions or to tell me your views so that we can engage in a discussion as well.

First, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country that has suffered a vicious war in the period between 1992 and 1995. That war has ended with a peace accord, the Dayton peace accord (Dayton Agreement), which has created a specific constitutional structure for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country is divided into two entities - Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And those two entities have a very strong constitutional status. The question, which has arisen in the context of integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the European mainstream, is whether state structure, which was provided for by the Dayton Agreement is adequate for the integration into EU to take place.

It has been known from earlier and rediscovered recently that that is not the case, that in fact the state structure, the constitutional structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina is an obstacle to integration because decisions, which are needed for integration. The changing of legal system, the decisions that would generate economic development cannot be left to the two entities. They have to happen in a manner, which allows the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the state as a whole, to have its proper role. It doesn’t have a proper role at this point and things need to be changed. So if one thinks about one of the specific conditions that the Bosnian authorities have to produce it becomes clear that constitutional structure needs to be adjusted to the needs of integration in the European Union.

How should that be done? Bosnia and Herzegovina is an extremely complicated political space and, of course, in a time like ours, democratic means need to be applied. That means that agreement between major political actors of the country needs to be sought. There were attempts recently, which did not succeed. You may have heard about what was called "Butmir Process", which was a process led by United States and European Union in the final month of the year 2009. That process was attempted to bring together the key political actors, the key party leaders both from Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to an agreement that would allow for an appropriate change. But that did not happen. The process was not prepared properly, it was not given enough time and it did not succeed.

The elections, which are planned later in 2010, make it already impossible for Bosnia and Herzegovina to make a major move towards changing its constitutional structure during the year of 2010. So we have to be careful and I believe that the remainder of the year 2010 has to be used for very careful preparations of a process that needs to be started after the elections. Elections, obviously, are good. They are essential for democracy. But elections also bring problems because they tend to harden the position of political parties, which have more to win by mobilising their supporters and resisting compromises. So election periods are generally not very good for seeking solutions, which require compromise. Therefore I think that it would be wiser to spend this period of 2010 for reflection and consultation and start a serious process later on.

It would also be necessary to involve in the subsequent process an appropriate number of international actors. European Union obviously remains they key, but so are the neighbouring countries, some of which are not in the European Union. Serbia has to be brought on board more actively than was the case so far. One has to think about role for the Russian Federation and for Turkey, countries, which have been active in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who have friends and they have to be also included in a process of searching a new constitutional structure for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

There is a paradox here because a constitution is essentially something that comes from within and relates to the political needs of the country concerned. But Bosnia and Herzegovina remains to some extent internationalised. The concern for its future remains international. Its constitution is part of an international agreement, international peace agreement. So these are the features, which call for international cooperation for an improved constitutional structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That would be the key task for the future.

If one looks at the most sensitive areas of the Western Balkans, there are two such areas in the Balkans: one is Bosnia and Herzegovina and the other is Macedonia. One could see that in Macedonia there was substantial progress in the past. Macedonia has presented its candidature for European Union already. It is important to understand that in Macedonia, which has a large Albanian population, there is a political understanding, perhaps even a political agreement among all the major political actors in the country to the effect that the future of the country is in the European Union and NATO. Therefore the political basis for that is already provided. But that doesn’t mean that all the problems are solved. I would like to mention another two positive elements in the picture.

One is that the European Commission has made during the final part of 2009 a positive assessment about progress of Macedonia towards European Union. So that was good. The positive aspect of the situation is that Macedonia has been assessed by the European Commission. Macedonia is seen as a country, which is making progress in its economic and social reforms, so that it is coming closer to the European Union and, as I said before, there is a basic political consensus in that regard already. The other positive element is that Macedonia was able to finish its delimitation with Kosovo. In other words, the potential for a border problem between Macedonia and Kosovo has been overcome. This is on the positive side.

On the negative side we can see that the country is still in a dispute with Greece over the name and obviously this remains a serious source of political tension, which does not have a clear solution for the time being. My view is that the way forward leads through the mediation of the United Nations's special envoy, Matthew Nimetz, who has proposed a number of solutions that haven’t been successful so far. That process has not provided substantial progress as yet but all the ingredients for progress are there and it is now really up to the political will of Macedonia and Greece to figure out what approach would be the best.

Here we are facing an interesting situation, which is not unusual in international dispute settlement situations. I believe - and this is a hypothesis, which I would like to offer to you, for your reflection and perhaps your critique - that any mediation process can be successful only if it is combined with an appropriate direct communication between the parties in the dispute. It is not sufficient to believe that the mediator and his communication with the parties will suffice. The parties themselves have to establish meaningful political communication. And if we have a combination of both serious, well-thought-through mediation by an international actor and a serious, meaningful political engagement of the parties in the dispute, then we can hope for a solution.

At present, we have the first but we do not yet have the second. This is where the situation is in my opinion. I’m using all the opportunities, all my public statements both in Slovenia and elsewhere in Europe, and now in New Delhi, to reaffirm that view and call on both countries, Greece and Macedonia, to establish such a meaningful political dialogue and process that would supplement the mediation effort of Mr Matthew Nimetz and the United Nations.

Finally, let me say a few words about Serbia and about Kosovo. Serbia has made substantial progress and has presented its candidature for European Union membership formally at the end of December last year. Serbia has also benefited from the abolition of visa regime, so freedom of movement is now secured. This is a substantial improvement. On the other hand there are still some issues with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). There too the Prosecutor of the tribunal, Mr Serge Brammertz, has reported progress and has made significant positive assessments. But of course that is not yet a complete positive picture. There are still few tasks to be completed, including the apprehension of General Ratko Mladiĉ.

That remains a problem in the relations between Serbia and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and, indirectly, for the cooperation and integration of Serbia in the European Union. That problem will have to be addressed in an appropriate manner. It hasn’t been resolved yet but it will have to be resolved in the future. The important thing here, however, is that Serbia has demonstrated its cooperation with the Prosecutor, that the reports of the Prosecutor have been successively better and better and that the Security Council has taken note of this improvement. That has helped the European Union also in its decisions on acceptance of the candidature and also on the visa element. So progress is there.

Kosovo, obviously, is a special case. It is a case, which remains on the agenda of the Security Council. In the meantime the Kosovo authorities, as you know, have declared independence of Kosovo and Kosovo was recognised by, I believe, 64 Member States of the United Nations by now, which is a very substantial progress. Kosovo has also been admitted to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is another piece of progress in the independence of Kosovo. But the debate over its status continues. As you may know, the International Court of Justice is currently seized with the case of Kosovo in the context of a process, which is not dispute settlement process, is not a settlement of a contentious dispute, but of an advisory opinion. The UN General Assembly has asked the International Court of Justice to produce an advisory opinion on various issues related to the declaration of independence of Kosovo in 2008. The court is considering this question and will produce an advisory opinion later on. That advisory opinion is not going to be binding, I must mention that, but it may have a useful function as clarifying the situation. As you will very well understand, the questions of recognition are intensely political and all countries have experience with that, including India. And that experience has to be respected.

When the European Union was confronted with the question of recognition of Kosovo in the first half of 2008 the European Union itself in its general council emphasised that it is up to each Member State of the European Union to decide, judging on the basis of criteria that exist in international law for such situations. And that is what happened. European Union does not have a single view on this matter. There are a few countries who do not recognise Kosovo, while the majority does. So the question remains open. My opinion is that if one looks at the situation following the establishment of an international regime in Kosovo in 1999 and in particular the situation since the declaration of independence in 2008 one can see that the situation in Kosovo has improved and that Kosovo has become a factor of stability in the Balkans. Kosovo is no longer a problem that can have an immediate destabilising effect. Obviously there can be deteriorations, I’m not suggesting that this is impossible. But the way things have moved in the past years suggests that stabilisation is the name of process.

Having said that I would like to very clearly define where I see the critically important tasks at present. There are two. The first is a strengthening of institutions of Kosovo. Kosovo is a place, which requires better administration, so administrative structures have to be strengthened. And secondly, human rights and ethnic relations have to be improved further. There has been improvement in the past but still work needs to be done. These, I think, are the two immediate tasks for Kosovo.

In the meantime the International Court of Justice will consider the questions of recognition and give its clarifications. I believe that if the stability continues that will enable also to start a more constructive dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia in the future. I think in the long-run both Serbia and Kosovo have their place in the European Union. How exactly will their mutual relations be organised in this context remains to be discussed, that remains to be negotiated. We are not yet at the stage when could say with clarity what formula there will be but I think that the process so far has been constructive and allows for hope that an appropriate formula will be found.

This is how I see the situation in Kosovo at present. And let me conclude my remarks by saying that the examples that I gave, the general picture of movement of Western Balkans towards European Union and at the same time the way some of the more serious problems, the remaining problems are handled at present - the ones in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the others with regard to Macedonia and the third with regard to Kosovo -, all of them show that problems remain quite difficult but that they also require some patience, hope and that they can be resolved. So my general outlook is optimistic. I would say it’s more than cautious optimism that I’m expressing today. I believe that with serious work of the international community the Western Balkans can in the future proceed towards its full integration into the European Union. This is where we are today.

Obviously, questions that I mentioned are relevant not only to the Western Balkans. They raise implications, which may be of importance in other parts of the world. I understand that in a globalised world of today one has to learn from situations, even in distant places. Therefore I think it is not inappropriate for me to come to New Delhi and speak about Western Balkans. On the other hand we understand that the problems in Europe have to be resolved primarily through European institutions, that solutions are possible and that that is what we have to work for.

I would like to thank you for your attention.
© 2008 Office of the President of the Republic  |  Legal information and Authors  |  Site map  site map