How does Serbia relate to the events of 1999, taking into account the fact that during this time a generation – that has not seen any wars or bombings – has grown up?
It seems to me that over the past ten years the reaction has become more acute, I mean, anti-NATO sentiments. The fact is that during this time we get new facts about the bombing, as well as we feel their consequences. For example, we learned the truth about the Ramboux Agreement (between Yugoslavia and the delegation of Kosovo Albanians, – Ed.): Milosevic was forced to sign it, as American diplomats and politicians now confirm. We also have numerous studies of the negative impact of projectiles with depleted uranium, which our citizens will feel on themselves for another hundred years. So the view on the bombardment is changing, and now it is much more inconvenient for NATO and the West than ten years ago.
How do people relate to the states that participated in the bombing?
On the one hand, there is a pragmatic policy, and on the other, something that I would refer to the field of political philosophy or political strategic culture. From the point of view of a pragmatic policy, we must cooperate with everyone, this is in our economic and political interests, therefore, relations with the countries that have bombed us are developing.
But on the other hand, on the part of a strategic culture, I believe that the bombardment for a long time separated Serbia from Western civilization. Earlier, in the days of communist Yugoslavia, we had the opinion that we belong to Western civilization; now it is not like that. Therefore, today there are so many people who see in Western countries what Western civilization doesn’t constitute. There is no support for joining NATO and there are discussions around the EU. Despite all the propaganda in the last 20 years, support for the idea of European integration does not exceed 40-50%. This means that in people’s consciousness or subconsciousness, the fact that the West has bombarded us is preserved, and the European Union is also part of the Western system.
On the anniversary of NATO aggression, various commemorative events took place in Serbia. But non of them in Montenegro, which was also bombed. Is this the position of the people or the state?
Montenegro has joined NATO, and now they are forbidden to remember such anniversaries. In Montenegro, in general, there is now a rewriting of historical facts. There, Latin is entered as an official letter, the largest statesmen are removed from textbooks. In fact, the creation of a new, artificial history, and there is no place for NATO aggression. But this decision is political, and therefore has a limited period. The opinion of the people is the opposite.
Serbia was bombed because of its desire to preserve territorial integrity in parts of Kosovo and Metohija. Looking today from the corner of the “sponsors of Kosovo independence,” how successful was their project? What is this land now?
As for their projects, I believe that they were initially erroneous, in a global sense, and now we can talk about this from a distance of twenty years. A key goal of NATO’s strategy was to establish the universal principle of “humanitarian intervention”. Serbia was chosen as a testing ground because back then we didn’t have allies, military capabilities for defense, the picture about Serbia and Milosevic in the Western media was so bad that it didn’t have to be prepared separately. And there were already 50 thousand militants of the Kosovo Liberation Army: that is, NATO had “its own” infantry. This principle of “humanitarian intervention” was later repeated in Iraq, Libya, Syria, this is stated in the context of Venezuela. NATO was able to establish this universal principle.
But at the same time, there is great resistance from Russia, China and India, these large forces demand respect for the UN and the legal order. In our region, they managed to separate Montenegro from Serbia and unilaterally proclaim the independence of “Kosovo”. Although this did not work out fully: over a hundred countries do not recognize this so-called republic. And if you look at its economy, politics, government, obviously – this is a failure. About 500,000 Albanians migrated from there for 11 years from the proclamation. The top are drug cartels who are engaged mainly in the trade of heroin. Everything suggests that this project failed and will not succeed.
How would you rate the current relations of “Kosovo” with Western countries? Recently, we see that both the USA and Europe do not always approve Pristina’s actions: duties on the import of goods from Central Serbia, the formation of the army.
According to the Kosovo Constitution, the commander-in-chief of KFOR (a NATO unit in Kosovo – Ed.) has the largest political and legal power. NATO is a key political figure in Kosovo. If there really was a willingness to abolish duties or any other decision by the “authorities” in Pristina, they would have done so within 24 hours. So I think that the performance is for the public: signals from the State Department are allegedly received. But we see that they not only did not abolish the duties, but also form the armed forces and publish a platform for negotiations, which, in fact, puts an end to all the negotiations. In addition to recognition, they demand that Serbia pay them military compensation, open the question of alleged war crimes and secure broader rights for the Albanian minority in the Presevo and Bujanovac regions. So the Albanians are working in contact with Western structures, this is undoubted.
What do you think about the idea of demarcating the territories between Central Serbia and Kosovo?
Today it is a dead idea. Because if you start the project of dividing the territory in Kosovo, it will automatically open the question of all the former Yugoslav republics. The first will be the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the international community there is no readiness for such as there is between the Serbs and the Albanians.
In the media and public opinion, one can often find comparisons of Kosovo with the Crimea or the Donbass. Does this make sense?
From the point of view of law, the situation is completely different. Crimea was the territory of the Russian Empire, then the USSR, from where it was transferred to Ukraine. Kosovo has never existed as an independent state. So it is difficult to compare them from a geographical, legal, and from a political point of view. Of course, we need universal principles for solving crisis situations so that in this context both Crimea and Kosovo can be considered, but the West avoids this, because then the question arises why Russians in Crimea cannot be what Albanians can do in Kosovo. I believe that it is necessary to discuss which principle is primary: the territorial integrity of the country or the people’s right to self-determination. And Kosovo is difficult to compare even with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, because the Abkhaz did not have their own country, and the Albanians have it – Albania.
About a week ago, street protests escalated in Belgrade. Is it by chance that it happened on March 17 (the anniversary of the pogrom in Kosovo)? How do you see the further development of the domestic political situation?
Now it is difficult for me to predict what will happen with these protests. The discontent of the people is really great, and the opposition is trying to accumulate it. Actually, this is the work of any opposition – to try to use crisis situations. And Serbia is not the only example. There were protests in Albania, Macedonia and Pristina. All the Balkans are under threat of destabilization due to the difficult economic and social situation. So further internal destabilization can be expected. How much the opposition uses it or not, we will see.
The ideological matrix disappears. For 25 years we have been told that you just need to start the process of European integration, and we will live well. But now we see that the Balkan countries have become semi-colonies, they do not have an independent foreign policy, on the domestic plan there is little change, wages are incomparably smaller than in Western Europe, the rights of workers are practically not respected. Hence, all the discontent that now comes to the surface. And I think the authorities need to keep this in mind and prepare reforms in domestic and foreign policy. The West is in crisis. And our close ties with the West are deepening the crisis in the Balkans.
Street protests have united pro-Western politicians and activists with those who are known for their patriotic stance. In this regard, the opposition repeats the power, where there is everything, from Russophiles to members of the semi-secret Euro-Atlantic services. There are two polar blocks: the pros and cons of Vucic, and this is the greatest danger to society. Government policy can not be equal to one person. Authorities should function regardless of who is specifically at power.
Interviewed by News Front Serbia journalist, Oksana Sazonova.