French ambassador: Independence not illegal

now mr.ambassador you will learn what kind of experts here in the forum are. They will now instruct you and the French Republic what you have to think and to do and that even the proclamation of the French Republic is illegal and against the international law. So stop putting conditions on serbia, the only acceptable solution is to expel all Albanians from Kosovo and bring Kosovo back under serbian sovereignty and populate it with christian Serbs.

FAO: H.E. Jean Francois Terral
Ref: BRITTANY - a peninsular region in NW France

Imagine if Berlin, with the aid of a fatuitous Washington Regime and NATO decided to support and train a previously illegal terrorist organisation in Brittany.
Imagine if the aforementioned 'axis of evil' used their formidable powers of international media manipulation and military force to enable Brittany to break away from the rest of France in order to become an Islamic cesspit of coruption, drug and people trafficing.
Imagine if this 'axis' slandered, scandalised and murdered the French Nation to the extent that they have done to Serbia.

In the above scenario, I don't think that H.E. Monsieur Terral would hold the same contentions as those he has shared in this article.

(Apologies to my Breton cousins)

MB,Ireland

"Jean Francois Terral said that Serbia and Kosovo must reach an agreement regarding their relations in order to avoid endangering stability in the region."

Interesting. France is arrogant enough to not even contemplate that the ICJ could find in Serbia's favour on this matter.

Let's wait and see whether the ICJ upholds the law or allows politics and interference to cloud its judgement.

But notice that even France is in favour of new talks to settle the status dispute, even if the ICJ does not find in Serbia's favour.

That means that they also recognise that the status is not settled and the only way forward is by negotiation between Serbia and Kosovo (ie. Serbia and the UN/ EU/ US/ Pristina as an entity).


"The recognition of a country is a matter of the sovereignty of the country (that recognizes it). ..."

Mais non M. Terral. Read the law. This is a ridiculous statement that any sovereign nation can legally recognise the idependence of a province in another sovereign nation.

This is a distortion of the law stating that the sovereign nation within which the province is situated must agree to the independence, before other nations may legally recognise it.

Yes, there are all sorts of caveats, but in this case the matter was resolved by the UN resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia's sovereign boundaries and there was no war or immediate threat taking place.

You cannot use retrospective arguments to claim territory.

Its not Serbia's position but that of the UN & 3/4 of the Human race & all of the economic powerhouses of the World. If the Court doesnt uphold the will of Humanity, then CRO BiH& Montenegro better look out. Albanians in KiM got their majority by expelling Serbs in Turkish times & under Tito.

but neither france nor any other comical recognizer will HAVE to take back the recognition of "republic kosovo" when kosmet is liberated.

did france did take back the recognition of former bosnia or former georgia ???

no!

did anyone care?

no!

now mr.ambassador you will learn what kind of experts here in the forum are. They will now instruct you and the French Republic what you have to think and to do and that even the proclamation of the French Republic is illegal and against the international law. So stop putting conditions on serbia, the only acceptable solution is to expel all Albanians from Kosovo and bring Kosovo back under serbian sovereignty and populate it with christian Serbs.
(luis, 9 January 2010 15:15)

It si because of this reason no minority should live under serbian rule.....
Keep it up and we will see Serbia get smaller as years go by

'This is a distortion of the law stating that the sovereign nation within which the province is situated must agree to the independence, before other nations may legally recognise it.

(kate, 9 January 2010 15:05) '

And which law would that be, Kate? That was the customary law before the Americans declared independence of Britain, at which time the question was widely debated. After the South Americans declared their independence, it became the usual way for new countries to be formed - specifically, without the consent of the parent state.

The typical and usual double french language...

Luis - All of the points raised seem to have flown way over your head. This is not about teaching anyone; it is just about the law and facts.

You can't mix up any of the arguments made on this thread with this nonsense about expelling Albanians. Nobody has said anything about that.

You can't obscure argument with this tabloid drivel. It's no longer 1999 the era of the "Crusaders" - thank God!

Why not just make your own solid argument - could it be because everyone knows that whatever the decision of the ICJ, Serbia is on very solid ground legally?

What a choice for the 'international community' (the 'world series' of politics)... a ruling in Serbia's favour and the protection of international law/ or a ruling in favour of the 'Kosovo Project' in which case all of the structures protecting us will be trashed.

"...the only acceptable solution is to expel all Albanians from Kosovo and bring Kosovo back under serbian sovereignty and populate it with christian Serbs."

Sarcasm aside, luis.
Wasn't expelling one ethnic group only acceptable solution in Croatia? And same was attempted in Bosnia.
All so that former Yugoslavian republics will be unified.
I say unified, as Serbs in Bosnia, for example, signed Lisbon Agreement before the war accepting autonomy in Bosnia. Then they were given none, as nobody thought that any autonomy should be given. Even asking for it was considered "nationalistic extremisam".
Then Albanians in Kosovo demand independence only, and stop talking about war.
In 1998 Milosevic oferred direct talks to Ibrahim Rugova. He refused to talk unless talks will be about independence only.
This was not considered "nationalistic extremisam" appearantly.
Guy asked for independence, after all, not for autonomy (and that would be nationalistic extremisam).

Back to the subject.
No, expelling ethnic group would not be only solution.
How about limited autonomy?
Or how about allowing RS to gain independence from Bosnia unilaterally?
Be creative.

"Jean Francois Terral said that Serbia and Kosovo must reach an agreement regarding their relations in order to avoid endangering stability in the region."

Interesting. France is arrogant enough to not even contemplate that the ICJ could find in Serbia's favour on this matter.

Let's wait and see whether the ICJ upholds the law or allows politics and interference to cloud its judgement.

But notice that even France is in favour of new talks to settle the status dispute, even if the ICJ does not find in Serbia's favour.

That means that they also recognise that the status is not settled and the only way forward is by negotiation between Serbia and Kosovo (ie. Serbia and the UN/ EU/ US/ Pristina as an entity).
kate,
In no way did he imply that status was not settled, he did say that Kosovo and Serba would have to settle dispute inorder to maintain peace in the region.(Starting with Serbia)
France is arrogant to think that the ICJ could not rule in Serbia's favor as to Serbia is not arrogant to think the ICJ could not rule otherwise.
I find it interesting that you use "distorted" to characterize his views as your entire post is a distortion of facts.

Independence of Corsica, Bretagne, Guadeloupe, New Caledonia - not illegal.

"On one level he says that Kosovo's reintegration into the rest of Serbia is highly unlikely, but he also does not posit that Kosovo's sovereignty is a fair accompli and that negotiations will have to take place between Belgrade and Pristina. All the more reason to predict a stalemate in which international powers back the special status of Kosovo outside Belgrade's formal jurisdiction, but leave open the likely possibility that international mandate continues.
(Mike, 9 January 2010 17:13) "

Of course there will have to be negotiations, Mike - just not about status. West Germany kept up contacts with East Germany throughout the Cold War without ever recognizing it - such an arrangement was offered by the Troika to Serbia and Kosovo, but neither side was interested.

And of course internationals will be there for a while - the Kosovo declaration of independence recognized as much.

Expect to see more of Serbia's friends come to break the news gently before the ICJ ruling. Even Papandreou was saying just last week that Greece would "follow international law," not that it would never recognize Kosovo.

Your move.

Sounds like: realities on the ground.

Well, then I ask: when will France recognize Abkhazia. Check the realities: a governmment, a parliament, an own armed force, ....

The French Ambassador is speaking out of both sides of hos mouth. On one level he says that Kosovo's reintegration into the rest of Serbia is highly unlikely, but he also does not posit that Kosovo's sovereignty is a fair accompli and that negotiations will have to take place between Belgrade and Pristina. All the more reason to predict a stalemate in which international powers back the special status of Kosovo outside Belgrade's formal jurisdiction, but leave open the likely possibility that international mandate continues.

Amer: "After the South Americans declared their independence, it became the usual way for new countries to be formed - specifically, without the consent of the parent state."

Yes, through war and revolution. Not while a protectorate under an international body which has confirmed that the parent state's legal boundaries include the disputed province.

“I will repeat what President Sarkozy said in Paris to President Tadić—that the recognition of Kosovo will not be a condition for Serbia’s EU association. But I repeat, there will have to be an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia,” the French ambassador said.

So what Mr.Terral is saying is if you don't want to recognize Kosovo nobody will force you to do so.But if Serbia wants to become a member of the EU it should come up with an agreement acceptable to Pristina also. So the ball is in Serbia's court. Mr.Terral is saying the same thing that the Spanish ambassador said yesterday.New negotiations yes but not the kind you Serbs dream about.

Mais non M. Terral. Read the law. This is a ridiculous statement that any sovereign nation can legally recognise the idependence of a province in another sovereign nation.
(kate, 9 January 2010 15:05)

Kate, I was trying follow your advice and read the law, but could not find it. Can you please illuminate were we can find it please. I.e. which is this international (not domestic) law that forbids a sovereign state to recognize another state if it so wishes ?

here we go again foreign leaders poking serbias eye again just like last year 4 the entire year until the end ,i would like to say serbia does not need france for anything we can live with out you you ways are not ours and ours are not yours so please keep your comments to your selves mr ambassador since we all know that you are a good friend of the provincial kosovo gov ,bon soir sir

The recognition of the UDI was a mistake.

France will stand by its mistakes.

