PM Mickoski: I Was the Only One Clapping for Vance | CPAC
Jul 10, 2026
Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski discusses Vice President J.D. Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference and explains why he publicly supported Vance's message when many European leaders criticized it.
Speaking at CPAC, Mickoski reflects on free speech, national sovereignty, NATO, and the challenges facing Europe. He argues that Western nations must be willing to address difficult political and cultural issues openly rather than rely on what he describes as double standards. Drawing from North Macedonia's experience pursuing NATO and European Union membership, Mickoski shares his perspective on democracy, constitutional reforms, and the future of transatlantic relations.
The conversation also explores Vance's remarks on freedom of speech, shared Western values, and the relationship between the United States and Europe at a time of significant geopolitical change.
CPAC hosts incredible guests and speakers including J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and many more leading voices in conservative media and politics.
AI GeneratedMay contain errors
That's great, but you really went over, but I want to get into a little bit more detail.
You talked about the strategic partnership that you have with the United States.
You also talked about you're really in alignment with at least the Trump administration and the
new wave that's going through America, and you're really alone in Europe when you're doing that.
Last week at the Munich Security Conference, I'm sure you may not know the name of it,
but you remember Vice President Vance went to Europe last week, and he stood up before all
the NATO leaders, the European leaders, all the guys in the generals, and he stood up,
and everyone assumed that he was going to talk about NATO, about to the European and Canadian
allies, spend more of your money, your fair share on NATO, or he was going to talk about Ukraine.
He did not. He talked about cultural issues, and as I'm watching Vice President Vance,
I see you in the front row, and you're the only guy going like that, and all the other ones are
like, and then most of them walked out. Talk to us about that. From Vice President Vance said
you're not supposed to talk about, but he did, and he did in a very straightforward and polite way,
where he talked about our shared values and how the Europeans are committing cultural suicide,
that they're giving up free speech, they're giving up freedom of religion. Tell me how it feels like
to be Macedonia supporting Donald Trump policies, even before Donald Trump was president, in the
middle of a Europe that seems changing before our very eyes. I mean, that was for me historical
event, and according to my humble opinion, I'm not saying that I'm right. Maybe some of the
European politicians will be angry with me. That was a very inspiring speech, and I was not at the
front line. I was in the second row. Yeah, but you were the only guy applauding. I want to point out
the only guy going like that. Yes, but what is important, that after the speech, some of the
audience criticized the speech, and some of the audience said that was a bit of interference into
the domestic issues of a sovereign country, because Vice President J.D. Vance flagged a lot of examples
which are not good, and which are not aligned with the freedom of speech, with the democracy values,
with at least common shared values, and I will say it again, I think that he was right. Then,
two days afterwards, I had a panel as well, not like here, 20 minutes, I've got maybe four minutes
to say something about my impression, not about the speech, but about the Munich Security Conference,
and I said that really that was historical one with a lot of frank and straightforward talks,
and I think that really this year was extremely fruitful and successfully organized conference,
but what I said, I don't know whether the American people know that since the very beginning of our
independence from former Yugoslav Federation, we had two strategic miles. First one was to become a
full-fledged member of NATO, and the second one was and is to become full-fledged member of EU,
European Union, a member of NATO, but prior to become a member of NATO, we changed our flag,
we changed our currency, we changed our constitution, and we changed our name, because
some of our neighbors become a member of NATO prior to us, and they used or misused tool of
veto to solve bilateral demands. If this is not interference into the domestic issue, then what is
it? What we are talking about? So if we are talking about double standards, and if we are talking
about double standards that affects on the life of humans, then it's not good. Then we have to
be honest, and we have to talk directly and straightforward. If we ignore those type of
events that occurred in the past, and that is still occurring, for example, now we are not able
to become a member of EU, because now we again have additional hurdle to change our constitution
again. If constitution is not internal issue of sovereign country, then I'm wondering what is it?
And we've been asked to change our constitution again. Is it not fair? Is it not fair? And when
we are criticizing, when someone is criticizing the speech, which was according to my humble opinion,
again I will say very inspiring, then should point the finger to themselves and to see what
they are doing. This is not fair. This is not fair for the small country which wants to become a part
of the EU, and the EU values are everything but not bilateralization of EU accession process.