JANUARY2007

On Sunday Serbia will hold its first general election since becoming an independent state last year.

One topic looms large over the election, the future of the province of Kosovo.

In southern Serbia the Albanian and Serb communities are looking anxiously at developments in neighbouring Kosovo.

"I help my Serb friend sell onions here in the Albanian market and he helps me to sell my potatoes in the Serb market further north," says Xhevap Ameti, an Albanian, living near the town of Presevo in southern Serbia.

"We've tried war, we've tried politics and none of it has worked. But we've managed to connect ordinary people through this agricultural association.

"We've been able to maintain the relationships between Albanians and Serbs and we hope to be an example to other people," says Xhevap.

His Serb friend and trading partner, Budimir, agrees:

"We've become so close that I come with my family to visit him and we really do help each other.

"I see our personal friendship as the most important thing. I cannot describe it in words. Politics is politics and life is life," says Budimir.

Guerrilla war

Relations between Serbs and Albanians in southern Serbia, in the municipalities of Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja, have not always been so warm.

In 2001 ethnic Albanian guerrillas fought Serb security forces in the hills around here.

A wider conflict was ultimately avoided, the international community got involved, money came in and the Albanians were given more rights.

"The introduction of a multi-ethnic police force has certainly helped matters. The security situation has improved. But this is still an impoverished area," says Martin Brooks of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

As a sign of how things have improved, a coalition of Albanian parties will take part in this general election, finally ending years of boycott.

But there is concern about the consequences for the finely balanced ethnic relations should trouble erupt in neighbouring Kosovo just a few kilometres over the nearby hills.

The province of Kosovo remains a part of Serbia but has been administered by the UN since 1999.

Its majority Albanian population want independence.

The chief international envoy for Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari, has said he will present his proposal for the future status of Kosovo "without delay" after the Serbian election.

There is a widespread belief he will recommend some form of independence.

Serb migration

There is concern that some Serbs may then leave Kosovo and move to southern Serbia, upsetting the ethnic balance.

"Whenever there is migration the situation becomes tense. We don't want to see our own people thrown out of Kosovo and it would have a negative impact. But we would accept them and take them in," says Svetislav Stojmenovic, the owner of the Oasis restaurant in the town of Bujanovac.

He is also a leading member of the Serbian Radical Party, the main nationalist party in Serbia.

"We don't want a new war here. We want peace and higher standards of living. But we will never agree to an imposed solution over Kosovo and we will wait for an historical moment when we can legally regain that territory if it becomes independent," he says.

At a cafe around the corner a leading Albanian politician tells me he would be concerned if there was a sudden influx of Serb refugees.

Jonuz Musliu, a former Albanian fighter, is now leader of the Movement for Democratic Progress in Bujanovac.

"We don't know what's going to happen," he tells me.

"But if many Serbs leave Kosovo and come to Bujanovac, they are likely to be angry and frustrated. There could be tensions. I think there would have to be some international police here to defend both Serbs and Albanians."

For many in southern Serbia, it is not this general election that they are paying attention to but its immediate aftermath.

Friends are bridging the old ethnic divide near Kosovo Q&A: Serbian election Kosovo's ethnic Albanians are hungry for independence As a sign of how things have improved, a coalition of Albanian parties will take part in this general election, finally ending years of boycott. But there is concern about the consequences for the finely balanced ethnic relations should trouble erupt in neighbouring Kosovo just a few kilometres over the nearby hills. The province of Kosovo remains a part of Serbia but has been administered by the UN since 1999. Its majority Albanian population want independence. The chief international envoy for Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari, has said he will present his proposal for the future status of Kosovo "without delay" after the Serbian election. There is a widespread belief he will recommend some form of independence. Serb migration There is concern that some Serbs may then leave Kosovo and move to southern Serbia, upsetting the ethnic balance. "Whenever there is migration the situation becomes tense. We don't want to see our own people thrown out of Kosovo and it would have a negative impact. But we would accept them and take them in," says Svetislav Stojmenovic, the owner of the Oasis restaurant in the town of Bujanovac. He is also a leading member of the Serbian Radical Party, the main nationalist party in Serbia. "We don't want a new war here. We want peace and higher standards of living. But we will never agree to an imposed solution over Kosovo and we will wait for an historical moment when we can legally regain that territory if it becomes independent," he says. At a cafe around the corner a leading Albanian politician tells me he would be concerned if there was a sudden influx of Serb refugees. Jonuz Musliu, a former Albanian fighter, is now leader of the Movement for Democratic Progress in Bujanovac. "We don't know what's going to happen," he tells me. "But if many Serbs leave Kosovo and come to Bujanovac, they are likely to be angry and frustrated. There could be tensions. I think there would have to be some international police here to defend both Serbs and Albanians." For many in southern Serbia, it is not this general election that they are paying attention to but its immediate aftermath.

