Keepin touch

Whether you have a question, comment, suggestion or any problem in the purview of the government, send us your message and we will try to respond as soon as possible. If your problem is not in our purview, we will forward your message to the relevant institution.

The Government of the Republic of Serbia

In the service of citizens

Upcoming year will be a year of important denouement

Belgrade, 31 December 2005

In an interview for the New Year's edition of the daily Vecernje Novosti, Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica speaks about the beginning of talks on the future status of Kosovo-Metohija, the Venetian Commission's draft report on the referendum in Montenegro, cooperation with the Tribunal in The Hague and the government's work and plans for 2006.

Vojislav Kostunica

The Serbian government's official website gives excerpts of the interview.

Is Serbia prepared for the beginning of talks on the future status of Kosovo-Metohija:

- Serbia is well prepared for the beginning of talks. When the moment comes, the negotiating team will come forward with Serbia's platform. A great deal of work has already been done in 2005. Our views on the province's future status are firmly based on international law, and the future of Kosovo-Metohija should be sought in essential autonomy.

I have already said that we should choose the right moment to state our platform. We have worked out all crucial details, especially the ones referring to essential autonomy, decentralisation of the province within Serbia-Montenegro, status of non-ethnic Albanian and Serbian population, internal links between municipalities populated with Serbs, their horizontal relatedness and their links with Belgrade.

How disputable is the issue of determining a term for entities:

- I believe that using different terms is not a big issue. Among all the terms that a number of officials have used on several occasions, there is one term they all use: decentralisation. This one is the least contentious, and what really matters is the basic idea: how will Serbs live in municipalities where they represent the majority, and how in small enclaves, what will be the status of religious and sacred objects? In other words, how can we keep this territory unified and save the people living there? It does not matter whether we call it an entity, as the Serbian President said, or the Serbian region, as the government has planned.

Will decentralisation be the first item on the agenda:

-According to all indicators, yes, it will. Decentralisation has for a long time been the primary topic, but unfortunately, hardly any progress has been made there. Neither UNMIK nor the international community managed to do that. The Serbian government worked on it really hard through a plan that the Serbian parliament adopted last year. This plan is detailed, and taking into consideration the actual circumstances and the cooperation within the negotiating team itself, we are even prepared to further look for appropriate solutions. The basic concept is this: decentralisation will improve the safety of Serbs in Kosovo-Metohija, it will enable the return of the displaced, and help them enjoy their rights, primarily the ones related to education, culture, police and the judiciary etc.

Decentralisation should be applied to the entire territory of Kosovo-Metohija. We are advocating an integral solution, unlike UNMIK who tried to solve it through pilot projects in few municipalities. We believe that decentralisation cannot be applied partially and experimentally, but solely to the entire territory. The fact that the upcoming talks will begin with the issue of decentralisation shows we were right. The first thing to do is enable the Serbs to enjoy their rights, return to their homes and normal lives, and start developing the economy, and decentralisation is the means to achieve all this. This will be discussed in January, but on the whole, no one is opposed to the concept. I say on the whole, because there will still be disputes concerning some particularities and modalities of decentralisation.

Deadlines for the talks:

- There are some in the international community who think this can be solved quickly and haphazardly. Recently, however, we have been receiving estimates from abroad as well as from persons close to Martti Ahtisaari himself, saying that the stated deadlines for concluding the talks are unrealistic.

There were arguments that it could all be done in three to six months. It is now clear that the matter is far more complex. It is completely natural to try and sort this out now rather than later, and neither we nor the international community can be fettered by time limitations. At the moment, the negotiating parties are the Contact Group, the negotiating teams from Belgrade and Pristina, and Ahtisaari's team, but the final statement will be given by the UN Security Council. The Council is the most qualified and responsible body and the basis of the international order. I find this quite reassuring.

What about those parties in the international community that had advocated Kosovo independence:

- Naturally, some members of the international community did have such views, mostly certain politicians and members of the International Crisis Group and the international group for the Balkans, as well as independence lobbyists. Unlike them, Serbia insists on the respect of international principles on which the international order rests. And the Security Council's founding principle is sovereignty and territorial integrity of primarily democratic states. When you start questioning this principle, you have started questioning everything else, namely the foundations of the international community. Therefore, I can only disregard any imposed solutions. An imposed solution is not a solution and can never be accepted. It would be outright legal violence.

Is there hope that this territory will be preserved:

- If we rely on and firmly believe in international law principles and democratic values, and if the international community also relies on them, there is no reason for us not to be optimistic.

Is the negotiating team homogenous:

- The negotiating team is homogenous. There is complete agreement on future work and the negotiating process, which will be best seen in the new state platform. However, having in mind the complexity of the Kosovo situation, it is logical to have differing views of the solution. There is nothing unusual about it.

How much is Serbia's negotiating position additionally aggravated by the fact that Ratko Mladic is not in The Hague:

- All major political and state affairs are interrelated. Cooperation with the Tribunal in The Hague is related to the talks on Kosovo-Metohija and the talks with the EU. However, when it comes to the cooperation with the Tribunal, what matters is the position of authorities in Belgrade.

Even more than The Hague and other states, Belgrade is devoted to a successful conclusion of this cooperation on the bases on which the cooperation has successfully relied in the past year.

There are numerous speculations on how the cooperation will conclude. When it comes to Ratko Mladic, there are speculations and guesswork. What is important for Serbia is that the public attitude has changed and accepted the model advocated and successfully applied by the government. Certain old doubts and misgivings have been allayed. First of all, thanks to the fact that a large portion of obligations was fulfilled through voluntary surrender of indictees, and some of them have been released from custody until the beginning of trial. The cooperation and communication between Belgrade and The Hague has also improved and it is beyond doubt that it will be concluded.

When we try to sum up all that has been said and done, a positive outcome is inevitable. Speculations about deadlines can only harm the conclusion of cooperation. I will once again say what the deadline for the conclusion of cooperation is: yesterday! Which means, the sooner the better.

Will the National Security Council help fulfill obligations toward the Tribunal:

- It will help to coordinate two levels of authority and intelligence services. But the Council was not founded only to help in the cooperation with the Tribunal, because in that case we would be duplicating the National Council for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal. There is a number of principled reasons for forming such a body. I believe the Council will give its contribution to the conclusion of cooperation with the Tribunal.

Is the Venetian Commission's stance on referendum in Montenegro final:

- The stance is final, but the experience on which this stance is founded speaks for itself. The Venetian Commission's starting point was to point to the rules that regulate independence or secession referendums. Such referendums are few. When composing Article 39, the Commission resorted to the existing rules and experiences. And the experiences are obvious in Europe and in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: referendums on the future of a state were well-founded only if a large number of voters gave their vote in favour of the decision. This means that a majority of below 50 percent of the electoral roll should not even be taken into consideration.

It is a fact that several states have been formed on the territory of former Yugoslavia, and there are examples of referendums in Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia. Another fact is also often disregarded: the exact majority that was in favour of Serbia and Montenegro forming one state back in 1992. If two-thirds of the electoral roll voted in favour of forming one state, then it will take at least a similar number to vote for the state union's secession. In my opinion, it is still debatable whether all citizens of Montenegro can vote on the referendum. In a way, the Venetian Commission contradicts itself saying that this would jeopardise the stability of the electoral roll. True, the electoral roll would enlarge by more than 50 percent, which also shows that all citizens should vote and that a half of them have been left out.

Can the referendum be successful under these terms:

- I believe it cannot. This is also clear to those who are demanding that the percentage of qualified majority should be reduced at all costs.

How do you comment the new demand by top Montenegrin officials to form a union of independent states:

- Such a demand has no foothold in the international experience. It is a non-existent, or at best a futile project. A union of independent states is a trap to ensnare those who are against an independent state because it assures them we will stay together. This is why the referendum question must be only one and clear, concise and impartial in its wording.

The possibility of new elections:

- There are no reasons for the government who has the majority to call new elections. Especially because it is doing a very good job, and I am certain the results will become increasingly apparent in the lives of all citizens.

Will 2006 be the Year of the Constitution:

- My statement for the previous year can be supplanted by a new one: the new year must be the Year of the Constitution! Not only because I find it necessary, but because the EU is now imposing it on us. Some things will be clarified and in a good way, I am sure. I believe the state union will be preserved and that we will order the state from the inside.

Had you known what awaited you, would you have accepted the role of the Serbian Prime Minister:

- I would even now accept the responsibility arising from the electoral will of the people. It was anticipated that all these issues will be on the government's agenda during its term in office, though not that they will be probably solved in 2006.