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

Constitution protects essential state, national interests, says Kostunica

Belgrade, 22 October 2006

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica gave an interview for today's edition of the Vecernje Novosti daily and said that the issue of the Constitution is the issue of Serbia's future and is also closely connected with the protection of its essential state and national interests, primarily that of Kosovo-Metohija, which is why all citizens should vote at the referendum and support this supreme legal act.

Vojislav Kostunica

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

What should most motivate citizens to vote for the Constitution?

Primarily the fact that the state cannot exist without a constitution, except as a weak, poor, unfounded country… The current Constitution was made under a different set of historical circumstances. Also, it is stated in the preamble of the new constitution that Kosovo-Metohija is a constituent part of Serbia. This additionally obliges everyone to vote at the referendum and support the new Constitution. The Constitution is also an issue of state and national identity. In short, these are the reasons why citizens should vote on October 28 and 29 for the new Constitution. It is very important that we send everyone a political message, in the form of a large number of votes at the referendum, thus stating our determination to preserve Kosovo as it is – a constituent part of Serbia.

The text of the new Constitution as a result of political compromise:

The Constitution is undoubtedly a good one and its good points are becoming increasingly obvious. I think this Constitution quite becomes a state that has just emerged from half a century of authoritarian communist heritage and is undergoing the transition process. The basis of any good constitution is efficient organisation of authority that must not poach the area of human rights and guarantees of the rights of every individual in the country. And this is a feature of the new Constitution. The guarantees it envisages are the best assurance that the past will never be repeated.

If the new Constitution is adopted, is there any chance of political debates and denials in the following period?

For the first time in history our citizens are making a decision about the constitution at a referendum. Everything is now in the hands of the people and their free will. If they vote in favour of the Constitution, which means almost three and a half million citizens should circle the "yes" option at the referendum, we can talk about a broad national consensus that can only additionally strengthen the Constitution and give Serbia an opportunity to grow and develop with it. It was important to prevent the Constitution from being linked to one party, one government or one person. It is a paradoxical thing, but nevertheless a good one, that the current Constitution cannot be easily changed, but only through the agreement of two-thirds of parliament members and half the registered voters plus one vote at the referendum. Thus we are sure that once a constitution is adopted, it will not be further disputed.

Have citizens properly understood the reasons for voting at the referendum?

The issue of the constitution is the issue of the country's future and we should not doubt that citizens are aware of everything related to this matter. The Constitution is also closely related with the protection of essential state and national interests. Saying this, I mean primarily Kosovo-Metohija. The inclusion of the province in the preamble is the best way to clearly state, before any final decision is made, that from the point of view of historical and legal facts, and primarily international law, Kosovo is a constituent part of Serbia. Anyhow, the preamble was simply copied from the UN Charter which states that there can be no altering of internationally recognised borders.

Will the constitutional preamble have any compulsory character at all?

It will stop having a compulsory character when the UN Charter does. And it is quite unthinkable that the provision stating that internationally recognised borders cannot be altered in the UN Charter be abolished.

Is there an alternative to the Constitution and is its adoption truly a fateful issue to the future of our country?

The alternative is more than grim. It would send us far, far back in many aspects. We would find ourselves once again before an empty page with six lost years behind us. All those who think that there is the text of a constitution we have agreed upon and which can now simply be sent to the constitutional parliament are mistaken. This is utter nonsense. A constitution not adopted at the referendum is a non-existing constitution. We would have to start from empty sheets of paper again. We know this from previous years. I do not even want to start talking about what that might mean to Serbia's stability, economic development, investments in the country, EU integration process. And even more, what it might mean to the future status on Kosovo-Metohija.

In theory, the Constitution will confirm that Kosovo is a constituent part of Serbia. Will it be demonstrated in practice as well in the upcoming period?

No one in the international community can turn a blind eye to the fact that the Kosovo issue is a complex one and cannot be solved in a topsy-turvy way that will have harmful consequences worldwide. Many agree that this issue must be solved with a consensus of everyone involved in the Vienna talks. The Russian stance, for instance, is crystal clear: UN principles cannot be broken and exceptions to the international order cannot be made. All those who thought that everything can be easily solved now realise that things are not that simple. The solution must be sought with patience. To think that it can be reached without a compromise is unacceptable and non-applicable.

Has Ahtisaari realised this because he is signaling that there is a possibility to put off the status issue until after the elections in Serbia?

First, his statements about elections in Serbia are inappropriate meddling in a country's internal affairs. His mandate solely refers to bringing together the positions of the Serbian and Albanian sides within the international legal framework. Unfortunately, he has become increasingly forgetful of what his mandate entails and we now hear that allegedly, the position of one side is more flexible than the other's. Furthermore, he sees the solution exactly outside the framework within which it is possible – outside the UN Charter and the fact that anything can be discussed except Kosovo independence.

What will Serbia's strategy be if Ahtisaari, as he announced, still declares his view of Kosovo's status in November or December?

Our strategy will first be to prove that such a solution, and we can deduce from Ahtisaari's statements that it would be some form of independence – conditional, delayed, limited – would mean a rough breach of the UN Charter. On the other hand, the question is how any such solution would be implementable at all. Ahtisaari is not alone in the world. He would first have to present that solution to the Contact Group, then to the Security Council, and if it is not unanimously accepted, it cannot be implemented. It would remain only a dead letter. I do not see how any such form of independence would be unanimously received and even more importantly, how it would get past the Security Council.

Has Serbia got clear guarantees that any of these organisations' member states will openly oppose Ahtisaari's proposal?

The Russian stance is very clear, and the Chinese are not far behind. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials insist on a compromise solution and respect of international law almost on a daily basis. Many still do not understand that independence would be a violent solution and that a compromise should be reached that will satisfy both Serbs and Albanians and that will be sustainable within the state framework.

Might Ahtisaari try to avoid the procedure of giving a proposal to the Contact Group and the UN Security Council by demanding some sort of new resolution for Kosovo-Metohija so as to open the doors for bilateral recognition of Kosovo as independent state?

All permanent UN members need to agree about that. I don’t see any chance of the Security Council agreeing with a violation of crucial principles of the UN Charter. That would certainly cause serious and difficult consequences in the world. Many in the world are well aware of the fact that Serbia will never ever agree to being chopped or deprived of its territory, and many in the world will not agree to such a brutal violation and the ridicule of international law.

Is it at all possible to reach a compromise if the chief negotiator Marti Ahtisaari, is not replaced, as he is obviously biased?

Fortunately, the solution to Kosovo is not only in Ahtisaari's hands. And it is not only in the hands of countries that would come up with that kind of solution for Kosovo-Metohija.

When is it possible to reach a fair solution through an essential dialogue on Kosovo-Metohija?

It is wrong to talk deadlines, but of course, it is better to solve the problems, and not postpone them. You cannot limit such a serious issue, such as the Kosovo issue, within a time framework. Of course, it would be better to come up with a compromise sooner.

Elections will follow after the adoption of the new Constitution. There is speculation in public on the date of these elections.

It is not advisable to talk about dates just before the referendum. What is certain is that we will first have to adopt a constitutional law for implementation of the Constitution, which demands a two-third majority in parliament. The agreement among political parties in parliament will follow after the referendum and I am sure that there will be no obstacle to adopt the constitutional law. Interests of political parties cannot be above state interests.

Are you in favour of presidential and parliamentary elections taking place at the same time?

We will solve the issue of constitutional law and the new elections the same way we passed the Constitution – through a consensus.

The EU has not continued talks with Serbia although it seemed that the EU doors were “left ajar” again. However, the EU advocates a firm stand that there be no continuation of talks without Mladic in The Hague.

There were many EU countries that took quite an opposite stand. We saw that the position of a number of countries is that Serbia should not be limited by postponement of talks, but they think that it is more understandable to continue negotiations, with setting this condition for conclusion of talks. Some countries have realised the huge damage caused by stopping Serbian progress on its EU road.

Is there any progress in implementation of the Action Plan for cooperation with the Hague tribunal?

Certainly there is. The plan contributed to better coordination and synchronisation of intelligence services that are now more firmly in charge of the Mladic case and some other Hague indictees. The Plan has started yielding results. Special prosecutor Vladimir Vukcevic and president of the National Council for Cooperation with the Hague Tribunal Rasim Ljajic deserve special credit for that. They and all intelligence services have worked night and day to end that task. We are moving ahead.

Was Carla Del Ponte less dissatisfied in your last meeting because of that?

I don’t think that The Hague appreciates Serbia’s efforts enough. We witnessed that Croatia’s effort did not stop it on its European road. After that, Croatia met its Hague obligation. It seems to me that the same approach should be applied for Serbia. That, rather than the constant attempts to strong-arm our country into producing results.

Do you have any information on whether Ratko Mladic is still in Serbia?

To be completely precise, we don’t know where Mladic is.

What are your expectations and actions after the adoption of the new Constitution?

I expect things to move the way we started after the 2000 changes. I expect that the institutions will strengthen, that the legal state and rule of law will be enforced, I expect an even more efficient fight against crime and corruption, a stronger economic growth, return of trust of both local and foreign investors, or to put it shortly – a better life for our citizens. It is my wish that the political situation in Serbia normalises, that we become a really stable democracy where the government and opposition will be competitors and not enemies.