Of course there will have to be negotiations, Mike - just not about status. West Germany kept up contacts with East Germany throughout the Cold War without ever recognizing it...
(Amer, 9 January 2010 18:29)
--
Tell me what negotiations Belgrade needs to have with Pristina apart from those regarding status? Remember, The Germanys ended up reuniting so what is your point?

Regardless of the ICJ decision, the point of this suit is to restart negotiations and even France is hinting at that.

Serbia will not exchange Kosovo for EU membership and without Serbia, the EU loses the Balkans. Isn't it obvious that the EU/US are stuck and Serbia holds the key?

“West Germany kept up contacts with East Germany throughout the Cold War without ever recognizing it - such an arrangement was offered by the Troika to Serbia and Kosovo, but neither side was interested.” (Amer)

-- Probably because of the fact that both sides knew they had an Ace in the Hole to stonewall. Even nearly two years after UDI, Kosovo’s “status” is largely existent on paper, with no “supporter” pressuring Serbia to recognize, let alone keep out of Mitrovica. You wrote in your own comment Pristina’s UDI mentioned in the same breath the indefinite need of international aid and support – which severely weakens understandings of sovereignty in the formal sense. To be fair, I really didn’t think Belgrade was going to hold out this long and I really didn’t think Kosovo’s ambiguity would have lasted as long as it has. But with a series of agreements between Belgrade and EULEX that circumvent Pristina, “status” is becoming more and more an international mandate where everyone and no one gets what they want.

”Expect to see more of Serbia's friends come to break the news gently before the ICJ ruling. Even Papandreou was saying just last week that Greece would "follow international law," not that it would never recognize Kosovo.” (Amer)

-- I wouldn’t be so sure. There’s been a lot of chatter among Albanians of murmurings in Athens about a possible recognition, but Papandreou stated that “its unilateral recognition is a flagrant violation of international law and added that Greece's insistence on international law is a profoundly patriotic stance.”

http://www.greekembassy.org/embassy/Content/en/Article.aspx?office=3&folder=361&article=23043

Granted, a part of me feels that of the 5 Naysayers, Greece could be the first to cave. But I doubt that’s going to happen in light of an ambiguous ruling. And they can simply state that if Belgrade’s not forced to recognize, why should Athens? You know how the international community compromises everything to the point of irrationality. To me, it seems that the international community is realizing Kosovo’s status is definitely deadlocked, but nearly all agree it can’t go back directly under Belgrade - and I don’t even think Belgrade wants that. I mean look, I’m from New Jersey and there are times I’d love the Federal Government to come in and take away Camden from us: it’s a blight on our taxes and no one goes there. In fact they can take Trenton too if they desire, along with all our politicians.

We also have to remember that West Germany “agreed to disagree” with DDR, but it ended up swallowing it again. Not a good allegory from standpoint of your argument. Yes negotiations, but I doubt it’s going to be negotiations either side wants. Belgrade may have to “give up” Pristina, Prizren, Pec, etc. But Pristina may have to “give up” KM, Gracanica, Strpce, etc. In the end, neither side really gains or loses anything to what they have/don’t have now. And believe you me, if both sides agree to that, I’ll be jumping for joy and breaking out the moonshine.

The best advice I've seen offered here is to hope Russia doesn't change its mind. And they're in a strange position: defend their position on Abkhazia, or Chechnya?
(Amer, 9 January 2010 18:41)
--
Umm, don't you mean the US/EU defending its position on Kosovo or Georgia? Wasn't the EU's report on Georgia's sovereignty used to help Serbia's case? Will the ICJ open a can of worms? Lets wait and see. :)

Amer: "And as far as being protected by Resolution 1244, that argument fell down when it was shown that on multiple occasions Serbia recognized that it did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."

Well worded, but please show just one example where Serbia has "recognized that it [Res 1244] did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."

Serbs have to accept that they lost kosovo. The EU claims that serbia doesn't have to recognize kosovo, for the moment. But when serbia is close to joining the EU it has to recognize the independence of kosovo. The EU is lying to you because they don't want serbian extremists to catch the power in serbia.
Did you read what some PMs of Germany said? Serbia has to recognise Kosovo or it will never join the EU. They won't let a country that has border problems enter the EU.

It's funny how the west all of a sudden wants to take into consideration "the realities on the ground" in determining whether or not to follow the law. In any other case they would say, "I'm sorry, but the law is the law...."

if the ICJ and the international community allows this injustice to stand, then I say "Welcome, independent republica srpska!"

Jean Francois Terral said that Serbia and Kosovo must reach an AGREEMENT regarding their relations in order to avoid endangering stability in the region.

As far as the ICJ process is concerned, Terral said that it should be noted that the law should correlate closely with reality.
B92

Could you tell us mr Ambassador what would this agreement entail?
Legalising illegality with Serbia agreeing to do away with any claims on Kosovo?

The ICJ interpretation of the law should be based on its interpretation by the UN and nothing else.You cannot interpret international law as you go along.

For some people, France’s wholehearted support for Kosova is nothing short of miraculous.
It would have been totally unconceivable ten years ago, to have predicted the current position of Serbia’s staunchest and historical ally. And the same thing applies to Great Britain and many other European nations.
Under Major, GB for example, was among the most pro Serb westerner counties of Europe.
For me this is a true indication of how far we have come from the days or realpolitik.
Is not that France undertook a giant leap forward to recognise independence as the only feasible solution.
A normative shift did inevitably occurred in post cold war Europe.
In this light, Jean Francois Terral was right to make a casual link between Kosova’s sovereign rights and international norms.
Kosova sovereignty rests on an absolute and popular legitimacy that many European countries have come to recognise as factual.
More time passes, more grounded these realities become, more numerous countries that recognise this reality.
Perceptions like those of our honoured Irishman, represent oddities, precisely because they are not interested in reality but in rhetoric.

"Why not just make your own solid argument - could it be because everyone knows that whatever the decision of the ICJ, Serbia is on very solid ground legally?

(kate, 9 January 2010 17:27)"

Declarations of independence - not conjoined with any other act against international law - are a matter of indifference to international law. (Domestic - Serbian - law is not relevant here.) Even Serbia had to admit as much. And as far as being protected by Resolution 1244, that argument fell down when it was shown that on multiple occasions Serbia recognized that it did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent.

The best advice I've seen offered here is to hope Russia doesn't change its mind. And they're in a strange position: defend their position on Abkhazia, or Chechnya?

When Corsica separates that will be legal too - hopefully Serbia will be one of the first to recognize them.

Hey, Frenchy! The only reason you want a stable Kosovo is to return your Albanian refugees.
If the Albanians want to better their lives,they could use Kosovo as their ticket to the West. The longer this situation remains unresolved, the longer they have time to show the positive contribution they make to the states they reside in. There must be an potential Einstein or Mozart among them.
Let Thaci and company scam millions and have political celebrity. That will be their reward. Your reward will be a vibrant youthful Albanian people striving to contribute to their host country.
Further, this Albanian diaspora will send Millions of euros back to Kosovo to improve the country.
So, keep it cool, have patience don't force a solution. Let time heal wounds and make memories fade.

Yes, there are all sorts of caveats, but in this case the matter was resolved by the UN resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia's sovereign boundaries and there was no war or immediate threat taking place.
(kate, 9 January 2010 15:05)

This is your opinion, but the FRY (and Serbia as its successor) disagree with you and they don’t think that resolution 1244 contains a position about the full respect for the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So, should we believe you or the FRY (Serbia) authorities ?!!!

(Mike, 9 January 2010 23:16)

"Pristina’s UDI mentioned in the same breath the indefinite need of international aid and support – which severely weakens understandings of sovereignty in the formal sense."

Not necessarily – other countries have required some hand-holding at the beginning – trusts and mandates and so on.

"… Papandreou stated that “its unilateral recognition is a flagrant violation of international law and added that Greece's insistence on international law is a profoundly patriotic stance.”

Mike, look at the date on your source: 12 March 2008!

"Granted, a part of me feels that of the 5 Naysayers, Greece could be the first to cave. But I doubt that’s going to happen in light of an ambiguous ruling."

Who says it's going to be "ambiguous"? Owada said the decision would not be "simply yes or no, for or against." Have you ever seen a court issue a ruling that says "Yes"? Or even "The Court finds for the plaintiff/respondent"? There's always a "reasoning." Since he mentioned "30 pages" it might mean that they have no intention of ruling on whether Kosovo was entitled to "remedial secession," since a discussion of that could take a book (and make China awfully mad).

"And they can simply state that if Belgrade’s not forced to recognize, why should Athens?"

It sounds to me more like they're looking for an excuse to recognize and get back on the good side of the Great Powers and plan to use the ICJ opinion to do so.

"We also have to remember that West Germany “agreed to disagree” with DDR, but it ended up swallowing it again. Not a good allegory [don't you mean analogy??] from standpoint of your argument. "

They were all Germans, for Pete's sake! The East Germans did not voluntarily secede from Germany. (You have heard of how WWII ended, right?)

"Yes negotiations, but I doubt it’s going to be negotiations either side wants. Belgrade may have to “give up” Pristina, Prizren, Pec, etc. But Pristina may have to “give up” KM, Gracanica, Strpce, etc. "

I sincerely doubt this scenario. Mitrovica can't cause any major problems without backing from Serbia, and Serbia's going to have to mind its manners if it wants to get into the EU. In any case, the one thing all sides (including Russia) agreed from the beginning was that Kosovo should not be split up.

Look, at the end of our Revolutionary War about 400,000 Tories left America because they couldn't face living in the new country. People may leave. It's not the end of the world. (I learned about the Tories from a documentary made by a Britisher shown on US TV last Fourth of July: eventually people get over things.)

