Ban's proposal receiving mixed reaction

It is obvious that Ban Ki Moon is siding with the west and bowed to George Bush's pressure. Serbia should watch out the UN. Many Thanks to Russia for being consistent and same to other states like China, Spain, Greece, Slovakia,Romania, POrtugal, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Algeria, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Iran and many more for continued support to international law and order.

He(Tadic) said that Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu’s speech in the capacity of a private entity had been outside the framework of Resolution 1244.

I would liketo get the floor as private entity at UNSC, if all possible Mr.Tadic(what a joke).


Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica said that thanks to Russia’s principled support, the UN secretary-general’s proposal for a transfer of responsibilities from UNMIK to the illegal EULEX mission had failed.

Stop lyin to ordinary erbian citizens, I hope that UNSC debate was televized LIVE in serbia justlike it was in Kosovo, so that people cannot be fooled by irresponsible politicians.

So Ban's "recommendation" (not directive) has not been passed through the UN and thus has no legality - 1244 remains in totality and must be full implemented - to do so acts against the the authority of the UN itself.

Of course the likes of Solano will praise Ban's "recommendation" and believe this gives the EU legitamacy for its INLEX (lawless) mission in Serbia's province but it does not and will be constrained even with Ban's non UN sanctioned "recommedation" since they must work under UNMIK head Zanieri only in ethnic-Albanian areas. Each time they mention even a sniff beyond the 1244 boundaries they will be questioned again and again and again... - that is the new tactics and it will become ever more cumbersome to implement any part of Ahtisaari plan.

Beyond that Serbia must start ramping up the legal route path as Rehn is so familiar with 'Pacta sund Servanta'. I believe it is time to legally remind all those who act against their self obligated agreements to uphold UN SC resolutions and all other International norms and laws that their obligation stands to upholding UN recognised Serbian soverignty and territorial integrity!

Does everyone know that pleasure of feeling full with an empty spoon? Ask the Serbian polititians like Kostunica.
Serbia will never again exercise is "sovran" country over Kosova. We all know that but the Serbian leaders haven't got the guts yet to accept that openly in front of the Serbian people.

Anybody happen to catch that UNSC session? Let me say I was surprised by China's change in indirectly endorsing Ban's proposal.
Mr. Tadic looked uneasy.
Kudos to Kosovo's President, at least some know how to be diplomatic.

KOSOVA IS INDEPENDENT - Unmik and Elux are ther to please serbs for few more years...

Keep dreaming Albanians. The secretary general has stated that this move does change Kosovo's status. Therefore it is still recognised as Serbian territory in line with 1244.

It is in Serbia's interest to reject any reconfiguration of UNMIK although what is being proposed is basically a strenghtening of the defacto partition and a technical agreement between the Serbians and UNMIK for police, courts, customs, transport and infrastructure, boundaries and Serbian patrimony.

In other words, there will no longer be an administrative border or customs in the North of Kosovo. The Serbian authorities will have free access to the Southern province and all enclaves and religious sites without Albanian interference.

The Serbians will rule themselves and so will the Albanians, however, neither will rule the other. The EU mission, if it goes ahead will be restricted to Albanian areas whereas Belgrade will rule the Serbian sections.

What is very important to note here is that independence is blocked at both the EU and UN so that is not going to happen. Serbia's rejection of UNMIKs reconfiguration will continue to apply pressure to reject the EU mission if not in the entire province at least in Serbian and non-Albanian areas (both North and South).

Lets see what happens! Once the technical agreement is in place, the job is done and we return to the status quo.

To serbian camp see it for yourself :
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc/2008/sc080620am.rm

Almost all members of Security Council referred to Sejdiu as President of Repbulic of Kosova. That was slap on a face to Slavic duo Serbia-Russia. England gave Tadic a lecture on contemporary politics .While China totally expressed support for Ban’s recommendation that will open the path for EULEX to oversee building of democratic society/institution of Kosovo

Please Serbs for a few more years? It boggles my mind that the "kosovars" aren't seeing the big picture here. Eulex and the UN will never leave Kosovo. When was the last time that you saw foreign influence leave an occupied province or country, especially under US rule. The answer is never. They are still in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, even in countries since WWII. There is no winner here, regardless of which side you consider. The constitution that was passed will have no bearing on how the Serbian dominated areas of Kosovo operate and no one can implement them by force. The international bodies know this and will eventually have to appease both sides. The situation will remain status quo, regardless of whether its called Kosovo or Kosova. Many people are living in a dream world if they truly believe that this region will ever operate independently. The eastern front against Russian influence is building, at the expense of both Serbs and Albanians.

Laki even your biggest "ally" USA didn't refer to your President as "Mr. President". But he did to President Tadic.


Now thats a REAL slap in ones face. Independent? Dont make me laugh.

"Anybody happen to catch that UNSC session? Let me say I was surprised by China's change in indirectly endorsing Ban's proposal.
(Art, 21 June 2008 11:35) "

You rejoice too soon. Read http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/21/content_8412120.htm

Common sense will tell you that China will not budge because of the Kosovo'a implications for Taiwan and Tibet.

"Almost all members of Security Council referred to Sejdiu as President of Repbulic of Kosova. That was slap on a face to Slavic duo Serbia-Russia. England gave Tadic a lecture on contemporary politics .While China totally expressed support for Ban’s recommendation that will open the path for EULEX to oversee building of democratic society/institution of Kosovo"
(laki NY, 21 June 2008 17:16)

Thank you, laki NY, i took you up on the offer and watched nearly the entire UN broadcast. it was fascinating! basically (except for russia, of course) there was respect and acknowledgment for the president of Kosova/a, as there was for tadic. and yes, great britain offered serbia a bit of a lecture, as did the US, and good for them!

you have to have nerves of steel to listen to certain of these representatives, knowing what their own governments are guilty of -- but having said that, it was a most enlightening experience.

about tadic: how is it that more moderate members of the "serb camp" here can be so supportive of tadic and his party? his speech here was just one more example of the extreme nationalist policy that he and his govt pursues. unfortunately, it is not just types like kostunica and the radicals that are the problem. tadic represents a very hard-line position, and i cannot see how anyone of conscience can support him.

congratulations to my Kosovar friends and colleagues, and to freedom loving people around the world. this is a very good day for us.

i would like to add one more point: altho the war in iraq (by bush and co.) has been tragic and a disgrace -- despite my antipathy for saddam hussein -- i do believe that our (US) policies concerning kosova/o, at least since 1999, have been proper and a positive and democratic contribution.

peace.

roberto--frisco

The general result of the UNSC is the real news of this time: The UN's authority is no more the UNSC, but the same UNSG. USA and UK have acknowledged Ban ki-moon's authority to implement the "reconfiguration" of UNMIK without a new UNSC resolution. This is the most serious challenge to Russia and to the "old world order" (since 1945).
In President Tadic's speech before the UNSC there is no one word on EULEX, Feith, EU's new role in Kosovo. Only Russia had clear condemned EULEX. What Serbia properly want now? Why the serbian president, and therefore Serbia itself, is so ambiguous? The consequence is now to endanger the security of the K. Serbs.

"I think, after a long time of holding-up the status-quo, in the end Russia and China will give in, because otherwise they could give the impression to be against multi-ethnical states. China must already endure a lot of criticism over their support of the Arabic leaders of Sudan in their suppression of Dafur.

(cees, 21 June 2008 18:22)"

cees,

Sorry but I have to disagree with your assessment.

Both Russia and China are themselves multiethnic states. So your point about their conveying the impression of being against multiethnicism does not seem valid to me.

For the Russians and Chinese, state sovereignty is sacred and has priority over everything else. I think you overestimate the importance of Western opinion to both Moscow and Beijing.

China didn't budge in her support for Hanoi during the Vietnam war (which lasted almost 20 years) even though the West were overwhelmingly supporting the US-backed regime in Saigon -- we all know how that war ended.

China also didn't budge in her political battle with the UK over Hongkong before 1997 -- even though London made an issue of democracy to garner support from her Western allies -- we know how that ended too. And the last I know, the Chinese are still merrily doing business in Sudan and other parts of Africa -- their need to secure raw materials to fuel their burgeoning economy make them quite indifferent to Western criticism. Especially when these same Western countries, themselves resource poor, also do business there thorough proxies.

Most importantly to the Chinese, they cannot allow Taiwan to use Kosovo as an example to breakaway. You also didn't see Beijing cave in to fierce Western criticism during the recent Tibet unrest did you?

I don't know much about Russian history. But I know they held up against the Germans in World War 2 until their fierce winter came to paralyze the Nazi war machine. Also in World War 1, don't forget that it was Russia who went to war against the Austro-Hungarians when the latter attacked Serbia.

So I wouldn't hold my breadth for the Chinese and Russians to eventually "give in" to the West if I were you! Where state borders are concerned, these are probably the 2 most obstinate countries in the entire world!

Mr. Moon has just ended his term as Secretary General. Russia will reject his re-election based on this bowing to the us. I think he has lost his sense of his job, because the west would never reject him, but Russia will.

Back to the negotiating table people as EULEX will not push through and kosovo will not win a UN seat. stop speculating about China as PROC will never sided to the west as china knows it has it's own separatist problem. Kosovo's U.D.I is a dangerous phenomenon that will destabilize nations with multi-ethic population. LIke the PROC said Negotiation between Serbs and Albanians on the status of kosovo remains the best option and therefore shammed any U.D.I. steps.

"Reasoning In 1999 Serbia was not considered as the natural successor of the FROY. As a matter of fact 1244 considers them as separate entities in that it specifies that after withdrawal an agreed number of "Yugoslav" and "Serb" military and police will be allowed to return for specific functions.
The FROY was admitted to the UN Nov 2000 and in 2003 name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. IN 2006 Montenegro was admitted as it's own member.
With those developments can it be argued that it was the intent of the UNSC in 1999 to forever keep Kosovo as a part of Serbia. It can be argued but would a court of law interpret it as such-not clear.
Will this argument change anyones mind-no.
Will I be called ignorant by some of the sites most vocal posters-most definitely.
Does it bother me-not in the least.
(the law, 22 June 2008 10:52)"

the law,

while the truth may not bother you, I think it is nevertheless important for me to correct the inaccuracies in your facts. So that other readers are not mislead by what you wrote.

1999's Yugoslavia (which UNSC 1244 referred to) renamed itself Serbia &n Montenegro in 2003 under an EU accord that gave the Montenegrins the right to secede after 3 years. This accord stipulated that in the event of Montenegro's breakaway, Serbia will be deemed the successor to Yugoslavia. This was accepted by both the EU and UN -- which is why when Montenegro seceded in 2006, it had to apply for UN membership as a new state whereas Serbia did not have to.

So, as the UN recognized sole successor to the former Yugoslav's seat, 1244 today definitely applies (and applies solely) to Belgrade.

Surely it must have occured to you that if 1244 does not refer to Serbia today, the US and EU would have gleefully pounced on this long ago to support their case for Kosovo.

"i do believe that our (US) policies concerning kosova/o, at least since 1999, have been proper and a positive and democratic contribution."

peace.

roberto--frisco
(roberto, 21 June 2008 20:27)

roberto,

Proper, positive and democratic? Teaming up with a terrorist organization (KLA) to gain control of land (not to mention that the land is sacred to it's inhabitants) in order to build one of the largest US military bases on foreign soil (Bondsteel) as well as to secure energy pipeline routes (AMBO) - I'm not so sure that was all done with proper, positive and democratic intentions? (Perhaps the more likely motives were self interest and profit?)

lowe,

after i've read the link to the Chinese article, that to my opinion is written in a way that everyone can find his view on the security-council meeting from yesterday, I think you can read that China is even partly encouraging Ban. The main option for them is to evade "tension or harm peace and stability in Kosovo and the region".
The demand for returning to negotiations, which only could lead to partition, is no solution, not for the "West", not for Serbia's integrity, not for the K.Albanians.
The "West" will abide by the settlement of a multi-ethnical state Kosovo/a with corresponding laws, as you can find in the new constitution of Kosovo/a.
I think, after a long time of holding-up the status-quo, in the end Russia and China will give in, because otherwise they could give the impression to be against multi-ethnical states. China must already endure a lot of criticism over their support of the Arabic leaders of Sudan in their suppression of Dafur.

ZK UK,

the fact that for you the main question is: "Who is ruling Who?"; a question of dominance of a ruling class?, is exactly what the "West" tries to turn off in the region. In democratic states it is not the question, which ethnicity is stronger or dominating, but "WHICH PEOPLE ARE ABLE BY WORKING TOGETHER, DESPITE THEIR ETHNICAL BACKGROUND, TO LEAD THEIR COUNTRY TO PROSPERITY AND A PEACEFUL SOCIETY".

Maybe some of you should actually read Resolution 1244 before you cite it as your basis for argument.
It requests that the UNSG in consultation with (not approval of) the UNSC appoint a Special Representative to control the implementation of the international civilian presence.
Authorizes the UNSG with assistance from relevant international organizations to establish an interntational civilian presence. Does not say this can only be UNMIK (which is not even mentioned in 1244) Also EU would be considered a relevant international organization since it does specifically mention it later in the resolution to welcome the work in hand of the EU.
Furthermore, the issue of it guaranteeing that Kosovo as part of Serbia's territorial integrety should be interpreted by the International Court (which I see the politicians like to use in speeches but have as of yet done so for fear of losing).
Reasoning In 1999 Serbia was not considered as the natural successor of the FROY. As a matter of fact 1244 considers them as separate entities in that it specifies that after withdrawal an agreed number of "Yugoslav" and "Serb" military and police will be allowed to return for specific functions.
The FROY was admitted to the UN Nov 2000 and in 2003 name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. IN 2006 Montenegro was admitted as it's own member.
With those developments can it be argued that it was the intent of the UNSC in 1999 to forever keep Kosovo as a part of Serbia. It can be argued but would a court of law interpret it as such-not clear.
Will this argument change anyones mind-no.
Will I be called ignorant by some of the sites most vocal posters-most definitely.
Does it bother me-not in the least.

Peter,
I see you read it, now try to read it without the Serbian slant. thanks for proving my point, i did not want to copy the entire part but since you did. Item 10 says relevent international organizations and item 17 says the EU and other INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
And as for who cares about my opinion apparently you do since you took such inept pains to try and discredit it.
As for lowes response I said an argument can be made but I don't know if the International Court would interpret it that way. Is Serbia willing to put it to the test?

the law:
> Maybe some of you should actually read Resolution 1244 before you cite it as your basis for argument.

Couldn't agree more, although I would modify the above by changing 'read' to 'read & comprehend'. Then I would STRONGLY suggest that you take your own advice.

> Does not say this can only be UNMIK (which is not even mentioned in 1244)

This is what clause 10 says:

> 10. Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while stablishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo;

Note the following: 'establish an international civil presence'. Not multiple presences - just one. As for UNMIK not specifically being mentioned, name is immaterial. International civil presence was established in Kosovo & it was called the United Nations Interim Administration Mission, or UNMIK for short.

Ergo, under 1244, only UNMIK has UN authorisation to operate in Kosovo.

End of story.

> Also EU would be considered a relevant international organization since it does specifically mention it later in the resolution to welcome the work in hand of the EU.

Laughable.

First, repeating - only UNMIK has UN authorisation to operate in Kosovo.

Second, EU is by DEFINITION, a regional organisation.

And last, while EU is indeed mentioned later in clause 17, you have taken your little extract 'well out of context'. Here is the whole clause:

> 17. Welcomes the work in hand in the European Union and other international organizations to develop a comprehensive approach to the economic development and stabilization of the region affected by the Kosovo crisis, including the implementation of a Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe with broad international participation in order to further the promotion of democracy, economic prosperity, stability and regional cooperation;

Believe the bit you left out was 'of the region affected by the Kosovo crisis'. This is the correct context - EU is welcome to help out in the balkans generally - not Kosovo specifically.

Rest of your 'technical aspects of your 'post' has been covered by 'lowe'.

> Will I be called ignorant by some of the sites most vocal posters-most definitely.
Does it bother me-not in the least.

If you choose to misrepresent & 'cherry-pick' what is actually said in '1244', then being called 'ignorant' is not a worst case scenario, it is a best case scenario.

As for your opinion - who cares indeed.

the law:
Nothing more to say to you - pointless.

others:
A reasoned debate is about answering all of the other parties points. On this website, have seen many examples whereby an opponent picks up on something relatively trivial & tries to use it to discredit an entire argument.

While this technique may work in some types of media such as the popular press or television, does not on a forum such as this where there is both a continuity of topic & an opportunity for rebuttal- but only if people are willing to follow up their posts.

For instance, 'the law' focused on 1 line of my last post which is the best part of 2 pages in length. The line in question:
> Second, EU is by DEFINITION, a regional organisation

The line itself, while accurate in content, is irrelevant in its immediate context. But it was only the most minor of three arguments used to refute the particular statement in question. And that was less than half of the entire post.

Until all of the arguments are refuted, my last post stands.

And until and if the UN SC amends UN resolution 1244, UNMIK is the one & only international civil presence authorised by the UN to carry out its mandate in Kosovo.

Jason,

First of all, AMBO does not go through Kosovo but through Macedonia.

Second, AMBO is one of very few non-Russian pipeline projects in Europe.

Third, how would you like to live in the world where US military bases are replaced by Russian ones, US "imperialism" is replaced with Russian one, and so forth for all other principles, power and influences that US sustains today in the world?
Maybe the world would be better under the Russian interpretation of the "international law". Oh, and yes KLA was a terrorist organization, cause Russia said so.....

Clayton:

As 'Jason Klein' hasn't answered, will take the liberty.

He never said AMBO pipeline went through Kosovo, just said one of the reasons 'Bondsteel' was built was to protect AMBO, & as the pipeline is being built just over the border, does just that.

Might also add that another reason for 'bondsteel's presence is to project american power to the east.

As for your 'cold war rhetoric', what planet have you been living on for the past 18 years?

Russian international influence these days is economic & not military - unlike the US which seems to have military bases all over the globe.

Spreading US principles around the world? You're kidding right.

One word. Iraq.

US Respect for international law? Only when it suits them. And tell me please, why is it that when most countries have signed up for the ICC, the US refuses to do so?

Lastly, KLA a terrorist organisation just because Russia say so?

Wrong again.

US state department offical labelled it as such back in 1998.

Might add that some of those terrorists/'re-labelled freedom fighters' back then, would once again become terrorists later in Afghanistan & Iraq.

And here is an interesting little point.

First detainee convicted at Guantanamo Bay is an australian by the name of David Hicks. Was also a member of the KLA. And in his trial, said membership of a US-sponsored terrorist group was used against him.

But that's the US for you.

Does everyone know that pleasure of feeling full with an empty spoon? Ask the Serbian polititians like Kostunica.
Serbia will never again exercise is "sovran" country over Kosova. We all know that but the Serbian leaders haven't got the guts yet to accept that openly in front of the Serbian people.

He(Tadic) said that Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu’s speech in the capacity of a private entity had been outside the framework of Resolution 1244.

I would liketo get the floor as private entity at UNSC, if all possible Mr.Tadic(what a joke).


Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica said that thanks to Russia’s principled support, the UN secretary-general’s proposal for a transfer of responsibilities from UNMIK to the illegal EULEX mission had failed.

Stop lyin to ordinary erbian citizens, I hope that UNSC debate was televized LIVE in serbia justlike it was in Kosovo, so that people cannot be fooled by irresponsible politicians.

Anybody happen to catch that UNSC session? Let me say I was surprised by China's change in indirectly endorsing Ban's proposal.
Mr. Tadic looked uneasy.
Kudos to Kosovo's President, at least some know how to be diplomatic.

KOSOVA IS INDEPENDENT - Unmik and Elux are ther to please serbs for few more years...

To serbian camp see it for yourself :
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc/2008/sc080620am.rm

Almost all members of Security Council referred to Sejdiu as President of Repbulic of Kosova. That was slap on a face to Slavic duo Serbia-Russia. England gave Tadic a lecture on contemporary politics .While China totally expressed support for Ban’s recommendation that will open the path for EULEX to oversee building of democratic society/institution of Kosovo

Please Serbs for a few more years? It boggles my mind that the "kosovars" aren't seeing the big picture here. Eulex and the UN will never leave Kosovo. When was the last time that you saw foreign influence leave an occupied province or country, especially under US rule. The answer is never. They are still in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, even in countries since WWII. There is no winner here, regardless of which side you consider. The constitution that was passed will have no bearing on how the Serbian dominated areas of Kosovo operate and no one can implement them by force. The international bodies know this and will eventually have to appease both sides. The situation will remain status quo, regardless of whether its called Kosovo or Kosova. Many people are living in a dream world if they truly believe that this region will ever operate independently. The eastern front against Russian influence is building, at the expense of both Serbs and Albanians.

"Almost all members of Security Council referred to Sejdiu as President of Repbulic of Kosova. That was slap on a face to Slavic duo Serbia-Russia. England gave Tadic a lecture on contemporary politics .While China totally expressed support for Ban’s recommendation that will open the path for EULEX to oversee building of democratic society/institution of Kosovo"
(laki NY, 21 June 2008 17:16)

Thank you, laki NY, i took you up on the offer and watched nearly the entire UN broadcast. it was fascinating! basically (except for russia, of course) there was respect and acknowledgment for the president of Kosova/a, as there was for tadic. and yes, great britain offered serbia a bit of a lecture, as did the US, and good for them!

you have to have nerves of steel to listen to certain of these representatives, knowing what their own governments are guilty of -- but having said that, it was a most enlightening experience.

about tadic: how is it that more moderate members of the "serb camp" here can be so supportive of tadic and his party? his speech here was just one more example of the extreme nationalist policy that he and his govt pursues. unfortunately, it is not just types like kostunica and the radicals that are the problem. tadic represents a very hard-line position, and i cannot see how anyone of conscience can support him.

congratulations to my Kosovar friends and colleagues, and to freedom loving people around the world. this is a very good day for us.

i would like to add one more point: altho the war in iraq (by bush and co.) has been tragic and a disgrace -- despite my antipathy for saddam hussein -- i do believe that our (US) policies concerning kosova/o, at least since 1999, have been proper and a positive and democratic contribution.

peace.

roberto--frisco

It is obvious that Ban Ki Moon is siding with the west and bowed to George Bush's pressure. Serbia should watch out the UN. Many Thanks to Russia for being consistent and same to other states like China, Spain, Greece, Slovakia,Romania, POrtugal, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Algeria, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Iran and many more for continued support to international law and order.

So Ban's "recommendation" (not directive) has not been passed through the UN and thus has no legality - 1244 remains in totality and must be full implemented - to do so acts against the the authority of the UN itself.

Of course the likes of Solano will praise Ban's "recommendation" and believe this gives the EU legitamacy for its INLEX (lawless) mission in Serbia's province but it does not and will be constrained even with Ban's non UN sanctioned "recommedation" since they must work under UNMIK head Zanieri only in ethnic-Albanian areas. Each time they mention even a sniff beyond the 1244 boundaries they will be questioned again and again and again... - that is the new tactics and it will become ever more cumbersome to implement any part of Ahtisaari plan.

Beyond that Serbia must start ramping up the legal route path as Rehn is so familiar with 'Pacta sund Servanta'. I believe it is time to legally remind all those who act against their self obligated agreements to uphold UN SC resolutions and all other International norms and laws that their obligation stands to upholding UN recognised Serbian soverignty and territorial integrity!

Keep dreaming Albanians. The secretary general has stated that this move does change Kosovo's status. Therefore it is still recognised as Serbian territory in line with 1244.

It is in Serbia's interest to reject any reconfiguration of UNMIK although what is being proposed is basically a strenghtening of the defacto partition and a technical agreement between the Serbians and UNMIK for police, courts, customs, transport and infrastructure, boundaries and Serbian patrimony.

In other words, there will no longer be an administrative border or customs in the North of Kosovo. The Serbian authorities will have free access to the Southern province and all enclaves and religious sites without Albanian interference.

The Serbians will rule themselves and so will the Albanians, however, neither will rule the other. The EU mission, if it goes ahead will be restricted to Albanian areas whereas Belgrade will rule the Serbian sections.

What is very important to note here is that independence is blocked at both the EU and UN so that is not going to happen. Serbia's rejection of UNMIKs reconfiguration will continue to apply pressure to reject the EU mission if not in the entire province at least in Serbian and non-Albanian areas (both North and South).

Lets see what happens! Once the technical agreement is in place, the job is done and we return to the status quo.

"Anybody happen to catch that UNSC session? Let me say I was surprised by China's change in indirectly endorsing Ban's proposal.
(Art, 21 June 2008 11:35) "

You rejoice too soon. Read http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/21/content_8412120.htm

Common sense will tell you that China will not budge because of the Kosovo'a implications for Taiwan and Tibet.

lowe,

after i've read the link to the Chinese article, that to my opinion is written in a way that everyone can find his view on the security-council meeting from yesterday, I think you can read that China is even partly encouraging Ban. The main option for them is to evade "tension or harm peace and stability in Kosovo and the region".
The demand for returning to negotiations, which only could lead to partition, is no solution, not for the "West", not for Serbia's integrity, not for the K.Albanians.
The "West" will abide by the settlement of a multi-ethnical state Kosovo/a with corresponding laws, as you can find in the new constitution of Kosovo/a.
I think, after a long time of holding-up the status-quo, in the end Russia and China will give in, because otherwise they could give the impression to be against multi-ethnical states. China must already endure a lot of criticism over their support of the Arabic leaders of Sudan in their suppression of Dafur.

ZK UK,

the fact that for you the main question is: "Who is ruling Who?"; a question of dominance of a ruling class?, is exactly what the "West" tries to turn off in the region. In democratic states it is not the question, which ethnicity is stronger or dominating, but "WHICH PEOPLE ARE ABLE BY WORKING TOGETHER, DESPITE THEIR ETHNICAL BACKGROUND, TO LEAD THEIR COUNTRY TO PROSPERITY AND A PEACEFUL SOCIETY".

Laki even your biggest "ally" USA didn't refer to your President as "Mr. President". But he did to President Tadic.


Now thats a REAL slap in ones face. Independent? Dont make me laugh.

The general result of the UNSC is the real news of this time: The UN's authority is no more the UNSC, but the same UNSG. USA and UK have acknowledged Ban ki-moon's authority to implement the "reconfiguration" of UNMIK without a new UNSC resolution. This is the most serious challenge to Russia and to the "old world order" (since 1945).
In President Tadic's speech before the UNSC there is no one word on EULEX, Feith, EU's new role in Kosovo. Only Russia had clear condemned EULEX. What Serbia properly want now? Why the serbian president, and therefore Serbia itself, is so ambiguous? The consequence is now to endanger the security of the K. Serbs.

"I think, after a long time of holding-up the status-quo, in the end Russia and China will give in, because otherwise they could give the impression to be against multi-ethnical states. China must already endure a lot of criticism over their support of the Arabic leaders of Sudan in their suppression of Dafur.

(cees, 21 June 2008 18:22)"

cees,

Sorry but I have to disagree with your assessment.

Both Russia and China are themselves multiethnic states. So your point about their conveying the impression of being against multiethnicism does not seem valid to me.

For the Russians and Chinese, state sovereignty is sacred and has priority over everything else. I think you overestimate the importance of Western opinion to both Moscow and Beijing.

China didn't budge in her support for Hanoi during the Vietnam war (which lasted almost 20 years) even though the West were overwhelmingly supporting the US-backed regime in Saigon -- we all know how that war ended.

China also didn't budge in her political battle with the UK over Hongkong before 1997 -- even though London made an issue of democracy to garner support from her Western allies -- we know how that ended too. And the last I know, the Chinese are still merrily doing business in Sudan and other parts of Africa -- their need to secure raw materials to fuel their burgeoning economy make them quite indifferent to Western criticism. Especially when these same Western countries, themselves resource poor, also do business there thorough proxies.

Most importantly to the Chinese, they cannot allow Taiwan to use Kosovo as an example to breakaway. You also didn't see Beijing cave in to fierce Western criticism during the recent Tibet unrest did you?

I don't know much about Russian history. But I know they held up against the Germans in World War 2 until their fierce winter came to paralyze the Nazi war machine. Also in World War 1, don't forget that it was Russia who went to war against the Austro-Hungarians when the latter attacked Serbia.

So I wouldn't hold my breadth for the Chinese and Russians to eventually "give in" to the West if I were you! Where state borders are concerned, these are probably the 2 most obstinate countries in the entire world!

Mr. Moon has just ended his term as Secretary General. Russia will reject his re-election based on this bowing to the us. I think he has lost his sense of his job, because the west would never reject him, but Russia will.

Back to the negotiating table people as EULEX will not push through and kosovo will not win a UN seat. stop speculating about China as PROC will never sided to the west as china knows it has it's own separatist problem. Kosovo's U.D.I is a dangerous phenomenon that will destabilize nations with multi-ethic population. LIke the PROC said Negotiation between Serbs and Albanians on the status of kosovo remains the best option and therefore shammed any U.D.I. steps.

Maybe some of you should actually read Resolution 1244 before you cite it as your basis for argument.
It requests that the UNSG in consultation with (not approval of) the UNSC appoint a Special Representative to control the implementation of the international civilian presence.
Authorizes the UNSG with assistance from relevant international organizations to establish an interntational civilian presence. Does not say this can only be UNMIK (which is not even mentioned in 1244) Also EU would be considered a relevant international organization since it does specifically mention it later in the resolution to welcome the work in hand of the EU.
Furthermore, the issue of it guaranteeing that Kosovo as part of Serbia's territorial integrety should be interpreted by the International Court (which I see the politicians like to use in speeches but have as of yet done so for fear of losing).
Reasoning In 1999 Serbia was not considered as the natural successor of the FROY. As a matter of fact 1244 considers them as separate entities in that it specifies that after withdrawal an agreed number of "Yugoslav" and "Serb" military and police will be allowed to return for specific functions.
The FROY was admitted to the UN Nov 2000 and in 2003 name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. IN 2006 Montenegro was admitted as it's own member.
With those developments can it be argued that it was the intent of the UNSC in 1999 to forever keep Kosovo as a part of Serbia. It can be argued but would a court of law interpret it as such-not clear.
Will this argument change anyones mind-no.
Will I be called ignorant by some of the sites most vocal posters-most definitely.
Does it bother me-not in the least.

"Reasoning In 1999 Serbia was not considered as the natural successor of the FROY. As a matter of fact 1244 considers them as separate entities in that it specifies that after withdrawal an agreed number of "Yugoslav" and "Serb" military and police will be allowed to return for specific functions.
The FROY was admitted to the UN Nov 2000 and in 2003 name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. IN 2006 Montenegro was admitted as it's own member.
With those developments can it be argued that it was the intent of the UNSC in 1999 to forever keep Kosovo as a part of Serbia. It can be argued but would a court of law interpret it as such-not clear.
Will this argument change anyones mind-no.
Will I be called ignorant by some of the sites most vocal posters-most definitely.
Does it bother me-not in the least.
(the law, 22 June 2008 10:52)"

the law,

while the truth may not bother you, I think it is nevertheless important for me to correct the inaccuracies in your facts. So that other readers are not mislead by what you wrote.

1999's Yugoslavia (which UNSC 1244 referred to) renamed itself Serbia &n Montenegro in 2003 under an EU accord that gave the Montenegrins the right to secede after 3 years. This accord stipulated that in the event of Montenegro's breakaway, Serbia will be deemed the successor to Yugoslavia. This was accepted by both the EU and UN -- which is why when Montenegro seceded in 2006, it had to apply for UN membership as a new state whereas Serbia did not have to.

So, as the UN recognized sole successor to the former Yugoslav's seat, 1244 today definitely applies (and applies solely) to Belgrade.

Surely it must have occured to you that if 1244 does not refer to Serbia today, the US and EU would have gleefully pounced on this long ago to support their case for Kosovo.

the law:
> Maybe some of you should actually read Resolution 1244 before you cite it as your basis for argument.

Couldn't agree more, although I would modify the above by changing 'read' to 'read & comprehend'. Then I would STRONGLY suggest that you take your own advice.

> Does not say this can only be UNMIK (which is not even mentioned in 1244)

This is what clause 10 says:

> 10. Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while stablishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo;

Note the following: 'establish an international civil presence'. Not multiple presences - just one. As for UNMIK not specifically being mentioned, name is immaterial. International civil presence was established in Kosovo & it was called the United Nations Interim Administration Mission, or UNMIK for short.

Ergo, under 1244, only UNMIK has UN authorisation to operate in Kosovo.

End of story.

> Also EU would be considered a relevant international organization since it does specifically mention it later in the resolution to welcome the work in hand of the EU.

Laughable.

First, repeating - only UNMIK has UN authorisation to operate in Kosovo.

Second, EU is by DEFINITION, a regional organisation.

And last, while EU is indeed mentioned later in clause 17, you have taken your little extract 'well out of context'. Here is the whole clause:

> 17. Welcomes the work in hand in the European Union and other international organizations to develop a comprehensive approach to the economic development and stabilization of the region affected by the Kosovo crisis, including the implementation of a Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe with broad international participation in order to further the promotion of democracy, economic prosperity, stability and regional cooperation;

Believe the bit you left out was 'of the region affected by the Kosovo crisis'. This is the correct context - EU is welcome to help out in the balkans generally - not Kosovo specifically.

Rest of your 'technical aspects of your 'post' has been covered by 'lowe'.

> Will I be called ignorant by some of the sites most vocal posters-most definitely.
Does it bother me-not in the least.

If you choose to misrepresent & 'cherry-pick' what is actually said in '1244', then being called 'ignorant' is not a worst case scenario, it is a best case scenario.

As for your opinion - who cares indeed.

Peter,
I see you read it, now try to read it without the Serbian slant. thanks for proving my point, i did not want to copy the entire part but since you did. Item 10 says relevent international organizations and item 17 says the EU and other INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
And as for who cares about my opinion apparently you do since you took such inept pains to try and discredit it.
As for lowes response I said an argument can be made but I don't know if the International Court would interpret it that way. Is Serbia willing to put it to the test?

the law:
Nothing more to say to you - pointless.

others:
A reasoned debate is about answering all of the other parties points. On this website, have seen many examples whereby an opponent picks up on something relatively trivial & tries to use it to discredit an entire argument.

While this technique may work in some types of media such as the popular press or television, does not on a forum such as this where there is both a continuity of topic & an opportunity for rebuttal- but only if people are willing to follow up their posts.

For instance, 'the law' focused on 1 line of my last post which is the best part of 2 pages in length. The line in question:
> Second, EU is by DEFINITION, a regional organisation

The line itself, while accurate in content, is irrelevant in its immediate context. But it was only the most minor of three arguments used to refute the particular statement in question. And that was less than half of the entire post.

Until all of the arguments are refuted, my last post stands.

And until and if the UN SC amends UN resolution 1244, UNMIK is the one & only international civil presence authorised by the UN to carry out its mandate in Kosovo.

"i do believe that our (US) policies concerning kosova/o, at least since 1999, have been proper and a positive and democratic contribution."

peace.

roberto--frisco
(roberto, 21 June 2008 20:27)

roberto,

Proper, positive and democratic? Teaming up with a terrorist organization (KLA) to gain control of land (not to mention that the land is sacred to it's inhabitants) in order to build one of the largest US military bases on foreign soil (Bondsteel) as well as to secure energy pipeline routes (AMBO) - I'm not so sure that was all done with proper, positive and democratic intentions? (Perhaps the more likely motives were self interest and profit?)

Jason,

First of all, AMBO does not go through Kosovo but through Macedonia.

Second, AMBO is one of very few non-Russian pipeline projects in Europe.

Third, how would you like to live in the world where US military bases are replaced by Russian ones, US "imperialism" is replaced with Russian one, and so forth for all other principles, power and influences that US sustains today in the world?
Maybe the world would be better under the Russian interpretation of the "international law". Oh, and yes KLA was a terrorist organization, cause Russia said so.....

Clayton:

As 'Jason Klein' hasn't answered, will take the liberty.

He never said AMBO pipeline went through Kosovo, just said one of the reasons 'Bondsteel' was built was to protect AMBO, & as the pipeline is being built just over the border, does just that.

Might also add that another reason for 'bondsteel's presence is to project american power to the east.

As for your 'cold war rhetoric', what planet have you been living on for the past 18 years?

Russian international influence these days is economic & not military - unlike the US which seems to have military bases all over the globe.

Spreading US principles around the world? You're kidding right.

One word. Iraq.

US Respect for international law? Only when it suits them. And tell me please, why is it that when most countries have signed up for the ICC, the US refuses to do so?

Lastly, KLA a terrorist organisation just because Russia say so?

Wrong again.

US state department offical labelled it as such back in 1998.

Might add that some of those terrorists/'re-labelled freedom fighters' back then, would once again become terrorists later in Afghanistan & Iraq.

And here is an interesting little point.

First detainee convicted at Guantanamo Bay is an australian by the name of David Hicks. Was also a member of the KLA. And in his trial, said membership of a US-sponsored terrorist group was used against him.

But that's the US for you.