Serbia, EU renew SAA talks

Listening to some Serbian commenters made me think that Serbia should join Russia and not EU.
In their opinion is EU that needs Serbia and the latter has no interest/advantages in becoming EU member.
Better if EU should project a scenario bypassing Serbia and Turkey also, given that the two countrys do not meet the standards to join the other EU states.

There should be no talk with Serbia, not before Tadic and Kostunica deliver Mladic to the Hague. To much complaisance, I think, with this little republik of the ex-Yu!

Massimo,

I think you'll find that even in the states that have joined the EU there is often considerable questioning of the merits for the EU and it's direction. The UK have a party called the UK Independence Party (UKIP) founded on the ground of wanting out of the red tape, inefficient bureaucracy that it sees as the only result of the EU!!!

What is wrong in the Serbian citizens questioning the warrants of joining the EU especially when it is being told endlessly it must swallow a bitter pill of denying it's sacred heartland and then gain EU membership.

Maybe Serbia is btter off gaining what it can in moving towards EU membership and free trade but not actually being tied by the actuality of full membership?

Have you not thought that their maybe merit in such a scenario??? In any case the EU resembles less and less of the values it was grounded upon and it has a serious deal of self questioning regarding where it is heading in the future! This keeps on bubbling below the surface and no-one wishes to resolve it - look at the contitution debacle - is there going to be one or not?? Even though a majority have already ratified it and only 2 (Holland & France) objected!!! In the future it is more liekly to be paralysed ever more without a serious amendment in it's administartion and more and more remote from democratic control. The states who are on the periphery wanting to join will be treated as second rate when finally they are allowed to join!!!

Serbia can go along the path but ultimately it must do what is in their citizens best interst as they will deceide to join or not!

Now that talks have restarted, we have to wait for them to be finalized, then the EU will start to ask for Mladic in order for the agreement to be signed. Until that moment, don't expect any arrest. When the EU starts asking for Mladic, and stops the signing of the agreement, we can expect Serbia to arrest another small war criminal, like Goran Hadzic or Vlastimir Dordevic. The show goes on as usual.

I wonder whether Kostunica knows how to read. There is no mention of Serbia's integrity in the resolution 1244. Here is the original text from that document.

"A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of the KLA;"

Someone brought this comment before but it seems it necessary to emphasize it again. Yugoslavia is no more, and this fact automatically annuls the resolution 1244. Kosovo is simply the last act on the Yugoslav drama.

dino, Serbia has legally been the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since Montenegro's independence

«The show goes on as usual.»

Andrea, and this has to stop. It's why I suggest firmly that no 'talks', no matter the form, have to be exchanged with Serbia. When the EU will make use of resoluteness, the timing will change.

Actually, Serbia directs the show and the EU has to change the momentum. They should stop playing Serbia's game, as we say.

" Yugoslavia is no more, and this fact automatically annuls the resolution 1244."

That's were you're wrong Dino. All agreements regarding Kosovo, meaning resolution 1244 passes onto Serbia as successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Anyway no matter its shortcomings, it's still best for Serbia to join the E.U.

I do not think that Serbia is going to wait long time to get silver plate offer for EU membership. EU creator masters understand how important geo-political position Serbia has within Europe. Serbia holds cards in this moment of time. Loosing influence over Serbia and allowing slipping into Russian sphere of interests will be catastrophic error for future of EU. EU is not concerned over Serbian interests but over their own.
Offer will be submitted in hope that Serbia will not be able to understand that EU needs Serbia more than Serbia needs EU. EU will sacrifice its stance on Kosovo to get control over Serbia. Kostunica understands this facts as well as EU. EU masters hopes that Serbian will run into EU membership and wish to speed up that by weakening Serbia by all possible means. By applying such a policy they make strategic mistake because they underestimate proud Serbian people nation.

Dino don't bring up this fallacy again. If you were a regular on this site you would know that some new poster brings this up every 3-4 months. Serbia is the recognized legal successor to Yugoslavia because it is the only former Yugo republic not to have seceded from the federation. This is evinced by the fact that Serbia inherited the Yugoslav seat in the UN and all other international bodies rather than having to apply as a new member, which the other republics had to do. I hope this clarifies things for you regarding the veracity of 1244.

Victor, Massimo.

By the time the EU is ready to let in more members I would be supprised if Gen. Mladic was still alive. He is 65 years old probably smokes, drinks and eats to much red meat and has led a very stressful life. The chances of him dying of cancer or a heart attack within the next few years are high. The chances of the EU resolving it's differences on the constitution and restructuring of the administration so that it can let in more countries within the next 10 years are extremely low. Things move slowly in the EU. Remember this is the buearocracy which took 27 years to decide on a legal definition of British Chocolate(Dairy Milk Chocolate is what they came up with), 27 YEARS!!!!

"... onto Serbia as successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. "

And who says that?
Serbia's constitution?
Maybe it is Montenegro the successor state of Yugoslavia!
I didn't know that Serbia today is also called Yugoslavia!

Wow, it's so funny to see so many Serbophobes. You people need to start concentrating on your own countries a little more. Notice, we don't care about them yet you constantly feel a need to badger us with things like Serbia not controlling resolution 1244. That comment should make you banned if you cannot understand WHY they keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA. They wouldn't say that if it meant nothing.

Has it ever occurred to some people here that the resumption of SAA talks might actually help find Mladic faster rather than prolong it? Rather than continuously pushing Serbia closer to Moscow, which will only end up with a jilted Serbian bride being left at the altar, wouldn't constructive guarantees of Serbian European integration foster a better resolve to wrap up any leftover old business from last decade?

I think this position is absolutely right and clear. There cannot be any respect for Serbia if she does not show respect for herself. Serbia can do without the EU. It can. Russia, China, India, Brazil etc...are huge countries with tremendous potential and booming economies that are going to take over the world sooner rather than later. Everyone knows that. It's a shame that some EU countries participated in a conspiracy against Yugoslavia. But I am confident all those responsible for the Balkan tragedy are going to be brought to justice sooner or later. The evidence is being accumulated as we speak as the information revolution they could not foresee when they started their deadly dance in the Balkans is flushing more and more evidence about their conspiracy. Justice will be served. It will.

I do not understand why some serbs, not all, consider Mladic a hero and want to protect him. The guy is undeniably a war criminial who had massacred thousands on innocent civilians.

I he is such a patriot, then he would turn himself in, rather than holding ransom all of Serbia. This guy doesn't care about ordinary serbs, if he did, he would give up, he is obviously guilty. What a murderous coward!!

