THE PRESIDENT
Thank you
very much, Mr Ivanov, for your most interesting and comprehensive
address. Members of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions
to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds.
Colleagues should be asking questions, not making speeches.
The first question is from Mr Volontè, who will speak on behalf
of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) (interpretation)
said that the President
had spoken at length about moral values and his commitment to religious
dialogue. In addition to what was already being done, what more
could have been done to promote these moral and spiritual values?
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
said that
Macedonia had long been a model of religious freedom and tolerance.
This was a product of its history as an empire; it had inherited
a culture of tolerance. Growing up in a society that contained a
diversity of religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism – made
people tolerant. Inclusion led to tolerance, it was isolation and
exclusion that created tension.
Macedonia was a model of inclusive democracy. What Macedonia
was today, Europe would become tomorrow; multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
Tolerance would lead to peace; without tolerance, there would easily be
conflict and the possibility of closed societies. This would in
turn lead to further lack of tolerance and conflict. All those involved
had to strive to find solutions through dialogue.
Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland)
As a member of
our delegation which observed the presidential election in Macedonia in
spring of last year, I vividly remember that, of the seven candidates
– we met them all, including you, Mr President – three were of Albanian
origin. How do you see that community’s political situation, which
in the past sometimes involved acts of violence? What is the situation
of other national minorities? You referred in your speech mainly
to linguistic and cultural aspects of this field.
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
said that
it was true that there had been a conflict in 2001 but that there
had been moves to find a solution by including all stakeholders.
This Ohrid framework agreement was a model of integration without
assimilation. That model should be studied as it contained lessons
for everyone.
In politics, everyone strove for power. This could lead to
ethno-political tensions being emphasised; this was a particular
risk during campaigns. However, when people were elected, they learnt
that the same institutional rules would apply to everyone. Institutional
regulations should be used to lower temperatures that could become
inflamed during campaigns.
Ms KEAVENEY (Ireland)
In the context
of open spaces and the European peace about which you talked, can
you comment on the role that the arts – specifically music – and
sport can have alongside new approaches to history teaching to assist
in giving our students an understanding of “the other” in our societies,
to minimise the potential for future conflict by focusing on our
similarities within and beyond politics, rather than our differences?
What role, if any, can the Council of Europe play in reaching that
goal?
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
spoke of
open spaces and the positive heritage of the Balkans. Young people
operated in their own open space, the Internet. This enabled them
to communicate and share music. They listened to global music and
followed global trends. When in European capitals, they ate the
same food and wore the same clothes. They spoke the international
language, English, and were part of a universal culture. These were
positive effects of globalisation and were giving rise to new identities
not based on territorial boundaries. This cultural richness was
welcome and would improve society.
Global channels should be used to promote local values. He
was very optimistic about the young generation, who were developing
a global mindset. The Internet allowed people to learn facts about
cultures and traditions, and to verify the facts independently.
People had to be prevented from developing closed minds; open minds led
to open space.
Mr BENDER (Poland)
Most Europeans
do not realise that one of the greatest heroes of the 20th century, Mother
Theresa, was born in your country. Do you agree that your country,
with its history and its beauty, should be better known in Europe?
A place such as Ohrid, a town of 40 000 inhabitants and more than
300 ancient churches, should be known to all Europeans. Does your
government plan to attract more visitors, including Polish tourists,
to your land?
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
thanked
Mr Bender for his kind words. He was pleased to hear them because
sometimes people thought that he was not objective when talking
about Macedonia. Mother Theresa had been born in Skopje in Macedonia
as a Catholic, and she was a product of the country’s diversity.
She did not learn tolerance and how to help people at university,
but learned it by living in an open space. He was proud that his
country had produced a Nobel laureate and was the birth place of
the fathers of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kernel Ataturk, and Egypt,
Muhammad Ali. He was proud that his country had created people who
could transpose the model of tolerance to other countries.
Macedonia showed how to construct positive identities that
might be developed by institutions. Identities could lead to conflict
but should be used to build bridges. We learnt from other people
by living with them.
Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) (interpretation)
welcomed the president on behalf of the Macedonian delegation
to the Council of Europe. He asked where the president saw the region
in 10 years’ time and what he thought were the prospects for future
co-operation.
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
said that
a comparison of the region of 20 years ago with that of today spoke
volumes for the region’s potential. Slovenia had joined in the European Union.
Croatia and Macedonia were candidate countries and were close to
joining. Other countries, including Albania, Serbia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina were expected to achieve the same soon.
He knew the Balkan region very well, and there still existed
some 19th and 20th century stereotypes based on bloodshed and violence.
History showed that the facts were very different. There were 3 000
years of human history, before which there were only myths and legends.
Of those 3 000 years, 2 700 had been years of violence. The two
longest periods of peace had happened in the Balkans, under the
Pax Romani and the Pax Ottomana. Now, what was needed was the creation
of a new Pax, a Pax “Europeana”. There was a need to remind the
western world that the idea that had driven the European project
was peace. Peace was only possible in an open space. This required
a single market, a single currency and a single language. Such an open
space would lead to peace.
He was very optimistic about the prospects of the region.
He loved the region – he was a “Balkan-ophile”.
Mrs PAPADIMITRIOU (Greece)
Welcome to our
plenary session, Mr Ivanov. I truly hope to be in a position soon
to welcome you to all EU and European institutions. A few years
ago, in this very Chamber, one of your predecessors, Mr Bučkovski,
reassured almost the same audience of your country’s true wish to
close with Greece the continuing issue of a commonly accepted name.
What is the progress in that direction and what is your contribution?
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
said that
he was very pleased with recent developments in relations between
Macedonia and Greece. There had been another meeting between the
Macedonian and Greek Prime Ministers yesterday. This was the sixth
meeting in a short time. It signalled a return in the confidence
in relations between leaders of the countries. He was very keen
to meet the Greek President, Mr Papoulias. While it had not yet
been possible to arrange a meeting, they were corresponding and had
written to each other three times. He wanted there to be no tension
in relations between the two countries. His citizens again visited
Greece on holiday and Greek businessmen made profits in Macedonia.
In restaurants in Macedonia could be found Greek salad on
the menu, and people drinking ouzo. Greek music was played at Macedonian
weddings. This sort of thing showed that there was no problem between
the citizens of the countries; the problem had been between the
elites. He was confident that relations between the prime ministers
would intensify, and that a solution could be found under the guidance
of the UN Ambassador.
Mr ZERNOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) (interpretation)
reminded President Ivanov that Greece had asked Macedonia
to change its flag and constitution and Macedonia had done so. Now
Macedonia was being asked to change its name. Did President Ivanov
think this in keeping with the principles of the Council of Europe?
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
reminded
the Assembly that Macedonia had been formed in turbulent times after
the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, and the issue of Macedonia’s
name had first been raised then. The Greeks had asked Macedonia
to adapt its constitution and flag to alleviate Greek security concerns,
and the Macedonians had done so. Macedonia had signed up to United
Nations Resolution 817, which did not mention changing the name
but merely required the entering of discussions. The Lisbon Declaration
had asked Macedonia not to use the name “the Republic of Macedonia” but
to accept the use of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
in international organisations as a provisional arrangement. It
was now time to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Macedonian had once been an official language of Yugoslavia,
and the right of self-determination should guarantee the right of
all Macedonians to speak their own language. If such rights were
violated, the European Court of Human Rights would face many claims
from individual Macedonians. He regretted that so much time and
energy had been spent in dispute and hoped that the dispute would
soon be resolved so that bigger issues affecting the Balkans could
be discussed instead. The situation reminded him of the country
in “Gulliver’s Travels” where there was constant fighting but no-one
remembered why. This was especially true of young people who were
often unaware of the UN resolution or the background to the dispute.
This entire argument over the flag, constitution, language
and name was tied up in the issue of Macedonian identity. He was
therefore pleased to see Greece recognising the Macedonian identity
and the rights of Macedonians living in Greece.
Mrs TÜRKÖNE (Turkey)
We all know that
cultural diversity is very important for your country. I visited Macedonia
in 2005 and I saw that historical buildings, churches and mosques
were well kept. However, in the city of Manastir, I saw two mosques
that were closed, with their doors chained. It was a great pity,
but recently I have learnt that under your presidency one of the
mosques has already reopened for worship. I warmly welcome that
and would appreciate it if you could share with us any other such
works in your country.
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
said that,
under communism, atheism was the official religion. Religious artefacts
were nationalised and buildings turned into museums. The denationalisation
of religion was a long process and the returning of religious property
to its rightful owners would take time.
The Macedonian Constitution recognised five official religions,
all of which operated in a culture of mutual respect. Many religious
buildings were historical artefacts of which tourists and the public
should be more aware. The multilingual and multi-ethnic nature of
Macedonia made democracy and government very expensive, and he regretted
that further progress on denationalising the religions of Macedonia
would depend on economic performance.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania)
My question
follows on from some previous ones. You recently said that an increasing
number of people want to be Macedonian citizens, and that is a very
positive trend. Ethnic Albanians make up a quarter of your population.
How many of them wish to be affiliated very strongly with Macedonia? How
many of them think that their fatherland is Albania or Kosovo, two
Albanian states that are nearby?
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
noted that
a large proportion of the population of Macedonia, about 25%, were
ethnic Albanians. The Ohrid framework had left Macedonia with an inclusive
model in which every identity was recognised, and the Albanian identity
was specifically mentioned in the constitution. When ethnic minorities
within Macedonia travelled to their homeland, they were still viewed as
Macedonians. In fact, foreigners viewed all people living in Macedonia
as Macedonians whether they were ethnically Turkish, ethnically
Albanian, ethnically Greek. Equally, everyone living in Macedonia
was a Macedonian citizen and was treated equally.
Macedonia was a very diverse country in a very diverse region.
The Balkans needed the European tradition of separating the human
and political dimensions. He was keen to stress that nationality,
for example, was very different from citizenship, and he regretted
that that distinction was not always made. He hoped that, as Macedonia
and the Balkan region moved closer to Europe, they would also move
closer to adopting European values and principles.
Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)
I come from a
country that is a strong supporter of the EU and of Euro-Atlantic enlargement
in the Balkans – as you well know, that process includes your country.
On EU accession, your country is the oldest candidate but in almost
two years you have not yet established a clear date for starting the
negotiation of the chapters. My question is a simple one: what political
actions do you intend to take, as head of state, both in the domestic
politics between your political parties and outside your country
to try to promote, push and accelerate your European fight?
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
suggested
that his role was very similar to that played by the European Union.
Just as the European Union united disparate views towards working
towards a common goal, in Macedonia the participants in politics
were divided on many issues and had to be unified. All political
parties in Macedonia were, however, united in their desire for European integration.
Balkan countries were more efficient when facing specific
tasks, and in a crisis or when facing a fixed goal – then, all elements
of society could come together to work towards a common aim. The
promise of European integration led to the adoption of European
values and rules, and progress would be made as long as that was a
goal with a fixed date. However, when the date was not fixed or
the integration process was hindered by other means, old issues
and problems arose. Every benchmark that Macedonia had been set
by the European Union had been met, but there were more than 70
opportunities for Macedonian membership of the EU to be blocked in
the screening process. He reiterated that once a date for beginning
negotiations was set, a more favourable climate for European integration
would be created in Macedonia.
Mr AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA (Spain) (interpretation)
noted that the
constitutions of the states of the former Yugoslavia were very different.
He said that some were good but some, like that of Kosovo, were
bad. He asked whether President Ivanov thought all the states were
politically and economically viable.
Mr Ivanov, President of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (interpretation)
said that
the former Yugoslavia was a strong state in times of peace but could
not function in times of crisis. Once Tito had died, collective
decision making had not worked, and that had led to dissolution
of the state. The constitution of the former Yugoslavia had granted
the six republics that made up the state the right of self-determination.
It was this clause that had led to the break-up of the state and
six new states being created.
Serbia was very different from the other new states in that
it had two separate areas, Vojvodina and Kosovo. When the Kosovan
area did not receive what it viewed as sufficient autonomy, it demanded
the same right to self-determination as the other states of the
former Yugoslavia had had, and this had caused the break-up of the
Serbian state. Macedonia respected the new reality and tried to
have good relations with both Kosovo and Serbia, but the creation
of new countries could have a domino effect.
The creation of the European Union had weakened the state
and created a post-Westphalian reality. This required open space
and freedom to encourage democracy and integration which the European
Union best provided. There were more than 5 000 ethnic groups and
6 000 linguistic groups globally. It would obviously not work if
each group had its own state. Regional integration was therefore
an important weapon in resolving and moderating these demands.
THE PRESIDENT
We must
now conclude the questions to Mr Ivanov.
Mr President, on behalf of the Assembly, I should like to
thank you for your address and the answers that you have given to
our questions.
