Taken from the website of the U.S. Embassy in Skopje, Macedonia.
Q: Your message and that of other ambassadors regarding elections was that this time Macedonia must hold free and fair elections. However, what we see is bargaining with the date of elections as well as occasional threats of boycott. What is your comment?
A: My basic comment is that, yes, we are all looking for free and fair elections because it is critical for Macedonia’s future, whether for Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic future or simply Macedonia. I think that the greatest thing that could happen in the immediate future is for the electoral law to be passed, for it to be agreed with hopefully the greatest consensus that is possible. The thing now is to really move along and get an electoral law passed because one way or another you are not terribly far from elections, whenever the date is. Whether it happens earlier in June or July, whether it happens in September October, there’s a lot of work to be done once the electoral law is passed. What I would hope, and I think everybody else in the international community feels this way, is that there will be a swift agreement to move ahead on proposing the electoral law to Parliament and get on with things. You mentioned some discussions about boycotting, et cetera. I think it is pretty clear from the fact that we are all very happy that the party that was boycotting previously has come back, that we feel very much that it is a good thing to participate in the political process, not to boycott, not to remove oneself from the regular political process. There’s much more to be gained by being an actor in the political process and that’s what we hope that everyone will continue to do.
Q: Do you find acceptable the requests from VMRO to have party members instead of public servants in the electoral commissions?
A: As you can imagine, these are questions that have been looked at quite a bit. In particular they have been looked at by the Venice Commission and by ODIHR. And, that is pretty much what we go by. Venice Commission and ODIHR have said to all of us in the international community and specifically to us in the U.S. that there is no preferred international practice, that the provision for having all civil servants is perfectly within the standards for the international practice, that other alternatives such as potentially what VMRO is proposing, would also be within practice. But the point is that what is in the draft law at the moment is acceptable in terms of international standards.
Q: Yesterday you made a statement about the Ramkovski case, suggesting that it could damage Macedonian- U.S. relations. My question is, why did this reaction come now and not before?
A: First I need to clarify what we did put in that because I want to make a distinction. That case is not going to damage U.S. –Macedonian relations. Those relations are very good and they will continue to be very good. The Ramkovski- MDLF case is a problem; it is an annoyance, not a danger to our relations. There is an American foundation, which in good faith, seven or eight years ago gave almost one and a half million dollars, with an intention to help Macedonian media reach a higher level of professionalism and capacity. Instead, their money was stolen from them and even Mr. Ramkovski has essentially admitted that that is the case. Yet, that money has never been returned. So, the first problem about this thing is that the money did not go for the purposes it was intended for, which means, in essence he took that money from other media outlets that might have been receiving it and used it properly.
The second thing is that the case is an illustration, and a sad illustration, of problems with the justice system and particularly problems with the court system in which it is possible to go for seven or eight years and never get a final judgment to uphold the law and execute the decisions of the law. That is why it is extremely important that this be resolved. We have been working on this for ages. We have not made public statements but we have been working on this for a very long time. And to be perfectly honest, we haven’t gotten anywhere. The foundation itself has tried through all of the different court processes, has been patient, has wanted to let the system work, and that has been essentially what we have tried to do. But there comes a time at some point, and I think we have finally reached it, where we realize that thinking the system was going to work, was never going to achieve any results. And at that point it became important to point out that this was going on and that’s why we came forward.
Q: Is it correct that you are planning to put Ramkovski on the black list?
A: We don’t actually have a black list and we have no plans for that. There’s no black list we are planning on putting him on. We just want the courts to do their job and for him to return the money.
Q: Mr. Butler published a judicial scorecard. Nevertheless, all of the judges on the scorecard remain in the same positions whereas there are ongoing processes against journalists that covered corruption. How do you interpret that?
A: We don’t see a connection between the two things. The things that my predecessor put on that list were as much as anything to illustrate the non-functioning of the judiciary. That continues to be a problem and the Ramkovski- MDLF issue is an illustration. The question about cases involving accusations of slander against journalists, you know, I come from the United States. The idea that journalists wind up having to account for themselves in court is a normal process. It does not show that there is an attempt to silence them or to make things difficult for them. If you look, for example, in our Human Rights Report, we consistently and continuously say there is extraordinary media freedom in this country and we don’t see those court cases or anything else, as suggesting that there is a lack of media freedom or any kind of pursuit of journalists. I think that for us it is a relatively normal phenomenon that if there is a doubt in a persons mind about reporting what’s been done, a doubt as to whether appropriate care was taken in checking the facts and reporting the facts, they have recourse to the courts and in the normal course of events a court decides and you go forward.
Q: In the last report of the State Department it was said that corruption is a serious problem in Macedonia. My question is why referring to corruption does not include names. Is Ljubco Georgievski the only of the Macedonian officials that is going to be on the black list for corruption?
A: Mr. Georgievski got a visa ban, which is not exactly a black list. We don’t get into individual cases in this regard. It is frankly up to the Macedonian system and the Macedonian investigative processes, the prosecutor, police and others who are involved in exploring corruption, to put the names to it. It is not up to a foreign country and it is not up to my country in particular to be doing that. The whole thrust of what we are trying to emphasize is that this really is a responsibility of Macedonia. You have reforms in process that should be helping you, you have existing laws that are actually quite strong and what is needed now is action. The names can be put to these things, but this needs to be done by people who will have done a thorough, reputable investigation and who will be prepared to prosecute before a court of law.
Q: Macedonia is under strong pressure from Brussels and Strasbourg about the el Masri case. Why is the United States so quiet about the case? You are not helping us solve the problem.
A: I think that we actually have said a great deal but what we don’t do is we don’t comment on individual cases and that’s a general rule. What we have said very clearly is, first of all with respect to us, we obey the laws, we obey our own Constitution, we obey international treaties. In instances where we are partners with others who are fighting against terrorism with us, we obey the same kinds of rules. So we are speaking about issues that are related to these allegations but we don’t discuss individual cases.
Q: What’s your comment to the reaction here in Macedonia that the international community is more interested to solve the status of Kosovo than issues in Macedonia like the border issue.
A: I’d say that these are again two rather separate things. The status of Kosovo is a matter that needs to be resolved with the assistance of the international community and under the guidance of the international community because as a result of historical events Kosovo is a responsibility of the international community. That’s why it is a UN process. The decision to try and resolve and to come to a final status resolution stems from the desire not only to resolve matters for Kosovo but to assist the entire region because we feel that Kosovo was not going to make the additional progress that it needs to make, and if it doesn’t make that additional progress, that’s going to have a bad implication and a bad effect on the region as a whole. Macedonia, on the other hand, is a sovereign nation and I would say that I don’t think Macedonia is any longer at the stage where it needs the international community to resolve things for it. In fact, I think Macedonia has often much greater capacities than sometimes it realizes, to resolve issues. And then, of course, the illustrations that you give, whether it’s the border or the name issue, are both things that there is a process for. Certainly, for the name issue there is the UN process, that process continues and the U.S. continues to support that and we make that very clear to your government and my colleague in Athens makes that very clear to the Government in Athens. Yes, it takes time and yes, we would like it to go a lot faster because it would be in everyone’s interest to resolve, but there’s a process and it will take care of itself eventually. With respect to the border, what we have said is that from the point of view of the U.S. we would like to see that border demarcated as part of the Kosovo final status process. That is something, nonetheless, that Marti Ahtisaari has to agree with and the rest of the Contact Group have to agree to.
Q: Do you see the Vraniskovski drama as an issue of politics or one of human rights?
A: From our perspective, and I can only take this from our perspective, we are a country that was founded by a lot of people who ran away from countries where they couldn’t practice their religion and they went to an entirely new continent in order to have the freedom to practice their religion. For us, just the principle of being able to have a church and go and worship, is a fundamental human right. This is the angle through which we are always going to look at the matter. We are not going to get into the details of a particular case. What I am focused on, and I think what my government wants to focus on is, what will Macedonia do with respect to the new religious communities law that is in preparation. What we would hope, and see as extremely favorable, is to devise the most liberal, tolerant and open-minded kind of law possible, so that it is not necessary to have an opinion as to whether a particular church is good or bad or the only one, but rather one can simply allow religious communities to go and worship as they wish.
Q: There is an open debate in Macedonia about the role of the IMF and the World Bank, and that they are deepening the economic crisis rather than helping to solve it. How do you see the economic situation in Macedonia especially based on the many protests we see on the streets almost every day?
A: No one would say that the economic situation in Macedonia is easy from the point of view of jobs, although you have a wonderful status in terms of macroeconomics, in terms of stability of your currency and the standing that you have in international terms, and that is extremely important for the long run. I understand that there are people who are upset of concerned because these changes are difficult and these reforms are difficult. It takes a great deal of courage and determination to continue because in the short term they can be painful to segments of society. However, it has been proven time and time again that in the longer run they are extremely beneficial and I think what is going to assist Macedonia greatly is staying the course in international economic terms, keeping that macroeconomic policy as the IMF and World Bank have required, and proving to the international business community that you have the capacity to make that reform and to make it stick. In the long run that will ultimately create the kind of climate along with other kinds of reforms that will make investors interested. I believe it is difficult, but I think it is important to stay the course just as I believe that it is understandably upsetting to some to see privatizations. Privatizations are absolutely critical to the future of the country; these things have to be pursued, but of course with transparency, openness and with the proceeds of those privatizations being used in the way that has been agreed internationally.
Q: Compared to Mr. Butler, who had an opinion on almost every issue in Macedonia, you seem to keep a low profile. Is it a matter of assessment not to speak before elections or is that your personal image?
A: Elections have nothing to do with it and governments have nothing to do with it. There are a couple of things: first and foremost, I am not Larry Butler, I am Gillian Milovanovic, and that’s the obvious first answer. The other thing is that I came here believing that Macedonia, if it is a couple of years away from starting EU negotiations, maybe less, if it’s a couple years away from getting an invitation to NATO as we all hope, than it is a country that doesn’t need me standing out and making a bunch of declarations all the time. It’s a country where, what our Secretary of State has called transformational diplomacy, can really work. That you are a partner, you are not paternalistic; that you are with someone, you are not telling someone. And that fits with my personality in any case and I believe that probably was very much needed three or four years ago is not what’s needed today when you have made such enormous program. I believe that in working quietly and in partnership with your leadership and opposition and civil society, what we want to accomplish can be accomplished very well.
###
