Serbia’s UN Vote: Vučić’s Mistake or a Distraction?

Read Time:5 Minute, 21 Second

On February 24, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution marking the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine, titled “Promoting a Comprehensive, Just, and Lasting Peace in Ukraine.” Once again, Russia was labeled the aggressor by a majority vote: 93 countries voted in favor of the resolution, 18 opposed it, and 65 abstained.

The refusal of Israel and, notably, the United States to support the document came as a surprise. Against this backdrop, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić made a sudden statement hours later, claiming that Serbia’s official representative had made a mistake in the voting. The president’s remarks sparked a heated debate in society, which, however, appears to be a deliberate attempt to divert attention from more serious issues facing the local government.

A routine and non-binding document condemning “Russian aggression” at the UN General Assembly, demanding that Moscow “immediately, completely, and unconditionally” withdraw all its armed forces from Ukrainian territory, could have been forgotten in Serbia within a couple of days. After all, Belgrade has been voting in this manner for the past three years. Each time, the echo of this unpleasant moment lasts from a week to a few days, and Vučić, who verbally identifies as a Russophile, justifies himself by citing pressure from the West (read: the United States) and tries to save face by pointing out that Serbia is the only country in Europe that has not imposed sanctions on Moscow.

All would have been well, but this time, the Serbs were caught off guard—suddenly, and perhaps unexpectedly for the entire world, Washington voted against the resolution. Previously, Vučić had a weak excuse for the opposition and his electorate in the form of the “pressure from the West” myth, but this time, he failed to maintain a good face in a bad game. A rather amusing moment came hours after the vote when Vučić addressed the public. He claimed that Serbia’s voting representative had made a mistake and suddenly began speaking about a “changed world.” In other words, the president admitted that this time, he failed to read the wind correctly—the true masters of Serbian politics had voted differently than usual. But it seems that Belgrade also did not receive new instructions, highlighting a communication vacuum with Washington following the transition from the Biden administration to Trump.

What unfolded after the vote, along with Vučić’s statement, resembles a children’s game of “keep away,” where one player’s attention is entirely focused on the others. They toss the ball among themselves, forcing the one who is “it” to shift their attention from one player to another, expending all their energy in the process. Something similar happened with the infamous news story about the vote.

So, Serbia voted in support of the anti-Russian declaration at the UN. Hours later, Vučić spoke of a mistake and a “changed world.” Suddenly, the “ball” was intercepted by Deputy Prime Minister Nebojša Stefanović, who declared that there was no mistake—only outright betrayal, with the blame lying entirely on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its head, Marko Đurić. The irony is that Đurić, who has Jewish roots, has always been referred to as the “U.S. man” in the Serbian government. The circle of Serbian intrigue has closed.

But if we look deeper into the issue, it is possible that we are dealing with a case of “the tail wagging the dog.” Returning to the “keep away” analogy, the one who is “it” represents society, and the ball is the news story being tossed between the speakers. Opposition representatives also join in, throwing the ball to each other, drawing in foreign experts, forming opposing positions, and sparking a real debate.

What if this entire episode is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention and energy—primarily from the electorate—to a secondary issue? Serbia has voted this way before. Apart from a storm of criticism, President Vučić gains nothing from it. This event does not threaten his power or damage relations with Moscow. The UN story helps Aleksandar Vučić shift public attention and, in turn, channel some of the protest energy into a controlled outlet. Serbia is currently rocked by protests, which might be called student-led but have already taken on a nationwide character. Tens of thousands of people across the country are joining rallies, pickets, blockades, and demonstrations daily. These include schoolchildren, students, and professional associations.

The stated demands of the protests do not include a change of power. Despite attempts by “pocket opposition” figures to call for the resignation of the government and the president, they remain on the periphery of public discontent. Students and their allied citizen groups are primarily demanding the publication of all documents related to the collapse of the canopy in Novi Sad on November 1, 2024—from design estimates to court proceedings. Proper fulfillment of this demand, they believe, would trigger the functioning of state institutions—the relevant ministry, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts. This is precisely what Vučić fears.

First, he is doing everything to ensure that these institutions do not function. Despite having relatively limited powers according to his job description, Vučić governs the country like a sovereign with unlimited authority, operating in manual mode. This, in turn, creates legal conflicts and the illusion among officials that the law is malleable, while the desires of those in power are an unshakable dogma.

It is no secret that Serbia is mired in corruption. Although a Chinese company was officially named as the contractor for the Novi Sad project, sources indicate that the work was actually carried out by firms affiliated with Vučić’s brother, Andrej. The reconstruction of the Novi Sad railway station is one of many large-scale projects implemented by the president’s closest relative and “cash cow.” The functioning of institutions, as demanded by the protesters, would inevitably reveal who was truly responsible for the repairs. Fraud, corruption, and theft could all come to light. Questions would then arise about what other state contracts these organizations were involved in… It is possible that behind any external “shocks” being stirred up around official Belgrade lies a desire to divert attention from the issue the ruling elite wants to sweep under the rug—the full truth about the tragedy in Novi Sad.