Darko Nikolovski.
Good day, my name is Darko Nikolovski.
I have a question for all of you.
Can Slovenia afford to have a foreign policy
based on principles? And what would those principles be?
Of course, this is a question
for the foreign minister,
but perhaps it would be nice to hear
what others think,
so that in future we can compare their answers
with real developments.
The foreign minister will answer you.
Others may answer if they wish to.
Or they may not.
Principles in foreign policy?
I think much can be done.
I hope we are doing what we can to be principled.
In the case of Palestine
we can say we were.
When does this end?
Your question implies that
if you were principled to the last,
then you wouldn't have to deal with these regimes today.
This would be pushing principles to the extreme.
In foreign policy, I think, we can be real.
That is to say, in principle you should
stand by the things you promote.
We did that, particularly in the case
of the Palestinian question.
When these things in the Middle East happened,
we and other EU countries
disapproved the repression and
called for dialogue and reform.
We were principled here.  What about
when we hosted the visit of Mubarak last year?
He was the legal president of state.
And like with many other such people
we have contacts with him too.
We want to realise certain concrete interests.
And during our talks we may
open other principle questions.
In the case of China, we can raise the question
of human rights and Tibet.
As a question, at least.
This much one can be principled in foreign policy.
By sending the leader of the opposition
to Taiwan.
If your question has a pessimistic,
distrusting undertone, I can say two things.
First. What is "to be principled"?
If it means to be loyal to your principles,
then one of the most principled people
is Berlusconi.
He supported Mubarak and Gaddafi
to the very last moment. Be careful, he said.
History is here even more shrewd. To be ironic,
perhaps there is a God that's helping us at his point.
It's not only about the split between
principle and pragmatism.
If we have learned anything from all the
confusion of the last 30 years of history,
is that, and this is why I say there may be a God,
unprincipled pragmatism turns out to be
pragmatically the worst kind of
politics in the long term.
Who is a model for this?
The great machinator Henry Kissinger.
He wanted to be a brutal pragmatist,
but every time he screwed it up.
When Yanayev led a ridiculous coup against Gorbachev,
I remember Kissinger the next day saying,
"This is the new reality. Gorbachev went too far."
In two days everything fell to pieces.
What ever decision he made,
it was the wrong one.
The problem of pragmatism is that
even pragmatically it doesn't work in the long term.
- Anyone? About principled foreign politics?
- What does Ervin know of principles?
- I don't know. Let him tell you.
- In principle, I speak when there's a microphone around.
I think, no. There is no need for it.
- For what? - For principled foreign politics.
- Because? - Because it seems to me that
the discussion about big strategic systems
of foreign politics may be heart-relieving,
but real problems are much more
compelling.
I know the EU runs a principled politics
towards the Middle East.
I'm sure all those archives contain
very consistent documents.
The first world statesman who went to Egypt
was James Cameron, British PM.
And the EU watches from afar.
Ashton saying she will go there, but she doesn't.
In this sense you can be principled.
You can be sympathetic and you're good.
But international relations are,
by definitions, something bad.
You have all this mechanisms in order
to prevent war where you can.
This is not a dialogue of good people,
it's about interests.
We should look after our interests.
Don't misunderstand me.
I think we should go to Egypt.
Not because of principled relations,
but to selfishly take care of our interests.
There is nothing wrong if a nation of 85 million
has a good opinion of a nation of 2 million
and sees it as an ally.
Simple pragmatism.
And neither do we need much courage.
We can justify it with principles,
but we will lose their trust.
Principles are one thing, reality is the other.
You show solidarity
by expressing it.
Or you can babble about how
good Islam is. Disregard the bombs.
International politics is always positive.
You'll never hear a minister say,
tomorrow we go to war. No, he'll say,
tomorrow we start the peace process,
but before we do,
we must bomb Gaza.
It's 18:05. Just one more question,
then we will have the closing statements.
You have a question and you,
Stojan, a comment.
Thank you. I have a question
about the anxiousness in the EU.
I wonder why is the EU worried
about the Middle East.
We know about Iraq, we have seen
demonstrations of 30 million people
who tried to prevent the war in Iraq.
On the other hand, we have situations
in Tunisia, Egypt, etc., where the West
is suddenly worried. Is it worried
because of it's own interests or
is it truly interested in the result.
- I would like to add a comment.
- Please, be very short.
I don't think one should equate Islam
with bombs.
The same goes for Christianity,
Judaism and so on. As far as I know,
Islam does have business ethics and morals.
They are essential for Islamic business.
That is why Islam itself dictates
social equity.
So the events in the Middle East may
be interpreted
as a struggle for social equity.
Samo, will you answer?
Maybe I should explain my views about
the West's anxiety. I think you misunderstood.
There is no dilemma. The EU minister
have welcomed the changes in the Mediterranean.
And we argued that the next step they take should go
in the direction of the demands of the protesters.
The EU is ready to help in any way possible
to keep things alive.
When I mentioned uneasiness,
I meant how will things unfold.
Will they unfold as the protesters desire,
or will the revolution be stolen.
Will things go in the right direction?
Zizek added, will the economic development
be able to provide jobs
for all the unemployed.
To concretize, what should we worry about.
Not that the changes occurred,
but what can they lead to.
There are 1 million immigrants in Libya
from other parts of Africa.
In the case of an absence
of authority,
or in the case that Gaddafi will
want to avenge himself on Europe,
all these immigrants may come to Europe.
Our worry is, how to manage such migrations.
Then we should worry about
the economic consequences.
Raising the price of oil
affects the price of food.
But this anxiety does not imply that we regret
what happened in the Mediterranean.
On the contrary.
The EU has committed itself
to make sure that changes lead
to what we all desire.
It was mentioned before that non-governmental
organisations welcome change. We all do.
But I received a letter from non-governmental
organisations in Egypt, with 50 signatures,
expressing the same uneasiness because
in the constitutional committee there are no women.
And that the constitutional changes
are being made with too great haste.
Uneasiness in this sense,
not as a regret.
May I add something? You talked
about the Islamic business ethics etc.
Yes, I agree. But ... And I know
the Christian philosophy was mentioned too ...
But still when we compare, with sympathy towards Islam,
our western reality with an idealized Islam,
I don't care what is their business ethics.
Let's look at how much corruption do they have,
how many poor people? I don't care
If Quran demands solidarity and charity tax.
How are they taking care of the poor?
The most rigid Islamic country is now Saudi Arabia.
Totally defined by Islam.
One would expect to see there great Islamic solidarity.
Where is this solidarity? In Kuwait ...
in the slave-owning countries, and so on ...
Where is the solidarity in the Arab countries?
I wouldn't idealize Islam too much.
You can find ideals in any society.
In this respect I'm a sceptic.
