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.