Milosevic says Montenegro can choose its future, must play by rules in FRY
Politika - December 31, 1999

Montenegro must play by rules within FRY

Small nations must learn from Yugoslavia's war with NATO

Kosovo cannot be taken from Serbia

Aggressors against Yugoslavia must pay for their crimes

World Bank, IMF should help all countries

Socialist Party of Serbia must remain united, avoid splits

Yugoslavia keen to cooperate with all countries

Opposition media under control of Western governments

Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has accused the West of wanting to conquer the world and become even richer. He said that Montenegro was free to choose whether or not it remained within the Yugoslav Federation, but insisted that if it stayed it must play by the rules. Nobody could take Kosovo away from Serbia. He said that Yugoslavia was keen to cooperate with all countries of the world, laying particular stress on his hopes for ever stronger links with Russia, China and India. He accused the opposition media in Serbia of being under Western control. The following is an excerpt from an interview with Milosevic by Hadzi Dragan Antic in the Beli Dvor Residence in Belgrade on 29th December, "I believe that in the next century our people will have the peace and well-being they deserve", published by the Serbian newspaper 'Politika' on 31st December - subheads inserted editorially:

... [Antic] The year that is behind us has seen the culmination of decade-long pressure and attacks against our country. What is it that the West wants?

[Milosevic] The West wants to conquer the whole world. This most developed part of the world, which is most often called the West, wants to place all the countries around it in the service of its interests. The rich countries want to become even richer. To achieve that, they need other countries as a source of uninterrupted and unlimited profit. Presently that most developed part of the world is rather compact, or at least that is how it appears.

But as their need for expansion grows, so will their mutual antagonism. This antagonism could lead the world - both the world of the developed and the world of the underdeveloped - into major, tragic, confrontations, whose outcome could well be disastrous for all humankind.

Let us hope that the developed part of the world will come around and see the danger that they themselves are posing to the world. But we should also expect that the other part of the world will find the strength to unite and stand firm against the cataclysm that will come if everyone waits for things to get resolved by themselves. In life, nothing gets resolved by itself. At least nothing of major importance or magnitude. Everyone has to contribute to a better and more equitable world in the future century.

[Q] The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was bombed during the war. Yugoslavs understood that message. So did the Chinese. How do you see our relations with that part of the world?

[A] The Chinese Embassy was targeted deliberately and in a well-planned manner. That was a message meant for China to the effect that its opinion about world issues is not being considered as much more important than that of Yugoslavia. It was also that it may even suffer the same as Yugoslavia if it fails to obey the new world order. The message was sent to China, not only because it presents a potential danger for that order, but also because it was publicly and constantly condemning the aggression against Yugoslavia.

Of course China, Yugoslavia, and everyone else understood the bombing of the Chinese embassy as precisely that kind of message. The message was not all that complicated, nor ambiguous. The West never was able to send the East cryptic messages that the East could not understand. It can only be the other way around.

That is why the Chinese not only understood the message very quickly but responded very quickly too. Not only the government, but also the people. They responded by saying they would defend their country fiercely, that they intended to develop rapidly, and that in international issues they would always support peace, equality among nations, the right of every country to arrange its own life... ['Politika' ellipsis]

With such views China is very close to Yugoslavia, but it is also incredibly close to all other nations and countries that are potential victims of aggression and humiliation. Our relations with China are extremely friendly, our cooperation with China is very broad - economic, financial, scientific, cultural... ['Politika' ellipsis] We intend to develop it, enhance it, driven by a common interest to the benefit of both countries.

[Q] Do you see Montenegro's future as part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [FRY]?

[A] The best solution for Montenegro is the one suitable for the Montenegrin people. If the Montenegrin people are of the opinion that a life outside Yugoslavia would be better, then they have the right to choose such a life. And vice versa. If the Montenegrin people are of the opinion that life in Yugoslavia is the best solution for them, then they should remain with that solution.

In that case, they should respect the rules set up for life in a joint state with other peoples or with another unit of that state. That is, above all, the constitution that they adopted together. Of course, the constitution may also be amended, and it is good that it is amended. We are living in dynamic times, and it is logical that a state is set up in a more dynamic manner than before, considering the rhythm of the changes that are taking place at this time.

