Public appearances

DECISIVE AND SENSITIVE TIMES FOR THE SHAPE OF EUROPE
Address by President Milan Kucan at a seminar on the Political Model for a 21st Century Europe
President Kucan delivers closing address at seminar on invitation from Portuguese counterpart Jorge Sampaio

Lisbon (Portugal), 4 June 2002


We Europeans are living in sensitive and decisive moments of decision on the future shape and image of our continent. Justified comparison is being made with the beginnings of the European Economic Community as a model of cooperation and reconciliation in erstwhile Western Europe. For some time now the European body politic has been seeking ways to arrive at a realistic idea of how to base relations between European states, nations and citizens on European democratic values. Deliberation on this issue cannot be narrowed down solely to a showdown between institutional solutions without first considering European and global reality and the role we Europeans would want our continent to play in this world. Both of these issues should be tackled by the Convention on the Future of Europe.

European and global issues are closely interrelated. To a large extent the future of the world also depends on Europe, on its internal integration and its ability to reaffirm itself in this competitive (compatible) and interdependent world as a region with considerable influence and responsibility on the global arena. That is the reason why a political model for 21st century Europe stands out as one of the crucial issues of the future world as a whole.

Different worlds still exist on our planet. There is a safe world of peace and cooperation, and there is a world of confrontation, violence and war, of terrorism and organised crime of all kinds. There is a developed world of prosperity offering a high grade of social and legal security and inclusion to its people, and there is an underdeveloped world of need, famine and great social exclusion, a world that cannot provide for even the most rudimentary of prerequisites for human existence. There is a world that respects and bases all of its fundamental relations on a system of values that places man, human life and human dignity in the forefront, building a comprehensive system of rights and freedoms from that, protected by an entire system of legal norms and the entire political organisation of a state. There is, however, also a world that most crudely violates man's elementary rights and that intervenes violently into human dignity and even life. The gaps between these worlds are not narrowing, they are instead growing wider. These different worlds are not determined geographically. Such different worlds exist not only in the global dimensions of our universe, but in some way also within every contemporary society’s micro-world.

Peace and security have also become global issues in our world. No one can seal themselves away anymore and escape responsibility for their own actions or the actions of others. The world has become fiercely competitive. It has, however, also become more aware of its reality, including the threats it is facing, thus becoming more perceptive and willing of cooperation. The world has also become polycentric.

Europe is but one of its centres. If it wants to make sure it has an influence in this world, if it wants the world to fit its own ideas, to fit its values and its spiritual heritage, to fit its economic might, cultural influence, social and political stability, then it must ask itself whether it also has the capacity to play such a role. Is Europe capable of acting as an effective and influential interlocutor on issues concerning the future of life on Earth and the future of our planet vis-ŕ-vis other centres – the United States, China, Japan, Russia, the Indian subcontinent, sooner or later also Africa, South America and the Arab world? It must also itself ask whether it is capable of carrying its share of responsibility for the future of mankind.

The question is what Europe should do in order to successfully pursue such a role, in order to prevent its historical inner fragmentation as well as its inability or even unwillingness to overcome such fragmentation from causing it to sink to the margins of a modern world. Europe is divided into several Europes: there is still the political east and west, but there are also already first signs of new divisions into a developed and underdeveloped Europe; a peaceful and stable Europe on the one hand, and an unstable Europe on the other; a Europe uniting within its integration structures, and a Europe still only approaching these integration structures. A divided Europe cannot play such a role in the world.

In order to pursue its desired role in the world it is necessary for Europe to be capable of speaking in one single voice with regard to all crucial issues of the modern world and its future. It must have a common position on these crucial issues, expressing the views and interests of all Europeans. It is necessary for Europe to formulate its structure as a special political entity, an entity representing the common identity of all European states and an entity that will have sufficient space for the expression of the particular identity of every single European state.

If the Convention will honestly map out and recognise the present realistic shape of Europe it will have an easier time coming up with answers for the institutional setup and the institutional relations within this European integration structure and with the Member States. Future forms and relations will thus become an expression of the substance that the members of this integration wish to achieve through unification. This way we shall avoid the danger of getting tangled up in exhausting and unproductive discussions on the institutional forms of federation, confederation or a union of states. Such classical, historically shaped forms do not fit the current stage of development in Europe and the world, and they do not fit the demands of our times.

An important if not crucial dimension of the intended institutional changes is the commensurate distribution of political power between Europe's central institutions and the nation states, between the old and the new EU members, as well the adequate representation of Member States in these institutions. Formalised political power namely has a key influence on the ability and capability of producing changes for development in the political life of a future United Europe. Respecting the criterion of equality between old and new EU members would at the same also ensure a fair distribution of power, thus ensuring peace, security and creative cooperation among all member states, large or small. A commensurate and fair distribution of power in an emerging United Europe would trigger its creative synergy both in the internal relation among European states and in enforcing Europe's political role in a global world.

In my opinion this debate will soon strike on the phenomenon of a classical nation state and its sovereignty as shaped in the legal theory and political practice of past centuries. Our conscience burdened with the traditional understanding of these phenomena will constitute the most formidable obstacle in considering how to ensure a special identity for Europe in the world.

However, the European Union is neither about surrendering part of a nation state's sovereignty to this supranational structure, nor is it about transferring a part of their sovereignty. Instead it is about the common execution of a part of the sovereign functions of the states belonging to this structure, it is about the common execution of a part of the sovereign functions of states at the level of European integration due to recognised common interests, which led these countries to enter the European Union in the first place. I am referring to the economic, security, defence, environmental, foreign policy and possibly even other interests. By their very nature these interests are such that European countries can only pursue them effectively if they act jointly. This, however, requires also the development and strengthening of their common functions which they execute jointly at union level.

Slovenia's outlook on the concrete proposals for the institutional restructuring of the European Union voiced to date cannot provide a qualified judgement as to their adequacy in all of their aspects since Slovenia is not yet living all the advantages, the problems and the dilemmas of the Union. Let me immediately add that in its approximation to full-fledged European Union membership Slovenia has forged criteria by way of which it is able to judge these ideas from its own positions, from its own experience and its own visions of European integration.

The criteria for judging the restructuring ideas and the criteria for events to come following enlargement also stem from Slovenia's geopolitical position. Our Central European historical experience shows that a safe and peaceful life in a region is only possible if that area shares the same values. Central Europe does. It is tolerant to differences and is capable of solidarity. Central Europe also knows that without such common values blood would be shed. This is where nazism and fascism came to life, this is where the Bolshevik execution of the communist idea forcibly put up walls between nations and states belonging to the same civilisation, depriving some of them of fifty years of democracy and development. This is where the coexistence of differences is still countered by provincial spirits of the past. Slovenia also has similar experiences from its seventy years of life in the federation of southern Slavs. In spite of a different vision of the future and even guarantees for that future, all values characteristic of highly developed democracies subsided. The consequences are well known. That common state was undergoing constant institutional reform, but at the same time that vessel was growing ever emptier. The country ended up without common values, without bonding tissue. That was the reason of its disintegration, not the fact that it was multi-national or that it was a federation.

That is the reason why Slovenia is so sensitive as to the issue of values and why it supports the position that the European Union or, in time, a United Europe cannot comprise just its institutions. A united Europe must primarily be a community of values giving rise to the coexistence of differences, legal security, social justice and social cohesion, as well as a commitment to that common European home, all of which would ensure a safe development for all those identities desirous of living together. Slovenia therefore also views united Europe as a spiritual and cultural undertaking, since Europe undisputedly is a cultural notion and phenomenon which had a unique influence of world history and which decisively shaped the destiny of the world in past centuries. In itself European culture is the totality of related yet highly individual cultures of the various European nations stemming from the same basic values and streaming in the same spiritual current. Its incontestable power and influence are based on this inner diversity itself. To us a united Europe is a notion representing a community of equal European nations integrated by the same cultural challenge and the same fundamental cognition of the world and of man's role and place in that world. Man's freedom and individuality, comprising also the freedom of belonging to a national or ethnic community, is the most important facet of that cognition. Respecting it requires giving up national egotism. Thus, a united Europe is also an ethical project.