The EU works GREAT as an economic/free trade zone and any person with a basic understanding of Economics 101 understands this fact.Even if the EU NEVER passes any constitution on closer political unity the fact remains that a market of 500 million consumers is in Serbia's own interest to tap.As far as Russia is concerned the EU does BILLIONS in trade with Russia and it is a false scenario to say that Serbia cannot be in the EU and have close economic ties with Russia simultaneously.Russia in fact does a lot more trade with every single individual country already in the EU than it does with Serbia so I do not understand why any commentator here disparages Serbia's goal of entering this common market.As far as politics are concerned the EU has not matured politically to the point where it can make unanimous decisions regarding such sensitive political issues as Kosovo and the economic realm must be separated from the political one.Adopting EU standards will make Serb products much more marketable in ALL markets(EU-US-Russia-China etc.)

yes, dino, Serbia is the legal successor state to the former Yugoslavia.

why do you think Serbia took over FRJ's automatic membership of the UN, World Bank, IMF etcetera?

anyway, Kosovo has always been a part of the state of Serbia while the borders around it changed, from the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, to SFRJ to FRJ, to the EU, or whatever comes next

Luciano when the EU starts asking some political demands such as trying to influence constitutional arrangements of a sovereign country than such demands are political demands. Because constitution is being written by citizens through their political representatives. It's a political act. The EU trangressed its mandate long time ago and is using political pressure to achieve economic goals. Under any law such things are considered illegal as the law sees such acts to be done under duress. In everyday language it's called blackmail. Any acts done under such circumstances are void in law automatically. As if they never existed in law. As to the economy Serbia clearly wants to join the EU but not under any circumstances. I think that's a sensible approach. Serbia can prosper without the EU. It can.

Why have anything to do with the EU? I would declare them a hostile entity to the Serbian state and treat them as such.

"That comment should make you banned if you cannot understand WHY they keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA"

No I cannot understand it. I am sorry. You can inherit any seats in UN and you can give any name to Serbia, you can still call it a "federation" if you wish. The truth is the resolution never mention Serbia. Serbia was just another republic of ex-Yugoslav Federation.
Someone has mentioned that Kosovo was actually given to Serbia before Yugoslavia and perhaps you can stick to this argument for the sake of it but don't start from an un-proven axiom and develop an entire theorem.

And who are "they" that "keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA"? Is this documented anywhere?

As far as the bann-ing goes you better leave it to the owners of this forum.

To Dino:"In a letter dated 3 June 2006, the President of the Republic of Serbia informed the Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro was being continued by the Republic of Serbia, following Montenegro’s declaration of independence. On 4 February 2003, following the adoption and promulgation of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro by the Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the official name of “ Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. The Socialist “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new Members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/12 of 1 November 2000."
This is found in UN web site. So, the fact that UN recognises Serbia as the successor state of Yugoslavia, should be enough. Or does Serbia need approval from you too...?

"it is a false scenario to say that Serbia cannot be in the EU and have close economic ties with Russia simultaneously (luciano, Wednesday, 13 June, 2007, 17:47)"
I personally feel a balance between the two is the most healthy at this time. Luciano, just recently there was an article that France was trading with Russia using Serbia as an intermediary because Serbia has a Free Trade agreement with Russia. I think this sort of relationship is the way forward for now and Serbia really needs to focus on play that sort of role more often. It is our destiny to be the bridge between East & West.
Once the EU works out their myriad problems and discussions shift on when Russia will join the EU, that will be the proper time for Serbia to seriously consider it. Free Trade and easy access to visas, YES! EU regulations and red tape, NO!
I also believe that Serbia must have its own educated capitalist class in place so foreign investment does not turn into foreign overlords. Serbia isn't ready for the EU, and at this point in time, it would only end up being swallowed by the bigger more developed countries.
It may turn out that joining the EU is easier than leaving it. The EU as it currently is reminds me greatly of the first experiment in the US on forming a unified state. It didn't work, not enough centralized power. The EU will require massive changes if it is to move forward and morph into something other then an economic trading block. They really need to figure out what the want the EU to actually be before we can decide if its something we would like to join or not.
I do think we have the same concerns for the most part Luciano.
"This is evinced by the fact that Serbia inherited the Yugoslav seat in the UN and all other international bodies rather than having to apply as a new member, which the other republics had to do. (Jack, Wednesday, 13 June, 2007, 16:13)"
"And who are "they" that "keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA"? Is this documented anywhere? (Dino, Wednesday, 13 June, 2007, 19:25)"
OK, Dino and Jack, here's how it worked.
On November 1st, 2000 the seat for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was abolished, on the same day, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted to the UN. Remember how FRY didn't have standing to sue the US over the NATO bombing, that was because it didn't succeed the SFRY. Like the other republics, it had to apply for a UN seat (Of course the ICJ completely ignored that fact in the Srebrenica ruling, but whatever).
In February 2003 FRY changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro and was allowed this time to continue the same seat and obligations that FRY previously held. The membership in the UN was continued by Serbia on June 3, 2006. Montenegro had to apply for a seat, which was granted June 28, 2006. Serbia and Montenegro agreed to this in their constitution which as you recall was negotiated and approved by foreign powers. The UN has also recognized this, and that is how Serbia came to inherit the UN seat that belonged to FRY.
So to answer your question Dino, the same organization that came up with UNSC resolution 1244, also recognized that Serbia inherited FRY's UN seat and that UNSC 1244 applies to Serbia now. That organization is called the UN. So to answer your question, yes it is very well documented and "they" are the UN.
If the UN didn't function this way, there would be a lot of chaos in the world. Just for example, neither China nor Russia would be permanent members of the security council. Read up on China and Taiwan, its actually a very interesting story in regards to the UN.
Everyone else is correct, every month or two, someone makes the argument that 1244 doesn't apply to Serbia. Dino, if you came up with that idea yourself, I'm very impressed with your creative thinking it does seem like an interesting point on the surface. However, if you read that somewhere, I suggest you check your sources more thoroughly, you very easily could have found this exact information anywhere. I suppose I should keep a copy of this and cut and paste it the next time someone comes up with an idea without checking the facts first. However, with the regularity with which this comes up, I suspect some pro-independence website must be pushing this idea on people.

@dino!
please stop asking if Serbia is or is not te successor state of the Fmr.Yugoslavia. Just read the law of the UN and you'll see that all what was Yugoslavia is now Serbia. You are really getting boring and it shows how much (better to say how little) you know about International Law. So, if you want to comment on something, please first learn what the situation really is.
@B92. it would maybe be good to sent mr. Dino the official excerpts of UN decisions.

