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.