Kosovo, an international protectorate administered by the United Nations.

The attempt of those responsible from the international community to cover up the actual difficult situation of the Serbs through statements regarding the general improvement of security in Kosovo and Metohija while, on the other hand, encouraging the perpetrators to continue committing crimes is incomprehensible.Holy Synod of Serbian Orthodox Church Meeting.

Kosovo is part of Serbia and Montenegro, but the legal authority of the region is the U.N. Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). The province is considered one of the jewels of Christian heritage, having served as the 'Vatican' of Christian Orthodoxy from the 12th century onward. Serbs, who are predominantly Orthodox Christians, constitute a minority, as do Turks, Roma (gypsies) and Muslim Slavs. Eighty-eight percent of Kosovo's population is made up of Muslim Albanians.
The attacks and ongoing persecution are seen by some as the purposeful targeting of the very symbols of Christian European civilization.

CROATIA:1995

During the four days of operation "Storm", 25,000 Serbian homes were destroyed, 13,000 businesses, 56 medical facilities, 78 Orthodox churches, 29 museums, 181 cemeteries, 352 small shops, all big state-owned factories, 920 monuments, 211 cafes and restaurants, 410 craftsmen shops.

Before operation "Storm", 450,000 Serbs lived in the Krajina. From 1991 until 1995, as many as 6,765 Serbs were murdered. 2,670 are still missing. When population census records from 1991 and 2001 are compared, it turns out that about half a million Serbs have disappeared from today's Croatia.

Already in 2002 After listening to the field reports of those Council members who were present,THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR KOSOVO-METOHIJA OF THE SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH'S HOLY SYNOD OF BISHOPS had concluded that, after more than three and one half years since the arrival of the international community as represented by UNMIK and KFOR, the situation in Kosovo and Metohija is not improving; on the contrary, it is deteriorating even further. This conclusion is based on the facts that even today everyday attacks on the remaining Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija are occurring, as well as new murders, injuries, lootings, destructions of churches and especially during the most recent period, the frequent destruction and desecration of cemeteries.

All these known facts and others attest clearly to both the ultimate intentions of Albanian extremists to destroy every last vestige of the existence of the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as the failure of the international community's mission to fulfil its promises and the responsibilities which it undertook by Resolution 1244, to enable peaceful and safe life for all, the return of all expelled persons to their homes, and respect for the fundamental human rights of all residents of Kosovo and Metohija.

Between 1999 and 2004, approximately150 churches, monasteries, seminaries, and bishop residences were attacked by ethnic Albanian mobs. Many of the churches contained priceless Byzantine frescoes and other religious artifacts dating as far back as the 13th century. Many of the sites were reduced to rubble.

To Set the Scene: The International Court of Justice on War Crimes committed in Yugoslavia
The Prosecutor drew the attention of the Council to the negative reactions of the victims' groups in the region in regard to the envisaged completion of the Tribunal's work, while six accused, including Karadzic and Mladic remain at large.

Speaking about the level of co-operation of the authorities in the region the Prosecutor stated: "While the judicial authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and in Serbia have stepped up their efforts to try war crimes, the political bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia have not shown the political will necessary to arrest the remaining fugitives."

The Prosecutor suggested the following steps to be taken - first, the Security Council to consider changing the conditions under which an accused can be transferred to national courts; - second, by full and forceful support of the Security Council to encourage strengthening of the political will to arrest remaining fugitives; - and third, the Security Council to confirm in clear form that there remains the possibility for the Tribunal to complete its mandate in dignified and successful manner with remaining fugitives like Karadzic and Mladic being brought to trial in The Hague.

The full text of the speech can be found on the Tribunal's website at:

In English: http://www.un.org/icty//pressreal/2006/p1137e-annex.htm
In French: http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2006/p1137f-annex.htm

A Strange "Partnership":With respect to the Tribunal's partnership with the former Yugoslavia, the President summarized its continued work in referring cases involving intermediate and lower ranking accused to national courts as well as monitoring of domestic trials to ensure they meet the requirements of the highest standards of due process. Upon highlighting the capacity building and rule of law initiatives undertaken by the Tribunal in the region, President Pocar urged the Security Council, and the international community as a whole, to protect the Tribunal's achievements thus far for reasons of ensuring stability and reconciliation.

Vojislav Seselj in his own words

Serb ultra-nationalist Vojislav Seselj, who has surrendered to the international war crimes tribunal, is renowned for his radical and sometimes outrageous rhetoric. Below is a small sample, beginning with his recent comments on his coming trial:

"I already have this winning feeling inside me."