If the ambassador believes that Kosovo and Serbia should reach an agreement he should agree with me that the appointment of the partial "mediator" Ahtisaari who considered it a principle that Kosovo should never again come under Serbian rule was a big mistake. Once you give one side nearly everything it wants you can't have serious negotiations anymore.

"ICJ will not rule against Kosovo’s independence, but Serbia can join EU without recognizing Kosovo. Now this is an excellent example of western stupidity and the caliber of western diplomacy.
(sj, 10 January 2010 03:21) "

International law is not a collection of simple rules devised by some infinitely wise lawgiver, but codification of "the practice of states," the thinking of experts in the field, writings of jurists ... (There's a list of sources that can be appealed to in the ICJ's Charter.) So things get complicated, and people can argue about what rules apply in specific cases, and to avoid bloodshed they go to court instead of to arms to determine a winner.

Under certain rules - or lack of rules, as in the case of declarations of independence - there simply was no rule or law preventing Kosovo from declaring its independence. But under the rules on the sovereignty of states, other states are free to recognize it, as 64 have already done, or not - as Serbia is free to do. Forever, if it so choses. And the EU will either follow its own rules, or make up new ones where necessary, to deal with the admission of new members - it's their club, after all. Under the existing rules, applicant states have to show they have good relations with their neighbors, but whether this means they have to recognize them is another matter.

-----

(Sreten, 10 January 2010 11:45)

On Russia's "right to recognize" breakaway parts of its neighbors - it all depends. Not if Russia intervenes militarily, without approval (maybe retrospective, as in the case of Nato) from the UNSC. Not if the Russians attempt to annex them. While the peoples involved are under no international law not to try to secede, it's understood - especially by China - that the existing government has a right to try to prevent them from doing so. If the existing government has not been seriously mistreating the people it's unlikely that any other nation will recognize them as an independent state, and Russia will be left with another embarrassment on its hands.
-----
"Once you give one side nearly everything it wants you can't have serious negotiations anymore.
(Wim Roffel, 10 January 2010 14:23)"

Which is why granting Serbia a veto over the outcome, when it said it wouldn't accept any decision that gave Kosovo independence, was impossible.

'Not while a protectorate under an international body which has confirmed that the parent state's legal boundaries include the disputed province.
(kate, 9 January 2010 18:19) '

Resolution 1244 only recognized Serbia's territorial integrity during the interim period. It did not guarantee it forever and under all circumstances, specifically not in the final status. Here the only requirement was that it be in accordance with "the will of the people [of Kosovo]" - nothing about territorial integrity or the consent of Serbia being necessary.

Serbia recognized this prior to the resolution being voted on, and objected vigorously, but their demand was rejected by the Security Council.

Ahtisaari was granted the authority to determine how long negotiations would last. When he decided that talks had broken down irretrievably, he declared them over. (Then the Troika of EU-US-RF gave it a go, and all members agreed.) There was never any requirement that talks be continued indefinitely, until Serbia finally got what it wanted.

So the interim period ended, and Kosovo determined the final status by declaring independence. Which individual countries are free to recognize, or not.

Now all we can do is wait for the ICJ opinion.

ICJ will not rule against Kosovo’s independence, but Serbia can join EU without recognizing Kosovo. Now this is an excellent example of western stupidity and the caliber of western diplomacy.

Serbia will not exchange Kosovo for EU membership and without Serbia, the EU loses the Balkans. Isn't it obvious that the EU/US are stuck and Serbia holds the key?
(Zoran, 9 January 2010 22:34)

This is so funny. Serbia hold the key to nothing. Dont flatter yourself Zoran. Serbia is borowing everyday and produces nothing. the most important is tat Serbia will be forever land locked. No sea ports for the Serbs. EU does not need Serbia. All the other countires can get to Eu and bypass Serbia. I think how it will go down is that Albania in EU before and than Serbia wont get in unless Kosovo recognition.Or they will become another Ukarine in for the ruusians So lets see what happens

Mr French Anbassador, why don't you let the court decide that?

The strategy began in late 1998 when "a huge CIA mission (got) underway in Kosovo." President Miloševic had allowed the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission to enter Kosovo to monitor the situation in the province. This ad hoc group was immediately stuffed with British and American intelligence agents and special forces – men from the CIA, US naval intelligence, the British SAS and something called "14th intelligence," a body within the British army which operates side by side with the SAS "to provide what is known as ‘deep surveillance’." The immediate purpose of this operation was "Intelligence Preparation of Battlefield" – a modern version of what the Duke of Wellington used to do, riding up and down the battlefield to get the lie of the land before engaging the enemy. So as Marshall puts it, "Officially, the KDOM was run by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe … unofficially, the CIA ran (it) … The organisation was just packed with them … It was a CIA front." Many of the officers in fact worked for another CIA front, DynCorp, the Virginia-based company which employs mainly "members of US military elite units, or the CIA," as Marshall says. They used the KDOM, which later became the Kosovo Verification Mission, for espionage. Instead of doing the monitoring tasks assigned to them, officers would go off and use their global positioning devices to locate and identify targets which would be later bombed by Nato. Quite how the Yugoslavs could allow 2,000 highly trained secret service agents to roam around their territory is difficult to understand, especially since, as Marshall shows, they knew perfectly well what was going on.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article163453.html

Serbia you have never lost, you will not lose.

"Wasn't the EU's report on Georgia's sovereignty used to help Serbia's case? "

It was cited - they cited everything imaginable - but it didn't necessarily help them.

Serbia I think is going to start building settlements in Kosovo like Israel is doing in the west bank.

So the interim period ended, and Kosovo determined the final status by declaring independence. Which individual countries are free to recognize, or not.

Now all we can do is wait for the ICJ opinion.
(Amer, 9 January 2010 22:15)

the icj will never rule on serbia's side here. they cannot, because of what serbia did to nearly a million men, women and children of kosovo/a, not to mention in croatia and bosnia.

we can discuss or argue international law and global power politics till we are blue in the face, and never come up with a final, exact answer, as has been pointed out by those who really do possess the expertise. so it will boil down to the long-lasting consequences of belgrade's state terror.

the fact that the french and british govt's changed their policies between bosnia and kosovo/a has a lot to do with the (continuing) disaster in bosnia that was, in part, of their own making. it is an oversimplification, but it has a great deal of truth to it. and that includes the shift in american policy as well.
------------
as for the recent "light" and giddy tone of some of the regular posters, i do think it is a good development. but sorry, too much bad blood and nastiness from the otherside for me to suddenly become all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.

Well worded, but please show just one example where Serbia has "recognized that it [Res 1244] did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."
(kate, 10 January 2010 00:02)

As per official UN records, this happened during the Security Council’s 4011th Meeting, on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 p.m. EST. Minutes before the Council voted to adopt resolution 1244, the interpretation of the resolution by the FRY representative in the meeting Vladislav Jovanovic was the following:

“the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

there is a french funny story about a belge driving on a highway with his wife. there were listening to the radio sying that someone was driving on the opposite sense. Then the husband tells his wife they are wrong because it is not one but thousands...

You undestand the story I hope.

If the ambassador believes that Kosovo and Serbia should reach an agreement he should agree with me that the appointment of the partial "mediator" Ahtisaari who considered it a principle that Kosovo should never again come under Serbian rule was a big mistake. Once you give one side nearly everything it wants you can't have serious negotiations anymore.
(Wim Roffel, 10 January 2010 14:23)

I don't think Kossovo got what it wanted. For example, it had to accept an international presence in Kosovo and also renounce from ever merging with Albania.

'Well worded, but please show just one example where Serbia has "recognized that it [Res 1244] did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."
(kate, 10 January 2010 00:02)'

-------
As early as the Rambouillet negotiations (which served as the basis for Kosovo's being able to declare independence) under 1244:

1. Serbs objected to Rambouillet and accused the "separatist-terrorist delegation of ethnic Albanians" of:

[avoiding] direct talks as it did not give up its separatist goals: to use autonomy as a means for establishing a 'state within a state'; to secure occupation of Serbia through the implementation of the political agreement; to create an ethnically pure Kosovo-Metohija under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy; and **to secure the secession of Kosovo-Metohija from Serbia** with the help of their patrons and through an international protectorate and referendum.
"Conclusions of Serbian parliament". SerbiaInfo. Serbian Government. 24 March
1999.

(There's a pithier quote to the effect "So we have to agree to secession now, or in three years, then." I'll try to find it.)

2. During drafting of Resolution 1244, Serbia requested a change in the
wording to add language calling for "mutual agreement of all parties" (= veto for Serbia): Written Statement of Switzerland, page 15, para. 49:

The minutes of SC meeting on 10 June 1999 indicate that "the FRY requested modification of the wording of Resolution 1244" because the draft resolution "opens up the possibility of **the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."**

3. Objection to 1244 before SC vote, asking for SC not to
pass the resolution:

"Before the resolution was put to the vote, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia made a declaration stating that
“in operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of **the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia**” . (In WS of France, para. 2.26. UN reference S/PV.4011, 10 June 1999, p. 6. )

Merci mr ambasador!
Viva France.

“Laws are not abstract. The recognition of a country is a matter of the sovereignty of the country (that recognizes it). "

In other words it's nobody's bussiness except of a country that decided to recognize something.
It's the matter of their souvereignty and that's all.

Then what was all this about last year when Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abhazia?

