Interview with Serbian President Boris Tadic

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