Mr. Secretary-General,

Dear Colleagues,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me begin by thanking our hosts, the Islamic Republic of Iran, for the excellent organization and warm hospitality we have all felt throughout the 15^th Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran.

I come before you today representing a country that is an observer, yet also 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, fundamental 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. Together with other statesmen, he tirelessly strove to promote greater respect for international law and the enhancement of cooperation among NAM member states. Tito’s contribution to the development of a more just and inter-dependent world helped Yugoslavia and the rest of the Non-Aligned world to gain international respect and dignity, while giving a global, collective voice to the vast majority of the world’s countries.

While the world has changed dramatically since the founding of the Movement, it is fair to say that the parameters of the contemporary international system, which continues to be rooted in the Charter of the United Nations, have been largely shaped by the dedicated work of generations of this Organization’s visionaries.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to say to you that despite the Republic of Serbia’s determination to become a member of the European Union, the values we continue to embrace are the values of the Non-Aligned Movement.

As an observer-state, we strongly support the indispensable, just demands of this Organization for a more equitable global community dedicated to promote the democratization of international relations, development and human rights.

And in that spirit allow me to recall the words of President Tito, spoken at the First Non-Aligned Summit, held in Belgrade, in 1961: “The destiny of the world is not to be left to be decided solely by the Great Powers, […] but also by the numerous other countries that collectively represent the majority of global public opinion. They represent the conscience of mankind, […] and the humane and moral principles of our planet which, in the contemporary global framework, are assuming an ever-greater decision-making role. I think,” Tito concluded, “that we will do a great service to humanity if we clearly and decisively show the way that leads to the restoration of calm in the world, and to equitable and peace-loving cooperation amongst all the peoples of the earth.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Fifth Paragraph of the draft Tehran Final Document states that the “Movement will continue to uphold the principles of sovereignty, the sovereign equality of States, [and] territorial integrity” and “defend, promote and encourage the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.”

The Fifteenth Paragraph reads, inter alia, that “UN Member States should renew their commitment to defend, preserve and promote the UN Charter and international law, with the aim of making further progress to achieving full respect for international law.”

Bearing the above in mind, I take this opportunity to inform you of the attempt at secession by Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo that took place on February 17^th.

The unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo’s secessionists constitutes a blatant violation of the UN Charter and runs counter to Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)’s binding obligation on all member-states to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country.

A great majority of both the UN’s and the Movement’s member states have continued to abide by these principles, and have not recognized this attempt at secession. On behalf of the Republic of Serbia, I want to express my profound appreciation to them for their strict commitment to the principles of international law.

Questioning the core precept of sovereignty anywhere in the world is a dangerous game fraught with precedent and political consequence. International legal order and global democratic governance are in danger of being undermined. As a result, we find ourselves facing a perilous impasse today.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Consistent with our values, we have ruled out the use of force in solving this dispute, for we believe that peace and security can only be consolidated through dialogue, not imposition; through agreement, not compulsion; and through law, not unilateralism.

It is in that framework that I wish to inform you of Serbia’s intent to submit a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly in September that asks of the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on whether Kosovo’s attempt at secession is in accordance with international law.

In our view, many States would benefit from the legal guidance an ICJ advisory opinion would confer. It would enable them to make a more thorough judgment on the issue.

In addition, an ICJ advisory opinion, rendered in a non-contestable, non-adversarial manner, would go a long way towards calming tensions, avoiding further negative developments in the region and beyond, and facilitating efforts at reconciliation among all parties involved.

By having recourse to the ICJ, the General Assembly would ensure that the Kosovo issue becomes a symbol of renewed resolve towards the rule of law by the international community.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Our forthcoming initiative is in full harmony with the Sixteenth Paragraph of the draft Tehran Final Document which states that the Movement “invites also the General Assembly […] to request advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.”

On behalf of the Republic of Serbia, therefore, I solemnly ask for the support of each and every member of the Non-Aligned Movement. While my country is not at present a full member of NAM, I hope that the members will recognize the full consistency of Serbia’s position on the Kosovo issue with the principles of the Movement, and that you will rally to our cause as if we were still fully one of your own.

____

My friends, I have to admit that the occasion that brings us together is an emotional one for me and my country. We feel such an overwhelming sense of solidarity with the nations represented here today. Given the history of my country's role in the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement, it almost feels like visiting home again.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you in advance for your support, while expressing my profound hope that, with your help, a small country like mine will not be denied its right to ask a simple, elementary question. Think of the awful precedent that would be created should any country be denied this fundamental right.

And so I say in conclusion that together, we can strengthen the values that bind us to one another—and help consolidate the principles that have done so much to construct a more just and even-handed global society within the framework of the United Nations.

By supporting Serbia you strengthen our common dedication to equitable peace and cooperation, and you reaffirm the universal right to international justice for all.

Thank you for your attention.

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

Since our last meeting devoted to Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo and Metohija, a new Government in Belgrade was confirmed by our National Assembly.

It represents a more hopeful Serbia, confident in its engagement with the world; ready to accelerate our progress toward full European Union membership; willing to actively contribute to building up regional peace; and firmly committed to safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country.

In short, it represents a Serbia that is a proud, European democracy whose well-known position on the UDI of our southern province remains unchanged. We continue to hold that its attempt at secession contravenes the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and other cornerstone treaties of the contemporary international and European order.

We maintain that UDI has also brought the explicit meaning of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) into serious question, for 1244 clearly places a binding, Chapter VII obligation on all member-states to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country.

A great majority of the world organization’s 192 member-States have continued to abide by these principles. On behalf of the Republic of Serbia, I want to express my profound appreciation to them for their strict commitment to the rule of international law, and state clearly my country’s unbroken dedication to those same precepts.

Questioning the principle of sovereignty anywhere in the world is a dangerous game fraught with precedent and political consequence. As a result, international law and the region’s strategic priorities are in danger of being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. As a result, we find ourselves facing a perilous impasse today.

Mr. President,

Serbia cannot accept—and will continue to oppose—its own forcible partition.

I strongly believe that no country represented in this room would do otherwise.

I don’t think there can be any serious doubt about that.

And I want to emphasize something else about which there should be no doubt: the Republic of Serbia believes that coming together in compromise is the sine qua non of a more profoundly integrated Europe and a more prosperous, interdependent world.

We believe in peaceful and consensual resolution of disputes, including the one we are here today to discuss. Such an approach is the only one that stands a chance to achieve a sustainable solution to Kosovo acceptable to all stakeholders.

____

With this in mind, I now turn to a consideration of the Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in our province of Kosovo, dated 15 July 2008.

I do notice that its overall tone has improved over previous ones, and the criticism of the Kosovo Serbs and Belgrade has subsided—a welcome development.

And yet, I must express regret at the Report’s tendency to downplay the fundamental distinction between positions that aim to uphold the primacy of the rule of international law and those that aim to side-step its basic tenets.

I also regret that the United Nations has still not released the findings reached by Mr. Ssekandi on allegations that senior UNMIK officials ordered the excessive use of force on March 17^th against Kosovo Serb demonstrators in the town of Kosovska Mitrovica, as is plain from paragraph 7 of the Report.

In addition, I must highlight the fact that nowhere does the Secretary-General’s Report explicitly condemn the illegitimate adoption of a—quote—constitution—end quote—by the Kosovo Albanian authorities that attempts to eliminate any role or function of the United Nations in our southern province. This so-called “constitution” makes reference to implementing the Ahtisaari Proposal, a document that has no legal standing with the Security Council—much less with the Republic of Serbia.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A grave violation of resolution 1244 has been committed. It should have been addressed directly. Instead, the Report merely asserts the existence of a “profoundly new reality in which UNMIK can no longer perform […] its tasks as an interim administration.”

Turning to a more general point, I must also regretfully contrast the passive approach of the United Nations on the question of defending its Security Council-mandated executive authority with its activism on the matter of reconfiguration.

Proceeding without the consent of the Security Council—against the clearly communicated will of the Republic of Serbia, the host-country of the United Nations mission in Kosovo—the Secretary-General had instructed his Special Representative to reconfigure UNMIK.

The argument that was made to justify this encroachment on the statutory prerogatives of the Security Council was one of expediency: the Council could not agree, but it was necessary to move forward anyway.

Imagine, if you will, Excellencies, what could happen when some place other than Kosovo is at issue in this chamber—one in which a different constellation of forces and interests is in play.

Would it again be appropriate to move ahead without the Security Council’s approval?

Mr. President,

The way in which reconfiguration started was an inglorious episode indeed.

But what is now of crucial importance is for it to proceed in the right way—with the full engagement of Serbia. It must be completed with our acceptance, and explicitly approved by the Security Council. Such is the only way to deliver legitimacy and ensure the sustainability of our work.

With cautious optimism I can say that my meeting with the Secretary-General last week produced an understanding that could hopefully lead to an eventual agreement—one that would require, in the end, the approval of the Security Council.

The voice of Serbia—on reconfiguration and much else besides—should no longer be avoided or disregarded.

Two days ago SRSG Lamberto Zannier traveled to Belgrade for talks on the six topics of “practical mutual concern”, in the language of the Report—namely police, judiciary, customs, transportation and infrastructure, boundaries, and patrimony.

This first meeting was an important first step toward protecting the well-being of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo.

As the SRSG remarked to me, “to solve problems together we must reach decisions together.” We agree fully. And so it is in that constructive frame of mind that my colleague, the Minister for Kosovo and Metohija, Mr. Goran Bogdanovic, will meet with Mr. Zannier early next week for talks on judiciary and police in Serb-dominated areas..

The hard work of compromise is about to begin.

Mr. President,

I want to be clear in saying that Serbia will spare no effort to honestly engage with the United Nations in forging an acceptable, forward-looking reconfiguration arrangement—one that upholds the overall authority of the UN, while opening up space for the institutional inclusion of key regional organizations.

I must be equally clear in saying that reconfiguration must not go beyond the red lines marked out by resolution 1244. It must not in any way infringe upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia.

Once explicitly confirmed by the Security Council, such a construction could go far in the direction of addressing the very concrete, numerous challenges the Serbian and other non-Albanian communities in Kosovo currently face.

Mr. President,

Today, the situation on the ground is far from normal. I will limit myself to three examples.

First, after UDI, even fewer IDPs have returned to Kosovo—a total of only 49 Kosovo Serbs from March to the end of June, according to the Secretary-General’s Report. This clearly demonstrates the undercurrent of exclusion and intolerance that permeates throughout the province.

Second, following UDI, cultural cleansing has returned. Witness the abominable act of paving over the ruins of the recently destroyed Serbian church in the center of Djakovica, thus compounding physical destruction with the attempt to erase every trace of its very existence. Or the defiance of the municipal authorities in Decane to restore the cadastral record of land belonging to the monastery of Viskoi Decani, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that has been rightly placed on its List of World Heritage in Danger—notwithstanding two Executive Decisions by the SRSG ordering them to do so.

And third, since UDI the return of illegally-seized private property has come to a stand-still. More than 30,000 such cases are outstanding. Those affected—Kosovo Serbs overwhelmingly—barely manage in make-shift dwellings or IDP camps, while Kosovo Albanians continue to live in their homes and make use of their agricultural fields—without fear of arrest or prosecution.

In short, life for the most troubled community in Europe has become almost unbearable. For many of them in the enclaves, their fate depends on how they feel they can survive despite the hostility of their immediate surroundings. For others, we are talking about a community that is inseparable from the rest of Serbia.

False frontiers can create flashpoints—and so can imposed the so-called reality. We must be very frank about this.

Mr. President,

The only prosperous destiny for the Western Balkans manifestly lies in the European Union.

____

Serbia is very serious about rapidly securing its membership in the EU. We have unmistakably demonstrated this fundamental commitment in recent days by the decisive steps taken to reaffirm our full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former-Yugoslavia in The Hague.

And Serbia strongly believes in the power of the 21^st-century values of Europe and their ability to reconcile former adversaries.

Consistent with these beliefs, I say: It is time to turn the page on the divisions of the recent past.

By pursuing a policy of peace through compromise, the Western Balkans can truly be transformed into a region that submits to the rule of law, while embracing the promise of Europe and the principles that stand at its foundation.

So I see the present as a historic moment—as important for us as it is for the European Union. Together we can create a region that looks to the future with optimism, proud of its many identities, and secure of its prospects.

Mr. President,

Such is the vision of the new Government of Serbia. This is the true “new reality” we aim to achieve, together with our partners and friends. And this is the strategic framework informing our approach to resolving the problem of Kosovo.

In conclusion, we hope that all in this room agree that a step in the right direction is making reconfiguration acceptable to all the parties represented in this room, starting with the Republic of Serbia.

We intend to play our constructive part—without shying away from the defense of our sovereignty and territorial integrity in line with international law.

By aiming to “unite people and not states”, to use the formulation of one of the founding fathers of the European Union, Jean Monet, we can move this issue forward in concert.

Together we can find a way back to our common home, and ahead to our common future.

Thank you, Mr. President, for having given me the opportunity to address the Security Council.

Dear Mr. Cingolani,

Fellow Panelists,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure to be with you this evening here in the Eternal City.

I also want to thank the two organizing institutions for bringing us together under the theme of “Serbia, the Balkans, and Europe.”

And I cannot help but remark that one of these institutions is named after perhaps the most important constitutional document in the long history of Europe, the Magna Carta.

This Great Charter of Liberties of 1215 stands at the beginning of our common tradition that raises the rule of law above the arbitrary rule of any man.

But the rule of law is more than our tradition. It forms the core of our self-understanding as a community of shared values.

What is perhaps less well known is the Serbian contribution to the promulgation of these values.

In 1349, the Serbian emperor Dusan presented to the nation his Code, in effect Serbia’s first constitution.

I want to read to you a passage from it:

Should Our Imperial Majesty write a letter that contravenes this Code

And be at variance with the law and justice

As set down in the Code,

The judges

Shall not comply therewith

But shall judge

And act withal as justice commandeth

And shall not judge out of fear of the Emperor.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

From time to time it has been remarked that the Balkans are not really a part of Europe, that we are not a part of the mainstream.

So I wanted to take this occasion to remind us all of the fact that Serbia is a sometimes overlooked constitutive element of the European tradition of the rule of law.

And I wanted to express my view that in the European context, the principle that all are equal before the law, once adopted and brought into practice, inevitably leads to the transformation of a given society into a democracy. This of course takes time. But we mustn’t confuse principle with history.

History has not always been kind to Serbia. Centuries of Ottoman occupation, two Balkan and

two world wars, as well as the conflicts of the 1990s, are all a part of our historical record. Equally important was the progressive development of Constitutionalism in the latter half of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries that sought to establish a kind of continuity of spirit with Dusan’s Code—the Magna Carta of Serbia—together with the restoration of democracy that took place at the end of the 20^th century.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have turned the page. The present moment is one of hope, driven by our fundamental commitment to consolidate once and for all the democratic gains we have made in the past eight years.

The moment is one of hope because for us, democracy in the contemporary context is associated with the domestic consolidation of the values of Europe.

This explains why the April 29^th historic signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement between the EU and my country is of such importance: it has enabled us to pronounce that the contours of Serbia’s future in Europe have at last been solidly traced.

Our people have spoken: the decisive victory of pro-European forces in the May 11^th parliamentary election signals our national confirmation to pursue a political course that rapidly leads to full membership in the European Union.

____

Today, we have the chance to raise the sights of the Serbian people to a future of stability, security, and prosperity.

And it is to this future that I wish to direct the remainder of my remarks to you this evening.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What should we seek to accomplish? What is it in our interest to prevent? These are the two questions that have served as the basis for strategic thinking of European statesmen for a very long time.

In the past, they reflected a zero-sum, balance-of-power approach to international relations that produced too many periods of instability, leading our continent and the world to the brink of disaster.

But in the twenty-first century, asking these two fundamental questions reflects a sober realization that we must build a common future on the strength of what brings us together as a democratic community of nation-states. To construct and to integrate, on the basis of a cornerstone belief in the interdependence of individual liberty human and minority rights, and so to grasp the infinite opportunities that our era offers to the bold, and to the visionary—this is our task, and this is our purpose.

For European democracy is about substance, not just procedures. It is about institutions, not just words on parchment. And it is about responsibilities, not just rights.

Democracy is also about deepening regional cooperation—a preparatory stage to the comprehensive integration of the Western Balkans into the EU in which each one of our countries will be able to safely promote their prosperity.

Democracy is also about implementing true, genuine reconciliation—to the benefit of the generations to come, in the name of those who are with us no longer.

At the heart of this absolute commitment to reconciliation lies full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Let there be no doubt, Serbia remains determined to locate, arrest, and hand-over the few Hague indictees still at large. And we will succeed. I am sure of it. Cooperation with the ICTY is not only our undeniable international obligation; it is our moral duty—to our neighbors and the world, of course, but foremost to ourselves.

The moral dimension of reconciliation is central to building a truly European Balkans, for it provides a framework through which the crimes of individuals who falsely acted in the name of their nation are to be understood, while enabling regional cooperation—a prelude to Europe—to both broaden and deepen.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This truly historic sense of European purpose is being tested by the events that have arisen as a result of the unilateral declaration of independence of the Assembly of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija—in clear violation of the United Nations Charter, in contravention of Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), and in opposition to the Helsinki Final Act.

This attempt at secession by the Kosovo Albanians has inflicted damage to the foundation of the region’s security architecture we have been working hard to complete. And it has struck at the very heart of the binding principles of the international system—principles such as the respect for the territorial integrity of states, and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders.

As a result, a precedent with global reach is being established—one that legitimizes the forced partition of any UN member-state, by supplying any ethnic or religious group with a grievance against its capital with a playbook on how to achieve its ends.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I must be frank with you: The decision to recognize UDI by the previous Italian Government has disturbed our flourishing bilateral relationship.

Was it not in our interest to prevent this? For our political and economic ties were assuming, I think you will agree, the form of a strategic partnership—let me refer only to the most recent decision by Fiat to invest in the Zastava car plant in the central Serbian city of Kragujevac.

And every indication suggested that they were getting even closer, for the Italian Republic had traditionally understood the European character of Serbia. Your country has, after all, been one of the most active advocates of Serbia’s accelerated progress toward full EU membership.

____

How do we move forward in this complicated set of circumstances?

How—in other words—do we overcome the erroneous choice to sacrifice the region’s 21^st century geo-strategic priorities on the altar of maximalist, 19^th century communal aspirations?

I propose that we recall the principles that drive decision-making in Brussels. I’m talking about respect for the rules that frame the choices that can be made, and those that encourage compromise, concession, and consensus-building.

And I propose that we make a concerted effort to realign our behavior in accordance with the standards of the international system built on the foundation of the United Nations Charter.

These standards were first brought forth when the Magna Carta was promulgated and the rule of law was established as a principle of conduct amongst Europeans.

Its strategic aim was regulatory, after all. By seeking to eliminate the arbitrary use of power through the imposition of a compulsory code of conduct, it clearly defined the scope of legitimate behavior.

The same is said of the international system established by the UN Charter. The same principles as at work: binding obligations, rule of law, sovereign equality.

That is why one can say that the United Nations Charter is the Magna Carta of the world community.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In line with our commitment to the peaceful resolution of Kosovo’s future status and the values of the EU we are on course to join, as well as our dedication to respect the rule of law in the international arena, the Republic of Serbia has ruled out the use of force.

Instead, we will proceed with the formulation of creative proposals designed to legalize the international civilian presence and break the status deadlock.

And we will present them to our partners and friends with a view to re-opening the window of opportunity for good faith negotiations to take place and continue until compromises are reached—compromises that all legitimate stakeholders can abide by, and that are confirmed by the United Nations Security Council, the ultimate upholder of the rule of law in the international system.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have tried to present to you my vision of Serbia’s future and how to attain it, my thoughts on regional cooperation and how to promote it, and my views on Europe and how to achieve them.

In the end, I would like to re-emphasize the crux of the matter. An acceptable solution to Kosovo’s future status is the sine qua non of a democratic, stable, secure, prosperous and integrated Balkans—one in which the rule of law reigns supreme, reconciliation is achieved, and the values and treaties that bind us together are fully respected.

This is a time for sober strategic thinking and prudential statecraft, and a time to look past the divisions. It is time to face forward, to gaze beyond the discord, and to find a European solution to the European challenge that is Kosovo’s future status.

“To act withal as justice commandeth,” says the Code of Dusan.

To act within the law, and strengthen the international system. This is our solemn duty; it is what we should seek to accomplish.

It will not be easy. But it is necessary.

There is no other workable way forward.

And so I believe that in the weeks and months ahead, we will all have to take historical steps designed to move beyond the vicious circle of unilateral actions that have unnecessarily complicated the situation.

I believe we can do it, because I believe in the power of the ideas that have gotten us this far, to within sight of the finish line.

Thank you for your attention.

Mr. Chairman,

Secretary General Insulza,

Dear Colleagues,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my distinct privilege to participate in the dialogue between the heads of delegations and permanent observers to the Organization of American States.

I wish to indicate my sincere appreciation to our Colombian hosts for their excellent organization and warm hospitality in the city of Medellín on the occasion of the Thirty-eighth Regular Session of the OAS.

As an observer country, the Republic of Serbia has consistently held the view that this Organization plays a crucial role in the promotion of regional peace and security, through a principled defense and promotion of democratic values and institutions, human and minority rights, social justice, environmental protection, gender equality and sustainable development.

The principles that embody the OAS trace their foundation back to at least 1826 and Simón Bolívar’s dream of creating an association of sovereign states in the hemisphere. “The freedom of the New World is the hope of the Universe”, he said, with characteristic aplomb.

This Bolivarian hope, this quest for freedom, and this dream of establishing an inter-American system in which each sovereign state is equal to the others, assumed more concrete form with the 1948 adoption in Bogota of the Charter of the Organization of American States and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the first international expression of the universal principles of human rights.

In the intervening decades, the OAS has grown into a regional organization that places democracy at the cornerstone of its mission. As the landmark Inter-American Democratic Charter—adopted on a date weighty of significance, September 11^th, 2001—plainly declares: “The peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As a country firmly pursuing the path to membership in the European Union and the values that stand at its foundation, the Republic of Serbia shares your commitment to the centrality of democracy. We too believe that it is the indispensable ingredient to the achievement of stability, peace, and security in our region. And we express solidarity with your conviction that democracy is not the mere holding of elections. It is about the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights in their universality, indivisibility, and interdependence.

And democracy is about the eradication of all forms of discrimination. It is about social and economic development, good governance, the rule of law, and reconciliation. It is about the promotion of civil society, and the fight to eliminate poverty. It is about multidimensional security. And it is about planning for the future by placing critical emphasis on the importance of providing a good education for the generations to come.

In short, democracy is about substance, not just procedures. It is about institutions, not just words on parchment. And it is about responsibilities, not just rights.

Democracy is a heavy burden for each to bear. But it has become indispensable to our identity. As a founder of modernismo once wrote, “there is no burden heavier than that of a conscious life.”

In this consists the heavy burden—and the nobility—of democracy: experiencing every fulfilling moment of our conscious existence.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with a great sense of pleasure that I am able to recall the historically close and friendly ties that my country maintained with the OAS and its member-states for decades.

And it is with even greater delight that I am able to announce to you that the Republic of Serbia is in the process of prioritizing the comprehensive enhancement of our relations with the Western Hemisphere. Strengthening the already built bridges of understanding, mutual-respect and solidarity are not only in the common interest, but will serve our peoples far into the future.

That is what this Session of the OAS is fundamentally about: providing for the next generation—as the Summit’s central theme announces: “Youth and Democratic Values.” My country fully endorses the position that the heightened development of values, capacities, and skills for youth will enable them to play a constructive political role in the globalizing socio-economic context of our contemporary democratic environment, help direct their expectations, and make them aware of the challenges they will face in an era pregnant with both possibilities and uncertainties.

It is to this future that I wish to direct the remainder of my brief remarks—to the future of my country and the Western Balkan region of Europe to which we belong. For as Pablo Neruda once exclaimed, “all paths lead to the same goal: to convey to others what we are.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are a proud, European nation whose history is a unique combination of suffering and redemption, loss and victory, setback and jubilation.

We are nation that has struggled to overcome five hundred years of Ottoman occupation and the consequences of too many wars.

We are a nation that has acknowledged the mistakes we have made while working to consolidate our democratic achievements.

We are a nation that stands tall as a central pillar of regional stability and prosperity.

That is what we are—a nation that seeks the guidance of our traditions while looking to the future with “burning patience”, as one of our poets termed it.

And that future is in Europe.

Serbia has an appointment to keep with Europe.

And we intend to keep it.

____

Yet there remains a potential obstacle on the road to Europe which, if not dealt with in the right way, could slow or even reverse the tremendous progress that has been made throughout the Western Balkans.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I refer to the February 17^th unilateral declaration of independence—or UDI—by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Kosovo’s illegal attempt at secession has struck at the very heart of the binding principles of the international system enumerated in the Charters of the United Nations and regional organizations including the OAS—principles such as the respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states, and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders.

As a result, a precedent with global reach is being established—one that legitimizes the forced partition of any member-state of the United Nations, by supplying any ethnic or religious group with a grievance against its capital with a playbook on how to achieve its ends.

This precedent also legitimizes unilaterally imposing solutions to ethnic conflicts. It legitimizes the act of unilateral secession by sub-state actor. It transforms the right to self-determination into an avowed right to independence. And it violates the commitment to the peaceful and consensual resolution of disputes in Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Republic of Serbia has ruled out the use of force, in line with our commitment to the peaceful resolution of Kosovo’s future status, and the values of the EU we are on course to join.

Instead, we will continue to make full use of our diplomatic, political and legal arsenal. To that end, Serbia intends to put a resolution before the General Assembly of the United Nations in September that would ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence.

We are aware that you have been given advice to recognize Kosovo—and in the name of the Republic of Serbia, I wish to profoundly thank the vast majority of you for your principled position not to do so.

____

My friends, your support for Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is truly gratifying. Informed by your deep respect for the principles of international law, you have examined the strategic consequences for the United Nations system of Kosovo’s UDI.

You have looked at the Kosovo precedent, and have judged its potential consequences: existing conflicts could escalate, frozen conflicts could reignite, and new ones could be instigated.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the name of the Republic of Serbia, I ask you, the member-states of the OAS, to maintain your reservation on the Kosovo issue while the International Court of Justice deliberates on this crucial question.

This is the only way to avoid doing any further damage to the legitimacy of the international system and the universality of the values we hold in common.

And it is the only way to re-open the window of opportunity behind which stands the prospect of a negotiated, compromise solution to the future status of Kosovo acceptable to all the stakeholders.

____

It is the key to securing the full integration of the Western Balkans into the European Union—a goal shared by all in the region.

In the name of consolidating a more hopeful, democratic future for all who live in our province of Kosovo as well as in the rest of Serbia, and throughout the region, I ask for your support for the resolution we will submit to the United Nations General Assembly in September.

____

This is a moment for strategic thinking, bold ideas and legitimate solutions. Let us together make that moment come true.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Chairman,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my distinct pleasure to have an opportunity to address the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative in Zagreb today.

The Republic of Serbia wishes to indicate its appreciation to our host for its commendable organization of this event, and would like to acknowledge the hard work of our Chairman in promoting the enhancement of the Initiative’s activities.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My country has consistently attached special importance to regional initiatives, providing as they do myriad opportunities for regional cooperation among its member-states in various fields.

The Republic of Serbia fully supports the proposition to reorganize the Initiative’s roundtables with a view to making their work more efficient and more responsive to the practical needs of the member-states, and agree with the Chairman’s proposal that they should tackle economic issues such as SMEs, transportation, tourism, culture and education, as well as environmental protection. Here let me single out the importance of establishing a regional approach to fire-fighting, with an emphasis on forest fires that frequently affect many of our countries during summer months.

I am pleased to confirm that the Republic of Serbia continues to be in favor of the establishment of a Permanent Secretariat of the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative. We appreciate the Italian Republic’s offer to host it in Ancona, and support the candidacy of Ambassador Grafini as Secretary-General. We also maintain our support for UniAdrion, the mechanism of inter-university cooperation.

I wish to make a further point: While there remain differences of opinion on how to tackle the issue of organized crime within the context of the Initiative, I emphasize the strong position of the Republic of Serbia that this is an issue that must remain at the forefront of attention. We must also find ways to cooperate more efficiently in suppressing the grey economy that acknowledges no borders. We believe that we should agree to further elaborate the mechanisms on cooperation during the forthcoming Greek chairmanship. In this context, let me wish the Hellenic Republic all success as it assumes the role of chairman of this important regional organization.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Adriatic and Ionian area comprises one of the most important maritime and commercial regions of the Mediterranean world—formed around a basin that opens like a fan towards what the Romans termed “mare nostrum.” Since ancient times, our region has been seen as an important cultural crossroads, a bountiful blending of West and East, North and South. Today, the Initiative’s member-states are distinguished by whether they are members of the European Union or not. Happily, this feature is a temporary one, for we all agree that our common future lies in the EU.

In that sense, regional cooperation is a prelude to Europe, a preparatory stage to the comprehensive integration of the Western Balkans into the EU. By consolidating our commitment to act in concert on a whole host of issues of common interest, regional initiatives such as this one help us all gain greater familiarity with the idea of Europe in the 21^st century—an idea that aims to fuse national interests to the common values of the unprecedented historical enterprise that has come to be the European Union.

But Europe is more than the embodiment of an idea. It is a Union of sovereign states in which decisions are made without acrimony, and where consensus is the order of the day. Where compromise and concession are built into the system, and where solidarity for less developed areas of the Union is presupposed. In Europe, justice is blind and the rule of law is supreme. Corruption and organized crime are shown no quarter. Individual liberty stands tall, and care for the more vulnerable is a praiseworthy virtue, not a sign of weakness. And the reconciliation of nations can be safely completed to the benefit of the generations to come, in the name of those who are with us no longer.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The April 29^th historic signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement between the EU and my country has enabled us to pronounce that the contours of Serbia’s future in Europe have at last been solidly traced. And the decisive victory of pro-European forces in the May 11^th parliamentary election signals our national confirmation to pursue a political course that rapidly leads to full membership in the European Union.

While we all have a role to play, I believe that Serbia and Croatia have a distinct responsibility to lead the region together to its European future.

It was not always this way. Think back to Vukovar and the dreadful events that took place there. And think back to the ethnic cleansing of more than a quarter of a million Serbs during Operation Storm in 1995.

That was a dark time—one that should never again be repeated.

But in this decade, we consciously chose to turn the page.

Without forgetting the grievances and deeds of the past, we chose to concentrate on building for a future in which our two countries, together with all other Western Balkan states, would come together in the European Union.

This took courage, and it took vision.

And the results achieved were very encouraging, for our bilateral ties had begun to improve in recent years. Issues of concern—from minority rights to property restitution—had started being properly addressed, and reconciliation was proceeding in the right direction. We were on our way to fully normalize this crucially important relationship, and assume our rightful place as the twin engines of regional cooperation and democratic stability.

And then came Croatia’s unfortunate choice to recognize the unilateral, illegal and illegitimate declaration of independence of the Assembly of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo and Metohija—in clear violation of the United Nations Charter, in contravention of Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), and in opposition to the Helsinki Final Act.

This attempt at secession by the Kosovo Albanians strikes at the very heart of the binding principles of the international system—principles such as the respect for the territorial integrity of states, and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders.

As a result, our region’s painstakingly constructed security architecture has been called into question.

At the same time, a precedent that does fundamental damage to what we’re trying to create together regionally is being established.

____

It did not have to be this way. Bilateral fissures, regional fault lines, international divisions—all of this could have been avoided, had political foresight prevailed.

____

How do we overcome the erroneous choice to sacrifice the region’s 21^st century geo-strategic priorities on the altar of maximalist, 19^th century communal aspirations?

I propose that we recall the principles that drive decision-making in Brussels. I’m talking about compromise, concession, and consensus-building.

And I propose that we make a concerted effort to realign our behavior in accordance with the standards of the international system built on the foundation of the United Nations Charter.

Serbia will, for one, continue to make full use of its diplomatic and political arsenal to ensure that Kosovo will not join the world community of sovereign states, and thus not acquire this ultimate status of international legitimacy. As such, it will remain unattractive to foreign investment, and incapable of preventing its freefall to failure—without the engagement of Belgrade.

When the underlying implications of such an outcome sink in, I believe that a new window of opportunity will open up, one which will pave the way for the commencement of true negotiations on Kosovo’s future status—serious negotiations that continue until a compromise is reached—a compromise that all legitimate stakeholders can abide by, and one that is confirmed by the United Nations Security Council.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Regional cooperation in general—and this Initiative in particular—is rooted in the European dedication to resolve differences harmoniously through dialogue, not discordantly through confrontation.

Serbia remains deeply committed to participating in the stewardship of the bedrock principles of Europe.

And that is why we remain steadfast in our determination to fashion an historic compromise agreement with the Kosovo Albanians, to solidify the democratic gains made, and to propel our entire neighborhood forward to rapid European membership.

I remain hopeful that the boldness and vision needed to see these objectives through to their successful completion can be brought to the surface in time. For when all is said and done, I believe that there has never been a more opportune time for all the nations of our region to sincerely come together, as partners, in peace and reconciliation.

I thank you for your kind attention.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my distinct pleasure to address you here at the Faculty of Political Science of the University of Belgrade.

____

Serbia is a country of turbulent disposition. Standing at one of the great crossroads of civilizations, it has been the playground of imperial ambitions throughout centuries. At times part of the problem, more often part of the solution, Serbia has rarely been relegated to the sidelines of history.

Let me dwell for a moment on the origin of this historical singularity.

The first genuine ruler of the Serbian people, Grand Duke Stefan Nemanja, gave his nation three sons. At the age of eighteen, in the year 1193, the youngest son, Rastko, came into contact with a monk from the Holy Mountain of Athos, who led him away to that great spiritual center of Eastern Christianity. There he was tonsured, and given the name Sava. He went on to found the Serbian Orthodox Church, which later became the pillar of Serbian national identity.

But Sava was not merely a spiritual leader. He was Serbia’s first chief arbiter—our nation’s first diplomat, so to speak. For after his father’s death, Sava was called, on several occasions, to intervene in the political affairs of the lands his brothers had inherited. His political successes created a realm of national stability that enabled the Serbian people to establish a kingdom for close to 200 years, until the military defeat by the Ottomans at Kosovo Polje in 1389—and then, after 1804 and our Uprising against the occupiers, to once more begin building a sovereign state on the foundations of the Medieval one.

But Sava’s deeds accomplished more than that. They established an almost primordial confidence in the ability of our nation to survive against all odds, by instilling a memory of the founding of Serbia that subtly fused the material with the spiritual, the past with the future, the human with the divine. Consider Saint Sava’s words: “Faith can only save us if united with, and expressed in, good works.”

I believe this dignified combination of faith and good works, of seeking to understand the future through the prism of the past, and of striving to work in the present to achieve such a future, forms the basis of the character of Serbian singularity.

It also stands at the very origin of our arrival onto the European historical scene. I turn to a letter Saint Sava wrote shortly before he returned to God. “At first we were confused”, he 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”, he concluded.

This conception of being between East and West lives at the heart of the singular, complicated, age-old predicament of Serbia. It is an essential part of who we are. And when properly understood, it contains a moral compass, a sense of belonging and adapting to greater geo-political currents.

The major exception was the 1990s. I believe that is why they were so traumatic for us. Forces arising from within our midst came into conflict with the healthy interpretation of our centuries-old inheritance, and destroyed much of what our ancestors had painstakingly built across the tattered fabric of time. That is why the name of Slobodan Milosevic will always be associated with a national disgrace, for he brought great shame to the Serbian people in his treacherous usurpation of Serbian singularity.

As a matter of fact, the 1990s illustrate the dark side of our singularity. As the Berlin Wall came down, and as nations from both sides of the Iron Curtain were coming together in a great act of reconciliation, Serbia stood apart. We ignored the tide of history. We put our blinders on. And we reached for each other’s throats in the Balkans.

That turbulent time has passed, although we still feel its consequences. Choices still need to be made—fundamental choices that will affect the future course of the entire region. The battle for the soul of the Western Balkans has not yet been fought to a finish. What is our ultimate destination? Such is the grand question of this generation.

Thankfully, we have the works of our predecessors to guide us in difficult times. Their examples provide us with the tools to plan transformational change, to implement our vision, to make the improbable possible. But such examples drawn from the manifestations of our singularity can only be of use if we have the prudence and far-sightedness to differentiate between tactical maneuvers and strategic goals.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Consider the deeds of the visionary founders of modern Serbian diplomacy. After the restoration of Serbian statehood in the first part of the 19^th century, men such as Jovan Marinkovic and Filip Hristic solidified the place of Serbia as a junior member of the Concert of Europe.

Later, after the Congress of Berlin, when Serbia was at last recognized as a fully sovereign state, national architects in the tradition of Jovan Ristic and Stojan Novakovic led the way in deepening Serbia’s relations with the European capitals, at a time of illusory stability and increased international rigidity.

Next, in the wake of the two Balkan Wars, the First World War and the founding of the South Slavic state, Serbian diplomacy was able to consolidate the international position of the new country on the foundations of the European order forged at Versailles. Think only of the fact that Jovan Ducic and Ivo Andric were appointed as ambassadors during the inter-war period, and you get a sense of the vision of their superiors at that time.

Then came the Second World War. Fascism was defeated, at a horrendous cost to our nation. Rising out of the ashes of that terrible conflict, a new socialist Yugoslavia was born. The golden age of our diplomacy came into being. It was led by Koca Popovic, who began his diplomatic career during the time of the Partisans, when he helped sway the Allies to the cause of Tito.

The erudite Koca, who came from a prominent pre-war Belgrade family, helped steer the country away from the grip of Stalin in 1948. This enabled Yugoslavia to carve a singular role for itself in the Cold War era. His knowledge of the ways of the Soviets, the French and the Anglo-Americans, his understanding of the complexities of the situation in the Middle East, and his conception and implementation of Yugoslavia’s uncontested position of leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, all enabled our country to play a disproportionately large role on the global stage, including the United Nations General Assembly and its Security Council, on which our country sat a record four times as a non-permanent member.

Koca’s two most notable successors, Marko Nikezic and Mirko Tepavac, built on his strategic outlook and achievements. Our country was one of the main mediators in the Middle East crises of the late 1960s and early 1970s. And later, when the international situation demanded it, Yugoslavia reached out to Western Europe through the Helsinki process—inoculating itself from the specter of the dangerous doctrine of limited sovereignty.

Unfortunately, these authentic embodiers of our singularity fell out of favor by the end of the 1970s. An opportunity was missed to incorporate Yugoslavia into the European Community. Ideology trumped foresight and healthy self-confidence. And so the system slowly began to implode: ideas about which course to take—both domestically and internationally—lacked direction as well as substance.

The country’s increasing rigidity in the 1980s contributed to the rise of the extremist views of Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman, Alija Izetbegovic, and others, resulting in civil war that led to the violent dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

Without genuine representatives of the positive singularity that informed so many centuries of national undertakings, a critical mass of Serbs failed to recognize the erroneous deeds that were being committed on their behalf—until it was much too late.

One could say that at the moment when the East chose to face West, Milosevic chose to face East. Zoran Djindjic called this the moment of “epic tardiness”, adding that “there is nothing so weak as an idea whose time has irrevocably passed.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The depth of the weakness of that idea was tragically exposed for all the world to see. And yet, arising out the rubble of the NATO bombing, the positive singularity of Serbia once more returned to the forefront. A democratic coalition was formed on the platform of a return to the strategic approach to national development. Its basis was a bedrock conviction in the value of comprehensive engagement with our neighbors, Europe, and the world.

And on October 5^th, we began to succeed. A sort of idealism without illusions characterized those years. True leadership returned to the scene. Economic and social renewal began in earnest. And we faced forward while proudly respecting the achievements of our predecessors.

We realized that Serbia could benefit only through a grand-strategy that understood the transformational times in which we live. That recognized moving towards membership in the European Union was the only viable option to pursue. But that also understood the easterly shift in the global balance of power. That the emerging markets of today would become the dominant ones of tomorrow. That trans-national arrangements will be marked by heightened instability, as interests diverge and comprehensive alternatives are postulated. That, in short, the international community is becoming less coherent and more unpredictable.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A majority of Serbian citizens believe that our ultimate destination should be the European Union. I hope that most of us in this room would agree on that.

Let me share with you three reasons why I believe that choosing Europe is in Serbia’s national interest.

First, Europe has demonstrated an unparalleled capacity to deliver sustainable economic growth and prosperity. Every single state that has become a member of the European Union has felt the tangible material benefits of membership. Every single one has benefited—the post-communist transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe most of all.

Take the case of Slovakia.

When I was a child, my parents took us on a holiday there. The Cold War was still on.

I remember how it was then: gloomy, poor, and uncomfortable. Decaying Bratislava was depressing. The countryside was really backward. There were no highways. Stores had no food on their shelves. There was little or no foreign investment.

Everything was a uniform shade of gray.

Today, Slovakia is unrecognizable to those who remember its communist past. Bratislava has transformed itself into a vibrant, exciting, affluent capital. The country’s towns and villages are enjoying a renaissance. Its farmers earn a good living: agricultural subsidies, for instance, have never been higher.

Its infrastructure has been modernized: highways built, roads re-paved, rail links updated. People have money to buy the goods and services on sale in the growing number of stores and shopping malls opening throughout the land. And they have enough left over to place it in the bank or invest it in the stock market.

All this has been made possible because of the stability and security provided by the Slovak Republic’s accession to the European Union, and its access to EU’s common market.

There is no doubt about it: the European Union works. It delivers what it promises: a better, more rewarding and prosperous life for all.

____

Another reason to continue actively to seek membership in the EU concerns our sense of belonging to something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

It is a civilizational category. Serbia’s singular heritage, our culture, our beliefs, and our history bind us to a constellation of nations that have come to instill what one European statesman called “a sense of enlarged patriotism.”

And this brings me to the final reason why I believe Serbia belongs in the European Union—values. More specifically, democratic values, and what they can truly come to mean for Serbia.

Democracy is not the mere holding of elections. Democracy in the Europe of the 21^st-century is about equality, pluralism, and diversity. It is about the interdependence of individual liberty with the rule of law, human and minority rights, and integration. It is about living together in a community of shared values, not living side by side as strangers merely sharing a passport, a flag, and an anthem.

Entrenching these values in the Serbian collective would give substance to the belief that our present hopes can become our future realities. And it would provide a context in which the ennoblement of our singularity could take shape—by fusing it to a historical process that places democratic values at the center of its being.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Serbia’s membership in the European Union is not a panacea; it is not the solution to every problem. Differences would remain. However, it would provide a safe, democratic framework within which these differences could be dealt with.

The European Union is one of the grandest political projects ever undertaken. It is the embodiment of a commitment to national transformation, an antidote to self-isolation.

But there is more than a slight chance that Serbia will not join the EU. It is not a foregone conclusion. The eventual success of our European endeavor is not guaranteed.

The EU is in the process of consolidating its newly constructed identity, formalized in the Lisbon Treaty. It is becoming a rising, integrated colossus on the world stage.

I get the sense that we find ourselves at the closing stage of enlargement, that the outer borders of the European Union are being set.

This is a dramatic moment, and we must not fail to realize its geo-strategic significance.

While Serbia hesitates, while we keep deliberating about whether to choose Europe, the gates may very well close.

That is why I so strongly believe that Europe is a choice we must make now. It is up to us. It is up to this generation to choose—for itself and those that will follow it: To choose Europe, or self-isolation.

There is no middle ground.

There is no ambiguous way forward.

____

“Just a moment”, some could say. “We do have a credible alternative. That alternative is Russia.”

Our two nations have greatly benefited from a centuries-old friendship. Russia helped us materially and spiritually as we struggled to overcome five hundred years of Ottoman occupation. We were allied in two world wars. And the longstanding tradition of closeness between our two nations continues to grow and to deepen in the present.

But in the interdependent world of the 21^st century, I believe that Serbia’s European accession would give a new, more profound meaning to our special relationship with Russia. Not only would it ensure that Moscow would have a true friend in Brussels, and deepen Russia’s access to the common European market, but it would also lead to an increase in both understanding and cooperation between Russia and the Union.

Only through membership in the EU could Serbia serve as a bridge between the two. Only by joining the EU could we make full use of our closeness with Russia, and fulfill the founding vision of the definer of our singularity, Saint Sava. Let us not deal ourselves a weak hand. Let us not forget the words: “we are destined to be the East in the West, and the West in the East.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We will have an opportunity to make a choice on Europe on May 11^th. It may be our last chance to pass through the gates before they are shut.

Some are trying to mislead us by saying that this election is about preserving our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

That’s not what this election is about. And the reason is simple: on this fundamental issue—on this question that concerns the very nature of the identity of our nation—there is hardly any disagreement in Serbia.

An overwhelming majority of us are determined to oppose, obstruct, and ultimately overturn the unilateral declaration of independence of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.

I believe that we have demonstrated this commitment beyond all shadow of a doubt. And I tell you that our diplomatic initiatives have contained the scope of recognition of Kosovo’s independence. Through our actions we have created a sense of uncertainty in the ultimate success of the secessionist project that has attempted to forcibly partition our country, in clear violation of the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and UNSCR 1244.

The arguments we have used have been principled. And they have been largely devoid of rhetoric which would only make us feel good, while failing to advance our goals.

Here is what we have said.

First, UDI is an attack on our democracy, whose potential success would leave missing a crucial component of the region’s security architecture. Think back to the terms of peace imposed in June 1999 on a defeated regime that explicitly reaffirmed that Kosovo remained a part of Serbia, while giving the United Nations a mandate to administer the province’s internal affairs.

Serbia remained whole under dictatorship. But now, when Serbia is a democracy, having demonstrated its dedication to engage with the world and integrate into Europe, we are being punished as no country has been in peacetime. How could this not affect our democratic capacity to continue along the course charted by the statesmen of October 5^th?

Second, UDI divides the region. The countries of the Western Balkans have inescapably been put in a situation to choose between Serbia and Kosovo. Let us understand what that means: choosing to recognize the UDI of our province of Kosovo means choosing to explicitly disregard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia. The direct, regrettable repercussion of such a choice is the downgrading of the comprehensive set of ties with Serbia.

And it’s a shame, for instead of rallying under the banner of regional solidarity, some have chosen to side with those outside the Western Balkans who were in a hurry to impose a solution in our part of the world, while at the same time arguing that imposing solutions to similar conflicts in other areas of the globe would be counterproductive.

Third, UDI makes our path to membership in the European Union much more complicated. We have to be honest about that. Not because recognizing UDI will ever be a pre-condition for accession—that will not happen—but because the European Union, is today closely associated by many in Serbia with support for UDI. And that has resulted in a whole lot of uncertainty and confusion. It has become acceptable to ask, “for all the talk about reason and Enlightenment, for all the declinations on the common good and solidarity, isn’t Europe just another place where might makes right?”

Our fourth argument is that UDI clearly violates international law. A revival of the debate about the legitimacy of internationally recognized borders has been triggered. For the illegal attempt by Kosovo to unilaterally secede from Serbia has created a a dangerous precedent.

This precedent legitimizes the doctrine of imposing solutions to ethnic conflicts. It transforms the right to self-determination into an avowed right to independence. It legitimizes the forced partition of internationally-recognized, sovereign states. And it violates the commitment to the peaceful and consensual resolution of disputes in Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have presented these arguments to the Security Council, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and in countless national capitals and multilateral fora.

We will keep doing so. We will keep making the case that Kosovo should not be recognized, and that it should not be admitted to regional and international organizations.

Now I want to tell you that we have been relatively successful so far—certainly more so than many thought we could be, despite tremendous pressures by the powerful advocates of Kosovo’s independence. No more than 40 countries have recognized Kosovo until today. And that number does not appear to be massively rising. We have worked hard to counter the short-sighted attempt to sacrifice the region’s geo-political priorities on the altar of the communal aspirations of the Kosovo Albanians. And we have done so with valor, dignity and determination—doing honor to the singularity that is the essence of our national inheritance.

But the task is far from complete. Several measures must be taken in the months to follow if we are to place ourselves in a position in which we can achieve our ultimate goal: a mutually-acceptable agreement on the future status of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Our plan is to put a resolution before the General Assembly of the United Nations in September that would ask the International Court of Justice to rule on the legality of UDI. This is an initiative we have presented to a large number of countries, and have found it to be a very persuasive argument against recognition.

Of course, we cannot know the ICJ ruling in advance. But it seems inconceivable to me that the Court would ignore the unambiguous legal parameters that stand at the foundation of the international system established in 1945.

Once the ICJ rules on the UDI, we will all come face to face with the fact that Kosovo will not join the world community of sovereign nations. It will not acquire this ultimate status of international legitimacy. It will remain unattractive to foreign investment; unresponsive to the rule of law; and incapable of preventing its freefall to failure—without the engagement of Belgrade.

When the underlying implications of such a destabilizing outcome sink in, a new window of opportunity will open up, in which, perhaps for the first time, a true negotiation can take place—serious negotiations that will continue until all parties agree to a solution.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have tried to lay before you my understanding of Serbia’s singularity manifested over time, its healthy developments, and its tragic exception. I have also tried to present to you my understanding of the challenges we face at present, and to impart with you my vision of the future course I believe is right for our country to pursue.

What I want to do in conclusion is to share with you the verses that put all this together in my mind—verses that many of us first came across in high school. They were written about a hundred years ago by the great poet and diplomat Milan Rakic, in his poem entitled At Gazimestan:

“Today they tell us, the children of this century,

That we are disrespectful to this history of ours,

That we have been caught in the currents of the West

And that our souls are afraid of danger.”

Many of us have been so accused—in great part by those who have not put enough distance between themselves and the darkness of the 1990s.

And those of us who found strength in the tradition of singularity they perverted to justify their own mistakes, have rarely taken them on directly.

Well let me do so now, building on the response that Milan Rakic formulated against those who sought to undermine what he and others were creating at such great sacrifice.

I believe Serbian singularity teaches us that the future is uncertain, that one’s friends are imperfect, and that no cause is ever truly just. Guarding against the temptation to isolate ourselves from the world is not mere pragmatism. It is survival, predicated on a healthy caution against those who champion an illusion, and advocate the use of all means to get there.

This does not mean turning away from our singular national achievements, but rather facing square on the real prospect of being left behind. To downplay the geo-strategic significance of the present moment, is to precipitate the repetition of recent failures.

Today, the promise of the centuries-old idea of a strong, confident Serbia must not be allowed to languish because of its misdirected pursuit by men who dishonored us before the world.

If this seems confrontational, that is because it is. It is confrontation with those who choose to misrepresent the meaning of Serbian singularity. We must not allow ourselves to be put on the defensive by people who are prepared to sacrifice our strategic national interest for the sake of a little more support in the electoral body. This must stop. The lying must cease. The vicious populism must come to an end.

____

Let me conclude with a story.

When Prince Milos went to Stambul to speak to the Sultan, he found it appropriate to put on a turban. It produced a reaction by some who felt that he had again embraced what the nation had rejected, by rising up against the occupiers. But they were wrong. For he had a strategic vision of how to implement the national interest, of which he was a chief architect.

Milos took seriously the bequest of Sava. He understood diplomatic realities. He was an idealist without illusions. He understood what had to be done. And he did it, without being any less of a patriot.

Thank you for your attention.