Joint life is nice and easy for those people who want to live together, and difficult and ugly for those who are forced to live together. In places where people are forced to be together, not only is life not nice and easy, but it has no prospects.

[Q] At the end of a century that has seen two major, tragic world wars and countless smaller wars, the greatest military power of the world has assailed us, or I should say has again assailed us. How do you view that event in the light of our country's future, but also the future of humanity?

[A] The aggression against the FRY was supposed to have been a lesson for all those disobedient throughout the world that they have to respect the state of things as dictated from one single place. The aggression against the FRY has suspended many international organizations, above all the UN as the most important organization, whose duty it was to arbitrate in international conflicts and misunderstandings. The aggression against our country also suspended international law and initiated a process of invalidating the sovereignty of any country, big or small, which might stand in the way of the New World Order, in whose creation it did not take part and therefore allowed itself to disagree or say what it thought, without being asked.

Our country said what it thought, it differed, and it became the target of reprisal.

I would like to emphasize the considerable experience that Yugoslavia, particularly Serbia, has in international politics and our openness for every form of cooperation with our neighbours and with countries at the far ends of the globe. We have always been receptive to anyone who wants to come to our country and friendly with anyone who wants to cooperate with us. That is our national attribute. It is our historical legacy. But this attribute and this legacy do not include renouncing the right to freedom and independence.

The aggression against our country consolidated us while the aggression lasted. Everyone knows that since the beginning of the aggression the unity of our heroic people was such that it amazed the whole world. At least that part of the world that uses free media, where there is no censorship, and where correspondents are not fired for reporting the truth and where journalists are not fired for commenting in favour of that truth.

But this is not just about our people's unity in hard times, times of war. This is about the concerted, proud and enthusiastic resistance to an aggressor who was preparing to invade our country. For them that resistance was rare, magnificent and completely unexpected. The feeling of not being vanquished, the feeling of superiority, doggedness, goodness - all of these qualities produced a special kind of resistance, which was admired in countries that have free media, and concealed from the public in other countries ruled by censorship and autocracy.

In those countries they have concealed everything else about Yugoslavia, and about themselves. They have concealed the truth that Yugoslavia is not an aggressor. On the contrary, that it is an innocent target of aggression by countries that are making it out to be an aggressor so that they could use that supposed aggression as an excuse to start a war against it, to some extent to serve as a lesson, but to a greater extent to serve their interests. To control the Balkan region, which is important from a strategic, military, economic point of view, but also to use the Balkans as a stepping stone to a strategically even more important part of the world - the East, both Near and Far.

But everyone learned a lesson from the aggression against Yugoslavia. The rich and powerful learned that even a local war can be a dangerous adventure, even when the opponent is completely unequal. The poor and small and all other nations learned that they will stay poor and insignificant for who knows how long unless they themselves decide that they want to change things.

[Q] The Albanian separatists and their NATO sponsors want to snatch Kosovo-Metohija. What will happen to Kosovo-Metohija?

[A] Albanian separatism in Kosovo-Metohija could not achieve its goal even through the efforts of the most powerful ally on the planet in the form of the NATO pact and its war machinery. The guarantees of our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not the product of somebody's one-sided will, but what is involved are the conditions under which the war was stopped. We consider the guarantees we have accepted to be final and unchangeable. We consider all decisions contrary to those guarantees that are contained in the Ahtisaari-Chernomyrdin plan and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 to be unlawful and without any legal basis. The presence of the peace forces under UN auspices is temporary. We must put up with it and show great patience.

Nobody can take Kosovo from us.

[Q] We will remember the year 1999 as a year of war. Criminals attacked us, destroyed us, and killed our people. Will they answer for that and will anyone compensate us for the massive devastation?

[A] The question of their liability is not just a thing of the future, it is a question that has already been posed throughout the world, even though it is still mostly an issue of moral condemnation. But, without any doubt, everyone expects them to answer for what they have done. We expect it because we were the target of the huge material destruction, many people were killed, everyone in Serbia was exposed to terrible stress, and all of that completely unwarranted.

