This is the press release from RHUL Press

“The Balkans in Times of Strategic Adjustment”
Address to Royal Holloway College
University of London

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

London, 25 November 2011

Excellencies,
Distinguished Faculty and Friends,
Dear Students,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for that warm introduction.

I am grateful to the Politics and International Relations Society and to the Center for European Politics for kindly inviting me to speak here tonight.

It is a great privilege to be the first Serbian Foreign Minister to address Royal Holloway College at the University of London.

I would imagine that being a student of international affairs in these times is a rather exciting thing. The debate about causes, consequences and trends in today’s world will remain exceptionally interesting for the foreseeable future.

Doing my job has given me the privilege of discussing these issues with many decisionmakers around the world. Most of them are deeply concerned, and few believe they have a clear picture of what the world will look like even in the not too distant future.

The international system is entering an era of transformation. Wherever we turn, we hear disparate calls for re-drafting the global governance rulebook. The established procedures are becoming decreasingly legitimate and efficient, whereas new ways have yet to be codified.

Two phenomena manifesting themselves simultaneously bear much of the responsibility for the unfolding paradigm shift: ‘power transition’ and ‘power diffusion.’ This has never happened on such a grand scale. The world’s stage appears to be getting far more crowded and difficult to manage.

Consider recent events in the Middle East. Without casting doubts on the ethical dimension of the struggle for democracy, it is clear that geopolitical uncertainty will rise, as the consequences of the Arab Spring continue to descend upon the region and beyond. Security will be further undermined by the reemergence of sectarian loyalties, and ethnic as well as tribal grievances—many of them long-suppressed. Such developments may have far-reaching implications for the entire world.  

But I would like to focus on another critical variable in the increasingly complex global equation—one closer to our homes. It is the so-called Great Recession. At first, the United States was the epicenter of the economic tumults. Now it is the EU.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

For a number of months, the Union has struggled to cope with the euro sovereign debt issue—the most severe crisis ever to befall the European project. Just a fortnight ago, Angela Merkel even described it as the Old Continent’s “most difficult hour since the Second World War.”

A number of countries have been brought to the outer limits of their forbearance. And a great many independent analysts are telling us the worst is yet to come—that banks and states under massive financial pressure will be crushed under the weight of their obligations without an extensive influx of money.

Such an assertion immediately leads one to ask who will supply the cash, and under what conditions?

These important questions point to even more substantive ones, due to the singular set of circumstances that frame the issue. I refer to the fact that we’re talking about the European Union—a unique construct that is more than a common market but less than a country.

We will witness serious political frictions—some of them long in the making. This is likely to happen in an atmosphere of rising popular discontent, which of course will complicate matters further.

Twenty-seven or twenty-eight ships of state will need to navigate in waters just about everyone believes will be beset by storm after storm. To reach safe harbor, creative ways will need to be found to address increasingly divergent interests, themselves shaped by publics more and more unreceptive to appeals made in the name of either solidarity or austerity. Whatever the specifics involved, this will undoubtedly produce more pain for some, require more generosity from others, and involve significant change by, to and for all.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Bismark once remarked, “whoever speaks of Europe is wrong. Europe is a geographical expression.”

In the present circumstances, such thoughts conjure up memories of a past that cannot but make one deeply uncomfortable.

Let’s put it this way: does 1957—the founding year of what has become the EU—signify the beginning-point of a new progressive era in European history, or did it merely mark the start of Europe’s extended holiday from history, now nearing its end?

Given the circumstances, reminding oneself of the central reason the European project was undertaken in the first place could be quite helpful. This should also serve as a motivating factor for finding a constructive way forward.

It’s the old Kantian notion of perpetual peace on the Old Continent. This was the original intent of the founders of the EU: to create a system of interdependency in which war between its member states would never again be possible. The magnitude and significance of this undertaking is nowadays somewhat underestimated. But given the historical record, it was an extraordinarily ambitious intention, since notions of ‘war’ and ‘Europe’ have gone hand in hand for a millennia or more.

In that fundamental respect, the European project has succeeded brilliantly, so far.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Continuing to bolster the EU’s architecture of peace, stability and reconciliation in the Western Balkans  remains in our shared interest.

The nuts and bolts of this endeavor are contained in the political criteria set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, as well as regional cooperation conditions subsequently established by the Stabilization and Association framework about a decade later. Their fulfillment is what we should be chiefly focused on.

All-around commitments were made in good faith. By the Western Balkan states, to embark on a process of comprehensive reforms to transform our respective societies. And by the EU, to support, facilitate and encourage this process by applying fair and objective evaluation criteria.

Thanks to these common efforts, significant advancements have been made in bringing our part of the European geography in line with the rest of the Old Continent.

For the Western Balkans to stay the course of reform despite the eurozone crisis, the EU’s engagement must not be allowed to wane.

The existing forward momentum should be maintained.
____

Having said that, it is important to distinguish between extending support for the continuation of our reforms, and the question of allowing Serbia to obtain membership in the Union.

Not only are we years away from having to address the latter issue—but it is next to impossible to predict what will be the exact institutional landscape in Europe at that point. That is why I think we should focus on more concrete, immediate matters before us.

From where we stand right now, there is little doubt that the successful transformation of our society is a more urgent task than the debate on how to formalize the achievement upon its completion. If we come to a point in our development that having fulfilled the aquis communautaire, we walk in lockstep with the EU, then how much does the specific timing of acquiring the membership really matter?

I do not mean to suggest that the issue is immaterial. My argument is that when it comes to Serbia, it is neither the fundamental nor the relevant question for any of the EU member states to answer at present, or in the immediate time to come.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

For the process of reform to stay on course in these times of strategic adjustment, our region will also need to attract more FDI.

In Serbia, we have worked hard to make sure our fundamentals are kept in good shape. We have maintained macroeconomic stability throughout the global economic crisis, and our regulatory and financial infrastructure remains both solid and predictable. Not a single Serbian bank, for instance, has had to re-capitalize since the crisis began. Last March, Standard and Poor’s even upgraded our credit rating—and Fitch just confirmed this improvement, as well. In fact, Serbia has been the only country in the world whose risk category with the OECD has been upgraded since the Great Recession began.

When it hit, we had begun the shift from an economy less dependent on internal consumption and external borrowing, to one driven more by exports and investment.
____

One of the aspects of the new economic reality is a reduction of the capacity of European investors. Most of their attention was swiftly brought to bear on bringing their own houses to order. We had to look elsewhere, reaching out to nations all around the world—leveraging a number of traditionally close friendships into FDI opportunities for companies from interested states.

In just the past few months, for instance, entrepreneurs from countries such as China, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan have expressed a strong interest in making sizeable investments in the Serbian economy. Our comparative advantage includes not only our unhindered access to the EU common market, but also our unique network of free trade agreements with the Western Balkans, Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In these times of strategic adjustment, geopolitics and geo-economics will no longer be just somewhat related; they are on their way to being fully integrated with one another—and are fast becoming two sides of the same coin. The choice of which strategic priorities are set will therefore matter more in this century than in the last. It is with this in mind that I conclude by returning—briefly—to two issues that I raised a few moments ago.  

First, the European Union remains the most successful peace project in history. War amongst its members is now just about inconceivable. But present economic challenges have brought to the surface a number of distressing design flaws. Even if leaders are able to fully harness the strength and courage required to address them adequately, the dénoument will take place in far from ideal circumstances.

Second, it is in our shared interest for the EU to keep supporting regional stability and reconciliation in the Balkans, by making sure the process of reform continues unabated.

Continued engagement by the Union will enable us not only to preserve what we have built, but to keep transforming our societies. Making us stop or take a break serves no constructive purpose—especially since what we ask for is certainly not too much.

Serbian President Boris Tadic strongly defended Serbia’s position on Kosovo at an address to the IISS. He declared Serbia would not recognise Kosovo and that attempts by the EU to make them do so would fail. However, he reaffirmed his belief in the importance of a ‘fair and equitable’ settlement and the need to take into consideration the realities of both Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo.

In an impassioned response to criticism of Serbian policy in Kosovo, he rejected claims that Serbia had financed criminal structures in the country or that it had supported hidden political structures operating in parallel to the legitimate local authorities. He said all criminals, regardless of their ethnicity, would be arrested, although the Kumanovo Agreement has restricted Serbia’s law enforcement powers.

He said that the division of Kosovo was an attractive solution but ultimately was a model that could not function well. All possible political models must be considered, he said.

Serbia had made much progress in developing its relationships with neighbours, especially Croatia, he said. Serbia has played a vital strategic role as the economic engine of the region and he emphasised the importance of developing closer business and diplomatic links across the Balkans in order to aid further integration.

He also spoke of his hope that Serbia and the wider Balkan region would be integrated into the EU. A continent-wide union was the best way to make Europe economically competitive against emerging powers such as China and India, he said.

The eurozone crisis could hit the regional economy badly and cause serious problems for newly democratic governments unable to deliver on their election promises, he also warned

Read a transcript or watch a video of the address

Wed 16 Nov 2011

Dr Dejan Popović
Ambassador of the Republic of Serbia to the United Kingdom

SERBIA’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE FUTURE
OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

When I got an invitation a few months ago to give a lecture at your renown University with a topic: Serbia’s Perspective on the Future of the European Union, I was undoubtedly aware of the mounting problems in the eurozone, because the bailout for Greece, as well as for Ireland and Portugal had already been activated. However, most analysts found that the EU project was sustainable, while verbal assurances that Papandreou’s efforts to stabilize Greek public finances would be ultimately successful appeared rather convincing, despite of individual warnings.

The EU perspective of Serbia also looked quite promising this summer. Serbian intelligence services succeeded in locating and arresting Ratko Mladić, indicted for most severe crimes by the Hague Tribunal, who had been managing to evade justice for 16 years. In July, the last remaining Hague indictee Goran Hadžić was arrested. Thus Serbia  successfully brought its cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to an end,  thereby eliminating a specific obstacle that hampered Serbia’s progress towards its EU candidate and member status. As Serbia submitted its application for EU membership by the end of 2009, which was subsequently submitted to the Commission by the Council for  consideration in late 2010, it remained for the Commission to produce its opinion in October 2011 on whether Serbia had fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria to the extent that would qualify her for the candidate status at the December meeting of the Council and, maybe, for obtaining the date for the beginning of accession talks. The Serbian Government and Parliament have been successfully fulfilling the undertaken obligations, contained in the Action Plan agreed upon with the Commission, so that this summer it seemed very probable that the Commission would unreservedly give a positive opinion. All the more so, the political dialogue with the authorities in Priština started to bring first results (agreements on ID and travel documents, car plates, vital record books, indication of agreements on custom stamp at the border check points at the administrative line between central Serbia and Kosovo, land registry books and nostrification of university diplomas).

In the meantime both EU and Serbia have been faced with new, serious, challenges. The European Union was hit this autumn by a dramatic crisis of sovereign debt in eurozone, threatening by new  recession not limited exclusively to the eurozone member states, which opens strategic dilemmas about the future of the Union itself. On the other hand, Serbia was faced with a crisis of dialogue with the Kosovo authorities, which tried to unilaterally station Albanian custom officers at the administrative check points and consequently impose their institutions on the Serbs who number more than 90 per cent of the population in the northern part of Kosovo and who are not ready to accept the authority of Priština following the unilateral declaration of independence in 2008.  Let me just remind you that Belgrade has not recognized the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosovo, because it is against the letter of Serbia’s Constitution. Please also note that five EU member States (i.e. Spain, Romania, Greece, Slovakia and Cyprus) have not recognized Kosovo either, so that, in spite of occasional attempts to represent this differently, there is no consistent EU policy towards Kosovo as an “independent state”. On a global scale, 109 UN Member States have not recognized Kosovo, while 84 have. Therefore, Kosovo is not a member of any international organization, except of some financial ones, in which voting  depends on the volume of invested capital, such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The International Court of Justice gave an Advisory Opinion that there is no provision in international law prohibiting unilateral declaration of independence by members of ethnic groups, but it did not endorse the secession of Kosovo Albanians, as some lobbyists claim. Following the Advisory Opinion of the Court, Serbia, together with 27 EU Member States, submitted a resolution to the UN General Assembly, calling upon both Belgrade and Priština to a dialogue on the normalization of living condition of the population in Kosovo, under the auspices of Brussels. Despite of the readiness of Serbia to commence the talks immediately in October 2010, the other party, for its own internal reasons, kept delaying the beginning until as late as March 2011. When, after the first achieved agreements, difficulties arose about custom stamps and the custom regime at the administrative check points between central Serbia and Kosovo, because Belgrade did not want to accept a solution implying an indirect recognition of Kosovo statehood, the dialogue came to a standstill. As a result, Serbs from the northern part of Kosovo built barricades of wood and gravel, trying to prevent further deployment of Albanian custom officers and police at the check points. In view of the fact that KFOR is responsible to ensure a free movement of people throughout the territory of Kosovo, skirmishes were erupted between local Serbs, who expressed their right to peaceful protest, and KFOR members who tried to remove the barricades. Belgrade is willing to resume the dialogue with Albanian authorities, under the EU auspices, but it can accept neither a fait accompli nor the imposition of Albanian institutions on the Serbs who deny them. Thus far, Priština has not approached the Serbs with any single proposition, except with the threat of force, although, let me repeat, they make 90 per cent of the population in the area north from the Ibar river. Their schools, hospitals and pensions are financed from the budget of Serbia, while they have elected their own municipal counsellors according to the law of Serbia.

When on 12 October 2011 the Commission announced its opinion about the application of Serbia for the EU membership, the public got a confirmation that a lot has been done during the past years towards creating conditions for getting the status of a candidate country. The report points inter alia to the following:
„In the light of substantial reforms over the last years, Serbia has considerably progressed towards fulfilling the political criteria related to the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, as well as the conditions of the Stabilisation and Association Process. Serbia has a comprehensive constitutional, legislative and institutional framework which overall corresponds to European and international standards. Parliament has become far more effective in its legislative activity under the current legislature. The legal and institutional framework for the rule of law is comprehensive, including in the areas of the fight against corruption and organised crime where initial results were achieved. The legal framework for the protection of human rights and minorities is well developed and has started being implemented. Serbia has reached a fully satisfactory level in its cooperation with ICTY and has taken an increasingly active role in fostering reconciliation in the region. Serbia has agreed to and participated in a process of dialogue with Kosovo to facilitate the lives of the people which has led to several agreements (free movement of persons and goods, civil registry and cadastre) and Serbia has taken initial steps for implementation…

Based on preliminary estimates, Serbia's accession would have a limited overall impact on European Union policies and would not affect the Union's capacity to maintain and deepen its own development.

The Commission recommends that the Council should grant Serbia the status of candidate country, taking into account progress achieved so far and on the understanding that Serbia reengages in the dialogue with Kosovo and is moving swiftly to the implementation in good faith of agreements reached to date.”

With respect to setting a date for the commencement of the accession talks, “the Commission recommends that negotiations for accession to the European Union should be opened with Serbia as soon as it achieves further significant progress in meeting the following key priority: further steps to normalise relations with Kosovo in line with the conditions of the Stabilisation and Association Process by:

• fully respecting the principles of inclusive regional cooperation;
• fully respecting the provisions of the Energy Community Treaty;
• finding solutions for telecommunications and mutual acceptance of diplomas;
• by continuing to implement in good faith all agreements reached; and
• by cooperating actively with EULEX in order for it to exercise its functions in all parts of Kosovo.

The Commission will present a report on Serbia's implementation of the above key priority as soon as sufficient progress has been achieved.”
Although the opinion of the Commission might look, at first glance, very encouraging as regards the Serbia’s aspirations, it contains two caveats – both concerning the dialogue with Priština.

The first caveat concerns the status of a candidate country, which Belgrade is expecting to get during the coming December. The Commission recommends that the Council should grant Serbia the status of a candidate country, taking into account the progress achieved so far and on the understanding that Serbia reengages in the dialogue with Kosovo and is moving swiftly to the implementation in good faith of agreements reached to date.  Serbia is sincere in its readiness to continue the dialogue with Kosovo authorities. However, it is necessary to ensure a certain relaxation of tension at the administrative check points, provoked by the imposition of unilateral measures by Albanian custom and police officers, in order to ensure the implementation in good faith of the agreement on custom seal and other agreements, as well as the continuation of talks in Brussels between Serbian and Albanian teams. Today, Belgrade is faced with a problem - Kosovo Albanian authorities are not particularly motivated to make concessions during the talks. The EU policy is not defined as far as they are concerned, because, let me repeat, five EU member States do not recognize Kosovo's secession. On the other hand, the notion of a liberalization of visa regime that might be the preliminary “carrot” is supported more by non-Schengen countries than those which are expected to open their doors wide to the Kosovo Albanians. False asylum seekers from Serbia and Macedonia, mostly of Albanian ethnic origin (but also Roma), set alarm bells in Germany, Belgium and Sweden earlier this year. In view of the fact that this segment of population is 30 times larger in Kosovo than in southern Serbia, the fears of those countries and the others under Schengen regime are very wide-spread within diplomatic circles, although not always expressed openly, that the process of verification of the fulfilment of the strict conditions, which is expected before Kosovo would be granted the visa free travel, would be very long and complicated. As far as Belgrade is concerned, its problem lies in the fact that the influence of the Serbian authorities on the Serbs in the northern part of Kosovo is rather limited. The municipal leaders of the northern Kosovo Serbs generally belong to the political parties that represent opposition to the government of Serbia. The public in Serbia would not support the cutting of budget expenses for schools, hospitals or pensions as a measure of pressure. And finally, one cannot easily condemn the erecting of barricades bearing in mind that they are perceived as a reaction to the unilateral action by Priština’s authorities aimed at changing the status quo without  the other party’s consent. Therefore, I believe that the resumption of talks with Priština in the coming three weeks would not be a simple task to achieve, in spite of the fact that the phrase used in the Commission’s opinion, stating rather gently that Serbia should be granted the EU candidate status „on the understanding that it reengages in the dialogue with Kosovo“, at first glance  does not indicate the existence of a significant problem. Thus, in spite of Serbian government's committment to the EU accession, its candidacy  might be postponed until well into 2012, given he complexity of the situation in the north of Kosovo.

The other caveat concerns the setting of a date for the beginning of the accession talks. The Commission is ready to propose a date as soon as Serbia achieves further significant progress in meeting the following key priority - further steps to normalise relations with Kosovo in line with the conditions of the Stabilisation and Association Process. These steps include securing Kosovo's presence in the for a concerning regional cooperation, regular electricity supplies and the settlement of the open issues such as telecommunications, recognition of university diplomas (that is, as I have mentioned, nearly agreed upon); they also enclude enabling EULEX to act throughout the entire territory of Kosovo (which might open the question of whether EULEX plans to impose Kosovo laws and Albanian officials within Serbian communities which do not recognize them or it would act in a status  neutral way), as well as continuing to implement all agreements reached in good faith.

Let me conclude. In spite of very positive assessments of the Commission regarding the fulfilment of Copenhagen political criteria and functional operation of market economy of Serbia, the Kosovo problem might potentially block, at least for some time, Serbia’s further path towards its EU membership. The granting of candidacy without setting a date for accession talks, has symbolic rather than practical meaning, although I do not want to underestimate the relevance of the candidacy status itself. For example, Macedonia became a candidate country as long ago as in 2005, but it has not begun accession talks yet due to the dispute with Greece over the state name. Most people in Serbia interpret the recently-introduced request to normalize the relations with Kosovo as an imposition of a new condition, although both the Commission and high officials of the states which sponsored Kosovo’s independence emphasise that they do not request from Serbia to recognize Kosovo, but only to ensure a normalization of relations through a dialogue. The Government in Belgrade is ready to find a solution, under the auspices of EU, which would fulfil legitimate interests of both Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, but it cannot accept a solution in which one party gains everything and the other nothing. May I recall that we do not speak about Milošević’s Serbia, but of the State, as the Commission underlines, of parliamentary democracy, with a comprehensive constitutional, legislative and institutional framework fully in line with European and international standards.

The perception prevailing in Serbian public today, that an additional condition was imposed on Serbia alone, the one concerning Kosovo, given that no such conditions were imposed on other states – potential candidate countries – well, that perception is reflected in a significant decrease in the support to EU membership. Before the declaration of Kosovo independence this support was above 65%. With an increasing pressure of some Member States which backed up Kosovo independence, that support decreased to 55%, while, with the escalation of tensions at the administrative checkpoints, it fell below 50% for the first time ever, more precisely to as low as 46%. There are 37% of those who say they oppose the accession. Despite of the fact that at a referendum, were it organized today, these figures would produce a majority of 55% of those who would vote “for” EU Membership, the decreasing trend is alarming for EU supporters in Serbia.

Certain “glut” with the EU is felt in other parts of Europe as well, but for completely different reasons. Euro-scepticism is gradually spreading among voters in those member states which are expected to provide funding for the bailouts of the countries facing sovereign debt defaults. Populist and nationalist leanings are now quite present in many eurozone countries, including Finland, Netherlands and France. However, it is often disregarded that it is not just about compassion – the bankruptcy of the PIIGS countries may easily trigger a domino effect that could incite another, extremely serious global recession. On the other hand, the necessity of imposing the most severe austerity measures locally in order to mollify the rescuers from Germany and France have already brought down the governments in Ireland and Greece, while it will happen soon in Spain and may happen within several months in Italy. In the streets and squares of Athens one may find many people unwilling to accept the assessment that the paying time has come for the years of undeserved prosperity they used to enjoy in the early stages of the rule of euro. Either way, both on the giving and the receiving side of the “eurozone salvation scheme”, the number of those who are becoming dissatisfied has significantly increased.

It is my understanding that when euro was first created, it was instrumental in creating a kind of imbalance within the eurozone, with an ever-widening German current account surplus being matched by widening current account deficits in other parts of the eurozone, particularly in Greece, but also in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. The widening German current account surplus was partly response to the fact that the Deutschmark no longer had to appreciate, because the Deutschmark does not exist anymore. Faced with the explosion of exports, the German policymakers decided to proceed with the export expansion rather than relying on stronger domestic demand through the increase of imports. The point is that for every German current account surplus there has to be a current account deficit somewhere else. The countries on the European periphery, overburdened by their expansive welfare schemes and dramatically augmented labour costs, introduced their weak market competitiveness into the European Monetary Union and could not follow the German pattern. For example, since Italy adopted the euro, its effective exchange rate – based on its labour costs – rose by 26%. Unable to depreciate the Drachma, Lire or any other similar currency because the Drachma and Lire do not exist anymore, these countries had either to increase borrowing or to cut their deficits. Given the political sensitivity of cutting public expenditures, especially in states where trade unions are strong, they relied on borrowing, their public debt ratios continuing to rise (reaching, e. g., 180% of the GDP in Greece and 120% in Italy). The budget deficit in Greece was 14% of the GDP in 2009 to be diminished quite insufficiently to 10.5% in 2010. Let me just draw your attention to two government finance Maastricht criteria adopted at the very birth of the European Monetary Union in 1992: the ratio of gross government debt to GDP must not exceed 60% and the ratio of the annual government deficit to GDP must not exceed 3%.

The United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic and Hungary deliberately stayed out of the eurozone, while Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria are striving to meet the conditions – one may guess less enthusiastically under the conditions presently prevailing in the eurozone. On 25 March 2011 a proposal for economic measures and cooperation was adopted by the European Council and included as participants the eurozone member states as well as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria plus Denmark – the country whose citizens voted on a referendum held in the year 2000 against introducing the euro. This plan, named Euro Plus Pact, advocated by Germany and France, contains concrete commitments to a list of political reforms which are intended to improve the fiscal strength and competitiveness of each country. Its five goals are  : fostering competitiveness (through abolishing wage indexation schemes), fostering employment, contributing to the sustainability of public finances (specifically, sustainability of pensions, health care and social benefits), reinforcing financial stability and tax policy coordination.

As 2011 is coming to an end, further deepening of the sovereign debt crisis within the eurozone opened the issue of the sustainability of a two-speed Europe. In late October, meetings of the European Council and subsequent statements by German Chancellor Merkel and French President Sarkozy indicated that Germany and France were pushing for a European treaty change which would enable eurozone countries failing to keep their budget deficits within a 3% of GDP cap to be liable to court censure under EU law. While Merkel urged for a European institution having right to intervene in a budget being queried, Sarkozy predicted a two-speed Europe would emerge from the debt crisis, with eurozone states moving towards closer integration and the rest making up a looser confederation. “We are 27” – said French President. “Eventually, we will obviously need to open to the Balkans. Then we will be 32, 33, or 34. Nobody believes that federalism, full integration, is feasible at 33, 34, or 35 countries. There will clearly be two European speeds: one speed towards greater integration in the eurozone and a more confederal speed in the EU.”

The notion of a 17-member eurozone avant-garde forging closer fiscal and economic ties via an intergovernmental deal has alarmed the European Commission. Mr Barroso said the other day that his Commission saw its responsibility to “steadfastly uphold its role as the guarantor of all member states”. “The EU as a whole and the euro area belong together,” he said in Berlin, and reminded his audience that, except for two eurozone opt-out countries (UK and Denmark), the EU treaties foresee all other members joining the single currency. He described it as an “absurd” idea for the 17 eurozone countries to agree deeper fiscal and monetary integration without bringing along non-euro members. This would in effect, he said, represent an “opt-out” of the monetary core of the union from the European Union as a whole.

The position of the UK is delicate because it obtained a special opt out in the original Maastricht Treaty and does not participate in various European bailout schemes for the potentially defaulting eurozone countries (apart from its contributions to the IMF). However, its Government is clearly very concerned at the prospect of a two-speed Europe in which “euro 17” could decide on issues affecting 27 such as banking, resource allocation, the EU budget. “It is very important” – a senior British official stated – “that the institutions of the 27 are properly looked after and that the Commission does its job as the guardian of the 27.” Mr. Cameron's efforts to safeguard Britain's voice in the EU comes at a sensitive time, with the Prime Minister berated last month by the French President for wanting to be involved, but at same time pandering to eurosceptics at home by “lecturing Europe from afar and gloating over the euro crises”. The proposed changes of the European treaties would offer the UK opportunities to renegotiate its relationship with the EU, primarily in the domain of the labour rules, while being exposed to the risks of instating a two-speed Europe.

The EU as we know it right now is taking some different shape. It will deserve a lot of debate between the “euro-federalists” and “euro-sceptics”, as well as between creditors and debtors and certain other demographics to decide whether a two-speed Europe is sustainable in the long-term, or an even smaller “club of excellence” would emerge after having expelled non-complying states from the eurozone. If the latter scenario occurs, Britain will have to decide whether it wishes to remain inside Europe's core, or whether it will join the periphery.

In conclusion, I would like to briefly comment on the reasons why Serbia, together with all other countries from the Western Balkans, is striving to become a member of the European Union when the Union is in such a shape. First, I would mention the EU's soft power that contributed significantly to the reconciliation in the region. As it was the case with the Central European and Eastern Balkans enlargement that happened in 2004 and 2007, the countries of the Western Balkans are keen to accede to the EU, perceiving themselves as belonging to a large constellation of nations that have established the European Union based on a common set of values, deeply held and widely shared. It is definitively not just about geography, although the fact that Vienna is just 200 miles away from the Serbia's border is not negligible. In the region exposed to the most severe conflicts as recently as 12 years ago, the stabilisation and association process that included all the states, from Croatia, to Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania, proved to be the unprecedented leverage capable of calming down the remaining disputes and directing the participants towards an enhanced cooperation and common goals. Stability and predictability provide for relative economic prosperity, even in times when the global economic prospects are gloomy. Any foreign investor who comes to Belgrade or any other regional capital asks the question: “Where are you with the EU?” Comprehensive reforms – in judiciary, in fighting corruption and organised crime, in establishing the legal and institutional framework for the rule of law, in eliminating harmful monopolistic behaviour (like in THE case WHEN /where the Commission warned Belgrade to quash its legislation providing for a lower excise taxation on domestic oil derivatives and higher for the imported gasoline and diesel) – were carried out in spite of some internal opposition, because they were perceived as unavoidable conditions for obtaining the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU, candidacy status, commencement of the accession talks and eventually the status of a member state. I am aware that Serbia is still far from the membership, but I cannot but quote the American writer Ursula Kroeber Le Guin that the journey is as valuable as the goal. It is amazing that while the support for the EU membership has been declining during the last two years (due to the previously mentioned widespread perception that additional conditions are permanently being imposed on Serbia), the support for the EU inspired reforms has been constant, even increasED/ing. A fragile, post-conflict environment can solve its problems only with all the states in the EU, sharing not just its resources (that may seem to wane), but its inherent values. Otherwise, there would be a vacuum created and the age of conflicts, involving a number of extra-regional powers, will reemerge.

London School of Economics and Political Science “Serbia and the Western Balkans: economic challenges, European perspectives”

It is a great pleasure to address you today, here in London. This lecture comes just a few weeks after publishing of the Avis of the European Commission and the country reports for Serbia and other countries of the Western Balkans regions.

Serbia considers that the Avis of the EC is objective, especially on proposing the candidate status, and fair, having in mind the late tensions in Kosovo and Metohija. What is important is the proactive approach considering the opening of the negotiations - as soon as possible - if and when the conditions are met. Several achievements were pointed out: reform of the judiciary, regional cooperation, cooperation with the ICTY, fight against organised crime and corruption, civil control over armed forces, property rights protection with the recently adopted Law on Restitution and Law on Public Property, adequate legal and institutional framework in many domains such as protection of Roma, establishing the Consultative minority Councils, etc. Of course, a lot is yet to be done, particularly in the process of implementing the adopted legislative framework.

The conditions given for opening the negotiation process are transparent, already known, and achievable - said Commissioner Füle. And I am here to confirm it. The solutions agreed within the Dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, and modalities of implementation should not jeopardize the status neutrality in the frame or Serbia's Constitution, may I add. The Government of the Republic of Serbia is resolute to move forward on its European path.

Let me mention three points on this path.

First and foremost: stability. Twelve years ago we achieved peace. We have now to continue to promote and upgrade - democracy and stability. The Commission's Opinion states that Serbia is now a fully functional parliamentary democracy. We are fully aware of the importance of being a responsible Government, determined to face and fight populism in our own backyard. We are strongly committed to fighting terrorism of all kinds, which as we have all seen with the recent attack on the US Embassy in Sarajevo, is still not eradicated. We are ready to give concrete proposals to concrete problems and conduct concrete actions, as we have shown with the cooperation with ICTY. Serbia apprehended and delivered to The Hague 46 out of 46 persons accused. It was our domestic, moral and international obligation. The arrest of Ratko Mladić on the 26th of May and Goran Hadžić on the 20th of July concluded this cooperation which we consider a milestone for the process of reconciliation and regional cooperation in the Balkans. Resolution of Serbia’s Parliament on Srebrenica, which our President Boris Tadić visited twice, as well as his visit to Vukovar made this level of regional cooperation possible. Serbia supports the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and will support the changes that all three communities agree upon.

The Dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, which we proposed, together with the 27 EU member States, back in September 2010, should solve all issues related to Kosovo. Let us first work on solving the daily life problems of ordinary citizens in Kosovo and Metohija - Albanians, Serbs, Roma, Muslim, Goranci and all others. Then let us address the core of this dispute, the status of Kosovo, which goes far beyond the conflict of the 90s.

We are constantly being told to accept “reality” - that Kosovo Albanians do not want to be ruled by Belgrade. But the reality is also that Kosovo Serbs do not want to be ruled by Pristina. It is of utmost importance that another exodus of Serbs from Kosovo, like the one we had in 2004, when more than 10,000 Serbs fled central Kosovo, be avoided. We look forward to UK leadership in creating conditions that would prevent such tragedies to be repeated.

Let me address here some issues that I consider vital for resolving the present situation in Kosovo. The current tensions prove once again that unilateral actions and policies of “fait accompli” do not yield sustainable solutions. Once the dialogue under the auspices of the EU started to produce first results, Albanian customs officials have been deployed by Pristina on the administrative passages in northern Kosovo, without any form of consultations, either with the local population, or with our Government, or the International Community. Furthermore, double standards, particularly in the domain of justice, should be eliminated. The most serious allegations made in the Council of Europe Report on human organ harvesting and trafficking by Kosovo Albanians have been let dragging on for almost a year by EULEX, and the investigation is yet to begin. Full respect of status neutrality of all international actors in Kosovo: UNMIK, KFOR and especially EULEX should be assured. It is in nobody's interest to sponsor a mono-ethnic Kosovo.

What can be the solution for Kosovo? President Boris Tadic proposed, at the September General Assembly of the United Nations, a four-point plan: 1) special status for northern Kosovo, 2) status and security of the five major sites of orthodox faith, 3) securing the safety for Serbs living south of the Ibar River, and 4) resolving the issue of Serbia's assets.

Belgrade does not want a frozen conflict. We are ready to work with Pristina and with the International Community in order to find a long-term, sustainable solution for the status of Kosovo. We know that a solution must be found before we join the EU. The solution, however, cannot be the 2008 unilateral declaration of independence. A historical compromise between Serbs and Albanians is needed and is possible.

Second point: responsible management of the economic crisis. With all that has happened recently within the Euro zone this is a must. Serbia and the Western Balkans actually didn't cost a single euro of EU taxpayers' money throughout this crisis. Our banks didn't require any recapitalisation.

The first and the second wave of the crisis did hit us but didn't destabilise us. Our GDP growth for 2011 will be 2%, our inflation rate is high but single-digit, total public debt amounts to 44% of GDP. The real problem is unemployment, above 20%.

Serbia and the IMF have agreed in October a new precautionary arrangement worth about 1 billion euros. In September, Serbia successfully placed a 1 billion USD 10 year Eurobond with a 7.5% coupon. The credit rating agency "Fitch Ratings" has confirmed that Serbia's credit rating improved from negative to stable, while Standard and Poor's upgraded Serbia last March from BB- to BB. We are the only country in Europe that was upgraded since the beginning of the crisis.

Serbia continues to attract FDI, increasingly in manufacturing of tradable goods, around 3 billion USD this year. Fiat has a one billion euro investment in Kragujevac, the first cars coming out by end 2011, producing over 250,000 cars annually. Automotive component makers, electronics producers, textile manufacturers increasingly pick Serbia as their investment destination. The Belgian firm Delhaize purchased for 1 billion euros the leading food retailer in our country. There is a memorandum signed for 2 billion euro of Chinese investments in the energy sector in Serbia.

The UK is present in Serbia through British American Tobacco (50 million euros investment), several investment funds and 60 other companies, but we can do much more together. Albon Technologies is becoming a leading supplier to Fiat and other European motorcycle and car producers out of their factory in Vojvodina.

We are simplifying the business environment and building necessary infrastructure, especially the Pan European highway and rail Corridor X, three bridges on the Danube. We have raised 400 million euros to invest in our science and technology infrastructure over the next three years. Thomson Reuters consistently ranks Serbia as the world's "rising science star", since 2009.

Third point: fight against corruption and organised crime. Serbia and the UK are partners in the EU twinning program for upgrading Serbia's police capacities. We are conducting a much needed reform of the judiciary. Significant success in fight against drug cartels has been achieved, in particular with the support of the UK's SOCA. We confiscated property and assets worth more than 300 million euros from the mob. Regional and international cooperation that Serbia initiated in this area is yielding positive results. Some 150% more criminal investigations and 70% more criminal charges were raised this year by the Public Prosecutor's Office in corruption cases.

By the joint action of the EU and the region, a decrease of some 60% in total number of asylum seekers from Serbia was made possible. By acting in partnership, we preserved something that in the eyes of our citizens is by far the most visible European achievement - the Schengen space visa liberalisation of December 2009. Needless to say, our citizens would also love to travel visa-free to the UK, or at least pay less for the visas.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Western Balkans region should not be left out of EU initiatives. All Western Balkans countries defined a common position on the post-2013 EU financial perspective. It is certainly unsettling that, apparently, the EU intends to allocate at most 1% of its future budget to enlargement and neighbourhood issues, meaning that these issues are valued by EU countries at no more than 0.01% of their GDP. We proposed, within that modest financial envelope, a linear increase of IPA support for countries absorbing well and making good progress, instead of today's rather inefficient system of allocating insufficient resources during the preparation phase, followed by a ten times bigger and sudden glut of funds that can hardly be absorbed after accession. We propose that there is no pre-set allocation by country in order to allow those who make greater progress to secure higher financing. Furthermore, we propose that the Western Balkans - via a Western Balkans Guarantee Fund - join the European Economic Semester, getting as a positive incentive for sustainable public finances and pension systems a limited window of EU guarantees to tap international capital markets.

Also, Serbia strongly supports the EC proposed “Connecting Europe Facility” for projects that are building trans-European transport, energy and telecom networks and advocates for participation of the Western Balkans in this Facility. This would allow greater impact in terms of achieving EU internal and external objectives.

After the adoption of the EU 2020 Strategy, we have drafted a Serbia 2020 Strategy. This strategy sets out the following goals for Serbia: employment rate of the population aged 20-64 of 65%, investment in R&D - 2% of GDP, the share of renewable energy sources in final energy consumption - 18%, energy efficiency - 0.57 toe/1000$ GDP, the share of the population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary education - 30%, and poverty rate (60% of the median disposable income) - 12%.

Our future starts with a sustainable knowledge economy project. We must fight the “brain drain”. That's why Serbia and, I believe, also other Western Balkan countries, can and must be part of Europe's Innovation Union flagship initiative. Although science and technology in our countries have been traditionally financed through public means, we recognize the importance of involving the private sector in order to make our move to the knowledge economy sustainable. The first ever national R&D strategy was adopted in March 2010. Budgetary allocations for R&D increased by 22% in 2011. The Serbian R&D Infrastructure Investment Initiative by successfully concluded negotiations with the European Investment Bank, Council of Europe Development Bank and through IPA gathered a total of 400 million euros to be invested in the next five years into R&D infrastructure. The initiative includes such projects as the NanoCentre in Belgrade, the Stem Cell research centre in Kragujevac, 50 million euros of new research equipment for the existing institutions, 4 science and technology parks, the Centre for promotion of Science in Belgrade, the Petnica Science Centre for secondary school students and non-commercial housing for researchers. We need to prepare ourselves to take advantage of the EU's increasing R&D budget and become a contributing member of the European Research Area. Serbia actively participates in the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures and has already joined two European Research Infrastructure Consortia. We are expected to become a CERN Candidate country in January 2012.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The problems that I spoke about are real. It is our responsibility to address them. The achievements are real, too. They call for more action. We are not asking for privileges or shortcuts. We simply seek more of your involvement. Our national interest is to become the 30th EU Member State and solve in a peaceful and sustainable manner the Kosovo issue. The UK vote and your support on the 9th of December European Council are of a great importance to us.

Thank you.

ADDRESS OF HE DR DEJAN POPOVIĆ, AMBASSADOR OF SERBIA TO IRELAND, ON THE OCCASION OF OPENING OF CONSULATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA IN DUBLIN ON 25 May 2011

I am more than happy and really honoured to greet you today at the reception on the occasion of the opening of a Consular Office of the Republic of Serbia in Dublin, headed by Honorary Consul Živko Jakšić. I wish him a lot of success in his work in providing assistance to our nationals in Ireland, as well as in fostering ties between our two countries and peoples. Let me reassure you, Mr Jakšić, that the Embassy of Serbia in London and myself will always support you in your work.

I am very glad to see among us today representatives of the Department for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, of the consular corps in Dublin, representatives of the Irish media, as well as prominent Serbian nationals living and working in Ireland.

I am convinced that the opening of a Consular Office of the Republic of Serbia to Ireland is a new important step in promoting and fostering relations between the two countries. From the very beginning of my posting, as an Ambassador of the Republic of Serbia accredited on non-residential basis to Ireland, I have been working on further strengthening the ties between Serbia and Ireland. We in Serbia remain committed to improving mutual understanding on a couple of crucial issues that are our foreign policy priorities. Here I primarily have in mind the improvement of our economic relations, since I believe that there are many new venues worth exploring in that area.

Besides cooperation, I also see it as our goal to improve the understanding between our two nations. And I think that there is no better way to do that than through cultural exchanges which would bring Serbia’s heritage closer to Irish people, and vice versa. I am deeply convinced that, just as in Ireland’s case, Serbian heritage, its culture, its beliefs and its history bind it strongly to the constellation of nations that have established and joined the European Union based on a set of values held and widely shared.

As an old European nation, Serbia has set before itself, as its primary foreign policy goal, to join the EU, which goes hand in hand with our other three foreign policy priorities which are: peaceful defence of our constitutional order, promotion of a dialogue and compromise as a unique means to solve any dispute, consolidation of regional stability and strengthening of our relations worldwide. All these priorities are interconnected and have a common denominator, that is the promotion of a dialogue, understanding and European values, denying any form of unilateral approach. The main purpose undoubtedly is to promote harmony, within a society, among societies in the region and between the EU and the region.

We have been continuously promoting these priorities on the international scene. We are doing that in Ireland, as well, trying to develop mutual understanding with our friends from the state institutions of Ireland and its other organisations and associations. We also believe that there is lot to be learnt from Ireland. In these early post-crisis days we in Serbia are closely watching other nation’s experiences in dealing with the serious problems the global recession has created. With its insistence on a low corporate income tax rate Ireland serves as good example – Serbia is also determined to retain its 10% corporate tax while doing its best to diminish its deficit through cutting public expenditures. Given my background as a tax expert, I am sure that you will understand why I concentrate on these lessons of the many Ireland can offer.

Last but not least, I would like to underline the significance of the Serbian Diaspora living and working in Ireland and the importance of the fact that we now have a Consular Office of Serbia in Dublin, headed by an Honorary Consul. Serbian Diaspora in Ireland constitutes a strong link that makes Serbia and Ireland even closer. The main issue is not how many people of Serbian origin live in Ireland, but how motivated and ready they are to promote Serbia and Serbian-Irish relations in their residence country. The Consulate, as well as the Embassy in London are very keen to help and support any such idea.

At the very end, let me thank you once again for joining us in our celebration today.

Ambassador Dr. Dejan Popović

SERBIA IN THE EU DURING THE DECADE THAT BEGINS SOON: STRATEGIC INTEREST OF BOTH PARTIES

As the first decade of the 21st century is approaching its end, one may state that in it 12 new states became members of the EU thus transforming this international organisation into a genuine Continental one, moving its eastern frontiers to the shores of the Black sea and Levant. Serbia is among few European countries, outside the confines of the former Soviet Union, which still remain outside the EU. This, of course, does not include Norway and Switzerland, which – each for its reasons – have opted not to formally join the EU.

Besides Croatia and Iceland, which seem to be on the EU’s doorstep, Macedonia, which has been granted the status of a candidate-country, but has not entered talks on its candidacy for the past five years due to the dispute with Greece concerning the country’s name, and Turkey, also a candidate-country, talks with which have been stalled for years now, probably due to a lack of readiness by a number of influential member-states to open the EU’s door to a country with almost 80 million of inhabitants of Muslim religion, whose practice of European values they put in question, sometimes in half-voice, sometimes quite vocally, there are Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia.
These four countries have each signed a Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU. The first two, Montenegro and Albania, have already formally submitted their candidacies and are expecting an answer by European institutions in order for their accession talks to start at some point in the future. Bosnia-Herzegovina is still facing an internal identity crisis and is, with the international community’s help, looking for an adequate institutional arrangement which would enable it to continue down the path of European integration.

Serbia, the biggest and economically-strongest among the afore-mentioned states, has been facing for a while a specific problem, since the ratification of the SAA it signed in April 2008 has not started yet in any of the EU member-states. Actually, it was only in December 2009 that the Interim Trade Agreement between the EU and Serbia was unblocked to enter into force as of 1 February 2010. The delay can be understood in the light of the fact that a single member-state – The Netherlands – believed that Serbia had not realized full cooperation with the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, and a consensus is necessary for both the SAA and the ITA to be unblocked. The remaining 26 member-states believe that, by extraditing 43 of the 45 indictees to the Hague tribunal (among whom there are two former presidents of the Republic of Serbia, the war-time president of the Serb Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina, three chiefs of General Staff of the former Yugoslav Army, the head and the deputy head of Milošević’s State Security Service, as well as several police generals), by sending all the required documentation to the Hague tribunal and by closely cooperating with the Western intelligence services, with all its police and security resources being fully engaged in locating the remaining two Hague fugitives, Serbia has done everything within its power and that its progress towards the European integration should no longer be hampered. Besides, if it is assessed in future that Serbia is after all not cooperating with the Hague tribunal, due to the fact that the war-time commander of the Bosnian Serb army, General Mladić, indicted with the genocide committed in Srebrenica and other war crimes, still remains at large, there are numerous instances at which a member-state or member-states could set a new barrier to Serbia’s membership in the EU and thereby exert the desired influence. The last, affirmative report by Serge Brammertz, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY, contributed to the partial unblocking of the process – a consensus that the ITA should enter into force was reached, but giving the green light for the commencement of the SAA ratification procedure was postponed until the next Brammertz's report, scheduled for June 2010, is submitted, provided it contains at least as positive assessment of Serbia's cooperation with the Hague Tribunal as the last December's report did.  

This way, Serbia still is in a limbo of a sort, faced with the fact that, despite the fact that the European Commission has positively assessed the progress it has achieved in its internal reforms, despite being recognized as a key factor for the regional stability, one which has been essentially and very responsibly securing the stability for nine years now, and last, but not least, despite its deep, historical rooting in the European civilization, as the oldest state in the Balkans (more precisely, the one which first liberated itself from the Ottoman rule), it is practically the only one which is not in a position to start its EU membership talks. Economic, social and political consequences of such a state of affairs could be very unfavourable, both on the internal as well as on a broader, regional plane. I strongly believe that how well the EU manages to integrate entire Western Balkans will prove to be a decisive factor in defining future European security concerns. Or, to put it in slightly different wording: the decision about whether Europe will rapidly extend membership to Serbia will definitively affect the future of the entire Western Balkans, which I believe is vital to the long-term consolidation of European security. Let me quote Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister and a good connoisseur of the Balkans: “A stable Serbia will project stability in the region – an unstable one will obviously project the reverse. Its European integration is the only lasting guarantee of its peace and its prosperity.”

Having said this, I would take this opportunity to point out that year 2009 was actually a very good one for Serbia's euro-integration perspectives.

First, the European Council decided on 30 November to liberalize visa regime for Serbia and two more Western Balkan countries which have met the criteria set by the road map – Macedonia and Montenegro. After almost 19 years, since 19 December 2009, the citizens of these three countries are again able to travel freely through most EU member-states, as well as through Switzerland and Norway. I expect that, in 2011, within a general overview of the UK visa policy, UK Border Agency could reach a decision which would enable it to Serbian citizens to travel freely to the UK as well. In the days when we are marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, for our citizens it is about the deconstruction of a “Schengen Wall”, and a first serious step towards the reintegration of significant parts of the Western Balkans into Europe, to which it belongs geographically (let me just say that there are less than 200 miles from Serbian border to Vienna), but also economically and culturally. I will be just as happy when – I hope in a few months – Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania also meet the criteria set by the road map, and Schengen visa regime is abolished for their citizens as well.

The second event occurred after the submission of a report by Serge Brammertz, the Hague tribunal chief prosecutor, on Serbia’s cooperation with this institution. As noted earlier, its positive assessment of the cooperation, including the statement that “Serbia is doing everything within its power” to locate and arrest the remaining two fugitives, contributed to the Dutch Government's decision to lift the veto on the Internal Trade Agreement. Therefore, Serbia was enabled to submit its official candidacy for EU membership on 23 December. Although, of course, submitting candidacy is a unilateral measure, which requires decisions by the European Council and the European Commission in order to be considered, unblocking the ITA and submitting candidacy is of more than symbolic significance for Serbia. By submitting it, Serbia officially defines its strategic political priority and it dedicates itself to continuing and deepening economic and institutional reforms with much greater probability, reforms necessary in order for the country to, at the end of the process, fulfil the Copenhagen criteria required for full membership. Many European friends are encouraging Serbia on that path. I am speaking about the importance of “increased probability”, having in mind certain reservations towards enlargement, above all, which are present in some important capital cities on the Continent, but also the necessity to send a clear message to the anti-European forces in Serbia, however marginalized they may be after the last elections, that the government and the president, who, thanks to their pro-European agenda, won both the parliamentary and presidential elections in 2008, that they fulfil their election promises and that, in doing so, they have a reliable partner in the EU and its member-states. This message is important due to the circumstances under which the pro-European parties twice managed to beat the radical-nationalist bloc, which had been advocating the need to turn away from the EU. Back in those days when presidential and parliamentary elections were held in Serbia in 2008, Kosovo Albanians unilaterally proclaimed independence, thereby taking away 12.3 per cent of the national territory of Serbia. I believe I am not wrong in saying that Serbian voters showed a high level of maturity by electing a government which will do its best to preserve Serbia’s territorial integrity by peaceful, diplomatic and legal means exclusively, continuing down the path of the European integration.

This brings me to the third event that took take place during the first ten days of last December. Then the International Court of Justice was holding deliberations in the proceedings aimed at providing an advisory opinion on the legality of “Kosovo’s” unilaterally-declared independence, proceedings launched following an initiative by the UN General Assembly. Although many important states, including the USA and 22 EU member-states (including the UK), have recognized “Kosovo’s” unilaterally-declared independence, the Serbian diplomacy, rooting its efforts in the strong base in international law, but also thanks to the legitimate concerns by many countries that recognizing the Kosovo secession could represent a very dangerous precedent in international relations, well, the Serbian diplomacy has managed to limit the number of states which have recognized the unilaterally-proclaimed independence to 65, as well as to get a huge support at the UN General Assembly for the resolution which asks the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on whether “Kosovo’s” unilaterally-proclaimed independence is in line with international law. Out of some 130 UN members which have not recognized Kosovo, let me mention the whole BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), five EU member-states (Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus), Vatican, almost whole of the Latin America (including Mexico, Argentina and Chile), almost whole of the sub-Saharan Africa (including South Africa and Nigeria), as well as Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and many other Muslim states. The argument which promoters of “Kosovo’s” unilaterally-proclaimed independence often mentioned in the past, that “Kosovo is a sui generis case”, which is why its unilaterally-proclaimed independence should be recognized, that argument has obviously not been received well by a significant part of the international community. The task of the ICJ, and indeed of any person analysing a concrete situation from the legal standpoint, is to apply the relevant legal rules having by definition a general character to a concrete – “unique” – situation. Referring to the “special cases” argument does not merely dilute the quality of legality of a system: it replaces legality with a political element, in which the power and commitment of individual actors become more significant than the legal rights that they enjoy. Claims that situations are sui generis reduce the universally recognised rights of states, and put them outside the ordinary processes of the making and application of international law. I, of course, agree with the thesis that every single case is specific – as the Greek philosopher Heraclites said 2,500 years ago: “No man ever steps in the same river twice”. But that does not mean that the cramps caused by the freezing water of secessionism will not grip those who step in it somewhere else, far from Kosovo: that water is freezing cold in Caucasus, and in the Mediterranean, and in the sub-Carpathian region of Central Europe, and in the Middle East, in South and Central Asia, and in Africa... That is why unilateral acts of secessionism have destructive potential, as a rule, and that is why relying on international law, together with patient, bona fide negotiations by those concerned, is the only sustainable mechanism for solving conflicts in which the right to preservation of a UN member-state’s territorial integrity and an ethnic group’s right to self-determination are opposed. Having said this, I would like to point out that the right of peoples to self-determination has been included in the UN Charter and several subsequent UN Declarations. However, the norm of self-determination applies with regard to mandate and trusteeship territories, colonial territories and foreign occupations. It also applies internally – as a principle of human rights within independent states. It manifestly does not apply as a general rule legitimising secession from independent states nor conferring rights of secession upon groups, entities or peoples within independent states.

Let me add that Serbia had been a democratic state for as many as eight years back in 2008, that it had been a member of the UN and the Council of Europe, the SAA was initialled, and the human rights its citizens enjoyed were positively assessed. Milošević was a remote past, and the UN Resolution 1244, which put the Serbian autonomous province of Kosovo under UN’s protection and which is still in force, guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that is Serbia, as its successor, explicitly confirming that Kosovo forms part of that state.

For the first time in its history, all five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and 25 other States took part in an International Court of Justice debate. Serbia is interested in hearing the voice of the highest institution of international justice. At the same time in addressing ICJ via the UN General Assembly, Serbia has manifested a responsible stance in the situation when it has been faced with an extremely huge challenge – the loss of one eighth of its territory and, above all, the historical cradle of its State. I consider, therefore, that the resort to peaceful, diplomatic and legal means in resolving conflicts of such magnitude, is a good precedent not only for the region, where in the past similar conflicts escalated usually into armed ones, but even on the global scale. I expect the International Court of Justice to make its decision, i.e. to give its advisory opinion most probably, by the middle of 2010. In view of the fact that the unilaterally proclaimed independence of “Kosovo” has been made in violation of the mentioned 1244 UN Security Council Resolution, the United Nations Charter and 1975 Helsinki Final Act, I believe that the opinion of the Court will be in favour of the position of Serbia that the unilaterally proclaimed independence represents the violation of international law. If I am proved right, the process of further recognition of “Kosovo”, which has been carried out at a slower pace than expected, will be practically halted, and the independence of this entity will remain sub-prime (for example, it cannot become a member of the United Nations or EU). However, it is in the best interest of Serbia that the Kosovo problem is resolved. Therefore, the offer of Belgrade addressed to Priština to launch serious, substantive negotiations on the final status would regain its momentum. On the other hand, the ICJ advisory opinion could be an encouragement for Kosovo Albanians to accept the offer because only in this way they could open perspectives to the population in Kosovo for a sustainable economic and social prosperity. Serbia remains very responsible in this context – there is no issue that could not be discussed in legally framed negotiations. However, the threat by “fait accompli” or by an artificial deadline on the talksafter which, if no compromise solution was reached, Kosovo’s independence would be imposed, which did hang over the heads of the Serbian side like the sword of Damocles during the 2006-2007 negotiations held under Martti Ahtisaari, should be this time avoided.

To enjoy the benefits of the solution to come – for Kosovo and the rest of Serbia, and for the European future of the Western Balkans – we must compromise, and we must negotiate in good faith, resulting in no winners and losers. In a way that puts the welfare and the stability of the entire region, as well as the consolidation of the security architecture of all of Europe in the centre of the process. Let me quote the words of Henry Clay: “All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the principle of mutual concession.”
But let us wait to see the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Diplomatic and all other resources of Serbia are focused on achieving two strategic goals: EU membership and preservation of the State territorial integrity. I will come back to the issue of the EU membership, i.e. to the results achieved thus far and to the problems and challenges that are facing Serbia in this context.

The first point I would like to single out is a Serbia’s significant initial legging behind the process of transition. Until 5 October 2000, the totalitarian regime of Slobodan Milošević was in full swing. It introduced party pluralism only as a matter of formality. However, by maintaining an iron grip on, and nomenclature control over, the principal economic sectors and media, as well as military and police apparatus, it ensured the survival of communist system for yet another 11 years compared to, let us say, Poland, Czech Republic or Hungary, 10 years compared to Albania or 9 years compared to Russia. By creating xenophobia, relying on frequently justified fears of Serbian minorities in the neighbouring ex-Yugoslav republics and by flaring up those fears, Milošević allocated huge national resources in support of the Serbian side in Croatia and Bosnia. He exposed the country to sanctions and hyperinflation, following by 79-day NATO bombardment of Serbia in spring 1999 due to Kosovo. However, the image that was created among many witnesses of the “lead” nineties that Milošević enjoyed the support of majority Serbs for the implementation of his political programme is wrong. Initially, before the conflicts broke up, in the then common Yugoslav State, he did enjoy significant popularity, which led to the victory of the Socialist Party of Serbia at the parliamentary elections in December 1990 ensuring not more than 44 per cent of turnout votes. However, not long before March 1991, huge anti-Milošević demonstrations took place in Belgrade that were only temporarily put on halt by tanks taken to the streets. They were followed by mass protests of students and citizens against the regime in 1992 and in 1996/97, which demanded peace with the neighbours, cessation of war hostilities and destruction, the banning of the Milošević’s media control, recognition of true results of the local elections that were falsified by the regime and ultimately the resignation of Milošević. Eventually, when he tried once again to falsify the results of the presidential elections in September 2000, million of people turn out to the squares and streets of Belgrade arriving from all parts of Serbia and forced him to step down.

By saying this, I do not want to deny the fact that in the nineties the regime had also a large number of followers whose voice, thanks to a heavy censored electronic media, was very prominent. Secret police manipulated not only election results but set opposition leaders against each other, prolonging in this way the time of the Milošević’s rule. However, majority of people in Serbia did not support such policy – those were decent, peaceful and reasonable people used to live in multi-ethnic communities and to respect the values described today as “European values”. For them the nineties were the years of the collapse of the State in which they had been born, the loss of their life savings, the drastic fall in their standard of living, hyperinflation (soaring daily in late 1993 and early 1994 up to 90 per cent), economic sanctions, expansion of crime… Eventually, their voice came into play in the peaceful-velvet revolution on 5 October 2000 when Milošević was ousted. For more than nine years since then Serbia has had a democracy like all other States in the region and in Europe. The citizens of Serbia have time and again demonstrated their commitment to join the European Union. All elections held since the democratic revolution of 5 October 2000 have returned reformist majorities.

Consequently, Serbian transition began as late as 2000 and today it could be at the stage in which Hungarian and Slovak reforms were in 1998. The progress is significant, despite of a very low starting point. In 2000, Serbian GDP reached just one third of the GDP in 1990, while inflation was at the level of 111 per cent. Energetic reforms were carried out – first in financial and then in real sector, so that the economy recorded a high growth rate during the entire 2001-2008 period (on average 5.7 per cent annually) while per capita GDP was tripled and average net income increased from 40 to 350 Euros. The inflation rate decreased to approximately 7 per cent. The total volume of foreign direct investments into Serbia reached the figure of 17 billion US dollars, and the banking sector is almost entirely in the hands of European banks (Credit Agricole, Societe Generale, UniCredit Bank, LHB Bank, National Bank of Greece, Raiffeisenbank, Intesa San Paolo, EFG Bank, Erste Bank etc.). The process of privatisation has been almost finished – at present, the State remains the owner of electric-power industry, railway and of some other infrastructure sectors. In mobile phone sector it is an owner of 80 per cent of one operator – to be sold in the course of this year – while two others (covering almost 55 per cent of the market) are owned by a Norwegian and an Austrian company. Due to a global recession, the selling of some companies, like national air company, has been postponed for some later date when a better price could be achieved. A part of the expert circles to which I belong myself, considers that the public sector in Serbia is still too large and that it should be further reduced in the years to come. As a positive example, I would mention that the indebtedness of the State is moderate (about 33 per cent of the GDP), while the budget deficit is, as a rule, below 2.5 per cent.

In 2009 crisis did hit the Serbian economy, but not so drastically as others in Central and Eastern Europe. It is estimated that the GDP fell for 3 per cent and that the unemployment rate has been increased for 1 per cent point. The bad news is that unemployment reached the level of 14.5 per cent even before the outbreak of the crisis. As a matter of fact, the victory of the pro-European forces at 2008 elections was based, to a large extent, to the belief that new investments would create the prospects for new jobs. The liquidity of Serbian banking system has been maintained and Serbian banks are well capitalized and by and large profitable. Foreign exchange reserves remained stable during the crisis.

Due to the decrease of demand that caused the fall in economic activities and tax revenues, above all VAT revenues, the incurred budget deficit had to be financed partially by credits, and by the support from the European IPA funds, and partially by the reduction of public expenditures – first of all by the reduction of salaries in public sector and by laying off a number of employees. In response to the deepening recession, Serbia requested assistance from the IMF and agreed to undertake a number of fiscal measures to reduce overall expenditure. There are first indications that the crisis in Serbia has hit the bottom. However, I assess that the way out of recession cannot be expected to come before the second quarter of 2010.

Investments in infrastructure, financed by the credits of the World Bank, EBRD and EIB, Chinese and Russian governments, as well as by the budget funds, in the current and during the coming three years should not only connect Serbia through the European corridor 10 with Hungary in the north, Bulgaria in the southeast, and Macedonia and Greece in the south, but it should also open tens of thousands of new jobs.

I shall let the Report of the European Commission of 14 October 2009 speak of the progress which Serbia has made in the political field towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria for the EU membership – criteria which request the stability of institutions that guarantee democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect and protection of minorities. I shall just make some short comments when it is necessary. I hope that you will not blame me for having to listen for about five minutes the bureaucratic Brussels English: this is the price we pay for the sake of objectivity.

Serbia has made progress in meeting the political criteria and addressing key European Partnership priorities. The government has demonstrated its commitment to bringing the country closer to the EU by undertaking a number of initiatives including the (unilateral) implementation of the Interim Trade Agreement as of the beginning of 2009. Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has further improved, however ICTY indictees Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić are still at large. A number of initiatives were taken to consolidate democracy and the rule of law. However, further reforms are needed to ensure that the new constitutional framework is implemented in line with European standards, particularly in the area of the judiciary. Let me mention that in December 2009 a new network of courts of justice was established and about 2,500 judges were elected throughout the country – from municipal courts to the Supreme Court of Cassation.

Parliament revised its rules of procedure and this has led to improvements in its work and the legislative process. Election legislation, however, has not yet been revised to bring it fully in line with European standards – namely, there still exists the practice that, once elected, a MP is required to put his/her blank resignation into an envelope and to forward it to his/her party's leadership, which is entitled to activate the resignation in cases of disobeying the party whip's instructions. Parliament has not sufficiently used its powers of oversight over the executive – the Supreme Audit Institution has been established but is still expected to produce its first audit reports. At this juncture I would add that in the final days of 2009 the Supreme Audit Institution did produce its first audit report – the event that was acclaimed as a major achievement by the general public in Serbia.

The Commission’s Report further states that the State Government has demonstrated a high degree of commitment to European integration and has been active in preparing legislation across a range of areas and implementing a national programme on European integration. However, insufficient attention has been paid to effective implementation of existing laws and impact assessment. Planning of government work needs to be strengthened and greater coordination between ministries ensured.

The public administration has good overall capacity. The Serbian European Integration Office has been functioning well. However, administrative capacity on European integration within line ministries needs to be strengthened. Transparency, impartiality, professionalism and accountability have to be improved and greater priority given to fighting corruption and supporting the work of independent bodies. Independent and regulatory bodies function relatively well, within the constraints imposed by limited resources.

Serbia made progress in the fight against corruption. The law enforcement authorities have shown higher commitment to fighting corruption, leading to the arrests of several suspects, and a number of high-profile cases have been opened. Corruption, however, remains prevalent in many areas and continues to be a serious problem. Public procurement and privatisation are particularly vulnerable sectors.

The legal and institutional framework for human rights and the protection of minorities is in place and civil and political rights are broadly respected. However, existing constitutional and legal guarantees need to be fully enforced. 

With regard to internal market, Serbia has made some progress in aligning its legislation and strengthening institutional capacities. There has been good progress in the field of free movement of goods; the adoption of new legislation on standardisation and conformity assessment has set the basis for further alignment with the acquis. Some progress was made in the field of consumer protection with the adoption of legislation on product safety and electronic trade. Serbia is moderately advanced in the areas of movements of persons, services and the right to establishment, while in the area of free movement of capital Serbia needs to continue its efforts to fully liberalise current account transactions and lift restrictions on short term credit and portfolio investments.

Serbia has made good progress in the area of customs. The capacity of its customs administration was enhanced. Tax collection procedures have improved as have the enforcement capacities of the tax administration. Serbia has to further improve the collection of registered debts and to continue alignment in the area of excise duties and VAT.

Finally, some progress can also be noted in the field of social policies although the legislative framework needs to be developed further and the existing legislation properly implemented. There has been some progress in the field of public health policy, mainly in primary healthcare reform and disease prevention. Progress has been made in the areas of education and culture. In the area of science, research and innovation Serbia has made important efforts in promoting research cooperation and participating in projects under the Seventh EC Framework Programme for Research and Development. Serbia's preparations to join WTO are well advanced and a number of WTO compatible laws have been adopted.

All these achievements encourage me to expect that by June 2010 the European Council may give its green light for the commencement of the procedure of ratification of SAA and simultaneously, or within a short subsequent period, the avis procedure may begin – namely, the Council is expected to ask the Commission to initiate the process of establishing Serbia's readiness for the status of the candidate country. Once Serbia is given a lengthy questionnaire and supplies satisfactory answers to several thousand questions contained in it, the Commission will declare the country's eligibility to gain such a status. In the course of 2011 the Council may give to Serbia the status of the candidate country and set the date for the beginning of the accession negotiations.

Let me end this lecture by pointing out my conviction that its heritage, its culture, its beliefs, and its history bind Serbia strongly to a constellation of nations that have established the European Union based on a common set of values deeply held and widely shared.

SPEECH ON THE OCCASION OF THE NATIONAL DAY OF SERBIA AND THE DAY OF THE ARMY OF SERBIA (2010)

I am happy and really honoured to greet you today in the Embassy of the Republic of Serbia at a reception to commemorate the National Day and the Day of the Army of Serbia – Candlemas Day (Sretenje). 15th of February is the most important date in the modern Serbian history, since on Candlemas Day in 1804 Serbs rose to arms against Ottoman rule to end the nation's 345 years of occupation by the Turks. The elected leader of the uprising, Karadjordje (Djordje "The Black"), became subsequently the founder of the Serbian royal dynasty Karadjordjević, which, with some breaks, ruled Serbia and Yugoslavia until 1945. His great-great-great granddaughter should be today with us.

The capital Belgrade was liberated by the end of 1806 and the first free nation state in the Balkans was re-established after three and half centuries. The uprising was a success story because Serbia had allies – primarily Russia and Austria, while a large number of Serbs from what is today known as Vojvodina, then part of the Hungarian lands of the Habsburgs, crossed the Danube and Sava rivers to provide help to their freedom-fighting compatriots. The support did not consist of arms shipments alone – there was an influx of educated persons who did their best to enhance the culture and education among the people south of the river Danube, who had been excluded from the western European Renaissance and Enlightenment processes for 345 years due to the occupation. The first higher education institution in the Balkans, the forerunner of the University of Belgrade, was established in the recently liberated Belgrade in 1808. Ever since those days Serbia's intelligentsia was educated in Europe (in Paris, Vienna, London, Munich…), or at the University of Belgrade, communicating back the project of European modernisation and rational government into Serbian society. The Candlemas Day, as the day when the uprising against Ottoman rule commenced, is also celebrated as the Day of the Army of Serbia, since nine years of the existence of the reborn Serbian state at the beginning of the XIX century represented a period of almost ceaseless armed conflicts with Turk forces.

In the aftermath of the 1812 Bucharest Peace Treaty, whereby Russia was allowed to concentrate its armies to fight Napoleon and Turkey to reconquest Serbia, the first Serbian free modern state was temporarily suppressed in 1813, but only to re-emerge in 1815, gaining autonomous status by Sultan's hatti-sherif in 1830 and full independence in 1878 at the Berlin Congress. In this vital half a century period, during which Serbia invested huge diplomatic efforts in enlarging its autonomy and transforming it into fully fledged sovereignty, Candlemas Day again represented a major turning point. Namely, it was on Sretenje in 1835 that the first Serbian constitution was enacted. Its contents, influenced by the ideas of the French Revolution, had been deemed too liberal for the concert of European powers established at the Vienna Congress in 1815 and therefore "The Candlemas Day Constitution" was quickly put aside and replaced in 1838 by another one – definitely less provocative. Anyhow, the Candlemas Day for the Serbs is not just a major Christian feast commemorating the purification of the Virgin Mary and the presentation of the infant Jesus at the Temple – this is the day which we also commemorate as the beginning of the uprising that led to the rebirth of the Serbian statehood and of our armed forces, as well as to the enactment of our first constitution.

Two hundred and six years have passed since Karadjordje's rebellion against the Ottoman occupation and Serbia's resurrection as a modern European state. Having fought for freedom on the side of the Entente in the Great War and on the side of the Allies in the Second World War, while facing many temptations by the end of the last century, Serbia is now strongly determined to fulfil its strategic and legitimate task – to become a member of the European Union. There are many battles yet to be fought – I mean in South Africa where our national football team will do its best to prove, together with our Slovenian friends, that the region, once considered classy football-wise (just remember Hungarian czardas led by Puskas in early fifties, or the Yugoslav 1968 team which was second in Europe, having eliminated the England of Bobby Moore and Bobby Charlton), is again riding high. Novak Djoković, Ana Ivanović and Jelena Janković are expected to fight their battles on the tennis courts, too. But these are the types of battles all of us enjoy. Strongly committed to European values, Serbia has relied exclusively on the diplomatic and judicial measures to deal with the most delicate and most painful issue of preserving its territorial integrity. At the same time major economic, political and legal reforms are being carried out not only to meet the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership, but in order to improve the conditions in which Serbia's citizens live. Let me reiterate that the democratic Serbia highly appreciates support it enjoys by friendly nations on the path of its Euro-integration. In the capacity of Serbia's Ambassador to the UK, I am privileged to cooperate with the people sincerely committed to the EU enlargement – the Government, Her Majesty Opposition, civil servants, academics, business circles, local communities. Having said this, I would like to point out at the end of this speech that by reforming its society and preparing itself for the EU membership, while enjoying the support of our British friends, new foundations of Anglo-Serbian partnership are being established. The year in which Serbia performed quite well (visa liberalisation, the interim trade agreement stepped into force, formal application for EU membership was submitted) is now replaced by a year in which, like the ATP-ranked tennis players, we must perform even better in order to keep our place on the list. We shall witness together how things develop in the course of 2010. And I am serene knowing that not only among you, but elsewhere in this country and beyond its borders, Serbia has friends who observe its progress with satisfaction. The Western Balkans does belong to Europe and all its countries – Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia – will at the end of the day become members of the EU to the benefit of not only its nations but of the peace and stability on the entire Continent.

Ambassador Dr. Dejan Popović

After the lecture, Minister Jeremic met a group of Serbian students currently studying at the LSE.

Integral text of the lecture

Dr Popovic spoke about Serbia's progress on its path towards the EU and the challenges it is facing. He also answered questions by those gathered at the Massey Room, among whom were most Serbian postgraduate students currently studying at Oxford.

Integral text of the lecture

Three Serbian soldiers are burried at the Brookwood cemetery, the biggest Commonwealth cemetery on the UK soil.

The ceremony was attended by Minister-Counsellor Branimir Filipovic, Defence Attache Col Branko Milovanovic, Assistant Defence Attache Col Darko Perisic, as well as Capt (Navy) Jon Holloway from the UK Ministry of Defence.

On this Day, Sretenje, Serbia is marking two important events: 205 years of the First Serbian Uprising and 174 years of the adoption of the Sretenje Constitution. That is why February 15th is Serbian Statehood Day and Army Day but it is also its Constitution Day.

Two prominent personalities that specially epitomize these two days are the leader of the First Serbian Uprising Karadjordje Petrovic and the author of the Sretenje Constitution Dimitrije Davidovic.

Tenacity of the leader of the First Serbian Uprising Djordje Petrovic, the reputation he enjoyed among the people and his ability to appease the Dukes who often could not differentiate between the general and particular interest, between the national and private interests, made Karadjordje indisputable leader of the First Serbian Uprising and the founder of the modern Serbian state.

Serbia’s constitutionality shared the destiny of the Serbian state which went through a difficult time on its road towards its full realization.

The First Serbian Constitution, the so-called Sretenje Constitution, drafted by Dimitrije Davidovic handed down a great legacy to the Serbian people. It entrusted it with the task of having always to be in a forefront of the efforts to attain freedoms and human rights.

The constitution was drawn up to secure Europeanization of Serbia, protection of citizens before the state and transformation of Serbia into the legal state with protected human and property rights for all.

 Chapter 11 of the Sretenje Constitution states that we are all, without exception, equal before the law.

It is always wise to recall what was written down back in 1835.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Marking of the Statehood and Army Day unites identities of the Army and the state thus bringing out again their deep inter-connection in Serbia’s statehood tradition. Serbia, that poses no threat to anyone but is everyone’s friend and a partner, is a anchor of the regional stability and security and a democratic European country.

Serbia defends its interests only in a peaceful manner. That is the policy that we shall be guided by also in the future.

The Army is the guarantor of this peaceful state policy and an institution that we have full trust in.

Our security system is stable, despite the fact that the foreign-policy environment is full of new security challenges and trials.

Kosovo and Metohija is the most important and most sensitive issue of our own but also of regional and European security and policy.

We remain firmly committed to defending our legitimate rights in our territory through legal and diplomatic means and not by force. Serbia will never recognize independence of Kosovo and while respecting international law it will defend its own legitimate interests, its integrity in Kosovo, in the legal arena and before the International Court of Justice. The 17th of February is for Serbia the date when an illegal act was adopted when Pristina unilaterally declared Kosovo as a so-called state.

A year later everyone realized that Kosovo is not a state. We say to our citizens in Kosovo that their state is looking after them and their interests.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The wave of the global economic crisis has not yet reached its full climax and no one can predict how long it will last and what consequences it will have.

The Government program of measures to mitigate the negative effects of the crisis on the Serbian economy is only in the function of defence of our economy, stabilization of the dinar and maintenance of the standards of citizens.

The Government of Serbia will make a monthly analysis of the situation and will adapt measures to the effects of the crisis. Defence of productive jobs will be our priority.

In order to solve problems more quickly then in the past we have to get down to business more vigorously. The same applies to all state institutions, including both the President of the Republic and the government, the provincial, town and municipal authorities, courts and prosecutor’s offices.

Nowadays, Serbia needs unity of all national potentials. It needs solidarity, respect for others and focusing on what we have in common and what is undeniable and that is the prosperity of Serbia instead of wasting time and energy on arguments and conflicts.

Many different nationalities live in our country with their religion, their identity and culture fully respected. There is no room for national chauvinism, fascism, anti-semitism and hate speech in Serbia.

Anyone resorting to these anti-civilization acts will encounter strong resistance and condemnation, primarily by the public. One who insults and humiliates a member of the national minority, does the same to whole Serbian nation, especially if this happens in our highest legislative institution - Serbian Parliament. Serbia is a country that will never again experience divisions, whether religious or ethnic. We are all equal citizens of one Serbia.

I call on all representatives of state and citizens to respect the European standards set out by the author of the Sretenje Constitution in 1835. I call on them to respect the Constitution and laws of this country and that the laws be equally applied both to all citizens and to those in power.

Every Minister, every state official, every parliament member must always bear in mind the fact that he must be in the service of the people and citizens and must be humble and behave properly.

He also must perform his duties in a serious and honest manner.

That is the most important mandate given to us by our citizens in the elections and we must never forget it.

Citizens of Serbia,

Membership in the European Union as the strategic goal of our country was clearly defined and reaffirmed in all past elections, as decided by the citizens. In spite of the global financial crisis and its impact on the international relations we will achieve this historic goal of ours.

This is for our own sake, for the sake of better life of our citizens, for the sake of our children. We must complete our cooperation with the Hague Tribunal and that is the only political condition for our membership in the European Union.

We must not give up and despite the obstacles there is no room for doubt, skepticism and lack of enthusiasm. Serbia needs a new impetus and with a new energy of ours we will succeed because this people had the strength to overcome all obstacles at the time when there was a clear awareness of the goal, when there was unity, seriousness, decency and hard work.

In addition to the EU membership, Serbia also wishes to have the best possible relations with Russia and the United States of America. Despite disagreements on some issues Serbia also wishes to strengthen the relations with Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. Serbia is making every effort to make the region stable and to make good relations the basis of regional prosperity. Without Serbia and its potential no regional initiative stands a chance of succeeding and with Serbia every economic, political and peace process in the Western Balkans has a future.

Regional stability is our state interest but it is also the interest of all people who live in our Balkan region.

Here, in Novi Sad, in our province of Vojvodina, I wish to emphasize that by its Statute that will be aligned with the Constitution of Serbia, Vojvodina will get what is guaranteed to it by the Constitution and that the unity of the country will in no way be jeopardized. Decentralization is the tradition in Serbia and Vojvodina has European but primarily Serbian character. It is an integral part of Serbia and it will remain so.

I wish to remove any doubt, suspicion and fear and to ask for politicized debate on the Statute of the province to be translated into an argumented democratic discussion. On this Statehood Day we also symbolically mark Serbia’s unity, its territorial integrity and indivisibility. We observe the freedom-loving tradition of the Serbian people but also the respect for all Serbian citizens: Serbs, Hungarians, Bosniaks, Roma, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians, Ruthenians, Bunjevci, Gorani, Albanians, Vlachs, Montenegrins, and Macedonians alike. We celebrate our renewed statehood but also a persistent work to promote human rights and freedoms, respect religion, tradition and culture and identity.

Orientated towards Serbia’s European future, we preserve our sovereignty, integrity and dignity so that our state could be the way we want it to: strong, stable and respected by the world.

The citizens of Serbia, I congratulate you the Statehood Day of the Republic of Serbia! Gentlemen soldiers, I congratulate you Serbian Army Day.

United Nations Security Council

ADDRESS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
BY H.E. MR. VUK JEREMIĆ
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Mr. President,
Special Representative Zannier,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am glad to be taking part in one of those occasions in which the errors of the past, carried out in the name of bare political expediency, can begin to be set aright through a series of acts characterized by strategic foresight, vision, and prudence.

We have the chance to engage in a common effort to attenuate the effects of a serious challenge to the foundations of the international system that took place on February 17th, 2008. On that day, the ethnic Albanian authorities of Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo and Metohija unilaterally declared independence from a member State of the United Nations—in direct violation of its democratic Constitution, and against the will of the Security Council.

Mr. President,

In all the sessions of the Security Council devoted to our southern province, Serbia has insisted upon the full respect of the binding obligations of the United Nations Charter, as well as this Council’s Resolution 1244 (1999), which guarantees the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country.

I make no apology for this. I celebrate the fact that Serbia is unwavering in its determination to peacefully defend its principled position on Kosovo—using all political, diplomatic, and legal means at our disposal. We will continue doing so in the future.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the member States of the United Nations that support Serbia’s position on Kosovo’s UDI—the first among these valiant equals being the Russian Federation. Our nations stand together, dedicated to safeguarding the principles set forth in the UN Charter.

Mr. President,

Serbia’s insistence on resolving Kosovo’s future status in accordance with international law has not only been invoked for reasons of vital national interest and constitutional necessity; nor merely out of genuine care for regional peace and stability. We have also done so out of fundamental concern for the dangerous consequences the Kosovo precedent could bring to the survival of the United Nations system as we know it.

We hold that the argument that Kosovo is sui generis—in other words, a unique case—is untenable. The sui generis contention comes down to saying that Kosovo should be treated as an exception to international law—that Kosovo should stand beyond the rules that govern the behavior of the international community.

The Republic of Serbia strongly rejects this claim, believing that no one should permit himself the right to proclaim such exceptions, especially in defiance of the Security Council.

Serbia’s position has remained consistent: the only way to avoid challenging the territorial integrity of any UN member State is for the world community to work constructively together to solve this issue through international institutions of indisputable and universal legitimacy.

On October 8th, the General Assembly of the United Nations supported Serbia’s position by an overwhelming majority. It approved a resolution to refer the question of status to the International Court of Justice.

Thanks to this support, an issue of such fundamental importance and complexity—passionately involving all at once identity, boundaries, communal rights, opposing historical narratives—has been steered clear of resorting to the force of arms for the first time in the history of our region.

Mr. President,

Relegating this to the judicial arena was a re-affirmation by the world community of Serbia’s strategic choice to respond to UDI peacefully, and with maximal restraint.

It is the first in a series of steps designed to create an environment in which lasting stability can be secured, law strengthened, and sovereign equality reinforced.

The second involves restoring legitimacy to international action in our southern province.

On June 12th, the Secretary General issued a report in which he informed the Security Council of his intention to begin reconfiguring the international civilian presence in Kosovo. This was done without the approval of the Republic of Serbia—the host country of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo. And it was done without the endorsement of the Security Council—the only institution endowed with the power to legitimate changes in the composition of the international presence in Kosovo, as paragraphs 5 and 19 of resolution 1244 (1999) make abundantly clear.

Ignoring the will of Serbia—and infringing on the statutory prerogatives of the Security Council—set the stage for a crisis of legitimacy.

Just as with UDI, the Republic of Serbia responded in a non-confrontational manner. On July 25th, we addressed the Council to repeat our position that it is of “crucial importance for reconfiguration to proceed with the full engagement of Serbia. It must be completed with our acceptance, and supported by the Security Council. Such is the only way,” we concluded, “to deliver legitimacy and ensure the sustainability of our work.”

Mr. President,

The point was clear: the voice of Serbia must be respected.

On that basis, an understanding with the Secretary General was reached in which a dialogue between Serbia and the United Nations would intensify on six topics of mutual concern—namely police, judiciary, customs, transportation and infrastructure, administrative boundaries, and Serbian patrimony.

After months of difficult negotiations, I am pleased to say that an agreement has been reached. Its provisions are detailed in the report we have before us. This dialogue will continue. I assure you that Serbia will remain constructive in the ongoing dialogue with the United Nations, while holding to its principled position on Kosovo, rooted in our country’s Constitution and resolution 1244.

Our present achievement is greatly significant: it creates the conditions to protect the well-being of Serbs and other gravely endangered communities in Kosovo. And it cements the fact that the Republic of Serbia remains indispensable to the self-governance of our southern province.

Mr. President,

Serbia’s longstanding position of support for the deepening of the European Union’s engagement in any part of Serbia, including Kosovo, has never been at issue.

The European Union can and should help to build the much needed institutional and societal fabric of our southern province. This has been impossible until now because of the way reconfiguration began.

What has always been a crucial condition for our acceptance of reconfiguration is a clear and binding commitment by the European Union—confirmed in the Security Council—to be fully status neutral, and completely anchor its presence in Kosovo under the authority of the United Nations, in conformity with resolution 1244 (1999).

I am pleased that these reasonable conditions have been met. The explicit language of the report confirms the status neutrality of EULEX’s engagement, which is a guarantee that no part of its mandate can be devoted to the implementation of the Ahtisaari Plan for Kosovo’s independence—rejected by the Republic of Serbia, and “never endorsed by the Security Council,” in the words of the report that is before us today.

The Republic of Serbia therefore welcomes the Secretary General’s report.

Mr. President,

I must confess my disappointment at the position that the authorities in Pristina have taken on the Secretary General’s report.

What is of great significance, however, is that the implementation of the six points—as well as the deployment of EULEX that, to quote the report, “will fully respect resolution 1244 and operate under the overall authority and within the status-neutral framework of the United Nations”—shall nonetheless be put into operation. And that it shall be done in consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as the Republic of Serbia.

I call on the authorities in Pristina neither to obstruct the will of the international community, nor to oppose the binding resolve of the Security Council.

Mr. President,

I take the opportunity to draw the Council’s attention to the difficult environment in which the most endangered community in Europe continues to live. For many Serbs in Kosovo, their fate continues to depend on how they feel they can survive despite the enormous hostility of their immediate surroundings.

The representative of the Kosovo Albanians is present today in his personal capacity. In his previous remarks to this Council, a claim has been made that Kosovo is an idyllic, multi-ethnic place where democratic perfection is just around the corner.

I therefore invite the Council to consider the following:

What of the abominable act of cultural cleansing that is the paving over of the ruins of the recently destroyed Serbian church in the center of Djakovica—thus compounding physical destruction with the attempt to erase every trace of its very existence?

What of the defiance of the municipal authorities in Decane to restore the cadastral record of land belonging to the monastery of Visoki Decane, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that has been placed on its List of World Heritage in Danger—notwithstanding two Executive Decisions by the SRSG ordering them to do so?

What of the return of illegally-seized private property? More than 30,000 such cases are outstanding. Those affected—Kosovo Serbs overwhelmingly—barely manage in make-shift dwellings or IDP camps, while Kosovo Albanians continue to live in their homes and make use of their agricultural fields—without fear of prosecution.

What of the fact that only one hundred and seven Kosovo Serb IDPs—according to the UN’s numbers—have returned to their homes in the first nine months of this year?

What of the break-in of the Kosovo Trust Agency compound by officials of the parallel institution known as the Privatisation Agency of Kosovo, done in the presence of local police?

What of the seizure of massive quantities of medicine and medical equipment destined for North Kosovo or the enclaves?

What of the most recent stoning of Serbs in Kosovska Mitrovica, and the use of automatic weapons by ethnic Albanians against unarmed Serbian civilians and international police?

And, finally, what of the repeated assaults on international civilian officials in Kosovo?

These and many other similar questions are disturbing indeed. As member States of the United Nations, I believe it is our solemn duty to seek the answers to them.

Mr. President,

In conclusion, I say that the rapid realization of full membership in the European Union will continue to be the central strategic priority of the Republic of Serbia. This should also remain the priority of all other UN member States in the Western Balkans. For the caravan of history that began its journey with the Treaty of Rome will not stop. We must make sure that no one is left behind, as it goes by.

We have been very clear as to who we are and what we wanted. Serbia continues to believe in a shared destiny of all European nations. And we remain dedicated to embrace Robert Schuman’s dream of an “organized and living Europe indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations amongst states.”

These stand at the foundation of our democracy, our efforts at reconciliation, and our beliefs in what we can accomplish together. They remind us of the importance of cooperation, compromise and consensus-building, while prompting us to remain true to the moral compass the values themselves provide to all who have the prescience to see beyond the first obstacle on the way.

Mr. President,

Serbia—whole Serbia, including Kosovo—will become a member of the European Union in the next few years.

We will join the European Union with our heads held high, with our territorial integrity intact, and with our sovereignty preserved.

Mr. President,

Like most other nations, mine has traveled through periods of tragedy, and periods of glory. Sometimes it is tragedy that produces the opportunity to achieve new heights. But these are not reached by simply inventing new history. That is why Serbia will never, ever accept the independence of Kosovo. New heights are achieved by honoring all that constitute one’s national identity, not denying it. New heights are achieved by nurturing heritage, not suffocating it. Achieving new heights is about a nation being proud of its past, while reaching beyond its present.

“The arc of the moral universe is long; but it bends towards justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, adding: “it comes to all in the end.”

So it has always been, so it is, and so it will be. And so will be Kosovo. Part of Serbia forever.
____

Thank you, Mr. President, for having given me the opportunity to address the Security Council at a time of great consequence for us all.

* * *

Ambasada Srbije u Londonu ce od 18. februara do 31. jula 2008. godine primati prijave gradjana sa boravistem u Velikoj Britaniji i Republici Irskoj radi dodele besplatnih akcija, kao i zaposlenih i bivsih zaposlenih u pojedinim javnim preduzecima (NIS, JAT, A.D.Galenika, Telekom, EPS i Aerodom N. Tesla).

Da bi gradjani imali pravo na novcanu naknadu i upis akcija moraju da ispunjavaju sledece uslove:

• Da su navrsili 18. godina zakljucno sa 31. decembrom 2007. godine i da su na dan sticanja statusa nosioca prava bili upisani u biracki spisak nadleznih opstinskih organa;
• Da su drzavljani Republike Srbije, odnosno da su upisani u knjigu drzavljana Republike Srbije dana 3. januara 2008. godine;
• Da su dana 30.juna 2007. imali prebivaliste na teritoriji Republike Srbije, odnosno status privremeno raseljenog lica sa Kosova i Metohije;
• Da pravo na akcije bez naknade nisu na bilo koji nacin ostvarili, u celosti ili delimicno, u skladu sa Zakonom o svojinskoj transformaciji (“Sl. gl. RS 32/97 i 10/01) ili Zakonom o privatizaciji (“Sl. gl. RS” 38/01, 18/03 i 45/05)

Podnosilac prijave podnosi na uvid:

1. Vazecu licnu kartu, koja je jedini dokument na osnovu kojeg je moguce izvrsiti prijavu (pasos, vojna legitimacija i sl. se ne prihvataju);
2. Karticu banke kod koje je otvoren dinarski racun. Ukoliko podnosilac prijave nema otvoren dinarski racun, predvidjena je mogucnost da mu sluzbenik Ambasade dodeli broj dinarskog racuna Postanske stedionice.
   Napomena: Lica koja imaju status privremeno raseljenih lica sa Kosova i Metohije, pored licne karte, podnose legitimaciju za raseljena lica ili zeleni karton.

Evidentiranje zaposlenih i bivsih zaposlenih u javnim preduzecima odvijace se u sledecim rokovima:

• Naftna Industrija Srbije i JAT Airways - od 18. februara do 30.marta 2008. godine;
• A.D.Galenika i Telekom Srbije - od 31. marta do 30.maja 2008. godine;
• Elektroprivreda Srbije i Aerodrom Nikola Tesla - od 31. maja do 31. jula 2008. god.

Zaposleni i bivsi zaposleni u navedenim javnim preduzecima potrebno je da podnosu sledecu dokumentaciju:

• vazecu licnu kartu (na uvid); fotokopiju licne karte;
• original uverenja o drzavljanstvu R.Srbije koje nije starije od 6 meseci;
• fotokopiju radne knjizice overene u preduzecu, a za penzionere overena u Republickom fondu za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje;
• Potvrdu o ostvarenim godinama staza koju izdaje preduzece (na propisanom obrascu) za cije se akcije zaposlen ili bivsi zaposleni prijavljuje. Zaposleni i bivsi zaposleni, koji su se kao gradjani vec prijavili za besplatne akcije, nemaju pravo na besplatne akcije u preduzecu u kojem imaju status zaposlenog ili bivseg zaposlenog.

Prijave gradjana vrsice bez naplate takse za to posebno odredjeni sluzbenici Ambasade, na salteru br. 2 u prostorijama Konzularnog odeljenja Ambasade radnim danom od 10 do 13h.

Prijave se podnose licno.

Mon 25 Feb 2008

The third meeting of the British-Serbian Business Council focussing on opportunities to invest in real estate in the Republic of Serbia was held at Clyde and Co. law firm in the City of London on the 21st November 2007. The event was sponsored and organized by Clyde and Co in cooperation with the Embassy of the Republic of Serbia in London and the British Embassy in Belgrade.

Presentations on real estate opportunities in Serbia were given by representatives of the Ministry of Economy and Regional Development, the Privatisation Agency of Serbia, the Directorate for City building, King Sturge Belgrade and Clyde and Co.

This was the third formal event of the British Serbian Business Council which was established this year. The Council was launched at an inaugural event at Sommerset House in April 2007, followed by a conference on the investment climate in Serbia in June at White&Case law firm.

"The Risks of Kosovo Independence"

Remarks in the House of Commons

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

London, 19 November 2007

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 20th century. Together with the other defeaters 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 5th 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 21st 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 21st-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 10th. 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 10th 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 21st-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, 21st-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.