"Do not give (them) any Serb after me, don't give them Radovan Karadzic, don't give them Ratko Mladic."(Addressing supporters at a farewell rally)

"I don't know when I'll be back but I won't be wasting time in The Hague; I will unmask the anti-Serb plot that is going on there."

"With their stupid charges against me they have come up against the greatest living legal Serb mind. I shall blast them to pieces."

"I am going to spite them, to tell them that the Serbian people will never give up the liberation of Serb Dubrovnik, Serb Dalmatia, Serb Lika, Serb Banija, Serb Kordun, Serb Slavonija, Serb Baranja, Serb Bosnia, Serb Hercegovina, Serb Kosovo and Serb Metohija."

Mr Seselj, who had apparently already been aware that the tribunal planned to arrest him and who denies that charges, said that he would surrender voluntarily.

"I will go on my own," he told the Associated Press news agency.

"I will not let anyone arrest me, I shall go when it pleases me."

The indictment, signed by chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte, charges Mr Seselj with a eight counts of crimes against humanity and six counts violations of the laws or customs of war. Each count is punishable by life in prison.

"He bears criminal individual responsibility for crimes which were part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the Croat, Muslim and other non-Serb civilians," the tribunal said in a statement quoted by Reuters news agency.

NOVEMBER 27th:

Serbian nationalist leader Vojislav Seselj has lost the right to conduct his own defence after boycotting the start of his war crimes trial. The leader of the Serbian Radical Party, the biggest party in Serbia's parliament, refused to attend the start of the trial in The Hague.

It had been half-expected that Mr Seselj would not attend the first day of his trial, after he began a hunger strike in his cell two weeks ago, and refused to attend a pre-trial hearing last week. He has been on hunger strike for two weeks and is said to be getting weaker.

Mr Seselj is accused of plotting the ethnic cleansing of former Yugoslavia during the wars of the early 1990s. He is also accused of forming a joint criminal enterprise with former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, which led to the extermination and deportation of non-Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia.

He has been demanding the right to choose his own stand-by defence lawyer, and unrestricted visits from his wife. Althugh he was warned by the court that failing to appear for the trial could mean he would surrender the right to self-defence. "He persists in not taking food... he persists in being absent," said the presiding Judge, Alphons Orie, at the opening of proceedings on Monday. "The court finds that the accused's self-representation has essentially obstructed the proper and expeditious proceedings," he said, appointing a British lawyer to take over Mr Seselj's defence.

DECEMBER 8th:
Vojislav Šešelj has informed the Tribunal that he will resume taking foodstuffs and receive medical attention, ending his refusal since 11 November 2006 to do so.

The Tribunal's doctor commenced an examination of Šešelj in order to determine his condition and what immediate steps are required in order to safeguard his health.

Šešelj informed the Tribunal that his decision was made in view of the Appeals Chamber's decision issued today, as well as commitments from the Registry to facilitate many of his requests concerning arrangements for his defence. The Appeals Chamber's decision granted Šešelj's appeal against the Trial Chamber's decision to impose stand by counsel.

The Appeals Chamber ruled that all trial proceedings in this case following the order of the Trial Chamber directing the Registry to appoint standby counsel are set aside. The trial of Šešelj is suspended until such time as he is fit enough to fully participate in the proceeding as a self-represented accused.

In addressing Šešelj's appeal, the Appeals Chamber found that, while appreciating the efforts of the Trial Chamber to ensure the fair and expeditious conduct of this trial, the Trial Chamber abused its discretion by immediately ordering the imposition of standby counsel, without first establishing additional obstructionist behaviour on the part of Šešelj warranting that imposition. By so doing, the Trial Chamber failed to give Šešelj a real opportunity to show to the Trial Chamber that despite his conduct in pre-trial, and the conduct leading up to the imposition of assigned counsel, he now understood that in order to be permitted to conduct his defence, he would have to comply with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal and that he was willing to do so. It was this opportunity that the Appeals Chamber Decision intended to accord to Šešelj.

German influence in Eastern Europe 26.05.2003 OXFORD Germany played an important role in splitting Czechoslovakia and breaking up Yugoslavia in the Nineties. This is shown in a speech that was given by Miroslav Polreich, a former Czechoslovak OSCE-ambassador, in the year 2000 in Oxford. As Polreich explains, the German government also argued against a possible peaceful
settlement of the then ,,ethnic"conflicts in Kosovo. Source: www.freenations.freeuk.com


The European Union and German influence in Eastern Europe.
By Dr. Miroslav Polreich

Thank you very much. I am glad to be here in this nice, historical city, especially among people with an economic and intellectual awareness, and people who are so active democratically.

Well you know, I have studied American foreign policy all of my life, but if there is one thing I do not understand, it is American foreign policy, because it's unpredictable. Being a Czech, and my grandfather was German - my name is Polreich, which indicates my German origins - and being from Europe, and I would say, not only from Eastern Europe, I have to follow German policy. I am not a good student of German policy, but I understand it very well.

