Esteemed Mr. Ahtisaari,
I am using this opportunity to present Serbia's stance. On the occasion of termination of one round of talks, I will tell you mostly the things that could be heard today, but there is a need to repeat them once more. The position of Serbia remains unchanged when it comes to the proposal that served as a basis for the negotiations that took place in Vienna from February 21 to March 2, and which was delivered to us in a somewhat modified form several days later, and serves as a basis for today's negotiations.
That proposal is unacceptable for Serbia in all of its elements that challenge Serbia's territorial integrity and sovereignty because it violates the United Nations Charter, the Resolution 1244 and, of course, the Serbian Constitution. In all those elements, whether in the case of the principle in introductory parts, certain annexes or a series of concrete technical solutions, that proposal is unacceptable for Serbia and that is the position that I want to reiterate once more.
Another round of talks is closing and there is no reason to evade truth. This round of talks that has been closed today has brought no results. A simple compromising solution is missing, and perhaps this is a chance, in case we forgot, that all of us remember that the main principles of the Contact Group stipulated that the solution must be based on compromise. There is no compromise either when it comes to issues that are not related to the status, the so-called technical questions, or when it comes to the status itself. A compromise is missing. Perhaps some will not be surprised by this, especially we who heard it from your mouth (addressing Ahtisaari) on July 24 in Vienna that you are not looking for a compromise, but a solution. You repeated that on several occasions afterwards, with which you actually wanted to say that you have a certain animosity towards compromise.
Therefore, we ended up with something, a document which, after the negotiations or something that was supposed to be negotiations, or something that was meant to look like negotiations, is not based on a compromise, and it is not difficult to see that, as the Serbian delegation showed in their statements, it has two defects, two major, important and essential defects. It is not a document that is a result of talks between the two sides, but rather an expression of the interest of one side. It expresses the interest of the delegation of Kosovo, that is, of Pristina. All of us who attended these talks today could see that clearly.
Therefore, the document we had before us today is not the work and result of talks of the two sides, but an expression of the interest of one side alone. Thus, as emphasized by members of the Serbian delegation, the proposal does not fulfill the formal conditions in order to appear before the Security Council. Moreover, it does not fulfill essential conditions either, from a simple reason that it is against the UN Charter, or, in other words, the constitution of the world. The UN Charter is the constitution of the world.
This constitution is based on the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of existing states. This is the foundation of the world constitution in the same way as integrity of every individual and his rights are the foundation of constitutions of individual states. For the constitution of the world, territorial integrity and sovereignty are the first and the last provision, the alpha and omega of the UN Charter. You (addressing Ahtisaari) have breached this rule in the UN Charter. You have trodden upon it. And this rule was additionally implemented through Resolution 1244.
Thus, Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty were twice guaranteed: with the UN Charter and Resolution 1244. We have already said and reiterated on many occasions that Serbia is a member of the United Nations and one of its founding countries. I have not heard of any country and have not seen any example of a state becoming a UN member in its entirety, only to have a portion of its territory taken away from it. Is there anyone here today who can give us such an example of a democratic state? Of course, there isn’t.
The character of this proposal is such that it fails to fulfill the formal conditions, both in a narrower formal sense and a substantial, essential sense, which are necessary for it to appear before the Security Council. As I have already said, compromise on technical issues or standards have not been reached in the course of the past year, and status was discussed on one occasion only, that is, on July 24 in Vienna. As in the saying a good beginning makes a good end, the talks in Vienna ended the same way they commenced. The status issue is the most consequential issue of these negotiations and also the most delicate one.
You (addressing Ahtisaari) put on the table the question whether one state should keep its wholeness or not. The question of status has been fully margnalised. Once, on July 24, and then six months later in negotiations that started on February 21 and lasted until March 2. This is not accidental as this proposal that is now before us needed to be reached, where all details of something that should be an independent state, just without mentioning the name independence. I think that those elements that are incorporated in this proposal of an independent state are so numerous, even excessive in number, that actually the very mentioning of the status of that state is unnecessary.
In a word, in negotiations that started in February and ended on March 2, you suggested that one democratic free country, UN member, be deprived of 15% of its territory. Let us not speak about some other elements in your proposal that came to the surface only after one year, or to be more precise, you showed us for the first time – such as a civilian or military presence. There was no discussion about those issues. And there are a series of annexes, one of participants in the discussion mentioned, the whole of five annexes, that are completely new. These are topics that were not discussed before.
This is how things are. The position of Serbia is unchanged. If there are those who do not respect the UN Charter which is still in force, Serbia does respect it. And Serbia will stick to that. Serbia is still, as it has been thus far, dedicated to negotiations and considers that negotiations should be continued. I appeal for negotiations to be continued.
Finally, let me say that this is one act in a very serious decision, which was addressed superficially and irresponsibly and utterly biasedly, but the final act will be well-known, and it will and only with the decision of the UN Security Council. I am deeply convinced that this high body of the UN will remain loyal to its fundamental act, which I call the international constitution, which is the UN Charter.
Thank you.
I am using this opportunity to present Serbia's stance. On the occasion of termination of one round of talks, I will tell you mostly the things that could be heard today, but there is a need to repeat them once more. The position of Serbia remains unchanged when it comes to the proposal that served as a basis for the negotiations that took place in Vienna from February 21 to March 2, and which was delivered to us in a somewhat modified form several days later, and serves as a basis for today's negotiations.
That proposal is unacceptable for Serbia in all of its elements that challenge Serbia's territorial integrity and sovereignty because it violates the United Nations Charter, the Resolution 1244 and, of course, the Serbian Constitution. In all those elements, whether in the case of the principle in introductory parts, certain annexes or a series of concrete technical solutions, that proposal is unacceptable for Serbia and that is the position that I want to reiterate once more.
Another round of talks is closing and there is no reason to evade truth. This round of talks that has been closed today has brought no results. A simple compromising solution is missing, and perhaps this is a chance, in case we forgot, that all of us remember that the main principles of the Contact Group stipulated that the solution must be based on compromise. There is no compromise either when it comes to issues that are not related to the status, the so-called technical questions, or when it comes to the status itself. A compromise is missing. Perhaps some will not be surprised by this, especially we who heard it from your mouth (addressing Ahtisaari) on July 24 in Vienna that you are not looking for a compromise, but a solution. You repeated that on several occasions afterwards, with which you actually wanted to say that you have a certain animosity towards compromise.
Therefore, we ended up with something, a document which, after the negotiations or something that was supposed to be negotiations, or something that was meant to look like negotiations, is not based on a compromise, and it is not difficult to see that, as the Serbian delegation showed in their statements, it has two defects, two major, important and essential defects. It is not a document that is a result of talks between the two sides, but rather an expression of the interest of one side. It expresses the interest of the delegation of Kosovo, that is, of Pristina. All of us who attended these talks today could see that clearly.
Therefore, the document we had before us today is not the work and result of talks of the two sides, but an expression of the interest of one side alone. Thus, as emphasized by members of the Serbian delegation, the proposal does not fulfill the formal conditions in order to appear before the Security Council. Moreover, it does not fulfill essential conditions either, from a simple reason that it is against the UN Charter, or, in other words, the constitution of the world. The UN Charter is the constitution of the world.
This constitution is based on the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of existing states. This is the foundation of the world constitution in the same way as integrity of every individual and his rights are the foundation of constitutions of individual states. For the constitution of the world, territorial integrity and sovereignty are the first and the last provision, the alpha and omega of the UN Charter. You (addressing Ahtisaari) have breached this rule in the UN Charter. You have trodden upon it. And this rule was additionally implemented through Resolution 1244.
Thus, Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty were twice guaranteed: with the UN Charter and Resolution 1244. We have already said and reiterated on many occasions that Serbia is a member of the United Nations and one of its founding countries. I have not heard of any country and have not seen any example of a state becoming a UN member in its entirety, only to have a portion of its territory taken away from it. Is there anyone here today who can give us such an example of a democratic state? Of course, there isn’t.
The character of this proposal is such that it fails to fulfill the formal conditions, both in a narrower formal sense and a substantial, essential sense, which are necessary for it to appear before the Security Council. As I have already said, compromise on technical issues or standards have not been reached in the course of the past year, and status was discussed on one occasion only, that is, on July 24 in Vienna. As in the saying a good beginning makes a good end, the talks in Vienna ended the same way they commenced. The status issue is the most consequential issue of these negotiations and also the most delicate one.
You (addressing Ahtisaari) put on the table the question whether one state should keep its wholeness or not. The question of status has been fully margnalised. Once, on July 24, and then six months later in negotiations that started on February 21 and lasted until March 2. This is not accidental as this proposal that is now before us needed to be reached, where all details of something that should be an independent state, just without mentioning the name independence. I think that those elements that are incorporated in this proposal of an independent state are so numerous, even excessive in number, that actually the very mentioning of the status of that state is unnecessary.
In a word, in negotiations that started in February and ended on March 2, you suggested that one democratic free country, UN member, be deprived of 15% of its territory. Let us not speak about some other elements in your proposal that came to the surface only after one year, or to be more precise, you showed us for the first time – such as a civilian or military presence. There was no discussion about those issues. And there are a series of annexes, one of participants in the discussion mentioned, the whole of five annexes, that are completely new. These are topics that were not discussed before.
This is how things are. The position of Serbia is unchanged. If there are those who do not respect the UN Charter which is still in force, Serbia does respect it. And Serbia will stick to that. Serbia is still, as it has been thus far, dedicated to negotiations and considers that negotiations should be continued. I appeal for negotiations to be continued.
Finally, let me say that this is one act in a very serious decision, which was addressed superficially and irresponsibly and utterly biasedly, but the final act will be well-known, and it will and only with the decision of the UN Security Council. I am deeply convinced that this high body of the UN will remain loyal to its fundamental act, which I call the international constitution, which is the UN Charter.
Thank you.