INTERVIEW OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC TO THE WASHINGTON POST
BELGRADE - December 16, 1998

“My duty is to protect the interests of my people and my country”

 

The President of Yugoslavia answered 233 questions in a very dynamic two-hour conversation with the American journalist.

- We do not have a problem with any national community, and there is 26 of them, except with a part of Albanian national community in Kosovo, those who are engaged in a separatist movement. The nature of this movement Nazi.

- We shall never give away Kosovo.

- If we were to apply the rules according to which Krstic was arrested, half of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be arrested and sent to The Hague.

- The Serbs are the victims of the latest holocaust in this century. I think that we can have good relations with Germans. I think that Germany is through with Nazism. They are no longer a Nazi country. They are a developed country, with developed democracy.

- We considered that Yugoslavia was a good solution for the national interest of the Serbs, because in the former Yugoslavia all Serbs lived in one state.

- Albania is a factor of instability of the entire region.

- Albanian nacro-mafia gives money to foreign journalists and politicians for the media war against us and that money is blood money, paid by the lives of young people from Western Europe, America and Canada.

- But if America really wants to accelerate the process of economic reconstruction, democratization and everything else they scream about, it should lift all sanctions.

- USA believes it can resolve everything by force and that is the weakness of many great powers that perished in the past.

- The Balkans people should have a common goal - to live in peace and affluence and not in poverty and war.

- We do not arrange our country in line with the interests of others, but according to our interests.

- The right to truth is one of the principles of freedom.

- When national interests are at stake, there is no difference between the authorities and the opposition.

Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic talked with Elizabeth Weymouth the editor of the Washington Post.

This two-hour conversation referred primarily to the issues of Kosovo and Metohija as well as to relations between Yugoslavia and the United States of America, civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, freedom of information in our country, University law, International War Crimes Tribunal, relations in the Yugoslav federation, Yugoslav Constitution, reasons for break up of former Yugoslavia, President Milosevic's family, almost everything that the American journalist wanted to ask.

How interesting was this conversation proves the fact that the Washington Post journalist asked 233 questions in a very dynamic tone.

The Politika presents hereunder the translation of the taped record of this conversation in the sequence it was led, without the systematisation of individual topics:

Question: Is there anything in particular that you want to say to the Western public?

- The entire western story of the Yugoslav crisis is false, particularly on Serbia. I think that this is the failure of journalism, moral failure of journalism. Western story is far from truth. It can be said that many things presented to the foreign public about this country are simply not true. I therefore hope that your visit will contribute to a true picture.

Q: What do you think about James Rubin's statement of last week?

- There were several statements.

Q: I think he said that you are "the problem"? What do you think about that? Do you have any response?

- My duty is to protect the interest of my people and my country. If anyone has a problem with that, I can only tell you that I am proud of my role in defending and protecting the interests of my country and of my people.

Q: Do you think that the US changed its policy? There were some rumours on the CNN last week, that the US changed its policy and that now they are trying to oust you? Do you believe that?

- This is not a question of a personal position of any individual. This is a question of a political approach to the problems in Yugoslavia and the problems in Kosmet. We consider Kosmet our internal affair and believe that this problem can be resolved only by agreement between the representatives of different national communities living there. I firmly believe that the problem cannot be resolved by outside solutions. People who live there should arrive at an agreement.

Q: So you are saying that you will not accept the US plan, as presented by Ambassador Hill?

- Each initiative directed at peaceful resolution is welcome as an initiative that can be taken into account. This is one side to it. But essentially, the problems in this country have to be resolved by people living in this country.

 

Q: As far as I understand, the problem is that the people from Kosovo, namely the Albanians living in Kosovo, who are the predominant population, seek independence. The Serbs in Serbia wish to keep Kosovo as a part of Serbia. Is compromise possible and if so, is Ambassador Hill's plan a possible compromise? What extent of autonomy will you give to the people of Kosovo?

- That question is not understood by many outside this country.

Q: You mean, it is not well understood between you and Holbrooke?

- Kosmet is primarily, a part of Serbia, which has always been a part of Serbia. Always, throughout history, for centuries.

Q: Always has been and always will be?

- Always has been and of course always will be. Why would it be any different in the future. Only in Kosmet, there are 1800 Serb, Christian churches, on Weber's list, a famous ecologist. This is where different national communities live - Serbs and Montenegrins, Albanians, Muslims, Egyptians, Romanies, Turks. The approach of the Serb Government and all political parties and citizens of Serbia is that nationalities living there have to be equal. So, when we speak of the solution to the problem of Kosovo...

Q: You mean, you and Holbrooke?

-No, I do not mean only Holbrooke and me. Whenever we spoke with Holbrooke and Hill, with any foreign representatives and among ourselves, in general, we always thought that the problems can be resolved only on the basis of the principle of equality of all citizens living in Kosmet and all national communities living in Kosmet. So, if any national community, Albanian, Turkish, Muslim or any other, wishes to have self-governance - there are not limitations in that.

Q: You mean independence?

- Not independence. Self-governance of national communities within limits.

Q: Is that appropriate?

-Absolutely. And if there are some limits, those are the rights of other national communities living in Kosmet. So, no national community living in Kosovo, among those I mentioned, cannot rule over the others. All national communities have to be equal. They have to have equal rights.

Q: OK, but I see it like this. You probably know more but I understand that the KLA, as we call it, is much stronger than other Albanian forces, and that moderate forces lose power. The question is whether the cease-fire will hold. And, on the long term basis, the question is how will you come up with an arrangement that will satisfy the local Albanians - great number of Albanians living there who wish independence. On the other hand, the Serb people wish to keep Kosovo within Serbia. Will you give them actual autonomy, the possibility to run their lives, their legislation, possibility to administer their towns as the Israeli gave the Palestinians the right to administer the towns on the West Bank?

- This is different from the Palestinian question. Simply, we never discussed, including in our talks with the representatives of the international community, Holbrooke and the others, any kind of independence. Independence implies the secession of a part of Serbia. Disintegration of Serbia. No one in Serbia can agree with secession of any part of its country.

Q: I understand. But the question is what level of autonomy would you accept within Serbia?

- I tried to explain to you that each national community living in Kosovo can have autonomy, in questions that concern them.

Q: Do you think that it would satisfy Albanians?

- It will not satisfy Albanians who seek independence. This is clear. We have no illusions about that. But it is a kind of compromise, which means that they can have their autonomy within Albanian community. But the same kind of self-governance has to be enabled to Muslims, Turks and others living in Kosovo and Metohija. So, all of them have to be treated equally. This is the difference. We never spoke of any possibility of independence of Albanians. In order to understand the situation in our country, you have to appreciate one fact - there are 26 different national communities in Serbia. All of them are equal. Look, for example, at the Hungarians in the north. They are quite well integrated in Serbia. They have their own schools in Hungarian, their publishing houses, radio and TV programmes, papers, practically everything. We have no problems with them. No problems with Slovaks, Bulgarians, Ruthenians and others. The problem in Kosmet was not a problem with Albanian national minority as a whole. Albanians are good people and one of equal national minorities in Serbia. The problem in Kosmet is a problem of a separatist movement of one part of Albanian national minority. One part of Albanian national minority in Kosmet is manipulated by groups of Albanian politicians, who are Nazis. I will tell you why they are Nazis. Because their proclaimed goal is an ethnically pure state. I do not know if there is any ethnically pure state anywhere in Europe.

Q: It is strange coming from you, because we in America are under the impression that that was the goal of Bosnian Serbs when they were killing in Bosnia.

- There was a civil war in Bosnia between the Muslims, Serbs and Croats. No one in Bosnia pursued a goal of an ethnically pure Bosnia. It would simply be impossible. But now that you mention Bosnia, the case of Bosnia was resolved in Dayton only because the formula was reached to equally protect the interests of all three peoples living there. That was our approach since the beginning of the crisis in Bosnia. You can see the papers from that period and see that. Since the beginning of crisis in Bosnia, our approach was that there is only one formula which can bring peace, and that is the formula which will equally protect the interests of all three peoples - Serbs, Muslims and Croats. So, that was achieved in Dayton. Now, the Serbs have their institutions, the Croats and Bosniaks have theirs and they can live together. That is no longer a problem.

Q: But allegedly there was a connection between your Government and Bosnian Serbs, wasn't there?

- What connection?

Q: Allegedly, according to our Government, there was a strong connection between Bosnian Serbs and your Government.

- Between the Serbs in Serbia and the Serbs in Bosnia.

Q: Right.

- Is it not normal and logical that there are connections between the Serbs from both sides of one river. They lived in one country - former Yugoslavia. All the time. Why would those connections be strange?

 

“Only civilians were innocent who suffered the consequences of the horrors of war”

 

 Q: But, if the Serbs in Bosnia killed many people, than you can see the problem in the picture that the West has about you.

- In the war in Bosnia, the Muslims killed Serbs and Croats, Croats killed Muslims and Serbs, Serbs killed Muslims and Croats. It was a civil war. No one was innocent there. No side was innocent. Only civilians were innocent who suffered the consequences of the horrors of war.

Q: Did you read an article from the New York Times a week ago, in which it is said that you fired Chief of General Staff and Chief of the State Security. The journalist who wrote that said that you were losing power, that your power is being weakened and that you never give interviews, which I am sure is not true.

- I gave a lot of interviews.

Q: But what do you think about her analysis?

- It is not good that she is not treating this country as all other countries in the world, the USA for example. How many Chiefs of General Staff changed in your country in the past 5 years. We changed one and you changed there - Powell, Shalikashvili and now Shelton. It is normal in any democratic country. Why should it be normal for Yugoslavia too?

Q. I suppose what she said in her article, I am not sure, that you fired several high ranking officials at the same time - Chief of General Staff, Chief of the State Security. Allegedly, there was a disagreement between you and the Chief of General Staff. Is that true?

- No, it was a regular change.

Q: But, changes in both cases. They say that you disagreed over Kosovo?

- I did not see any major disagreement with my associates over Kosovo.

Q: But the former Chief of General Staff said that firing was illegal. He made a statement in the press. Do you remember?

- Yes, I remember. Everyone who is fired has a right to be angry. It was a regular change and that is all. It cannot be said that it is illegal. It is my constitutional right as of any other president in the world.

Q: What is your reply to the general position of this journalist, who said that in the beginning you had a big country, and now Bosnia and Croatia left. She says that your power is diminishing. Is she right?

- She is absolutely not right.

Q: When I was in Russia, the Russians told me that she was not right.

- Of course, I was the President of Serbia and Serbia is the same as before. For the past year and a half I am President of Yugoslavia which was created in 1992. So, we did not change our country. She is not dealing with the facts. She only uses limited facts inappropriately. Let us go back to the explanation of the problem.

First of all, it is clear that we do not have a problem with any national community, and there is 26 of them, except with a part of Albanian national community in Kosovo, those who are engaged in a separatist movement. The problem is the drive for secession of Kosovo from Serbia and its unification with Albania. That is why I said that the nature of this movement Nazi. Because of its publicly proclaimed goal - ethnically pure state. That cannot be a goal of any democracy. There is another historical continuity with what had happened in the Second World War. In that war, Mussolini, a fascist leader of Italy, created the so called Greater Albania and placed within this so called Greater Albania parts of Kosmet, a part of Macedonia and a part of Greece. Only in two years of the war, a part of Kosmet was part of Greater Albania. Never before in the history and never after that. So, the separatist movement in Kosmet is the continuation of Mussolini's ideas from the Second World War. This is yet another proof of the Nazi nature of this movement. Our approach is totally opposite. We believe that people should live together regardless of their national origin. And if anyone should understand that, you Americans should. You live in a country with many Americans of different origin. You live together. And no one is trying to separate a part of the USA and create from it an ethnically pure state.

Q: But, I spoke to one American, who was in Kosovo, an American official. He said that in the past few years two different systems were created in Kosovo. In one system, Albanians send their children to their schools and the other system is for the Serbs. The conclusion is that those two groups inevitably have to collide. Do you think he was right?

- He was not right.

Q: Why?

- There was some sort of a parallel system created by the separatist movement. But that was marginal. In most parts of Kosmet Albanian children go to schools normally. All the time. In other public institutions, for example, health-care institutions, hospitals and other institutions. Albanians are present there. I would like you to understand that the problem in Kosmet is the problem of a separatist movement, not of Albanians in general. We make a clear distinction between them and Albanians as a people, who are our citizens with all their rights, we do not want them to be second-rate citizens. We want them to be equal citizens of this country. That is the difference between them and the bandit groups who killed, raped, kidnapped and undertook all terrorist activities.

Q: Do you think that you can reach an agreement with Rugova?

- I think we can.

Q: Have you ever talked to him?

- I did. Once.

Q: When?

- In May. Then we started some kind of a dialogue.

Q: And how was it?

- The dialogue was stopped by terrorist attacks which were followed by anti-terrorist police activity, which were totally legal. You cannot imagine how many people were abducted, totally innocent people. For example, a miner, they took a miner to the woods. Many have not been heard from. Some have been killed.

Q: OK. Let's say this is all true. But you still have to find a solution for Kosmet. Are you willing to accept the American plan?

- I cannot talk about that plan in detail. But its major shortcoming is that the plan is favouring Albanians. Our approach is different. We think that no national community in Kosmet should be favoured. Each national community in Kosmet has to be equal with other national communities.

 

Q: Let's say you are right. Are you willing to withdraw your police and stop being so aggressive in Kosovo?

-Police is Kosmet has not been aggressive at all.

Q: That's what the USA said. I do not know, I have never been in Kosmet.

- Police in Kosmet protects the citizens of Kosmet. The victims of terrorists are Albanians, not only Serbs. Police protected citizens, not Serbs. It means, the Serbs, Albanians, Turks, Romanies, all citizens.

Q: OK, let's suppose they are terrorists.

 

“They Are Terrorists”

- They are terrorists.

Q: OK, but still there is a problem. You have your army there.

- As any other country in its territory. Where is your army in your country?

Q: But haven't you and Mr. Holbrooke agreed to keep only a limited number of soldiers?

- Those soldiers that had been there before the onset of the conflict and crisis, and the police at the level before, which means 10,021 police officers. That is the situation in Kosmet. Since the agreement between me and Holbrooke there has been no action by the police except when they were directly attacked by terrorists. You have to understand that the terrorists are defeated. They are no longer a military factor in Kosmet.

Q: Really?

- But in a certain way they are a danger to security. Because of the simple fact that they may, in groups that they currently have, kill someone from ambush.

Q: Do you think that Mr. Hills' approach leads to independence? Are you afraid of that?

- I would not go that far. He has a good will to arrive at a good solution, but that is the subject of talks between the State delegation. Therefore they take one step at a time in good direction. I expect that the principle of equality of national communities be respected. This is the only way to calm the situation in Kosmet. How can Kosmet be calm if more than 600.000 residents should feel like second-rate citizens, and only Albanians should be granted rights. This is not possible. This is one of the things that are totally differently represented in the international press. I even saw in the international press that 90 % of Albanians live in Kosmet and 10 % of others.

Q: That is true.

-That is not true.

Q: What is true?

- I will tell you what is true. First of all, there are 240,000 Serbs and Montenegrins. More than 150,000 Muslims. More than 150,000 Romanies and Egyptians, Turkish national minority numbering 40-50 thousand. If we add the Albanians and their parties who participate in the joint Agreement, that is more than half of Kosmet population. We estimate that there is 800,000 Albanians in Kosmet. Hill will perhaps say 900,000. OK, we are not going to argue about that. What is our reply: to conduct a census under OSCE monitoring. What is more fair than to conduct a census, to establish accurate figures. Despite that, even if he were right about the 900 thousand figure, a the 600 figure is a fact, this is a 1:1.2 proportion not 1:1.9 which is a widely held view in the international community, which is not correct. All national communities have to be equal, that is the key for Kosmet. You should understand an essential fact. If national communities, like Turks for example, who are the smallest national community, between 40-50 thousand, are not equal with others, what is their position going to be. They have their papers, their radio and TV program, their schools in Turkish, etc. Why would they be second-rate citizens in an autonomous province ruled by Albanians? Joint agreement, reached by all national communities and ethnic groups and parties has a formula that there shall be an Assembly of Kosmet which will have two chambers: the chamber of citizens - one citizen, one vote, and the chamber of national communities in which each national community should be represented by its delegation which will be equal to others. Then, they can make all their decisions, respecting the interests of each national community in Kosmet. That is a fair formula, which is good and which guarantees equality of all living there. In such situation, the Serbs cannot be masters of Albanians. But if the Albanians do not agree, the decision cannot be made. But Albanians cannot be masters of Serbs or Turks or Muslims. All of them have an equal right to live there.

Q: What about University?

- What is the problem there?

Q. People abroad say, and that is bad for your image, that you cracked down on University, on the press.

- These are total fabrications. The changes of the Law on University included the abolition of self-management in the University, which we once had as a system. No more self-government, so there can be no self-government in the University either.

Q: What do you mean there is no more self-government?

- We used to have self-government as a system in former Yugoslavia. You don't know that. The system could no longer stay only in the University. The state universities financed by the Government, all buildings and their equipment belong to the State and all professors receive salaries from the State. Who should then appoint the members of the Executive Board. The Government, of course, and that is all there is to it.

Q: I have a question from another area. I am interested in something else. For two days that I have been here, I could see how seriously people take the question of Kosovo. I wonder id you, as we in America say, have made a reasonable deal regarding Kosovo, regarding Interim arrangements. Will you meet resistance in your own country? From people who wish to keep Kosovo. Do you understand what I am saying?

- I suppose that you talk about a reasonable solution.

Q: No, whether you will from the political point of view be faced with resistance. If I were in New York, it would have not occurred to me at all. But here people sing songs about Kosovo. We in America cannot understand that. We think that you are acting irrationally. People talk about Kosovo all the time...

- It is logical that you in America cannot understand everything in Serbia. We in Serbia do not understand everything in America.

Q: No, I just wanted you to answer this question. Give me a straight answer. Would it be difficult, in case a reasonable solution is reached regarding Kosovo, would you be facing a lot of political resistance in your country, because emotions are running high regarding Kosovo.

- No one in Serbia would accept, and that is totally true, that Kosovo be outside Serbia.

Q: I understand that, but would you accept a reasonable deal?

- Autonomy on the basis of equal treatment of all national communities.

Q: Am I right that these are strong emotions that you will have to ...

- I think that everybody will accept a just solution in Kosmet. The one that will equally protect the rights of all national communities. We do not have such kind of fascists here.

Q: I didn't say they were fascists. I thought it was somewhat similar to Jerusalem, since this is an important city, emotionally.

- Kosovo is important for us emotionally. As a part of this country, this is the heart of the country. We shall never give away Kosovo.

Q: I understand that now.

- Do you know that geographically, the region is called Kosovo and Metohija. Do you know what the word Metohija means? This is a Greek word and it means "church property", something that belongs to the church. So half of Kosmet is the land that belonged to the Serb Orthodox Church. For every Serb, Kosovo is the heart of Serbia. I have already told you that Weber made a list of 1800 churches in Kosmet of international heritage. We come from there. How can anyone say: let's take this part of Serbia and give it to the Albanians to play with it. It is out of the question.

Q: If it is not like in Israel, we will never give Western Bank because Hebron is there, and it is very important for the Jews. But it is more important to reach a compromise and keep the city.

- It is a big difference, because of historical reasons. Kosmet was never a part of Albania. We did not commit invasion on the Northern part of Albania. Albanians who went there over the mountains may freely stay there. That is all right, but they cannot take a part of territory with them. Take for example the situation in Texas. You have a huge Mexican population there. What would happen if they were to say that they want to take a part of Texas and unite it with Mexico because they are majority there. Would you allow that? It is not the question of human rights and question of democracy. This is a question of separatism, separatist movement. This is an entirely different thing. It has nothing to do with democracy, with human rights. It has to do with separatism and separatist movement, which uses terrorism as means to an end. That is why we had to respond to terrorism and stop it. Nothing else.

Q: Is it the same as PKK in Turkey? This is a separatist Kurdish Movement.

- You can see that in Northern Ireland, on Corsica, Basque in Spain. As opposed to Northern Ireland, we did not occupy northern Albania. Kosovo is a part of Serbia.

Q: General Krstic who was recently arrested - is it true that you assisted in some way in his arrest and what is your reaction?

- I think that it is very bad.

Q: I heard that you were very forthcoming.

- We have nothing to do with his arrest and we believe that it does not contribute to the normalisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was an active general in RS and was arrested in the street by SFOR. This is not all right. Such secret indictments do not help the normalisation of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly in view of the fact that on any side -Serb, Muslim or Croatian you can find people who participated in the war, who commanded the troops, who were active and you could arrest them. If we were to apply the rules according to which Krstic was arrested, half of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be arrested and sent to The Hague. But the war is over.

Q: The State Department claims that you provide protection for 4-7 people - Serbs, who played a crucial role in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

- That was not in Bosnia, that was in Croatia.

Q: But they say that Mladic is here.

- No, that is not true. Mladic is not here.

Q: But aren't there any people that you could turn to the Tribunal?

- I would like to explain something to you. If the wars in Bosnia and Croatia are over, and if there is no one else to convict except the generals of the former JNA, who were in Croatia when something happened there, how can you simply say, OK, take these people. This is strictly prohibited by our Constitution. By the Constitution, not the law. We cannot extradite our citizens. I do not know where they are. I think that one of those three is not a citizen of Yugoslavia. Two are citizens of Yugoslavia. We never intended to arrest them and turn them over to the Tribunal. There has never been any evidence that they are guilty. Our Ministry of Justice asked the Tribunal to provide evidence on their alleged crimes. They did not get any evidence. If you want to talk about that, you have to have evidence. If there had been any evidence, they would have been arrested and tried here. We had trials for war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But our citizens were tried in our state courts, in Sabac, on the basis of our law. War crimes are crimes under our law.

Q: I think that the idea of the Tribunal is to have them tried in the International Tribunal, not here. Do you have any interest in protecting them? Isn't that one of the conditions for the lifting of economic sanctions. What wouldn't you turn them in then?

- We consider that this Tribunal is not treating Serbs equally as others, that is a matter of principle. They accused primarily Serbs for all that happened there. This was a part of a distorted picture of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. Dayton is the best proof that it is not true. We were accused of aggression in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After Dayton, it became clear that Yugoslavia did not commit aggression. That is confirmed by the creation of Republika Srpska in which Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina live, not from Yugoslavia. Even today they live in Republika Srpska, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q: You are talking about Mladic and Karadzic.

- All of them, 1.2 million Serbs in Republika Srpska, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were in a civil war with the Muslims and Croats. That was not an invasion of Yugoslavia against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q: But you assisted them, you armed them, right?

- They were armed. All of them were armed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course, we helped them. How can we not help our people?

Q: But the fact is that the Bosnians were not armed, not in the beginning.

- They were armed in the beginning and in the end. Everybody was armed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. How could they start the war if they were not armed?

Q: But the Bosnia's were no match for the Serbs, in the beginning.

- It is true that they were not so strong, the Serbs have always been good warriors in history.

Q: But why didn't you call the fight off, but let it turn into thousands and thousands of victims?

- This is something that you do not understand. Serbia did not take part in this war, so it had nothing to call off. All the time Serbia advocated peace.

Q: Do you have any regrets?

- Ever since the beginning we advocated a peaceful solution. Our approach is that they should alone find a solution that would equally protect the interests of all three peoples.

Q: But you are a very powerful man. People say that you could have stopped it.

- We did everything to stop it.

Q: But you really could have stopped it.

- I am a modest man, but I have to tell you: if Serbia was not so engaged and if I had not been so engaged in the search of a peaceful solution, Dayton wouldn't have been possible.

Q: I am sure that's true.

- That was done with great efforts on our side. And it is clear to anyone.

Q: They are talking about an interim arrangement for Kosmet. They say that you had a very good relationship with Richard Holbrooke. Was that interim arrangement reached within 9 days because you and Richard Holbrooke have a good relationship or because you were afraid of NATO air strikes?

- No, we were not afraid of NATO air strikes. We had to preserve the unity of the country at any cost. But we were for a peaceful solution all the time. Perhaps you do not know, but our State delegation went to Kosovo before Holbrooke came, 14 times waiting for Albanians to arrive and negotiations to start. They came once, and after that they were called to the USA for some talks. When they came back, terrorist activities intensified. So, they stopped the dialogue for reasons they never explained in Serbia. Perhaps their interlocutors in USA know those reasons.

Q: Are you ready to continue dialogue with Mr. Holbrooke?

- I believe that we have achieved a very important goal and the agreement to reach the problems peacefully. Now we need a dialogue between representatives of all national communities living in Kosmet. It is up to them to now define joint platform for common life. Nobody else can do it for them. They have to do it alone.

“We have market economy”

 

Q: I know that your economic situation is difficult, that you are hard up for cash, that you do not have market economy. What are you going to do? You have sanctions again.

- Allow me to correct you. First of all, we have market economy. Our entire economic concept is based on market economy. Second, sanctions caused great harm to us in 1992. When they were introduced it was nothing tragic. In 1993, additional sanctions were introduced which totally isolated Yugoslavia in all respects. In 1993 the situation was really difficult. GNP fell and we had a high inflation rate. Extremely high inflation rate. In view of this, we decided to make our own economic programme to get rid of those negative tendencies. In the end of 1993, we completed our economic programme and started to implement it in the beginning of 1994, which was, despite the sanctions, the first year with positive growth rate of GNP. 1995 was even better, 1996 better still and 1997 and 1998 better still. So, in the past five years we have had positive tendencies. We shall continue with positive tendencies despite the sanctions. Of course, if there were no sanctions, the tendencies would be radically better. We had a rise in GNP, 5 %, 6 %, 7 % and this year 4 %. Throughout the five years since 1994 every year we had growth. We have the problems caused by the sanctions. Our goods are more expansive due to the lack of EU trade preferences, USA blockade, frozen assets in foreign banks. So there are many obstacles. But if you compare our economy to those of Bulgaria or Romania, which did not have sanctions, did not have a war, did not have million refugees or anything like that, our economy is much better.

Q: But you do not have foreign exchange reserves. They say that you are out of reserves and that there is no growth.

- We never had big reserves.

Q: America is demanding changes from you, to democratise. Are you willing to introduce changes, so that sanctions may be lifted, to become a part of the world.

- Of course, but we do not wish to pay the price they ask us to. If the price is to give up Kosovo, we will not give Kosovo. As for democratisation, that is an artificial story. We are the most democratic country in the region. We had six multi-party elections since 1990. Look at the Assembly of Serbia or Yugoslavia. No party has majority, there are 7-8 parties in the Assembly and no party has majority.

Q: When did you last talk to Mladic?

- A few years ago. We spoke for a long time before Dayton, here in Belgrade when Holbrooke and his associates were here. We talked about how to stop bombing and how to create a climate for cease-fire, so that Dayton can start. That was in the end of summer in 1995. And then we did it, we achieved that goal and in November we came to the negotiations.

Q: Will you turn Mladic over to the Tribunal?

- No. Again, he lives in Republika Srpska, not in Yugoslavia.

Q: So, you cannot. Is the same true for Karadzic?

- The same for Karadzic.

Q: He lives in Republika Srpska?

- Yes, I believe he lives there, if he is not somewhere else, I do not know. I did not follow his trace. He had a deal with Holbrooke to withdraw from public life. He respected that. He withdrew from public life. But, that is no longer relevant for political life in Bosnia and Republika Srpska.

Q: But it is important for International Crimes Tribunal.

- You said that. I do not believe that Tribunal was very helpful. If that were so, it would treat all crimes in the world equally, and not hold trials for Serbs only.

Q: So you think that the Serbs are treated differently, that they were not treated fairly?

- Absolutely. The Serbs are the victims of the latest holocaust in this century, there is no doubt about that. It is a long story. The history will prove it. The Serbs were treated unfairly. The Serbs were always under pressures, Serbs were exposed to sanctions, pressures no matter that in Bosnia there was a civil war. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was isolated, instead of being treated normally as any other sovereign country, which was a factor of peace and stability in this region, all the time, throughout the crisis.

Q: Why was that, what do you think?

- Because of the interests of great powers which wanted to take over control over some parts of former Yugoslavia.

Q: Such as?

- Those which were involved.

Q: What did they want?

- To take control over Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia...

Q: Why?

- For the same reasons that big countries enslaved small ones. As always in the history, big countries want to control the small ones.

Q: You think that the reason is quest for power, for resources?

- We are in the centre of the Balkans. Serbia is a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, at the crossroads. This is a territory over which many empires fought. This is a link between Europe and Asia - Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India. All roads go through Serbia. We live on the bridge between Europe and Asia.

Q: But, Yugoslavia was a good ally of America during the Second World War.

- During the First one as well.

Q: Do you think that Germans are your enemies?

- I think that we can have good relations with Germans. I think that Germany is through with Nazism. They are no longer a Nazi country. They are a developed country, with developed democracy.

Q: Because of the new Government?

- I do not see any difference.

Q: Since Social-Democrats came to power.

- They said that would not change anything in connection with their foreign policy.

Q: Really?

- I believe we shall find a way for good co-operation. We have had good co-operation with Germany in the past. We had a lot of ties and big German companies were always present in Yugoslav economy.

Q: When did it stop?

- With the start of the Yugoslav crisis, in the nineties.

Q: Germany supported Croatia when it fought for the break-up of Yugoslavia and for its independence?

- True.

Q: Why?

- Why don't you ask them. A tragic mistake was premature recognition of independence. For example, the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent state on the basis of a rump referendum. In any referendum in Bosnia you have to have participation of all three peoples, not two. It triggered the civil war.

Q: People say that you had a vision of Greater Serbia. In 1989 you had this speech when you called upon the Serbs to rise and that was the beginning...

- That is not true.

 

“I Was Also For Greater Yugoslavia”

Q: I read that somewhere.

- You are not well informed. I have never made a speech inviting the Serbs to rise. On the contrary. In 1989 I was also for greater Yugoslavia.

Q: You never had the programme of Greater Serbia in mind?

- No. We advocated that Yugoslavia should be preserved and still believe, as I believed then, that South Slavs should have been happy with Yugoslavia instead of separating into five different states. But it was their right to decide and there is no use to be sorry now. We considered that Yugoslavia was a good solution for the national interest of the Serbs, because in the former Yugoslavia all Serbs lived in one state in different republics. But they were in one state. The Muslims were also in one state in former Yugoslavia. The Croats were in one state and Macedonians and others. That was the interest of all, not only of the Serbs.

Q: When you think about America, since it is not clear to me, do you think that America changed its attitude towards Yugoslavia. After Dayton, you should have become a partner of America and now as though something has changed. Now they are asking for democratisation, for this and that.

- These are just excuses. You know full well that we are a democratic country.

Q: What excuses?

- I will tell you. When we finished Dayton it was agreed that the sanctions be lifted.

Q: Yes, that's what I thought.

- But after Dayton, more precisely after Paris, since the Dayton agreement was signed in Paris, you, of course not you personally, you put an outer wall of sanctions. That was not fair.

Q: Madeleine Albright is responsible for that.

- I do not know who is responsible, but when I spoke to some Americans and asked them why they did it, they said it was their insurance policy, since they were allegedly not sure whether we will honour our obligations from Dayton. That was not fair. I believe that it was a huge mistake, we could have been good partners. The pressures now continue, particularly regarding Kosovo, although no country supports terrorism. The fact is that terrorism was supported by different foreign factors. We did not have any choice but to defend our citizens and our state.

Q: When you say foreign factors, do you mean Albania? I know that they are in the process of disintegration.

- They had implosion over there. A year before Kosovo, at our borders. You should know that we took from terrorist groups more than

26,000 pieces of different weapons, which was stolen and smuggled in Serbia from Albania. They destroyed their country. They looted their military warehouses. Their army is practically gone and they live in chaos. When Holbrooke was here he told me that after he visited Tirana, he realised that the Albanian Government controlled only one block around the Government building. The rest of Albania is in total chaos. Anyone who has arms is controlling his part of the territory. Albania is undoubtedly a factor of instability of the entire region, because there is not a single terrorist organisation which does not have its base in Albania. Albanian narco-mafia is well-known. You can discuss it with some services in the USA and they can tell you how powerful it is. The media war against us and the distorted picture created about us is based partially on various criminal factors of that Albanian organisation. I also want to tell you that the money they give to foreign journalists and politicians is blood money, paid by the lives of young people from Western Europe, America and Canada.

Q: What journalists, what politicians, give me some names.

-Nomina sunt odiosa, if you know that Latin sentence.

“Montenegro is a part of Yugoslavia”

Q: As far as I understood, you are very tough towards your neighbour, Montenegro.

- Montenegro is not a neighbour of Yugoslavia, it is a part of Yugoslavia.

Q: To the gentleman that won the elections.

- What is the problem?

Q: That he wants to leave, that Montenegro wants to secede?

- I don't think so. The people does not want that. It does not depend on one man or a group of people.

Q: Do you think that America changed its policy, that they considered you a partner. Now you know that Clinton on Saturday announced six months of new sanctions.

- What sanctions?

Q: Those that already exist. That's what they say.

- That is nothing new. But if America really wants to accelerate the process of economic reconstruction, democratisation and everything else they scream about, it should lift all sanctions and create normal situation for co-operation. This is absolutely clear. This is what I told them so many times - why don't you try to change your approach from negative to positive and have normal co-operation. That would be more efficient for development of all good things which you say you want to see. This rigid position with sanctions and pressures does not produce good results. It only slows down the recovery and does not bring anything good. As the greatest world power, you have one weakness. Your weakness is that you believe that you can resolve everything by force. That was the weakness of many great powers that perished in the past.

Q: But in this region we did not use force.

- You bombed Serbs in Bosnia. Bombing in Republika Srpska which could have been avoided produced many negative consequences, which are certainly not helpful in the implementation of Dayton.

Q: But why didn't you stop helping Bosnian Serbs?

- Would you stop helping your relatives if it was vitally important to them. We helped our people.

Q: Yes, but this is how the entire thing with accusations of genocide started. That is the heart of the matter of Serbia, not Dayton.

- We do not believe that the Serbs in Bosnia behaved any worse than Muslims and Croats.

Q: But it does not make it right.

- The conflicts were not right, from any side and against anyone.

Q: Why didn't you stop it?

- We tried, as much as we could, and in Dayton it was stopped.

Q. They stopped after bombing.

- Bombing was not in the function of Dayton at all. We agreed all principles before the bombing. Several days ago I saw a statement of General Rose, British general who was a commander in Bosnia. He also said that bombing was counter-productive. It is a totally distorted picture, if anyone should think that bombing helped Dayton. The situation is quite contrary. As you see, even a British general is saying what I am saying, and he was the commander of international force in Bosnia. You can see that in an interview he gave a while ago. I read it in our press.

Q: And if we bombed Serbia, as we threatened, when Holbrooke was here, were you ready. Do you have powerful air-force?

- I have to say that we do not have any other choice but to preserve our country and we could not accept anything that would lead to Kosovo being taken out from Serbia. We shall never accept any solution which would take Kosovo out of Serbia. That is clear. That is the worst possible spot in the world for any threats, because of its sensitivity, Kosovo is a sensitive spot in the heart of any Serb. Not only in Serbia, but Serbs in Bosnia, Serbs in America. There is a million of Serbs who are now Americans. I do not believe that anyone will tell you anything differently regarding Kosovo.

Q: Will you give the people of Kosovo the level of autonomy they had before 1989?

- If you again think of Albanians - the system that was before was not appropriate because they abused the power they had to terrorise the rest of the population. Under the pressure of separatists in the beginning of the eighties, 40,000 Serbs left Kosmet. They were killing them, raping them, razed their cemeteries, destroyed monasteries. They abused the power they had. We stopped that violence.

Q: When you abolished autonomy?

- We did not. Kosovo and Metohija is an autonomous province in accordance with the Constitution of Serbia.

Q: I thought you abolished their autonomy in 1989.

- You were wrong. In 1989 a change did happen.

Q: What change?

- Albanians were no longer allowed to be masters over other population in the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. But the Serbs, for which we say that are 10 % of the population, control the army, police. The Serbs started controlling everything.

- That is entirely untrue. The problem is media. A distorted picture was created. For example, many Albanians have been and still are represented in administration and different levels of power. I think that we currently have around 600 Albanians in the police in Kosovo, who are armed. This is the police of the Republic of Serbia. Kosovo is Serbia. In addition to that, there is more Serbs in Kosovo than 10 per cent.

Q: But you know as well as I do that it does not satisfy the Albanian community in Kosovo.

- We have to draw a line between what can satisfy them as equal citizens and what would represent their majorization. Except that, the satisfaction of Albanian community is not the highest principle of life in Kosovo. There is satisfaction of Serb community, Muslim community...

Q: But the thing is that they are not equal.

- They can have everything which makes them equal. But they cannot again be the masters of the rest of the population. That is the line.

Q: Will you allow decisions to be made in Kosovo on everyday life, not in Belgrade.