Well, being from Czechoslovakia, and from the Czech Republic now, I give you a very short glimpse of the country. You know, Czechoslovakia was considered as a more Western type country, because we had democracy between the wars. You know, Pilsudzki Poland, Horthy Hungary, not to mention Germany, were the fascist regimes, all surrounding Czechoslovakia. Then came Munich [the notorious Munich agreement between Britain, France, Italy and Germany, in 1938, when the Sudeten territories were given to Germany]. So historically we were always content to belong to the West.

As you know the country has now split - into Slovakia and the Czech Republic - 5 million Slovaks and 10 million Czechs. In Slovakia there are 600,000 Hungarians in the southern part, and about 400,000 gypsies, which you should know about (many have sought asylum in the UK - ed). The split was very peaceful. It was not necessary to do it, because if there had been a referendum, everybody says that 70 percent of Slovaks would say ,,We want to stay in Czechoslovakia", and 70 of Czechs would say ,,We want to stay in Czechoslovakia". So why did they split? It's because of the power of the media, and much of which even at that time - I'm speaking about late 1992 - was already in the hands of Germans. In my country there is only one leading paper which could be described as independent. All the others are controlled by German interests, either by ownership, which is about 90%, or by the power of advertisement. Remember that newspapers live by advertisements and massive areas of our economy are controlled by foreign corporations. So, there were some articles saying that we should split otherwise there might be war - newspaper sales thrive on sensationalism! But at that time, the Czech Prime Minister Klaus, and the Slovak leadership negotiated in many meetings and they decided the country should divide. There was no crisis - Slovaks wanted to be free, have their own president, ok, they have it, and Czechs said, after all, well, Slovakia is a poor part of our country, we will be better off, anyway, so let them go, and be free. We cooperated, there's no problem, we are friendly.

I know Yugoslavia - we know that Serbs and Croats, they don't like each other, and so on. But human beings as such don't hate each other by nature, but nationality can be very easily misused by politicians. Let's say 20% of Croats and Serbs married each other. They didn't even think about what they were - that my wife or grandfather is Croat or Serb. They didn't care. But then they started to care, because it served a purpose. Those communist leaders, lets say moderate communist leaders, because Yugoslavia was different from other eastern, Russian-controlled countries. So, they exploited national differences to incite hatred. You know my diplomatic career stopped when I was at the Security Council protesting the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and one interesting point is that Yugoslavia was afraid that the Russians would continue and attack Yugoslavia as well. So, besides the federal army, they created local, national army units. And those units have been used recently to fight the federal army but those units had been established in order to resist the Russians in '68.

Well, then after the Russian invasion I was not able to travel, I was not able to do my job, I was unemployable because I was considered to be a traitor - my children understand what it means to be children of a traitor. But Czechoslovakia is now under a transition, economic transition, which means privatization. We Czechs - we don't have any money. So, privatization means that somebody else has to come from abroad to buy almost everything the State used to own. Well, our richest and closest neighbor is naturally Germany. So, our companies are owned by Germany, our media are owned by Germany, which almost seems to be the norm - but it is not what we thought a sovereign nation was going to be. Well, I will finish with the case of the Czech Republic.

There is today a new ideology. Our President Havel, who embraces this new ideology, has said ,,Well, we don't have to speak about nationhood, about nations, or sovereignty. That's the idea of the last century. Now we are in the modern world. We have the right of the individual, the right of the people as such. That has nothing to do with nationality."Now we in the Czech Republic have a social democratic government, which unlike communism should allow differences. But somehow, because social democrats are also in power in Germany and of course they all embrace internationalism, they said ,,Well, we have to follow the German line, this is the right way. Be close to the Germans. Well, no nation is important, no sovereignty is important, after all, we have to give up sovereignty partly to NATO, partly to the European Union. So what?"

But there was one thing new that was introduced, in all Eastern European countries - regionalism - which means the unimportance of the nation states. Prague or Warsaw are not important. I mentioned Warsaw, because now, for the Germans Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic - none are of importance. For them, there is one big problem - that's Poland. That's 42 million people. So it is through the ideology of regionalism, I think you will see it soon, that's the way we'll see the final division of Poland. I think it's the fifth division in history, because Warsaw power is not important. It is different regions, which are important - and that means that Polish nationhood has to be much easier to control. This is the situation as I see it in Eastern Europe. Already we see that those regions within nations want to have direct representation at the EU with less connection with their respective capitals.

There were very important changes in 1990. Well, practically it started in 1985, when Gorbachev came to power - the changes started in Moscow. If there had been no changes in Moscow, you could have had no changes in Eastern Europe. We tried, as Czechs in 1968. You know the result - occupation. But, then the Russians started to change. We can argue why, but anyway, there was perestroika, glasnost, and new thinking.

