The Serbian government’s official website brings excerpts from this interview.

Your view of interethnic relations and the situation in Vojvodina ahead of your visit to Novi Sad, Subotica and Temerin:

A few months ago we had a number of incidents directed against the Hungarian community in Vojvodina, some other ethnic communities as well, but particularly the Hungarian, which is the largest one in Vojvodina. But among those interethnic clashes and incidents in Vojvodina, there have also been those directed against Serbs. In fact, when you sum up, there have been few conflicts between members of different nations, or more nations. Also, it was never quite clear whether ethnicity or something else was the reason for those conflicts or fights. Police have investigated most of those cases, and courts took appropriate steps. There is another phenomenon, to which not even our own city is immune – graffiti. Messages to members of other ethnicities, offensive or threatening. Police statistics reveals that there has been more graffiti directed against the Serb population that those against minorities in Vojvodina. And you also have the demolition and desecration of tombs. And then again, these things happen with no ethnic motives behind them. After all, we recently had that case in Kragujevac, which had no ethnic background whatsoever. But the very fact that problem has arisen, that it has been pointed to, has prompted the Serbian government to try to solve the problem, through a series of talks with representatives of the Hungarian minority and their political parties. This problem must be resolved in full, in several ways, but primarily through police and court action and also through education. Children must be introduced to a world that includes the existence of different nations, different confessions, different languages, but also the world in which we all live together. After all, if there is such a thing as Vojvodina’s distinctive feature, then it is its multiethnicity through centuries. There is so much that we can do. The Serbian government is drafting a proposal to set up a body made up of representatives of all minorities, ethnic communities in Serbia, particularly those from Vojvodina. Through these representatives we could hear the authentic voice to point to the problems and needs of minorities. Of course, there are the relevant ministries to carry out whatever is necessary. There is a lot to be done, but what I want to stress is that we must start from the circumstances as they are, from the picture of these ethnic relations as they are. There is no reason to embellish the situation, because, I am afraid, individuals could provoke even worse incidents, cause even greater tension, and contribute to something that is called the fanning of ethnic hatred.

Were the statements by certain Hungarian officials constructive and in good faith or were they interference with internal relations?

In several cases, it was in fact the exaggeration of what was really happening in Vojvodina, especially during a recent visit to Backa Topola and some other town in Vojvodina by the chairman of the Hungarian parliament’s foreign policy committee, Zoltan Nemet. The whole thing was blown up, as if the relations are almost unbearable. There is also a new term that has been used recently, although it does not exist in the Serbian language nor is it used by Vojvodina’s Hungarians. That is the word atrocities (meaning atrocity or massacre). Now, when you have a look at everything that has happened, everything that upsets us, then you should ask yourself whether there were atrocities and massacres or not. And if someone is trying to exaggerate it, then it really opens a problem. I think that our relations with Hungary have always been civilized, or even restrained. Moreover, when a law passed by Hungary, which regulated the rights of Hungarian citizens in neighbouring countries, the so-called “status law,” provoked unrest in several neighbouring countries, in Romania and Slovakia, which have a lot of Hungarians, we did not react nervously at all. There was always an attempt to resolve the issues through talks, to avoid exaggeration, and to preserve really good relations between Serbs and Hungarians. I want to underline that what is going on should not be underestimated, but it would also be absolutely irresponsible to overestimate it. There have been various suggestions by certain Hungarian politicians as to how to regulate the matters within Vojvodina, various institutional solutions and autonomies. You know, one should not do that if two countries care about good relations. Representatives of our authorities, for all political difference between us, have never done that in the past few years.

Your view of the messages sent from the last meeting of EU foreign ministers in Maastricht and the stand that it is necessary to preserve the state union?

It was in the autumn of 2000 that I tried to point out in various ways that it was necessary to preserve the state union and that it was senseless to break it. It was not easy at the start, we were trying to find different formulas and platforms acceptable for both Serbia and Montenegro as well as for the international community, the European Union above all. Let me remind you that we started with the option of a minimal and functional federation. At the time, there was an impression that the talks had stopped, that there was no solution, and that we should find solution in calling a referendum in Montenegro. There was a lot of talk about that I offered something like that in the autumn of 2001. But the EU showed more interest, the negotiations started with EU representatives as mediators, so we reached the Belgrade Accord in March 2002. That political agreement was to be included in the Constitution, the Constitutional Charter. It was done somewhat later, and it seems that the troubles came after that. It seemed that Europe’s interest was not as great as at the time when the Belgrade Accord was signed. In a way, they left it to Serbian and Montenegrin authorities, although Europe was committed to preserving the state union by putting a seal on it. But, when there was a stoppage in applying the Constitutional Charter, when certain difficulties occurred, but certain positive moves as well when it comes to setting up institutions which had not existed before, passing certain important regulations, Europe has shown a certain level of interest lately in implementation of the Charter, preservation of the state union, and only in that way should the messages from Maastricht be interpreted. These messages are not illogical, they are expected, maybe they could have arrived earlier, but they convey Europe’s interest that the state union is preserved, its political structure and international legal sovereignty above all and that the differences in the economic systems, the customs system of Serbia and Montenegro, should be postponed and resolved later. I think that this is a very encouraging message. When it comes to politics and institutions, there is only one way, one leading through state union’s institutions. Of course, the parliament should pass a number of important laws in order to make the functioning of the state union better harmonised. When it comes to economy, the problems arising at the moment are placed ad acta, they will be solved later on, and we actually do not have two diverging roads. A problem occurred in the customs systems of Serbia and Montenegro but there are only 56 products that need to be harmonised. This matter will be temporarily “frozen,” while we will pursue with other things. So, Europe’s message is that we cannot stop the functioning of a state, which is described by European officials as a new, unconventional, specific state structure, just because there are some minor problems, and I think this is an encouraging message.

Positive messages from Maastricht when it comes to adopting part of Serbian government’s Plan on Kosovo-Metohija and the forthcoming elections in the province:

The Serbian government’s Plan has been positively seen in Maastricht. Namely, they concluded that a form of compromise between the Serbian government’s view and those included in the local administration reform framework created by UNMIK and approved by the Kosovo government. These are two different approaches, but they are also complementary, in my view. UNMIK’s plan is dedicated to reform of local self-administration. That’s good, but I would say that it is more appropriate for a society which is not burdened with so many other problems as Kosovo is today. So, the problem is not only about the local administration. There are very few Serbs and non-Albanians in Kosovo, they are dispersed all over the province, and they should be connected in a way through institutions and they should be guaranteed the same status in the proper administrative institutions. That’s the essence of the Serbian government’s Plan, and that’s the only way to introduce security for Serbs in Kosovo-Metohija, to let them come back. We should bear in mind that the level of security cannot improve if two thirds of the Serb population from Kosovo are not there. Even if there had not been any ethnically-motivated crimes, we have the lack of agreement instead of freedom of movement. These are some things that certainly affected that the ministers in Maastricht take the Serbian government’s Plan into consideration. When we speak of elections and the often quoted message that it is important to take part in the elections, which would make the Kosovo parliament multiethnic, here is the response: a multiethnic parliament will not solve anything if the society itself is not multiethnic. And the society is not multiethnic at the moment judging by the insecure status of Serbs there. The parliament is not multiethnic either, as the minority in the parliament practically has no chance to react when its vital interests are violated and use a legal instrument of a suspension veto, similar to one existing in Bosnia-Herzegovina which was stipulated by the Dayton Agreement. Therefore, things in Kosovo-Metohija cannot really be solved and improved without special institutional guarantees for Serbs, included in the Serbian government’s Plan. And most importantly, the Plan is completely in accordance with UN Security Council’s Resolution 1244 and the constitutional framework for Kosovo-Metohija. The government’s Plan does not aim at establishing parallel institutions, but protects one people, actually several peoples, the non-Albanians in general, as not only their elementary rights are violated, but their lives are threatened. Possibility of a fresh round of talks on Serbia’s southern province with representatives of the international community after the Maastricht meeting:

In all the talks on Kosovo-Metohija that were held in Belgrade and outside Belgrade during the summer, we endeavoured to achieve two goals: to ensure that the Contact Group is the framework for talks on the much needed improvement of the situation in Kosovo-Metohija, when it comes to human rights. There have been attempts to reduce the matters to a smaller framework, that is to the participation of representatives of the US, NATO, and the EU only. We have persistently tried to preserve the political framework for talks on Kosovo that has been used for years, so as to keep a certain balance. This means not only that Russia is part of the Contact Group but also that the EU should not speak with a single voice, through one common representative, but rather through several countries, Germany as well as Italy and France and Germany. This, of course, would change the entire situation. So, such a framework as to be ensured first, and at the same time do everything to ensure that the Serbian government’s Plan be taken into account in the talks, apart from solutions proposed under UNMIK’s plan. This was not easy at all, and even though we did a good job when it comes to the first part, until the Maastricht messages, it was still unclear whether the Serbian government’s Plan would be taken into account in the talks that must be held. I am also obliged to stress one more thing. International and foreign officials often warn that the election is close and that nothing can be done now, that little time is left and that a lot of time has passed. That a lot of time has passed is true, and that is the only correct answer. Several years have passed, and, more importantly, several months have been lost since the events of March 17 and 18 this year. I still think that a lot can be done within a few weeks and that it has to be done. In those several weeks, Serbs must get a minimum of institutional guarantees for local self-government in Kosovo-Metohija, since without that, their very participation in the elections would be meaningless.

The situation in the country in light of the announcement that talks on a final status for Kosovo-Metohija could start next year and that a referendum on a peaceful separation between Serbia and Montenegro could be held in 2006:

There are well-known international standards when it comes to human rights, something that is centuries old, and that is the fact that human rights are above any institution, elections, above any constitutional solution. They are undisputable. They were placed above the status only when UNMIK declared in a document last year that standards must go before talks on a status. It was much earlier, in the old values of the European civilisation, that the individual was everything, that his rights were everything. No political solution may require a final status, nor can Kosovo-Metohija even dream about it, until all its citizens start feeling safe, until their rights are fully protected. If you look at the average level of human rights in Europe at the moment, in developed and underdeveloped countries, in democratic and less democratic ones, in this post-communist part of Europe and in its old part, then you can be certain that what we have in Kosovo-Metohija is far below all that, that it lags behind, that in some aspects, even the very concept of human rights is put in question. And, of course, the issue of Kosovo-Metohija’s final status cannot be resolved before that. That can be talked about, to draw a line a see whether there is progress, but I think that we will talk not of progress but rather about how far we really are when it comes basic standards of human rights.