VZCZCXRO4337
PP RUEHAST
DE RUEHBW #1113/01 1911525
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 101525Z JUL 06
FM AMEMBASSY BELGRADE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8988
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC 1157
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RXFEAA/HQ AFSOUTH NAPLES IT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BELGRADE 001113 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OVIP PREL PGOV YI SR
SUBJECT: KOSOVO: FM DRASKOVIC LETTER TO THE SECRETARY AND CONTACT 
GROUP COUNTRIES 
 
BELGRADE 00001113  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶1.  (U) On July 6, the Embassy received a letter from Foreign 
Minister Vuk Draskovic to the Secretary and the Contact Group 
Foreign Ministers outlining redlines and urging a compromise 
solution for Kosovo's final status. 
 
¶2.  (U) Begin text of letter: 
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
 
Belgrade, 7 July 2006 
 
Excellency, 
Dear Condoleezza, 
 
 The Contact Group has been entrusted with an exceptionally 
important task of formulating a proposal solution for the future 
status of Kosovo and Metohija, the province of Serbia administered 
since 10 June 1999 by the United Nations under Security Council 
Resolution 1244. 
 
 There are indications that the talks and negotiations on the new 
status of Kosovo, conducted by the Special Representative of the 
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, are 
 
SIPDIS 
entering the concluding phase. 
 
 Announcements, even undisguised positions to the effect that the 
independence of Kosovo is inevitable are rife.  In other worlds 
[sic], that it is inevitable to treat the internationally sovereign 
state of Serbia as a no man's land, the internationally recognized 
borders of which may be changed against its will.  Such plans are 
evinced also by the fact that some of the guiding principles of the 
Contact Group, adopted by the Security Council, are most often 
construed as if these principles were null and void. 
 
 I shall recall some of the guiding principles of the Contact Group 
for the determination of the future status of Kosovo. 
 
 No return to the situation prior to March 1999.  This means, it is 
said, that there is no return of the military, police and government 
authorities of Serbia to Kosovo.  All right.  But, this must mean 
that there is no change of the status of the state borders of Serbia 
with the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Macedonia, either, 
since the present status of these borders is no the result of the 
situation prior to March 1999, i.e. before the NATO bombing of 
Serbia; rather, it is the result of the situation emerged after the 
cessation of the bombing, the situation confirmed also by the peace 
agreement between NATO and Serbia (The Kumanovo Agreement) and the 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 in 
order to shift its internationally recognized borders, but to stop 
and prevent the humanitarian catastrophe of the Albanian majority in 
Kosovo, as was also officially explained. 
 
 No partition of Kosovo.  This means and can only mean that there is 
no division of the state of Serbia, either, and, by extension, no 
international independence of Kosovo since the independence would 
amount to the division and break-up of the internationally sovereign 
state of Serbia.  The explanations that it is not possible to break 
up and divide the territory of a province that is not a state, but 
that it is possible to break up and divide the territory of a state, 
the part of which the province is, runs afoul not only of the 
Charter of the United Nations and international law, but also of the 
very logic of thinking. 
 
 No imposed solution.  This means and must mean that sustainable and 
legitimate is, primarily, the solution that is accepted by both 
sides and that, in the event such agreement proves impossible to 
reach, the Contact Group and the United Nations Security Council 
should step in as an honest broker that will respect in equal 
measure the legitimate rights of the Albanian majority in the 
Province of Kosovo, the legitimate rights of the Serbs and other 
non-Albanians in Kosovo, as well as the legitimate rights of the 
state of Serbia. 
 
 As I have already pointed out, "preventing the humanitarian 
catastrophe of the Albanians" in Kosovo was presented as a pretext 
[sic] for NATO bombing of Serbia, from 24 March to early June 1999. 
 
 The demands of the state of Serbia to prevent a similar 
humanitarian disaster of Kosovo Serbs which has been going on ever 
since 10 June 1999 when the UN protectorate of Kosovo was 
introduced, have unfortunately been treated as an outcry for help in 
the desert. 
 
 And not only have these demands of Serbia been ignored, but the 
Albanian majority has been practically encouraged to carry out the 
ethnic cleansing and do mass crimes both against the Serbs and 
against their churches, monasteries, historical and cultural 
 
BELGRADE 00001113  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
heritage.  Here is the proof.  Since 10 June 1999, 220,000 Kosovo 
Serbs and other non-Albanians have been driven out, more than 1,000 
civilians (including many children) have been killed or kidnapped 
and nearly 40,000 Serbian houses and 150 centuries-old churches and 
monasteries have been burned down.  Serbs have also been 
dispossessed of thousands of dwellings, their land and businesses. 
And what has been the response of the competent authorities of the 
United Nations and the international community?  Heads of UNMIK, 
military commanders have been replaced and principles changed.  The 
original principle "standards before status" was replaced by that of 
both "standards and status," and now "status as a precondition of 
standards" has been rushed to promote. 
 
 Albanian leaders have also been congratulated for their promise to 
respect the rights of Serbs with an ultimatum-like precondition that 
Kosovo become fully independent before the end of this year.  At the 
same time, Albanian threats of rebellion along with reprisals 
against Serbs and international forces have been advanced as the 
reason for accepting such an ultimatum in case independence is not 
agreed! 
 
 In my opinion, the Contact Group should not fail to respond to 
these ultimatums and blackmail. 
 
 An independent Kosovo would be a reward for the crimes committed 
against Serbs that are, by its nature and intent, identical to the 
crimes committed prior to June 1999 against the Albanians, which was 
why Serbia was bombed. 
 
 By adhering to the guiding principles of the Contact Group, Serbia 
is fully committed to a compromise solution.  However, there are two 
demands that we as a state and a nation cannot go below: 
 
 ¶1.  The rights of Serbs and of other non-Albanians of Kosovo must 
be protected unconditionally and with international guarantees 
provided; and 
 
 ¶2.  The internationally recognized borders of the international 
sovereign state of Serbia cannot be changed. 
 
 Which of these two demands are we not entitled to? 
 
 More than autonomy, but less than full independence for Kosovo. 
What does this compromise formula mean? 
 
 It means that all legitimate demands of the Albanian majority in 
Kosovo will be met, that the rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians 
will be unconditionally protected and that the Charter of the United 
Nations will be respected. 
 
 The Serbian people, both in Serbia itself and in all places outside 
it, would not only refuse to recognize an independent state being 
declared in the territory of the Serbian state but would receive 
such a decision with resentment.  This would lead to permanent 
instability in the Balkan region and in a number of other regions in 
Europe and the world at large.  All the separatists the world over 
are waiting to see whether the Kosovo knot will be unraveled in 
accordance with the UN Charter and the relevant international law or 
according to the diktat of the mighty and powerful and by 
blackmail. 
 
 Compromise is also in the best interest of the Albanian people in 
Kosovo, who cannot build either their present or future on hostility 
to Serbs.  This is bound to happen should another state of the 
Albanians in the Balkans be declared forcibly in the territory of 
Serbia, i.e. in the territory which is historically in the 
birthplace of both the Serbian state and Serbian Christian faith. 
 
 Compromise is also in the interest of all neighbouring countries, 
their stability and common European future. 
 
 That is why compromise must also be the overriding interest of the 
Contact Group, United Nations Security Council, European Union and 
the entire international community. 
 
Best regards, 
 
/s/ 
Vuk Drakovic 
 
 
A copy of this letter was also sent to: 
 
-H. E. Mr. Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of 
the Russian Federation 
-Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and 
Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 
BELGRADE 00001113  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
Northern Ireland 
-H. E. Mr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Federal Foreign Minister of the 
Federal Republic of Germany 
-H. E. Mr. Pihlippe Douste-Blazy, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 
French Republic 
-H. E. Mr. Massimo D'Alema, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 
Republic of Italy 
 
End text of letter. 
 
POLT