I
have read with pleasure the subjects to be addressed during
this Round table of Europe discussion.
If
I say that I am in agreement with the suggested thesis
on the emerging new European order-from the perspective
of political and economic transformation, cultural values,
and environmental protection-it is not due to conventional
reasons, but because it is in accordance with my deepest
convictions.
Nevertheless,
allow me to suggest that we should focus more specifically
on two issues during this round table. First, we should
examine the right of nations to self-determination, and
consider their membership in multi-national state communities
and their impact on the future of Europe. Second, we should
consider how to resolve the contradictions between national
sovereignty and European integration.
In
examining these two important and complex issues, please
allow me to outline my personal views.
My
interpretations are based on my understanding of general
historical movements, including the nation to which I
belong. A broader understanding of their importance can
be obtained from a brief overview of the history of the
Croatian nation, as well as from my books.
The
Croatian nation is one of the oldest European nations.
Croatia appeared as an independent state subject in Europe
during the Frankish-Byzantine era, between the 9th and
12th centuries. Later, Croatia entered into a state entity
with Hungary and Austria, retaining-though in limited
form-its state and national individuality. The Hungarian
emperors were also the rulers of the Croatian Kingdom
(Slavonia and Dalmatia).
The
Habsburg Monarchy no doubt lasted as long as it did because
it was a natural, economic, and cultural whole, and, therefore,
had an affinity toward Central European lands and nations.
However, its dissolution was caused by the desire of its
nations for national independence.
Within
the Versailles Order of Europe, the Croatian nation found
itself in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later
known as Yugoslavia. As a result of Serbian hegemonistic
efforts to denationalize the Croatian people, one segment
of Croatians opted for national independence during the
Second World War, and declared an independent state within
the framework of Hitler's New European Order. Another
segment tried to resolve the Croatian problem by creating
a Federal State of Croatia within the framework of Tito's
Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, based on
the principles of AVNOJ (Anti-fascist Council of Yugoslavia),
which was envisaged as a community of equal nations.
The
crisis in Yugoslavia today is partly due to the bankruptcy
of the totalitarian "one-party political system,"
but primarily by tensions between the nations. The Serbians
have had too many benefits from the federation, while
the non-Serbian nations, especially the Croatians and
Slovenes, have had too few. As a result of their bitter
experiences, they can hardly be satisfied with a confederation.
Croatia
and Slovenia see their future in integration into the
European Community.
Advocates
of Serbian domination support a united Yugoslavia within
Europe, as though its internal structure were non-existent.
The
Baltic nations face a similar problem.
The
Basque problem, along with Catalonia, Northern Ireland,
Wales, Corsica, South Tyrol, etc., remind us that even
in Western Europe, there are open issues requiring a response
in a United Europe.
I
examined the problem of self-determination and integration
of nations more than twenty years ago in my book, Great
Ideas and Small Nations. At that time, there was an
effort in Yugoslavia to consolidate the idea of Yugoslav
statehood based on socialist internationalism. This was
promoted by Titoist federalists, on the one hand, who
wished to preserve a Yugoslavia based on the AVNOJ principles
and their own one-party monopoly. On the other hand, the
centralists wished to strengthen and expand Serbian hegemony.
The Serbian political position could never allow, from
the very beginning of Yugoslavia until today, the idea
of federal equality of the south Slavic nations.
Grand
universal ideas have been used by the great powers, countries,
and nations to extend their domination over the weak,
but they have never reached their highest idealistic objectives.
Such
ideas were, however, in contradiction with Marxist theories
of a unique socialist world. Therefore, after my book
Great Ideas and Small Nations was released, I was
not able to publish anything for nineteen years (actually,
until last year).
I
was interested in the problem of European integration
for many reasons.The contemporary world would not have
its present form had it not been for the historical role
of Europe. Can Europe, and her constitutive force in the
world, make use of her experience? How and in which way
can Europe participate in the world order? Is it possible
to reconcile the contradictions of national sovereignty
with the imperative of integration on the European continent?
I
dealt with these questions in my book, The National
Question in Contemporary Europe, which was published
abroad more than ten years ago (in Croatian, German and
English language editions).
