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

Serbia will not give up right to sovereignty, territorial integrity

Belgrade, 2 August 2007

Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic said today that during his visit to Washington he reached agreement with US officials that negotiations on Kosovo-Metohija should be conducted with the aim of finding a compromise solution, and the US should contribute to the quality of these negotiations by not declaring what the result of the negotiations must be.

Vuk Jeremic

Author: Tanjug

In an interview for the daily Glas Javnosti following his visit to the US, Jeremic stressed that dialogue between Belgrade and Washington has been resumed at the highest level, adding that in international relations communication through the media is extremely dangerous, especially at a time when important processes are unfolding inside Serbia in which the US is a decisive factor.

The result of renewing this dialogue is easing of tension and an attempt to restore matters in a realistic perspective, stressed the Minister and added that during his visit to Washington he agreed with US officials that Serbia and the US should have a joint strategic goal in the Balkans, and that is a peaceful, prosperous Balkans which is completely integrated in the EU.

What is the position regarding the announcement by the Albanians that they will declare independence unilaterally?

No one would support a unilateral move since it is clear to everyone that such moves have a local as well as global cost. Everyone knows that it is better to reach a solution which can gain legitimacy through a Security Council resolution. That is why I would not say that anyone is overjoyed at such an option, but there are countries which are ready to go in that direction. The US administration said that they are ready to examine any, even this option. I presented them with our viewpoint regarding the dangers involved in such a step and the grave consequences for the region.

When should negotiations begin and will there be any changes to the Serbian negotiating team?

We are frequently accused of prolonging matters, that this is in our interest. This is not correct. We want to begin as soon as possible, but I do not know when the Contact Group will be ready to begin negotiations. As far as the new state negotiating team is concerned, the government is obliged, through a resolution adopted by parliament, to form a new team. At the moment the format of the team is under consideration, but we will take a final decision when we see what the form of negotiations will take. It would be pointless to form the team without knowing in which form the negotiations will be held. That is still being discussed by the Contact Group.

What is expected of the new negotiations in the US?

There is a general belief that Ahtisaari’s plans failed because Serbia did not behave seriously during those negotiations. A few officials even asked me if we intend to be serious in the upcoming negotiations. I posed them the same question. I told them that if the negotiations are serious then we must all behave accordingly.

On US stand regarding independence for Kosovo-Metohija:

The US will never get support from Belgrade for the stand that the fastest way to achieve peace and stability in the Balkans is to grant independence to Kosovo-Metohija. However, talks are conducted differently if a joint goal is established, as well as that Serbia according to all security, political and economic criteria is a country which should have full US support. In that kind of atmosphere, talks are conducted differently, and then it might be said that new negotiations on Kosovo-Metohija await us, whose quality the US should contribute to by not declaring what their result should be.

Will the US desist from setting deadlines in the negotiating process?

We agreed that negotiations should be conducted with the goal of trying to find a solution based on compromise. In that sense, I think that the situation in the US is much better now than it was before. I presented them with reasons why setting deadlines is not desirable, but we did not reach agreement on that point. Still, we did agree that no real negotiations can be held if what will happen at the end is announced every day. I also conveyed to them that threats of violence cannot be part of the process, and they agreed with that, and that is very important since thus far one of the arguments in favour of setting deadlines was the threat of violence.

Will the Contact Group decide without the Security Council?

The Contact Group cannot change the actual situation in the formal and legal sphere which is defined by the Resolution 1244, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. The Contact Group can only mediate in the negotiations ahead of us. The trio which will lead the negotiations can propose the manner and form of talks, but any solution must at the end be presented before the Security Council. As long as the Security Council does not approve a solution, the earlier decision by this body expressed in the Resolution 1244 will remain valid, which clearly defines the status of Kosovo-Metohija. In case a new status is found for Kosovo-Metohija, determined through compromise, and we believe it is possible, and that the solution will have to be approved by the Security Council.

Regarding Ahtisaari’s plan:

For us Ahtisaari’s plan has been thrown out and there is no further discussion concerning it. But only a few months ago a large number of countries gave full support to Ahtisaari’s plan. Following that his efforts were supported, and then it was said that his efforts could serve as a starting point for an alternative. Support for the plan has clearly declined. However, we cannot expect certain major countries which supported it to admit their mistake overnight.

Will there be discussion on partition of Kosovo-Metohija in the continuation of negotiations?

At this time it is not clear according to which modality negotiations will take place. It is not very clear if the Contact Group will get Security Council support in the way Ahtisaari received it at the beginning of earlier negotiations. I must remind you that Ahtisaari got support from the Security Council for criteria according to which he led negotiations in the form of presidential statements not through a resolution. I think it would be good that this phase of negotiations is supported in a similar manner since it is through presidential statements that we see if there are any new criteria or not. At present that is still not defined, but the partition of Kosovo-Metohija is not our viewpoint on solving the issue of the future status of Kosovo-Metohija. Our position is clear; we are not giving up our right to sovereignty and territorial integrity, accordingly, no partition of our territory.

Do you believe that you succeeded in bringing the US closer to our stand on the Kosovo-Metohija issue?

I think that we have made some progress. The major subject was whether the negotiations will be real or not. I said that we will present solutions in the upcoming period which we consider to be acceptable for all sides involved, including the Albanians. I got the response that they will wait to see what our proposals are. I think that we have made some progress and for the first time they are seriously listening to what we are proposing. During the process led by Ahtisaari they did not listen to us seriously because they thought the outcome was certain and that is why they did not accept anything which was not along those lines. This time, I think they will have more interest in listening to what we have to offer. That does not mean that they will accept it, but this is a good step for us compared to the prior situation.