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

Substantial autonomy for Kosovo-Metohija within Serbia only possible compromise

Belgrade, 7 April 2007

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said in an interview for the Easter edition of the daily “Vecernje Novosti” that he is optimistic and hopes that with each new day Kosovo-Metohija will be further from independence and closer to substantial autonomy within the borders of Serbia, which is the only compromise possible.

Vojislav Kostunica

The official website of the Serbian government presents excerpts from the interview:

Did you except such an outcome of the Security Council session before your departure to New York?

I did, because just prior to departure we had several intensive diplomatic consultations with the single and clear aim to at any cost prevent the Security Council from supporting Ahtisaari’s proposal. Of course, in this respect the constant and principled support by Russia, which is a permanent member of the Security Council, was in the greatest interest of Serbia. I also have in mind general international relations and the shift in climate regarding the issue of Kosovo-Metohija during the past few years. At the beginning of the negotiations process I was not as optimistic as I am now. It has become clear, especially after the Security Council session, how strong are the arguments presented by Serbia and many other countries, among which Russia and China are most prominent, that the territory of a UN member country cannot be seized. Regarding that there simply are no counterarguments.

Did those advocating independence for Kosovo-Metohija try to present convincing arguments for their stand?

Since law and justice are obviously on the side of Serbia, that is not at all a simple task for those advocating independence. Probably due to that they do not even attempt to oppose Serbia’s arguments which have legal basis by some kind of counterarguments. They did not even try to do that.

Did UN Special Envoy Marti Ahtisaari have any legal angle to his plan for presenting a country to ethnic-Albanians?

No, since it is not possible to find a legal basis for an illegitimate and illegal proposal, he tried to use history. He called upon something which took place in the 90s. My argument to that was very clear, that history is not measured in years but in centuries, during which Serbs and Albanians developed their relations. And if history is to be measured in the span of just the previous years, then we cannot take into account only the period before 1999, without including the period after that. In any case his idea of history cannot compensate for the obvious absence of a legal basis.

Ahtisaari’s argument is also the speed of determining the status:

Yes, he says that uncertainty does not solve things. By advocating substantial autonomy Serbia is offering a way out of uncertainty. Still, the least convincing of Ahtisaari’s arguments is that although the UN Charter will be violated in the issue of Serbia and Kosovo, this will be done only in Serbia’s case and will never take place again. This is not correct, if it happens once, it will happen again. When all of Ahtisaari’s arguments are put together, we see that he in fact does not have a single serious argument.

On Russia’s support:

I repeat that the principled support provided by Russia is of historical importance for our country, because we are facing today a historical moment in the defence of Kosovo-Metohija. Every citizen of Serbia and our entire nation knows that and will continue to value this support. Russia advocates consistent respect of the UN Charter, and especially of its central part that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of existing states must be respected. Russia and President Putin have taken the clear stand that if the wrong path of seizing the territory of a country is taken this will not remain limited an isolated case. If it happens once it will happen several times again. Russia opposes the seizure of the territory of a UN member country, and when a permanent member of the Security Council defends the principles upon which the existence of the UN is based then a positive climate in other Security Council member countries is created.

Do you think that the force of these arguments has led certain countries which were unsure earlier to refrain from supporting Ahtisaari’s plan?

Just as this is a historical moment for Serbia, it is also of historical significance for the UN. This is the first time that it has occurred to someone to propose violating the UN Charter at the deepest level. Persistent repetition of this fact, and other arguments which I presented had effect on those who attended the session. And I think that Serbia’s explanation regarding its stand seriously influenced many Asian, African and European countries as well who have been hesitant for some time now and who have been considering how the Kosovo issue might influence their countries.

Did the shift in the balance of power among Security Council members at the session prevent voting on the proposal or any other resolution?

The matter is clear. If the plan were acceptable for all permanent members and the majority of the Security Council member countries it would have been adopted and it would be over. Things would have moved on to the signing of a new Security Council resolution. In that case it would have been said that the Security Council accepts Ahtisaari’s plan as a framework for the resolution and things would have moved on in that direction. But, the majority was not in favour of this, not even a joint conclusion or statement was reached at the session. Things have to move towards continuation of negotiations and finding a true compromise. The fact that Ahtisaari’s plan was adopted by the Kosovo parliament instead of the UN Security Council bears witness that this was a failed attempt at seizing our territory.

How should the process of negotiations be continued now?

Serbia has clearly stated that it is necessary to begin negotiations on new bases, while respecting the UN SC Resolution 1244, and not by violating it. And of course, with a new mediator.

When could these negotiations begin and who would initiate them?

Consultations regarding the Russian initiative for forming a mission should begin in the framework of the Security Council and the Contact Group very soon. It is necessary to find an exit strategy. Ahtisaari has brought the process to a dead end, and now we need to get out of this situation, which is not that simple.

Russian proposal to form a Security Council mission to establish actual conditions regarding implementation of standards:

That Security Council mission should have a very serious role, and not just a superficial one. It should start from the beginning and establish facts and present a report to the Security Council. It should do the job which was not done since Ahtisaari took over the mandate.

What is the guarantee that the report by the mission will be objective?

That can be guaranteed only by the members of the commission, their mandate and concrete tasks.

Is it possible that some countries recognise Kosovo-Metohija bilaterally while a decision regarding continuation of negotiations is expected?

Serbia clearly warns that the Resolution 1244 has binding power over all governments and not a single UN member country may violate a resolution adopted by the Security Council. If any one dares to recognise the independence of the province, it would be in gross violation of the UN Charter. In fact it would be a double violation since the Charter and the Resolution both will be violated. I think that it should not come to that since all are aware of the serious consequences of such action.

Have Serbia’s chances of safeguarding Kosovo-Metohija increased?

Serbia has no other choice but to safeguard Kosovo-Metohija and the entire country is doing everything in its power to achieve this state and national goal. This great work is producing results and today the situation is incomparably better than it was a year ago. The Security Council session was also the result of the unified efforts by Serbia and all her institutions.

Is there a chance that the Security Council might at some point decide to take Kosovo-Metohija from Serbia?

No, never. That would mean that one of the highest UN bodies has violated the highest UN law. That would be a dramatic turn which could only remind of the condition prior to the Second World War when grave mistakes produced most serious consequences. This is not just about Kosovo and Serbia. A chain reaction would start, and there would be no end to it. It is impossible that this takes place. Today there are countries which have the power to not allow such chaos and undermining of international order.

Will Serbia get a government or will there be new elections?

I think that it is very important that Serbia gets a government. It is also important due to the talks on Kosovo-Metohija and due to the fact that we have a new Constitution and we must adapt all institutions to the new laws which are suitable for present conditions. Given a different situation it would not be so important. But now we are in great need of a government.