Consequently, the question which immediately poses itself is - who stands to gain and who stands to lose by this ceasefire agreement, that is, by the Covic plan?
The Arbanas terrorists appear to have gained the most. By this agreement, their status as a warring party has been recognized, which means that they are no longer terrorists but one of the sides in a civil conflict; and in the event of their capture, they will no longer considered criminals but prisoners of war. Furthermore, they have retained the territory that they control, as well as all of their light and heavy weapons with the opportunity to continue to accumulate yet more weapons and to add new fighters to their ranks. Finally, they have received acknowledgment of their "inalienable right to self-defense"!!!
In short, thanks to the inexcusable hesitation of the new government and the sycophant trepidation over what its mentors from abroad will say, the Arbanas terrorists have managed to achieve their strategy almost completely and to begin its implementation anew in western Macedonia. First, they infiltrate a given territory; then they take it over; then they build up their ranks; they win the status of a warring party and the right to self-defense; and then they take it from there when they assess their chances of success are good.
The powerful international players are also winners according to the Covic plan and the concluded agreement. They gained the right to send their monitors into the Ground Safety Zone, and the monitors are continually trying to get into our headquarters and the posts of our units outside the zone. And, what is worst of all, the agreement to receive these foreign monitors was concluded but not subsequently ratified by the Yugoslav Parliament and published in the "Official Gazette" and thus it represents a violation of Article 78, Section 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is the same practice of unconstitutional implementation of unratified and unpublished international agreements which was followed by Slobodan Milosevic for years.
The only real gain is the entry of our army into a five kilometer-wide and five kilometer-long segment of the zone along the Macedonian border. The North Atlantic alliance only agreed to this after the Arbanas terrorists forced their way into Macedonia and it became more convenient for our soldiers to guard that part of the border and risk their lives. Our army was forced to withdraw all of its heavy weaponry from the outside perimeter of the Ground Safety Zone, especially the tanks which have so far been successful in discouraging the terrorists from attacking Bujanovac, while the terrorists were allowed to stay in their positions with all their weapons, up to and including 122 mm howitzers.
In addition, the right to self-defense by our army and police - oh, the irony! -was recognized with one very important qualification: the defense from attacks must be proportionate and commensurate to the attack and nothing more.
The acme of humiliation and irony was the appearance of the terrorist leader to make an extensive statement on Radio Television Serbia while commanders of our army and police are not only denied their right to make statements but are characterized in "confidential" talks with foreigners and reporters as "bloodthirsty generals" and "donators of the blood of others" and "dogs of war".
It is clear to us, of course, why the foreigners are demanding that our forces, and the Macedonian police, in responding to the terrorists "must be commensurate to the threat", something which does not apply to the foreigners themselves. Because when the life of a single German soldier in Prilep is threatened by only one hand grenade, a "proportionate" response involves relentless gunfire from tanks and helicopters. What is not clear to us, however, is why Covic would be so proportionate as to completely equate our armed forces and the Arbanas terrorists. So we ask ourselves: whose side is he on?
In accordance with the information law, I would like to ask you to publish this letter in full in your newspaper by way of response to the views of Mr. Cavoski which you published in Glas Javnosti on March 19, 2001 under the heading "The Covic plan - Winners and losers".
I have been following the articles of Mr. Kosta Cavoski on the topic of the crisis in the south of Serbia in the Pcinja district in your paper for some time. These articles would certainly not deserve any commentary if they were not disinforming the public and spreading panic among the citizens of the south of Serbia.
I have nothing against a different opinion but only if it is based on fact and truth, and on constructive proposals for the resolution of the crisis in the south of Serbia. Mr. Cavoski, unfortunately, is presenting a mountain of lies and subjective interpretations, fortifying himself with the antiquated conservative-closet hysterical nationalism and stubbornness of which S. Milosevic was such a shining example.
Mr. Cavoski criticizes everything while at the same time failing to present any alternative proposal or only the proposal which presupposes - war and only war but involving someone else's children.
There was no "agreement ending the conflict" signed and such a document does not exist. Our side signed a ceasefire agreement and it was signed by the commander of the joint security forces, not by me. This ensured peace for the citizens of the south of Serbia. It is true that incidents are still occurring but they are significantly fewer in number and of lesser intensity than before.
One policeman, not two, was seriously wounded by a planted mine which does not reduce the accountability of the terrorists who planted that mine but we must tell the truth and be very precise about it.
Who won and who lost is obvious to everyone whose intentions are good. The citizens are the winners; the extremists, war mongers, negative thinkers, determined contrarians and all those to whom war is an obsession and a life goal in order to preserve their privileges and prove how essential they are to us - are the losers. I am certain that Serbia is a winner and if you, Mr. Cavoski, are a loser then that is your persona problem.
It is a misfortune when a legal professional does not respect the FRY Constitution in which Albanians, not Arbanasi, are mentioned; as far as terrorists are concerned, there are international standards. Perhaps they would have even been declared terrorists if we had not gone through everything that we went through in the last ten years. There are no warring sides, just as a citizen of FR Yugoslavia or Serbia cannot be a prisoner of his own state and government.
The monitors in the GSZ were invited by the FRY president and let me remind you that FRY according to the Military-Technical Agreement from Kumanovo (1999) assumed the responsibility of providing for the unobstructed work of the committee for the implementation of the Kumanovo agreement, including also the representatives of KFOR.
When our army (fortunately) was not massacred upon entering Sector C (East) of the Ground Safety Zone (GSZ) as you and other catastrophists such as you foresaw, you rushed to come up with a different hypothesis. The task of our army is to protect the borders of its country, which includes the border with Macedonia in the segment Sector C (East) of the former GSZ.
If tanks deterred Albanian extremists from attacking Bujanovac, how is it that the moment we removed those tanks to their peacetime positions the extremists did not enter into Bujanovac? What are you afraid of now? Tanks are not the only form of defense and protection; far greater protection can be achieved by peace and dialogue than by war and blood. If our future is tanks and war, Mr. Cavoski, then I leave that to you.
Proportionate and commensurate use of force will ensure that there will be no new Vukovars, Sarajevos, Dubrovniks... that there will be no more looting, slaughter, rape and everything else which has shamed and degraded us as a people. If you are proud of that, I certainly am not proud and I will never support it. By this, I am not decreasing the accountability for crimes committed against our people and the enormous mistakes and injustices which were inflicted upon us by the international community.
As far as "confidential" talks with foreigners and the qualifications that you cite in your article, I leave you to think about this. I am convinced that you know exactly what you are talking about when you use terms such as "bloodthirsty generals" and "dogs of war".
The appearance of the "terrorist leader" on Radio Television Serbia is the privilege of the editor and the editorial policy of that media organization and I don't interfere with this, just as I don't interfere when your articles are published in installments. No one is denying the right of the commanders of our army and police to make statements but they must be in the spirit of the state policy which is striving for a peaceful solution to the crisis in the south of Serbia, and not in the sense of unrealistic and virtual promises which will lead us into a new tragedy.
I am on the side of Serbia and the people to which I belong but of a new, modern, European, globally integrated Serbia in which one can be born, grow up and live normally and where one can say with pride "My country is Serbia and I am a Serb". We deserve this, Mr. Cavoski, but we are afraid that we will not achieve it if we continue with barren and false nationalistic howling. We have had enough of shame, distress, sorrow and suffering, Mr. Cavoski, and that is why I call on you, and all the citizens of Serbia and Yugoslavia, to join us in the field and help us to constructively triumph over all the evils which are hovering over Serbia and the Serbian people. If you don't want to help us or are not ready to do so, it would be good if you would stop disinforming the public and spreading unrest among the citizens of the south of Serbia or if you would at least tell us what you support if you do not support what I am doing now.
Dr. Nebojsa Covic
Serbian deputy prime minister and chairman of the Coordinating Committee of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia for Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja
My first act of "misinforming the public and spreading panic among the citizens of the south of Serbia" apparently resulted from the fact that I wrote that an agreement ending the conflict had been signed, as Blic reported on March 14, 2001 and that Covic had signed it, while Covic says that he signed no agreement, that "our side signed a ceasefire statement" and that the signatory was actually General-Lieutenant Colonel Ninoslav Krstic. Since he failed to mention whether the other side also signed this statement, it turns out there is no agreement between the two sides at all but only our unilateral statement.
Of course, I would not be citing either Blic or Glas which relay the news of Beta agency, had Covic's agreement, in the conclusion of which he participated, been published in the "Official Gazette of FR Yugoslavia" or the "Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia". In this respect as well, Covic unfortunately follows the example of Milosevic, who over the years published not a single agreement in the "Official Gazette", including the Kumanovo Military-Technical Agreement, which he personally signed, or others concluded and signed following his orders.
Instead of attacking me, it would be much better if Covic would explain to the public at which meeting of the Coordinating Committee, which he chairs and which consists of 16 full members (including five ministers and their deputies), the draft of the ceasefire agreement that was later signed was examined and when the Coordinating Committee or any other state institutions adopted the agreement that was signed. He is also obligated to clarify why he allowed representatives of the North Atlantic pact to serve as sole intermediaries in negotiations with the terrorists when according to the plan that he himself put together and both governments approved, it was specifically established that the intermediaries in resolving the crisis would be, first and foremost, the UN and OSCE.
It is even more important for Covic to explain why he accepted, and by whose permission, that our Army withdraw its heavy weaponry around Bujanovac, while the terrorists remain where they are. At the same time, the plan he put together establishes that first the terrorists will leave Lucane and Veliki Trnovac, then the local police will enter both towns, and only then will the army withdraw its tanks and heavy artillery from the Veliki Trnovac-Lucane line and around Bujanovac.
Finally, Covic should explain whether he, like the Macedonian government, accepts the recent statement by Javier Solana in Skopje that there should be no talks at all with terrorists.
Without justification, for the sole purpose of showing his true nature, Covic equates me with respect to hysterical nationalism and stubbornness with Slobodan Milosevic. From 1960 to 1964, I studied with Milosevic and frequently exchanged friendly conversations with him; however, beginning with the big student demonstrations of 1968, we found ourselves on opposing sides: he on the ascending staircase of the Communist regime, I among the persecuted and condemned dissidents. And we never met again.
Unlike me, Nebojsa Covic was with Milosevic during the military campaigns near Vukovar, Dubrovnik and other battlefronts that now repulse him; and he shared with him the power and the glory until 1997. It is unlikely he would have stepped out of his shadow even then if Milosevic hadn't chased him away. And not because his people in the City Electoral Commission and the First District Court falsified the election results but because Felipe Gonzales caught them in the act while they were doing it.
Evil tongues claim that during the debate on his electoral defeat in Belgrade, Slobodan Milosevic in a state of disaffection threw an ashtray at Nebojsa Covic. So it is thanks to that ashtray that Covic became such an outstanding advocate of "a new, modern, European, globally integrated Serbia".