FRANCE (since this is French Abassador):

Foreign Minister Bernard Coushner

"This is in violation of international law, of accords for security and cooperation in Europe, of United Nations resolutions, and is completelly unacceptable."

Where to go next?
GERMANY perhaps?

Chancellor Anglea Merkel

"This contradicts the principle of territorial integrity, a principle based on the international law of nations and for this reason it is unacceptable".

FINLAND maybe?

Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb gave us a great pearl

"Recognition of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates fundamental OSCE principles. As all OSCE participating States, Russia is committed to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of others. Russia should follow OSCE principles by respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. The international community cannot accept unilaterally established buffer zones".

Nice going Stubb.
You should talk to this French fellow, as he does not understand that France is OSCE participating state and that it should follow OSCE principles by respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other states.
He seems to be thinking that it's thier own bussiness whom they recognize or not.

And about the statement that international community cannot accept unilaterally established buffer zones...I'm not so sure about that. Many recognized Kosovo.
Have you heard of Ahtisaari?

You could go on and on...
And nobody said that Russia's recognition is its own bussiness and "matter of its souvereignty".
Should Russia decide in the future to support split in Ukraine and recognize eastern Russian-speaking part as independant, will that be considered their own matter?
Then they could develope some bilateral relationship in areas such is defence, where Russia would supply training and weapons to East Ukraine, and everybody (and France too) would simply say it's Russia's bussniess alone?
I don't think so.

'Here is a challenge for you Americans. Invest in Kosovo, bring in Microsoft, GM, Ford and other US corporations to create jobs for the inhabitants and then quote your version of what the ICJ can, will or can’t do.
(sj, 11 January 2010 05:53) '

You've been misinformed as to the U.S. form of government - it doesn't own large corporations and can't tell them where to invest. You have to go to Russia for that.

Kosovo is doing the necessary groundwork by improving its infrastructure, reducing the red-tape involved to set up a business, simplifying its tax-code, educating its young people - business will come, but not at the behest of the U.S. Federal government.

Even though EU will not force Serbia to recognize Kosovo in order to join the Union, EU has Cyprus experience with Turkey, with Cyprus vetoing EU actions related to Turkey's membership negotiations for reasons related to Northern Cyprus.

EU will not repeat Cyprus error when it allowed it to join the Union without the N. Cyprus issue solved and all the headaches with Turkey deriving therefrom. EU is not going to allow Serbia enter EU for Serbia then to veto Kosovo's admission to the EU. Most likely, when Serbia joins the EU, it would have to agree not to veto Kosovo's entry to the EU because of the Kosovo's status dispute (but, of course, it will not be required to recognize it).

(Amer, 10 January 2010 16:39)

Here is a challenge for you Americans. Invest in Kosovo, bring in Microsoft, GM, Ford and other US corporations to create jobs for the inhabitants and then quote your version of what the ICJ can, will or can’t do.

Streten - "And nobody said that Russia's recognition is its own business and "matter of its sovereignty".

Even if, Russia was not very successful in persuading or "buying" other nations to do the same, because the majority of the world could see that Russia's only option was to extend his sphere of influence in the region which they lost after their collapse in the 90-ies.
As a former powerhouse, they are making dipterous efforts to come back - in a way on a different level comparable with Serbia on the Balkans. If you believe what Jeremic claims, is Serbia already back, where it belongs: "the undisputed leader on the Balkans" and "nothing could happen here without Belgrade's consent".

Let's wait and see which EU countries will condition Serbia's recognition of Kosovo before it will become a member. Would Tadic agree, or even Jeremic? Nikolic and Kostunica won't, that's for sure! So what will happen after governmental-elections before 2014? I think that most of the EU-countries will wait with a definitive acceptance of Serbia in the club until the European-path of this country is definite. European politicians love to go after opinion-polls, which at the moment are giving a fifty-fifty situation in the country.

To Amer, Cees and others.

I should not have mentioned Russia at all.
I was just trying to make a point that nobody said that it was Russia's own bussines when they recognized South Ossetia and Abhazia.

I'm concentrating on this statement
"The recognition of a country is a matter of the sovereignty of the country (that recognizes it)."
Is that really so, or Jean Francois Terral is just another spin-doctor?

Well, let's say that he's right. And let's stay in this region.
RS may or may not be on its way to unilaterally declare independence.
Should Serbia recognize it (and at this point I think that it should, in case of such development)will French representative say that it's a matter of Serbian souvereignty or choir will sing again how OSCE rules are being violated etc. etc.?
If Jean Francois Terral truly thinks what he's saying, and if many of the EU countries really believe what they are saying to us, then it's not the problem.
They will then advise Sarajevo government not to attempt to resolve the problem by force. Recognition of RS by Serbia shouldn't be a problem and we could all "agree to disagree".
Terral said that "Kosovo and Serbia will have to reach an agreement in order to regulate their relations in a way that does not represent a problem in the region, starting with Serbia,”
He will then go to say that RS and Bosnia will have to regulate their relations in a way that does not represent a problem in the region, starting with Bosnia, etc. etc.
(Not that it means that Bosnia should recognize RS, they should only cooperate with it).
Again, if these are not empty words and they all truly stand behind their statements, we could be closer to solution for the problems.
But, I doubt that they do, and I doubt that Terral does. He's probably just another hypocrite.

'But, I doubt that they do, and I doubt that Terral does. He's probably just another hypocrite.
(Sreten, 11 January 2010 07:28) '

Life is not as simple as you'd like it to be. Countries have a sovereign right to decide which others to recognize and there's no police to send out if a country recognizes one that is instituted contrary to international law: nobody's attacked Venezuela over its recognition of Abkhazia, for example.

On the other hand - and in their own self-interest - countries are reluctant to recognize as independent portions of other countries that declare themselves independent. In cases where there has been a violation of international law, the UN has in the past called on its members not to recognize "countries" resulting from foreign intervention (Katanga), the breaking of an international agreement (No. Cyprus - think Dayton), or the institution of a racist regime (Rhodesia). And the world went along with the UN's request. (In other cases it simply ignored the self-proclaimed entity, as in the case of those still-born republics on the territory of Croatia and B-H.)

Where a permanent member of the SC is involved - as in the case of Abkhazia - there's not likely to be an official call for nonrecognition even in the case of a violation of international law, of course, but countries will still generally refuse to grant recognition in accordance with the basic law of sovereignty.

So statehood is determined by international recognition, which is within the power of sovereign states to grant or not, as they please, and which they generally do with great reluctance. Everything depends upon the circumstances. What's hypocritical about that?

Hey, K albs,
Wishful thinking and insanity is also not illegal. Try to use force to break out of your limbo and then you will be seen as a dangerous menace to civilised society. Time is on Serbia's side.

Amer.
I can actually agree on this one.
RS should declare independence, and Serbia should recognize it. In the same time it should not recognize Kosovo.
You are right that this would not be hypocritical, as country would only act in its own best interest.

'Amer.
I can actually agree on this one.
RS should declare independence, and Serbia should recognize it. In the same time it should not recognize Kosovo.
You are right that this would not be hypocritical, as country would only act in its own best interest.
(Sreten, 11 January 2010 16:36) '

Nobody is saying Serbia has to formally recognize Kosovo; and it can take its chances on recognizing the RS.

The only problem here would be that the SC might very well rule that RS's declaration of independence is illegal because it violates an international agreement (one signed by Serbia and Russia). In that case, as in the case of No. Cyprus, there could be calls for the rest of the world to refuse to have anything to do with it. Admittedly, this depends on Russia being willing to veto a resolution or two, and it's Russia (not Serbia) that would be called hypocritical, since it's a guarantor of the agreement that would have been violated. Serbia could also forget about joining the EU.

It's up to Serbia to decide what's in its best interest. (And what would be the argument then against Vojvodina leaving, BTW?)

And as for hoping for Russia to save the situation - do you read the Russian papers? They're not nearly as self-assertive as they were even a few months ago. Russia was willing to support Serbia when Serbia was able to pay the price (NIS), but will they be eager to replace the funds - grants, not loans - that are guaranteed from the EU?

You've been misinformed as to the U.S. form of government - it doesn't own large corporations and can't tell them where to invest. You have to go to Russia for that.

Kosovo is doing the necessary groundwork by improving its infrastructure, reducing the red-tape involved to set up a business, simplifying its tax-code, educating its young people - business will come, but not at the behest of the U.S. Federal government.
(Amer, 11 January 2010 15:47)

I understand the US Government extremely well, but I had no idea you didn’t. I think there is no point in discussing this any further as the rest of this diatribe is something straight out of a 1950s comic book.

'I understand the US Government extremely well, but I had no idea you didn’t. I think there is no point in discussing this any further as the rest of this diatribe is something straight out of a 1950s comic book.
(sj, 11 January 2010 22:28) '

Don't you want to take the opportunity to straighten out those who may have been mislead by my comments (check the definition of "diatribe" at some point, why don't you?)- by refuting what was said, for example?

Amer.
Price of such action would probably be forgeting about joining EU.
At this time, however, I would be willing to pay it.

Hey, K albs,
Wishful thinking and insanity is also not illegal. Try to use force to break out of your limbo and then you will be seen as a dangerous menace to civilised society. Time is on Serbia's side.
(tim, 13 January 2010 08:14)

You mean just like Serbia used force in the 90's and what happened? right, got Bombed by Nato, the only european country that got bombed by Nato.

Dardanians dont need to use force, they got what they wanted which they have been trying to get from the past 90+ years.

now mr.ambassador you will learn what kind of experts here in the forum are. They will now instruct you and the French Republic what you have to think and to do and that even the proclamation of the French Republic is illegal and against the international law. So stop putting conditions on serbia, the only acceptable solution is to expel all Albanians from Kosovo and bring Kosovo back under serbian sovereignty and populate it with christian Serbs.

Its not Serbia's position but that of the UN & 3/4 of the Human race & all of the economic powerhouses of the World. If the Court doesnt uphold the will of Humanity, then CRO BiH& Montenegro better look out. Albanians in KiM got their majority by expelling Serbs in Turkish times & under Tito.

"Jean Francois Terral said that Serbia and Kosovo must reach an agreement regarding their relations in order to avoid endangering stability in the region."

Interesting. France is arrogant enough to not even contemplate that the ICJ could find in Serbia's favour on this matter.

Let's wait and see whether the ICJ upholds the law or allows politics and interference to cloud its judgement.

But notice that even France is in favour of new talks to settle the status dispute, even if the ICJ does not find in Serbia's favour.

That means that they also recognise that the status is not settled and the only way forward is by negotiation between Serbia and Kosovo (ie. Serbia and the UN/ EU/ US/ Pristina as an entity).


"The recognition of a country is a matter of the sovereignty of the country (that recognizes it). ..."

Mais non M. Terral. Read the law. This is a ridiculous statement that any sovereign nation can legally recognise the idependence of a province in another sovereign nation.

This is a distortion of the law stating that the sovereign nation within which the province is situated must agree to the independence, before other nations may legally recognise it.

Yes, there are all sorts of caveats, but in this case the matter was resolved by the UN resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia's sovereign boundaries and there was no war or immediate threat taking place.

You cannot use retrospective arguments to claim territory.

FAO: H.E. Jean Francois Terral
Ref: BRITTANY - a peninsular region in NW France

Imagine if Berlin, with the aid of a fatuitous Washington Regime and NATO decided to support and train a previously illegal terrorist organisation in Brittany.
Imagine if the aforementioned 'axis of evil' used their formidable powers of international media manipulation and military force to enable Brittany to break away from the rest of France in order to become an Islamic cesspit of coruption, drug and people trafficing.
Imagine if this 'axis' slandered, scandalised and murdered the French Nation to the extent that they have done to Serbia.

In the above scenario, I don't think that H.E. Monsieur Terral would hold the same contentions as those he has shared in this article.

(Apologies to my Breton cousins)

MB,Ireland

here we go again foreign leaders poking serbias eye again just like last year 4 the entire year until the end ,i would like to say serbia does not need france for anything we can live with out you you ways are not ours and ours are not yours so please keep your comments to your selves mr ambassador since we all know that you are a good friend of the provincial kosovo gov ,bon soir sir

but neither france nor any other comical recognizer will HAVE to take back the recognition of "republic kosovo" when kosmet is liberated.

did france did take back the recognition of former bosnia or former georgia ???

no!

did anyone care?

no!

now mr.ambassador you will learn what kind of experts here in the forum are. They will now instruct you and the French Republic what you have to think and to do and that even the proclamation of the French Republic is illegal and against the international law. So stop putting conditions on serbia, the only acceptable solution is to expel all Albanians from Kosovo and bring Kosovo back under serbian sovereignty and populate it with christian Serbs.
(luis, 9 January 2010 15:15)

It si because of this reason no minority should live under serbian rule.....
Keep it up and we will see Serbia get smaller as years go by

Luis - All of the points raised seem to have flown way over your head. This is not about teaching anyone; it is just about the law and facts.

You can't mix up any of the arguments made on this thread with this nonsense about expelling Albanians. Nobody has said anything about that.

You can't obscure argument with this tabloid drivel. It's no longer 1999 the era of the "Crusaders" - thank God!

Why not just make your own solid argument - could it be because everyone knows that whatever the decision of the ICJ, Serbia is on very solid ground legally?

What a choice for the 'international community' (the 'world series' of politics)... a ruling in Serbia's favour and the protection of international law/ or a ruling in favour of the 'Kosovo Project' in which case all of the structures protecting us will be trashed.

The recognition of the UDI was a mistake.

France will stand by its mistakes.

Sounds like: realities on the ground.

Well, then I ask: when will France recognize Abkhazia. Check the realities: a governmment, a parliament, an own armed force, ....

"Why not just make your own solid argument - could it be because everyone knows that whatever the decision of the ICJ, Serbia is on very solid ground legally?

(kate, 9 January 2010 17:27)"

Declarations of independence - not conjoined with any other act against international law - are a matter of indifference to international law. (Domestic - Serbian - law is not relevant here.) Even Serbia had to admit as much. And as far as being protected by Resolution 1244, that argument fell down when it was shown that on multiple occasions Serbia recognized that it did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent.

The best advice I've seen offered here is to hope Russia doesn't change its mind. And they're in a strange position: defend their position on Abkhazia, or Chechnya?

The French Ambassador is speaking out of both sides of hos mouth. On one level he says that Kosovo's reintegration into the rest of Serbia is highly unlikely, but he also does not posit that Kosovo's sovereignty is a fair accompli and that negotiations will have to take place between Belgrade and Pristina. All the more reason to predict a stalemate in which international powers back the special status of Kosovo outside Belgrade's formal jurisdiction, but leave open the likely possibility that international mandate continues.

'This is a distortion of the law stating that the sovereign nation within which the province is situated must agree to the independence, before other nations may legally recognise it.

(kate, 9 January 2010 15:05) '

And which law would that be, Kate? That was the customary law before the Americans declared independence of Britain, at which time the question was widely debated. After the South Americans declared their independence, it became the usual way for new countries to be formed - specifically, without the consent of the parent state.

If the ambassador believes that Kosovo and Serbia should reach an agreement he should agree with me that the appointment of the partial "mediator" Ahtisaari who considered it a principle that Kosovo should never again come under Serbian rule was a big mistake. Once you give one side nearly everything it wants you can't have serious negotiations anymore.

Serbs have to accept that they lost kosovo. The EU claims that serbia doesn't have to recognize kosovo, for the moment. But when serbia is close to joining the EU it has to recognize the independence of kosovo. The EU is lying to you because they don't want serbian extremists to catch the power in serbia.
Did you read what some PMs of Germany said? Serbia has to recognise Kosovo or it will never join the EU. They won't let a country that has border problems enter the EU.

For some people, France’s wholehearted support for Kosova is nothing short of miraculous.
It would have been totally unconceivable ten years ago, to have predicted the current position of Serbia’s staunchest and historical ally. And the same thing applies to Great Britain and many other European nations.
Under Major, GB for example, was among the most pro Serb westerner counties of Europe.
For me this is a true indication of how far we have come from the days or realpolitik.
Is not that France undertook a giant leap forward to recognise independence as the only feasible solution.
A normative shift did inevitably occurred in post cold war Europe.
In this light, Jean Francois Terral was right to make a casual link between Kosova’s sovereign rights and international norms.
Kosova sovereignty rests on an absolute and popular legitimacy that many European countries have come to recognise as factual.
More time passes, more grounded these realities become, more numerous countries that recognise this reality.
Perceptions like those of our honoured Irishman, represent oddities, precisely because they are not interested in reality but in rhetoric.

Serbia I think is going to start building settlements in Kosovo like Israel is doing in the west bank.

The typical and usual double french language...

"On one level he says that Kosovo's reintegration into the rest of Serbia is highly unlikely, but he also does not posit that Kosovo's sovereignty is a fair accompli and that negotiations will have to take place between Belgrade and Pristina. All the more reason to predict a stalemate in which international powers back the special status of Kosovo outside Belgrade's formal jurisdiction, but leave open the likely possibility that international mandate continues.
(Mike, 9 January 2010 17:13) "

Of course there will have to be negotiations, Mike - just not about status. West Germany kept up contacts with East Germany throughout the Cold War without ever recognizing it - such an arrangement was offered by the Troika to Serbia and Kosovo, but neither side was interested.

And of course internationals will be there for a while - the Kosovo declaration of independence recognized as much.

Expect to see more of Serbia's friends come to break the news gently before the ICJ ruling. Even Papandreou was saying just last week that Greece would "follow international law," not that it would never recognize Kosovo.

Your move.

Amer: "And as far as being protected by Resolution 1244, that argument fell down when it was shown that on multiple occasions Serbia recognized that it did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."

Well worded, but please show just one example where Serbia has "recognized that it [Res 1244] did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."

So the interim period ended, and Kosovo determined the final status by declaring independence. Which individual countries are free to recognize, or not.

Now all we can do is wait for the ICJ opinion.
(Amer, 9 January 2010 22:15)

the icj will never rule on serbia's side here. they cannot, because of what serbia did to nearly a million men, women and children of kosovo/a, not to mention in croatia and bosnia.

we can discuss or argue international law and global power politics till we are blue in the face, and never come up with a final, exact answer, as has been pointed out by those who really do possess the expertise. so it will boil down to the long-lasting consequences of belgrade's state terror.

the fact that the french and british govt's changed their policies between bosnia and kosovo/a has a lot to do with the (continuing) disaster in bosnia that was, in part, of their own making. it is an oversimplification, but it has a great deal of truth to it. and that includes the shift in american policy as well.
------------
as for the recent "light" and giddy tone of some of the regular posters, i do think it is a good development. but sorry, too much bad blood and nastiness from the otherside for me to suddenly become all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.

"Jean Francois Terral said that Serbia and Kosovo must reach an agreement regarding their relations in order to avoid endangering stability in the region."

Interesting. France is arrogant enough to not even contemplate that the ICJ could find in Serbia's favour on this matter.

Let's wait and see whether the ICJ upholds the law or allows politics and interference to cloud its judgement.

But notice that even France is in favour of new talks to settle the status dispute, even if the ICJ does not find in Serbia's favour.

That means that they also recognise that the status is not settled and the only way forward is by negotiation between Serbia and Kosovo (ie. Serbia and the UN/ EU/ US/ Pristina as an entity).
kate,
In no way did he imply that status was not settled, he did say that Kosovo and Serba would have to settle dispute inorder to maintain peace in the region.(Starting with Serbia)
France is arrogant to think that the ICJ could not rule in Serbia's favor as to Serbia is not arrogant to think the ICJ could not rule otherwise.
I find it interesting that you use "distorted" to characterize his views as your entire post is a distortion of facts.

Amer: "After the South Americans declared their independence, it became the usual way for new countries to be formed - specifically, without the consent of the parent state."

Yes, through war and revolution. Not while a protectorate under an international body which has confirmed that the parent state's legal boundaries include the disputed province.

“I will repeat what President Sarkozy said in Paris to President Tadić—that the recognition of Kosovo will not be a condition for Serbia’s EU association. But I repeat, there will have to be an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia,” the French ambassador said.

So what Mr.Terral is saying is if you don't want to recognize Kosovo nobody will force you to do so.But if Serbia wants to become a member of the EU it should come up with an agreement acceptable to Pristina also. So the ball is in Serbia's court. Mr.Terral is saying the same thing that the Spanish ambassador said yesterday.New negotiations yes but not the kind you Serbs dream about.

Of course there will have to be negotiations, Mike - just not about status. West Germany kept up contacts with East Germany throughout the Cold War without ever recognizing it...
(Amer, 9 January 2010 18:29)
--
Tell me what negotiations Belgrade needs to have with Pristina apart from those regarding status? Remember, The Germanys ended up reuniting so what is your point?

Regardless of the ICJ decision, the point of this suit is to restart negotiations and even France is hinting at that.

Serbia will not exchange Kosovo for EU membership and without Serbia, the EU loses the Balkans. Isn't it obvious that the EU/US are stuck and Serbia holds the key?

Jean Francois Terral said that Serbia and Kosovo must reach an AGREEMENT regarding their relations in order to avoid endangering stability in the region.

As far as the ICJ process is concerned, Terral said that it should be noted that the law should correlate closely with reality.
B92

Could you tell us mr Ambassador what would this agreement entail?
Legalising illegality with Serbia agreeing to do away with any claims on Kosovo?

The ICJ interpretation of the law should be based on its interpretation by the UN and nothing else.You cannot interpret international law as you go along.

Mr French Anbassador, why don't you let the court decide that?

“Laws are not abstract. The recognition of a country is a matter of the sovereignty of the country (that recognizes it). "

In other words it's nobody's bussiness except of a country that decided to recognize something.
It's the matter of their souvereignty and that's all.

Then what was all this about last year when Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abhazia?

FRANCE (since this is French Abassador):

Foreign Minister Bernard Coushner

"This is in violation of international law, of accords for security and cooperation in Europe, of United Nations resolutions, and is completelly unacceptable."

Where to go next?
GERMANY perhaps?

Chancellor Anglea Merkel

"This contradicts the principle of territorial integrity, a principle based on the international law of nations and for this reason it is unacceptable".

FINLAND maybe?

Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb gave us a great pearl

"Recognition of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates fundamental OSCE principles. As all OSCE participating States, Russia is committed to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of others. Russia should follow OSCE principles by respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. The international community cannot accept unilaterally established buffer zones".

Nice going Stubb.
You should talk to this French fellow, as he does not understand that France is OSCE participating state and that it should follow OSCE principles by respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other states.
He seems to be thinking that it's thier own bussiness whom they recognize or not.

And about the statement that international community cannot accept unilaterally established buffer zones...I'm not so sure about that. Many recognized Kosovo.
Have you heard of Ahtisaari?

You could go on and on...
And nobody said that Russia's recognition is its own bussiness and "matter of its souvereignty".
Should Russia decide in the future to support split in Ukraine and recognize eastern Russian-speaking part as independant, will that be considered their own matter?
Then they could develope some bilateral relationship in areas such is defence, where Russia would supply training and weapons to East Ukraine, and everybody (and France too) would simply say it's Russia's bussniess alone?
I don't think so.

'Not while a protectorate under an international body which has confirmed that the parent state's legal boundaries include the disputed province.
(kate, 9 January 2010 18:19) '

Resolution 1244 only recognized Serbia's territorial integrity during the interim period. It did not guarantee it forever and under all circumstances, specifically not in the final status. Here the only requirement was that it be in accordance with "the will of the people [of Kosovo]" - nothing about territorial integrity or the consent of Serbia being necessary.

Serbia recognized this prior to the resolution being voted on, and objected vigorously, but their demand was rejected by the Security Council.

Ahtisaari was granted the authority to determine how long negotiations would last. When he decided that talks had broken down irretrievably, he declared them over. (Then the Troika of EU-US-RF gave it a go, and all members agreed.) There was never any requirement that talks be continued indefinitely, until Serbia finally got what it wanted.

So the interim period ended, and Kosovo determined the final status by declaring independence. Which individual countries are free to recognize, or not.

Now all we can do is wait for the ICJ opinion.

The strategy began in late 1998 when "a huge CIA mission (got) underway in Kosovo." President Miloševic had allowed the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission to enter Kosovo to monitor the situation in the province. This ad hoc group was immediately stuffed with British and American intelligence agents and special forces – men from the CIA, US naval intelligence, the British SAS and something called "14th intelligence," a body within the British army which operates side by side with the SAS "to provide what is known as ‘deep surveillance’." The immediate purpose of this operation was "Intelligence Preparation of Battlefield" – a modern version of what the Duke of Wellington used to do, riding up and down the battlefield to get the lie of the land before engaging the enemy. So as Marshall puts it, "Officially, the KDOM was run by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe … unofficially, the CIA ran (it) … The organisation was just packed with them … It was a CIA front." Many of the officers in fact worked for another CIA front, DynCorp, the Virginia-based company which employs mainly "members of US military elite units, or the CIA," as Marshall says. They used the KDOM, which later became the Kosovo Verification Mission, for espionage. Instead of doing the monitoring tasks assigned to them, officers would go off and use their global positioning devices to locate and identify targets which would be later bombed by Nato. Quite how the Yugoslavs could allow 2,000 highly trained secret service agents to roam around their territory is difficult to understand, especially since, as Marshall shows, they knew perfectly well what was going on.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article163453.html

Serbia you have never lost, you will not lose.

“West Germany kept up contacts with East Germany throughout the Cold War without ever recognizing it - such an arrangement was offered by the Troika to Serbia and Kosovo, but neither side was interested.” (Amer)

-- Probably because of the fact that both sides knew they had an Ace in the Hole to stonewall. Even nearly two years after UDI, Kosovo’s “status” is largely existent on paper, with no “supporter” pressuring Serbia to recognize, let alone keep out of Mitrovica. You wrote in your own comment Pristina’s UDI mentioned in the same breath the indefinite need of international aid and support – which severely weakens understandings of sovereignty in the formal sense. To be fair, I really didn’t think Belgrade was going to hold out this long and I really didn’t think Kosovo’s ambiguity would have lasted as long as it has. But with a series of agreements between Belgrade and EULEX that circumvent Pristina, “status” is becoming more and more an international mandate where everyone and no one gets what they want.

”Expect to see more of Serbia's friends come to break the news gently before the ICJ ruling. Even Papandreou was saying just last week that Greece would "follow international law," not that it would never recognize Kosovo.” (Amer)

-- I wouldn’t be so sure. There’s been a lot of chatter among Albanians of murmurings in Athens about a possible recognition, but Papandreou stated that “its unilateral recognition is a flagrant violation of international law and added that Greece's insistence on international law is a profoundly patriotic stance.”

http://www.greekembassy.org/embassy/Content/en/Article.aspx?office=3&folder=361&article=23043

Granted, a part of me feels that of the 5 Naysayers, Greece could be the first to cave. But I doubt that’s going to happen in light of an ambiguous ruling. And they can simply state that if Belgrade’s not forced to recognize, why should Athens? You know how the international community compromises everything to the point of irrationality. To me, it seems that the international community is realizing Kosovo’s status is definitely deadlocked, but nearly all agree it can’t go back directly under Belgrade - and I don’t even think Belgrade wants that. I mean look, I’m from New Jersey and there are times I’d love the Federal Government to come in and take away Camden from us: it’s a blight on our taxes and no one goes there. In fact they can take Trenton too if they desire, along with all our politicians.

We also have to remember that West Germany “agreed to disagree” with DDR, but it ended up swallowing it again. Not a good allegory from standpoint of your argument. Yes negotiations, but I doubt it’s going to be negotiations either side wants. Belgrade may have to “give up” Pristina, Prizren, Pec, etc. But Pristina may have to “give up” KM, Gracanica, Strpce, etc. In the end, neither side really gains or loses anything to what they have/don’t have now. And believe you me, if both sides agree to that, I’ll be jumping for joy and breaking out the moonshine.

