On 17. Congress of German Peace Council:

Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Friends,

Allow me, first of all, to thank you for your kind invitation and for the warm hospitality accorded to me by your leaders and activists. I am honored indeed by the opportunity to speak to this friendly audience on the issues of common interest. As this is my first opportunity to address delegates of German Peace Council from the whole of Germany, I would like also to thank you for your enormous efforts in spreading the truth about real causes and consequences of the Yugoslav crisis and real objectives of 1999 NATO aggression.

Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals is an independent, nonpartisan and non-profit association founded eleven years ago. We share similar values and objectives: we are devoted to peace, justice and truth. We want Europe of peace and stability, Europe of equal nations, equal human beings, and equal opportunities, Europe without nuclear armament and foreign military bases, Continent of justice and prosperity for all. We strive against militarization and any kind of hegemony. So called new concept of the NATO strategy adopted at the recent Lisbon Summit new one. It is only codification of precedent of NATO aggression on Serbia (Yugoslavia) in 1999, Afghanistan of 2001, Iraq of 2003. So called new strategy is new attempt military complex to justify  expansion of a war machinery. NATO is imposing itself as a global aggressive Alliance ready to engage its war machinery any time, in any corner of the globe, contrary to the basic principles of the international law and the role of the UN Security Council. Instead of removing military arsenal, especially nuclear, NATO has adopted plans to develop and deploy the new ones in Europe and elsewhere. Implementation of such plans would undoubtedly provoke a new arms race depriving peoples of decent life and jeopardizing peace and stability. We are disturbed by the fact that there are more military bases in Europe today, than at the peak of the Cold War era.

Dear Friends,

Stable and prosperous Balkan is of the paramount interest of the Balkan peoples as well as of Europe. The situation in the region, however, remains complex with political, security and socio-economic problems which, least in carry potential for new problems and even conflicts.
It should be noted that in the period of the last twenty years the Balkan has been testing ground for new doctrines, the region of the most dramatic changes and precedents in international relations:
- Second Yugoslavia (SFRY) was destroyed in 1992, the third Yugoslavia in 2006, both in conjunction of internal an external factors;
- NATO aggression against Serbia (Yugoslavia) in 1999 was the first war on Europe’s soil after the Second World War, presented as “humanitarian intervention”, contrary to basic principles of International Law, without approval of UN SC,
- Unilateral proclamation of Independence of Kosovo and Methija in 2008, while the Provence was under UN mandate, again, without UN SC approval, and contrary to the Constitution of Serbia;