The European Union is the quintessence of European integration. That is the case today at least and that will increasingly be the case in the future if enlargement takes place as was announced. Also countries that still remain far from EU standards will strive to meet all the requirements for entry into this structure. That is a sound path towards a united Europe. If delays were to occur, then it could well happen that these countries will start living with a different mentality, forced on them by the circumstances. Economically they would not be capable of developing as they could within the EU, consequently they will not be able to develop their social policies, provide social security or social cohesion as well as equal opportunities. The political tensions that will follow will redirect them away from democracy. The dividing lines between several Europes will thus become even more acute than they are today and a United Europe will become just an illusion, no longer a vision.

I am not trying to elevate political interests and judgements regarding EU enlargement. Quite the opposite, I am in favour of equal conditions for all new members, otherwise they would only bring in new problems for the Union, and causing unmanageable internal problems for themselves. What I would like to emphasise is that the political model of 21st century Europe must include all of Europe, such as it is, diverse to the extreme, in order to prevent it from becoming a political model for one part of Europe separated from the other by an ever stricter Schengen border. In one way or another Russia will also have to be added to the equation, otherwise Europe will forever remain a continent of two worlds finding compatibility very difficult.

In doing so the political model of a 21st century Europe will certainly have to look at the differences in development between the individual countries, because the concentric circles of different rates of development will remain in place for some time to come. This, however, would not impair the successful functioning of a political model for all of Europe provided common values and common ethical guidelines are reaffirmed, emphasising both competition and cooperation, both individual responsibility and solidarity. This is only possible if equality among all states will be taken sufficiently into account, if states will also be held responsible towards other states for their actions, not just towards themselves, if individual identities will open up to one another faster and if a local, regional, national and a European identity will start developing in the sentiments of belonging among the old continents' population, replacing purely hierarchical identities. That political model would unavoidably also have to contain instruments for releasing and integrating European energies. That model would also have to adjust its institutions to this objective, otherwise it would be digging its own grave.

Security and defence will be important constants in a future model of Europe. The foundations for the future instruments of these two functions have been laid. They are NATO and they are the security components of the EU. The latter does not exclude the former and vice versa. Whatever Europe achieves militarily or in the sphere of defence would only take the burden of responsibility for Europe off North America's shoulders. The more it accomplishes in this context, the stronger a pillar of Euro-Atlantic security it shall become and the closer we will be to the point where the EU and a reformed NATO would coincide.

Such a Europe could also serve as a good example on a global scale, where a global social contract is unavoidable, however utopian that may sound. A globalised world should namely no longer be accepted simply as a given, as something occurring on its own. We must participate in shaping that world such that every person, every country and even global capital will have a responsibility for their actions not only towards themselves, but towards a global community; such that they will act according to common rules and following a global ethic which is still inexistant but indeed possible, since all civilisations contain ethical principles of coexistence, no less that European civilisation. This justifies the hope that world democracy will be based on a common ethos and on common values, including the inviolability of human life, respect for human dignity, and the golden rule of reciprocity among humans, whereby they do not do to others what they would not want done to themselves, as well as a responsibility towards future generations.

In summary, the political model of a 21st century Europe can only be a model of a uniting Europe emerging with the enlargement of the European Union and its institutional restructuring. It will be acceptable to all Europeans, to all nations and states in Europe provided it is based on and functions on common ethical foundations and guiding principles, provided it will rise up from the European pluralistic tradition, provided it respects and treats equally all that grows on European soil. Then also the institutions of a political model defined in this way would be acceptable and effective, less administrative and more democratic, open to the people.


 

archived page