KOSOVO AND METOHIJA

Brussels, 20 November 2007

OPENING REMARKS BY H.E. MR. BORIS TADIC PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
FUTURE KOSOVO STATUS TALKS

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

There are close to two million citizens of Serbia whose fate is unknown. That most of them a.re not Serbs doesn't make any difference to me. They are citizens of my country, and their destiny is no less important to me than the close to eight million that live in other parts of it. For all citizens of the Republic of Serbia are equal; they are all part of my country's sovereign jurisdiction. They all deserve a better life, and so do their children. They all deserve an equal chance at a prosperous future, at a European future.

That is what I want to talk about today.

1 don't want to dwell much on the issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Neither I nor the Prime Minister will be moved on abnegating our responsibility to uphold the Serbian Constitution and international treaties we have signed—treaties such as the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. And that is why the Republic of Serbia stands firm in its position that Security Council Resolution 1244 must remain a paramount instrument in providing the legal framework for the continuation of our work. On this point, we must be crystal clear.

Upholding our constitutional and international responsibilities also lie at the core of our continuing concern about the danger of unilateral action. These discussions are occurring under a threat that says "if Serbia doesn't agree to something that is unacceptable to her, unilateral action will be taken, action that forcibly partitions our country and fatally weakens our democracy." Serbia simply will not bow to such threats. And 1 take the liberty at the outset of my statement to be quite unambiguous about this, because I am here in a spirit of t.ood faith, and I want to address the issues constructively. For almost two years, our discussions on Kosovo have been governed by threats and deadlines. These have separated the parties and created an impasse which does no one's service.

We are not impressed by the threat of unilateralism because you know as well as I do that if implemented, it is not only Serbia that will pay the price. If the threat of a unilateral declaration of independence is exercised, it means that everyone feels comfortable with condemning Kosovo to endemic poverty, and the region to continued instability. Surely, the time has come that we become more sober and serious, for good faith negotiations cannot take place in the presence of the threat of unilateralism.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I honestly have trouble imagining the future economic growth of Kosovo without the active cooperation of Serbia. It is a surprise to me that the Kosovo political leadership has not approached Belgrade before to discuss such issues that are vital to the province's economic (ievelopment. We cannot afford to hold our citizens hostage to myopic politics.
That is why I believe that the recent provincial and local elections held in the majority-Albanian parts of Kosovo and Metohija provides Pristina and its incoming government with an opportunity to tone down the communal rhetoric so characteristic of election campaigns, and instead concentrate on solving real, concrete problems. I await a signal of readiness on the part of the Pristina delegation to start working on finding ways to improve the lives of the residents of Kosovo—solutions that can only be made sustainable with a compromise on future status, of course.

The issue that we are discussing is one that has confronted decision-makers often in recent history. And we must be keenly aware that the principle of recognizing identity does not automatically suggest secession and injudicious recognition of the same. That is why we believe that, in the spirit of compromise and mutual respect, one must look very carefully at a wide variety of models.
For example, Finland came to one particular resolution on the governance of the Aland Islands. Hong Kong, which I have mentioned before, is another. Macao, is a further example—and one which the current Presidency of the European Union can inform us about. Let us also consider Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory that is an integral part of the United States in which only selected part of America's Constitution apply.

These are examples of how we find workable, sustainable solutions to an old challenge: the relationship between minorities and territories that must accommodate themselves with the carrier of sovereignty. Some of these examples are vested with their own, autonomous executive and legislative branches; others with independent judicial power—including that of final adjudication. Others still maintain and develop economic and cultural relations—and even have the right to conclude agreements with regions, sovereign states, and certain international organizations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Lst us not delude ourselves. We all know that today, Kosovo does not enjoy the right to take sovereign loans. It lives off international hand-outs. The rule of law has not been established. Community rights are in limbo. And religious communities are threatened. The economy is catastrophic, the infrastructure is weak, and unemployment rates are the highest in Europe. All this is an embarrassment. And so we must devote our attention immediately to the one fundamental question: how to improve the conditions of everyday life in Kosovo.