Yes, Dino, you are right, UN Res 1244, refers to the Yugoslav Federation, not to the Republic of Serbia. The Yugoslav Federation was dissolved in June 5 2006, therefore no entity has at the moment legal sovereignty over Kosova. UN never amended the Res 1244 to transfer Yugoslav sovereignty over to the state of Serbia, and 1244 in itself makes no provision for the automatic transfer of sovereignty. In other words, you can't board an airplane with a ticket holding somebody's else name. Even if the ticket is transferable (which in this case it isn't), the airline has to issue you a new ticket in your name. Serbia's sovereignty over Kosova, simply doesn't fly, and they know it very well. The process at the UN right now, is not about recognizing Serbia's sovereignty over Kosova (because in fact it has none), but is about recognizing Kosova's sovereignty at the UN level. That means that if the resolution is passed, every UN member state is bound by the resolution to recognize Kosova as a sovereign state, and that means Serbia too as a member of the UN. Remember that Serbia recognized Croatia after it became a member of the UN. In case the Resolution is vetoed, that still leaves separate states to recognize Kosova as a state, but Kosova would have to apply and be approved to become a member of the UN.

Thanks to those who responded to my question.

The way I understand it:
6 years, after resolution 1244 was signed, Serbia decided to call itself a "Successor" of Yugoslavia. Sure, it got the blessing of UN. It's "unfortunate" for K-Albanians that Montenegro did not put such claim, maybe it would have been easier, probably K-Albanians wouldn't mind co-living with Montenegrins.
However to go back on what is written, the resolution specifies Yugoslavia not "the successor" of Yugoslavia that could have been any of the republics.

Maybe Russia can claim Baltic States,Ukraine, Kazakhstan... since it is the successor of Soviet Union. Or China has every right to claim Taiwan, since is the successor of China before WW2.

To Yugi and Amsterdam:
Please spare me your personal insults and irony. I would care less if a Serb insults me. They have done much worse to Albanians.
If my comments are boring,you are free to leave this forum, or avoid reading. There are other forums out there where "elite" people like you, with "extensive knowledge on international law", read and write more interesting things than these.

Dino,

In a way you are right, had the international community taken such a stand and refused to recognize Serbia as continuing the seat of FRY, then 1244 could have been rendered moot (You missed your chance!). However that was not done, UNSC 1244 is a UN document and the UN itself recognized Serbia's seat. Montenegro would have been legally unable to make such a claim, as this was written into the constitution itself, the same constitution that granted Montenegro the right to succeed. Had Serbia left the Union, then I believe Montenegro would have inherited the seat. Or if both had agreed to dissolve, I think no one would have gotten the seat. I'd have to reread article 60, I'm just speaking from memory here.

"Maybe Russia can claim Baltic States,Ukraine, Kazakhstan... since it is the successor of Soviet Union."
Had there been a UN resolution saying that, then they might have a claim, but there wasn't. This basically is unrelated, as those countries were recognized by the UN as being independent, Kosovo has not.
"Or China has every right to claim Taiwan, since is the successor of China before WW2."
As I've said, the China/Taiwan issue is very interesting. First, China does have an internationally recognized right to claim Taiwan. Everyone, including the US, claims Taiwan is part of China. Hence no full UN seat for Taiwan. Taiwan did hold onto the seat for a while, but it was transferred to China. Under your logic, China should have lost their seat on the UNSC, as well as Russia. This obviously would render the UN simply a mouth piece for Western powers, and would destroy what it was created for. I personally believe we need to hand out a couple more UNSC seats. South America, Africa and the Middle East deserve a say in world events. Europe has 2 seats, 3 if you count Russia. Now that isn't really very fair. Once Russia joins the EU they will have far too much power in the UNSC. The EU should be limited to one seat Max.
Now, if we are to adopt your theory of international law it would really make things messy. First off, if a country changed their name, they would lose their seat. Or if any portion of their existing country became independent, they would lose their seat. Hence, if the Basque's got independence in France, according to your logic, France should lose their UNSC seat. Same for Tibet in China, or possibly Ireland in the UK.
There has to be a way to allow such things as independence or changing one's name, without it invoking such dire negative results.
Dino, I don't mind discussing interesting topics with you, but please try to do a little background research first. You do have some creative ideas, which I appreciate, much better then the usual insult slinging.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Partition? Would you be willing to trade some areas of great cultural value for Serbs for Presevo Valley? What about the right for Kosovo to join Albania? What do you feel would be a real compromise? What would you offer the Serbs, and what would you ask in return?
I am Montenegrin by the way, and Kosovo and our Churches are considered the cradle of our civilization by us as well. We too feel great pain when our historical monuments are destroyed. There are plenty of us who consider Kosovo sacred, but strongly opposed Milosevic's strong arm tactics. Try to understand that millions of Serbs and Montenegrins live outside of Serbia, and Kosovo is important to us as well.

To Matthew:
The way I see it?
The core of any compromise should start around the fact that K-Albanians and Serbs cannot co-live with each other at this point. This a given. West, Russia, Ahtisaari, Serbs Albanians, Kostunica & Tadic; all know that. There has been so much fighting, it’s time for a “divorce”. No one can force an abused spouse to live with the abuser. Once the separation takes place, reconciliation period begins. The abuser takes counseling, clears the conscience and with time both parties could make out again. You have got to understand that K-Albanians are requesting independence because they have no other choice. They need a place to live where they can raise their children safely. The serbs keeps repeating endlessly “it’s their land, they lost in 1300, etc. etc.”

Mathew wrote:
“Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Partition”

What would you say if EU offers Serbia and Kosovo simultaneously membership right now! Would you care about the partition? Well the goal for both countries is just that (at least it should be). Why does Serbia need partition after all! This doesn’t make any sense to me. Is this about annexing few more acres of land?

Mathew wrote:
“What about the right for Kosovo to join Albania?”
I frankly believe none of the countries desires such thing. As far as the right to do so, it will have the right of any independent nation to do as it wishes according to the international laws. Chances are that both countries will join EU instead of joining each other.

Mathew wrote:
“What do you feel would be a real compromise”. Sincerely I think Ahtisaari’s plan is the best compromise so far. It provides protection for minorities and for Serbian cultural heritage. Essentially, Kosovo Independence changes nothing in the ground. It just makes official what the reality is today. You are asking about the historical monuments being destroyed. It’s a shameful if such things happen. The sooner Kosovo enters the right path of statehood the sooner the infrastructure will be there to protect these monuments
After all haven’t these monuments been surrounded by Albanians for centuries? How did they make it so far?

I do respect Serbs feeling and I will not go into the discussion on who was there first, just because it’s ridiculous and useless. But Serbia needs to understand the reality and not beat a dead horse.