Many other people in the world are also expecting that the offenders will pay for their crimes - the international public, entire countries, the majority of citizens, all normal people. But those who are responsible are shying away from their responsibility. We do not live in times when the Huns waged their wars, when massacres and crimes against people and entire nations were committed without fear of having to be accountable, except perhaps individually.

In the middle of this century fascism was made to answer to all humanity. I believe that this neo-fascist fiend will not escape the judgment of its time, of all humankind, of contemporary history, not some future history.

As for compensation, it goes with liability. If the so-called international community is not able to ascertain liability for the crime against our country, then it will have to bear the consequences for that crime and assume the responsibility of repaying us for whatever can be repaid with money.

The decision to initiate the process of rapid intensive rebuilding of everything that was destroyed or damaged in the bombing campaign was not based on the hope that we could rely on someone paying us war reparations.

The decision was based on our conviction that we are capable of relying on our own resources and that we ourselves will do everything possible to rebuild the infrastructure of vital interest for the life of our country and make it functional again as quickly as we can. Of course, in this reconstruction campaign we have the support of a certain number of countries, a certain number of foreign companies, and a large number of individuals from all over the world. But the major financial source of the reconstruction, for the present time, is our own country.

[Q] The last year had brought some happy moments in your private life, beside the unpleasant events that befell us all. You became grandfather to Marko at the Serbian New Year. How much has that joyful event in your family altered your life?

[A] The birth of our grandson Marko on 14th January this year made this difficult year more pleasant than it would have been had not this very happy event occurred in our family. Of course little Marko has changed our lives. Until your child has a child, you cannot know how important the tiny thing is in your life.

Our little grandson is a pretty, loving boy, and takes a lot after our own children Marija and Marko when they were his age. When we compare little Marko's pictures with those of our daughter and son when they were one year old, there is scarcely a difference. Perhaps the only difference is that little Marko is a bit bigger than they were. He is growing up with a lot of love from both his mother's and father's families, and I hope this will affect the development of his personality.

[Q] When we look at what has been happening to us not only this year, but these past years, someone might wonder that we are still upright. The perpetual sanctions, various limitations - from sports to cooperation in science and culture - the traffic ban and oil embargo... ['Politika' ellipsis] down to the physical annihilation of our economy and infrastructure, did not crush us. We live modestly, making sacrifices, but we put in tremendous efforts, and one could say that countries surrounding us, the former socialist countries in particular, being without sanctions, in all kinds of transitions, are no match for us yet. Do you believe that we can develop economically without the World Bank and the famous IMF?

[A] Certainly. Our priority goals next year, in addition to reconstruction, are development, boosting agriculture and industrial production, increasing earnings, improving the living standards and higher employment. The reconstruction of the country is expeditious and successful. There is every reason for the implementation of our developmental goals to be expeditious and successful.

But I do not see why we should be without the support that you mentioned. If the IMF and World Bank are international and indeed global, then they have to represent the interests of all countries and all peoples.

Selective support to select countries and only to certain peoples diminishes their capacity as international institutions. In that case many countries that are not on the list of favourites of the financial lobby which abuses the name of the IMF and World Bank to realize its utterly partial interests will be left without support.

This is increasingly more obvious not only to financial experts and educated politicians, but to the public as well. Recently all of us saw the disgracefully humiliating conclusion of the World Trade Organization session in Seattle, where hundreds, thousands of people from the United States, the whole world in fact, protested against the abuse of this international organization by the United States and its attempts to fully, flagrantly and downright brutally impose its interests upon everyone, including its partners in Europe - the most developed countries in Western Europe. The degradation of world institutions such as the UN, the IMF and World Bank... ['Politika' ellipsis], or regional ones such as the OSCE, putting them in the employ of Washington's interests, does not have only negative consequences. It raises the need for all free countries of the modern world to face the dangers of hegemony more quickly and effectively.

But let us go back to the latter part of your question which pertains to our international economic and financial cooperation. We have no intention at all of isolating ourselves. Our enemies are trying to do that. Which is why they are keeping the sanctions. On the contrary, we are contacting and cooperating with many countries of the free world, with the entire planet.

