«In a broader sense it should be noted that NATO aggression marked a strategic change in its nature: it abandoned the defensive and adopted an offensive (aggressive) policy, authorizing itself to intervene any time at any spot on the globe. The UN, especially the UN Security Council, had been disabled; international law and justice disregarded.»

“Humanitarian interventions” as a pretext for deployment of US-troops

Interview with Živadin Jovanovic, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Repbulic of Yugoslavia, presently Chairman of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Current Concerns: Mr. Jovanovic, can you present yourself shortly for our readers and give us some information about yourself and your career?

Živadin Jovanovic: In 1961 I graduated from the Faculty of Law at the University of Belgrade; from 1961 to 1964 I was at the District Administration of New Belgrade [a municipality of Belgrade]; from 1964–2000 I was in the diplomatic service of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia SFRY (since 1992 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia FRY): from 1988–1993 as Ambassador in Luanda, Angola, from 1995-1998 as Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, and from 1988–2000 as Minister of Foreign Affairs. From1996-2002 I was Vice Chairman of the Socialist Party of Serbia for Foreign Affairs; 1996 I was Member of Parliament to the Parliament of Serbia and in 2000 to the Federal Parliament of Yugoslavia (2000). Books that I wrote are:  “The Bridges” (2002), “Abolishing the State” (2003), “The Kosovo Mirror” (2006).

After leaving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November 2000 you joined the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals. Now you are the Chairman of this Association. What are your priorities?

The priorities of the Forum are: the promotion of peace, tolerance and cooperation based on equality among individuals, nations, and states. We stand for full respect of the international law, the basic principles of international relations and the role of the United Nations. Use or threats of use of force and military aggressions are not admissible means in solving international problems. We consider that there are no “humanitarian” wars, or interventions. All interventions beginning with the NATO aggression against Serbia (FRY) in 1999 up to now, regardless on their formal,  public explanations, have been wars of conquest, some of them for geo-strategic, some for economic benefits. We promote human rights in their entirety, according to the UN-declaration – including social, economic, cultural, health, employment and other human rights.
 We try to meet our objectives through various public debates, conferences, round tables, seminars, on national and international levels. The Forum cooperates with associations of similar aims, within Serbia, the region and worldwide.

We have seen some of very interesting books published by Belgrade Forum. How do you manage to maintain your publishing activity?

The Forum has published about 70 books on different national and international issues, from development policy in conditions of crisis, the status of Kosovo and Metohija and the Hague Tribunal to the NATO policy in the Balkans, on the foreign policy of Serbia, on International terrorism and on the role of intellectuals. Some of our books have been distributed in many countries in all continents. This is the case, for example, of the book titled “NATO Aggression – the Twilight of the West”. Unfortunately, for the lack of resources, only a few of our books have been published in foreign languages. 
Last month only we published three new books – one devoted to the great Serbian philosopher and academician Mihailo Markovic, who was one of the co-founders of the Belgrade Forum,  the other titled “From Nuremberg to Hague” and a third “From Aggression to Secession”.* Promotions of our books in various towns in Serbia attract significant attention.
All our activities, including writing and publishing, are entirely based on voluntary work. We never had, nor do we have today, a single person paid for the work done within the Forum. Membership fees and donations, mainly from Serbian diaspora, are main sources of the Forum’s income.

You have mentioned promotion of peace to be one of your key objectives. But peoples of your region have been victims of wars in the last decade of the 20th century.

True. The peoples of former Yugoslavia have suffered immensely, first, from the civil wars in Bosnia and Croatia (1992-1995), then from the military aggression of NATO (1999), from sanctions and isolation and so on. Great many of them continue to suffer today. Consider, for example, the life of close to half a million of refugees and displaced persons living in Serbia only, who are not permitted to return to their homes in Croatia or in Kosovo and Metohija. Consequences are still painful and will continue long in the future. What to say of the consequences of cassette bombs and missiles with depleted uranium used by NATO in 1999 taking daily tolls in human lives today and in centuries to come. History will prove that the peoples of former Yugoslavia have been victims of the concept of the so called New World Order which in fact has been based on the policy of domination and exploitation.

Do you suggest that the foreign factors are responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, and not local ones?