I thank you for giving me a chance to express quietly my opinion.

Dino,

I am actually very interested in hearing logical arguments and positions from the Albanian side. So I value your comments greatly.

"What would you say if EU offers Serbia and Kosovo simultaneously membership right now!"
Yes, I think I could live with something like that, and I've suggested in the past that if the EU is serious about peace in the Balkans, a solution such as you suggest would render the border issues moot. This would also allow free passage to live and work in Kosovo for Serbs forever. That I can accept of course. I actually wish our governments would band together and demand that the EU use this as a solution. I do firmly believe that we should be working together on more issues and if we were to do so it would show the International Community that we have the political maturity to join the EU at this time. Clearly as a region we have much in common, and both our peoples are scattered across a number of countries. Fighting one another really is counter productive. I'm actually extremely happy to here some positive logical suggestions from the Albanian side.
However, you actually side stepped my question. Personally I believe that if Ahtisaari's plan is killed in the UNSC and you are offered Presevo Valley in addition to areas of Kosovo, I think this would be fully acceptable to most Albanians. At the very least, there would not be war over it.
“What about the right for Kosovo to join Albania?”
"I frankly believe none of the countries desires such thing."
Regardless of that, I actually do support Kosovo having the right, if they so choose, to join with Albania. If Albania develops a strong tourist based economy like Montenegro has recently done, Kosovo could benefits in many many ways from that. I think EU membership is a long way away for both our peoples. No one seems to like either of our people much.
"I think Ahtisaari’s plan is the best compromise so far."
Compromise implies that both sides give up something significant. Granting Serbs rights in Kosovo that don't even amount to what we enjoy in Bosnia is not much of a compromise in my view. In addition, I have huge issues with many parts of Ahtisaari's plan, which I have read and understood. I've stated my objections to it in the past, but for your benefit I'll repeat them. I don't post that often anymore, as I've said most of what needs to be said in the past.
Paragraph 3.7 of Annex I is particularly dangerous in my opinion. Basically this allows for the repeal of nearly all the "protections" set aside for the Serbian population with a simple majority vote of the seats set aside for minorities in the assembly. As only half the seats reserved for minorities go to Serbs, this will put enormous pressure on the other minorities, I am especially worried about the fate of the Roma, which traditionally have not been treated well in the region. I've even seen Albanians here on B92 refer to them as "Serbs" in a negative fashion.
I also believe the rights for the Church are poorly defined. What exactly do they mean by "access"? Our Churches are scattered around Kosovo, does that mean we control all the roads and highways? Airspace? If Serbs decided to try to abuse this provision, it will most certainly result in Paragraph 3.7 being utilized to eliminate this protection.
In addition, I take exception to the Right to Return provisions (Paragraph 1.6 of Annex I). It only includes those who lived in Kosovo AFTER 1998. I am sure there are many who left before this date who have every right to return to their homes. I would go so far as to say a compromise would be to allow all Serbs who wish to live in Kosovo have that opportunity.
The reality is, I think all countries in the world should treat their minorities at least as well as what is set out in Ahtisaari's plan. I see those protections as basic human rights, and I really don't feel that is much of a compromise on the part of the Albanians. At the very least offer us what we have in Bosnia, or what Serbia is offering your people.
"After all haven’t these monuments been surrounded by Albanians for centuries? How did they make it so far?"
My mantra in the past has been "Serbia must change the Albanian perspective of our cultural heritage from one of personal liability to one of economic necessity". Essentially, we both need to work on some sort of religious tourism. My understanding is the Rugova Family was in charge of protecting Pec? Regardless, Rugova and his family should be held up by both sides as an example to us all. Not only did Ibrahim seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict, his family has obviously traditionally done great service for our Church. These types of things need to be emphasized and making headlines. I am no expert on Rugova, but everything I've read seems to indicate he was a good guy.
No offense, but bad things always happen to us Serbs when Ceku is around (My wife is from Krajina, so I'm not a fan of his). I do not believe that former KLA members should be allowed to participate in government.
To be completely honest though, I am a nationalist and Kosovo is very important to me (Although I support partition). I want to find a solution that protects your people, but respects our cultural heritage. I do not believe being a Serb means that I must hate Albanians (or Bosniaks or Croatians for that matter). I'm Montenegrin, from a mixed clan, so I see Albanians as my cousins, Croats and Bosniaks as my brothers, and Serbs as my parents. However, I will never let go out what I consider to be the very foundation of our civilization and culture, and I will teach my children the same. If a 4th Generation Montenegrin-American feels as strongly as I do, imagine what it means to some crazy nationalist. We must find a solution that ensures regional stability and a peaceful future for all our children. We should not rush to a decision on Kosovo.

To Matthew:
I read with great interest your perspective on the situation. Contrary to you I am not a nationalist, and my judgment is purely based on cold logic of where the things stand on the ground. As I said earlier I respect your concern about your heritage and I tried to remind you that you heritage is not in danger here. K-Albanians are not the "talibans" that will start destroy the "serbian budas".
Ahtisaari's proposal might need modification and this is a job for the specialists but the main principle of independence though should remain unchanged.
You are talking about reaching a compromise.
I have two questions followed by my views.
What could Serbia request in turn for letting Kosovo go?
As far as I have understood there is nothing that will make Serbia accept that, thus I don't see a possibility of a compromise on these premises.
The second question.
What can Serbia offer to K-Albanians to give up independence? A "supervised autonomy"? K-Albanians already had that, it was taken away from them and now is being offered as the "golden apple"!!
Does it make sense to you that after so much blood and killings K-Albanians could fall for this, go back to year 0 and start all over again?

This is a hard nut to crack.

There is no compromise that could be reached by both parties and that's why the International community has to step in.
Let me repeat again, partition doesn't make any sense to me and I am not sure about the size of the area we are talking about as I have never set foot on Kosovo. With or without partition Serbia will lose Kosovo. Partition will just make the humiliation lighter and will give a chance to politicians in Belgrade to claim a small victory over a bigger loss.

To me it's sad that both nations have come to this. I grew up in Albania and I have been away for almost 17 years, but my childhood was shaped by Yugoslav pop culture. In a way I am sad not only about K-Albanians but also Serbs that have to bow their heads in shame for what Milosevic put them through. In particular I remember a lady that I worked with in Toronto who, after she learned about my origin, pleaded to me to understand that not all Serbs agree with Milosevic. I currently live in US but I have lived for years in Greece and Canada where I have met people from any corner of the world, and I have come to realization that nationalistic cries are things of the past.