But what happened when the bi-polar world - communist East and capitalist West -disappeared? There was time for cooperation and trust in the whole Europe, in the whole world. You know, disarmament. The Soviet Union had more than 5 million men under arms. Now they have a little bit more than 1 million. And Americans closed their bases abroad, at home, so this was a huge disarmament, the greatest in history. Just consider the veto at the United Nations - in the Security Council. It was used for decades by both sides, mostly by the Russians but then in the 1990s - no veto. For several years, there was absolutely no veto in the Security Council. Everything was done by consensus. Americans used the veto in some minor matters but generally there was a situation of cooperation. There was a deal in the 1993 signing, in Oslo, of the treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. You know - both guys got the Nobel prize for that. But it reflects the atmosphere of the beginning of the '90s. There was a war in the Gulf, agreed by the United Nations, of a kind which had not been possible before- an action against a sovereign state. And there was so-called ,,preventative diplomacy". And, there was a transformation of NATO on the table, which means, especially from an American point of view, universal security. If you are not secure, I can't be secure. That's why Americans supported at the time the partnership for peace, which meant every European nation, including Russia participating with consultation, some military training, or working together. So, this was the European scene, at the beginning of the '90s. I was signing for it. At that time I was working in Vienna, in my post in the OSCE. But, what happened then?

The Germans came, with the theory of a security vacuum. In a bi-polar world, there had been two sides. Now they had disappeared, so which way would everything go? And in our press, it was published every day, that we were not secure. We were looking for a new enemy. Surprisingly, looking eastward again. ,,Russia is unpredictable. What are you going to do? 30 million Russians will move through Europe, because they live poorly and will want to move where there is wealth"and so on. If you opposed these theories, which I did, they tried to make fun of you, and you know there are more Slovaks in America as immigrants, than Russians. There are some Ukrainians in Canada. Only at Harvard does every other name end in 'ov.' But, in general there were no mass movements of Russians. So, there was just this German theory.

Then, another question, a major question - NATO was to expand eastwards. So, President Havel and President Walenza at the time, were for it. Madeleine Albright, who speaks Czech as well as I do, because she was born in Prague, and educated there and later in Belgrade too - they all started to support the expansion of NATO, which was a German idea although Americans were strongly against it. And I will give you the proof. This is from an American study, I think from Brown University, that's from Rhode Island, when they were evaluating NATO enlargement The study concluded that ,,President Havel, of the Czech Republic has even charged that the United States is again betraying the countries of east central Europe, much as Czechoslovakia was betrayed at Munich in '38, and at Yalta in '45."So, Americans were traitors because they didn't want enlargement. But then Polish nationalists, and some others pressed the American government to change their position. So NATO was enlarged. Then there is the much more important question - the case of Yugoslavia.

Well, if there were to be changes in the Balkans, or Yugoslavia should split, it had to be done peacefully by negotiations. Well, we negotiated over and over again. Americans surprisingly - let's remember those days - were supporting a unified Yugoslavia, in any case. You don't split the country, even if you fight. That meant the Serbs were not very willing to negotiate, because they had the support of their powerful ally, Milosevic's ally, the United States. At that time Yugoslavia had a president who was an American citizen and had just returned to his native Yugoslavia. Russia was not involved. So then came the Germans recognizing those two countries - Croatia and Slovenia. As in the 1930s the Vatican followed, and President Havel was the third. You know the relationship between the Czechs and Yugoslavs is a special relationship. Czechoslovakia was founded in 1918 by President Masaryk. President Masaryk had been travelling in the United States, fighting for the foundation of his country, but with a Serb passport in his pocket! Of course, he was also an Austro-Hungarian citizen at that time since Austria-Hungary was the imperial power up to 1918. We always had a very close relationship with Yugoslavia.

So any action against Yugoslavia was very unpopular in the Czech republic. At first the European Union had been against recognition of Croatia and Slovenia. Then there were the negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty just on the way, so the Germans agreed to among other things an opt out for the British from the Single European Currency if the other members states approved the break up of Yugoslavia - which you did - so did the European Union. Then, in the American case, it was a little bit more complicated. The whole media was practically on the Croat side, or against Serbs, to be more exact. (Large sums of money had been transferred to New York and London to finance pro-Croat propaganda ) On the occasion of opening the Museum for the Holocaust in Washington, President Havel spoke. That was his first statement on the Yugoslav crisis, and the first place where he said ,,bomb". By chance, I was in Washington a week after, and just watching the television, there was an interview by President Clinton, and the question was, 'President Havel said here we should bomb Yugoslavia. What do you say to this?' And you know what Clinton said? I will quote - I remember it, because I was shocked. ,,Well, the situation is much more complicated, because we don't have only Bosnia-Herzegovina, we have Nagorno-Karabach, and Northern Ireland", which is not very smart, I would say even it's pretty stupid, but he said that, which means that was the real position of the Americans at that time, not to take sides. Well, and what happened after that? A bomb exploded in that market in Sarajevo, many people were killed. There was a bomb in that queue for bread and many people were killed. Everything was caused by Serbs. Well, after some time, documentation said something different, but that was later and in the meantime the whole media had been turned against the Serbs. So, American society and their government felt they had to switch their position.

Well, I would like to speak about Kosovo a little bit. We have heard a very interesting speech from Mark Littman QC, with considerable documentation, so I will be brief. I was on the first mission in 1992 in Pristina, in Kosovo. It was a mission organized by the OSCE, which was more or less a military mission. Chief of the mission was Canadian Ambassador David Peel, and we had negotiations between the Serbs and the Kosovo Albanian leader Dr. Rugova for many days and nights, and we had everything at our disposal. At that time Serbs, or Yugoslavs showed us everything we wanted to see, where we wanted to stop by helicopter. Those military men mostly from NATO countries could take pictures and everything, but we were asked by Rugova that we (Ambassador Peel and I) should stay there, immediately, on the spot, and secretly negotiate between him and the Serb side.

The Serbs were prepared to talk anywhere with anybody. If the other side wanted secrecy, ok. Rugova had this condition. So I asked my authorities at that time. (Minister Dienstbier was out of the ministry, and I was intending to go with him. You know, he is now the Commissioner for the United Nations on the Balkan Human Rights issue.) So I asked the authorities, and they told me 'We consulted the Germans, there was no intention of having any kind of deal over Kosovo.' So then I stopped my diplomatic activities and instead devoted myself to research. But my evaluation was, that when the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was over there would be war in Kosovo. So I approached the authorities in Prague, offering them my mandate from Rugova, to go and negotiate. It was in '95, '96, '97. They refused. They said to me, well, it's up to Havel. But I said that no-one would know so there was no risk. If we didn't succeed, nobody would know. If we succeeded, we would save many lives. They told me, it's up to Havel to decide himself. So, there were no negotiations. I insisted, I threatened, now it's out, despite the press trying to censor the truth. So this was, I think, the main responsibility of our government. Which means that we were not able to help at the time when Kosovo was out of the media headlines and both sides were amenable to an agreement and the war could have been prevented.

But I started to speak about the German position. I mentioned several reasons why German foreign policy started to differ from Western countries, from Americans, from the European Union. Somehow, they are in power in Europe - economically, financially, in the media, the press and propaganda, absolutely, number one, no comparison. That means they practically took over the situation, and using the pretext of splitting Yugoslavia the way they arranged, the war in Kosovo, where Americans practically did the job for the Germans, they now enjoy effective military power not only in eastern Europe. I think the situation of NATO is not important now. Why? I think the presence of America in Europe is not important now. They have some other spots in the world to control.

So what happened in Europe? Even when Milosevic was in power, there was no problem with Vojvodina, where there is a large Hungarian minority inside Yugoslavia. No problem with Sandzak, Muslim problems. But until recently we could read every day how Serbs were killing them, raping women. Now, immediately, when the war in Kosovo was finished, nothing happened. We have no problem in southern Slovakia, where those Hungarians are living in an absolute majority over Czechs, and this is the part of the country which never belonged to Slovaks, not even to Slavs, and Hungarians lay claim to it. No problem. Hungarian Slovaks are even in the government. Everything went smoothly, which means the Germans took over Europe as such. Germans took responsibility for their new territory, and Germans want to keep it calm. You noticed that the first aid to the Serbs (after the fall of Milosevic) or to Yugoslavia now, came from the German side. And I believe, that even Germans will try to find a good relationship with Yugoslavia, to help them, and in the near future, they have to make a major, new agreement with Russia, not to divide power but (let's call it a better name) to divide responsibility.

I don't understand very much about French policy. I never concentrate on that. I don't know much about Great Britain's policy. I know this is a special country, thanks to its close relationship with the United States, which is a little different. But our part of Europe, like it or not, is Germany's responsibility now. So if we are speaking about unifying Europe under the nice blue flag, well Europe is united already (although I don't like the flag). I have to admit that. Whether I like it or not is not very important, it is a fact.

