Slovakia and France on ICJ Kosovo case

Old joke:

"If a diplomat says 'yes', it means 'maybe'
If a diplomat says 'maybe' it means 'no'
If a diplomat says 'no', he is not a diplomat"

Somebody did prove in that interview, he is not a diplomat but an amateur and provided Serbia with a huge surface for a cheap attack.

Serbia should seriously think, how close does it really want to keep it's ties with such countries, and does it really need to import lousy cars and expensive wine.

After such interview I would simply expel the ambassador and ask that particular country to close their embassy for good.

France has openly said it will NOT respect international law.
If the court rules in Kosovo favour then they will naturally say they are respecting international law, but if the opposite happens they have said they will continue to break the law.

A country to be surely proud of.

"If this high advisory body says that the decision was in line with international law. We are in favor of respecting international law and we will respect the decision, even though it is advisory," Furdik stated.

Slovakia will respect the decision even it is advisory (guest what will be the Decision after the killing of 12.000 Albanians civils by the Serbian State)

France any kind of decision the ICJ for them is equal :) for France the issue of Kosovo has been settled..

"After such interview I would simply expel the ambassador and ask that particular country to close their embassy for good."

Serbia tried a similar thing, but now they are begging EU for funds and membership.

The Slovak ambassador for now is pretty much saying that they will respect the ICJ decision either way. So if the decision is favorable to Kosovo, they would be probably willing to recognize if his words are the official state policy.

Slovakia?There is a Hungarian minority living in Slovakia. I am not sure how this minority ended up with Slovakian border as that is not relevant. Slovakia is worried that the Hungarian minority might ask the same as Kosovar Albanians. But being shortsighted in politics the Slovakian government is failing to see the differences in two political realities. Should the Slovakian state start a war against its own minority then Yes it risk losing these people and the territory where they live in. Of course now as we talk that is an ABSURDITY but purely wanted to explain how "similar" the two scenarios are and why there is a great Slovakian "fear" about Kosova's independence. The same comment would make for Spanish "fear".

Ambassador Terral said that "what is now important in Kosovo is to protect interests of certain communities, the Serb one above all", and adds that EU's EULEX mission was "set up for this reason".
B92

What is in question here is not EULEX's mission but the primacy of international law which the French were lecturing the US and Bush's poodles at the UN assembly on the eve of thewar in Iraq.

Are the French saying the International law mattered in the case of Iraq and not in the case of Serbia? Or is it the fact that the French were trying to protect their investments in Iraq and their lucrative business they were doing with Sadam.

The truth of the matter is that there is no such a thing called international law and UN resolutions.Each country interprets both according to their own specific interests.

Notice that the French ambassador did not even mention international law, instead he blathers on about Eulex. This is because he knows that France has broken international law, as do all the countries that recognized the fake, illegal, and immoral 'state' of Kosovo. They are blatantly breaking the law and they all know it, this is why they threatened Serbia not to go to the ICJ.
Once again, Serbia is right, and the imperialists and their lapdogs are wrong - and it is more and more transparent.

"France has openly said it will NOT respect international law.
If the court rules in Kosovo favour then they will naturally say they are respecting international law, but if the opposite happens they have said they will continue to break the law.

A country to be surely proud of."

Jeremic said that if the decision was in favor of Kosovo, Serbia wouldn't respect it ...

Maybe it's be exceprts from the statements B92 selected, but the cases seem to conclude the following:

Slovakia: "We think Kosovo's UDI is illegal and breaches international law. We choose not to recognize not because we have any particular love for Serbs and derrison for Albanians, but do it legally or don't do it at all."

France: "Well, we did what we did, and as far as we're concerned, it's an open and shut case. Time to move on, and any mess we made should just forgotten for the sake of EULEX working smoothly."

Pardon me for thinking France's case was slightly less than convincing.

Peggy, what a statement!!
When Serbia (who initiated the entire process) has been very definite that they will only respect the decision of the court if and only if it is what they want to hear. How can you criticize anyone who does not plan to change their stance on the issue based on ICJ opinion.
Your opinion of France may be low but at least they are not taking a hypocritical approach to the situation.