Listening to some Serbian commenters made me think that Serbia should join Russia and not EU.
In their opinion is EU that needs Serbia and the latter has no interest/advantages in becoming EU member.
Better if EU should project a scenario bypassing Serbia and Turkey also, given that the two countrys do not meet the standards to join the other EU states.

There should be no talk with Serbia, not before Tadic and Kostunica deliver Mladic to the Hague. To much complaisance, I think, with this little republik of the ex-Yu!

Massimo,

I think you'll find that even in the states that have joined the EU there is often considerable questioning of the merits for the EU and it's direction. The UK have a party called the UK Independence Party (UKIP) founded on the ground of wanting out of the red tape, inefficient bureaucracy that it sees as the only result of the EU!!!

What is wrong in the Serbian citizens questioning the warrants of joining the EU especially when it is being told endlessly it must swallow a bitter pill of denying it's sacred heartland and then gain EU membership.

Maybe Serbia is btter off gaining what it can in moving towards EU membership and free trade but not actually being tied by the actuality of full membership?

Have you not thought that their maybe merit in such a scenario??? In any case the EU resembles less and less of the values it was grounded upon and it has a serious deal of self questioning regarding where it is heading in the future! This keeps on bubbling below the surface and no-one wishes to resolve it - look at the contitution debacle - is there going to be one or not?? Even though a majority have already ratified it and only 2 (Holland & France) objected!!! In the future it is more liekly to be paralysed ever more without a serious amendment in it's administartion and more and more remote from democratic control. The states who are on the periphery wanting to join will be treated as second rate when finally they are allowed to join!!!

Serbia can go along the path but ultimately it must do what is in their citizens best interst as they will deceide to join or not!

Now that talks have restarted, we have to wait for them to be finalized, then the EU will start to ask for Mladic in order for the agreement to be signed. Until that moment, don't expect any arrest. When the EU starts asking for Mladic, and stops the signing of the agreement, we can expect Serbia to arrest another small war criminal, like Goran Hadzic or Vlastimir Dordevic. The show goes on as usual.

I wonder whether Kostunica knows how to read. There is no mention of Serbia's integrity in the resolution 1244. Here is the original text from that document.

"A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of the KLA;"

Someone brought this comment before but it seems it necessary to emphasize it again. Yugoslavia is no more, and this fact automatically annuls the resolution 1244. Kosovo is simply the last act on the Yugoslav drama.

dino, Serbia has legally been the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since Montenegro's independence

«The show goes on as usual.»

Andrea, and this has to stop. It's why I suggest firmly that no 'talks', no matter the form, have to be exchanged with Serbia. When the EU will make use of resoluteness, the timing will change.

Actually, Serbia directs the show and the EU has to change the momentum. They should stop playing Serbia's game, as we say.

" Yugoslavia is no more, and this fact automatically annuls the resolution 1244."

That's were you're wrong Dino. All agreements regarding Kosovo, meaning resolution 1244 passes onto Serbia as successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Anyway no matter its shortcomings, it's still best for Serbia to join the E.U.

I do not think that Serbia is going to wait long time to get silver plate offer for EU membership. EU creator masters understand how important geo-political position Serbia has within Europe. Serbia holds cards in this moment of time. Loosing influence over Serbia and allowing slipping into Russian sphere of interests will be catastrophic error for future of EU. EU is not concerned over Serbian interests but over their own.
Offer will be submitted in hope that Serbia will not be able to understand that EU needs Serbia more than Serbia needs EU. EU will sacrifice its stance on Kosovo to get control over Serbia. Kostunica understands this facts as well as EU. EU masters hopes that Serbian will run into EU membership and wish to speed up that by weakening Serbia by all possible means. By applying such a policy they make strategic mistake because they underestimate proud Serbian people nation.

Dino don't bring up this fallacy again. If you were a regular on this site you would know that some new poster brings this up every 3-4 months. Serbia is the recognized legal successor to Yugoslavia because it is the only former Yugo republic not to have seceded from the federation. This is evinced by the fact that Serbia inherited the Yugoslav seat in the UN and all other international bodies rather than having to apply as a new member, which the other republics had to do. I hope this clarifies things for you regarding the veracity of 1244.

Victor, Massimo.

By the time the EU is ready to let in more members I would be supprised if Gen. Mladic was still alive. He is 65 years old probably smokes, drinks and eats to much red meat and has led a very stressful life. The chances of him dying of cancer or a heart attack within the next few years are high. The chances of the EU resolving it's differences on the constitution and restructuring of the administration so that it can let in more countries within the next 10 years are extremely low. Things move slowly in the EU. Remember this is the buearocracy which took 27 years to decide on a legal definition of British Chocolate(Dairy Milk Chocolate is what they came up with), 27 YEARS!!!!

"... onto Serbia as successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. "

And who says that?
Serbia's constitution?
Maybe it is Montenegro the successor state of Yugoslavia!
I didn't know that Serbia today is also called Yugoslavia!

Wow, it's so funny to see so many Serbophobes. You people need to start concentrating on your own countries a little more. Notice, we don't care about them yet you constantly feel a need to badger us with things like Serbia not controlling resolution 1244. That comment should make you banned if you cannot understand WHY they keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA. They wouldn't say that if it meant nothing.

Has it ever occurred to some people here that the resumption of SAA talks might actually help find Mladic faster rather than prolong it? Rather than continuously pushing Serbia closer to Moscow, which will only end up with a jilted Serbian bride being left at the altar, wouldn't constructive guarantees of Serbian European integration foster a better resolve to wrap up any leftover old business from last decade?

I think this position is absolutely right and clear. There cannot be any respect for Serbia if she does not show respect for herself. Serbia can do without the EU. It can. Russia, China, India, Brazil etc...are huge countries with tremendous potential and booming economies that are going to take over the world sooner rather than later. Everyone knows that. It's a shame that some EU countries participated in a conspiracy against Yugoslavia. But I am confident all those responsible for the Balkan tragedy are going to be brought to justice sooner or later. The evidence is being accumulated as we speak as the information revolution they could not foresee when they started their deadly dance in the Balkans is flushing more and more evidence about their conspiracy. Justice will be served. It will.

I do not understand why some serbs, not all, consider Mladic a hero and want to protect him. The guy is undeniably a war criminial who had massacred thousands on innocent civilians.

I he is such a patriot, then he would turn himself in, rather than holding ransom all of Serbia. This guy doesn't care about ordinary serbs, if he did, he would give up, he is obviously guilty. What a murderous coward!!

The EU works GREAT as an economic/free trade zone and any person with a basic understanding of Economics 101 understands this fact.Even if the EU NEVER passes any constitution on closer political unity the fact remains that a market of 500 million consumers is in Serbia's own interest to tap.As far as Russia is concerned the EU does BILLIONS in trade with Russia and it is a false scenario to say that Serbia cannot be in the EU and have close economic ties with Russia simultaneously.Russia in fact does a lot more trade with every single individual country already in the EU than it does with Serbia so I do not understand why any commentator here disparages Serbia's goal of entering this common market.As far as politics are concerned the EU has not matured politically to the point where it can make unanimous decisions regarding such sensitive political issues as Kosovo and the economic realm must be separated from the political one.Adopting EU standards will make Serb products much more marketable in ALL markets(EU-US-Russia-China etc.)

yes, dino, Serbia is the legal successor state to the former Yugoslavia.

why do you think Serbia took over FRJ's automatic membership of the UN, World Bank, IMF etcetera?

anyway, Kosovo has always been a part of the state of Serbia while the borders around it changed, from the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, to SFRJ to FRJ, to the EU, or whatever comes next

Luciano when the EU starts asking some political demands such as trying to influence constitutional arrangements of a sovereign country than such demands are political demands. Because constitution is being written by citizens through their political representatives. It's a political act. The EU trangressed its mandate long time ago and is using political pressure to achieve economic goals. Under any law such things are considered illegal as the law sees such acts to be done under duress. In everyday language it's called blackmail. Any acts done under such circumstances are void in law automatically. As if they never existed in law. As to the economy Serbia clearly wants to join the EU but not under any circumstances. I think that's a sensible approach. Serbia can prosper without the EU. It can.

Why have anything to do with the EU? I would declare them a hostile entity to the Serbian state and treat them as such.

"That comment should make you banned if you cannot understand WHY they keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA"

No I cannot understand it. I am sorry. You can inherit any seats in UN and you can give any name to Serbia, you can still call it a "federation" if you wish. The truth is the resolution never mention Serbia. Serbia was just another republic of ex-Yugoslav Federation.
Someone has mentioned that Kosovo was actually given to Serbia before Yugoslavia and perhaps you can stick to this argument for the sake of it but don't start from an un-proven axiom and develop an entire theorem.

And who are "they" that "keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA"? Is this documented anywhere?

As far as the bann-ing goes you better leave it to the owners of this forum.

To Dino:"In a letter dated 3 June 2006, the President of the Republic of Serbia informed the Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro was being continued by the Republic of Serbia, following Montenegro’s declaration of independence. On 4 February 2003, following the adoption and promulgation of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro by the Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the official name of “ Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. The Socialist “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new Members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/12 of 1 November 2000."
This is found in UN web site. So, the fact that UN recognises Serbia as the successor state of Yugoslavia, should be enough. Or does Serbia need approval from you too...?

"it is a false scenario to say that Serbia cannot be in the EU and have close economic ties with Russia simultaneously (luciano, Wednesday, 13 June, 2007, 17:47)"
I personally feel a balance between the two is the most healthy at this time. Luciano, just recently there was an article that France was trading with Russia using Serbia as an intermediary because Serbia has a Free Trade agreement with Russia. I think this sort of relationship is the way forward for now and Serbia really needs to focus on play that sort of role more often. It is our destiny to be the bridge between East & West.
Once the EU works out their myriad problems and discussions shift on when Russia will join the EU, that will be the proper time for Serbia to seriously consider it. Free Trade and easy access to visas, YES! EU regulations and red tape, NO!
I also believe that Serbia must have its own educated capitalist class in place so foreign investment does not turn into foreign overlords. Serbia isn't ready for the EU, and at this point in time, it would only end up being swallowed by the bigger more developed countries.
It may turn out that joining the EU is easier than leaving it. The EU as it currently is reminds me greatly of the first experiment in the US on forming a unified state. It didn't work, not enough centralized power. The EU will require massive changes if it is to move forward and morph into something other then an economic trading block. They really need to figure out what the want the EU to actually be before we can decide if its something we would like to join or not.
I do think we have the same concerns for the most part Luciano.
"This is evinced by the fact that Serbia inherited the Yugoslav seat in the UN and all other international bodies rather than having to apply as a new member, which the other republics had to do. (Jack, Wednesday, 13 June, 2007, 16:13)"
"And who are "they" that "keep saying SERBIA is SUCCESSOR to YUGOSLAVIA"? Is this documented anywhere? (Dino, Wednesday, 13 June, 2007, 19:25)"
OK, Dino and Jack, here's how it worked.
On November 1st, 2000 the seat for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was abolished, on the same day, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted to the UN. Remember how FRY didn't have standing to sue the US over the NATO bombing, that was because it didn't succeed the SFRY. Like the other republics, it had to apply for a UN seat (Of course the ICJ completely ignored that fact in the Srebrenica ruling, but whatever).
In February 2003 FRY changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro and was allowed this time to continue the same seat and obligations that FRY previously held. The membership in the UN was continued by Serbia on June 3, 2006. Montenegro had to apply for a seat, which was granted June 28, 2006. Serbia and Montenegro agreed to this in their constitution which as you recall was negotiated and approved by foreign powers. The UN has also recognized this, and that is how Serbia came to inherit the UN seat that belonged to FRY.
So to answer your question Dino, the same organization that came up with UNSC resolution 1244, also recognized that Serbia inherited FRY's UN seat and that UNSC 1244 applies to Serbia now. That organization is called the UN. So to answer your question, yes it is very well documented and "they" are the UN.
If the UN didn't function this way, there would be a lot of chaos in the world. Just for example, neither China nor Russia would be permanent members of the security council. Read up on China and Taiwan, its actually a very interesting story in regards to the UN.
Everyone else is correct, every month or two, someone makes the argument that 1244 doesn't apply to Serbia. Dino, if you came up with that idea yourself, I'm very impressed with your creative thinking it does seem like an interesting point on the surface. However, if you read that somewhere, I suggest you check your sources more thoroughly, you very easily could have found this exact information anywhere. I suppose I should keep a copy of this and cut and paste it the next time someone comes up with an idea without checking the facts first. However, with the regularity with which this comes up, I suspect some pro-independence website must be pushing this idea on people.

@dino!
please stop asking if Serbia is or is not te successor state of the Fmr.Yugoslavia. Just read the law of the UN and you'll see that all what was Yugoslavia is now Serbia. You are really getting boring and it shows how much (better to say how little) you know about International Law. So, if you want to comment on something, please first learn what the situation really is.
@B92. it would maybe be good to sent mr. Dino the official excerpts of UN decisions.

