NIN, 01/12/2005
By Dragan Bujosevic
Interview w/Serbian President
Boris Tadic
"Elections - Now!"
After the two new disputable mandates "reallocated" within G17 Plus, do you
regret that you did not first insist on elections and then on resolving the
Kosovo problem?
"I am the President of Serbia and the state issues are for me older than
those with party dimensions. But, I consider that it is very important that
we have political stability for the extremely difficult Kosovo talks, and it
would be good to have a government which enjoys support from the majority of
the Serbian citizens."
This Government is now supported by only 15% of the voters.
"The legitimacy of the Government obtained at the 2003 elections is shaken.
As a reminder, the key objection that this Government had in regard to the
previous one was that a government supported by 25% of the voters had no
legitimacy."
You think that elections should be organized first, and then we should
embark on the story about Kosovo's future?
"I think that would be the best and most useful solution, since the
negotiating team should have full power, and full legitimacy. I am certain,
on the other hand, that the current Parliament's composition does not
correspond to the mood of the electorate. However, there is a legal way of
slating elections, and therefore, the ruling coalition undertakes
responsibility for its alarmingly insufficient legitimacy among the people.
The current Government stays in power at any cost by, in my opinion,
violating the law. But, we are expecting a court decision."
Although you have told the Blic daily that the elections are not necessary
as long as the Kosovo talks are in progress, the DS deputy leader Gavrilovic
said a couple of days earlier: elections first.
"Let me clarify that. At the final stage of the Kosovo talks, elections
would not be useful. In am certain that for conducting the coming Kosovo
talks with full strength and full legitimacy, the elections would be most
efficient just at this moment. However, it is not up to me, but the
Government and the Parliament, to decide on that."
Don't you think that the electorate is totally confused when you first say
that the Government snatches mandates, and they you form a negotiating team
with it? If they are thieves, then they are thieves?
"The Constitution does not oblige me only to send messages to my voters and
those who support my politics, it also obligates me to send clear messages
to all the Serbian citizens. I am obliged to cooperate both with the
Government and the Parliament, to a smaller extent. However, as the Serbian
President, I am also obliged to point at all the violations of the
Constitution and law, while fighting, within the law and only with political
means, and not by legal or physical violence. I am convinced that this
Parliament is rump, and has a big problem regarding its own legitimacy. The
Serbian President was elected by the direct will of the citizens, while all
the other representatives of the citizens were elected indirectly on party
tickets. The citizens do not know who their representatives in the
Parliament are, and the situation in Serbia would be far more stable if the
MPs were elected directly by the citizens, if we had a majority electoral
system, and if the citizens had a recall mechanism for these MPs, like they
have for the President of the State."
Have you proposed to PM Kostunica to call for elections?
"I proposed that both to him and other leaders of the ruling coalition, with
one firm stance - that after the early elections, a government of the
democratic forces and with full legitimacy should be formed. The response
was that it would not be useful at the moment."
The minority Government is now going to make such important decisions on
Serbia's future?
"I do not understand such political logics. It may lead to temporary and
illusive peace, but essentially leads to the disintegration of political
processes. The Government resorts to two arguments to defend itself from
early elections. One is that early elections would bring the Radicals to
power, and the other is that elections are not necessary, considering that
the Kosovo talks are already on the agenda. Thus, the inability of the
ruling coalition regarding the fight against the radicalization of Serbia is
taken as an argument in the international public against the elections,
while on the other hand, the Kosovo talks are used as an explanation why the
Government should remain until the end of its mandate. Both arguments are,
however, incorrect."
By entering the negotiating team, you pardoned the Government and enabled it
to rule at least for another year?
"No. By entering the negotiating team, I fulfil my constitutional obligation
to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this country. With
the Kosovo talks, they are more jeopardized than in any other moment over
the past 15 years."
Did the Democratic Party (DS) accept the Parliament's Resolution by joining
the negotiating team, although it abstained from voting for it?
"No. The Resolution is not a negotiating platform. It is the Parliament's
stance on Kosovo and Metohija (KiM), and it says what Serbia does not want
an imposed solution, and that it wants a compromise within the
constitutional and legal solutions that were defined by Slobodan Milosevic.
The negotiating platform cannot include the latter and that is why the DS
and I were against this stance, which has no ground either in the political
reality or in the stances of the UN Security Council and the Contact Group,
which will make a solution at the end of the talks."
At the beginning of the talks, you say that the Resolution cannot be
applied?
"The Serbian Government and the MPs who voted for it know that. The
Resolution was adopted as an explanation or justification before their
voters, and less as an expression of a real approach in resolving the KiM
problem. My approach is different. I think that Serbia has no reason to
deceive itself. The institutions like the Parliament or Government are even
forbidden to deceive the citizens over what we will face in KiM. I can
guarantee that a solution to KiM will not be found within the
constitutional-legal principles set by Milosevic. This can be confirmed by
the documents of the UN Security Council, which is in charge of the
administration in the Province, as well as by the Contact Group's documents,
and others."
It is known that the even the State Union is formed against this
Constitution, so why are you bothered by the detail of its mentioning in the
Resolution?
"It is not a detail, but an essential problem which is decisive for the KiM
talks. A difficult discussion is being led in the international community
over which principle it will cling to. One principle is that there is no
return to the time of before 1999, and the second is that KiM will not be
any more part of Serbia. If the international community opts for the first
principle, we have some room for negotiations. If the second prevails, then
the task of the negotiating team is extremely hard. Therefore, I am saying:
there is no return to the situation of before 1999, but we offer a solution
to a sustainable, intact KiM with the sovereignty of our country, through
creating two entities which will enable coexistence. First of all, I am
interested in the survival of the Serbs with the guarantee for institutional
connections between the Serb entity and the central institutions in
Belgrade. Then come the relations with the ethnic Albanian community, which
will be the subject of the forthcoming talks."
But, The Contact Group has another stance as well - that Kosovo's borders
are unbreakable. Thus, it is independent. EU Commissioner Rehn speaks today
with SRSG Jessen-Petersen about Kosovo's entry into the EU; Kosovo without
Serbia?
"There are currently four policies for KiM in Serbia. The first says - we
can imagine it as independent. The Second says, without false patriotic
emotions, that we would rather lose our lives than Kosovo, while we actually
only think of the political ratings at the next elections. The third policy
says: we do not accept imposed solutions, either conditional or
unconditional independence, but it does not say what we want, and it
directly leads to an imposed solution. The fourth policy, which is my
policy, says what Serbia wants in KiM. That is the only way to prevent
imposed solutions. If we only say what we do not want, we increase the
possibility for imposed solutions. We should convince the Contact Group
members that Serbia's long-term interest is in accordance with the interests
of the international community and all the Contact Group members. The
international community has three principles: there is no return to the
situation of before 1999, there is no border change of KiM, and there is no
annexation of KiM to any country. In all my international contacts, I keep
saying that the principle of inviolability of KiM's borders is acceptable if
the principle of inviolability of Serbia's and the SCG borders is also
applicable. If not, then we have a violation of the basic principles
guaranteed by international agreements, which would introduce a
legal-political precedent, dangerous not only for Serbia but also for many
other countries in the region and the world."
It has been claimed that you harmonized the Resolution on Kosovo with
Kostunica's office three weeks before its adoption in the Parliament.
"It is true that the two offices adjusted the PM's speech at the UN SC, and
I am behind what Kostunica said there. I did receive the draft resolution
from the Premier, and said that I had some objections. During my visit to
Israel, the Government consulted some other parties, and while I was in
Russia, the Government stated that the Socialists and the Radicals had
agreed with the draft which I had not accepted. Upon my return from Moscow,
I presented my objections directly to D/PM Labus. After that, the Government
held consultations on the document and did not accept my suggestions. I want
to stress again that the limitation to Milosevic's time Constitution is out
of reality, and the talks are led to change this constitutional-legal
framework for KiM, and every citizen and politician is aware of that. There
is not reason to deceive ourselves about that. I do not want to give my vote
to some political unreality. If this unrealistic clause had been excluded,
the DS would have supported the Resolution, but the DS demonstrates
responsibility for what will happen in a couple of months."
Being dissatisfied with the accord between Kostunica and [SRS deputy leader]
Nikolic, you announced your plan on two entity in Moscow as a tit-for-tat?
"Not at all. Before my departure for Moscow, I presented my plan to
Kostunica, like I had told him earlier what our negotiating goal should be."
What was Kostunica's response?
"That it is in line with the policy conducted so far, and that he will
analyse all the consequences of such a negotiating team. Finally, the
Government agreed with my proposal."
It has been speculated in the media that you received an unfavourable
scenario from the US, and in accordance with it, you changed your stance,
i.e., gave up the Resolution and offered two entities.
"If someone knows about some US scenario, I am requesting him to immediately
send it to me. I have not received such a scenario. That the US is in favour
of a quick outcome is not a news, at least not in the past ten months. But,
Washington officially does not plead for any solution. It is a different
issue whether some influential circles in America favour an independent
Kosovo. Yes, they do, and not only in the US, but also in most Contact Group
member countries, and our public should now that, and we should fight
against that with legal, political and diplomatic arguments."
Was [former CCK head] Nebojsa Covic mentioned as a possible negotiating team
member?
"Covic constantly talked about KiM with Kostunica and me, but after a
conflict with the Government, he was eliminated. I still think that his
place is in the negotiating team."
One of the team members is Professor Fleiner, whose Government (Switzerland)
was the only one to support Kosovo independence. Is that a problem?
"He is a man whose stances are close to the interests of Serbia. I do not
know whether the Institute for Federalism, at which he works, is on the
Swiss Government's budget. It would be good to check that."
Does Slobodan Samardzic [Kostunica's advisor and negotiating team member]
receive a scholarship from the Swiss Government?
"I do not know, and it should be checked. It would not be good if it was so.
We must protect the interests of the State and every member of the
negotiating team. However, prior to that, I would not question the loyalty
to the State of any of its citizen, including Slobodan Samardzic."
There is a noticeable difference between your plan and the one adopted in
the Parliament last March. Your plan does not mention the resettlement of
people, there is no territorial continuity, and the entity you mention is
rather a political term?
"That is a more realistic solution. At the time when [former Serbian PM]
Zoran Djindjic drafted a plan for KiM, and what I am now talking about is
essentially that plan, the return of the army and police to the Serb entity
was anticipated. Unfortunately, although it is stipulated in UN SC
resolution # 1244, it is no longer a reality."
Can your plan be applied as long as the one adopted by the Parliament
exists?
"The Parliament is not participating in the negotiations."
That is true, but its plan is obliging until it has been annulled?
"My plan is the continuation of what is essential; it is only adjusted to a
real situation. After all, that is demanded from politicians who hold
specific posts. Today in the world, the disputable issues are not negotiated
by nations and parliaments, but by individuals elected by the citizens to
negotiate. It is now important that both the Premier and President
demonstrate capability of taking responsibility and making strong moves in
accordance with our interests. The Premier and President are not supposed to
be a mere transmission of the Parliament. The Premier is responsible to the
Parliament, and the President, to the people. Our job is to impose
sustainable solutions. I am ready for such moves, and I am responsible
before the people. I would like to reiterate that I am not responsible for
the Parliament's political moves, although I respect and accept what it
passes."
The Resolution, however, stipulates something else: "Government, you will
negotiate, but the decision belongs to the Parliament?"
"That is an expression of politics which does not include individual
responsibility, and that is a way of conducting politics that smells of the
old time. This is how Milosevic ruled, and he always tried to have the
citizens justifying his moves through referenda or the will of the
Parliament. I respect the Parliament, but it must also accept the authority
of the executive power and the Serbian President. A parliament that wants to
be an executive power as well, and not only the legislative power, is a
parliament which does not understand its place in a democratic state."
Does the Resolution include a possibility for the PM, if the talks go wrong,
to withdraw from the whole process, saying that he has no mandate, and ask
for early elections at which KiM would be the only question?
"No responsible politician would do that. There is nothing easier for a
politician than saying: I give up. I asked Tomislav Nikolic what he would do
if the country faced an ultimatum regarding cooperation with The Hague
tribunal. He said he would resign. I do not accept such political
philosophy. If you are elected for some work, you should take the
responsibility in the most difficult conditions too. When I was elected the
President, I knew that I was assuming responsibility for the most difficult
solutions, and I am aware of all the risks. "
Aren't you involved in deceiving the public as well when you say that you
will not accept an imposed solution, since, unfortunately, Serbia may be
imposed a solution, whether it accepts it or not?
"When I say that I will not accept an imposed solution, I express my
political principle that I want to fully fight against any imposed solution.
I do that with proposals which are possible and feasible. If I said that I
would not accept an imposed solution without saying what I want, then I
would seek an alibi for my next political post and would not really fight
against an imposed solution. There is no dilemma: any, even the most
unfavourable solution, must be carefully analyzed, but we must fight with
all political means to defend our legitimate state and national interests."
NIN
Serbian News Network - SNN
[email protected]
http://www.antic.org/
