Vexatious Cooperation With

According to some, the FRY president consciously excluded himself from this story only to leave full responsibility for such a decision and its consequences to the Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. According to others, Djindjic tried to strip Kostunica of his power last week and on top of that to attribute him with indecisiveness in conducting important state operations. Whatever the case, since the emergence of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS), public opinion was never so severely divided until now into those who are thrilled with Djindjic's speed in this case and those who support Kostunica's concern because of this move.
The FRY president spoke about some of those concerns in his interview for VREME made on Tuesday, immediately after Slobodan Milosevic appeared in front of the judges of The Hague tribunal for the first time, and immediately before the leaders of the Montenegrin "For Yugoslavia Coalition" entered the Federation Palace to start consultations on forming a new federal government. President Kostunica answered a direct question - whether he watched the TV broadcast from The Hague, with: "I didn't, it would have vexed me to watch something like that." The conversation then moved on to consultations on the composition of the new federal government and the expressed doubts that this task might only be concluded with a "makeover of the same façade".

"For us, the international community is just like air. That air occasionally has a certain level of contamination, the international community isn't ideal, it isn't necessarily just, the relation of power and force give it its distinction. First we recognize The Hague tribunal and cooperation with it together with all of that court's deficiencies. We then want to establish that with a law, with a heavy heart we agree to substitute a law with a decree, and after that we fall into lawlessness in the true sense of that word. When the decree was challenged in the Federal Constitutional Court, we disavow that court because we don't like its members. Those who say that that court had disputed DOS's election results are forgetting that that very same court verified our election result on October 6. The Serbian government said it wouldn't respect its decision - which, by the way, was only a temporary measure - that it isn't in Serbia's interest, it called upon an article of the constitution which Milosevic drew up, and this is where we arrive at something which to me signifies lawlessness times 3."

"All this time from October 5 onwards, the army was neutral and non-party oriented, even though there were a lot of those who wanted to pull it into political conflicts. This was another such occasion."

"If we end up merely redecorating the same façade when we form a new government this time, that task won't have much meaning", says FRY President Vojislav Kostunica at the beginning of his interview for VREME. "Naturally, I don't think all that will be done in the next few days will bring permanent stability to the federal state, but I believe that it will be a step, an attempt to place our state, the union of Serbia and Montenegro, on a healthy basis. In order to achieve that, after all the acts of destruction and decomposition, more than one step should be taken. And with this belief I enter into today's talks whose success will be confirmed at the moment when we arrive, and if we arrive, at a somewhat different constitutional structure. At a constitution which won't be implemented selectively. This is the moment to reestablish whether the union of Montenegro and Serbia is something which even time cannot improve, or something healthy. Much of that was ruined by the politicians' craving for power, selfishness or outside pressure, although, according to my deep belief, the people of Serbia and Montenegro wanted something totally different."

VREME: Whatever option is used in the new government, it is difficult to believe that it can bring greater stability to this current federation. Many even believe that to enter such a coalition, which is made up of a majority political option from one and a minority from the other federal unit, is a futile effort.

KOSTUNICA: Everything that can be changed in the composition of that government, which could have the appearance of a constructional mistake, will be removed. That government will face a single clear task, and with a specific time limit - to establish a constitutional platform which subsequently all political powers in Serbia and Montenegro could assess. There can be no hesitations nor delays. Already now, at the beginning, we can deal with a number of issues which will make relations inside the federal government more correct, more reliable, and in the long term, prepare the ground for a resolution which will lead Serbia and Montenegro out of the constant Hamlet-like dilemma - to be or not to be. As far as the paradox that the majority in Serbia is consulting with the minority in Montenegro, I would say that has become fairly relative after the Montenegrin elections held on April 22. Or at least reduced to the question - what is the majority or minority in Montenegro, primarily because this republic is truly divided. That makes the upcoming task easier and more difficult at the same time.

VREME: You claim that the state is a miracle, but it is also a miracle that such a state is still being kept alive with reanimation devices.

KOSTUNICA: That description is wrong. There are no reanimation devices, certain natural ties exist, something which is an integral part of an institution such as a state. And despite the narrow-mindedness and selfishness of those in power, various influences from outside and inside which would like to tear that state apart, it simply has that resilience. In my belief, all that has happened in the last few days concerning the extradition of Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague and which has brought into question something that falls under national and state dignity did shake up the state, but one cannot say that there is less of Yugoslavia today than before. In the state's deconstruction, we have endured many greater blows than outside influence and blackmail. Just like former Yugoslavia collapsed a lot more with the assistance of the so-called international community, than by all the destructive moves of the rulers in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo or Ljubljana. At this moment, with blackmail, auctioning off dates and the sound of coins from outside, a blow was delivered to FR Yugoslavia.

VREME: Yet, isn't outside pressure at the same time the only way to convince Mr. Djukanovic to abandon the project of an independent Montenegro? Naturally, if those from outside have any interest in that?

KOSTUNICA: On the subject of Montenegro, there will definitely be pressure and influences from outside of this and that kind. There will undoubtedly be those who, especially as far as words are concerned, will speak in favor of preserving the federal state. A part of that won't be based solely on words but on real convictions of certain western leaders. But that hypocritical game will continue in which one thing is stated and another done. Still, it is our move now. Political powers in both Serbia and Montenegro have to assess the mood of the people and resolve the issue of the federal state's future very soon.

VREME: Many have perceived the events surrounding Milosevic's extradition to The Hague as the first serious blow to your presidential authority. It remains unclear how such a thing was possible. Even though you had put all your efforts into the law on cooperation with The Hague tribunal, SNP refused to support it in federal parliament in the end.

KOSTUNICA: We have to go back for that, to the relation towards The Hague tribunal in general and to all that I have been saying about that court for years. Primarily, that justice which is handed down in this court is selective, that The Hague tribunal is biased, and that this court actually has very little to do with a court. It isn't international, even though it is called that. Practically, it is a court of certain world powers and certain interests, more American than international. Yugoslavia found itself in a situation which really did resemble "to be or not to be". Translated into political language that "to be or not to be" was a determination between isolation and reintegration into the world. We opted for a certain type of cooperation and reintegration into the international community, and that has its price. One of the most difficult prices, naturally, is cooperation with The Hague tribunal. Even prior to Slobodan Milosevic's departure for The Hague, that cooperation vexed me, and after all that had occurred, is vexes me even more. However, there was a way to partially alleviate the difficulty of cooperating with this court, to make it a lot less difficult than it turned out to be in the end. It could have been easier if we had adopted a legal framework for cooperation with that court from the very beginning. If a readiness had existed in all the parties, in both DOS and amongst our coalition partners from Montenegro, SNP, and amongst the opposition in Serbia, to pass a law which would maximally protect the rights and dignity of the state and all its citizens. And then, in my belief, that law would have been applied in accordance with how much The Hague tribunal was governed by the principle of justice. Does it act equally in same or similar cases? It obviously does not. The president of the tribunal claimed recently, for example, that the court was impartial and that Carla del Ponte is "partial in the best sense of that word". I don't understand what partial in the best sense of that word means, accompanied by all the media harangue and campaign which Carla del Ponte is conducting throughout the world in a partial way, obviously forgetting what the duties of a prosecutor are.

VREME: But cooperation with The Hague is an obligation of this state and it would have been extremely difficult to avoid that obligation?

KOSTUNICA: Cooperation with that court also implies opening up issues not only of crimes committed by the Serbs, but also crimes committed against Serbs in Kosovo or in Kninska Krajina or Bosnia. Not to mention NATO's crimes during the bombing campaign in this country in 1999. When Carla del Ponte visited Belgrade, we heard her highly inarticulate explanations that there still isn't any evidence for those crimes. Evidence exists even in western media from the period between March 24 and June 20, 1999. I believe all of this could have been accomplished with a lot more national solidarity, responsibility, as Slobodan Jovanovic would say, national self-discipline. I'm afraid none of that existed, we have created a false choice between efforts made against isolating FRY, making it disappear in the real sense of that word, and efforts to retain national and state dignity. We plunged in the direction where we could no longer influence events. Not to mention that establishing cooperation with The Hague on a different basis would have enabled us to conduct at least a part of the trials in our country. Today I hear stories that our courts, police and district attorney's office aren't capable of it. That seems highly unconvincing to me. I don't know how in a democratic country a part of the administration can be efficient and the other totally inefficient. At the end of the day, at one point I said that it would have been better if Slobodan Milosevic had been tried in our courts on the basis of the charges raised on May 24, 1999, in my impression standard, carbon copied, empty and hollow, than to have extradited him to The Hague tribunal. None of that was accomplished. The outcome is more than sad.
When was the idea abandoned of trying Slobodan Milosevic first in the country? Until recently, all DOS leaders said that such a thing would be desirable primarily for our sake. Was that impossible, or unwanted?

The real reason is a combination of both. If a political will had existed to try him in the country, that could have been done.

VREME: Some believe that SNP is to blame for it all. If they hadn't blocked the passing of the federal law, that could have been done.

KOSTUNICA: It could have been done even without the law on cooperation with The Hague tribunal, on the basis of the existing legislature. That would have prevented the precedent which was made, to be the only country in the world to hand over its president to a court outside the country, to have him tried there. Time will show how much ordinary stupidity and outside influence figured in that and how much promises made in advance which, according to all counts, had to be fulfilled at one point.

VREME: If we wanted to collaborate with The Hague, then why weren't any of those who used to boast that during the former wars they had killed dozens of innocent people, put on trial here? Wasn't that a moral obligation even without The Hague, i.e. one of the most important measures of discontinuity with the previous policies which, as we now see, have left us with refrigerated trucks full of bodies, mass graves and shame.

KOSTUNICA: That should definitely have been done. Simply, the judiciary and police should have reacted even in cases of mere crime executors. And on the subject of so-called command liability, I repeat again, it would have been better to open up the question of Milosevic's liability on the basis of The Hague's indictment in the country than to allow them to try him outside of the country.

VREME: Turns out that our relation towards crimes is mostly presented today as a trade issue. Did you have that in mind when you recently spoke about "The Hague profiteers"?

KOSTUNICA: I don't merely have in mind trade which coincides with certain dates and ultimatums from outside, placed in connection with the donor conference, but simply about a politically not especially significant, but media-wise very articulate and loud part of our public opinion which profited by stories of crimes committed only by one side, and especially by glorifying The Hague tribunal. Many careers were built here on that issue and a lot of money was amassed.

VREME: Some also foresee a split within DOS in your opposition to extradite Milosevic, down the lines of a conflict between a pro-European and a traditional option, to which you belong.

KOSTUNICA: There are no differences within DOS as far as the need to cooperate with the international community and reintegration of FRY into international associations is concerned. There is no dilemma that we cannot survive in a state of isolation. But that reintegration into the world, into a part of the world where the rule of law reigns, cannot be conducted by violations of our own principles of a law-abiding country. For us, the international community is just like air. That air occasionally has a certain level of contamination, the international community isn't ideal, it isn't necessarily just, the relation of power and force give it its distinction. We first recognize The Hague tribunal and cooperation with it, together with all of that court's deficiencies. We then want to establish that by law, with a heavy heart we agree to substitute a law with a decree, and after that we fall into lawlessness in the true sense of that word. When the decree is challenged in the federal constitutional court, we disavow that court because we don't like its members. Those who say that that court had disputed DOS's election results are forgetting that that very same court verified our election result on October 6. The Serbian government said it wouldn't respect its decision - which, by the way, was only a temporary measure - that it isn't in Serbia's interest, it called upon an article of the constitution which Milosevic drew up, and this is where we arrive at something which signifies lawlessness times 3 for me. After a few month's attempt to base cooperation with The Hague on any kind of legal basis, all of a sudden it is said that nothing exists for us. Once that boundary is crossed, nothing other than a legal gorge exists for me. I had to react then. In all of that I don't see a division between a pro-European and non-European faction of DOS, but rather whether we will respect the most basic legal principles.
Don't you feel that here anyone can call upon the legitimacy of his decisions and the law, and say that he is right? We have two unfinished constitutions, unclear laws, non-functional courts... In that situation anyone can find justification for his decisions and be right in his own way...

That is the very reason of our misfortune. Exactly in this position in which the country finds itself, politicians must act responsibly. And seek some standards for their conduct not within themselves, their interests and not from day to day, but in something which makes up some kind of legal principles which are valid even when the entire legal system has been largely disputed. That is the difference between democratic and non-democratic policies. Democratic policies are responsible, non-democratic aren't. A part of the democratic public and political parties in Serbia seem to be copying the manner in which Milosevic ruled over Serbia.

VREME: Regardless of your opinion of The Hague tribunal, do you expect that Ms. Del Ponte, now that she has Milosevic in her hands, will put in more effort to seek out those responsible for the wars and crimes on other sides as well, in order to lift the objection of selective justice which you constantly raise?

KOSTUNICA: I don't think that will happen. That court has been conducting its operations for too long in a manner which cannot be easily rectified. A lot of things are involved here, along with an attempt to avoid their liability. Is there any better proof than Wesley Clark's statement after Milosevic's arrest in which he says - there will be no other liabilities now, the bombardment of Yugoslavia has now been justified! I don't believe any significant changes will occur. I also believe there will be continued pressure which someone here will probably surrender to. At this moment there are people here who say - we now have a "grace period" of three months or twenty days. As though they are looking forward to those pressures, as though some political careers are being built on those pressures which are constantly met. At the moment when you agree to more than what is requested of you, the other side's response can only be even greater insatiability. That's totally natural.

VREME: A significant part of the public reproaches you for expressing a moralizing, unproductive stand on The Hague tribunal at the moment when the country is in dire need. You yourself used to say that The Hague is our reality, how is it possible to cooperate with The Hague without extraditing our citizens, which obviously bothers you?

KOSTUNICA: Let me immediately say, it is difficult to foresee that cooperation without extradition. I don't belong to those who believe that cooperation can be reduced to everything but extradition. However, by conducting trials in the country, that painful extradition procedure can be postponed and then, since nothing lasts forever and everything changes, even the tribunal, to buy some time. I tried to combine those three things in politics - morality, legalism and pragmatism. When combined, those three things and especially the latter two, are the pivotal point of politics as I see it, not only in connection with The Hague.

Important state decisions are always made at the meetings of top DOS officials, but often also in informal DOS talks. And then it later turns out that due to various interpretations of those meetings and agreements, it becomes debatable who meant what. For example, it remains controversial whether you had at any time during those meetings supported the idea of extraditing Milosevic to The Hague. Some claim that you did.

I was only in favor of establishing cooperation with The Hague tribunal on legal grounds and for preparing it. It isn't up to the person who is heading executive power to deal with where that law will be applied. Therefore, there was no need for me to deal with the issue of Slobodan Milosevic's extradition.

VREME: It also remains controversial how informed you were of the actual extradition. The majority in DOS claim that you "knew everything", but that you distanced yourself in order to, in your belief, save face. The Prime Minister of Serbia Zoran Djindjic also claims that as the president of the country you were "informed of the extradition in principle", although not with the exact time.

KOSTUNICA: I told you that for me only the law exists, which has to be applied where it should be applied. However, the whole problem lies in the fact that that law wasn't applied. I couldn't even believe that anyone would ever think of first being in favor of passing a legal act for cooperation with The Hague tribunal and then turn around and simply violate that very same legal act and hand Slobodan Milosevic over to The Hague tribunal without any legal grounds.

VREME: From Djindjic's interview to the New York Times it is apparent that there were fears that the army could eventually interference and possibly prevent Milosevic's extradition. Even "decoy" cars are mentioned.

KOSTUNICA: That all seems to me like a cheap crime movie and a somewhat childish explanation. It would, naturally, be good if things could be reduced exclusively to that. But in politics, immature words and assessments can sometimes have serious political repercussion. That's how frictions between the army and the state can be unnecessarily incited in society. None of that happened. All this time from October 5 onwards, the army was neutral and non-party oriented, even though there were a lot of those who wanted to pull it into political conflicts. This was another such occasion.

VREME: A significant part of the public criticizes you for insufficiently acting like a leader as president of the country, for hesitating too long, like in this Hague case. Many within DOS say that as well. The socialists are criticizing you for not sticking to your word, since you had previously promised that Milosevic would never go to The Hague.

KOSTUNICA: It is easiest to represent a clear stand, and then you know that some will support you while others will attack you. This way, in attempts to do what could be done in a delicate situation, a man lays himself open to attacks from all sides. That is a far more uncomfortable position, but those were the policies I was in favor of even before I became FRY president. There are a lot more greater or lesser temptations and internal agonizing than before.

VREME: Looking from the outside, it seems as though your party is trying to use its own specific language more and more within DOS. You have just formed party groups in both parliaments. Has DSS (the Democratic Party of Serbia) assessed that it is time for self-determination, for secession from DOS?

KOSTUNICA: There were a number of cases in which DSS didn't agree with the stands of the others from DOS, and it was simply difficult to articulate that difference because DOS functions as a single party group. By separating DSS into special delegate groups, those differences will be more apparent. We shall see, of course, how relations between DSS and other DOS members will develop in the future.

VREME: Why is DSS demanding a reconstruction of the republic government at this moment? Is it because of the evaluation that it figures only symbolically in one segment of executive power, or because you don't want to share responsibility "with those who aren't under control", as can be heard in DSS?

KOSTUNICA: Debates which are held between DSS and others in DOS, which openly point out that some things aren't functioning, that the courts aren't capable of doing a lot, that similar things are happening with the police, that problems exist within the ministries of labor and traffic, for example, show that something needs to be changed in the government. That is inevitable. We primarily had a reconstruction of the federal parliament in mind. A number of reasons exist for things to change in the operations of the republic government as well, but let me put a stop here since, as president of FRY, I have said more than I should have about something which falls under the realms of inter-party relations.

Each cold in the relations between you and Mr. Djindjic is usually perceived by the public as DOS's serious illness. All this that had to do with cooperation with The Hague tribunal didn't exactly resemble a cold, and left the impression that the end of the coalition is near. Have we already entered into a pre-election campaign without anyone informing us of it?

As far as my reactions and I are concerned, they are conditioned by circumstances and temptations in which we find ourselves. There are no premeditated calculations over elections. Certain situations demand certain responses which can differ from the rest of DOS. Where that difference will lead us is another issue. In this concrete situation on cooperation with The Hague tribunal, I reacted in the way which I deemed appropriate without any ulterior motives, party or election ones.

VREME: Recently, Mr. Svilanovic claimed how you and Djindjic aren't the problem in DOS, but rather certain political structures of power which are starting to form behind your and Djindjic's backs which are in a certain way moving towards a political confrontation...

KOSTUNICA: Maybe the problem in DOS doesn't lie in the structures of power between DS (Democratic Party) and DSS but in the categorical assessments and stands of many members of this coalition whose political significance and influence is largely symbolic. Maybe there is a lot more of that in those places than in the political structures which have formed around the two largest parties within DOS.

VREME: In a recent interview, Mr. Djindjic claimed that you and he are like brake and gas levers, albeit with the observation that Serbia needs both, to step on the gas and to apply the brakes when needed. Can the differences in perceiving politics and your temperaments, on which many things depend in this country, be reduced to this comparison?

KOSTUNICA: I wouldn't apply a metaphor from mechanics, a field which hardly has anything to do with politics, to politics. Politics are very complex. Everything would be very simple if that metaphor on the brake and gas levers could really be applied to political life and the differences between us.
ON PAVKOVIC-KRSTIC ROW

KOSTUNICA: You are designated as the person "blocking" and hindering attempts to send general Pavkovic into retirement. At the same time, you have reassigned general Krstic to his previous job.

A lot of amateur attempts were made to incite a conflict between the army and other state structures. Even though I know that not everything is ideal even in the army, I believed that it was anything but positive to find ourselves in a situation where you carve up an entire ox for a piece of meat. I have attempted to maintain an institution which is a guarantor of stability in the period of instability which the country is facing. If you look at it, many opinion polls show that two institutions inspire great confidence - the army and the Serbian Orthodox Church. Therefore, the army had to be shielded from shake-ups despite those who don't see anything further than their own nose, or those who are attempting to accomplish their personal ambitions via the army. I have tried to resolve those problems with a lot of tact. The outcome with general Krstic is one such example. An attempt to reach a compromise, just like I tried to resolve the problem of the Second Army at the Supreme Council of Defense in a similar way, when I found a solution with President Djukanovic and general Pavkovic. This was another attempt to defuse tensions in order to maintain certain institutions.

ON ONE SEAT IN THE UN

KOSTUNICA: "Creating two states from FRY as it is today, would open up a lot of problems in the region even if an amicable separation between Serbia and Montenegro happened tomorrow. Without doubt, it would be a precedent which would show that fragmentation, the balkanization of the Balkans can continue. That is why I keep stressing that the breaking point up to where one can go is a single state. Within that, certain solutions can be found, but let me be very precise here as well - solutions which would make the joint state functional and efficient. A federal state has to be efficient, or it ceases to exist. Therefore, on the one hand minimal federation with great rights for both federal units, as far as their jurisdiction and functions are concerned, but on the other hand a state which would truly be efficient."

ON RECONCILIATION

KOSTUNICA: "In talks about The Hague, a so-called moral catharsis is often mentioned. I don't know what a moral catharsis means. Crimes were committed in wars and throughout history in abundance and no one ever mentioned catharsis. There is no moral catharsis without a catharsis which leading NATO officials who were responsible for bombing this country in 1999 would undergo as well. That would be moral catharsis. This way, in a hypocritical manner, we are supposed to have an immoral catharsis in this country as well which we are going through at this moment due to certain statements, from both a legal and moral standpoint, of people such as Wesley Clark, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke who are more than liable."

ON SOVEREIGNTY

KOSTUNICA: As both a country and a nation, we have faced similar crossroads before, to choose between so-called principles, on the one hand, and bare survival on the other. Can Slobodan Milosevic's extradition be viewed in this light? Some say that we have threatened our very sovereignty with that step. But what sovereignty and honor can a country talk about, which has emptied its pension funds, which can't provide people with their salaries and pensions on a regular basis?

I believe that until June 28 in one way or another we were in a position to combine something which is pragmatism with certain moral considerations. However, on many occasions we have underestimated or brought moral considerations into question, as well as the sovereignty and dignity of the state. That also happened on June 28. I believe a balance can still be maintained between that pragmatism, even realism if you like, with moralism, although to some people, that sounds like something to be ridiculed.