Excellencies,

Dear Friends,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Before I flew to Israel yesterday, I went to the Jewish cemetery in Zemun, a suburb of Belgrade and an old center of Jewish life in the Balkans, to pay my respects to the grandparents of Theodor Herzl, who are buried there. As I walked back to my car, I was reminded of Yehuda Alkalai, one of the major precursors of Zionism, who was rabbi of Zemun and a good friend of Simon Herzl, the grandfather.

Their lives—and Jewish life in Serbia more generally—was and remains, marked by a remarkable level of inclusion. Starting to immigrate to what is today Serbia in the late Middle Ages, Jews formed part of a pluralistic society that got more stable, secure and prosperous over time. Full emancipation came in the 19^th century, as Serbia regained its independence from the Ottoman Empire. Jewish life began to thrive, as Serbia itself began to thrive—as antisemitism remained largely absent. Jews from Serbia fought valiantly in the two Balkan Wars, and in the First World War. And Jews such as Geca Kon—the most influential bookseller and publisher in my country between the two world wars—also helped to bring Serbia back into the cultural mainstream of Europe.

And then came the Shoah. With unmatched ferocity, Hitler systematically set out to destroy all traces of Jewish life in our occupied homeland. Many of the Jews able to escape the onslaught of the Nazis joined the Partizans, my country’s anti-Fascist resistance movement, eventually participating in the liberation of Belgrade and other parts of the country, including the Belgrader Moshe Piyade, a member of Tito’s wartime inner circle, and later Vice President and Speaker of the Federal Assembly.

After the Second World War, my country was the third in the world to recognize the State of Israel, immediately giving the option to all 15,000 surviving Jews to emigrate to Israel, which a vast majority proceeded to do. And my country, from 1956 until 1967, contributed a greater number of soldiers to the United Nations Emergency Force in the Sinai than any other, helping to keep the peace for more than a decade, when peace was what Israel needed most to accelerate its socio-economic development and consolidate its democratic gains.

I say this to you today because I want to reassure you of my personal commitment to keep building, to further strengthen and deepen, comprehensive diplomatic, political, economic and cultural ties with the State of Israel. This is an important element of our foreign policy. I am proud to single out the presence of my close associate, Mr. Mirko Stefanovic, currently the Secretary-General of the Ministry and my country’s former ambassador to Israel. He is the son of a survivor of Auschwitz, and I am the grandson of a survivor of Dachau and Matthausen.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The main theatre in which world politics was conducted in the 20^th century was Europe. And its central characteristic was conflict and war, suspicion and mistrust. From the Great War and the October Revolution to the Spanish Civil War, from the rise of Hitler and World War Two, to the Cold War and the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, a zero-sum, adversarial approach to power politics reigned supreme for much of the last hundred years.

The dangerous European model of power politics led to a plethora of bloody conflicts outside of the Old Continent, but almost all ought to be viewed through the prism of the clash of ideologies that was predominantly taking place within its boundaries. Places like Korea, Vietnam, and much of the rest of Southeast Asia, Central and Latin America, including Cuba, as well as the terrible legacy of a large part of post-colonial misrule in Africa, remind us all of the tragedy of proxy wars, as do many of the conflicts in the Middle East that took place in the second half of the “century of total war”, as Raymond Aron famously put it.

Indeed, man’s inhumanity to man reached its apex in the 20^th century—with its gas chambers, Red Terrors, trench warfare, and threats of nuclear annihilation. Human life was never quite as cheap as it was then.

And even the truly amazing accomplishment that is the European Union—with its historic capacity to defeat the divisions that plagued the continent for more than a millennia, while building sustainable prosperity for those that reside within its expanding boundaries—would not likely have come to pass had the disaster not been so complete.

In short, Europe was the area of focus in the quest for peace in the 20^th century. And it took a mighty long time—and cost tens of millions of lives—to achieve it.

Well, I believe that in our century, the Greater Middle East will be the ultimate theatre of significance in the quest for a better global tomorrow.

And I therefore believe that Israel stands at the very heart of the attempt to forge a 21^st-century compact of peace, security and prosperity. That is why the Republic of Serbia proudly stands shoulder to shoulder with this country and all other peacemakers in fully supporting the efforts of the Quartet. And we wholeheartedly welcome the Annapolis initiative to renew the mission of a comprehensive solution acceptable to the stakeholders, and verifiable in the Security Council.

For we believe that the key to peace lies in embracing the values of democracy—values that the State of Israel enshrined in its Basic Laws, that it upheld in the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and that it continues to advocate in its efforts to find a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue.

And that is why Serbia holds a firm view that within the sphere of these universal values, terrorism has no place. For it is not, and can never be, a legitimate means of resolving political problems. Whatever the eventual solution to the Middle East peace process, it must be agreed to by political leaders through a process of negotiation that leads to a mutually-acceptable solution—not by terrorists that reject the very legitimacy, the very existence, of the other side. To paraphrase one of your former prime ministers, peace will only come to the Middle East when each side starts to love its own children more than it hates those of its adversaries.

The way forward is fraught with peril. But failure to engage—failure to try to secure a lasting, just peace in the Middle East—is a prescription for a disastrous global future. All the gains the world has made, all the potential still left to be uncovered, can come to naught. We must work together by combining our strengths in order to ensure the survival of all that we have worked so hard to build. All of it—future prosperity, peace, reconciliation, democratic consolidation—all of it rests on our success to come.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to quote some words to you—words that will serve as the paradigm of the main portion of the remarks I want to make today.

“Any deal that gets done has to be agreed on by the parties. In other words, this country can’t impose its vision on the two parties. If that happens, then there’s not going to be a deal that will last. Our job is to facilitate the discussions—is to make sure that they stay on track. That there is a focused effort. But we can’t dictate the results.”

So said the President of the United States less than a month ago. The context, of course, was the Annapolis Process. And while I want to stress that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is different from other challenges to the international system, there are a few similarities—similarities of principle—that I want to highlight as I discuss the most important issue facing Serbia today, the future status of Kosovo and Metohija, our southern province under United Nations administration since June 1999.

For as long as anyone can remember, Kosovo has been multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, and multi-confessional. And for as long as anyone has been paying attention, one group has dominated the others. Right now, our province’s Albanians dominate the Serbs that remain after the waves of orchestrated violence in 1999 and 2004 designed to expulse our community from Kosovo. Before that, the Serbs dominated the Albanians. A few years prior, again, the Albanians dominated the Serbs. And so on and so forth—all the way back. It’s as if a social wall of separation, of prejudice, between the communities was erected many centuries ago, held together with a glue whose key ingredient was oppression. And we believe the only way to tear down that wall—the final wall in Europe—is to do it together, to agree on a way forward, by finding creative ways to combine the arguments both sides are making.

One party—Serbia—says, international law is on our side. And we think of it as the cradle of our civilization: Kosovo is like our Jerusalem. The other party says, we the Kosovo Albanians are in the majority, and recent history, in which you were the bad-guys, teaches us that we cannot live together. Serbia replies by saying that the villain who persecuted you, Slobodan Milosevic, is dead, and do not forget that we overthrew his dictatorial regime, sending him and his cronies to the Hague Tribunal to face justice. We are a European democracy. We have embraced the values that bind us to one another as never before in our history. We are committed to full reconciliation. And we are prepared, more than ever before, to extend our flexibility on the traditional definition of sovereignty, in order to reach an agreement with you, the Kosovo Albanians.

We are willing to narrow it so as to ensure that Kosovo has the broadest possible autonomy one can imagine, while remaining with Serbia under a common sovereign roof.

For we have no interest in ruling over the Kosovo Albanian community: we do not want to tax them, nor to police them, nor to have their judicial or their educational systems re-integrated into ours. Our currency does not have to have a presence in Kosovo. Our military would not have to have to be there, either. And we would not interfere with their relationship with international financial organizations; with them having separate membership in international sporting federations; or with them having some sort of representation abroad.

And how has Pristina responded? At the end of the latest round of negotiations held under the auspices of the Contact Group Troika a few weeks ago, the province’s prime minister, Agim Ceku, said flat out that the Kosovo Albanians do not want to negotiate status. They don’t want to negotiate—full stop. And they never did, he stated. Independence is the only option—the consequences be damned. You know this tactic, don’t you? You’ve heard it used against you so many times—“What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable”?

