43

Friday, 15.01.2010.

13:12

Serbs in north oppose decentralization

Serb political representatives in northern Kosovo oppose a decentralization plan drafted by the International Civilian Office (ICO) and the Kosovo government.

Izvor: Tanjug

Serbs in north oppose decentralization IMAGE SOURCE
IMAGE DESCRIPTION

43 Komentari

Sortiraj po:

lowe

pre 14 godina

"-- If that was your point then I guess you don't lack the intelligence to understand that when somebody says never it doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be like that. My point is that in Russia, when Finland as an autonomous province declared its independence, there were plenty of them that were swearing to never recognize. I'm going to let you in on something that you should have been aware when we started this debate. When Albania declared its independence there was a state that was stating it would never recognize it because Albania was being build on their old lands. Can you take a wild guess who that state is? I'll help you. It was Serbia that when Albania declared its independence ( while being an autonomous province) Serbia was swearing it would never recognize it. "

Firstly, neither of us can predict whether Serbia will recognize Kosovo in the future. But the point remains that as long as she does not recognize Kosovo, the latter's UDI remains illegal and Kosovo will remain outside the UN. Finland had no problems with UN entry because by the time she applied, the Russians have already recognized her independence.

Secondly, why bring Albania into the discussion? Serbia never had sovereignty over Albania and so whether she decided to recognize Albania or not at that time is irrelevant. However Serbia has sovereignty over Kosovo and this is what makes Kosovo's UDI different from Tirana's independence. You are mixing up apples and oranges!



"--Ok as I've stated before nobody is holding their breaths. As I've pointed out many times before we are more than OK with this. Put any label you want to this situation. We are more than OK with it. The Serb camp isn't.
Second I didn't know you were a psychic who is able to foresee what will happen in the future and able to tell who will become independent and who will not. Also Belgrade is not Russia or China. I am assuming that you don't lack the intelligence to see that depending on how things turn out certain vetoes are not guaranteed for eternity. We had 5 vetoes against us becoming independent when the UN started and now is down to two. You never know what the future holds. It would be extremely naive for us or for the Serb camp for that matter to expect us to drop our will for independence at a moment when we have most of the world's strongest countries with us. Especially considering that we didn't drop our will when we had no support whatsoever.
You are also disregarding the fact that it took decades and decades long wars for these countries to become independent after declaring independence. Its been not even 2 years since we did. Again nobody knows what the future holds.

You are also conveniently forgetting that if autonomy is be valid it will be valid only AFTER Prishtina agrees. You can sign all the paperwork you need with anyone you want. If those 2 million Albanians there do not agree-- there is no autonomy. A state is a social contract between the people and if the people say there is no contract then there is no state. If the Albanians do not agree, Belgrade would wish to have a Taiwan situation. In fact that's what it wants now but it can't have."

After this tirade of yours, the bottom line still remains unchanged: The Russians and Chinese will not allow Kosovo's UN entry because, as they already made clear so many times, this goes against the principle of state sovereignty. So unless and until Kosovo somehow manages to reach an agreement with Belgrade, enjoy your exile outside the UN!

Besides, prior to your UDI, autonomy was what Kosovo had. And unless there is mutual agreement between Belgrade and Pristina change that, the status quo remains legally speaking!

Finally don't kid yourself about Kosovo being anything like Taiwan other than your common exile from UN. Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas Kosovo is in reality a Western colony dependent on your US and EU masters for handouts.



"-- I also challenged you to put you money where your mouth is. Not only you failed miserably but you lack the courage to even talk about the issue. Remember you are the one that claims that one set of people has the right to rule over another set of people even when they've clearly shown to want to rule themselves. Not only that but you claim that such a thing is written in some international law which I have yet to see.
Likewise if you are are to apply your principle that one set of people is entitled under international law to rule over another set of people you would have IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported K-Serbs being under Albanian rule in Kosova ( Kosova even as province within Jugoslavia has had well-defined borders) instead you are now conveniently tampering this support with more conditions. Remember you were the one that espoused this principle right from the start, not me.
Also you are trying to put a spin on issues by putting things I simply do not say. Being anti-religious I purposely avoid using certain words such as sanctity or holly."

Kosovo may have well defined borders under Yugoslavia but the bottom line is still that it is a province of Serbia! This fact is undeniable no matter how much you try to evade it!

Regarding your claim that I had some principle about one people ruling another, I certainly do not subscribe to your interpretation. In any case, all this while I was referring to the principle of state sovereignty and state borders -- the sovereignty and borders of Serbia must be respected. Kosovo itself is now demanding respect for its own borders and sovereignty and yet it has no qualms about doing an UDI to violate Serbia's borders and sovereignty! That's double standards if you ask me!

I cannot care less about your religious affiliation. As far as I know, "sanctity" is a normal English word which does not necessarily have religious connotations. You should check the dictionary before making such desperate, wild accusations!


"--You don't have to buy anything because nobody is trying to sell you anything. This is a conversation. Read it again. In the rush to respond to me you haven't understood what I wrote."

Oh, I understand where you are going alright -- the falsities, half-truths and convenient selective interpretations of 1244 and Rambouillet etc -- of course you should not expense me or anyone else to buy these! (By the way, the word "buy" here is just the conversational English style of saying that something is accepted.)

"-- Yet again a double standard from you. As I've stated earlier if you had been really sincere about the principle of secession you'd support K-Serbs remaining within Kosova UNTIL ALBANIANS AGREE. You yourself stated that the other side has to CONSENT. Just for the record, recognitions for us have come from all corners of the world and not only from the West."

At present the majority of the nations of the world have not recognized your UDI! Don't try to pull another fast one on me because it ain't gonna work!

The question about "Kosova" agreeing (or disagreeing) with K-Serbs' secession attempts is irrelevant in the light of Kosovo being legally a part of Serbia. "Kosova" therefore in the first place has no right to make that kind of demands about the K-Serbs as it is itself legally a part of Serbia and which it illegally breached through its UDI. Kosovo did wrong by breaking away for Serbia and therefore cannot use this illegality to impose any non-secession demands on the K-Serbs!


"As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!"

--While I'll consider your advice, I recommend you listen to your own advices. You have a serious problem in applying what you say to others towards your own self. All you do is point fingers and there is a total lack of self-reflection.
(johny, 21 January 2010 01:00)"

I only point fingers at posts such as yours which are riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths and convenient selective interpretations of documents and situations!

johny

pre 14 godina

"That's exactly my point! Finland's independence had ultimately to be get Russia's consent! Had Russia not agreed, Helsinki would have been left out of the UN up to today, and just like Kosovo!"

-- If that was your point then I guess you don't lack the intelligence to understand that when somebody says never it doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be like that. My point is that in Russia, when Finland as an autonomous province declared its independence, there were plenty of them that were swearing to never recognize. I'm going to let you in on something that you should have been aware when we started this debate. When Albania declared its independence there was a state that was stating it would never recognize it because Albania was being build on their old lands. Can you take a wild guess who that state is? I'll help you. It was Serbia that when Albania declared its independence ( while being an autonomous province) Serbia was swearing it would never recognize it.


"Yes, my point was that the independence of both East Timor and Eritrea became valid only after recgonition by Indonesia and Ethiopia! In the same way, Kosovo's UDI will only be valid AFTER Belgrade agrees -- but I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen if I were you! The Taiwanese couldn't get China's consent for their independence and so they have been shut out of the UN for almost 40 years now!"

--Ok as I've stated before nobody is holding their breaths. As I've pointed out many times before we are more than OK with this. Put any label you want to this situation. We are more than OK with it. The Serb camp isn't.
Second I didn't know you were a psychic who is able to foresee what will happen in the future and able to tell who will become independent and who will not. Also Belgrade is not Russia or China. I am assuming that you don't lack the intelligence to see that depending on how things turn out certain vetoes are not guaranteed for eternity. We had 5 vetoes against us becoming independent when the UN started and now is down to two. You never know what the future holds. It would be extremely naive for us or for the Serb camp for that matter to expect us to drop our will for independence at a moment when we have most of the world's strongest countries with us. Especially considering that we didn't drop our will when we had no support whatsoever.
You are also disregarding the fact that it took decades and decades long wars for these countries to become independent after declaring independence. Its been not even 2 years since we did. Again nobody knows what the future holds.

You are also conveniently forgetting that if autonomy is be valid it will be valid only AFTER Prishtina agrees. You can sign all the paperwork you need with anyone you want. If those 2 million Albanians there do not agree-- there is no autonomy. A state is a social contract between the people and if the people say there is no contract then there is no state. If the Albanians do not agree, Belgrade would wish to have a Taiwan situation. In fact that's what it wants now but it can't have.


"You are trying to fudge the issue. You now conveniently forgot that it was YOU, not me, who trumpeted about the sanctitiy of the principle of the people's will. And yet, you chose to convenielty put conditions (of international support) when it comes to the will of the K-Serbs. To be this is just a flimsy excuse at double standards and avoiding having to apply the will of the people principle for the K-Serbs. If you were really honest about applying this principle to eveyone (and not just for the benefit of the Albanians) you would have IMMEDIATLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported the K-Serbs' secession rights instead of now conveiently tempering this support with more conditions! Remember, YOU were the one who expoused this principle right from the start, not me! I am only challenging you to put your money where your mouth is, and in this I think you have failed miserably!"

-- I also challenged you to put you money where your mouth is. Not only you failed miserably but you lack the courage to even talk about the issue. Remember you are the one that claims that one set of people has the right to rule over another set of people even when they've clearly shown to want to rule themselves. Not only that but you claim that such a thing is written in some international law which I have yet to see.
Likewise if you are are to apply your principle that one set of people is entitled under international law to rule over another set of people you would have IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported K-Serbs being under Albanian rule in Kosova ( Kosova even as province within Jugoslavia has had well-defined borders) instead you are now conveniently tampering this support with more conditions. Remember you were the one that espoused this principle right from the start, not me.
Also you are trying to put a spin on issues by putting things I simply do not say. Being anti-religious I purposely avoid using certain words such as sanctity or holly.



"So just one K-Serb is conveniently (yet again) taken by one to represent the overwhelming majority of them who are against Kosovo's UDI! Another of your twisted logic that I defintely do not buy!"

--You don't have to buy anything because nobody is trying to sell you anything. This is a conversation. Read it again. In the rush to respond to me you haven't understood what I wrote.

"And again you chose to make international support a condition for the K-Serbs. As I stated earlier, if you had been really sincere about the will-of-the-people principle, you would have supported the K-Serbs' right to detach themselves WITHOUT ANY CONDITION and EVEN IF the internationals do not! Just for the record, the international community does not just refer to the West, it also includes the rest of the world. And so as it currently stands, Kosovo's UDI does not have the support of the majority of countries in the world!"

-- Yet again a double standard from you. As I've stated earlier if you had been really sincere about the principle of secession you'd support K-Serbs remaining within Kosova UNTIL ALBANIANS AGREE. You yourself stated that the other side has to CONSENT. Just for the record, recognitions for us have come from all corners of the world and not only from the West.



"As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!"

--While I'll consider your advice, I recommend you listen to your own advices. You have a serious problem in applying what you say to others towards your own self. All you do is point fingers and there is a total lack of self-reflection.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"-- Yes, yes but you conveniently forget how many years passed until Russia considered recognizing. Somehow you conveniently omit the fact that their recognition did not come automatically but it took years and years. So the point is that even though there was no automatic consent from Russia, Finland's independence process did not end."

That's exactly my point! Finland's independence had ultimately to be get Russia's consent! Had Russia not agreed, Helsinki would have been left out of the UN up to today, and just like Kosovo!

"-- You are trying to pull in a first one right here. You conveniently forget that there was a 3 decade struggle going on during which Ethiopia not only did not recognize Eritrea's right to secede but it was continually crushing and killing them for 3 straight decade. Again the process of becoming independent was a process that lasted for 30 years and it wasn't automatic. Meaning that just because Ethiopia did not recognize Eritrea's independence immediately and automatically the process of becoming independent did not end for Eritrea. Again the process took years and decades. Same as Finland. The same thing with East Timor. It took almost 3 decades."

Yes, my point was that the independence of both East Timor and Eritrea became valid only after recgonition by Indonesia and Ethiopia! In the same way, Kosovo's UDI will only be valid AFTER Belgrade agrees -- but I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen if I were you! The Taiwanese couldn't get China's consent for their independence and so they have been shut out of the UN for almost 40 years now!


"--It is interesting that you are so quick to call others hypocritical yet you state that while Serbs have the rights to secede despite what Albanians think, Albanians don't have the right to secede despite what Serbs think. I see you like applying some double standards yourself. So for you it is more than OK that the will of one set of people to secede (that of K-Serbs) takes precedence over the will of another set of people to secede ( that of K-Albanians). That is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy becomes even more clear when keeping in mind that while I accept their possible secession if they garner international support, other hand while you back K-Serbs secession unconditionally, are categorically against the unconditional secession of Albanians. Hypocrisy at its best."

You are trying to fudge the issue. You now conveniently forgot that it was YOU, not me, who trumpeted about the sanctitiy of the principle of the people's will. And yet, you chose to convenielty put conditions (of international support) when it comes to the will of the K-Serbs. To be this is just a flimsy excuse at double standards and avoiding having to apply the will of the people principle for the K-Serbs. If you were really honest about applying this principle to eveyone (and not just for the benefit of the Albanians) you would have IMMEDIATLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported the K-Serbs' secession rights instead of now conveiently tempering this support with more conditions! Remember, YOU were the one who expoused this principle right from the start, not me! I am only challenging you to put your money where your mouth is, and in this I think you have failed miserably!

"P.S Again there is something to be said about reciprocity. When you see the first Serb working for our independence you might eventually see the first Albanian working for theirs. And while you see Albanians that would eventually be OK if those Serb areas detach if there is international support we are yet to see a Serb thinking in the same wavelength. Now if you you can't see this, that offer about those glasses is still on the table.
(johny, 20 January 2010 19:01) "

So just one K-Serb is conveniently (yet again) taken by one to represent the overwhelming majority of them who are against Kosovo's UDI! Another of your twisted logic that I defintely do not buy!

And again you chose to make international support a condition for the K-Serbs. As I stated earlier, if you had been really sincere about the will-of-the-people principle, you would have supported the K-Serbs' right to detach themselves WITHOUT ANY CONDITION and EVEN IF the internationals do not! Just for the record, the international community does not just refer to the West, it also includes the rest of the world. And so as it currently stands, Kosovo's UDI does not have the support of the majority of countries in the world!

As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!

johny

pre 14 godina

"You conveniently forgot (again) that when the UN was formed only after the second world war, Russia already recognized Finland. Had the Russians not done so, you can be sure Finland would be outside the UN like Kosovo today."

-- Yes, yes but you conveniently forget how many years passed until Russia considered recognizing. Somehow you conveniently omit the fact that their recognition did not come automatically but it took years and years. So the point is that even though there was no automatic consent from Russia, Finland's independence process did not end.


"And you tried to pull a fast one about Eritrea. The fact is that Ethiopia recognized Eritrea's independence back in 1993 -- in fact they even have diplomatic relations. That's why Eritrea is in the UN today and Kosovo is not!"


-- You are trying to pull in a first one right here. You conveniently forget that there was a 3 decade struggle going on during which Ethiopia not only did not recognize Eritrea's right to secede but it was continually crushing and killing them for 3 straight decade. Again the process of becoming independent was a process that lasted for 30 years and it wasn't automatic. Meaning that just because Ethiopia did not recognize Eritrea's independence immediately and automatically the process of becoming independent did not end for Eritrea. Again the process took years and decades. Same as Finland. The same thing with East Timor. It took almost 3 decades.

"I don't think you understand what I mean by parent countries. But to take up on your point, as per your interpretation, K-Serbs will then be entitled to secede from Pristina whenever they want purely on the basis of their will, regardless of what Albanians and others think! If you cannot UNCONDIITONALLY accept this, then all your tirade on this post will be revealed to be nothing other than hypocrisy and double standards!"


--It is interesting that you are so quick to call others hypocritical yet you state that while Serbs have the rights to secede despite what Albanians think, Albanians don't have the right to secede despite what Serbs think. I see you like applying some double standards yourself. So for you it is more than OK that the will of one set of people to secede (that of K-Serbs) takes precedence over the will of another set of people to secede ( that of K-Albanians). That is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy becomes even more clear when keeping in mind that while I accept their possible secession if they garner international support, other hand while you back K-Serbs secession unconditionally, are categorically against the unconditional secession of Albanians. Hypocrisy at its best.


P.S Again there is something to be said about reciprocity. When you see the first Serb working for our independence you might eventually see the first Albanian working for theirs. And while you see Albanians that would eventually be OK if those Serb areas detach if there is international support we are yet to see a Serb thinking in the same wavelength. Now if you you can't see this, that offer about those glasses is still on the table.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"Again making things up. Russia did not recognize Finland or give its consent until a later time. It wasn't like you want to make it appear. Russia did not give its consent or recognize Finland automatically as it declared its independence. That is also the case with Eritrea. There was no consent or agreement for decades. Why don't you come out and admit the truth as it is. Autonomous provinces CAN BECOME INDEPENDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT REGULATES THE PROCESS AS I HAVE SHOWN. There is nothing in international law that states that the other party MUST also consent. Also the process of becoming independent is not automatic. Meaning that while in the process of becoming independent there is no automatic recognition and consent from the country one is seceding from.
Can you stop using phrases that do not describe the situation as they are falsities; there are no parent countries.
(johny, 20 January 2010 01:31) "

You conveniently forgot (again) that when the UN was formed only after the second world war, Russia already recognized Finland. Had the Russians not done so, you can be sure Finland would be outside the UN like Kosovo today.

And you tried to pull a fast one about Eritrea. The fact is that Ethiopia recognized Eritrea's independence back in 1993 -- in fact they even have diplomatic relations. That's why Eritrea is in the UN today and Kosovo is not!

I don't think you understand what I mean by parent countries. But to take up on your point, as per your interpretation, K-Serbs will then be entitled to secede from Pristina whenever they want purely on the basis of their will, regardless of what Albanians and others think! If you cannot UNCONDIITONALLY accept this, then all your tirade on this post will be revealed to be nothing other than hypocrisy and double standards!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"--Yes but you are also conveniently forgetting that your view along with Belgrade's take into account only Belgrade's opinion and not the will of the people."

No matter how you twist and turn, you cannot evade the fact that it was Kosovo which initiated the UDI. And this UDI violated the opinions of Belgrade which has to be considered as seriously as the will of the people!


"--You conveniently forget some things here. Under 1244 a final status had to be reached (meaning Serbia's autonomy was not of eternal nature but guaranteed until the intermediate period had ended after which a final status would be decided with independence as one of the possibilities). The UNSC gave direct authority to its representative to determine when this intermediate period ended and final status had to be decided. Hence Serbia's autonomy is no longer guaranteed once the intermediate period ends and negotiations start. Hence yet again you conveniently forget that with the start of negotiation such intermediate period effectively ended and so did any guarantees of autonomy over Kosova since like you state above Independence was a possible choice under the will of people. The intermediate period is also referred in the Ramboullet accords. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade had limitless and eternal autonomy as 1244 clearly foresees independence as a possible solution after the intermediate period has ended by referring to the Ramboullet accords when it dealt with the issue of final status. When that period ended it was to be determined solely by the UNSC special representative under the direct authority he received from the UNSC. When he made the decision that the intermediate period had ended and it was time for a final status solution, it legally and effectively ended any guarantees of autonomy. "

The UNSC never gave Ahtisaari any authority to decide on the final solution! This is a false claim on your part! Ahtisaari was appointed to be an honest mediator (and he turned out not to be so!). He was required to submit his recommendations to the UNSC for approval. And the approval was not given by the UNSC!

I have already explained to you that 1244 explicitly recognized Belgrade's sovereignty and nothing about the temporary nature of that sovereignty. You chose to stick to Rambouillet. Well, as I also pointed out to you earlier, even Rambouillet itself does not contain even one word about Kosovo's independence being the final outcome. It only specifies that among other things, the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade has to be considered as well as the will of the people. You have conveniently considered only the will of the people in your interpretation which was not Rambouillet's intention at all!

