Karl von Habsburg HARDtalk

twin sister was taken to Australia by the unidentified couple. Now on

BBC News it's time for HARDtalk. Welcome to a special edition of

HARDtalk from a very wet Sarajevo. We are marking the centenary of the

start of the First World War and it was right here that the incident

that led to the First World War occurred. Archduke Frantz Ferdinand

who was the next in line to the Habsburg imperial crown was visiting

this city and came down the main road, turning around this corner

where he came face to face with the young Bosnian Serb radical who

killed him. He had a gun and opened fire, killing the Archduke and his

wife and Europe was never to be the same again. In little over a month,

an unimaginable slaughter had begun that changed the face of this

continent forever. Today, my guest is Karl von Habsburg, the grandson

of the last Habsburg Emperor. He will reflect on Europe then and

now. Karl von Habsburg, welcome to HARDtalk. We are sitting in the

museum here in Sarajevo, a few metres from where Archduke Frantz

Ferdinand who was the uncle of your grandfather was assassinated. Is it

a strange feeling for you? Not really. I haven't experienced that

time so I am looking at it as someone who is historically

interested who had a big advantage in that I still have a chance to

talk to people who were alive at the time who could tell me about it. It

doesn't create an emotional attachment to it. I would much

rather look at it and see the effects it had on the First World

War and the time afterwards and what we can learn from that time. You

obviously put a huge amount of distance to wean yourself and the

events of June 1914 but it was then that the fate of your family was

sealed and that is something that you can never escape from ``

between. Of course not but the events that unraveled after that, it

was just something that no one at the time had the perspective to see

what would come from it. In all of Europe, the scene was set for war

and none of the people in power were able to see the dimension of it.

Everyone was expecting a small regional conflict and if it had not

been for the assassination here in Sarajevo, it would have started

somewhere else. The way that your relative, Franz Ferdinand, has been

characterized by history is frankly quite negative. He is seen as a man

who represented an empire that was dying, that was out of touch. One

that had been hollowed out. Is that the way you see him and your

family? Of course when I look at the Austro`Hungarian Empire, there were

elements of it that were old`fashioned and too slow and not

modern enough for the time but there were other elements that were

incredibly modern and forward looking. Frantz Ferdinand was

someone who saw the difficulties of his time. On one side, he was

absolutely loyal to the Emperor and I think he really appreciated it

although the relationship was not always described correctly. It was

often described as negative. The common perception is that they hated

each other. But that is just wrong. The Emperor had to take certain

steps due to the marriage that Franz Ferdinand had at the time which were

not in line with family rules. But the Emperor always appreciated the

loyalty that he was receiving from Franz Ferdinand which he had not

received from his son. I suppose, in essence, the picture is of an

Austro`Hungarian Empire that was trying to make sense of a huge area

it controlled with so many people of different cultures, languages,

religions and trying to do it in a way that was preindustrial, still

based on the notion of divine right and hereditary principles. And it

was time for that to go because Europe was industrializing and being

swept by nationalism. You and your family were finished. And other

principles like the ability to allow a multitude of languages and

religions within its territory and to arrange for a possibility to live

together in a positive way which is something that is not often put into

perspective. I am thinking of the agreement of 1906 that was the first

basis for living together when you are part of different ethnicities.

If I may say so, the killer of Franz Ferdinand, if he were in the room

and had the ability to join our conversation, he might have a

different view of what your Habsburg Empire contributed to the people. He

saw his people as being enslaved. But that is what makes the

assassination so ridiculous. Franz Ferdinand with somebody who saw the

problem of the time and the difficulty under which some of the

Slavic people were living and he made the preparations that, once he

division between the Hungarian side division between the Hungarian side

and the German`speaking side but the Slavic people would also get their

side with power of their own and because of that, he had to die

because Serbia at the time was interested in being the supreme

power over the Slavic people. He was in the way of allowing them to do

this by giving the Slavic people more power which makes the

assassination interesting. We will never know whether your

grandfather, had he lived, would have developed this principle of

freedom and tolerance. I can't leave the centenary of the First World War

without asking you a direct question. Do you accept a sort of

familial guilt for the role of your family in the run`up to war? A sort

of responsibility? Of course, by all means. What you have to say when you

look at the situation in Europe, all of it was ready for a conflict that

was to be a small and regional conflict. Nobody thought of the

perspective of the possibility of the war becoming huge. The

responsibility is with everyone who shared power at the time which does

not exclude my family. It does not. There is the phrase about the

sleepwalkers, the leaders and their advisors who led us to war after the

murder of Franz Ferdinand. This historian says they were blind to

the horror they were about to unleash on the world. The Habsburg

family were as blind as any others. I don't agree that they were as

blind as the others. You can see many cases where the Emperor and

then later my grandfather had a clear perspective on trying to get

out of the horrors of the war but the responsibility is collective.