And the fact that the IMF and World Bank as you mentioned are not financing us at NATO's orders did not stop the total sum of our current credit arrangements with friendly countries from exceeding those of all our neighbours together, though they have the support of the IMF, EU, World Bank and United States, they say.

[Q] You are the head of state but you are also the leader of the strongest political party. Soon the SPS [Socialist Party of Serbia] is to hold its congress. What are your expectations?

[A] I expect the SPS to follow its patriotic path which it has been following since its establishment in 1990. We have defended the state and people for 10 years. Some believed that the country was attacked only when the bombs began to fall. Had we not been safeguarding the country these 10 years, all the while prior to the bombing, we never would have defended it when the bombs began.

By working in times most difficult for the Serbs and Serbian people in this century, the SPS has endeavoured to find the real answer for the period that we lived in. The people have believed in that answer for a whole decade, lending their votes to the SPS in all the elections to date. This lends considerable support to our belief that we have found the true answer for these hard, tumultuous, unfortunate times. Perhaps this answer has not always been the best one, perhaps a better one might have been found. It is important, however, that our intentions have been the highest, that we put in a lot of effort and that we are ready to face the facts and create our policy in line with these facts.

In addition to this, the SPS will endeavour through its activities to strengthen the bloc of left-wing forces which is growing in our country and assuming a new face. The fact that there are other left forces that differ from the SPS is logical. The left has always been an extremely jagged front comprising a diversity of visions of the left, the progressive, the advanced.

At the same time, as our country is exposed to heavy pressures from abroad which culminated last spring in the military aggression against Yugoslavia, I believe this is no time for large-scale and stormy party passions, especially not for party conflicts. I believe that in these times all parties which feel that their fatherland is their greatest value, whose love for their country is a deepest feeling, which are led by patriotism in everything they do in their political activities, ought to find a common language aimed at making the difficult times easier for the people, and to struggle to bring happier days to their people and the whole country.

Thus I am convinced that the SPS will in congress and henceforward build a spirit of a patriotic front, true solidarity and cooperation with all who wish their country well: peace, economic prosperity, modern cultural development, cooperation with all countries in the world on an equal footing.

[Q] Does the Russia-Belarus union mark the beginning of a renewal and stronger ties among the countries of the Soviet Union, does it imply at the same time greater integrative processes between Russia, China and India, and the creation of a counter-balance to the United States?

[A] The Russia-Belarus union indicates a possible process of rapprochement, and ties among Euro-Asian peoples and states that could mean the beginning of the establishment of a world balance which was severed in the early 1990s, if the ties are stronger and developed more speedily.

The abolition of the Warsaw Pact and the alliance of Eastern European countries did not merely abolish balance in the world, it untied the hands of the subjects of the surviving bloc, chiefly NATO, to retailor borders, organize states, instigate wars, impose sanctions, punish the disobedient, award the obedient and humble, and generally arrange the world as it will.

Thus every serious association, especially a large association, wherever it may take place in the world, is a chance to restore the balance that has been absent for a decade and a chance to guard humanity against hegemony and the violence which necessarily goes with it.

[Q] Some time ago our assembly supported the project of the FRY joining the Russia-Belarus union. Now that this union has been formalized, what are the prospects for the FRY's status to be formalized?

[A] We stick to this decision and hope that in the near future, rather than more distantly, we will join this union. I hope this will meet the interests of our country, but also the interests of the idea of strengthening the links among Slavic and other peoples whose common goal is to live in peace and develop freely.

[Q] Big countries, such as China, Russia, India, the Arab world, South America and Africa no doubt support our just struggle for independence and territorial integrity. The European public is realizing more and more the extent to which Yugoslavia had been demonized, and then brutally attacked by NATO countries. What is your view of our relations with Europe and with the other countries?

[A] First of all, we are not outside Europe. We are a European country. Actually, the question can be formulated in terms of how our relations with EU countries or countries that took part in the aggression against Yugoslavia will develop, or our relations with the neighbouring countries, for that matter, and so forth. The answers to these questions are quite different, though. Except for one. We are in favour of cooperation with the whole world, and consequently with all the countries of the continent on which we live. Surely, we are particularly interested in cooperation with the countries on this continent.

