This interview is copyright-free for publication by your media.

Interview with Andreas Gross, Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs

Interview (23.06.2003)

Question: In your report, you say that giving national minorities autonomy can help to settle conflicts peacefully. Surely the example of Yugoslavia suggests that the drive for autonomy ultimately results in mini-states and even armed conflict?

Andreas Gross: Genuine regional autonomy is possible only in law-governed, democratic states, and the former Yugoslavia was neither. People who wanted to work in other countries were free to travel, of course - but views which went against the official line were taboo, both in public and in politics. As a result, people had no chance to find out what living in a free society meant, and to learn from one another. That was why, in 1990, Yugoslavia revived a war which had ended officially in 1945, but had actually been “frozen”. Yugoslavia’s experience in the last decade by no means refutes the idea that regional self-government can help to settle conflicts peacefully.

Question: What are the main conditions which must be fulfilled if regional self-government is to work effectively?

Andreas Gross: In addition to democracy and the rule of law, one of the most important is what I call “designer self-government” or “asymmetric federalism”. What this basically means is giving self-governing regions disproportionate weight within the state. The responsibilities of central governments and regions must be clearly regulated. That sounds simple, but it is vital. Self-governing regions must be able to participate fully in decision-making at national level. In central state parliaments, regions should have more representatives than their actual population would normally require. There must be clear machinery and clear rules for settling conflicts between self-governing regions and central states. Conflict settlement should be the responsibility of political and then legal bodies, and the regions should be represented on an almost equal footing in all of them. And, of course, regional self-government must be anchored and guaranteed in national constitutions.

Question: Chechnya, Kosovo, Transnistria in Moldova, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia are the current “hotspots” in Europe. Why have solutions like the ones you suggest failed so far - because separatists are bent on full independence or because central governments give them no autonomy?

Andreas Gross: Every one of these conflicts has its own causes and background, and that makes comparison difficult. Nonetheless, one can say this about all of them: the separatists generally tend to overrate the benefits of full independence, as compared with regional autonomy. And all of these countries lack any real experience of democracy. They also lack institutions which are recognised, and whose authority rests on democracy and the rule of law. The result is that people trust neither themselves, their fellow-citizens nor their institutions. All of this makes it incredibly hard to settle conflicts peacefully - even partially. This lack of trust is possibly the worst legacy of totalitarian systems.

Question: You talk about a “European legal instrument”, prepared by the Council of Europe, which would help to solve these problems. What do you mean by that?

Andreas Gross: I am basically thinking of a whole new convention. Another possibility would be to develop directives already prepared under the aegis of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities although my ambitions may go further than those of the Congress. The Council should devise comprehensive and effective machinery to help settle the regional conflicts which play such a big part on the world political scene at present. This is an area where the Council of Europe can get involved as an international power, in the best sense of that term, and really do something to prevent violence.

Question: Are there cases where solutions of this kind have been successful? Why did they work?

Andreas Gross: The best examples are undoubtedly the Aland Islands, which belong to Finland, and South Tyrol in northern Italy. The model of self-government very recently worked out for the Crimea in Ukraine should also be mentioned. I have taken these examples and used them to work out 25 factors which can be used to assess the value of regional self-government in specific cases. Obviously, these three cases varied considerably in the details, but they all respected the same essential principles.

These examples also show that self-governing regions should be neither too poor nor too rich in terms of the national economy. And international influence on the settlement of conflicts should not be excessive. All the parties involved must really want a non-violent, democratic solution. The Faeroe Islands, which Denmark has treated a bit like a luxury home for old people, are a less clear-cut example. The trouble is, the islanders want a more active, more enterprising role for themselves, which is why they have tended to focus on relations with Great Britain, which is closer geographically.