(The international conference of security challenges in Southeastern Europe-Ways of building stability and confidence, Belgrade, May 22, 2002.)
Ladies and Gentlemen, esteemed friends:
Once upon a time a dictator in Congo declared that he would never allow that his country be balkanized. I cannot claim whether this is a joke or truth, but I know that our peninsula, instead of being famous for its great history, its magnificent art, its world wonders and natural beauties - has become famous for its violent partitions and break-ups. The term balkanization has found its place in all vocabularies in the world to mark this very process: a break-up into smaller and often hostile units.
Secession, of course, always comes before a break-up.
Not only does the United Nations Charter refrain from providing for or referring to the secession, but the secession also ontologically contradicts its very spirit. Although the Charter has raised the observance of the states' territorial integrity to the level of a constitutional norm, disintegrating forces and secessionist factions have become stronger throughout the world, and in the Balkans in particular, in the last decades. Their strengthening in former "great" Yugoslavia has resulted in civil wars and immense ethnic cleansing.
Following their geo-political, geo-strategic, and economic interests, a few factors of the world political scene have, deliberately or by mistake, contributed to the break-up of Yugoslavia, euphemistically referring to it as to disunion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, only those states that arc or used to be internationally and legally recognized can disunite. The Former Yugoslavia did not unite states but peoples, but no one could spare the time to consider this fact in the nineties of the century we have just left behind us. For both truth and logic are often disregarded for the interests' sake.
That is exactly why the administrative boundaries in Former Yugoslavia, set and defined in agreements and casual deals made by communist leaders of former republic and provincial oligarchies, have become state border lines. The whole world admits now that the decisions in Yugoslav drama were made " too soon, too extensively and too fast".
What has happened is that nationalism of one ethnic group was rewarded, and the other one's condemned and ultimately castigated. One was considered an ally, the other
one an enemy. It would have been so much better if the nationalism in general, regardless of its origin, had been considered a flaw in human intelligence and discarded and made benign as such.
There is no doubt that there are different kinds of nationalism. I do acknowledge that any equation would inevitably lead to a simplification. However, I am sure that you will agree that, due to a heavy burden of historical heritage, due to old and bloody unsettled disputes, nationalism in the Balkans is particularly dangerous.
I have made all these statements to ask the following question:
Have we, after everything that has happened in Southeast Europe, come closer to the level of security we have been striving to or have we moved further away from it instead?
The most precise and the most paradoxical reply to this question would be that we have come to it as close as we have moved away. After hideous crimes and war terror, all former Yugoslav nations need to go through pacification and lustration processes, which gives us hope that the years ahead will be peaceful and tranquil. Regrettably, different people and different nations have come out of the civil wars with different feelings: triumph, shame, depression, and disappointment. Majority of Serbs believe that they have been deceived and doublecrossed, as they have ended up as a minority in different states where they used to be a constitutional nation. I therefore cannot but conclude, with deep regret, that only thing that is certain in the Balkans is uncertainty.
It seems to me that great majority of Albanians have acted dnven by a well- preserved dissatisfaction. Ethnic Albanian extremists in Kosovo and Metohia, as well as in Macedonia, have dreamed about a greater, ethnically clean country. The Platform for Solving the Albanian National Question prepared by the Albanian Academy of Sciences
quotes statement made by Abdil Frasheri, former ideologist of the Albanian National Movement, prior to the Berlin Congress: "If the great powers punish this heroic and freedom-loving nation by keeping them in slavery, or, which is even worse, by dividing them in different countries, the Balkan Peninsula will never find peace, for Albanians will never stop fighting for their national independence."
I note: "The Balkan Peninsula shall never find peace..."
Ladies and Gentlemen, let us face the truth: The virus of partition in the Southeast Europe, on the Balkan Peninsula, has not been exterminated!
I would refer to the statement made by Carl von Clauscwitz that has been quoted for thousand times so far: "War is politics continued through other means." Ladies and Gentlemen, this statement can very well be applied to a civil war, too. For the civil war, too, is prepared and planned by national and nationalistic parlies' leaders, ideologists, and politicians.
If the risk of a new bloodshed in the Balkans has not been considerably reduced, it is our duty to make our path to stability clear and attractive. All nations and countries in Southeast Europe must find their place in European integration processes and organizations. I do agree with Albanian Academicians who claim that, in the future, in the European Union, borders of the Balkan states "shall not be a Great Wall" and that they "shall be transformed into ethnic cultural borders instead".
The Albanian nationalism can go couple of ways in the future. It can continue the way Milosevic chose many years ago, leading to further conflicts, bloodshed, and disintegration. Leading to more lives lost. However, if the international community, with sincere help and cooperation of the countries in the region, stands united to show it is counterproductive to pursue this dark path, it can go other way. To genuine reconciliation, tolerance, stability, and cooperation in the region. Our own part in this struggle is to demonstrate to our ethnic Albanian citizens, as well as our citizens of all other ethnicities, that we are determined to ensure that their human rights are fully observed and that they arc given all privileges and responsibilities that are normally granted to citizens a truly democratic country.
As I have referred to the European integration processes and organizations, I want to emphasize that they would include both the military and civil structures. A long time ago, Clemenceau said: "War is too serious to be left to the military." This statement, however, cries for another one: "Peace is too essential to be left to the civilians only". It therefore seems to me that so called "waiting rooms" for some organizations, such as the Partnership for Peace, and the organizations themselves, such as NATO, must be open for all Balkan states. There is no doubt that they all do intend to join NATO. However, some of the countries are told "You have your foot in the door", some are told "You are close!" and some "We'll consider you in foreseeable future!"
In the recent NATO summit in Reykjavik, it has been formally confirmed that Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania shall be officially invited to join the Alliance soon. Croatia, Macedonia and Albania have been named as candidates to join the Alliance. Yet, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not been listed in either of the categories.
Yugoslavia is soon to be completely surrounded by NATO countries and will find itself in a position that is utterly inferior to the one of its neighbors. Virtually all neighboring countries, with the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina, will be members of the Alliance. If there was a dispute with Albania over Kosovo issue, for instance, Yugoslavia would automatically find itself in a dispute with the whole world! However, if Hungary was in a dispute with Romania over the position of Hungarian minority in Erdel, they would address it as one member of the Alliance with another, within the Alliance! Political and statesmanly prudence calls for the same possibility to be created for all countries in Southeast Europe. It calls for the possibility that prospective disputes be solved in the organizations that the parties are already members of or shall become members of in the foreseeable future.
I know well that there are criteria to be met to join these international organizations, for instance to establish a civil control over the military, but I believe that Europe can use its understanding to make waiting periods short and provide support that the criteria are expcditiously met.
I believe that if the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e. Serbia and Montenegro, expeditiously join the Partnership for Peace, we will be able to avoid possible future threats.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if we talk about incorporating Southeast Europe into the international security integration processes, we must recognize that wailing is not a part of this process.
Neither is uncertainly.
Yugoslavia has restored its membership in many of the international organizations. It has restored its cooperation with the Intcrpol that has rendered its assistance to the FRY in addressing the issue of organized crime successfully. A few organized crime trafficking channels have been discovered, with some of their connections cut through good cooperation of the police and custom officers of several Balkan countries. This could be an encouraging example for democratic authonties of the Balkan states to cooperate in other areas as well, including the military affairs. I hope to see some better times when individual countries in the Balkans will not produce everything, particularly the products that their neighbors can make much better, and that will not develop everything, particularly what their neighbors can develop much faster. Instead, within a common security organization, each individual state will have its special and feasible tasks. This division of responsibilities and financial liabilities would help the countries in Southeast Europe to earmark a greater part of the national income for economic and cultural development, for education, and for increasing the living standard of their population.
If we all commit ourselves to meeting this objective and set the timerrame and ways to achieve it, we will be able to refer to it as to a process.
Thank you for your attention.
