 |
B92: Good morning, thank you for coming.
Polt: Good morning.
B92: How much do you understand, Mr. Polt? Have you learned a little Serbian?
Polt: I understand, but not as much as I would like, but I understood just now.
B92: Today's «Kažiprst» will be fifteen minutes longer than normal, and you will be able to call in to ask Mr. Polt your questions directly on the number 30 12 092. Mr. Polt, to start with a question related to the Dayton agreement but also related to the present, are the standards that were set by the Dayton Accord, which can be discussed later, more the result of that which lead to its creation and not enough of an account of the the expectations and wishes of the people who are the subject of that agreement?
Polt: The fact is, Dayton ended a very bloody and very painful conflict, which was part of the overall violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia. With that agreement we reached a peace, a tentative peace if you wish, but one that enabled the people of the region to start working on permanent solutions. We achieved that. Any human endeavor is imperfect. But in the end, I think we made a good step in the right direction. And we, the United States, have said that we want to do more to try to integrate Bosnia and to help it become a successful society—a successful country—that can work together for its European future, which is the same aim that we have for Serbia.
B92: Mr. Polt, very soon we expect a new agreement or a new solution, to speak of that. At this point in time, how high is Kosovo on America’s foreign policy priority list?
Polt: Kosovo is very high on our agenda right now when we talk about Europe. One has to understand, of course, that the United States has priorities which are global and we have, of course, significant issues to deal with around the world, the obvious ones coming to mind of course include Iraq, North Korea, and other various issues around the world. But Kosovo figures very significantly on our European agenda as it does on the agenda of our European partners. It is an important issue, whose time has come to be resolved now.
B92: Mr. Polt, the most recent announcement is that a proposed solution for Kosovo will be presented at the end of January. Intentionally I said “proposed solution” in hopes of asking at the start. Am I right or wrong about the fact that Marti Ahtisaari will put forward the plan to be negotiated? And who will negotiate, will Belgrade and Prishtina or will you and the international community negotiate among themselves?
Polt: We have sought from the very beginning of this process, which started over a year ago under the leadership of Mr. Ahtisaari who was given the mandate by the United Nations and by the Contact Group to negotiate a settlement for Kosovo, that we would seek to find a solution, certainly as far as the US position is concerned, toward the end of this year. When the international community had to intervene after the atrocities that were committed by Mr. Milošević’s regime, it was clear that at that point, since the international community had to stop the aggression that was committed, the international community was also going to part of the solution in terms of finding permanent peace or a solution for the region. Belgrade and Prishtina both have played and continue to play a critical role in that solution, and the international community will have a central role in that respect as well.
B92: When you say “critical role,” what is the meaning of “critical role”?
Polt: Critical role means that both Prishtina and Belgrade hold the responsibility, after a settlement is announced, to commit themselves to making the settlement work.
B92: And what is the degree of responsibility of the international community in this sense?
Polt: Our responsibility is to make sure that we are present, both in terms of security and in terms of political presence in Kosovo, to make sure that whatever settlement is reached is adhered to by both sides, and that when either side violates the arrangement, that we go ahead and take whatever actions are necessary to make sure that the commitments that are made, or even if there are no commitments made, but that the settlement that is reached is adhered to.
B92: How are Serbs in Kosovo and minorities in Kosovo to believe you when two years ago in March your presence did not prevent violence in Kosovo.
Polt: You know, first of all, every human endeavor is imperfect. The violence of March 2004 was unacceptable and atrocious and we are determined to see that it is never repeated in the future. We have to, however, keep in mind that ultimately speaking the only security, in any society but talking about Kosovo now specifically, the only security in Kosovo can be provided by Kosovo Serbs, Kosovo Albanians, Kosovo Roma, Kosovo Askali, agreeing that they are going to live together in peace and provide for the common good and not to seek advantage or disadvantage over the other.
B92: Mr. Polt, when we speak of a solution proposal or about a solution for Kosovo, in Belgrade there is a fear that it will be imposed. Do you have any information about that? Will a solution be imposed in the end? And on whom will it be imposed, only on Belgrade or will it be imposed on Belgrade and Prishtina.
Polt: You know, the entire discussion about imposed solutions always seems to revolve around status, around where “will the borders of Kosovo be,” “what will be the status,” “hat will Kosovo be called.” When actually the discussion should be, “what will be the life of the people living in Kosovo.” That should be the important issue at hand. And if people are sincere about there concerns in Belgrade, if people are sincere about their concerns for Serbs living in Kosovo, then they should be talking about what will be imposed, if you’re going to talk about “imposition” which I do not like as a word, but we talk about what will be imposed in terms of making sure that people in Kosovo can live in peace and find success for themselves and for their families. That is the kind of imposition that I would actually support: peace and security for all the people living in Kosovo.
B92: Nevertheless, if we go a little further in history, recent history, primarily there was talk of “standards before status,” then there was talk of standards and status, now status becomes the one and only concern of the international community, and not standards.
Polt: Actually it has not become the priority above all for the international community, certainly not United States, and I would say not for our Contact Group and other international community partners. What we have found, however, is that “standards before status” did not achieve, for all of us including most importantly for the minority for the Serbs living in Kosovo, the kind of assignment of responsibility for the safety and security of all the people in Kosovo.
Until you have decided who should really be responsible for it. And if you take Kosovo, and I know there is a debate about what is a minority and what is not a minority, but lets set that aside for a moment, in the Kosovo context, the fact is, in the area of Kosovo the Albanian citizens, not the citizens but the Albanian ethnic group is the larger group. Therefore, it always for the larger group to have the responsibility to make sure that, not only are the rights of the minority not violated, but the rights are strictly protected. And we want to find a solution that clearly assigns that responsibility to the majority.
B92: When we talk about security, what needs to be discussed is information about the Bondsteel base and its preparation for the possibility of ensuing violence in Kosovo? General Major Darren Owens, Commander of the operative group of multinational powers in the East, warns of a very real possibility for ensuing violence.
Polt: Of course there is a possibility that violence could break out. There is a violent past in Kosovo, and lets not forget who started that violent past in the 1990s. It was Milo and his regime that caused, that was the immediate spark for, the entire tragedy that unfolded thereafter. And of course there can be violence in reaction to a settlement. I think it would be a bad mistake by what ever group precipitates in such violence, because it will not be tolerated by the international community and it will not achieve the aim of those groups who start the violence, whoever they may be.
B92: All the messages that we hear from the international mediators say that Serbia should move forward with or without Kosovo, that it should focus on itself. Here now, in the answer to my previous question, you refer to our history, who started it first, and you tell us to forget about our history. How are we to understand that?
Polt: Well it’s not a matter of forgetting your history. History is important for any people or any country. No one is asking Serbia to forget about Kosovo. For that matter nobody is asking Serbia to give up Kosovo. The question is, what is “keeping Kosovo”? Is keeping Kosovo all about borders and geographical boundary lines and concepts of statehood or is keeping Kosovo a matter of the successful continuation of Serbian life, culture, religion and history in Kosovo. That must be persevered. That must be protected. The other arguments about Kosovo are sterile and unproductive.
B92: Do you have information about when the plan could eventually be expected? When Mr. Ahtisaari will present it? We are told sometime at the end of January? But what is known in the international circles, will it be before or after the formation of a new government, which should happen after the next election?
Polt: Well as you know the decision of the contact group was the Mr. Ahtisaari would proceeded with the presentation of his proposals to the two parties without delay after the election. And without delay to us means with no delay, very direct. Bit it a few days, a week, but very shortly after the election the two parties will be present with Mr. Ahtisaari’s proposals and from there on we will proceed with the process of coming to a settlement conclusion.
B92: Despite more than a month of public debate, at least between Western spokesmen, about a solution for Kosovo, Russia was quick to criticize a potential independence solution as did other countries. Last week Spain voiced concern over the issue as well. What is the problem about?
Polt: Look, we are a community of nations who have opinions, who have certain views on what is, after all, an important issue. And we are discussing this together to try to come to a common approach. We all basically agreed that he status quo is working in no one’s favor. It doesn’t help Serbs in Kosovo. It doesn’t help Albanians in Kosovo. It doesn’t help Serbs in Belgrade or any other part of Serbia. It doesn’t help the international community. We agreed on that. Now we are still talking about what the best way is and what the timetable will be for finding a solution for Kosovo. But I don’t think anyone disagrees with the fact that the time has come to settle this issue and not to let this go on forever. after all, it’s been more than six years since Milošević was forced out of Kosovo.
B92: Mr. Polt, in February Mr. Ahtisaari said that it is not important what Belgrade and Priština think, to avoid euphemisms. Are the negotiations on Kosovo actually held in the international community? How much do the requests of Belgrade and Priština actually matter in that sense? And how are Belgrade’s and Priština’s requests actually for internal use? How much does the international community value the requests of both sides?
Polt: We respect highly what Belgrade and Priština have to say and it is extremely relevant as to what Belgrade and Priština say about the future of Kosovo. It is an entirely incorrect assertion on the part of either Prishtina or Belgrade that their opinions are either being ignored or fully accepted. This is not a 100% gain or loss for one side or the other. Compromises are being asked of both sides Whatever the outcome is in the ultimate decision for Kosovo, it will require both Prishtina and Belgrade to make a great number of concessions in order for there to be a peaceful existence of all the ethnic groups living in Kosovo. And that is always lost sight of in a discussion of “well if I don’t get my wish 100%, then I must be ignored or I must be a loser. Or if the other side gets, by my assumption, 100% then they must be a winner.” That is not the way the situation is going to come out in the end result.
B92: When we talk of concessions, could a green light to Russia for entering the World Trade Organization be a US concession, viewed from the perspective of the Kosovo status outcome and the objections that Russia has made?
Polt: No, there’s no relation.
B92: I knew you would say that.
Polt: No it’s not related. As I said earlier the United States has a great variety of a global issues that we address, including of course our friendship and our cooperation with our Russian colleagues. We look for Russia to be fully integrated into the world community on all levels: politically, on security, on the fight against terrorism, economically. And of course once we come to a conclusion that certain requirements for participation in economic, security, or other structures, are met and we have agreement between each other, we are only too happy to support our Russian friends in the ambitions that they have for their people, which are very similar to the ambitions we have for our own.
B92: Do you have a guarantee that Russia will not use its veto at the Security Council against the proposed Kosovo solution?
Polt: We are not at that point yet. We do not have yet a draft resolution to discuss. We have not yet begun the discussion because we first have to wait for Mr. Ahtisaari to go ahead and present his proposals. Of course we have some thoughts in this area and the United States, the members of the Contact Group, and the European countries, and of course our Russian friends have expressed some of their concerns about the process. But we will sit down and having a full sum debated as to how we can solve this situation that needs to be resolved.
B92: And is there a plan B or another plan, in case something happens or someone uses their veto?
Polt: Hypotheticals are impossible to answer. Hypotheticals are usually guesswork. I don’t think you or your listeners are well served if I just take a wild stab at guessing what the consequences will be. We will do everything possible to make sure that we have a commonly agree on Security Council resolution.
B92: If the principle of territorial integrity will not stand on the Kosovo example, what arguments will you use to justify the demands in the case of South Ossetia, where the majority of inhabitants voted by referendum to join their northern brethren? Therefore, which arguments will you use to justify that in one example the principle of territorial integrity was not respected, while in the other it had to be norm?
Polt: Precedents are very complicated constructs. The situation of Kosovo really is unique. There is no situation that I can think of where the international community had to intervene after a massive human rights violations committed by a government on, at that point, their own citizens, where hundreds of thousands of people were displaced by actions of a regime that was clearly in violation of human rights, that was clearly committing atrocities, that was clearly committing crimes against humanity. The international community had to intervene to protect human lives.
That really should be the central concept here and not a notion of the territorial integrity. Should we protect the territorial integrity of every regime that chooses to go ahead and murder and kill its own citizens? It think the reason we have the United Nations, I think the reason we have international interest in each other, is to make sure that all of us are entitled to the same human rights and the same kind of security and the same kind of safety that we ourselves enjoy.
B92: Do I understand your message well? Official Belgrade will have to resign itself to the eventual, I say “eventual,” because it is not known yet what the solution will be, violation of the principle of territorial integrity? That is the message?
Polt: Belgrade will have to live, as Prishtina will have to live, with the outcome of a Kosovo settlement. Either party can chose to go ahead and resist that, fight that, and live in permanent animosity toward such a settlement. The question that has to be put before leaders in Belgrade and Prishtina is “does that get your country, or does that get your people in the case, forward? Does that help the citizens that you are responsible for as a leader?”
In Belgrade’s case, because I am sitting in Belgrade, if Belgrade was to reject the settlement is on Kosovo and say, “we will simply resist by whatever means possible, and we will close ourselves off from international consensus on this issue. And we will just live with those consequences,” I would just like to know if that is really what the Serbian people want to have for their future.
B92: Mr. Polt, there is speculation about the way in which the solution for Kosovo will be presented. I believe that you heard the rumor about plans to bypass the Security Council because of the possibility of a veto. Is that actually under consideration?
Polt: The Security Council will not be bypassed. We are engaged in an international process that is mandated, comes out of the United Nations’ process. That is what we are going back to in order to find the resolution and the settlement. We are going to be working very hard on that. And again the important thing here is that those of good will who want to go ahead and find a solution are engaged in this process. There are many, or there are some we could say, who are looking to find a way to go ahead and deal with what they consider the dire consequences of a settlement and resisting the settlement. I think it is much more productive to talk about how to find a solution rather than how to resist one.
B92: Two more questions and then our listeners can place theirs. Mr. Polt, the election campaigns have begun here. And I believe that you know of the media’s speculation that LDP leader Čedomir Jovanović is the number one favorite of the American Embassy.
Polt: I’ll try to say this as carefully as I possibly can. This is complete and utter nonsense. The United States government does not have an opinion on how domestic politics in Serbia will be conducted or on whom you choose to be your leader. That is for the Serbian people to decide. It is, however, very clear that United States stands for, around the world not just in Serbia, democracy, freedom, and progress in order for people to be able to live in freedom and democracy. Specific individuals and specific parties are of absolutely no interest to us. That is for the Serbian people to decide.
B92: In the case that the future Cabinet includes the Serbian Radical Party, will the USA re-evaluate its policy towards Serbia?
Polt: We will have to look at the outcome of your political process and deal with the outcome, whatever you choose it to be. But it is very clear to us that Serbia, I think in this election, probably as critically as in October of 2000 when you chose to get rid of Milošević, that this election is probably as pivotal, as important, as that process was. Where you will decide what kind of Serbia you want to have, not what kind we want you to have, but you want to have. And then we will have to deal with the consequences of your decision.
B92: And what kind will you tolerate after the elections? In turn what will be the consequence in regards to Serbia?
Polt: I can’t tell you the consequences until you’ve made your decision. We have to wait till you decide.
B92: Because, it appears to me that it will not be a free election, when I hear “there will be consquences in regards to our election.”
Polt: Your choice is completely free, neither the United States nor anyone from the international community will tell you what you should do. Nor will we threaten you or make any suggestion as to what our reaction to you will be. We are committed to the freedom, the democracy, the economic progress of the Serbian people. We will always help that freedom, that democracy, that progress. What kind of leadership you chose to take you in the direction that you want to go in, we’ll have to wait and see what decision you make.
B92: And then you will make yours?
Polt: And then we will make ours.
B92: Mr. Polt, how would you briefly describe your relationship with the President of Serbia, Boris Tadić? Is it fair, are you close, do you co-operate?
Polt: My relationship with all of the leaders in your government—the President, the Prime Minister, his cabinet—has been very positive, cordial, frank and open. We don’t always agree on all issues but we always have an open and courteous conversation and I have never been treated with anything but courtesy and openness by any of your government’s leaders
B92: Mr. Polt, I would like to ask you something about a rumor that was speculated. Who from the American Embassy was in attendance at the official vote on the Constitution of Serbia? Was anyone present? I believe yes, but who? You were not there right?
Polt: Yes there was someone there from the US embassy. My deputy was there and the only reason I was not there is I had another commitment, because there was and American general here in town signing an agreement with your defense minister and it happened to coincide with that time. The time for the signing of that agreement had been made months before the decision to have a parliamentary session that day. Don’t read into that situation, there’s nothing to read into it.
B92: They taught as at political science studies that in diplomacy and politics everything bears a message, despite your explanation. Did you want something to be conveyed? The Minister of Defense would certainly have understood if signing of the agreement was postponed because of the official proclamation of the new Constitution.
Polt: Let’s be very clear here, your constitution, and the proclamation of your constitution, and the decision of what kind of constitution you want to have is your process. It is your decision. You do not require the assent or the agreement of the international community or of my country, or the applause of my country, for what you are doing or what you are not doing. We fully, one hundred percent, support your right to make your decision about your country. I have a number of colleagues in my embassy. I cannot be all over the country at the same time. That’s why we have a large staff here in Belgrade, and we try to be present in whatever situation we need to be present at in order for it to be seen that the Unites States as an interest in what goes on.
B92: We have someone on the line. Good day.
„Good day, my name is Aleksandra. Number one, I took part in the 1996-1997 anti-Milošević demonstrations from day one and carried the ‘Zajedno’ sticker on my forehead every day. And I believed very much that the U.S. would help us, I believe it still, but I’m asking the ambassador to help us make a break with Milošević’s policies once and for all, those policies which many people supported and unfortunately many still support. And is there any chance to arrive at October 6? I don’t think there ever was one. “
Polt: Aleksandra thank you very much for that question and that suggestion. We were very impressed and we are very proud of you and all the people in Serbia who chose to make a clear break with the Milošević regime and the kind of dark period that it represented for the Serbian people. I can assure you that the United States will continue to support you and all those in Serbia who look for a better future for your country, look for a future that includes Serbia in the Euro-Atlantic community, that has Serbia as a partner and as a friend of the United States, and to its European neighbors. And you can rest assured that, as you continue to bring about the kind of Serbia that you wish, we will support you in those efforts.
“What this means is that here is someone who sees the U.S. as a friendly country, and who absolutely supports the democracy in Serbia. But, I really fail to understand at times why the U.S. seems to be making moves that will help the Radical opposition win.”
Polt: I must admit that I don’t quite understand what you mean by “the US helping the radical opposition in Serbia.” We are very actively supporting the democratic process in your country, the reforms in your county, the ambitions of the citizens of Serbia, which they have repeatedly expressed in great majority. And that is that you want to have a better life, you want to have a better future for yourselves and your families, you want to have a connection to the international community in Europe and across the Atlantic in the US. That is the ambition of your democratic reform movement in this country and that is the ambition we support wholeheartedly.
“Good day. Mr. Polt, the ethnic ratio in Kosovo between Serbs and Albanians was at best 70:30 in the Albanian favor. Can you explain how the 30 percent managed to terrorize the 70 percent, while there are no more than 5 percent of Serbs now? The minimum that us Serbs expect from you is to warn the Kosovo terroris, to leave those poor people alone, who have been suffering from the terror for a hundred years. Thank you so much”.
Polt: I don’t not know what the ratios were exactly, but that really is not the key issue. The key issue is that the Milošević regime caused a large part of the population of Kosovo to have to flee there homes to find safety elsewhere because of the action that he and his criminal regime undertook in Kosovo. We are not standing here as the international community as accusers of the Serbian population of Kosovo. Those are not the people that we are concerned about. We are concerned about the actions of the Milošević regime that we stopped and forced to abandoned its criminal activity in Kosovo. In that aftermath we are trying to work very, very hard to make sure that all the people living in Kosovo—Serbian, Albanian, of whatever ethnic group—can live there in peace and progress for their own future.
“Good day. Zoran speaking. I would like to ask Mr. Polt – is he aware that in case Kosovo gains independence here, in this part of Europe, tensions will always be running high?”
Polt: I am not convinced that, if for some reason this settlement decision comes out to be for the independence of Kosovo, that high tensions and instability has to be resolved. In fact I believe that if that is the outcome it does not have to be the result. The entire thing that I’ve been trying to say for as long as I’ve been here in this country, and on this program today, is that what Serbia wants, what the people of this region want, is to find the connection in harmony to become fully integrated members of the Euro-Atlantic community. That’s what the debate should be about, and that’s what we should be focusing on. Tensions will be high if people want tensions to be high. And I would suggest to all the people of good will, in Prishtina, in Belgrade, in Washington, in Brussels, in any other capital that you can think of, to find a way to make sure that there are no tensions after the Kosovo settlement.
“Good morning. Here, I will tell you – does the ambassador know that there are neighborhoods in central Serbian towns, that we call Little Albanias, made up of Serbs who had to flee Kosovo in the 1980’s. No big humanitarian problem was seen in that back then. And that terror, the quiet terror, which simply made people move out, flee to Serbia, that was something normal for the rest of the world. In the end, it was Kosovo and the Albanians there who led to Yugoslavia disappearing, because the first fire that broke out was in Kosovo, with the Albanian terror against Serbs and Montenegrins”.
Polt: Mr. Petrović, thank you for your question. And I understand your concern very well. I have visited many of these Serbian people who have left Kosovo who have come to Serbia because of persecutions or issues that they faced in Kosovo. And I have talked to them about their situation. I have talked to them about their plans and intentions. I have seen some of the difficult situations that they face here in Serbia as well as difficult situations they have faced in Kosovo. I have also talked to Serbs living in Kosovo and visited them in their communities, and I have found that not in every situation is the life of a Serb living in Kosovo terrible or in danger or without a future.
Yes there are some great difficulties, and yes it is the Albanian majority in Kosovo that has the responsibility to make sure that any transgression against their rights are stopped and that the people who are responsible for transgressing against any part of the people living in Kosovo comes to justice and are persecuted. In the end what is important is not what has happened to people in the past, or who transgressed against whom, but in the end it is important what we are going to do in the future for peace.
“How does Mr. Polt see the fact that Serbs in Kosovo, supported by the current government in Belgrade, continue to refuse to take part in the Kosovo institutions, legal or illegal? Thank you.”
Polt: I think the call for Kosovo Serbs not to participate in the constitution process in Prishtina is a big mistake. I do not believe in politics by absentia. There is no way you can protect the legitimate rights of anyone unless you participate in the process that is suppose to be designed, no matter how flawed, to help individuals and to help people live together effectively. I have always argued that it is very important for all the Serbs living in Kosovo to participate actively and to complain loudly in Prishtina when the rights of Serbs are violated, and insist that those responsible for Kosovo whether they be the Kosovo Albanians or the international community to make sure that the rights of Serbs and of any other group living there are protected.
B92: We only have a couple of minutes left.Mr. Polt, I must ask you at the very end of our program – would it make any difference regarding the Partnership for Peace program if the Serbian parliament approved sending our officers and medics to overseas peace missions?
Polt: That particular decision is only a part of the talks we are having with your government regarding joint participation in the security structures, including NATO. This is not the key factor in the Partnership for Peace discussion, and whether or not Serbia will be offered membership in this organization and in what form. What is often disregarded and what is hardly ever mentioned in the media is the fact that the U.S. and Serbia and NATO and Serbia already have strong relations. There are many activities under way right now in order to strengthen those relations, and we have our work cut out for us. We will continue to work to bring NATO and Serbia together, and I think we will be successful. I think Serbia will be a Partnership for Peace member, and I believe that one day, I am convinced, if Serbia wishes to, than it will be a NATO member.
B92: Mylast question to you: I believe you saw polls conducted by two agencies, Gallup being one of them, published by the domestic and global media, suggesting that out of 63 countries less than a third believe the U.S. to be contributing to the world peace. For example, 76 percent of Swiss citizens believe the United States’ role to be negative. Do you as an American understand this as failure to convince others that the U.S. contribute to the world peace or do you see it in a different context?
Polt: No, this is not failure. I believe my country is very active and successfully engaged all over the world in an attempt to try and meet the challenges that we face. When you undertake action instead of sitting doing nothing, or when you have an opinion, and don’t keep it to yourself, you take a risk, sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don’t succeed as much as you want to, and sometimes you don’t succeed at all. But, the fact remains that the one thing that my country is dedicated to, is that we will never sit idly when our citizens’ rights are concerned, but also those of other people who seek freedom, who wish to protect themselves from international terrorism, or any other threat. This equally means that we will sometimes be subject to criticism, but we can take it, we can deal with it.
B92: In your opinion, does Iraq qualify for a success or a failure?
Polt: Iraqis a success, a success of the country, I’m talking about Iraq, not the United States. It’s a success in that the Iraqi people liberated themselves from a horrendous dictator, from a dictatorship that has killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, and they continue to face a difficult conflict. The U.S. is trying to help Iraq find the peace it deserves, we haven’t got there yet, and neither has the international community actively participating in Iraq today.
B92: One more question. According to you, is Saddam Hussein’s death-by-hanging sentence appropriate for this day and age?
Polt: I won’t comment on the Iraqi government’s laws and regulations, when it comes to implementing their legal decisions. If the Iraqi law provides for the possibility of the death penalty, then that is what should happen. I think it is legitimate to implement a just decision reached by a court, and it should be implemented by the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.
B92: Thank you for taking part in B92 Radio’s ”Kažiprst” (Index Finger).
|
search b92.net
B92 live 
