The Romani Nation or: "Ich Bin Ein Zigeuner"
07 February 2004
Paolo Pietrosanti1
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
The answer is yes. We still need to reiterate, not only that this correspondence does not exist at a technical and juridical level, but that the difference must be defended with the force of our convictions and political action.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
Yes, because we must stress the vital importance of the appropriacy of the juridical and institutional dimension to the everyday life of individuals and of society, all the more so in the face of the profound changes that have made it possible for a German national living in Milan, for example, to vote in local elections in Italy rather than in Germany and to choose whether to vote in Italy or in Germany on the occasion of European elections.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
Meanwhile, other things are changing radically in the European Union. For example, "negligible" things like the very pillars of the sovereignty of states, since they no longer mint money and are increasingly less responsible for military defence. Political power has increasingly little connection with the economy, wealth creation and production.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
In Europe, however, politics is the slowest sector of human activity, and this characteristic has always been dangerous.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
It is within this framework that we must place the proposal for the construction of a Romani Nation, a nation that does not intend, nor can it intend, to become a state, but whose members are much more numerous than the populations of many European states.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
The very term "Romani Nation" is no longer taboo and has actually become part of the lexicon of the political public debate. No one, as it is easy to imagine, is more pleased about this than I am, no one could be more proud than I am. It is not, however, a matter of pleasure or pride - it is a matter of political realism. In other words, it is a matter of the ability to understand that the question of Roma, the "problem" of Roma in Europe, is by no means just a problem that concerns the relationship between minorities and majority societies. It is much more than this.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
Moreover, it is now finally clear that the problem should be treated as a European problem and not only a problem of the individual countries in which Roma live.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
After myself and others have spoken and written about this issue in recent years in the main European and international media, attracting both harsh criticism and wide accord, many others came to realise the empirical need for this line of argument. Finally.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
Thus, in a Europe which is changing but is still not up to what is required of it, seven governments (five of which were represented by their prime ministers), responded to an invitation to attend the conference "Roma in an Expanding Europe", held in Budapest on June 30-July 1, 2003, sponsored by the Open Society Institute and the World Bank. At this conference, governments pledged to establish a common policy and a common political will. This shows that it is possible, that it is not pure folly, that is it not unreasonable. This shows that with intelligence and good will it is possible to realise hopes that seem to be imaginary or doomed to defeat. Provided that, when confronted with this challenge, in this wide-reaching and perhaps relatively long-term battle, we are able to avoid treating the Romani issue as an issue that is only social, or only about Roma or ethnic minorities. To state the need of placing the issue at the centre of European politics means to acknowledge, finally, the fact that it is a political problem and to demand full acceptance of their responsibilities from European governments, as well as from international and supranational organisations and institutions.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
The whole of Europe can and must benefit from an intelligent policy that concerns a whole European people. The Roma are a people, a nation, which does not have a state in the traditional sense to look after its interests, which does not yet have representation, but which has at least the formidable strength that in democratic governance is derived from its enormous size. That strength derives, not merely in cultural or evocative terms, from the fact that Roma are "The first Europeans to be only Europeans".2 The awareness of this status is literally a great resource for all Europeans, Roma or otherwise.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
A great resource for everyone, in fact, is the very existence of a people in Europe who lay no claim to statehood (in any case an anachronism), who are naturally suited to European citizenship rather than any other - a European citizenship that is established by the treaties of the Union, but unfortunately only to a partial extent and in a subsidiary manner.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
That progress made in the cause of Roma as a result of the efforts of the Open Society Institute (OSI) has inspired great hopes. In order to further the prospects outlined and developed by the Budapest conference, it seems to me worth pointing out some features of the strategy of the Romani Nation. First of all, we must address and eliminate what is a deep-rooted habit - the habit in Europe and elsewhere to speak ABOUT Roma rather than WITH Roma. In the language and customs of political action too, Roma continue too often to be the object of political communication rather than participants in it.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
When the International Romani Union (IRU) circulated the Roma "I Have a Dream" text around Europe, borrowing not only the words but all their political significance, the solemn declaration that the President of IRU, Mr Emil Scuka, and the IRU handed to a dozen heads of state and government was extremely clear: It would be pointless to propose the emancipation of a minority, all the more so of such a numerous minority, if external social and political factors remain the same. In other words, it would be completely pointless, and frankly unrealistic, to believe that the individuals who comprise the Romani people can bring about a substantial improvement of their living conditions in the absence of a radical change in the very system of European institutions. It would be naive to think that a sudden wind of good will would blow through the political and decision-making centres of Europe and induce a change in their policy toward Roma.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
The parallel with the movement of Dr Martin Luther King, although conditions are very different, can be useful precisely because King managed to expand his movement and transform it from an action for the emancipation of a minority, into a movement for the growth of American democracy as a whole. This was the key to his policy and the key to results he achieved for the United States and for the whole world. In order to do this nowadays, however, what is necessary is a substantial, vital unity of purpose around concrete objectives, bringing people and interests together and providing new impetus. It is above all from this point of view, perhaps, that the initiative of the OSI and the World Bank is not only interesting, but also capable of achieving concrete results.