Did you notice the french ambassador only tried to defend their stand with "pragmatic" arguments, but he didn't mention international law with one single word. So he knows what France did was illegal, but he still defends it because it was easier to recognize than to follow the law. Well ICJ will not decide on what is easy or hard. It will decide if it was legal or not. And France did not come up with any legal arguments.

France has openly said it will NOT respect international law.
If the court rules in Kosovo favour then they will naturally say they are respecting international law, but if the opposite happens they have said they will continue to break the law.

A country to be surely proud of.
(Peggy, 26 April 2009 15:06)

jermic said the same thing. No matter what we will not recognise.

So that comment abve goes for Serbia too.. What a country to be proud of

'Ambassador Terral(France) said that "what is now important in Kosovo is to protect interests of certain communities, the Serb one above all",'

Oh, it's important now, is it?

From 1999 upto very recently, French, German, UK and other KFOR troops/officials tried their utmost to force Serbs out of Kosovo i Metohija, especially by making living conditions unbearable for Serbs and Roma and also by fabricating stories which were untrue and often the exact opposite to what happened.

This is all extremely serious.

KFOR officials should be made aware of the fact that quite a number of very serious and authenticated documents will soon be in the public domain which I believe will cause absolute mayhem in the higher echelons of NATO and the EU.

So, I can now say, 'may all those Godforsaken evildoers live in interesting times'!

MB,Ireland

Jarina

You think that 12.000 dead albanians gives you the right to take a part of someone elses country? 700.000 serbs were killed by Ustase in Croatia. Do you support Serb indepencence in Croatia? If not, why?

Regardless of the outcome of this toothless initiative, in 15 years time Serbian citizens, be they Serbian or ethnic Albanian, will still be arguing over Kosovo's status. It is not going to get resolved so the Albanians should just accept the more than autonomy less than independence offer.

It should be fairly clear by now that independence will never be achieved and the offer on the table is more than they will ever get. Who knows, it might take another 20 years before that sinks in but it seems the Albanians are their own worst enemy by restricting their development simply by their greed to snatch land from others.

"guest what will be the Decision after the killing of 12.000 Albanians civils by the Serbian State"

A majority of the albanians killed were killed after NATO started bombing so go blame NATO. This is a fact! 10.000 people died in the war (serbs, albanians and roma) however, as always, albanians exaggerate the numbers. At one point Clinton claimed 500.000 albanians had been killed.
Those countries that have recognized Kosovo have done so using lies and propaganda. Hopefully the ICJ will see through this lie and rule in accordance with international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

Gemany started WW2 which killed "50 million people" and still nobody have asked Germany to be pulled apart into independent countries. How come?

If France won't respect the ICJ decision neither should Slovakia or any other country

Serbia to sanction FRANCE? wait a second what i'm reading here Serbia to sanction FRANCE you made my day :)

Serbia with the Friends like you don't need to have the anemys...
(Jarina, 26 April 2009 18:51)

Yes, of course. We just can't get enough of France. And Serbia's dependence on it is near zero. I would be much more careful with Germany and U.S.

A country to be surely proud of."

Jeremic said that if the decision was in favor of Kosovo, Serbia wouldn't respect it ...
(saint-glinglin, 26 April 2009 15:39)

Are you trying to compare Serbia to the countries whose territory is not being stolen?
Serbia cannot accept anything less than preserving their territory. After all, Serbia did not steal anything from anyone so they have done nothing illegal here.
You cannot possibly expect the robbed to be in favour of the robber?

The Slovak ambassador for now is pretty much saying that they will respect the ICJ decision either way. So if the decision is favorable to Kosovo, they would be probably willing to recognize if his words are the official state policy.
(Benny, 26 April 2009 14:39)

Probably yes. Slovakia says: "we disagree with the decision but we will respect it". Which in diplomacy language means "probably".

France said a clear "no", so they are not good diplomats. Serbia has all reasons to sanction them for that. If I am French FM, I would probably consider personal changes at the embassy soon.

There you have it friends.

Two opposing points of view (France and Slovakia) and they both said the ICJ only gives an opinion. And both said that whatever that opinion is it doesn't matter since there is no going back.

So my question is, does it really matter what the ICJ says? Yes, it may matter for international relations scholars as a case to analyze, but no country will take away their recognitions because of the ICJ's opinion, just like France just said.

A waste of time if you ask me, unless you're a historian or scholar in university.

See, typical from a nation that uses it in its cuisine. They defy international law, dictate to smaller countries and then oppose other nations obtaining nuclear weapons. france can't have it both ways for long. When the ICJ rules against the Kosovo UDI and france continues to defy international law, we can all enjoy the day when Belgrade bulldozes the monument to france near Kalemegdan and replaces it with a monument to Slovakia. Then Serbia can recognize an independent Corsica. I think the Corsican question needs to be settled too.

In the end this looks like a bad idea. Serbia has much more to lose than to gain from the outcome. If the ICJ rules in favour of Serbia, it may deter some countries from recognizing Kosovo but it will not make the nations that have already done so change their minds. If the ICJ rules against Serbia, some countries will recognize the UDI.

The ICJ will probably give an opinion that will allow both sides to interpret it as a win so it doesn't really matter.

MikeC: A majority of the albanians killed were killed after NATO started bombing so go blame NATO. This is a fact! 10.000 people died in the war (serbs, albanians and roma)


How convenient for you to put those killed in that order, assuming that more Serbs than Albanians were killed at the hands of Serbs.
So just because NATO intervened, it made it ok for Serbs to start murdering en masse Albanians?

Some logic you have!

It must be noted that the matter of fact right now is that Kosovo has been recognised as independent by quite a few countries and that in effect is much much more than autonomy.

(Ataman, 26 April 2009 15:45)

France said a clear "no", so they are not good diplomats. Serbia has all reasons to sanction them for that.

Serbia to sanction FRANCE? wait a second what i'm reading here Serbia to sanction FRANCE you made my day :)

Serbia with the Friends like you don't need to have the anemys...

So little common ground to agree upon. maybe people need a few more of these “Save Balkan Lynx” campaigns to restore some hope and balance.
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2009/03/05/feature-03

Old principle of lawyering: when the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

The behaviours of France are rather unsettling. Certainly we've all been made aware of Serbia's stance towards a negative reaction from the ICJ, as we've also been made aware of the Kosovar government's stance towards a negative reaction from the ICJ. Both of these fledgling democracies are at odds, which is obviously to be expected.
However, this is where France is walking a very slippery slope. This court case might have many of the world's nation's eyes waiting for the verdict. If the verdict stated that the UDI was infact illegal under internaltional laws, how is it that the WEST, this bastion of democratic, law abiding nations can justify that they are allowed to circumvent the laws blatently and openly. What sort of reaction will we all anticipate from the likes of China, Pakistan, the remaining Middle East, the Eastern block of Europe, South America and Afircan nations? Do all these emerging democracies still look to these "pillars" of freedom, law and democracy and wonder what of law, freedom and democracy they have left in their systems? We've all seen that the world's legal system is no longer based upon rule of law, but rather rule of example. If the WEST is willing to set themselves as an example of how to be democratic, how to create and follow laws then they should follow their own words and set a proper example. This is what the world is watching for.

If France and UK demostrate their arrogance for international law and do not accept the ruling of ICJ as it is, then the forces pushing for a rebalancing of world powers will certainly take a look at why puny France and UK are in the security council, while Brazil, India, Iran, Pakistan are not. The economies of France and UK are not sufficiently strong nor are their armed forces. It's taken NATO 8 years of turmoil in Afghanistan fighting mildly armed resistance, and they haven't made any significant progress.
The WEST needs to watch their steps now, and France might be stepping in it soon.

At the end of the day, I hope my Canada will follow the decision of the ICJ, whatever the outcome is. It have been utterly clear to me, and many a logical thinking person that I have run into that suggest that the only viable solution to the whole disolving of the former Yugoslavia should have been dealt with at the table and not with guns. It is unfortunate that the WEST makes plenty of money selling guns and weapons of mass destruction.

"If this high advisory body says that the decision was in line with international law. We are in favor of respecting international law and we will respect the decision, even though it is advisory," Furdik stated.

Slovakia will respect the decision even it is advisory (guest what will be the Decision after the killing of 12.000 Albanians civils by the Serbian State)

France any kind of decision the ICJ for them is equal :) for France the issue of Kosovo has been settled..

France has openly said it will NOT respect international law.
If the court rules in Kosovo favour then they will naturally say they are respecting international law, but if the opposite happens they have said they will continue to break the law.

A country to be surely proud of.

Slovakia?There is a Hungarian minority living in Slovakia. I am not sure how this minority ended up with Slovakian border as that is not relevant. Slovakia is worried that the Hungarian minority might ask the same as Kosovar Albanians. But being shortsighted in politics the Slovakian government is failing to see the differences in two political realities. Should the Slovakian state start a war against its own minority then Yes it risk losing these people and the territory where they live in. Of course now as we talk that is an ABSURDITY but purely wanted to explain how "similar" the two scenarios are and why there is a great Slovakian "fear" about Kosova's independence. The same comment would make for Spanish "fear".

Jarina

You think that 12.000 dead albanians gives you the right to take a part of someone elses country? 700.000 serbs were killed by Ustase in Croatia. Do you support Serb indepencence in Croatia? If not, why?

The Slovak ambassador for now is pretty much saying that they will respect the ICJ decision either way. So if the decision is favorable to Kosovo, they would be probably willing to recognize if his words are the official state policy.

"guest what will be the Decision after the killing of 12.000 Albanians civils by the Serbian State"

A majority of the albanians killed were killed after NATO started bombing so go blame NATO. This is a fact! 10.000 people died in the war (serbs, albanians and roma) however, as always, albanians exaggerate the numbers. At one point Clinton claimed 500.000 albanians had been killed.
Those countries that have recognized Kosovo have done so using lies and propaganda. Hopefully the ICJ will see through this lie and rule in accordance with international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

Gemany started WW2 which killed "50 million people" and still nobody have asked Germany to be pulled apart into independent countries. How come?

If France won't respect the ICJ decision neither should Slovakia or any other country

(Ataman, 26 April 2009 15:45)

France said a clear "no", so they are not good diplomats. Serbia has all reasons to sanction them for that.

Serbia to sanction FRANCE? wait a second what i'm reading here Serbia to sanction FRANCE you made my day :)

Serbia with the Friends like you don't need to have the anemys...

MikeC: A majority of the albanians killed were killed after NATO started bombing so go blame NATO. This is a fact! 10.000 people died in the war (serbs, albanians and roma)


How convenient for you to put those killed in that order, assuming that more Serbs than Albanians were killed at the hands of Serbs.
So just because NATO intervened, it made it ok for Serbs to start murdering en masse Albanians?

Some logic you have!

It must be noted that the matter of fact right now is that Kosovo has been recognised as independent by quite a few countries and that in effect is much much more than autonomy.

Old joke:

"If a diplomat says 'yes', it means 'maybe'
If a diplomat says 'maybe' it means 'no'
If a diplomat says 'no', he is not a diplomat"

Somebody did prove in that interview, he is not a diplomat but an amateur and provided Serbia with a huge surface for a cheap attack.

Serbia should seriously think, how close does it really want to keep it's ties with such countries, and does it really need to import lousy cars and expensive wine.

After such interview I would simply expel the ambassador and ask that particular country to close their embassy for good.

"After such interview I would simply expel the ambassador and ask that particular country to close their embassy for good."

Serbia tried a similar thing, but now they are begging EU for funds and membership.

Peggy, what a statement!!
When Serbia (who initiated the entire process) has been very definite that they will only respect the decision of the court if and only if it is what they want to hear. How can you criticize anyone who does not plan to change their stance on the issue based on ICJ opinion.
Your opinion of France may be low but at least they are not taking a hypocritical approach to the situation.

Notice that the French ambassador did not even mention international law, instead he blathers on about Eulex. This is because he knows that France has broken international law, as do all the countries that recognized the fake, illegal, and immoral 'state' of Kosovo. They are blatantly breaking the law and they all know it, this is why they threatened Serbia not to go to the ICJ.
Once again, Serbia is right, and the imperialists and their lapdogs are wrong - and it is more and more transparent.

France has openly said it will NOT respect international law.
If the court rules in Kosovo favour then they will naturally say they are respecting international law, but if the opposite happens they have said they will continue to break the law.

A country to be surely proud of.
(Peggy, 26 April 2009 15:06)

jermic said the same thing. No matter what we will not recognise.

So that comment abve goes for Serbia too.. What a country to be proud of

The Slovak ambassador for now is pretty much saying that they will respect the ICJ decision either way. So if the decision is favorable to Kosovo, they would be probably willing to recognize if his words are the official state policy.
(Benny, 26 April 2009 14:39)

Probably yes. Slovakia says: "we disagree with the decision but we will respect it". Which in diplomacy language means "probably".

France said a clear "no", so they are not good diplomats. Serbia has all reasons to sanction them for that. If I am French FM, I would probably consider personal changes at the embassy soon.

There you have it friends.

Two opposing points of view (France and Slovakia) and they both said the ICJ only gives an opinion. And both said that whatever that opinion is it doesn't matter since there is no going back.

So my question is, does it really matter what the ICJ says? Yes, it may matter for international relations scholars as a case to analyze, but no country will take away their recognitions because of the ICJ's opinion, just like France just said.

A waste of time if you ask me, unless you're a historian or scholar in university.

Maybe it's be exceprts from the statements B92 selected, but the cases seem to conclude the following:

Slovakia: "We think Kosovo's UDI is illegal and breaches international law. We choose not to recognize not because we have any particular love for Serbs and derrison for Albanians, but do it legally or don't do it at all."

France: "Well, we did what we did, and as far as we're concerned, it's an open and shut case. Time to move on, and any mess we made should just forgotten for the sake of EULEX working smoothly."

Pardon me for thinking France's case was slightly less than convincing.

'Ambassador Terral(France) said that "what is now important in Kosovo is to protect interests of certain communities, the Serb one above all",'

Oh, it's important now, is it?

From 1999 upto very recently, French, German, UK and other KFOR troops/officials tried their utmost to force Serbs out of Kosovo i Metohija, especially by making living conditions unbearable for Serbs and Roma and also by fabricating stories which were untrue and often the exact opposite to what happened.

This is all extremely serious.

KFOR officials should be made aware of the fact that quite a number of very serious and authenticated documents will soon be in the public domain which I believe will cause absolute mayhem in the higher echelons of NATO and the EU.

So, I can now say, 'may all those Godforsaken evildoers live in interesting times'!

MB,Ireland

Regardless of the outcome of this toothless initiative, in 15 years time Serbian citizens, be they Serbian or ethnic Albanian, will still be arguing over Kosovo's status. It is not going to get resolved so the Albanians should just accept the more than autonomy less than independence offer.

It should be fairly clear by now that independence will never be achieved and the offer on the table is more than they will ever get. Who knows, it might take another 20 years before that sinks in but it seems the Albanians are their own worst enemy by restricting their development simply by their greed to snatch land from others.

So little common ground to agree upon. maybe people need a few more of these “Save Balkan Lynx” campaigns to restore some hope and balance.
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2009/03/05/feature-03

Ambassador Terral said that "what is now important in Kosovo is to protect interests of certain communities, the Serb one above all", and adds that EU's EULEX mission was "set up for this reason".
B92

What is in question here is not EULEX's mission but the primacy of international law which the French were lecturing the US and Bush's poodles at the UN assembly on the eve of thewar in Iraq.

Are the French saying the International law mattered in the case of Iraq and not in the case of Serbia? Or is it the fact that the French were trying to protect their investments in Iraq and their lucrative business they were doing with Sadam.

The truth of the matter is that there is no such a thing called international law and UN resolutions.Each country interprets both according to their own specific interests.

"France has openly said it will NOT respect international law.
If the court rules in Kosovo favour then they will naturally say they are respecting international law, but if the opposite happens they have said they will continue to break the law.

A country to be surely proud of."

Jeremic said that if the decision was in favor of Kosovo, Serbia wouldn't respect it ...

See, typical from a nation that uses it in its cuisine. They defy international law, dictate to smaller countries and then oppose other nations obtaining nuclear weapons. france can't have it both ways for long. When the ICJ rules against the Kosovo UDI and france continues to defy international law, we can all enjoy the day when Belgrade bulldozes the monument to france near Kalemegdan and replaces it with a monument to Slovakia. Then Serbia can recognize an independent Corsica. I think the Corsican question needs to be settled too.

Did you notice the french ambassador only tried to defend their stand with "pragmatic" arguments, but he didn't mention international law with one single word. So he knows what France did was illegal, but he still defends it because it was easier to recognize than to follow the law. Well ICJ will not decide on what is easy or hard. It will decide if it was legal or not. And France did not come up with any legal arguments.

Serbia to sanction FRANCE? wait a second what i'm reading here Serbia to sanction FRANCE you made my day :)

Serbia with the Friends like you don't need to have the anemys...
(Jarina, 26 April 2009 18:51)

Yes, of course. We just can't get enough of France. And Serbia's dependence on it is near zero. I would be much more careful with Germany and U.S.

In the end this looks like a bad idea. Serbia has much more to lose than to gain from the outcome. If the ICJ rules in favour of Serbia, it may deter some countries from recognizing Kosovo but it will not make the nations that have already done so change their minds. If the ICJ rules against Serbia, some countries will recognize the UDI.

The ICJ will probably give an opinion that will allow both sides to interpret it as a win so it doesn't really matter.

A country to be surely proud of."

Jeremic said that if the decision was in favor of Kosovo, Serbia wouldn't respect it ...
(saint-glinglin, 26 April 2009 15:39)

Are you trying to compare Serbia to the countries whose territory is not being stolen?
Serbia cannot accept anything less than preserving their territory. After all, Serbia did not steal anything from anyone so they have done nothing illegal here.
You cannot possibly expect the robbed to be in favour of the robber?

Old principle of lawyering: when the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

The behaviours of France are rather unsettling. Certainly we've all been made aware of Serbia's stance towards a negative reaction from the ICJ, as we've also been made aware of the Kosovar government's stance towards a negative reaction from the ICJ. Both of these fledgling democracies are at odds, which is obviously to be expected.
However, this is where France is walking a very slippery slope. This court case might have many of the world's nation's eyes waiting for the verdict. If the verdict stated that the UDI was infact illegal under internaltional laws, how is it that the WEST, this bastion of democratic, law abiding nations can justify that they are allowed to circumvent the laws blatently and openly. What sort of reaction will we all anticipate from the likes of China, Pakistan, the remaining Middle East, the Eastern block of Europe, South America and Afircan nations? Do all these emerging democracies still look to these "pillars" of freedom, law and democracy and wonder what of law, freedom and democracy they have left in their systems? We've all seen that the world's legal system is no longer based upon rule of law, but rather rule of example. If the WEST is willing to set themselves as an example of how to be democratic, how to create and follow laws then they should follow their own words and set a proper example. This is what the world is watching for.

If France and UK demostrate their arrogance for international law and do not accept the ruling of ICJ as it is, then the forces pushing for a rebalancing of world powers will certainly take a look at why puny France and UK are in the security council, while Brazil, India, Iran, Pakistan are not. The economies of France and UK are not sufficiently strong nor are their armed forces. It's taken NATO 8 years of turmoil in Afghanistan fighting mildly armed resistance, and they haven't made any significant progress.
The WEST needs to watch their steps now, and France might be stepping in it soon.

At the end of the day, I hope my Canada will follow the decision of the ICJ, whatever the outcome is. It have been utterly clear to me, and many a logical thinking person that I have run into that suggest that the only viable solution to the whole disolving of the former Yugoslavia should have been dealt with at the table and not with guns. It is unfortunate that the WEST makes plenty of money selling guns and weapons of mass destruction.