KOSOVO AND METOHIJA

Vienna, 10 March 2007

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF SERBIA VOJISLAV KOSTUNICA AT THE TALKS ON THE FUTURE STATUS OF KOSOVO AND METOHIJA

Mr Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am conviced that today we are facing together a serious common responsibility to identify the right way of setting the issue of organizational set-up of Kosovo and Metohija. Any erroneous decision will inevitably have far-reaching consequences for Serbia, but equally for the entire Balkan region. In other words, this means that any mistake in deciding would inevitably set a dangerous precedent for the entire international order. We still have the chance to jointly direct the quest for solution to the question of Kosovo and Metohija towards identifying a compromise-based and fair solution which would secure peaceful and safe future for all the population of Kosovo, the entire Serbia as well as the broader region.

We have on the table the proposal put forth by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari. This meeting would achieve its overriding goal if we managed to agree on how to continue to work together in order to bring this proposal in line with the funamental norms of international law, the UN Charter, the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and, ultimately, with the real interests of both the Albanians and the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. We are all aware that this will call for much effort, extreme patience and good will. However, we must also be aware that it is only if we proceed in this way it will become possible to reach a genuine agreement and secure peace and stability.

It is the duty of Serbia to note that Mr Ahtisaari's proposal, in the form in which it has been presented to us, by many of its provisions directly violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia by redrawing its international borders, separating a part of its territory and thus, in fact, making it possible to form another Albanian state in the Balkans by taking away from Serbia 15 percent of its territory. This means that this proposal, instead of solving the issue of the organizational set-up of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija, in fact raises the question of the state status of Serbia, which we consider to be totally unlawful and illegitimate. For this reason precisely the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia has passed the decision to reject all the provisions of Mr Ahtisaari's proposal that violate Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. That decision of the National Assembly is final and irrevocable.

Fully aware of its responsibility, on this occasion too, Serbia re-states its position and re-asserts its full resolve not to give up efforts to arrive at a real, negotiated and the only sustainable solution. At the same time, as a free and sovereign country, Serbia states its equal determination to reject any imposed settlement. We are issuing a timely warning that any attempt to impose a settlement on a free independent state would be tantmount to legal violence and would represent an absolutely impermissible way of settling the existing problem.
Likewise, as one of the founding members of the United Nations and its full-fledged member, Serbia emphasizes that, ipso facto, the UN Charter is applicable to it without any reservation and that the same applies to the Helsinki Final Act. Serbia also points out that ever since the inception of the UN and the entry into force of the UN Charter, it has never happend that a significant part of any member state's territory was taken away from it. Taking Kosovo and Metohija away from Serbia would be the most dangerous precedent in the history of the United Nations. No matter how many times it is repeated that the case of Kosovo and Metohija is unique, elementary sense of reality and common sense indicate that this is not so. It is not necessary to explain that, should in this case such a grotesque solution be opted for, nobody today could even begin to fathom the magnitude of the destructive consequences this would have for the stability of relations in the present-day world. This is the reason why Serbia is calling on all the states to help prevent such a dangerous course of events and to resist attempts to set a precedent that would tomorrow result in the redrawing of other borders, thus undermining the very foundations of the entire international order.

Serbia has the duty to warn of yet another extremely important fact. So far there has not been a single really serious attempt to justify and offer plausible arguments in favour of independence of Kosovo, or to explain why a part of territory should be taken away from Serbia. Why is it necessary for the Albanian national minority in Serbia to form another Albanian state, why the UN Charter and the Constitution of Serbia are being violated, and why is such a dangerous precedent emerging in international relations? Instead of arguments, we are permanently and ever more often encountering separatists threats to use blatant violence unless the province gains independence. The entire international community today must openly face this challenge. It has a duty to resolutely and uncompromisingly respond, for the sake of the future of our world, by stating that one must never and at no cost succumb to threats of terror. Not only would concessions of this type be counterproductive for finding a solution – even in the short term – but they would inevitably promote violence as the means of achieving political goals. Ladies and gentelmen, by defending its territorial integrity, Serbia is, at the same time, defending the principles on which global peace is based.

It is too well known that hundreds of thousands of Serbs have been expelled from Kosovo and Metonija and that over the past fifty years the makeup of the population in the province has been radically altered. It is known, too, that not so long ago, immediately after World War Two, Serbs accounted for 30 percent of the population of the province and that this number has significantly decreased as a result of separatists pressures and expulsions of Serbs. This goes to show that the idea of an independent Kosovo is just a guise for the project of creating an ethnically pure Kosovo and Metonija. This is the key reason why, despite the presence of the international mission in the province, the separatists have been systematically preventing the return of hundreds of thousands of expelled non-Albanians to the province.

Instead of encouraging illusions that threats, expulsions and violence resorted to by separatists could be rewarded by allowing the formation of another Albanian state in the territory of Serbia, today we must adopt a joint position that violence can produce only one consequence: namely, that whoever resorts to violence, in this particular case – ethnically motivated violence, must face the heaviest penalty for it. I am saying this because notwithstanding the international presence in Kosovo, such a postition has not been officially taken so far. And this, in turn, means that the international community's share in the responsibility for this state of affairs is far from insignificant. This responsability is, incidentally, evident in the report submitted by Special Envoy Kai Eide to the UN Security Council of 24 October 2005.

You will all be aware that the Serbs and the Albanians have been living together in Kosovo and Metohija for centuries. The long-standing history of our life together, while sometimes difficult, cannot be used to justify one-sided and rash conclusions. In any case, for Serbia it is both morally and politically unacceptable to conclude that Serbs and Albanians cannot live together and to recognize the separatists' ultimate stance that the Kosovo Albanians cannot live together with the Serbs in Serbia. Such a claim, Mr Cahirman, is directly in conflict with values underpinning the present-day global order, and in particular with the principle of multi-ethnicity.

This is why Serbia proposes that Mr Ahtisaari and all of us together should funnel all our energies to identifying a solution that will for the first time base the organizational set-up of the province on genuinely democratic principles. Any extreme solutions, precedents and experiments must be forgotten and give way to well-tested European models of solving minority issues. Substantive autonomy for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is not a hackneyed phrase nor a platitude, but the best and safest way to ensure that the Albanian national minority in the province can manage their life and their future in the manner that they deem to be in their best interests. Substantive autonomy is a realistic solution, directed against all extremes. It is realistic primarily because it is in compliance with the UN Charter and in harmony with the fundamental principles of international law.

There is no better moment that this one today to finally perceive the Kosovo question in the way this is mandated by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, a valid instrument that is binding upon each one of us talking here. It is well known that Resolution 1244 explicitly re-asserts the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of Serbia's international borders. This is understandable in itself because a Security Council Resolution cannot be in conflict with the UN Charter. However, in addition to this self-evident truth, Resolution 1244 has also set our clean commitments that must be implemented. This applies, first and foremost, to the issue of the standards, primarily the rights of the Serbs and non-Albanians in Kosovo. According to an uncontestable and easily-verifiable truth, the standards are not being fulfilled in any of the substantial areas. In the light of this fact, the message that the Serbs would feel safer in an independent Kosovo that in Kosovo as the part of Serbia seems cynical, to say the least. It would be incomparably more appropriate, in lieu of such message, to secure the fulfillment of all the concrete commitments set out in Resolution 1244. Today, when there is so much insistence on the need to have a constructive approach, this would be the best proof of constructivness, because it wouls strongly encouarage the expelled Serbs to return to their homes in larger numbers, which would in its turn essentially mark the begging of the genuine fulfillment of standards and commitments as required by Resolution 1244.
Serbia is strongly insisting on adherence to the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The obligations stemming from it shoud contitute that only basis for identifying a negotiated settlement. This is what has been totally lacking in the course of one-year talks, including the six-month break. Indeed, the discussions have taken place under the shadow of a purportedly well-known outcome, which hindered these discussions and rendered impossible the search for a compromise-based solution.

We hold the view that it would be absolutely necessary for Mr Ahtisaari to exert an additional effort for continuing the negotiations and to place the most salient elements of Resolution 1244 in the focus of his proposal. To that end, it is particularly important for Mr Ahtisaari to introduce the substantive autonomy model as the fundamental issue in the discussions, which would make it possible for us to examine, in the frameworks of a constructive dialogue, all the strenghts of this proposal as well as its weaknesses, if any. If we do not test, in a responsible and serious manner, the possibility of basing the set-up of the province on truly democratic fundamental principles in the form of autonomy, and if we instead resort to extreme solutions fraught with danger, the ultimate responsibility for all the consequences would have be down exclusively to those who opted for such a decision.

Ladies and gentelmen,
Serbia avails itself of this opportunity to once again call for the resumption of genuine and comprehensive talks, to be conducted in good faith and on the basis of Resolution 1244, aimed at bringing about a negotiated settlement in line with the UN Charter and the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

* * *