- Allow me to correct you. First of all, we have market economy. Our entire economic concept is based on market economy. Second, sanctions caused great harm to us in 1992. When they were introduced it was nothing tragic. In 1993, additional sanctions were introduced which totally isolated Yugoslavia in all respects. In 1993 the situation was really difficult. GNP fell and we had a high inflation rate. Extremely high inflation rate. In view of this, we decided to make our own economic programme to get rid of those negative tendencies. In the end of 1993, we completed our economic programme and started to implement it in the beginning of 1994, which was, despite the sanctions, the first year with positive growth rate of GNP. 1995 was even better, 1996 better still and 1997 and 1998 better still. So, in the past five years we have had positive tendencies. We shall continue with positive tendencies despite the sanctions. Of course, if there were no sanctions, the tendencies would be radically better. We had a rise in GNP, 5 %, 6 %, 7 % and this year 4 %. Throughout the five years since 1994 every year we had growth. We have the problems caused by the sanctions. Our goods are more expansive due to the lack of EU trade preferences, USA blockade, frozen assets in foreign banks. So there are many obstacles. But if you compare our economy to those of Bulgaria or Romania, which did not have sanctions, did not have a war, did not have million refugees or anything like that, our economy is much better.

      Q: But you do not have foreign exchange reserves. They say that you are out of reserves and that there is no growth.

      - We never had big reserves.

      Q: America is demanding changes from you, to democratise. Are you willing to introduce changes, so that sanctions may be lifted, to become a part of the world.

      - Of course, but we do not wish to pay the price they ask us to. If the price is to give up Kosovo, we will not give Kosovo. As for democratisation, that is an artificial story. We are the most democratic country in the region. We had six multi-party elections since 1990. Look at the Assembly of Serbia or Yugoslavia. No party has majority, there are 7-8 parties in the Assembly and no party has majority.

      Q: When did you last talk to Mladic?

      - A few years ago. We spoke for a long time before Dayton, here in Belgrade when Holbrooke and his associates were here. We talked about how to stop bombing and how to create a climate for cease-fire, so that Dayton can start. That was in the end of summer in 1995. And then we did it, we achieved that goal and in November we came to the negotiations.

      Q: Will you turn Mladic over to the Tribunal?

      - No. Again, he lives in Republika Srpska, not in Yugoslavia.

      Q: So, you cannot. Is the same true for Karadzic?

      - The same for Karadzic.

      Q: He lives in Republika Srpska?

      - Yes, I believe he lives there, if he is not somewhere else, I do not know. I did not follow his trace. He had a deal with Holbrooke to withdraw from public life. He respected that. He withdrew from public life. But, that is no longer relevant for political life in Bosnia and Republika Srpska.

      Q: But it is important for International Crimes Tribunal.

      - You said that. I do not believe that Tribunal was very helpful. If that were so, it would treat all crimes in the world equally, and not hold trials for Serbs only.

      Q: So you think that the Serbs are treated differently, that they were not treated fairly?

      - Absolutely. The Serbs are the victims of the latest holocaust in this century, there is no doubt about that. It is a long story. The history will prove it. The Serbs were treated unfairly. The Serbs were always under pressures, Serbs were exposed to sanctions, pressures no matter that in Bosnia there was a civil war. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was isolated, instead of being treated normally as any other sovereign country, which was a factor of peace and stability in this region, all the time, throughout the crisis.

      Q: Why was that, what do you think?

      - Because of the interests of great powers which wanted to take over control over some parts of former Yugoslavia.

      Q: Such as?

      - Those which were involved.

      Q: What did they want?

      - To take control over Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia...

      Q: Why?

      - For the same reasons that big countries enslaved small ones. As always in the history, big countries want to control the small ones.

      Q: You think that the reason is quest for power, for resources?

      - We are in the centre of the Balkans. Serbia is a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, at the crossroads. This is a territory over which many empires fought. This is a link between Europe and Asia - Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India. All roads go through Serbia. We live on the bridge between Europe and Asia.

      Q: But, Yugoslavia was a good ally of America during the Second World War.

      - During the First one as well.

      Q: Do you think that Germans are your enemies?

      - I think that we can have good relations with Germans. I think that Germany is through with Nazism. They are no longer a Nazi country. They are a developed country, with developed democracy.

      Q: Because of the new Government?

      - I do not see any difference.

      Q: Since Social-Democrats came to power.

      - They said that would not change anything in connection with their foreign policy.

      Q: Really?

      - I believe we shall find a way for good co-operation. We have had good co-operation with Germany in the past. We had a lot of ties and big German companies were always present in Yugoslav economy.

      Q: When did it stop?

      - With the start of the Yugoslav crisis, in the nineties.

      Q: Germany supported Croatia when it fought for the break-up of Yugoslavia and for its independence?

      - True.

      Q: Why?

      - Why don't you ask them. A tragic mistake was premature recognition of independence. For example, the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent state on the basis of a rump referendum. In any referendum in Bosnia you have to have participation of all three peoples, not two. It triggered the civil war.

      Q: People say that you had a vision of Greater Serbia. In 1989 you had this speech when you called upon the Serbs to rise and that was the beginning...

      - That is not true.

      Q: I read that somewhere.

      - You are not well informed. I have never made a speech inviting the Serbs to rise. On the contrary. In 1989 I was also for greater Yugoslavia.

      Q: You never had the programme of Greater Serbia in mind?

      - No. We advocated that Yugoslavia should be preserved and still believe, as I believed then, that South Slavs should have been happy with Yugoslavia instead of separating into five different states. But it was their right to decide and there is no use to be sorry now. We considered that Yugoslavia was a good solution for the national interest of the Serbs, because in the former Yugoslavia all Serbs lived in one state in different republics. But they were in one state. The Muslims were also in one state in former Yugoslavia. The Croats were in one state and Macedonians and others. That was the interest of all, not only of the Serbs.

      - These are just excuses. You know full well that we are a democratic country.

      Q: What excuses?

      - I will tell you. When we finished Dayton it was agreed that the sanctions be lifted.

      Q: Yes, that's what I thought.

      - But after Dayton, more precisely after Paris, since the Dayton agreement was signed in Paris, you, of course not you personally, you put an outer wall of sanctions. That was not fair.

      Q: Madeleine Albright is responsible for that.

      - I do not know who is responsible, but when I spoke to some Americans and asked them why they did it, they said it was their insurance policy, since they were allegedly not sure whether we will honour our obligations from Dayton. That was not fair. I believe that it was a huge mistake, we could have been good partners. The pressures now continue, particularly regarding Kosovo, although no country supports terrorism. The fact is that terrorism was supported by different foreign factors. We did not have any choice but to defend our citizens and our state.

      Q: When you say foreign factors, do you mean Albania? I know that they are in the process of disintegration.

      - They had implosion over there. A year before Kosovo, at our borders. You should know that we took from terrorist groups more than 26,000 pieces of different weapons, which was stolen and smuggled in Serbia from Albania. They destroyed their country. They looted their military warehouses. Their army is practically gone and they live in chaos. When Holbrooke was here he told me that after he visited Tirana, he realised that the Albanian Government controlled only one block around the Government building. The rest of Albania is in total chaos. Anyone who has arms is controlling his part of the territory. Albania is undoubtedly a factor of instability of the entire region, because there is not a single terrorist organisation which does not have its base in Albania. Albanian narco-mafia is well-known. You can discuss it with some services in the USA and they can tell you how powerful it is. The media war against us and the distorted picture created about us is based partially on various criminal factors of that Albanian organisation. I also want to tell you that the money they give to foreign journalists and politicians is blood money, paid by the lives of young people from Western Europe, America and Canada.

      Q: What journalists, what politicians, give me some names.

      -Nomina sunt odiosa, if you know that Latin sentence.

      Q: Do you think that America changed its policy, that they considered you a partner. Now you know that Clinton on Saturday announced six months of new sanctions.

      - What sanctions?

      Q: Those that already exist. That's what they say.

      - That is nothing new. But if America really wants to accelerate the process of economic reconstruction, democratisation and everything else they scream about, it should lift all sanctions and create normal situation for co-operation. This is absolutely clear. This is what I told them so many times - why don't you try to change your approach from negative to positive and have normal co-operation. That would be more efficient for development of all good things which you say you want to see. This rigid position with sanctions and pressures does not produce good results. It only slows down the recovery and does not bring anything good. As the greatest world power, you have one weakness. Your weakness is that you believe that you can resolve everything by force. That was the weakness of many great powers that perished in the past.

      Q: But in this region we did not use force.

      - You bombed Serbs in Bosnia. Bombing in Republika Srpska which could have been avoided produced many negative consequences, which are certainly not helpful in the implementation of Dayton.

      Q: But why didn't you stop helping Bosnian Serbs?

      - Would you stop helping your relatives if it was vitally important to them. We helped our people.

      Q: Yes, but this is how the entire thing with accusations of genocide started. That is the heart of the matter of Serbia, not Dayton.

      - We do not believe that the Serbs in Bosnia behaved any worse than Muslims and Croats.

      Q: But it does not make it right.

      - The conflicts were not right, from any side and against anyone.

      Q: Why didn't you stop it?

      - We tried, as much as we could, and in Dayton it was stopped.

      Q. They stopped after bombing.

      Q: And if we bombed Serbia, as we threatened, when Holbrooke was here, were you ready. Do you have powerful air-force?

      - I have to say that we do not have any other choice but to preserve our country and we could not accept anything that would lead to Kosovo being taken out from Serbia. We shall never accept any solution which would take Kosovo out of Serbia. That is clear. That is the worst possible spot in the world for any threats, because of its sensitivity, Kosovo is a sensitive spot in the heart of any Serb. Not only in Serbia, but Serbs in Bosnia, Serbs in America. There is a million of Serbs who are now Americans. I do not believe that anyone will tell you anything differently regarding Kosovo.

      Q: Will you give the people of Kosovo the level of autonomy they had before 1989?

      - If you again think of Albanians - the system that was before was not appropriate because they abused the power they had to terrorise the rest of the population. Under the pressure of separatists in the beginning of the eighties, 40,000 Serbs left Kosmet. They were killing them, raping them, razed their cemeteries, destroyed monasteries. They abused the power they had. We stopped that violence.

      Q: When you abolished autonomy?

      - We did not. Kosovo and Metohija is an autonomous province in accordance with the Constitution of Serbia.

      Q: I thought you abolished their autonomy in 1989.

      - You were wrong. In 1989 a change did happen.

      Q: What change?

      - Albanians were no longer allowed to be masters over other population in the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija.

      Q. But the Serbs, for which we say that are 10 % of the population, control the army, police. The Serbs started controlling everything.

      - That is entirely untrue. The problem is media. A distorted picture was created. For example, many Albanians have been and still are represented in administration and different levels of power. I think that we currently have around 600 Albanians in the police in Kosovo, who are armed. This is the police of the Republic of Serbia. Kosovo is Serbia. In addition to that, there is more Serbs in Kosovo than 10 per cent.

      Q: But you know as well as I do that it does not satisfy the Albanian community in Kosovo.

      - We have to draw a line between what can satisfy them as equal citizens and what would represent their majorization. Except that, the satisfaction of Albanian community is not the highest principle of life in Kosovo. There is satisfaction of Serb community, Muslim community...

      Q: But the thing is that they are not equal.

      - They can have everything which makes them equal. But they cannot again be the masters of the rest of the population. That is the line.

      Q: Will you allow decisions to be made in Kosovo on everyday life, not in Belgrade.

      - Yes, of course, they can have it on the basis of the Agreement reached by all national communities in Kosovo. They can no longer ask more rights than others in Kosovo.

      Q: The fact is that the Serbs who have a small percentage of population in Kosovo rule in Kosovo. The question is what are you going to do if they want independence. You know that it is your problem. What will you do to keep Kosovo in Serbia, and at the same time satisfy their request for autonomy?

      - Both. We will let them run their affairs but that right has to be given to Turks, Muslims, Serbs and others.

      Q: But the Serbs are in charge.

      - Serbs in Kosovo will continue to have the right to exercise control over their inalienable interests.

• Only civilians were innocent who suffered the consequences of the horrors of war
• We have market economy
• Laws equal for all
• We do not arrange our country in line with the interests of others