So, and this is where I would like to end, before me now is the question how much Germans will be responsible, how we can influence that responsibility taken by Germany, and if we, as the Czechs, or as the Slovaks, or even as the Poles, could survive, as a cultural entity in the European scene. This is my problem. I would say, I studied America, I don't understand America. I lived there. And I respect Americans as such. I respect them in many ways. But they are quite naïve. You know, Genscher (the former German Foreign Minister) wrote in his memoirs about Bosnia-Herzegovina, about Yugoslavia. And you know what he said - and he is right. By the end of the war in Yugoslavia we Germans have repaired the deeds or the consequences of the first World War. What happened after the First World War which the Germans have now ,,repaired"? - the foundation of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the end of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Today we have Otto von Habsburg seeing in the European Union a new Charlemagne empire and the Germans have moved in to Eastern and Southern Europe.

But who helped them to do that? Unfortunately it was the Americans. And I would say that Clinton, before he leaves office, should go to Arlington cemetery in Virginia, kneel down, and say, 'Boys, what you died for in the first and second world wars, I gave up to the Germans for nothing.'

Thank you.
Editor JBraddell recommends you now read the following page carefully:"We should watch Developments here - GermanForeignPolicy.com - Wheels within wheels" see nav.column.

"At first we were confused. The East thought that we were West, while the West considered us to be East. Some of us misunderstood our place in the clash of currents, so they cried that we belong to neither side, and others that we belong exlusively to one side or the other. But I tell you, Ireneus, we are doomed by fate to be the East in the West and the West in the East, to acknowledge only heavenly Jerusalem beyond us, and here on earth--no one" - St. Sava to Ireneus, 13th century

I'll definitely come back

By Dragana Zecevic

Soon Susan Manuel will leave the post of UNMIK spokeswoman in Kosovo. Ms. Manuel arrived for the scheduled interview in the Kukribar Cafe in downtown Pristina across the road from the former Yugoslav Army headquarters before me. We were late for the interview as a result of the traffic jam resulting from the visit of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to Pristina on the same day. Ms. Manuel met us on the street in front of the cafe. She agreed to answer all questions, adding: You must understand that I'm still working for UN so I have to retain a certain diplomacy.

When did you first arrive from the US to Yugoslavia?

My life in the Balkans began as far back as 1994 with my arrival in Croatia, more precisely, to Slavonia. I lived there for about a year. Then I was in Bosnia for about two months, and then I spent two and a half years in Belgrade, from where I went to Pakistan. Leaving Belgrade was really very difficult for me. I was depressed to be leaving the city to which I had strong emotional ties.

AGAINST BOMBING

The bombing of Yugoslavia and Belgrade followed soon afterward. What was your opinion of it?

When the air raids began, I spoke with friends in your country and tried to keep up their spirits. I wrote letters to US Congressmen in opposition to the bombing. In April I was sent to Macedonia where I saw refugees from Kosovo crossing the Albanian border every day. It was a very strange situation. During the day I watched these people crossing the border and during the night I watched the planes that were going to bomb Serbia. For me there were a lot of mixed emotions. Then I got a call from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who told me to go to Kosovo as the chief UN spokesperson.

When did you arrive in Kosovo and what were your first impressions?

I arrived here on June 13, 1999 but one week later I was replaced. (When asked why she was replaced, she replied that she did not know.) However, I found a way of resuming my job as spokesperson for the organization where I still work. As far as my first impressions here, they were very confusing. Serbs and Roma houses were burning on all sides and I saw corpses in the street. An enormous number of journalists flocked to Pristina and everyone was staying in the Grand Hotel. There was no water or electricity, sewage was flooding the toilets; in short, living conditions were extremely poor. It is difficult to talk at all about that period because everything was very chaotic. The Albanians were returning to their homes. They were throwing firecrackers, celebrating all night. They were incredibly happy. That was nice but they were also killing people. I remember there were some Serbs who remained living in downtown Pristina under the protection of the UNMIK police. For a while they resisted the pressure of the majority but nevertheless, eventually they were forced to leave.

Do you remember any other events going on in Kosovo at that time?

I remember the massacre in Staro Gracko, a village near Lipljan. It was in July 1999 when 14 Serbs were killed in the fields. I also remember well when a Bulgarian was killed in downtown Pristina. He was murdered only because someone asked him what time it was and he answered in Serbian. He was attacked by a mob from the street. I also remember the brutal murder of Professor Basic under similar circumstances. It was a real nightmare.

Could you have prevented events such as this from happening?

As UNMIK we were responsible but at the same time we were also powerless because these people were attacked by mobs. Over the course of time the situation changed but what occurred was a complete separation of the communities. As a result I'm not sure we have progressed much in changing things. For example, the University of Pristina is open but there are no students from national minorities attending it.

Slavic languages are not taught there, not even Russian. We have a hospital where only Albanians are treated; the others don't dare to go there. There are Serb enclaves but the Serbs still lack complete freedom of movement. I think, however, that the situation with respect to movement will improve when the Serbs get Kosovo license plates for their vehicles. Some people say that it is much better here but I'm not sure to what extent they are accurate.

