House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Middle East

STATEMENTS BY CONGRESSMAN TOM LANTOS
ON ALBANIANS
IN THE FORMER STATE OF YUGOSLAVIA

The following are excei?ps of the unofficial Renter News Agency transcript of a hearing on ?Developments in Europe? held by Subconunittee on Europe and (lie Middle East of the If ouse Foreign Affairs Committee. The hearing took place on April 9, 1992, and the representative of (lie Administration was Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Thomas Niles.

REP. LANTOS (continues): Let me just take one other small example, the case of Yugoslavia. Mr. Baker went to Yugoslavia saying the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia is non—negotiable, at the very time when some of us had legislation pending calling for the independence of? the various constituent republics. The United States was the last one to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, now Bosnia-Herzegovina.
There?s not a word from this administration concerning the two million ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
Nnw, on what grounds does the administration feel that it is proper for two million Slovenians to have an independent republic of their own but to have two million ethnic Albanians live under Serbian domination, under colonial tutelage?
I simply feel that there is such a pathological preoccupation to dealing with the political pressures of the moment, whether these come from Pat Buchanan, in which case we get neo-isolatjonjst statements out of the White House, or to protect Mr. Quayle for using military aircraft for golfing trips. But there is no one really dealing with the tremendous historic developments where we have an opportunity to shape the future.
But let me pause here for the moment. This is sort of my question number one.

NILES: . . . . On the question of Yugoslavia. what the secretary of state said when he went to Yugoslavia in June of 1991 was that if the Yugoslav republics–Serbia and Croatia in particular, but Slovenia as well–proceed on the path they seemed to be launched on–and that was I think the 21st of June–that they were leading their country to civil war and bloodshed. And, sadly enough, the secretary proved prophetic in that respect–he was right. And he did hot support the maintenance without change forever of the existing structure in Yugoslavia, but what the secretary said was we cannot Support changes in Yugoslavia that would be carried out by unilateral means, particularly by the use of force. And that?s what we have resisted in the period since the–REP. LANTOS: Who used force there? Wasn?t it the
communist-led Yugoslav army which used force? Have you seen the pictures from the town of Vukovar which looks like Dresden during the Second World War, with hundreds and thousands of civilians, children and old people, being massacred?

NILES~ It?s an atrocity, I agree, and I think personally that the Yugoslav People?s Army so-called, commanders responsible for that, should be called to justice, I?m not sure under what forum. But the fact of the matter is that the Croatians and the Slovenians took measures which I think could be characterized as the use of force–seizing customs posts, taking actions to push the Yugoslav army out of their republics, something which we believe should have been carried out by a negotiating process, a process that we encouraged them to engage in, and something for which other senior officials in other republics, such as the president of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the president of Macedonia, were pushing them to do. But President Tudjman and President Kuchan (phonetic) chose to move unilaterally, and of course we never have had any support at all for the measures taken by the president of Serbia and the Yugoslav People?s Army to use force either to establish a greater Serbia or to preserve somehow by force a centralized Yugoslav state. So I think frankly
–REP. LANTOS: What about the Albanians in Kosovo?

NILES:Well, I?ve got a note here to talk about Albanians in Kosovo. 1 think, as you look back over the events, the tragic, events in Yugoslavia over the period, say, ?from last June until today, the United States role is one we can be pretty proud of. We?ve stood strongly in favor of a peaceful solution. We?ve supported the U.N. We?ve supported the deployment, of a U.N. force. We have resisted pressures to recognize, 1 think prematurely, the independence of the republics which sought recognition as independent states.
We have now, as you say, recognized the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia. We?re going to be talking with them about the establishment of diplomatic relations, We?ve indicated to the republic of Serbia that we want to have talks with them about the terms and conditions of our relationship with Serbia and Montenegro, if they choose to stay together. And we?ve expressed support: for the negotiating process, which we hope will result in the resolution of the outstanding issues between Macedonia and Greece.
Overall, I think we?ve played a responsible role there in support of the United Nations, in support of the European Community effort to find a peaceful solution to the problems of Yugoslavia, but as you can well imagine, given the history, the events of the inter-war period and the bitterness which has built up in recent months, it?s not been easy and it?s not going to be easy. I don?t claim that.
As far as the Albanian population and the Kosovo is concerned, we have strongly condemned the repressive actions taken by the government of Serbia, depriving the Kosovo Albanians of all their civil rights, in some cases of their economic rights as well, right to employment. We?ve made clear on numerous occasions to the government of President Milosovic that there can be no normal relationship? between the United States and Serbia as long as this repression in Kosovo continues. I?m not sure what else the United States could have done unless we cut off assistance
–REP. LANTOS: Is there any difference between 2
million Slovenians asking for independence and getting it and 2 million Albanians asking for independence?

NILES: Well, the Albanians have not asked specifically for independence. They?ve asked for the

Recognition of their autonomy as–
REP. LANTOS: As a republic.

NILES: Well–

REP. LANTOS: Are we supporting that?

NILES: We support the recognition and the observance of all of the civil and human rights, economic rights of the Albanians in the Kosovo. And again it?s not for us perhaps to say exactly what that structure should be, whether–

REP. LANTOS; Well, I?m asking whaL (lie administration position is.

NILES: The administration position is that the government of Serbia must respect the civil, economic, political rights of the population–

REP. LANTOS: As individuals.

NILES: Well, you’re talking about 93 percent of the population.

REP. LANTOS: Are they as entitled to independence as are the Slovenians of equal number?

NILES; That?s an issue on which we?ve not taken a formal position, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LANTOS: One final question if I may, Mr. Secretary.

REP. HAMILTON: Mr. Secretary, let me clear one thing up. You said what else could we do with respect to the Kosovo problem. We have said that we will lift sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro contingent on Belgrade?s lifting the economic blockades directed against Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia.
Now, we?re not tying the lifting of sanctions to
Kosovo. That?s something else you could do. Why don?t you do that?
NILES: Well, that?s something worth considering, Mr. Chairman. We had focussed more on the inter-republican issue, the blockades on Macedonia and Bosnia–

REP. HAMILTON: You have that under consideration? NILES; Well, we will consider that.