Question:  Russia this past Wednesday proposed that a United Nations Security Council mission should be sent to Belgrade and Pristina to study the situation on the ground before taking any decisions on the proposed plan for settlement in the region.  Such was the first reaction of the Russian delegation after the submission of the report of Martti Ahtisaari on Kosovo status to the UN Security Council that presupposes introduction of "controlled" independence for the province. Maria Okabe, the UN Secretary General's spokeswoman, said that the report received by the Security Council on Kosovo status has all the elements necessary for a fair determination of the future status of Kosovo.  Does the Russian Foreign Ministry agree with this assessment?

Vladimir Titov:  We have already said on more than one occasion that we can't agree with this assessment. How fair and sustainable can a scheme not consented to by one of the parties and obviously at odds with international law and a whole set of UN Security Council decisions be?

I will not even cite the well-known provisions of the Council’s Resolution 1244 on Kosovo, passed in 1999.  Just a couple of months ago, the United Nations Security Council, approving unanimously Resolution 1722, reaffirmed an immutable principle, its commitment to preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every state in the space of former Yugoslavia within their internationally recognized borders.

How can these borders be changed without the consent of a state to this?  Therefore we still feel that only a negotiated solution that suits both Belgrade and Pristina can be the basis for a reliable settlement which would not provoke a destabilization of the region and the further redivision of borders, and not only in the Balkans.

Question:  In the opinion of US Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, a decision on Kosovo will be taken in April or May.  Yet most analysts claim the negotiation process has reached a dead end.  Evidently they in the State Department have found an alternative exit from the dead-end situation?

Vladimir Titov:  In the next few days I will have the opportunity to ask Mr. Burns directly about this as we meet in New York.  I think his statement nevertheless reflects not the finding of a new formula, but solidarization with the document of Martti Ahtisaari.

I am convinced that the negotiation process did not simply reach, but was driven into a dead-end.  The international mediator, and then not just he alone, had kept driving the discussion into a rigid timeframe, combining this with signals to the parties about the predeterminedness of the final option.

We repeatedly warned of the perniciousness of this approach.

It is now important to determine what to do next.  Russia is disposed towards vigorous continuation of negotiation-diplomatic efforts for status settlement in Kosovo.  In a situation where there is no consensus the process should not be impetuously accelerated and no attempts to impose a unilateral scheme should be made.

It is necessary to begin with a comprehensive survey of the implementation of the provisions of the fundamental document of the UN Security Council on Kosovo, Resolution 1244, record the progress made or its absence and consistently work for realization of the tasks that were set.  It is enough to say that the top priority task of the return to the province of refugees, and temporarily displaced persons, primarily those of Serb nationality, has been totally wrecked.

Question:  Is Russia ready to recognize the independence of Kosovo, if all the other concerned parties, except Serbia, insist on this?

Vladimir Titov: It does not suit not only Russia, but also many other states, the prospect of unilateral sovereignization of the province, and scorn for the principles of international law.  It is understandable that a chain reaction thus triggered may sooner or later touch any country, as the inviolability of sovereignty will no longer be guaranteed in any way.

Separatism, rewarded in Kosovo, will receive a powerful impulse in other parts of the world.  In the case of Kosovo the question of disjointing a province from a sovereign state has been raised for the first time.  Therefore the unilateral solution will inevitably create a precedent and will be projected onto other situations.

Question:  Do you agree with the opinion that de facto Kosovo is already an independent state, and that recognition de jure depends exclusively on the position of Russia?

Vladimir Titov:  A certain degree of Kosovo's separateness is there.  This is the result of both historical events and the distortions that have accompanied the settlement; it is the consequence of an inconsistent and insufficient implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

But it cannot be said that Kosovo is a de facto independent state.

It is bad that they substitute the talk about pacifying separatist ambitions for joint work on the proper introduction of democratic standards, on the forging of dialogue among the ethnic communities in Kosovo and on the eradication of crime and drug trafficking, of aggressive nationalism again rearing its head in anticipation of the province's independence. Otherwise the province supposedly will sink into violence and chaos.  It has to be realized that this is a wrong path to which there will be no end.  I hope that the understanding of this will eventually prevail.