British FM favors withdrawal of resolution

"but said that the situation would not be any better either it Serbia was to get the majority of the UN General Assembly to support its resolution—as far as relations with the EU are concerned."

Woaaa, that's pretty much saying if Serbia somehow got a majority at the UN Gen Assembly,it should forget the whole EU think because UK will block it.

I am really surprised how hard the EU is coming down on Serbia regarding the Kosovo issue. Remember just a few months ago, everyone was saying Serbia's road to EU is not conditioned on it's relation with Kosovo. Now, most of main EU countries have told Serbia to basically recognize Kosovo if it wants good relation with the EU. As they say, a month in Politics is a lifetime- things really do change fast. The EU just pulled a fast one on Serbia.

Hague is as pro Kosovo as they get, so I will take him at his word that UK will block Serb- EU relations if Serbia continues her antics.

I was born in England, my late mother was English and my late father was born in Serbia, I say to all you Serbian people very loudly, do not trust the West. The British and the Americans in particular are big liars and they will always stab you in the back. They have two faces, and as the red indian says of them, they speak with a forked tongue. Look what they did to Serbia, you cannot ever forget this. The EU is far from being a union, its a sham. Tell them to go to hell and don't ever trust these people, they are not a friend to Serbia and never will be. God bless Serbia.

I know one thing for sure.
Mr. Kostunica would NOT buy these pathetic efforts by the German and UK FMs' shady visits to Belgrade.
The EU stands to lose a great deal of credibility worldwide when Serbia sees its resolution being passed with a handsome majority at the UNGA in September.

Germany and UK also fear that their sordid antics and corrupt capers during the entire 'Kosovo fiasco' might also be exposed in any further debate on Kosovo's predicament.
Mr. Tadic has the choice of either being remembered as a true Serbian statesman or the one who took the 20 pieces of silver.

MB,Ireland

BalkanUpdate,

You really think the EU is pulling a fast one on Serbia?

All I see is a flurry of diplomatic activity from Germany, UK and US. Its not in their interest to push Serbia and its people to the east and to a nationalist government. They have a European future leaning government for now. The geopolitical risks for USA and Europe are too high to push what is now a peaceful, democratically elected government.

If it were really as simple as you would like to portray, they would have sent a simple message - recognise or no EU. The language used now is not this simple, because they can't do that. What do they then do with the 5 countries in EU who won't recognise? Boot them out too?

Much to your apparent disappointment, nor will it happen, unless Serbia gives the convenient excuse your looking for and decides to use force.

Roberto,

Thank you too, for your usual biased one-sided viewpoint, where the world celebrates a good guy and a bad guy story for simpleton consumption.

Serbia has recognised Bosnia Hercegovina under Dayton. They have repeated it many times, including in the last month. Dayton was signed by a number of countries, including the US and Serbia.

Prijatno.

this is what I call ;"ear grabbing till you submit".

Hey men, the stone age is over, why don't u accept that not everybody is ready to lick your boots !!!

OK, so Serbia has to withdraw this resolution because this is what Britain and some of the EU countries and the US want?

Serbia should not do this!

The West should not rule the world. The West should respect the UN. Let all countries vote! That't the way it should be!

And let's not forget the majority of the UN members does not recognize Kosovo!

And we all know why: if Kosovo can go, so can a lot of regions in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Let's not open Pandora's Box!

By the way: will the UK support Azerbeidjan's territorial integrity when it comes to the issue of Nagorno Karabakh?

Let's not open Pandora's Box!

By the way: will the UK support Azerbeidjan's territorial integrity when it comes to the issue of Nagorno Karabakh?
(Ron, 31 August 2010, 17:32)
The Pandora's box threat was novel at first and it did scare some people but it is old and useless. There is no Pandora's box, it did not happen in February of 2008 as predicted, it did not happen when Russia tried to springboard it with the Georgian provinces, it did not happen with the ICJ opinion and it will never happen due to actions in Kosovo.
Need to get another slogan this one is useless.
And the answer to your question Ron is if the UK, US etc consider Kosovo as a unique case no they are not going to base any other decision on what they do in Kosovo. No matter how hard it is for you to see the difference.
Eventhough Serbia wants to present Kosovo as a simple secessionist movement similar to others around the world, there is a big difference.
So unless that box is filled with UN protectorates then it will remain in the closet under lock and key.

You are under the false Serbian wish that 1244 "guarantees" Kosovo will always be a part of Serbia. That is not true, I do not pretend that I can change your viewpoint but the ICJ opinion in ruling that a Declaration of Independence does not violate 1244, further reinforces the fact.
If 1244 "guaranteed" Serbia any rights over the land in Kosovo, a DoI would definitely be a violation.
(pss, 1 September 2010 15:00)

Can you honestly tell me that Russia and China would have let 1244 pass if they thought it envisaged an independent Kosovo?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uproar-as-maude-calls-for-kosovo-selfdetermination-689224.html

This is what the House of Commons thought in 2001 when MPs suggested an independent Kosovo. If this was the case in Britain, one of the strongest possible advocates of independence today, then its pretty clear that no government that signed 1244 expected that it could lead to an independent Kosovo.

If one reads between the lines, it's apparent how important this issue is to the US and EU. It certainly begs the question, why? What is the West afraid of? Serbia is a tiny country of little consequence to the West, yet they are so afraid for some reason of this UN general assembly resolution. Serbia should do its best to keep to its principled stance and avoid bowing down to false threats. Obviously threats coming from the West are toothless these days. It's no longer the 90s.

Prior to WW1, British press stated that if Serbia could be hauled out of Europe to the Atlantic and sunk, Europe woudl be a better place. As the overused statement, "with friends like this, who needs enemies" rings true, the British have NEVER been our friends and rank up there as openly beligerent and hostile as it relates to Serbia.

Do not forget Serbia, it's the British that sold us out to Communism, it's the British that bombed Belgrade at Tito's request. This bombing caused more damage, more death to the civilian population than German's round of aggression. Capitals such as Sarajevo or Zagreb were spared, while Belgrade suffered. And this was our friend? Well, you can take your friendship and place it where the sun don't shine.

EA and thanks to the gentlemanly talk from Hague Serbia withdraws its resolution and the stated compromise from the EU never occurs.

Instead (what you hope for anyway) Serbia is told to recognise Kosovo in return for some small concessions that are well short of the compromise Serbia is seeking.

Complete capitulation done pleasantly is the same as complete capitulation done nastily.

Unless something concrete (not vague committments) is offered Serbia should stick to its current position, as perhaps 'it won't be better' as Hague says, but in that statement lies an admission 'it won't be any worse' either.

There is only so much willingness to compromise one can do. Still, nobody can say that the Serbian government isn't making an effort to do so.

There will never be real progress in the Balkans until serbia recognizes an independent kosova, and an independent bosnia as well.

as long as serbia continues to act as imperialist and belligerent in the region, the same bad patterns will continue, and the common people of the region continue to suffer.

this belgd regime absolutely reflects the worst of the past, minus military action (for the time being.) and for that, we must remain ever-prepared.

Thank you to Great Briatain for your continued and principled stance on Kosova, and yr refusal to submit to blgd's tricks and hegemony. their "moderation" is one great big, transparent lie.

ciao!

roberto
frisco

Eventhough Serbia wants to present Kosovo as a simple secessionist movement similar to others around the world, there is a big difference.
So unless that box is filled with UN protectorates then it will remain in the closet under lock and key.
(pss, 31 August 2010, 22:56)

You make a good point, and show why Kosovo can never be allowed to become a UN member. If it ever does and the idea that a UN mandate makes unilateral secession legal becomes a reality, then what little authority the UN has now will be gone forever.

Every country knows now that even if they put their territory under a UN mandate which guarantees their territorial integrity, no resolution is ever water tight.

Every country knows now that even if they put their territory under a UN mandate which guarantees their territorial integrity, no resolution is ever water tight.
(Sam, UK, 1 September 2010 04:13)
You are under the false Serbian wish that 1244 "guarantees" Kosovo will always be a part of Serbia. That is not true, I do not pretend that I can change your viewpoint but the ICJ opinion in ruling that a Declaration of Independence does not violate 1244, further reinforces the fact.
If 1244 "guaranteed" Serbia any rights over the land in Kosovo, a DoI would definitely be a violation.

Four advises of William Hague in Belgrade

1- ".. it would be best for Serbia to pull its Kosovo resolution."

2- "... the best way for Serbia to reach a compromise with the European Union"

3- ".. it would not be good for Serbia to suffer a loss when the UN General Assembly votes on its resolution ",

4- ".. the situation would not be any better either it Serbia was to get the majority of the UN General Assembly to support its resolution—as far as relations with the EU are concerned."

I do not see any of the above statement as a threat as many fanatics would love to say. Serbia is given many choices. The REAL leaders make decision even if that decision might not be very popular for the sake of peace and stability and future generation. The decision is your Serbia!

Hey men, the stone age is over, why don't u accept that not everybody is ready to lick your boots !!!
(The Swiss, 31 August 2010, 17:46)

You have too if you want to keep receiving their money. That's always the case.

Its a pity you have such an extreme position on the situation.
(bganon, 1 September 2010 13:06)

Why extreme bganon? What's not true in his statement about your constitution? If you really believe that Serbia is making an honest effort to compromise then where is the proposal? All I hear is: "Compromised solution acceptable to both sides and blah blah blah...".

Where is Serbian proposal acceptable to both sides? It would probably be something like: "Let's recognize K-Independence but also let's not ever recognize K-Independence." That sounds like something that would satisfy both sides to me. Is it logical though? Unless Belgrade gives an answer to how can a possible compromise could be achieved in such a deadlock situation, then no one believes Serbia's honest attemp to compromise. First and above all US and EU (in its entirety) don't believe a word in Serbia's call for compromise because such thing does not exist.

Miri you have already had a leaked proposal in the Croatian newspapers and reported on here. What do you think about it?

But do you really think that any party going into negotiations will give its proposals to us the public, before sitting down and negotiating? That is not the way its done and never has been. If negotiations are finally held should I demand that the Kosovo Albanians reveal their bottom line before going in, or demand that they drop the insistence that Kosovo will be independent before we sit down?
Perhaps if I had the mental powers of a child I would engage in such immaturity.

Secondly why are you so worried about the constitution? If an agreement is made, Serbia signs and the necessary laws are passed in parliament thats it.

As I said if necessary the constitution can be changed. All this talk about the constitution is rather silly and in my opinion is an attempt to avoid negotiations.

I would have much more respect for anybody espousing a position of 'no negotiations, no matter what' than I have for those that set fake conditions before talks are held or fall back on constitutions as an excuse to not wanting to negotiate.

So I'll ask you plainly Miri, do you want to negotiate a settlement or not? If not then why should Serbia try to cater to your demands?

Ruben thats a ridiculous argument. According to you and the Albanian position, Kosovo is not beholden to the Serbian constitution at all. And yet you ask me why the Kosovo Albanian people should be beholden to it.

I don't agree with you that a constitution is silly. A constitution is there to serve the people it is put into place by. People are not there to serve their constitutions.

And when you talk about the constitution I get the feeling you have next to no knowledge about how they function in the world. Some states do not even have written constitutions. Whilst other countries have laws that contradict their constitutions. Still more countries find ways to interpret constitutions if they come into conflict with laws created later. And finally, yes constitutions can be changed.

Same question for you, if the Serbian consitution didn't include Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia would you support negotiations? Be honest.

What exactly is offered to Serbia in exchange for a huge chunk of it's territory (and all of the property on it)? Future EU membership? I don't see that, not even in next 20 years.

It is britain that needs to reconcile its imperialistic past with the present day reality. The west failed in the middle east, screwed up the balkans and lost Russia. Time for them to suffer humiliation on the floor of the General Assembly.
I don't see the vote option for these comments. Did b92 finally realize that the albo posters kept voting for themselves many times during the day? Or has b92 been stuffing their ballot?

The GA is set to debate the resolution on Sept. 9th. I would tell him in no uncertain terms, Mr. Hague…C U Next Thursday!

Serbia is given many choices. The REAL leaders make decision even if that decision might not be very popular for the sake of peace and stability and future generation. The decision is your Serbia
(EA)
-
Wrong again; Governments exist to serve the interest of the people, not the other way around.

And yes, the decision is Serbia's to make, not anyone elses.

Roberto wrote:

"as long as serbia continues to act as imperialist and belligerent in the region, the same bad patterns will continue, and the common people of the region continue to suffer"
====================

Roberto, you have Serbia confused with England. Take a stroll through history and see who is imperialist.

Where is Serbian proposal acceptable to both sides? It would probably be something like: "Let's recognize K-Independence but also let's not ever recognize K-Independence."

Something like that. I'm sure Belgrade would be happy to let Pristina keep every power it has now, even hand over the North. On the ground it would be every bit an independent country and all Serbia would ask is to de jure be able to say Kosovo is Serbia.

Of course when people are given something its much harder to take away than if they never had it in the first place, so this offer won't be enough anymore.

So Serbia needs to come up with even more than this and more importantly the west needs to get the Albanians back to the negotiating table.

The latter definitely won't happen so naturally, its not wise to make an offer before they are at the negotiating table, otherwise the Albanians can say Serbia offered it and its not a compromise, which means they can demand more in the event there are new negotiations.

Anyway in the forseeable future its a frozen conflict, and Serbs can be patient, they've waited 500 years for Kosovo before.

Still, nobody can say that the Serbian government isn't making an effort to do so.
(bganon, 31 August 2010, 18:39)

Everyone can say that. Serbia never tried. A compromise has never been in Serbia's interest; because Serbia knows that a compromise means that it would have to recognize Kosovo even if it somehow does not have the same borders as it has now. The Serb law prevents that from happening, nobody in Serbia will ever be ready for that, and nobody would ever have the guts to do that. The Serbs have figured out that stalling is their best choice. Of course they have to dress up the word stalling. They've figured that if they dress up that word they can fool the west. They didn't predict , as always, that they cannot outsmart those who actually make the rules and enforce these rules on how the world functions. They didn't predict their harsh reaction. Serbia has never been able to compromise. Serbia is not a country that knows what a compromise is. Look; even for a useless resolution that has no legal power they are not able to compromise.

Actually Johny I don't think that any countries in the world would agree with you, including western countries like the US.

They all know that Serbia is making a serious effort to compromise. In fact I even believe that Kosovo Albanians understand this - even if some think its a trick, they must realise that this 'trick' could easily end in Serbia compromising for real if certain western countries were to take Serbia's overtures as a promise.

I'm also certain btw that no country is worried about the Serbian consitution either. And as far as Serbia is concerned you don't need to worry about that Tadic has most people and political parties are on board.

Its a pity you have such an extreme position on the situation.

The EU-US_K hypocrisy has no bounds! Just it is beyond any comprehension how the humans can be such hypocritical. What 's about Abhazia,Osetia,Karabah and specially the Kurdish people? Why the albanians deserve more than others? The Kurdish are dying every day for decades! I'd put all these hypocrites on one space ship and send them to hell!

I do not see any of the above statement as a threat as many fanatics would love to say. Serbia is given many choices. The REAL leaders make decision even if that decision might not be very popular for the sake of peace and stability and future generation. The decision is your Serbia!
(EA, 31 August 2010, 17:57)

EA...It seems you don't have the slightest idea of the diplomatic language...Do you really expect Hague to threaten Serbia in layman language/terms?! In my view, the signal Serbia is receiving from the WEST is that either way Serbia will lose.

Sam you are projecting yourself onto 1244.

Fact: There is nothing in 1244 that states what the status will be after the interim period. Nothing. It neither guarantees Serbia anything nor it guarantees Kosova anything. The option is wide open. If you find anything any mention of what the final status would look like please post it here and send a copy to ICJ as well.

@bganon who says...

"All this talk about the constitution is rather silly and in my opinion is an attempt to avoid negotiations"

you say "a costitution can always be changed later" well thats just fantastic... but what you havent said is why kosovo should be beholden to todays republic of serbia's constitution at all?

I can see why YOU would think a constitution is "silly" and would prefer to run like hell from acknowledging it.

but give one single reason why kosovo should negotiate anything with serbia?

so dont talk about "respect" it is sadly transparent that YOU cannot defend the constitution that YOU from the start are implying as any value.


as for the rest of the civilized world, that "silly" thing called a constitution is the very foundation of what makes a nation and defines EVERYTHING within it.

If in what was Yugoslavia, serbs didnt think a constitution was so "silly" and so easily changed, perhaps today there wouldnt be 7 new nations formed from what it was.

Sam you are projecting yourself onto 1244.

Fact: There is nothing in 1244 that states what the status will be after the interim period. Nothing. It neither guarantees Serbia anything nor it guarantees Kosova anything. The option is wide open. If you find anything any mention of what the final status would look like please post it here and send a copy to ICJ as well.
(johny, 1 September 2010 23:27)

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,'

The countries that recognised broke that commitment.

It also uses the words 'substantial autonomy' twice. Never in history has auntonomy meant independence. It could have meant independence in all but name, but never de jure independence.

And also the ICJ only dealt with the declaration, and said one of the reasons it was legal is because the autors seeked to act outside of 1244, not as the PISG, the position 1244 assigned them. Just as anyone who issues a declaration of independence does not seek to act within the laws of said land.

You also said after the interim period. This plays right into Serbia's hands as the interim period has not finished and will never be allowed to finish by Russia and China until a compromise has been reached.

Sam, UK: 'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,'

The countries that recognised broke that commitment.

It also uses the words 'substantial autonomy' twice. '

The first British jurist to speak during the oral presentations did a thorough job of explaining Res. 1244. You can't simply pick words out of context and say they prove anything.

For example, the first bit about reaffirming the territorial integrity of FRY was in the preamble - a statement of the conditions existing at the time the document was drawn up. It wasn't a promise that Kosovo would forever be a part of Serbia. (It wasn't an oversight - in a similar resolution passed during the same session, the UNSC specifically ruled out independence.) The references to "substantial autonomy" pertained to the period while the final status was being determined, not the final status itself. There was nothing said about what form this final status would have, except in the references to the Rambouillet Accords. And they said that "the will of the people" of Kosovo should be considered.

The Brits weren't the only ones to point this out - many others did as well. Here's Norway's wording (in its oral presentation):

" 30. Resolution 1244 decided in paragraph 1 that a political solution to the Kosovo crisis shall
be based “on the general principles in annex 1 and as further elaborated in the principles and other
required elements in annex 2”. Both these Annexes require “taking full account of the Rambouillet accords”, to which also paragraph 11 (e) of the resolution makes reference . The Rambouillet Accords had explicitly identified the “will of the people” of Kosovo as one of the key relevant factors constituting the basis for considerations of a final settlement for Kosovo. There
is, therefore, incidentally no need in this case to undertake any further analysis of the principle of
self-determination in international law. Resolution 1244 establishes, in the confined context of
Kosovo, the unequivocal relevance of the will of the people of Kosovo in the determination of
Kosovo’s future status."

Serbia recognized the meaning of the Rambouillet Accords when they were first presented and objected - it wanted an equal voice in determining the outcome, and was over-ruled. Likewise, when Res. 1244 was being voted on, the Serbian representatives objected, because they said it would lead to the independence of Kosovo. And they were again over-ruled. What they told the people at home they had achieved ... well, that was their decision.

The ICJ studied the document and the same objections you have made here (and others), and ruled that the DoI did not violate the provisions of Res. 1244. Serbia played the legal card, and lost. Now it's going back to politics.

There will never be real progress in the Balkans until serbia recognizes an independent kosova, and an independent bosnia as well.

as long as serbia continues to act as imperialist and belligerent in the region, the same bad patterns will continue, and the common people of the region continue to suffer.

this belgd regime absolutely reflects the worst of the past, minus military action (for the time being.) and for that, we must remain ever-prepared.

Thank you to Great Briatain for your continued and principled stance on Kosova, and yr refusal to submit to blgd's tricks and hegemony. their "moderation" is one great big, transparent lie.

ciao!

roberto
frisco

Let's not open Pandora's Box!

By the way: will the UK support Azerbeidjan's territorial integrity when it comes to the issue of Nagorno Karabakh?
(Ron, 31 August 2010, 17:32)
The Pandora's box threat was novel at first and it did scare some people but it is old and useless. There is no Pandora's box, it did not happen in February of 2008 as predicted, it did not happen when Russia tried to springboard it with the Georgian provinces, it did not happen with the ICJ opinion and it will never happen due to actions in Kosovo.
Need to get another slogan this one is useless.
And the answer to your question Ron is if the UK, US etc consider Kosovo as a unique case no they are not going to base any other decision on what they do in Kosovo. No matter how hard it is for you to see the difference.
Eventhough Serbia wants to present Kosovo as a simple secessionist movement similar to others around the world, there is a big difference.
So unless that box is filled with UN protectorates then it will remain in the closet under lock and key.

Still, nobody can say that the Serbian government isn't making an effort to do so.
(bganon, 31 August 2010, 18:39)

Everyone can say that. Serbia never tried. A compromise has never been in Serbia's interest; because Serbia knows that a compromise means that it would have to recognize Kosovo even if it somehow does not have the same borders as it has now. The Serb law prevents that from happening, nobody in Serbia will ever be ready for that, and nobody would ever have the guts to do that. The Serbs have figured out that stalling is their best choice. Of course they have to dress up the word stalling. They've figured that if they dress up that word they can fool the west. They didn't predict , as always, that they cannot outsmart those who actually make the rules and enforce these rules on how the world functions. They didn't predict their harsh reaction. Serbia has never been able to compromise. Serbia is not a country that knows what a compromise is. Look; even for a useless resolution that has no legal power they are not able to compromise.

I do not see any of the above statement as a threat as many fanatics would love to say. Serbia is given many choices. The REAL leaders make decision even if that decision might not be very popular for the sake of peace and stability and future generation. The decision is your Serbia!
(EA, 31 August 2010, 17:57)

EA...It seems you don't have the slightest idea of the diplomatic language...Do you really expect Hague to threaten Serbia in layman language/terms?! In my view, the signal Serbia is receiving from the WEST is that either way Serbia will lose.

EA and thanks to the gentlemanly talk from Hague Serbia withdraws its resolution and the stated compromise from the EU never occurs.

Instead (what you hope for anyway) Serbia is told to recognise Kosovo in return for some small concessions that are well short of the compromise Serbia is seeking.

Complete capitulation done pleasantly is the same as complete capitulation done nastily.

Unless something concrete (not vague committments) is offered Serbia should stick to its current position, as perhaps 'it won't be better' as Hague says, but in that statement lies an admission 'it won't be any worse' either.

There is only so much willingness to compromise one can do. Still, nobody can say that the Serbian government isn't making an effort to do so.

I was born in England, my late mother was English and my late father was born in Serbia, I say to all you Serbian people very loudly, do not trust the West. The British and the Americans in particular are big liars and they will always stab you in the back. They have two faces, and as the red indian says of them, they speak with a forked tongue. Look what they did to Serbia, you cannot ever forget this. The EU is far from being a union, its a sham. Tell them to go to hell and don't ever trust these people, they are not a friend to Serbia and never will be. God bless Serbia.

Four advises of William Hague in Belgrade

1- ".. it would be best for Serbia to pull its Kosovo resolution."

2- "... the best way for Serbia to reach a compromise with the European Union"

3- ".. it would not be good for Serbia to suffer a loss when the UN General Assembly votes on its resolution ",

4- ".. the situation would not be any better either it Serbia was to get the majority of the UN General Assembly to support its resolution—as far as relations with the EU are concerned."

I do not see any of the above statement as a threat as many fanatics would love to say. Serbia is given many choices. The REAL leaders make decision even if that decision might not be very popular for the sake of peace and stability and future generation. The decision is your Serbia!

I know one thing for sure.
Mr. Kostunica would NOT buy these pathetic efforts by the German and UK FMs' shady visits to Belgrade.
The EU stands to lose a great deal of credibility worldwide when Serbia sees its resolution being passed with a handsome majority at the UNGA in September.

Germany and UK also fear that their sordid antics and corrupt capers during the entire 'Kosovo fiasco' might also be exposed in any further debate on Kosovo's predicament.
Mr. Tadic has the choice of either being remembered as a true Serbian statesman or the one who took the 20 pieces of silver.

MB,Ireland

Hey men, the stone age is over, why don't u accept that not everybody is ready to lick your boots !!!

Prior to WW1, British press stated that if Serbia could be hauled out of Europe to the Atlantic and sunk, Europe woudl be a better place. As the overused statement, "with friends like this, who needs enemies" rings true, the British have NEVER been our friends and rank up there as openly beligerent and hostile as it relates to Serbia.

Do not forget Serbia, it's the British that sold us out to Communism, it's the British that bombed Belgrade at Tito's request. This bombing caused more damage, more death to the civilian population than German's round of aggression. Capitals such as Sarajevo or Zagreb were spared, while Belgrade suffered. And this was our friend? Well, you can take your friendship and place it where the sun don't shine.

Its a pity you have such an extreme position on the situation.
(bganon, 1 September 2010 13:06)

Why extreme bganon? What's not true in his statement about your constitution? If you really believe that Serbia is making an honest effort to compromise then where is the proposal? All I hear is: "Compromised solution acceptable to both sides and blah blah blah...".

Where is Serbian proposal acceptable to both sides? It would probably be something like: "Let's recognize K-Independence but also let's not ever recognize K-Independence." That sounds like something that would satisfy both sides to me. Is it logical though? Unless Belgrade gives an answer to how can a possible compromise could be achieved in such a deadlock situation, then no one believes Serbia's honest attemp to compromise. First and above all US and EU (in its entirety) don't believe a word in Serbia's call for compromise because such thing does not exist.

OK, so Serbia has to withdraw this resolution because this is what Britain and some of the EU countries and the US want?

Serbia should not do this!

The West should not rule the world. The West should respect the UN. Let all countries vote! That't the way it should be!

And let's not forget the majority of the UN members does not recognize Kosovo!

And we all know why: if Kosovo can go, so can a lot of regions in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Let's not open Pandora's Box!

By the way: will the UK support Azerbeidjan's territorial integrity when it comes to the issue of Nagorno Karabakh?

If one reads between the lines, it's apparent how important this issue is to the US and EU. It certainly begs the question, why? What is the West afraid of? Serbia is a tiny country of little consequence to the West, yet they are so afraid for some reason of this UN general assembly resolution. Serbia should do its best to keep to its principled stance and avoid bowing down to false threats. Obviously threats coming from the West are toothless these days. It's no longer the 90s.

BalkanUpdate,

You really think the EU is pulling a fast one on Serbia?

All I see is a flurry of diplomatic activity from Germany, UK and US. Its not in their interest to push Serbia and its people to the east and to a nationalist government. They have a European future leaning government for now. The geopolitical risks for USA and Europe are too high to push what is now a peaceful, democratically elected government.

If it were really as simple as you would like to portray, they would have sent a simple message - recognise or no EU. The language used now is not this simple, because they can't do that. What do they then do with the 5 countries in EU who won't recognise? Boot them out too?

Much to your apparent disappointment, nor will it happen, unless Serbia gives the convenient excuse your looking for and decides to use force.

Roberto,

Thank you too, for your usual biased one-sided viewpoint, where the world celebrates a good guy and a bad guy story for simpleton consumption.

Serbia has recognised Bosnia Hercegovina under Dayton. They have repeated it many times, including in the last month. Dayton was signed by a number of countries, including the US and Serbia.

Prijatno.

Actually Johny I don't think that any countries in the world would agree with you, including western countries like the US.

They all know that Serbia is making a serious effort to compromise. In fact I even believe that Kosovo Albanians understand this - even if some think its a trick, they must realise that this 'trick' could easily end in Serbia compromising for real if certain western countries were to take Serbia's overtures as a promise.

I'm also certain btw that no country is worried about the Serbian consitution either. And as far as Serbia is concerned you don't need to worry about that Tadic has most people and political parties are on board.

Its a pity you have such an extreme position on the situation.

this is what I call ;"ear grabbing till you submit".

Roberto wrote:

"as long as serbia continues to act as imperialist and belligerent in the region, the same bad patterns will continue, and the common people of the region continue to suffer"
====================

Roberto, you have Serbia confused with England. Take a stroll through history and see who is imperialist.

It is britain that needs to reconcile its imperialistic past with the present day reality. The west failed in the middle east, screwed up the balkans and lost Russia. Time for them to suffer humiliation on the floor of the General Assembly.
I don't see the vote option for these comments. Did b92 finally realize that the albo posters kept voting for themselves many times during the day? Or has b92 been stuffing their ballot?

@bganon who says...

"All this talk about the constitution is rather silly and in my opinion is an attempt to avoid negotiations"

you say "a costitution can always be changed later" well thats just fantastic... but what you havent said is why kosovo should be beholden to todays republic of serbia's constitution at all?

I can see why YOU would think a constitution is "silly" and would prefer to run like hell from acknowledging it.

but give one single reason why kosovo should negotiate anything with serbia?

so dont talk about "respect" it is sadly transparent that YOU cannot defend the constitution that YOU from the start are implying as any value.


as for the rest of the civilized world, that "silly" thing called a constitution is the very foundation of what makes a nation and defines EVERYTHING within it.