Could you have done more about protection of Serbs and their return to their centuries-old homes?

I think that the return of Serbs to Kosovo could have been encouraged much more than it has been. I remember, for example, an incident when some Ashkalis who returned to their homes were killed. This crime horrified the international community. We were afraid that something similar would reoccur. I think that many of us, including KFOR, had to intervene before certain incidents happened, for example, before the killing of passengers on the Nis Express bus near Podujevo. KFOR intelligence could have foreseen that something like this would happen, perhaps not on that very day but certainly they should have found the perpetrators. In conclusion, I think we could have done more but I'm not sure how.

KFOR is justifying the removal of checkpoints and the reduction of troops in Kosovo with claims that the security situation is improving. However, it is a fact that Serbs here are still not safe.

Two years ago we had more than 40,000 troops in Kosovo and now there are some 30,000. The withdrawal of troops is directly dependent on the politics of the countries from which they come. In order to justify the withdrawal of their troops, they have to say that the situation has improved. And they justify this claim with statistics such as, for example, a decrease in the number of murders. But the Serbs can refute them and say, yes, there are fewer murders because we are living in our enclaves. Albanian political leaders could greatly influence the security situation. They should call for tolerance, understanding and common life.

GOOD INTENTIONS

What is your vision of Kosovo and Metohija in the future?

I think that UNMIK and some individuals, such as Prime Minister Rexhepi, have good intentions and that they want multiethnicity but the irony is that the Albanians desperately want an independent Kosovo. At this time it is difficult to say what will prevail. We are currently in the phase of assessing where people are part of the political solution. Maybe that is why some people think we are working for the Albanians but nevertheless, the international community is working for a multiethnic Kosovo. Whether it will become multiethnic in the end I don't know. That is why I think there should be a neutral government that would demonstrate its neutrality in practice.

In your opinion what is the role of Belgrade in resolving the Kosovo issue?

I think that it is increasingly constructive; however, as long as Belgrade concerns itself only with the Kosovo Serbs and not with all people, and as long as Serbs in Kosovo subjugate themselves to Belgrade we will continue to have an unresolved situation.

The Albanians want independence; the Serbs are opposed; and Kosovo is a protectorate of the international resolution and Resolution 1244. What's the solution?

I don't know exactly how but I know that Carl Bildt recently said that the way out would be one that will not satisfy many people.

NEW JOB

Does that mean that the solution is already known?

Perhaps Mr. Bildt, whom I've already mentioned, has a potential solution but I don't know what it is.

At the end of our discussion, can you please tell me what are your impressions as you depart from Kosovo and Yugoslavia?

Different than when I left Belgrade in 1999 because my emotional ties with Kosovo are not as strong. I think that the job I've been doing for three and a half years was very challenging in the intellectual sense but in many situations I was extremely frustrated because people on both sides manipulated the truth. At the same time, I've met wonderful people, both Serbs and Albanians, and I'll definitely come back. Soon I'll leave for New York, where I have a new job in the UN as head of the Peace and Security Office in the Department of Public Information. I think that in this organization there's a lot of bureaucracy but that it's intentions are good. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't work for it.

GOVERNMENT

I think that the life of the Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo is best illustrated in the example of the Government. Despite existing problems I hope that they'll continue to work together. I think that Prime Minister Rexhepi is sincerely working for a multiethnic Kosovo but many around him are opposed to this. Nevertheless I believe that the middle class of civilian society will be the ones deciding on common life, said Susan Manuel.

GOOD AND BAD MOMENTS

Susan Manuel says she experienced both good and bad moments in Yugoslavia.

I was sitting in a restaurant in Belgrade. I was approached by some man who told me that all Serbs hate me. I was very hurt by this because I have very deep and sincere experiences with Serbs, said Manuel. But I'll never forget a visit to the Montenegrin seaside. It was right after one of my interviews for "Novosti". I was approached by a complete stranger who greeted me and invited me to lunch.

MESSAGE

I'd like to tell all the people in Kosovo to stop hating each other and all the politicians to stop fanning their hate. I know that there are still many sincere friendships between Serbs and Albanians but people don't dare to demonstrate them publicly.

RETURNS

I can't say at what speed the return of displaced Serbs and non-Albanians from Kosovo will take place. The biggest obstacle is that others have occupied their houses and apartments. It will take quite some time to resolve this problem. I think that people are returning to their native villages much more quickly than to the cities, said Susan Manuel.

(Translation S. Lazovic, KDN. Translation was made with comparison of the original English transcript provided to the Info Service ERP KIM by a journalist who interviewed Susan Manuel)


Albanian Muslims deface (and urinate in) a Serbian Orthodox Church, burned during a recent anti-Serb pogrom in Kosovo. (2004)