Statement of the federal minister for foreign affairs of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia to the CNN
Belgrade, 22 March 1999
Question: Minister Jovanovic, how do you rate the chances of some sort of an
"eleventh hour" compromise to avert NATO military action that is now
being threatened?
Answer: Let me say first that our delegation has always been ready to sign an
agreement on a political settlement in Kosovo and Metohija, on broad autonomy
and self-government for all living there. Our delegation is ready any moment
and any place to sign such political agreement which will guarantee autonomy,
self-governance, equality for all national and ethnic communities in Kosovo and
Metohija and, of course, safeguard territorial integrity and sovereignty of
Serbia and Yugoslavia. It has never been questionable for my Government or for
Government delegation - to sign a fair and democratic deal on autonomy and
self-government.
Question: So what is wrong with the deal that was signed in Paris?
Answer: First of all, it is not a deal at all. It was not negotiated, three weeks
ago in a meeting in Rambouillet or recently in Paris which has passed without a
single meeting without the two delegations. How one can imagine negotiations or
dialogue without a meeting of those who are supposed to negotiate a deal. There
is no deal. The first meeting, the meeting in Rambouillet, ended up with two
letters, each from one delegation, which witness that differences remain after
that meeting and that they are quite substantial. In Paris, instead of
discussing those issues, someone said well, it's got to be discussions on
technical issues and implementation. To implement what? What kind of deal?
Question: What is it at stake for Yugoslavia to sign any deal that create peace in
Kosovo?
Answer: Yugoslavia and our delegation, like I said, are ready to sign a just deal,
democratic deal, deal about autonomy and self-government, equality of all
living over there. But not the deal about discrimination, or majorization, not
the deal about the third republic in the FR of Yugoslavia, not the deal about
secession, not now or in stages. So, the deal, fair, democratic and based on
the principles of the Contact Group of 29 January 1999, which will respect
equality of everybody, democracy for all, equal chances for development in
Kosovo and Metohija as a part of Serbia - yes. But, imposing something as a
deal, what has never came to light as a deal would not lead to solutions.
Question: So, how do you characterize what is going on now, with threats of NATO,
possible strikes against your country, within hours and mediators here and Mr.
Holbrook trying to force Yugoslav President Milosevic to accept what is on the
table, which you say is totally rejectionable or be attacked for it?
Answer: You do not reach a democratic solution by force, by air strikes. Does
anybody really believe that autonomy, self-government, democracy can be reached
by "tomahawk" missiles? We do not believe. There is nothing to be
achieved by bombing Serbia. Is it really sensible to speak about bombing a
party which enters negotiations and is ready to democratically discuss
solutions. Do you really apply force even in ordinary life when you are
supposed to reach a deal, an agreement. It is wrong, it is not acceptable. What
can be achieved by bombing targets in Yugoslavia and Serbia if not encouraging
further terrorism and destruction by terrorists in Kosovo and Metohija. Is
NATO, or USA or anybody supposed to side up with terrorism in Kosovo and
Metohija? Is anybody able to prove us what democratic good, human values, can
be achieved by bombing a country, by threatening a humanitarian catastrophe, by
killing people, destroying buildings, communications, infrastructure. Nothing
can be achieved. Nor Yugoslavia can be threatened, nor obliged by force to sign
something that is contrary to her national and State interests. Bombing can
only provoke destabilization of the whole region and maybe of the whole
continent. By bombing, one can see the start, but not the end. Bombs thrown at
any place in Serbia would kill any prospect for a political and democratic
solution. They would kill any negotiations, they will encourage separatism and
terrorism elsewhere in the region, like in Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey
or any other country. So, you do not deal with terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija
differently than you deal with terrorism when they attack, let's say American
diplomats in Nairobi, or Dar es Salaam or American soldiers in Riyadh or any
other place. There should be no double standard approach to terrorism.
Terrorism is a cancer of the civilization of today and only equal, principled
approach can contribute to eradicating that evil.
Question: Do you believe that NATO is serious about carrying out these threats?
Answer: Well, I am not talking about NATO or on behalf NATO. Yugoslavia is not a
member state of NATO. We are a serious state. We hear and we watch what is
being done. It is clear that the threats of Mr. Solana, Madam Albright and
others are directed against Serbia. Why? Because Serbia will not give up
national and State interests, will not make concessions to separatism and
terrorism, will not sign the occupation of a part of its territory. There is
really no way of bringing anything good through pressures and threats against
Serbia and Yugoslavia.
Question: If Mr. Holbrook and the others here in Belgrade deliver an ultimatum to
President Milosevic, how is that going to go down both within the Federal
Government and within the country at large?
Answer: Let's be sensible. Everybody knows the history of this country and this
people. Can you give me an example when ultimatum has helped in the history of
Serbs to do something that is depriving them of national and state interests?