Yes, Dino, you are right, UN Res 1244, refers to the Yugoslav Federation, not to the Republic of Serbia. The Yugoslav Federation was dissolved in June 5 2006, therefore no entity has at the moment legal sovereignty over Kosova. UN never amended the Res 1244 to transfer Yugoslav sovereignty over to the state of Serbia, and 1244 in itself makes no provision for the automatic transfer of sovereignty. In other words, you can't board an airplane with a ticket holding somebody's else name. Even if the ticket is transferable (which in this case it isn't), the airline has to issue you a new ticket in your name. Serbia's sovereignty over Kosova, simply doesn't fly, and they know it very well. The process at the UN right now, is not about recognizing Serbia's sovereignty over Kosova (because in fact it has none), but is about recognizing Kosova's sovereignty at the UN level. That means that if the resolution is passed, every UN member state is bound by the resolution to recognize Kosova as a sovereign state, and that means Serbia too as a member of the UN. Remember that Serbia recognized Croatia after it became a member of the UN. In case the Resolution is vetoed, that still leaves separate states to recognize Kosova as a state, but Kosova would have to apply and be approved to become a member of the UN.

Thanks to those who responded to my question.

The way I understand it:
6 years, after resolution 1244 was signed, Serbia decided to call itself a "Successor" of Yugoslavia. Sure, it got the blessing of UN. It's "unfortunate" for K-Albanians that Montenegro did not put such claim, maybe it would have been easier, probably K-Albanians wouldn't mind co-living with Montenegrins.
However to go back on what is written, the resolution specifies Yugoslavia not "the successor" of Yugoslavia that could have been any of the republics.

Maybe Russia can claim Baltic States,Ukraine, Kazakhstan... since it is the successor of Soviet Union. Or China has every right to claim Taiwan, since is the successor of China before WW2.

To Yugi and Amsterdam:
Please spare me your personal insults and irony. I would care less if a Serb insults me. They have done much worse to Albanians.
If my comments are boring,you are free to leave this forum, or avoid reading. There are other forums out there where "elite" people like you, with "extensive knowledge on international law", read and write more interesting things than these.

Dino,

In a way you are right, had the international community taken such a stand and refused to recognize Serbia as continuing the seat of FRY, then 1244 could have been rendered moot (You missed your chance!). However that was not done, UNSC 1244 is a UN document and the UN itself recognized Serbia's seat. Montenegro would have been legally unable to make such a claim, as this was written into the constitution itself, the same constitution that granted Montenegro the right to succeed. Had Serbia left the Union, then I believe Montenegro would have inherited the seat. Or if both had agreed to dissolve, I think no one would have gotten the seat. I'd have to reread article 60, I'm just speaking from memory here.

"Maybe Russia can claim Baltic States,Ukraine, Kazakhstan... since it is the successor of Soviet Union."
Had there been a UN resolution saying that, then they might have a claim, but there wasn't. This basically is unrelated, as those countries were recognized by the UN as being independent, Kosovo has not.
"Or China has every right to claim Taiwan, since is the successor of China before WW2."
As I've said, the China/Taiwan issue is very interesting. First, China does have an internationally recognized right to claim Taiwan. Everyone, including the US, claims Taiwan is part of China. Hence no full UN seat for Taiwan. Taiwan did hold onto the seat for a while, but it was transferred to China. Under your logic, China should have lost their seat on the UNSC, as well as Russia. This obviously would render the UN simply a mouth piece for Western powers, and would destroy what it was created for. I personally believe we need to hand out a couple more UNSC seats. South America, Africa and the Middle East deserve a say in world events. Europe has 2 seats, 3 if you count Russia. Now that isn't really very fair. Once Russia joins the EU they will have far too much power in the UNSC. The EU should be limited to one seat Max.
Now, if we are to adopt your theory of international law it would really make things messy. First off, if a country changed their name, they would lose their seat. Or if any portion of their existing country became independent, they would lose their seat. Hence, if the Basque's got independence in France, according to your logic, France should lose their UNSC seat. Same for Tibet in China, or possibly Ireland in the UK.
There has to be a way to allow such things as independence or changing one's name, without it invoking such dire negative results.
Dino, I don't mind discussing interesting topics with you, but please try to do a little background research first. You do have some creative ideas, which I appreciate, much better then the usual insult slinging.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Partition? Would you be willing to trade some areas of great cultural value for Serbs for Presevo Valley? What about the right for Kosovo to join Albania? What do you feel would be a real compromise? What would you offer the Serbs, and what would you ask in return?
I am Montenegrin by the way, and Kosovo and our Churches are considered the cradle of our civilization by us as well. We too feel great pain when our historical monuments are destroyed. There are plenty of us who consider Kosovo sacred, but strongly opposed Milosevic's strong arm tactics. Try to understand that millions of Serbs and Montenegrins live outside of Serbia, and Kosovo is important to us as well.

To Matthew:
The way I see it?
The core of any compromise should start around the fact that K-Albanians and Serbs cannot co-live with each other at this point. This a given. West, Russia, Ahtisaari, Serbs Albanians, Kostunica & Tadic; all know that. There has been so much fighting, it’s time for a “divorce”. No one can force an abused spouse to live with the abuser. Once the separation takes place, reconciliation period begins. The abuser takes counseling, clears the conscience and with time both parties could make out again. You have got to understand that K-Albanians are requesting independence because they have no other choice. They need a place to live where they can raise their children safely. The serbs keeps repeating endlessly “it’s their land, they lost in 1300, etc. etc.”

Mathew wrote:
“Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Partition”

What would you say if EU offers Serbia and Kosovo simultaneously membership right now! Would you care about the partition? Well the goal for both countries is just that (at least it should be). Why does Serbia need partition after all! This doesn’t make any sense to me. Is this about annexing few more acres of land?

Mathew wrote:
“What about the right for Kosovo to join Albania?”
I frankly believe none of the countries desires such thing. As far as the right to do so, it will have the right of any independent nation to do as it wishes according to the international laws. Chances are that both countries will join EU instead of joining each other.

Mathew wrote:
“What do you feel would be a real compromise”. Sincerely I think Ahtisaari’s plan is the best compromise so far. It provides protection for minorities and for Serbian cultural heritage. Essentially, Kosovo Independence changes nothing in the ground. It just makes official what the reality is today. You are asking about the historical monuments being destroyed. It’s a shameful if such things happen. The sooner Kosovo enters the right path of statehood the sooner the infrastructure will be there to protect these monuments
After all haven’t these monuments been surrounded by Albanians for centuries? How did they make it so far?

