What does it take to become a Balkan expert? I have seen so many be called Balkan experts that I think there are more of those than people living in the Balkans.
expert or not, don´t worry, the the EU, US and others will come to reason, they will just have to swallow it that Serbia won´t give in, and that there is no way out of this without Serbia´s "amen".
and in regard to KiM, there won´t be any "amen".
so better they start thinking in Washington, Brussels, Paris, London etc.
And this is all you got out of this article? Amazing.
(Peggy, 8 August 2010 22:57)
And you got more from it, Truly Amazing! But then I do not have the Serbian insight that so many of you do that can read so much more into things than actually said.
No, doodah, if they had opined on those issues they would have found wholly in Serbia's favour. They chose a very narrow focus precisely so they would not have to, and that is why they have been criticised in Serbia. How can they proclaim on a declaration of independence and not on the legal situation it creates? But this is exactly what they have done - very clearly and explicitly. They have simply sidestepped the issue.
Again, you might do well to learn a little about international law and read the opinion in detail before you post on this subject.
Ever notice that if someone gives a proSerbian point of view, B92 labels them an "expert"?
He did say one correct thing though, Serbia cannot move on until it resolves the matter.
(pss, 7 August 2010 16:38)
=====================
And this is all you got out of this article? Amazing.
(Jim, 8 August 2010 10:12)
If they had opinioned on those issues, you would be in here arguing that it was invalid because that was not the questions asked!
I would like to have someone explain how a country, region, province, city, community, individual, declares independence without secession?
@ gman - The idea that Ahtisaari led proper negotiations is complete nonsense! He has openly admitted that he had decided in advance that he would suggest independence.
This point is often made by KA posters, but the reality was that it was a complete sham process that has led to the current mess. By the time the Troika had a go, Pristina had already been promised independence and so believed that it had no reason to compromise. If Ahtisaari had really done his job, we might not be in the situation we are now whereby Kosovo has absolutely no prospect of joining the UN and will in fact remain in limbo for a very long time to come.
A Ian - seriously, you might want to learn a little bit about international law before you comment on the ICJ opinion. At the very least, read the document. It states, absolutely and categorically, that they have not considered whether Kosovo's independence is legal, whether Kosovo is a state or not, or even whether it has a right to secede. They simply said that the UDI (any UDI) is just a statement and therefore is not contrary to international law. (By the way, on this very point, they didn't even say that the UDI was legal. They just said it doesn't break the law. There is a subtle but inportant difference.)
Really, gman and Ian, you just make yourselves look like idiots when you come here and make such ill-informed comments.
Biljana, 7 August 2010 21:58) There is no need for a veto, even your own legal advisors have said that suing those who have recognized Kosovo is not an option.
The court would probably not even hear the case.
Yes, that is true, but their veto would only prove that the law is on Serbian side and that the law in regard to Kosovo’s UDI is grossly breached.
On the other hand there is veto right too when it comes to admittance of new UN members. Then comes Russia with its huge NO for Kosovo!
I prefer to use original Russian word NYET,NYET...
In both ways is win for Belgrade!
Here is something for you guys, enjoy it. I always do :)
Dear "expert" there where more than 10 years of dialog lead by UN for resolving final Kosovo status that were sabotaged by an uncooperative Serbian government. Serbia instead chose to unilaterally adopt Serbia's constitution predetermining the Kosovo status. Serbia deliberately excluded "its" Kosovo's citizens from voting in referendum using conically technicalities of not having control over territory (of-course Kosovo participation didn't make sense since negotiation were going on).
Serbian government should stop misleading its people. Milosevic was a nationalistic idiot that chronically damaged Serbia's national interest.
Why are you still following his ideas and policies?
The criteria for joining the EU is crystal clearly defined, in the (31?) chapters of the access agreement. And of course, in case of Serbia, first the Mladic issue should finally be resolved.
(Top, 7 August 2010 14:26)
And if believe that none of the 22 countries will block Serbia from the EU, then you have to believe that the 5 will not block Kosovo either.
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. Also there is no ICJ ruling which you want me to show because no-one asked the court that. There is no point complaining and saying "where is the answer to the question we didn't ask?".
(Ian, UK, 7 August 2010 14:53)
Ian, it's all about Tony Blair that you voted for and you can't admit to yourself that you voted for the wrong guy; a guy that is portrayed in your country with bloody hands during demonstrations, and in the world media and books as an American puppet, or more precisely Bush's puppet. No matter how much you bash the US and her people, you'll never be able to change that fact.
Also, you have been attacking Serbs left and right even when practically the whole world agreed with them on certain points, just so you won't have to admit to yourself and others that it's possible for even you or Tony Blair to make a miscalculated mistake.
Your "slip" was your wishful thinking--or you are morphing into another PRN.
