North Macedonia, 2013

Allow me to begin by congratulating

President Ashe on his election and wishing him great

success in presiding over the General Assembly. I

would also like to congratulate the outgoing President,

Mr. Vuk Jeremi., on his successful presidency. I also

thank the Secretary-General for his leadership in

strengthening the United Nations ability to respond to

today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.

Each year in September, world leaders gather in

New York to develop joint responses to challenges. That

is a great challenge for all — national Governments,

international and regional organizations, civil

society and the private sector. We share the primary

responsibility for a peaceful and secure world that

ensures the rights and interests of individuals, nations

and countries within the framework of the rule of

national and international law. That was also the

objective when the United Nations was established

following the Second World War.

We thank the President and the Secretary-General

for their engagement and leadership in the work to

establish the new post-2015 development framework,

building upon the Millennium Development Goals to

include an economic, social and ecological dimension

of sustainable development. What is important for

the post-2015 development agenda — an ambitious

and complex project — is the building of a global

partnership among Governments, the private sector,

civil society and individuals, including the mobilization

of institutional and human resources.

The environment must be a key building block of

sustainable development: it is nature that sustains us,

and its resources should be used wisely. Economic

growth facilitates human growth, reduces poverty and

facilitates better education and health care and is thus

a crucial element of any development framework. The

Republic of Macedonia will fully contribute to the

achievement of all global objectives through its national

agenda, in which investment in education, health,

agriculture and food, the environment and infrastructure

and the partnership between the Government and the

business community are the highest priorities.

Peace, conflict resolution and human rights

protection are United Nations goals. Today they

represent an even a greater challenge, which we should

respond to and overcome. The Republic of Macedonia

supports the approach of the United Nations in

responding to those challenges. We actively contribute

to the promotion of peace on an international level,

participating in international missions that safeguard

freedom and democracy.

With regard to one of the major issues — the crisis

in Syria and the internal conflict that has created more

than 100,000 victims and 2 million refugees — what

is more troubling is that chemical weapons were used

against the Syrian people while diplomatic efforts

were under way, although their use is strictly prohibited

under international law. That must not be tolerated. We

are among the countries to have asked for an urgent

investigation under the auspices of the Secretary-

General’s mechanism for the investigation of the alleged

use of chemical and biological weapons.

Despite differing views, all member States of

the Security Council and of the United Nations agree

that to achieve a final resolution of the Syrian crisis,

the political approach should be given a chance. It

is therefore essential to focus maximum effort on

revitalizing the search for a political settlement and to

convene the “Geneva II” conference as soon as possible.

The Syrian people deserve better days through decisive

action by the international community that will end the

violence and threats.

The region of South-East Europe has entered a

phase of positive development, and in general the

national and regional primary objectives are either

fulfilled or are within reach. Regional cooperation

is expanding in a number of new fields. Despite such

advances, certain long-standing unresolved or partly

resolved bilateral issues are clearly having a negative

impact on our present and immediate future. In the

case of the Republic of Macedonia, that happens to be

a serious obstacle to our agenda for integration into

international organizations.

The Republic of Macedonia is celebrating the

twentieth anniversary of its United Nations membership

with the still unresolved issues of the use of the name

of my country, the Republic of Macedonia, and of the

identity of my people, the Macedonian identity. Those

questions emerged because of a dispute raised by our

southern neighbour Greece, which opposes our name,

which is our fundamental individual and collective

right. The issue, which should have been promptly

resolved among neighbours, partners and future allies,

has lasted for 22 years. While being a very realistic

problem for my people, this is an issue that I deeply

believe is essentially hypothetical and does not have any

basis in international law or in the United Nations acts.

It is difficult, I would say even impossible, for someone

to find a legal justification for such an objection.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of countries

have recognized our constitutional name — the Republic

of Macedonia — with more than 135 of them being

United Nations Members, clearly shows that most of

countries do not believe that the dispute has a justified

basis, or if it does they denounce it. I believe that this

issue was a created one, a classic case of politicization

and an instrument that, approximately 20 years ago, was

either supposed to make someone score some political

points or, by creating an atmosphere of conflict, to

bring about some strategic regional shifts, as well as to

slow down the spread of freedom, democracy and the

introduction of market economies in the Balkans.

At the last session, the General Assembly discussed

the rule of law, with all Member States unanimously

agreeing that respect for internationally agreed norms

and principles was a must. Unfortunately, norms are not

always adhered to. The United Nations must be neither

idle in that regard nor renege from its responsibility to

counter any disrespect for the rule of law.

The Republic of Macedonia became a United

Nations Member in 1993 with an atypical membership

condition, namely, the denial of its constitutional name.

It was admitted with an interim country reference — an

unprecedented event in history that was contrary to the

provisions of international law. But we have endured all

that, although it lingers to date as a problem.

In 1995, under United Nations mediation, we

signed an interim accord with Greece by which we

changed our flag and parts of our Constitution, while

Greece undertook not to create obstacles to our NATO

accession in 2008. Not only did Greece obstruct our

act of accession to the international Organization

itself, it also obstructed the processes for opening the

membership procedures in another organization. For

four years in a row, Greece has prevented the start

of negotiations for our membership in the European

Union.

On the basis of our appeal concerning the

obstructions of Greece with regard to our application

for membership, in 2011 the International Court of

Justice\ — a principal organ of the United Nations

established by States Members and located at The

Hague — issued a judgment that Greece had violated

international law by not adhering to the interim accord

and that the Republic of Macedonia had not violated

international law or the commitments it had agreed to.

However, we were hindered again, notwithstanding the

decision of the highest body of justice in the world,

and that is apparent to the Assembly and its member

countries.

The United Nations was established in order to

protect international law. There is no regulation of

international law that restricts a country from calling

itself as it wishes, or restricts its citizens from being

able to be called and named as they wish. Naming is

one of the five prerogatives of States, as well as an

undisputed right of every Member country.

Why do we need international law if we do not

adhere to it? If we turn a blind eye to that injustice

and obvious violation of international law, we will be

directly responsible for breaking one of the principles of

world peace and of the United Nations. We do not want

that, nor can we allow it. If it were not for international

law, anarchy would reign and the United Nations would

become a debate club without any basic competencies.

We do not want to participate in that, at the expense of

everything, even to our own detriment.

Not respecting international law also means having

no respect for the 50 million victims that fought for it

70 years ago, as well as going against the decisions of

our predecessors — the founders of the Organization.

International law should not be a platitude, but rather

should provide a solution to every challenge.

According to international law, the Republic of

Macedonia is entitled to decide on its own name and to

use the word Macedonian to denote its ethnic identity.

Settling our differences with our southern neighbour is

our priority, but only and precisely within the United

Nations resolutions that define the solution that is

the subject of discussion, and by reaching a mutually

acceptable solution. We should settle our differences in

no other way, especially not by expanding those limits.

Sixty-six years after the adoption of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, this dispute, unjustly

imposed on us by Greece, violates one of the

fundamental rights of the individual — the right to

decide one’s own name. Every representative of my

people is denied the right to be called as they wish, as

their mothers and fathers, grandparents and all other

ancestors throughout history were called: Macedonian.

In addition to disputing the constitutional name of

my country — the Republic of Macedonia — Greece

also disputes the identity of my citizens, that is, it

does not allow them to be called Macedonians or the

language that they speak to be called the Macedonian

language, despite the fact that for more than half a

century there have been departments in universities

throughout the world where the Macedonian language

has been studied and it has been called the Macedonian

language. It is the same as if somebody denied an

individual the right to speak French, German, Polish,

English, Dutch, Portuguese, Japanese, Hindi or any

other language.

The United Nations must not overlook the violation

of the basic human right to decide one’s own name, and

should take action to enable the exercise of that right.

In this particular case, the United Nations should take

action that will lead to the settlement of the outstanding

issues that Greece has with us.

At the previous session, we debated preventive

diplomacy and concluded that it should be an essential

element of the international community. Therefore, the

United Nations must not, and should not, stand aside

in this process, which severely hinders Macedonia’s

aspirations to a better future for its citizens.

Commitment is necessary to make it possible for

Greece to begin resolving this issue, because in the past

two years there has been great inertness on the part of

Greece. Although that is a result of objective reasons

caused by its adverse economic situation, it also entails

a strategic and tactical political element based on the

analysis that prolonging the process of solving the

dispute would contribute to the Republic of Macedonia

being isolated in its positions, which are based on

international law and values, and to its resignation to a

kind of self-annihilation of the State and the nation by

agreeing to be renamed.

According to that line of thinking, with the lack

of commitment in the discussions and the blocking

of European and Euro-Atlantic integration that my

country faces — integration that is directly hindered

by the dispute despite our having met the standards

required of us by the international multilateral

organizations, NATO and the European Union — we

would thus be prevented from joining and face the

possibility of internal misunderstandings regarding

the hindrance caused by our southern neighbour, and

we would drop our guard in spite of the force of the

arguments, which are on our side. It is true that by

putting off the solution of the dispute, more challenges

in the country and the region are created, and the tension

becomes greater at certain moments. But it should be

clear to everyone that such challenges should not be

considered a trigger for any changes of our justified

and internationally correct position that would lead to a

change in our Macedonian identity.

It is not possible to change something that has

existed for centuries by imposing blockages or by threats

about possible misunderstandings, tensions or unrest,

not even by implementing them. The Macedonian

people will never accept being renamed. If it is not

possible for that issue to be resolved now — although

we are the ones who are most interested in its resolution

and we sincerely wish for a sustainable, balanced

and, most important, mutually acceptable solution to

be found — then some other generation in different

circumstances will be able to resolve it, but precisely

on the basis of the values, positions and principles

that I mentioned before, which indicate a just and fair

solution, without winners and losers.

However, I personally believe that we must not

leave those thorny issues to future generations. We

must try to find a solution and find strength to provide

prosperity for the countries and the region. It is said

that actions speak solely of those who undertake them.

Faced with the lack of interest by the Hellenic Republic

in substantive talks for a solution to the dispute, two

months ago I suggested to the Greek Prime Minister a

change in the format of discussions, that is, raising them

to a much higher political level. I as a Macedonian and

he as a Greek Prime Minister, together with ministers

from both Governments, would meet directly and talk

about a solution. That would lead to greater efficiency,

because we are the ones most often called upon to solve

the issue. Twenty-two years is too much time to not get

anywhere and is sufficient proof that there must be a

change in the game.

Our mandate, entrusted to us by the citizens,

should be essential to achieving a mutually acceptable

solution — which I believe can be attained — a

solution that will be accepted and agreed upon by the

citizens of our countries. The examples of Serbia and

Kosovo, as well as those of Croatia and Slovenia, where

political representatives at the highest level managed

to overcome challenges, are the best proof that results

can be achieved in that way. I invite the Assembly to

directly take part in the realization of this initiative,

overcome the standstill and, through its commitment,

provide intensity and forward movement, as well as

greater interest on the part of Greece in a solution and

progress.

Actions speak of the one who undertakes them.

With our openness and with our justified initiative, we

are showing that we wish for a solution to be found.

However, our meetings must not be purely a formality;

rather, they must have substance and must not create

an alibi for not finding a solution. I am convinced that

only a substantial commitment by the international

community, above all by the United Nations, will lead to

a solution, taking into consideration the basic documents

of the United Nations on the rights of countries and

individuals, the United Nations resolutions that defined

the talks, agreements guaranteed by the United Nations,

the decisions of United Nations bodies and international

law as a whole.

However, if there is no progress, the United

Nations must not remain inactive and be satisfied with

the status quo, as that would mean showing further

irresponsibility. Aware of this already discouraging

situation, the United Nations should help via its

organs, through the General Assembly and the Security

Council. It is on the basis of Security Council resolution

817 (1993) that we are in discussions with our neighbour

to arrive at a solution that will free the identity of my

country. Otherwise, the United Nations will be faced

with failure again and will bear the responsibility for

not having acted in accordance with its own principles

and values.

I do not want to spare anyone. We all have

responsibility, including the Organization. Instead

of assuming that responsibility, the Organization

has accepted the comfort of remaining silent and not

resolving the dispute; instead of defending itself, it has

remained inactive with regard to the status quo, which

is obviously creating problems and challenges for the

region. It should start considering alternative scenarios

and doing more to stimulate a solution to this long-

standing dispute.

I am confident that we have the capacity to jointly

respond to the challenges. In the name of the people

that we represent, we must assume responsibility for the

present and the future. Assuming such responsibility

means taking decisions, changing habits and reinforcing

cooperation and prosperity, but it is something that can

be done. That is the responsible way to proceed.