Mr. Chairman of the Executive Board,

Mr. President of the General Conference,

Director General Matsura,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honor to address you today. Let me begin by thanking our esteemed Director General and the Secretariat for their dedication and hard work.

I would like to particularly commend documents 181 EX 4, 5 and 6. They elegantly summarize the activities that took place during the reporting period, in line with our short- and medium-term strategies.

I wish also to underscore that education, science and technology, culture and communications are the pre-requisites for the development of humankind, including its economic dimension. It is the position of the Republic of Serbia that these areas need to be protected from budget cuts.

Let me say, in addition, that we strongly support the Organization’s priorities, namely Africa and the promotion of gender equality. Serbia is proud of its record in promoting Africa’s sustainable development in the post-colonial period, as a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. The achievements we have made in the field of the rights of women are noteworthy, as our recent anti-discrimination legislation demonstrates.

We also underscore our commitment to educating for human rights and increasing literacy, while also emphasizing our dedication to all other pedagogical efforts that contribute to the development of societies—including the promotion of physical and sporting activities.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize the importance of the various UNESCO scholarship and awards programs. We are grateful to be a part of the L’Oreal Initiative, and look forward to deepening our cooperation in this area in the years to come.

The Republic of Serbia also continues to closely cooperate with UNESCO in the field of sustainable water programs, biosphere sustainability, and climate change—as well as bioethics standards, placing emphasis on educating youth on these issues.

Moreover, we support the strategy for strengthening scientific capacities at the national, regional and international level, especially the Basic Sciences Program.

I am also pleased to highlight the leading role of the Republic of Serbia in promoting and deepening regional cooperation—a vital component of the democratic consolidation of peace, stability and reconciliation. We have actively participated in the annual summits of Southeast Europe heads of state that have contributed to the “cultures of peace” program. I would like to propose that Serbia hosts this important regional event in 2011.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Serbia’s national priorities focus on safeguarding cultural heritage in danger, especially in our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija, under United Nations administration since June 1999. I would like to salute UNESCO’s work in Kosovo—and in particular recognize the personal engagement of Director General Matsura, as well as UNESCO’s Regional Office in Venice. I would also like to thank the various donor countries for their help to conserve and rebuild Serbian heritage in Kosovo.

The Republic of Serbia, in a recent exchange of letters, signaled to UNESCO our commitment to the use of funds collected during and subsequent to the donors’ conference to the tune of 5.5 million dollars. This reaffirms the traditional, good-faith partnership between UNESCO and the Republic of Serbia in the area of cultural heritage, to the benefit of all.

There is still much work to be done. More than 150 churches and monasteries, including dozens that were built as long ago as the 11^th century, have been destroyed by ethnic-Albanian extremists in the past ten years, including 35 during the March 2004 pogrom against Serbs in Kosovo. While some of these have been rebuilt on the basis of a process commenced with the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding by the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, many more holy sites remain ruined or severely damaged.

One such example is the 11^th-century cathedral church of the Holy Mother of Ljeviska—placed on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger. Located in the old quarter of Serbia’s ancient capital of Prizren, its frescos were almost completely destroyed during the March 2004 pogrom. It has repeatedly been desecrated since.

Nonetheless, its restoration through the UNESCO process will, hopefully, strongly encourage some of the more than 10,000 Kosovo Serbs who have been ethnically cleansed from Prizren since June 1999, to return to the city. For this to happen, UNMIK and EULEX must provide a more secure environment for IDPs. Otherwise, one restored, the Ljeviska church stands in danger of becoming a mere museum piece, instead of a living, active place of worship.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to underline the precise nature of the fight to preserve Serbian heritage in Kosovo—and to emphasize its universality—in the context of the danger posed by the unilateral declaration of independence of February 17^th, 2008, by the secessionist authorities of our southern province.

The World Heritage Committee delayed the issuing of its decision on the Medieval Monuments of Kosovo (Serbia) because of pressures to artificially separate this foundational part of Serbian patrimony from the rest of it in other parts of our country. I would like to thank all those in UNESCO for ensuring this attempt to politicize cultural heritage did not succeed. International law and this Organization’s practice make clear that such violations of the norms that have served us so well over the course of many decades can only result in unhelpful divisions.

Serbian monasteries must never become pawns in a dangerous game of identity creation. On the ground in Kosovo, unfortunately, much evidence points to such an intention. Textbook after textbook published by Pristina make preposterous claims that Serbian Orthodox heritage from the medieval period is in fact Kosovo Albanian heritage.

This attempt to re-write history must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The international community—and UNESCO in particular—must not be passive. We all must say, with determination and moral certainty: cultural cleansing will not stand. Not here, and not anywhere else.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me make it clear: the Serbian people seek reconciliation. We seek to compromise. We seek agreement. We want to live in peace.

Attempts to instrumentalize culture as a tool of conflict do not bring us closer. I fervently believe that only when we come to look at diversity as a source of strength—only when we embrace the view that individual cultures genuinely prosper and progress when they come into contact with other cultures—can we say that the tide has inexorably turned in favor of peace and a common sense of destiny.

To protect and enhance the myriad cultural achievements of humankind—this is a great task before us all. It is high time to re-dedicate ourselves once again to this noble, 21^st-century undertaking of man.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is the first time in the long, intertwined history of our two nations that a Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs has had the opportunity to give a public address in the Turkish Republic.

It is my immense pleasure to join you here today, in the remarkable city of Istanbul.

Aside from the myriad other things Istanbul represents, it is an often-forgotten symbol of shared Serbian-Turkish history. For the Serbs, Istanbul is a place where some of our nation’s forefathers were re-settled by Suleiman the Magnificent, in the autumn of 1521. Thousands were sent to live in what is now known as the Belgrade Forest. There they were put in charge of the intricate water supply system that fed into the city, ensuring for hundreds of years that Istanbul never went dry.

In the same year, thousands more Serbs—mostly stone masons and other highly-skilled builders—came to live near the Belgrade Gate. For centuries, they and their descendants helped build some of this city’s greatest masterpieces of Ottoman architecture, including the Suleymaniye Mosque. Amongst the hundreds of buildings they constructed in Istanbul, I will single out another one: the stunningly beautiful Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque. Both were designed by the unrivaled court architect Sinan, and the latter was an endowment of one of our most famous sons, Grand Vizier Mehmed Pasha Sokolović.

He stands in the annals of history amongst the most distinguished of all Ottoman politicians. Combining his Serbian upbringing and his peculiar sense of Ottoman identity, Sokolović’s integrity, his prudential judgment, and his tactical genius, encouraged all communities he came into contact with to look to the future with optimism.

Now, to affirm that Istanbul is a place of the shared or intertwined history of many nations is not to deny that it is today of course a Turkish metropolis. What makes is so great, however, is the seamless blending of so many aspects of the past, such a dynamic present, and an incredible enthusiasm for the future.

That is why, in my mind, Istanbul is in a sense an idea—an evolving, changing idea that man has about himself and his place in the world. One could almost say that Istanbul serves as an integral part of the very definition of civilization.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Our historical ties, however, are not the only reason I am pleased to be on an official visit here as Foreign Minister of Serbia.

I am also here because Turkey is a crucial actor on the international stage. What Mustafa Kemal Ataturk built so many decades ago has matured over time into a singular, vibrant, and democratic whole.

“Where there is activity, there is fertility”—so says an old Turkish proverb. And while this geography has served as the cradle and grave of countless civilizations, producing over time a unique marvel of diversity, the Turkish nation has remained: for many hundreds of years, you have watered its bountiful soil, built epic monuments over its land, and transformed it into a dynamic country that is both admired and, unfortunately, sometimes misunderstood.

One could ask: what is the source of this ambiguous perception by others—a perception that has formed an unmistakable part of your national identity in the eighty or so years since the founding of modern-day Turkey?

In the broadest possible sense, I believe that it is because much of what is commonly termed ‘the East’ sees you as part of ‘the West,’ while there are those in the West who see you as the East. And now, reformulating your own national understanding of the great founding legacy of your Republic, the Turkish nation of this century has come to the proud conclusion that you belong to both.

What may be less familiar to you is that many of our own writers and statesmen have made similar arguments about the Serbian nation’s sense of belonging—and I believe there is something to it. Consider what the catalyst of our democratic revolution, the assassinated Prime Minister Zoran Djindjić, said in June 2001: “We are a very active nation, individualistic, curious and very complicated. These are all Western traits. We are not however merely a European nation; we have elements of both the East and the West.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with all this in mind that I want to touch upon one of the most important geopolitical issues before us today: the future role of Europe in the international arena.

The question can be put in the following way: will the EU choose to play a key role on the world stage?

I believe that the answer can largely be provided by an examination of one aspect of the strategic options before the European Union. This concerns the EU’s relationships with the belt of nations currently to its east and south-east—in particular, on two pivot countries in the greater European space: Turkey and Serbia.

How the EU chooses to engage with Turkey will almost certainly transform the scope of its ability to project strategic influence in Eurasia and the Greater Middle East. And the decision about whether Europe will rapidly extend membership to Serbia will definitively affect the future of the entire Western Balkans, which I believe is a vital element of the consolidation of European security.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I turn first to Turkey. Geo-strategically, your country is uniquely important. It serves as the extension of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. It also stands at the center of Eurasia and continues to act as a heralded overland transportation and trade hub within that space. In addition, your country has important cultural links with the Caucasus, the Caspian basin, and Central Asia, going as far as western China. Moreover, Turkey is surrounded by three crucial seas: the Black Sea, the Aegean, and the Mediterranean—as it straddles both sides of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus.

Let me say two more things. First, Turkey has maintained healthy relationships with every single country in the Greater Middle East; it remains one of the most important regional water suppliers; and its role as a major energy supply route to Europe cannot be over-stated.

Second, Turkey has been successfully blending two of the most important contemporary civilizations of our world: Islam and the West. Undertaking the peaceful consolidation of this blending beyond Turkey’s borders is of paramount importance to the future direction of our region, and of world events.

In short, the depth of Turkey’s geopolitical importance is incontestable. And I believe that in the decades to come, Turkey may become the EU’s strategic capacity multiplyer for influence in the Greater Middle East.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To make it as clear as possible, I want to turn for a moment to the EU’s emergence from the ashes of the Second World War, and to how it assumed the role of reconciler of European nations.

Since the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the institutions of the European Union have acted as a democratic binding agent, defeating the deep divisions that had plagued the continent for more than a millennia.

Reconciling the major European nations characterized the noble endeavor of the EU in the second half of the 20^th century.

But there is a larger, even more daunting task that awaits not just the EU-27 in the 21^st century, but greater Europe. We must work with one another on a project of fundamental importance. We must become the world’s leading reconciler of faiths.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I see two main components to the fulfillment of this task.

The first concerns Europe’s relations with its own growing and increasingly diverse Muslim community, many of whom are Turkish.

The European Union should increase its efforts to truly integrate—and by this I do not mean assimilate—the millions of Muslims that live inside the EU’s borders.

The resulting positive change in the European social fabric—the blending of which I spoke earlier—will produce the conditions for tackling more successfully the second component of our joint task of reconciling the faiths: unreservedly engaging the Muslim world outside Europe, especially in its greater Middle East heartland.

____

An inescapable part of the solution is Turkey. There is no doubt about that. The issue is whether the European Union will be as well. Should it engage with Turkey in a way that leads to membership, then the EU would find itself in a position to play a defining role in the transformation of the Greater Middle East—the ultimate theatre of significance in the 21^st century.

My basic point is that only a Europe fully engaged with Turkey can stand at the vanguard of forging a compact of long-term peace, security and prosperity in this region of great consequence. The reason is simple. Only by working together can the necessary credibility to see the civilizational engagement through to a successful conclusion be created.

In short, truly taking seriously the pivotal role Turkey can play is the only way the EU can transform itself from being perceived as a partisan actor in the drama, to an honest broker in the Greater Middle East.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The other pivotal country I want to discuss is my own. I do not aspire to put Serbia in the same category of significance as Turkey. But I would like to make the case for a similar level of importance for our respective theatres—at least from the strategic perspective of the European Union.

Let me begin by saying that European integration is the only lasting guarantee of peace and stability in the Western Balkans. It is the only way we can make sure that European values can be consolidated, European reforms completed, and European standards actualized.

Now, Serbia is the region’s indispensable geo-strategic anchor, uniquely placed to act as the accession accelerator for the Western Balkans.

Serbia has made it clear that rapidly achieving EU membership is our central strategic priority. So have all the other countries in the region.

What has to be emphasized with greater clarity, however—especially in the context of the financial crisis that has affected us all—is that Europe mustn’t contemplate an exit strategy when it comes to our part of the world. Should it begin to hedge its bets on enlargement in the Western Balkans, more resources would end up being devoted to managing occasional flare-ups and gathering crises, than those that will have to be spent on completing the integration process. Hands-on engagement—particularly with Serbia—is the only way forward.

Simply put, the EU will be safer if the Western Balkans, with Serbia at its center, enters the House of Europe, instead of remaining bitterly at its gates.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The way I see it, making sure that the countries of the Western Balkans become members of the European Union is also in the interest of Turkey. Firstly, because the region serves as a permanent connection point between Central Europe and its south-east. And secondly, because Europe’s strategic engagement with Turkey in the Greater Middle East is in many ways related to a secure and integrated Western Balkans.

Serbia will remain integral to solutions regarding the region’s outstanding challenges. I think Turkey can play an enhanced role in helping to shape outcomes that are acceptable to all involved. To do so, Ankara needs a strong partner in the Western Balkans.

Leaders are the shapers of the future. Nations such as ours have continuously felt the pull of the future coming right at us. And they have faced it squarely, responsibly, ready to harness it for the good of their people and that of others. As President Boris Tadić of Serbia has said, statesmanship is the blending of passion, reason and courage. That is why I believe it is in the common interest of both our countries to work together, as two regional pivots, to address unresolved issues in the Western Balkans, such as the process of reform in Bosnia and the status of Kosovo.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On February 17^th, 2008, the ethnic-Albanian authorities of our southern province of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia—in direct violation of the basic tenets and principles of international law.

Serbia’s red lines on Priština’s unilateral declaration of independence—or UDI—are clear, and they will continue to be honored without exception. It is both a vital national interest and a constitutional imperative to peacefully defend our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Thanks to our carefully measured response to UDI recognitions, the political fallout with countries that did unfortunately recognize UDI, such as Turkey, was largely contained. As a result, our bilateral relations have not suffered substantially.

____

I think it is also important to underline the strategic implications of UDI. It has called into question the very nature of the international system, setting a ready-made precedent that any number of ethnic minorities with a grievance against their capitals could use.

Now, we have heard the argument that Kosovo’s UDI is sui generis—a unique case. But the truth is, this comes down to saying that Kosovo is an exception to international law—that Kosovo should stand beyond the rules that govern the behavior of the international community.

I don’t believe that anyone should permit himself the right to declare such exceptions. Consider the consequences should a group of countries somewhere else in the world proclaim another exception to international law, in the name of supporting somebody else’s separatism.

That’s why Serbia’s position has remained consistent: the only way to avoid illegitimately challenging the territorial integrity of any UN member State, is for the world community to work constructively together to solve this issue through international institutions of indisputable and universal legitimacy.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I believe both our countries stand to benefit from working together as partners in the Western Balkans.

We would reinforce each other’s strategic influence in the region, as well as demonstrate our ability to overcome bilateral differences in a way that would advance our broader interests. As a result, Serbia and Turkey would come to be appreciated as both stable providers and multipliers of security in the Western Balkans.

____

What I propose, Ladies and Gentlemen, will not be easy. Our disagreement about UDI has complicated matters significantly. But I think that ways could be found to overcome the present state of affairs, perhaps after the International Court of Justice issues its advisory opinion on the legality of UDI.

In the meantime, Belgrade and Ankara should start laying the groundwork to cease working at cross-purposes in the Western Balkans.

To succeed, we need to do some recalibrating. We need to begin seeing each other in terms of a cooperative relationship we can forge. And we need to focus on the advantages that can arise from combining our two respective potentials.

This will require a shared vision, the courage of leadership, and strategic foresight. But I believe both our countries are more than capable of seizing the moment on offer, and making the right decision. Most importantly, I believe we are strong and confident enough to concentrate on the fundamental benefits that would result from a Turkish commitment to engage in the Western Balkans, through a strategic partnership with Serbia.

Thank you very much for your attention.

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 17^th, 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 8^th, 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 6^th, 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 24^th, 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 15^th 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.

Mr. President,

Honorable Members,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I believe that in the next generation or so, the progress of Europe will revolve around two fundamental political issues. The first concerns the institutional reforms of the EU itself. Were Serbia a member of the EU, it would be appropriate for me to take part in this debate. Unfortunately, we have not yet acceded to the Union, so I will leave this issue in the hands of my EU colleagues.

This evening I would rather concentrate on the second fundamental issue: Europe’s place in the world.

The question can be put in the following way: will the EU limit itself to the status of a marginal geopolitical player—by continuing to rely on the application of soft power absent strategic forethought? Or will it choose to play a more active role on the world stage?

Provided that Transatlantic ties are harmonized, I believe that the EU must focus on the belt of nations to its east and south-east—in particular, on the three pivot countries in the greater European space: Ukraine, Turkey, and Serbia.

How the EU chooses to interact with the first two will almost certainly define its sway in Eurasia and the Greater Middle East. And the decision about whether Europe will rapidly extend membership to Serbia will definitively affect the future of the entire Western Balkans, which I believe is vital to the consolidation of European security.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I turn first to Ukraine. As the recent energy crisis demonstrated, Europe has a strategic interest in the stability of this country.

The way in which the EU engages with Ukraine will strongly affect the overall tone of its relationship with its greatest neighbor, the Russian Federation.

This issue is as complicated as it is significant. It would take me too far off course to discuss it at length. Suffice it to say that it is of permanent importance for the EU to develop a healthy relationship with Moscow. Ensuring the combination of a stable Ukraine and an un-antagonized Russia is both a security and economic imperative for the European Union.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I come to Turkey. Situated at the crossroads of two great civilizations, Turkey can easily become the EU’s strategic capacity multiplyer for influence in the Greater Middle East.

By fully embracing Turkey—a Muslim democratic nation, with footholds in Europe and Asia Minor—the EU would accomplish two essential things.

Firstly, it would find itself standing at the vanguard of forging a 21^st-century compact of peace and security in that part of the world.

And secondly, it would transform the EU from being perceived as a partisan actor in the drama, to an honest broker in the Greater Middle East.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The third pivotal country I want to discuss is my own. I do not aspire to put Serbia in the same category of significance as Ukraine or Turkey. But I would like to make the case for a similar level of importance for these three theatres—from the strategic perspective of the European Union.

Let me start by quoting the words of Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister and an old Balkan hand. “The future of Serbia is obviously key to the future of the wider region. A stable Serbia will project stability in the region—an unstable one will obviously project the reverse. Its European integration is the only lasting guarantee of its peace and its prosperity.”

In other words, Serbia is the indispensable anchor of the Western Balkans, uniquely placed to act as the region’s EU accession accelerator.

Europe mustn’t contemplate an exit strategy when it comes to Serbia. Should we begin to hedge our bets on enlargement in the Western Balkans, we would end up devoting more resources to managing occasional flare-ups and gathering crises, than those that will have to be spent on completing the integration process. Hands-on engagement is the only way forward.

Simply put, the EU will be safer if the Western Balkans, with Serbia at its center, enters the House of Europe, instead of remaining bitterly at its gates.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The citizens of Serbia have time and again demonstrated their commitment to join the European Union. All elections held since the democratic revolution of October 5^th, 2000, have returned reformist majorities.

This Government of Serbia has made it clear that European accession is our central strategic priority.

We have an unprecedented opportunity. It mustn’t be squandered. The European Union is the grandest and most successful peace project in history. It has reconciled age-old adversaries through the rejection of hegemonic ambitions of individual states, in favor of a binding commitment to overcome disagreements by democratic means.

Serbia feels an acute sense of belonging to this kind of Europe.

We deem that our heritage, our culture, our beliefs, and our history bind us to a constellation of nations that have come to instill what Winston Churchill once called “a sense of enlarged patriotism,” rooted in a common set of values deeply held and widely shared.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

None of us would be well-served by opting to close our eyes to the challenges that still remain. The primary one is the issue of Kosovo.

A year ago tomorrow, the ethnic-Albanian authorities of Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo and Metohija unilaterally declared independence from my country—in direct violation of the basic tenets and principles of international law: the United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), as well as the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and numerous other binding covenants that guarantee Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity

At the time, we stated clearly that Serbia would never recognize, under any circumstances, Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence—or UDI. This position is enshrined in our constitution, and will not change.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

UDI has called into question the very nature of the international system, setting a ready-made precedent that any number of ethnic minorities with a grievance against their capitals could use.

We all know that there are dozens of Kosovo-s throughout the world, just waiting for secession to be legitimized, to be rendered an acceptable norm. Many existing conflicts could escalate, frozen conflicts could reignite, and new ones could be instigated.

Now, we have heard the argument that Kosovo’s UDI is not a dangerous precedent for the international community, because it is sui generis—a unique case.

But the truth is, this comes down to saying that Kosovo is an exception to international law—that Kosovo should stand beyond the rules that govern the behavior of the international community.

Well, let me be blunt: I don’t believe that anyone should permit himself the right to declare such exceptions.

Consider the consequences should a group of countries somewhere else in the world proclaim another exception to international law, in the name of supporting somebody else’s separatism.

