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 accept talks on partnership relations with Kosovo

Belgrade, 22 November 2007

Advisor to the Serbian Prime Minister and member of the state negotiating team Aleksandar Simic said in an interview to today's issue of Vecernje Novosti daily that Serbia will not accept that the subject of the final round of negotiations on the status of Kosovo-Metohija be the so-called partnership relation between Serbia and its southern province.

File photo of Aleksandar Simic

Author: Tanjug

The Serbian government's official website brings excerpts from the interview:

Kosovo negotiations:

- The UN Security Council (SC) clearly gave a mandate for negotiations on the future status of Kosovo-Metohija. As long as that mandate is in force, talks on the status must not be avioded. The partnership story is a trick that hides the intention of Albanian separatists to take away a part of Serbia's territory, contrary to international law. The unavoidable topic is finding a consensus on the Kosovo status, which will be approved by the UN SC.

Is it a step forward that the subject of negotiations changed from Ahtisaari's monitored independence to the neutral status?

- That is not a step forward. Neutral status opens the door to separatism. That is why Kosovo Albanians, who do now want to accept anything less than independence, were giving clear signals that neutral status can be discussed.

What is neutral status?

- The attempt that the province's status, only allegedly, remains unresolved. Albanian separatists did not say that in case neutral status is approved, they would desist from unilateral proclamation of independence, nor did certain western European countries say they would not recognise that. There is no such thing as neutral status in international law. Status is either defined or undefined.

On Serbia's examples of solutions in Onland Islands and Hong Kong:

- We gave the examples of those substantial autonomies in the world and we will present some more ideas in Vienna. We are being constructive. We always have a proposal in line with international law and a document more in comparison to Kosovo Albanians, who do not have anything but wish for independence, encouraged by the US.

Did Albanians hear the arguments in favour of the substantial autonomy?

- Yes, but more like some useful history lesson. Of course, they did not explain why that couldn't be applied to Kosovo-Metohija.

Is there a progress at the end of the troika's mission?

- We have already pointed out that the decision which the UN SC made in 2005 to start the status negotiations without previously fulfilling standards in Kosovo was wrong. There is really no progress, but the UN SC could revise its decision on starting the status talks and put in practice the functional relation of the Serbian southern province within Serbia, in line with Resolution 1244. The talks can also be continued, but the way for dismembering Serbia must not be opened due to impossibility of finding a consensus.

On Wisner’s message that Serbia must offer to Albanians something that would be attractive to them:

- That story reminds me of a market at which participants are competing in giving attractive offers. That logic simply cannot be applied to international politics. The disputes of international character must be solved exclusively by international rules that must be respected. Everything else is a road to lasting crisis and instability.