Local factors cannot be amnestied; they do bear their responsibility, of course, for not being prepared to compromise. But the prevailing analyses seem to be lacking due attention to the negative role of external factors. Now we have enough proofs that certain European powers already in 1976 and 1977 had plans on how to “rearrange” the territory of SFRY, in other words, how to divide, or fragment it in order to suit their own interests.After Tito’s death, nationalism and separatism in various Yugoslav republics, as well as separatism and terrorism in the Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohija, had been encouraged, even assisted politically, financially, logistically and propaganda-wise. Later on certain mighty countries have been involved in the civil wars helping one against the other side. Those countries almost openly had been supporting a secession of Slovenia and Croatia, arming Croatia and Bosnia even during the UN arms embargo, encouraging and facilitating the incoming of mercenaries, including Mujahidin. On the other side Serbia and Montenegro had been under isolation, sanctions and stigmatization. They had been treated as the only ones responsible for the civil wars. That was not based on facts, nor helpful in extinguishing the fire.

Results?

In the place of one state, now there are six, economically unsustainable, puppet states, plus a seventh one in the offing, 18 governments¹, six armies, six diplomatic services, etc. Foreign debt, which in 1990 amounted to about 13.5 billion for the whole of the SFRY rose in 2012 to about 200 billion of Euro for the six former Yugoslav republics! Some of them became financially enslaved. Who has benefited from this? Until 1990 there was not a single foreign military basis in the region. Today, there are a number of foreign, mainly USA, bases, Bondsteel in Kosovo and Metohija being the largest in Europe.² To do what? To benefit whom? Bosnia almost 18 years after the Dayton Accords is not functional; ten years after the Ohrid Accords the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is not functional and continues to be faced with profound ethnic divisions and tensions. The status of Kosovo and Metohija even14 years after UN Security Council Resolution 1244 still remains unresolved. Tirana`s Sali Berisha and Prishtinas Hashim Thaci are publically advocating for the establishment of so called Greater Albania. Other burning problems like unemployment ranging from 30 to 70 per cent, poverty, hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons, international organized crime, including trafficking of human organs, drugs, arms and immigrants, make the picture of post Yugoslavia’s reality grim and uncertain. 
So, who has really benefited from the fragmentation of Yugoslavia? 

Mentioning NATO intervention what are your views now, 14 years after?

My views have not changed. This was an illegal, criminal and immoral attack on a sovereign European state. Illegal because it violated all basic principles of international law, including the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and many international conventions. It was undertaken without permission of the UN Security Council. Criminal, because it was directed mainly against civilians, civilian infrastructure, using forbidden armament such as chemical, cassette bombs and missiles with depleted uranium. Immoral, because it was based on false pretentions and on untruths. The leaders of NATO are responsible first of all for killing of close to 4.000 and for wounding about 10.000 of persons, two thirds of whom were civilians. Direct material damages amounted to over 100 billions of US dollars. The NATO aggression solved nothing, but it has provoked many new problems. It was a war of conquest and not a “humanitarian intervention”.

Can you be more specific?

I have already mentioned some direct consequences. In a broader sense it should be noted that NATO aggression marked a strategic change in its nature: it abandoned the defensive and adopted an offensive (aggressive) policy, authorizing itself to intervene any time at any spot on the globe. The UN, especially the UN Security Council, had been disabled; international law and justice disregarded.³
This was a long prepared first war on Europe’s soil after the Second World War. It was a demonstration of US domination in Europe, an expansion toward East, a justification of spending on NATO even after the dissolution ofthe Warsaw Pact, a precedent for future interventions (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya). 
It was the war imposed and directed by a non-European power with the consequence that it to stay on Europe`s soil for a long time.
The Aggression had marked a strategic change in Germany’s policy adopted after Second World War. By taking active part in NATO’s aggression against Serbia (FRY) Germany deviated from its own constitution and widely opened the door for combat roles away from its territory, and for militarization.
Today we have on European soil more military bases than at the peak of the Cold War. Mushrooming of military bases started after the NATO aggression on Serbia (FRY). How to explain the expansion of democracy all over the Continent and the proliferation of military bases at the same time? I have not heard any convincing explanation. Something seems to be wrong.

And what is your opinion on the future of Bosnia?

Bosnia and Herzegovina had existed as one of the six republics of SFRY based on constituent equality of three peoples each having a right of veto – Muslims, Serbs and Croats. In that regard, it was considered being “small Yugoslavia”. When in 1992 the constitutional principle of consensus was violated in the way that Muslims and Croats declared for secession ignoring the Serbs option to stay within Yugoslavia, civil war erupted. The Dayton peace Accords were a success only because they reaffirmed the principle of equality of the three constituent peoples, the equality of the two entities (Moslem-Croat Federation and Republica Srpska) and the principle of consensus.⁴ These basic principles were enshrined in the Constitution which is an integral part of the Accords.
The main source of the current crisis is the ambition of the Moslem leaders in Sarajevo to abolish the principle of consensus and to make a unitary state under their domination. In addition, they would like also to change the division of the territory guaranteed by Dayton Accords according to which the Muslim-Croat Federation controls 51 and Republica Srpska 49 percent of the whole territory. To make the problem more difficult, Muslims for their claims which obviously are contrary to Dayton stipulations, continue to enjoy support from some power centres, primarily from Washington and Berlin. Why they want to further weaken the Republica Srpska and strengthen the Moslems, I would rather not comment. These centres even pressurize Serbia’s leaders to discipline the leaders in Banja Luka so that they accept a revision of Dayton and the Constitution contrary to their interests which are internationally guaranteed. Serbia as guarantor of the Dayton Accords, firstly, has no power to impose anything on the leadership of Republica Srpska and, secondly, it is not in Serbia’s interest to weaken the Republica Srpska thus provoking internal tensions and a renewed spiral of ethnic tensions and even clashes in their own neighbourhood.
I believe that Bosnia and Herzegovina should be left alone to politically find solutions that suite the interests of the three equal constituent peoples and the two equal entities.  The Dayton Accords are not perfect. But there could hardly be a better compromise then the Dayton Accords. Brussels claims that a centralization of power in Sarajevo would apparently upgrade efficiency of the state administration. Authors of this view seem to be disregarding that it is the principle of consensus and decentralization which led to re-establishing of peace, the maintaining of integrity and providing the sense of freedom and democracy. Finally, in my opinion, the Office of the High Representative after 17 years of being at the same time Law-making, Prosecution and Judiciary has become an anachronism and should be disbanded. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only member of the UN (even a member of the Security Council), the OSCE and other organizations, where a High Representative enacts laws, removes presidents, prime ministers and ministers!
Serbia, being a small, peace loving country, having neither an imperial history nor imperial ambitions today, in our opinion, should remain a neutral country, something like Switzerland. Concerning human rights, we stand for the concept of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which demands respect of all human rights including the one to cooperate.

My colleagues of CC once said that Serbia is a thorn in the conscience of the Western world. What is your opinion on this?

What I can say is that the leaders and politicians of certain European countries have been far from neutral, constructive or moral during the Yugoslav and Kosovo crisis. Some of them actively advocated and participated in the NATO aggression which left serious long term problems for the whole of Europe. Together with leaders of the USA, they at least knew about financing, training and arming Albanian terrorists and separatists in Kosovo and Metohija from their states. UN Security Council documents confirm this.⁵ I may not be quite objective, but I am certainly sincere. In my opinion, there is little to be proud of Europe’s role toward Serbia and Serbs in the last 20 years. I have been surprised by the measure of distortions, double standards and immoral statements practiced by certain politicians who represent European values and civilization. And it would not be worth talking about it today, if the lessons had been drawn from the past. Unfortunately, new politicians of those countries continue with the same policies and the same dishonest methods toward Serbia.
Governments of leading western countries initiated an outrageous anti-Serbian propaganda campaign based on prejudices, dishonest fabrications and even on ordinary lies. I still remember, for example, the invention of the German defense minister Rudolf Scharping⁶ of the alleged “Horse shoe plan”. The so called “massacre of civilians” in Racak which served as a justification for the start of the military aggression also proved to be false. The report of the findings of the international forensic experts team headed by the Finish doctor Helen Ranta, which acted under EU auspices, has never been published. Apparently, it was lost somewhere in Brussels!⁷

What are the lessons of the NATO aggression for you and the world?

The NATO aggression against Serbia (FRY) in 1999 was a model of the new wars of conquest covered by the phrase “humanitarian intervention”. Everybody by now should know that this was not “humanitarian intervention” and that there are no “humanitarian wars”. That was a war of conquest to take away from Serbia its province of Kosovo and Metohija and to install there USA troops for strategic reasons. This was a precedent which was followed according to my opinion to export the capitalistic social system based on single Washington’s doctrine, which is equally unacceptable today as it was unacceptable to export of the socialist system based on Moscow’s doctrine in the sixties of the last century. Freedom of choice should be the sovereign right of every country. It is not right to divide peoples as if some have a right granted to them by Good to decide on what is good even for every other nation in the world. History has thought, at least us in Europe, that such ideology would be a source of great danger.

Where is the solution for the Kosovo issue?

The Problems of Kosovo and Metohija are centuries long, deep rooted ones. The Province is the birth place of the Serbian state, its culture, religion and national identity.  About 1.300 medieval monasteries and churches, including some UNESCO proclaimed as world heritage, are still found there. Over 150 have been destroyed by vandals and extremists. To say that the basic problems there have been in the field of human rights of Albanians would be a simplification. To solve the essential problems which I believe are in territorial expansionism of Albanians supported by western countries, primarily by the USA, Germany and Great Britain, all political actors need wisdom, long term view and patience, qualities that seem to be astonishingly in deficit.
I still believe in a compromise solution based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10th, 1999. That resolution, like a number of other UN Security Council decisions preceding it, has repeatedly guaranteed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of FRY (succeed by Serbia) and substantial autonomy for Kosovo and Metohija within FRY (Serbia). In the meantime great many serious mistakes have been committed, first and foremost, by the so called international community, including EU, then by Serbian authorities. Those mistakes generally can be summed up as serious deviation from the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. In March 2008, the Albanian leadership in Prishtina, declared the illegal, unilateral secession of the Province from Serbia, proclaiming the so called Republic of Kosovo. While the Province even today remains under UN Security Council mandate, the UN has not reacted. The USA, Germany, Turkey, Great Britain almost immediately recognized this secession. By now, 22 out of 27 EU members⁸ followed the suite. Serbia has not, and I believe, shall not recognize secession of 17 percent of its territory. Most of the UN members, including two, out of five, permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, have not.
Last year the dialog has started under the EU auspices between representatives of Belgrade and Prishtina on solving some concrete issues concerning everyday life of citizens. This may be good presumed it does not prejudice the key issue – the status of the Province as envisaged by UN Security Council Resolution 1244. I personally would like to see that the dialog produces the time table for free and safe return to their homes of about 250 000 Serbs and other non-Albanians who live in miserable conditions in various towns of Serbia and Montenegro. Unfortunately, so far, this issue has not come to the agenda, partially because of the lack of interest of Prishtina, partially because of the double standard policy of the West.
There is no viable solution imposed by force or by blackmailing Serbia’s government. The so called deal sponsored by certain western countries – territory (Kosovo) for membership (of Serbia) in EU and more foreign investments – may seem logic considering Serbia’s economy in shambles, but I do not believe it would work. It would not be fair, not balanced. It would not be acceptable by Serbs knowing their history, culture and pride.

What is the relationship between Serbia and the EU?

The EU is traditionally the most important economic partner of Serbia. Historic, social and cultural links remain strong. Hundreds of thousands of Serbian citizens and their descendants work and live in EU member countries. Serbia is a candidate for membership in EU. This is reflected in applying the method of “carrot and stick”, in an endless list of conditions towards Serbia which have not been applied, nor are they applied now to any other candidate country. The EU expects Serbia to “normalize relations with Kosovo”. When Belgrade reacts that it will never recognize Kosovo, Brussels’ commissars react that this is “not yet on the agenda”, that the EU demands “only” the IBM (integrated border management) system on the borders with Kosovo, dissolution of Serbia’s institutions in Kosovo, notably in Northern Kosovo, signing of an agreement on good neighbourly relations, exchange of ambassadors, then that Serbia does not obstruct Kosovo’s membership in the UN, and alike! Imagine that dimension of hypocrisy. They do not demand a diplomatic note, or any written statement on recognition, but they certainly demand relations equaling those between sovereign states!
I support close cooperation between Serbia and the EU in all fields of mutual interest without any obstacles: free flow of goods, capital, people, information. Having regard that the EU at present does not treat Serbia as sovereign partner, Serbia should adopt a policy of good neighbourly relations with the EU and freeze the present policy defining membership in the EU as the only alternative. It cannot be in the best interest of Serbia to give away more for less. Openness, cooperation without any administrative obstacles and a good neighbourly relation between Serbia and the EU would be quite a reasonable approach for the foreseeable future.

How can we in Germany, Switzerland and other European countries help that your people are better in every way?

The best way to help not Serbia only, but the understanding in Europe and a return to the real values of our civilization, is to always defend the truth, to avert distortion, semi-truths and immorality of all kinds. Serbia and the Serbian nation have always through history been part and parcel of Europe, its culture, progress and civilization; this is the same today and, I believe, it will stay so in the future. Nations have deep roots and faces that do not change overnight. In my opinion it would be useful if any prejudicing and one sided views characteristic of the public approaches to Serbia and Serbs in the recent past would be replaced by more balanced and non biased views.

We understand that the Belgrade Forum will be hosting an important international conference next March in Belgrade?

The Forum and some other independent, non partisan associations in Serbia are planning an international conference under the title “Aggressions, militarization and world crises”, to be held in Belgrade, March 22 and 23rd, 2014. This conference and other accompanying events will mark the 15th anniversary of the beginning of the 1999 NATO-aggression against Serbia (FRY) and pay honour to the victims of the aggression. We plan to invite prominent scholars and intellectuals from European and other countries to address the burning issues of military interventionism, expansion of military budgets, the militarization of political decision making and the world crisis which, in our opinion is not only a financial and economic, but also a crisis of the international world order.    •

¹    Bosnia and Herzegovina having one central government, two governments of the entities and plus 10 cantons governments in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
²    “The war against Yugoslavia was waged in order to correct the mistake of general Eisenhower made during the Second World War. For strategic reasons it was necessary to station American soldiers there afterwards”. Willy Wimmer, letter to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, dated May 2nd, 2000, Aktualna pitanja spoljne politike (Current Foreign policy issues), Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Belgrade, 2007, p. 76-77.
³    “Force should be above the law. Wherever the law stands on the way, it should be removed”, Willy Wimmer: Letter to Chancellor Gerhard Schroder on USA NATO policy, dated May 2nd, 2000. Current  issues of Foreign Policy, p. 77, The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Belgrade, 2007.
⁴    At the same time, the Dayton Accords established two entities – Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslims and Croats) and Republic of Srpska – placing all essential constitutional rights and responsibilities in their hands.
⁵    THE UN Security Council “decides that all the states…shall prevent armament and training for terrorist activities in this area” (Kosovo and Metohija, note of the author), UN Security Council Resolution No. 1160, of March 31st, 1998. Also, the UN Security Council  “demands that all states use all the means in accordance with their internal laws and relevant international laws in order to prevent  use of funds collected in their territories , in the way which is contrary to the resolution 1160 (1998)”, UN Security Council  Resolution 1199, dated September 23rd, 1998.
⁶    German defence minister Rudolf Shaping presented at the press conference held April 7, 1999, an alleged plan of Yugoslav forces to ethnically cleanse Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija, the  existence of which was not supported by the German intelligence service and which later proved to be false.
⁷     Something similar happened with the Report of Yasushi Akashi who was a UN Special Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina of May 1992.). Report noted, among others, two important facts: first, that the most of the Yugoslav Army (JNA) was withdrawn and second, that withdrawal of Croatian Army from Bosnia has not occurred. Akashi`s report however was not distributed to the members of UN SC until after the most severe sanctions against FR of Yugoslavia were imposed on May 30th, 1992. , UN SC resolution 757. (See SG Report S24049, May 30th, 1992, para 6 and para 9).
⁸     Spain, Romania, Slovak Republic, Greece and Cyprus have not recognized.

* “From Nuremberg to Le Hague”  ISBN 978-86-83965-7-3 [in serbian language]
“From Aggression to Secession”  ISBN 978-86-83965-9-7 [in serbian language]