YouSaid · the spoken record

Tadic

lines on the record
29
first
2006-02-14
most recent
2008-02-18
sittings or episodes
2
sources
un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

  1. “Serbia defends its right to Kosovo and Metohija by arguments based on its values, identity and democracy. It requests the right to protect its borders and its integrity. Serbia will not conduct a war. Serbia is a European culture and a legitimate democracy. I call on the Council, before it takes an administrative decision, to think deeply. We wish the best relations with all countries of the world, but we do not expect that such acts as being deprived of parts of our territory and Violation of our tradition, culture and borders can be understood by some countries as acts of friendship. We shall defend our interests legitimately, but at the same time the United Nations, the Security Council and the Secretary-General have obligations defined by international law, on which the entire world is based. Serbia remains committed to peace.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  2. “I shall never abandon the integrity of my country, just as I will not give up the European future of my country and of the entire region. I also wish to send a message to members of the Security Council that are members of the European Union. By recognizing Kosovo as an independent country, you are not helping the European future of Serbia. It is not a friendly act towards my country or to its contribution to Europe. By recognizing Kosovo, the entire region is pushed into instability and all countries will have a problem, because there are many Kosovos in the region. Let me be quite clear. Serbia will not resort to violence. Serbia will remain lastingly committed to peace. Serbia is a legitimate democracy that has full right to be a member of the United Nations and the European Union.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  3. “It was also the cause of great violence, which pushed the entire region an entire decade backwards, forcing the region into economic backwardness. It needs to be borne in mind that such recognition would lead our bilateral relations to a lower level. In no country of the former Yugoslavia has the respect for law been raised to the European level. All countries are aiming for that standard, believing in the civilized world and in a common European future. That respect has not been achieved in any country, not even in Croatia, which is a member of the Security Council. Here, I am thinking in particular of apartments owned by Serbs. Members of the Security Council are obliged to help integration of the Balkans and not to instigate new conflicts and new disagreements.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  4. “The only question is which country will next be affected by this new principle, this new precedent, this new illegal act. I wish to point out in particular that Serbia, like other countries of the former Yugoslavia, experienced difficulties in the 1990s - the destruction of the culture and identity of all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. Not much time has elapsed since that very difficult period, which surprised not just us, but the entire world. I wish to point out that if regional States, especially those of the former Yugoslavia, recognize Kosovo, they thereby commit non-recognition of the territorial integrity of Serbia. Non-respect for borders was at the core of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and caused the destruction of human life.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  5. “I am saying that clearly so that the Council knows the position of Serbia. I want to say it here, because truth is one of the values on which modern society should be based. That is why I call on the Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, to implement clearly a legal measure to annul the act adopted by the Kosovo institutions without Serb participation and without the will of the Serbian people, who also have full rights in Kosovo, in Serbia, in the Balkans and in Europe. I also request that Mr. Riicker, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, implement the binding powers defined in the Security Council's decision, to which the Council committed him. I shall repeat: if Kosovo, in this illegal and unlawful way, becomes independent, from this moment on the world will not be the same.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  6. “I did so earnestly, with deep conviction in the common European future of the entire region. But I did not receive any apologies for the crimes committed against my people, and I am still waiting for their apology. That apology is also a prerequisite for our future. I remind the Council of a simple fact: all Albanians who lived in Kosovo prior to the arrival of KFOR continue to live in Kosovo today, whereas two thirds of the population of Kosovo who lived in Kosovo before the arrival of UNMIK and KFOR do not live in Kosovo now. Today, 250,000 Serbs live in refugee camps in central Serbia. We all know that the independence of Kosovo means the legalization of ethnic cleansing. Each State that recognizes the independence of Kosovo legalizes, in practical terms, the expulsion of Serbs from their homes in the province of Kosovo.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  7. “Many new countries would be created, and stability in the entire world would be undermined. No region in the world would be able to avoid security risks, economic destruction and human casualties. Many Security Council members have again said that Kosovo should be granted independence because of the crimes that took place during the 1990s, thus criminalizing the present authorities in Belgrade. But in the whole history of the Balkans, whoever held the power committed the crime. We should uphold common values and make an attempt, with respect to our common Balkan history, to do all possible to reconcile with each other. As the twice democratically elected President of Serbia, I extended my apologies to all Balkan countries, against whom some committed crimes in the name of my people.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  8. “A decision based on compromise is not the Ahtisaari plan either. That plan rids Serbia of part of its territory. That plan rids Serbia of part of its identity. The Ahtisaari plan is in the position of a solution, but one which the entire State of Serbia does not accept. The Ahtisaari plan has no legitimacy, especially in the parts of Kosovo in which Serbian people live as a majority. Representatives of some member States of the Security Council feel that Kosovo should become independent because a large majority of its population wishes independence. Such an argument is neither logically nor legally justified. I shall remind the Council that it knows very well that the large majority in all secessionist regions of the world want independence. If we were to establish this principle, the world of today would not have the same borders.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  9. “In defending the rights of my country, I defend general principles and general views - the rights of each and every small country whose sovereignty and integrity are threatened. I quite agree that the status process before the United Nations cannot be blocked unilaterally, but this process has been blocked precisely by the decision of the Kosovo assembly to declare independence unilaterally. That is a unilateral act, a one-sided act. Serbia has not accepted such an act and will never accept such an act. The unilateral declaration of independence is not a compromise solution. It is an illegal Violation. It is an act that undoes all the principles of international justice and all the principles on which the work of the Security Council is based, as well as that of the United Nations itself.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  10. “Mr. Tadic' (Serbia) (spoke in Serbian; interpretation provided by the delegation): We agree that we do not live in an ideal world, a world in which justice prevails in each and every place. But we also agree that we cannot desist from pursuing what is just. Insisting on right today, the main question before all of us in the Security Council is whether we shall respect international law, the Charter of the United Nations and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States - whether we shall respect the principles and values upon which the modern world rests. What happens if the principles and values on which this world has rested for quite a number of decades, since World War Two, are undone in one day? What happens to United Nations Member States? Today, I defend the rights of Serbia and of the Serbian people.”