Your country, the USA and President Clinton say that America has vital
interests in this region. What about Serbia and Yugoslavia? Are we supposed to
have national and state interests here? If anybody has them, it is us,
ourselves and that is why we are engaged in finding a political, democratic,
peaceful solution. Yugoslavia is not threatening anybody. Has Yugoslavia
attacked some other country? Have Yugoslav forces gone outside our borders?
Have we threatened to do so? Why to bomb us? What is to be achieved by bombing?
Question: So, no change in policy. No acceptance of the deal on the table and no
implementation of that deal. Is that correct?
Answer: Yes, democratic solution; yes, equality for everybody; no majorization; no
undemocratic solution there; no state in Kosovo and Metohija; no third
republic; no secession, not now nor in the future; no referendum; no
occupation, any kind of occupation, is out of the question. Solutions - yes. As
I said, our delegation is ready any place, any moment to sign a democratic
agreement, but agreement which is negotiated by the parties, not something that
is sold or presented as an agreement, while it is a one-sided act. If Albanian
representatives sign a piece of paper, that is a unilateral expression of their
will. But, it cannot be termed as an agreement.
Question: Are the mediators and Mr. Holbrook now wasting their time to persuade...
Answer: I am not suggesting that. You said that. We have accepted their initiative
to receive them. And we hope they are coming with a constructive attitude. This
is an expression of our open attitude, of our real constructive approach, and
certainly not as an attempt to impose anything on anybody else.
Question: What about what is happening on the ground in Kosovo? Yugoslavia is being
accused by USA and its allies of being engaged in heavy handed military
offensive against the KLA rebels. Is that offensive going to stop?
Answer: There is nothing of the sort. Let us say that this is one of these
misinterpretations on Yugoslavia with a view to ensuring an alibi for attacking
and threatening Yugoslavia. This kind of production we are aware of, it is not
new in treating Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is a sovereign, independent country and
is responsible to its own people, its own citizens. It is not threatening
anybody. It respects international standards, it is open, Yugoslavs can travel,
can receive others.
Question: Why is it then in the eyes of the West that you lost credibility?
Answer: Let me finish. We are not supposed as a sovereign country to ask anybody
what we are moving where. We are faced with threats from Solana and Mrs
Albright, absolutely unreasonably, absolutely unprovoked threats to attack our
country. At the same time, NATO is building its military presence in
neighbouring Macedonia. What for? Who has asked Yugoslavia if it is good for
Yugoslavia's safety or safety of other countries to have over 10,000 NATO
soldiers and equipment. Are they supposed to help something with artillery of
150mm, or aircraft or jamming the Adriatic Sea? What is the purpose of that?
Question: If NATO attacks, would Yugoslavia defend itself to the best ability?
Answer: If anybody touches Yugoslavia it will meet the defence of all resources
that we have. There should be no doubts in that respect. We do not invite any
foreign troops to our territory nor shall we be inviting them in the future
because we are a sovereign territory and we are strange in the way we
demonstrate our sovereignty. We do not show sovereignty by inviting foreign
troops. Maybe other countries might be doing just the opposite but Yugoslavs
are strange anyway, but they do not accept foreign troops. And if somebody
tries to enter our territory without invitation, of course it will be met with
all capacity at our disposal. We are a sovereign country. We are not
threatening anybody, we are not inviting anybody to threat us. So, keep your
hands off Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is a peaceful, independent, sovereign country,
ready to cooperate with everybody who accepts Yugoslavia as a partner,
including USA. We are not looking for a confrontation. Look at others why they
are looking for confrontation. How did it come about that they threaten us in
this moment. Are we to be blamed because they mishandled the meeting in
Rambouillet and they tried to manipulate. Are we to be blamed. We did not say
that there was a Rambouillet accords. Somebody else pretended that there was.
We did not put at the last moment that phrase about referendum nor Chapters 2
and 7 which were supposed to mean the occupation of Yugoslavia.
Question: What is at stake for NATO and for Kosovo Albanians, if ultimatums are
rejected here and air strikes are ordered. What is at stake for NATO here by
getting engaged militarily and what is at stake for the future of ethnic
Albanians?
Answer: This would be aggression against a sovereign country, Yugoslavia. That
would be violation of basic principles of the UN Charter, this would be
undermining the very basis of international legal order and have very heavy
consequences to the future of the international relations. There should not be
any self-authorized action which is an arbitrary action against the other
country. This is one consequence - uncertainty for the future of international
relations. The other thing is, that it would be encouraging terrorists in
Kosovo and Metohija who would now count that their five minutes have come. Now
they are receiving what they have been seeking all the time.
Question: Just very briefly, can the war, the clash with NATO be averted by the end
of the day? Yes or no?
Answer: Of course, by democratic agreement reached in negotiations...
Question: So status quo, no change in the rejection of what was signed in Paris and
implementation.
Answer: There was nothing that was reached in Rambouillet or in Paris as a deal, as
an agreement. There are two letters entirely different, one of the State
delegation and another of the Albanian delegation. You read them, they are
entirely different and they witness for ever that there was no deal.
Secretary General Mrs. Jela Jovanovic,
Art historian
|
