Policy in Croatia
EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Public Affairs Section
Zagreb, Croatia
PRESS ROUND TABLE WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS A. ELIZABETH JONES
NOVEMBER 10, 2004
(On the record session conducted at the Ambassador's Residence in Zagreb, Croatia. Journalist participants were: Bruno Lopandic [Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Vjesnik daily], Ms. Marina Seric [Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Vecernji List daily], Ms. Sanja Simic [Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Jutarnji List daily], Boris Pavelic [Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Novi List daily], Ms. Zrinka Vrabec-Mojzes [Foreign Affairs Editor, Radio 101].)
Q. Why did you come, to Croatia?
A. Thank you for asking that question. I came because it's very important to us to listen to our friends and allies in the countries for which I'm responsible at the State Department. We knew this would be right after the election -- didn't know what would happen in the election -- but nevertheless, it is my long experience that the policies continue. There's not much change in foreign policy when we have a change in administration. But, I also wanted to come to participate in the Adriatic-3 meeting in Brijuni on Friday. So, the combination was a very good event for me. The policies in the Balkans, the events in the Balkans, are very, very important to the United States. The work that Croatia is doing to get ready for the EU, to get ready for NATO, the work that Croatia is doing to comply with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, are all very important elements in the conversation that we have on a regular basis with our friends in Croatia.
Q. Since you mentioned the ICTY, there have been always since I remember, in the last six or seven years, with every change of administration, there have been rumors spread that the U.S. is going to change its policy towards the ICTY, regardless of whether we are talking about Democrat or Republican. [inaudible] to hear from you again what is going to be your standpoint on ICTY.
A. There won't be any change at all. This is a requirement of the UN. The United States and Croatia are both members of the United Nations. So, we believe that we should all comply with those requirements. But there's something more important than that in a way. And that is that the ability of Croatia to comply with the requirements of the tribunal in The Hague is something that will clearly advance Croatia's own interests, in terms of getting ready for the European Union, in terms of getting ready for NATO, and in terms of Croatia demonstrating that it is a responsible, active participant in international work. We already know that Croatia can participate well, and compliance with the requirements of ICTY is just one more demonstration that Croatia understands its obligations to international requirements set by the UN.
Q. You will be present at the meeting of the Adriatic Charter.
A. Yes, I will. I look forward to that very much.
Q. How do you see this initiative? Because within the Croatian administration there is a sort of a reluctance. Some of them are saying "why do we need the countries who are, countries in the initiative, who are not that brilliant in their performance regarding NATO standards?" So is Croatia going to be stopped because of them?
A. I actually don't hear that kind of thing coming from the people we talk with in the Croatian government. I think Ambassador Frank can verify that for me. The concept is this. It's the same concept that the seven countries used who are new members of NATO. And, of course, Croatia was part of that group as well. They found, we found, that it was very encouraging, mutually encouraging, for the countries that are working along the same lines to talk with each other, to think how to re-enforce the work that each one is doing to get ready for NATO. There's no point in sort of re-inventing all of the ideas all over again, and we find that in the conversations that take place through these meetings that each one encourages the other. So, the group dynamic is a very positive re-enforcement, and it actually makes it possible for each of the countries to move more quickly, with a surer foot, to address the issues that need to be addressed to assure an invitation from NATO. That said, the criteria are judged individually. You will remember that when all of the countries were getting ready for NATO in the last round, we had teams that came to every single one of the ten, regularly, to talk with the defense ministry, to talk with the military, to talk with the political leadership, to talk with parliament, to be very encouraging about all of the things that are necessary to do. And the judgments were made individually as we looked at how each country was doing as to what was needed. And the conversations were held on a very individual basis. What more did Bulgaria need to do. What more did Estonia need to do. What more did any of the countries need to do. And we have the same conversations now. So, the judgment will be made on an individual basis, but the sense that we have through the experience that so many countries had, is that countries move faster and move in a more collegial way toward this goal. The other important thing about the group is that we really ... it's a concept of NATO, sort of a fundamental principle of NATO, that NATO is an organization of like-minded countries. We each work to the benefit of the other. And it's very important to start that habit early, so that a country that hopes to join NATO isn't working to join NATO by saying mean, nasty things about another country. In other words, you can't join NATO by demeaning another country that is also working to join NATO. That's not the way we work in NATO. So to develop the habit of collegiality and of working together for a common good is, we think, a very important principle of NATO that we like to start on early.