I
sent my manuscript abroad, foreseeing a new struggle between
competing nationalisms in Yugoslavia. This was a period
in which it was clear that the nations of Eastern and
Central Europe could not escape Leonid Brezhnev's doctrine
of limited sovereignty. It would be appropriate to note
here that the idea of a unique Soviet nation was proclaimed
in the Soviet Union, an entity which was created from
a multitude of different nations and peoples. They also
announced that they were looking forward to the creation
of a unique socialist nation within the community of socialist
states, i.e., the Soviet Bloc.
It
is important to recall these theoretical constructions
because, despite what has transpired since, there are
people in Yugoslavia and elsewhere who continue to believe
in the idea of creating a unique supra-national Europe.
Therefore,
I would like to share with you my views about the idea
of establishing a European Community, which I examined
in my writings a decade ago.
No
power in history has been capable of artificially creating
a new nation from those already in existence. All such
attempts have failed. Nations are not created by pseudo-scientific,
voluntaristic theories, or ideological programs by Great
Powers and blocs. They emerge in a natural manner, in
an objective and complex historical process, as a result
of the development of all the material and spiritual forces
that in a given area shape the national being.
The
drive for survival and the desire of a nation to live
and retain its national identity, to assert itself and
to be free and recognized in the world community are irrepressible.
No nation can abandon its own national being in the name
of supra-national higher interest and goals, for this
would mean abandoning life itself.
And
in our age, we are witnesses to a contradictory and complex
progression of events. As the civilization of man becomes
more united, and the whole world more integrated, so have
peoples' national characteristics become more diverse.
Our contemporary experience shows clearly that the more
technologically integrated the world becomes, the more
pronounced are the national individualities of historic
and new nations.
National
movements among the unfree and dependent European nations
are an expression of their national interests, and their
individual demands and goals are determined primarily
by their current position, not their achievements. More
precisely, the fact that they do not all make the same
demands is not because they do not wish national sovereignty
and complete freedom, but due to the fact that these demands
are dependent upon the internal structures of states and
international realities. In some unitarian countries,
there are movements for the recognition of national identity
and the national rights of minorities; in others, for
a national autonomous self-government; in others, for
a federalist solution of the national question; and in
still others with federal systems, there are demands for
greater sovereignty within a confederation, or for complete
independence.
In
today's Europe - freed from imperialistic-hegemonistic
burdens of the past and ideological exclusiveness - peaceful
coexistence, the pluralism of ideas and the polycentrism
of social and state systems, even within the already realized
European Community, have become a reality, and the process
of integration can only proceed on a voluntary basis,
through the coordination of the free will and interests
of the individual countries. The completion of the process
of self-determination for European nations need not be
a obstacle. On the contrary, it can be a stimulus for
integration. Europe already possesses most of the ideological,
political, and other preconditions for realizing the classical
idea of unifying the European nations into the United
States of Europe.
Throughout
European history, we have seen that the perception of
the historical need for self-determination and integration
of European nations has ripened. Even though Europe is
still encumbered by the difficult historical heritage
of diverse national problems, there is not a single country
in Europe today that is attempting to resolve them. There
are grounds for assuming that the historical necessity
for creating a united Europe will provide incentive and
facilitate the resolution of this painful issue. By the
same token, the historical need for nations to realize
self-determination cannot be postponed without serious
consequences. In fact, their self-determination will promote
the speedier unification of the countries of Europe into
the United States of Europe. On an overall European
scale, no nation loses or gains through the resolution
of the open national questions of certain stateless nations.
The imperative of the times requires that they be concerned
both with their own and their neighbor's welfare, for
the satisfaction of the national aspirations of all the
European nations is an important prerequisite for stability
in the new international order of a united Europe.
The
ideas of self-determination and integration for the nations
of Europe are not in opposition to each other. Rather,
they should be viewed as complementary and as the embodiment
of their individual and joint interests. The United States
of Europe would provide the possibility of and framework
for the inclusion of the other small "stateless"
nations of Europe into the international community, and
they would consolidate rather than destabilize the international
order. In addition, a united Europe would accelerate the
development of conditions enabling the great European
nations to reassume their place in a changing world. The
nations of Europe require a united Europe to realize their
particular and the common interests of Europe as part
of the global community. Finally, mankind requires a United
States of Europe to promote greater harmony within
the international order.
