Jeremić urges support for UN resolution

This whole story of Jeremic's back-and-forths reminds me of Danny de Vito in the Fight of the Roses:
"There are two dilemmas that rattle the human skull: How do you hang on to someone who won't stay? And how do you get rid of someone who won't go?

So, what happens if this resolution doesn't go through?
Is this going to be the end of Serbias legal battle?
Is Tadic & Co going to resign?

"A mutually agreed solution is the only way to solve a conflict. If not, you will always have bitterness and anger, and people will not be able to live in peace. I can't understand why the Albanians would want that. OK, so let's say you get your state, and then what? Your largest and strongest neighbor will not have good relations with you.
(wiston, 30 July 2010 14:11) "

I agree with you - mutually agreed solution would be best - but there were two years of direct negotiations and not compormise was reached.

What do you suggest as a 'mutually' agreed solution? Don't forget the important fact that K.albanians will never accept to be part of Serbia again.

In an interview for the Associated Press, Serbia's foreign minister warned that the ICJ advisory opinion in the Kosovo case, given last week, had opened Pandora's box for secessionist movements around the world.

The top UN court said that the Kosovo Albanian unilateral independence declaration was not in violation of international law, since no active provision of that law prohibited such proclamations. But the court did not make a stand on the right to self-determination and secession.

Jeremic is contradicting himself big time.First he says that ICJ had opened the pandora box for secessionist movements around the world.
and then he says that the ICJ did not make a stand on the right to self-determination and secession. So how did the ICJ open the pandora box on secession when it didn't even rule on it? Keep blackmailing the world,it will bring you other losses.

Nikshala, don't forget that Serbia will never give away its land to the Albanians. So looks like Serbs and Albanians are at a stalemate regarding Kosovo. As for the negotiations that took place, do you honestly believe they were fair? The US sdie came in with the pre-set idea that it would grant independence to the Albanians - you call that negotiations? They are still doing the same thing, by stating that the Kosovo status cannot be discussed. They, the US, are the biggest obstacle to piece in the Balkans - and many other places in the world.

A mutually agreed solution is the only way to solve a conflict. If not, you will always have bitterness and anger, and people will not be able to live in peace. I can't understand why the Albanians would want that. OK, so let's say you get your state, and then what? Your largest and strongest neighbor will not have good relations with you.

"mutually acceptable solution to all outstanding issues through peaceful dialogue"

Apparently is not possible to please 'all' sides so life goes on.

Mr. Oaf,

The political battle continues since the ICJ is too corrupt to keep the battle in the legal arena. As for your second desire, they won't but they will be thrown out.

Ok, can we all agree that this is an "important question" that Jeremic is asking for a resolution on? After all, he's asking the GA to vote on a matter that the ICJ, after studying reams of documents and listening to a week of testimony in the biggest international law trial in history did not feel it could rule on.

Since it's an important matter, then, it will require a two-thirds majority to pass. This means it can be blocked by a one-third minority, or 64 votes.

RE; Only war, no roses in Czechoslovakia-1938, Serbia-2008


It is the same policy that Nazi Germany took when it dismembered Czechoslovakia with false claims of the German minority in the Sudentenland being abused by its larger Slavic partners.

It is commendable that Slovakia has not forgotten this event; as a former Nazi sympathizer allowed Czechoslovakia to be swallowed up along with Hungary.

The US and UK along with Albanian terrorists are trying to seperate Kosovo from Serbia.

Needless to say both France and UK left Chechoslovakia to be eaten by the wolves and reneged on signed international treaty to protect them.

Many other countries in the EU were forced to recognize Kosovo and the pressure continues.

It is shameful that the Czech rebublic against popular opinion have recognized the illegal Kosovo UDI.

Tadic and Co do not want to be remembered in the anals of history like Czech leader Benes who sat in a table with Ribbentrop and signed his country away.

"What do you suggest as a 'mutually' agreed solution? Don't forget the important fact that K.albanians will never accept to be part of Serbia again."
(nikshala, 30 July 2010 16:06)

Yeah, and on the other hand, Serbia's constition states that Kosovo is an inalienable part of Serbia.

So, knowing that both sides are soooo extremely willing to reach a compromise, what else can the solution be but a partition? Maybe even calling the northern part which stays within Serbia "Kosovo" (then Kosovo stays Serbia) and the southern part can be called Dardania, or Illyria, or better the United States of Dardania and Illyria! This sounds even more impressive, and Kosovo Albanians always claim that their ancestors have been the Illyrians.

John R. Bolton: International Court decision could encourage separatists
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/International-Court-decision-could-encourage-separatists-1004873-99573864.html

Last week's International Court of Justice decision on Kosovo could have a significant global effect. While there is less there than meets the eye in legal terms, how the ruling is read politically may be quite different.

...

Unfortunately, Brussels and Washington have long held confused and inconsistent positions, simultaneously holding that Serbia and Kosovo should resolve the status issue by negotiation, while at every opportunity encouraging and assisting Kosovo's leaders to make their country independent.

Small wonder that Kosovo has never shown much inclination to negotiate. With the kind of external political support it has received for unilateral independence, why should it compromise on anything less?

Politically, Kosovo's continued de facto sovereignty means it has achieved essentially what it sought by declaring independence. But because Kosovo's independence was imposed on Serbia, rather than negotiated mutually, there is a basis for yet another unresolved Balkan conflict that could later return to haunt us.

The larger, global implications are even more troubling, despite the very limited nature of the ICJ's advisory opinion. Even the Palestinian-Israeli conflict might be affected.

Separatist regions in Europe and around the world will draw their own conclusions from the decision, thus precipitating unnecessary confrontations between separatists and central governments, but without any real guidance beyond the specifics of the Kosovo situation.

Concerns about these potential ramifications undoubtedly shaped the positions not only of Russia and China, but even those of European nations like Spain, which faces several regional separatist movements.

The real conclusion is that lasting, peaceful solutions to separatist conflicts ultimately can only emerge from agreements among the parties themselves. Until and unless they find the means to do so (or to live with them until a better idea arises), they are only postponing the day of reckoning.

The blunt truth is that some will only be resolved by military conflict. But as its Kosovo opinion makes clear, the artificial and inadequate ICJ is probably the least useful approach of all.

John R. Bolton is the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

"Tadic and Co do not want to be remembered in the anals of history like Czech leader Benes who sat in a table with Ribbentrop and signed his country away.
(Jugoslavija, 30 July 2010 21:10) "


You've got the wrong Czech - Benes had already resigned and left the country (to lead the Czech government in exile). (Unless you're thinking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, which the Czechs did not sign.) The agreement allowing the Germans to take over the country was signed by Hacha, who had been pressed to take the thankless job of heading the government. He had no choice - he was the leader of a small country denuded of its defense line, warned that bombers with orders to head for Prague sat warming up on the airfield. He did his best during the war years to spare his people. At the end of the war, the Communists rushed him through a trial and hanged him. During the years they were in power, the Communists said the Czechs should have fought back - an attempt to discredit the democratic prewar and wartime government and the resistance - this must be what you are thinking of.

Mr. Oaf,

The political battle continues since the ICJ is too corrupt to keep the battle in the legal arena. As for your second desire, they won't but they will be thrown out.
(JohnBoy, 30 July 2010 16:46)

Who are you to decide who will bw thrown out who will be kept in?

Mark,

Jeremic is not being contradictory. He is pointing out that the ICJ, by refusing to deal with the question, has in fact left the question open and in fact made it even more confusing.

Let us not forget that the whole problem was caused because the West took international law into its own hands (i.e. ignoring 1974 Helsinki Final Act) thinking it could just call it an 'unique' event.

But it wasn't 'unique', was it? It was followed by events in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

See, the tennis ball does come back over the net.

No one thinks Kosovo is 'unique' any more. The ICJ could have shut this door by simply reconfirming that the 1975 Helsinki Act which says there can be no secession without the agreement of both parties, but it didn't even do this. It ran away from it because it is big power politics and nothing to do with international law.

Therefore, the issue is still unresolved and unclear. When such things are unclear, it leaves it open to others to take advantage of this lack of clarity, thus we have Pandora's Box.

If the West forces (literally) the issue, then their credibility around the world goes down the pan with the rest of their influence and expertize and confirms that the the 1975 Helsinki Final Act is not worth the paper it is written on.

They need Serbia to voluntarily to give up Kosovo, just like they need the RS to voluntarily give up the powers given to them under Dayton. Otherwise their plans are both dead in the water and everyone else will no longer trust what they say or even sign with such states.

Simples.

What do you suggest as a 'mutually' agreed solution? Don't forget the important fact that K.albanians will never accept to be part of Serbia again.
(nikshala- - So go back to Albania.

A mutually agreed solution is the only way to solve a conflict. If not, you will always have bitterness and anger, and people will not be able to live in peace. I can't understand why the Albanians would want that. OK, so let's say you get your state, and then what? Your largest and strongest neighbor will not have good relations with you.
(wiston, 30 July 2010 14:11)

Winston, first of all Albanians are not scared of God himself not some Russian invaders that came in our lands because they were starving to death and cold. Yes...I am talking about the Serbs. So to answer to your question : NO..we don't care that Serbia is in our border and unhappy !!
In case you want to know , Albanians are more than Serbs in Balkans. The only difference is that we are not only in one country but five. And another thing We are Autochthons...which that means we were in those lands long before anybody else. Even Serb politicians say ethnic Albanians when they talk about Albanians

This whole story of Jeremic's back-and-forths reminds me of Danny de Vito in the Fight of the Roses:
"There are two dilemmas that rattle the human skull: How do you hang on to someone who won't stay? And how do you get rid of someone who won't go?

A mutually agreed solution is the only way to solve a conflict. If not, you will always have bitterness and anger, and people will not be able to live in peace. I can't understand why the Albanians would want that. OK, so let's say you get your state, and then what? Your largest and strongest neighbor will not have good relations with you.

"mutually acceptable solution to all outstanding issues through peaceful dialogue"

Apparently is not possible to please 'all' sides so life goes on.

So, what happens if this resolution doesn't go through?
Is this going to be the end of Serbias legal battle?
Is Tadic & Co going to resign?

"A mutually agreed solution is the only way to solve a conflict. If not, you will always have bitterness and anger, and people will not be able to live in peace. I can't understand why the Albanians would want that. OK, so let's say you get your state, and then what? Your largest and strongest neighbor will not have good relations with you.
(wiston, 30 July 2010 14:11) "

I agree with you - mutually agreed solution would be best - but there were two years of direct negotiations and not compormise was reached.

What do you suggest as a 'mutually' agreed solution? Don't forget the important fact that K.albanians will never accept to be part of Serbia again.

Mr. Oaf,

The political battle continues since the ICJ is too corrupt to keep the battle in the legal arena. As for your second desire, they won't but they will be thrown out.

Nikshala, don't forget that Serbia will never give away its land to the Albanians. So looks like Serbs and Albanians are at a stalemate regarding Kosovo. As for the negotiations that took place, do you honestly believe they were fair? The US sdie came in with the pre-set idea that it would grant independence to the Albanians - you call that negotiations? They are still doing the same thing, by stating that the Kosovo status cannot be discussed. They, the US, are the biggest obstacle to piece in the Balkans - and many other places in the world.

In an interview for the Associated Press, Serbia's foreign minister warned that the ICJ advisory opinion in the Kosovo case, given last week, had opened Pandora's box for secessionist movements around the world.

The top UN court said that the Kosovo Albanian unilateral independence declaration was not in violation of international law, since no active provision of that law prohibited such proclamations. But the court did not make a stand on the right to self-determination and secession.

Jeremic is contradicting himself big time.First he says that ICJ had opened the pandora box for secessionist movements around the world.
and then he says that the ICJ did not make a stand on the right to self-determination and secession. So how did the ICJ open the pandora box on secession when it didn't even rule on it? Keep blackmailing the world,it will bring you other losses.

RE; Only war, no roses in Czechoslovakia-1938, Serbia-2008


It is the same policy that Nazi Germany took when it dismembered Czechoslovakia with false claims of the German minority in the Sudentenland being abused by its larger Slavic partners.

It is commendable that Slovakia has not forgotten this event; as a former Nazi sympathizer allowed Czechoslovakia to be swallowed up along with Hungary.

The US and UK along with Albanian terrorists are trying to seperate Kosovo from Serbia.

Needless to say both France and UK left Chechoslovakia to be eaten by the wolves and reneged on signed international treaty to protect them.

Many other countries in the EU were forced to recognize Kosovo and the pressure continues.

It is shameful that the Czech rebublic against popular opinion have recognized the illegal Kosovo UDI.

Tadic and Co do not want to be remembered in the anals of history like Czech leader Benes who sat in a table with Ribbentrop and signed his country away.

Mark,

Jeremic is not being contradictory. He is pointing out that the ICJ, by refusing to deal with the question, has in fact left the question open and in fact made it even more confusing.

Let us not forget that the whole problem was caused because the West took international law into its own hands (i.e. ignoring 1974 Helsinki Final Act) thinking it could just call it an 'unique' event.

But it wasn't 'unique', was it? It was followed by events in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

See, the tennis ball does come back over the net.

No one thinks Kosovo is 'unique' any more. The ICJ could have shut this door by simply reconfirming that the 1975 Helsinki Act which says there can be no secession without the agreement of both parties, but it didn't even do this. It ran away from it because it is big power politics and nothing to do with international law.

Therefore, the issue is still unresolved and unclear. When such things are unclear, it leaves it open to others to take advantage of this lack of clarity, thus we have Pandora's Box.

If the West forces (literally) the issue, then their credibility around the world goes down the pan with the rest of their influence and expertize and confirms that the the 1975 Helsinki Final Act is not worth the paper it is written on.

They need Serbia to voluntarily to give up Kosovo, just like they need the RS to voluntarily give up the powers given to them under Dayton. Otherwise their plans are both dead in the water and everyone else will no longer trust what they say or even sign with such states.

Simples.

John R. Bolton: International Court decision could encourage separatists
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/International-Court-decision-could-encourage-separatists-1004873-99573864.html

Last week's International Court of Justice decision on Kosovo could have a significant global effect. While there is less there than meets the eye in legal terms, how the ruling is read politically may be quite different.

...

Unfortunately, Brussels and Washington have long held confused and inconsistent positions, simultaneously holding that Serbia and Kosovo should resolve the status issue by negotiation, while at every opportunity encouraging and assisting Kosovo's leaders to make their country independent.

Small wonder that Kosovo has never shown much inclination to negotiate. With the kind of external political support it has received for unilateral independence, why should it compromise on anything less?

Politically, Kosovo's continued de facto sovereignty means it has achieved essentially what it sought by declaring independence. But because Kosovo's independence was imposed on Serbia, rather than negotiated mutually, there is a basis for yet another unresolved Balkan conflict that could later return to haunt us.

The larger, global implications are even more troubling, despite the very limited nature of the ICJ's advisory opinion. Even the Palestinian-Israeli conflict might be affected.

Separatist regions in Europe and around the world will draw their own conclusions from the decision, thus precipitating unnecessary confrontations between separatists and central governments, but without any real guidance beyond the specifics of the Kosovo situation.

Concerns about these potential ramifications undoubtedly shaped the positions not only of Russia and China, but even those of European nations like Spain, which faces several regional separatist movements.

The real conclusion is that lasting, peaceful solutions to separatist conflicts ultimately can only emerge from agreements among the parties themselves. Until and unless they find the means to do so (or to live with them until a better idea arises), they are only postponing the day of reckoning.

The blunt truth is that some will only be resolved by military conflict. But as its Kosovo opinion makes clear, the artificial and inadequate ICJ is probably the least useful approach of all.

John R. Bolton is the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Ok, can we all agree that this is an "important question" that Jeremic is asking for a resolution on? After all, he's asking the GA to vote on a matter that the ICJ, after studying reams of documents and listening to a week of testimony in the biggest international law trial in history did not feel it could rule on.

Since it's an important matter, then, it will require a two-thirds majority to pass. This means it can be blocked by a one-third minority, or 64 votes.

"What do you suggest as a 'mutually' agreed solution? Don't forget the important fact that K.albanians will never accept to be part of Serbia again."
(nikshala, 30 July 2010 16:06)

Yeah, and on the other hand, Serbia's constition states that Kosovo is an inalienable part of Serbia.

So, knowing that both sides are soooo extremely willing to reach a compromise, what else can the solution be but a partition? Maybe even calling the northern part which stays within Serbia "Kosovo" (then Kosovo stays Serbia) and the southern part can be called Dardania, or Illyria, or better the United States of Dardania and Illyria! This sounds even more impressive, and Kosovo Albanians always claim that their ancestors have been the Illyrians.

What do you suggest as a 'mutually' agreed solution? Don't forget the important fact that K.albanians will never accept to be part of Serbia again.
(nikshala- - So go back to Albania.

"Tadic and Co do not want to be remembered in the anals of history like Czech leader Benes who sat in a table with Ribbentrop and signed his country away.
(Jugoslavija, 30 July 2010 21:10) "


You've got the wrong Czech - Benes had already resigned and left the country (to lead the Czech government in exile). (Unless you're thinking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, which the Czechs did not sign.) The agreement allowing the Germans to take over the country was signed by Hacha, who had been pressed to take the thankless job of heading the government. He had no choice - he was the leader of a small country denuded of its defense line, warned that bombers with orders to head for Prague sat warming up on the airfield. He did his best during the war years to spare his people. At the end of the war, the Communists rushed him through a trial and hanged him. During the years they were in power, the Communists said the Czechs should have fought back - an attempt to discredit the democratic prewar and wartime government and the resistance - this must be what you are thinking of.

Mr. Oaf,

The political battle continues since the ICJ is too corrupt to keep the battle in the legal arena. As for your second desire, they won't but they will be thrown out.
(JohnBoy, 30 July 2010 16:46)

Who are you to decide who will bw thrown out who will be kept in?

A mutually agreed solution is the only way to solve a conflict. If not, you will always have bitterness and anger, and people will not be able to live in peace. I can't understand why the Albanians would want that. OK, so let's say you get your state, and then what? Your largest and strongest neighbor will not have good relations with you.
(wiston, 30 July 2010 14:11)

Winston, first of all Albanians are not scared of God himself not some Russian invaders that came in our lands because they were starving to death and cold. Yes...I am talking about the Serbs. So to answer to your question : NO..we don't care that Serbia is in our border and unhappy !!
In case you want to know , Albanians are more than Serbs in Balkans. The only difference is that we are not only in one country but five. And another thing We are Autochthons...which that means we were in those lands long before anybody else. Even Serb politicians say ethnic Albanians when they talk about Albanians