That’s why Serbia’s position has remained consistent: the only way to avoid illegitimately challenging the territorial integrity of any UN member State, is for the world community to work constructively together to solve this issue through international institutions of indisputable and universal legitimacy.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Serbia has responded to Kosovo’s UDI with utmost responsibility and restraint.

From the very onset of this grave crisis, Serbia ruled out the use of force. And we did not exercise other unilateral options, such as the imposition of economic sanctions, against our breakaway province.

Instead, we opted for a peaceful and diplomatic approach—the result of which is that a vast majority of UN member States, including member countries of the EU, have refrained from recognizing Kosovo’s UDI. They have continued to abide by their obligations to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia.

Our carefully measured response to UDI recognitions ensured that the political fallout with those countries was largely contained. As a result, our bilateral relations have not suffered substantially.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Kosovo’s ethnic-Albanian authorities chose to unilaterally declare independence from Serbia after walking away from the negotiating table.

They believed that if they walked away, the path to securing independence would open up before them. They believed it, because that’s what they were told. And they believed it because an artificial deadline on the talks was affirmed from the outside after which, if no compromise solution was reached, Kosovo’s independence would be imposed.

Under such circumstances, a negotiated solution was never a realistic option. With a fixed deadline and a default position that fulfilled their maximalist demands, what incentive did Kosovo’s ethnic Albanians have to negotiate with Serbia in good faith? All they had to do was to pretend to engage in a process pre-determined to fail, and wait out the clock.

Those who opted to support the act of UDI disagreed with Serbia and a majority of the international community on the importance of arriving at a solution acceptable to all. In other words, it came down to asking, “should Kosovo be solved in the 21^st-century European manner, that is, through compromise, concession and consensus-building amongst all the stakeholders? Or should another logic animate the process—one that allows for the imposition of a one-sided outcome?”

The first alternative is about trying to overcome differences. The second is about entrenching them. Serbia’s position has always been to underscore the dangers of sacrificing the regional geo-strategic priorities of all, on the altar of the communal aspirations of one.

This is a reason why we turned to the law. Serbia’s decision to contest the Kosovo issue at the International Court of Justice—by prevailing in the United Nations General Assembly—constitutes a paradigm shift in favor of peace in the Western Balkans.

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 our region.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Court will spend well over a year deliberating the issue. Until it issues its advisory opinion on whether UDI violates international law, we have a responsibility to our citizens to constructively engage on a whole host of practical issues, while continuing to respect each other’s red lines.

Common sense and the present circumstances dictate that we should emphasize what brings us closer together, instead of what can drive us apart. The European future of the Western Balkans depends on our ability to compartmentalize our differences.

Once the International Court of Justice hands down its decision, the situation will be clearer. In all likelihood, the Court will hold that Kosovo’s UDI is not compatible with international law. One result of such a decision will be the cessation of recognitions. Another will be the denial of membership in multilateral institutions to the authorities in Pristina.

Two options would then present themselves: obstinacy or concession. The first would lead to the perpetuation of Kosovo’s legal, political and economic limbo—at enormous cost to everyone.

The second would lead to the revisiting of Kosovo’s future status. For the first time ever, a situation would be created in which a symmetric set of incentives would be put before the stakeholders—one that would encourage everyone at the table to seek a solution acceptable to all.

Only such a solution can be viable, sustainable, and lasting. And only such a solution can contribute to the consolidation of peace and stability in the Western Balkans—the ultimate prize of our common endeavor to come.

Honorable Members,

I leave you with the words of Edmund Burke: “All acts of Government—indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act—is founded on compromise and negotiation.”

To enjoy the benefits of the solution to come—for Kosovo and the rest of Serbia, and for the European future of the Western Balkans—we must compromise, and we must negotiate. In good faith, resulting in no winners and losers. In a way that puts the welfare and the stability of the entire region in the center of the process. In a way that delivers the region past the point of no return. And in a way that contributes to the consolidation of the security architecture of all of Europe.

Thank you.

Dear Franco,

Respected Admiral,

Excellencies,

Distinguished Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very pleased to be a part of the celebration marking 130 years of diplomatic relations between our two countries, formally established in 1879.

That historical event was foreshadowed one year earlier, in 1878, when Serbia’s Prince Milan Obrenovic sent a diplomatic mission to Rome in order to officially congratulate King Umberto I upon his assumption of the Italian throne, as well as to seek Italy’s support for the Serbian position at the forthcoming Congress of Berlin.

To the lasting advantage of our two peoples, it was enthusiastically given.

Thanks in part, therefore, to the Italian delegation to the Congress, led by Count Luigi Corti, an understanding was reached that greatly benefited our two countries, while strengthening the cause of peace in Europe.

With strong support from Italy and other Great Powers, the Treaty of Berlin of July 1878 formally recognized the Principality of Serbia as the world’s 28^th fully sovereign state.

And it set the stage for events we are here to commemorate.

Prince Milan sent his most trusted diplomat and former Prime Minister, Dr. Filip Hristic, to open Serbia’s first embassy in Rome, at the very beginning of 1879.

In his inaugural public address, delivered to government ministers and the diplomatic corps later that year, Hristic invoked the visionary statecraft of Garibaldi: “I stand in the young capital of an ancient land as the representative of a young country peopled with an ancient nation. In my short time here I have come to realize how alike we truly are: in temperament, surely, and in ambition; but also in belief that our young states, nursed on the altar of patriotism, will one day come together in a Europe yet to be imagined.”

As we all hope, events will one day soon prove true the farsighted nature of what were, in effect, Serbia’s words of introduction to the Italian nation.

____

By the end of the 19^th century, Serbia had named honorary consuls in Genoa, Torino, Naples and Palermo, while in 1894, Hristic—then more than 75 years old—returned to Rome to present a list of more than 30,000 Serbian industrialists and businessmen with an active interest in advancing our economic ties.

A few years later, in 1901, the Kingdom of Serbia had decided to open in Rome our nation’s first ever Trade Office.

One could even say that Italy was Serbia’s first strategic economic partner.

Well, it certainly is today. More than 200 Italian companies, investing about two point four billion euros in Serbia per annum, employ more than 18,000 hard-working citizens of my country.

At President Tadic’s initiative, Serbia has institutionalized its ties with Italian regions such as Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Veneto, Lombardia-Milano, and Piemont. As a result, trade between Italy and Serbia has exponentially increased, helping to advance the President’s vision of solidifying the role of Italy as one of Serbia’s main bridges to Europe.

A perfect example of what can happen when we work together is the commitment Fiat made last year to a one billion euro investment in Serbia. Together with companies such as Iveco and Magnieti-Marelli, the Torino-based giant will work with us to re-energize Serbia’s automotive industry.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that Italy saw the promise of Serbia when others were far from convinced. So it was at the turn of the 20^th century, and so it was about one hundred years later, too, when we signed the Stabilization and Association Agreement—with strong and vocal Italian support. And so it will be in the future, I’m sure of it.

Standing here before you, amongst friends in the capital of the Italian Republic—a country that serves as a vibrant symbol of the success of the European construction—I can say with conviction that the present political moment is one of hope, driven by Serbia’s fundamental commitment to consolidate once and for all the democratic gains we have made since our transition began on October 5^th, 2000.

Two national elections were held in Serbia last year, one presidential, the other parliamentary. For our country, these were referenda about how to interact with the world of today: our citizens were given a clear choice between two opposite ways forward. And they decided to keep their appointment with Europe.

Our national commitment to accelerate the pursuit of a course that leads to full membership in the European Union was made in the somber context of the unilateral declaration of independence by the ethnic Albanian authorities of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija that took place on February 17^th, 2008.

Pristina’s ethnically-motivated attempt at secession severely tested the resilience of our democracy. We responded to this challenge as any mature and confident nation should: we said no to UDI. We said we will not recognize.

Today, I reaffirm this policy—one that we are confident will contribute to a peaceful, compromise solution of a problem we all must work to solve together.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The central strategic priority of the Republic of Serbia is to join the European Union as soon as possible. With your help and that of other good friends in Europe, in 2009 we can get much nearer to fully achieving our common aim. Together, we can make it Serbia’s leap year of European integration.

We can do this by working closely with one another to ensure visa liberalization becomes a reality for the citizens of Serbia.

To its great credit, the Italian Government has understood how important freedom of movement in Europe is for my country. And that is why it has been at the vanguard of the drive to make the right to travel visa-free a reality for all the citizens of the Republic of Serbia. All I can say is thank you, and keep at it. For we have not yet reached the end of our undertaking.

The second way we can work together on advancing Serbia’s European perspective in 2009 centers on synergizing our efforts to overcome the recalcitrance of few on un-freezing the Interim Agreement between Serbia and the EU. Together with the vast majority of other EU member States, Italy is in no doubt that Serbia is fully cooperating with the ICTY.

I am grateful for Italy’s leadership on this important question, but it is clear that an extra push in 2009 is still required. If we don’t seize the moment before us to focus all our efforts on fulfilling the Copenhagen Criteria as fast as we can, then I am afraid that the prospect of cementing the gains already made could fall to the wayside.

The third way we can work together on delivering tangible results in 2009 revolves around Serbia’s upcoming application for membership in the European Union. We hope that the Council of Ministers will welcome its arrival, and swiftly forward it to the European Commission—tasking it to promptly provide the Council with an avis on its merits. With the strong support of dedicated friends, Serbia could achieve Official Candidate Status by the end of the year.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What is clear is that in 2009, we need concrete action. We need our allies in Europe to work with us on the achievement of measurable results that bring us much closer to the Gates of Europe.

What I want you to know is that Serbia will devote all available resources to the fulfillment of this crucial strategic goal—through active and sustained engagement with Brussels and EU national capitals, including, of course, Rome. But we cannot do it alone.

I believe we will rise to the occasion in 2009 and help push through a strategic package to start delivering Serbia’s European future—because I believe in the power of the friendship we are here to commemorate today; because I believe in the justice of our common aims; and because I believe in the powerful vision of men like Antonio Segni, the signer of the Treaty of Rome on behalf of Italy more than 50 years ago, who once exclaimed: “we must act like men in a rush to fulfill the work of destiny, and at the same time like men who are confidently working for Eternity.”

Thank you very much for your attention.

Dear Foreign Minister Moratinos,

Respected Dean of the Diplomatic Corps,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure and privilege to greet you all to the second Ambassadors’ Conference of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

To our distinguished guest from Spain—a very warm welcome. Miguel, my friend, I’m so glad you’re here. I want to make use of this opportunity to say how profoundly grateful we are for your country’s unwavering support on all fronts. What Spain has accomplished in the last several decades is truly amazing. Encouraged by your example and aided by your experience, Serbia too can leap into her European future.

I would also like to extend a heartfelt welcome to the diplomatic corps. Your devotion to the advancement of our bilateral relations is laudable indeed. I look forward to engaging with you further in 2009. The more we work together, the more we get to understand each other.

A special acknowledgment of gratitude to the representatives of the great many UN member States that honor Serbia’s territorial integrity. Our nations stand together in safeguarding the foundations of international law, as set forth in the UN Charter.

Lastly, to the ambassadors of the Republic of Serbia abroad, and to our Belgrade-based diplomats—I extend a message of sincere appreciation. You are inheritors of a long and proud tradition of Serbian diplomacy. I thank you for your continuing sacrifice and dedication.

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today we gather in sober awareness of the importance of finding a common approach to the challenges of a world in the midst of geo-strategic turbulence.

A great deal of the globe is in flux; the economic crisis is worsening; fault lines are multiplying; and the balance of power is shifting. Unpredictability and uncertainty imperils us all, as an unprecedented rapidity of change comes to characterize our transformational times.

The circumstances are new; the tasks of responsible statecraft, many; the interdependence trend, irreversible. The question, therefore, is how best to go forward together: how to navigate beyond the undercurrents, and away from the myriad rocks and shoals in our way?

The answer must take into account an additional fact: in today’s world, statesmen do their work in public. In the foreign policy arena, this poses a particular challenge. We conduct diplomacy in an environment where events can be experienced as they occur—by politicians as well as their publics. The flow of information happens in an instant. Cameras roll as leaders work to maintain a consistency of vision, while sustaining popular support for important decisions—a difficult task even in the best of times.

Especially in periods of geopolitical change, diplomacy becomes more difficult to practice effectively. In straining times when pressure builds, some begin to believe that the only safe course of action is to tactically retreat—so as to be better able to respond to events that one cannot influence anyway.

This may have been a valid option in the past, but not today. In the 21^st century, isolation is not a sign of prudence, but of gross misjudgment. It creates space for others to impose themselves on a helpless actor, to limit strategic options and constrain their execution in ways that harm national interests. It relegates the country in question to being a mere object of the international system, instead of a valued participant in its transformation.

In short, the present circumstances dictate that only a well-planned and carefully executed, active foreign policy can contribute to the advancement of any country in the global arena.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Under the leadership of President Boris Tadic, the Republic of Serbia has done just that. And we did so under incredibly trying circumstances, for 2008 has been the most difficult year of our political transition to date.

Two national elections were held in our country last year, one presidential, the other parliamentary. It is no exaggeration to say that these were referenda about how to interact with the world of today: our citizens were given a clear choice between two opposite ways forward.

They decided to keep their appointment with Europe.

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 and Metohija.

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

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The resilience of our democracy was severely tested. Serbia faced the challenge head-on, choosing to respond to Pristina’s ethnically-motivated attempt at secession peacefully, within the rules of the international system.

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.

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 our region.

Also at Serbia’s initiative, a crisis of legitimacy to international action in our southern province was overcome. A binding agreement welcomed by the Security Council was reached on UNMIK’s reconfiguration and the status-neutrality of EULEX.

Through the embrace of international law, persistent engagement and proactive diplomacy, in 2008 Serbia managed to compartmentalize the fallout from UDI without compromising our democracy, impeding our EU accession process, and damaging our network of bilateral relations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Republic of Serbia has set three core foreign policy priorities for this year: carrying on diplomatic efforts to defend our constitutional order, accelerating the process of our European integration, and improving regional cooperation in the Western Balkans.

In the wake of UDI, continuing to peacefully defend our sovereignty and territorial integrity is a vital national interest. Serbia’s red lines are clear, and they will continue to be honored by our Government without exception.

We hold the view that all UN member States should respect the fact that the International Court of Justice will adjudicate on the legality of Kosovo’s UDI throughout 2009. No one should in any way pre-judge its deliberations.

We therefore expect no one to encourage further recognitions, just as we expect membership in regional or multilateral institutions that are the privilege of sovereign states not to be extended to the authorities in Pristina. Such initiatives could only upset the unstable equilibrium on the ground, which is surely not in anyone’s interest.

Last but not least, Serbian diplomacy will be tasked to work vigorously in ensuring that the international community remains keenly apprised of developments in our southern province.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The central strategic priority of the Republic of Serbia is to accelerate the process of our European integration. We will devote all available resources to the fulfillment of this crucial goal through active and sustained engagement with Brussels and EU national capitals.

The successive Czech and Swedish Presidencies present two beneficial opportunities to greatly advance Serbia’s European future this year. To further this aim, I believe that the following three, mutually-reinforcing components constitute the basis of a very realistic, concrete and deliverable package for 2009.

First, that we work together to ensure visa liberalization becomes a reality for the citizens of this country. Support for EU integration is at an all-time high in Serbia. To sustain it, the burdensome restrictions on travel to Europe must be lifted—for freedom of movement, the right to travel visa-free, is an embodiment of what the EU is to our citizens.

The road to Europe should not begin in a line that stretches far down the sidewalk in front of an embassy. Citizens of this country should not be required to take a few days off work to apply for a visa to visit their relatives. They should not have to demonstrate that they own their own apartment to go to the Louvre. And they should not have to prove their creditworthiness to visit the Acropolis, see the splendors of Rome, or walk along the cobble-stones of Salzburg.

____

The second component centers on synergizing our efforts to overcome the recalcitrance of few on the definition of full cooperation with the ICTY.

No one should doubt that Serbia is acting in complete sincerity. We are doing everything in our power to fulfill our obligations to the Tribunal—and we will continue doing so. It is past the high time to un-freeze the Interim Agreement between Serbia and the EU, so that we may focus all our efforts on fulfilling the Copenhagen Criteria as fast as we can.

The third component revolves around Serbia’s upcoming application for membership in the European Union. We hope that the Council of Ministers will welcome its arrival, and swiftly forward it to the European Commission—tasking it to promptly provide the Council with an avis on its merits. This would allow Serbia to achieve Official Candidate Status by the end of the year.

Making this package happen is the best way to advance Serbia’s European future. I think it can be done. And I think there is no better way forward, if the region’s comprehensive interest is what we seek to promote.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The third core foreign policy priority of the Republic of Serbia is the enhancement of regional cooperation in the Western Balkans.

I remain firmly convinced that the regional 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.

Unfortunately, the unity we seek has been somewhat undermined recently, for some of our neighbors made regrettable choices last year. The Kosovo issue has created new regional fissures. And notwithstanding the fact that these unfortunate decisions struck at the heart of Serbia’s constitutional order, Belgrade has continued to act responsibly.

Our carefully measured response to UDI recognitions by some of the countries in the Western Balkans ensured that the political fallout which naturally resulted was largely contained.

As a result, regional relations did not suffer, especially in the economic field. Take a look at the statistics: in the wake of UDI recognitions, the flow of good and services did not decrease, tariffs and penalties were not imposed, and cross-border investment did not decline.

____

Before moving on to the next portion of my remarks, I want to say a few words about the lawsuit for genocide that Croatia submitted to the ICJ against my country. We had tried to find an alternative road leading to reconciliation—to no avail. Notwithstanding the moral and historical reasons for doing so, the Republic of Serbia had no legal choice but to commit to a counter-suit against Croatia.

Such is the unfortunate current state of affairs. It has not been of our making. But we are where we are. It now becomes our joint responsibility—to ourselves and the victims, as well as the region and the European Union—to work through the present complications.

The historical record will now be taken up by our respective legal teams. Contesting the past in the halls of international justice could very well end up enabling the Governments of Serbia and Croatia to concentrate on what brings us together in 2009, not what sets us apart.

In the Europe of the 21^st century, there is no strategic alternative to genuine regional cooperation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The relationship that our country has traditionally enjoyed with Russia will remain close and comprehensive.

The strategic energy partnership between Moscow and Belgrade that was signed by our two presidents last month is but the latest chapter in our long history of working together on topics of mutual interest.

Moscow has been one of Serbia’s most stalwart and active allies in the peaceful defense of our sovereignty and territorial integrity. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank Russia for its solidarity, assistance and support on the Kosovo issue.

I am in no doubt that our ties will continue to be strengthened in the years ahead, especially in the context of Serbia’s European accession, which would create the framework for a new, more profound dimension to our most special relationship.

Not only would our EU membership ensure that Russia’s access to the common European market would be deepened, but it would also lead to an increase in both understanding and cooperation between Moscow and the Brussels.

____

Turning now to the United States, I should emphasize that our ties with America go back more than 125 years. For most of that time, our two countries stood together in defense of common values and the cause of freedom in the world. Unfortunately, our relationship suffered notable setbacks throughout the 1990s, and more recently, in the context of Pristina’s UDI.

Despite our differences, I believe that January 20^th provides us with a strategic opportunity to start the difficult task of improving our relations, in the interest of consolidating peace and stability in the Western Balkans. Moving constructively forward in the context of a divergence of views is an approach we have not yet tried. To use the words of President Abraham Lincoln, “the occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew, and act anew.”

____

We will also continue to devote particular attention to deepening our close ties of comprehensive friendship with the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India, both traditional partners and global players. We look forward to continuing to work with these two great nations as they strengthen their leadership and assume even greater responsibility in the international arena.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As a co-founder and host of the First Non-Aligned Summit held in Belgrade in 1961, my country devoted decades of effort to help ensure that the Non-Aligned nations received due international respect, dignity and influence.

Serbia is dedicated to keep building on this important legacy, and will enhance its contribution to promoting the deep sense of solidarity that exists between our countries.

Old friendships must never be forgotten. In 2009 and beyond, they will be fortified and strongly promoted. We plan to significantly increase our engagement with the Non-Aligned Movement.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Serbia is the indispensable anchor of democratic stability and security in the Western Balkans. Our purpose is clear, our capacity is evident, and our will to become fully integrated into the European Union is unshakable.

By combining our efforts, Belgrade and Brussels can secure the European future for the entire region.

Together, we can complete the construction of Europe—the grandest peace project ever undertaken by mankind.

This will require men and women confident in their strength, compassionate in their hearts, and steady in their vision. For there it rests, just beyond our present reach, beckoning to us all: the promise of a fully integrated, prosperous Western Balkans.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I come to the end of my remarks with an encapsulation: the Republic of Serbia—a proud democracy that in 2008 weathered enormous challenges against incredible odds—seeks to further engage with the region and our many friends throughout the world, as we continue to defend our constitutional order and pursue our central strategic priority: making 2009 Serbia’s leap year of European integration.

As President Tadic has said, “the time for anyone to procrastinate, to try half-measures, to use soothing words and baffling expedients that delay and discourage, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period where only results matter—a period of consequence and momentous choice. So let us always keep in mind what the real prize is: a safe and prosperous future we can all share—a European future for the entire region.”

____

Now comes our time of testing.

Moments such as this one come along rarely in history. They are either seized or lost, and the effects can reach across decades. The opportunity is here. We must grasp it and nurture it, so that it grows strong and good.

Let us all have the courage to see our common vision through to its expeditious and noble completion.

Thank you for your attention.