Ian,UK - How exactly does independence automatically follow from a mere declaration? The Palestinians had more than 100 recognitions and yet their border was never recognised by the UN! If you think that by just screaming loud enough that you are independent, or gaining 100+ recognitions will guarantee independence, then you haven't been reading the news recently (or the ICJ ruling). The Russians will never allow you a UN seat, and as for the ICJ, they explicitly stated (along with the fact that the DECLARATION was legal) their comitment to the territorial integrity of UN member states. Kosovo isn't a UN member state but Serbia is. Go figure. Like I've said before that's a stalemate. Legally Kosovo belongs to Serbia, even though there are 2 million hostile Albanians occupying it. The ICJ effectively gave Serbia the veto over Kosovo's economic development. Countries can give aid but they won't invest because they can't get a return knowing that Serbia is the legal owner.
Looks like you'll be living under 1244 for a long time. So much for Thaci claiming to be independent. Maybe he should take his own advice and look at the facts on the ground.
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. .....
(Ian, UK, 7 August 2010 14:53)
Independence doesn't follow. Which planet do you live on. If independence followed, Kosovo would have a UN seat and the majority of countries in the world would have recognised it. No, Kosovo is like a still-born child. Your comments are without basis.
"...“On the moral side, this demand cannot be argued against, and I do not understand the UK, U.S. and other countries that are not allowing these negotiations to occur,” Lindsay said"
So in your menas US and UK should negotitate for the US indepndence too Mr. Lindsey? As I know history, US did not have negotiation with UK to proclaim independence.
Ever notice that if someone gives a proSerbian point of view, B92 labels them an "expert"?
He did say one correct thing though, Serbia cannot move on until it resolves the matter.
"The only chance to gain that goal is to sue all the countries (individually) that recognised Kosovo before the ICJ. But, that was supposed to be done as first, not as the last option.
(Biljana, 7 August 2010 12:03) "
Do you realize that any permanent member of the Security Council can veto any ICJ ruling that it doesn't approve of? http://www.amandala.com.bz/index.php?id=8092
The US, UK, and France could take turns vetoing findings against recognizing countries. IF the ICJ even agreed to take such cases. And IF Serbia were to win. Which, considering that the right of recognition is an element of national sovereignty, is unlikely.
Ian, UK - quote the ICJ ruling that SPECIFICALLY states that Kosovo is independent. And I'm not talking about the declaration. Show me where it states that Kosovo Albanians have a right to self determination and therefore a right to secede from Serbia.
(Radoslav, 7 August 2010 13:26)
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. Also there is no ICJ ruling which you want me to show because no-one asked the court that. There is no point complaining and saying "where is the answer to the question we didn't ask?".
"I do. With the EU and US in a financial mess, they can claim that Serbia isn't co-operating and use that as an excuse (the EU at least) for not allowing any more accession into the EU for at least 10 years - if ever!"
(Radoslav, 7 August 2010 12:28)
The criteria for joining the EU is crystal clearly defined, in the (31?) chapters of the access agreement. And of course, in case of Serbia, first the Mladic issue should finally be resolved.
Because the WEST wants full control of the Balkans by putting NATO military base in Kosovo in disguised as KFOR.
They will never allow the Russians to regain control in this part of the world.
Ian, UK - quote the ICJ ruling that SPECIFICALLY states that Kosovo is independent. And I'm not talking about the declaration. Show me where it states that Kosovo Albanians have a right to self determination and therefore a right to secede from Serbia.
Smart man! The problem is that we are not dealing with logical people. Those supporting Kosovo's independence have an agenda and negotiations interfere with the agenda. Kosovo's Albanians are unfortunately caught in the middle. Although I probably shouldn't say unfortunately as it appears they like appeasing the US and UK. Yes, we must have negotiations. However, until the US agrees to it, it will probably not happen and we will continue to have a frozen conflict. Kosovo will continue to exist in limbo status.
There you go, again some self proclaimed expert on Balkan is preaching what we should or should not do.
However, this expert seems to be a reasonable one.
Why any negotiations with Pristina?
Province is clearly Serbian, and Kosovo status is still unclear as this expert rightfully claim.Not a one advisory opinion of ICJ can change this fact no matter how conviniously "judges" tried to prove us wrong by their biased and corrupt conclusion.
Belgrade already made its offer long time ago and now it is up to Pristina to accept it or leave it.
Unresolved status of Kosovo does not affect the rest of Serbia, on the contrary.
In my opinion, status quo is much more suitable for Belgrade than for Pristina.
Belgrade should continue on insisting “special status for K-Albanians within Serbia” and nothing less or more than that.
The only chance to gain that goal is to sue all the countries (individually) that recognised Kosovo before the ICJ. But, that was supposed to be done as first, not as the last option.
“I do not see how anyone will have any use from an unresolved status"
I do. With the EU and US in a financial mess, they can claim that Serbia isn't co-operating and use that as an excuse (the EU at least) for not allowing any more accession into the EU for at least 10 years - if ever!
Mr. James Ker-Lindsay should know very well (since he claims to be an expert on conflict, peace and security) that the negotiations have been conducted several times in the past. The United Nations Security Council actually adopted a statement on October 23, 2005, supporting the start of negotiations on the final status of the secessionist Serbian province. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051024-voa06.htm
As a result of this, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General at the time appointed former Finnish President Martti Ahtissari to lead the negotiations.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16433&Cr=kosovo&Cr1
These negotiations were held in Vienna. There were multiple marathonic meetings. The Serbian delegation was the one that REFUSED to discuss the issue of Kosovo’s status. They were ready to discuss about the technical issues, but not status. They (Serb government) even went as far as pulling a quick one and adopting a constitution that talks about “Kosovo being a part of Serbia”, without allowing Kosovo’s residents to participate in the referendum that lead to its adoption (if Kosovo residents voted on this, the referendum on constitution would have failed).
