By the looks of it, it seems that in Brussels one can easily sign anything today, tomorrow or the day after, or give, disown, commit, or pledge anything, however Serbia stands there to gain nothing from anyone, for quite a long while. The Date is a delusion of negotiators and a mock concession of Brussels. Berlin is readying for the elections, Brussels’ commissionaires and institutions have long-term agendas crammed with topics such as the uncertain outlooks of the monetary union, of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia etc, whereas Washington and London are preoccupied with Syria, Iran, North Korea, the Pacific, Africa, and so on and so forth.

For so long as Brussels stage belongs to Merkel and Cameron, whose attitudes towards Serbia are clearly on an ultimatum-note, whereas towards Thaci are parentally protective, Serbia has nothing to look for there, nothing to gain, but rather everything to give and surrender, to humiliate herself and consent to being humiliated. As indeed is the case all the times, not only in Brussels but even in Belgrade.

United Kingdom and Germany, supported by the US, have been instigating separatisms of former Yugoslav Republics, funding, and even supplying arms to them. The SFRY was dismembered at their tracks, on the way paved by the European Union in its former capacity of the European Economic Communities. You may recall that Budimir Lončar, then Minister of Foreign Affairs in the SFRY, claimed that the EEC was the only way out of the Yugoslav crisis. What happened next with Yugoslavia, what happened with the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro? Have we so quickly forgotten that-time predecessors of the current commissionaires? The above states plus some others have been for decades encouraging, funding, arming and training Albanian terrorists in the KLA. This month fourteen years ago, they committed an armed aggression (NATO) against Serbia (the FRY). It was for sure a war of aggression whose imminent objective was forcible seizure of Kosovo and Metohija, under wider purpose of furthering the strategy of enslaving the Balkans and incursion towards the East. This objective was not fully completed, whereas the strategy still remains under question-mark.

This is why those same states, ever since then to the presently ongoing so-called negotiations in Brussels, seek to legalize both the aggression which was a crime, and seizure of a part of state territory. During 2008, they were among the first ones to recognize the illegally proclaimed secession of Pristina. During the so-called negotiations in Brussels these states, together with the USA, act as key advocates and protectors of Thaci. Again in Brussels, Thaci does not bother to negotiate. Having experiences from Rambouillet of 1999 and Vienna of 2006/07, Thaci is waiting for Belgrade to give it all to him on a silver platter, including the North of the Province.

To ask for any sort of assurances today from the UK and Germany is tantamount to taking the word of Thaci. One should not be surprised how well-coordinate they act, given that they are allies in the war against Serbia.

The Erdut Accords of 1995 which provided for the Association of Serbian Municipalities in Slavonia was supported by guarantees of numerous countries and organizations. Whatever had happened with its implementation? Is there not the entire EU standing behind the “status neutral” EULEX, and yet, what demonstrates EULEX’ status neutrality? Could it be its input, ever since its illegal deployment through its subsequent legalization to date, in developing ‘independent Kosovo’!?

I beseech you all to go back to the guarantees of the UN Security Council and Resolution 1244. They are less than ideal, however there is nothing better. They are far more, and better by far, than the assurances you have requested from the above mentioned states protecting Thaci and independent Kosovo and Metohija. And what could possibly the ministers of those states be guaranteeing – but the fact that Kosovo and Metohija is an independent state in which Serbs make a national minority!? They were the first ones to give such guarantee back in 2008!

I am sorry to see, day in day out, how you keep showering the nation by catastrophic statements, ranging from Serbia having allegedly lost it all so there is nothing else to lose, that any option is bad for Serbia, that Serbia must reach an agreement in these moot negotiations, that there will be no more money for salaries and pensions, that there is no option left to protect Serbian interests, and so on, and so forth. You should at least be aware that these statements, in addition to spreading defeatism and despair, also contribute to encouraging the other party/parties to entrench in their positions, thus simply shattering the bargaining position of Serbia.

I also wish to ask you to stop referring to Tadić, if any possible, as the one who had obligated you by the UN General Assembly Resolution on EU’s mediation role, or by Borko’s arrangements on introducing the border towards Serbia. The cited Resolution is of technical character, whereas Borko’s arrangements were founded neither on international law nor on Serbia’s national legislation and, as such, do not create international legal obligations for Serbia. Your reference to them is less than a suitable argument for serious statesmen. Especially before the history.

True, it is inconvenient, difficult, even dramatic to make a shift in one’s approach, especially having in mind all the concessions given so far, however the point of time, circumstances and actors are as they are, and cannot be chosen or avoided. If there is anyone faced with dilemma on what is more important, and what is the benchmark for determining the seriousness of state and its statesmen – whether it is a technical resolution of the General Assembly or the legally binding Resolution 1244 adopted by the Security Council, than it is a worrisome indication of something is seriously wrong. The only international legal grounds and obligation for all State Parties to the World Organization is Security Council Resolution 1244. It is utmost irresponsible to push aside UN Security Council Resolution 1244, and even worse to refer to it only for the sake of producing a concession in favor of Priština, or when Germany or another great power need it to assert that “they respect the territorial integrity of Kosovo”.

One does not protect the nation by confrontation, yet neither does one protect it by constant giving in, and especially not so by agreeing to dismantle governmental institutions of Serbia in the north of Kosovo and Metohija. When a public statement is made that the acceptance of Thaci’s claims and the continuous concessions actually protect the citizens in the Province, both Serbs and the other ones, does this mean that Serbia is in fact blackmailed with safety and lives of its citizens – and that this is the reason why Serbia must agree to anything requested? And anyhow, is Serbia blackmailed with anything, by anyone? If Serbia and her negotiators in Brussels are indeed blackmailed, that it would be a decent thing to communicate this to the public – who, how, and with what, blackmails either Serbia or her negotiators – with safety of citizens, new sanctions, withholding any new institutions … or anything else? In this case, it would not any longer be a remit of negotiators but rather of institutions, first and foremost of the National Assembly. On the other hand, if there is no blackmail, it is all the easier and better to go back to the law and the UN Security Council.

Another frequent thesis for the public is realism and realistic situation. Stopping short from an explicit statement, the subtext message is that “because we lost it all”, because we have been self-deceived for years, because we have a poor Constitution, plus many more similar ‘arguments’ – now we have to give way, give in, accept the unacceptable and the humiliating, to label as compromise what actually amounts to clear loss, to make one-sided concessions, etc. It seems to me there is abundance, if not in excess, of reasons to say – it is not realism, and it is not only realistic what claim representatives of Germany, the UK and the US, and echoes Thaci.

A reality is the existence of Serbian governmental institutions in Kosovo and Metohija; another reality is that some 250,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians have been waiting for 15 years, clinging to the principles of humanism, rule of law, and European standards, to return safely and securely to their homes in Kosovo and Metohija; reality are UN SC Resolution 1244 and the Constitution of Serbia – no mater how supposedly poor in someone’s opinion the latter may be; reality is that Europe and the EU of today, let alone the world, are somewhat different than during the previous century’s 90ies.

This proves that reality is not unambiguous, and especially not so when portrayed as do actors and persons who are not best known in Serbia for their objectivity and impartiality. Will or will not the UK, Germany and the US observe the decision of the UN SC for which they also voted, is a matter of their attitude towards the principles of the international affairs, towards the World Organization and ultimately towards the fundamental values of the contemporary civilization. Yet, Serbia should ask for what she is entitled to pursuant to the international laws, rather then rubber-stamp the stereotype stances of those who simply cannot break free from centuries long practice of applying dictate and ultimatum. The irony is that positions of the Serbia’s opponents are being presented to the Serbian public as positions of the responsible statesmen who do not wish to hold back anything from their fellow citizens!

The public is being presented with comparisons between the present day and the times of Dayton and Rambouillet. The fact is that, back in Dayton, we negotiated as our that-time state had been under sanctions and under suspension in the United Nations, the OSCE and other international organizations. Still, we managed to have the Republika of Srpska preserved and acknowledged. We have further been requested to open negotiations on Kosovo and Metohija. Yugoslav-Serbian delegation refused. We asked the organizers to proceed according to the invitation and the agenda, which contained a single point – to put the end to the civil war and make peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The organizer complied, and we produced a signed peace treaty for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In Rambouillet there were no negotiating as these were not convenient for the US, the UK and the EU. They only needed another show to convince their public that the only remaining option was armed assault. According to their confession, “In Rambouillet, we set the bar so high that Milošević could not clear it”. The Rambouillet Show was set after the NATO Council had already made decision on armed aggression. This NATO ultimatum to concede unconditional surrender and subsequent occupation of the entire Serbia and Montenegro (the FRY) was more severe that the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum of 1914. Their ultimatum was rejected, because no sovereign state would ever accept what was tabled then and there. This is a sort of confession, too. The current ultimatum sent by the US and Germany via Ashton to Brussels – has to be refuted as well.

We are aware of the present day relations and trends, as opposed to those back in 1995 and 1999. Let’s spell it out, at the times of Dayton and Rambouillet there were no BRICS countries, nor G-20, nor the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, nor credit lines from China and Russia and other countries.

Therefore, do not scare the people, because the people got inured to intimidations and, in spite of it all, had sharpened its critical discerning skills. Even with the country’s poverty, unemployment and hunger, we still do not have to blindly follow the offers of potentially better life in turn for the renouncing of our very self, our history and Kosovo and Metohija.

Show some courage by turning to yourselves, to Serbia and to true friends. This will be neither autarchy nor isolationism nor “shooting in own foot” – this will be restoring our self-esteem and preparation for genuine partnership with others. This is the only way we can count on becoming better understood and respected and offered cooperation on an equal footing with Berlin, London, Washington and Brussels. Together with the majority which has always been respecting Serbia.