RIK upholds U.S., UK monitoring ban

David Orton

"1. Given that there's a sizable OSCE mission, it's hard to see why the US and UK want their own."

Exactly.

"2. But given that they do, it's not only the standard international courtesy but also the wisest option to allow it - after all, it costs Serbia nothing to accept, while rejecting the request implies that RIK has something to hide."

The sheer request by the UK and US shows they don't trust Serbia and have some agenda of their own, yet they apparently want to cooperate with them. This is an internal affair that is none of the US's and UK's business at all.

"3. RIK is actually going to ignore the supreme court? That's a very dangerous precedent to set, especially on the eve of a tense election. Obviously the Radicals have no respect for the rule of law, but it's depressing to see DSS/NS joining them in such a blatant violation."

How many times has the US blatantly violated the decisions of the UNSC?

"4. RUSSIAN election monitors? Is that some kind of joke?"

Why do you say that? Because of Putin's distinctly anti-Western attitude? It's strange how Russia and Belarus had been accused of unfair elections, yet in the Ukraine and Georgia they were fair? I can only think of one reason, just look at the political stances and orientations of the four counties I mentioned and then my point is clear.

Bruce, don't worry about precedent, this is a unique case ;-)

As soon as serb monitors are invited to Florida I am sure americans are welcome to monitor serb elections.

I agree that the supreme court ruling should be adhered to.

But to David Orton: "... it's not only the standard international courtesy but also the wisest option to allow it - after all, it costs Serbia nothing to accept, while rejecting the request implies that RIK has something to hide."

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't really. How many times in the Balkans have 'observers' from the US particularly stoked up trouble?

I am not in the least surprised that there is no trust in their intentions, or that there is currently bad feeling towards these countries.

It's very unfortunate that both the US and UK haven't handled things a lot better with regard to their approach to Serbia. They are both behaving very imperialistically.

Does the USA and UK allow
Serb observers to monitor their elections? One should
revisit the USA elections
seven years ago and see how
Bush was elected aspresident.

a very good and wise decission, not just because the hc overstepped it´s competences.

the rik is in line with the decission of the hc, cause there obviously isn´t a government ok for monitors anymore, monitors no one needs.

they should maybe put their nose in kosovos pseudo-elections or kosovos apartheid-system!

as no one knows why they are still in the country at all? didn´t they make a promiss to albanians which they deliver for 8 years?

its hyporcritical for serbian politicans to preach international law when once again they prove that they don't even recpect their own laws and let alone international law, or the rights of albanians!

Then again, the whole world knows this anyway, hence the support for independence of Kosovo.

Some thoughts on this:

1. Given that there's a sizable OSCE mission, it's hard to see why the US and UK want their own.

2. But given that they do, it's not only the standard international courtesy but also the wisest option to allow it - after all, it costs Serbia nothing to accept, while rejecting the request implies that RIK has something to hide.

3. RIK is actually going to ignore the supreme court? That's a very dangerous precedent to set, especially on the eve of a tense election. Obviously the Radicals have no respect for the rule of law, but it's depressing to see DSS/NS joining them in such a blatant violation.

4. RUSSIAN election monitors? Is that some kind of joke?

Firstly three points from Peter Sudyka:

1. "The sheer request by the UK and US shows they don't trust Serbia and have some agenda of their own"

Does the same logic apply to the OSCE and Russia? The US, Russia and the UK certainly have an agenda of their own. So does everyone. That’s international politics – get used to it. But there’s nothing sinister in such requests. Offering monitors is not an insult - indeed countries frequently invite international missions. I don't think Serbia does have anything to hide here, but rejecting requests sends the wrong message nonetheless.

2. "How many times has the US blatantly violated the decisions of the UNSC?"

What on earth has that got to do with anything? I'm talking about the danger of allowing the rule of law to break down within a state. You can point to UNSC violations by Israel, Russia, the UK, France, any number of countries, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with my point, which is that ignoring one’s own supreme court is not a good precedent.

3. Russia and election monitors: why do I say that? Because their last election had very serious shortcomings.

You mention four countries - two are pro-western, two aren't, and yes the former have come in for less flak over elections (less, not none - criticism's have been raised in the case of Georgia). From your grand sample of four, you conclude that the one possible explanation is a western media bias. I can think of another possible reason: perhaps Georgia and especially the Ukraine actually deserved less flak. Surely a possibility worth considering? And a hell of a lot easier to swallow than the idea that the entire UK media (I can’t speak for the rest of the west) is part of an anti-Russian conspiracy. We don’t shoot journalists who don’t toe the line here, remember?
I don’t know any Ukrainians or Georgians, but the Russians I know studying here in Britain all more-or-less believed the BBC/Guardian/Economist (i.e. mainstream liberal media) coverage. Why shouldn’t you? Incidentally, there’s been lots of coverage of Kenya’s electoral problems in the UK media recently. Is this propaganda too? Should I expect to hear that MI6 has discovered a secret alliance between Kibaki and Putin?

Putin sending election monitors is like Tony “Iraq” Blair being made a middle-east peace envoy. Ridiculous. Oh, wait…. ;)

Right, enough of Peter. Some others:

1. “As soon as serb monitors are invited to Florida I am sure americans are welcome to monitor serb elections”. (Srboslav)
“Does the USA and UK allow Serb observers to monitor their elections?” (garry)

Has Serbia ever asked to monitor a US or UK election? My guess would be no, in which case this is an utterly vacuous point.

2. “How many times in the Balkans have 'observers' from the US particularly stoked up trouble?” (Kate)

I don’t know Kate, but I’m sure you’d love to tell me. Go ahead. In the meantime, think about this: do you really think a few observers from the embassies are going to contradict the findings of a 26-strong OSCE team? Pointless, yes, but not trouble-stirring.

3. “They are both [US/UK] behaving very imperialistically.” (Kate)

Oh yes? ‘Imperialist’ seems to be the fashionable insult these days, easily bandied around but rarely defined. Perhaps you’d care to do so: in what way is the UK being imperialist here?
And if you want to talk about US imperialism, take a look at Russia too. That business with Estonia? The fuel cut-offs last winter? Shell/Japan in Sakhalin? But neither nation’s bullying has much to do with election monitoring in Serbia.

Whatever your opinion on whether they should observe, surely this means there is a breakdown in the rule of law.
A binding judgement by the supreme court must be followed, otherwise it undermines the entire judicial process.

Thank you David Orton.
A sensible voice on the forums.

I love the way all the posters seem to feel that UK/US observers are an insult to Serbia, yet Russian ones are not - a central contradiction.

Also The 2006 Ukrainian election produced a pro-Russian prime minister and were not badly criticised by the OSCE - which goes against the whole "only western outcomes get a good report" theory.

Raso - yes Kosovo's elections should be monitored, and I believe are - that doesn't mean Serbia's shouldn't be too.

Arguments connecting the deployment of foreign election monitors (UK, OSCE, US, other) in Serbian elections with "rule of law" quality in Serbia are faulty. Firstly, counting is properly done in Serbian elections and there is much less chance of fraud than in the USA. This notwithstanding, applying theoretical "rule of law" standards to how the courts function in Serbia is pure comedy. All judicial rulings in Serbia (including those of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts) are subject to arbitrary dismissal, revisionism and corruption of many forms. As such, there is no "breakdown" of the Serbian "rule of law" judiciary system because it has never existed and there are few signs that it will anytime soon.

its hyporcritical for serbian politicans to preach international law when once again they prove that they don't even recpect their own laws and let alone international law, or the rights of albanians!

Then again, the whole world knows this anyway, hence the support for independence of Kosovo.

Some thoughts on this:

1. Given that there's a sizable OSCE mission, it's hard to see why the US and UK want their own.

2. But given that they do, it's not only the standard international courtesy but also the wisest option to allow it - after all, it costs Serbia nothing to accept, while rejecting the request implies that RIK has something to hide.

3. RIK is actually going to ignore the supreme court? That's a very dangerous precedent to set, especially on the eve of a tense election. Obviously the Radicals have no respect for the rule of law, but it's depressing to see DSS/NS joining them in such a blatant violation.

4. RUSSIAN election monitors? Is that some kind of joke?

Firstly three points from Peter Sudyka:

1. "The sheer request by the UK and US shows they don't trust Serbia and have some agenda of their own"

Does the same logic apply to the OSCE and Russia? The US, Russia and the UK certainly have an agenda of their own. So does everyone. That’s international politics – get used to it. But there’s nothing sinister in such requests. Offering monitors is not an insult - indeed countries frequently invite international missions. I don't think Serbia does have anything to hide here, but rejecting requests sends the wrong message nonetheless.

2. "How many times has the US blatantly violated the decisions of the UNSC?"

What on earth has that got to do with anything? I'm talking about the danger of allowing the rule of law to break down within a state. You can point to UNSC violations by Israel, Russia, the UK, France, any number of countries, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with my point, which is that ignoring one’s own supreme court is not a good precedent.

3. Russia and election monitors: why do I say that? Because their last election had very serious shortcomings.

You mention four countries - two are pro-western, two aren't, and yes the former have come in for less flak over elections (less, not none - criticism's have been raised in the case of Georgia). From your grand sample of four, you conclude that the one possible explanation is a western media bias. I can think of another possible reason: perhaps Georgia and especially the Ukraine actually deserved less flak. Surely a possibility worth considering? And a hell of a lot easier to swallow than the idea that the entire UK media (I can’t speak for the rest of the west) is part of an anti-Russian conspiracy. We don’t shoot journalists who don’t toe the line here, remember?
I don’t know any Ukrainians or Georgians, but the Russians I know studying here in Britain all more-or-less believed the BBC/Guardian/Economist (i.e. mainstream liberal media) coverage. Why shouldn’t you? Incidentally, there’s been lots of coverage of Kenya’s electoral problems in the UK media recently. Is this propaganda too? Should I expect to hear that MI6 has discovered a secret alliance between Kibaki and Putin?

Putin sending election monitors is like Tony “Iraq” Blair being made a middle-east peace envoy. Ridiculous. Oh, wait…. ;)

Right, enough of Peter. Some others:

1. “As soon as serb monitors are invited to Florida I am sure americans are welcome to monitor serb elections”. (Srboslav)
“Does the USA and UK allow Serb observers to monitor their elections?” (garry)

Has Serbia ever asked to monitor a US or UK election? My guess would be no, in which case this is an utterly vacuous point.

2. “How many times in the Balkans have 'observers' from the US particularly stoked up trouble?” (Kate)

I don’t know Kate, but I’m sure you’d love to tell me. Go ahead. In the meantime, think about this: do you really think a few observers from the embassies are going to contradict the findings of a 26-strong OSCE team? Pointless, yes, but not trouble-stirring.

3. “They are both [US/UK] behaving very imperialistically.” (Kate)

Oh yes? ‘Imperialist’ seems to be the fashionable insult these days, easily bandied around but rarely defined. Perhaps you’d care to do so: in what way is the UK being imperialist here?
And if you want to talk about US imperialism, take a look at Russia too. That business with Estonia? The fuel cut-offs last winter? Shell/Japan in Sakhalin? But neither nation’s bullying has much to do with election monitoring in Serbia.

Whatever your opinion on whether they should observe, surely this means there is a breakdown in the rule of law.
A binding judgement by the supreme court must be followed, otherwise it undermines the entire judicial process.

I agree that the supreme court ruling should be adhered to.

But to David Orton: "... it's not only the standard international courtesy but also the wisest option to allow it - after all, it costs Serbia nothing to accept, while rejecting the request implies that RIK has something to hide."

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't really. How many times in the Balkans have 'observers' from the US particularly stoked up trouble?

I am not in the least surprised that there is no trust in their intentions, or that there is currently bad feeling towards these countries.

It's very unfortunate that both the US and UK haven't handled things a lot better with regard to their approach to Serbia. They are both behaving very imperialistically.

Thank you David Orton.
A sensible voice on the forums.

I love the way all the posters seem to feel that UK/US observers are an insult to Serbia, yet Russian ones are not - a central contradiction.

Also The 2006 Ukrainian election produced a pro-Russian prime minister and were not badly criticised by the OSCE - which goes against the whole "only western outcomes get a good report" theory.

Raso - yes Kosovo's elections should be monitored, and I believe are - that doesn't mean Serbia's shouldn't be too.

David Orton

"1. Given that there's a sizable OSCE mission, it's hard to see why the US and UK want their own."

Exactly.

"2. But given that they do, it's not only the standard international courtesy but also the wisest option to allow it - after all, it costs Serbia nothing to accept, while rejecting the request implies that RIK has something to hide."

The sheer request by the UK and US shows they don't trust Serbia and have some agenda of their own, yet they apparently want to cooperate with them. This is an internal affair that is none of the US's and UK's business at all.

"3. RIK is actually going to ignore the supreme court? That's a very dangerous precedent to set, especially on the eve of a tense election. Obviously the Radicals have no respect for the rule of law, but it's depressing to see DSS/NS joining them in such a blatant violation."

How many times has the US blatantly violated the decisions of the UNSC?

"4. RUSSIAN election monitors? Is that some kind of joke?"

Why do you say that? Because of Putin's distinctly anti-Western attitude? It's strange how Russia and Belarus had been accused of unfair elections, yet in the Ukraine and Georgia they were fair? I can only think of one reason, just look at the political stances and orientations of the four counties I mentioned and then my point is clear.

Bruce, don't worry about precedent, this is a unique case ;-)

As soon as serb monitors are invited to Florida I am sure americans are welcome to monitor serb elections.

a very good and wise decission, not just because the hc overstepped it´s competences.

the rik is in line with the decission of the hc, cause there obviously isn´t a government ok for monitors anymore, monitors no one needs.

they should maybe put their nose in kosovos pseudo-elections or kosovos apartheid-system!

as no one knows why they are still in the country at all? didn´t they make a promiss to albanians which they deliver for 8 years?

Does the USA and UK allow
Serb observers to monitor their elections? One should
revisit the USA elections
seven years ago and see how
Bush was elected aspresident.

Arguments connecting the deployment of foreign election monitors (UK, OSCE, US, other) in Serbian elections with "rule of law" quality in Serbia are faulty. Firstly, counting is properly done in Serbian elections and there is much less chance of fraud than in the USA. This notwithstanding, applying theoretical "rule of law" standards to how the courts function in Serbia is pure comedy. All judicial rulings in Serbia (including those of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts) are subject to arbitrary dismissal, revisionism and corruption of many forms. As such, there is no "breakdown" of the Serbian "rule of law" judiciary system because it has never existed and there are few signs that it will anytime soon.