RIK turns down U.S., UK monitoring

Serbia should allow US monitors only if the US allows Serbian monitors next year in their presidential elections. After the Florida scandal in 2000 they could need some help

American and British election monitors would have only one mission: To cry "Fraud" if Nikolic wins.

I can see it already, if some pro-West guy wins, they will be considered free and fair, if some anti-West guy wins, they will call it illegal and sanction Serbia.

I seriously doubt the objectivity of these observers, because in Belarus and Russia anti-Western politicians were voted into power and everyone said they were not free and fair, but when pro-Western politicians were voted into power in the Ukraine and Georgia, then suddenly it is free and fair?

And why would they monitor elections in Serbia? Serbia is democratic country and there is no need for monitoring. Serbia is also a member of OSCE as far as I remember and don't know if Serbia ever proposed such "service" to other OSCE mambers. Again meddling around.

Peter,

- but you should know "Democracy" to the likes of Bush, Blair, Clinton et al means electing the guy we want you to elect i.e. the one who will sell even his granny to us if we asked even if she was already dead and buried!

No one in the UK voted for Gordon Brown but he's our prime minister.

Bush only got in due to vote rigging in Florida.

Bit of double standards there.

OSCE will decide if the elections were fair or not. I don't see the point of individual embassies monitoring the election anyway? Do you? Especially not those embassies that do not respect Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Let's not forget the October 5 2000 uprising against Milosevic and the 1996=97 student demonstrations were both spurred by the goverment not holding free and fair elections. In other words, the best election monitors are the Serb citizens themselves, who have shown a determined resilience to make sure their elections are free and fair.

Who gives a damn if some citizens of the UK, US, Mars or Cloudcuckooland want to have a free holiday in Serbia for the duration of the elections? I have no doubt that the ballot will be as free and fair as it is in my own country. It should be used as a PR opportunity to show these visitors that the Serbian people are decent, fairminded and generally good souls.

Sometimes in life (and I believe this is one of those instances) you may benefit from engaging into activity at “no gain but no loss, either” scenario.
Although I find it rather insulting for embassy clerks (of any country) to claim rights and demands and to grab some “monitoring” privileges for themselves - how harmful is it to make provisions for it? The anti-Serb stance of those two countries are apparent even to Steve Wonder but why this insistence to poke the finger in their eye? What is the anticipated gain?
BTW – did they request it to start with?

Bmrusila rightfully points out that Serbia is a democracy, and as such probably does not need foreign observers. But because many outside of Serbia do not know this, the OSCE will help solidify the credibility of the result. This is OK and useful, and will also provide added credibility to skeptics in Serbia. Yet, it is not clear why additional UK and US election monitors would be needed if the OSCE is already there. It probably was not even appropriate to consider them given the OSCE role. As Serbian democracy strengthens in the eyes of the international community and local skeptics, the role of foreign observers will surely decline.

Funny Peter that you mention Georgia.

Are there a wild guess that Russia will recognize Abzhasia if the US and EU recognizes Kosovo?

Just another mislead people even if there were some signs in the elections that the people were not satisfied with their president

Poland refused OSCE observers in October 2007.

It was reported..."The OSCE asked Poland to admit observers for the election but Poland rejected the proposal, underlining that Poland is a democracy," Polish Foreign ministry spokesman Robert Szaniawski said.
"It's a standard procedure that it is the country that invites OSCE observers for elections, so in this case OSCE made a faux pas," he (Szaniawski)added.

RIK right is to allow whoever they think is feasible to monitor the elections but one should think of the message you sent to US and UK officials.
However, I think that there is nothing to hide so why not allow them to observe, it would be another plus for Serbia.
RIK allowed OSCE to observe which is nice. OSCE could sent their US and UK staff to observe just to fill in the gap for UK and US embassy staff.

IT's free advertising people!!!
What's the big deal??

After the voting happens, open up the bottles of brandy and have a celbration!!
Who cares WHO wins? As long as it was the will of the peoples...

And WHOEVER DOES win, it would make the OSCE non partial witnesses, and people crying "FOUL" on bothe sides would have their voices humbled..

Could you imagine Nikolic winning in a fair and free election?
Well, without the OSCE's presence, it couldn't be solidified...

If you've got nothing to hide in your voting procedures, than who cares?
ESPECIALLY if EU is footing the bill of monitoring.

monitoring? who are you kidding
serbia is the best democracy in the world

remember, the world needs serbia, serbia doesn't the world

"With all those billions of dollars Milosevic had stashed, with all the army, and military on his side
there is no chance for a group of student to succeed without powerful external help."

That may be so johny, but none of these external financeers actually participated in the demonstrations or the 2000 uprising. DOS set up their own electoral monitoring system in 2000 as a precaution over what they knew would be voter rigging by the SPS. When Milosevic came out and said a second round of voting would be necessary, Serbs took to the streets.

Money can provide the ability to demonstrate, but it takes ordinary citizen action to do the demonstrating. Without the people, all the money in the world amounts to nothing. These are two events in Serbia's recent democratic history that its own citizens can be proud of.

Maybe Mr Kostunica can invite observers from true democratic countries like Belarus, Cuba, Birma, North Korea. Poor Serbs, your country more and more becomes an isolated place, ruled by narrow minded politicians, who are just capable of looking to the past. It is a pity.

"Let's not forget the October 5 2000 uprising against Milosevic and the 1996=97 student demonstrations were both spurred by the goverment not holding free and fair elections. In other words, the best election monitors are the Serb citizens themselves, who have shown a determined resilience to make sure their elections are free and fair.
(Mike, 11 January 2008 18:23) "

Mike I don't want to disappoint you but in both cases it was George Soros that founded these events. He was the force behind democratic change in Serbia. He is a Hungarian by the way. Our friend Joe will be pleased. With all those billions of dollars Milosevic had stashed, with all the army, and military on his side
there is no chance for a group of student to succeed without powerful external help. That help came from Soros and the West, the same countries that now it is a fashion to hate if you are a Serb. I wonder if Serbs would feel the same way towards these countries if these countries did not push for Milosevic's removal and he was still in power today.

I'm not sure this is the right choice, Serbia has made more hole in the ground for the future of serbia, initially by allowing Gazprom to control 91% of its energy sector, and the second by not allowing the every country who wants to even Kosova to participate in the elections as observers. I don't understand I thought you where a democratic country, what do you have to hide!!

I'm not sure what the point of extra US/UK observers was but it seems pointless to exclude them given a Slovak delegation that couldn't even get its application in on time was allowed.

In the end it will be the OSCE delegation which will be the final judge (and this will probably include US and UK observers). It is also worth noting that all western democracies have their elections observed by the OSCE, and thus observation is one of the necessities to be a true democracy.

Again, however, the blinkered love of Russia is kreeping in to these pages. The OSCE declared the Russian and belarussian election to NOT be free or fair. This is clear when you look at the Chechen results: "According to the official results, turnout in Chechnya was 99.5%, of which 99.36% votes were cast for United Russia". Putin has levelled Chechnya. The chances of him getting 99.36% of the vote there are zero. Maybe if the Chechens all botcotted, but the turnout was close to 100% so that isn't the case. Any election which gets 99%+ votes is always fraudulent.
Georgia was declared to be mostly fair with some problems (which sounds a reasonable assessment). Ukraine has now moved into a period of free and fair elections after the orange revolution. You will note that the pro-Russian Yanukovich won in the 2006 parliamentary election, yet it was declared resonably free and fair. No calls of fraud were called just because it wasn't the 'ideal' result for the west.

The ideal result is always the full expression of the people's will.

Andy - your naivete of the political system is shocking.

In the UK we elect a parliament not a prime minister. This is the same as most parliamentary democracies (spain, ireland, denmark, norway, sweden etc). The PM in Serbia could change without a popular vote as long as it is the will of parliament.

Bush won in 2004 on a large turnout. You may not like the result but that was completely legitimate. In 2000 it is was a closer call, but there was a lot of recounting, and analysis - the hallmark of a country willing to investigate its own electoral process. The problem was it was the closest race in US history, and when the separating margins are minute, it is always difficult to call a result, as human error kicks in. And if the US population had been unhappy about the result they could have got rid of Bush in 2004. They didn't.

I haven't had time to read all of the comments above yet so I don't know if I'm repeating points here.

British and US insistence on monitoring foreign elections, and crying foul when the party they don't like wins, is a rather crude and disappointing form of foreign policy.

I was born and lived most of my life in the UK and I always prided myself on how subtle our propaganda used to be. In the case of the BBC it still is, and one can at least be entertained and stimulated while being manipulated! The Labour Party, however, began in the 19th century as a rather provincial movement and is set to end in the same way. One can see these people coming a mile away, but they are no less dangerous for that.

This insistence on monitors is crude and embarrassing. It would be a fair practice if Serbs, Georgians, Kenyans, and others, could observe elections in the UK and US, but I suspect that would not be allowed. We are not immune from the less savoury aspects of democratic processes as we think we are - the 2000 Florida controversy and the problems with British postal votes not long ago are testament to that.

Perhaps Serbia is no more or less democratic than any other nation, but if I were pushed to give an example of how it might be more democratic, I would cite the fact that one can at least see the policy differences between Serb parties. In the UK the only parties I can see with any really different policies are the Scottish, Welsh and English nationalists! Perhaps if they get any stronger the British will then insist on observers from countries friendly to their continued existence!

American and British election monitors would have only one mission: To cry "Fraud" if Nikolic wins.

Maybe Mr Kostunica can invite observers from true democratic countries like Belarus, Cuba, Birma, North Korea. Poor Serbs, your country more and more becomes an isolated place, ruled by narrow minded politicians, who are just capable of looking to the past. It is a pity.

I'm not sure this is the right choice, Serbia has made more hole in the ground for the future of serbia, initially by allowing Gazprom to control 91% of its energy sector, and the second by not allowing the every country who wants to even Kosova to participate in the elections as observers. I don't understand I thought you where a democratic country, what do you have to hide!!

monitoring? who are you kidding
serbia is the best democracy in the world

remember, the world needs serbia, serbia doesn't the world

RIK right is to allow whoever they think is feasible to monitor the elections but one should think of the message you sent to US and UK officials.
However, I think that there is nothing to hide so why not allow them to observe, it would be another plus for Serbia.
RIK allowed OSCE to observe which is nice. OSCE could sent their US and UK staff to observe just to fill in the gap for UK and US embassy staff.

Serbia should allow US monitors only if the US allows Serbian monitors next year in their presidential elections. After the Florida scandal in 2000 they could need some help

IT's free advertising people!!!
What's the big deal??

After the voting happens, open up the bottles of brandy and have a celbration!!
Who cares WHO wins? As long as it was the will of the peoples...

And WHOEVER DOES win, it would make the OSCE non partial witnesses, and people crying "FOUL" on bothe sides would have their voices humbled..

Could you imagine Nikolic winning in a fair and free election?
Well, without the OSCE's presence, it couldn't be solidified...

If you've got nothing to hide in your voting procedures, than who cares?
ESPECIALLY if EU is footing the bill of monitoring.

Let's not forget the October 5 2000 uprising against Milosevic and the 1996=97 student demonstrations were both spurred by the goverment not holding free and fair elections. In other words, the best election monitors are the Serb citizens themselves, who have shown a determined resilience to make sure their elections are free and fair.

"Let's not forget the October 5 2000 uprising against Milosevic and the 1996=97 student demonstrations were both spurred by the goverment not holding free and fair elections. In other words, the best election monitors are the Serb citizens themselves, who have shown a determined resilience to make sure their elections are free and fair.
(Mike, 11 January 2008 18:23) "

Mike I don't want to disappoint you but in both cases it was George Soros that founded these events. He was the force behind democratic change in Serbia. He is a Hungarian by the way. Our friend Joe will be pleased. With all those billions of dollars Milosevic had stashed, with all the army, and military on his side
there is no chance for a group of student to succeed without powerful external help. That help came from Soros and the West, the same countries that now it is a fashion to hate if you are a Serb. I wonder if Serbs would feel the same way towards these countries if these countries did not push for Milosevic's removal and he was still in power today.

And why would they monitor elections in Serbia? Serbia is democratic country and there is no need for monitoring. Serbia is also a member of OSCE as far as I remember and don't know if Serbia ever proposed such "service" to other OSCE mambers. Again meddling around.

Funny Peter that you mention Georgia.

Are there a wild guess that Russia will recognize Abzhasia if the US and EU recognizes Kosovo?

Just another mislead people even if there were some signs in the elections that the people were not satisfied with their president

Peter,

- but you should know "Democracy" to the likes of Bush, Blair, Clinton et al means electing the guy we want you to elect i.e. the one who will sell even his granny to us if we asked even if she was already dead and buried!

Bmrusila rightfully points out that Serbia is a democracy, and as such probably does not need foreign observers. But because many outside of Serbia do not know this, the OSCE will help solidify the credibility of the result. This is OK and useful, and will also provide added credibility to skeptics in Serbia. Yet, it is not clear why additional UK and US election monitors would be needed if the OSCE is already there. It probably was not even appropriate to consider them given the OSCE role. As Serbian democracy strengthens in the eyes of the international community and local skeptics, the role of foreign observers will surely decline.

I'm not sure what the point of extra US/UK observers was but it seems pointless to exclude them given a Slovak delegation that couldn't even get its application in on time was allowed.

In the end it will be the OSCE delegation which will be the final judge (and this will probably include US and UK observers). It is also worth noting that all western democracies have their elections observed by the OSCE, and thus observation is one of the necessities to be a true democracy.

Again, however, the blinkered love of Russia is kreeping in to these pages. The OSCE declared the Russian and belarussian election to NOT be free or fair. This is clear when you look at the Chechen results: "According to the official results, turnout in Chechnya was 99.5%, of which 99.36% votes were cast for United Russia". Putin has levelled Chechnya. The chances of him getting 99.36% of the vote there are zero. Maybe if the Chechens all botcotted, but the turnout was close to 100% so that isn't the case. Any election which gets 99%+ votes is always fraudulent.
Georgia was declared to be mostly fair with some problems (which sounds a reasonable assessment). Ukraine has now moved into a period of free and fair elections after the orange revolution. You will note that the pro-Russian Yanukovich won in the 2006 parliamentary election, yet it was declared resonably free and fair. No calls of fraud were called just because it wasn't the 'ideal' result for the west.

The ideal result is always the full expression of the people's will.

Andy - your naivete of the political system is shocking.

In the UK we elect a parliament not a prime minister. This is the same as most parliamentary democracies (spain, ireland, denmark, norway, sweden etc). The PM in Serbia could change without a popular vote as long as it is the will of parliament.

Bush won in 2004 on a large turnout. You may not like the result but that was completely legitimate. In 2000 it is was a closer call, but there was a lot of recounting, and analysis - the hallmark of a country willing to investigate its own electoral process. The problem was it was the closest race in US history, and when the separating margins are minute, it is always difficult to call a result, as human error kicks in. And if the US population had been unhappy about the result they could have got rid of Bush in 2004. They didn't.

I can see it already, if some pro-West guy wins, they will be considered free and fair, if some anti-West guy wins, they will call it illegal and sanction Serbia.

I seriously doubt the objectivity of these observers, because in Belarus and Russia anti-Western politicians were voted into power and everyone said they were not free and fair, but when pro-Western politicians were voted into power in the Ukraine and Georgia, then suddenly it is free and fair?

OSCE will decide if the elections were fair or not. I don't see the point of individual embassies monitoring the election anyway? Do you? Especially not those embassies that do not respect Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Who gives a damn if some citizens of the UK, US, Mars or Cloudcuckooland want to have a free holiday in Serbia for the duration of the elections? I have no doubt that the ballot will be as free and fair as it is in my own country. It should be used as a PR opportunity to show these visitors that the Serbian people are decent, fairminded and generally good souls.

No one in the UK voted for Gordon Brown but he's our prime minister.

Bush only got in due to vote rigging in Florida.

Bit of double standards there.

Poland refused OSCE observers in October 2007.

It was reported..."The OSCE asked Poland to admit observers for the election but Poland rejected the proposal, underlining that Poland is a democracy," Polish Foreign ministry spokesman Robert Szaniawski said.
"It's a standard procedure that it is the country that invites OSCE observers for elections, so in this case OSCE made a faux pas," he (Szaniawski)added.

Sometimes in life (and I believe this is one of those instances) you may benefit from engaging into activity at “no gain but no loss, either” scenario.
Although I find it rather insulting for embassy clerks (of any country) to claim rights and demands and to grab some “monitoring” privileges for themselves - how harmful is it to make provisions for it? The anti-Serb stance of those two countries are apparent even to Steve Wonder but why this insistence to poke the finger in their eye? What is the anticipated gain?
BTW – did they request it to start with?

"With all those billions of dollars Milosevic had stashed, with all the army, and military on his side
there is no chance for a group of student to succeed without powerful external help."

That may be so johny, but none of these external financeers actually participated in the demonstrations or the 2000 uprising. DOS set up their own electoral monitoring system in 2000 as a precaution over what they knew would be voter rigging by the SPS. When Milosevic came out and said a second round of voting would be necessary, Serbs took to the streets.

Money can provide the ability to demonstrate, but it takes ordinary citizen action to do the demonstrating. Without the people, all the money in the world amounts to nothing. These are two events in Serbia's recent democratic history that its own citizens can be proud of.

I haven't had time to read all of the comments above yet so I don't know if I'm repeating points here.

British and US insistence on monitoring foreign elections, and crying foul when the party they don't like wins, is a rather crude and disappointing form of foreign policy.

I was born and lived most of my life in the UK and I always prided myself on how subtle our propaganda used to be. In the case of the BBC it still is, and one can at least be entertained and stimulated while being manipulated! The Labour Party, however, began in the 19th century as a rather provincial movement and is set to end in the same way. One can see these people coming a mile away, but they are no less dangerous for that.

This insistence on monitors is crude and embarrassing. It would be a fair practice if Serbs, Georgians, Kenyans, and others, could observe elections in the UK and US, but I suspect that would not be allowed. We are not immune from the less savoury aspects of democratic processes as we think we are - the 2000 Florida controversy and the problems with British postal votes not long ago are testament to that.

Perhaps Serbia is no more or less democratic than any other nation, but if I were pushed to give an example of how it might be more democratic, I would cite the fact that one can at least see the policy differences between Serb parties. In the UK the only parties I can see with any really different policies are the Scottish, Welsh and English nationalists! Perhaps if they get any stronger the British will then insist on observers from countries friendly to their continued existence!