Such a worldview is unacceptable to Serbia. As Golda Meir said, you cannot shake hands with someone whose fist is clenched. Unfortunately, some actors in the international community support Pristina’s maximalist position. They support the view that imposing Kosovo’s independence on Serbia and the Western Balkans will produce a secure and viable peace—that it will help accelerate the entire region’s journey toward full membership in the European Union.

Serbia believes that the opposite would likely happen. For imposing an outcome that is fundamentally at odds with our vital interests could fundamentally destabilize Serbian democracy. Our democratic capacity to continue with the reforms necessary to keep us on the EU membership track—our central strategic priority—would be pressured close to the breaking point.

And because Serbia is the pivot country of the Western Balkans, the regional spill-over effect to imposed independence would not be negligible: for the geopolitical dynamic of the Western Balkans is such that what negatively affects one country adversely affects events beyond its borders. Throughout the region, stability would not take root, democracy would be undermined, prosperity would remain illusive, and the legitimacy of borders would be called into question.

Why is that? Because the imposed independence of Kosovo is nothing other than the partition of an internationally-recognized, democratic, state—Serbia. Partitioning my country could call into question a fundamental tenet of international relations that revolves around the United Nations Charter and the continuing legitimacy of the Security Council—reinforced in Europe through the Helsinki Final Act—by setting a precedent that allows for any country to be partitioned without its consent.

And we all know that there are dozens of Kosovo-s throughout the world, just waiting for secession to be legitimized, to be rendered an acceptable norm. Many existing conflicts could escalate, frozen conflicts could reignite, and new ones could be instigated.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Some say that Kosovo is a unique case, but I simply don’t believe that’s true. An anchor of the international system would be cut away—despite all attempts to claim otherwise. For precedents cannot be announced or denied, they just happen.

The claim that Kosovo is a unique case rests on the assertion that a uniquely tyrannical regime ruthlessly oppressed a minority and denied them human rights. But there is nothing unique about Milosevic’s crimes in the recent annals of human history. Think only of Darfur, or Rwanda, or the case of the Kurds in Iraq.

There is no doubt that Saddam’s crimes against the Kurdish minority, for example, were truly atrocious. But encouraging the forcible partition of Iraq does not advance the stability of the region, and therefore is not in the interest of any responsible stakeholder to support it. And that’s why no country has done so.

Now of course, one could say that the Middle East is not the Western Balkans, and that Iraq is not Serbia. But the parallels are striking and I think they deserve our consideration.

For in the 21^st century, geo-strategic priorities should not be sacrificed on the altars of communal aspirations and political expediency.

And that is why in the case of Kosovo’s future status, the only truly workable solution is a compromise, negotiated one. It is . . .

• a solution that advances the EU membership prospects of the entire region;

• a solution which promotes the consolidation of democratic values and institutions in the Western Balkans;

• a solution that pushes the region beyond the point of no reversal, and away from the illusory nationalist temptations of the recent past;

• and a solution that advances the economic transformation of the Western Balkans, and the security architecture of all of Europe.

How do we get there? How do we achieve a sustainable solution, and rip out for good the seed of future conflicts in the Western Balkans?

We do so by creating an environment in which a historical compromise settlement between Serbs and Albanians could be crafted.

That means that a symmetrical set of incentives for both sides to reach a negotiated, mutually-acceptable agreement, must be put on the table.

And it means that those who threaten the use of violence if their extremist demands are not met must be sidelined, not granted a favored seat at the table, and not given political support.

So far, that has not happened. Because so far, the status process has suffered from a fatal flaw—constant public messaging by some external actors which basically announced that the province’s independence would be imposed if no agreement was reached by a pre-set deadline.

In effect, the Kosovo Albanians were told that they would get everything they wanted if they didn’t compromise—hardly the sort of inducement that could lead to a negotiated settlement, wouldn’t you say?

What is urgently needed therefore, is a process that is analogous to the Bush principles I referred to a moment ago: that the international community, that is, the Security Council, act as a good-faith facilitator in getting the parties to agree to a settlement, but not to dictate the results by imposing a one-sided outcome.

For only a solution that is acceptable to both sides can be viable, sustainable, and lasting. And that means that the way forward lies in embracing principles such as compromise, concession, and consensus-building, by engaging in a process of deliberate, patient, and sustained negotiations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A man I deeply admire, your former Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, once said that “history teaches us that men and nations behave wisely only once they have exhausted all other alternatives”, adding that “tragedy is not what men suffer but what they miss.”

Well, the alternatives to a negotiated peace in the Western Balkans have been tried, and all they produced was more violence. For we Serbs and Albanians have pretty much never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

And so here we are, on the brink of potential disaster, but also, paradoxically, on the threshold of a truly European renewal of not only Serbia, but all the Western Balkans. All we ask is for a genuine chance to replace the bias of confrontation with the bias of agreement—to open avenues to solutions instead of putting up obstacles to peace.

We say to the Kosovo Albanians: let us listen to each other in order to understand, rather than reject without hearing. For I believe that there is room in a European, democratic Serbia for all identities to be affirmed, for all aspirations to be respected, and for all views to be pursued.

Let me end with the words of Yitzhak Rabin, the great statesman and the father of a very dear friend of mine. Speaking in Oslo in 1994 on the occasion of having received the Nobel Peace Prize, Rabin spoke of the “one universal message which can embrace the entire world, one precept which can be common to different regimes, to races which bear no resemblance, to cultures that are alien to one another. It is a message,” he added, “which the Jewish people has carried for thousands of years, the message found in the Book of Books: VE NIŠ-MARTEM | ME-OD | LE NAFŠO-TEJHEM—therefore take good heed of yourselves—or, in contemporary terms, the message of the sanctity of life.” And for Rabin, as for all of us, that means that, in his words, “there is only one radical means for sanctifying human life. The one radical solution is a real peace.”

My friends, I hope you agree that the time for a peaceful, enduring settlement to Kosovo’s future status has come, and we must do everything in our power to secure it. We must do everything in our power to cultivate it, to watch it bloom, to help it prosper, to make it sustainable and durable. We must do everything in our power to make it happen, because we believe in the sanctity of life, and of the sanctity of life of the generations to come.

If we truly believe in the sanctity of life, then let that be the starting point from which we should begin our further journey towards the horizon of peace, discerning in the fading darkness the vision of a better and brighter dawn.

Thank you.

Address Before the First Serbian Ambassadors’ Conference

by H.E. Mr. Vuk Jeremić
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia

Belgrade, 16 December 2007

Dear Foreign Minister Cioroianu,
Dear Ambassador Eide,
Respected Dean of the Diplomatic Corps,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to welcome you all to the first Ambassadors’ Conference of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

To our two distinguished guests from opposite corners of Europe—a special thanks. I am very glad you are here, and I thank you both for the policies of support and friendship that your countries have consistently pursued toward the Republic of Serbia and the whole of the Western Balkans.

I believe it is a fair assessment to say that an overwhelming majority of this generation of policymakers, throughout Europe and beyond, share a common approach in thinking strategically about the world—about the 21st century characterized by a rapidity and comprehensiveness of change not seen in the voluminous annals of human history. Great opportunities await the bold in this new world of both interdependence and uncertainty. We must have the courage to seize them, and harness them, and mold them to suit our national particularities.

We Europeans especially share a duty to promote what we see as the central role of contemporary statecraft: to look to the future, to construct and integrate, and to consolidate the elimination of an adversarial, zero-sum perception of the balance of power on the Old Continent.

How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of a world community we will hand over to our children, and our children’s children.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would also like to extend a heartfelt welcome to the diplomatic corps. I call on you to continue your important work of building bridges between your respective countries and the Republic of Serbia. Know that I and my Ministry will continue to be at your disposal. There is no limit to what we can accomplish when we work together.

To the ambassadors of the Republic of Serbia abroad, and to our Belgrade-based diplomats—I extend a message of profound gratitude. The dedication and diligence with which you perform your service to your country is sometimes overlooked. I want you to know that this will change. We are modernizing the Ministry. All of us will have to adapt. But I am confident that you will all be up to the challenge, for you are inheritors of a long and proud tradition of Serbian diplomats who have sacrificed much for the sake of their nation.

Most of you hold the rank of ambassador—inheritors of a distinction first given to the poet-diplomat Jovan Ducic. His friend and colleague, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature—and a former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs—Ivo Andric, once wrote that the diplomat is a “person who moves as through a mist in which the light that glimmers intermittently bewilders and deceives the eyes, more than it shows the path and enables a person to find his way.”

His words, written during the time he spent in the diplomatic service between the two World Wars, can serve as a particularly good description of the intricacies inherent in the profession you have chosen.

They reflect a perceptive understanding of the role of a diplomat in complicated times — times in which one’s country struggles to consolidate its position in the face of accelerating global and regional currents. A situation that in some sense characterizes Serbia’s current predicament, and much of the world’s.

Excellencies,

As we all know, this past Wednesday, a presidential election was called for January 20th, 2008. This was both a constitutional necessity and an opportunity for the people of Serbia to engage in a critical debate about the future course of our country.

President Tadic will stand for re-election, and we have a pretty good sense of who his main opponent will be. The campaign will revolve around four sets of fundamental, self-defining issues. First, domestic choices—in particular, those related to the economy and social welfare. Second, the question of the future status of Kosovo and Metohija. Third, the pace at which Serbia progresses toward full EU membership. And fourth, the consolidation of the values that have defined us since our democratic revolution of October 2000.

It will be a hard-fought election. It will be a referendum in the profound sense that our citizens will have a choice between two fundamentally opposite ways forward. During the campaign, I’m sure many arguments will be heard that may sound extreme to outsiders. But in this, Serbia is no different than many other countries. An election is usually a moment in which the dreams and demons of a society are ventilated. But it is also a moment in which the political leadership is tested to contain the demons and to give substance to the dreams. Come what may, we are determined to maintain the course that made Serbia time and again a natural ally in the historic conflicts for the freedom of Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

While the central strategic priority of the Republic of Serbia is accelerated EU accession, it is in our vital national interest to further our comprehensive relations with not only Brussels, but also with Moscow and Washington—the three main pillars of our foreign policy.

We do not seek to balance, and we are not hedging our bets, for we know our future is in the European Union. We are merely pursuing our interests in a realistic, prudent and strategic way, aiming always towards consolidating our democratic institutions while sustainably developing our economy.

Moreover, the Republic of Serbia will continue to devote particular attention to deepening our ties of friendship with the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India, both traditional partners, as well as with other friends in Asia, such as Japan, Indonesia, and South Korea.

We will also continue to reaffirm a number of close bilateral relationships forged during the heyday of diplomatic activity conducted by the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. The world has indeed changed dramatically since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of Yugoslavia, but old friendships—many rooted in the Non-Aligned Movement—will not be forgotten.

But as I said, the key to Serbia’s future success lies in European integration. It has been a long time coming. In 1989, great changes came to our part of the world. Much of Europe entered a new era of stability and prosperity, welcoming a sense of common destiny. The tragic exception was the Western Balkans, which plunged into civil war and was delayed from enjoying the benefits of the peace that spread across the continent. That delay began to be overcome on October 5th 2000, on the occasion of the democratic overthrow of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. On that day, the people of Serbia embraced what I have called the “grand idea of Europe”, namely that democracy is interdependent with individual liberty, the rule of law, human and minority rights, and integration.

The grand idea of Europe frames our behavior and our way of thinking; it brings out our humanity—and allows what brings us together to come to the surface of our nature. For in a European democracy, government walks hand in hand with each and every citizen with empathy and understanding, sharing in their hopes and dreams. Twenty-first century European democracy is not a value-neutral, mechanical process, but something higher. It is about living together in a community of shared values.

And no less significantly, the grand idea of Europe is also about delivering sustainable economic growth and prosperity. Today, the 27 EU member-states make up 33 percent of global wealth—an incredible figure. And they do so in the context of a social contract that ensures the equality of opportunity for all citizens—that empowers marginalized and vulnerable groups; that assures in practice the lifting of the often invisible barriers to the full participation of all in political, social, and economic life.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

From its inception, joining the institutions of Europe has in effect meant renouncing war as a tool of statecraft in the European space. That is why Europe is so aptly termed the reconciler of nations.

In post-conflict and post-communist societies such as those of the Western Balkans, the democratic march toward full European integration enables all the region’s countries to deepen their cooperation and to safely promote their prosperity. But it also enables us to implement true, genuine reconciliation.

At the heart of this absolute commitment to reconciliation lies full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Serbia’s track record is laudatory, for we have already turned over 42 Hague indictees, including four former presidents, one former speaker of parliament, one former prime minister, and three former chiefs of the general staff. Let there be on doubt, we remain determined to locate, arrest, and hand-over the few Hague indictees still at large—on both a political and operational level. And we will succeed. I am sure of it.

I remind you that President Tadic traveled to Srebrenica on the 10th anniversary of the horrible, tragic events that took place there, in order to show that Serbia mourns for all the victims of ethnic cleansing. That is why for us, cooperation with the ICTY is not only our undeniable international obligation; it is our moral duty—to our neighbors and the world, of course, but foremost to ourselves.

This moral dimension of reconciliation is central to building a better Balkans, for it provides a framework through which the crimes of individuals who falsely acted in the name of their nation are to be understood.

And lastly, reconciliation allows for participation in collective structures through which the region’s security arrangements can be consolidated, using the benefits provided by the Partnership for Peace program. By bringing the Western Balkans into the wider Trans-Atlantic family of nations, shallow, outdated concepts of isolated national defense will fall by the wayside, to the benefit of all the citizens of the region.

Thanks to the integrational perspectives emanating out of Brussels, regional issues of trust are being resolved; dilemmas about intent are disappearing; and a 21st-century sense of purpose is being created.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The perpetual peace in Europe that Kant could only dream of is within our grasp. But to complete our common vision of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace, we must overcome one more hurdle. And that is the future status of Kosovo, Serbia’s southern province under United Nations administration since June 1999.

I hope that everyone in this room believes that a compromise, negotiated solution—a solution that advances the EU membership prospects of the entire region—is the optimal outcome to the future status question. That a solution which promotes the consolidation of democratic values and institutions in the region, is the optimal outcome. That a solution that pushes the region beyond the point of no reversal and away from the illusory nationalist temptations of the recent past, is an optimal outcome.

And if we all agree, then does it not mean that the only way forward is to solve Kosovo’s future status in the manner of 21st-century Europe, that is, through compromise, concession, and consensus-building among all the stakeholders, through a process of deliberate, patient, and sustained negotiations?

But unfortunately, there is a tendency to view the Kosovo future status process through the lens of political expediency. This is very dangerous, for it has strengthened those within Serbia who are skeptical of our European perspective—doing damage not only to Serbia’s future, but to that of the Western Balkans as a whole.

Why has this happened? Why are some willing to sacrifice the ultimate geo-strategic priority of the Western Balkans—accelerated EU accession for all—on the altar of the communal aspirations of the Kosovo Albanians?
____

Someone could reply by saying that there was a hundred and twenty day negotiating period, conducted under the auspices of the Contact Group Troika. And one could ask, “Were they not acting as an honest broker?” My answer is, “Yes they were.” And we are very grateful for their serious, sincere efforts.

And yet, no agreement was reached, despite Serbia’s myriad proposals. The reason is as simple as it is tragic. The process suffered from a fatal flaw—constant external disturbances in the form of public messaging which basically announced that the province’s independence would be imposed if no agreement was reached by December 10th.

In effect, the Kosovo Albanians were told that they would get everything they wanted if they didn’t compromise—hardly the sort of inducement that could lead to a negotiated settlement, wouldn’t you say?

But I do not believe opportunities for negotiations are exhausted.

I think now is the time for all the stakeholders involved in the future of the Western Balkans to constructively make use of the weeks and months to come—and to do so in the spirit of cooperation and partnership, informed by the values and aims that we share.

Here’s what I propose: that an environment be created, for the first time since the future status process began, in which a historical compromise settlement between Serbs and Albanians could be crafted. That means that a symmetrical set of incentives for both sides to reach a negotiated, mutually-acceptable agreement, must be put on the table.

It’s not that we are asking for more of the same, for more time. What we’re asking for is quality time. So that someone like Agim Ceku does not feel confident to say, as he did in his closing statement in Baden a few weeks ago, that the Kosovo Albanians do not want to negotiate status. We have to work together to find a way to change the psychological mindset—ever-present in Pristina—that says “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”

And we are prepared to extend our flexibility on the traditional definition of sovereignty, in order to reach an agreement. We are willing to narrow it so as to ensure that Kosovo has the broadest possible autonomy one can imagine, while remaining with Serbia under a common sovereign roof.

We have no interest in ruling over the Kosovo Albanian community: we do not want to tax them, nor to police them, nor to have their judicial or their educational systems re-integrated into ours.

Our currency does not have to have a presence in Kosovo. Our military would not have to be there, either.

And we would not interfere with their relationship with international financial organizations; with them having separate membership in international sporting federations; or with them having some sort of representation abroad.

Can you think of another country that would be willing to go that far? And still Pristina refuses to relax its maximalist demand for independence. Is it reasonable to reward this uncompromising position?

For make no mistake, arriving at a compromise solution would also prevent calling into question a fundamental tenet of international relations that revolves around the United Nations Charter and the continuing supremacy of the Security Council—reinforced in Europe through the Helsinki Final Act—by setting a precedent that allows for any country to be partitioned without its consent. For the imposition of the independence of Kosovo is nothing other than the forced partition of Serbia.

And we all know that there are dozens of Kosovo-s throughout the world, just waiting for secession to be legitimized, to be rendered an acceptable norm.

Remarks Delivered at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) of

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

by H.E. Mr. Vuk Jeremić

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia

Moscow, 23 November 2007

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am truly honored to be able to address the future diplomatic elite of the Russian Federation—the first time this has been done in the long history of friendship between our two countries. Support of the Russian people for their South Slavic cousins is so well known that it hardly needs to be mentioned. And so I want to express my genuine satisfaction with the fact that the longstanding tradition of closeness between our two nations continues to grow and to deepen in the present.

I want to dwell for a moment on the origin of the special relationship between our two nations. It is intimately tied to the origins of the Serbian state, and I feel it proper to begin my address by sharing with you the little that I know about it.

The first genuine ruler of the Serbian people, Grand Duke Stefan Nemanja, gave his nation three sons. At the age of eighteen, in the year 1193, the youngest son, Rastko, came into contact with a monk from the Holy Mountain of Athos. Worldly knowledge, authority and possessions could not compare to the exalted experience felt by the young Serbian prince in conversation with this simple monk, who, it so happens, was Russian. And so, together, they left the Serbian lands for the monastic community of Athos—for the Russian monastery of Saint Panteleimon, to be precise, where Rastko chose to devote his life to the service of God. Unprecedented in its rapidity, the Russian abbot of the monastery tonsured young Prince Rastko as a monk the very next day, and gave him the name Sava—the trigger event that enabled him to introduce into the Serbian national consciousness the central place of the Serbian Orthodox Church he went on to found.

The events of Sava’s life—indeed, his leadership and vision—are of central importance for the Serbian people. And who knows whether any of this would have happened without that seemingly chance visit of an unknown Russian monk to a prince of Serbia. It is, in a way, the origin of the special relationship between our two nations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Three years after Sava was tonsured, his father, the Grand Duke, abdicated, and, acceding to his son’s wishes, took the monastic rites, joining him on the Holy Mountain soon thereafter. There, father and son—the two builders—were once more together: the builder of the state, and the builder of its soul.

After his father’s death, Sava was called, on several occasions, to intervene in the political affairs of the lands his brothers had inherited from their departed father. It was hard work, yet his political successes created a realm of national stability that enabled the Serbian people to establish a kingdom for close to 200 years, until their military defeat by the Ottomans at Kosovo in 1389—and then, after 1804 and our Uprising against the occupiers, to once more begin building a sovereign state on the foundations of the Medieval one.

But Sava’s deeds did more than that. For they established an almost primordial confidence in the ability of our nation to survive against all odds, by instilling a memory of the founding of Serbia that subtly fused the material to the spiritual, the past to the future, the changing and the permanent, the human and the divine. Consider Saint Sava’s words: “Faith can only save us if united with, and expressed in, good works.”

It is no accident, therefore, that the precise spot in Belgrade on which his holy relics were burned by the Ottomans on Good Friday, in 1595, is now the sight of the almost completed Cathedral dedicated to Saint Sava. Addressing the assembled in this city’s Christ the Savior Cathedral a few years ago on the occasion of a fund-raising event for our Cathedral, President Boris Tadic of Serbia spoke of the hundred year quest to build the ultimate memorial for the holiest of Serbian saints, for the first Serbian builder. The President said, “history shows us that the Cathedral’s construction always ceased when Serbia’s own construction ceased. Always when the Cathedral was rising, Serbia too was rising. Now, its construction is happily coming to an end, thanks in part to the generosity of the Russian people. And when it is completed, the Cathedral will nevertheless continue to rise, for it will continue to build us up—it will continue to fulfill the missions of our founders.”

I believe that this dignified combination of faith and good works is the essence of the Orthodox Slavic soul. It unites our two nations—Serbian and Russian—in a common culture that is more than an amalgamation of traditions. It is something visceral, emotional, instinctive, fundamental—a sensibility that shapes the personality, and binds that person to a particular nation and a place in a way very difficult to rationalize fully.

In my view, the core of the Slavic soul is contained in the principle of sabornost, the notion that each individual freely unites with others in the pursuit of truth. Sabornost is not achieved by a majority that can be broken down in their simple individuality, but rather through a unity that is not easily measurable. Expressed politically, this unity is what the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau called “the general will”, cemented by a “social contract” that establishes the state, the embodiment of the unified sovereignty of a nation. What is desirable is willed by each thinking in terms of the whole—thus transforming the nation into a sovereign political community, with a citizenry in which each member enjoys equally, and thus democratically, the benefits of conduct he himself willed into being through the establishment of a state, its constitution, and its national legislation.

Today, our nations place centrality in the notion of the defense of our existing borders—borders which symbolize the permanence of the expression of our sabornost. In our view, if I may put it this way, sovereignty is both a political and moral unity which cannot be divided against the consent of the general will, of the democratic unity of the nation, without, quite simply, destroying it in its essence.

That is why the 1990s were so traumatic for us: forces in conflict with the general will of our nations, tore down much of what our ancestors had painstakingly built over the course of centuries. Some of these forces came from within our midst, such as Slobodan Milosevic, in the case of Serbia. He brought great shame to the Serbian people, and his name will always be associated with a national disgrace.

But that is also why the 21^st century opens up the possibility of national democratic renewal, founded on the basis of a valiant pride in our historical experience, and a prudent, realistic assessment of the hard work that needs to be done for our vision of ourselves as mature, sovereign democracies, to become a reality.

For the 21^st century marks the return of multipolarity to the international system. Today, the multipolar world is being built on the foundations of the United Nations system that arose as a result of the epochal victory against Fascism.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In my view, the tectonic shifts in the global balance of power that are just around the corner must be managed by rules meant to maintain predictability of action, the foundation of international order and stability.

For we can build a prosperous future for all nations only by granting to each one the right to sovereign development. As Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad has said, “we must attain a situation in which all nations can live freely in accordance with their choice, while the international system will respect this choice and not try to impose any other one, and will develop laws and take such decisions that will be equally acceptable to different nations and different models of civilization.”

In practical terms, this means that the United Nations must remain the ultimate enforcer of international law, and the Security Council the only inter-governmental body that can sanction the legitimate use of force. Sometimes it may be a slow and messy process. But I strongly believe that patience and negotiations are much more attractive an alternative to anarchy and arbitrary conduct.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Unfortunately, the basic principles of international law are increasingly being brought into question. More and more, the resolution of a growing number of challenges affecting the international system are attempted to be addressed on the basis of pure political expediency, given a snapshot state of affairs. But recent experience shows that unilateral actions have not resolved any problems. On the contrary, they have exacerbated existing, and even caused additional human tragedies, creating new focal points of tension.

I agree with Russia’s view that this is extremely dangerous, because, as President Putin has explained, “it results in the fact that no one feels safe”—undermining as it does the architecture of 21^st-century global security.

This brings me to the issue of the future status of Serbian’s southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Kosovo is a place of tremendous importance for Serbia. It is closely associated with the resilience of the Serbian nation. It is the beating heart of our culture, of our civilization. It is the location of many of our holiest monasteries, and the land where hundreds of thousands of Serbs breathed their last breaths.

Let me tell you an anecdote by way of illustration. When the Serbian Army was forced to retreat en masse across Kosovo and into Albania as a result of a combined German and Austrian offensive in the winter of 1915, they found it tactically necessary to traverse the very plain on which the battle against the Ottomans had taken place in 1389. Now, for us, this soil truly is hallowed ground—our Jerusalem. Well, this exhausted army, led by our ailing, seventy-two year old king, Peter the First, took off its boots, and walked silently across the frozen field, in quiet respect for our fallen ancestors who lie buried in unmarked graves for kilometers in every direction.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In June 1999, the terms of peace imposed by the victors on an unpopular, defeated and internationally isolated regime, explicitly reaffirmed my country’s sovereignty over Kosovo, while giving the United Nations a mandate to administer the province’s internal affairs, as is plain from the text of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Contrast that with what some are telling us at present. They say they will impose the province’s independence on us if we don’t come to an agreement with the Kosovo Albanians by December 10^th, an arbitrary and artificial deadline that plays into the hands of their secessionist demands. As a result, the Kosovo Albanians have little incentive to negotiate with us in good faith, calculating that all they have to do is sit back, appear engaged, and count the days to the imposition of independence.

And they say they will do so without the sanction of the Security Council, for they know that at least one permanent member of the Council—the Russian Federation—is strongly opposed to the forcible partition of Serbia, which is what the imposition of Kosovo’s independence against the sovereign will of the Serbian nation amounts to.

Such a disregard for the rules of the international system would set a dangerous precedent that opens the way for any country to be partitioned without its consent.

And we all know that there are dozens of Kosovo-s throughout the world, just waiting for sovereignty to be undermined and secession to be rendered an acceptable norm. Throughout the world, existing conflicts could escalate, frozen conflicts could reignite, and new ones could be instigated. This cannot be in the interest of a secure international system that we are working to consolidate.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to express to you my deep appreciation for supporting Serbia’s commitment to reaching a negotiated, mutually-acceptable solution to Kosovo’s future status.

And I want to thank you for believing in our fair offer to the Kosovo Albanians. This offer consists in a uniquely crafted partnership under a common sovereign roof: institutionally unrestrained autonomy—extraordinarily broad powers of self-governance—that at the same time preserves our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We believe that such a compromise solution is the only way to consolidate the tremendous gains that have been made in Serbia and throughout the Western Balkans in the years since the October 2000 peaceful transfer of power from the Milosevic regime to a democratically accountable Serbian government. It is the only way to secure a lasting Balkan peace.

And we believe that this is the only way to accelerate the region’s drive toward full European Union membership.

This brings me to my next point. Since the EU Thessaloniki Summit of 2003, Brussels has opened the door for the the future of the Western Balkans in the European Union. Serbia believes this is her destiny, and has worked hard to make the promise made in Thessaloniki a reality. But the fundamental question of Kosovo’s future status is severely challenging Serbia’s democratic capacity to sustain the reforms that are required for our membership prospect to become actual.

For when it comes to Kosovo, some in Europe seem to pass over the fact that the very imposition of Kosovo’s independence is breaking the very rules that govern the decision-making within European Union.

What are the rules that govern decision-making in the European Union? They are remarkably similar to the rules that we believe are essential to the smooth functioning of a stable international system. I refer in particular to those that place emphasis on compromise, building consensus, and bridging differences through a process of deliberate, patient, and sustained negotiations. But unfortunately, there is a tendency to view the Kosovo future status process through the lens of political expediency. This is very dangerous, for it has strengthened those within Serbia who are skeptical of our European perspective—doing damage not only to Serbia’s future, but to that of the Western Balkans as a whole.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I believe that if we concentrate our minds on the notion that achieving a solution that is acceptable to all is much more important than meeting an artificial deadline, then I believe that we can successfully complete negotiations on Kosovo’s future status.

This would open the way for the accelerated accession to the European Union for all the Western Balkans, including Serbia—the region’s pivotal power. I want to emphasize my belief that our European accession will give a new meaning to Serbia’s special relationship with Russia. Not only would it ensure that Moscow would have a true friend in Brussels, and deepen your country’s access to the common European market, but it would also lead to an increase in both understanding and cooperation between Russia and the Union.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me conclude with the text of a letter Saint Sava wrote shortly before he returned to God. “At first we were confused. The East thought that we were the West, while the West thought we were the East. Some of us misunderstood our place in the clash of currents, so they cried that we belong to neither side, while others cried that we belong exclusively to one side or the other. But I say that we are destined to be the East in the West, and the West in the East.”

This is the predicament our two nations share. As Dostoevsky wrote, “We Russians have two fatherlands: Russia and Europe.” It is indeed a complicated predicament, but one that does not have to lead to tension in the Slavic soul. On the contrary. It can lead to a new sort of sabornost, one rooted in the unparalleled advantages this century has to offer to all nations willing to embrace its incredible opportunities.

For I believe that if we continue working together on a whole host of issues, we can come to realize our place in the “clash of currents”, as Sava termed the human condition. I believe that we can do so in a way that preserves our democratic sovereignty while engaging the 21^st century and its infinite possibilities. I believe we can further benefit from the globalizing economy. And I believe we can help shape a world that can provide a future for our children whose grandeur and goodness we will scarcely be able to recognize.

Whatever destiny lies in wait for our two nations, I am confident that we will flourish in the succession of the ages to come, in the fame that waits on the noble deeds our descendants will perform.

Thank you again for the warmth of your reception, the authenticity of your solidarity, and the strength of your friendship. Thank you, and God bless.

My Lords,

Distinguished Members of Parliament,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A mural painted by the British artist Sigismund Goetze in the immediate aftermath of the Great War hangs steps from the Foreign Secretary’s office. It is called “Britannia Pacificatrix.” In the middle of the panel, Britannia encloses within the folds of its royal mantle three figures; the central one of which is Serbia. Emerging from the horrors of war in which more than one quarter of her population perished, Serbia lies draped in her battle-weary flag, a sort of personification of the small nation with a wounded soul.

Stopping to view this mural on the way out from a meeting with the Foreign Secretary two months ago, I found myself recalling the words spoken by Winston Churchill in April 1941 upon hearing of the decision—by what he termed a “valiant race”—to bravely fight Hitler, instead of ignobly submitting to a Pact with him. Churchill said: “that nation has recovered its soul.”

That mural and the words of Churchill brought together in one moment a sense of reminiscence about the partnership our two countries had forged in two World Wars—a partnership consecrated with the blood of those who fought on numerous fronts in common cause during the 20^th century. Together with the other defeators of Fascism, we went on to help found the United Nations in San Francisco. And then, in the first, hardest years of recovery from the Nazi occupation, as Stalin sought to consolidate his grip in Eastern Europe, my country had the courage to stand up and say no. And, with international support, including Britain’s, we preserved our sovereignty throughout the Cold War.

____

In 1989, great changes again came to Europe: the Iron Curtain withered away, and the old divides came down. Much of Europe entered a new era of freedom, stability, and prosperity. The tragic exception was the Western Balkans, which plunged into civil war and was delayed from enjoying the benefits of the peace that spread across the European continent. That delay began to be overcome in October 5^th 2000, on the occasion of the democratic overthrow of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. On that day, Serbia once more recovered its soul, and re-entered the mainstream of a Europe dedicated to cementing the democratic changes made in 1989.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A democratic Serbia today shares with Britain, and the rest of Europe, a firm belief in the values of democracy. These values frame our behavior and our way of thinking; they bring out our humanity—they allow what binds us together to come to the surface of our nature. And thus enable the ennoblement of humankind to take shape.

In other words, we share an overall vision about the central place of democracy in the Europe of the 21^st century. And we share the view that Europe is, as Foreign Secretary Miliband said in Bruges, “a model power”, representing a “triumph of shared values … that respect our separate, [national] identities and traditions.”

And yet, something in our bilateral relationship is going wrong. The prospect of an estrangement between two democracies at opposite ends of our continent lurks around the corner, rooted in the lingering memory of the terrible events that took place in the 1990s, and the doubts that they produced.

____

But before I try to directly address this disagreement, this difference of opinion amongst drifting historical partners, I want to lay before you some of the recent democratic accomplishments of contemporary Serbia—of an emerging, post-communist and post-conflict democracy that stands at the center of the Western Balkans, the last un-integrated corner of Europe.

In seven short years of recovery, look at what Serbia has achieved:

We have reintroduced democratic institutions, and restored of the rule of law.

We have established a market economy, and strengthened human and minority rights.

And we are dedicated to move rapidly toward full European Union membership. Indeed, a fortnight ago, Serbia initiated the Stabilization and Association Agreement in Brussels, and we expect to sign it in the next few weeks, which would put us on schedule to become an official EU membership candidate by the end of 2008.

We are also committed to actively participate in the NATO Partnership for Peace program.

Furthermore, we are devoted to completing regional reconciliation efforts, as demonstrated by the turning-over of 42 Hague indictees, including four former presidents, one former speaker of parliament, one former prime minister, and three former chiefs of the general staff. Let there be on doubt, we remain determined to locate, arrest, and hand-over the few Hague indictees still at large.

In sum, the Republic of Serbia is doing everything in its power to pursue policies that will never again lead to war and misery for our people, for all our citizens, and for our whole region.

We’re doing all this because we know what it means to suffer a generational setback. We know the price of economic sanctions, hyperinflation, international isolation, civil war, bombing, and the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees and IDPs. We know it because we lived it. That is why we are working hard to ensure that our children grow up in a country free of privation and extremism. It’s because we are passionate about Serbia’s European future, and because we are clear-sighted about the work that remains to be accomplished for our vision to become a reality.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Precisely because we have done almost everything right since we peacefully overthrew Milosevic in October 2000, the possibility of an estrangement between our two democracies is deeply regretful—especially to those of us who risked our lives to bring to an end the dictatorship central to Balkan nightmare of the 1990s. Nevertheless, it may be unavoidable, for this possible rift is rooted in a profound tactical disagreement on how to overcome the current impasse in the efforts to arrive at a solution to the future status of Kosovo and Metohija, Serbia’s southern province under United Nations administration since June 1999.

The precise nature of the disagreement centers on the importance placed on the view that there is nothing more important than reaching a solution acceptable to all. In other words, should Kosovo be solved in the 21^st-century European manner, that is, through compromise, concession, and consensus-building among all the stakeholders? Or should another logic animate the process—one that allows for the imposition of an outcome on the parties?

I believe that the answer lies in thinking through what is best for the region as a whole, what best advances the cause of full European membership for the entire Western Balkans. Only such a solution would propel the region forward past the point of no reversal and away from the illusory nationalist temptations of the recent past.

The way forward lies in working together to overcome the differences between the parties, so that all the countries of the Western Balkans end up on the same side. The side of political stability—the side of Europe, its democratic values, its economic prosperity, and its social responsibilities.

Pursuing all other courses of action would reverse the tremendous progress that has been made in Serbia. And if Serbia falters, if we plunge back into a mindset reminiscent of our recent past, if our democracy suffers a fatal, generational blow, so will the rest of the Western Balkans—for Serbia is the pivotal country of the region. Throughout the region, stability would not take root, democracy would be undermined, the legitimacy of borders would be called into question, and prosperity would remain illusive.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We mustn’t sacrifice this ultimate geo-strategic priority of the Western Balkans—accelerated EU accession for all—on the altar of communal aspirations.

And yet there are some—in Britain and in other countries—who advocate pursuing policies that will not lead to a solution for Kosovo’s future status that advances the European membership perspective of the Western Balkans. And I want to say to them frankly that imposing an outcome fundamentally detrimental to one side’s democratic survival will vitally affect the future of the region as a whole.

Let me summarize what Belgrade and Pristina were told at the onset of this round of the status negotiations.

It was publicly stated that the province’s independence will be imposed if no agreement is reached by December 10^th. And that has put us at an impasse, for a hard deadline strongly favours the interests of one side: the Kosovo Albanians.

Put yourself in their shoes: with a set deadline and a default position that fulfils its maximalist demands, what incentive does Pristina have to negotiate in good faith? Why not just sit back, appear engaged, and simply wait out the clock?

The way out of this looming crisis lies in viewing the December 10^th deadline as a marker for assessing progress, and little more. By re-defining the significance of this date, an environment would be created—for the first time since the future status process began—in which an historical settlement could be crafted.

How so? Because for the first time, a symmetrical set of incentives to reach a compromise, mutually-acceptable agreement, would be on offer to both sides: one that says, in the spirit of 21^st-century Europe: “keep at it until you concur.” As a German parliamentarian said to me a few days ago, “isn’t it better to have more time than to have more trouble?”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Arriving at a compromise solution would also prevent calling into question a fundamental tenet of the international system—reinforced in Europe through the Helsinki Final Act—by setting a precedent that allows for any country to be partitioned without its consent. For let us not deceive ourselves, the imposition of the independence of Kosovo is nothing other than the forced partition of Serbia.

And we all know that there are dozens of Kosovo-s throughout the world, just waiting for secession to be legitimized, to be rendered an acceptable norm. Throughout the world, existing conflicts could escalate, frozen conflicts could reignite, and new ones could be instigated.

In truth, then, resolving Kosovo’s future status unilaterally, without the consent of all stakeholders, is not just about preserving Serbian democracy and the European future of the Western Balkans. It’s also about preserving the international system, predicated on the observance of a set of rules—rules meant to maintain predictability of action.

And Britain, with its unique position in the world and its pivotal role in Europe, must come to see the dangers inherent in the pursuit of a policy that could undermine the renewal of global institutions designed to support, as Prime Minister Brown said during his first Lord Mayor’s Banquet speech, a new, “shared international endeavor.” For no country that has dedicated itself to the noble cause of contributing to a “better, 21^st-century way of delivering peace and prosperity”—the Prime Minister’s words again—should undertake actions that clearly contravene international law. The risks are simply too high.

____

In the end, I want to share with you Serbia’s offer to Kosovo Albanians—a fair, and just compromise offer designed to help fulfill the entire region’s European destiny. An offer that facilitates the development of the province, while strengthening the democracies of all the other regional actors in the process. We offer a uniquely crafted partnership under a common sovereign roof: institutionally unrestrained autonomy—extraordinarily broad powers of self-governance—that at the same time preserves our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Albanian response has not been positive. Some in Pristina have even threatened violence against us, if we don’t accept their independence Diktat. The moment is difficult, for, to paraphrase Karl Popper: “It is hard to conduct a negotiation with someone who prefers shooting you to being engaged by you.” But again, I say, the European way to overcome the intransigence of one side is to remove the factors that enable that intransigence to flourish—in this case, the commitment to impose independence after the passage of an arbitrary deadline.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have spoken about the fracturing bond between our two countries and how to mend it, about the clash between Europe’s values and its policies and how to overcome it, about the future of the Western Balkans and how to secure it, and about our shared commitment to the international system and how to strengthen it. All this and more is at stake with Kosovo.

In conclusion I want to appeal to your sense of fair play, and your sense of honour. Our nation, like yours, is ancient, and our convictions are ancient. And Kosovo is the cradle of our civilization, the beating heart of our “valiant race.” I ask you not to discount the symbolic centrality of Kosovo for the Serbian people and for our democracy. I ask you to help us reach a compromise solution that preserves our sovereignty, while giving the Kosovo Albanians a real chance to govern their own affairs. They have gone through many tribulations, and they do deserve an opportunity to prosper. But this opportunity cannot come at the price of destabilizing the region and humiliating Serbia.

Know that if you do choose to recognize Kosovo—if you choose to forcibly partition Serbia—you will have de-legitimized democracy in the eyes of the Serbian people. It will be a terrible blow. And not one that we will recover from easily.

So I ask you to be patient, and to be visionary. To help Serbia and the Western Balkans preserve what we have built. To “bring to pass that the savage works of war may be stilled to rest throughout all seas and lands,” as Lucretius so eloquently put it. So we can one day soon take our rightful place at the table of Europe.

Thank you for your attention. I stand ready to hear your comments.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great privilege to be able to speak at the Faculty of Law of the oldest and most prestigious Dutch university.

The motto of Leiden University is Praesidium Libertatis: Bastion of Liberty. The atmosphere of freedom of inquiry that characterized this great institution of learning from its inception in 1575 enabled great philosophers such as Descartes and Spinoza to develop their enlightened ideas—ideas that have transformed the world in which we live. The debt we all owe to the liberal tradition of Leiden and other, similar institutions, is quite high. But what we can do is to attempt to live up to its founding message, so eloquently summarized by a sentence of Spinoza’s: “the highest activity a human being can attain is learning from understanding, because to understand is to be free.”

Today I’d like to share with you some of my thoughts on what it means to learn from understanding—understanding of where we find ourselves, how we got there, and how we can move to a future of greater, more secure freedom in the Europe of the 21^st century.

____

The historical record of the world we inherited teaches us to treasure the nobility of progress, but also to guard against the excesses of revolutions. The tragedies of the 20^th century therefore serve as a constant reminder of the permanent warning that reason offers to passion, but also of the futility of reason in the face of the uncontrolled manifestation of that same passion. These tragedies teach us to stand vigilant watch over the events that shape our destiny, for vigilance is the antidote to passivity—the harbinger of injustice waiting right around the corner, searching for an opportunity to reassert itself once more in the midst of the human condition.

The habit of vigilance that is most often formed during one’s university years leads to engagement with the world—in particular the world of politics. It leads to an understanding of the importance of individual actions, of leadership, in the advancement of responsible political choices. Vigilance teaches you to harness your abilities, better predict consequences, and guard against radical temptations to play to the crowd. For more often than not, the temptation to conduct politics on the basis of the passions produces events that impoverish not only our countries and our cultures, but our individuality as well. This temptation teaches its adherents to narrowly promote the welfare of their own, self-defined community above all others in a way that allows for the slip into extremism to occur all too easily. It does not necessarily lead to violence, but it inevitably leads to mythmaking, to political tension, and thereby prevents the fruits of peace to ripen without fear of destruction.

All this is part of the bequest we share, and it informs the way in which we view ourselves and our historical inheritance. I say all this by way of introduction to the world we live in today. A world with no simple answers and all too many complicated challenges—in a time of global transition and geopolitical earthquakes, economic transformations, social upheavals, and religious revivalism. The global speed of change is unprecedented in recorded human history. But at the end of the day, human beings still remain driven to live in political communities by the bonds of blood or history or sometimes constrained choice. They are still governed by considerations of national interest commingled with hope, aspiration, fear and honor.

This brings me to the main part of my remarks. As a student, in the 1990s, I often thought about Serbia, about the awful predicament my country was then in. We have come a long way since then. We are all witnesses to the achievements of Serbia’s great democratic leap forward. But we have not yet fully gotten ourselves out of the geo-strategic hole dug in the previous decade—a hole dug in large part due to a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of leaders in Serbia and throughout the Western Balkans on the significance of the implosion of communism.

The way forward for all the stakeholders in the future prosperity of the Western Balkans is to work together on consolidating a vision acceptable to all: a just peace rooted in the respect of international law. For peace is not merely the absence of war. It is, as Spinoza wrote, “a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, and justice.” How to secure such a peace is the strategic imperative informing my country’s regional policy approach—an approach leading to the construction of Europe whole, free, and at peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to discuss three pre-requisites to securing such a regional peace—a settlement that relegates to the dustbin of history the destructive passions of the recent past by building a rules-based, legally-sound foundation of understanding that gives each country in the Western Balkans an equal playing field upon which sustainable prosperity can be built for the generations to come.

The first pre-requisite is reconciliation. All the countries of the region—all the nations of the Western Balkans—must commit to genuine reconciliation.

At the heart of this commitment lies full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. For Serbia, there is no dilemma: we are dedicated to locating, arresting, and handing-over the few Hague indictees still at-large. Over the past few years, we have demonstrated our dedication: 42 indictees have been turned over, including four former presidents, one former speaker of parliament, one former prime minister, and three former chiefs of the general staff.

Serbia understands that continuing to fully cooperate with the ICTY is not only our undeniable international obligation; it is our moral duty—to our neighbors and the world, of course, but foremost to ourselves.

It is a moral undertaking designed to demonstrate that we have internalized the values of the Europe we aim to join. Only by breaking with our recent past can true justice be served.

The moral nature of reconciliation is central to building a better Balkans, for it provides a framework through which the crimes of individuals who falsely acted in the name of their nation are to be understood. Reconciliation corrects a twisted view of the other side—a view that to some extent continues to permeate the cultures of all the nations of the Western Balkans. The view that teaches that an eye for an eye is a legitimate form of conduct against one’s neighbour in times of discontent. Reconciliation is meant, therefore, to teach our children that all others have as much a right to live and work and be happy as oneself.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The second pre-requisite to securing peace in the Western Balkans is a clear roadmap to full membership in the European Union for the entire region.

I strongly believe this could become the democratic glue that would bind the region’s countries to one another as never before in our tumultuous history. So we can rise up together, and succeed together.

Why together? It has to do with the particularity of the Western Balkans. Historically, the success of one nation, of one country, is accompanied by the envy of others. The passions stir up. So the way to prevent the return of uncontrolled passion in the Balkans is for the entire region to succeed at the same time.

Think back to the EU Thessaloniki Summit of 2003 and the sense of regional purpose we all felt then. The Western Balkans was at the center of European attention. No distinctions were made. We were all given a powerful pointer in the right direction. But the opportunity was not seized by all: the visionary words spoken—and the commitments made—did not translate into implementable policies.

Simply stated, after Thessaloniki, the necessary consolidation of an atmosphere of imminent belonging to Europe did not take place. Tangible benefits were not felt.

In fact, what we have now is a bureaucratic checklist designed to measure the incremental steps of progress toward membership.

Something is lacking: Today’s democratic decisions in our countries are still hostage to a future with no clear European deadline. The way forward lies in harnessing the visionary potential of the European project by offering immediate candidate status to all the countries of the Western Balkans.

To offer immediate candidacy to the entire region does not mean providing a short-cut to membership, but rather a re-shuffling of the accession deck of cards characterized by enhanced, hands-on engagement with our region.

Putting such an offer on the Balkan table would fundamentally transform the political debate throughout the region. Our democracies would be fully consolidated. The point of no reversal would finally be traversed.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The third pre-requisite to securing peace in the Western Balkans consists in overcoming the current impasse in the efforts to arrive at a truly European solution to the future status of Kosovo and Metohija.

Let me outline what I mean by a European solution before turning to the precise nature of the impasse we find ourselves in.

A European solution is one that advances the cause of Europe in all the Western Balkans. It is a solution that leaves all the region’s inhabitants better off than they are now. It is a solution that firmly roots itself in the interwoven fabric of European values such as democracy, rule of law, human and minority rights, and toleration of differences—values that are put into practice through the implementation of bold, imaginative political steps achieved with vision, patience, dialogue, compromise, concession, and consensus-building.

That is how the European Union became the political form that best secures equality, inclusiveness, pluralism and prosperity. By working together to solve Kosovo’s future status in a European manner, on the basis of European values, and using European ways of problem solving, we can create, at long last, a European solution to Kosovo’s future status and save democracy in the Western Balkans.

Such a solution is within our grasp: for as President Tadic of Serbia recently put it, the European principle of subsidiarity provides the solution to the age-old tension between the communal and the sovereign.

And yet, we have come to an impasse. The reason has to do with the imposition of hard deadlines on the negotiations process. Let me tell you why.

Imposing artificial deadlines on negotiations undermines the view that there is nothing more important than reaching an agreement acceptable to all.

The reason is elementary. As you know, December 10^th has been set as a deadline. And some key participants in the process are telling Belgrade and Pristina that Kosovo’s independence will be imposed if no agreement is reached by then—a very un-European course of action leading to an outcome that is really no solution at all. For it promotes the interests of one side: the Kosovo Albanians. Put yourself in their shoes: with a set deadline and a default position that fulfils its maximalist demands, what incentive does Pristina have to negotiate in good faith? Why not just sit back, appear engaged, and simply wait out the clock?

The way out of this looming crisis lies in viewing the December 10^th deadline as a marker for assessing progress, and nothing more. By re-defining the significance of this date, the impasse will have been overcome. For an environment would be created—for the first time—in which an historical settlement can be crafted. It is the only way to avoid freezing this conflict—the only way to prevent creating a victor and a vanquished in a region where the loser spends the next generation plotting revenge on the winner. It’s the only way to overcome the spiral of violence, and to once and for all bring Serbs and Albanians together under the banner of Europe.

____

Notwithstanding the impasse created by the December 10^th deadline, Serbia has continued to pro-actively engage in the negotiation process. We believe that a European solution to Kosovo’s future status lies in constructing a uniquely crafted partnership for the future under one common sovereign roof. An edifice so constructed could have more than one entrance, but as I’m sure you understand, a common sovereign roof can’t be built over two separate buildings.

That is why Serbia has offered institutionally unrestrained autonomy—extraordinarily broad powers of self-governance—to the Kosovo Albanians, that at the same time preserves our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to end my remarks by a brief discussion of why imposing independence would fatally undermine the legal foundation of the international system as we know it.

The international system is predicated on the observance of a set of rules—rules meant to maintain predictability of action: the foundation of international stability. One of the most important set of rules—the bedrock upon which everything else has been built since 1945—is the United Nations Charter. And in Europe, the UN Charter has been augmented by the Helsinki Final Act. Both explicitly reaffirm the inviolability of internationally-recognized borders, while making reference to self-determination that cannot in good conscience be transformed into a right of secession.

Having this in mind, it follows that recognizing Kosovo’s independence against the will of Serbia would mean recognizing the legitimacy of its forcible partition. And that would set an immediate precedent, for it would mean recognizing the legitimacy of partitioning any country against its will. And, even worse, it would mean that something like this could be done by circumventing the Security Council—for the Security Council won’t verify Kosovo’s independence.

The forcible partition of an internationally-recognized state—a blatant violation of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act—would, it is safe to say, clearly pose a fundamental danger to the international system itself, and to relations between states around the world.

I think you will all agree that the price to pay for imposing a maximalist solution to an ethnic conflict in Europe is much too high. We must do what is necessary to prevent the onset of such a dangerous precedent that makes everyone worse off than they are today.

It’s no longer just an issue of securing peace in the Western Balkans. It’s about preserving the international system as we have known it since 1945. And it’s about preventing the potential declarations of independence of dozens of other breakaway regions throughout the world in the time to come.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have made reference to Spinoza—the first philosopher to argue that democracy is the best form of government—twice already. And by way of a conclusion I would like to make use of his words a third time. “There is no hope unmingled with fear,” he said, “and no fear unmingled with hope.” This is particularly true in the Western Balkans. That is why for us especially, a European solution can act as the adhesive that fastens fear to hope, together with courage, reason, and passion, into a democratic whole that secures our future once and for all—a European future, a future free of strife and conflict, division and mistrust, hatred and misery.

Anything less would set us back yet another generation, creating an even greater chasm between the Balkans and the European Union. Let us find the will to forge a European solution that advances the regional accession prospects of the entire region. A solution that promotes the consolidation of democratic values and institutions. A solution that advances the economic transformation of the Western Balkans, the security architecture of all of Europe, and the stability of the international system.

Thank you for your attention.

Remarks to the Belgrade Conference of

Schools of Political Studies of the Council of Europe

by H.E. Mr. Vuk Jeremić

Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia

Belgrade

3 November 2007

Mrs. Licht,

Director General Laurens,

Ambassador Veijalainen,

Dear Graduates,

Honored Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very pleased by the fact that the six-month Serbian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has included this conference as a part of its myriad activities.

The theme of this conference is regional cooperation and its opportunities and challenges. As you know, this theme is one of the priorities of the Serbian Chairmanship. Formed under the umbrella of advancing the core values of Europe—to which I will turn in a moment—regional groupings tend to be oriented towards the advancement of tangible political, economic, cultural and security interests. They enable its members to strengthen cross-border cooperation while at the same time help to promote better understanding among the nations concerned. In Southeast Europe, regional groupings have at least two additional benefits. They contribute to the process of reconciliation, and they further encourage the region’s accession drive to the European Union.

Why is EU membership so vital to the future prosperity of Southeast Europe? Of course, the material benefits are crucial. But I do not wish to dwell on them, because they are very well known to all of us. For Serbia and the rest of Southeast Europe, I believe that the true attraction lies in the recognition that internalizing the “grand idea of Europe” is of crucial civilizational importance. Let us turn to the historical record for a moment. The bedrock belief that democracy is interdependent with individual liberty, the rule of law, and human rights came to light in the post-war reconciliation between France and Germany, and, more broadly, in the reconciliation of all European nations and states with one another. From its inception, joining the institutions of Europe has in effect meant renouncing war as a tool of statecraft in the European space. That is why Europe is so aptly termed the reconciler of nations.

In post-conflict and post-communist societies such as Southeast Europe, the march toward European integration enables all the region’s countries to implement true, genuine reconciliation.

Reconciliation is both an end in itself, and an instrument for the achievement of something more.

It is an end in itself because it corrects a twisted, false view of the other side—a view that to some extent continues to permeate the cultures of all the nations of Southeast Europe.

This view teaches that an eye for an eye is a legitimate form of conduct against one’s neighbours in times of discontent. Reconciliation is meant, therefore, to teach our children that all others have as much a right to live and work and be happy as oneself.

It is also a moral undertaking whose completion will be a clear-cut demonstration that we have internalized the “grand idea of Europe”—this progressive constellation of values that constitute the foundation of the Europe we aim to join. Additionally, reconciliation is about telling the truth—the unadorned, factual, horrible truth of the bloodshed that must never return to our lands.

At the heart of this commitment lies full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. For Serbia, there is no dilemma: we are dedicated to locating, arresting, and handing-over the few Hague indictees still at-large.

Lastly, reconciliation empowers us to have confidence in the safety of building networks of democratic transitional experience—so that we can all get to the future faster. The sixteen schools of Political Studies gathered under the auspices of the Council of Europe play an important role in strengthening the ties that are binding us to one another as never before in the tumultuous history of this region and beyond. Allow me to single out the leadership of Mrs. Sonja Licht and the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence in advancing regional reconciliation and education efforts. We all owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you very much.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Southeast Europe has accomplished much over the past few years. We are all witnesses to the achievements of the region’s democratic leap forward. Yet one major obstacle remains to the consolidation of our gains. That obstacle is the future status of Kosovo. For the past few months, Belgrade and Pristina have been engaged in a process, facilitated by the Contact Group Troika, meant to determine what it will be. How future status is resolved will determine the course of Southeast Europe.

____

We are at a crossroads. Should the status process lead to a negotiated solution that enhances the region’s EU prospects, or should it promote an outcome that sides with the nationalist pretensions of one side? Will the region become part of the European solution, or remain a Balkan problem? Do we push for a compromise solution rooted in the values of Europe, or do we favour an outcome that rewards a maximalist approach founded on an implicit threat of violence? Do we re-embrace the exclusionary past or boldly build toward a common future?

If we do it right, Serbia will succeed. And if we succeed, the rest of the Western Balkans is virtually guaranteed to be propelled forward.

The question then becomes, how exactly do we solve Kosovo’s future status? What is, in other words, the framework of the settlement?

It’s pretty straightforward. The settlement must fully conform to the principles of international law enshrined in documents such as the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. The settlement must also recognize the legitimate right of Kosovo’s Albanian community to autonomously administer their own affairs.

This is why Serbia is committed to extending extraordinarily broad powers of self-governance to the Kosovo Albanians. We offer institutionally unrestrained autonomy that at the same time preserves our territorial integrity.

In short, Belgrade proposes to Pristina a uniquely crafted partnership for the future under one common sovereign roof. An edifice so constructed could have more than one entrance, but as I’m sure you understand, a common sovereign roof can’t be built over two separate buildings.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Regrettably, too little progress in the negotiations has been made so far. The reason is not difficult to understand. The Troika has set December 10^th as a deadline for the successful completion of the talks. And some key participants in the process are telling both sides that Kosovo’s independence will be imposed on the parties if no agreement is reached by then—a very un-European course of action.

Unfortunately, it happens to be music to the ears of the Pristina negotiators. With a set deadline and a default position that fulfills their maximalist demands, what incentive do they have to negotiate in good faith? Why not just sit back, appear engaged, and simply wait out the clock?

The way out of this looming crisis lies in not imposing hard deadlines on the negotiation process. By viewing the December 10^th deadline as a marker for assessing progress—and by embracing the view that there is nothing more important than reaching an agreement acceptable to all—we would create, for the first time, an environment in which an historical settlement can be crafted. It’s the only way to avoid freezing this conflict—the only way to prevent creating a victor and a vanquished in a region where the loser spends the next generation plotting revenge on the winner. It’s the only way to overcome the spiral of violence, and to once and for all bring Serbs and Albanians together under the banner of Europe—the reconciler of nations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The clear task before all the parties to the Kosovo challenge is to work together and build an edifice of regional peace on a solid, European foundation—a foundation constructed with the contemporary tools of trust and cooperation, patience and compromise, consensus and creativity.

This is the opportunity before us—the opportunity to live together in peace, security and prosperity.

The challenge is making proper use of the courage of our convictions—convictions rooted in the values of Europe—instead of giving into the nationalist passions that have brought so much misery to this continent.

I believe we can succeed, because I believe in the power of the values of Europe to overcome hatred, division and mistrust. We must succeed, because none of us want this region to turn its back on the future that beckons. We must believe that when justice and force compete in the Europe of the 21^st century, justice wins out. We must believe success is possible because we have all lived through the consequences of the victory of force. And none of us want our country and the region to return to the darkness of the 1990s.

Thank you very much for your attention.