I do respect Serbs feeling and I will not go into the discussion on who was there first, just because it’s ridiculous and useless. But Serbia needs to understand the reality and not beat a dead horse.

I thank you for giving me a chance to express quietly my opinion.

Dino,

I am actually very interested in hearing logical arguments and positions from the Albanian side. So I value your comments greatly.

"What would you say if EU offers Serbia and Kosovo simultaneously membership right now!"
Yes, I think I could live with something like that, and I've suggested in the past that if the EU is serious about peace in the Balkans, a solution such as you suggest would render the border issues moot. This would also allow free passage to live and work in Kosovo for Serbs forever. That I can accept of course. I actually wish our governments would band together and demand that the EU use this as a solution. I do firmly believe that we should be working together on more issues and if we were to do so it would show the International Community that we have the political maturity to join the EU at this time. Clearly as a region we have much in common, and both our peoples are scattered across a number of countries. Fighting one another really is counter productive. I'm actually extremely happy to here some positive logical suggestions from the Albanian side.
However, you actually side stepped my question. Personally I believe that if Ahtisaari's plan is killed in the UNSC and you are offered Presevo Valley in addition to areas of Kosovo, I think this would be fully acceptable to most Albanians. At the very least, there would not be war over it.
“What about the right for Kosovo to join Albania?”
"I frankly believe none of the countries desires such thing."
Regardless of that, I actually do support Kosovo having the right, if they so choose, to join with Albania. If Albania develops a strong tourist based economy like Montenegro has recently done, Kosovo could benefits in many many ways from that. I think EU membership is a long way away for both our peoples. No one seems to like either of our people much.
"I think Ahtisaari’s plan is the best compromise so far."
Compromise implies that both sides give up something significant. Granting Serbs rights in Kosovo that don't even amount to what we enjoy in Bosnia is not much of a compromise in my view. In addition, I have huge issues with many parts of Ahtisaari's plan, which I have read and understood. I've stated my objections to it in the past, but for your benefit I'll repeat them. I don't post that often anymore, as I've said most of what needs to be said in the past.
Paragraph 3.7 of Annex I is particularly dangerous in my opinion. Basically this allows for the repeal of nearly all the "protections" set aside for the Serbian population with a simple majority vote of the seats set aside for minorities in the assembly. As only half the seats reserved for minorities go to Serbs, this will put enormous pressure on the other minorities, I am especially worried about the fate of the Roma, which traditionally have not been treated well in the region. I've even seen Albanians here on B92 refer to them as "Serbs" in a negative fashion.
I also believe the rights for the Church are poorly defined. What exactly do they mean by "access"? Our Churches are scattered around Kosovo, does that mean we control all the roads and highways? Airspace? If Serbs decided to try to abuse this provision, it will most certainly result in Paragraph 3.7 being utilized to eliminate this protection.
In addition, I take exception to the Right to Return provisions (Paragraph 1.6 of Annex I). It only includes those who lived in Kosovo AFTER 1998. I am sure there are many who left before this date who have every right to return to their homes. I would go so far as to say a compromise would be to allow all Serbs who wish to live in Kosovo have that opportunity.
The reality is, I think all countries in the world should treat their minorities at least as well as what is set out in Ahtisaari's plan. I see those protections as basic human rights, and I really don't feel that is much of a compromise on the part of the Albanians. At the very least offer us what we have in Bosnia, or what Serbia is offering your people.
"After all haven’t these monuments been surrounded by Albanians for centuries? How did they make it so far?"
My mantra in the past has been "Serbia must change the Albanian perspective of our cultural heritage from one of personal liability to one of economic necessity". Essentially, we both need to work on some sort of religious tourism. My understanding is the Rugova Family was in charge of protecting Pec? Regardless, Rugova and his family should be held up by both sides as an example to us all. Not only did Ibrahim seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict, his family has obviously traditionally done great service for our Church. These types of things need to be emphasized and making headlines. I am no expert on Rugova, but everything I've read seems to indicate he was a good guy.
No offense, but bad things always happen to us Serbs when Ceku is around (My wife is from Krajina, so I'm not a fan of his). I do not believe that former KLA members should be allowed to participate in government.
To be completely honest though, I am a nationalist and Kosovo is very important to me (Although I support partition). I want to find a solution that protects your people, but respects our cultural heritage. I do not believe being a Serb means that I must hate Albanians (or Bosniaks or Croatians for that matter). I'm Montenegrin, from a mixed clan, so I see Albanians as my cousins, Croats and Bosniaks as my brothers, and Serbs as my parents. However, I will never let go out what I consider to be the very foundation of our civilization and culture, and I will teach my children the same. If a 4th Generation Montenegrin-American feels as strongly as I do, imagine what it means to some crazy nationalist. We must find a solution that ensures regional stability and a peaceful future for all our children. We should not rush to a decision on Kosovo.

To Matthew:
I read with great interest your perspective on the situation. Contrary to you I am not a nationalist, and my judgment is purely based on cold logic of where the things stand on the ground. As I said earlier I respect your concern about your heritage and I tried to remind you that you heritage is not in danger here. K-Albanians are not the "talibans" that will start destroy the "serbian budas".
Ahtisaari's proposal might need modification and this is a job for the specialists but the main principle of independence though should remain unchanged.
You are talking about reaching a compromise.
I have two questions followed by my views.
What could Serbia request in turn for letting Kosovo go?
As far as I have understood there is nothing that will make Serbia accept that, thus I don't see a possibility of a compromise on these premises.
The second question.
What can Serbia offer to K-Albanians to give up independence? A "supervised autonomy"? K-Albanians already had that, it was taken away from them and now is being offered as the "golden apple"!!
Does it make sense to you that after so much blood and killings K-Albanians could fall for this, go back to year 0 and start all over again?

This is a hard nut to crack.

There is no compromise that could be reached by both parties and that's why the International community has to step in.
Let me repeat again, partition doesn't make any sense to me and I am not sure about the size of the area we are talking about as I have never set foot on Kosovo. With or without partition Serbia will lose Kosovo. Partition will just make the humiliation lighter and will give a chance to politicians in Belgrade to claim a small victory over a bigger loss.

To me it's sad that both nations have come to this. I grew up in Albania and I have been away for almost 17 years, but my childhood was shaped by Yugoslav pop culture. In a way I am sad not only about K-Albanians but also Serbs that have to bow their heads in shame for what Milosevic put them through. In particular I remember a lady that I worked with in Toronto who, after she learned about my origin, pleaded to me to understand that not all Serbs agree with Milosevic. I currently live in US but I have lived for years in Greece and Canada where I have met people from any corner of the world, and I have come to realization that nationalistic cries are things of the past.