    2008-02-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5839 (2008) · source

  11. “If we all act in this manner - that is, negotiations - I am convinced that the talks will succeed and that we will be in a position to open a new chapter in the long, conflict-ridden history of relations between Serbs and Albanians. That new chapter would be an important step toward the political, economic and cultural integration of the Balkans into Europe - a goal that contemporary Serbia shares with other countries in our part of the world.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  12. “Fourth, the process of the integration of Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo and Metohija, into the European Union would continue in accordance with appropriate accession mechanisms. The specific elements of such a solution - the particulars that would make it viable and thus establish a suitable foundation for the rule of law and multi- ethnic coexistence in Kosovo and Metohija - can only be found through direct talks between the two sides. A democratic Serbia is ready to engage in these talks. We shall do everything we can to make them succeed, defending our own legitimate interests while at the same time respecting the legitimate interests of others.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  13. “First, the political compromise offered by Belgrade opens the way for a negotiated settlement of the last great conflict in the former Yugoslavia, a way that avoids a unilateral change of internationally recognized borders and the political instability that would inevitably follow. Second, the Albanians of Kosovo and Metohija would enjoy very wide political autonomy, an autonomy that in most matters of everyday life would make them totally self-governing in relation to Belgrade - on condition that they accept the same autonomy for the Serbian entity in the province. Third, the resulting negotiated settlement would be internationally guaranteed and, after an agreed period of time - say twenty years - may be subject to renegotiation.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  14. “In our View, that phase should be carried out through direct talks between the two sides, with the assistance of the international community. It should be devoted to reaching a political compromise between the two seemingly irreconcilable options. That is not an easy task, but it should also be a test of the political maturity and democratic commitment of those who will find themselves at the negotiating table. The general outline of Belgrade's political platform on the future status of Kosovo and Metohija is well known, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat it here. But I wish nevertheless to emphasize several points that are essential to the common future of the Western Balkans and to its European perspective.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  15. “The first round of talks on the future status of Kosovo and Metohija is to begin in less than a week's time. On the agenda of the meeting in Vienna will be decentralization, which the political leadership in Belgrade - as well as the Kosovo and Metohija Serbs- sees as a realistic means to restore normal living conditions to the Serb community in the province and to facilitate the return of internally displaced persons. The Belgrade decentralization plan was made public more than a month ago. It contains minimal institutional requirements for the survival of the Serbian community in Kosovo and Metohija. The attitude of the Albanian side to the plan will, I think, give a good indication of what can be expected in the next phase of negotiations - the phase that will address the issue of the future status itself.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  16. “Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, like people elsewhere in the world, have the right to individual freedom and security, the right to protect their national and cultural identity, and the right to exercise freedom of expression, religious freedom, and freedom of political association, as well as property rights. These rights of Kosovo and Metohija Serbs must be recognized. The international administration in the province, and ultimately the United Nations, have accepted this as an obligation of their own, as is perfectly clear from the Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). These rights therefore are not, and must never be, part of political horse- trading between Belgrade and Pristina. Freedom, the right to justice and democracy belong to every man; they must not be made a political bargaining chip.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  17. “Instead of seeing the plight of the Kosovo Serbs as proof that the political elite of the Kosovo Albanians is not truly committed to a multi-ethnic society, it is becoming increasingly common to argue that Serbia should accept the independence of Kosovo and Metohija in exchange for an improvement of the situation of the Serbian community. The Serbs are, in effect, asked to accept the independence of Kosovo and Metohija in order to be given recognition of their basic human rights and freedoms. I personally find this way of thinking deeply alien. It is also alien to Serbian democracy, and I firmly believe that it is inconsistent with the democratic values of the contemporary world.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  18. “The system of democratic values embraced by today's world has no way to accommodate the political aspirations of the Kosovo Albanians while at the same time rejecting demands for unilateral secession as a matter of principle. If, notwithstanding this, Kosovo and Metohija should become independent, secessionist movements in many other parts of the world would unfortunately be encouraged and provided with a strong argument in favour of their cause. The negative consequences of the sympathy that is often shown to the Albanian demand for the independence of Kosovo are already becoming clear.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  19. “Only Albania supports the demand of its ethnic kin in Kosovo and Metohija to secede from Serbia and from Serbia and Montenegro. To view Kosovo as an exception and a unique case is, therefore, dangerous and politically unwise, however numerous the supporters of that idea may be. If the claim to independence were recognized in the case of the Kosovo Albanians, why should ethnic groups in other countries that just as vocally and passionately demand independence be treated any differently? In this sense, it is true that the "Kosovo case" is more important than Kosovo itself. The solution of the Kosovo and Metohija issue will be of enormous significance not only for the Balkans but for European security in general.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  20. “To argue that secession from an internationally recognized State is an unacceptable principle but to claim at the same time that the very same demand should be acknowledged in the case of the Kosovo Albanians because they suffered so much under the Milosevic regime is to ignore not only international law but also the political consequences of such a unilateral decision being imposed upon Serbia and Montenegro. That is why most countries in the region look at the possible secession of Kosovo and Metohija with grave concern or even openly oppose such an outcome. The independence of Kosovo and Metohija would lead to a unilateral change of internationally recognized borders in the Balkans. That would politically destabilize the region and would open the possibility of renewing past conflicts.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  21. “I want to emphasize the advantages of a negotiated compromise solution and the dangers of a unilateral imposed solution. It was recently pointed out from within the Contact Group itself that the Kosovo question must be resolved by applying universal principles of international law, for otherwise a dangerous precedent would be established not only for the Balkans but for other parts of the world as well. The legal and political foundations of the international order cannot be upheld in the case of some nations and States and disregarded in the case of others. That is the lesson Serbia learned from its troubled legacy of the 1990s, but it applies elsewhere as well. The Serbian people demonstrated this when, guided by the ideals of democracy, they peacefully overthrew the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  22. “The situation in the province being what it is, Serbia, including the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija, looks forward to the future-status process both with hope and with concern. We hope that the future-status talks will lead to a lasting, stable and just solution, for the present circumstances satisfy neither the Serbs nor the Albanians, nor the international community. But at the same time, we are concerned that the negotiations might be undermined by an imposed independence of Kosovo and Metohija, a solution that would both contravene international law and destabilize the political situation in the Balkans. I therefore wish clearly to present the position of Serbia and Montenegro on the two possible outcomes of the future-status process.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  23. “The enclaves suffer discrimination at the hands of the Pristina authorities with regard to the distribution of electricity, and have recently been cut off from the rest of the world by being denied normal access to means of communication and sources of information. Pristina has blocked their access to the fixed and mobile telephone networks of Telekom Srbija, which operates legally in Kosovo and Metohija. They have also blocked the transmission of a Serbian-language television station that operates out of the north of the province. Allow me therefore to say once again: even though there might be some progress in the implementation of standards, if it does not affect the crucial issue of the Serbian enclaves such progress is not decisive.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  24. “Thus, even though there might be some progress in the implementation of standards, if it does not affect the crucial issue of the return of internally displaced persons such progress is not decisive. The Serbs who despite everything have remained in Kosovo and Metohija live either in the northernmost part of the province in several Serb-majority municipalities or south of the Ibar river, in enclaves of various sizes, where they face constant pressure and discrimination by the Albanian majority. The situation in those enclaves with respect to personal security and freedom of movement is still precarious, and with rampant unemployment and poverty the living standards in general remain far below average.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  25. “It is not only that they are more frequently the victims of the worst kinds of persecution and discrimination. The heart of the problem is that great injustices have been committed against them since June 1999 and that most of these have yet to be rectified. About 60 per cent of the Serbian population has been expelled from Kosovo and Metohija during this period; they still live as internally displaced persons in central Serbia, waiting for the chance to return to their homes. That has not yet been made possible. All of the province's cities, with the exception of the northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica, were ethnically cleansed of Serbs in 1999 and remain so today. Yet it is hard to imagine a multi-ethnic Kosovo without Serbs living in cities such as Pristina, Prizren or Pee.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  26. “Moreover, the position of my country is not only in full accord with the principles and existing practices of international relations today; it is also fully consistent with all United Nations documents relating to Kosovo and Metohija, in particular Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). The Secretary-General's report for the second half of last year explicitly states that, in spite of certain positive results, the fulfilment of the standards in Kosovo and Metohija has been far too slow and that there have been "delays or setbacks in most areas" (S/2006/45, para. 16) in the implementation of standards. This situation is harmful for all the inhabitants of the province, but its grave negative consequences are far more serious for Serbs than for the rest of the population.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  27. “Serbia and Montenegro accepted the position of the Security Council that the talks on the future status of the province should begin, despite the fact that the standards were obviously far from being achieved. We thus demonstrated our readiness to seek a negotiated solution to the problem of Kosovo and Metohija. In seeking a political compromise, however, Serbia and Montenegro remains firmly committed to the fundamental principles and norms of international law, in particular those concerning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of internationally recognized States.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  28. “At that time, the Security Council and other relevant members of the international community clearly stated that, in parallel with the future-status talks, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) had to work on fulfilling the standards in Kosovo and Metohija much more rapidly and effectively than they had before. If the standards are not fulfilled, there can be no institutional guarantees of individual rights and freedoms, no economic recovery and no European perspective for the inhabitants of Kosovo and Metohija. Similarly, if the standards are not fulfilled, the possibility of achieving a negotiated solution on future status becomes far less likely.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source

  29. “Mr. Tadic (Serbia and Montenegro) (spoke in Serbian; interpretation provided by the delegation): It is my honour to present to the Security Council, on behalf of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, our view of the situation in Kosovo and Metohija, especially in the light of the recent report of the Secretary-General on developments in the province (S/2006/45). I am also glad to see a legitimate representative of the Albanian people from Kosovo and Metohija in the delegation of Mr. Jessen-Petersen, but I have to warn that it would be very dangerous if his presence today were seen in the light of prejudging the status process, which is to begin soon. More than two and a half months ago, talks on the future status of Kosovo and Metohija formally began under the auspices of the United Nations.”

    2006-02-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5373 (2006) · source