It was the Serbian government’s stubbornness that has brought this scenario to its country.
The tables have turned – now; Kosovo is willing to “negotiate” about everything, but status.
If Serbia really wants to show that is serious, it should start by abolishing its constitution and adopt a new one that does not mention Kosovo in its preamble.
Mr. Ker-Lindsay also says “I do not see how anyone will have any use from an unresolved status, and the only logical path is the dialogue that Serbia is demanding, which would solve the status and the security of the Serbs in Kosovo.”
However, Kosovo’s residents do not think so. The “unclear and unresolved” status of Kosovo is preferred over “UN administered province” or god-forbid “Serbian province” status already by 95% of Kosovo’s residents. It is the residents of Kosovo that matter, not Russia, or some other country that is trying to keep this area a permanent hotspot or a frozen conflict.
If Serbia and Russia continue with its current methods, Kosovo will eventually abandon the Ahtisaari plan altogether and let Albania handle its international affairs – including UN representation.
In conclusion, Mr. Ker-Lindsay should be more cautious since statements like these could seriously tarnish his reputation.
"[...]the dialogue that Serbia is demanding, which would solve the status and the security of the Serbs in Kosovo,” he said.
“[...] I do not understand the UK, U.S. and other countries that are not allowing these negotiations to occur,” Lindsay
In the first sentence the expert is referring to the: "status of the Serbs in Kosova".
In the second he affirms that international community is against the dialogue concerning "the status of the Serbs in Kosova".
Now we all know that the only thing that Kosova and UK/US et al are not willing to discuss is the "status of Kosova" not "the status of the Serbs in Kosova."
This makes me to think that perhaps with the "status of the Serbs in Kosova" the expert is referring to the partition of Kosova.
Now if the partition is the solution for the expert he needs to say that clearly. Just as Tadic and his ministers are repeating it these days continuously.
But if the expert is honest and says clearly that in his opinion the partition is the solution then he needs to be also honest and admit the reality: the partition is solution for less than 40% of the Serbs in Kosova.
Thus, the partition is not for "the status of the Serbs in Kosova" since it doesn't solve that problem.
So what is then for the partition? Why Serbia is so eager to split her heart and soul??
The fact is that the partition is for land grabbing: a very rich land with minerals.
While the expert needs to be careful about his reputation consequently he cannot say that the rich mines in north would be a just compensation for Serbia so he masks that with the dialogue about “the status of the Serbs in Kosova”.
Fortunately the Serbian elite is more hones and admits that their final goal is partition. They too mask it as "fair deal" but the fact is that they say it clearly we want partition and the reason is clear to everyone: some rich mines in the north.
Now little bit of honesty wouldn't harm anyone including LSE experts.
The solution to Kosovo was solved the day it declared independence and it was legal. What has Serbia got that will make Kosovo give up it's independence? Nothing! Serbia is saying that they want new negotiations but at the same time they're saying they will never recognise Kosovo. This just proves that new negotiations would be a waste of time as nothing would be solved; they would just be used as a publicity stunt by Serbia. Kosovo will not benefit from new negotiations.
The solution to Kosovo was solved the day it declared independence and it was legal. What has Serbia got that will make Kosovo give up it's independence? Nothing! Serbia is saying that they want new negotiations but at the same time they're saying they will never recognise Kosovo. This just proves that new negotiations would be a waste of time as nothing would be solved; they would just be used as a publicity stunt by Serbia. Kosovo will not benefit from new negotiations.
Mr. James Ker-Lindsay should know very well (since he claims to be an expert on conflict, peace and security) that the negotiations have been conducted several times in the past. The United Nations Security Council actually adopted a statement on October 23, 2005, supporting the start of negotiations on the final status of the secessionist Serbian province. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051024-voa06.htm
As a result of this, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General at the time appointed former Finnish President Martti Ahtissari to lead the negotiations.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16433&Cr=kosovo&Cr1
These negotiations were held in Vienna. There were multiple marathonic meetings. The Serbian delegation was the one that REFUSED to discuss the issue of Kosovo’s status. They were ready to discuss about the technical issues, but not status. They (Serb government) even went as far as pulling a quick one and adopting a constitution that talks about “Kosovo being a part of Serbia”, without allowing Kosovo’s residents to participate in the referendum that lead to its adoption (if Kosovo residents voted on this, the referendum on constitution would have failed).
It was the Serbian government’s stubbornness that has brought this scenario to its country.
The tables have turned – now; Kosovo is willing to “negotiate” about everything, but status.
If Serbia really wants to show that is serious, it should start by abolishing its constitution and adopt a new one that does not mention Kosovo in its preamble.
Mr. Ker-Lindsay also says “I do not see how anyone will have any use from an unresolved status, and the only logical path is the dialogue that Serbia is demanding, which would solve the status and the security of the Serbs in Kosovo.”
However, Kosovo’s residents do not think so. The “unclear and unresolved” status of Kosovo is preferred over “UN administered province” or god-forbid “Serbian province” status already by 95% of Kosovo’s residents. It is the residents of Kosovo that matter, not Russia, or some other country that is trying to keep this area a permanent hotspot or a frozen conflict.
If Serbia and Russia continue with its current methods, Kosovo will eventually abandon the Ahtisaari plan altogether and let Albania handle its international affairs – including UN representation.
In conclusion, Mr. Ker-Lindsay should be more cautious since statements like these could seriously tarnish his reputation.
Smart man! The problem is that we are not dealing with logical people. Those supporting Kosovo's independence have an agenda and negotiations interfere with the agenda. Kosovo's Albanians are unfortunately caught in the middle. Although I probably shouldn't say unfortunately as it appears they like appeasing the US and UK. Yes, we must have negotiations. However, until the US agrees to it, it will probably not happen and we will continue to have a frozen conflict. Kosovo will continue to exist in limbo status.
"[...]the dialogue that Serbia is demanding, which would solve the status and the security of the Serbs in Kosovo,” he said.
“[...] I do not understand the UK, U.S. and other countries that are not allowing these negotiations to occur,” Lindsay
In the first sentence the expert is referring to the: "status of the Serbs in Kosova".
In the second he affirms that international community is against the dialogue concerning "the status of the Serbs in Kosova".
Now we all know that the only thing that Kosova and UK/US et al are not willing to discuss is the "status of Kosova" not "the status of the Serbs in Kosova."
This makes me to think that perhaps with the "status of the Serbs in Kosova" the expert is referring to the partition of Kosova.
Now if the partition is the solution for the expert he needs to say that clearly. Just as Tadic and his ministers are repeating it these days continuously.
But if the expert is honest and says clearly that in his opinion the partition is the solution then he needs to be also honest and admit the reality: the partition is solution for less than 40% of the Serbs in Kosova.
Thus, the partition is not for "the status of the Serbs in Kosova" since it doesn't solve that problem.
So what is then for the partition? Why Serbia is so eager to split her heart and soul??
The fact is that the partition is for land grabbing: a very rich land with minerals.
While the expert needs to be careful about his reputation consequently he cannot say that the rich mines in north would be a just compensation for Serbia so he masks that with the dialogue about “the status of the Serbs in Kosova”.
Fortunately the Serbian elite is more hones and admits that their final goal is partition. They too mask it as "fair deal" but the fact is that they say it clearly we want partition and the reason is clear to everyone: some rich mines in the north.
Now little bit of honesty wouldn't harm anyone including LSE experts.
There you go, again some self proclaimed expert on Balkan is preaching what we should or should not do.
However, this expert seems to be a reasonable one.
Why any negotiations with Pristina?
Province is clearly Serbian, and Kosovo status is still unclear as this expert rightfully claim.Not a one advisory opinion of ICJ can change this fact no matter how conviniously "judges" tried to prove us wrong by their biased and corrupt conclusion.
Belgrade already made its offer long time ago and now it is up to Pristina to accept it or leave it.
Unresolved status of Kosovo does not affect the rest of Serbia, on the contrary.
In my opinion, status quo is much more suitable for Belgrade than for Pristina.
Belgrade should continue on insisting “special status for K-Albanians within Serbia” and nothing less or more than that.
The only chance to gain that goal is to sue all the countries (individually) that recognised Kosovo before the ICJ. But, that was supposed to be done as first, not as the last option.
“I do not see how anyone will have any use from an unresolved status"
I do. With the EU and US in a financial mess, they can claim that Serbia isn't co-operating and use that as an excuse (the EU at least) for not allowing any more accession into the EU for at least 10 years - if ever!
Ian, UK - quote the ICJ ruling that SPECIFICALLY states that Kosovo is independent. And I'm not talking about the declaration. Show me where it states that Kosovo Albanians have a right to self determination and therefore a right to secede from Serbia.
(Radoslav, 7 August 2010 13:26)
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. Also there is no ICJ ruling which you want me to show because no-one asked the court that. There is no point complaining and saying "where is the answer to the question we didn't ask?".
Ian, UK - quote the ICJ ruling that SPECIFICALLY states that Kosovo is independent. And I'm not talking about the declaration. Show me where it states that Kosovo Albanians have a right to self determination and therefore a right to secede from Serbia.
Because the WEST wants full control of the Balkans by putting NATO military base in Kosovo in disguised as KFOR.
They will never allow the Russians to regain control in this part of the world.
@ gman - The idea that Ahtisaari led proper negotiations is complete nonsense! He has openly admitted that he had decided in advance that he would suggest independence.
This point is often made by KA posters, but the reality was that it was a complete sham process that has led to the current mess. By the time the Troika had a go, Pristina had already been promised independence and so believed that it had no reason to compromise. If Ahtisaari had really done his job, we might not be in the situation we are now whereby Kosovo has absolutely no prospect of joining the UN and will in fact remain in limbo for a very long time to come.
A Ian - seriously, you might want to learn a little bit about international law before you comment on the ICJ opinion. At the very least, read the document. It states, absolutely and categorically, that they have not considered whether Kosovo's independence is legal, whether Kosovo is a state or not, or even whether it has a right to secede. They simply said that the UDI (any UDI) is just a statement and therefore is not contrary to international law. (By the way, on this very point, they didn't even say that the UDI was legal. They just said it doesn't break the law. There is a subtle but inportant difference.)
Really, gman and Ian, you just make yourselves look like idiots when you come here and make such ill-informed comments.
Dear "expert" there where more than 10 years of dialog lead by UN for resolving final Kosovo status that were sabotaged by an uncooperative Serbian government. Serbia instead chose to unilaterally adopt Serbia's constitution predetermining the Kosovo status. Serbia deliberately excluded "its" Kosovo's citizens from voting in referendum using conically technicalities of not having control over territory (of-course Kosovo participation didn't make sense since negotiation were going on).
Serbian government should stop misleading its people. Milosevic was a nationalistic idiot that chronically damaged Serbia's national interest.
Why are you still following his ideas and policies?
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. .....
(Ian, UK, 7 August 2010 14:53)
Independence doesn't follow. Which planet do you live on. If independence followed, Kosovo would have a UN seat and the majority of countries in the world would have recognised it. No, Kosovo is like a still-born child. Your comments are without basis.
Ian,UK - How exactly does independence automatically follow from a mere declaration? The Palestinians had more than 100 recognitions and yet their border was never recognised by the UN! If you think that by just screaming loud enough that you are independent, or gaining 100+ recognitions will guarantee independence, then you haven't been reading the news recently (or the ICJ ruling). The Russians will never allow you a UN seat, and as for the ICJ, they explicitly stated (along with the fact that the DECLARATION was legal) their comitment to the territorial integrity of UN member states. Kosovo isn't a UN member state but Serbia is. Go figure. Like I've said before that's a stalemate. Legally Kosovo belongs to Serbia, even though there are 2 million hostile Albanians occupying it. The ICJ effectively gave Serbia the veto over Kosovo's economic development. Countries can give aid but they won't invest because they can't get a return knowing that Serbia is the legal owner.
Looks like you'll be living under 1244 for a long time. So much for Thaci claiming to be independent. Maybe he should take his own advice and look at the facts on the ground.
No, doodah, if they had opined on those issues they would have found wholly in Serbia's favour. They chose a very narrow focus precisely so they would not have to, and that is why they have been criticised in Serbia. How can they proclaim on a declaration of independence and not on the legal situation it creates? But this is exactly what they have done - very clearly and explicitly. They have simply sidestepped the issue.
Again, you might do well to learn a little about international law and read the opinion in detail before you post on this subject.
The criteria for joining the EU is crystal clearly defined, in the (31?) chapters of the access agreement. And of course, in case of Serbia, first the Mladic issue should finally be resolved.
(Top, 7 August 2010 14:26)
And if believe that none of the 22 countries will block Serbia from the EU, then you have to believe that the 5 will not block Kosovo either.
Ever notice that if someone gives a proSerbian point of view, B92 labels them an "expert"?
He did say one correct thing though, Serbia cannot move on until it resolves the matter.
(pss, 7 August 2010 16:38)
=====================
And this is all you got out of this article? Amazing.
"The only chance to gain that goal is to sue all the countries (individually) that recognised Kosovo before the ICJ. But, that was supposed to be done as first, not as the last option.
(Biljana, 7 August 2010 12:03) "
Do you realize that any permanent member of the Security Council can veto any ICJ ruling that it doesn't approve of? http://www.amandala.com.bz/index.php?id=8092
The US, UK, and France could take turns vetoing findings against recognizing countries. IF the ICJ even agreed to take such cases. And IF Serbia were to win. Which, considering that the right of recognition is an element of national sovereignty, is unlikely.
Ever notice that if someone gives a proSerbian point of view, B92 labels them an "expert"?
He did say one correct thing though, Serbia cannot move on until it resolves the matter.
"...“On the moral side, this demand cannot be argued against, and I do not understand the UK, U.S. and other countries that are not allowing these negotiations to occur,” Lindsay said"
So in your menas US and UK should negotitate for the US indepndence too Mr. Lindsey? As I know history, US did not have negotiation with UK to proclaim independence.
"I do. With the EU and US in a financial mess, they can claim that Serbia isn't co-operating and use that as an excuse (the EU at least) for not allowing any more accession into the EU for at least 10 years - if ever!"
(Radoslav, 7 August 2010 12:28)
The criteria for joining the EU is crystal clearly defined, in the (31?) chapters of the access agreement. And of course, in case of Serbia, first the Mladic issue should finally be resolved.
Yes, that is true, but their veto would only prove that the law is on Serbian side and that the law in regard to Kosovo’s UDI is grossly breached.
On the other hand there is veto right too when it comes to admittance of new UN members. Then comes Russia with its huge NO for Kosovo!
I prefer to use original Russian word NYET,NYET...
In both ways is win for Belgrade!
Here is something for you guys, enjoy it. I always do :)
Biljana, 7 August 2010 21:58) There is no need for a veto, even your own legal advisors have said that suing those who have recognized Kosovo is not an option.
The court would probably not even hear the case.
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. Also there is no ICJ ruling which you want me to show because no-one asked the court that. There is no point complaining and saying "where is the answer to the question we didn't ask?".
(Ian, UK, 7 August 2010 14:53)
Ian, it's all about Tony Blair that you voted for and you can't admit to yourself that you voted for the wrong guy; a guy that is portrayed in your country with bloody hands during demonstrations, and in the world media and books as an American puppet, or more precisely Bush's puppet. No matter how much you bash the US and her people, you'll never be able to change that fact.
Also, you have been attacking Serbs left and right even when practically the whole world agreed with them on certain points, just so you won't have to admit to yourself and others that it's possible for even you or Tony Blair to make a miscalculated mistake.
Your "slip" was your wishful thinking--or you are morphing into another PRN.
expert or not, don´t worry, the the EU, US and others will come to reason, they will just have to swallow it that Serbia won´t give in, and that there is no way out of this without Serbia´s "amen".
and in regard to KiM, there won´t be any "amen".
so better they start thinking in Washington, Brussels, Paris, London etc.
And this is all you got out of this article? Amazing.
(Peggy, 8 August 2010 22:57)
And you got more from it, Truly Amazing! But then I do not have the Serbian insight that so many of you do that can read so much more into things than actually said.
(Jim, 8 August 2010 10:12)
If they had opinioned on those issues, you would be in here arguing that it was invalid because that was not the questions asked!
I would like to have someone explain how a country, region, province, city, community, individual, declares independence without secession?
What does it take to become a Balkan expert? I have seen so many be called Balkan experts that I think there are more of those than people living in the Balkans.
The solution to Kosovo was solved the day it declared independence and it was legal. What has Serbia got that will make Kosovo give up it's independence? Nothing! Serbia is saying that they want new negotiations but at the same time they're saying they will never recognise Kosovo. This just proves that new negotiations would be a waste of time as nothing would be solved; they would just be used as a publicity stunt by Serbia. Kosovo will not benefit from new negotiations.
There you go, again some self proclaimed expert on Balkan is preaching what we should or should not do.
However, this expert seems to be a reasonable one.
Why any negotiations with Pristina?
Province is clearly Serbian, and Kosovo status is still unclear as this expert rightfully claim.Not a one advisory opinion of ICJ can change this fact no matter how conviniously "judges" tried to prove us wrong by their biased and corrupt conclusion.
Belgrade already made its offer long time ago and now it is up to Pristina to accept it or leave it.
Unresolved status of Kosovo does not affect the rest of Serbia, on the contrary.
In my opinion, status quo is much more suitable for Belgrade than for Pristina.
Belgrade should continue on insisting “special status for K-Albanians within Serbia” and nothing less or more than that.
The only chance to gain that goal is to sue all the countries (individually) that recognised Kosovo before the ICJ. But, that was supposed to be done as first, not as the last option.
Mr. James Ker-Lindsay should know very well (since he claims to be an expert on conflict, peace and security) that the negotiations have been conducted several times in the past. The United Nations Security Council actually adopted a statement on October 23, 2005, supporting the start of negotiations on the final status of the secessionist Serbian province. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051024-voa06.htm
As a result of this, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General at the time appointed former Finnish President Martti Ahtissari to lead the negotiations.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16433&Cr=kosovo&Cr1
These negotiations were held in Vienna. There were multiple marathonic meetings. The Serbian delegation was the one that REFUSED to discuss the issue of Kosovo’s status. They were ready to discuss about the technical issues, but not status. They (Serb government) even went as far as pulling a quick one and adopting a constitution that talks about “Kosovo being a part of Serbia”, without allowing Kosovo’s residents to participate in the referendum that lead to its adoption (if Kosovo residents voted on this, the referendum on constitution would have failed).
It was the Serbian government’s stubbornness that has brought this scenario to its country.
The tables have turned – now; Kosovo is willing to “negotiate” about everything, but status.
If Serbia really wants to show that is serious, it should start by abolishing its constitution and adopt a new one that does not mention Kosovo in its preamble.
Mr. Ker-Lindsay also says “I do not see how anyone will have any use from an unresolved status, and the only logical path is the dialogue that Serbia is demanding, which would solve the status and the security of the Serbs in Kosovo.”
However, Kosovo’s residents do not think so. The “unclear and unresolved” status of Kosovo is preferred over “UN administered province” or god-forbid “Serbian province” status already by 95% of Kosovo’s residents. It is the residents of Kosovo that matter, not Russia, or some other country that is trying to keep this area a permanent hotspot or a frozen conflict.
If Serbia and Russia continue with its current methods, Kosovo will eventually abandon the Ahtisaari plan altogether and let Albania handle its international affairs – including UN representation.
In conclusion, Mr. Ker-Lindsay should be more cautious since statements like these could seriously tarnish his reputation.
Smart man! The problem is that we are not dealing with logical people. Those supporting Kosovo's independence have an agenda and negotiations interfere with the agenda. Kosovo's Albanians are unfortunately caught in the middle. Although I probably shouldn't say unfortunately as it appears they like appeasing the US and UK. Yes, we must have negotiations. However, until the US agrees to it, it will probably not happen and we will continue to have a frozen conflict. Kosovo will continue to exist in limbo status.
"[...]the dialogue that Serbia is demanding, which would solve the status and the security of the Serbs in Kosovo,” he said.
“[...] I do not understand the UK, U.S. and other countries that are not allowing these negotiations to occur,” Lindsay
In the first sentence the expert is referring to the: "status of the Serbs in Kosova".
In the second he affirms that international community is against the dialogue concerning "the status of the Serbs in Kosova".
Now we all know that the only thing that Kosova and UK/US et al are not willing to discuss is the "status of Kosova" not "the status of the Serbs in Kosova."
This makes me to think that perhaps with the "status of the Serbs in Kosova" the expert is referring to the partition of Kosova.
Now if the partition is the solution for the expert he needs to say that clearly. Just as Tadic and his ministers are repeating it these days continuously.
But if the expert is honest and says clearly that in his opinion the partition is the solution then he needs to be also honest and admit the reality: the partition is solution for less than 40% of the Serbs in Kosova.
Thus, the partition is not for "the status of the Serbs in Kosova" since it doesn't solve that problem.
So what is then for the partition? Why Serbia is so eager to split her heart and soul??
The fact is that the partition is for land grabbing: a very rich land with minerals.
While the expert needs to be careful about his reputation consequently he cannot say that the rich mines in north would be a just compensation for Serbia so he masks that with the dialogue about “the status of the Serbs in Kosova”.
Fortunately the Serbian elite is more hones and admits that their final goal is partition. They too mask it as "fair deal" but the fact is that they say it clearly we want partition and the reason is clear to everyone: some rich mines in the north.
Now little bit of honesty wouldn't harm anyone including LSE experts.
Ian, UK - quote the ICJ ruling that SPECIFICALLY states that Kosovo is independent. And I'm not talking about the declaration. Show me where it states that Kosovo Albanians have a right to self determination and therefore a right to secede from Serbia.
Because the WEST wants full control of the Balkans by putting NATO military base in Kosovo in disguised as KFOR.
They will never allow the Russians to regain control in this part of the world.
“I do not see how anyone will have any use from an unresolved status"
I do. With the EU and US in a financial mess, they can claim that Serbia isn't co-operating and use that as an excuse (the EU at least) for not allowing any more accession into the EU for at least 10 years - if ever!
"I do. With the EU and US in a financial mess, they can claim that Serbia isn't co-operating and use that as an excuse (the EU at least) for not allowing any more accession into the EU for at least 10 years - if ever!"
(Radoslav, 7 August 2010 12:28)
The criteria for joining the EU is crystal clearly defined, in the (31?) chapters of the access agreement. And of course, in case of Serbia, first the Mladic issue should finally be resolved.
Ever notice that if someone gives a proSerbian point of view, B92 labels them an "expert"?
He did say one correct thing though, Serbia cannot move on until it resolves the matter.
(Jim, 8 August 2010 10:12)
If they had opinioned on those issues, you would be in here arguing that it was invalid because that was not the questions asked!
I would like to have someone explain how a country, region, province, city, community, individual, declares independence without secession?
"...“On the moral side, this demand cannot be argued against, and I do not understand the UK, U.S. and other countries that are not allowing these negotiations to occur,” Lindsay said"
So in your menas US and UK should negotitate for the US indepndence too Mr. Lindsey? As I know history, US did not have negotiation with UK to proclaim independence.
Dear "expert" there where more than 10 years of dialog lead by UN for resolving final Kosovo status that were sabotaged by an uncooperative Serbian government. Serbia instead chose to unilaterally adopt Serbia's constitution predetermining the Kosovo status. Serbia deliberately excluded "its" Kosovo's citizens from voting in referendum using conically technicalities of not having control over territory (of-course Kosovo participation didn't make sense since negotiation were going on).
Serbian government should stop misleading its people. Milosevic was a nationalistic idiot that chronically damaged Serbia's national interest.
Why are you still following his ideas and policies?
"The only chance to gain that goal is to sue all the countries (individually) that recognised Kosovo before the ICJ. But, that was supposed to be done as first, not as the last option.
(Biljana, 7 August 2010 12:03) "
Do you realize that any permanent member of the Security Council can veto any ICJ ruling that it doesn't approve of? http://www.amandala.com.bz/index.php?id=8092
The US, UK, and France could take turns vetoing findings against recognizing countries. IF the ICJ even agreed to take such cases. And IF Serbia were to win. Which, considering that the right of recognition is an element of national sovereignty, is unlikely.
Ian,UK - How exactly does independence automatically follow from a mere declaration? The Palestinians had more than 100 recognitions and yet their border was never recognised by the UN! If you think that by just screaming loud enough that you are independent, or gaining 100+ recognitions will guarantee independence, then you haven't been reading the news recently (or the ICJ ruling). The Russians will never allow you a UN seat, and as for the ICJ, they explicitly stated (along with the fact that the DECLARATION was legal) their comitment to the territorial integrity of UN member states. Kosovo isn't a UN member state but Serbia is. Go figure. Like I've said before that's a stalemate. Legally Kosovo belongs to Serbia, even though there are 2 million hostile Albanians occupying it. The ICJ effectively gave Serbia the veto over Kosovo's economic development. Countries can give aid but they won't invest because they can't get a return knowing that Serbia is the legal owner.
Looks like you'll be living under 1244 for a long time. So much for Thaci claiming to be independent. Maybe he should take his own advice and look at the facts on the ground.
And this is all you got out of this article? Amazing.
(Peggy, 8 August 2010 22:57)
And you got more from it, Truly Amazing! But then I do not have the Serbian insight that so many of you do that can read so much more into things than actually said.
Ian, UK - quote the ICJ ruling that SPECIFICALLY states that Kosovo is independent. And I'm not talking about the declaration. Show me where it states that Kosovo Albanians have a right to self determination and therefore a right to secede from Serbia.
(Radoslav, 7 August 2010 13:26)
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. Also there is no ICJ ruling which you want me to show because no-one asked the court that. There is no point complaining and saying "where is the answer to the question we didn't ask?".
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. .....
(Ian, UK, 7 August 2010 14:53)
Independence doesn't follow. Which planet do you live on. If independence followed, Kosovo would have a UN seat and the majority of countries in the world would have recognised it. No, Kosovo is like a still-born child. Your comments are without basis.
I was referring to the declaration and thus the independence which follows. Also there is no ICJ ruling which you want me to show because no-one asked the court that. There is no point complaining and saying "where is the answer to the question we didn't ask?".
(Ian, UK, 7 August 2010 14:53)
Ian, it's all about Tony Blair that you voted for and you can't admit to yourself that you voted for the wrong guy; a guy that is portrayed in your country with bloody hands during demonstrations, and in the world media and books as an American puppet, or more precisely Bush's puppet. No matter how much you bash the US and her people, you'll never be able to change that fact.
Also, you have been attacking Serbs left and right even when practically the whole world agreed with them on certain points, just so you won't have to admit to yourself and others that it's possible for even you or Tony Blair to make a miscalculated mistake.
Your "slip" was your wishful thinking--or you are morphing into another PRN.
The criteria for joining the EU is crystal clearly defined, in the (31?) chapters of the access agreement. And of course, in case of Serbia, first the Mladic issue should finally be resolved.
(Top, 7 August 2010 14:26)
And if believe that none of the 22 countries will block Serbia from the EU, then you have to believe that the 5 will not block Kosovo either.
Yes, that is true, but their veto would only prove that the law is on Serbian side and that the law in regard to Kosovo’s UDI is grossly breached.
On the other hand there is veto right too when it comes to admittance of new UN members. Then comes Russia with its huge NO for Kosovo!
I prefer to use original Russian word NYET,NYET...
In both ways is win for Belgrade!
Here is something for you guys, enjoy it. I always do :)
What does it take to become a Balkan expert? I have seen so many be called Balkan experts that I think there are more of those than people living in the Balkans.
Biljana, 7 August 2010 21:58) There is no need for a veto, even your own legal advisors have said that suing those who have recognized Kosovo is not an option.
The court would probably not even hear the case.
Ever notice that if someone gives a proSerbian point of view, B92 labels them an "expert"?
He did say one correct thing though, Serbia cannot move on until it resolves the matter.
(pss, 7 August 2010 16:38)
=====================
And this is all you got out of this article? Amazing.
@ gman - The idea that Ahtisaari led proper negotiations is complete nonsense! He has openly admitted that he had decided in advance that he would suggest independence.
This point is often made by KA posters, but the reality was that it was a complete sham process that has led to the current mess. By the time the Troika had a go, Pristina had already been promised independence and so believed that it had no reason to compromise. If Ahtisaari had really done his job, we might not be in the situation we are now whereby Kosovo has absolutely no prospect of joining the UN and will in fact remain in limbo for a very long time to come.
A Ian - seriously, you might want to learn a little bit about international law before you comment on the ICJ opinion. At the very least, read the document. It states, absolutely and categorically, that they have not considered whether Kosovo's independence is legal, whether Kosovo is a state or not, or even whether it has a right to secede. They simply said that the UDI (any UDI) is just a statement and therefore is not contrary to international law. (By the way, on this very point, they didn't even say that the UDI was legal. They just said it doesn't break the law. There is a subtle but inportant difference.)
Really, gman and Ian, you just make yourselves look like idiots when you come here and make such ill-informed comments.
No, doodah, if they had opined on those issues they would have found wholly in Serbia's favour. They chose a very narrow focus precisely so they would not have to, and that is why they have been criticised in Serbia. How can they proclaim on a declaration of independence and not on the legal situation it creates? But this is exactly what they have done - very clearly and explicitly. They have simply sidestepped the issue.
Again, you might do well to learn a little about international law and read the opinion in detail before you post on this subject.
expert or not, don´t worry, the the EU, US and others will come to reason, they will just have to swallow it that Serbia won´t give in, and that there is no way out of this without Serbia´s "amen".
and in regard to KiM, there won´t be any "amen".
so better they start thinking in Washington, Brussels, Paris, London etc.
IMAGE SOURCE
28 Komentari
Sortiraj po: