Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06BELGRADE1113
2006-07-10 15:25:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Belgrade
Cable title:
KOSOVO: FM DRASKOVIC LETTER TO THE SECRETARY AND CONTACT
how-toVZCZCXRO4337 PP RUEHAST DE RUEHBW #1113/01 1911525 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 101525Z JUL 06 FM AMEMBASSY BELGRADE TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8988 INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC 1157 RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE RXFEAA/HQ AFSOUTH NAPLES IT
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BELGRADE 001113
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OVIP PREL PGOV YI SR
SUBJECT: KOSOVO: FM DRASKOVIC LETTER TO THE SECRETARY AND CONTACT
GROUP COUNTRIES
BELGRADE 00001113 001.2 OF 003
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BELGRADE 001113
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OVIP PREL PGOV YI SR
SUBJECT: KOSOVO: FM DRASKOVIC LETTER TO THE SECRETARY AND CONTACT
GROUP COUNTRIES
BELGRADE 00001113 001.2 OF 003
1. (U) On July 6, the Embassy received a letter from Foreign
Minister Vuk Draskovic to the Secretary and the Contact Group
Foreign Ministers outlining redlines and urging a compromise
solution for Kosovo's final status.
2. (U) Begin text of letter:
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Belgrade, 7 July 2006
Excellency,
Dear Condoleezza,
The Contact Group has been entrusted with an exceptionally
important task of formulating a proposal solution for the future
status of Kosovo and Metohija, the province of Serbia administered
since 10 June 1999 by the United Nations under Security Council
Resolution 1244.
There are indications that the talks and negotiations on the new
status of Kosovo, conducted by the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, are
SIPDIS
entering the concluding phase.
Announcements, even undisguised positions to the effect that the
independence of Kosovo is inevitable are rife. In other worlds
[sic], that it is inevitable to treat the internationally sovereign
state of Serbia as a no man's land, the internationally recognized
borders of which may be changed against its will. Such plans are
evinced also by the fact that some of the guiding principles of the
Contact Group, adopted by the Security Council, are most often
construed as if these principles were null and void.
I shall recall some of the guiding principles of the Contact Group
for the determination of the future status of Kosovo.
No return to the situation prior to March 1999. This means, it is
said, that there is no return of the military, police and government
authorities of Serbia to Kosovo. All right. But, this must mean
that there is no change of the status of the state borders of Serbia
with the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Macedonia, either,
since the present status of these borders is no the result of the
situation prior to March 1999, i.e. before the NATO bombing of
Serbia; rather, it is the result of the situation emerged after the
cessation of the bombing, the situation confirmed also by the peace
agreement between NATO and Serbia (The Kumanovo Agreement) and the
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 in
order to shift its internationally recognized borders, but to stop
and prevent the humanitarian catastrophe of the Albanian majority in
Kosovo, as was also officially explained.
No partition of Kosovo. This means and can only mean that there is
no division of the state of Serbia, either, and, by extension, no
international independence of Kosovo since the independence would
amount to the division and break-up of the internationally sovereign
state of Serbia. The explanations that it is not possible to break
up and divide the territory of a province that is not a state, but
that it is possible to break up and divide the territory of a state,
the part of which the province is, runs afoul not only of the
Charter of the United Nations and international law, but also of the
very logic of thinking.
No imposed solution. This means and must mean that sustainable and
legitimate is, primarily, the solution that is accepted by both
sides and that, in the event such agreement proves impossible to
reach, the Contact Group and the United Nations Security Council
should step in as an honest broker that will respect in equal
measure the legitimate rights of the Albanian majority in the
Province of Kosovo, the legitimate rights of the Serbs and other
non-Albanians in Kosovo, as well as the legitimate rights of the
state of Serbia.
As I have already pointed out, "preventing the humanitarian
catastrophe of the Albanians" in Kosovo was presented as a pretext
[sic] for NATO bombing of Serbia, from 24 March to early June 1999.
The demands of the state of Serbia to prevent a similar
humanitarian disaster of Kosovo Serbs which has been going on ever
since 10 June 1999 when the UN protectorate of Kosovo was
introduced, have unfortunately been treated as an outcry for help in
the desert.
And not only have these demands of Serbia been ignored, but the
Albanian majority has been practically encouraged to carry out the
ethnic cleansing and do mass crimes both against the Serbs and
against their churches, monasteries, historical and cultural
BELGRADE 00001113 002.2 OF 003
heritage. Here is the proof. Since 10 June 1999, 220,000 Kosovo
Serbs and other non-Albanians have been driven out, more than 1,000
civilians (including many children) have been killed or kidnapped
and nearly 40,000 Serbian houses and 150 centuries-old churches and
monasteries have been burned down. Serbs have also been
dispossessed of thousands of dwellings, their land and businesses.
And what has been the response of the competent authorities of the
United Nations and the international community? Heads of UNMIK,
military commanders have been replaced and principles changed. The
original principle "standards before status" was replaced by that of
both "standards and status," and now "status as a precondition of
standards" has been rushed to promote.
Albanian leaders have also been congratulated for their promise to
respect the rights of Serbs with an ultimatum-like precondition that
Kosovo become fully independent before the end of this year. At the
same time, Albanian threats of rebellion along with reprisals
against Serbs and international forces have been advanced as the
reason for accepting such an ultimatum in case independence is not
agreed!
In my opinion, the Contact Group should not fail to respond to
these ultimatums and blackmail.
An independent Kosovo would be a reward for the crimes committed
against Serbs that are, by its nature and intent, identical to the
crimes committed prior to June 1999 against the Albanians, which was
why Serbia was bombed.
By adhering to the guiding principles of the Contact Group, Serbia
is fully committed to a compromise solution. However, there are two
demands that we as a state and a nation cannot go below:
1. The rights of Serbs and of other non-Albanians of Kosovo must
be protected unconditionally and with international guarantees
provided; and
2. The internationally recognized borders of the international
sovereign state of Serbia cannot be changed.
Which of these two demands are we not entitled to?
More than autonomy, but less than full independence for Kosovo.
What does this compromise formula mean?
It means that all legitimate demands of the Albanian majority in
Kosovo will be met, that the rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians
will be unconditionally protected and that the Charter of the United
Nations will be respected.
The Serbian people, both in Serbia itself and in all places outside
it, would not only refuse to recognize an independent state being
declared in the territory of the Serbian state but would receive
such a decision with resentment. This would lead to permanent
instability in the Balkan region and in a number of other regions in
Europe and the world at large. All the separatists the world over
are waiting to see whether the Kosovo knot will be unraveled in
accordance with the UN Charter and the relevant international law or
according to the diktat of the mighty and powerful and by
blackmail.
Compromise is also in the best interest of the Albanian people in
Kosovo, who cannot build either their present or future on hostility
to Serbs. This is bound to happen should another state of the
Albanians in the Balkans be declared forcibly in the territory of
Serbia, i.e. in the territory which is historically in the
birthplace of both the Serbian state and Serbian Christian faith.
Compromise is also in the interest of all neighbouring countries,
their stability and common European future.
That is why compromise must also be the overriding interest of the
Contact Group, United Nations Security Council, European Union and
the entire international community.
Best regards,
/s/
Vuk Drakovic
A copy of this letter was also sent to:
-H. E. Mr. Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of
the Russian Federation
-Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
BELGRADE 00001113 003.2 OF 003
Northern Ireland
-H. E. Mr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Federal Foreign Minister of the
Federal Republic of Germany
-H. E. Mr. Pihlippe Douste-Blazy, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
French Republic
-H. E. Mr. Massimo D'Alema, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Italy
End text of letter.
POLT
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OVIP PREL PGOV YI SR
SUBJECT: KOSOVO: FM DRASKOVIC LETTER TO THE SECRETARY AND CONTACT
GROUP COUNTRIES
BELGRADE 00001113 001.2 OF 003
1. (U) On July 6, the Embassy received a letter from Foreign
Minister Vuk Draskovic to the Secretary and the Contact Group
Foreign Ministers outlining redlines and urging a compromise
solution for Kosovo's final status.
2. (U) Begin text of letter:
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Belgrade, 7 July 2006
Excellency,
Dear Condoleezza,
The Contact Group has been entrusted with an exceptionally
important task of formulating a proposal solution for the future
status of Kosovo and Metohija, the province of Serbia administered
since 10 June 1999 by the United Nations under Security Council
Resolution 1244.
There are indications that the talks and negotiations on the new
status of Kosovo, conducted by the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, are
SIPDIS
entering the concluding phase.
Announcements, even undisguised positions to the effect that the
independence of Kosovo is inevitable are rife. In other worlds
[sic], that it is inevitable to treat the internationally sovereign
state of Serbia as a no man's land, the internationally recognized
borders of which may be changed against its will. Such plans are
evinced also by the fact that some of the guiding principles of the
Contact Group, adopted by the Security Council, are most often
construed as if these principles were null and void.
I shall recall some of the guiding principles of the Contact Group
for the determination of the future status of Kosovo.
No return to the situation prior to March 1999. This means, it is
said, that there is no return of the military, police and government
authorities of Serbia to Kosovo. All right. But, this must mean
that there is no change of the status of the state borders of Serbia
with the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Macedonia, either,
since the present status of these borders is no the result of the
situation prior to March 1999, i.e. before the NATO bombing of
Serbia; rather, it is the result of the situation emerged after the
cessation of the bombing, the situation confirmed also by the peace
agreement between NATO and Serbia (The Kumanovo Agreement) and the
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 in
order to shift its internationally recognized borders, but to stop
and prevent the humanitarian catastrophe of the Albanian majority in
Kosovo, as was also officially explained.
No partition of Kosovo. This means and can only mean that there is
no division of the state of Serbia, either, and, by extension, no
international independence of Kosovo since the independence would
amount to the division and break-up of the internationally sovereign
state of Serbia. The explanations that it is not possible to break
up and divide the territory of a province that is not a state, but
that it is possible to break up and divide the territory of a state,
the part of which the province is, runs afoul not only of the
Charter of the United Nations and international law, but also of the
very logic of thinking.
No imposed solution. This means and must mean that sustainable and
legitimate is, primarily, the solution that is accepted by both
sides and that, in the event such agreement proves impossible to
reach, the Contact Group and the United Nations Security Council
should step in as an honest broker that will respect in equal
measure the legitimate rights of the Albanian majority in the
Province of Kosovo, the legitimate rights of the Serbs and other
non-Albanians in Kosovo, as well as the legitimate rights of the
state of Serbia.
As I have already pointed out, "preventing the humanitarian
catastrophe of the Albanians" in Kosovo was presented as a pretext
[sic] for NATO bombing of Serbia, from 24 March to early June 1999.
The demands of the state of Serbia to prevent a similar
humanitarian disaster of Kosovo Serbs which has been going on ever
since 10 June 1999 when the UN protectorate of Kosovo was
introduced, have unfortunately been treated as an outcry for help in
the desert.
And not only have these demands of Serbia been ignored, but the
Albanian majority has been practically encouraged to carry out the
ethnic cleansing and do mass crimes both against the Serbs and
against their churches, monasteries, historical and cultural
BELGRADE 00001113 002.2 OF 003
heritage. Here is the proof. Since 10 June 1999, 220,000 Kosovo
Serbs and other non-Albanians have been driven out, more than 1,000
civilians (including many children) have been killed or kidnapped
and nearly 40,000 Serbian houses and 150 centuries-old churches and
monasteries have been burned down. Serbs have also been
dispossessed of thousands of dwellings, their land and businesses.
And what has been the response of the competent authorities of the
United Nations and the international community? Heads of UNMIK,
military commanders have been replaced and principles changed. The
original principle "standards before status" was replaced by that of
both "standards and status," and now "status as a precondition of
standards" has been rushed to promote.
Albanian leaders have also been congratulated for their promise to
respect the rights of Serbs with an ultimatum-like precondition that
Kosovo become fully independent before the end of this year. At the
same time, Albanian threats of rebellion along with reprisals
against Serbs and international forces have been advanced as the
reason for accepting such an ultimatum in case independence is not
agreed!
In my opinion, the Contact Group should not fail to respond to
these ultimatums and blackmail.
An independent Kosovo would be a reward for the crimes committed
against Serbs that are, by its nature and intent, identical to the
crimes committed prior to June 1999 against the Albanians, which was
why Serbia was bombed.
By adhering to the guiding principles of the Contact Group, Serbia
is fully committed to a compromise solution. However, there are two
demands that we as a state and a nation cannot go below:
1. The rights of Serbs and of other non-Albanians of Kosovo must
be protected unconditionally and with international guarantees
provided; and
2. The internationally recognized borders of the international
sovereign state of Serbia cannot be changed.
Which of these two demands are we not entitled to?
More than autonomy, but less than full independence for Kosovo.
What does this compromise formula mean?
It means that all legitimate demands of the Albanian majority in
Kosovo will be met, that the rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians
will be unconditionally protected and that the Charter of the United
Nations will be respected.
The Serbian people, both in Serbia itself and in all places outside
it, would not only refuse to recognize an independent state being
declared in the territory of the Serbian state but would receive
such a decision with resentment. This would lead to permanent
instability in the Balkan region and in a number of other regions in
Europe and the world at large. All the separatists the world over
are waiting to see whether the Kosovo knot will be unraveled in
accordance with the UN Charter and the relevant international law or
according to the diktat of the mighty and powerful and by
blackmail.
Compromise is also in the best interest of the Albanian people in
Kosovo, who cannot build either their present or future on hostility
to Serbs. This is bound to happen should another state of the
Albanians in the Balkans be declared forcibly in the territory of
Serbia, i.e. in the territory which is historically in the
birthplace of both the Serbian state and Serbian Christian faith.
Compromise is also in the interest of all neighbouring countries,
their stability and common European future.
That is why compromise must also be the overriding interest of the
Contact Group, United Nations Security Council, European Union and
the entire international community.
Best regards,
/s/
Vuk Drakovic
A copy of this letter was also sent to:
-H. E. Mr. Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of
the Russian Federation
-Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
BELGRADE 00001113 003.2 OF 003
Northern Ireland
-H. E. Mr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Federal Foreign Minister of the
Federal Republic of Germany
-H. E. Mr. Pihlippe Douste-Blazy, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
French Republic
-H. E. Mr. Massimo D'Alema, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Italy
End text of letter.
POLT