However, we insist on cooperation on an equal footing. We favour cooperation that could benefit the development of our country, and cooperation through which we could benefit the development of other countries, all countries.

In all periods, particularly in these times, people have made contacts, all communications are valuable, so everyone can contribute to their own well-being or the well-being of all, and at the same time, too.

We will achieve successful and mutual cooperation with neighbouring countries to the extent to which they are prepared and free for such cooperation.

This, and the like, goes for cooperation with Eastern Europe. These countries can learn much from Yugoslavia's experience, especially from what happened to us last spring. We have drawn from their experience many, many valuable lessons, and our conviction that we must resist hegemony stems partly from these lessons.

As for the countries that took part in the aggression on Yugoslavia, our cooperation with them as states and their institutions and organizations will develop to the extent to which we will be able to see their goodwill to help remove the consequences of the evil they did to us.

The West should muster the courage and moral strength to face its guilt for the crimes committed through the aggression against Yugoslavia. Otherwise it will lose all self-respect. The longer it hesitates, the deeper the disgrace. And then some Willy Brandt will have to appear and tell the truth.

[Q] It is often said that media considerably influenced the creation of our country's poor image. Could you make a comparison between foreign and domestic media?

[A] In Yugoslavia, mainly in Serbia, there is absolute freedom in the activities of all media. The greatest number of media are privately owned. However, a great number of television and radio stations, as well as newspapers, are financially and politically under the full control of some Western governments or their institutions, which work under the guise of some nongovernmental organizations and whose task is to destabilize Yugoslavia, compromise all the efforts of the Yugoslav authorities to reconstruct and develop the country, stir distrust, suspicion and animosity in the public towards everything that the legally elected and constituted authorities do, show representatives of these authorities and their families in the ugliest light, belittle everything progressive and humane that has been achieved in our country so far, call into question even the very sense of freedom, independence and patriotism, and describe our people as inferior, stupid, backward and conservative, as opposed to "world" nations, which are sensible, educated, smart, progressive and so on.

This "freedom" of media is of course more than freedom. The Law on Information which the Serbian Assembly adopted two years ago, and which was literally transcribed from the information laws of some Western countries, introduced very mild methods for protecting truth, the dignity of the state and its peoples, the right of individuals not to be humiliated, that is, to protect them from lies and intrigues, and so forth. Part of the opposition which is, like some media, under foreign control, has strongly objected to the law. Their mentors from abroad immediately joined in the disapprobation, yet they ask no one in their own countries what laws will be passed, but deem themselves competent to meddle in the laws of other states. And in their own countries they strictly enforce much more radical and rigid laws not only in the domain of information, but other laws too, and they would not dream of arguing the enforcement of those laws with the governments and televisions of other countries.

Our institutions and individuals have tried to abide by the law, but its implementation has been quite poor lately, and, currently, the situation is again near the state of media irresponsibility in which we used to be in the past 10 years.

As for the media abroad, the situation in most countries, and especially in developed Western countries, is completely different. All media, both state and private, are strictly controlled by the state. Everything that the authorities consider to be against the interests of the policy it conducts cannot appear in media, or appears with the risk of bearing in the realization of their utterly partial interests various forms of responsibility for violating the will of the regime, and the consequences are financial, political, moral and physical... ['Politika' ellipsis]

In Western democracies all media depend on the owner: state, company or individual. Ultimately though, the state has the decisive role in the responsibility of media. This is logical considering that media today have an important role in the struggle of interests, the conflict of concepts, in creating a vision of global and regional development, in deciding the destiny of its community and its segments, on the manner in which every individual will live...

LOAD-DATE: January 4, 2000

SECTION: Part 2 Central Europe, the Balkins; FORMER YUGOSLAVIA; FEDERAL AFFAIRS; EE/D3729/C

LENGTH: 4613 words

SOURCE: Source: 'Politika', Belgrade, in Serbo-Croat 31 Dec 99

Copyright 2000 British Broadcasting Corporation  
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts