Serbia, 2008

In 1945, on the heels of the

most destructive conflict the world had ever seen,

facing an uncertain future characterized by the threat of

nuclear annihilation, the United Nations was

established by men and women of strategic vision. In

San Francisco, my country proudly sat among the

Organization’s founders.

Our courageous political ancestors created this

Organization in the belief that international law, based

on the doctrine of sovereign equality of States, must

supplant the use of force to settle differences between

nations. This core abiding conviction of the founders

must be repeatedly reconfirmed. The founders’ sense of

purpose must also be reaffirmed. And the obligation

they handed down to us must continue to be exercised

by all with a solemn sense of responsibility.

However much the world has changed since

1945, the United Nations remains the only universal

intergovernmental institution that unites us as a global

community of sovereign States. And standing at the

very heart of this indispensable Organization is the

General Assembly, the ultimate source of the

international system’s legitimacy. The unique world

forum that is the General Assembly brings us together

as sovereign equals, each acting on behalf of a country,

with one vote, as guaranteed by the Charter of the

United Nations.

The sacrosanct character of the foundational

doctrine of sovereign equality and its accompanying

binding obligation to respect each other’s sovereignty

and territorial integrity constitutes the very nature of

the enduring legitimacy of the United Nations.

This arrangement has not changed, and I believe

it must not change — unless we seek to overthrow the

Charter and overturn the global legal order upon which

it is built.

I come before the General Assembly as the

President of a country that has become caught up at the

heart of one of the most dangerous challenges to the

29 08-51570

nature of the international system since the founding of

the United Nations. I speak of the unilateral, illegal and

illegitimate declaration of independence by the ethnic

Albanian authorities of our southern province of

Kosovo and Metohija, a territory that stands at the

crucible of the identity of the Serbian people. It is the

essential link between our proud national past and our

proud European future. It is what ties the living

tradition of Serbia to itself today.

The attempt at secession took place on

17 February 2008, in direct violation of the Charter of

the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act and Security

Council resolution 1244 (1999). Kosovo’s ethnic

Albanian leaders chose to take that unilateral step 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 is 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 the maximalist demands

of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanians, what incentive did they

have to negotiate with Serbia in good faith? All they

had to do was to pretend to engage in a process

predetermined to fail and wait out the clock.

The incentives for compromise were far

outweighed by the incentives for maximalism. The

result was the rejection of Serbia’s reasonable offer of

almost unrestricted self-government, the broadest

possible autonomy one can imagine.

Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence

(UDI) amounts to an attempt to partition a State

Member of the United Nations against its will, and

with disregard for the firm opposition of the Security

Council, in order to appease a volatile and threatening

ethnic minority. As a result, the very nature of the

international system has been called into question.

We all know that there are dozens of Kosovos

throughout the world, just waiting for secession to be

legitimized, to be turned into an acceptable norm.

Many existing conflicts could escalate, frozen conflicts

could reignite, and new ones could be instigated.

We have heard the argument that Kosovo is sui

generis, that it is a unique case. But the truth is, that is

tantamount to saying that Kosovo is an exception to

international law, that Kosovo should stand beyond the

rules that govern the behaviour of the international

community.

The Republic of Serbia rejects that claim,

believing that no people is authorized to declare itself

an exception, especially when doing so is in defiance

of the position taken by the Security Council.

We face a defining moment. We must stand

together in steadfastness and determination against a

fundamental violation of international law.

Serbia responded to Kosovo’s UDI with utmost

responsibility and restraint. Despite political turmoil,

our country continued to work hard to contribute to

maintaining regional stability. From the very onset of

this grave crisis, Serbia has ruled out the use of force.

And we have not exercised other unilateral options,

such as the imposition of economic sanctions against

our breakaway province. Instead, we have opted for a

peaceful and diplomatic approach, the result of which

is that a vast majority of States Members of the United

Nations have refrained from recognizing Kosovo’s

UDI. They have continued to abide by their obligations

under the Charter of the United Nations to respect the

sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country. On

behalf of the Republic of Serbia, allow me once again

to sincerely thank these countries for their adherence to

the principles of international law.

Serbia proposes a non-confrontational way to

respond to the threat posed to its territorial integrity.

We have chosen to use the law. While rejecting

violence and unilateralism categorically, we are equally

emphatic in demanding that justice be delivered

through the proper legal means at the disposal of any

State Member of the United Nations. To that end, the

Republic of Serbia has submitted a draft resolution to

be considered at this session of the General Assembly.

Let me make it clear that the text of the draft resolution

refrains from taking political positions on Kosovo’s

UDI. Instead, in simple and direct language, it asks the

principal judicial organ of the United Nations — the

International Court of Justice — to render an advisory

opinion on the following question: “Is the unilateral

declaration of independence by the Provisional

Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in

accordance with international law?”

08-51570 30

We believe that sending the Kosovo question to

the International Court of Justice would prevent the

crisis from serving as a deeply problematic precedent

in any part of the globe where secessionist ambitions

are harboured. We also believe that an advisory opinion

from the Court would provide politically neutral yet

judicially authoritative guidance to many countries still

deliberating on how to approach Kosovo’s UDI in line

with international law.

Members’ votes in support of the draft resolution

would serve to reaffirm another key international

principle at stake: the right of any State Member of the

United Nations to pose a simple, elementary question

on a matter it considers vitally important to the

competent court. To vote against is in effect to vote to

deny the right of any country, now or in the future, to

seek judicial recourse through the United Nations

system. To vote against means to accept that nothing

can be done when secessionists in any part of the world

proclaim the uniqueness of their cause and claim

exception to the universal scope of international law.

Such an attitude could lead to the end of the United

Nations system as we know it. Allow me therefore to

formally ask for the support of each and every Member

State for Serbia’s proposal before the General

Assembly.

While the International Court of Justice

deliberates on the legality of UDI, Serbia will remain a

good-faith partner in the interim administration of our

southern province. The functionality of a reconfigured

international civilian presence under the overall

authority of the United Nations, as defined by

resolution 1244 (1999), is of great importance to my

country. It must remain status-neutral and cannot

therefore be based on the so-called Ahtisaari proposal,

which was rejected by Serbia and not approved by the

Security Council.

It is well known that the European Union (EU)

has committed itself to building the much-needed

institutional and societal fabric of our southern

province. Let there be no doubt: My country supports

the deepening of Europe’s engagement in any part of

Serbia, including Kosovo. In order for Europe’s

presence in Kosovo to be fully anchored within an

acceptable, legitimate framework, it is vital that its

mandate be approved by the Security Council. We will

work with the Member States and the Secretariat to

ensure that we achieve consensus in the near future on

the international civil presence in our southern

province.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the

central strategic priority of the Republic of Serbia is

rapid accession to the European Union. Serbia will join

the EU not only for reasons of geography, heritage, and

economic prosperity, but also because of the values we

hold in common. They constitute the intangible

greatness of twenty-first-century Europe and they form

the foundation of our democracy, our society and our

beliefs in what we can accomplish.

Our common values also point to the significance

of reconciliation — an important reason why Serbia is

fully cooperating with the International Criminal

Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We have

demonstrated our unequivocal commitment time and

again. We will continue to do so because it is our

duty — our legal, political and moral duty — to the

victims, to ourselves and, most of all, to the

generations to come.

Europe has become the unifying force of the

region. My country’s absolute dedication to joining the

EU is shared by all the countries of the western

Balkans. If we choose, as democracies, to belong to

something that is greater than the sum of its parts, the

balkanization of the Balkans can be reversed.

Serbia’s European vision is complemented by our

strong desire to continue restoring and deepening the

many close friendships that Yugoslavia made across the

globe during the post-Second World War period. It will

be one of the key priorities in the years to come for my

country and my Government. As a country that is the

largest successor to a co-founder of the Non-Aligned

Movement, Serbia will work hard to contribute to a

more equitable global community, devoted to

advancing the democratization of international

relations, economic and social development, and

human rights.

I close by saying that my country remains ready

to further promote a nobler form of intergovernmental

cooperation that truly addresses challenges, alleviates

divisions, and reduces tensions. Such a vision can be

built only on the firm foundation of the universal

principles of sovereign equality, solidarity and

international law within the framework of the United

Nations.