Do we still need to point out that nation does not necessarily mean state? Do we still need to point out that politics has a duty to make clear and give concrete form to the profound difference between the juridical concepts of "state" and "nation"? Shall we repeat that it is precisely the tendency to make these concepts converge that has brought about the worst massacres, genocides and acts of cruelty in European and world history?
In the current institutional context however, there is a risk that the situation of Roma will get much worse. In other words, that Roma will not have the possibility of making their voice heard, because what Roma need and what they lack is a voice, a voice to express their views and needs. It is precisely for this reason that the challenge launched by the OSI and the World Bank at the Budapest conference is of great importance and allows optimism for the future.
The problem that arises now is the legitimisation of whoever claims to speak for Roma.
As the progress of the Finnish initiative3 has shown, the attempt to create organs or bodies to represent Roma through a committee of associations or NGOs does not and cannot work. No European citizen who is the citizen of a country with a democratic institutional structure founded to a greater or lesser extent on the rule of law, would ever agree to be represented, even for merely consultative purposes, by a committee of associations, let alone by a committee of representatives of associations to which only a small number of European Roma belong, and which is therefore far from representative at a substantive level. It seems bizarre that a system that would not be accepted by any non-Roma must be accepted by Roma. Democracy, the method of democracy, must be valid for everyone, whatever the colour of their skin. Since there is undoubtedly a serious problem regarding the legitimacy and representativity of all the bodies that may claim to represent Roma in Europe, a new political will is needed - with an awareness that the response for Roma is the one which is valid for everyone else: legality, democracy and the rule of law.
In other words: elections. Elections by universal suffrage of Roma and organs representing Roma, starting at the European level. And let no one object, as has happened in the past, however difficult it may be to believe, that calling Roma to the ballot-boxes would be a waste of time because Roma refuse to vote, because they are afraid that people will discover they are Roma, and so on. There are technical and organisational problems; no one is trying to hide this fact. However, their solution depends on the political will of governments, first of all, the will that governments will be and must be called on to demonstrate. The objection that Roma would not turn up to vote because they are afraid of being "discovered" smacks very much of racism. This problem exists, there is no denying it, but the way to fight the widespread racism in our societies is not to pretend that it doesn't exist.
In any case, there are two very clear parallel needs: Roma need a legitimate, legal voice that can speak with absolute clear and well-defined competencies and powers - not, of course, in conflict with the democratic institutions of society as a whole. Conversely, society as a whole benefits from a clear, direct dialogue with a strong voice of the great Romani Nation.
The awareness of the need for an adequate, legitimate Roma voice is a matter of political realism, not of good will or good intentions. An initiative such as the one launched ambitiously in Budapest at the beginning of July will not go very far without solid support from Roma. That is, without effective legitimisation on the part of those directly involved.
There is no doubt that there will be strenuous opponents of this proposal; the practice of democratic elections has, as we know, very often had bitter enemies over the course of history. People are not ready, it is said, they are not educated enough... perhaps even not intelligent enough. Nothing new here, one might say, since political democracy has only been established for a few decades, hardly any time at all compared to the entire history of the human race.
It is also strange that Roma are denied the power to elect their own representatives (as many minorities around Europe are already able to do), while they are not - at least I hope not - denied the right to vote in general elections in the countries of which they are citizens. It is necessary, at this point, to weigh up the political costs and political and social benefits of the strategy: to what extent is it in the interest of Europe to allow the emergence of a reliable, responsible interlocutor representing Roma? To what extent is it in the interests of Roma no longer to be considered an "accident", or at best an annoying social (rather than political) problem, of no great importance in the international political debate?
However, without a democratic procedure, no representation is legitimate, at least on the basis of what has been the doctrine in Europe for many centuries and what has been reality for several decades.
One of the many commonplaces about Roma, in the past and present, is that they are divided, they argue and are unable to agree among themselves, unable to live as a community, they are unable to take decisions and to stick to them. Although comments of this kind are frequent and widespread, they express more than a hint of racism. Take, for example, the parliaments of the countries founded on the most solid democracies: In the United States Congress there are fierce battles, heated debates, as in the British Houses of Parliament. Bitter clashes, harsh words: these are the very essence of democracy. What makes the difference is the context, the institutional framework. In other words, the fact that the conflict takes place in a parliament and is part, if not the basis, of the legal decision-making procedure.
To expect a unity of intentions outside a clearly defined institutional context is a vain hope and probably does not belong to the realm of human possibility. What is advisable, on the other hand, is a realistic and concrete approach to a problem that affects real people. If we believe it is useful for all parties to build a system of representation so that people with special interests, such as Roma, can have a voice, these people will be able to reach common decisions in contexts characterised by suitable mechanisms and institutions. Exactly as happens among non-Roma, who - I would bet my life on it - would be much more quarrelsome than the Roma if they had to make decisions outside clearly-defined institutional and legal contexts.
When we began to talk about the Romani Nation with the general public and the political leaders of many countries, what we meant and what we still mean, is this institutional context in which the voice of Roma could emerge and give direction to Roma and to all Europeans. If we manage to be free from racist reactions and to be influenced as little as possible by commonplaces, the concrete prospect of the Romani Nation, a nation that does not intend to be a state, is the response. It is a pragmatic, empirically based and concrete response to equally concrete needs, because it is absolutely clear that the question of the representation of Roma and its legitimacy is a crucial one. It is worth pointing out, too, that juridical doctrine, international and constitutional law, has paid considerable attention over the last few years to the draft projects we have received, albeit in a fragmentary manner, since the beginning of the 1990s. The concept of a Romani Nation is far from alien to the international legal framework.
We need a nation with a parliament, elected directly and not necessarily or automatically with electoral constituencies conditioned by existing administrative or national borders, but elected by universal suffrage by Roma, so that one of the commitments of government is to ensure that no one, no one at all, should be afraid or ashamed of being Romani. Every citizen of Europe should now be capable of exclaiming "Ich bin ein Zigeuner", so that Roma may be free to be Roma and that this may happen soon and not over the course of several generations.
At the Budapest conference, which was opportunely and intelligently addressed to the outside world, but which was also a moment of true reflection and debate, of interaction and brain-storming, one of the two bodies that convened the prime ministers and politicians of Europe, as well as the conference as a whole, expressed evident concern about the urgent need to achieve true representativity. It was the President of the World Bank, Mr James Wolfenson, in fact, who underlined the continuing problem of representation of the voice of Roma and the need to help to create such representation, while at the same time insuring its credibility, stability and legitimacy.
If we talk about present-day Europe, I do not believe in the relevance of the concept of the self-determination of peoples, which I think is less important than the freedom to choose the democratic organisation of cohabitation with others. The very different concept of "Swaraj", which Gandhi coined in the sense of inter-dependence rather than absolute independence, seems to me to be much more relevant, less ideological and more concrete, realistic and pragmatic. I say this, with particular emphasis, so that it should be clear beyond all doubt that we are not talking about representativity such as that of a state. What we are talking about, rather, is concrete, reliable legality and the reliability of representation. In democratic contexts this is achieved through elections involving all those who have the right to vote.
It is difficult, true. But then valuable, important things, as we know from everyday life, are hardly ever easy and effortless.
However, to return to the great and historic Budapest conference, it should be noted that in response to Mr Wolfenson's objections, a number of people claimed legitimacy in that they represent 20 or 50 or even more NGOs that got together and decided who should take part in the conference. Democratic representation is clearly very different.
The Budapest conference, and above all its results, undoubtedly represent a turning point that I would not hesitate to define as historic, not only for Roma but for the whole of Central and Eastern Europe. The political force of the initiative is beyond doubt and clear for all to see. We need to increase this force precisely by reinforcing the democratic legitimisation of the mechanism of representation, taking care not to state, even indirectly, that Roma can accept any form of representation that non-Roma Europeans would reject out-of-hand.
The question raised with such explicit emphasis by Mr Wolfenson, and also by others, deserves all our attention and above all our active and constructive response - without preconceptions or postulates, but starting out from the principal mechanism of liberal democracy, that of elections, that of the ability and power of each individual to express his or her opinion or position.
If, in fact, the majority society, or society tout court, stands to benefit if Roma have a voice and become interlocutors, not only capable of speech but also politically responsible for what they say, then the procedure of representation is quite simply the most important thing. Because, if we are talking about giving Roma a representative voice, then there is an enormous hurdle to overcome, or rather a point to be made clearly. The point is, if we believe there should be an organ (consultative at the very least) that reflects the will and the ideas of Roma, as many people have proposed, it seems illogical that this organ should not be elected by the people, as happens with all other Europeans. So the milestone of democracy and the rule of law, the guarantee of the rights of each and every individual, must also be established for Roma, perhaps as the first concrete step on a path that is difficult and complex, but at the same time absolutely necessary. It is worth repeating: No non-Romani Europeans would entrust their voice or their interests to bodies that they have not been able to choose directly through an electoral procedure based on universal suffrage. No non-Romani Europeans would agree to be represented by a coalition or committee of existing NGOs or associations. (It is a well-known fact, moreover, that only a tiny proportion of Roma are organised in associations).
The question is doubly important because the instrument of the election of a decision-making organ of the Romani Nation would demand great commitment from society as a whole and from its administrative institutions. We cannot fail to welcome this.
I used the term "decision-making organ of the Romani Nation". What does this mean? There is no need to worry, I do not wish to open the Pandora's box of nationalism. For nationalist claims, in the past as in the present, are claims for state sovereignty, while it is clear that what Roma are claiming is entirely different and unrelated to what has been the cause or the pretext of the massacres carried out over the centuries all over Europe. It is literally the opposite.
What, however, should this representative or decision-making organ decide about? What does the Romani Nation have to decide? What would the Romani Nation be called on to decide and to govern through the organs that make up its institutional structure?
The Romani Nation - and its elected parliament - will obviously not be responsible for those policies that form the pillars of the very existence of states and indeed of the very possibility of a state to define itself as such. There is no doubt that the Romani Nation and its institutions will not be responsible for monetary policy, nor for minting money - even less so now that at least 12 of the EU Member States have stopped doing so. Nor will it be responsible for security and defence policy - even less so now that practically all European states have stopped doing so in the classical sense. Nor, again, will it be responsible for territorial sovereignty, even less so since what for centuries was the source and reason of sovereignty no longer has the same connotations.
The Romani Nation will have to govern what everyone claims Roma should become capable of governing precisely that which several governments and international institutions, the Open Society Institute and the World Bank believe that organised Roma should urgently help to achieve.
What I am convinced makes the essential difference, lies in the method of democratic legality that is historically the only method that has allowed development in terms of culture and civilisation.
If Roma are to have a voice, as everyone says, and this voice is to be a Romani voice, there is no doubt that one of the main aims, perhaps the most urgent, must be the election of an organ capable of representation and of assuming consequent democratic responsibilities; in a reasonably short space of time and above all, according to a clear, fixed timetable.
The world of the Roma must not, however, be a separate world. As I said earlier, there is no point talking about the Romani Nation, or the voice of Roma of whatever type, and this political and social process, if it is not set in the context of the political dynamics of Europe as a whole, partly in order to modify these very dynamics. This is not a vain hope: It would be vain and hardly realistic, on the other hand, to think that the emancipation of millions people and their clear, powerful entrance onto the stage of European interaction could leave Europe unchanged. This would seem to me to be strange, and frankly unrealistic, especially in an age of interdependence.
It also seems to me unrealistic and rather naive, to think that the very existence of this "European oddity", of a people whose members live in and are citizens of various Member States of the European Union and also of other international organisations and institutions, has no influence on the constituent process currently in progress.
Let us take an even more concrete example. It is obvious that Roma would benefit from a European institutional framework of a federal type with the direct election of the President of the EU Commission, one of the solutions being considered in the Convention and in the process of institutional reform. Several million votes cast by Roma in over twenty countries would inevitably be able to influence the whole political life of Europe. The institutional and legal factors related to the new Europe are therefore highly significant for the fate of Roma, just as they are highly significant for the future of all Europeans. The choice of a hybrid institutional system, perhaps tending more toward an intergovernmental system, or a "United States of Europe" with a president elected directly by the people, as in the US, is therefore an option that have direct consequences for the future of Roma and on their chances of having a voice equal to that of all the other citizens of Europe. This brings us back to what I said earlier about European citizenship, about its (almost physiological) necessity for Roma and for all the other people of Europe.
It seems to me completely self-evident: The fate of Roma coincides with that of all Europeans. And, not just of Europeans. Here, too, we must have the political intelligence and will to see the "R factor" not as something passive, irrelevant in the political and institutional dynamics of Europe and the world, but as an active, fertile element to be used for the benefit of everyone, in Europe and also beyond.
That democracy must become a central discriminating feature in international relations, including commercial and economic relations, is a belief that is fast taking hold, partly thanks to the political initiatives conducted in the context of the "Community of Democracies" international treaty and process.
