"He is a typical sly Englishman! You won't get anything out of him."
"At least that will provide for a challenging interview," I replied remembering not only negative description of the British ambassador in our press ("cold", "arrogant") but also extremely positive comments as the one made by a well respected member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU), which can be summarized as: "He was the best for Serbia!"
(...) I started the interview provocatively by reading an excerpt from the book by Rebecca West [about her travels in the Balkan peninsula] "Black Lamb and Gray Falcon", from the chapter about Serbia: "I can understand why the British diplomats, too frequently the most delicate members of a very delicate class, hated to be posted in the Balkans. But I can also guess another reason for their unease. Not only are the Yugoslavs strong, but it is also certain that they will exert strong influence in such circumstances."
I followed the ambassador's gaze and it told me about a man who recognizes the value of words as well as that of silence, just the opposite of a stereotypical "cold Englishman".
I recall that thought by Rebecca West; However, she wrote those words more than fifty years ago. I do not hail from the "delicate" class. I was born and grew up in Liverpool, one of the roughest cities in Britain; I didn't attend a private school, but went to school together with the children of dock workers, so that I'm used to dealing with robust personalities. Consequently, I feel at home in Yugoslavia.
I am glad to hear that; since you deny that you are a member of the higher class, that must mean that you succeeded because of your talent and that Great Britain as a serious state continues its tradition of sending very educated people to Belgrade; at the same time I would like to believe that that is also done because Belgrade is the most interesting spot in the Balkans?
I do not want to confuse you, although I came from such an environment. I consider myself an educated person. I attended Oxford University, as other people from my generation, because of my own talent, not because of money. I believe that my appointment to be ambassador in Belgrade stems from my life and experience, because I dealt with Yugoslavia in Foreign Office 25 years ago. During the seventies I was the chief of the Yugoslav desk in Foreign Office.
In a fairly interesting article which you had written for a local magazine, I noticed this sentence: "The basic requirement for anyone hoping to understand the complexity of the Balkans is the correct understanding of history". What is your understanding of the local history?
That is a philosophical question. Those who fail to understand history, are doomed to repeat it over and over. Many mistakes which have been made in this part of the world, in the former Yugoslavia, have been made by the people who didn't know anything about the history of Yugoslavia.
Whose mistakes are you referring to?
I would rather not talk about mistakes made by a particular person. The majority of mistakes were made by people from the former Yugoslavia, and those mistakes made by the International community are of secondary importance in comparison with the mistakes made by the locals. One of the most horrendous mistakes is that people here continuously seek scapegoats instead of facing their own obligations.
I wouldn't agree with you that the mistakes of the International community are of secondary importance. What have Britain, or France done to prevent the break up of Yugoslavia, since they were the key countries which assisted in the founding of Yugoslavia in 1918?
I cannot talk about France since I do not represent that country. As far as my government is concerned, both the present and the previous one, every objective observer would admit that we did all we could in order to avoid the break up of Yugoslavia. The forces of disintegration within Yugoslavia were too strong for us, so that in that respect we cannot blame ourselves for anything.
English historian from Oxford, Norman Stone, has stated that Britain realized as early as 1987 that Yugoslavia would break up?
That is nonsense.
In any case, Yugoslavia was and remains a factor of stability in the Balkans. It is interesting that the Yugoslav drama occurred in parallel with the sudden strengthening of Germany, and all that reminds of certain events on the eve of World War II? I am referring to Genscher's role [in the break up of Yugoslavia].
You should ask my German colleague those questions. I've just said that the International Community had made mistakes, but that the greatest share of responsibility falls on the people from the former Yugoslavia. When I say people, I mean the leaders.
Of all republics?
Yes. The leaders of all [Yugoslav] republics; nevertheless, I wonder whether it is useful to spend time six years later trying to measure the extent of someone's responsibility for the break up of the former Yugoslavia. I think you should concentrate on overcoming the current Yugoslav problems.
You say that everyone shares responsibility?! What could Serbia do? The Serb people, which had built its enormous victims in the foundations of Yugoslavia, simply faced a done deal. You are trying to establish symmetries with others which are not objective?
I refuse to put accent on anyone's responsibility. I think that if we could travel six years in the past, that all leaderships of Yugoslav republics would have done differently.
Perhaps, Europe would change its decisions too!?
Of course!
The Dayton Agreement marked the end of a horrendous war in Bosnia. We fully accepted it and expect that all other signatories follow the Agreement and fully implement it.
What if there are problems with the implementation because of the rearming of Bosnian Muslims. Doesn't the huge rearmament program for Bosnian Muslims undermine the Dayton peace?
I am not aware that they are receiving huge amounts of arms. The Dayton Agreement, which has been signed by the Bosnian Serbs and Yugoslav leadership, envisages the balance of military forces at the lower level than before the war. It was agreed to establish a balance in the control of arms in the region.
Can you predict what will happen once the SFOR forces leave the region?
I think that for now we should concentrate on the implementation of the Dayton Agreement, rather than on hypothetical dates when the SFOR will leave the region. The following twelve months will be crucial. After the meeting in Sintra, the International Community is determined to use all means possible to convince the three Bosnian communities to cooperate and fulfill all their obligations.
What are the unfulfilled obligations, as far as the Bosnian Serbs are concerned?
Let me turn the question around. Which obligations have they fulfilled so far? The return of refugees hasn't progressed, the same is true for the efforts to establish multiethnic Bosnian institutions, none of the indicted have been extradited to the Hague Tribunal. Where are successes?
I had something else in mind. Aren't you too harsh with respect to the Serbs? Crimes committed by Croats and Muslims are mostly ignored. The West is more-or-less biased.
