Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-254"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.17.3-254"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, I am honoured to be able to speak in this august House.
In the open, multipolar world where Eurocentrism is no more, Europe can be one of the standard-bearers of civilised development only if it is internally globalised, only if all of its parts are integrated within it, and if no one is excluded from the common future or marginalised.
In the ruins of the Berlin Wall, however, traces of new divisions are appearing in Europe. In real life, several Europes exist. Here we have the countries of the European Union and members of Nato, which are developing on the basis of the long European democratic tradition, on respect for human rights and the prospects of a new economic upswing, complete with a common European currency. This grouping also includes some small countries that have experienced major developments within the EU and have preserved their special features.
The second Europe is one of countries that are negotiating with the European Union: countries, therefore, that are in the first or second-class waiting rooms for the European train.
The third Europe is made up of the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Macedonia and Moldova), which have not yet reached the station, although they wish to do so. Some of them will not get there without help.
There also exists a group of countries that, for the moment, do not wish to join the EU. They would prefer to toy with the project of a new ideological division of Europe. We may call this the fourth Europe. Serbia, poised to tip the scales of stability in South-Eastern Europe, has been thrust into that fourth Europe by its aggressive national political elite, which has, from time to time, been supported by the nationalist ambitions of political elites from other Balkan nations. As it decides on the lasting foundations of peace and also, following the horrors of war in the Balkans, on the future of Kosovo and Montenegro, European unity again faces a great test. The possibility of bloody military clashes is still real.
This unity will be all the more vital when Serbia needs to be helped in the process of democratic change, when it will be faced with the truth and with its own responsibility. This change will open up the field of democratic, plural politics and efforts to bring the European value system back into the consciousness of the Serbian people. It will then be necessary for Serbia – and for other Balkan countries, too – to be presented with the challenging but realistic prospect of entry into European integration; and presented to each country on the same conditions, without special favours, but for this reason requiring all the more assistance.
None of these ‘Europes’ is immune from political or cultural diversions, which might distort their democratic image, not even the first Europe. I have in mind the crude forms of xenophobia and hatred of foreigners, resistance to free movement of labour, and anti-Semitism, all of which are part of today’s political populism. This puts pressure on fundamental values, and threatens coexistence and our common future. Insensitivity to these phenomena would create new barriers between us. We are reminded of this by the experience we carry with us. I believe that the reservations of certain European countries towards the position of the Austrian Freedom Party are motivated by this experience and that this response will be consistent, irrespective of who might be affected by it.
Alongside all the old divisions, new ones are emerging, and they are even more radically afflicting Europe, for the information society of today’s world is presenting challenges to every facet of our lives. There are ever increasing signs of the emergence of two classes in society. The world is beginning to divide in a new way. On the one hand, there are the unemployed and those who, through inadequate knowledge, have no access to modern information technology. They are threatened with social exclusion, stagnation and marginalisation. On the other hand, there are those who have the necessary education and are therefore guaranteed a future. This is a new phenomenon, which was identified recently at the EU Conference in Lisbon on social cohesion.
It is clear that, today, everyone in Europe is faced with the same problems, and we are all responding to them. Of course, we are not responding in entirely the same way. Nevertheless, it is essential that in seeking answers we all proceed from the same value system. The common cornerstones of values for coexistence have been established. Now everyone must be afforded the chance to live in accordance with those values.
Decisive importance in this may probably be ascribed to the new feeling of commitment to Europe, which I understand as a Europe-wide system of human ties, cooperation, solidarity, respect and other values. This does not simply involve the free flow of ideas, labour, goods and capital, but also values such as respect for diversity, tolerance, equality before the law of the ‘citizens of Europe’, irrespective of their national, ethnic and cultural affiliation or outlook. This will enable a high level of identification with the same values across Europe, which, in turn, may represent the basic connective tissue of Europe.
I am especially pleased that this has been made possible for me on the 50th anniversary of Robert Schuman’s appeal to France, Germany and other countries to enter into a common economic policy on steel and coal. That was the day when the process of European integration began. It is your and our common European day of celebration, and I offer you my sincere congratulations.
This frame of mind would be the best guarantee that intolerance and enmity remain a marginal phenomenon. At the same time, it would mean that in no European country could those in power dare, in the name of sovereignty or the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, to systematically stifle or limit either individual or collective human rights. Such an event would demand common action, without wavering or compromise.
The NATO intervention in Kosovo is perhaps the first step in this direction. The value of fundamental human rights was placed above the value of classic state sovereignty. The systematic mass violation of human rights should henceforth not simply be the internal affair of an individual country. It is becoming a subject of responsibility for the international community. Whether this marks the beginning of a new chapter in international relations and international law, only time will tell. Europe, and in particular the EU, should not be in two minds about this.
The real path of globalisation for Europe is the enlargement of the European Union to cover all European countries. This is a challenging enterprise, for a period of enlargement of the European Union is now beginning to include countries that have a different political ‘pedigree’ from the current members. Now it is the turn of countries that, in the great division of the world, belonged to the former ideological East of Europe. It is the turn of countries that, because of this, have lagged behind in their economic development. Yet the fact is that only this enlargement will mean the actual integration and globalisation of Europe, and will mean for the European East and West an end to the past and for both the beginning of a global European future.
For those countries, like Slovenia, that were forcibly removed by the bloc system to a different culture, inclusion in European integration would also represent proof that they had finally returned to their western civilisation. In any case, we should not forget that these countries, including Slovenia, have shown that in a relatively short time they have been able to adopt the rules that have taken a relatively long time to become established in the EU and in the European West. The great efforts invested in reforms may serve as a guarantee that EU enlargement will be beneficial, both for the current members and for those that wish to become members. Holding back this enlargement would indicate that Europe has still not buried the past, that it has not learned sufficiently from history, and that globalisation is not yet its internal requirement. It would also indicate that Europe is abandoning its influence and presence in the world.
Alongside this new qualitative step forward, doubts are emerging among the members of the EU. They are moving from the entirely known to the not entirely known. The decision on enlargement carries with it entirely new risks; and there must be a degree of understanding for the dilemma facing the EU.
I am thinking primarily of the implementation of serious internal, institutional and substantive reforms in the EU, of its readiness to accept new members and of postponement of the date of enlargement. Could it be perhaps that once again the special interests of individual Member States are rising to the surface? Does changing the view on successive acceptance of new countries, as soon as they are ready to be accepted, into a view on group acceptance of candidates in a first and second round, not mean a renewed shifting of enlargement towards the end of this first decade?
Dilemmas, doubts and uncertainties are also emerging among the candidate countries. The impression is growing of a ‘moving target’, which is shifting and dampening the enthusiasm of the better prepared candidates with the feeling that they will have to wait for the less-prepared candidates. Clarity and transparency of these views would, of course, have an encouraging effect, and it would be especially useful if everyone could stop trying to offer each other excuses. The EU should not use the problems among the candidate countries as an excuse to delay its own reforms, while the candidate countries should not use the difficulties of EU internal reforms as an excuse for putting off the reforms they need for full membership.
Such excuses would slow down the prospects of the rise of the future Europe, and making enlargement conditional upon bilateral demands and the interests of individual countries would have no less an effect. This includes conditions that go far back into history and attempt to revise it, particularly the history of the Second World War. Such demands are appearing from the position of power held by those that are in the European Union, against the powerlessness of those that are only just exercising the right to acceptance into the European Union.
At this point I would like to recall my address of November 1995 to the Committee on Foreign Policy, Security and Defence of your Parliament in its previous composition. At that time, I argued against the discriminatory treatment of Slovenia, for the then Italian Government was preventing us, through its power of veto, from signing the association agreement, and was setting as a condition the resolving of what were for Italy issues in dispute deriving from the border treaties between Italy and the former Yugoslavia. With its back to the wall, Slovenia signed the so-called ‘Spanish compromise’. I do not mention this episode to resurrect memories, but rather because in the current negotiations there have also appeared tendencies to raise purportedly justified interests in relation to Slovenia to the level of an EU demand. I am thinking of the demand for restitution of property to those from whom it was appropriated following the Second World War as part of the punishing of collaboration with the Nazi and Fascist occupation regime. In the then Yugoslavia, Slovenia did nothing that was not done in the spirit of the Potsdam resolutions by the Allies, with whom the Slovenes fought together against Fascism and Nazism. This time, Slovenia does not wish to accept this kind of imposition of conditions, and expects understanding and sympathy from the European Union.
I believe that individual bilateral issues should not, in any event, be allowed to become a reason for placing conditions on acceptance as a full member of the EU; nor should they be allowed to gain the pragmatic support of EU members, for the sake of clear and open foundations in European integration and in its future.
I congratulate you with trust and faith in the European idea of association. I am confirmed in this faith by the recent very successful visit by the distinguished President of the European Parliament, Mrs Fontaine, to Slovenia. In her address to the Slovene Parliament, Mrs Fontaine expressed her clear commitment to furthering the project of a united Europe, saying: “It is important that we support the will to strengthen the special features of each of our countries. We must therefore deepen the foundations of the European Union and prepare it for enlargement in such a way that it will be able tomorrow to maintain all its ability to function in response to challenges both internal and external. This will be possible only on condition that we maintain the existing balance between the small and large countries, and continue on the path towards a Europe of citizens”.
Slovenia is a small nation. For many centuries we lived in a multinational political community, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and in two Yugoslavias. We felt all the anguish of non-respect for national identity, of pressures towards our national identity being wiped out and of the fatal consequences of inequality in society and before the law. The worst thing of all was the aggression during the time of the Nazi and Fascist occupation. Our right to existence as a nation was taken away. For this reason we value highly the efforts of those carrying forward the project of a common European home, founded on the concept of open autonomy of national and other entities of society. Life in diversity is the key to success for European association, and Slovenia has tied its future to this. Our historical experiences and the future of our citizens dictate that we cannot reconcile ourselves either to voluntary or forced isolation from Euro-Atlantic institutions. Slovenia wishes to be a part of them, and is prepared to contribute what it can to the common life of European nations, but is not prepared to pay an inequitable price for it.
Slovenia will be ready for accession by the end of 2002, and believes that it will then be welcome in the club of EU Member States. We are also pleased that, in Helsinki, the Member States of the EU committed themselves to enlargement by the same date for those candidate countries best prepared. In order for the current goals to be achieved, negotiations should be concluded next year. We are convinced that the current progress in negotiations should make this possible.
I would like finally to stress that I do not see globalisation and European integration as unification. The positive effects of these processes are interdependent on the simultaneously establishing freedom of individuation and fragmentation. This is not just the freedom and autonomy of the individual, but also the freedom of social groups to express ethnic, cultural, religious, political and spiritual affiliations and convictions. These freedoms have a special meaning in people’s lives, and through them people express their bond with specific values. Only respect for such freedoms can be the foundation of European coexistence. This involves establishing the principle of ‘unity in diversity’.
The alternative is clear. If we do not succeed in finding in this new millennium the foundations of coexistence, which cannot simply be a negation of the past, but also an active acceptance of the future, including the formulation of a universal European policy of common responsibility in an open European Union, Europe will direct its destiny back into the past instead of into the future. In the first decade of the new century and millennium, democratic Europe is also facing new trials. My firm conviction is that united Europeans could be more than a match for these trials.
This idea seems to me particularly important, for it emphasises coexistence.
Coexistence is the only real alternative for the future of humankind; including that of Europe. Yet the question is: what will coexistence be founded upon? My own firm conviction is that it should be founded, first and foremost, upon the experience we have brought with us and which has engendered the values that we have articulated as the quintessence of European democracy and declared as the principles binding together the very fabric of the new Europe.
The experience we carry into the third millennium is an experience of the rise and fall of colonial powers and ideological, political and social totalitarianism. Set in counterpart to this, yet an integral part of our experience, is the ultimate establishment of the rule of law and human rights, the freedom of individuals and nations, democracy as the criterion of political power, social justice and stability as the goals to which we must constantly aspire.
Alongside experience, our coexistence should be founded upon a set of laws that will determine human life on the threshold of the third millennium and in which these values will be implemented and confirmed. These are the laws of the global community. For the moment, the global community seems limited to markets, economies and information and communication technology. Politics is lagging behind this trend. Yet the solid foundations of coexistence in the world demand globalised politics, which will be capable of establishing social coherence which will balance the effects of capital which has already been globalised.
Globalised politics presupposes that national politics and interests founded on the sovereignty of the nation state should be bound to the global politics of common responsibility. This would be a kind of world ‘domestic politics’, to which all countries would be bound. It would be founded in part on the following elements: on the global spread of political and economic democracy, on binding standards of individual and collective human rights, on dialogue between different cultures, religions and civilisations, on opposition to nationalism and xenophobia, on a new balance between the economically developed and developing parts of the world, on the globalisation of learning, knowledge, research and information, on developing international and inter-regional cooperation, on constructing a social order based on the model of social justice and solidarity, on common security and defence and on the fight against organised crime. With such politics we might seek a way of ensuring that the former ideological, political and military confrontations of the Cold War are not replaced by clashes of culture, religion and civilisation.
If we are to move towards worldwide political responsibility, we should be moving all the sooner to a policy of common responsibility in Europe; in the very Europe that right now is consolidating the foundations of coexistence for the future. This is being heralded by common European policies – not only monetary, but also foreign, defence and security policies – the European human rights charter, and perhaps a future European constitution. It is also heralded by the efforts to set up crisis management, which would prevent external or internal crises of countries in the region spilling over into armed conflict and aggression that might threaten the common peace, security and prosperity. A global policy of common responsibility requires not only that we prevent the actions of others that harm the community, but also, and most importantly, that we refrain from such actions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Kuçan,"1
"President of Slovenia."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples