> And neither can it without the approval of all 27 members and Serbia's signature.
I think you are mistaken there ZK. Sure the EU can do exactly what they pleases, with or without the approval of Serbia, China, Brazil, Upper Mongolia, USA or any other state?
Some decisions may have unpleasant consequences, but that is life. You choose, you act, and you pay the price. Same for the EU if they should happen to decide on something that Serbia don't agree with. But that is our decision, not Serbias.
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
(EA, 8 March 2008 16:34) "
Don't have to read every one of your statements to debunk this post. Only have to read your previous post on this article. In that, you say:
"In that context the SC has lost its REAL mission and is deeply devided on the issue "
No, the real mission of the UNSC is not to resolve disputes, as the 'veto' of one party can block resolution if negotiations fail as is the case in Kosovo.
Real mission of UNSC is as follows:
UN & subsequently UNSC were formed after WWII in 1948 specifically to prevent another such event happening again.
Was then agreed that 5 most powerful 'victorious' nations be given 'veto' powers in UNSC. Idea behind this was that if a powerful state ever felt strongly enough about an issue - then could always use veto instead of going to war. UN veto functions as a 'circuit-breaker' for international tensions.
Why else would world powers of the time agree to surrender some of their independence to the UN & allow their actions to be 'vetoed' in UNSC by a rival?
For once, nations put their own interests second - and only happened because the horror of WWII & its 55,000,000 plus corpses was fresh in everyone minds.
This is the TRUE reason behind the idea of UNSC & the 'veto' - and the REAL mission of the UNSC is to prevent world conflict.
In this, it has indeed worked for the last 60 years - and worked very well.
Lately however, US has been engaged in unilateral actions. Seems US no longer wants to abide by UN charter anymore. And where the US leads, others, such as Bernard Kouchner with his thinly disguised attempts to circumvent the UN - follow.
Question we should be asking ourselves is, should we be following the ideas of some-one like 'Harry S Truman', who knew the true cost of war, or 'George W Bush', who seems to glorify in it.
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
(EA, 8 March 2008 16:34)
Like I have said before, who says that we want the EU? I mean, look at Croatia as well, they are willing to give up on the EU just to protect their fishing waters (congratulations on that by the way). The point is, that the EU is becoming less and less attractive and that smaller countries are realising that they can progress withought the EU. I mean if Bulgaria and Romania can get in (they have about EUR 220 a month per person), then it is no prestige club, is it?
…"Kosovo independence is not a defeat for the Serb people, but rather a starting point and a hope"…
How very friendly from France! Thank you very much! We have to do something to express our gratitude. Maybe we and our Russian friends could help Corsicans, Basks and North Africans to form independent states on French territories? Just to give a hope to French people of course. Their peaceful, freedom loving politicians would no doubt, be happy with a further development of trends they started and supported. After all, it is all about will of the people and not some old, unimportant, backwards concepts such as borders, national suverenity, history and identity of the nation and such, as American ambassador and the Secretary of State so nicely explained to us the other day.
When North Africans set Parisian suburb a blaze next time we should express our understanding for their actions as they are undoubtlly result of their suppression by French authorities. We should condemn police action as disproportional use of force, ask for maximum restraint, prudent action. Next step would be to send international forces, (maybe Morocco and Algiers would be interested to send some neutral troops), to protect minority and guide them to independent state? (Independent state being only possible solution that would guarantee long term stability, peace and prosperity, fully in best interest of the French people, of course).
Oh, so Mr.Minister says EULEX is legal? Well Ban Ki-moon says otherwise: "At this point the UN mission has not entered the transition period. We are still on the ground, as we have been since 1999. UNMIK will perform the duties entrusted to it with Resolution 1244, until UN Security Council decided otherwise."
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
Its about time Kouchner took up a class that will teach him what international law is all about. Maybe after he is educated, he might refrain from making himself look like a jackass when he makes such uniformed statements.
"....a spokesman for Ban said that the UN secretary-general has not sent an invitation to the EU to send its mission there, a necessary condition for it to be deployed in accordance with 1244.
Maybe he hasn't sent an invitation but he hasn't rejected either. If we want to go into "ciz mic" or "cat and mouse" politics we will never get anywhere.
The issue with the SC is that Russia has threatened to use veto to any solution that doesn't fullfill Serbia interest to keep sovereignity over Kosova. And Russia is not interested in anything else. Let's be straight!
In that context the SC has lost its REAL mission and is deeply devided on the issue. Many fruitless negotiations has taken place to get the two parties together. So noone is expecting a miracle at this stage!
"legality of the EU mission in Kosovo is not in question"
Do you think so then.. better pay more attention to world affairs mr french foreign minister.
""According to analyses made by France and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a gradual transition is expected from UNMIK to EULEX,"
Appears Kouchner wasn't listening when Ban Ki-moon told his buddy to stop claiming authorisation from the UN or himself.
"A country which has a UN protectorate in its territory cannot join the EU,"
Appears to be saying that Serbia can only join the EU if Kosovo is no longer a 'UN protectorate' - Which implies Serbia's recognition of K-albanian UDI.
Never going to happen mate.
Think this guy should get together With 'Ollie' Rehn & form a comedy act, which is about all their blatherings are good for.
"A country which has a UN protectorate in its territory cannot join the EU," he added.
--
And neither can it without the approval of all 27 members and Serbia's signature.
Seems like there is a long way to go. Don't take offense if Serbia and Russia block your illegal little plan - it's not directed at the European people.
"legality of the EU mission in Kosovo is not in question"
Do you think so then.. better pay more attention to world affairs mr french foreign minister.
""According to analyses made by France and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a gradual transition is expected from UNMIK to EULEX,"
Appears Kouchner wasn't listening when Ban Ki-moon told his buddy to stop claiming authorisation from the UN or himself.
"A country which has a UN protectorate in its territory cannot join the EU,"
Appears to be saying that Serbia can only join the EU if Kosovo is no longer a 'UN protectorate' - Which implies Serbia's recognition of K-albanian UDI.
Never going to happen mate.
Think this guy should get together With 'Ollie' Rehn & form a comedy act, which is about all their blatherings are good for.
Its about time Kouchner took up a class that will teach him what international law is all about. Maybe after he is educated, he might refrain from making himself look like a jackass when he makes such uniformed statements.
"A country which has a UN protectorate in its territory cannot join the EU," he added.
--
And neither can it without the approval of all 27 members and Serbia's signature.
Seems like there is a long way to go. Don't take offense if Serbia and Russia block your illegal little plan - it's not directed at the European people.
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
(EA, 8 March 2008 16:34)
Like I have said before, who says that we want the EU? I mean, look at Croatia as well, they are willing to give up on the EU just to protect their fishing waters (congratulations on that by the way). The point is, that the EU is becoming less and less attractive and that smaller countries are realising that they can progress withought the EU. I mean if Bulgaria and Romania can get in (they have about EUR 220 a month per person), then it is no prestige club, is it?
…"Kosovo independence is not a defeat for the Serb people, but rather a starting point and a hope"…
How very friendly from France! Thank you very much! We have to do something to express our gratitude. Maybe we and our Russian friends could help Corsicans, Basks and North Africans to form independent states on French territories? Just to give a hope to French people of course. Their peaceful, freedom loving politicians would no doubt, be happy with a further development of trends they started and supported. After all, it is all about will of the people and not some old, unimportant, backwards concepts such as borders, national suverenity, history and identity of the nation and such, as American ambassador and the Secretary of State so nicely explained to us the other day.
When North Africans set Parisian suburb a blaze next time we should express our understanding for their actions as they are undoubtlly result of their suppression by French authorities. We should condemn police action as disproportional use of force, ask for maximum restraint, prudent action. Next step would be to send international forces, (maybe Morocco and Algiers would be interested to send some neutral troops), to protect minority and guide them to independent state? (Independent state being only possible solution that would guarantee long term stability, peace and prosperity, fully in best interest of the French people, of course).
Oh, so Mr.Minister says EULEX is legal? Well Ban Ki-moon says otherwise: "At this point the UN mission has not entered the transition period. We are still on the ground, as we have been since 1999. UNMIK will perform the duties entrusted to it with Resolution 1244, until UN Security Council decided otherwise."
"....a spokesman for Ban said that the UN secretary-general has not sent an invitation to the EU to send its mission there, a necessary condition for it to be deployed in accordance with 1244.
Maybe he hasn't sent an invitation but he hasn't rejected either. If we want to go into "ciz mic" or "cat and mouse" politics we will never get anywhere.
The issue with the SC is that Russia has threatened to use veto to any solution that doesn't fullfill Serbia interest to keep sovereignity over Kosova. And Russia is not interested in anything else. Let's be straight!
In that context the SC has lost its REAL mission and is deeply devided on the issue. Many fruitless negotiations has taken place to get the two parties together. So noone is expecting a miracle at this stage!
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
(EA, 8 March 2008 16:34) "
Don't have to read every one of your statements to debunk this post. Only have to read your previous post on this article. In that, you say:
"In that context the SC has lost its REAL mission and is deeply devided on the issue "
No, the real mission of the UNSC is not to resolve disputes, as the 'veto' of one party can block resolution if negotiations fail as is the case in Kosovo.
Real mission of UNSC is as follows:
UN & subsequently UNSC were formed after WWII in 1948 specifically to prevent another such event happening again.
Was then agreed that 5 most powerful 'victorious' nations be given 'veto' powers in UNSC. Idea behind this was that if a powerful state ever felt strongly enough about an issue - then could always use veto instead of going to war. UN veto functions as a 'circuit-breaker' for international tensions.
Why else would world powers of the time agree to surrender some of their independence to the UN & allow their actions to be 'vetoed' in UNSC by a rival?
For once, nations put their own interests second - and only happened because the horror of WWII & its 55,000,000 plus corpses was fresh in everyone minds.
This is the TRUE reason behind the idea of UNSC & the 'veto' - and the REAL mission of the UNSC is to prevent world conflict.
In this, it has indeed worked for the last 60 years - and worked very well.
Lately however, US has been engaged in unilateral actions. Seems US no longer wants to abide by UN charter anymore. And where the US leads, others, such as Bernard Kouchner with his thinly disguised attempts to circumvent the UN - follow.
Question we should be asking ourselves is, should we be following the ideas of some-one like 'Harry S Truman', who knew the true cost of war, or 'George W Bush', who seems to glorify in it.
> And neither can it without the approval of all 27 members and Serbia's signature.
I think you are mistaken there ZK. Sure the EU can do exactly what they pleases, with or without the approval of Serbia, China, Brazil, Upper Mongolia, USA or any other state?
Some decisions may have unpleasant consequences, but that is life. You choose, you act, and you pay the price. Same for the EU if they should happen to decide on something that Serbia don't agree with. But that is our decision, not Serbias.
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
"....a spokesman for Ban said that the UN secretary-general has not sent an invitation to the EU to send its mission there, a necessary condition for it to be deployed in accordance with 1244.
Maybe he hasn't sent an invitation but he hasn't rejected either. If we want to go into "ciz mic" or "cat and mouse" politics we will never get anywhere.
The issue with the SC is that Russia has threatened to use veto to any solution that doesn't fullfill Serbia interest to keep sovereignity over Kosova. And Russia is not interested in anything else. Let's be straight!
In that context the SC has lost its REAL mission and is deeply devided on the issue. Many fruitless negotiations has taken place to get the two parties together. So noone is expecting a miracle at this stage!
"A country which has a UN protectorate in its territory cannot join the EU," he added.
--
And neither can it without the approval of all 27 members and Serbia's signature.
Seems like there is a long way to go. Don't take offense if Serbia and Russia block your illegal little plan - it's not directed at the European people.
"legality of the EU mission in Kosovo is not in question"
Do you think so then.. better pay more attention to world affairs mr french foreign minister.
""According to analyses made by France and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a gradual transition is expected from UNMIK to EULEX,"
Appears Kouchner wasn't listening when Ban Ki-moon told his buddy to stop claiming authorisation from the UN or himself.
"A country which has a UN protectorate in its territory cannot join the EU,"
Appears to be saying that Serbia can only join the EU if Kosovo is no longer a 'UN protectorate' - Which implies Serbia's recognition of K-albanian UDI.
Never going to happen mate.
Think this guy should get together With 'Ollie' Rehn & form a comedy act, which is about all their blatherings are good for.
Its about time Kouchner took up a class that will teach him what international law is all about. Maybe after he is educated, he might refrain from making himself look like a jackass when he makes such uniformed statements.
Oh, so Mr.Minister says EULEX is legal? Well Ban Ki-moon says otherwise: "At this point the UN mission has not entered the transition period. We are still on the ground, as we have been since 1999. UNMIK will perform the duties entrusted to it with Resolution 1244, until UN Security Council decided otherwise."
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
(EA, 8 March 2008 16:34)
Like I have said before, who says that we want the EU? I mean, look at Croatia as well, they are willing to give up on the EU just to protect their fishing waters (congratulations on that by the way). The point is, that the EU is becoming less and less attractive and that smaller countries are realising that they can progress withought the EU. I mean if Bulgaria and Romania can get in (they have about EUR 220 a month per person), then it is no prestige club, is it?
…"Kosovo independence is not a defeat for the Serb people, but rather a starting point and a hope"…
How very friendly from France! Thank you very much! We have to do something to express our gratitude. Maybe we and our Russian friends could help Corsicans, Basks and North Africans to form independent states on French territories? Just to give a hope to French people of course. Their peaceful, freedom loving politicians would no doubt, be happy with a further development of trends they started and supported. After all, it is all about will of the people and not some old, unimportant, backwards concepts such as borders, national suverenity, history and identity of the nation and such, as American ambassador and the Secretary of State so nicely explained to us the other day.
When North Africans set Parisian suburb a blaze next time we should express our understanding for their actions as they are undoubtlly result of their suppression by French authorities. We should condemn police action as disproportional use of force, ask for maximum restraint, prudent action. Next step would be to send international forces, (maybe Morocco and Algiers would be interested to send some neutral troops), to protect minority and guide them to independent state? (Independent state being only possible solution that would guarantee long term stability, peace and prosperity, fully in best interest of the French people, of course).
Let me tell you something that Serbia will NEVER join EU without recognsing Kosova's independence first. I have been proven right so far in every statement I have made here. Feel free to ask B92 whether that has been the case))
(EA, 8 March 2008 16:34) "
Don't have to read every one of your statements to debunk this post. Only have to read your previous post on this article. In that, you say:
"In that context the SC has lost its REAL mission and is deeply devided on the issue "
No, the real mission of the UNSC is not to resolve disputes, as the 'veto' of one party can block resolution if negotiations fail as is the case in Kosovo.
Real mission of UNSC is as follows:
UN & subsequently UNSC were formed after WWII in 1948 specifically to prevent another such event happening again.
Was then agreed that 5 most powerful 'victorious' nations be given 'veto' powers in UNSC. Idea behind this was that if a powerful state ever felt strongly enough about an issue - then could always use veto instead of going to war. UN veto functions as a 'circuit-breaker' for international tensions.
Why else would world powers of the time agree to surrender some of their independence to the UN & allow their actions to be 'vetoed' in UNSC by a rival?
For once, nations put their own interests second - and only happened because the horror of WWII & its 55,000,000 plus corpses was fresh in everyone minds.
This is the TRUE reason behind the idea of UNSC & the 'veto' - and the REAL mission of the UNSC is to prevent world conflict.
In this, it has indeed worked for the last 60 years - and worked very well.
Lately however, US has been engaged in unilateral actions. Seems US no longer wants to abide by UN charter anymore. And where the US leads, others, such as Bernard Kouchner with his thinly disguised attempts to circumvent the UN - follow.
Question we should be asking ourselves is, should we be following the ideas of some-one like 'Harry S Truman', who knew the true cost of war, or 'George W Bush', who seems to glorify in it.
> And neither can it without the approval of all 27 members and Serbia's signature.
I think you are mistaken there ZK. Sure the EU can do exactly what they pleases, with or without the approval of Serbia, China, Brazil, Upper Mongolia, USA or any other state?
Some decisions may have unpleasant consequences, but that is life. You choose, you act, and you pay the price. Same for the EU if they should happen to decide on something that Serbia don't agree with. But that is our decision, not Serbias.
IMAGE SOURCE
13 Komentari
Sortiraj po: