HCNM. Towards Good Governance and Social Integration

Transcription

1 HCNM Towards Good Governance and Social Integration Proceedings and Developments from the Conference Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe High Commissioner on National Minorities

2

3 Towards Good Governance and Social Integration Proceedings and Developments from the Conference Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity Compiled and Edited by John Packer with the assistance of Sally Holt

4 Published and disseminated by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM). This publication is protected by international copyright law. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN/EAN: OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 2007 Printed in the Netherlands For further information, please contact: OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Prinsessegracht AP The Hague Tel: +31 (0) Fax: +31 (0) hcnm@hcnm.org Website:

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD Rolf Ekéus, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities FOOD FOR THOUGHT...3 OPENING ADDRESSES OF 18 OCTOBER INAUGURAL ADDRESS Flavio Cotti, President of the Swiss Confederation...5 THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATING DIVERSITY Max van der Stoel, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities...11 THE PERSPECTIVE FROM ODIHR Gérard Stoudmann, Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights...21 FORMS AND NOTIONS OF GOVERNANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORITIES IN MODERN DEMOCRACIES Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government, Oxford University...25 GOOD GOVERNANCE: NOTIONS AND FORMS Danilo Türk, Professor of international law, Ljubljana University; Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations, New York...35 EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION THROUGH ELECTIONS: CREATING THE SPACE FOR MINORITIES AND MAJORITIES IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE Andrew Reynolds, Assistant Professor of Government and International Studies, University of Notre Dame; Fellow of the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies and the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace Studies...41 TOWARDS EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION OF MINORITIES: A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF ADVISORY AND CONSULTATIVE BODIES AND DIALOGUE MECHANISMS Fernand de Varennes, Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, Murdoch University; Director of the Asia-Pacific Centre for Human Rights and the Prevention of Ethnic Conflict (Australia); Co-Responsable, Section Droits et politiques linguistiques, Groupement de Recherches 1178 Droit, Cultures, Langues, Conseil National de la Recherche Scientifique (France)...53 IMPLICATIONS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE IN PLURAL SOCIETIES Rein Müllerson, Professor of International Law, King s College, University of London...71

6 GOOD GOVERNANCE: IMPLICATIONS IN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE Tom Price, OSCE Coordinator for Economic and Environmental Activities...83 INTEGRATING DIVERSITY: EFFECTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES Miquel Strubell, Director, Institute of Catalan Sociolinguistics, Generalitat de Catalunya (regional government of Catalonia)...89 INTEGRATING DIVERSITY: LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF EFFECTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES György Szépe, Professor of Language Sciences, Janus Pannonius University...99 EDUCATION: ALTERNATIVES; DECENTRALIZATION AND PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Diego Erba, Director of the Pedagogical Review of the Scuola Ticinese GOALS AND POSSIBILITIES OF DECENTRALIZED EDUCATION Robb Cooper, Professor of Education, Northern Illinois University CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT AGENDA LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS LIST OF PARTICIPANTS SELECTED OSCE STANDARDS AND REFERENCES THE LUND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES IN PUBLIC LIFE & EXPLANATORY NOTE GUIDELINES TO ASSIST NATIONAL MINORITY PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS [THE "WARSAW GUIDELINES"]

7 FOREWORD It has become apparent that a common and persistent challenge across the OSCE area, if not around the world, is that of integrating diversity within pluralist societies. Notwithstanding the adoption of important international standards establishing basic rights and encouraging good governance, many States struggle to meet the challenge in terms of concrete and sustainable policy and its effective implementation. Whether the challenge manifests itself in the field of education, economic opportunity, cultural maintenance or various other domains of private and public life, I have found as High Commissioner on National Minorities that more attention to this subject is needed. Indeed, I have found the general issue of social integration to be a complex, pressing and yet little understood or purposefully addressed area of public policy in many countries in which I have become involved as in others which I observe. With a view to taking stock of where the thinking and approach at least in the context of national minorities has evolved within the OSCE, and hoping to stimulate further reflection on and development in this field, it seems opportune to make publicly available the pioneering work which initiated important developments in the last five or so years, beginning with the unpublished proceedings of the October 1998 conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity. This was the first such inter-governmental conference on this theme, and led within one year to the elaboration of the Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public Life which have since been broadly disseminated and have enjoyed wide acclaim as a useful reference for policy makers. These were followed in March 2001 by the elaboration in Warsaw of Guidelines to Assist National Minority Participation in the Electoral Process, which have since been incorporated into the regular work of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in its work monitoring, advising upon and assessing elections and their systems. These materials are compiled and edited, together with an introduction by John Packer, former Legal Adviser and then Director in the Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities, with a view to explaining the development and subsequent use of especially the Lund Recommendations and the so-called Warsaw Guidelines. The utility of this compilation is in its exposition of the considerations and arguments that led to developments at that time and which clearly merit further reflection today. It is my intention to look closer at the specific needs and practices of participating States and of the OSCE as a whole, and encourage a dialogue about how 1

8 the OSCE community may better address issues of social integration in their various manifestations. I believe this is consistent with the progression of work done by my Office and responds to evident and sometimes expressed needs. I am convinced that thoughtful and effective policies and programmes of social integration can contribute to reducing the root causes and risks of conflict. Rolf Ekéus OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 2

9 Food for Thought FOOD FOR THOUGHT 10 September 1998 The Heads of State and Government declared in Paris on 21 November 1990 an era of democracy, peace and unity for a new Europe and undertook to build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations. The commitment was not just to any kind of democracy, but one of a representative and pluralist character. Through this steadfast commitment to democracy based on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and with a commitment to economic liberty and social justice, OSCE Heads of State and Government thereby also sought to attain equal security for all our countries. This is the essence of the OSCE notion of comprehensive security which remains the inspiration and driving force of the OSCE. The commitment undertaken in Paris was followed by two significant meetings of experts held in Oslo and Geneva in 1991: the Oslo meeting aimed generally to strengthen democratic institutions, while the Geneva meeting aimed more specifically to foster the rich contribution of national minorities to the life of our societies. These meetings succeeded in outlining some practical measures for facilitating integration of groups, including avoidance of over-centralization of decisionmaking, encouraging participation in consultative State organs and considering some specific approaches of inclusive processes in an appropriate democratic manner. Specific reference was made to the importance of the human dimension as elaborated in the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of June Based upon their collective experience over the subsequent period, the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) and the Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) have decided to organize a conference with a view to considering further the content of OSCE undertakings in the light of the range of existing practice and alternative possibilities. The Conference is being co-organized by the HCNM and the ODIHR with the support of several governments (Switzerland, the United States of America, Sweden, Norway and The Netherlands). It is hoped in particular to consider the benefits of decentralization and subsidiarity as means of accommodating diversity in society. Insofar as the HCNM s special interest is in relation to minorities, it has been his experience that one very good and generally applicable approach to help solve minority-related issues is through the development of progressively open and decentralized States where individual choice may lead to the fulfilment of the plurality of interests and desires. As such, it is hoped that the Conference will contribute to a more developed understanding of liberal democracy and its possibilities for modern, pluralist societies with increasing human contacts between and within them. As the title for the Conference suggests, it is intended to consider the content of good governance with effective participation of minorities. There is a lot of room to develop these notions which are grounded in existing OSCE standards. Progress may be achieved by stressing the ideas of 3

10 Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity common and general interests, the responsibility of governing for the whole population, and the necessity of taking into account in a meaningful way the specific concerns and interests of minorities. It is asserted that overly centralized States tend to serve specific interests in a disproportionate and inflexible manner as uniform policies are forced upon the wider society even when not necessary. Excluded or marginalized groups often react strongly against such policies. Experience shows that alternative approaches which are inclusive and decentralized may well contribute to better overall governance with win-win solutions for competing interests, by increasing the productive resources and prosperity of the overall society, of multiplying opportunities and creating greater freedom for all. Beginning with a developed sense of the objective of good governance, it is hoped that the Conference may inspire some new thinking and awareness in this direction. Independent experts will address the Conference on various alternatives with regard to policies and programmes. The Conference will be opened by introductory statements by President Cotti of Switzerland on behalf of the host State and by the HCNM and Director of the ODIHR as joint convenors. Following one day of discussion on the general ideas of the positive content of good governance, effective participation, and inclusive and integrative policies relating to persons belonging to minorities, the Conference will focus for one morning on the field of education as a concrete subject-matter domain in order to allow participants to consider better the implications of the general ideas. Experts will address the Conference on the following subjects: Good Governance: Notions and Forms ; Good Governance: Implications ; Effective Participation: Advisory and Decision-making Bodies and Dialogue Mechanisms ; Integrating Diversity: Effective Policies and Programmes ; and Education: Alternatives for Decentralization and Participation in Public and Private Institutions and at Various Levels. The OSCE Coordinator on Economic and Environmental Affairs will also address the Conference in an effort to draw attention to the important possibilities for similar approaches in the field of economics. Experts will introduce the subjects with twenty-minute presentations followed by discussion among participating States. In sum, it is hoped that the Conference will contribute to a better understanding of how our democracies can work to take advantage of the rich diversity which we enjoy and how the New Europe can achieve its aims of peace and stability with freedom and prosperity for all. 4

11 Opening Addresses: Inaugural Address OPENING ADDRESSES OF 18 OCTOBER 1998 INAUGURAL ADDRESS Flavio Cotti President of the Swiss Confederation Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, It gives me very great pleasure indeed to be able to welcome you to the OSCE Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity here in Locarno. I would like to extend my particular thanks to the High Commissioner on National Minorities, Mr van der Stoel, and to Ambassador Stoudmann, the Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Their great commitment in the sphere of minorities and multi-ethnicity has made this Conference possible. I would also like to thank the authorities of the Canton of Ticino for their readiness to take on the role of the host here in Locarno. Our meeting also reminds me of the unforgettable times of my OSCE chairmanship, and especially of cooperation with the High Commissioner. Minister van der Stoel always participated in the Troika meetings with patience, restraint and discretion and then proceeded to make a precise comment which hit the nail on the head. I am sure that this is also part of the secret of how he tackles delicate minority issues with such success. On the long journey to the Canton of Ticino, you may well have wondered: why Locarno, of all places? Staging this Conference in Locarno has a particular symbolic significance for us since the Canton of Ticino belongs to the second-smallest linguistic region of this country, which is separated from the rest of Switzerland by the Alps, and this makes things rather more difficult at times. Ticino is greatly concerned with issues such as participation in the national decision-making process, the integration of distinctive groups, and minorities in general. Locarno, however, is also the place where, in a hotel not far from here, the agreements were initialled on 16 October 1925 after two weeks of negotiations; these Locarno agreements were intended to be some major steps on the road to Peace in Europe and to bring about a security balance in Europe. Much more recently, on the initiative of the High Commissioner on National Minorities, a round table discussion on the issue of the Crimean Tartars took place here in 1995, which at the time paved the way for an important breakthrough. There was a further round table meeting in 1996 which focused on the establishment of a multicultural and multi-ethnic society in Kazakhstan. 5

12 Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity Thus, the OSCE Conference is not simply taking place in Ticino by accident. Rather, this is the place where, in the course of a long period of time, experience, knowledge and consciousness have grown, which can and should enrich the coming debates. Moreover, Locarno is my own home town, and this is why I am particularly pleased that this Conference can be staged here. Swiss Federalism One of Switzerland's central characteristics is the fact that four different national languages and cultures live together in a confined space. We have learnt that, in the long run, only respect for, and the promotion of, diversity are able to keep our linguistically heterogeneous country together and thus even become a shared integration factor. The search for a delicate balance between cultural, linguistic and religious diversity and political unity led to today's federalist system, which characterizes Switzerland's identity at all levels. Crucial significance is accorded to the principle of subsidiarity, which is applied in the sense of complementarity: factions are basically fulfilled at that level which is most compatible to their nature and offers the most suitable opportunities. In specific terms this means: as much decentralization as possible, and as little centralization as is inevitable. In Switzerland, federalism is the most efficient mechanism with which minorities are protected and promoted, and which is conducive to their further self-realization. The sovereign cantons have their own constitutions and enact their own laws regarding, among other things, taxation, the police, social welfare, health, education and the promotion of culture. Yet federalism does not end with the cantons, but continues at the level of the communities, which also levy taxes and are able to legislate in all those areas that are not regulated by either the Confederation or the canton. At the level of the Confederation, special mechanisms guarantee the ability of the cantons and therefore of the linguistic regions to exert their influence. Specifically, this includes the fact that every canton, irrespective of its size, sends two representatives to the small chamber of Parliament; every canton has the right to submit its comments on federal bills; and referendums have to be carried not only by the number of votes cast by the people, but also by the majority of the number of cantons. Moreover, it is a particular concern to guarantee for the different linguistic regions an appropriate representation not only in parliament, but also at the level of the government. Here, the unwritten law applies whereby at least two of the seven Federal Councillors must come from French- and Italian-speaking Switzerland. At present, Latin Switzerland, which accounts for about one fourth of the population, is represented by three Federal Councillors in the seven-strong government. It is plain for you to see, Ladies and Gentlemen, that in Switzerland, it is perfectly possible for a representative of a linguistic minority numbering just 5% of the population to open an international conference in his capacity as President of the Confederation. 6

13 Opening Addresses: Inaugural Address Historical Developments Yet, believe me, the mere creation of the necessary structures will not suffice to guarantee the coherence of the State and the prosperous coexistence of diverse cultures in a confined space in the long term. This will require greater efforts, as I have reminded my fellow citizens again and again, and particularly this year, which is the 150 th anniversary of the Swiss Confederation. Rather, what is needed is the conviction that the existence of different cultures represents an opportunity and an enrichment, the generally supported will to live together, and the firmly rooted idea of making multi-ethnicity the central integration factor of the shared State. It is precisely this shared political will which is regarded as nationalist in a multi-ethnic country, and not things like a homogeneous culture or a uniform tradition. This will to live together, however, cannot be developed from one day to the next, nor can it be decreed by any institutions and bodies; instead, it must be allowed to evolve over a long period of time and in the whole of the population. The creation of the Swiss Confederation in 1848 was preceded by several centuries of conflict and war between individual cantons and linguistic regions. The readiness to display tolerance and this primarily applies to the majority must be practiced, cultivated, improved with patience. Do not misunderstand me, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have not devoted these introductory words to Switzerland because I want it to be considered an example for other countries. Far be it from me to do so, since I am aware that every situation in every country has its very own peculiarities and therefore requires new and tailor-made solutions. Rather, I wanted to state that our history and daily experience has made us particularly sensitive to specific questions and problems of groups of different cultures living together. For this reason, there is a widespread interest and readiness to take an active part in the search for such new and tailor-made solutions. The Commitment of the OSCE The necessity of finding or improving such solutions is no mere academic interest but results from the central challenges that we encounter in the OSCE area. Virtually all the conflicts with which I had to deal in 1996 as the OSCE's Chairman-in-Office had their origins in the situations of minorities. Unregulated relations between national majorities and minorities within the States, as well as re-emerging ethnic nationalism, represent the greatest danger for peace in Europe, and the effects of totalitarianism have not yet been mastered everywhere, either. The most topical crisis of this nature is the Kosovo conflict, which is claiming an increasing number of civilian victims and has driven hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. I will certainly not have to remind you of the untold suffering which the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina caused only a few years ago. However, tensions and unresolved minority conflicts also exist in Nagorno- Karabakh, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Moldova. In some of these cases, the political efforts to find a solution have been stagnating for a long time. In Tajikistan, we are party to a fragile negotiation process. Developments are encouraging in Latvia, where the population has voted for the naturalization of inhabitants of Russian origin, thereby also complying with a request 7

14 Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity from the High Commissioner. We hope that Croatia, too, will manage to satisfy its obligations regarding the return of displaced persons and refugees in full and to create the foundations for a tolerant coexistence between the various groups of the population. Whilst the question of Crimean autonomy is moving in the right direction, continued attention must be paid to the integration of the returning Crimean Tartars at the same time. I have restricted myself to tensions and conflicts in which the OSCE is active but would like to remind you of the fact that there are also situations in which the OSCE is not involved. In the course of the century, historically grown cultural diversity has provided our continent with unique intellectual and cultural wealth, but it has also, again and again, caused a great deal of suffering in the form of ethnic and religious conflicts. The OSCE has repeatedly dealt with the question as to how the still emerging latent tensions and open conflicts at the interfaces of diverse cultures, languages and religions could be handled best. Questions of national minorities can only be settled satisfactorily in a democratic political framework, based on rule of law and with a functioning independent judiciary. We have committed ourselves to protecting the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identities of national minorities, and to promoting a climate of mutual respect, understanding, cooperation and solidarity. The diversity and changing nature of constitutions, however, make it unlikely for a generally valid method to be applied. As early as the Meeting of Experts on National Minorities held in Geneva in 1991, a number of steps and measures were detailed which have led to positive results. The Conference in Locarno takes up once again the great and central issue of good governance with an effective participation of minorities, and would like to stimulate improvement of existing practices and take into account alternative possibilities. Switzerland hopes that this Conference will contribute towards an improvement in the implementation of previously entered commitments regarding national minorities. However, the situation in the field, the claims advanced by minorities in various participating States, call for more. Switzerland is convinced that, both in the interest of minorities and for the preservation of territorial integrity, we will have to do a great deal more for minorities to feel more secure in their environments and for their claims not to result in conflict. We must find solutions which make concessions to national minorities' aspirations while promoting their sustainable integration into the society and structures of participating States. Switzerland is convinced that such solutions can be found in the sphere of subsidiarity in the distribution of competencies among national and regional structures of government and administration. Forms of self-administration that are adapted to the local situation can make an essential contribution to consensual coexistence within shared borders, and help settle tensions and conflicts. We are also convinced that the role of the High Commissioner on National Minorities should be further extended. Not only the OSCE's presence in the Balkans, but virtually all the OSCE's long-term missions deal primarily with defusing tensions resulting from the failed, or not yet successful, integration of minorities. Whereas the missions are all responses to existing serious situations that are a threat to security, this Conference here in Locarno is supposed to be proactive. This means 8

15 Opening Addresses: Inaugural Address that it should make a concrete contribution towards preventing such tensions in the first place or defusing them before they have become a serious security risk. On the basis of the OSCE's existing commitments, Locarno should develop certain principles and specific indications further, thus making a vital contribution to genuine preventive diplomacy. I hope that the impulses of Locarno will also have a bearing on the discussion in Vienna on the European Security Charter. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am honoured to be able to welcome you to Locarno not only because I have very special personal ties with this town but also, and primarily, because we will be discussing one of the central issues of European security and because I hope that this discussion will take us a small but important step further. Cultural, ethnic and religious diversity are an enormous enrichment for our countries. May this Conference cause this conviction to take even deeper roots in our hearts! I wish this Conference a great deal of success! 9

16 Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity 10

17 Opening Addresses: The Role and Importance of Integrating Diversity THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATING DIVERSITY Max van der Stoel OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentleman, Twenty-five years have passed since the initiation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In those early days, I had the honour to attend those meetings in the capacity of Foreign Minister of my country. I recall the tentative way in which began what subsequently became known as the Helsinki process. I also recall the keen sense of necessity and responsibility that many of us felt in that dark period of European history. It took almost twenty years to move beyond that period to move out of the darkness into the light of a free continent committed to democratic government and the free market economy. Certainly, the signing of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe was a remarkable achievement following the progressive development of the Helsinki process. But it was by no means a foregone conclusion. It came as the result of steady efforts from many quarters, some more apparent than others. Nonetheless, in Paris in November 1990 we essentially closed the door on the Cold War and opened a new era of a Europe united by common values. Unfortunately, the new era in Europe has been more difficult than most anticipated. The 1990s have been a period of uncertainty and instability as we have been moving through a difficult transition from the old to the new. We are still very much in the midst of this transition and not only for the new democracies. In the midst of our own European transition, we have all been experiencing a global transformation of relations with serious consequences also for the old democracies. This has resulted in the simultaneous forces of integration and disintegration each tugging at the fabric of the State. In this period, we have seen, and some have discovered for the first time, how democracy and the market economy are not self-realizing. Nor are they ends in themselves. Rather, they are means to an end. That end, to which all are now committed, is a peaceful, just and prosperous life. Democracy and the market economy are fundamentally processes through which we seek to achieve our desired end. These processes of political decision-making and production and distribution of goods require the establishment and functioning of institutions and regulations. Essentially, they require the rule of law with respect for human rights in order to limit arbitrariness and to realize a minimum of social and political justice. Our commitment to peace, justice and prosperity is intended for the benefit of all. This is so both in terms of relations between peoples and States, and in terms of relations within the State. This has been clear for all OSCE participating States since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act. The principles of this accord are contained in the well-known decalogue. At the level of inter- State relations, OSCE States are committed to respect the principles of: sovereign equality; non- 11

18 Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity use or threat of force; inviolability of frontiers; territorial integrity; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-intervention in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; selfdetermination of peoples; cooperation among States; and fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law. All OSCE participating States are expected to respect these political commitments both in general and in terms of their specification through subsequently elaborated OSCE standards. It is also intended that these principles are to be respected as a whole and with the appropriate balance. The aim of our commitment to these principles is ultimately to achieve human security and prosperity, that is, to benefit the millions of people whom we represent and are bound to serve. The OSCE principles tell us how to do this. For not only do they declare values and standards which are each valid in themselves, but together they reflect an underlying logic. Based on European history, this logic declares that prosperity is only possible when there is peace and stability, and such peace and stability is only really achievable through a just order between and within States. This is a lesson not only of the Cold War, but equally of the two World Wars which caused such misery on our continent in the first half of this century. We learned then what is perhaps the most vital part of the puzzle that justice is only really achievable on the basis of respect for human rights. The logic affirms that human rights must be respected not only because of the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, but because peace and security depend upon it. I believe that this is constantly being reconfirmed by experience. Of course, the application of this logic and these values is not so simple. To be sure, our era is one of uncertainty and insecurity not only for States, but for individuals within the State. In confronting these challenges, we have essentially two choices: either we can seek to retreat to the past and waste our energies in constructing barriers which surely will be overwhelmed, or we can take a proactive approach and meet the challenges with enlightened understanding and creative solutions derived and implemented through cooperation. Evidently, I strongly support the latter approach. In doing so, I also firmly believe that we must respond better to the concerns of all legitimate interests within the State. If justice is fairness, we must seek to achieve fairness not only in relations between States and for individuals within States, but also for communities within States which may not find adequate opportunities for fulfilment through the simple processes of democracy. Our efforts to achieve fairness for individuals in terms of their fundamental civil, political and economic rights is yielding good results, although we must remain ever vigilant in this regard. However, in terms of fairness between communities which find themselves in the position of minorities within the State and which often straddle inter-state frontiers, there is in many cases still a long way to go. Indeed, it has been recognized by many that the main challenge to European security arises from relations between such communities, that is, mainly inter-ethnic relations, within the State and across State frontiers. To be clear, I am not speaking about communities in terms of monolithic and static entities. Rather, I am speaking about communities formed of individuals who freely exercise their 12

19 Opening Addresses: The Role and Importance of Integrating Diversity choice and display characteristics which evidently distinguish themselves. In the terminology of human rights, we speak about individuals acting alone or in community. It seems apparent to me that the human being is a social being. We derive our sense of ourselves from our relations with others. First, we have our family from which we acquire basic values in the home. This is enhanced through our extended family from our lineage and heritage. Our individual identity is further enhanced through our community with which we share traditions, customs and larger values, even a world view. Certainly, I am no sociologist, but I am convinced that this is an essential aspect of the human experience, and I know that it is asserted every day throughout the world. I would even say that human beings should not be conceived of or treated in an atomistic fashion, for then they risk becoming alienated, isolated and frustrated. We must not fail to respect the essential social nature of human existence. Human beings require community. This is the basis of our identity. For most of us, our mother tongue, name, values, symbols, and culture largely define who we are and our sense of ourselves. On the basis of my experience, especially over the past six years as OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, I am convinced also that it is wrong to frustrate the peaceful pursuit of the maintenance and development of one s identity, alone or in community with others. It is also highly dangerous. Experience teaches us that this can lead to tensions and conflict, sometimes even armed conflict. It is a matter of dignity that human beings must be free to define themselves and their identity. Indeed, this is the essence of human rights. The value of the freedoms of thought, expression, association, assembly, the free use of language and enjoyment of culture are all matters of dignity. For persons belonging to the majority in a democratic society, this is not so much of a problem it comes in the course of things. But, for persons belonging to minorities, it is a problem. For them, enjoyment of their basic rights and freedoms are important, but not enough. The OSCE was the first to realize this. On the basis of our sad European history during which minorities have been subjected to all manner of denial of rights, abuse and even attempted extermination, we have at the end of this century finally understood that persons belonging to minorities must not only be protected, but also supported. OSCE participating States have articulated this in the standards of the fourth chapter of the Copenhagen Document on the Human Dimension. This groundbreaking document, agreed even before the Paris Charter, marks a watershed in European history. It has spurred the Council of Europe to elaborate the first ever binding multilateral treaty for the protection of national minorities, and it even encouraged the rather weaker United Nations Declaration on Minorities. The essence of the Copenhagen Document is that persons belonging to minorities have equally legitimate needs and desires to maintain and develop their identity, that they are not only to be free in this regard, but that they enjoy a legitimate right to certain facilities within the State, in particular in relation to language, education and culture. Another important point of OSCE consensus is found in the Moscow Document of Following the same logic of the interdependence of peace and security and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, OSCE participating States have 13