Seven new hardly sustainable states have been created, some even through severe civil wars consequences of which will be felt over decades to come ¹. In spite of some progress in the process of normalization of relations, mistrust is still there limiting the efforts to revive economic, social, cultural and other links. After over 70 years of common life, these links were abruptly cut during the secessions and conflicts. There is great need to remove all politically motivated obstacles and encourage widest possible cooperation based on recognition of mutual interests. Free flow of goods, people, ideas, culture and capital would certainly push ahead overall development, diminish dependence on foreign assistance and help dealing with consequences of the global economic and financial crisis.
New international borders while not general problem, in a number of instances are still to be defined, including parts of Serbia-Croatian border on Danube and Serbia-Bosnian border on the Drina River. The best way in resolving these issues is to apply international standards.
New national minorities have appeared in addition to old ones. Balkan renown through history as mixture of nations, cultures and religions and conflicts, of course, after further territorial fragmentation during the last two decades, has “enriched” itself by producing even more national minorities, more languages, and even more religions. For good? It is doubtful. Standards of their human, political and national rights in a number of instances are not respected. 
Serbia is still hosting about 220.000 displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija, mainly Serbs, and about 300.000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the highest figure of refugees and displaced persons in one European country. This causes not only serious socio-economic but political problems, too. Members of neither of the two groups are permitted to return to places of their origin freely and safely. Serbs in Croatia although promised territorial autonomy, are deprived even of some basic individual rights such as right to private ownership of their houses, apartments and farms.
One of the potential sources of destabilization is Bosnia and Herzegovina which is occasionally termed “failed state”. Constitutional set up of Bosnia and Herzegovina is defined by the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement (1995) guaranteeing sovereign equality of the three constituent peoples (Moslems, Serbs and Croats) and equality of the two entities – Bosnia and Herzegovina federation (Moslems and Croats) and Republika Srpska. Attempts, channeled through High Representative, to change the con-federal and impose unitary system contrary to what was established by Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement, to annul consensus in decision making and introduce majorization are counter productive, to say, at least. They tend to return the stabilization process back to the beginning of 90-ies and, therefore, are very dangerous for the very existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. In closing this chapter of my speech, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that after the recent elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina Croat Community came to openly ask for creation of own, third entity. This reveals that both, Serbs and Croats have same fear – of being discriminated Moslems dominated Bosnia.
In my opinion, Serbia does not and cannot recognize illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija. Therefore, this remains an open issue yet to be resolved. Solution should be sought respecting basic principles of the international law, UN decisions and Constitution of Serbia as a sovereign state. Such a position is supported by major part of International community, including some of the permanent members of UN SC (Russia and China) as well as some members of EU (Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovak Republic and Cyprus). New negotiations on the status seem to be unavoidable. Any expectation on further softening the official Serbia Government’s position could turn to be counterproductive. Perhaps not so much because of the Government’s firmness in defending territorial integrity and sovereignty, but first of all because compromise is the only away to to guarantee Serbia’s internal stability which, in turn, is important for the lasting peace and stability of the Balkan. 
It has been repeatedly noted that the future of the Balkan lies in the hands of the Balkan countries. This is true, but mainly theoretically. In real life one of the general problems in the region is excessive involvement of out-of-the-region power centers. Considering that Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Province of Kosovo and Metohija continue to be international protectorates, that the governments in the most of the countries in the region owe their loyalty to the West which helped them various ways to come to power (“colored revolutions”), it is rather unclear what the regional factors can do themselves, what are real margins for them to work out needed compromises.
International community, essentially being limited to NATO and EU, lacks capacity and political will for compromised solutions and continue to impose own solutions which, sooner or later, appear not to be sustainable. This, perhaps explains, why NATO and EU maintain substantial military, police and civil presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia and particularly in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija where about 10.000 NATO troops are deployed including one of the biggest military base in the world (Bondstil).
No doubt that the key source of destabilization of the Balkan today remains Kosovo and Metohija. Aparent massive violation of human rights of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija was just excuse for NATO aggression against Serbia. In my opinion, NATO aggression in 1999, was a historic mistake of the West, especially of Western Europe and Germany. It was a precedent, first ring in a chain of aggressions and occupations which ensued after. Ever since Europe has been obliged to take part in other military interventions away of its zone of defense. With recent Lisbon documents such a practice has been codified and formalized. The aggression was a blunder towards the United Nations particularly towards Security Council and its role in maintaining peace in the world. It gave a push to separatist tendencies in the region, Europe and the World. New military bases mushroomed from Kosovo to Bulgaria, Rumania, Baltic states. Economic destructions, including some of the strategic European corridors, have been valued over 100 billions of US dollars.
Unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija in February this year was also a dangerous precedent. As to whether it encouraged independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia may be disputable, but the general effect of Kosovo’s “unique case” should not be disputable.
Last month, representatives of Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija, FYROM, Greece, Montenegro and three southern districts of Serbia (Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja) gathered in Tirana to announce their devotion to the “natural Albania”. This gathering was preceded by repeated declarations of highest Albanian officials that Albanians have the right to live together and followed by the declaration of former chief of OSDE Kosovo Verification Mission, American ambassador William Walker that Albanians have the right to unite.
“Side” effects of Prishtina’s unilateral secession may be summed up in one word - divisions – divisions within EU, UN, OSCE, between EU/NATO – Russia, divisions in the Balkan and divisions within Serbia itself.
Appart from the fact that the Province is faced with dramatic socio-economic problems, unemployement at the same time, it is a safe heaven and a jumping board for extremists and clans of organized crimes whose real aim is to operate in the EU area. It is assesed that over 60 percent of the total marketing of heroin in Europe is controlled by Albanian mafia. Trafiking of human beings, their vital organs and smugling of armaments is also under their control.

Putting an end to the protectorate status of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be important step in good direction. After 15 years of peace and international governance, local institutions and politicians must be given a chance of working together, compromising and running the country without almighty so called High Representative. Reopening negotiations on the status of Kosovo and Metohija after the opinion of the International Court of Justice is announced later this year is quite reasonable expectation. Compromise based on the respect of International Law, particularly. The UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) must be considered a lasting legal document, starting point and coroner stone of any future solution for Kosovo and Metohija problem. This is the most important precondition to peace and stability in the Balkan. Foreigners come and go, their interests vary but the Balkan nations will stay here for ever. For this reason they should relay on compromises of their long term interests.
EU appears to be key partner of the Balkan states. How long will last the current financial, economic and institutional crisis in EU? What conclusions Brussels drew from up to now enlargements of the EU membership? Answering these questions would certainly help to asses realistically prospects for EU membership of a number of Balkan countries. To continue submitting to endless demands of Brussels bureaucracy in exchange for repeated promises of “European perspectives”, may turn to be loss of time and vital interests.
Democratization and transition has left, among others, profound social divisions and tensions, extremely high rate of unemployment, corruption, and organized crime. These tendencies are not assets for peace and stability. To alleviate the roots of these tendencies require political will, strategies, recourses, including financial, and – time. 
Western benevolence towards obvious rise of separatism and territorial fragmentation, especially affecting Serbia and Serbian nation, in one hand, and clear support for centralization, unitarization of certain other countries, notably Bosnia and Herzegovina, are examples of double standards policy. Putting aside motives and interests of the West, it must be noted that such a policy would definitely hinder prospects of peace and stability today, up to 2020 and beyond.
Proliferation of puppet sates with unsustainable economies, national minorities with uneven level of their rights, political parties based on ethnic and religious criteria and refugees and displaced persons with the lack of political will to scure conditions for free and safe return to their homes;
Expansion of Islamism not as a religion or culture, but as overall social and governmental system. Some Islamite leaders do consider Balkan as a spring board for further expansion. (Vehabist groups, Islamic extremist organizations have been uncovered recently in a number of Balkan countries);
In my opinion, Serbia with its geostrategic position and resources is capacitated and willing to play its role in achieving sustainable stability, peace and development in the Balkans. But Serbia is faced with serious problems. First of all, stagnation of the socio-economic development, about one million of unemployed, 700.000 people billow the bottom line of poverty, disregard of her legitimate national interest.
Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is not jeopardized by illegal unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija only, but such tendencies are present in some other parts (Vojvodina, Raska, Southern districts).
Recently “The Group of Friends of Sandzak” (Raska) was established in Belgrade composed of the ambassadors of USA, Germany, Britain and Italy! What would be real political objective of such a move? These ambassadors surely have been welcomed to Belgrade as friends of Serbia and they are expected to behave as such. Forming “Group of friends” of same states is known practice at the UN Headquarters in New York, usually, to show strong support to a country with certain problems usually pending consideration within UN. But, forming a “Group of Friends” of any particular part (region) of a sovereign country by diplomats accredited to such a country is neither diplomatic nor respecting partnership nor hospitality of particular country and nation.
Serbian public and civic society should like to see everybody investing into mutual understanding and respect so that the Balkan becomes region of integration, peace and stability leaving behind divisions, distrust and confrontation.

Dear friends,
I am aware that aforesaid is more a list of open problems, with some suggestions, than a list of solutions. Our answers should be close cooperation and coordination, , to find ways to mass media – conventional and new ones, ability to foresee developments.

In closing, let me congratulate you for great success of your Congress.
Thank you.

Zivadin Jovanovic
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals,
Former Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of FR of Yugoslavia

¹ Kosovo and Metohija’s self-proclaimed secession from Serbia has not been recognized in the region by Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Cyprus

Photo Gallery