If in what was Yugoslavia, serbs didnt think a constitution was so "silly" and so easily changed, perhaps today there wouldnt be 7 new nations formed from what it was.

Sam you are projecting yourself onto 1244.

Fact: There is nothing in 1244 that states what the status will be after the interim period. Nothing. It neither guarantees Serbia anything nor it guarantees Kosova anything. The option is wide open. If you find anything any mention of what the final status would look like please post it here and send a copy to ICJ as well.
(johny, 1 September 2010 23:27)

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,'

The countries that recognised broke that commitment.

It also uses the words 'substantial autonomy' twice. Never in history has auntonomy meant independence. It could have meant independence in all but name, but never de jure independence.

And also the ICJ only dealt with the declaration, and said one of the reasons it was legal is because the autors seeked to act outside of 1244, not as the PISG, the position 1244 assigned them. Just as anyone who issues a declaration of independence does not seek to act within the laws of said land.

You also said after the interim period. This plays right into Serbia's hands as the interim period has not finished and will never be allowed to finish by Russia and China until a compromise has been reached.

Hey men, the stone age is over, why don't u accept that not everybody is ready to lick your boots !!!
(The Swiss, 31 August 2010, 17:46)

You have too if you want to keep receiving their money. That's always the case.

The GA is set to debate the resolution on Sept. 9th. I would tell him in no uncertain terms, Mr. Hague…C U Next Thursday!

What exactly is offered to Serbia in exchange for a huge chunk of it's territory (and all of the property on it)? Future EU membership? I don't see that, not even in next 20 years.

Every country knows now that even if they put their territory under a UN mandate which guarantees their territorial integrity, no resolution is ever water tight.
(Sam, UK, 1 September 2010 04:13)
You are under the false Serbian wish that 1244 "guarantees" Kosovo will always be a part of Serbia. That is not true, I do not pretend that I can change your viewpoint but the ICJ opinion in ruling that a Declaration of Independence does not violate 1244, further reinforces the fact.
If 1244 "guaranteed" Serbia any rights over the land in Kosovo, a DoI would definitely be a violation.

Sam you are projecting yourself onto 1244.

Fact: There is nothing in 1244 that states what the status will be after the interim period. Nothing. It neither guarantees Serbia anything nor it guarantees Kosova anything. The option is wide open. If you find anything any mention of what the final status would look like please post it here and send a copy to ICJ as well.

Ruben thats a ridiculous argument. According to you and the Albanian position, Kosovo is not beholden to the Serbian constitution at all. And yet you ask me why the Kosovo Albanian people should be beholden to it.

I don't agree with you that a constitution is silly. A constitution is there to serve the people it is put into place by. People are not there to serve their constitutions.

And when you talk about the constitution I get the feeling you have next to no knowledge about how they function in the world. Some states do not even have written constitutions. Whilst other countries have laws that contradict their constitutions. Still more countries find ways to interpret constitutions if they come into conflict with laws created later. And finally, yes constitutions can be changed.

Same question for you, if the Serbian consitution didn't include Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia would you support negotiations? Be honest.

Eventhough Serbia wants to present Kosovo as a simple secessionist movement similar to others around the world, there is a big difference.
So unless that box is filled with UN protectorates then it will remain in the closet under lock and key.
(pss, 31 August 2010, 22:56)

You make a good point, and show why Kosovo can never be allowed to become a UN member. If it ever does and the idea that a UN mandate makes unilateral secession legal becomes a reality, then what little authority the UN has now will be gone forever.

Every country knows now that even if they put their territory under a UN mandate which guarantees their territorial integrity, no resolution is ever water tight.

Serbia is given many choices. The REAL leaders make decision even if that decision might not be very popular for the sake of peace and stability and future generation. The decision is your Serbia
(EA)
-
Wrong again; Governments exist to serve the interest of the people, not the other way around.

And yes, the decision is Serbia's to make, not anyone elses.

"but said that the situation would not be any better either it Serbia was to get the majority of the UN General Assembly to support its resolution—as far as relations with the EU are concerned."

Woaaa, that's pretty much saying if Serbia somehow got a majority at the UN Gen Assembly,it should forget the whole EU think because UK will block it.

I am really surprised how hard the EU is coming down on Serbia regarding the Kosovo issue. Remember just a few months ago, everyone was saying Serbia's road to EU is not conditioned on it's relation with Kosovo. Now, most of main EU countries have told Serbia to basically recognize Kosovo if it wants good relation with the EU. As they say, a month in Politics is a lifetime- things really do change fast. The EU just pulled a fast one on Serbia.

Hague is as pro Kosovo as they get, so I will take him at his word that UK will block Serb- EU relations if Serbia continues her antics.

You are under the false Serbian wish that 1244 "guarantees" Kosovo will always be a part of Serbia. That is not true, I do not pretend that I can change your viewpoint but the ICJ opinion in ruling that a Declaration of Independence does not violate 1244, further reinforces the fact.
If 1244 "guaranteed" Serbia any rights over the land in Kosovo, a DoI would definitely be a violation.
(pss, 1 September 2010 15:00)

Can you honestly tell me that Russia and China would have let 1244 pass if they thought it envisaged an independent Kosovo?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uproar-as-maude-calls-for-kosovo-selfdetermination-689224.html

This is what the House of Commons thought in 2001 when MPs suggested an independent Kosovo. If this was the case in Britain, one of the strongest possible advocates of independence today, then its pretty clear that no government that signed 1244 expected that it could lead to an independent Kosovo.

Where is Serbian proposal acceptable to both sides? It would probably be something like: "Let's recognize K-Independence but also let's not ever recognize K-Independence."

Something like that. I'm sure Belgrade would be happy to let Pristina keep every power it has now, even hand over the North. On the ground it would be every bit an independent country and all Serbia would ask is to de jure be able to say Kosovo is Serbia.

Of course when people are given something its much harder to take away than if they never had it in the first place, so this offer won't be enough anymore.

So Serbia needs to come up with even more than this and more importantly the west needs to get the Albanians back to the negotiating table.

The latter definitely won't happen so naturally, its not wise to make an offer before they are at the negotiating table, otherwise the Albanians can say Serbia offered it and its not a compromise, which means they can demand more in the event there are new negotiations.

Anyway in the forseeable future its a frozen conflict, and Serbs can be patient, they've waited 500 years for Kosovo before.

Miri you have already had a leaked proposal in the Croatian newspapers and reported on here. What do you think about it?

But do you really think that any party going into negotiations will give its proposals to us the public, before sitting down and negotiating? That is not the way its done and never has been. If negotiations are finally held should I demand that the Kosovo Albanians reveal their bottom line before going in, or demand that they drop the insistence that Kosovo will be independent before we sit down?
Perhaps if I had the mental powers of a child I would engage in such immaturity.

Secondly why are you so worried about the constitution? If an agreement is made, Serbia signs and the necessary laws are passed in parliament thats it.

As I said if necessary the constitution can be changed. All this talk about the constitution is rather silly and in my opinion is an attempt to avoid negotiations.

I would have much more respect for anybody espousing a position of 'no negotiations, no matter what' than I have for those that set fake conditions before talks are held or fall back on constitutions as an excuse to not wanting to negotiate.

So I'll ask you plainly Miri, do you want to negotiate a settlement or not? If not then why should Serbia try to cater to your demands?

The EU-US_K hypocrisy has no bounds! Just it is beyond any comprehension how the humans can be such hypocritical. What 's about Abhazia,Osetia,Karabah and specially the Kurdish people? Why the albanians deserve more than others? The Kurdish are dying every day for decades! I'd put all these hypocrites on one space ship and send them to hell!

Sam, UK: 'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,'

The countries that recognised broke that commitment.

It also uses the words 'substantial autonomy' twice. '

The first British jurist to speak during the oral presentations did a thorough job of explaining Res. 1244. You can't simply pick words out of context and say they prove anything.

For example, the first bit about reaffirming the territorial integrity of FRY was in the preamble - a statement of the conditions existing at the time the document was drawn up. It wasn't a promise that Kosovo would forever be a part of Serbia. (It wasn't an oversight - in a similar resolution passed during the same session, the UNSC specifically ruled out independence.) The references to "substantial autonomy" pertained to the period while the final status was being determined, not the final status itself. There was nothing said about what form this final status would have, except in the references to the Rambouillet Accords. And they said that "the will of the people" of Kosovo should be considered.

The Brits weren't the only ones to point this out - many others did as well. Here's Norway's wording (in its oral presentation):

" 30. Resolution 1244 decided in paragraph 1 that a political solution to the Kosovo crisis shall
be based “on the general principles in annex 1 and as further elaborated in the principles and other
required elements in annex 2”. Both these Annexes require “taking full account of the Rambouillet accords”, to which also paragraph 11 (e) of the resolution makes reference . The Rambouillet Accords had explicitly identified the “will of the people” of Kosovo as one of the key relevant factors constituting the basis for considerations of a final settlement for Kosovo. There
is, therefore, incidentally no need in this case to undertake any further analysis of the principle of
self-determination in international law. Resolution 1244 establishes, in the confined context of
Kosovo, the unequivocal relevance of the will of the people of Kosovo in the determination of
Kosovo’s future status."

Serbia recognized the meaning of the Rambouillet Accords when they were first presented and objected - it wanted an equal voice in determining the outcome, and was over-ruled. Likewise, when Res. 1244 was being voted on, the Serbian representatives objected, because they said it would lead to the independence of Kosovo. And they were again over-ruled. What they told the people at home they had achieved ... well, that was their decision.

The ICJ studied the document and the same objections you have made here (and others), and ruled that the DoI did not violate the provisions of Res. 1244. Serbia played the legal card, and lost. Now it's going back to politics.