I was asked by Lokalno.mk for my opinion on North Macedonia’s vote at the UN General Assembly. Of course, we’re talking about the resolution on Ukraine. The occasion was the third anniversary of the war’s start on February 22, 2022. The other day was a full day of voting at the world organization, the kind I remember from my time working there.
By Denko Maleski
In the morning, voting took place in the General Assembly. The Europeans did not agree with the text of the U.S. resolution, of which Macedonia is a co-sponsor: they demanded, through their own version of the resolution, that it also include a condemnation of Russian aggression. The U.S. refused and insisted only on a call to end the war. The European stance won with 95 votes in favor, while the U.S. and Russia voted against (There are no eternal friends or eternal enemies, only eternal interests, as Churchill said), and 65 countries abstained. In the afternoon, the same topic was on the agenda in the Security Council, which has 15 members, five of whom are permanent. There, the U.S. version prevailed with 10 votes in favor—including from the U.S., Russia, and China—while five abstained, including France and Britain, both permanent members of the Security Council.
Since Security Council resolutions, not those of the General Assembly, carry binding force, the position for a swift end to the war without condemning Russian aggression prevailed. France and Britain, both with veto power, abstained in support of peace.
We voted, as the government constantly emphasizes, with “our strategic partner.” Aligning with the world’s most powerful country and having its goodwill is, in principle, beneficial for one’s state and people. However, since the early days of our UN membership, the guiding principle for Eastern European countries—twenty-one in total—was to follow the lead of EU states in voting. After all, we are a country on the European continent, and our strategic goal was EU membership. Over time, this became reality: Central and Eastern European states joined the European Union. I remember in the 1990s, my colleague, Albania’s representative at the UN, would routinely press the “yes” button for American resolutions without much thought about Europe’s stance. A group of small Pacific nations did the same. I am not saying that was a bad policy during those difficult times for post-communist Eastern European countries or small island states. Back then, the term “bending the spine” was not yet in use in Macedonia.
But instinctively, in an effort to keep Macedonia’s posture as upright as possible and in the absence of directives from Skopje—a situation common to all Eastern European states—I voted in line with EU countries. That is, I did my best to consider the reputation of my newly born country. Because, you probably don’t know, after the voting results are displayed on the large electronic board in the General Assembly, reactions range from approval to discontent and even mocking comments about certain countries. You can guess: the greatest ridicule was reserved for those who “bent the spine” before America—even when the U.S. and the EU were aligned.
The problem today is that, in this new geopolitical landscape, America is leaving Europe, and the continent will have to think for itself regarding its collective security and foreign policy. To avoid confusion, I’ll repeat: We are not leaving America—America is leaving Europe. That is why, now more than ever, European solidarity is crucial. Of course, maintaining good relations with America is also important. The dilemma is how to shape all of this into a coherent foreign policy. In the past, foreign diplomats in Macedonia often remarked that our politicians lacked strategic thinking. With this new government, we see yet another confirmation of that. Thinking strategically means correctly understanding major global shifts and adapting one’s own policies accordingly. Personal friendships do not help in this regard. After all, we had the U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, known as “Lawrence of Macedonia,” as a friend, and we know what an individual can do in the face of the interests of politics and states.
In the context of these major changes, I fear that the government is misreading international politics when it persistently invokes our strategic partnership with America. The question is whether the new administration even knows about this partnership and whether it means anything at all. Think about it: If strategic partnership with the EU means little to America, then Macedonia’s partnership means absolutely nothing. And yet, we keep solemnly referring to “our strategic partner” at every turn. At least the British found the strength to laugh at themselves over their frequent mentions of “special relations” with America. Someone once said: The U.S.-British “special relationship” is so special that only one side (Britain) knows it exists.
Epilogue: The final outcome of the UN vote, thank God, was in favor of peace. Even though the European nations, France and Britain, have veto power, they did not block the resolution calling for peace. They only wanted to include a condemnation of the practice of changing borders through force. If we understand that few would dare to challenge the borders of nuclear powers like Britain and France, then that part of the resolution was actually about us—small states. In that sense, we voted against ourselves.