I don't think that is true. Both I and my government try to be unbiased in our approach. You're the first person during the three and a half years that I've spent here to say something like that. I've heard it said that the attitude of my government was unbiased and principled, and am very disappointed to hear you say something like that. You asked me about Bosnian Serbs and I responded. I didn't say that Muslims and Croats are not also responsible for the obligations from the Dayton Agreement which they haven't fulfilled.
The misunderstanding is due to one sentence which was omitted in the translation. I came to this interview with good intentions and the idea that Britain used to be a Yugoslav ally, although as you have said on one occasion, on the ceiling of the Foreign Office there is a mural which depicts Serbia, Montenegro and Belgium under the protection of the British cape; I also had in mind that Britain has done what it could in the changing times since the time that mural had been painted, and that the British must not forget about the biased approach of the West. Therefore, I made a general assessment.
The West, in general has a negative impression regarding the Serbs; that is a result of the events in the last six years and the general agreement that the Serb actions in Bosnia were an unprovoked aggression, while the Muslims are viewed as the victims of that aggression. I think that the bad media campaign by the Serbia and Bosnian Serbs contributed to that impression in the West. Actually, the failure of that campaign.
As you said, the Serbs have been accused of aggression. I would like to remind you that a famous British general Smuts in W.W.I claimed that Bosnia-Hercegovina was ethnically Serb territory. How is it possible to be aggressive toward one's own territory?
I've never heard about that statement by General Smuts.
I cannot discuss German policy in this region. A few months ago I spoke about the British policy in the Balkans. Our policy is consistent and generous. We are not here to promote our strategic interests. We have been here from the start to try to prevent the break up of the former Yugoslavia. We've provided two international peace mediators, Lord Carrington and Lord Owen. Both of them strove for peace. Their efforts will be judged by the historians in the future, as well as the efforts of those politicians who were more successful.
You reminded me, by mentioning the peace mediators, of the crime in the Merkale market. Today it is common knowledge that the Serbs were not responsible for that crime, although the sanctions were imposed on Serbia and Montenegro because of it; the Muslims were responsible for he crime. Does that mean that the world should apologize to the Serbs because of the sanctions imposed on Yugoslavia?
That is totally wrong. The sanctions against Yugoslavia were imposed in May 1992 because the International Community, including all permanent members [of the Security Council], Russia included, were convinced that Serbia and Montenegro were to a significant degree responsible for the promotion of war in Bosnia. That was before the massacre in Merkale, in Sarajevo. The first massacre occurred almost two years after the sanctions had been introduced, and the next one 18 months after that, in August 1995.
In any case, history will give the final judgment about many current events; following that line of inquiry I reach Kosovo and another remark by Rebecca West, that only in Gracanica [medieval Serb monastery] she realized what kind of civilization disappeared because of the Ottoman invasion. In your statements regarding Kosovo, perhaps having in mind historical reasons, you have been consistent in insisting that Kosovo must remain a part of Serbia?
I admire Rebecca West as a great writer but, naturally, I cannot allow that the British foreign policy in the late '90s be directed by the thoughts of this English author, no matter how brilliant they may be. On the other hand I can agree with her regarding the beauty of the Gracanica monastery. Yesterday, I saw some of the most beautiful Serb frescos in the Sopocani monastery; I believe that these frescos predate early Italian renaissance fresco painting. As far as Kosovo is concerned we are completely consistent there as well. You mentioned a well known position of the European Union and Britain that Kosovo is integral part of Yugoslavia; nevertheless, regardless of whether people here like that or not, there is also an international aspect of the Kosovo problem, and that is the human rights problem. If a person is completely satisfied because he or she is treated fairly and equally as any other citizen of a particular country there is no reason for him or her to be afraid of living in such a society. Unfortunately, the recent history of Kosovo is the history of total collapse of trust between the two communities living there. There is doubt, mistrust and the all pervading climate of fear among Albanians, and some Serbs without doubt, which is very unhealthy. The responsibility for that lies on Serbian authorities, which could try to create a climate of trust by removing the repression apparatus.
I wouldn't agree with you that the problem there is repression. It is undeniable that the situation in Kosovo is slowly moving towards the normalization of life, but I am also certain that Yugoslavia will never accept the secession of Kosovo.
We are not talking about the secession of Kosovo; we are talking about the improvement of human rights in that region to the internationally acceptable level, which should also affect the support among the Albanians for the secessionist movement. Thus, it is the interest of all communities in Kosovo to respect human rights: human rights are a glue which binds the society together, while the violations of human rights destroy a community.
Since you are mentioning minority rights in Kosovo, what can you tell us about the rights of Serbs in Croatia? What is Britain doing in that sense?
We are very critical regarding the behavior of Croatia and its failure to recognize the rights of Serbs, both in Krajina and East Slavonia. We do not practice double standards; we criticize violations of human rights regardless of where they may occur.
The same is true for Bosnia where Alija Izetbegovic and Islamic fundamentalists are "hiding" behind human rights; recently there has been a lot of information about that?
I believe that the radicalization of the religious identification of Muslims in Bosnia is a direct consequence of the war. Therefore, Bosnian Serbs and Croats share responsibility for that.
Yugoslavia is a natural part of Europe. What is Britain doing to assist more intensive participation by Yugoslavia, after the many troubles this country has been through, in European economic flows?
Britain is one of the leaders in the regional approach by the European Union. This makes sure that Yugoslavia receives the same treatment as Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. There is a series of conditions which are the same for all countries, with specific references for each one of them. The general conditions are the same for all countries, while each one of them has additional specific conditions: Croatia to respect the rights of the Serb minority, Yugoslavia to achieve progress in the solution of the Kosovo problem... Muslims as well are expected to fulfill certain conditions: implementation of the Dayton Agreement, extradition of the indicted to the Hague Tribunal, freedom of movement.
(...)