It's funny how the west all of a sudden wants to take into consideration "the realities on the ground" in determining whether or not to follow the law. In any other case they would say, "I'm sorry, but the law is the law...."

if the ICJ and the international community allows this injustice to stand, then I say "Welcome, independent republica srpska!"

The best advice I've seen offered here is to hope Russia doesn't change its mind. And they're in a strange position: defend their position on Abkhazia, or Chechnya?
(Amer, 9 January 2010 18:41)
--
Umm, don't you mean the US/EU defending its position on Kosovo or Georgia? Wasn't the EU's report on Georgia's sovereignty used to help Serbia's case? Will the ICJ open a can of worms? Lets wait and see. :)

Hey, Frenchy! The only reason you want a stable Kosovo is to return your Albanian refugees.
If the Albanians want to better their lives,they could use Kosovo as their ticket to the West. The longer this situation remains unresolved, the longer they have time to show the positive contribution they make to the states they reside in. There must be an potential Einstein or Mozart among them.
Let Thaci and company scam millions and have political celebrity. That will be their reward. Your reward will be a vibrant youthful Albanian people striving to contribute to their host country.
Further, this Albanian diaspora will send Millions of euros back to Kosovo to improve the country.
So, keep it cool, have patience don't force a solution. Let time heal wounds and make memories fade.

"...the only acceptable solution is to expel all Albanians from Kosovo and bring Kosovo back under serbian sovereignty and populate it with christian Serbs."

Sarcasm aside, luis.
Wasn't expelling one ethnic group only acceptable solution in Croatia? And same was attempted in Bosnia.
All so that former Yugoslavian republics will be unified.
I say unified, as Serbs in Bosnia, for example, signed Lisbon Agreement before the war accepting autonomy in Bosnia. Then they were given none, as nobody thought that any autonomy should be given. Even asking for it was considered "nationalistic extremisam".
Then Albanians in Kosovo demand independence only, and stop talking about war.
In 1998 Milosevic oferred direct talks to Ibrahim Rugova. He refused to talk unless talks will be about independence only.
This was not considered "nationalistic extremisam" appearantly.
Guy asked for independence, after all, not for autonomy (and that would be nationalistic extremisam).

Back to the subject.
No, expelling ethnic group would not be only solution.
How about limited autonomy?
Or how about allowing RS to gain independence from Bosnia unilaterally?
Be creative.

Independence of Corsica, Bretagne, Guadeloupe, New Caledonia - not illegal.

Mais non M. Terral. Read the law. This is a ridiculous statement that any sovereign nation can legally recognise the idependence of a province in another sovereign nation.
(kate, 9 January 2010 15:05)

Kate, I was trying follow your advice and read the law, but could not find it. Can you please illuminate were we can find it please. I.e. which is this international (not domestic) law that forbids a sovereign state to recognize another state if it so wishes ?

Serbia will not exchange Kosovo for EU membership and without Serbia, the EU loses the Balkans. Isn't it obvious that the EU/US are stuck and Serbia holds the key?
(Zoran, 9 January 2010 22:34)

This is so funny. Serbia hold the key to nothing. Dont flatter yourself Zoran. Serbia is borowing everyday and produces nothing. the most important is tat Serbia will be forever land locked. No sea ports for the Serbs. EU does not need Serbia. All the other countires can get to Eu and bypass Serbia. I think how it will go down is that Albania in EU before and than Serbia wont get in unless Kosovo recognition.Or they will become another Ukarine in for the ruusians So lets see what happens

Yes, there are all sorts of caveats, but in this case the matter was resolved by the UN resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia's sovereign boundaries and there was no war or immediate threat taking place.
(kate, 9 January 2010 15:05)

This is your opinion, but the FRY (and Serbia as its successor) disagree with you and they don’t think that resolution 1244 contains a position about the full respect for the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So, should we believe you or the FRY (Serbia) authorities ?!!!

"ICJ will not rule against Kosovo’s independence, but Serbia can join EU without recognizing Kosovo. Now this is an excellent example of western stupidity and the caliber of western diplomacy.
(sj, 10 January 2010 03:21) "

International law is not a collection of simple rules devised by some infinitely wise lawgiver, but codification of "the practice of states," the thinking of experts in the field, writings of jurists ... (There's a list of sources that can be appealed to in the ICJ's Charter.) So things get complicated, and people can argue about what rules apply in specific cases, and to avoid bloodshed they go to court instead of to arms to determine a winner.

Under certain rules - or lack of rules, as in the case of declarations of independence - there simply was no rule or law preventing Kosovo from declaring its independence. But under the rules on the sovereignty of states, other states are free to recognize it, as 64 have already done, or not - as Serbia is free to do. Forever, if it so choses. And the EU will either follow its own rules, or make up new ones where necessary, to deal with the admission of new members - it's their club, after all. Under the existing rules, applicant states have to show they have good relations with their neighbors, but whether this means they have to recognize them is another matter.

-----

(Sreten, 10 January 2010 11:45)

On Russia's "right to recognize" breakaway parts of its neighbors - it all depends. Not if Russia intervenes militarily, without approval (maybe retrospective, as in the case of Nato) from the UNSC. Not if the Russians attempt to annex them. While the peoples involved are under no international law not to try to secede, it's understood - especially by China - that the existing government has a right to try to prevent them from doing so. If the existing government has not been seriously mistreating the people it's unlikely that any other nation will recognize them as an independent state, and Russia will be left with another embarrassment on its hands.
-----
"Once you give one side nearly everything it wants you can't have serious negotiations anymore.
(Wim Roffel, 10 January 2010 14:23)"

Which is why granting Serbia a veto over the outcome, when it said it wouldn't accept any decision that gave Kosovo independence, was impossible.

When Corsica separates that will be legal too - hopefully Serbia will be one of the first to recognize them.

ICJ will not rule against Kosovo’s independence, but Serbia can join EU without recognizing Kosovo. Now this is an excellent example of western stupidity and the caliber of western diplomacy.

'Well worded, but please show just one example where Serbia has "recognized that it [Res 1244] did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."
(kate, 10 January 2010 00:02)'

-------
As early as the Rambouillet negotiations (which served as the basis for Kosovo's being able to declare independence) under 1244:

1. Serbs objected to Rambouillet and accused the "separatist-terrorist delegation of ethnic Albanians" of:

[avoiding] direct talks as it did not give up its separatist goals: to use autonomy as a means for establishing a 'state within a state'; to secure occupation of Serbia through the implementation of the political agreement; to create an ethnically pure Kosovo-Metohija under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy; and **to secure the secession of Kosovo-Metohija from Serbia** with the help of their patrons and through an international protectorate and referendum.
"Conclusions of Serbian parliament". SerbiaInfo. Serbian Government. 24 March
1999.

(There's a pithier quote to the effect "So we have to agree to secession now, or in three years, then." I'll try to find it.)

2. During drafting of Resolution 1244, Serbia requested a change in the
wording to add language calling for "mutual agreement of all parties" (= veto for Serbia): Written Statement of Switzerland, page 15, para. 49:

The minutes of SC meeting on 10 June 1999 indicate that "the FRY requested modification of the wording of Resolution 1244" because the draft resolution "opens up the possibility of **the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."**

3. Objection to 1244 before SC vote, asking for SC not to
pass the resolution:

"Before the resolution was put to the vote, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia made a declaration stating that
“in operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of **the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia**” . (In WS of France, para. 2.26. UN reference S/PV.4011, 10 June 1999, p. 6. )

"Wasn't the EU's report on Georgia's sovereignty used to help Serbia's case? "

It was cited - they cited everything imaginable - but it didn't necessarily help them.

(Mike, 9 January 2010 23:16)

"Pristina’s UDI mentioned in the same breath the indefinite need of international aid and support – which severely weakens understandings of sovereignty in the formal sense."

Not necessarily – other countries have required some hand-holding at the beginning – trusts and mandates and so on.

"… Papandreou stated that “its unilateral recognition is a flagrant violation of international law and added that Greece's insistence on international law is a profoundly patriotic stance.”

Mike, look at the date on your source: 12 March 2008!

"Granted, a part of me feels that of the 5 Naysayers, Greece could be the first to cave. But I doubt that’s going to happen in light of an ambiguous ruling."

Who says it's going to be "ambiguous"? Owada said the decision would not be "simply yes or no, for or against." Have you ever seen a court issue a ruling that says "Yes"? Or even "The Court finds for the plaintiff/respondent"? There's always a "reasoning." Since he mentioned "30 pages" it might mean that they have no intention of ruling on whether Kosovo was entitled to "remedial secession," since a discussion of that could take a book (and make China awfully mad).

"And they can simply state that if Belgrade’s not forced to recognize, why should Athens?"

It sounds to me more like they're looking for an excuse to recognize and get back on the good side of the Great Powers and plan to use the ICJ opinion to do so.

"We also have to remember that West Germany “agreed to disagree” with DDR, but it ended up swallowing it again. Not a good allegory [don't you mean analogy??] from standpoint of your argument. "

They were all Germans, for Pete's sake! The East Germans did not voluntarily secede from Germany. (You have heard of how WWII ended, right?)

"Yes negotiations, but I doubt it’s going to be negotiations either side wants. Belgrade may have to “give up” Pristina, Prizren, Pec, etc. But Pristina may have to “give up” KM, Gracanica, Strpce, etc. "

I sincerely doubt this scenario. Mitrovica can't cause any major problems without backing from Serbia, and Serbia's going to have to mind its manners if it wants to get into the EU. In any case, the one thing all sides (including Russia) agreed from the beginning was that Kosovo should not be split up.

Look, at the end of our Revolutionary War about 400,000 Tories left America because they couldn't face living in the new country. People may leave. It's not the end of the world. (I learned about the Tories from a documentary made by a Britisher shown on US TV last Fourth of July: eventually people get over things.)

there is a french funny story about a belge driving on a highway with his wife. there were listening to the radio sying that someone was driving on the opposite sense. Then the husband tells his wife they are wrong because it is not one but thousands...

You undestand the story I hope.

Even though EU will not force Serbia to recognize Kosovo in order to join the Union, EU has Cyprus experience with Turkey, with Cyprus vetoing EU actions related to Turkey's membership negotiations for reasons related to Northern Cyprus.

EU will not repeat Cyprus error when it allowed it to join the Union without the N. Cyprus issue solved and all the headaches with Turkey deriving therefrom. EU is not going to allow Serbia enter EU for Serbia then to veto Kosovo's admission to the EU. Most likely, when Serbia joins the EU, it would have to agree not to veto Kosovo's entry to the EU because of the Kosovo's status dispute (but, of course, it will not be required to recognize it).

Merci mr ambasador!
Viva France.

To Amer, Cees and others.

I should not have mentioned Russia at all.
I was just trying to make a point that nobody said that it was Russia's own bussines when they recognized South Ossetia and Abhazia.

I'm concentrating on this statement
"The recognition of a country is a matter of the sovereignty of the country (that recognizes it)."
Is that really so, or Jean Francois Terral is just another spin-doctor?

Well, let's say that he's right. And let's stay in this region.
RS may or may not be on its way to unilaterally declare independence.
Should Serbia recognize it (and at this point I think that it should, in case of such development)will French representative say that it's a matter of Serbian souvereignty or choir will sing again how OSCE rules are being violated etc. etc.?
If Jean Francois Terral truly thinks what he's saying, and if many of the EU countries really believe what they are saying to us, then it's not the problem.
They will then advise Sarajevo government not to attempt to resolve the problem by force. Recognition of RS by Serbia shouldn't be a problem and we could all "agree to disagree".
Terral said that "Kosovo and Serbia will have to reach an agreement in order to regulate their relations in a way that does not represent a problem in the region, starting with Serbia,”
He will then go to say that RS and Bosnia will have to regulate their relations in a way that does not represent a problem in the region, starting with Bosnia, etc. etc.
(Not that it means that Bosnia should recognize RS, they should only cooperate with it).
Again, if these are not empty words and they all truly stand behind their statements, we could be closer to solution for the problems.
But, I doubt that they do, and I doubt that Terral does. He's probably just another hypocrite.

Well worded, but please show just one example where Serbia has "recognized that it [Res 1244] did not preclude Kosovo's independence or require Serbia's consent."
(kate, 10 January 2010 00:02)

As per official UN records, this happened during the Security Council’s 4011th Meeting, on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 p.m. EST. Minutes before the Council voted to adopt resolution 1244, the interpretation of the resolution by the FRY representative in the meeting Vladislav Jovanovic was the following:

“the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

Streten - "And nobody said that Russia's recognition is its own business and "matter of its sovereignty".

Even if, Russia was not very successful in persuading or "buying" other nations to do the same, because the majority of the world could see that Russia's only option was to extend his sphere of influence in the region which they lost after their collapse in the 90-ies.
As a former powerhouse, they are making dipterous efforts to come back - in a way on a different level comparable with Serbia on the Balkans. If you believe what Jeremic claims, is Serbia already back, where it belongs: "the undisputed leader on the Balkans" and "nothing could happen here without Belgrade's consent".

Let's wait and see which EU countries will condition Serbia's recognition of Kosovo before it will become a member. Would Tadic agree, or even Jeremic? Nikolic and Kostunica won't, that's for sure! So what will happen after governmental-elections before 2014? I think that most of the EU-countries will wait with a definitive acceptance of Serbia in the club until the European-path of this country is definite. European politicians love to go after opinion-polls, which at the moment are giving a fifty-fifty situation in the country.

If the ambassador believes that Kosovo and Serbia should reach an agreement he should agree with me that the appointment of the partial "mediator" Ahtisaari who considered it a principle that Kosovo should never again come under Serbian rule was a big mistake. Once you give one side nearly everything it wants you can't have serious negotiations anymore.
(Wim Roffel, 10 January 2010 14:23)

I don't think Kossovo got what it wanted. For example, it had to accept an international presence in Kosovo and also renounce from ever merging with Albania.

You've been misinformed as to the U.S. form of government - it doesn't own large corporations and can't tell them where to invest. You have to go to Russia for that.

Kosovo is doing the necessary groundwork by improving its infrastructure, reducing the red-tape involved to set up a business, simplifying its tax-code, educating its young people - business will come, but not at the behest of the U.S. Federal government.
(Amer, 11 January 2010 15:47)

I understand the US Government extremely well, but I had no idea you didn’t. I think there is no point in discussing this any further as the rest of this diatribe is something straight out of a 1950s comic book.

Hey, K albs,
Wishful thinking and insanity is also not illegal. Try to use force to break out of your limbo and then you will be seen as a dangerous menace to civilised society. Time is on Serbia's side.

(Amer, 10 January 2010 16:39)

Here is a challenge for you Americans. Invest in Kosovo, bring in Microsoft, GM, Ford and other US corporations to create jobs for the inhabitants and then quote your version of what the ICJ can, will or can’t do.

'But, I doubt that they do, and I doubt that Terral does. He's probably just another hypocrite.
(Sreten, 11 January 2010 07:28) '

Life is not as simple as you'd like it to be. Countries have a sovereign right to decide which others to recognize and there's no police to send out if a country recognizes one that is instituted contrary to international law: nobody's attacked Venezuela over its recognition of Abkhazia, for example.

On the other hand - and in their own self-interest - countries are reluctant to recognize as independent portions of other countries that declare themselves independent. In cases where there has been a violation of international law, the UN has in the past called on its members not to recognize "countries" resulting from foreign intervention (Katanga), the breaking of an international agreement (No. Cyprus - think Dayton), or the institution of a racist regime (Rhodesia). And the world went along with the UN's request. (In other cases it simply ignored the self-proclaimed entity, as in the case of those still-born republics on the territory of Croatia and B-H.)

Where a permanent member of the SC is involved - as in the case of Abkhazia - there's not likely to be an official call for nonrecognition even in the case of a violation of international law, of course, but countries will still generally refuse to grant recognition in accordance with the basic law of sovereignty.

So statehood is determined by international recognition, which is within the power of sovereign states to grant or not, as they please, and which they generally do with great reluctance. Everything depends upon the circumstances. What's hypocritical about that?

'Here is a challenge for you Americans. Invest in Kosovo, bring in Microsoft, GM, Ford and other US corporations to create jobs for the inhabitants and then quote your version of what the ICJ can, will or can’t do.
(sj, 11 January 2010 05:53) '

You've been misinformed as to the U.S. form of government - it doesn't own large corporations and can't tell them where to invest. You have to go to Russia for that.

Kosovo is doing the necessary groundwork by improving its infrastructure, reducing the red-tape involved to set up a business, simplifying its tax-code, educating its young people - business will come, but not at the behest of the U.S. Federal government.

Amer.
I can actually agree on this one.
RS should declare independence, and Serbia should recognize it. In the same time it should not recognize Kosovo.
You are right that this would not be hypocritical, as country would only act in its own best interest.

'Amer.
I can actually agree on this one.
RS should declare independence, and Serbia should recognize it. In the same time it should not recognize Kosovo.
You are right that this would not be hypocritical, as country would only act in its own best interest.
(Sreten, 11 January 2010 16:36) '

Nobody is saying Serbia has to formally recognize Kosovo; and it can take its chances on recognizing the RS.

The only problem here would be that the SC might very well rule that RS's declaration of independence is illegal because it violates an international agreement (one signed by Serbia and Russia). In that case, as in the case of No. Cyprus, there could be calls for the rest of the world to refuse to have anything to do with it. Admittedly, this depends on Russia being willing to veto a resolution or two, and it's Russia (not Serbia) that would be called hypocritical, since it's a guarantor of the agreement that would have been violated. Serbia could also forget about joining the EU.

It's up to Serbia to decide what's in its best interest. (And what would be the argument then against Vojvodina leaving, BTW?)

And as for hoping for Russia to save the situation - do you read the Russian papers? They're not nearly as self-assertive as they were even a few months ago. Russia was willing to support Serbia when Serbia was able to pay the price (NIS), but will they be eager to replace the funds - grants, not loans - that are guaranteed from the EU?

'I understand the US Government extremely well, but I had no idea you didn’t. I think there is no point in discussing this any further as the rest of this diatribe is something straight out of a 1950s comic book.
(sj, 11 January 2010 22:28) '

Don't you want to take the opportunity to straighten out those who may have been mislead by my comments (check the definition of "diatribe" at some point, why don't you?)- by refuting what was said, for example?

Amer.
Price of such action would probably be forgeting about joining EU.
At this time, however, I would be willing to pay it.

Hey, K albs,
Wishful thinking and insanity is also not illegal. Try to use force to break out of your limbo and then you will be seen as a dangerous menace to civilised society. Time is on Serbia's side.
(tim, 13 January 2010 08:14)

You mean just like Serbia used force in the 90's and what happened? right, got Bombed by Nato, the only european country that got bombed by Nato.

Dardanians dont need to use force, they got what they wanted which they have been trying to get from the past 90+ years.