http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118800478736408597.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The Wall Street Journal Respect Serbian Sovereignty August 25, 2007 In his op-ed, "Another <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118652656827990962.html?mod=Letters> Kosovo Crisis" (Aug. 8), Matthew Kaminski argues that "Belgrade should be given a stark choice: a future in league with Russia or the EU and NATO" with giving up Kosovo as the test. He repeats the familiar argument that if Kosovo is not given independence, there could be violence, mostly by Albanians, like in 2004, so that the West should recognize Kosovo unilaterally, if the new negotiations fail. The position of Serbia is very clear; it offers Kosovo the broadest possible autonomy within Serbia, over and above European standards. It wants negotiations in good faith and not predetermined ones that take away the meaning of the word. It wants the process to move forward under the umbrella of the U.N., as it is the body that has defined Kosovo's current status by its Security Council Resolution 1244. Serbia demands respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity under international law and is strongly against creating new borders in the Balkans. While we all agree that there should not be a division of Kosovo, seems that some fail to see that the independence of Kosovo (a province of Serbia, that did not have the status of a republic in the former Yugoslavia), would really be a division of Serbia. Mr. Kaminski should know that Serbia has been a democratic state since the overthrow of Milosevic in the year 2000 and that it is aspiring to a European future. Why should it be faced with the stark choice, or should I say blackmail, that he is proposing? What would he be saying if someone was putting the same choice before the Albanians in Kosovo -- the EU or independence? What kind of answer would he be expecting to get? The most disturbing part of his argument is that immediate independence is the only way to avoid unrest and violence. Isn't this against the principle of not allowing violence or threat of violence as a means for achieving political gain? Furthermore, his assessment that Kosovo is the easiest of all nation-building projects that the U.S. is currently involved in and his agreeable way of quoting Gen. Douglas Earhart saying that "Kosovo is where we'll like to be in Iraq and Afghanistan" should raise eyebrows, given the solution that he is supporting. Ivan Vujacic Ambassador of the Republic of Serbia to the United States Washington