20 Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity agreed that the issue of respect for human rights is not an internal affair, but is a legitimate interest of all other OSCE States. This important determination has allowed the subsequent development of the dialogue and institutions from which we benefit today. In my work as High Commissioner on National Minorities, I have observed constantly recurring issues regarding the specific needs and desires of particular minorities in various situations. There are a great variety of such situations, and no two are exactly alike. Nonetheless, they display some essential similarities. Most importantly, it is clear that minorities attach a very high importance to the maintenance of their identity and they will vigorously pursue their interests in this regard. There are all sorts of demands and challenges perhaps more than we have previously realized. But, I have also come to see that it is quite possible to respond to such needs and to accommodate such desires within the State. We must only think of the possibilities and seek solutions on the basis of respect for others. Some solutions are easier than others; some are more complicated. It is important in this connection to realize that few things within the State require absolute uniformity. We can say this of the regulation of the highways, where everyone s security and access requires strict uniformity in respect of the rules. We cannot accommodate choice with regard to which side of the road drivers may choose. But, aside from such domains, much in the regulation and administration of the State is capable of variety without endangering the cohesion of the State. It is obviously possible to accommodate the use of more than one language, and the free space for cultural development can accommodate an untold diversity. We now view this increasingly in terms of the richness of cultures and of society as a whole, as we should. The key to find appropriate accommodations is the political will to do so within the framework of responsible governance. While Governments have their obligations and responsibilities, it is also true that citizens have theirs. Responsible behaviour on the part of persons belonging to minorities and their representatives is required as of others within the State. The benefits of the State come from the combined efforts of the wider society, and persons belonging to minorities must make a genuine effort to integrate into the wider society and to be loyal citizens. Certainly, they should have a significant interest in doing so I would go so far to say that they have even a virtual duty. For example, persons belonging to minorities should make an effort to learn the official language of the State and participate with the members of other communities in taking responsibility for public affairs. Above all, minorities should not isolate themselves or seek to establish parallel regimes within the State. Integration, with benefits for all, is quite possible. Again, the key is the good will to create the conditions for the pursuit of particular interests within the context of the unified State. Perhaps the most difficult question is that of the effective participation of minorities in political decision-making. Aside from the normal democratic processes, there must be means by which minority concerns and interests may be taken into account and, so far as possible, accommodated within public policy and law. According to paragraph 35 of the Copenhagen Document, OSCE participating States will respect the right of persons belonging to national minorities to effective participation in public affairs, including participation in the affairs relating 14

21 Opening Addresses: The Role and Importance of Integrating Diversity to the protection and promotion of the identity of such minorities. Admittedly, existing international standards so far only hint at how this should occur. Paragraph 35 of the Copenhagen Document goes on to note the efforts undertaken to protect and create conditions for the promotion of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of certain national minorities by establishing, as one of the possible means to achieve these aims, appropriate local or autonomous administrations corresponding to the specific historical and territorial circumstances of such minorities and in accordance with the policies of the State concerned. Evidently, this does not constitute a clear road map. In interpreting and applying this standard, we must be consistent with the logic of democratic governance, including respect for human rights, and we must remember that our aim is to achieve peace, justice and prosperity for all. Democracy is not only for some, or for the majority alone. We affirm that democracy is the best system for the whole population. Majority rule is a fundamental tool for democratic decision-making. It has its own justice: one vote per person. But simple majority rule risks injustice by its failure to accommodate special needs and interests. Minorities could thus be disadvantaged by the majority rule. The imperative of justice, therefore, requires an effort to respond to the special needs and interests of minorities. Good governance requires this. However they may be democratically elected, it is the pledge of all democratic governments to serve the whole population not just the narrow interests of their own electors, not just the majority. An effort must also be made on behalf of minorities. The best approach is to integrate their concerns and interests into overall policy and law. It is thus a procedural question as to how to do this. Thus we come to the issue of participation. Democracy is tremendously flexible, offering many forms of structures, parliaments, special arrangements and so forth. In order to integrate minority concerns and interests into policy-making, it seems obvious that it is necessary in some way to ensure that minority representatives are present and active. There exist a wide variety of means to achieve this objective, and there is similarly a wealth of experience in the practice of OSCE States and beyond. In the next two days, we will hear about these alternatives and experiences. Important among these are decentralization and subsidiarity in decision-making. These ideas aim to bring the decision-making closer to those most affected, to involve them in the process and, thereby, to achieve better policy and law. There are various ways to achieve this. It may be through federal forms or through devolution in the unitary State. It may be in terms both of legislative and of administrative jurisdiction, whether along territorial lines or personal lines. In our discussions, I encourage delegates to share their experiences and views so we may learn from each other. To share our experiences and to study the range of alternatives is, in fact, the main aim of this Conference. Perhaps the most important point which I hope will be retained is that unnecessarily centralized systems do not in fact, cannot respond adequately to the diverse demands of plural societies. Aside from the domains of national security, monetary policy, maintenance of inter-state frontiers, central administration, foreign policy and possibly one or two other fields, most policy and law within the State can be divided many ways. This is true in terms of all levels 15

22 Conference on Governance and Participation: Integrating Diversity and divisions of government. The challenge in each State is to find the best way to respond to the plurality of interests. It is thus imperative to examine the range of alternatives. Over the next two days, we will hear more about what is possible and desirable in terms of decentralization and subsidiarity. The essence of these alternatives is that those most directly affected should be able to decide on the measures. At a minimum, they should have the opportunity of a say. If possible, they should have control. These are two different things which can be accommodated in different ways. It is relatively easy to arrange for those affected to have a say in policy-making. Indeed, in the absence of such a say, it is quite likely that decisions will be poorly made and will require revision. In the interest of good decisions, there exist a variety of ways in which those specially affected may have input. To grant control over certain decisions is more difficult where there is a plurality of interests. But it is not impossible. We know this in terms of the often disputed and always sensitive fields of language and education policy. There are many ways to accommodate the use of various languages within the same State, even in public administration and the courts. There is, of course, a long history in Europe of having alternatives for education in terms of curriculum, school administration, public and private institutions and at all levels. There are many international standards applicable in these fields. In my work as High Commissioner, I have encouraged two groups of internationally recognized independent experts to elaborate specific recommendations on the best way to implement the international standards. These are The Hague Recommendations regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities, and The Oslo Recommendations regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities; copies of these are available for delegates at this Conference. I wish to stress that none of these standards, recommendations or alternatives affect the cohesion of the State, but they do create more opportunities for the realization of a plurality of interests and aspirations within the State. Indeed, they offer routes to greater satisfaction for all and, therefore, they strengthen the State. It is also for these reasons that we are devoting two sessions of this Conference to the subject of education. In my view, the most important ingredient to solving problems in this area is the spirit with which policy-makers address the issues. In the first place, there must be recognition of the legitimate interests recognition of the plurality of communities and interests. This means an official acknowledgement of the existence of minorities, of the fact of diversity within the State. OSCE participating States have committed themselves in paragraph 32 of the Copenhagen Document to the standard that to belong to a national minority is a matter of a person s individual choice and no disadvantage may arise from the exercise of such choice. It is not up to the State unilaterally to make a determination as to the existence of a minority. This is a matter to be determined on the basis of the individual choice of the persons concerned, freely exercised and according to objective criteria. Following from the recognition of minorities, meaningful response to the expression of their legitimate interests begins with a genuine dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. There must be structures for this to take place. These may be permanent or ad hoc, depending upon the situation although I would argue that the availability of a standing structure for organized and civil dialogue is always a good thing, especially when substantive 16

23 Opening Addresses: The Role and Importance of Integrating Diversity disputes may arise suddenly. However, I would also caution that structures for dialogue without meaningful competences will achieve little. Indeed, they may be counter-productive. Participants must feel that there is some real value to their dialogue, that their views will contribute to some concrete outcome. Powers of advice and consultation must be both exercised and treated seriously. Only on this basis may lasting solutions be found. I would also add that such an open and meaningful dialogue will already contribute to the loyalty of minorities and thereby to the strengthening of bonds with the wider society and, overall, the State. It must also be observed that failure to proceed in such a way gives rise to a worrying possible scenario. Aside from the disrespect to the individuals and communities concerned, failure to respond to their concerns and interests causes frustration, breeds resentment and leads to alienation. It is my experience that alienated communities will not accept this over the long term. Rather, they will search for other ways to realize their ends. There will be increasing tensions leading to conflicts. We still see this throughout Europe. We know the cost in terms of human and material loss. In the Helsinki decalogue, both the principles relating to maintenance of frontiers and territorial integrity of States and the principle of self-determination are included. It is sometimes argued that these principles are irreconcilable. I strongly disagree. One can only come to that conclusion on the assumption that the vital interests of minorities can only be safeguarded by external self-determination, that is secession. The essential aim of self-determination is to ensure that the vital interests of people can be safeguarded. In my opinion, the contemporary State has a great deal of instruments at its disposal to accommodate these interests. History also teaches that disregard by a minority for the principles relating to maintenance of frontiers and territorial integrity of States leading to the creation of a new State is often accompanied by bloodshed and misery. Moreover, in many parts of the world, including much of Europe, it is not possible to draw boundaries in such a way to create ethnically homogeneous States. Inevitably, the minority of yesterday becomes a majority in the new State, and must thus face the problem of the new minority within its own borders. According to the same logic, these new minorities may pursue their own external self-determination and so, like a Matryoshka doll opened one stage at a time, there is the prospect of a never-ending reductionism which cannot be reconciled with the requirements for viability of a State. For all these reasons, we must seek to realize the right of self-determination through internal alternatives. In my view, this requires the full respect of human rights, including the rights of minorities, together with decentralization and subsidiarity so far as possible to accommodate the diversity of interests within the State. In other words, we require an integrative rather than a disintegrative approach. I have said that this is not so easy. Certainly, it will require all of our best efforts. It will also require a greater realization on the part of governments and parliaments that the security and stability of our continent in the next century will depend to a very great extent on their success in dealing with the problems. Against this background, the still too strong reluctance to invest more human and material resources for this purpose will have to be overcome. 17