KOSOVO AND METOHIJA

Vienna, 10 March 2007

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA H.E. BORIS TADIC AT THE MEETING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE KOSOVO SETTLEMENT

Excellencies,
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today’s meeting brings to a close a phase in the process to determine the future status of Kosovo and Metohija. Unfortunately, we cannot say that it has been concluded successfully—no agreement has been reached between the Republic of Serbia and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo and Metohija. A month ago, the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ahtisaari, presented to us his proposal on the future status of the province. After the additional round of talks that took place between February 21st and March 2nd, his proposal was somewhat modified. This is the document that we have before us today.

We made the position of the Republic of Serbia on Mr. Ahtisaari’s proposal known to the public on February 2nd, when Mr. Ahtisaari came to Belgrade to deliver it. Mr. Ahtisaari’s document is fundamentally not acceptable to us because it fails to reaffirm the sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia over Kosovo and Metohija and therefore brings into question the territorial integrity of our country. A number of the document’s clauses open the way towards the independence of Kosovo and Metohija and thus contradict some of the fundamental principles of international law, which unequivocally protects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of internationally recognized states—in particular, documents such as the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act.

Serbia is a democratic, internationally recognized member-state of the United Nations. In our country, power is acquired exclusively through the conduct of free elections that conform to existing European standards. Serbia has mature institutions which safeguard human and minority rights. In our country, we are building the rule of law with as much success as the majority of other transition countries. Ethnic minorities in Serbia—except in Kosovo and Metohija—enjoy good relations with the majority population and participate actively in the local and national political life of the country.

From the time of the peaceful transfer of power in October 2000, Serbia has been a trusted partner in regional cooperation, and shares the same goal with the other countries of the Western Balkans: rapid accession to the European Union. Serbia’s clear foreign policy priorities, our sober propensity towards seeking compromise and our traditional faith in the United Nations, decisively led us to take an active and constructive stance in the political talks on the future status of Kosovo and Metohija. Under circumstances that were not always favourable, our country invested enormous efforts in proposing realistic, just and viable compromise solutions to all important questions.

This can be seen foremost on the fundamental issue of these talks, the question of the status of Kosovo and Metohija. The compromise that Serbia offered to the province’s Albanian community is a very broad, substantial autonomy that would be internationally guaranteed. Serbia would retain only a small number of enumerated competencies such as foreign policy, defence (under our proposal, Kosovo and Metohija would become fully demilitarized), the protection of religious and cultural heritage, etc. At the same time, the economic links between the province and the rest of Serbia would be renewed, to our mutual benefit. As we stated several times during the Vienna negotiations, we would gladly accept the participation of Kosovo and Metohija Albanians in Serbia’s national institutions should they choose to do so—of course with some modifications to the existing relations between the national and provincial competencies.

I would like to reiterate that such a solution to the future status of Kosovo and Metohija fully conforms to the principles of international law and contemporary European standards on minority rights. Unfortunately, the Special Envoy did not pay sufficient attention to our proposal, choosing instead to propose a solution the adoption of which could lead to long-lasting instability in the region and beyond. If Ahtisaari’s proposal was to be accepted, it would be the first time in contemporary history that territory would be taken away from a democratic, peaceful country in order to satisfy the aspirations of a particular ethnic group that already has its nation-state.

Serbia has also been active and constructive in addressing all other issues at the Vienna negotiations, particularly on the questions of decentralization, the protection of Serbian religious and cultural heritage, property and financial issues. I am pleased that progress was achieved on one issue, namely the question of Kosovo and Metohija’s share of our country’s external debt. However, the other proposals are far from the balanced and sustainable compromise that could have been justifiably expected after more than a year of negotiations.

I must draw particular attention to the fact that all our proposals—whether they dealt with the issue of status or other issues—always conformed to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the Contact Group’s Guiding Principles, that is to say, the international community’s documents that provided a sort of framework within which the talks on future status were to take place and to which the Special Envoy himself referred on several occasions. Careful analysis of the Vienna negotiations would easily demonstrate that precisely those documents could have been used to move us much closer to a solution in comparison to where we stand now. In that sense, it would not be inaccurate to say that the Vienna negotiations were only the latest in a series of missed opportunities. However, now it is important to see what can be done so that the current stage in the negotiations process can be succeeded in a way that would open the door toward a compromise, mutually-acceptable solution.

It is obvious that the question of Kosovo and Metohija has now been fully internationalized and that it is debated in regional, European and global contexts. It is no secret that the matter is looked at in very different ways throughout the world, and in particular in those places in which the matter will soon be—or is already being—carefully considered. When the Special Envoy’s proposal is delivered to New York, consultations within the Security Council will take place. The proposal is already known to the Contact Group and the member-states of the European Union, and we expect that a serious debate on the Ahtisaari document will soon take place. Serbia, which is not a member of the Security Council, will not directly participate in those consultations and debates, but remains ready to constructively engage in additional talks—the possibility for which, in our opinion, has not been exhausted.

Allow me once more to repeat the fundamental position that Serbia has held from the onset of these negotiations. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia cannot be compromised. Kosovo and Metohija can receive internationally guaranteed substantive autonomy within Serbia. Serbia is for a negotiated, mutually-acceptable solution achieved through negotiations and dialogue, stemming from the willingness to compromise and the establishment of trust between both sides. For that reason, Serbia has refrained so far, and will refrain in the future, from the use of force. However, we demand the same from the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the Albanian population of Kosovo and Metohija. The protection of the Serbian people in the province, the Orthodox churches and monasteries, and Serbian historical and cultural monuments is the obligation of the Provisional Institutions and the international presence—UNMIK and KFOR. Serbia is ready to engage in a historical reconciliation between Serbs and Albanians, as we demonstrated not only during the Vienna negotiations, but in several other ways over the course of the last seven years. But we cannot achieve reconciliation through the imposition of Kosovo and Metohija’s independence. It is better to patiently work towards a negotiated solution than to carve it out in one abrupt fell swoop. During the final decade of the twentieth century, we saw too many instances of such an approach in the Balkans, and remember all too well their tragic consequences.

Excellencies,
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The most important message from the people of Serbia is that we are unwavering in our determination to be part of Europe.

It is in this spirit and with this vision that I strongly believe that Serbia will become a member of the European Union without giving up its dignity and historical identity.

Punishment and revenge are not the politics of Europe. The values of justice, rule of law and democratic institutions are the politics of Europe. The practices of open discussion and reconciliation are the politics of Europe. The willingness to agree on some things and not on others – but always to discuss directly, is the politics of Europe. The achievement of long-term peace and stability through negotiations and the construction of partnerships; this is the politics of the Europe that I believe in.

European values allow for reconciliation of completely confronted viewpoints. This is the way in which the future status of Kosovo and Metohija and stability in the Balkans should be addressed.

Serbia is ready to remain engaged in the negotiating process, in the hope that wisdom will prevail for the greater good of Europe of which we all are a part.

Thank you.

* * *