The Last Chance

We have been concerned about the dangers of unsecured recognition because we were worried about the possibility of increased violence this could cause. This does not mean, however, that we do not believe major aggressors in this war are Serbia and the Yugoslav army. Obviously, there have been cease-fire violations on both sides, but we think that, because the war has been carried in Croatia, Serbia and the Army have the primary responsibility. We have also tried to make it very clear to all parties - to Croatia, to Serbia, to the Army - that any effort to use recognition as a pretext to escalate the war or to expand it into Bosnia or other republics will meet a strong negative reaction in the United States and will have a strong negative effect in the United Nations.

* It is believed that the United States have for a long time taken a back seat concerning the Yugoslav crisis, that they would rather let others find a solution - first the European Community, then the United Nations. Presently, however, especially in the past ten days, the official Washington and President Bush himself are almost daily giving statements about Yugoslavia, which differ greatly from the views of EC. Why has Washington become suddenly so active in trying to find a solution to the YU-crisis?

Well, I do not accept the premise that we have been inactive until now. We have been very active, but we have also been prepared to recognize the primacy of the European Community in the resolution of this problem. In part because Yugoslavia is a part of Europe, in part because the Community itself has sought this primacy. We very strongly favoured that the Community is developing a strong political and foreign policy personality. But even during the period of the summer and the fall we have been active in our diplomacy in Yugoslavia. You have felt, I think correctly, that we are more active now. That reflects our feeling that the situation has really reached a major turning point. Will the people of Yugoslavia be able to continue without a wide war or not? We feel that there are two major elements here: one is the Vance mission, which we see as the last chance for a peaceful solution to the problem of this war.

* His mission or the blue helmets?

His mission as a whole. Before the blue helmets can come there must first be a cease-fire, and that cease-fire, of course, is the responsibility of all three of the parties - Serbia, Croatia and the Army. If the cease-fire can be achieved, then the peace keepers can come. If they can create a peaceful situation on a more permanent basis, then there will be another chance for a political settlement which we feel should appropriately go back to the Hague. We are saying to the Croats in this period that choice of a military option by Croatia, because of the recognition or any other reason, would be a disastrous choice. It would certainly bring no military support from the Western countries and it could only cause greater devastation to Croatia. And we are saying to the Serbs that it is only through a peace process that they can get international guarantees for the Serbs who live in Croatia. If there is no peace, there will be no blue helmets, there will be no political settlement and there will be no protection for Serbs in Croatia. So we think that both sides should recognize that they have a major interest in a peaceful settlement.

* Do you think this latest decision of the European Community gives more hope for peace or do you think it will cause the conflict to escalate?

We have felt that unsecured recognition could increase the dangers of violence. But as I have said, that does not mean that there is any justification for any side to use this decision as a pretext for violence, and if they do the United States, which are not recognizing Slovenia and Croatia, will be among the first countries to condemn that action.

* Is it true that Washington has in the past few days exercised considerable pressure on its allies, primarily Germany, not to recognize Slovenia and Croatia before the political agreement is reached?

We made an effort with all of the members of the European Community to get them to see the dangers we felt were inherent in a rush to recognition. You can call it pressure if you will, but I would say it was primarily an effort to make absolutely certain that our views were well known. Now, a month has been found before January 15, and we certainly hope that within that month every effort will be made to bring a success to the cease-fire efforts, bring the conditions for the blue helmets to come in here and create the conditions for a permanent political settlement. Some time or another, Yugoslavs and the Yugoslav republics will have to define the relationship which they want to have with each other. We feel it is very important, indeed it is necessary that such a definition be made in conditions of peace. The first obligation is to stop this terrible war.

* American allies are familiar with your viewpoint, but still they have made a decision which is opposed to it. Do you think that a month is enough to achieve something that could not be achieved in all the previous months?

We can argue about details for a long time, but I think it is much more important to deal with the reality of today. And the reality of today is that there is a terrible war going on in Croatia and that it has to be stopped. It is not only the job of the Western countries and the United Nations to do their best to stop it. It is primarily the job of those who are involved in the war and I mean particularly the leaderships of Serbia and Croatia, and the Army.

* Do you think there is danger of the Yugoslav conflict spreading to the

neighbouring countries?

I think there is a serious danger. Even if there were not in danger of that, I think it would be necessary for everybody both inside and outside Yugoslavia to do their best to stop the war, because there has been tremendous human suffering. I think the fact is there is a danger that this war could spread. Yugoslavia has seven neighbours and there are long histories of difficulties and problems, so this is an additional reason why the war must be stopped.

* What do you think of the severe allegations aimed at Germany these days in Serbia? Germany and EC are even accused of pursuing fascist politics towards Serbia.

I think Serbia has made a terrible mistake in this hysterical and highly inaccurate treatment of Germany. It is as if nobody have learned any lessons from World War II. It is as if the people were right back in the mentality of 1941 to 1945, as if nothing had happened since then. What has happened since then is very clear: Germany has become a democracy, one of the most successful democracies in the world and to treat Germany as if it were Hitler's Germany is not only grossly inaccurate, it is also creating a reputation for Serbia which I cannot imagine the Serbian people would like to have.

* So you do not believe all those stories about the "Fourth Reich" and the quest of Germany to secure the passage to the Mediterranean?

Those are the figments of very creative imaginations.

* I am not sure that as an American ambassador you are in position to comment on the policy of another allied country, but it is a fact that Germany has been most actively involved in the hasty recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. Why Germany?

I cannot explain the German position on this. You would have really to ask German representatives. I think we have had a difference in analysis with Germany over the consequences of recognition and I think as far as Serbia is concerned to use the German view on Croatia and Slovenia, which is a very deeply held view as proof that there are somehow territorial ambitions or desire to reestablish a sphere of influence or power in the Balkans is simply unjustified.

* What do you think of the various peace movements in Yugoslavia? What do you think is their real influence? Everyone noted the gesture of Mr. Vance when he lit the candles in Belgrade...

I think peace movement here represents some of the best that Yugoslavia can offer. This is a dedicated group of people who profoundly believe that the war is not only destroying people, but is creating psychological damage to this generation and to generation to come. I see the peace movement also as a test of free speech in Serbia. I think it is appalling that in exercising their right of free speech these people have been subjected to destruction of property, to intimidation and even to death threats, and, on the other hand, I read in the newspapers and magazines that among the ones fighting at the front there are psychopaths and criminals whose only "quality" seems to be that they are willing to kill Croats without discrimination. They come back and struck freely on the streets of Belgrade. I think the contrast is quite striking. And again, it is difficult for me to believe that the Serbian people want the reputation that these psychopaths and criminals are giving. I would have the impression that there really is a strong support for those who would like to end this war and Cyrus Vance's symbolic action in signing the peace petition proves how much people in the international community share that view.

* How do you feel in Belgrade today? A year ago we discussed the issue of your recall from Belgrade. The Serbian Government was under pressure in Serbian Parliament to start the procedure concerning your recall. That is only a part of the general feeling in Belgrade. Apart from this, you were frequently subjected to fierce attacks in the Serbian media. That has now stopped. What has changed? Have you changed or the Serbian press, or the American and Serbian policy?

I am here to represent American policy. If I did not represent it accurately - I would not stay. I have not changed and I can assure you that American policy has not changed. We have been very friendly to Serbia and to the Serbian people. We have been extremely critical and we remain critical of the role that the Serbian leadership has played in the war in Croatia and we have problems which have not disappeared with the status of democracy and press freedom in Serbia and with the situation in Kosovo. I have the impression that the attacks that you recall of a year ago kinds of praise that sometimes we hear now tend to be to some extent officially motivated so neither the criticism nor the praise should be taken too seriously. I am here to try to explain US views in Yugoslavia.

* How long have you been here for?

It makes nearly three years. Together with three years I spent here in the sixties, it makes six years.

* Could you ever have expected that such horrors would be happening in Yugoslavia?

I have to say it has been an enormous surprise to me that this atmosphere of hatred could have been created both in Serbia and Croatia. I underestimated the power of aggressive nationalism which grew up first in Serbia in the late eighties and grew up in Croatia. I think this nationalism which is separating Serbs from Croats and even dividing families is the greatest danger that people in this country face. And I hope they can overcome this tendency to national hatred which is causing this war and which is causing divisions. I have been very moved by the degree to which Belgrade and Zagreb TV have become merchants of this hatred and when you see these awful atrocities on television - we understand, of course, at the West that the atrocities have been committed both sides - when you see them on television and you see that they are being watched by children you know that it is not only this generation that is being poisoned by national hatred, but also the next generation that is being poisoned, and possibly damaged psychologically. This is all another reason why this terrible war must be stopped and why Yugoslavs should relearn what they have been able to do in the past - which is how to live with each other.

* Do you think there is still a chance that it could happen?

Of course there is a chance. Even now. Whatever the odds against of course there is a chance. It seems to me that path is very simple although it may be very difficult to move along. First there has to be a cease-fire, and that requires the strong efforts of Yugoslavs. This cannot be done by the UN or the EC or the USA. It has to be by the people who are involved and I think the major responsibility has to be with the leaderships of Serbia and Croatia and the Army. Then if the peace keepers can come in that can create the basis for political negotiations to take over.

* With newly formed separate states?

Well, I cannot define what will happen. It is inevitably going to be necessary some time, some place for Yugoslavs to define their relationships with each other. It is in newly formed separate states, if that can be agreed on, obviously that would be acceptable to the West and my country would welcome it. If it is some kind of confederation, that would be a more stable solution and we would be prepared to live with it. The important thing is that through the mechanism of the Hague conference it will have to be with the different elements of Yugoslavia itself, which must decide their future. And if they can decide upon the political framework in which they are prepared to live then they can get back to what everybody in the world wants to be doing - which is to build the way in which they can live in freedom, the way in which they can improve themselves economically.

* Do you think that the implementation of the economic sanctions, embargo or any kind of repression is the best way to speed up the peace process?

I think the sanctions will not play a major role in the resolution of this problem. It is more a symbolic political decision and it is attempted to underline our concern about the situation in your country.

* Could you in short name the real cause of all the troubles we are having today?

I wanted to say one thing more about the nationalism, which seems to me to be the source of so many of these problems we have discussed. There is no real misunderstanding in my country about the historical rights and wrongs of the various peoples of Yugoslavia. I think we all understand that Yugoslavs have had a very tragic history and that there are plenty of grievances on all sides and I do not pretend that some of them are equal. But to cite history in defence of what one is doing means to repeat history. What I cannot understand, despite the six years I have lived here, is why there are people in Yugoslavia who want to repeat the tragic events that they lived through and died through between 1941 and 1945.