We cannot mortgage trust. Ask yourself, why should any Serb believe that his or her future is any safer in Kosovo on the basis of the simple claim that Kosovo independence will make him safer? And I would add that we must ask ourselves whether the prize of independence is a.nything more than an illusion? I, for one, am deeply skeptical that in today's world, we can afford any further breaking of nations.

We must be serious, and we must be responsible. And I return to the beginning of my remarks. We have two million people: individuals, families, people who seek prosperity and security under the rule of law that applies equally to all at all times—irrespective of the language they speak or the God they worship.

We must therefore find a way in which every citizen can consolidate his or her prospect for personal security and prosperity today. It should be obvious to all of us that these are standards to which any society should aspire. And I am personally tired of being engaged in a conversation that fails to address the immediate issues of livelihood. Imagine that you are a resident of Cernica, or Orahovac, or Klina. Every moment of delay on securing their welfare is an act of irresponsibility for which a heavy price will inevitably be paid.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My proposal therefore is that we now begin to have a very serious discussion about the methods by which the residents of Kosovo can acquire access to the benefits of a normal economic, social and political life. I believe that Belgrade and Pristina can contribute in a very practical, tangible, and demonstrable way that this is possible.

1 would add that we should not loose sight of the fact that all our deliberations should take into account a simple fact that we share a common objective: that all the citizens of our country become citizens of the European Union—and sooner rather than later. This is why I want to urge all us here present to look carefully at the various ideas that have been put forward that can help achieve these goals now. It is in this spirit that the Serbian delegation speaks about examples and models. It should be clearly understood that we do this in a constructive spirit.

What do we need to address? That the residents of Kosovo are able to find access to the type of international finance from which they have been denied so far. That they enjoy a degree of individual human security which does not yet obtain. That they can travel in a manner that does not leave them as a ghetto within Europe. That they can benefit from a quality of education that can make them competitive in a globalized economy. And that they export marketable products, not crime.

These, surely, are immediate goals that will result in the improvement of life within Kosovo and create new incentives for longer-term resolutions.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me be even more practical and reiterate certain points that the Serbian delegation has made before.

The sovereignty of Serbia is inviolable under international law. The frontiers of Serbia are a matter of national and regional security in which Belgrade must have a direct say. The management of law and order within Kosovo can and should be carried out by a local security force. But Serbia will not accept a force that in any way suggests the capacity of our province to project itself beyond its administrative boundaries. This is not just a matter of our national security—but a matter of regional stability.

We are ready—as we have said before—to come to arrangements that allow for the self-governance of Kosovo. We are ready to come to arrangements on the ability of Kosovo to enjoy access to financial capital. We are ready to discuss issues of trade and energy. We are ready to discuss Kosovo's place in regional and international organizations. We are ready to find a place to support a regime which provides a viable future for the Serbian population of Kosovo, and for our monastic communities.

With regard to the sustainability of the centuries-old Serbian presence in Kosovo, we insist cm the following. That they have the right to select their own representatives. That their jurisdictions are clearly delineated. And that they can have a direct link with the rest of Serbia. We insist in particular that the Serbian religious heritage in Kosovo enjoy a quite specific status. I will not allow those living communities and heritage to be sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic and political expediency.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In conclusion, I believe that elements of the Fourteen Points that were put together by the Troika are a helpful contribution, as I have said before, especially in light of the amendments to the points of agreement we presented in Vienna. And we very much appreciate all the efforts you are making to facilitate these negotiations, and the seriousness with which you conduct your important work.
If we want to move beyond December 10l with a prospect of achieving a mutually-acceptable solution, I believe that we must act collectively on those areas where there is common ground. If not, there is the risk that we enter a dangerous and unpredictable realm of illegality. The consequences of this cannot be foreseen clearly, and as such could only be damaging and counter-productive to our collective desire to find a settlement that secures the stability of an entire region.
But we must not be under the mistaken impression that the sustainability of any agreement is possible without a clear, legal, mutually-acceptable solution to the future status of Kosovo and Metohija.

Thank you.