Kosovo Seizure Knocks Down the Main Pillar of the World Order

Vojislav Koštunica was interviewed by Marinko Lolić, for the December issue of Belgrade-based “Literary Magazine”

Recently, the renowned Serbian publishing house Filip Višnjić from Belgrade released a book by the former Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica, titled “Defense of Kosovo”. The book is a compilation of Koštunica’s most important speeches, discussions and presentations which follow the beginning, the course and the end of negotiations about the status of southern Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija, in the period from 2005 to 2008.

Q: Although your book “Defense of Kosovo” refers to a very concrete political problem, it seems that in a number of your addresses the contemporary theoretical controversies about the correlation of power, rights and justice came to the full light. Also, in your public appearances, both before the domestic and the relevant international institutions, you always emphasized the global legal and political aspect of the Kosovo issue. Given your long-term dealing with this complex problem, how do you see the contemporary international relations when it comes to the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and justice?

VK: After the Second World War, the universal principles of the international law were established through the system of United Nations and one of those principles was singled out by its significance –the respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of internationally recognized states. For the good part, this principle was defended thanks to the power of veto, which was afforded to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

When we were thinking about how to set the strategy for the defense of Kosovo and Metohija, we concluded that the most powerful weapon we have at our disposal is precisely referring to the universal principles on which the modern international order rests. Of course, we knew that the great powers that are behind the project of an independent Kosovo, primarily the US, may resort to the policy of force and trample the UN Charter and the binding Resolution 1244 in the most brutal fashion. That is exactly what happened, but the price the entire international community will pay for violations of the basic principles of international law is very high and it is impossible to entirely predict all the consequences of this policy of force.

It is a very important fact that the UN Security Council has not approved the Martti Ahtisaari plan, which later served as a basis for the declaration and recognition of unilateral independence of Kosovo province. This also means that practically the right of veto is no longer functioning in the Security Council, because despite the fact that the UN SC did not adopt the Ahtisaari plan, the Western countries have recognized the independence of Kosovo.

“Independence” Supervised by NATO Equals NATO State

Q: In your defense of Kosovo you often emphasize that Serbia, as a democratically ordered state, has the right to demand from the international community that a solution for the Kosovo issue must represent a compromise and be universally acceptable. Why, in your opinion, such a solution was not found after all?

VK: The main reason lies in the realization of military and security interests of NATO pact and the United States. After building a military base Bondsteel, the obvious interest of the United States was to create a “supervised” independence of Kosovo province whereby, in line with the Annex 11 of Ahtisaari plan, the “supervision” of this territory is realized by the NATO pact.

Ahtisaari’s plan established NATO as the ultimate authority in Kosovo and that is the primary interest of the United States and the Western countries which have designed and implemented this entire process. Any compromise solution which would be in accordance with the international law was discarded in advance by these powers.

Q: In one address, you reminded that Martti Ahtisaari, the UN Secretary General envoy for negotiations on the status of Kosovo and Metohija, claimed that it will depend upon the development of democracy in Serbia whether Kosovo will remain within Serbia or become independent. Although no one today questions the fact Serbia is a democratic country, Ahtisaari has changed his previous position and proposed a plan for Serbia’s dismemberment. Shouldn’t this move be interpreted as disrespect for law, justice and democracy — precisely those values we expect to have protected by the UN Security Council and its elected representatives?

VK: You mentioned a very important element which reveals and confirms the actual interests standing behind the project of supervised independence of Kosovo. Let’s look at the issue from another angle. Serbia is today unquestionably a democratic state from which, through the policy of force, the efforts are exerted to try to seize part of its territory. And in the province of Kosovo, according to the report submitted to the UN Security Council by Ambassador [Kai] Eide, the human rights situation for the Serbs and other non-Albanians is “dreary and grim”.

So, if we use democracy and respect of the international law as the norm, there is no way that Serbia can be punished by the seizure of territories, while the Albanian national minority gets rewarded by the creation of another Albanian state in the Balkans. Therefore, what we have here is not about the values of democracy and of the respect for international law, but obviously about the military and security interests of the United States I have mentioned before.

Ahtisaari Lost Control Several Times During the Negotiations and had to be Replaced

Q: The role of Ahtisaari and his way of “mediation” between the Serbs and Albanians was not neutral in the least. At one point, as an argument to seize Kosovo from Serbs, he put forward an offensive claim that the “Serbs are guilty as people”. In your opinion, how much has Ahtisaari’s arrogant “diplomatic style” contributed to the failure of these negotiations?

VK: Viewed from this distance, it is clear that Ahtisaari had two goals in these negotiations. First, he unrealistically hoped that Serbia, in some behind-the-scenes roundabout way, would capitulate after all and accept the independence of Kosovo and Metohija. As I immediately shattered these hopes of his in our very first conversation, Ahtisaari turned to the other aim, which was to end the negotiations as soon as possible and offer a “solution” that paves the way for Kosovo independence. In reaching this goal, he lost his composure on several occasions and blurted out his personal beliefs, which are far beyond the norm of the universal principles and values of the democratic world.

All this has led to the UN Secretary General replacing Ahtisaari in the new round of negotiations with the negotiating Troika, which consisted of representatives of Russia, EU and United States. It is well known that, apart from the Russian representative, the other two Troika members continued to support the project of independence of Kosovo.

Awarding Ahtisaari with the Nobel Peace Prize shows that Western mentors of this fake state-creation will continue to exert pressure on all possible fields.

Ahtisaari will be remembered also by the fact he is the only international mediator whose plan was not adopted in the UN Security Council, but Western countries continue to carry it out in Kosovo and Metohija nevertheless, based on the policy of force. In addition, we have heard a statement of the Nobel Committee Secretary Geir Lundestad, who took freedom to assess that “Kosovo independence has no alternative”. That is the best testimony to what was the real reason behind the decision to grant this award to Ahtisaari.

Relying on Force Only Deepens the Problem

Q: During the negotiations, at many domestic and international conferences, as well as in the relevant international institutions and forums, you have been warning that Kosovo province cannot be treated as a “unique case”, and that the unprincipled solution of this problem will lead to violations of fundamental principles of the international order. These warning were not taken seriously by the United States and the majority of EU members. However, the recent events in Georgia have confirmed the claims by the Serbian side. Could these events, regardless of the different interpretations, still lead to the gradual sobering or at least correction on behalf of the American and Brussels administrations in tackling the issue of Kosovo province?

VK: When the US ventured in the imposition of policy of force and the most brutal trampling of the international law, and when the EU bowed its head and agreed to comply in this violation of law, the consequences we were warning of ensued. It is well known that the great powers do not change their policy easily, and are even less likely to alter their wrong decisions. They will continue to behave in this way towards Serbia, as long as they believe that such strategy can bring them victory in the end — the realization of their objective.

Russia, on the other hand, thanks to the fact it is a great power on its own, has successfully defended her interest in the Caucasus region. In our case, the sobering can be triggered by the long-term, principled resistance to the policy of force.

Q: Most political analysts believe that you are one of the few Serb politicians who base their political work on the principles. In the so-called realpolitik, it is believed that the principled men most often lose. You, however, regardless of a clear awareness of the grim reality produced by the policy of force, believe it is possible to defend Kosovo and Metohija with the democratic and legal means. Which principles are the foundation of the power of your democratic political conviction?

VK: In the long-term perspective, the realpolitik based on principles produces the best possible results. Of course, that is not easy to achieve, because it is most often force that is tied to the realpolitik, and not the principles.

However, we can see how it looks when — as in the example of Kosovo and Metohija — the policy of force is being implemented, while the principles are trampled. Is this the way stability and progress are being achieved, or is the crisis only deepened in this way? It is impossible to build lasting and good solutions upon the policy of force. One could say that the more principles we incorporate into a solution to the problem, the better and the more functional solution. Experience says that it is most often difficult to reach fully principled solutions and that it is necessary to acknowledge that, in reality, it is not always possible to ideally reconcile the opposing interests. But it is always necessary to work to achieve the political compromises that are in accordance with the universal principles.

Russia and China are Serbia’s Proven Allies

Q: On a number of occasions you have emphasized the importance of the principled position of the Russian Federation in the international relations, especially stressing the commitment of President Putin. How do you view the position of Serbia in the new global relations between the big powers, particularly in regards to the Russian Federation, United States and China?

VK: In the struggle for the preservation of Kosovo and Metohija, Russia was fully defending the UN Charter and it harmonized with Serbia the common policy, which was based on respect for the international law.

The United States, on the other hand, are imposing the policy of force which is adhered to and followed by the EU.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China had a very constructive and consistent policy, insisting that the compromise solution in accordance with the UN SC Resolution 1244 must be found. These facts speak very clearly about the role of these big powers in resolving Serbia’s most important issue, which is the preservation of its territorial integrity.

Hence, the visible parameters in relations with these countries have also been set, and we must be guided by them in the defense of our state and national interests.

Serbia should File Lawsuits Against the States which have Recognized Kosovo Independence

Q: Since you believe that the negotiations on Kosovo province’s status had started when they should not have been started (due to the unfulfilled standards), and that they were closed when they shouldn’t have been (because the consensus was not reached between the negotiating sides), what, according to your opinion, should be the future task of the Serbian state policy in the defense of Kosovo and Metohija?

VK: I think it is necessary for Serbia to raise the lawsuit against certain countries. After the illegal independence of Kosovo province was recognized by Montenegro and Macedonia, being that they claim the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice does not obligate them, there are even more obvious reasons for Serbia to submit the lawsuits before this Court. Such a message would be clear and it would demonstrate we are very determined to fight for Kosovo and Metohija to the end. Lawsuits would halt the new recognitions, which would then open a new and bigger space to seek the permanent, compromise and historically just solution for our southern province.