That is why I think the question of guilt, when you come to that, it is

wrong to point to a country or a person. After the First World War,

in postwar Austria, there was this drunk feeling against the Habsburg

family and a desire to and make sure that they never reimposed authority

`` angry feeling. Your family was banished. That was understandable

wasn't it? Yes and no. It was understandable for certain people

who were having the correct ideological background to try to

make sure that my family would not come back. I would like to point to

the fact that my grandfather was being asked to withdraw from

political activities and was being guaranteed that there would be a

referendum on how the state would continue. What's my grandfather

withdrew from the political field, he was not held under the referendum

because he was afraid that it would go in favour of my family. It makes

it clear that this was not a general feeling against my family. Many

people were loyal to my family but to political institutions wanted to

make sure that they were really out of the way. Many of your relatives

live all across the world. They still do today. At your own father

`` but, was always committed to Europe. While he could not live in

Austria for a good amount of his life, he lived in Germany and served

in the European Parliament there. He seems to believe that there was

something about the Habsburg experience and the notion of Europe

that he could translate into modern form through the European Union, a

pan`European idealism. Can you explain that for me? My father was

always a passionate European, even as a very young man after the time

of the First World War. He got engaged and started the pan`European

movement. He wanted a united Europe. It became clear to a large

group of people, amongst them my father, that only a united Europe

would be able to ensure that the horrors of the First World War would

not happen again. But in between the first two world wars, were not able

to push the idea through. For my father, one of the determining

factors was the principal of the monarchy, it comes in a expression

that cannot be translated which talks about the principle of

solidarity. It came out of the Austro`Hungarian monarchy with all

of its different nationalities, ethnicities and religions... Just

think of the national anthem. There were 12 official language versions

and I don't know how many nonofficial ones. Just imagine other

countries. If someone would have suggested at the time that their

national anthem would be sung in another language. It would have been

impossible but it was the spirit of the Austro`Hungarian Empire to keep

the cultures and to push them. Even in the military, this was the case.

You had the Catholic priesthood would go along with

are saying is fascinating but I'm going to interrupt you because it

seems that you have, you have equated the

Habsburg notion as being beyond nationalism with a European notion

of an entity beyond nationalism but the problem is, in both instances,

it doesn't relate to democracy. It lacks legitimacy amongst the people

of Europe and that is perhaps what we see today. The idea of an ever

closer union, the European Union gradually superseding the

nationstates of Europe and it doesn't seem to appeal to people

across Europe. I disagree. If you look at the Austro`Hungarian

monarchy which was one of the first countries where a lot of the

Democratic infidels, and I am not including England in this example ``

principles, it was there that a lot of the principles were put into

place first. This element was certainly there. The legitimacy of

all the different people with very strong. This is where the point of

nationalism came in and I am sorry, I am always coming back to it but

that is the line that comes all the way towards the most recent European

elections. You can see the changes that can take place and sweep away

the guiding principles that we are experiencing. You have stolen my

thunder. I was about to raise the challenge to you that seems to lie

in the most recent European election results, not least in your own home

country of Austria where a fifth of the vote went to a party which is

regarded as extreme far right. The same thing happened in France and in

many different countries across Europe. There is an insularity and a

return to nationalism across Europe which, for all of the idealism of

your family through the past century, seems to be a default for

European people. I think you're right, we saw it in

the last European elections and a strong way, but it is fascinating to

see that, I think in most countries, on a normal democratic basis, we are

capable of dealing with that problem. There is a certain

percentage there, and we should be able to deal with it. It is very

painful, I think, to see the Nationalist movements rising again,

they are riding on the wave of very few topics. They are riding on the

wave of immigration, foreign cultures being strong in their own

country, these are the typical topics that these movements are

riding on. They don't have a broad political programme. They only have

a programme in specific topics, these are topics that will keep us

busy for the next century. I don't think they will go away, definitely

not in the way that they held different nationalistic movements

that will deal with them, by building up strong borders, getting

rid of minorities, not letting people in the country, that is not

how it works, not how Europe works, and not how it worked in the past.

You could argue the trajectory of Europe right now is in that

direction. In the more insular, nationalist direction. After the

Second World War, it took us through the expansion and development and

the deepening of the European Union, but that deepening process seems to

have hit a dead end. If we look at it in a historic perspective, of

course, we have to say, what was the basis of the European Union in the

beginning? That was after the Second World War. This was when, let's

say, the horrors of nationalism was still much more present on

everyone's mind, because they all had experienced what can happen

through this kind of movement. Most people had experienced that, and

they are not around any more or in later call or important positions,

the expense of what nationalism can do is in most parts of Europe is not

present. Not here, here it is very present. Exactly. It is. Memories

are very real, it is at the top of peoples minds. It is the suffering

that civilians went through, just 20 years ago. Yet, right here and right

now, in, we see a country that is divided on nationalist lines. `` in

Bosnia`Herzegovina. We have someone saying that recently the haters

worst album was before the war, it isn't getting better. `` the hate is

worse now. Where does your optimism about Europe fit in with that? I

wish, when I look at the situation in Bosnia, that the European Union,

for example, although international community would act more decisively.

We have certain principles that we are generally upholding. These are

human rights, democratic principles. These principles that

should also be applied to state, like Bosnia`Herzegovina. We apply

them to a lot of other states, with some success. If we look at Kosovo,

it isn't a great success story, but we had a lot of successes. It was

when the European Union was acting with more decisiveness in that

question, by saying you have the support of the union, but you have

to fulfil certain principles. That means accepting certain regional

rules, as they are actually happening here. I know, for example,

that when there are events happening, where the European Union

is inviting the Bosnians to participate, they are sending out

invitations to different entities. But does not work. They should send

out just want to the president, and he can decide how it is happening in

the country. The European Union has showed weakness when it comes to

this country which is a pity. That is a message to Europe's current

leaders. I want a message to Europe's current leaders. I wonder

how fearful you offer Europe today? Particularly considering, for

example, the assertiveness of Putin' Russia. It is a question of

which perspective you are taking. If the basic idea was to create an area

of peace, bringing the traditional enemies, in this case after the

Second World War, Germany and France together, by creating a united

Europe, I am optimistic and positive about it. The problem is most people

take an economic perspective of it, and the economy is not the best one.

You can see a lot of flaws, and in the union, critically, in many

aspects of it. I do not see breaking. I don't see it

disappearing. That is why I am thinking that the European Union is

definitely a project for the ball game, even with difficulties that

are happening. It is a project for the long ball game. I want to bring

it back to the personal. You sit here and Sarajevo with a bottle at

your relative behind you. `` with a model. It is an epitome of the old

European aristocracy, if Wogan isn't to say, blue loaded royalty. `` if

one isn't to save, blue blooded royalty. You argue you have left

your values behind `` say. You are still involved in the Hapsberg

foundation. I looked at your website, you save" we must stand

together for our birthright and fight the present `` preservation of

our old ways". Europe has moved on. I want cultural heritage,

preservation of our culture, as a multitude of the possibility to

develop individually. That is what I am personally staying for. You are

still fighting, if I may so`so, your family is fighting for property and

restitution of assets, with enjoy the world that has come off

the backs of others, and it is time to move on and not claim

rightfully yours. If you have properly read, you may see that I

have never been involved in that. Some relatives of mine have been

involved in what was private property. That is, by far, not as

much as you may be putting here. They make a clear definition of what

is private property and what was state property used by the family,

because the family wealth, actually, came from the husband of a relative

who brought in private property. That is where it comes from. They

say it has been taken away from us unlawfully, they are fighting for

it, OK, that's fine. That's not me, I'm interested in certain political

perspectives, a pan`European perspective, it is very modern to

say that we have a pis project here, and experience tells us that

is something it is worth fighting for `` a pis project here. It is

based on traditional values, `` peace. . I am

. I am involved in both feats on the ground when we are talking about

politics. 100 years on from the great War and the slaughter. Are you

confident that you know how to ensure that that sort of conflict or

configuration never happens again? They are two expressions that are

not expressions that should be used in politics, those expressions

probably come from the realm of religion. These are things that

don't happen. I am convinced that when we talk about democracy and

human rights, these kinds of values are values that we have to fight for

every day to keep them. They are an expression of the civilisation we

are having. They are not coming to human nature. We have had to fight

in the freedom that we are living, in the liberty and world that we

have in Europe. That is something we have to fight for every day. ``

wealth. I am not dwelling on it, but it is something worth fighting for.

Karl von Habsburg, we have to end there, but thank you very much for

being on HARDtalk. Thank you. Some of us had a lovely weekend with

a good deal of sunshine, others, particularly Scotland and Northern

Ireland, had wind. There was some heavy rain around. Settling down

through the day today, most places will be fine and dry with good

spells of sunshine, it is not completely a dry story, there will