"--In the same way we can see that when the UNSC special representative decided that the intermediate period ended that ended guarantees of autonomy and once he decided to recommend independence that ended autonomy. Hence Belgrade's sovereignty as foreseen by 1244 become null and void because the intermediate period that guaranteed autonomy was declared to had ended and because by recommending independence meant a complete annulment of any autonomy claims. One can also say that Russia was unable to do anything in the Troika to make sure to overrule the decision that the intermediate period which guaranteed autonomy over Serbia had ended. It didn't hence sovereignty over Kosova changed. "

Ahtisaari, as I told you earlier, has no such authority to decide on the final status. He can only recommend, which he did so and his recommendaitons, which must be approved by the UNSC, was in fact not even voted on in the UNSC because the US knew it would be fruitless against the vetoes of China and Russia!

"-- Likewise I find your argument to be insincere and very contradicting up to becoming amusing. It is insincere since you try to spin and twist arguments because you are biased and don't have the guts to admit that such views are biased views. While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments. Even though it is clear as day that so many interpretations can be made from the same resolution that was written that way on purpose so it could be signed by everyone in order to end military operations, you maintain a higher than though attitude as if though only your interpretation accurately describes such a resolution. It is clear as day that this resolution threw in language to please everyone so that everyone could sign it and interpret it the way the want it. It threw in autonomy and it threw in will of people, it threw in negotiations and it threw in a notion of intermediate period. So based on that, while I acknowledge that it left the door open for all kinds of things and all kinds of interpretations you insist that only your interpretations are the right ones and that this resolution should only be seen and interpreted the way you see it. Well that not only is self-serving and insincere but also speaks of a total lack of courage to see the resolution for what it actually is: a purposely written clusterf..ck that in the end guarantees nothing to nobody as each notion annuls each other. Will of people annuls autonomy, intermediate period annuls guarantee, and vice versa."

There is only one sentence in this entire tirade of yours that I completely agree with you. And its this sentence that you wrote and I quote: "While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments." You were definitely biased and inaccurate in your arguments that Kosovo's UDI was above board. You cannot deny that the UDI ignored the relevant opinion of Belgrade which is a necessary ingredient under Raqmbouillet which you are so fond of referring to.


"P.S Again I can't be more clear than this. If Serbs in Kosova get international support to detach then I support them, but and I can't stress this enough, do not expect me or any Albanians here to fight for their cause, lobby for their cause, or help them get international support for what they want. Its their will, they should work for it, not me or any other Albanian. It is a reasonable attitude.
(johny, 20 January 2010 02:24) "

Reasonable attitude? What a laugh! If you are truly sincere about the will of the people principle, then you must UNCONDITIONALLY support the K-Serbs' rights to secede from Pristina and not conveniently resort to caveats like what the internationals think. If you are sincere, you MUST support the K-Serbs' right to secede REGARDLESS of what others (including your fellow Albanians) think!!!

johny

pre 14 godina

"I am saying that BOTH (the people's will and Belgrade's opinion) have to be taken into account equally. However Kosovo's UDI only took into account the former and not the latter!"

--Yes but you are also conveniently forgetting that your view along with Belgrade's take into account only Belgrade's opinion and not the will of the people.


"You conveniently forgot (yet again) that legally Belgrade has sovereignty (and not just autonomoy) over Kosovo under 1244. Kosovo does NOT enjoy its own sovereignty. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade has no right to autonomy over Kosovo -- in fact Belgrade has rights MORE than autonomy -- rights of sovereignty!"

--You conveniently forget some things here. Under 1244 a final status had to be reached (meaning Serbia's autonomy was not of eternal nature but guaranteed until the intermediate period had ended after which a final status would be decided with independence as one of the possibilities). The UNSC gave direct authority to its representative to determine when this intermediate period ended and final status had to be decided. Hence Serbia's autonomy is no longer guaranteed once the intermediate period ends and negotiations start. Hence yet again you conveniently forget that with the start of negotiation such intermediate period effectively ended and so did any guarantees of autonomy over Kosova since like you state above Independence was a possible choice under the will of people. The intermediate period is also referred in the Ramboullet accords. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade had limitless and eternal autonomy as 1244 clearly foresees independence as a possible solution after the intermediate period has ended by referring to the Ramboullet accords when it dealt with the issue of final status. When that period ended it was to be determined solely by the UNSC special representative under the direct authority he received from the UNSC. When he made the decision that the intermediate period had ended and it was time for a final status solution, it legally and effectively ended any guarantees of autonomy.



"But the US and EU were unable to do anything in the Troika precisely because there was no concensus! Hence its back to status quo ie. Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo remains unchanged legally!"


--In the same way we can see that when the UNSC special representative decided that the intermediate period ended that ended guarantees of autonomy and once he decided to recommend independence that ended autonomy. Hence Belgrade's sovereignty as foreseen by 1244 become null and void because the intermediate period that guaranteed autonomy was declared to had ended and because by recommending independence meant a complete annulment of any autonomy claims. One can also say that Russia was unable to do anything in the Troika to make sure to overrule the decision that the intermediate period which guaranteed autonomy over Serbia had ended. It didn't hence sovereignty over Kosova changed.




"You ability to contradict yourself is amusing. On on hand you claimed to support the K-Serbs rights to self-determination. And yet a couple sentences later in the very same paragraph you refuse to acquiesce to this right of theirs. To me this is insincerity of the highest order!"

-- Likewise I find your argument to be insincere and very contradicting up to becoming amusing. It is insincere since you try to spin and twist arguments because you are biased and don't have the guts to admit that such views are biased views. While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments. Even though it is clear as day that so many interpretations can be made from the same resolution that was written that way on purpose so it could be signed by everyone in order to end military operations, you maintain a higher than though attitude as if though only your interpretation accurately describes such a resolution. It is clear as day that this resolution threw in language to please everyone so that everyone could sign it and interpret it the way the want it. It threw in autonomy and it threw in will of people, it threw in negotiations and it threw in a notion of intermediate period. So based on that, while I acknowledge that it left the door open for all kinds of things and all kinds of interpretations you insist that only your interpretations are the right ones and that this resolution should only be seen and interpreted the way you see it. Well that not only is self-serving and insincere but also speaks of a total lack of courage to see the resolution for what it actually is: a purposely written clusterf..ck that in the end guarantees nothing to nobody as each notion annuls each other. Will of people annuls autonomy, intermediate period annuls guarantee, and vice versa.


P.S Again I can't be more clear than this. If Serbs in Kosova get international support to detach then I support them, but and I can't stress this enough, do not expect me or any Albanians here to fight for their cause, lobby for their cause, or help them get international support for what they want. Its their will, they should work for it, not me or any other Albanian. It is a reasonable attitude.

johny

pre 14 godina

One more thing. Provinces can secede PROVIDED their parent countries agree. The independence of Finland, Eritrea and East Timor are today all recognized by their former parent countries. That's why the entire world recognizes them today as well and they have no issue with UN membership. Kosovo however did not have the consent of its parent country. It is also destined to remain in the cold outside the UN indefinitely.
(lowe, 19 January 2010 22:25)

Again making things up. Russia did not recognize Finland or give its consent until a later time. It wasn't like you want to make it appear. Russia did not give its consent or recognize Finland automatically as it declared its independence. That is also the case with Eritrea. There was no consent or agreement for decades. Why don't you come out and admit the truth as it is. Autonomous provinces CAN BECOME INDEPENDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT REGULATES THE PROCESS AS I HAVE SHOWN. There is nothing in international law that states that the other party MUST also consent. Also the process of becoming independent is not automatic. Meaning that while in the process of becoming independent there is no automatic recognition and consent from the country one is seceding from.
Can you stop using phrases that do not describe the situation as they are falsities; there are no parent countries.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"--Can you explain to me how this is different in any way from the Serbs taking opinions of relevant authorities as a blanket check for autonomy? What is the difference between us taking the will of people as the blanket check and the Serbs taking the opinion of relevant authorities as their blanket check? You still haven't explained this? There is no difference. We aren't doing and didn't do anything that Serbs aren't doing and didn't do when it comes to the interpretation of 1244.
Second, well if you don't know what the will of people means than I guess we're wasting time. If there was nothing about independence there Serbia would have agreed. As a matter of fact( go read the ICJ transcripts) Serbia came up with its own draft on the Ramboullet accords in which the phrase WILL OF THE PEOPLE was absent. It is apparent what the will of the people is to everyone but you, or so it seems. The referendum in the early 1990's showed that will with about 98% voting for independence."

I am saying that BOTH (the people's will and Belgrade's opinion) have to be taken into account equally. However Kosovo's UDI only took into account the former and not the latter!

"-- It also means that the opinions of the relevant authorities like Belgrade by itself does not entitle Belgrade's autonomy over Kosova because that would mean ignoring the other factor- THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, which is equally relevant. What you are doing is that you conveniently accept one criterion that suits you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria- the will of the people."

You conveniently forgot (yet again) that legally Belgrade has sovereignty (and not just autonomoy) over Kosovo under 1244. Kosovo does NOT enjoy its own sovereignty. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade has no right to autonomy over Kosovo -- in fact Belgrade has rights MORE than autonomy -- rights of sovereignty!


"-- When you write about the Troika you also conveniently forget that the other two members accepted Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations--otherwise why is Belgrade unable to exert authority over Prishtina to this day? "

But the US and EU were unable to do anything in the Troika precisely because there was no concensus! Hence its back to status quo ie. Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo remains unchanged legally!


"--You are conveniently disregarding Independent states that have sprung up from autonomous regions which exist around the world and are making up your own rules, which are travesties and falsities. Finland today is an independent state and decided on its NATIONAL ISSUE, INDEPENDECE while being an autonomous province of Russia without any Russian consent. This is proof that provinces HAVE the authority to decide on NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. Eritrea is another independent country that became a country after declaring independence while being an Ethiopian province. East Timor is another independent country that became independent after declaring independence while being an Indonesian province.

-- You haven't paid attention I guess. I've stated in the past on these forums. If K-Serbs in the north and places like Strpce gather international support like we Albanians did I support them 100% if they want to detach themselves. Is that clear enough? However do not expect me or any Albanian here to do their work for them. They gather international support I and others like me will support them; don't expect us however to acquiesce with their wishes though, as Serbia didn't support our detachment or acquiesce to our wishes and didn't make our job easy. It is only natural for us to mirror Belgrade's moves as long as there is no international support for those you mention.
(johny, 19 January 2010 20:50) "

You ability to contradict yourself is amusing. On on hand you claimed to support the K-Serbs rights to self-determination. And yet a couple sentences later in the very same paragraph you refuse to acquiesce to this right of theirs. To me this is insincerity of the highest order!

lowe

pre 14 godina

johny,

One more thing. Provinces can secede PROVIDED their parent countries agree. The independence of Finland, Eritrea and East Timor are today all recognized by their former parent countries. That's why the entire world recognizes them today as well and they have no issue with UN membership. Kosovo however did not have the consent of its parent country. It is also destined to remain in the cold outside the UN indefinitely.

johny

pre 14 godina

"Firstly,you conveniently took Rambouillet as a blanket check for independence. The fact however is that there is NOTHING in Rambouillet that stated anything about independence as the eventual outcome for Kosovo."

--Can you explain to me how this is different in any way from the Serbs taking opinions of relevant authorities as a blanket check for autonomy? What is the difference between us taking the will of people as the blanket check and the Serbs taking the opinion of relevant authorities as their blanket check? You still haven't explained this? There is no difference. We aren't doing and didn't do anything that Serbs aren't doing and didn't do when it comes to the interpretation of 1244.
Second, well if you don't know what the will of people means than I guess we're wasting time. If there was nothing about independence there Serbia would have agreed. As a matter of fact( go read the ICJ transcripts) Serbia came up with its own draft on the Ramboullet accords in which the phrase WILL OF THE PEOPLE was absent. It is apparent what the will of the people is to everyone but you, or so it seems. The referendum in the early 1990's showed that will with about 98% voting for independence.

"Secondly, 1244 only specified that the Rambouillet accord be taken into account -- which means the ENTIRE Rambouillet accord, not just the part about the will of the people (which you conveniently emphasized to the exclusion of all other provisions). The views of relevant authorities like Belgrade is equally relevant too. This means that the will of the people by itself does not entitle Kosovo to independence because this would mean ignoring another necessary factor -- the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade's. What you are doing is to conveniently accept one criterion that suited you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria."

-- It also means that the opinions of the relevant authorities like Belgrade by itself does not entitle Belgrade's autonomy over Kosova because that would mean ignoring the other factor- THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, which is equally relevant. What you are doing is that you conveniently accept one criterion that suits you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria- the will of the people.

"Thirdly, when you wrote about the Troika. You conveniently forgot that Russia was one of the members and she consistenly did not accept Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations -- otherwise why is Pristina unable to enter the UN to this day? "

-- When you write about the Troika you also conveniently forget that the other two members accepted Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations--otherwise why is Belgrade unable to exert authority over Prishtina to this day?

"Fourthly, autonomous provinces have the authority to decide on their local issues BUT NOT ON NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. That's why Belgrade proposed substantial autonomy which does not amount to independence. You are conveniently equating autonomy with independence which is a falsity."


--You are conveniently disregarding Independent states that have sprung up from autonomous regions which exist around the world and are making up your own rules, which are travesties and falsities. Finland today is an independent state and decided on its NATIONAL ISSUE, INDEPENDECE while being an autonomous province of Russia without any Russian consent. This is proof that provinces HAVE the authority to decide on NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. Eritrea is another independent country that became a country after declaring independence while being an Ethiopian province. East Timor is another independent country that became independent after declaring independence while being an Indonesian province.

"Finally if the will of the people are so sacred to you, then you must accept AND SUPPORT the right of K-Serbs north of the Ibar and in places like Strpce to detach themselves from Kosovo, am I right? I challenge you to make this stand clear. Or are we talking double standards here based, again, on what is convenient for you?"

-- You haven't paid attention I guess. I've stated in the past on these forums. If K-Serbs in the north and places like Strpce gather international support like we Albanians did I support them 100% if they want to detach themselves. Is that clear enough? However do not expect me or any Albanian here to do their work for them. They gather international support I and others like me will support them; don't expect us however to acquiesce with their wishes though, as Serbia didn't support our detachment or acquiesce to our wishes and didn't make our job easy. It is only natural for us to mirror Belgrade's moves as long as there is no international support for those you mention.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"1244 refers to Ramboullet accords. Hence among the many different solutions 1244 provides ,independence is one of such solutions it provides for. So by that alone one can conclude that Independence is in complete accord with 1244. Opinions of relevant parties are to be considered but nowhere there does it state that they should have exclusivity over the will of the people. The point is that while Serbs and the Serb camp conveniently choose to completely disregard the reference to the will of people then us Albanians and the Albanian camp by the same token can choose to completely disregard other references. So when you say that both has to be considered you should try to be a little less biased since the Serbs chose to consider only Belgrade's will.

In short Belgrade's opinion is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision is clearly referred in 1244.

Finally 1244 states that a final status has to be reached. Among the many possible scenarios as we've shown 1244 provides for independence as a possible solution, a point you continue to evade. Meaning autonomy is temporary until a final solution has been reached, independence being one possible solution; another point you continue to evade. If you can make up extensions I'll make up my own also. Therefore since independence was a possible solution by extension Kosova can declare its independence based on the WILL OF PEOPLE provision. Therefore whether Belgrade signed the Ramboullet accords or not is not of any importance whatsoever. The fact that such accords are referred in 1244 which was passed by all the veto yielding UNSC members shows that independence was a solution among other solutions.

Finally if you are up for a serious debate, can you point out where in 1244, or in any international law for that matter, it is specifically stated that autonomous provinces must have consent from the country they are seceding for them to be independent? Last time I checked Finland declared its independence while it was an autonomous province of Russia without Russian consent. Finland today is an independent country.


You cannot have REAL negotiations when one of the sides decides in the middle of such negotiations to predetermine their outcome by adopting a Constitution that tries to settle the status in a unilateral fashion, while negotiations for status are still ongoing. The moment Serbia adopted a constitution, by excluding Albanians from the voting process, that predetermined the status such negotiations turned into a complete sham.

P.S You conveniently forgot the second round of negotiations by the Troika.
The world does not revolve around Serbia and with two different sets of negotiations already done there is a time when enough is enough and 2 million people can no longer live in a limbo just because certain apparitchiks in Belgrade think its completely natural to kill you and ethnically cleanse 1 million of you and still hold in their hands sovereignty over you. If you are one of the ones that like those Belgrade apparitchiks find that kind of reasoning completely natural then I guess this debate ends right here.
(johny, 18 January 2010 20:36) "

Firstly,you conveniently took Rambouillet as a blanket check for independence. The fact however is that there is NOTHING in Rambouillet that stated anything about independence as the eventual outcome for Kosovo.

Secondly, 1244 only specified that the Rambouillet accord be taken into account -- which means the ENTIRE Rambouillet accord, not just the part about the will of the people (which you conveniently emphasized to the exclusion of all other provisions). The views of relevant authorities like Belgrade is equally relevant too. This means that the will of the people by itself does not entitle Kosovo to independence because this would mean ignoring another necessary factor -- the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade's. What you are doing is to conveniently accept one criterion that suited you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria.

Thirdly, when you wrote about the Troika. You conveniently forgot that Russia was one of the members and she consistenly did not accept Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations -- otherwise why is Pristina unable to enter the UN to this day?

Fourthly, autonomous provinces have the authority to decide on their local issues BUT NOT ON NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. That's why Belgrade proposed substantial autonomy which does not amount to independence. You are conveniently equating autonomy with independence which is a falsity.

Finally if the will of the people are so sacred to you, then you must accept AND SUPPORT the right of K-Serbs north of the Ibar and in places like Strpce to detach themselves from Kosovo, am I right? I challenge you to make this stand clear. Or are we talking double standards here based, again, on what is convenient for you?

johny

pre 14 godina

That statement regarding the 3 years did not come from 1244. It came from the Rambouillet Accords which, by the way, Belgrade did not sign.

As for the "opinion of relevant authorities", I was merely reminding you that you conveniently forgot that the will of the people was only one part of that statement. That statement also requires the opinions of the relevant authorities (including Belgrade) to be considered. Hence the will of the people does not take priority over Belgrade's opinion -- both has to be equally considered -- and you chose to consider only the former.

In short, the will of the people is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision came from Rambouillet and not 1244.

Finally 1244 specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo, a point you continue to conveniently evade. Under 1244, Kosovo is a province and therefore by extension can only become independent with Belgrade's consent. This requires REAL negotiations, not the fake ones orchestrated by Ahtisaari.
(lowe, 18 January 2010 07:48)

1244 refers to Ramboullet accords. Hence among the many different solutions 1244 provides ,independence is one of such solutions it provides for. So by that alone one can conclude that Independence is in complete accord with 1244. Opinions of relevant parties are to be considered but nowhere there does it state that they should have exclusivity over the will of the people. The point is that while Serbs and the Serb camp conveniently choose to completely disregard the reference to the will of people then us Albanians and the Albanian camp by the same token can choose to completely disregard other references. So when you say that both has to be considered you should try to be a little less biased since the Serbs chose to consider only Belgrade's will.

In short Belgrade's opinion is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision is clearly referred in 1244.

Finally 1244 states that a final status has to be reached. Among the many possible scenarios as we've shown 1244 provides for independence as a possible solution, a point you continue to evade. Meaning autonomy is temporary until a final solution has been reached, independence being one possible solution; another point you continue to evade. If you can make up extensions I'll make up my own also. Therefore since independence was a possible solution by extension Kosova can declare its independence based on the WILL OF PEOPLE provision. Therefore whether Belgrade signed the Ramboullet accords or not is not of any importance whatsoever. The fact that such accords are referred in 1244 which was passed by all the veto yielding UNSC members shows that independence was a solution among other solutions.

Finally if you are up for a serious debate, can you point out where in 1244, or in any international law for that matter, it is specifically stated that autonomous provinces must have consent from the country they are seceding for them to be independent? Last time I checked Finland declared its independence while it was an autonomous province of Russia without Russian consent. Finland today is an independent country.


You cannot have REAL negotiations when one of the sides decides in the middle of such negotiations to predetermine their outcome by adopting a Constitution that tries to settle the status in a unilateral fashion, while negotiations for status are still ongoing. The moment Serbia adopted a constitution, by excluding Albanians from the voting process, that predetermined the status such negotiations turned into a complete sham.

P.S You conveniently forgot the second round of negotiations by the Troika.
The world does not revolve around Serbia and with two different sets of negotiations already done there is a time when enough is enough and 2 million people can no longer live in a limbo just because certain apparitchiks in Belgrade think its completely natural to kill you and ethnically cleanse 1 million of you and still hold in their hands sovereignty over you. If you are one of the ones that like those Belgrade apparitchiks find that kind of reasoning completely natural then I guess this debate ends right here.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"1. Iowe I cannot help but point out the discrepancy in your post. Why should we then completely blind ourselves to this phrase " OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES" which by the way includes Prishtina as well but not completely blind ourselves to the other phrase "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? Can you find me one good reason why WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to be completely disregarded while OPINIONS OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES should take complete authority? I also want to add that RELEVANT AUTHORITIES also includes Prishtina and its opinion has been taken into consideration as well.

2. 1244 Specifically states that as you rightly posted :"Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures."
Nowhere in there do you see that after those 3 years when the final status is to be decided, Belgrade would have sovereignty over Kosova. It also does not specifically mention that ALL relevant authorities have to agree or that the opinions of relevant authorities take precedence over the will of people. As you rightly posted 1244 leaves the door open for Independence by having the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as the basis of the final status.


P.S US designed and Chinese made products are indeed very good.
(johny, 17 January 2010 22:30) "

johny,

There you go again -- sprouting more inaccuracies -- misquoting me and misinterpreting 1244.

That statement regarding the 3 years did not come from 1244. It came from the Rambouillet Accords which, by the way, Belgrade did not sign.

As for the "opinion of relevant authorities", I was merely reminding you that you conveniently forgot that the will of the people was only one part of that statement. That statement also requires the opinions of the relevant authorities (including Belgrade) to be considered. Hence the will of the people does not take priority over Belgrade's opinion -- both has to be equally considered -- and you chose to consider only the former.

In short, the will of the people is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision came from Rambouillet and not 1244.

Finally 1244 specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo, a point you continue to conveniently evade. Under 1244, Kosovo is a province and therefore by extension can only become independent with Belgrade's consent. This requires REAL negotiations, not the fake ones orchestrated by Ahtisaari.

johny

pre 14 godina

YOU are the one who need glasses, not Ron.

1. You conveniently blinded yourself to the 4 words in that part of thE Rambouillet Accord which immediately follows the "will of the people". Let me state the entire sentence for everyone's benefit (the 4 words in capital are mine for emphasis): "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The relevant authorities would include Belgrade.

2. You are also blind to 1244 which specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Don't look down on Chinese products. Made-in-China glasses may just be what you need as your American made ones are obviously not doing you much good!
(lowe, 17 January 2010 06:51)

1. Iowe I cannot help but point out the discrepancy in your post. Why should we then completely blind ourselves to this phrase " OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES" which by the way includes Prishtina as well but not completely blind ourselves to the other phrase "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? Can you find me one good reason why WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to be completely disregarded while OPINIONS OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES should take complete authority? I also want to add that RELEVANT AUTHORITIES also includes Prishtina and its opinion has been taken into consideration as well.

2. 1244 Specifically states that as you rightly posted :"Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures."
Nowhere in there do you see that after those 3 years when the final status is to be decided, Belgrade would have sovereignty over Kosova. It also does not specifically mention that ALL relevant authorities have to agree or that the opinions of relevant authorities take precedence over the will of people. As you rightly posted 1244 leaves the door open for Independence by having the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as the basis of the final status.


P.S US designed and Chinese made products are indeed very good.

Micheal Breathnach

pre 14 godina

Please believe me, that decentralisation is only a decoy to undermine the Serbs of Northern Kosovo i Metohija. The ICO/EULEX/NATO Consortium have this well planned.
It must be resisted.

MB,Ireland

lowe

pre 14 godina

"Ron next time try to be a little less lazy and read all of 1244, especially the part where it states that the status of Kosova is to be decided in accordance with the Ramboullet accords where the will of the people of Kosova is of primary importance. The people have spoken, they have made their will. I think you know what it is. If you need new glasses because somehow you're unable to read the whole 1244 with the old Serbian ones you have, just holla. I'll send you some Chinese made ones from the US.

(johny, 16 January 2010 07:25) "

YOU are the one who need glasses, not Ron.

1. You conveniently blinded yourself to the 4 words in that part of thE Rambouillet Accord which immediately follows the "will of the people". Let me state the entire sentence for everyone's benefit (the 4 words in capital are mine for emphasis): "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The relevant authorities would include Belgrade.

2. You are also blind to 1244 which specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Don't look down on Chinese products. Made-in-China glasses may just be what you need as your American made ones are obviously not doing you much good!

Dragan, Toronto

pre 14 godina

The Pristina plan will falter and result in violence. Going against the defacto reality in the North won't work. Sadly alot of K-Albs will be disappointed, but too bad. The end will be partition of KiM, there is not other choice. However, many years down the road from now (perhaps not in our lifetimes), with other global conflicts (perhaps the dissolution of the EU and NATO - yes it will happen one day...all empires rise and fall)you can be rest assured that there will more wars in the Balkans again, and some of these stories will fade and new ones will arise.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"I don't think that partition would be "solved problem" because Kosova won't give not even an inch of her territory.
(Nelli_Canada, 16 January 2010 23:22) "

Well "Kosova" is not the only one who thinks this way. Serbia too.

In any case, there is already the reality of a de facto partition at the Ibar.

Bob

pre 14 godina

Hi Jim

I am against myself on this one! I do not think the UDI should have been 'awarded' - it is a reward for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo that predated Milosevic.

Jim

pre 14 godina

I am completely with Bob and Mark on this. Partition is clearly the best answer, with South Kosovo joining Albania and the north being fully reintegrated back into Serbia. Problem solved!

johny

pre 14 godina

Ron next time try to be a little less lazy and read all of 1244, especially the part where it states that the status of Kosova is to be decided in accordance with the Ramboullet accords where the will of the people of Kosova is of primary importance. The people have spoken, they have made their will. I think you know what it is. If you need new glasses because somehow you're unable to read the whole 1244 with the old Serbian ones you have, just holla. I'll send you some Chinese made ones from the US.


Also this was said in the article:
“This intended strategy to expel UNMIK, which is supposed to work in the spirit of Resolution 1244, from Kosovo, and that EULEX should take its place – an organization which comes from the countries that created that independent Kosovo – is certainly not beneficial for the finals solution, just as the elections in [Northern] Kosovska Mitrovica will not succeed,” he said. ?"

I'd like to remind this Serbian guy that EULEX really comes from those that pay your salary in Belgrade for it was Tadic that was so adamant for EULEX to come in Kosova and it was Jeremic that declared it a diplomatic victory. If you have a problem with EULEX hop on the first bus to Belgrade and ask them why they allowed it.


P.S I'm trying to find something that Serbia hasn't declared a victory; starting from the battle of Kosova which of course we all know was a loss both in military and political terms. In mythical terms it could be anything since myths are made up.

Mark

pre 14 godina

Seems to me that the people of the North should declare a UDI.

Then merge back with Serbia.

That would be democracy at work.
(Bob, 15 January 2010 21:48)

Actually, this would solve all issues. Albanians don't have to deal with Serbs anymore and following Serb's example they can join Albania and thus they don't have to apply for admission to the UN or any other int'l organization. Everybody will be happy and end of the story.

icj1

pre 14 godina

Let's respect 1244. Meaning that Kosovo is part of Serbia.
(Ron, 15 January 2010 15:39)

That's not how Serbia interpreted the resolution.

Serbia's interpretation is that the resolution requests in practical terms that Serbia renounce a part of its
sovereign territory.

Now who is correct, you or Serbia ?

Ljokimalija

pre 14 godina

>the noose is starting to tighten...... thanks to Peter Feith.

Even when he had Nato logos all over his tie he looked nothing like cowboy.

Ron

pre 14 godina

this plan was envisioned by ex-UNMIK leader...this is nothing new. Resolution 1244 can stay up and active in the UN as long as the Constitution of Kosovo is the absolute law.
(KOSOVARi, 15 January 2010 18:20)

Nope, my friend. UNMIK will always overrule any 'Kosovo constitution'. Mind that Kosovo is a province and thus has no constitution at all!

Time to stop the joke of Kososvo independence!

Zoran

pre 14 godina

Mr Rae

A universal law that has been here since eternity -

"For those long divided they unite, and those long united they divide."

KOSOVARi

pre 14 godina

Ron,

this plan was envisioned by ex-UNMIK leader...this is nothing new. Resolution 1244 can stay up and active in the UN as long as the Constitution of Kosovo is the absolute law.

I'm sure none of you heard about Bratislav Nikolic kicking representatives of the parallel structures out of Strpce / Shterpce this morning.

I'm glad I found some good news...especially in this grim day the 11th year (today) of the RACAK MASSACRE.

Mr Rae

pre 14 godina

Can we all try to see how silly some of the arguments are? I keep hearing this percentage of population based argument. Well what if I extended it just a little bit beyond these borders and we might all notice.
NM is 90ish% Serbian, so we should follow the will of those people.
However, Kosovo is 90% Albanian, so we should follow the overwhelming will of those people.
But Kosovo was/is part of Serbia and 70%+ of the people is Serbian so we should follow the will of those people.
Serbia/Kosovo is in Europe and 80+% of Europe wants an independent Kosovo, so we should follow the will of those people.
But Europe is -20% of the world's population and 60+% of the world's population does not want Kosovo to be independent, so we should follow the will of those people.
How about we go the other way in the sequence?
90% of the people in NM are Serbian so we should follow the will of those people.
However -100% of the people in the Albanian neighborhoods of NM are Albanian so we should follow the will of those people.
Seems to be that all of these people's voices should be heard and are rarely heard over the voices of their respective political illuminati. This isn't an issue of the people, but of the governments of the people.
The more people post and repost this fallacy that the people have a choice or a voice the more we all start to believe in it.
When/if all of these statelets of the Balkans join up with a larger political power, EU, UN, NATO, Some future unknown alliance, and the voices of their people will fundamentally be silenced forever. This illusion of independence of the people is the largest farce we've all participated in. Every one of the 'people' are bound to follow the rules, like them or not, of their own dictating cast.
For Serbians and Albanians, and Croatians and Bosnians and Montenegrins and Macedonians and Slovenians (the former Jug statelets), they will eventually all be the servants of the greater nations of their respective unions, be those nations Germany, UK, France, Russia, USA, China...
perhaps one day, in the future we all -100% of the world's population stand up and get what we want, but I do not suspect my eyes will bear witness to the greatest enlightenment of our modern societies.
In the end, it is the basics of life, food, shelter, loved ones, wind blowing in your hair, water purling over your toes, grains of sand under your fingernails and great skies of blue that make life, not this who's my master nonsense that we keep hearing from the Balkans, and to be honest most every other part of the world. We fight less and less for ourselves and more and more for our masters and their needs over our own.

Mike

pre 14 godina

The north is isn't, wasn't, and in the absence of a full-scale war never will be, under Pristina. If Albanians are that adamant about living with Serbs, they shouldn't have seceded in the first place.

Diana

pre 14 godina

Who cares what Feith says he's having another go of trying to subject and bully the Serbs. He also realises how much they need the Serbs. Very interesting interview on BBC4 this morning by a Conservative party member saying that diplomacy not the army should have been used in Bosnia, kosovo and Iraq basically saying that nothing can be achieved by force. The truth is staring to come out and finally a new reality of the mess US/EU have caused. More and more people are seeing the light and understanding the hypocracy of certain governments. If I was a Serb in kosovo I'd ask Russia to help that will shut up Feith.

Milan

pre 14 godina

Oppose what??

Kosovo is not a niche to dream and braistorm wishes. Serbs live in a new reality, they make up 3% of the population and must respect Kosovo COnstitution if they want to live in Kosovo. Otherwise go to mentality in Serbia get a 'life' of poverty and hell.
(PRN, 15 January 2010 15:22)
Albanians consists about 20% of population of Republic of Serbia and must respect constitution of Republic of Serbia. If they don't want to live in Serbia - they have their own national state - Albania, where they can live in poverty and hell.

PRN

pre 14 godina

Oppose what??

Kosovo is not a niche to dream and braistorm wishes. Serbs live in a new reality, they make up 3% of the population and must respect Kosovo COnstitution if they want to live in Kosovo. Otherwise go to mentality in Serbia get a 'life' of poverty and hell.

DP

pre 14 godina

Serbia needs to continue to reform its structures in Northern Kosovo in order to minimize corruption and attract investment into this Serb-run part of Kosovo-Metohija, thus strengthening this territory and the Serbian control within.
As for the demographics, it gets even better. 95% of Northern Kosovo-Metohija is Serb, which equates to approximately 62 700 residents out of 66 000 residents (as of 2009)

Hank the Tank

pre 14 godina

I say let EULEX have one last try to show america and the EU that they at least tried to make the north accept their unacaptable "peace plan". Soon they will say that ist a lost cause and everyone will be happy! : )

adrian kola

pre 14 godina

That's absolutely not true! I don't know where you got that figure from, presumably from some neo-fascist serbian site, but that figures is completely unfounded.

PRN

pre 14 godina

Oppose what??

Kosovo is not a niche to dream and braistorm wishes. Serbs live in a new reality, they make up 3% of the population and must respect Kosovo COnstitution if they want to live in Kosovo. Otherwise go to mentality in Serbia get a 'life' of poverty and hell.

Milan

pre 14 godina

Oppose what??

Kosovo is not a niche to dream and braistorm wishes. Serbs live in a new reality, they make up 3% of the population and must respect Kosovo COnstitution if they want to live in Kosovo. Otherwise go to mentality in Serbia get a 'life' of poverty and hell.
(PRN, 15 January 2010 15:22)
Albanians consists about 20% of population of Republic of Serbia and must respect constitution of Republic of Serbia. If they don't want to live in Serbia - they have their own national state - Albania, where they can live in poverty and hell.

Hank the Tank

pre 14 godina

I say let EULEX have one last try to show america and the EU that they at least tried to make the north accept their unacaptable "peace plan". Soon they will say that ist a lost cause and everyone will be happy! : )

adrian kola

pre 14 godina

That's absolutely not true! I don't know where you got that figure from, presumably from some neo-fascist serbian site, but that figures is completely unfounded.

Diana

pre 14 godina

Who cares what Feith says he's having another go of trying to subject and bully the Serbs. He also realises how much they need the Serbs. Very interesting interview on BBC4 this morning by a Conservative party member saying that diplomacy not the army should have been used in Bosnia, kosovo and Iraq basically saying that nothing can be achieved by force. The truth is staring to come out and finally a new reality of the mess US/EU have caused. More and more people are seeing the light and understanding the hypocracy of certain governments. If I was a Serb in kosovo I'd ask Russia to help that will shut up Feith.

DP

pre 14 godina

Serbia needs to continue to reform its structures in Northern Kosovo in order to minimize corruption and attract investment into this Serb-run part of Kosovo-Metohija, thus strengthening this territory and the Serbian control within.
As for the demographics, it gets even better. 95% of Northern Kosovo-Metohija is Serb, which equates to approximately 62 700 residents out of 66 000 residents (as of 2009)

KOSOVARi

pre 14 godina

Ron,

this plan was envisioned by ex-UNMIK leader...this is nothing new. Resolution 1244 can stay up and active in the UN as long as the Constitution of Kosovo is the absolute law.

I'm sure none of you heard about Bratislav Nikolic kicking representatives of the parallel structures out of Strpce / Shterpce this morning.

I'm glad I found some good news...especially in this grim day the 11th year (today) of the RACAK MASSACRE.

Mike

pre 14 godina

The north is isn't, wasn't, and in the absence of a full-scale war never will be, under Pristina. If Albanians are that adamant about living with Serbs, they shouldn't have seceded in the first place.

Ron

pre 14 godina

this plan was envisioned by ex-UNMIK leader...this is nothing new. Resolution 1244 can stay up and active in the UN as long as the Constitution of Kosovo is the absolute law.
(KOSOVARi, 15 January 2010 18:20)

Nope, my friend. UNMIK will always overrule any 'Kosovo constitution'. Mind that Kosovo is a province and thus has no constitution at all!

Time to stop the joke of Kososvo independence!

Mr Rae

pre 14 godina

Can we all try to see how silly some of the arguments are? I keep hearing this percentage of population based argument. Well what if I extended it just a little bit beyond these borders and we might all notice.
NM is 90ish% Serbian, so we should follow the will of those people.
However, Kosovo is 90% Albanian, so we should follow the overwhelming will of those people.
But Kosovo was/is part of Serbia and 70%+ of the people is Serbian so we should follow the will of those people.
Serbia/Kosovo is in Europe and 80+% of Europe wants an independent Kosovo, so we should follow the will of those people.
But Europe is -20% of the world's population and 60+% of the world's population does not want Kosovo to be independent, so we should follow the will of those people.
How about we go the other way in the sequence?
90% of the people in NM are Serbian so we should follow the will of those people.
However -100% of the people in the Albanian neighborhoods of NM are Albanian so we should follow the will of those people.
Seems to be that all of these people's voices should be heard and are rarely heard over the voices of their respective political illuminati. This isn't an issue of the people, but of the governments of the people.
The more people post and repost this fallacy that the people have a choice or a voice the more we all start to believe in it.
When/if all of these statelets of the Balkans join up with a larger political power, EU, UN, NATO, Some future unknown alliance, and the voices of their people will fundamentally be silenced forever. This illusion of independence of the people is the largest farce we've all participated in. Every one of the 'people' are bound to follow the rules, like them or not, of their own dictating cast.
For Serbians and Albanians, and Croatians and Bosnians and Montenegrins and Macedonians and Slovenians (the former Jug statelets), they will eventually all be the servants of the greater nations of their respective unions, be those nations Germany, UK, France, Russia, USA, China...
perhaps one day, in the future we all -100% of the world's population stand up and get what we want, but I do not suspect my eyes will bear witness to the greatest enlightenment of our modern societies.
In the end, it is the basics of life, food, shelter, loved ones, wind blowing in your hair, water purling over your toes, grains of sand under your fingernails and great skies of blue that make life, not this who's my master nonsense that we keep hearing from the Balkans, and to be honest most every other part of the world. We fight less and less for ourselves and more and more for our masters and their needs over our own.

Zoran

pre 14 godina

Mr Rae

A universal law that has been here since eternity -

"For those long divided they unite, and those long united they divide."

Ljokimalija

pre 14 godina

>the noose is starting to tighten...... thanks to Peter Feith.

Even when he had Nato logos all over his tie he looked nothing like cowboy.

johny

pre 14 godina

Ron next time try to be a little less lazy and read all of 1244, especially the part where it states that the status of Kosova is to be decided in accordance with the Ramboullet accords where the will of the people of Kosova is of primary importance. The people have spoken, they have made their will. I think you know what it is. If you need new glasses because somehow you're unable to read the whole 1244 with the old Serbian ones you have, just holla. I'll send you some Chinese made ones from the US.


Also this was said in the article:
“This intended strategy to expel UNMIK, which is supposed to work in the spirit of Resolution 1244, from Kosovo, and that EULEX should take its place – an organization which comes from the countries that created that independent Kosovo – is certainly not beneficial for the finals solution, just as the elections in [Northern] Kosovska Mitrovica will not succeed,” he said. ?"

I'd like to remind this Serbian guy that EULEX really comes from those that pay your salary in Belgrade for it was Tadic that was so adamant for EULEX to come in Kosova and it was Jeremic that declared it a diplomatic victory. If you have a problem with EULEX hop on the first bus to Belgrade and ask them why they allowed it.


P.S I'm trying to find something that Serbia hasn't declared a victory; starting from the battle of Kosova which of course we all know was a loss both in military and political terms. In mythical terms it could be anything since myths are made up.

Mark

pre 14 godina

Seems to me that the people of the North should declare a UDI.

Then merge back with Serbia.

That would be democracy at work.
(Bob, 15 January 2010 21:48)

Actually, this would solve all issues. Albanians don't have to deal with Serbs anymore and following Serb's example they can join Albania and thus they don't have to apply for admission to the UN or any other int'l organization. Everybody will be happy and end of the story.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"Ron next time try to be a little less lazy and read all of 1244, especially the part where it states that the status of Kosova is to be decided in accordance with the Ramboullet accords where the will of the people of Kosova is of primary importance. The people have spoken, they have made their will. I think you know what it is. If you need new glasses because somehow you're unable to read the whole 1244 with the old Serbian ones you have, just holla. I'll send you some Chinese made ones from the US.

(johny, 16 January 2010 07:25) "

YOU are the one who need glasses, not Ron.

1. You conveniently blinded yourself to the 4 words in that part of thE Rambouillet Accord which immediately follows the "will of the people". Let me state the entire sentence for everyone's benefit (the 4 words in capital are mine for emphasis): "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The relevant authorities would include Belgrade.

2. You are also blind to 1244 which specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Don't look down on Chinese products. Made-in-China glasses may just be what you need as your American made ones are obviously not doing you much good!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"I don't think that partition would be "solved problem" because Kosova won't give not even an inch of her territory.
(Nelli_Canada, 16 January 2010 23:22) "

Well "Kosova" is not the only one who thinks this way. Serbia too.

In any case, there is already the reality of a de facto partition at the Ibar.

Jim

pre 14 godina

I am completely with Bob and Mark on this. Partition is clearly the best answer, with South Kosovo joining Albania and the north being fully reintegrated back into Serbia. Problem solved!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"1. Iowe I cannot help but point out the discrepancy in your post. Why should we then completely blind ourselves to this phrase " OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES" which by the way includes Prishtina as well but not completely blind ourselves to the other phrase "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? Can you find me one good reason why WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to be completely disregarded while OPINIONS OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES should take complete authority? I also want to add that RELEVANT AUTHORITIES also includes Prishtina and its opinion has been taken into consideration as well.

2. 1244 Specifically states that as you rightly posted :"Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures."
Nowhere in there do you see that after those 3 years when the final status is to be decided, Belgrade would have sovereignty over Kosova. It also does not specifically mention that ALL relevant authorities have to agree or that the opinions of relevant authorities take precedence over the will of people. As you rightly posted 1244 leaves the door open for Independence by having the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as the basis of the final status.


P.S US designed and Chinese made products are indeed very good.
(johny, 17 January 2010 22:30) "

johny,

There you go again -- sprouting more inaccuracies -- misquoting me and misinterpreting 1244.

That statement regarding the 3 years did not come from 1244. It came from the Rambouillet Accords which, by the way, Belgrade did not sign.

As for the "opinion of relevant authorities", I was merely reminding you that you conveniently forgot that the will of the people was only one part of that statement. That statement also requires the opinions of the relevant authorities (including Belgrade) to be considered. Hence the will of the people does not take priority over Belgrade's opinion -- both has to be equally considered -- and you chose to consider only the former.

In short, the will of the people is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision came from Rambouillet and not 1244.

Finally 1244 specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo, a point you continue to conveniently evade. Under 1244, Kosovo is a province and therefore by extension can only become independent with Belgrade's consent. This requires REAL negotiations, not the fake ones orchestrated by Ahtisaari.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"--Can you explain to me how this is different in any way from the Serbs taking opinions of relevant authorities as a blanket check for autonomy? What is the difference between us taking the will of people as the blanket check and the Serbs taking the opinion of relevant authorities as their blanket check? You still haven't explained this? There is no difference. We aren't doing and didn't do anything that Serbs aren't doing and didn't do when it comes to the interpretation of 1244.
Second, well if you don't know what the will of people means than I guess we're wasting time. If there was nothing about independence there Serbia would have agreed. As a matter of fact( go read the ICJ transcripts) Serbia came up with its own draft on the Ramboullet accords in which the phrase WILL OF THE PEOPLE was absent. It is apparent what the will of the people is to everyone but you, or so it seems. The referendum in the early 1990's showed that will with about 98% voting for independence."

I am saying that BOTH (the people's will and Belgrade's opinion) have to be taken into account equally. However Kosovo's UDI only took into account the former and not the latter!

"-- It also means that the opinions of the relevant authorities like Belgrade by itself does not entitle Belgrade's autonomy over Kosova because that would mean ignoring the other factor- THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, which is equally relevant. What you are doing is that you conveniently accept one criterion that suits you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria- the will of the people."

You conveniently forgot (yet again) that legally Belgrade has sovereignty (and not just autonomoy) over Kosovo under 1244. Kosovo does NOT enjoy its own sovereignty. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade has no right to autonomy over Kosovo -- in fact Belgrade has rights MORE than autonomy -- rights of sovereignty!


"-- When you write about the Troika you also conveniently forget that the other two members accepted Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations--otherwise why is Belgrade unable to exert authority over Prishtina to this day? "

But the US and EU were unable to do anything in the Troika precisely because there was no concensus! Hence its back to status quo ie. Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo remains unchanged legally!


"--You are conveniently disregarding Independent states that have sprung up from autonomous regions which exist around the world and are making up your own rules, which are travesties and falsities. Finland today is an independent state and decided on its NATIONAL ISSUE, INDEPENDECE while being an autonomous province of Russia without any Russian consent. This is proof that provinces HAVE the authority to decide on NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. Eritrea is another independent country that became a country after declaring independence while being an Ethiopian province. East Timor is another independent country that became independent after declaring independence while being an Indonesian province.

-- You haven't paid attention I guess. I've stated in the past on these forums. If K-Serbs in the north and places like Strpce gather international support like we Albanians did I support them 100% if they want to detach themselves. Is that clear enough? However do not expect me or any Albanian here to do their work for them. They gather international support I and others like me will support them; don't expect us however to acquiesce with their wishes though, as Serbia didn't support our detachment or acquiesce to our wishes and didn't make our job easy. It is only natural for us to mirror Belgrade's moves as long as there is no international support for those you mention.
(johny, 19 January 2010 20:50) "

You ability to contradict yourself is amusing. On on hand you claimed to support the K-Serbs rights to self-determination. And yet a couple sentences later in the very same paragraph you refuse to acquiesce to this right of theirs. To me this is insincerity of the highest order!

lowe

pre 14 godina

johny,

One more thing. Provinces can secede PROVIDED their parent countries agree. The independence of Finland, Eritrea and East Timor are today all recognized by their former parent countries. That's why the entire world recognizes them today as well and they have no issue with UN membership. Kosovo however did not have the consent of its parent country. It is also destined to remain in the cold outside the UN indefinitely.

icj1

pre 14 godina

Let's respect 1244. Meaning that Kosovo is part of Serbia.
(Ron, 15 January 2010 15:39)

That's not how Serbia interpreted the resolution.

Serbia's interpretation is that the resolution requests in practical terms that Serbia renounce a part of its
sovereign territory.

Now who is correct, you or Serbia ?

Bob

pre 14 godina

Hi Jim

I am against myself on this one! I do not think the UDI should have been 'awarded' - it is a reward for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo that predated Milosevic.

Dragan, Toronto

pre 14 godina

The Pristina plan will falter and result in violence. Going against the defacto reality in the North won't work. Sadly alot of K-Albs will be disappointed, but too bad. The end will be partition of KiM, there is not other choice. However, many years down the road from now (perhaps not in our lifetimes), with other global conflicts (perhaps the dissolution of the EU and NATO - yes it will happen one day...all empires rise and fall)you can be rest assured that there will more wars in the Balkans again, and some of these stories will fade and new ones will arise.

Micheal Breathnach

pre 14 godina

Please believe me, that decentralisation is only a decoy to undermine the Serbs of Northern Kosovo i Metohija. The ICO/EULEX/NATO Consortium have this well planned.
It must be resisted.

MB,Ireland

lowe

pre 14 godina

"1244 refers to Ramboullet accords. Hence among the many different solutions 1244 provides ,independence is one of such solutions it provides for. So by that alone one can conclude that Independence is in complete accord with 1244. Opinions of relevant parties are to be considered but nowhere there does it state that they should have exclusivity over the will of the people. The point is that while Serbs and the Serb camp conveniently choose to completely disregard the reference to the will of people then us Albanians and the Albanian camp by the same token can choose to completely disregard other references. So when you say that both has to be considered you should try to be a little less biased since the Serbs chose to consider only Belgrade's will.

In short Belgrade's opinion is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision is clearly referred in 1244.

Finally 1244 states that a final status has to be reached. Among the many possible scenarios as we've shown 1244 provides for independence as a possible solution, a point you continue to evade. Meaning autonomy is temporary until a final solution has been reached, independence being one possible solution; another point you continue to evade. If you can make up extensions I'll make up my own also. Therefore since independence was a possible solution by extension Kosova can declare its independence based on the WILL OF PEOPLE provision. Therefore whether Belgrade signed the Ramboullet accords or not is not of any importance whatsoever. The fact that such accords are referred in 1244 which was passed by all the veto yielding UNSC members shows that independence was a solution among other solutions.

Finally if you are up for a serious debate, can you point out where in 1244, or in any international law for that matter, it is specifically stated that autonomous provinces must have consent from the country they are seceding for them to be independent? Last time I checked Finland declared its independence while it was an autonomous province of Russia without Russian consent. Finland today is an independent country.


You cannot have REAL negotiations when one of the sides decides in the middle of such negotiations to predetermine their outcome by adopting a Constitution that tries to settle the status in a unilateral fashion, while negotiations for status are still ongoing. The moment Serbia adopted a constitution, by excluding Albanians from the voting process, that predetermined the status such negotiations turned into a complete sham.

P.S You conveniently forgot the second round of negotiations by the Troika.
The world does not revolve around Serbia and with two different sets of negotiations already done there is a time when enough is enough and 2 million people can no longer live in a limbo just because certain apparitchiks in Belgrade think its completely natural to kill you and ethnically cleanse 1 million of you and still hold in their hands sovereignty over you. If you are one of the ones that like those Belgrade apparitchiks find that kind of reasoning completely natural then I guess this debate ends right here.
(johny, 18 January 2010 20:36) "

Firstly,you conveniently took Rambouillet as a blanket check for independence. The fact however is that there is NOTHING in Rambouillet that stated anything about independence as the eventual outcome for Kosovo.

Secondly, 1244 only specified that the Rambouillet accord be taken into account -- which means the ENTIRE Rambouillet accord, not just the part about the will of the people (which you conveniently emphasized to the exclusion of all other provisions). The views of relevant authorities like Belgrade is equally relevant too. This means that the will of the people by itself does not entitle Kosovo to independence because this would mean ignoring another necessary factor -- the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade's. What you are doing is to conveniently accept one criterion that suited you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria.

Thirdly, when you wrote about the Troika. You conveniently forgot that Russia was one of the members and she consistenly did not accept Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations -- otherwise why is Pristina unable to enter the UN to this day?

Fourthly, autonomous provinces have the authority to decide on their local issues BUT NOT ON NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. That's why Belgrade proposed substantial autonomy which does not amount to independence. You are conveniently equating autonomy with independence which is a falsity.

Finally if the will of the people are so sacred to you, then you must accept AND SUPPORT the right of K-Serbs north of the Ibar and in places like Strpce to detach themselves from Kosovo, am I right? I challenge you to make this stand clear. Or are we talking double standards here based, again, on what is convenient for you?

lowe

pre 14 godina

"--Yes but you are also conveniently forgetting that your view along with Belgrade's take into account only Belgrade's opinion and not the will of the people."

No matter how you twist and turn, you cannot evade the fact that it was Kosovo which initiated the UDI. And this UDI violated the opinions of Belgrade which has to be considered as seriously as the will of the people!


"--You conveniently forget some things here. Under 1244 a final status had to be reached (meaning Serbia's autonomy was not of eternal nature but guaranteed until the intermediate period had ended after which a final status would be decided with independence as one of the possibilities). The UNSC gave direct authority to its representative to determine when this intermediate period ended and final status had to be decided. Hence Serbia's autonomy is no longer guaranteed once the intermediate period ends and negotiations start. Hence yet again you conveniently forget that with the start of negotiation such intermediate period effectively ended and so did any guarantees of autonomy over Kosova since like you state above Independence was a possible choice under the will of people. The intermediate period is also referred in the Ramboullet accords. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade had limitless and eternal autonomy as 1244 clearly foresees independence as a possible solution after the intermediate period has ended by referring to the Ramboullet accords when it dealt with the issue of final status. When that period ended it was to be determined solely by the UNSC special representative under the direct authority he received from the UNSC. When he made the decision that the intermediate period had ended and it was time for a final status solution, it legally and effectively ended any guarantees of autonomy. "

The UNSC never gave Ahtisaari any authority to decide on the final solution! This is a false claim on your part! Ahtisaari was appointed to be an honest mediator (and he turned out not to be so!). He was required to submit his recommendations to the UNSC for approval. And the approval was not given by the UNSC!

I have already explained to you that 1244 explicitly recognized Belgrade's sovereignty and nothing about the temporary nature of that sovereignty. You chose to stick to Rambouillet. Well, as I also pointed out to you earlier, even Rambouillet itself does not contain even one word about Kosovo's independence being the final outcome. It only specifies that among other things, the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade has to be considered as well as the will of the people. You have conveniently considered only the will of the people in your interpretation which was not Rambouillet's intention at all!

"--In the same way we can see that when the UNSC special representative decided that the intermediate period ended that ended guarantees of autonomy and once he decided to recommend independence that ended autonomy. Hence Belgrade's sovereignty as foreseen by 1244 become null and void because the intermediate period that guaranteed autonomy was declared to had ended and because by recommending independence meant a complete annulment of any autonomy claims. One can also say that Russia was unable to do anything in the Troika to make sure to overrule the decision that the intermediate period which guaranteed autonomy over Serbia had ended. It didn't hence sovereignty over Kosova changed. "

Ahtisaari, as I told you earlier, has no such authority to decide on the final status. He can only recommend, which he did so and his recommendaitons, which must be approved by the UNSC, was in fact not even voted on in the UNSC because the US knew it would be fruitless against the vetoes of China and Russia!

"-- Likewise I find your argument to be insincere and very contradicting up to becoming amusing. It is insincere since you try to spin and twist arguments because you are biased and don't have the guts to admit that such views are biased views. While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments. Even though it is clear as day that so many interpretations can be made from the same resolution that was written that way on purpose so it could be signed by everyone in order to end military operations, you maintain a higher than though attitude as if though only your interpretation accurately describes such a resolution. It is clear as day that this resolution threw in language to please everyone so that everyone could sign it and interpret it the way the want it. It threw in autonomy and it threw in will of people, it threw in negotiations and it threw in a notion of intermediate period. So based on that, while I acknowledge that it left the door open for all kinds of things and all kinds of interpretations you insist that only your interpretations are the right ones and that this resolution should only be seen and interpreted the way you see it. Well that not only is self-serving and insincere but also speaks of a total lack of courage to see the resolution for what it actually is: a purposely written clusterf..ck that in the end guarantees nothing to nobody as each notion annuls each other. Will of people annuls autonomy, intermediate period annuls guarantee, and vice versa."

There is only one sentence in this entire tirade of yours that I completely agree with you. And its this sentence that you wrote and I quote: "While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments." You were definitely biased and inaccurate in your arguments that Kosovo's UDI was above board. You cannot deny that the UDI ignored the relevant opinion of Belgrade which is a necessary ingredient under Raqmbouillet which you are so fond of referring to.


"P.S Again I can't be more clear than this. If Serbs in Kosova get international support to detach then I support them, but and I can't stress this enough, do not expect me or any Albanians here to fight for their cause, lobby for their cause, or help them get international support for what they want. Its their will, they should work for it, not me or any other Albanian. It is a reasonable attitude.
(johny, 20 January 2010 02:24) "

Reasonable attitude? What a laugh! If you are truly sincere about the will of the people principle, then you must UNCONDITIONALLY support the K-Serbs' rights to secede from Pristina and not conveniently resort to caveats like what the internationals think. If you are sincere, you MUST support the K-Serbs' right to secede REGARDLESS of what others (including your fellow Albanians) think!!!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"Again making things up. Russia did not recognize Finland or give its consent until a later time. It wasn't like you want to make it appear. Russia did not give its consent or recognize Finland automatically as it declared its independence. That is also the case with Eritrea. There was no consent or agreement for decades. Why don't you come out and admit the truth as it is. Autonomous provinces CAN BECOME INDEPENDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT REGULATES THE PROCESS AS I HAVE SHOWN. There is nothing in international law that states that the other party MUST also consent. Also the process of becoming independent is not automatic. Meaning that while in the process of becoming independent there is no automatic recognition and consent from the country one is seceding from.
Can you stop using phrases that do not describe the situation as they are falsities; there are no parent countries.
(johny, 20 January 2010 01:31) "

You conveniently forgot (again) that when the UN was formed only after the second world war, Russia already recognized Finland. Had the Russians not done so, you can be sure Finland would be outside the UN like Kosovo today.

And you tried to pull a fast one about Eritrea. The fact is that Ethiopia recognized Eritrea's independence back in 1993 -- in fact they even have diplomatic relations. That's why Eritrea is in the UN today and Kosovo is not!

I don't think you understand what I mean by parent countries. But to take up on your point, as per your interpretation, K-Serbs will then be entitled to secede from Pristina whenever they want purely on the basis of their will, regardless of what Albanians and others think! If you cannot UNCONDIITONALLY accept this, then all your tirade on this post will be revealed to be nothing other than hypocrisy and double standards!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"-- Yes, yes but you conveniently forget how many years passed until Russia considered recognizing. Somehow you conveniently omit the fact that their recognition did not come automatically but it took years and years. So the point is that even though there was no automatic consent from Russia, Finland's independence process did not end."

That's exactly my point! Finland's independence had ultimately to be get Russia's consent! Had Russia not agreed, Helsinki would have been left out of the UN up to today, and just like Kosovo!

"-- You are trying to pull in a first one right here. You conveniently forget that there was a 3 decade struggle going on during which Ethiopia not only did not recognize Eritrea's right to secede but it was continually crushing and killing them for 3 straight decade. Again the process of becoming independent was a process that lasted for 30 years and it wasn't automatic. Meaning that just because Ethiopia did not recognize Eritrea's independence immediately and automatically the process of becoming independent did not end for Eritrea. Again the process took years and decades. Same as Finland. The same thing with East Timor. It took almost 3 decades."

Yes, my point was that the independence of both East Timor and Eritrea became valid only after recgonition by Indonesia and Ethiopia! In the same way, Kosovo's UDI will only be valid AFTER Belgrade agrees -- but I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen if I were you! The Taiwanese couldn't get China's consent for their independence and so they have been shut out of the UN for almost 40 years now!


"--It is interesting that you are so quick to call others hypocritical yet you state that while Serbs have the rights to secede despite what Albanians think, Albanians don't have the right to secede despite what Serbs think. I see you like applying some double standards yourself. So for you it is more than OK that the will of one set of people to secede (that of K-Serbs) takes precedence over the will of another set of people to secede ( that of K-Albanians). That is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy becomes even more clear when keeping in mind that while I accept their possible secession if they garner international support, other hand while you back K-Serbs secession unconditionally, are categorically against the unconditional secession of Albanians. Hypocrisy at its best."

You are trying to fudge the issue. You now conveniently forgot that it was YOU, not me, who trumpeted about the sanctitiy of the principle of the people's will. And yet, you chose to convenielty put conditions (of international support) when it comes to the will of the K-Serbs. To be this is just a flimsy excuse at double standards and avoiding having to apply the will of the people principle for the K-Serbs. If you were really honest about applying this principle to eveyone (and not just for the benefit of the Albanians) you would have IMMEDIATLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported the K-Serbs' secession rights instead of now conveiently tempering this support with more conditions! Remember, YOU were the one who expoused this principle right from the start, not me! I am only challenging you to put your money where your mouth is, and in this I think you have failed miserably!

"P.S Again there is something to be said about reciprocity. When you see the first Serb working for our independence you might eventually see the first Albanian working for theirs. And while you see Albanians that would eventually be OK if those Serb areas detach if there is international support we are yet to see a Serb thinking in the same wavelength. Now if you you can't see this, that offer about those glasses is still on the table.
(johny, 20 January 2010 19:01) "

So just one K-Serb is conveniently (yet again) taken by one to represent the overwhelming majority of them who are against Kosovo's UDI! Another of your twisted logic that I defintely do not buy!

And again you chose to make international support a condition for the K-Serbs. As I stated earlier, if you had been really sincere about the will-of-the-people principle, you would have supported the K-Serbs' right to detach themselves WITHOUT ANY CONDITION and EVEN IF the internationals do not! Just for the record, the international community does not just refer to the West, it also includes the rest of the world. And so as it currently stands, Kosovo's UDI does not have the support of the majority of countries in the world!

As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"-- If that was your point then I guess you don't lack the intelligence to understand that when somebody says never it doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be like that. My point is that in Russia, when Finland as an autonomous province declared its independence, there were plenty of them that were swearing to never recognize. I'm going to let you in on something that you should have been aware when we started this debate. When Albania declared its independence there was a state that was stating it would never recognize it because Albania was being build on their old lands. Can you take a wild guess who that state is? I'll help you. It was Serbia that when Albania declared its independence ( while being an autonomous province) Serbia was swearing it would never recognize it. "

Firstly, neither of us can predict whether Serbia will recognize Kosovo in the future. But the point remains that as long as she does not recognize Kosovo, the latter's UDI remains illegal and Kosovo will remain outside the UN. Finland had no problems with UN entry because by the time she applied, the Russians have already recognized her independence.

Secondly, why bring Albania into the discussion? Serbia never had sovereignty over Albania and so whether she decided to recognize Albania or not at that time is irrelevant. However Serbia has sovereignty over Kosovo and this is what makes Kosovo's UDI different from Tirana's independence. You are mixing up apples and oranges!



"--Ok as I've stated before nobody is holding their breaths. As I've pointed out many times before we are more than OK with this. Put any label you want to this situation. We are more than OK with it. The Serb camp isn't.
Second I didn't know you were a psychic who is able to foresee what will happen in the future and able to tell who will become independent and who will not. Also Belgrade is not Russia or China. I am assuming that you don't lack the intelligence to see that depending on how things turn out certain vetoes are not guaranteed for eternity. We had 5 vetoes against us becoming independent when the UN started and now is down to two. You never know what the future holds. It would be extremely naive for us or for the Serb camp for that matter to expect us to drop our will for independence at a moment when we have most of the world's strongest countries with us. Especially considering that we didn't drop our will when we had no support whatsoever.
You are also disregarding the fact that it took decades and decades long wars for these countries to become independent after declaring independence. Its been not even 2 years since we did. Again nobody knows what the future holds.

You are also conveniently forgetting that if autonomy is be valid it will be valid only AFTER Prishtina agrees. You can sign all the paperwork you need with anyone you want. If those 2 million Albanians there do not agree-- there is no autonomy. A state is a social contract between the people and if the people say there is no contract then there is no state. If the Albanians do not agree, Belgrade would wish to have a Taiwan situation. In fact that's what it wants now but it can't have."

After this tirade of yours, the bottom line still remains unchanged: The Russians and Chinese will not allow Kosovo's UN entry because, as they already made clear so many times, this goes against the principle of state sovereignty. So unless and until Kosovo somehow manages to reach an agreement with Belgrade, enjoy your exile outside the UN!

Besides, prior to your UDI, autonomy was what Kosovo had. And unless there is mutual agreement between Belgrade and Pristina change that, the status quo remains legally speaking!

Finally don't kid yourself about Kosovo being anything like Taiwan other than your common exile from UN. Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas Kosovo is in reality a Western colony dependent on your US and EU masters for handouts.



"-- I also challenged you to put you money where your mouth is. Not only you failed miserably but you lack the courage to even talk about the issue. Remember you are the one that claims that one set of people has the right to rule over another set of people even when they've clearly shown to want to rule themselves. Not only that but you claim that such a thing is written in some international law which I have yet to see.
Likewise if you are are to apply your principle that one set of people is entitled under international law to rule over another set of people you would have IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported K-Serbs being under Albanian rule in Kosova ( Kosova even as province within Jugoslavia has had well-defined borders) instead you are now conveniently tampering this support with more conditions. Remember you were the one that espoused this principle right from the start, not me.
Also you are trying to put a spin on issues by putting things I simply do not say. Being anti-religious I purposely avoid using certain words such as sanctity or holly."

Kosovo may have well defined borders under Yugoslavia but the bottom line is still that it is a province of Serbia! This fact is undeniable no matter how much you try to evade it!

Regarding your claim that I had some principle about one people ruling another, I certainly do not subscribe to your interpretation. In any case, all this while I was referring to the principle of state sovereignty and state borders -- the sovereignty and borders of Serbia must be respected. Kosovo itself is now demanding respect for its own borders and sovereignty and yet it has no qualms about doing an UDI to violate Serbia's borders and sovereignty! That's double standards if you ask me!

I cannot care less about your religious affiliation. As far as I know, "sanctity" is a normal English word which does not necessarily have religious connotations. You should check the dictionary before making such desperate, wild accusations!


"--You don't have to buy anything because nobody is trying to sell you anything. This is a conversation. Read it again. In the rush to respond to me you haven't understood what I wrote."

Oh, I understand where you are going alright -- the falsities, half-truths and convenient selective interpretations of 1244 and Rambouillet etc -- of course you should not expense me or anyone else to buy these! (By the way, the word "buy" here is just the conversational English style of saying that something is accepted.)

"-- Yet again a double standard from you. As I've stated earlier if you had been really sincere about the principle of secession you'd support K-Serbs remaining within Kosova UNTIL ALBANIANS AGREE. You yourself stated that the other side has to CONSENT. Just for the record, recognitions for us have come from all corners of the world and not only from the West."

At present the majority of the nations of the world have not recognized your UDI! Don't try to pull another fast one on me because it ain't gonna work!

The question about "Kosova" agreeing (or disagreeing) with K-Serbs' secession attempts is irrelevant in the light of Kosovo being legally a part of Serbia. "Kosova" therefore in the first place has no right to make that kind of demands about the K-Serbs as it is itself legally a part of Serbia and which it illegally breached through its UDI. Kosovo did wrong by breaking away for Serbia and therefore cannot use this illegality to impose any non-secession demands on the K-Serbs!


"As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!"

--While I'll consider your advice, I recommend you listen to your own advices. You have a serious problem in applying what you say to others towards your own self. All you do is point fingers and there is a total lack of self-reflection.
(johny, 21 January 2010 01:00)"

I only point fingers at posts such as yours which are riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths and convenient selective interpretations of documents and situations!

johny

pre 14 godina

YOU are the one who need glasses, not Ron.

1. You conveniently blinded yourself to the 4 words in that part of thE Rambouillet Accord which immediately follows the "will of the people". Let me state the entire sentence for everyone's benefit (the 4 words in capital are mine for emphasis): "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The relevant authorities would include Belgrade.

2. You are also blind to 1244 which specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Don't look down on Chinese products. Made-in-China glasses may just be what you need as your American made ones are obviously not doing you much good!
(lowe, 17 January 2010 06:51)

1. Iowe I cannot help but point out the discrepancy in your post. Why should we then completely blind ourselves to this phrase " OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES" which by the way includes Prishtina as well but not completely blind ourselves to the other phrase "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? Can you find me one good reason why WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to be completely disregarded while OPINIONS OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES should take complete authority? I also want to add that RELEVANT AUTHORITIES also includes Prishtina and its opinion has been taken into consideration as well.

2. 1244 Specifically states that as you rightly posted :"Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures."
Nowhere in there do you see that after those 3 years when the final status is to be decided, Belgrade would have sovereignty over Kosova. It also does not specifically mention that ALL relevant authorities have to agree or that the opinions of relevant authorities take precedence over the will of people. As you rightly posted 1244 leaves the door open for Independence by having the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as the basis of the final status.


P.S US designed and Chinese made products are indeed very good.

johny

pre 14 godina

That statement regarding the 3 years did not come from 1244. It came from the Rambouillet Accords which, by the way, Belgrade did not sign.

As for the "opinion of relevant authorities", I was merely reminding you that you conveniently forgot that the will of the people was only one part of that statement. That statement also requires the opinions of the relevant authorities (including Belgrade) to be considered. Hence the will of the people does not take priority over Belgrade's opinion -- both has to be equally considered -- and you chose to consider only the former.

In short, the will of the people is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision came from Rambouillet and not 1244.

Finally 1244 specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo, a point you continue to conveniently evade. Under 1244, Kosovo is a province and therefore by extension can only become independent with Belgrade's consent. This requires REAL negotiations, not the fake ones orchestrated by Ahtisaari.
(lowe, 18 January 2010 07:48)

1244 refers to Ramboullet accords. Hence among the many different solutions 1244 provides ,independence is one of such solutions it provides for. So by that alone one can conclude that Independence is in complete accord with 1244. Opinions of relevant parties are to be considered but nowhere there does it state that they should have exclusivity over the will of the people. The point is that while Serbs and the Serb camp conveniently choose to completely disregard the reference to the will of people then us Albanians and the Albanian camp by the same token can choose to completely disregard other references. So when you say that both has to be considered you should try to be a little less biased since the Serbs chose to consider only Belgrade's will.

In short Belgrade's opinion is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision is clearly referred in 1244.

Finally 1244 states that a final status has to be reached. Among the many possible scenarios as we've shown 1244 provides for independence as a possible solution, a point you continue to evade. Meaning autonomy is temporary until a final solution has been reached, independence being one possible solution; another point you continue to evade. If you can make up extensions I'll make up my own also. Therefore since independence was a possible solution by extension Kosova can declare its independence based on the WILL OF PEOPLE provision. Therefore whether Belgrade signed the Ramboullet accords or not is not of any importance whatsoever. The fact that such accords are referred in 1244 which was passed by all the veto yielding UNSC members shows that independence was a solution among other solutions.

Finally if you are up for a serious debate, can you point out where in 1244, or in any international law for that matter, it is specifically stated that autonomous provinces must have consent from the country they are seceding for them to be independent? Last time I checked Finland declared its independence while it was an autonomous province of Russia without Russian consent. Finland today is an independent country.


You cannot have REAL negotiations when one of the sides decides in the middle of such negotiations to predetermine their outcome by adopting a Constitution that tries to settle the status in a unilateral fashion, while negotiations for status are still ongoing. The moment Serbia adopted a constitution, by excluding Albanians from the voting process, that predetermined the status such negotiations turned into a complete sham.

P.S You conveniently forgot the second round of negotiations by the Troika.
The world does not revolve around Serbia and with two different sets of negotiations already done there is a time when enough is enough and 2 million people can no longer live in a limbo just because certain apparitchiks in Belgrade think its completely natural to kill you and ethnically cleanse 1 million of you and still hold in their hands sovereignty over you. If you are one of the ones that like those Belgrade apparitchiks find that kind of reasoning completely natural then I guess this debate ends right here.

johny

pre 14 godina

"Firstly,you conveniently took Rambouillet as a blanket check for independence. The fact however is that there is NOTHING in Rambouillet that stated anything about independence as the eventual outcome for Kosovo."

--Can you explain to me how this is different in any way from the Serbs taking opinions of relevant authorities as a blanket check for autonomy? What is the difference between us taking the will of people as the blanket check and the Serbs taking the opinion of relevant authorities as their blanket check? You still haven't explained this? There is no difference. We aren't doing and didn't do anything that Serbs aren't doing and didn't do when it comes to the interpretation of 1244.
Second, well if you don't know what the will of people means than I guess we're wasting time. If there was nothing about independence there Serbia would have agreed. As a matter of fact( go read the ICJ transcripts) Serbia came up with its own draft on the Ramboullet accords in which the phrase WILL OF THE PEOPLE was absent. It is apparent what the will of the people is to everyone but you, or so it seems. The referendum in the early 1990's showed that will with about 98% voting for independence.

"Secondly, 1244 only specified that the Rambouillet accord be taken into account -- which means the ENTIRE Rambouillet accord, not just the part about the will of the people (which you conveniently emphasized to the exclusion of all other provisions). The views of relevant authorities like Belgrade is equally relevant too. This means that the will of the people by itself does not entitle Kosovo to independence because this would mean ignoring another necessary factor -- the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade's. What you are doing is to conveniently accept one criterion that suited you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria."

-- It also means that the opinions of the relevant authorities like Belgrade by itself does not entitle Belgrade's autonomy over Kosova because that would mean ignoring the other factor- THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, which is equally relevant. What you are doing is that you conveniently accept one criterion that suits you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria- the will of the people.

"Thirdly, when you wrote about the Troika. You conveniently forgot that Russia was one of the members and she consistenly did not accept Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations -- otherwise why is Pristina unable to enter the UN to this day? "

-- When you write about the Troika you also conveniently forget that the other two members accepted Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations--otherwise why is Belgrade unable to exert authority over Prishtina to this day?

"Fourthly, autonomous provinces have the authority to decide on their local issues BUT NOT ON NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. That's why Belgrade proposed substantial autonomy which does not amount to independence. You are conveniently equating autonomy with independence which is a falsity."


--You are conveniently disregarding Independent states that have sprung up from autonomous regions which exist around the world and are making up your own rules, which are travesties and falsities. Finland today is an independent state and decided on its NATIONAL ISSUE, INDEPENDECE while being an autonomous province of Russia without any Russian consent. This is proof that provinces HAVE the authority to decide on NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. Eritrea is another independent country that became a country after declaring independence while being an Ethiopian province. East Timor is another independent country that became independent after declaring independence while being an Indonesian province.

"Finally if the will of the people are so sacred to you, then you must accept AND SUPPORT the right of K-Serbs north of the Ibar and in places like Strpce to detach themselves from Kosovo, am I right? I challenge you to make this stand clear. Or are we talking double standards here based, again, on what is convenient for you?"

-- You haven't paid attention I guess. I've stated in the past on these forums. If K-Serbs in the north and places like Strpce gather international support like we Albanians did I support them 100% if they want to detach themselves. Is that clear enough? However do not expect me or any Albanian here to do their work for them. They gather international support I and others like me will support them; don't expect us however to acquiesce with their wishes though, as Serbia didn't support our detachment or acquiesce to our wishes and didn't make our job easy. It is only natural for us to mirror Belgrade's moves as long as there is no international support for those you mention.

johny

pre 14 godina

One more thing. Provinces can secede PROVIDED their parent countries agree. The independence of Finland, Eritrea and East Timor are today all recognized by their former parent countries. That's why the entire world recognizes them today as well and they have no issue with UN membership. Kosovo however did not have the consent of its parent country. It is also destined to remain in the cold outside the UN indefinitely.
(lowe, 19 January 2010 22:25)

Again making things up. Russia did not recognize Finland or give its consent until a later time. It wasn't like you want to make it appear. Russia did not give its consent or recognize Finland automatically as it declared its independence. That is also the case with Eritrea. There was no consent or agreement for decades. Why don't you come out and admit the truth as it is. Autonomous provinces CAN BECOME INDEPENDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT REGULATES THE PROCESS AS I HAVE SHOWN. There is nothing in international law that states that the other party MUST also consent. Also the process of becoming independent is not automatic. Meaning that while in the process of becoming independent there is no automatic recognition and consent from the country one is seceding from.
Can you stop using phrases that do not describe the situation as they are falsities; there are no parent countries.

johny

pre 14 godina

"I am saying that BOTH (the people's will and Belgrade's opinion) have to be taken into account equally. However Kosovo's UDI only took into account the former and not the latter!"

--Yes but you are also conveniently forgetting that your view along with Belgrade's take into account only Belgrade's opinion and not the will of the people.


"You conveniently forgot (yet again) that legally Belgrade has sovereignty (and not just autonomoy) over Kosovo under 1244. Kosovo does NOT enjoy its own sovereignty. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade has no right to autonomy over Kosovo -- in fact Belgrade has rights MORE than autonomy -- rights of sovereignty!"

--You conveniently forget some things here. Under 1244 a final status had to be reached (meaning Serbia's autonomy was not of eternal nature but guaranteed until the intermediate period had ended after which a final status would be decided with independence as one of the possibilities). The UNSC gave direct authority to its representative to determine when this intermediate period ended and final status had to be decided. Hence Serbia's autonomy is no longer guaranteed once the intermediate period ends and negotiations start. Hence yet again you conveniently forget that with the start of negotiation such intermediate period effectively ended and so did any guarantees of autonomy over Kosova since like you state above Independence was a possible choice under the will of people. The intermediate period is also referred in the Ramboullet accords. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade had limitless and eternal autonomy as 1244 clearly foresees independence as a possible solution after the intermediate period has ended by referring to the Ramboullet accords when it dealt with the issue of final status. When that period ended it was to be determined solely by the UNSC special representative under the direct authority he received from the UNSC. When he made the decision that the intermediate period had ended and it was time for a final status solution, it legally and effectively ended any guarantees of autonomy.



"But the US and EU were unable to do anything in the Troika precisely because there was no concensus! Hence its back to status quo ie. Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo remains unchanged legally!"


--In the same way we can see that when the UNSC special representative decided that the intermediate period ended that ended guarantees of autonomy and once he decided to recommend independence that ended autonomy. Hence Belgrade's sovereignty as foreseen by 1244 become null and void because the intermediate period that guaranteed autonomy was declared to had ended and because by recommending independence meant a complete annulment of any autonomy claims. One can also say that Russia was unable to do anything in the Troika to make sure to overrule the decision that the intermediate period which guaranteed autonomy over Serbia had ended. It didn't hence sovereignty over Kosova changed.




"You ability to contradict yourself is amusing. On on hand you claimed to support the K-Serbs rights to self-determination. And yet a couple sentences later in the very same paragraph you refuse to acquiesce to this right of theirs. To me this is insincerity of the highest order!"

-- Likewise I find your argument to be insincere and very contradicting up to becoming amusing. It is insincere since you try to spin and twist arguments because you are biased and don't have the guts to admit that such views are biased views. While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments. Even though it is clear as day that so many interpretations can be made from the same resolution that was written that way on purpose so it could be signed by everyone in order to end military operations, you maintain a higher than though attitude as if though only your interpretation accurately describes such a resolution. It is clear as day that this resolution threw in language to please everyone so that everyone could sign it and interpret it the way the want it. It threw in autonomy and it threw in will of people, it threw in negotiations and it threw in a notion of intermediate period. So based on that, while I acknowledge that it left the door open for all kinds of things and all kinds of interpretations you insist that only your interpretations are the right ones and that this resolution should only be seen and interpreted the way you see it. Well that not only is self-serving and insincere but also speaks of a total lack of courage to see the resolution for what it actually is: a purposely written clusterf..ck that in the end guarantees nothing to nobody as each notion annuls each other. Will of people annuls autonomy, intermediate period annuls guarantee, and vice versa.


P.S Again I can't be more clear than this. If Serbs in Kosova get international support to detach then I support them, but and I can't stress this enough, do not expect me or any Albanians here to fight for their cause, lobby for their cause, or help them get international support for what they want. Its their will, they should work for it, not me or any other Albanian. It is a reasonable attitude.

johny

pre 14 godina

"You conveniently forgot (again) that when the UN was formed only after the second world war, Russia already recognized Finland. Had the Russians not done so, you can be sure Finland would be outside the UN like Kosovo today."

-- Yes, yes but you conveniently forget how many years passed until Russia considered recognizing. Somehow you conveniently omit the fact that their recognition did not come automatically but it took years and years. So the point is that even though there was no automatic consent from Russia, Finland's independence process did not end.


"And you tried to pull a fast one about Eritrea. The fact is that Ethiopia recognized Eritrea's independence back in 1993 -- in fact they even have diplomatic relations. That's why Eritrea is in the UN today and Kosovo is not!"


-- You are trying to pull in a first one right here. You conveniently forget that there was a 3 decade struggle going on during which Ethiopia not only did not recognize Eritrea's right to secede but it was continually crushing and killing them for 3 straight decade. Again the process of becoming independent was a process that lasted for 30 years and it wasn't automatic. Meaning that just because Ethiopia did not recognize Eritrea's independence immediately and automatically the process of becoming independent did not end for Eritrea. Again the process took years and decades. Same as Finland. The same thing with East Timor. It took almost 3 decades.

"I don't think you understand what I mean by parent countries. But to take up on your point, as per your interpretation, K-Serbs will then be entitled to secede from Pristina whenever they want purely on the basis of their will, regardless of what Albanians and others think! If you cannot UNCONDIITONALLY accept this, then all your tirade on this post will be revealed to be nothing other than hypocrisy and double standards!"


--It is interesting that you are so quick to call others hypocritical yet you state that while Serbs have the rights to secede despite what Albanians think, Albanians don't have the right to secede despite what Serbs think. I see you like applying some double standards yourself. So for you it is more than OK that the will of one set of people to secede (that of K-Serbs) takes precedence over the will of another set of people to secede ( that of K-Albanians). That is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy becomes even more clear when keeping in mind that while I accept their possible secession if they garner international support, other hand while you back K-Serbs secession unconditionally, are categorically against the unconditional secession of Albanians. Hypocrisy at its best.


P.S Again there is something to be said about reciprocity. When you see the first Serb working for our independence you might eventually see the first Albanian working for theirs. And while you see Albanians that would eventually be OK if those Serb areas detach if there is international support we are yet to see a Serb thinking in the same wavelength. Now if you you can't see this, that offer about those glasses is still on the table.

johny

pre 14 godina

"That's exactly my point! Finland's independence had ultimately to be get Russia's consent! Had Russia not agreed, Helsinki would have been left out of the UN up to today, and just like Kosovo!"

-- If that was your point then I guess you don't lack the intelligence to understand that when somebody says never it doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be like that. My point is that in Russia, when Finland as an autonomous province declared its independence, there were plenty of them that were swearing to never recognize. I'm going to let you in on something that you should have been aware when we started this debate. When Albania declared its independence there was a state that was stating it would never recognize it because Albania was being build on their old lands. Can you take a wild guess who that state is? I'll help you. It was Serbia that when Albania declared its independence ( while being an autonomous province) Serbia was swearing it would never recognize it.


"Yes, my point was that the independence of both East Timor and Eritrea became valid only after recgonition by Indonesia and Ethiopia! In the same way, Kosovo's UDI will only be valid AFTER Belgrade agrees -- but I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen if I were you! The Taiwanese couldn't get China's consent for their independence and so they have been shut out of the UN for almost 40 years now!"

--Ok as I've stated before nobody is holding their breaths. As I've pointed out many times before we are more than OK with this. Put any label you want to this situation. We are more than OK with it. The Serb camp isn't.
Second I didn't know you were a psychic who is able to foresee what will happen in the future and able to tell who will become independent and who will not. Also Belgrade is not Russia or China. I am assuming that you don't lack the intelligence to see that depending on how things turn out certain vetoes are not guaranteed for eternity. We had 5 vetoes against us becoming independent when the UN started and now is down to two. You never know what the future holds. It would be extremely naive for us or for the Serb camp for that matter to expect us to drop our will for independence at a moment when we have most of the world's strongest countries with us. Especially considering that we didn't drop our will when we had no support whatsoever.
You are also disregarding the fact that it took decades and decades long wars for these countries to become independent after declaring independence. Its been not even 2 years since we did. Again nobody knows what the future holds.

You are also conveniently forgetting that if autonomy is be valid it will be valid only AFTER Prishtina agrees. You can sign all the paperwork you need with anyone you want. If those 2 million Albanians there do not agree-- there is no autonomy. A state is a social contract between the people and if the people say there is no contract then there is no state. If the Albanians do not agree, Belgrade would wish to have a Taiwan situation. In fact that's what it wants now but it can't have.


"You are trying to fudge the issue. You now conveniently forgot that it was YOU, not me, who trumpeted about the sanctitiy of the principle of the people's will. And yet, you chose to convenielty put conditions (of international support) when it comes to the will of the K-Serbs. To be this is just a flimsy excuse at double standards and avoiding having to apply the will of the people principle for the K-Serbs. If you were really honest about applying this principle to eveyone (and not just for the benefit of the Albanians) you would have IMMEDIATLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported the K-Serbs' secession rights instead of now conveiently tempering this support with more conditions! Remember, YOU were the one who expoused this principle right from the start, not me! I am only challenging you to put your money where your mouth is, and in this I think you have failed miserably!"

-- I also challenged you to put you money where your mouth is. Not only you failed miserably but you lack the courage to even talk about the issue. Remember you are the one that claims that one set of people has the right to rule over another set of people even when they've clearly shown to want to rule themselves. Not only that but you claim that such a thing is written in some international law which I have yet to see.
Likewise if you are are to apply your principle that one set of people is entitled under international law to rule over another set of people you would have IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported K-Serbs being under Albanian rule in Kosova ( Kosova even as province within Jugoslavia has had well-defined borders) instead you are now conveniently tampering this support with more conditions. Remember you were the one that espoused this principle right from the start, not me.
Also you are trying to put a spin on issues by putting things I simply do not say. Being anti-religious I purposely avoid using certain words such as sanctity or holly.



"So just one K-Serb is conveniently (yet again) taken by one to represent the overwhelming majority of them who are against Kosovo's UDI! Another of your twisted logic that I defintely do not buy!"

--You don't have to buy anything because nobody is trying to sell you anything. This is a conversation. Read it again. In the rush to respond to me you haven't understood what I wrote.

"And again you chose to make international support a condition for the K-Serbs. As I stated earlier, if you had been really sincere about the will-of-the-people principle, you would have supported the K-Serbs' right to detach themselves WITHOUT ANY CONDITION and EVEN IF the internationals do not! Just for the record, the international community does not just refer to the West, it also includes the rest of the world. And so as it currently stands, Kosovo's UDI does not have the support of the majority of countries in the world!"

-- Yet again a double standard from you. As I've stated earlier if you had been really sincere about the principle of secession you'd support K-Serbs remaining within Kosova UNTIL ALBANIANS AGREE. You yourself stated that the other side has to CONSENT. Just for the record, recognitions for us have come from all corners of the world and not only from the West.



"As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!"

--While I'll consider your advice, I recommend you listen to your own advices. You have a serious problem in applying what you say to others towards your own self. All you do is point fingers and there is a total lack of self-reflection.

PRN

pre 14 godina

Oppose what??

Kosovo is not a niche to dream and braistorm wishes. Serbs live in a new reality, they make up 3% of the population and must respect Kosovo COnstitution if they want to live in Kosovo. Otherwise go to mentality in Serbia get a 'life' of poverty and hell.

adrian kola

pre 14 godina

That's absolutely not true! I don't know where you got that figure from, presumably from some neo-fascist serbian site, but that figures is completely unfounded.

Milan

pre 14 godina

Oppose what??

Kosovo is not a niche to dream and braistorm wishes. Serbs live in a new reality, they make up 3% of the population and must respect Kosovo COnstitution if they want to live in Kosovo. Otherwise go to mentality in Serbia get a 'life' of poverty and hell.
(PRN, 15 January 2010 15:22)
Albanians consists about 20% of population of Republic of Serbia and must respect constitution of Republic of Serbia. If they don't want to live in Serbia - they have their own national state - Albania, where they can live in poverty and hell.

Diana

pre 14 godina

Who cares what Feith says he's having another go of trying to subject and bully the Serbs. He also realises how much they need the Serbs. Very interesting interview on BBC4 this morning by a Conservative party member saying that diplomacy not the army should have been used in Bosnia, kosovo and Iraq basically saying that nothing can be achieved by force. The truth is staring to come out and finally a new reality of the mess US/EU have caused. More and more people are seeing the light and understanding the hypocracy of certain governments. If I was a Serb in kosovo I'd ask Russia to help that will shut up Feith.

DP

pre 14 godina

Serbia needs to continue to reform its structures in Northern Kosovo in order to minimize corruption and attract investment into this Serb-run part of Kosovo-Metohija, thus strengthening this territory and the Serbian control within.
As for the demographics, it gets even better. 95% of Northern Kosovo-Metohija is Serb, which equates to approximately 62 700 residents out of 66 000 residents (as of 2009)

Hank the Tank

pre 14 godina

I say let EULEX have one last try to show america and the EU that they at least tried to make the north accept their unacaptable "peace plan". Soon they will say that ist a lost cause and everyone will be happy! : )

Ron

pre 14 godina

this plan was envisioned by ex-UNMIK leader...this is nothing new. Resolution 1244 can stay up and active in the UN as long as the Constitution of Kosovo is the absolute law.
(KOSOVARi, 15 January 2010 18:20)

Nope, my friend. UNMIK will always overrule any 'Kosovo constitution'. Mind that Kosovo is a province and thus has no constitution at all!

Time to stop the joke of Kososvo independence!

KOSOVARi

pre 14 godina

Ron,

this plan was envisioned by ex-UNMIK leader...this is nothing new. Resolution 1244 can stay up and active in the UN as long as the Constitution of Kosovo is the absolute law.

I'm sure none of you heard about Bratislav Nikolic kicking representatives of the parallel structures out of Strpce / Shterpce this morning.

I'm glad I found some good news...especially in this grim day the 11th year (today) of the RACAK MASSACRE.

Mike

pre 14 godina

The north is isn't, wasn't, and in the absence of a full-scale war never will be, under Pristina. If Albanians are that adamant about living with Serbs, they shouldn't have seceded in the first place.

Zoran

pre 14 godina

Mr Rae

A universal law that has been here since eternity -

"For those long divided they unite, and those long united they divide."

johny

pre 14 godina

Ron next time try to be a little less lazy and read all of 1244, especially the part where it states that the status of Kosova is to be decided in accordance with the Ramboullet accords where the will of the people of Kosova is of primary importance. The people have spoken, they have made their will. I think you know what it is. If you need new glasses because somehow you're unable to read the whole 1244 with the old Serbian ones you have, just holla. I'll send you some Chinese made ones from the US.


Also this was said in the article:
“This intended strategy to expel UNMIK, which is supposed to work in the spirit of Resolution 1244, from Kosovo, and that EULEX should take its place – an organization which comes from the countries that created that independent Kosovo – is certainly not beneficial for the finals solution, just as the elections in [Northern] Kosovska Mitrovica will not succeed,” he said. ?"

I'd like to remind this Serbian guy that EULEX really comes from those that pay your salary in Belgrade for it was Tadic that was so adamant for EULEX to come in Kosova and it was Jeremic that declared it a diplomatic victory. If you have a problem with EULEX hop on the first bus to Belgrade and ask them why they allowed it.


P.S I'm trying to find something that Serbia hasn't declared a victory; starting from the battle of Kosova which of course we all know was a loss both in military and political terms. In mythical terms it could be anything since myths are made up.

Ljokimalija

pre 14 godina

>the noose is starting to tighten...... thanks to Peter Feith.

Even when he had Nato logos all over his tie he looked nothing like cowboy.

Mark

pre 14 godina

Seems to me that the people of the North should declare a UDI.

Then merge back with Serbia.

That would be democracy at work.
(Bob, 15 January 2010 21:48)

Actually, this would solve all issues. Albanians don't have to deal with Serbs anymore and following Serb's example they can join Albania and thus they don't have to apply for admission to the UN or any other int'l organization. Everybody will be happy and end of the story.

johny

pre 14 godina

That statement regarding the 3 years did not come from 1244. It came from the Rambouillet Accords which, by the way, Belgrade did not sign.

As for the "opinion of relevant authorities", I was merely reminding you that you conveniently forgot that the will of the people was only one part of that statement. That statement also requires the opinions of the relevant authorities (including Belgrade) to be considered. Hence the will of the people does not take priority over Belgrade's opinion -- both has to be equally considered -- and you chose to consider only the former.

In short, the will of the people is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision came from Rambouillet and not 1244.

Finally 1244 specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo, a point you continue to conveniently evade. Under 1244, Kosovo is a province and therefore by extension can only become independent with Belgrade's consent. This requires REAL negotiations, not the fake ones orchestrated by Ahtisaari.
(lowe, 18 January 2010 07:48)

1244 refers to Ramboullet accords. Hence among the many different solutions 1244 provides ,independence is one of such solutions it provides for. So by that alone one can conclude that Independence is in complete accord with 1244. Opinions of relevant parties are to be considered but nowhere there does it state that they should have exclusivity over the will of the people. The point is that while Serbs and the Serb camp conveniently choose to completely disregard the reference to the will of people then us Albanians and the Albanian camp by the same token can choose to completely disregard other references. So when you say that both has to be considered you should try to be a little less biased since the Serbs chose to consider only Belgrade's will.

In short Belgrade's opinion is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision is clearly referred in 1244.

Finally 1244 states that a final status has to be reached. Among the many possible scenarios as we've shown 1244 provides for independence as a possible solution, a point you continue to evade. Meaning autonomy is temporary until a final solution has been reached, independence being one possible solution; another point you continue to evade. If you can make up extensions I'll make up my own also. Therefore since independence was a possible solution by extension Kosova can declare its independence based on the WILL OF PEOPLE provision. Therefore whether Belgrade signed the Ramboullet accords or not is not of any importance whatsoever. The fact that such accords are referred in 1244 which was passed by all the veto yielding UNSC members shows that independence was a solution among other solutions.

Finally if you are up for a serious debate, can you point out where in 1244, or in any international law for that matter, it is specifically stated that autonomous provinces must have consent from the country they are seceding for them to be independent? Last time I checked Finland declared its independence while it was an autonomous province of Russia without Russian consent. Finland today is an independent country.


You cannot have REAL negotiations when one of the sides decides in the middle of such negotiations to predetermine their outcome by adopting a Constitution that tries to settle the status in a unilateral fashion, while negotiations for status are still ongoing. The moment Serbia adopted a constitution, by excluding Albanians from the voting process, that predetermined the status such negotiations turned into a complete sham.

P.S You conveniently forgot the second round of negotiations by the Troika.
The world does not revolve around Serbia and with two different sets of negotiations already done there is a time when enough is enough and 2 million people can no longer live in a limbo just because certain apparitchiks in Belgrade think its completely natural to kill you and ethnically cleanse 1 million of you and still hold in their hands sovereignty over you. If you are one of the ones that like those Belgrade apparitchiks find that kind of reasoning completely natural then I guess this debate ends right here.

johny

pre 14 godina

"I am saying that BOTH (the people's will and Belgrade's opinion) have to be taken into account equally. However Kosovo's UDI only took into account the former and not the latter!"

--Yes but you are also conveniently forgetting that your view along with Belgrade's take into account only Belgrade's opinion and not the will of the people.


"You conveniently forgot (yet again) that legally Belgrade has sovereignty (and not just autonomoy) over Kosovo under 1244. Kosovo does NOT enjoy its own sovereignty. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade has no right to autonomy over Kosovo -- in fact Belgrade has rights MORE than autonomy -- rights of sovereignty!"

--You conveniently forget some things here. Under 1244 a final status had to be reached (meaning Serbia's autonomy was not of eternal nature but guaranteed until the intermediate period had ended after which a final status would be decided with independence as one of the possibilities). The UNSC gave direct authority to its representative to determine when this intermediate period ended and final status had to be decided. Hence Serbia's autonomy is no longer guaranteed once the intermediate period ends and negotiations start. Hence yet again you conveniently forget that with the start of negotiation such intermediate period effectively ended and so did any guarantees of autonomy over Kosova since like you state above Independence was a possible choice under the will of people. The intermediate period is also referred in the Ramboullet accords. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade had limitless and eternal autonomy as 1244 clearly foresees independence as a possible solution after the intermediate period has ended by referring to the Ramboullet accords when it dealt with the issue of final status. When that period ended it was to be determined solely by the UNSC special representative under the direct authority he received from the UNSC. When he made the decision that the intermediate period had ended and it was time for a final status solution, it legally and effectively ended any guarantees of autonomy.



"But the US and EU were unable to do anything in the Troika precisely because there was no concensus! Hence its back to status quo ie. Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo remains unchanged legally!"


--In the same way we can see that when the UNSC special representative decided that the intermediate period ended that ended guarantees of autonomy and once he decided to recommend independence that ended autonomy. Hence Belgrade's sovereignty as foreseen by 1244 become null and void because the intermediate period that guaranteed autonomy was declared to had ended and because by recommending independence meant a complete annulment of any autonomy claims. One can also say that Russia was unable to do anything in the Troika to make sure to overrule the decision that the intermediate period which guaranteed autonomy over Serbia had ended. It didn't hence sovereignty over Kosova changed.




"You ability to contradict yourself is amusing. On on hand you claimed to support the K-Serbs rights to self-determination. And yet a couple sentences later in the very same paragraph you refuse to acquiesce to this right of theirs. To me this is insincerity of the highest order!"

-- Likewise I find your argument to be insincere and very contradicting up to becoming amusing. It is insincere since you try to spin and twist arguments because you are biased and don't have the guts to admit that such views are biased views. While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments. Even though it is clear as day that so many interpretations can be made from the same resolution that was written that way on purpose so it could be signed by everyone in order to end military operations, you maintain a higher than though attitude as if though only your interpretation accurately describes such a resolution. It is clear as day that this resolution threw in language to please everyone so that everyone could sign it and interpret it the way the want it. It threw in autonomy and it threw in will of people, it threw in negotiations and it threw in a notion of intermediate period. So based on that, while I acknowledge that it left the door open for all kinds of things and all kinds of interpretations you insist that only your interpretations are the right ones and that this resolution should only be seen and interpreted the way you see it. Well that not only is self-serving and insincere but also speaks of a total lack of courage to see the resolution for what it actually is: a purposely written clusterf..ck that in the end guarantees nothing to nobody as each notion annuls each other. Will of people annuls autonomy, intermediate period annuls guarantee, and vice versa.


P.S Again I can't be more clear than this. If Serbs in Kosova get international support to detach then I support them, but and I can't stress this enough, do not expect me or any Albanians here to fight for their cause, lobby for their cause, or help them get international support for what they want. Its their will, they should work for it, not me or any other Albanian. It is a reasonable attitude.

Mr Rae

pre 14 godina

Can we all try to see how silly some of the arguments are? I keep hearing this percentage of population based argument. Well what if I extended it just a little bit beyond these borders and we might all notice.
NM is 90ish% Serbian, so we should follow the will of those people.
However, Kosovo is 90% Albanian, so we should follow the overwhelming will of those people.
But Kosovo was/is part of Serbia and 70%+ of the people is Serbian so we should follow the will of those people.
Serbia/Kosovo is in Europe and 80+% of Europe wants an independent Kosovo, so we should follow the will of those people.
But Europe is -20% of the world's population and 60+% of the world's population does not want Kosovo to be independent, so we should follow the will of those people.
How about we go the other way in the sequence?
90% of the people in NM are Serbian so we should follow the will of those people.
However -100% of the people in the Albanian neighborhoods of NM are Albanian so we should follow the will of those people.
Seems to be that all of these people's voices should be heard and are rarely heard over the voices of their respective political illuminati. This isn't an issue of the people, but of the governments of the people.
The more people post and repost this fallacy that the people have a choice or a voice the more we all start to believe in it.
When/if all of these statelets of the Balkans join up with a larger political power, EU, UN, NATO, Some future unknown alliance, and the voices of their people will fundamentally be silenced forever. This illusion of independence of the people is the largest farce we've all participated in. Every one of the 'people' are bound to follow the rules, like them or not, of their own dictating cast.
For Serbians and Albanians, and Croatians and Bosnians and Montenegrins and Macedonians and Slovenians (the former Jug statelets), they will eventually all be the servants of the greater nations of their respective unions, be those nations Germany, UK, France, Russia, USA, China...
perhaps one day, in the future we all -100% of the world's population stand up and get what we want, but I do not suspect my eyes will bear witness to the greatest enlightenment of our modern societies.
In the end, it is the basics of life, food, shelter, loved ones, wind blowing in your hair, water purling over your toes, grains of sand under your fingernails and great skies of blue that make life, not this who's my master nonsense that we keep hearing from the Balkans, and to be honest most every other part of the world. We fight less and less for ourselves and more and more for our masters and their needs over our own.

icj1

pre 14 godina

Let's respect 1244. Meaning that Kosovo is part of Serbia.
(Ron, 15 January 2010 15:39)

That's not how Serbia interpreted the resolution.

Serbia's interpretation is that the resolution requests in practical terms that Serbia renounce a part of its
sovereign territory.

Now who is correct, you or Serbia ?

Jim

pre 14 godina

I am completely with Bob and Mark on this. Partition is clearly the best answer, with South Kosovo joining Albania and the north being fully reintegrated back into Serbia. Problem solved!

johny

pre 14 godina

YOU are the one who need glasses, not Ron.

1. You conveniently blinded yourself to the 4 words in that part of thE Rambouillet Accord which immediately follows the "will of the people". Let me state the entire sentence for everyone's benefit (the 4 words in capital are mine for emphasis): "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The relevant authorities would include Belgrade.

2. You are also blind to 1244 which specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Don't look down on Chinese products. Made-in-China glasses may just be what you need as your American made ones are obviously not doing you much good!
(lowe, 17 January 2010 06:51)

1. Iowe I cannot help but point out the discrepancy in your post. Why should we then completely blind ourselves to this phrase " OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES" which by the way includes Prishtina as well but not completely blind ourselves to the other phrase "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? Can you find me one good reason why WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to be completely disregarded while OPINIONS OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES should take complete authority? I also want to add that RELEVANT AUTHORITIES also includes Prishtina and its opinion has been taken into consideration as well.

2. 1244 Specifically states that as you rightly posted :"Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures."
Nowhere in there do you see that after those 3 years when the final status is to be decided, Belgrade would have sovereignty over Kosova. It also does not specifically mention that ALL relevant authorities have to agree or that the opinions of relevant authorities take precedence over the will of people. As you rightly posted 1244 leaves the door open for Independence by having the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as the basis of the final status.


P.S US designed and Chinese made products are indeed very good.

johny

pre 14 godina

"Firstly,you conveniently took Rambouillet as a blanket check for independence. The fact however is that there is NOTHING in Rambouillet that stated anything about independence as the eventual outcome for Kosovo."

--Can you explain to me how this is different in any way from the Serbs taking opinions of relevant authorities as a blanket check for autonomy? What is the difference between us taking the will of people as the blanket check and the Serbs taking the opinion of relevant authorities as their blanket check? You still haven't explained this? There is no difference. We aren't doing and didn't do anything that Serbs aren't doing and didn't do when it comes to the interpretation of 1244.
Second, well if you don't know what the will of people means than I guess we're wasting time. If there was nothing about independence there Serbia would have agreed. As a matter of fact( go read the ICJ transcripts) Serbia came up with its own draft on the Ramboullet accords in which the phrase WILL OF THE PEOPLE was absent. It is apparent what the will of the people is to everyone but you, or so it seems. The referendum in the early 1990's showed that will with about 98% voting for independence.

"Secondly, 1244 only specified that the Rambouillet accord be taken into account -- which means the ENTIRE Rambouillet accord, not just the part about the will of the people (which you conveniently emphasized to the exclusion of all other provisions). The views of relevant authorities like Belgrade is equally relevant too. This means that the will of the people by itself does not entitle Kosovo to independence because this would mean ignoring another necessary factor -- the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade's. What you are doing is to conveniently accept one criterion that suited you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria."

-- It also means that the opinions of the relevant authorities like Belgrade by itself does not entitle Belgrade's autonomy over Kosova because that would mean ignoring the other factor- THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, which is equally relevant. What you are doing is that you conveniently accept one criterion that suits you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria- the will of the people.

"Thirdly, when you wrote about the Troika. You conveniently forgot that Russia was one of the members and she consistenly did not accept Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations -- otherwise why is Pristina unable to enter the UN to this day? "

-- When you write about the Troika you also conveniently forget that the other two members accepted Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations--otherwise why is Belgrade unable to exert authority over Prishtina to this day?

"Fourthly, autonomous provinces have the authority to decide on their local issues BUT NOT ON NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. That's why Belgrade proposed substantial autonomy which does not amount to independence. You are conveniently equating autonomy with independence which is a falsity."


--You are conveniently disregarding Independent states that have sprung up from autonomous regions which exist around the world and are making up your own rules, which are travesties and falsities. Finland today is an independent state and decided on its NATIONAL ISSUE, INDEPENDECE while being an autonomous province of Russia without any Russian consent. This is proof that provinces HAVE the authority to decide on NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. Eritrea is another independent country that became a country after declaring independence while being an Ethiopian province. East Timor is another independent country that became independent after declaring independence while being an Indonesian province.

"Finally if the will of the people are so sacred to you, then you must accept AND SUPPORT the right of K-Serbs north of the Ibar and in places like Strpce to detach themselves from Kosovo, am I right? I challenge you to make this stand clear. Or are we talking double standards here based, again, on what is convenient for you?"

-- You haven't paid attention I guess. I've stated in the past on these forums. If K-Serbs in the north and places like Strpce gather international support like we Albanians did I support them 100% if they want to detach themselves. Is that clear enough? However do not expect me or any Albanian here to do their work for them. They gather international support I and others like me will support them; don't expect us however to acquiesce with their wishes though, as Serbia didn't support our detachment or acquiesce to our wishes and didn't make our job easy. It is only natural for us to mirror Belgrade's moves as long as there is no international support for those you mention.

johny

pre 14 godina

One more thing. Provinces can secede PROVIDED their parent countries agree. The independence of Finland, Eritrea and East Timor are today all recognized by their former parent countries. That's why the entire world recognizes them today as well and they have no issue with UN membership. Kosovo however did not have the consent of its parent country. It is also destined to remain in the cold outside the UN indefinitely.
(lowe, 19 January 2010 22:25)

Again making things up. Russia did not recognize Finland or give its consent until a later time. It wasn't like you want to make it appear. Russia did not give its consent or recognize Finland automatically as it declared its independence. That is also the case with Eritrea. There was no consent or agreement for decades. Why don't you come out and admit the truth as it is. Autonomous provinces CAN BECOME INDEPENDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT REGULATES THE PROCESS AS I HAVE SHOWN. There is nothing in international law that states that the other party MUST also consent. Also the process of becoming independent is not automatic. Meaning that while in the process of becoming independent there is no automatic recognition and consent from the country one is seceding from.
Can you stop using phrases that do not describe the situation as they are falsities; there are no parent countries.

Bob

pre 14 godina

Hi Jim

I am against myself on this one! I do not think the UDI should have been 'awarded' - it is a reward for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo that predated Milosevic.

Dragan, Toronto

pre 14 godina

The Pristina plan will falter and result in violence. Going against the defacto reality in the North won't work. Sadly alot of K-Albs will be disappointed, but too bad. The end will be partition of KiM, there is not other choice. However, many years down the road from now (perhaps not in our lifetimes), with other global conflicts (perhaps the dissolution of the EU and NATO - yes it will happen one day...all empires rise and fall)you can be rest assured that there will more wars in the Balkans again, and some of these stories will fade and new ones will arise.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"Ron next time try to be a little less lazy and read all of 1244, especially the part where it states that the status of Kosova is to be decided in accordance with the Ramboullet accords where the will of the people of Kosova is of primary importance. The people have spoken, they have made their will. I think you know what it is. If you need new glasses because somehow you're unable to read the whole 1244 with the old Serbian ones you have, just holla. I'll send you some Chinese made ones from the US.

(johny, 16 January 2010 07:25) "

YOU are the one who need glasses, not Ron.

1. You conveniently blinded yourself to the 4 words in that part of thE Rambouillet Accord which immediately follows the "will of the people". Let me state the entire sentence for everyone's benefit (the 4 words in capital are mine for emphasis): "Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures." The relevant authorities would include Belgrade.

2. You are also blind to 1244 which specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Don't look down on Chinese products. Made-in-China glasses may just be what you need as your American made ones are obviously not doing you much good!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"I don't think that partition would be "solved problem" because Kosova won't give not even an inch of her territory.
(Nelli_Canada, 16 January 2010 23:22) "

Well "Kosova" is not the only one who thinks this way. Serbia too.

In any case, there is already the reality of a de facto partition at the Ibar.

Micheal Breathnach

pre 14 godina

Please believe me, that decentralisation is only a decoy to undermine the Serbs of Northern Kosovo i Metohija. The ICO/EULEX/NATO Consortium have this well planned.
It must be resisted.

MB,Ireland

lowe

pre 14 godina

"1. Iowe I cannot help but point out the discrepancy in your post. Why should we then completely blind ourselves to this phrase " OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES" which by the way includes Prishtina as well but not completely blind ourselves to the other phrase "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? Can you find me one good reason why WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to be completely disregarded while OPINIONS OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES should take complete authority? I also want to add that RELEVANT AUTHORITIES also includes Prishtina and its opinion has been taken into consideration as well.

2. 1244 Specifically states that as you rightly posted :"Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people, OPINIONS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures."
Nowhere in there do you see that after those 3 years when the final status is to be decided, Belgrade would have sovereignty over Kosova. It also does not specifically mention that ALL relevant authorities have to agree or that the opinions of relevant authorities take precedence over the will of people. As you rightly posted 1244 leaves the door open for Independence by having the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as the basis of the final status.


P.S US designed and Chinese made products are indeed very good.
(johny, 17 January 2010 22:30) "

johny,

There you go again -- sprouting more inaccuracies -- misquoting me and misinterpreting 1244.

That statement regarding the 3 years did not come from 1244. It came from the Rambouillet Accords which, by the way, Belgrade did not sign.

As for the "opinion of relevant authorities", I was merely reminding you that you conveniently forgot that the will of the people was only one part of that statement. That statement also requires the opinions of the relevant authorities (including Belgrade) to be considered. Hence the will of the people does not take priority over Belgrade's opinion -- both has to be equally considered -- and you chose to consider only the former.

In short, the will of the people is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision came from Rambouillet and not 1244.

Finally 1244 specifically recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo, a point you continue to conveniently evade. Under 1244, Kosovo is a province and therefore by extension can only become independent with Belgrade's consent. This requires REAL negotiations, not the fake ones orchestrated by Ahtisaari.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"1244 refers to Ramboullet accords. Hence among the many different solutions 1244 provides ,independence is one of such solutions it provides for. So by that alone one can conclude that Independence is in complete accord with 1244. Opinions of relevant parties are to be considered but nowhere there does it state that they should have exclusivity over the will of the people. The point is that while Serbs and the Serb camp conveniently choose to completely disregard the reference to the will of people then us Albanians and the Albanian camp by the same token can choose to completely disregard other references. So when you say that both has to be considered you should try to be a little less biased since the Serbs chose to consider only Belgrade's will.

In short Belgrade's opinion is one but NOT the only basis for final status as you claimed. And this provision is clearly referred in 1244.

Finally 1244 states that a final status has to be reached. Among the many possible scenarios as we've shown 1244 provides for independence as a possible solution, a point you continue to evade. Meaning autonomy is temporary until a final solution has been reached, independence being one possible solution; another point you continue to evade. If you can make up extensions I'll make up my own also. Therefore since independence was a possible solution by extension Kosova can declare its independence based on the WILL OF PEOPLE provision. Therefore whether Belgrade signed the Ramboullet accords or not is not of any importance whatsoever. The fact that such accords are referred in 1244 which was passed by all the veto yielding UNSC members shows that independence was a solution among other solutions.

Finally if you are up for a serious debate, can you point out where in 1244, or in any international law for that matter, it is specifically stated that autonomous provinces must have consent from the country they are seceding for them to be independent? Last time I checked Finland declared its independence while it was an autonomous province of Russia without Russian consent. Finland today is an independent country.


You cannot have REAL negotiations when one of the sides decides in the middle of such negotiations to predetermine their outcome by adopting a Constitution that tries to settle the status in a unilateral fashion, while negotiations for status are still ongoing. The moment Serbia adopted a constitution, by excluding Albanians from the voting process, that predetermined the status such negotiations turned into a complete sham.

P.S You conveniently forgot the second round of negotiations by the Troika.
The world does not revolve around Serbia and with two different sets of negotiations already done there is a time when enough is enough and 2 million people can no longer live in a limbo just because certain apparitchiks in Belgrade think its completely natural to kill you and ethnically cleanse 1 million of you and still hold in their hands sovereignty over you. If you are one of the ones that like those Belgrade apparitchiks find that kind of reasoning completely natural then I guess this debate ends right here.
(johny, 18 January 2010 20:36) "

Firstly,you conveniently took Rambouillet as a blanket check for independence. The fact however is that there is NOTHING in Rambouillet that stated anything about independence as the eventual outcome for Kosovo.

Secondly, 1244 only specified that the Rambouillet accord be taken into account -- which means the ENTIRE Rambouillet accord, not just the part about the will of the people (which you conveniently emphasized to the exclusion of all other provisions). The views of relevant authorities like Belgrade is equally relevant too. This means that the will of the people by itself does not entitle Kosovo to independence because this would mean ignoring another necessary factor -- the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade's. What you are doing is to conveniently accept one criterion that suited you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria.

Thirdly, when you wrote about the Troika. You conveniently forgot that Russia was one of the members and she consistenly did not accept Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations -- otherwise why is Pristina unable to enter the UN to this day?

Fourthly, autonomous provinces have the authority to decide on their local issues BUT NOT ON NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. That's why Belgrade proposed substantial autonomy which does not amount to independence. You are conveniently equating autonomy with independence which is a falsity.

Finally if the will of the people are so sacred to you, then you must accept AND SUPPORT the right of K-Serbs north of the Ibar and in places like Strpce to detach themselves from Kosovo, am I right? I challenge you to make this stand clear. Or are we talking double standards here based, again, on what is convenient for you?

lowe

pre 14 godina

"--Can you explain to me how this is different in any way from the Serbs taking opinions of relevant authorities as a blanket check for autonomy? What is the difference between us taking the will of people as the blanket check and the Serbs taking the opinion of relevant authorities as their blanket check? You still haven't explained this? There is no difference. We aren't doing and didn't do anything that Serbs aren't doing and didn't do when it comes to the interpretation of 1244.
Second, well if you don't know what the will of people means than I guess we're wasting time. If there was nothing about independence there Serbia would have agreed. As a matter of fact( go read the ICJ transcripts) Serbia came up with its own draft on the Ramboullet accords in which the phrase WILL OF THE PEOPLE was absent. It is apparent what the will of the people is to everyone but you, or so it seems. The referendum in the early 1990's showed that will with about 98% voting for independence."

I am saying that BOTH (the people's will and Belgrade's opinion) have to be taken into account equally. However Kosovo's UDI only took into account the former and not the latter!

"-- It also means that the opinions of the relevant authorities like Belgrade by itself does not entitle Belgrade's autonomy over Kosova because that would mean ignoring the other factor- THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, which is equally relevant. What you are doing is that you conveniently accept one criterion that suits you and completely ignoring other equally important criteria- the will of the people."

You conveniently forgot (yet again) that legally Belgrade has sovereignty (and not just autonomoy) over Kosovo under 1244. Kosovo does NOT enjoy its own sovereignty. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade has no right to autonomy over Kosovo -- in fact Belgrade has rights MORE than autonomy -- rights of sovereignty!


"-- When you write about the Troika you also conveniently forget that the other two members accepted Kosovo's right to secede during the negotiations--otherwise why is Belgrade unable to exert authority over Prishtina to this day? "

But the US and EU were unable to do anything in the Troika precisely because there was no concensus! Hence its back to status quo ie. Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo remains unchanged legally!


"--You are conveniently disregarding Independent states that have sprung up from autonomous regions which exist around the world and are making up your own rules, which are travesties and falsities. Finland today is an independent state and decided on its NATIONAL ISSUE, INDEPENDECE while being an autonomous province of Russia without any Russian consent. This is proof that provinces HAVE the authority to decide on NATIONAL ISSUES LIKE INDEPENDENCE. Eritrea is another independent country that became a country after declaring independence while being an Ethiopian province. East Timor is another independent country that became independent after declaring independence while being an Indonesian province.

-- You haven't paid attention I guess. I've stated in the past on these forums. If K-Serbs in the north and places like Strpce gather international support like we Albanians did I support them 100% if they want to detach themselves. Is that clear enough? However do not expect me or any Albanian here to do their work for them. They gather international support I and others like me will support them; don't expect us however to acquiesce with their wishes though, as Serbia didn't support our detachment or acquiesce to our wishes and didn't make our job easy. It is only natural for us to mirror Belgrade's moves as long as there is no international support for those you mention.
(johny, 19 January 2010 20:50) "

You ability to contradict yourself is amusing. On on hand you claimed to support the K-Serbs rights to self-determination. And yet a couple sentences later in the very same paragraph you refuse to acquiesce to this right of theirs. To me this is insincerity of the highest order!

lowe

pre 14 godina

johny,

One more thing. Provinces can secede PROVIDED their parent countries agree. The independence of Finland, Eritrea and East Timor are today all recognized by their former parent countries. That's why the entire world recognizes them today as well and they have no issue with UN membership. Kosovo however did not have the consent of its parent country. It is also destined to remain in the cold outside the UN indefinitely.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"--Yes but you are also conveniently forgetting that your view along with Belgrade's take into account only Belgrade's opinion and not the will of the people."

No matter how you twist and turn, you cannot evade the fact that it was Kosovo which initiated the UDI. And this UDI violated the opinions of Belgrade which has to be considered as seriously as the will of the people!


"--You conveniently forget some things here. Under 1244 a final status had to be reached (meaning Serbia's autonomy was not of eternal nature but guaranteed until the intermediate period had ended after which a final status would be decided with independence as one of the possibilities). The UNSC gave direct authority to its representative to determine when this intermediate period ended and final status had to be decided. Hence Serbia's autonomy is no longer guaranteed once the intermediate period ends and negotiations start. Hence yet again you conveniently forget that with the start of negotiation such intermediate period effectively ended and so did any guarantees of autonomy over Kosova since like you state above Independence was a possible choice under the will of people. The intermediate period is also referred in the Ramboullet accords. So you are wrong to state that Belgrade had limitless and eternal autonomy as 1244 clearly foresees independence as a possible solution after the intermediate period has ended by referring to the Ramboullet accords when it dealt with the issue of final status. When that period ended it was to be determined solely by the UNSC special representative under the direct authority he received from the UNSC. When he made the decision that the intermediate period had ended and it was time for a final status solution, it legally and effectively ended any guarantees of autonomy. "

The UNSC never gave Ahtisaari any authority to decide on the final solution! This is a false claim on your part! Ahtisaari was appointed to be an honest mediator (and he turned out not to be so!). He was required to submit his recommendations to the UNSC for approval. And the approval was not given by the UNSC!

I have already explained to you that 1244 explicitly recognized Belgrade's sovereignty and nothing about the temporary nature of that sovereignty. You chose to stick to Rambouillet. Well, as I also pointed out to you earlier, even Rambouillet itself does not contain even one word about Kosovo's independence being the final outcome. It only specifies that among other things, the opinions of relevant authorities like Belgrade has to be considered as well as the will of the people. You have conveniently considered only the will of the people in your interpretation which was not Rambouillet's intention at all!

"--In the same way we can see that when the UNSC special representative decided that the intermediate period ended that ended guarantees of autonomy and once he decided to recommend independence that ended autonomy. Hence Belgrade's sovereignty as foreseen by 1244 become null and void because the intermediate period that guaranteed autonomy was declared to had ended and because by recommending independence meant a complete annulment of any autonomy claims. One can also say that Russia was unable to do anything in the Troika to make sure to overrule the decision that the intermediate period which guaranteed autonomy over Serbia had ended. It didn't hence sovereignty over Kosova changed. "

Ahtisaari, as I told you earlier, has no such authority to decide on the final status. He can only recommend, which he did so and his recommendaitons, which must be approved by the UNSC, was in fact not even voted on in the UNSC because the US knew it would be fruitless against the vetoes of China and Russia!

"-- Likewise I find your argument to be insincere and very contradicting up to becoming amusing. It is insincere since you try to spin and twist arguments because you are biased and don't have the guts to admit that such views are biased views. While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments. Even though it is clear as day that so many interpretations can be made from the same resolution that was written that way on purpose so it could be signed by everyone in order to end military operations, you maintain a higher than though attitude as if though only your interpretation accurately describes such a resolution. It is clear as day that this resolution threw in language to please everyone so that everyone could sign it and interpret it the way the want it. It threw in autonomy and it threw in will of people, it threw in negotiations and it threw in a notion of intermediate period. So based on that, while I acknowledge that it left the door open for all kinds of things and all kinds of interpretations you insist that only your interpretations are the right ones and that this resolution should only be seen and interpreted the way you see it. Well that not only is self-serving and insincere but also speaks of a total lack of courage to see the resolution for what it actually is: a purposely written clusterf..ck that in the end guarantees nothing to nobody as each notion annuls each other. Will of people annuls autonomy, intermediate period annuls guarantee, and vice versa."

There is only one sentence in this entire tirade of yours that I completely agree with you. And its this sentence that you wrote and I quote: "While I acknowledge my biasness in the interpretation of my arguments." You were definitely biased and inaccurate in your arguments that Kosovo's UDI was above board. You cannot deny that the UDI ignored the relevant opinion of Belgrade which is a necessary ingredient under Raqmbouillet which you are so fond of referring to.


"P.S Again I can't be more clear than this. If Serbs in Kosova get international support to detach then I support them, but and I can't stress this enough, do not expect me or any Albanians here to fight for their cause, lobby for their cause, or help them get international support for what they want. Its their will, they should work for it, not me or any other Albanian. It is a reasonable attitude.
(johny, 20 January 2010 02:24) "

Reasonable attitude? What a laugh! If you are truly sincere about the will of the people principle, then you must UNCONDITIONALLY support the K-Serbs' rights to secede from Pristina and not conveniently resort to caveats like what the internationals think. If you are sincere, you MUST support the K-Serbs' right to secede REGARDLESS of what others (including your fellow Albanians) think!!!

lowe

pre 14 godina

"Again making things up. Russia did not recognize Finland or give its consent until a later time. It wasn't like you want to make it appear. Russia did not give its consent or recognize Finland automatically as it declared its independence. That is also the case with Eritrea. There was no consent or agreement for decades. Why don't you come out and admit the truth as it is. Autonomous provinces CAN BECOME INDEPENDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT REGULATES THE PROCESS AS I HAVE SHOWN. There is nothing in international law that states that the other party MUST also consent. Also the process of becoming independent is not automatic. Meaning that while in the process of becoming independent there is no automatic recognition and consent from the country one is seceding from.
Can you stop using phrases that do not describe the situation as they are falsities; there are no parent countries.
(johny, 20 January 2010 01:31) "

You conveniently forgot (again) that when the UN was formed only after the second world war, Russia already recognized Finland. Had the Russians not done so, you can be sure Finland would be outside the UN like Kosovo today.

And you tried to pull a fast one about Eritrea. The fact is that Ethiopia recognized Eritrea's independence back in 1993 -- in fact they even have diplomatic relations. That's why Eritrea is in the UN today and Kosovo is not!

I don't think you understand what I mean by parent countries. But to take up on your point, as per your interpretation, K-Serbs will then be entitled to secede from Pristina whenever they want purely on the basis of their will, regardless of what Albanians and others think! If you cannot UNCONDIITONALLY accept this, then all your tirade on this post will be revealed to be nothing other than hypocrisy and double standards!

johny

pre 14 godina

"You conveniently forgot (again) that when the UN was formed only after the second world war, Russia already recognized Finland. Had the Russians not done so, you can be sure Finland would be outside the UN like Kosovo today."

-- Yes, yes but you conveniently forget how many years passed until Russia considered recognizing. Somehow you conveniently omit the fact that their recognition did not come automatically but it took years and years. So the point is that even though there was no automatic consent from Russia, Finland's independence process did not end.


"And you tried to pull a fast one about Eritrea. The fact is that Ethiopia recognized Eritrea's independence back in 1993 -- in fact they even have diplomatic relations. That's why Eritrea is in the UN today and Kosovo is not!"


-- You are trying to pull in a first one right here. You conveniently forget that there was a 3 decade struggle going on during which Ethiopia not only did not recognize Eritrea's right to secede but it was continually crushing and killing them for 3 straight decade. Again the process of becoming independent was a process that lasted for 30 years and it wasn't automatic. Meaning that just because Ethiopia did not recognize Eritrea's independence immediately and automatically the process of becoming independent did not end for Eritrea. Again the process took years and decades. Same as Finland. The same thing with East Timor. It took almost 3 decades.

"I don't think you understand what I mean by parent countries. But to take up on your point, as per your interpretation, K-Serbs will then be entitled to secede from Pristina whenever they want purely on the basis of their will, regardless of what Albanians and others think! If you cannot UNCONDIITONALLY accept this, then all your tirade on this post will be revealed to be nothing other than hypocrisy and double standards!"


--It is interesting that you are so quick to call others hypocritical yet you state that while Serbs have the rights to secede despite what Albanians think, Albanians don't have the right to secede despite what Serbs think. I see you like applying some double standards yourself. So for you it is more than OK that the will of one set of people to secede (that of K-Serbs) takes precedence over the will of another set of people to secede ( that of K-Albanians). That is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy becomes even more clear when keeping in mind that while I accept their possible secession if they garner international support, other hand while you back K-Serbs secession unconditionally, are categorically against the unconditional secession of Albanians. Hypocrisy at its best.


P.S Again there is something to be said about reciprocity. When you see the first Serb working for our independence you might eventually see the first Albanian working for theirs. And while you see Albanians that would eventually be OK if those Serb areas detach if there is international support we are yet to see a Serb thinking in the same wavelength. Now if you you can't see this, that offer about those glasses is still on the table.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"-- Yes, yes but you conveniently forget how many years passed until Russia considered recognizing. Somehow you conveniently omit the fact that their recognition did not come automatically but it took years and years. So the point is that even though there was no automatic consent from Russia, Finland's independence process did not end."

That's exactly my point! Finland's independence had ultimately to be get Russia's consent! Had Russia not agreed, Helsinki would have been left out of the UN up to today, and just like Kosovo!

"-- You are trying to pull in a first one right here. You conveniently forget that there was a 3 decade struggle going on during which Ethiopia not only did not recognize Eritrea's right to secede but it was continually crushing and killing them for 3 straight decade. Again the process of becoming independent was a process that lasted for 30 years and it wasn't automatic. Meaning that just because Ethiopia did not recognize Eritrea's independence immediately and automatically the process of becoming independent did not end for Eritrea. Again the process took years and decades. Same as Finland. The same thing with East Timor. It took almost 3 decades."

Yes, my point was that the independence of both East Timor and Eritrea became valid only after recgonition by Indonesia and Ethiopia! In the same way, Kosovo's UDI will only be valid AFTER Belgrade agrees -- but I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen if I were you! The Taiwanese couldn't get China's consent for their independence and so they have been shut out of the UN for almost 40 years now!


"--It is interesting that you are so quick to call others hypocritical yet you state that while Serbs have the rights to secede despite what Albanians think, Albanians don't have the right to secede despite what Serbs think. I see you like applying some double standards yourself. So for you it is more than OK that the will of one set of people to secede (that of K-Serbs) takes precedence over the will of another set of people to secede ( that of K-Albanians). That is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy becomes even more clear when keeping in mind that while I accept their possible secession if they garner international support, other hand while you back K-Serbs secession unconditionally, are categorically against the unconditional secession of Albanians. Hypocrisy at its best."

You are trying to fudge the issue. You now conveniently forgot that it was YOU, not me, who trumpeted about the sanctitiy of the principle of the people's will. And yet, you chose to convenielty put conditions (of international support) when it comes to the will of the K-Serbs. To be this is just a flimsy excuse at double standards and avoiding having to apply the will of the people principle for the K-Serbs. If you were really honest about applying this principle to eveyone (and not just for the benefit of the Albanians) you would have IMMEDIATLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported the K-Serbs' secession rights instead of now conveiently tempering this support with more conditions! Remember, YOU were the one who expoused this principle right from the start, not me! I am only challenging you to put your money where your mouth is, and in this I think you have failed miserably!

"P.S Again there is something to be said about reciprocity. When you see the first Serb working for our independence you might eventually see the first Albanian working for theirs. And while you see Albanians that would eventually be OK if those Serb areas detach if there is international support we are yet to see a Serb thinking in the same wavelength. Now if you you can't see this, that offer about those glasses is still on the table.
(johny, 20 January 2010 19:01) "

So just one K-Serb is conveniently (yet again) taken by one to represent the overwhelming majority of them who are against Kosovo's UDI! Another of your twisted logic that I defintely do not buy!

And again you chose to make international support a condition for the K-Serbs. As I stated earlier, if you had been really sincere about the will-of-the-people principle, you would have supported the K-Serbs' right to detach themselves WITHOUT ANY CONDITION and EVEN IF the internationals do not! Just for the record, the international community does not just refer to the West, it also includes the rest of the world. And so as it currently stands, Kosovo's UDI does not have the support of the majority of countries in the world!

As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!

johny

pre 14 godina

"That's exactly my point! Finland's independence had ultimately to be get Russia's consent! Had Russia not agreed, Helsinki would have been left out of the UN up to today, and just like Kosovo!"

-- If that was your point then I guess you don't lack the intelligence to understand that when somebody says never it doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be like that. My point is that in Russia, when Finland as an autonomous province declared its independence, there were plenty of them that were swearing to never recognize. I'm going to let you in on something that you should have been aware when we started this debate. When Albania declared its independence there was a state that was stating it would never recognize it because Albania was being build on their old lands. Can you take a wild guess who that state is? I'll help you. It was Serbia that when Albania declared its independence ( while being an autonomous province) Serbia was swearing it would never recognize it.


"Yes, my point was that the independence of both East Timor and Eritrea became valid only after recgonition by Indonesia and Ethiopia! In the same way, Kosovo's UDI will only be valid AFTER Belgrade agrees -- but I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen if I were you! The Taiwanese couldn't get China's consent for their independence and so they have been shut out of the UN for almost 40 years now!"

--Ok as I've stated before nobody is holding their breaths. As I've pointed out many times before we are more than OK with this. Put any label you want to this situation. We are more than OK with it. The Serb camp isn't.
Second I didn't know you were a psychic who is able to foresee what will happen in the future and able to tell who will become independent and who will not. Also Belgrade is not Russia or China. I am assuming that you don't lack the intelligence to see that depending on how things turn out certain vetoes are not guaranteed for eternity. We had 5 vetoes against us becoming independent when the UN started and now is down to two. You never know what the future holds. It would be extremely naive for us or for the Serb camp for that matter to expect us to drop our will for independence at a moment when we have most of the world's strongest countries with us. Especially considering that we didn't drop our will when we had no support whatsoever.
You are also disregarding the fact that it took decades and decades long wars for these countries to become independent after declaring independence. Its been not even 2 years since we did. Again nobody knows what the future holds.

You are also conveniently forgetting that if autonomy is be valid it will be valid only AFTER Prishtina agrees. You can sign all the paperwork you need with anyone you want. If those 2 million Albanians there do not agree-- there is no autonomy. A state is a social contract between the people and if the people say there is no contract then there is no state. If the Albanians do not agree, Belgrade would wish to have a Taiwan situation. In fact that's what it wants now but it can't have.


"You are trying to fudge the issue. You now conveniently forgot that it was YOU, not me, who trumpeted about the sanctitiy of the principle of the people's will. And yet, you chose to convenielty put conditions (of international support) when it comes to the will of the K-Serbs. To be this is just a flimsy excuse at double standards and avoiding having to apply the will of the people principle for the K-Serbs. If you were really honest about applying this principle to eveyone (and not just for the benefit of the Albanians) you would have IMMEDIATLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported the K-Serbs' secession rights instead of now conveiently tempering this support with more conditions! Remember, YOU were the one who expoused this principle right from the start, not me! I am only challenging you to put your money where your mouth is, and in this I think you have failed miserably!"

-- I also challenged you to put you money where your mouth is. Not only you failed miserably but you lack the courage to even talk about the issue. Remember you are the one that claims that one set of people has the right to rule over another set of people even when they've clearly shown to want to rule themselves. Not only that but you claim that such a thing is written in some international law which I have yet to see.
Likewise if you are are to apply your principle that one set of people is entitled under international law to rule over another set of people you would have IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported K-Serbs being under Albanian rule in Kosova ( Kosova even as province within Jugoslavia has had well-defined borders) instead you are now conveniently tampering this support with more conditions. Remember you were the one that espoused this principle right from the start, not me.
Also you are trying to put a spin on issues by putting things I simply do not say. Being anti-religious I purposely avoid using certain words such as sanctity or holly.



"So just one K-Serb is conveniently (yet again) taken by one to represent the overwhelming majority of them who are against Kosovo's UDI! Another of your twisted logic that I defintely do not buy!"

--You don't have to buy anything because nobody is trying to sell you anything. This is a conversation. Read it again. In the rush to respond to me you haven't understood what I wrote.

"And again you chose to make international support a condition for the K-Serbs. As I stated earlier, if you had been really sincere about the will-of-the-people principle, you would have supported the K-Serbs' right to detach themselves WITHOUT ANY CONDITION and EVEN IF the internationals do not! Just for the record, the international community does not just refer to the West, it also includes the rest of the world. And so as it currently stands, Kosovo's UDI does not have the support of the majority of countries in the world!"

-- Yet again a double standard from you. As I've stated earlier if you had been really sincere about the principle of secession you'd support K-Serbs remaining within Kosova UNTIL ALBANIANS AGREE. You yourself stated that the other side has to CONSENT. Just for the record, recognitions for us have come from all corners of the world and not only from the West.



"As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!"

--While I'll consider your advice, I recommend you listen to your own advices. You have a serious problem in applying what you say to others towards your own self. All you do is point fingers and there is a total lack of self-reflection.

lowe

pre 14 godina

"-- If that was your point then I guess you don't lack the intelligence to understand that when somebody says never it doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be like that. My point is that in Russia, when Finland as an autonomous province declared its independence, there were plenty of them that were swearing to never recognize. I'm going to let you in on something that you should have been aware when we started this debate. When Albania declared its independence there was a state that was stating it would never recognize it because Albania was being build on their old lands. Can you take a wild guess who that state is? I'll help you. It was Serbia that when Albania declared its independence ( while being an autonomous province) Serbia was swearing it would never recognize it. "

Firstly, neither of us can predict whether Serbia will recognize Kosovo in the future. But the point remains that as long as she does not recognize Kosovo, the latter's UDI remains illegal and Kosovo will remain outside the UN. Finland had no problems with UN entry because by the time she applied, the Russians have already recognized her independence.

Secondly, why bring Albania into the discussion? Serbia never had sovereignty over Albania and so whether she decided to recognize Albania or not at that time is irrelevant. However Serbia has sovereignty over Kosovo and this is what makes Kosovo's UDI different from Tirana's independence. You are mixing up apples and oranges!



"--Ok as I've stated before nobody is holding their breaths. As I've pointed out many times before we are more than OK with this. Put any label you want to this situation. We are more than OK with it. The Serb camp isn't.
Second I didn't know you were a psychic who is able to foresee what will happen in the future and able to tell who will become independent and who will not. Also Belgrade is not Russia or China. I am assuming that you don't lack the intelligence to see that depending on how things turn out certain vetoes are not guaranteed for eternity. We had 5 vetoes against us becoming independent when the UN started and now is down to two. You never know what the future holds. It would be extremely naive for us or for the Serb camp for that matter to expect us to drop our will for independence at a moment when we have most of the world's strongest countries with us. Especially considering that we didn't drop our will when we had no support whatsoever.
You are also disregarding the fact that it took decades and decades long wars for these countries to become independent after declaring independence. Its been not even 2 years since we did. Again nobody knows what the future holds.

You are also conveniently forgetting that if autonomy is be valid it will be valid only AFTER Prishtina agrees. You can sign all the paperwork you need with anyone you want. If those 2 million Albanians there do not agree-- there is no autonomy. A state is a social contract between the people and if the people say there is no contract then there is no state. If the Albanians do not agree, Belgrade would wish to have a Taiwan situation. In fact that's what it wants now but it can't have."

After this tirade of yours, the bottom line still remains unchanged: The Russians and Chinese will not allow Kosovo's UN entry because, as they already made clear so many times, this goes against the principle of state sovereignty. So unless and until Kosovo somehow manages to reach an agreement with Belgrade, enjoy your exile outside the UN!

Besides, prior to your UDI, autonomy was what Kosovo had. And unless there is mutual agreement between Belgrade and Pristina change that, the status quo remains legally speaking!

Finally don't kid yourself about Kosovo being anything like Taiwan other than your common exile from UN. Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas Kosovo is in reality a Western colony dependent on your US and EU masters for handouts.



"-- I also challenged you to put you money where your mouth is. Not only you failed miserably but you lack the courage to even talk about the issue. Remember you are the one that claims that one set of people has the right to rule over another set of people even when they've clearly shown to want to rule themselves. Not only that but you claim that such a thing is written in some international law which I have yet to see.
Likewise if you are are to apply your principle that one set of people is entitled under international law to rule over another set of people you would have IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY supported K-Serbs being under Albanian rule in Kosova ( Kosova even as province within Jugoslavia has had well-defined borders) instead you are now conveniently tampering this support with more conditions. Remember you were the one that espoused this principle right from the start, not me.
Also you are trying to put a spin on issues by putting things I simply do not say. Being anti-religious I purposely avoid using certain words such as sanctity or holly."

Kosovo may have well defined borders under Yugoslavia but the bottom line is still that it is a province of Serbia! This fact is undeniable no matter how much you try to evade it!

Regarding your claim that I had some principle about one people ruling another, I certainly do not subscribe to your interpretation. In any case, all this while I was referring to the principle of state sovereignty and state borders -- the sovereignty and borders of Serbia must be respected. Kosovo itself is now demanding respect for its own borders and sovereignty and yet it has no qualms about doing an UDI to violate Serbia's borders and sovereignty! That's double standards if you ask me!

I cannot care less about your religious affiliation. As far as I know, "sanctity" is a normal English word which does not necessarily have religious connotations. You should check the dictionary before making such desperate, wild accusations!


"--You don't have to buy anything because nobody is trying to sell you anything. This is a conversation. Read it again. In the rush to respond to me you haven't understood what I wrote."

Oh, I understand where you are going alright -- the falsities, half-truths and convenient selective interpretations of 1244 and Rambouillet etc -- of course you should not expense me or anyone else to buy these! (By the way, the word "buy" here is just the conversational English style of saying that something is accepted.)

"-- Yet again a double standard from you. As I've stated earlier if you had been really sincere about the principle of secession you'd support K-Serbs remaining within Kosova UNTIL ALBANIANS AGREE. You yourself stated that the other side has to CONSENT. Just for the record, recognitions for us have come from all corners of the world and not only from the West."

At present the majority of the nations of the world have not recognized your UDI! Don't try to pull another fast one on me because it ain't gonna work!

The question about "Kosova" agreeing (or disagreeing) with K-Serbs' secession attempts is irrelevant in the light of Kosovo being legally a part of Serbia. "Kosova" therefore in the first place has no right to make that kind of demands about the K-Serbs as it is itself legally a part of Serbia and which it illegally breached through its UDI. Kosovo did wrong by breaking away for Serbia and therefore cannot use this illegality to impose any non-secession demands on the K-Serbs!


"As for glasses, I don't need them and frankly you don't too. What you really need however is a mega dose of honesty!"

--While I'll consider your advice, I recommend you listen to your own advices. You have a serious problem in applying what you say to others towards your own self. All you do is point fingers and there is a total lack of self-reflection.
(johny, 21 January 2010 01:00)"

I only point fingers at posts such as yours which are riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths and convenient selective interpretations of documents and situations!