Q. Can we talk about dates?
A. I don't think we can speak about dates yet. That's not something that's in my competence to speak about, let's put it that way. It's something that the NATO group will look at further down the road.
Q. Can you tell something more about future policy toward the International Criminal Court? And, regarding that, Croatia hasn't signed that agreement for extradition of American soldiers ....
A. Here's the difficulty we have with the Rome Treaty. We, the United States, find that the Rome Treaty doesn't allow for enough international steering of the criteria, the prosecutors, the way the Court would operate. That is not the same way that the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague was set up, or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In those two instances, there was the capacity for the international community to reach in through re-appointing or not re-appointing the prosecutor, or the judges, or whatever. We had the capacity to demonstrate international will at regular intervals with those. That's not possible with the Rome Treaty. And the United States is not prepared to give up that much sovereignty to an international court over which there is, the international community, the United States, nobody has any way of having its views, making its views known. With that, though, the drafters of the Rome Treaty included an article that envisioned the possibility that not every country in the world would sign the Treaty, which is the Article 98. And that's what we are working toward to assure that there would be a mutual agreement, bilaterally, with the countries with which we sign an Article 98 -- that we would not automatically send our people to the International Tribunal [ICC] without consultation. That said, we, the United States, believe that we have an extremely good judicial system that would prosecute absolutely any American soldier who was accused of any of the crimes that are addressed under the Criminal Court. So, this is by no means an effort to absolve Americans from responsibility. Absolutely, we know we can prosecute extremely effectively. And we know that our principles require going after soldiers who are accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, whatever it is. So, the attitude that we take is we completely respect the fact that a number of countries have signed the Rome Treaty. And we simply ask that those countries respect our decision not to sign the Rome Treaty, but to use one of its articles in the way it's meant to be used. And that's what we are seeking with Croatia as well.
Q. Could you comment on speculation in the media, after the election, about what we can expect in American policy in Iraq in the next four years?
A. Well, let me just outline what we have ahead of us. We have the Iraqi interim government that would like very much to have elections for a full government at the end of January. In order for those elections to take place, the UN has to organize the elections. Security in Iraq is a very serious problem -- we saw it very recently. So, we need to have protection for the UN forces, the UN people, who will go in there to do election preparation or to do whatever other work that the UN is meant to do. So we have to get that organized for the UN. At the same time, one of the ways that we believe that you can undercut the insurgency, which is obviously a serious problem ... you undercut the insurgency by working very hard on reconstruction, working on humanitarian assistance, to demonstrate that there is a benefit from peace and stability in Iraq. And in the meantime, obviously, the counter-insurgency operations continue. I think it's very important to keep in mind that, as we've seen with Najaf, for instance, there is no more difficulty in Najaf. The counter-insurgency there worked. And what Prime Minister Allawi had very, very, very much wanted to do worked quite well -- which is, the instant that political decisions were made that sorted out what Sadr was going to do in Najaf , humanitarian assistance and reconstruction assistance went in very quickly in massive amounts, to demonstrate that there is a positive future - there is a positive present and a positive future. But I cannot honestly tell you that I know exactly what's going to happen beyond the election. But those are the elements of what we are working on, and that's what's very important for the international community -- participating. There's a tremendous amount of support coming from our European friends and allies on reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. Many, many countries are participating in the coalition forces and working to increase stability in Iraq. So, there is a lot of very good work that's underway by the whole international community.
Q. But it seems that you are running out of time for elections.
A. I don't know if I can say that. I don't know that. I mean, some of the counter-insurgency worked. It worked in Najaf. It worked in Samara. The reconstruction is underway. You don't hear about it. I don't know if you hear about it over here. I don't hear about it in the news. Falluja is the big topic now, and I can't tell you what's going to happen there. But one of the things that's working very well is the relationship between the Iraqi interim government and the coalition forces, as required by the UN Security Council resolution. It's a very important thing that you might take a look at, which required a political discussion and decision by the political level of the Iraqi interim government, for military operations to take place in Iraq.
Q. Well, you said that there won't be major changes in [U.S.] foreign policy.
A. There generally aren't, that's correct.
Q. But still, there should be some. For instance, more multi-lateral approach.
A. Let me go through with you what some of the issues are where there is a very strong multi-lateral effort underway. North Korea, multi-lateral. The North Koreans want it to be bilateral, but we said "no, no, multi-lateral is what we want to do". Iran. Totally multi-lateral. That's working in the IAEA; the EU-three are taking the lead with Iran. We're talking with everybody on the margins of that. Very multi-lateral effort on Iran. Iraq. There are some thirty-some countries in the multi-national force. Afghanistan. Look at the number of countries that participated in the [inaudible] reconstruction teams, that are participating in the security assistance force in Kabul. The UN, lots of nationalities, participated in setting up the elections there. Quite successful, the elections in Afghanistan. Very, very multi-lateral effort there. Darfur. We spent a tremendous amount of time working with the African Union and the European Union on how to get peace-keeping operations in there, peace-monitoring operations from the African Union. The European Union is providing some of the aircraft that go in, to carry the troops. A lot of discussion about whether the multi-lateral assistance programs should be underway there. Haiti. Over and over again. French troops, U.S. troops -- Chinese troops being talked about. Very multi-lateral operation. The only area where there is still a sense that the U.S. acted unilaterally was in Iraq. And even there, we had countless numbers of European troops -- EU countries -- with the U.S., when we started.
Q. But less and less ...
A. There are a few less, and a few others more.
Q. There is still an expectation that Croatian soldiers should join coalition forces in Iraq.
A. Let me put it this way. It's in Croatia's interest to participate internationally. That is part of what Croatia is working for in terms of joining the European Union, in terms of being invited to join NATO. So, the more Croatia can demonstrate its ability and desire to participate internationally, the more it will fulfill its own future, its own sense of itself. I can't sit here and say Croatia has to do this or has to do that. But I see it, we all see it is in Croatia's interest to participate, to demonstrate its ability to be a strong partner in international work.
Q. I just wanted to follow the question, which I think is the crucial one put in Croatia. Will joining of Croatian military forces be one of the conditions for joining NATO? For the American support for our integration into NATO.
A. The U.S. is not the one that decides the criteria for a country to join NATO. NATO, as a group, decides the criteria. The criteria are clear. There's no particular individual thing that is required or not required, that an individual country would demand. But, as I was saying, it's in Croatia's interest to participate, in a variety of operations. I'm not going to tell you which ones. But, the other thing to keep in mind is that for every country to join NATO, each of the NATO countries has different rules about how they adjust the treaty. Does it have to be ratified. Is there new ratification necessary. And in the United States, there is a new ratification that's necessary. And our Senate looks at what are the NATO criteria, and then they look at is there other demonstrations of a country's ability to work in a collegial way within an organization. Whether or not a country is participating in the Iraq operation is not a requirement. It wasn't a requirement for the other seven, it's not a requirement [inaudible]. But one of the ways that we talk about this with our Croatian colleagues is how to become a good partner, how to demonstrate ability. And one of the things ... I was just in Estonia yesterday, for instance. And the Estonian military chiefs were telling me how much the very small unit of Estonian soldiers in Iraq appreciate what they learn in being interoperable with U.S. forces and with the other multi-national forces in Iraq. It helps them a lot to increase their capabilities. And the reverse is also true. The Estonian unit there is a platoon. Their commanders think it's a much bigger unit because they are so effective.
Q. We all understand that it's give-and-take ... one should give something. But it's sometimes very difficult to explain to our public, because, you know, there is a very anti-Iraq climate here in Croatia.
A. Right. And there are plenty of countries in other parts of Europe who have a difficult public opinion attitude about Iraq, and yet they've taken the decision to participate. But there are lots of ways to participate. You can have troops in the multi-national force. You could have troops that are part of the UN protection force. You could have reconstruction money that goes in. You could have humanitarian assistance that goes in. You could be part of the UN election team. There are all kinds of ways to participate. And every country does it in a way that works best for them.
Q. To my understanding, you mentioned a crucial thing - reliable partner, good partner. So, given the fact that the Croatian Government does not have the strength to take a decision on Article 98 nor to decide upon international participation in Iraq. Given the pre-history that was said to Washington before, that they would do it, and then they changed their mind. How do we stand now? Is Croatia a reliable partner?
A. I won't tell you that we weren't disappointed, that undertakings were made, were made public, and then those undertakings didn't actually occur. There was disappointment. But, at the same time, we're not going to sit back and say, unless you do this, "x" won't happen, unless you do that, "y" won't happen. This is all a conversation. And it's a conversation between governments that know each other well. There are a lot of things going on internationally. There is a lot of work for all of us to do internationally, whether it's closer to home here in the neighborhood, whether it's in Afghanistan, whether it's in Haiti, whether it's in Africa, a couple of places. There are lots of ways that a country like Croatia can participate and can demonstrate its feeling, its responsibility to make the international situation better.
Q. So, is Croatia a reliable partner?
A. Let me put it this way. It doesn't have to ... It's hard to make a judgment on that until there is an activity that we're doing together. I think that's the best way to answer it.
Q. If the Middle East peace process will be strongly refreshed after Arafat's death, how do you plan to cooperate with the European Union in that process? And, second question. Is there a place for countries like Croatia in that whole multi-lateral effort, like the Middle East peace process?
A. I can't honestly tell you what really will happen with whatever does or doesn't happen with Arafat. But there is a very good framework in which we work with the European Union, which is "the quartet" -- the U.S., Russia, the UN, and the EU. It's a very good framework. It's one the EU is comfortable with. We're very comfortable with it. And the challenge now is how to use the situation as it develops to implement the roadmap. I'm not, not now, no longer, a specialist in the Middle East, so I can't honestly tell you right now all of the ideas that my colleagues who spend every hour of every day thinking about this may put forward. But I think it's fair to say that it's clear to the new Bush administration that the Middle East peace process requires attention. Let me expand on that a little bit, because there are a couple of things to look for that are coming up pretty soon. The first is the meeting of the neighbors that's going to take place week after next in Sharem al-Sheik, in about ten days. That's a very, very important meeting. Iraq, the neighbors, the G8. And maybe the Perm Five -- that seems to be a little up in the air as to whether China participates, according to Secretary Powell. That's a very, very important venue for Iraq and its neighbors to come to some better understandings of how they're going to behave with each other, because the situation there is so changed. And the fact that the G8 countries will all be there is also very important because after all some of them are some of the ones that have some big concerns about Iraq. But their presence demonstrates that they are prepared and are working in a very constructive way, want to work in a constructive way, to resolve the issues that are involved with Iraq. The other big meeting that's coming up pretty soon is the meeting that will be hosted by Morocco on the 11th of December. That is the Broader Middle East and North Africa meeting where quite a number of countries -- many, many countries in Europe (I don't know if Croatia's going to participate in that) will be talking about specific projects and programs to address political reform, economic reform, education issues, civil society issues, the kind of issues that Croatia's already had some experience with. But that is an effort parallel to the peace process that addresses many of the issues that we hope will build up a more constructive, positive attitude about the peace process.
Q. How do you see the position of Turkey concerning EU accession?
A. Well, the attitude that we take is that Turkey can be a very, very important part of Europe. It's already a long time member of NATO so we know the very great strategic benefits of Turkey participating in an organization, the primary ... the premiere trans-Atlantic organization. The specific requirements that the EU has levied on Turkey to get it ready for an invitation have dramatically changed Turkey, and have changed Turkey in a way that I think all of us can applaud. The legislative reforms that this government of Turkey has undertaken over the last two years, since before the Copenhagen Summit - right before the Copenhagen Summit and since then - are absolutely terrific. They've really moved Turkey a tremendous way forward in terms of the kinds of things that the European Union finds important. What's even more important, though, is that all of these things Turkey did, Turkey did for itself. It didn't do it just because the EU said it had to. It did it because it saw these things as very important for its own development, for its own ability to deal in an effective way with minorities, for its own ability to deal in an effective way with prison reform, and those kinds of things. It certainly was very important in developing a better attitude about how to deal with Cyprus, and to develop a better relationship between a civilian government and the military, so that the civilian government was the one making the decisions and instructing the military. It was very clear that that was the case with the Cyprus negotiations. The decision, obviously, is an EU decision about what happens on December 17th. The position that the U.S. has taken since the Copenhagen decision two years ago is to work as effectively as we possibly can to promote the kinds of changes and the kinds of reforms in Turkey that the EU wanted, so that we could be as supportive as we possibly could be with Turkey to the importance of not only passing this legislation that the EU required, but to implement it.
Q. Talking of Turkey. Certain countries, especially France is very much against opening the negotiations. President Chirac said something about [inaudible] ...
A. [inaudible] ... on what this country or that country thinks. President Chirac has made some specific statements about the importance of Turkey being given a date to begin accession negotiations. Everybody knows it'll take a long time, for those negotiations. But, I'm not going to work on this rumor or that rumor. But, we will work ... we work quietly with all the governments, all the member states of the European Union on a huge number of issues. So, we'll be talking with all of them about all kinds of things. And, of course, it's very important for us to be listening to all of these countries, too - the same thing that we focus on here, as well. There are a lot of issues coming up, and a lot of meetings coming up, too. I mentioned the Middle East meetings, but we have the NRSCE meeting coming. We have the NATO meetings coming. We have the U.S.- EU ministerial coming -- in addition to these Middle East meetings, so that's all in the next three weeks. So, a lot of opportunities for conversation.
Q. I agree that it's very important for Turkey to be integrated into the European Union. But what I feel is this fear of a Muslim country entering an exclusive club of one religion, [inaudible] is something that some of the countries would like to prevent.
A. I think it's actually a false statement to say that Europe is Christian. It's factually inaccurate. There are millions, millions of Muslims in Europe. Millions. And, the Turkey that was first approached by the EU after the Helsinki Summit is a very different Turkey ... The Turkey we see today is very different from the Turkey when that happened, I think in 1996. And it is logical to assume that Turkey will be a very different country ten years from now.
Q. What about the U.S.- EU trade dispute, and the dispute about GMOs?
A. I'll do my best on that, but I'm not too good on the subject. But here's how I look at it, more as ... work more on the political side than on the side of our U.S. Trade Representative. And that is that we have very good dispute resolution mechanisms on trade issues between the United States and Europe, through the WTO. And one of the things that we have, the U.S. has and the EU, have pledged is that we will abide by WTO decisions. We do, the EU does. And that, we think, is the best way to move forward. We have a very good example, very recently, with the FSC - I can't remember what it stands for. Foreign Sales Coverage, there you go. Where the WTO said the U.S. is in violation, you have to change your law. We changed the law. The President signed it into law a couple of weeks ago.
Q. Let's go back to NATO for a minute. Can we expect a requirement for NATO bases on the Adriatic coast? There is some rumor.
A. I can't honestly tell you if NATO will decide that it needs to move a base here, and it needs to move a base there. I don't know of any discussions to that effect within NATO, within the Military Committee. There's a whole separate issue which is what is the U.S. doing with some of its forces, some of it relates to NATO, some of it is just the U.S. forces in Europe. And we have a big review underway, a global defense posture review, to see if the way we have our troops located in Europe makes sense. Around the world, actually, it's around the world, but we focus on Europe -- I focus on Europe. Because it's no longer really so necessary to have protection from the Soviet Union. It doesn't exist. [Interruption: Troops in Germany.] Troops in Germany. Heavy, heavy, heavily armored troops in Germany. We're still going to have troops in Germany, and a variety of other places, but we all see now that what we need is lightly armored, easily transportable, quickly transportable to hotspots and various places like Darfur, like Afghanistan, like the Balkans, whatever. So, there may be some moving around, moving back tanks to the United States, probably, because we don't need them here. And do our business in a much more sensible way for the kind of work that we see needs to be done now.
Q. Does that mean in the future we can expect a requirement for American bases in Croatia?
A. Not that I know of. One of the things to keep in mind is that to move military units, even if they are lightly armored, etc., is very expensive. And it doesn't matter where it is. Creating the infrastructure you need for something like that is terribly expensive. So, I can't tell you what that's going to be because those decisions haven't been made yet. Because it does take a big, big budget input to establish a new base somewhere. So most of the discussion now is how to use better the bases that we have. And there will be a little bit of what we call forward operating locations where we could have access, let's say. That's what we're doing, for example, in Central Asia and the Caucasus, where we need access to Afghanistan. But there's no intention to build a big base and stay there forever. That doesn't do us any good. It isn't necessary.
Q. There are still problems in our neighborhood, first in Bosnia which is still some kind of protectorate; and as I see it, Dayton Agreement needs change, needs to be changed a little bit to focus on other things now. And the other thing is Kosovo, which the situation is completely unsolved there, and it is difficult to know what is going to happen, what is going to be the final solution. What can you say about these two things?
A. On Bosnia, there is a very big event that will take place here in a couple of weeks, which is that NATO has decided that its task has been accomplished. So SFOR will leave and an EU force will come in and have stabilization operations. And in connection with that, I don't know if its exactly a connection. But in any case, because the situation there is maturing, there may well be a discussion about "what next", politically. I can't tell you what that's going to be. Paddy Ashdown, Lord Ashdown, is the one who's charged by the UN and by the EU to be the person who understands these things the best. He will give those of us involved advice, his advice, on how to proceed with that, and I don't know what that's going to be. On Kosovo, there is a tremendous effort underway, by the UN, with a new chief there, Soren Jessen-Petersen, to work very hard on decentralization, on moving responsibilities to the municipal level, to demonstrate to Kosovars that they have a future in taking control, taking charge of these issues themselves. And he's working extremely hard to move that as quickly as possible. He's also working very hard with Belgrade to assure their cooperation as well, as we move forward on all of these issues. Because they'll need to participate in a constructive way for there to be a success in Kosovo, whatever that is. The international community has suggested that there may be enough progress on decentralization, a devolution of responsibilities, by the middle of next year. We'll see if that's the case. I don't know that I would predict one way or the other, because their work has just now started.
Q. Would you consider Croatian involvement in Iraq in any form that doesn't need a change in our constitution, regarding the elections, together with the UN, as proof of partnership, as a reliable partnership?
A. (Laughter) I'm not going to try to define it, one way or the other. Obviously, any kind of participation is a good thing.
Q. I'd like to go back to Kosovo. Do you think the countries of this region should have a clearer political position on the situation in Kosovo? And should they offer more [inaudible] their contribution [inaudible] because of the experience in the region, because at least they were living in one country more than a decade ago.
A. Tell me what you mean.
Q. Croatian foreign policy is reluctant on taking a strong position on Kosovo because they are afraid that would endanger developing a normalization of relations with Serbia and so on. Do you think we should all stand clear on that question?
A. I'll do my best to answer your question, because I'm not exactly sure where it's coming from. But my habit is that political declarations don't do much good one way or the other. The important thing is how to participate to make the situation better. And I can't tell you how Croatia might or might not best participate. But we're not looking for big statements. We're looking for active work to create a stable, peaceful, multi-ethnic society in Kosovo that can take control of its own future, that can assure jobs, that can assure prosperity. And there may be quite a number of ways to do that. And that's what's being led by the UN, by Soren Jessen-Petersen as the UNMIK chief. And I think all of us would like to support that in the best possible way. But the UN is in the lead.
Q. Talking about participation, there is general opinion, actually, that the U.S. is going to leave this region to the European Union. We would like to hear your answer. Because of the threat of terrorism and Iraq, and everything that's going on in Asia, ... that actually the U.S. has lost interest in the region ... with the new administration, that this interest is actually going to be lower, and the focus will be somewhere else. And the whole region will be left to the European Union.
A. Well, it's an uninformed opinion. I don't think there's any evidence of it whatsoever. That's been a concern. We know it's a concern. But, what President Bush said a long time ago, sort of from the beginning of his last administration, "we went in together, we'll go out together" is still absolutely the case. And we'll see over and over again ... For instance, in Bosnia, one of the things that we, we're very strong in this, as we ... It's completely appropriate for the EU force to come into Bosnia. But we wanted a strong NATO part of that, a strong NATO component to stay there, to demonstrate that the U.S., as part of NATO, is very interested in staying with that, continuing to work on assuring a good present and future for Bosnia. The same thing, I would say, with Kosovo. There's a very good, new, strong chief of UNMIK. We also appointed a very strong, good, new deputy whom you all know perfectly well, Larry Rossin. And we did that because it was very important to us to really move actively to get the kinds of improvements that we wanted to have all along in Kosovo.
END