Excellencies,

Dear Students,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to welcome you all to this seminar on excellence in diplomacy, co-sponsored by the Koča Popović Diplomatic Academy of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, and the Ibero-American Foundation of Public Administration and Policies.

Allow me to express a special thanks to the panelists who graciously accepted our invitation to share their views with us over the next two days. I am certain that the sessions to come will provide ample opportunity for all the participants—especially the young diplomats in the audience—to absorb much knowledge, share experiences and best practices, and further develop the sort of personal relationships that have always been the critical element of a diplomatic arsenal.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

One of this country’s former Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs—and the Nobel Prize winner—Ivo Andric, once wrote that the diplomat is a “person who moves as through a mist in which the light that glimmers intermittently bewilders and misleads the eyes, more than it shows the path and enables a person to find his way.”

These words, written in the context of his reflection on the time spent in our diplomatic service between the two World Wars, provide a particularly good description of the intricacies inherent in one of the world’s most ancient and distinguished professions.

They reflect a perceptive understanding of the role of diplomats in complicated times, as one’s country struggles to consolidate its position in the face of various regional and global currents. A situation that in a sense characterizes Serbia’s present predicament, as well as that of Europe and the rest of our increasingly interdependent world.

The international system seems to be undergoing a great transformation, a paradigm shift in many ways comparable in scope to 1945 and 1989.

No one is yet able to reliably predict how deep the change will turn out to be. What is becoming evident is that interrelated factors—the latest one being the global economic crisis—have expedited the arrival of a new set of circumstances onto the world stage. A broad repositioning could very well be taking place. The global balance of power is shifting, and international relations are becoming less predictable to forecast.

In addition, diplomacy is now increasingly practiced in an environment where events can be experienced instantaneously and simultaneously—by leaders as well as their publics. The flow of information happens in an instant.

This is unprecedented, and poses a particular challenge to democracies—where accountability for the actions of government is a fundamental norm.

The test is more pronounced for democracies in transition, such as Serbia. The learning curve is acute: leaders have to navigate between maintaining consistency of strategic vision, and sustaining popular support for tactical decisions—a difficult task even in the best of times.

In sum, public messaging is assuming a disproportionately high degree of importance. This is something that no one can avoid or ignore.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Prudently conducting the art of diplomacy is especially important for a small country like ours, which stands at a great crossroads of civilizations. Today, much activity is afoot. This is a moment that could produce a fundamental change in the norms that govern the entire international system. It is vital that we remain actively engaged with the whole world, as the rules get revised.

Thankfully, Serbian diplomats have the works of our predecessors to serve as guideposts in these transformational times. Consider, for a moment, the vital role played by Rastko Nemanjić, better known to the world as Saint Sava—the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church, one of Serbia’s most important pillars of national identity.

Sava was not merely a spiritual leader. He was also our country’s first diplomat. The youngest son of our founding father, Grand Duke Stefan Nemanja, Saint Sava was called on various occasions to travel to the Great Power capitals of the day, in order to secure the support necessary for Serbia to thrive in an intricate international environment.

Sava accomplished something even more important. At the very beginning of Serbia’s arrival onto the historical scene, he laid the foundation for our country to stand as a bridge between East and West. To quote from a letter he composed shortly before his death: “At first we were confused”, Saint Sava wrote. “The East thought that we were the West, while the West thought we were the East. Some of us misunderstood our place in the clash of currents, so they cried that we belong to neither side, while others cried that we belong exclusively to one side or the other. But I say that we are destined to be the East in the West, and the West in the East”—end of quote.

I believe this national trait remains an essential part of what we are, an embedded compass of sorts in the conduct of Serbia’s foreign policy.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Modern Serbian diplomats worked hard to build on the strategic foundations laid by Saint Sava. Following the restoration of Serbian statehood in the first part of the 19^th century, national architects in the tradition of Jovan Ristić and Stojan Novaković led the way in deepening Serbia’s relations with world capitals, over the course of decades that produced an illusion of stability, yet resulted in increased international rigidity, antagonism, and tragic armed conflicts.

Rising out of the ashes of the World Wars, the golden age of our diplomacy began. It was led by Koča Popović, who began his diplomatic career during the time of the Partisans, when he helped sway the Allies to the cause of Tito.

Thanks in large part to Koča, we were able to carve a singular position for ourselves in the Cold War era. His vision led to the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement, and enabled Belgrade to play a disproportionately large role on the global stage.

Koča’s two most notable successors, Marko Nikezić and Mirko Tepavac, built on his strategic outlook and achievements. When the international situation demanded it, for instance, we reached out to Europe through the Helsinki process—inoculating the Yugoslav state from the specter of the dangerous doctrine of limited sovereignty.

Unfortunately, an opportunity was missed for us to be incorporated into the European Community in the late 1970s. Ideology trumped foresight and healthy self-confidence. And so Yugoslavia slowly began to implode: ideas about which course to take—both domestically and internationally—lacked direction as well as substance.

The country’s increasing dogmatism in the 1980s contributed to the rise of extremist views, and finally to its dismemberment in the 1990s.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

By the turn of the 21^st century, democracy had been restored to Serbia, as was a strategic approach to national development. Its basis was a bedrock conviction in the need for comprehensive engagement with our neighbors, Europe, and the world.

True leadership returned to the scene, allowing us to face forward while proudly respecting the achievements of generations of Serbian statesmen.

Despite all the setbacks, our central strategic priority remains EU membership—not only for reasons of geography, heritage, and economic prosperity, but also because of the core values we hold in common.

Serbia’s European vision is complemented by our strong determination to pursue a carefully balanced, artfully executed, and active foreign policy, aimed at engagement with nations throughout the world, near and far.

This is in our lasting interest, and will not change.

As such, our historic friendship with the Russian Federation will keep growing stronger. Our re-engagement with the United States will continue apace. And our strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China will gain importance in the time ahead, as will our drive to deepen ties with proud nations across the globe—many of which are members of the Non-Aligned Movement.

We will also work closely with neighboring countries to ensure that regional peace is consolidated. As the strategic anchor of stability in the Western Balkans, Serbia will invest ever greater efforts to complete the democratic transformation of our part of Europe.

Arriving at consensual solutions to unfinished regional business remains our profound concern.

This brings me to the open, unresolved question of Kosovo’s future status.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

UDI—or the unilateral declaration of independence by the ethnic-Albanian authorities of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija—was an attempt to forcibly partition a member-State of the United Nations, in violation of our democratic Constitution, and against the will of the Security Council.

Serbia chose to respond to Pristina’s effort at secession peacefully, and with maximal restraint, by harnessing all the diplomatic resources at our disposal to counter UDI and contain its potentially destabilizing consequences

As a result, an issue of such fundamental importance and complexity—passionately involving all at once identity, boundaries, communal rights, opposing historical narratives—was steered clear of resorting to the force of arms for the first time in the history of the Balkans.

As a part of our constructive approach, we decided to contest the UDI issue before the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice—tasked by the United Nations General Assembly to issue an advisory opinion on the legality of UDI.

Once the Court hands down its decision, an opportunity to reach a compromise will have been created. It must not be squandered.

Arriving at a viable and lasting solution to the Kosovo problem—one that would assure sustainable peace and stability in the Western Balkans—will be amongst the primary assignments of Serbian diplomacy.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The global paradigm shift that is underway poses particular challenges to diplomats the world over, including our own. Nevertheless, I am confident this country’s foreign service will continue to meet them head-on.

Our history teaches us that the future is uncertain, that allies are imperfect, and that no single cause is worth excluding all others.

We must maintain our vigilance in the face of changing diplomatic realities, as we work to make true the generations’ dream of a strong, confident, and European Serbia—of a country that has fully consolidated its democracy, that harmoniously works with its neighbors to secure regional stability, and that engages with friends throughout the world to promote the conduct of international relations on the basis of a shared vision of peace, sovereign equality, and sustainable development.

We will continue to do this as citizens, diplomats, and patriots.

Thank you for your attention.

President Vassiliou,

Minister Maigri,

Ambassador Bassiouny,

Deputy Prime Minister Dacic,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Republic of Serbia, I would like to welcome you all to Belgrade on the 20^th anniversary of the Ninth Summit of the Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement.

I am particularly pleased to acknowledge the attendance of representatives from all the former Yugoslav republics. As one of the six successor states, Serbia shares its NAM bequest with them equally. It is a source of commonality and shared experience that we should proudly celebrate.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have gathered to remember and reflect on that first week of September of the year 1989 in Belgrade.

The Ninth Summit heralded the ultimate vindication of Non-Aligned principles, and announced to the world the Movement’s readiness to meet head-on the emerging situation its founders helped to conceive: the end of the Cold War.

By the end of the Summit, all the participants fully acknowledged the fundamental changes they were witnessing. They realized that 1989 was turning out to be one of those transformative moments in the history of the world. A global paradigm shift was underway, for the first time since 1945.

In the Summit’s conclusions, there was no talk of triumph of one bloc or the defeat of another—only of a shared victory over the divisions that had threatened mankind with total annihilation.

As the Belgrade Declaration made clear, the Movement staked out a position as the vanguard of change, and as an important actor in the relaxation of tensions and the standing down of killing arsenals. Lastly, the Movement asserted its readiness to work with other global players in constructing the pre-conditions for stable peace and lasting security in an increasingly interdependent world.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an irony of history that at the peak of its strategic capacity to influence the future course of the global currents it worked so hard to bring about, the Movement was not able to fully grasp the opportunities opened up by the release of the winds of change.

This can be explained in various ways, but I would like to touch upon one in particular.

1989 turned out to be the year when one of the founding states of the Movement began to fall apart. In a sense, one could say that Yugoslavia was victorious in foreign affairs, yet before long lost its struggle for domestic peace and stability.

The Ninth Summit was Yugoslavia’s swan song on the world stage. It is almost as if, during that first week in September 1989, Yugoslavia raised up the Movement’s torch of victory over bipolarity, only to collapse—soon thereafter—of exhaustion and over-exertion.

Of course, things were not as simple as that. But this is not the occasion to debate the historical legacy of Tito’s Yugoslavia. It is a complex question with often contradictory answers.

What I believe is that as Yugoslavia, we were able to stand tall on the world stage as an actor capable of achieving global impact through the Non-Aligned Movement in particular. As a result of its breakup, none of the six successor states have been able to fully regain Yugoslavia’s former international standing.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, the world is in the midst of another paradigm shift, in certain ways comparable to 1989.

No one is yet able to reliably predict how deep the change will turn out to be. What is becoming evident is that interrelated factors—the latest one being the global economic crisis—have expedited the arrival of a new set of circumstances onto the world stage. The global balance of power seems to be inching to the East and the South, and international relations are becoming less predictable to forecast.

The Non-Aligned Movement has another opportunity to re-position itself in a time of great transformation. To do so, it should harness the effects of global changes more effectively than it did in 1989. One of the lessons to be drawn from the Ninth Summit is that the follow-through must be more concerted, and more strategic.

After 1989, Yugoslavia was unable to effectively contribute to writing a new chapter in the history of the Non-Aligned Movement, despite being a founding member. Today, twenty years later, I believe that the successor states to Yugoslavia—even though most of us are just observer countries—can usefully work with NAM as it strives to regain its place as an important player in the promotion of global peace and security in the 21^st century.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Republic of Serbia will continue to strategically pursue a carefully designed, balanced and active foreign policy that continues to view EU membership as its central strategic priority. At the same time, we will keep strengthening and deepening our ties with NAM member states.

In the interdependent world of the 21^st century, Serbia’s membership in the EU would give a new, more profound meaning to our relations with NAM member states. This would not only ensure that more than one hundred nations would have a good friend in Brussels, but it would also lead to an increase in both understanding and cooperation between the Movement and the Union. I am in no doubt that this would be advantageous to everyone concerned.

Let me underline that this is not just an issue of honoring the legacy that comes with being the largest successor state to Yugoslavia. It is not about simply reaffirming traditional friendships, either. It is also about the fact that Serbia believes international stability and prosperity cannot be consolidated without taking into account the views of the majority of the global family of nations.

In addition, re-invigorating our engagement with NAM countries is about ensuring enhanced respect for the binding principles of the international community by all. Working in concert with one another to strengthen a rules-based approach to international relations is in our common interest. And few are as basic as the fundamental respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of internationally recognized states.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This brings me to one of the most profound challenges that my country faces today—that is, the attempt by the ethnic-Albanian authorities of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija to secede from Serbia.

Once again, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the commitment of close to eighty-five percent of Non-Aligned countries to the fundamental principles of the international system. We remain profoundly grateful to them for their solidarity on the crucial issue of not recognizing UDI—the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Pristina.

As is by now well known, we chose to respond to the attempt to forcibly partition Serbia peacefully, and with maximal restraint. We decided to harness all the diplomatic resources at our disposal to counter UDI and contain its potentially destabilizing consequences.

In large part due to the principled support of a vast majority of Non-Aligned countries, the UN General Assembly last year overwhelmingly passed resolution 63/3, tasking the International Court of Justice to determine whether Kosovo’s UDI is in accordance with international law.

This case will constitute a strong precedent. It marks the first time ever that the Court has been asked to consider the legality of a unilateral attempt by an ethnic minority to secede from a UN member State, in defiance of its Constitution and the will of the Security Council.

Accordingly, the Court’s conclusions will have extensive consequences for the entire international community—perhaps for some NAM states most of all. It is therefore particularly important for everyone to respect the fact that the International Court of Justice is actively engaged on the issue. Its deliberations should not be pre-judged, and its work should not be obstructed. The Court’s proceedings have to be allowed to run their course, unhindered by political pressures, such as further recognitions of Kosovo’s UDI.

On the 20^th anniversary of the Ninth Non-Aligned Summit—during which respect for international law was highlighted as a founding principle of the Movement—Serbia actively encourages all the non-recognizing countries represented in this room to stay the course. By maintaining respect for Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, together we will help ensure that international law continues to close in on UDI.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The year 2011 will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Non-Aligned Movement and the holding of its First Summit. At the time, the choice of Belgrade as NAM’s original meeting-place represented an alternative to the divisions caused by the two blocks confronting each other throughout the European continent, and the rest of the world.

While those Cold War-era divisions have largely disappeared, Belgrade continues to be a strong and vibrant link between West and East, North and South.

A few months ago, during the Fifteenth NAM Summit held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Serbia’s President Boris Tadic proposed that the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Non-Aligned Movement be celebrated in Belgrade with an extraordinary Commemoration Summit under the auspices of the Egyptian chairmanship.

Making Belgrade the location to mark this significant milestone would be a fitting tribute to the legacy of the Movement’s founders. Five decades later, we believe we should gather in Belgrade once more, for a reunion celebration.

Here, in this city, is where a tangible stamp on history was made. And it is where the Movement’s universal principles—lasting peace and security, sovereign equality of states, social justice, sustainable development, human rights, environmental protection—were first promulgated. These have passed the test of time, and continue to stand as beacons of hope and fairness for the entire world to embrace.

We remain distinctly proud of our role in this grand endeavor. Regardless of our future membership in the EU, it constitutes a part of the legacy that we will continue to honor and respect. And it will serve as a signpost in defining the framework for extending our engagement with the Movement in the 21^st century.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I leave you with the words spoken by former Foreign Minister Lončar of Yugoslavia, on the first day of the 1989 NAM meeting—as relevant today as they were twenty years ago: “This is a time of new opportunities,” he said. […] “Whether we will make use of it, depends both on ourselves and on the world at large,” he continued. “For, despite all our diversities, we must, above all, understand and respect one another in this single and interdependent world, so as to make it a more secure and prosperous place for all. […] Let us equip ourselves for the future,” he concluded, “so that we may be able to better influence it.”

Thank you for your attention, and for being with us here today.

Madame Chairperson,

Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies,

Distinguished Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me thank our Chairperson-in-Office, Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, for putting together this informal ministerial meeting in Corfu—an island of great significance for the Serbian people. It is to this place that our Government and armed forces came in January 1916 to rest, regroup, and, a year later, begin the journey to liberate our occupied lands. Many did not return, and lay buried in graveyards nearby. It is fitting that we remember their sacrifice, as we sit here—guardians of a process designed to ensure lasting peace, security and cooperation in Europe.

The OSCE represents a unique forum—at once pan-European and Trans-Atlantic—in which participating States can coordinate their positions in the context of the broader, common European security agenda. The OSCE can be at once a clearinghouse and a focal point for assessing the security dialogue taking place in other inter-state fora.

Regrettably, all this has been called into doubt of late. We are an Organization that is in the midst of a crisis of confidence. Over the past few years, we have been unable to raise the level of trust beyond its current sub-optimal level. Our founding principles are not being applied consistently, and the dedication to our common values has been questioned.

A flagrant example of this is Kosovo. The unilateral declaration of independence by the ethnic-Albanian authorities of our southern province amounts to an attempt to forcibly partition Serbia. UDI constitutes a direct challenge to our sovereignty and territorial integrity—in defiance of the Serbian constitution and the UN Charter, against the will of the Security Council, and in clear violation of the Helsinki Final Act.

We were disappointed that no unified stand was taken against this infringement of basic international principles. It opened a door for the territorial integrity of others to be brought into question.

The divisions that arose as a result of UDI are symptomatic of a broader, more general issue.

We must avoid a situation in which critics can say that double standards exist in the OSCE space—one for Kosovo, and a different one for other situations. Exceptions can be agreed only by consensus—and there is no such consensus in the case of Kosovo.

Serbia is not going to allow for this problem to be swept under the rug.

Our immediate contribution to addressing this challenge to the very foundations of our common efforts has been to respond to UDI in a way consistent with the core of Helsinki. We did not react unilaterally, nor did we seek confrontation. We ruled out the use of force and the imposition of economic sanctions.

Excellencies,

Today is Vidovdan—a day of profound importance for my country. It is a testament of our resilience as a people, and of our deep attachment to Kosovo. It is not a mere historical marker, but also the link that binds the living tradition of Serbia to itself today.

As in times past, Vidovdan in this century continues to be the symbol of the defense of our identity as a nation. Today, we choose—without hesitation—to defend it peacefully, through law and diplomacy.

But just as we were unyielding then, we remain unyielding now, and we shall remain unyielding forever. Come what may, Serbia will never recognize Pristina’s unilateral declaration of independence.

Our destiny lies in proudly sharing our legacy with others. So on Vidovdan 2009, we confidently reaffirm our belief in peace and a common future for all the nations of Europe—a safe and secure future in the European Union.

Excellencies,

Recent events in the OSCE space have made it clear that it is time to engage each other in a frank and open dialogue about inclusive ways to bolster security in the 21^st century. I believe it is our duty to forge ahead with ideas and proposals designed to strengthen the consistent implementation of the basic principles of our Organization. Confidence must be restored, and trust rebuilt.

All constructive initiatives which aim to bring us closer to such an achievement are laudable, and should to be encouraged. We acknowledge, in particular, the commendable efforts of Presidents Medvedev and Sarkozy to take the lead in proposing concrete steps in the direction of improving European security within the framework of the OSCE.

Serbia also welcomes the commencement of the Corfu Process. We have not yet agreed on the precise modalities of dialogue. I therefore propose something that worked well in the past, during a critical moment when much was in doubt.

My country played a crucial role in advancing what began at Helsinki more than thirty years ago, by bridging often intractable positions before and during the First CSCE Follow-up Meeting that took place in Belgrade. The Corfu Process could emulate aspects of this model of “structured informality,” as it was put then. Each participating State must be treated equally in the debate to come.

A political commitment here today to such a way forward may hopefully produce the adoption of concrete proposals and action plans by the December Athens Ministerial. Under such circumstances, the 2010 Kazakh chairmanship would be well-positioned to move the process further along, paving the way for an OSCE Heads of State Summit.

Excellencies,

I have already gone past my allotted time, so I leave you with this concluding thought. Sooner or later, we might have to consider some sort of control and implementation mechanisms, something that binds us to respect what has been achieved through consensus. I say this because a danger does exist for this Organization to become a sort of diplomatic talk shop. The Corfu Process could pre-empt such a regretful development. Serbia therefore welcomes this initiative and looks forward to actively participate.

Thank you very much.

Address before the United Nations Security Council

by H.E. Mr. Vuk Jeremić
Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia

New York, 17 June 2009

Mr. President, thank you for convening this session of the Security Council.

Excellencies, once again we are gathered to discuss the dangerous consequences of the February 17th, 2008 unilateral declaration of independence, or UDI, by the ethnic-Albanian authorities of Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.

I welcome the presence of Special Representative Lamberto Zannier, and I wish to underline the Secretary-General’s observation, contained in his latest report, that the cooperation, constructive engagement and “continuing support of the Security Council and of the broader international community for a reconfigured UNMIK is of crucial importance.”

Reconfiguration has been brought to its end-state, as the report indicates. Therefore, no further reduction in UNMIK’s resources should be undertaken.

The United Nations remains the overall authority in Kosovo, as mandated by this Council in resolution 1244 (1999). It must continue to play a vital role in coordinating all the international organizations that operate under its umbrella. UNMIK’s capacity to cooperate effectively with EULEX in particular, must not be constrained. Our amendments to the UNMIK budget for the next fiscal year have sought to reinforce this essential element of its mandate.

Mr. President,

At the very beginning of my remarks, I would like to express my country’s deep gratitude to the substantial majority of UN member States that respect Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The solidarity we have received from all over the globe encourages us to persevere in our efforts to resolve the future status of Kosovo in a way that is acceptable to all responsible stakeholders.

It is my sincere hope that we will continue to work together in defense of the basic principles of international law, thus strengthening the universal case for the consensual resolution of disputes in the world.

At the same time, we note with deep regret the dismissal of resolution 1244 (1999) by Pristina. As the Secretary-General’s report makes plain, the ethnic-Albanian authorities in Kosovo assert that—here I quote—“they have no legal obligation to abide by it.”

Mr. President,

No one should be permitted to ignore the decisions of the Security Council.

We therefore urge the Council to insist that all parties uphold commitments that arise from resolution 1244 (1999). It was passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which binds all to respect its provisions in full. This is our common legal imperative, and our moral obligation.

Serbia will never, under any circumstances, implicitly or explicitly, recognize the unilateral declaration of independence of the ethnic-Albanian authorities of our southern province.

On this issue, we shall not yield—come what may. We will continue to vigorously defend our integrity in a non-confrontational manner—using all peaceful means at our disposal.

As a result of our measured response to UDI, the unstable equilibrium on the ground has largely been kept in check. We have sought to contain flash-points despite numerous provocations—such as targeted power cuts, pressure to sign loyalty oaths, and the construction of new, unauthorized housing settlements.

Mr. President,

Kosovo should not stand beyond the rules of the international system. It is no exception, no unique case, no sui generis. As a result of UDI, this has become a test case of global significance. Should it be allowed to stand, a door would open for challenging the territorial integrity of any UN member State.

On October 8th, 2008, the General Assembly approved—by an overwhelming margin—a resolution to refer the UDI issue to the International Court of Justice.

The judicial proceeding has begun. It marks the first time ever that the ICJ has been asked to consider the legality of a unilateral attempt by an ethnic minority to secede from a UN member State, in defiance of its democratic Constitution and the will of the Security Council.

This case has attracted attention across the globe—as the active participation before the Court of countries from all continents in the UDI hearings make clear.

The ICJ’s conclusions will have far-reaching consequences for the international system as a whole. It is therefore vitally important that the legal process be allowed to run its course, free of political interference.

We should all respect the fact that the Court is deliberating on the issue. Therefore, new UDI recognitions should not be encouraged. And multilateral bodies should refrain from extending membership to the secessionist authorities in Pristina.

Once the ICJ hands down its opinion, we will have cause to look again into the issue, informed by the findings of the Court.
____

In the meantime, Mr. President, we should find strength to put our differences on status to one side, for the sake of peace and stability, and the residents of the province.

This is a time for leadership and working together—armed with prudence, and strategic vision.

Let us not increase the divide. Some countries have recognized UDI, others have not. We all have our constraints, and they should be respected. Let the Court do its work, while we focus on improving the lives of citizens, instead of making them victims of our disagreements.

Let us engage to rebuild holy sites, alleviate poverty, create jobs, provide healthcare and education, reduce crime, and improve public security. Working at cross-purposes should stop. Let us create new opportunities for achieving practical results, by engaging with one another on a whole host of questions.

Mr. President,

I propose that we begin with the central humanitarian issue of internally displaced persons. According to the UNHCR, more than 200,000 Kosovo Serb IDPs have not returned to the province. Last year, only around five-hundred did—during the latest reporting period, no more than thirty. This is a failure of monumental proportions.

Kosovo Serb IDPs want to exercise their right of return, and we must do everything to bring them back home. That means improving conditions on the ground for them to feel safe. Few destroyed houses have been rebuilt, and most remain empty. This is not, however, where the biggest problem lies. More than 40,000 claims have been filed by Kosovo Serb IDPs for the return of illegally-seized private property. And they have not heard back.

The first step, therefore, is making sure these are delivered. Right now, that’s impossible. Sadly, the UNMIK-administered Kosovo Property Agency has ceased to exist.

We urge the international community to embrace the SRSG’s initiative with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to enable the UNHCR to take over the functions previously performed by the KPA. Through its Office in Belgrade and others in Serbia, this UN agency can serve as a focal point of our engagement.

Mr. President,

On April 6th, the European Union announced that EULEX has reached full operational capacity, following the visit to Belgrade by the Head of EULEX, Mr. Yves de Kermabon.

While the United Nations has not transferred all rule of law functions to the European Law and Order Mission in Kosovo, it has adhered to the assumption of EULEX’s operational responsibility within the parameters set out in the Secretary-General’s November 24th, 2008, report. That report affirms that “EULEX will fully respect resolution 1244 (1999) and operate under the overall authority and within the status-neutral framework of the United Nations.”

Since that time, the Republic of Serbia has engaged with EULEX and UNMIK on a whole host of practical issues of common concern, within the parameters welcomed by the Security Council. The Secretary-General’s Six Points Agreement must be applied in full. Some progress in that direction has been achieved, although “comprehensive or long-term solutions have not yet been agreed”—to quote the language of the report.

We deeply regret that more has not been accomplished to date. This is due in part to the reluctance of Pristina to accept that the infamous “Ahtisaari Plan” was not endorsed by the Security Council—thanks in large part to the principled position of the Russian Federation.

Mr. President,

I turn to a brief discussion of the Six Points and related practical issues.

Regarding Police, the question of senior positions for qualified Kosovo Serbs has not yet been resolved. This has left hundreds of ethnic-Serb KPS officers in the province feeling that they would return to a hostile work environment. At the same time, EULEX Police and Serbia’s Ministry of the Interior have begun to work together in addressing a number of technical matters related to cross-administrative line cooperation. These include organized crime and smuggling, and build upon the best practices of our long-standing cooperation with UNMIK Police on these matters.

On Judiciary, some progress has occurred. Unfortunately, some of the broader issues have not yet been resolved, including the appointment of local judges and prosecutors in accordance with procedures consistent with resolution 1244 (1999). The question of the territorial jurisdiction of the North Mitrovica Courthouse remains unanswered, as does the applicability of UNMIK law only. On the other hand, partial progress has been achieved: urgent cases are being processed, some trials have been concluded, and cooperation between EULEX Prosecutors and Serbia’s Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor has been established.

On Customs, preliminary meetings have taken place resulting in certain technical progress on this delicate matter. Resolving it will require enhanced coordination, and a renewed dedication to work together on achieving acceptable operating modalities—such as co-location and the distribution of revenues.

This brings me to the Central European Free-Trade Agreement, or CEFTA. The success of this important regional trade agreement depends on the consistent application of unanimously-agreed rules. UNMIK is a signatory to CEFTA, as the report states plainly. The introduction of new customs stamps by the so-called “Kosovo Customs Director-General” has regretfully politicized this commercial issue.

We hope that in the months ahead, we will be able to arrive at a set of practical arrangements acceptable to responsible stakeholders. It is clear that a more active role by EULEX, consistent with its mandate, will be required—as will closer coordination with UNMIK.

Mr. President,

I would like to draw the attention of the Security Council to a critically important issue—namely, facilitating the entry of Serbian officials into the province. This question has unfortunately been accumulating ill-will for several months, and threatens to derail constructive efforts on all other fronts.

It is difficult to imagine how we can positively contribute to developments on the ground, if our ability to work closely with the Kosovo Serb community throughout the province is hindered.

Serbian officials must be able to visit churches and monasteries, assist in the return of IDPs to reconstructed homes, provide food and medical aid, help maintain educational standards, and engage on a whole host of other, similar activities.

Operational responsibility to EULEX was welcomed on the presupposition that it would make use of its executive functions when required. Now is such a time. We demand that all necessary measures are taken to swiftly resolve this issue of paramount importance.

Mr. President,

Before coming to the end of my remarks, I would like to acknowledge the useful role played by KFOR in Kosovo. It has the responsibility to protect our enclaves and holy sites—including those placed on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger—from potential threats, incursions and attacks.

KFOR’s status-neutral presence in the province is still required in order to satisfy the legitimate security needs of the local population, irrespective of ethnicity. We believe that under the present circumstances, a troop reduction would be counter-productive.

We will continue to be a reliable partner of KFOR, in accordance with resolution 1244 (1999) and the Kumanovo Military-Technical Agreement.

The so-called “Kosovo Security Force” is an illegal paramilitary organization. Its existence and activities, present and future, constitute a direct danger to the consolidation of peace and stability in the Western Balkans. It must be disbanded immediately.

Mr. President,

Serbia’s democracy is secure, our society has grown strong, and our values are safely entrenched in law.

We strongly believe in the shared destiny of all European nations.

We have demonstrated time and again, through concrete deeds and under difficult circumstances, our determination to become a member of the European Union.

This remains our central strategic priority.

We therefore welcome the June 15th conclusions reached by the EU Foreign Ministers. The decision to commit to placing the Western Balkans states on the White Schengen List rescinds at last the final vestiges of the 1990s.

Mr. President, Excellencies,

The Security Council must continue to play a key role in the Kosovo dispute.

We believe it would be beneficial for the Council to visit Serbia—Belgrade, Pristina, North Kosovo, and the enclaves—in order to see firsthand how much work still needs to be done on the ground, within the framework of resolution 1244 (1999).

The only conclusion I believe could be drawn is that coming to an agreement is the way forward. Regretfully, this has not yet been attempted.

“All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time,” a world leader said. “The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort—a sustained effort—to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to choose the right path, not just the easy path.”

Taking the right path will not be easy. Unfortunately, there are those who are not yet ready to begin the journey towards compromise. But we must not be discouraged. We must cease pushing each other apart. We must find that common ground.

Mr. President, the Republic of Serbia has taken the first step. The next one, we cannot take alone. We await with patience for a partner to join us in turning away from the painful past towards a hopeful future.

Thank you.

Foreign Minister Bakoyiannis,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me start off by thanking Mr. Kekic and the rest of the Economist team for putting together this important event.

Our topic is whether there are ways to enhance stabilization efforts in the Balkans during the “times of turmoil.”

Recent developments have made many objectives we believed were within easy reach much harder to attain than before. One gets the impression that the scope of what is achievable has lessened, as the gravity of the situation has come into full focus.

Nonetheless, my opinion is that gradual progress does remain possible. Such ambition may not sound as lofty, but it is more tangible, and more realistic.

I believe that we should work on re-calibrating the measure of success. Not much room is left for reassuring promises. At this stage, we should concentrate on what is feasible—and act accordingly. Saying the right things remains important. Producing concrete results, on the other hand, matters more than ever before.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Under the leadership of President Boris Tadic, the Republic of Serbia will continue with responsible and constructive policies. Every step we take is meant to enhance the stability of the Western Balkans.

We have been doing this under incredibly trying circumstances. It is no exaggeration to say that we are in the most difficult period of our political transition to date.

We had two elections in the first half of last year: one presidential, the other parliamentary. These were, as a matter of fact, referenda about how to interact with the world of today. Our citizens were given a clear choice. And they decided to cast their vote for a European future. Twice.

All this took place in the somber context of the unilateral declaration of independence by the ethnic Albanian authorities of our southern province of Kosovo.

At the time, we made it clear that we would never recognize UDI. This position is enshrined in our constitution, and will not change.

I want to use this opportunity to reaffirm our gratitude to the vast majority of UN member States, including the Hellenic Republic, for their principled respect of Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The solidarity and support we have received is giving us confidence in the ultimate success of our endeavor.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We chose to respond to Pristina’s ethnically-motivated attempt at secession peacefully, within the rules of the international system.

At Serbia’s initiative, an issue of such fundamental importance and complexity—passionately involving all at once identity, boundaries, communal rights, opposing historical narratives—was steered clear of resorting to the force of arms for the first time in the history of the Western Balkans.

Moreover, we worked with other stakeholders to overcome the gathering crisis of legitimacy to international action in Kosovo. A binding agreement welcomed by the Security Council was reached on the UN’s reconfiguration and the status-neutrality of the European Law and Order Mission in Kosovo.

We are currently focused on finding concrete, pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that affect the citizens of our southern province. Despite an increase in the level of mistrust and animosity resulting from UDI, tensions throughout Kosovo are being managed.

We must continue to find ways to constructively engage on a whole host of practical issues—within the parameters established by the Security Council. Legitimate interests and red lines must be respected. This will require enhanced coordination, and a greater sensitivity to all the aspects of the multi-dimensional reality on the ground in our breakaway province.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Serbia’s strategic decision to contest the Kosovo issue at the International Court of Justice—by prevailing in the United Nations General Assembly—constituted a paradigm shift in favor of peace in the Western Balkans.

The Court will take about a year to deliberate on the matter. The case of Kosovo’s attempt at secession has attracted enormous attention from all corners of the world—as the active participation before the Court of thirty-six countries in the UDI proceedings make clear. It marks the first time ever that the ICJ has been asked to consider the legality of a move to forcibly partition a UN member State, in defiance of the Security Council.

The Court’s conclusions will have far-reaching consequences for the United Nations system as a whole. That is why it is so important that the judicial process be allowed to run its course, free of political interference.

We should all respect the fact that the ICJ is deliberating on the issue. No one should pre-judge the Court’s deliberations. Therefore, new UDI recognitions should not be encouraged. And multilateral bodies should not be pressured to extend membership to the secessionist authorities in Pristina. Such initiatives could only upset the unstable equilibrium on the ground, which is surely not in anyone’s interest.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Another priority item of our foreign policy agenda is the enhancement of regional cooperation in the Western Balkans.

Serbia is an indispensable anchor of stability in the Western Balkans—a critical component in the achievement of the central strategic priority our countries share: membership in the European Union.

I remain firmly convinced that the process of enlargement can only be completed by working in concert, and not at cross-purposes. Mutual support and genuine encouragement are not merely policy options, but strategic necessities. If I had to define Serbia’s regional agenda in one sentence, it would be: more cooperation, on more issues, more often.

To be honest, working together has gotten to be more of a challenge. This is because some of our neighbors made regrettable choices to recognize Kosovo’s UDI. As a result, new regional fissures have arisen. Nevertheless, Belgrade has continued to act responsibly.

That is why our key word in regional affairs remains engagement—genuine engagement—despite our differences.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is becoming apparent that the road to Europe is not without its obstacles and detours. More than ever before, the region’s leaders need to focus on achievable goals. When it comes to Serbia, the most attainable objective is visa liberalization.

Freedom of movement, the right to travel visa-free, is an embodiment of what the EU is to the average citizen of Serbia.

Restrictions on travel to Europe should be lifted. They constitute an undue burden on our people. The bureaucratic impediments are relics of a past we have moved far, far beyond. Frankly, their maintenance is indefensible.

There should be no such thing as a second-class European. There should be no distinction between those who are free, and those who are less free.

This issue needs to be resolved in the near future. It would go a long way to securing regional stability.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Across our continent, we hear voices saying that a feeling of malaise is coming to dominate the European discourse. They claim that post-Lisbon constitutional uncertainty, coupled with the global financial meltdown, has the effect of making the EU unable to absorb Serbia and the rest of the Western Balkans—that the process of enlargement is complete.

The Government of Serbia doesn’t subscribe to this fatalistic point of view. We will get to the finish line—crisis or no crisis.

In the meantime, Serbia will strive to further improve regional cooperation, and to fully harmonize our legislation with that of the European Union.

We will also continue to reach out to nations beyond the EU and the Russian Federation—a country with which we enjoy a special relationship.

By fully opening our market to the world, we will come to forge new partnerships for prosperity. As a result, we will emerge from the crisis even stronger.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The pursuit of these policies is designed to maximize the benefits for our citizens and the region in this time of crisis. This will enable us to keep doing what needs to be done to raise our domestic standards of governance to the level of the European mainstream.

But it is essential that none of us loose sight of the overall strategic prize—a Europe truly whole, free and at peace. When it comes to the Western Balkans, we need less talk, fewer promises, and more action.

____

Does anyone remember Joschka Fischer famously asking, “Quo vadis Europa?”

His answer was as right on the mark—back then, in May 2000, and even more so today. This is what he said: “Onwards to the completion of European integration. A step backwards,” he added, “even just standing still in contentment with what has been achieved, would demand a fatal price of all EU member States and of all those that want to become members.” And he concluded: “it would demand a fatal price above all of our people, for enlargement is a supreme national interest for all European states.”

Well, let me echo his words to you today: EU membership is a ‘supreme national interest’ for my country—the strategic answer to the question, “quo vadis Serbia?”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If you take away just one thing from my remarks to you today, let it be this: come what may, Serbia will remain on track.

We will not waiver. We will not be discouraged. We will be responsible, and we will stay the course.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary-General,

Dear Colleagues,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an exceptional honor for me to address this most distinguished gathering. We continue to be held together by a common dedication to the principles and objectives of non-alignment: peace, sovereignty, and equality on the world stage—leading to new, more balanced international and economic relations.

Cuba’s important role in coordinating preparations for this important Coordination Bureau meeting—the last conducted under this country’s able chairmanship—is a great testament to the dedication of our friends in Havana.

Allow me to express therefore, on behalf of the delegation of the Republic of Serbia, our gratitude to the Government and People of the Republic of Cuba, for the excellent organization and warm hospitality.

My Friends,

I come before you today representing a country that is the largest successor to a co-founder of the Movement, the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.

Our capital, Belgrade, was the Yugoslav capital, a city generations of NAM members recall with great fondness.

Our then president, Josip Broz Tito, was also the Movement’s first Secretary-General. His impact on NAM, and his encouragement of its active role in the preservation of world peace and promotion of multilateralism, will always be remembered.

As one of the founding fathers of the Movement, Tito worked hard to ease the ideological tensions created by the Cold War. He wanted a world in which divisions would become a thing of the past. Together with other leaders, he tirelessly strove to promote greater respect for international law, and the enhancement of solidarity and cooperation among NAM member states. Tito significantly contributed to the development of a more just and inter-dependent world. He helped Yugoslavia and the rest of the Non-Aligned states gain international respect and dignity—while giving a global, collective voice to the vast majority of countries across the globe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The year 2011 will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Non-Aligned Movement and the holding of its First Conference in Belgrade.

As the capital of the only European member of the Movement, the symbolism of Belgrade represented an alternative to the divisions caused by the two blocks confronting each other throughout the European continent, and the rest of the world. That is why its visionary founders—Nasser of Egypt, Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia, Nkrumah of Ghana, Tito of Yugoslavia, along with dozens of other statesmen—chose it to be the first official meeting-place of the Non-Aligned Movement.

From the beginning, attention was focused on the indispensability—as the 1961 Belgrade Declaration put it—of effecting a transition from “an old order based on domination, to a new one founded on freedom, equality, and social justice.” The principles of Non-Alignment are formulated in that historical document. In it are inscribed a vision of the future, as well as a resolve to make the policy of Non-Alignment an essential contributor to peace and stability throughout the globe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The world has changed dramatically since the Movement’s First Conference in Belgrade. It is nevertheless fair to say that the parameters of the contemporary international system were largely shaped by the dedicated work of generations of this Organization’s statesmen. The results of NAM’s close to fifty years of work represent a rich, progressive harvest for all of humanity.

It is for this reason that my country wishes to suggest that the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Non-Aligned Movement be observed in Belgrade, in close cooperation with the Egyptian presidency.

Five decades later, we propose that the Movement comes home, for a reunion celebration.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to say to you that despite my country’s aspiration to membership in the European Union, the values we continue to embrace are those of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Serbia strongly supports the objectives of this Organization: to build a more equitable global community that is dedicated to promote the democratization of international relations and respect for universal human rights. Such achievements require the inauguration of a process of emancipation from existing economic inequalities. This has become even more apparent in the context of the present global financial predicament.

And in that spirit allow me to recall the words of President Tito, spoken here, in Havana in 1979, his last trip abroad, during the Sixth Conference of Non-Aligned Countries—words which can be applied to the situation of today without a single modification: “The establishment of a new international economic order is the only way to cope with the pressing problems of development and the profound economic crisis into which the world has fallen,” President Tito said. “This is in the interest not only of one group of countries, but of the entire world. […]. The major developed countries,” he continued, […] “are increasingly attempting to solve within closed circles problems that are of vital importance to the entire international community. […] In this situation,” President Tito concluded, “we must pursue our struggle even more consistently and perseveringly, and find the right answers to the difficulties and resistance we are confronted with.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Paragraph 16.8 of the Final Document of this Ministerial Meeting of the Coordination Bureau reaffirms the Movement’s longstanding dedication, quote—“to achieve full respect for international law and, in this regard, commends the role of the International Court of Justice—or ICJ—in promoting the peaceful settlement of international disputes, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the UN Charter and the Statute of the ICJ”—end quote.

This is very much in line with Serbia’s decision to respond in a peaceful and diplomatic way to the February 17^th, 2008, unilateral declaration of independence—or UDI—by the ethnic-Albanian authorities of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.

We ruled out the use of force or other unilateral measures, such as the imposition of economic sanctions. Instead, Serbia reacted to the illegitimate attempt to forcefully partition our country, by turning to the International Court of Justice.

Thanks to the overwhelming support of many of the countries represented in this room today, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 63/3 last September that directed the International Court of Justice to provide a ruling on whether Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. I would like to thank you for your support.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very grateful that an overwhelming majority of NAM members have not recognized the Kosovo’s ethnically-motivated attempt at secession from my country. On behalf of the Republic of Serbia, I want to express my profound appreciation for your commitment to the principles of international law.

Questioning the UN Charter’s core precepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity anywhere in the world is a dangerous game, fraught with precedent and profound consequences. The international legal order remains in great jeopardy of being fundamentally undermined. That is why your continuing support remains critical.

It is therefore my sincere hope that all UN member States will respect the fact that the International Court of Justice is now adjudicating on the legality of Kosovo’s UDI. This process will come to an end sometime in 2010. While it lasts, no one should in any way pre-judge its deliberations, or interfere in its work.

Therefore, we hope that there will be no fresh recognitions of UDI. And we expect that membership in regional or multilateral institutions will not be extended to Kosovo’s secessionist authorities.

By continuing to work together to ensure respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia and all other UN member States, we can strengthen the values that bind us to one another. By doing so, we reaffirm the cornerstone tenets of the international system framed by the UN Charter, and reaffirmed by the adopted Principles of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My Good Friends,

Belgrade’s role in the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement is well known. It constitutes a part of the legacy that my country will continue to honor and respect. And it will serve as a signpost in defining the framework for extending our engagement with the Movement, helping us achieve the undertakings to come.

The hopes and expectations of much of the globe are represented in this room. The Movement is turned towards the key challenges of the present: sustainable peace, lasting security, equitable economic development, and general human progress.

These priorities are in the essential interest of the world as a whole. Their achievement would greatly contribute to the construction of the international system we envision.

____

Once again, I draw your attention back to Serbia’s proposal for Belgrade as the location to celebrate the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Non-Aligned Movement. It would be a fitting tribute to the legacy of its visionary founders, and to all that has been accomplished over the decades. It would also present an opportunity to bring the ideals and values of the Movement back to where it all began, in the heart of Europe.

Thank you for your attention.