Does this mean that Your Royal Highness is now more optimistic about the prospects for democracy than you were a few months, or a year ago?
I have to be an optimist. But I also have to condemn all acts of violence, all acts against the abuse and violation of human rights. I have to support democracy and to speak out against the dictators in the region which we have seemed to have cultivated since 1989. I have to speak out against the
propaganda machines. I have to remind the religious leaders to profess moral values and tolerance. These are my objectives. My constituents are all the people and I serve all people and not any political party or ideology. When I say all people, I really mean everybody irrespective of their religious, ethnic, political or any other orientation. And if you look at today's Yugoslavia, there are many ethnic groups, religions and political orientations in it. My main objective is to help these different groups to act together, rather than fight each against the other. I include everyone
in such a new community, except the mafia-regime/ regime-mafia. They should be excluded from this new national unity. They exploit and steal from the people.
Regarding the former Yugoslavia, I would like to see people of the former Yugoslavia get on well with each other as friends and good neighbours, and not to behave like enemies. During the past ten years, we have affected the whole region with destructive conflicts at the time when the other part of the European continent was moving ahead much faster. We have to stop this trend in our region. Slovenia is perhaps the only example of the different trend: she now has the status of an associate member of the European Union and has solved her economic and political problems. But, once we look at Croatia, and especially in all territories further south and east of Croatia, we can see they have experienced a decade of disasters. Many people in Croatia and outside it have lost their lives, there has been terrible devastation, ethnic cleansing, etc. For instance, Serbs in Krajina and other areas were reduced to a very small minority. Does one need a better example
for the horrors of the war? No civilised country would allow this to happen to its citizens. At the same time, I must take my hat off to those Croats, who have courageously stood up against such violence and who have fought for human rights all the way through. People like Cicak, those in Feral Tribune and Globus, and some radio stations. And if there is an element of optimism
in Croatia, then it is certainly linked to these people. I hope they would now have a chance to achieve even more in new circumstances.


When you mention these new circumstances, I assume you have in mind the post-Tudjman period in Croatia. How do you see the end of authoritarian rule in Croatia and Serbia - as a gradual process or another revolution?
As it is appears now, I believe that the democratisation will be more gradual than sudden. Of course, we have to keep our eyes wide open and see what happens during the coming days and weeks. In the case of Croatia, it seems that the things may really change in January, following the elections.
I honestly believe and sincerely hope that the new page is being turned, and that ethnic hatred and filthy words about the Serbs and other minorities will stop and that Croatia will turn towards democratic development and economic prosperity. As regards Serbia, this is still an open question. I hope that the worst scenario will be avoided in its case too and changes will be achieved in a peaceful manner. A change in Belgrade is the key for the stability and prosperity of the whole region. In Bosnia-Herzegovina developments are very closely linked to those in Zagreb and Belgrade. Both in Serbia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere the main principle must be
the equality of all citizens, regardless of their ethnic and religious origins, and of their political past. It is not important whether one was a communist or not, whether one is a royalist or not - we should leave this aside, otherwise we will not be able to turn towards the future. But, I must
stress once again that this does not apply to the present regime because they are anti-people, they are anti-Serbian, and they have a very strong fascist element built in. You who live in Croatia have unfortunately seen this fascist element in action. Its technique does not differ greatly from the one used in Serbia. Both have been used it to eliminate minorities and to destroy anybody who could endanger those in power. It is for this reason that these elements must be excluded if we want a genuinely democratic society. Once we have a democratic Croatia and a democratic Serbia then we will create a new situation in the region, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
In these circumstances, I believe it would be in our common interest to enter a loose-binding association with each other. Economically, we cannot survive with all these outer and inner walls around us. The regimes have built these walls in order to protect their power, to prevent a free
movement of goods and people and make everyone dependent on them. They were built on assumption that everybody outside their walls has some incredible disease, except for the rulers of those countries. That is paranoic and sick and has to fade out. The time frame is very difficult to predict as is the manner in which it will happen. The main precondition for success is that
the opposition is united and active.


In your opinion, do international factors actually facilitate such a development, or are they rather an obstacle to it?
In a historical context the whole region has suffered dramatically through a heavy-handed ignorance shown by foreign factors dealing with the area. We had two world wars, the rise of fascism in the second world war, and afterwards the era of communism with international factors playing a crucial role in all these developments. Nothing had its origin in our region but was imported from the outside. But the mistakes made by the international community since 1989 almost exceed everything that has happened earlier.
These mistakes contributed to the total madness to which all peoples of the former Yugoslavia succumbed, some to a lesser and some to a higher degree, but all have been deeply affected by the decisions of the international factors. The latest example was the bombing of Serbia and Montenegro, which was utter madness, insanity that only hurt the innocent people of all ethnic
groups. No problem have been solved and the people are poorer and more apathetic than ever. My attitude to the bombing was very clear: I added one more name to the list of our enemies – NATO. But that did not mean I changed my attitude to the regime in the least. I did not want to kiss the regime because NATO decided to attack Serbia. I maintained my position ever since
1989 that any misuse of power has to be punished and that the regime has to relinquish power.

You visited Kosovo in June this year, after the end of the war. How do you see the future of Kosovo?
The situation in Kosovo is critical, as result of many mistakes of the international community, and especially because of Washington's inability to understand the definition of terrorism and terrorist organisation. Here we are talking about the KLA, who are a terrorist organisation. These people do not understand what democracy is, and they have the same roots as the [Serbian] MUP (Ministry of the Interior), which is the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. KLA and MUP use the same techniques to protect the power of their mafia regimes. I would venture to say that there is even a contact or at least an understanding, between the two elements - they need each other in order to legitimise their actions. The result of this is that neither people in Kosovo neither people in Serbia see a positive future. During the past few months, we have been seeing revenge attacks against Serbs, who have every right to live there. But the Kosovo Albanians are also suffering from KLA action. In fact, in Kosovo, just as in Belgrade, we see people suffering from terrorist action of mafia organisations, which are linked to the government, and are protected by the government. The mafia in Kosovo and the one in Belgrade are the same type of regime, and they deserve equal
treatment. In both cases, they drive away and threaten moderate and democratic elements, and now and then kill people of democratic orientation. One should not support terrorist elements and mafia-run organisations even if they, at some moment, seem to be useful allies. Unfortunately, this is what we are witnessing now in Kosovo. I think that Mr Kuchner has the biggest headache one could ever have, because he found himself in a position in which he has to implement democratic process together with mafia organisations which actually control Kosovo. However, The Kosovo problem cannot be resolved unless there is a change in Belgrade. The day democracy arrives in Belgrade Kosovo simply cannot remain under the control of terrorists and the mafia.

But it could perhaps remain separated from Belgrade forever, regardless of how  emocratic these two parts are. Or, to say it more directly – what makes you feel that  even in circumstances in which both Belgrade and Pristina are democratic, the Serbs and Albanians would want to live together in one country?
Well, I would like to see a more direct message by the international community that there will be no changes of borders in the region. I’ve been told many times by various people, including highly placed representatives of world politics, that they respect the integrity of what is left of Yugoslavia, but sometimes I really wonder if they mean seriously what they say. In reply to your question, it is necessary to point out that Milosevic welcomed the appearance of separatist tendencies everywhere – in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo and may now welcome them in Vojvodina and Sandzak. He does not care too much how big Serbia will be so long as it is he who is in power. His media simply do not say what is really happening in Kosovo but continue to present the situation as a victory for Serbia and Milosevic personally. What they use Kosovo for is – accusing the international community and opposition in Serbia of anti-Serbian actions.
And indeed we are witnessing both the failure, for the time being, of the opposition in Belgrade to topple him, and of the international community’s failure to introduce democracy and security in Kosovo and to develop it. So its seems that Milosevic always gets it right and this keeps him in power.
But I very much hope this will change. Indeed, all my actions are aimed in that direction. The only way for this to happen is to see the opposition united. A big step forward was made in Budapest and Sentendre in November last year, but we still have a great deal to do. We can save Kosovo only if Serbia becomes a democratic country. There will still be economic and political problems in Serbia, and especially in Kosovo. However, a change of regime would be a first, though not definitive, step in changing things in general. Without this, I am afraid that the future of Serbia and of Kosovo is dark.


And how do you see the future of relationship between Serbia and Montenegro?
I am optimistic about these relations on condition, of course, that Milosevic leaves power. I spent some time this summer with Milo Djukanovic and I can say that his is not an enemy of the Serbian people nor the Serbian State, and especially not the democratic opposition in Serbia, but the mafia
regime which is not only anti-Montenegrin but also anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav. That regime does not care about anything else but power and I think they are ready to lose anything before their own power.

However, is it not a bit oversimplifying to say that Milosevic, as an individual, is the only culprit for everything that is happening in the region? After all, he won the elections, and he enjoys the support of a large segment of Serbian public opinion?
From what I understand, and it is difficult to judge because the media, especially the electronic ones, are not entirely free, but it seems to me that support for Milosevic has fallen dramatically. There is a strong feeling against him and this gives me hope. Regarding the opposition, they
are at a turning point now. They have to work together. Their disunity is the main cause of their weakness, and I very much hope that the November meeting in Budapest marked the end of this disunity. The fact that the regime is now increasing its anti-royalist rhetoric also indicates that they
feel there is a danger coming from the monarchy. The main aim of the monarchy is to unite democratic forces in Serbia and elsewhere regardless of ethnic origin. I respect everyone, including the republicans and former communists, the Serbs as well as the Albanians, Muslims and Croats, everyone – with a single exception of the present regime. I would like to convey a message to everyone: that every citizen is equal, and every one should be treated equally. The past should be forgotten if we want to move towards a better future. This policy worked in Spain after Franco, and I see no reason why it would not work in our case.

Is this how you see your role in the future – as somebody who promotes unity among Yugoslavs and the idea of ‘national reconciliation’ not only between the Serbs and Montenegrins but also among all the others in the region?
Yes. I think this is a very important task that perhaps only the monarchy can successfully fulfil. The monarchy is not affiliated to any particular party, and it does not belong to any. It is the meeting point for people, to provide continuity and encourage the dialogue. I think that the monarchy can
contribute to the democratic process but a king does not rule, he reigns.
The ultimate responsibility for ruling the country will have to be on a democratically elected government. Having lived so many years in the West, in Great Britain, it is the system of parliamentary democracy that I highly recommend. I can only advise and suggest the type of system to be applied.
Naturally, there will be a great many problems in democracy, but I do hope we shall reach that stage soon and be able to deal with normal political problems in our country.

Is there an agreement between the opposition parties in Serbia for such a role of the monarchy?
It was demonstrated in Budapest. The monarchy commands full support and respect among those forces in the country which favour democratisation. I admit I wanted to include far more elements than those who came to Budapest, not only from Serbia and Montenegro, but from elsewhere in the region. I hope that the support for the monarchy will grow once the opposition is given a real chance. We have to understand that when we have dictators we are weak, but we are strong in democracy. Only in democracy, we can be great; democracy is capable of expanding.

You are talking about expanding in democracy. What is the future of Bosnia in your view?
I think that Bosnia most definitely must be considered within the framework of all developments in the region. It cannot exist as an island between democracies. Naturally, one has to consider various types of regional governments in Bosnia. I would be in favour of a new dialogue in the region which would lead to a more stable situation. As it is now Bosnia is unstable and insufficiently democratic. This instability and lack of democracy are to a high degree based on what happens in Zagreb and Belgrade. Consequently, the key for Bosnia is once again in Belgrade and Zagreb. But first, all the poison has to be cut out.


There is still a question of borders...
Well, the borders... You must realise that Drina is not a border, it is just a river. It is a nice river, but as far as I am concerned, the Drina is not a border. I hope I do not need to remind anybody of my position in the sad days when the Drina became a border dividing the same people. The border on the Drina was a product of a regime which had no legitimacy to do this. If we stick to the policy of respecting everybody, that policy cannot erect borders between people, especially not between people of the same blood. If human rights are respected, if we talk of democracy, then there are no borders. There is only the outer border and even this one should become fluid in the context of current developments in the European Union in which people move freely from one territory to another. This is the way it is done among European Union countries nowadays, when everyone can move from one to another without a border. I think we would probably come to this point in the years to come.