The decades after the Cold War saw genocide in Rwanda, horrific wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Congo the rise of international terrorism, and the devastating civil wars. 25 years ago this month, terrorist attacks in the United States changed our world profoundly. 30 years ago, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was established, yet the threat of nuclear proliferation remains with us.

Read around it: before · after

That is a brink that we had hoped we had left for good in the last century. How did we reach this point? Well, it is no mere coincidence. It is the inevitable result of actions by certain states aimed at deliberately undermining the system of international relations so that the world would develop not according to the laws of peaceful coexistence, but rather the principle of might makes right and political selfishness. If we truly want to restore trust, we must not hide behind diplomatic niceties, but honestly identify the causes of crises. In 1945, in San Francisco, at the UN founding conference, U.S. president Harry Truman spoke words that today sound like a prophecy. No matter how great our strength, we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. If all those with great power had acted as Truman said, we would have avoided many wars and conflicts. Unfortunately, however, the desire to live at the expense of others has remained the dominant narrative in the collective West's development. During the Cold War the balance of power was maintained by a system of checks and balances between the two opposing political systems. But since the 1990s, when that balance collapsed, the policy of unrestrained superiority has begun to grow rapidly, and in recent years this policy has reached its peak. Western countries have effectively trampled on international law and started to force everyone to act according to so-called rules, destroying countries and suppressing unbowed peoples. And these rules are like traffic signs in a city that they themselves have designed. They always have a green light while everyone else faces strict restrictions. But this isn't about metaphors. It is about facts that everyone knows. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Palestine. And this is by no means an exhaustive list of the countries that have been or remain the focus of greedy Western interests.

Read around it: before · after

Artificial intelligence will transform professions, industries, and the ways in which decisions are made. Energy will be governed by a new configuration and a new logic of operation. Climate change will affect economies, agriculture, cities and the movement of people. Demographic change will reshape labour markets and social protection systems. Security will no longer depend on armies and borders, but also on power grids, data centers, cables, satellites, algorithms and trust in the information we receive every day. And yet today, as we prepare for the future, millions of people are living through war or under the threat of war. More than 100 million people have been displaced by force, more than 270 million children and young people are not in the school. This is the paradox of our time. Humanity has never possessed such immense scientific and technological capabilities, and yet it has never been more evident that technological capability does not automatically produce political wisdom. That is why the real question before this assembly is not simply how we will manage the crisis of 2026. The real question is this: what kind of international order will we leave to the generation that is entering school today? For a small size country like mine, this is not an academic question. It is a question of survival. 33 years ago, since we become a part of the United Nations, the world looked very different. The Cold War had ended. There was hope that a new era was beginning, an era in which cooperation would gradually replace confrontation. Our region, however, was living through a very different reality. Yugoslavia was disintegrating in bloodshed. Wars were being fought just beyond our borders. The fear that the violence might spread was real. And yet my country chose peace. It chose stability. It was in those circumstances on our territory that the United Nations did something it had never done before. It established the first preventive peacekeeping mission in the history of the organization. That experience left a profound lesson in our national memory, a lesson to which I will return towards the end of my speech. Peace does not begin when war ends. Peace begins when politics is wise enough to prevent war from beginning. Perhaps that is why small countries sometimes see international politics differently. Great powers have room for strategic shifts that small sized states simply do not have. For a great power, a mistaken geopolitical calculation may mean a change of strategy. For a small sized country, the same mistake can mean a lost decade. That is why we cannot afford to be indifferent to the rules, nor can we afford to believe that the rules will defend themselves. The world taking shape before us is a world of sharper competition. Power is being redistributed.

Read around it: before · after

Do you know, esteemed friends, what was, in fact, the reason, the sole official and formal reason, for the attack on the territory of the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia carried out by 19 NATO countries? You will not believe it. They told us that they had attacked a sovereign, free, and independent country in order to prevent a potential humanitarian disaster. The humanitarian disaster did not occur, and I have still not managed to hear or see where a similar example has occurred anywhere in the world. The attack against the small, yet free, and freedom-loving country Serbia, of which I am the proud President, was carried out with the intention of finally destroying the UN order established after World War II and of formally and informally confirming the dominance of a that-time unison Western world of United States of America and Europe. Do you know which countries, dear friends, took part in decision-making in the UN Security Council to bomb an independent and sovereign country that had attacked no other country? Just to add, not a single soldier, not a single police officer from Serbia had set foot on the territory of any other country, and yet a decision was made. I am certain that most of you, dear friends, who are among those best informed about world politics, no longer remember much of these either, and especially not the fact of who in the UNSC voted for that decision, or perhaps in the General Assembly. Do not even try, because it is impossible for you to remember. Why? Because such a decision was never made in the first place, and to make things even worse, no one ever even attempted to make such a decision. They were so arrogant and so powerful that they trampled everything in their path, from the Clinton administration to the administration of numerous European countries. That is precisely why Serbia supports the actions of the administration of President Donald Trump and sees in his work an opportunity for establishing a more just order in the world and more responsible attitude toward Serbia as a close American ally from both world wars. And what they did not know or understand at the time was this: they trampled Serbia, but they did not defeat it. Serbia rose like a phoenix from the ashes, and today, through its example, it shows everyone in the world how the international public order is preserved and how international public law is protected. Nevertheless, the consequences of that brutal attack against Serbia are enormous, and particularly visible here in the UN General Assembly. Admittedly, they are even more visible on the numerous battlefields around the world. Why? Well, because the principles of any kind no longer exist. Those who once trampled them have no moral right to speak about them.

Read around it: before · after