In a world in which enormous forces (though still insufficient due to the inertia of too many governments) are working to make democracy and legality a fundamental factor in international relations, including exclusively commercial and economic relations, it would be absolutely unthinkable to propose an initiative or a mobilisation of consciences and forces that seek the emancipation of the largest European people not organised in a state without focusing on the issue of democracy, the rule of law and legality as the basic method of relations between individuals and between communities, thus pretending not to understand that emancipation is only possible in the presence of an appropriate institutional framework.
Over the years, and particularly in recent times, many authoritative figures have warned us not to be distracted, not to pretend not to see the dramatic urgency of the problem of Roma in Europe and to urge "the powerful" to do what they are able to do: to help the Roma to have a voice, to become free.
This liberation will take the same route that has always led to the liberation of all people: the conquest of a new legality that is of an institutional and juridical framework that allows, rather than hinders, the growth of people. Europe must achieve such a conquest. It must respond concretely to the interests of its citizens, beginning with the creation of appropriate legal and institutional forms. And in this sense, also in relation to Roma, how can we forget the pressing need to open the European Union to the Balkans, to the whole of the Balkans, at least by forcing the EU institutions and governments of the Balkan countries to work out a strict timetable of stages and objectives for the enlargement of the Union to the Balkans?
Some might say that I have already stated and written these things in some of the most respected publications in Europe. Others might say that here too I have not spoken enough about Roma.
I, on the other hand, would say that experience suggests realism, and it is realism and common sense that make me and many others consider the Europe dreamed of by figures who have had streets and squares named after them around the continent (perhaps with a touch of hypocrisy) as not only possible, but now also necessary and urgent; a Europe that can be helped precisely by a new way of looking at the most European of peoples, "The first Europeans to be only Europeans".
What is preferable, necessary and of vital importance for Roma is to bring about a context in which being Roma is one of the qualities of a person together with European citizenship, as European as a person who is not Roma but French, Spanish, or Polish. Let us say it loud and clear: Roma are a minority only because the political project created by figures such as Schumann, Monnet, Adenauer, and De Gasperi4 has not, even after 50 years, become reality. If that project, created by men honoured by having streets, squares and buildings named after them, had become reality, even partially, Roma would not be a minority or would only be a minority in the same way that 85 million Germans are a minority. For an individual to be considered as a member of a minority, however large, does make a substantial difference.
In recent years, juridical science has given credibility and concrete realism to this political approach, which, as we know, first developed over a decade ago. The path has now become wider and it should be taken swiftly, for to use the expression of the late Dr Martin Luther King, there are plenty of reasons "why we can't wait".
If Europe manages to find the answers to these questions, the questions that affect the lives of Roma, it will have managed to find the answers to the great questions of our time, and a new Europe will be able to be born and develop.
Is this an over-ambitious aim? No. At least not in light of what various heads of state and government, as well as the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, have said to Mr Scuka and to myself in the meetings we have had over the last few years, and of what the authoritative representatives of several governments pledged to do at the beginning of July in Budapest.
It is a huge task, but few things are more worthwhile at the moment.
Endnotes
- Paolo Pietrosanti is Commissioner for Foreign Affairs of the International Romani Union; for many years he has been a leading exponent of the Transnational Radical Party, and as such he has played a major role in the campaigns for the universal abolition of the death penalty, for the creation of the International Tribunal for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda and for the creation of the International Criminal Court. The author can be contacted at: p.pietrosanti@radicali.it; more information about the author is available at: www.pietrosanti.net or www.pietrosanti .ws.
- The sentence “The only Europeans to be only Europeans” has been emphasised by the author and by the president of the International Romani Union, Emil Scuka, in the opinions published by them in some of the most authoritative newspapers in Europe, such as Corriere della Sera and El Pais. While a French individual is French by nationality and citizenship, a Romani individual living anywhere in Europe is Romani by nationality and Spanish, Hungarian, Italian or whatever else, by citizenship. The citizenship that would better fit a Roma is the European one. The European citizenship as a primary citizenship, and not the subsidiary citizenship existing today on the basis of the EU treaties. The author stresses the need for a full European citizenship, comparable to the Federal one in the USA, as the very best not only for the Roma, but for all European citizens.
- The “Finnish initiative” referred to in this text is the proposal by the Finnish President Ms Tarja Halonen from January 2001 to establish a Roma consultative assembly at pan-European level. For a detailed account of the events which followed the proposal of the Finnish President, see the article by Miranda Vuolasranta in this issue of Roma Rights.
- On May 9, 1950, Robert Schumann, French Foreign Minister, inspired by the proposal of the French economist Jean Monett, presented a plan for the integration of the French and German coal and steel industries under a higher authority, membership of which would be open to other European states. As a result, in 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was set up, with six members: Belgium, West Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands. The ECSC is the first supranational institution in Europe and the first institution of what is known today as the European Union.
