Thanks to such a service, Tito was the first to learn that Ben Bella fell. I hope that SID (short for this service) will be restored by the end of the year.

You cannot talk about delicate matters by SMS messages, telephone or e-mail. There is no serious Ministry of Foreign Affairs that does not have a SID or the so-called Information and Documents Service. That is not an agency as some, mostly those not so well-informed, misinterpret as some kind of a special force girdling the globe like in James Bond movies and doing all sorts of impossible things. This is the most refined information, or to be more precise, most sophisticated IT activity. It would enable individuals to pass onto this institution, in a structured and systematic way, most delicate information that should not be used through normal channels of communication because that would pose a risk to the reputation of this country and all the services in the chain of command, says in an interview with Politika Ivan Mrkic, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, in response to the question as to whether there are renewed efforts to re-establish the diplomatic intelligence service.

Is the idea to join together SID, Military Intelligence Agency (VOA) and part of the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA)?

There are many ideas in circulation. We are going to opt for the one which proves to be most suitable to the entire state apparatus. We have to draw upon the existing potential of the services and all their staff to gauge our capabilities. But it is essential that we revive what has previously been in existence. The purpose is to have our innermost leadership informed in the best possible way, to have them learn about and keep track of developments that are of exceptional importance and that should not be compromised by the overall picture. It was through such a service that Tito was the first in the whole world to learn of the downfall of Ben Bella. If you want to have an effective, reliable and non-hearsay diplomacy, then you must have this segment in your system. I hope that everything will be in place by year's end.

How did the MFA operate without this service?

In 2007, all of a sudden, we cut the SID channel and that left us crippled as a foreign service, not able to operate in our full diplomatic capacity. From then on, various roundabout ways have been used making it all meaningless. We are not coming up with anything new but are actually restoring what ran rather smoothly in the past. In some periods we were even champions and both Moscow and Washington could hear certain things from us in the days of bloc divisions. We are very much determined to create Serbia as a strong country and we are not going to do anything that would harm the other countries.

Objections were heard these days that no one in the state hierarchy, other than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and it did so two days later, reacted to outbursts of anti-Serbian hatred in Croatia?

We are those supposed to react in such circumstances. We were not late in responding, because the state and its instruments had done what was necessary. We worked diligently, intervening both in Zagreb and here in Belgrade with the Croatian Embassy, and in Brussels and Strasburg, wherever needed. We had not brought it out to the whole world because what mattered was to achieve what we wanted, but I do assure you that we did whatever was necessary. Of course, what happened there brought out very bad feelings over here. Nevertheless, the Croatian Government did everything that needed to be done, which facilitated our diplomatic efforts. It is important that they did neither encourage nor shield the instigators as they used to in the past. International interlocutors were agreed with our assessments of the incidents. They, too, reacted as they deemed appropriate.

The European Commission said that it was an internal matter of Croatia and that they would not interfere?

They did not interfere in the form of making a formal protest because that is not the way the EC acts. But they have made sure that this issue is off the agenda in the region.

Often parallels have been drawn between Serbia and Syria which faces military intervention, and people here have a lot of sympathies for the Syrian people because we have also been in a similar situation. At the same time, Belgrade must follow the European policy line?

I know the feelings of our people and I know my own sentiments when bombings and sanctions are concerned. But, the situation in Syria is dramatically dissimilar to that prior to the airstrikes against the former Yugoslavia. Such parallels or comparisons are inappropriate for historical, factual, geographic and whatever other considerations. Serbia abhors the use of chemical weapons. If there is solid, irrefutable evidence of the use of such weapons, we will surely condemn it in the strongest of terms. Serbia is the country which has destroyed its CW stocks. Even before the year 2000 we acceded to a convention banning chemical weapons and we were among the first to destroy its stockpiles. As far as chemical weapons are concerned, we manufactured, completely on our own, this type of weapons back in the days of bloc division of the world and we abandoned these weapons, again of our own accord.

As the Syrian crisis unfolded, Serbia has been focused on its own priorities and we have naturally, as an EU aspirant country is supposed to do, aligned ourselves with EC declarations concerning Syria. Politically, these declarations mainly reflected our thoughts on the subject. Emotionally, that may not be true. But in this particular case we see that there is no common position of the Union and we are hopeful that it will be arrived at, though the process has been rendered difficult by each country having its own views on the situation and developments there. Once they formulate their common position, we are going to assess it and toe the line. It goes without saying that we are increasingly sharing the political views with the European Union because we are aspiring to join it.

What will happen if the EU supports military intervention?

I am not going to answer hypothetical questions "what if". Serbian position will be articulated only after the EU makes its clear-cut position known in writing. The best and most legal method would be to have the authorization of the UN Security Council in its resolution.

Is it true that Germany reportedly abandoned its further conditioning of Serbia regarding reforms or bringing to justice those responsible for the attack on the German Embassy in 2008, if municipal elections to be held in northern Kosovo fulfil their expectations?

I can neither confirm nor dismiss any thoughts possibly existing inside the German Foreign Service. The truth of the matter is that Brussels headquarters, in an effort to shape the common foreign policy of all EU Member States, has made these elections its priority and wants them to succeed. We as the Government are also intent on the municipal elections internationally legally formalizing and legitimizing all structures of the Serb population in Kosovo and Metohija through which our people may realize their interests. Stories that one country can turn things around are absolutely untrue. There is coordination within the Union and at the moment, Serbia enjoys an overwhelming majority support for the first time.

In other words, German position is not decisive in the EU?

Germany is definitely extremely important for the Union to exist in the first place and operate. On the other hand, actions by the Union cannot be interpreted as something being conceived and acted upon, in Berlin only. That is simply not true.

However, the past period witnessed that German positions mattered a great deal?

German political views are not held as hard-line positions. German positions vary. Their MPs visiting us tell their story; then there are people from the Chancellor's Office who have their own side of the story; and finally, their Foreign Minister adds another note to it all. What we heard from German MPs here in Serbia has not been translated into a decision by Brussels. There is a belief, a bit gaining ground here, that Germany is putting the brakes to us, but I disagree. Germany has actually helped us 'when push came to shove'. That is my opinion as Minister of Foreign Affairs, based on plenty of evidence.

In diplomatic quarters they say that you have made a good contact with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle?

That is right, and not only with him. There are many of those whose advice I gladly listen to and take. My job is to communicate with many people but like in private life, I make contact with some more easily than with others. I am happy to say that my communication with Westerwelle is smooth and pleasant.

You recently said that relations with the United States, Russia and China had never been better?

The relations with these countries have been better than ever before; our President has had meetings with all.

Hasn't President Tadic met with all, too?

Yes, but the atmosphere was not the same. We are increasingly welcome everywhere we go, and that cannot be denied: wherever our PM or Deputy PM goes, we have straightaway meaningful talks and there is no tension because problems are not in the foreground but away from us. I can affirm this wholeheartedly. They are aware that the current government means business, that it stands by its positions and that it has no underhand dealings. We have become a credible partner. Obviously, that was not the case in the past. Personally, I have experienced this in my interaction with the trio of the most important personalities in the state.

They criticize you of legalizing the old diplomatic structures by the new Foreign Affairs Law?

That is not true. We are actually endeavouring to introduce, by the new Law, professionalism and competency which are very important for an institution like this. We are making efforts to model the new structure of the MFA on any from Tito's time or any of the present ones, like that existing in Slovenia or Denmark, and to professionalize diplomacy so as to make less and less room for politicians in it. Small countries cannot afford the luxury that a politician becomes the Ambassador heading the Embassy staff of one or two diplomats under him. Washington can afford it because their appointed Ambassadors have two hundred other career diplomats beside them. In a nutshell, the possibility of their Ambassador making a mistake is minimal, if not non-existent. For instance, if we appoint a brilliant writer to head an Embassy where he is the only diplomat or has only one other member of staff, I can image what could happen. Also, we want young people, whom we intend to train and recruit, to have a clear prospect of working their way up the ladder in this institution. We intend to spell out the benchmarks that will be stimulating to them.

Is there a room in your Ministry also for the former Minister Vuk Jeremic when he relinquishes his post of the President of the UN General Assembly in New York?

There is surely a place for him in the Ministry, but I don't know his plans. Vuk has a unique experience. He has undergone what no-one other has undergone and his opinion or advice will be taken into account. However, the two of us have not discussed his career plans, and it is my understanding that he is an MP, as well.

What will be the new benchmarks for Serbian Ambassadors?

The benchmarks will be very simple: if you do not bring any benefits for the country, you will not serve for much longer. Putting it another way, they will have to serve the interests of business. And that is something which is not relevant for this moment but we have been contemplating it for a year already and which will now be translated into a very clear system, into something they will be all bound by – to be at the service of the economy, to attract investors, to ensure that our goods have placement on other markets, to make cooperative deals, to appear on third markets with other countries. Whoever misses on these targets, will be recalled within a year.