FM: Resolution won’t be withdrawn

Don't bow to western pressure and continue to fight for Kosovo province at any price including EU membership.

the Court's decision does not imply that the Kosovo Albanians were granted the right to secede.

How naive of you Vuk. You were the one that asked a simple question to ICJ,and you received a clear cut answer. Why you did not ask the other question that you are talking about now? In the end it is the same question as the one before,since breaking international law on declaring independence and right to secede, is one and the same.Good luck at UNGA.

Serbia can't fight the EU with one hand and with the other try and gain EU membership. This resolution has annoyed many EU member states, even non-recognising states like Greece and Spain. Serbia agreed to draw up a resolution with the EU, then at the last minute Serbia pushed the EU to the side and rushed through it's own resolution to the UNGA. Then when this resolution fails, Serbia will play the victim and say the world is against it, even though Serbia is the one who pushed the EU to the side. Serbia is trying to be like Turkey, they're trying to set their own terms and conditions for EU membership. Well if Serbia carries on like this they'll end up like Turkey and have no chance of EU membership. The EU doesn't need Serbia, the EU can get along fine without Serbia's membership. Many EU member states are changing their approach to Serbia over EU membership, before they were trying to woo Serbia over Kosovo; that didn't work, now they're going to be a lot firmer with Serbia.

Jeremic has made some silly moves, it was his idea to ask the ICJ for their advisory opinion and Serbia choose the question, which the ICJ did answered. Now Jeremic is trying to get the UNGA to overwrite the advisory opinion from the ICJ even though Jeremic was the one who asked for it in the first place.

This resolution is expected to go down like flames in the UNGA, so will this mark the end of Serbia's diplomatic offence? What can Serbia do next? Play the UN veto card? PR China would never veto Kosovo, they have only used the UNSC veto three times in history, all of which were directly related to the Taiwan dispute; China prefers to abstain. Russia could veto Kosovo, however at some point there is going to be something Russia wants passing through the UNSC, which the UK, France and US are not too bothered about, this can be used as a bargaining chip. At the end of the day, Serbia isn't all that to Russia; Russia has bigger more important concerns.

It´s good that Serbia stands firm but the current regime whose only agenda is to please the participant countries in the -'99 onslaught on serbia & to join their "union", are simply not thrustworthy. Short of recognizing the NATO land grab in the south and €U´s further attemts to dismember serbia, they would do anything and at some convenient point, even do just that.

Serbia should keep its stance but with a government of its own choosing (in a referendum free from western threaths, blackmail and lies). Give Tadic and his team a ticket to Georgia and their friend Saakaswahili and let them stay there...

Great to see Vuk standing on the high ground on this issue. Its funny the Germans and British come to Belgrade within the past few weeks, but for years neglected to do so. A permeating sense of fear has prevailed in some European circles that this chapter is not closed, and in fact will open some ugly doors for some in the near future.

Vuk, what's new in this? We knew, as you do, that the resolution will not be withdrawn but it will change. This has already happended, but it will be fomralized tomorrow in the meeting of Tadic with Baroness Ashton. What will remain in your resolution? The will of Serbia for dialogue with the countries in the region, in order that all the region joins EU. You are becoming simply ridiculous. Stop it for God's sake, you know you don't have any better future without recognizing Kosovo.

Kosova-USA - the answer from the ICJ was a carefuly thought answer that was clear cut but also didn't address the point of the question. The ICJ said that 'saying your independent is fine and we won't comment on actually trying to be indepenednet'.
The ICJ really gave a cowardly answer. They (the ICJ) should have been much more clear, but since they weren't we have this mess now.

Kosovo-USA. Why don't you do yourself a favour and read the ICJ transcript instead of deluding yourself that the declaration and secession are the same things and the court ruled accordingly. You're gonna get a nasty shock when you read it and realise that the court SPECIFICALLY stated that it wasn't ruling on secession or the right to determination. Crashed and burned again - you seem to make a habit of it.

Albo,

You are only partially correct on that matter. However, Russian presence is already there in a discreet and visible way - Nis Airport. A token presence, an aye on the future pipeline and a thwart against any other possible NATO incursion. Further, as mentioned earlier, the "fear" element is massive in some EU circles, that if Serbia does get their message through, a tsunami will occur. More recognitions for KiM? Maybe? But, hey their own backyards won't be safe either - the proverbial Pandora's Box will be finally unleashed in full view on the world stage - the consequences unparalleled to anything they envisioned. This will make South Ossetia, Abhkazia and Kosmet a mere fig leaf, when other movements spearhead themselves for showdowns within their encampments. Rather than extinguish the embers, flames will engulf secessionist movements.

"Lowe, I would save that last dime if I were you. I doubt that China feels so strongly in keeping Kosovo in limbo, they know as do everyone else that there is no returning Kosovo to Serbia. If Russia were to veto, China would probably abstain, why bother. If Russia were not to veto, then China would not go against Serbia's closest ally on the matter.

Will Russia veto? Once Kosovo secures enough votes to guarantee membership then you will see fierce lobbying for Russia.
One thing Russia wants more than the ability to thumb their noses at the west over Kosovo is to become a full member of the WTO, which the US has blocked since 1993.
However, if Russia does not veto, it will be with Serbia's blessing the same as with allowing Eulex into Kosovo.
(pss, 6 September 2010 14:35) "

On the contrary, I would bet that last dime that keeping Kosovo in limbo matters plenty to China because of the implications for Tibet, Xinjiang and especially Taiwan. Don't forget, China today has no physical control over Taiwan -- the same way Serbia has no control over Kosovo since 1999. If China does anything less than veto "Kosova", she will lose all arguments over Taiwan.

As for Russia, I think it is ultimately in Western interest (including US) to have Russia inside the WTO than outside in the long run because trading activities over her vast mineral resources (especially the energy resources that the EU craves) can then be regulated according to WTO rules. A Russia that is outside the WTO is free to disregard its practices. Also do not forget that the Russians can choke Nato in Afghanistan by blocking the use of its airspace which is the fastest supply route to Kabul. Not to mention stop cooperation over Iran and North Korea. End of the day, the West do not hold as much cards as you might think.

As for the Russian veto, they have every reason to use it not only to, as you yourself aptly put it, thumb her nose at the West, but also to protect her own interest in her non-Russian majority areas like the Caucasus and Tannu Tuva.

"This resolution is expected to go down like flames in the UNGA, so will this mark the end of Serbia's diplomatic offence? What can Serbia do next? Play the UN veto card? PR China would never veto Kosovo, they have only used the UNSC veto three times in history, all of which were directly related to the Taiwan dispute; China prefers to abstain. Russia could veto Kosovo, however at some point there is going to be something Russia wants passing through the UNSC, which the UK, France and US are not too bothered about, this can be used as a bargaining chip. At the end of the day, Serbia isn't all that to Russia; Russia has bigger more important concerns.
(Ian, UK, 6 September 2010 11:26) "

I totally disagree with you that China will abstain based on its past record -- When it comes to the issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, no one is more inflexible than the Chinese because these are sacred beyond words to them -- and for good reason too -- I am talking about Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang of course.

You are from the UK, so you must know what happened to Mrs Thatcher and Chris Patten when they schemed to keep Hongkong under British control beyond 1997.

As you yourself pointed out, the Chinese vetoes in the past were over Taiwan and the issue of sovereignty and territorial integriy -- under the former Chen Shui Bian government, Taiwan submitted a UN membership application every year -- which was never put to a vote because of the fiercest Chinese opposition. Wager my last dime that, barring an agreement between Belgrade and Pristina, China will defintely cast that "rare" veto of hers if "Kosova" ever dare to submit a UN application tomorrow -- maybe that's precisely why Pristina has not yet done so to date.

I think we all know by now that the resolution will not be withdrawn but it’s equally important that the FM confirms that the resolution will not be amended or diluted through some so-called compromise with the EU.

Great to see Vuk standing on the high ground on this issue. Its funny the Germans and British come to Belgrade within the past few weeks, but for years neglected to do so.
(Dragan, Toronto, 6 September 2010 14:40)

Dragan, it's all about the years to come. EU doesn't want to permanentley destroy Tadic in the UN, because this will make stronger Nikolic and Kostunica, and if these two comes in power in Serbia, it means higher russian presence in the Balkans, which means that all the EU projects for the region will be postponed by at least 4 years

I totally disagree with you that China will abstain based on its past record -- When it comes to the issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, no one is more inflexible than the Chinese because these are sacred beyond words to them -- and for good reason too -- I am talking about Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang of course.
(lowe, 6 September 2010 12:33)

I'm not sure what's the big fuss about the vetoes. Russia and China can continue to veto Kosovo's UN membership to eternity if they want, but they are powerless to veto Kosovo's statehood and independence, which is what matters.

Moreover, what is the final point that Serbia wants to make ? That unless Kosovo agrees to a solution in accordance with Serbia's Constitution, than it will not get a UN membership. Don't you people understand how ridiculous this is. How could a sane mind think that a UN seat is more important than independence. And even if somebody insane enough in Kosovo were to agree for Kosovo to be an autonomous province of Serbia, that would mean that Kosovo will not have a UN seat anyway, but will be represented by Serbia at the UN.

Serbia probably thinks that the rest of the world is stupid. But it's pretty clear that Serbia is asking Kosovo to renounce independence in exchange of nothing. Why should Kosovo do it ?

(lowe, 6 September 2010 12:33)
Lowe, I would save that last dime if I were you. I doubt that China feels so strongly in keeping Kosovo in limbo, they know as do everyone else that there is no returning Kosovo to Serbia. If Russia were to veto, China would probably abstain, why bother. If Russia were not to veto, then China would not go against Serbia's closest ally on the matter.

Will Russia veto? Once Kosovo secures enough votes to guarantee membership then you will see fierce lobbying for Russia.
One thing Russia wants more than the ability to thumb their noses at the west over Kosovo is to become a full member of the WTO, which the US has blocked since 1993.
However, if Russia does not veto, it will be with Serbia's blessing the same as with allowing Eulex into Kosovo.

icj1 - By preventing Kosovo's independence (from a legal perspective), it effectively kills Kosovo's economy. even the US and Eu won't invest in Kosovo if they can't control the resources which they "purchase". Serbia must have been pretty effective on the international scene in disuading companies and countries from investing in Kosovo by threatening legal action - watch the BBC iPlayer (hardtalk with Jeremic and Zena Badawi). Serbia has been effectively blocking and meaningful investment in Kosovo, which is why the US and EU are so desperate for Serbia NOT to bring up the LEGALITY of SECESSION. If the UNGA rules in Serbia's favour then it's a big global signal that investment will be impossible (or extremely risky from a legal standpoint) in Kosovo - Serbia will be holding the purse strings. So whether Kosovo declares independence is irrelevant. It's how comapnies and countries view Kosovo legally, i.e. still a legal part of Serbia or not. those purse strings would be loosened if some kind of agreement was reached with Serbia. Looks like an impasse has been reached!

"The problem with your argument is that the use of a veto nor the lack of in the case of Kosovo has no bearing on their ability to use it in any other matter. So neither country will be using it because of fears of their own.

Point is made with the recognition of the Georgian provinces, Russia claims they are a direct result of the situation in Kosovo but has no issue with not recognizing Kosovo.

No one has the authority to say if you vote this way today you cannot vote differently tomorrow, so saying they will vote out of fears in their own neighborhoods hold no water whatsoever.

As far as Russia in the WTO maybe you are right maybe not, but the fact is the only thing standing in the way is US and it is up to Russia to persuade the US to open that door.
Tit for Tat.
(pss, 6 September 2010 19:27) "

I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your entire first paragraph. What "other matter" and what "fear of their own"? If the Russians or Chinese want to use their veto, they will just go ahead and use it. In their own self interests.

True, Moscow is now having its cake and eating it when it comes to Ossetia and Abshazia. And using Kosovo as an convenient excuse. To add insult to injury, the West couldn't do anything concrete for Georgia!

Your 3rd paragraph: What "authority" are you talking about? The Russians and Chinese? Yes, they have the authority to cast the veto in the UN, which is the brickwall Kosovo will run smack into if it applies for UN entry today. And the Chinese will veto Kosovo to protect her own interest over Taiwan as I mentioned earlier.

As for WTO, do you see Russia banging on the door? Did it occur to you that she may actually find it more expedient not to be bounded by WTO rules that to be bound? And do you honestly think the US and West see Kosovo as so important that they will risk chaos in world trade for Pristina’s sake? Why should they, especially since they are already controlling you guys right now through “supervised independence”. Don’t be naïve!

"Which, by the way, Russia has already endangered with her excellent adventure in So. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Especially Abkhazia, where the best she can argue is preventative war. The conflict in the North Caucasus has been spreading ever since Russia showed it was open to the idea of redrawing international borders. By using force. Whoops!
(Amer, 6 September 2010 18:05) "

What apreading conflict? The last I know the Russian territories in the Caucasus region are still firmly under Russian controls.

As for Ossetia and Abkhazia, it all started with Nato invading Kosovo, "By using force" as you put it. So if anyone is gonna say "Whoops!", it must be those hapless Georgians who tried to be too clever over Ossetia and Abkhazia (thinking that the US will militarily support them) but ended up being abandoned and betrayed by Uncle Sam instead!

"I'm not sure what's the big fuss about the vetoes. Russia and China can continue to veto Kosovo's UN membership to eternity if they want, but they are powerless to veto Kosovo's statehood and independence, which is what matters.

(icj1, 6 September 2010 16:55)"

Nobody is making any fuss about "Kosova" being unable to enter the UN. I was just making a point with pss that his/her confidence about a Chinese and Russian climbdown was unrealistic.

If the resolution will go down in flames as claimed by ian, then why all the fuss by the eu and the us to get it withdrawn? Keep going forward, Serbia!

“Maybe you had a problem understanding my post, I am saying China, Russia, US, France, UK, have no fear when it comes to issues directly affecting them, they can veto and one veto is all that is needed. So none of them are going to vote on any issue that does not directly affect them (such as Kosovo) out of "fear" that it will affect a vote in their home domain.
I was saying there is "no" authority that could possibly say to China for example you abstained on the Kosovo vote so you "have" to abstain on a vote concerning Tibet.

To use your own words if you are so naive as to think Russia is not desperately trying to become a member of the WTO then you have not followed that issue at all.
(pss, 7 September 2010 12:34)”

There is no fear on China’s part. I wasn’t referring to fear at all. But for purpose of their reputation, they want to appear CONSISTENT before the UN and the world. How can they claim sovereignty over Taiwan and yet accept “Kosova”’s right to secede??????
So you imply that you have been following the issue of Russian “desperation” to enter WTO! Alright then, can you show me some online articles that support your assertion about Russia’s purported desperation to join WTO and that the US is using WTO to blackmail them???? If you can’t, then you are probably not naive -- just plain untruthful.

icj1 - "From a legal perspective, Kosovo’s declaration of independence was solved a month ago thanks to Serbia." are you so naive or are you still deluding yourselves? If you read a little more carefully I wasn't talking about your declaration, I was talking about actual independence. Let's clarify. The ICJ ruled that your independence was LEGAL, but it also stated that it wouldn't give an opinion on Kosovo's statehood and whether minorities have a right to secede and self determination, that being a political question. In a nutshell Kosovo isn't an independent state. You can claim you are, but you're not. Kosovo is simply a UN protectorate. If you were a state then you could simply tell the Un to leave. From what I've read you've already tried that and it hasn't worked. A "state" that isn't in control of it own affairs!!!

"The UNGA is not a court of law to rule on the legality of secessions." Point taken, I meant to write UNGA votes, not rules.

"Even if it votes to approve Serbia’s resolution, such resolution is nothing more than a political statement." Correct, but it ties in with what I wrote above. The ICJ itself stated that Kosovo's independence will have to be decided by the UN member states, hence the "battle for hearts and minds" of UN member states by Serbia and kosovo at the UNGA. And if this isn't such a big deal as yourself and every other albanian claim, then why are your paymasters, the US and EU, so afraid of Serbia's resolution and why all the fuss about withdrawing it? If it were harmless, the EU and US would indulge Serbia, yet it's plain for all to see that they are vigorously opposing it. Their actions tell you just how important this is. As long as Serbia resists Kosovo's "independence", then it'll be nothing more than a declaration. Legally it'll remain a part of Serbia, even if the UN are in charge.

"The ICJ opinion and other provisions of general or special international law are what matters." Correct, which is why Serbia has been so successful in preventing investment ni Kosovo. Only your declaration was legal, nothing else is, and countries and companies understand this, hence the lack of meaningful investment.

"You haven't been keeping up with the news from the North Caucasus, obviously.
(Amer, 7 September 2010 01:38)"

Oh, so you have been diligently following the news in that region and now know that the Russians have collapsed there?

Then how about showing us some online articles to prove your case once and for all? Or will you try to wriggle your way out through fudging riddles yet again?

"You haven't been keeping up with the news from the North Caucasus, obviously.
(Amer, 7 September 2010 01:38) "

Okay, then how about you citing some online articles that showed that the Russians have lost control over any of their territories in that region?

Or will you resort to talking riddles yet again?

"But they're having to do it in their own country - the U.S. is not fighting terrorist separatists in Florida, and Georgia, and Mississippi, and Alabama.
(Amer, 8 September 2010 06:27) "

Which explains why the Yankees are having such a hard time (midly put) in Afghnistan and Iraq right? With no end in sight despite putting an extra 30,000 sucker GIs in these places.

Not that I feel the least sorry for the US, given the extent of its absolutely criminal "collateral damage" of innocent civilians in these countries.

lowe,
If you google "Russia WTO" you will get some 3 million+ hits, that should more than satisfy your request.

"...what Serbia wants at the United Nations is to close the proceedings that went on before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and to pave the way to new talks that would lead to a solution for Kosovo."

Why does Serbia wants to close the proceedings before ICJ now that it lost badly? Does Serbia thing that the UN is so stupid?

“Nobody's talking about "total collapse" - so far it's just a seemingly inexorable spread of terrorist violence beyond its original focus in Chechnya. It's a constant drip-drip-drip of a few dead and wounded at a time - like Iraq, or Afghanistan (without, so far, the mass attacks against the civilian population - that's the big difference).

Just keep up with the articles on B92 on attacks on Russian police and army troops in the area, which has now spread to Kabardino-Balkaria. Have the Russians lost control? Not yet. Have they been able to prevent the spread of terrorist attacks? No.
(Amer, 7 September 2010 18:43)”

And here I was waiting with bated breath for your mind boggling evidence about Russia’s debacle in the Caucasus! As it turned out, your so called big bang evidence was nothing more than the ‘pop’ one normally associates with wet firecrackers. How disappointing! But not surprising coming from you when I think about it. End of the day, seems to me the Russians are doing far, far better there than you Yankees are in Afghanistan and Iraq!

"Come one Amer... Lowe presents evidence for what he/she says. There is just a small issue that the evidence is... false.

See for example:

[link]
(icj1, 10 September 2010 05:06) "

Which evidence are you referring to in your link that is purportedly false?

"Come one Amer... Lowe presents evidence for what he/she says. There is just a small issue that the evidence is... false.

See for example:

[link]
(icj1, 10 September 2010 05:06) "

Then can you clarify which evidence in your link is purportedly false?

"What apreading conflict? The last I know the Russian territories in the Caucasus region are still firmly under Russian controls.

(lowe, 6 September 2010 22:38)"

You haven't been keeping up with the news from the North Caucasus, obviously.

icj1 - By preventing Kosovo's independence (from a legal perspective), it effectively kills Kosovo's economy. even the US and Eu won't invest in Kosovo if they can't control the resources which they "purchase".
(Goran V, 6 September 2010 18:24)

From a legal perspective, Kosovo’s declaration of independence was solved a month ago thanks to Serbia. On the other hand, preventing Kosovo to become a UN member does not prevent Kosovo’s independence. So I’m not sure what exactly you wanted to say… !

LEGALITY of SECESSION. If the UNGA rules in Serbia's favour then it's a big global signal that investment will be impossible (or extremely risky from a legal standpoint) in Kosovo - Serbia will be holding the purse strings. So whether Kosovo declares independence is irrelevant.
(Goran V, 6 September 2010 18:24)

The UNGA is not a court of law to rule on the legality of secessions. Even if it votes to approve Serbia’s resolution, such resolution is nothing more than a political statement. It is not binding for anybody (like the UNSC resolutions) and it is not an authoritative legal opinion (like the ICJ opinions). If a company went ever to Court over the issue, such eventual UNGA resolution would be nothing from a legal standpoint. The ICJ opinion and other provisions of general or special international law are what matters.

As for WTO, do you see Russia banging on the door? Did it occur to you that she may actually find it more expedient not to be bounded by WTO rules that to be bound? And do you honestly think the US and West see Kosovo as so important that they will risk chaos in world trade for Pristina’s sake? Why should they, especially since they are already controlling you guys right now through “supervised independence”. Don’t be naïve!
(lowe, 6 September 2010 23:07)
Maybe you had a problem understanding my post, I am saying China, Russia, US, France, UK, have no fear when it comes to issues directly affecting them, they can veto and one veto is all that is needed. So none of them are going to vote on any issue that does not directly affect them (such as Kosovo) out of "fear" that it will affect a vote in their home domain.
I was saying there is "no" authority that could possibly say to China for example you abstained on the Kosovo vote so you "have" to abstain on a vote concerning Tibet.

To use your own words if you are so naive as to think Russia is not desperately trying to become a member of the WTO then you have not followed that issue at all.

“Ha, ha, ha… Man, you really don’t understand things that are said for analogy or hypothetically to explain things more down to earth for minds which are not fully trained in a certain subject (in general, not referring to you) and not because you asked about them. I’ll be more explicit next time. I’ll divide my comments in sections clearly labeled “analogy” and “real” so even you can understand :)

If you don’t know what was the Soviet Union under Stalin, I’m sorry, but I’m satisfied that others who read this post know more than you about the topic. If my argument falls apart for you because I did not prove to you that Stalin murdered millions of people, then so be it. If you want to be convinced, go to Russia and start counting them and let me know when you’re finished some decades from now; I’m satisfied with what I’ve read and studied from multiple sources independent from each other, including from Russia itself. And you did not prove me wrong to make me change that belief. “

End of the day, your assertion that so many millions died under Stalin remains unsupported by any reliable source. And yes, your argument, in my view, does fall flat as a result.


“Whereas I did prove you wrong without ANY doubt that Hong Kong is not an IMF member as you claimed.”

I have already admitted this mistake a long time back. Once I am shown to be mistaken, I gladly acknowledge the correction. I don’t think objective readers would begrudge me for my oversight about HK. Unlike you who chose stubbornly and futilely to continue to fudge issues when you haven’t a clue of any evidence to back your sweeping statements about Stalin or Byelorussia!


“Anyway, that’s fine. It’s not the first time you make false statements. This is at least the third time of you making clearly false statements as proven beyond any doubt in different threads in this site. Probably there are others that you put out there hopeful that nobody will scrutinize them, but when that happens the falsities that you put around are immediately evident. It's clear that you don't check your facts; you just state the facts as you want them to be, not as they really are.”

For someone who couldn’t back up what he/she professed about Byelorussia and Stalin with evidence from reliable sources, you have a lot of nerve accusing others of false statements and not checking their sources. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!

(Goran-V, 6 September 2010 12:31) :
"You're gonna get a nasty shock when you read it and realise that the court SPECIFICALLY stated that it wasn't ruling on secession or the right to determination. Crashed and burned again - you seem to make a habit of it."

Right - it didn't rule on secession (even though Team Serbia spent most of their effort arguing against it): so, no ruling, no reason to consider Kosovo's independence illegal.

(lowe, 6 September 2010 16:08) :
"As for the Russian veto, they have every reason to use it not only to, as you yourself aptly put it, thumb her nose at the West, but also to protect her own interest in her non-Russian majority areas like the Caucasus and Tannu Tuva."

Which, by the way, Russia has already endangered with her excellent adventure in So. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Especially Abkhazia, where the best she can argue is preventative war. The conflict in the North Caucasus has been spreading ever since Russia showed it was open to the idea of redrawing international borders. By using force. Whoops!

(lowe, 6 September 2010 16:08)
The problem with your argument is that the use of a veto nor the lack of in the case of Kosovo has no bearing on their ability to use it in any other matter. So neither country will be using it because of fears of their own.
Point is made with the recognition of the Georgian provinces, Russia claims they are a direct result of the situation in Kosovo but has no issue with not recognizing Kosovo.
No one has the authority to say if you vote this way today you cannot vote differently tomorrow, so saying they will vote out of fears in their own neighborhoods hold no water whatsoever.
As far as Russia in the WTO maybe you are right maybe not, but the fact is the only thing standing in the way is US and it is up to Russia to persuade the US to open that door.
Tit for Tat.

“lowe,
If you google "Russia WTO" you will get some 3 million+ hits, that should more than satisfy your request.
(pss, 8 September 2010 15:43)”

Not so fast! The issue here is NOT about how many online articles there are about Russia’s application to enter WTO.

The issue here is about YOUR claim that Russia is DESPERATE to enter WTO!
Since you made this claim, the onus is therefore on you to point out reliable articles that clearly showed this Russian desperation, which up to now you have NOT been able to do so. It is therefore pretty obvious to me that you cannot find any credible evidence to back what you write! So do not expect me to take your claims seriously!

Reply to Amer (post #39)
“pss probably has better things to do than run around putting together a reading list for you, so here are a couple of Google hits:

Should and Can the US Fast-Track Russia into the WTO? — ECIPE
Sep 18, 2009 ... First of all, WTO accession should not become a geopolitical hot potato. The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation ...

COMMENT: Can and should the US fast-track Russia into the WTO ...
Sep 24, 2009 ... The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation and disorientation. It should not accept any policy linkage on the WTO ...

(You can google on the titles.)

BTW, how often do you provide evidence to back up your own claims?
(Amer, 9 September 2010 02:32)”

I couldn’t care less what “better” things pss purportedly has to do. I only asked for facts that he/she should already have given his/her definite claims. The mere fact that pss had to “run around” to put together the "facts", would suggest to me he/she never had them in the first place. I would have assumed that if he/she knows for a fact about Russian desperation, he/she would have the evidence ready at hand. Instead of conveniently expecting all of us to do a needle-in-a-haystack google search because he/she really doesn’t have any credible source to back his/her claims.

As for your ECIPE article, it is a blog comment by someone called Iana Dreyer in her private capacity – I am not sure how this meets the reliability criteria. And as ECIPE clearly pointed out “All blog posts are made in a personal capacity and only represent the views of the author.” A cursory reading of Iana’s article actually revealed, IN MY OPINION, not Russian desperation for trade benefits in joining WTO but her desire for prestige reasons – which is really not what one would associate with WTO and its possible trade benefits. Finally, just as there are articles the likes of Iana’s, there are others who take a rather different view of Russia’s desire for WTO entry at any cost – see for example http://www.twq.com/10april/docs/10apr_Aslund.pdf. So there can be no conclusion one way or other.

What evidence do you want? I never claimed that Russia is or is not desperate for WTO entry AS A FACT, unlike pss. If you read my posts, I merely raised questions that beget answering about Russian intentions over WTO. In contrast to pss who stated in his/her earlier post definitely that “……. if you are so naive as to think Russia is not desperately trying to become a member of the WTO then you have not followed that issue at all.” thereby implying that he/she in fact possessed facts which lesser mortals like me don’t have. It was therefore not unreasonable for me to ask to see those “facts”, which pss couldn't produce in the end.

"Well, you said "You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries" and to support this statement of yours, you brought as evidence the fact that "Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country".

This evidence was false and we agreed on that, I think
(icj1, 10 September 2010 14:04) "

So this is your mind boggling "evidence"????? How disappointing!

True, I had initially thought that HK is a member -hence the statement I made which you conveniently called "evidence" but I considered it to be an incorrect statement at that time on my part based on an genuine mistake. But I did NOT provide evidence (whether true or false) from other sources to support my case. And when I realized my mistake, I acknowledged it in my very next post! My actions therefore, in my opinion, was not in any way reprehensible. Can you honestly declare that you have never made a mistake in your entire life??

And just for the record, I was asking pss for online evidence to support his/her case -- because he/she had alleged that I have not been following the news on Russia. And the internet is a major source of news. I was therefore not in any way unreasonalble, in my opinion, to ask for online evidence.

“You did not say that my opinion is that “Hongkong is an IMF member”. You presented it as a fact (aka evidence). Whatever you want to call it, fact or evidence, it still remains a false one.”

Well, excuse me, I wasn’t aware that I was expected to be so legally and linguistically precise when I write on a public political, non-legal forum from a non-English speaking country. If these are your expectations, my view is that you are in the wrong forum.

I have already admitted that my fact about HK was initially wrong due to a mistake. But it was certainly not an evidence as you claimed. As I understand it, an evidence in everyday language refers to information from a reliable source other than myself intended by me to collaborate what I have stated. I did not cite any source when I made that HK statement.

I should also point out that, in the thread contained in your link, you have stated things and failed to provide objective evidence from reliable sources when I requested them. I am referring, for example, to your assertion that Byelorussia was not independent or that over 20 million died under Stalin. In this regard, you are like pss.


“I did not say anything about you being reasonable or unreasonable to ask that.
(icj1, 11 September 2010 05:27)”

I just wanted to make sure that others who may read your last post is aware of what I was asking from pss and why I feel that my request for online evidence from him/her was reasonable. Otherwise they may be misled into thinking that there was deliberate misrepresentation or unreasonableness on my part.

“Well, if that was your only evidence to refute my argument, you have to be sure about that. That was not a side note… Without that, all your argument fell apart.”
And how is this an “evidence”? I was making a point about your unrealistic expectations in this forum. And how on earth did my argument “fell apart” as a result?


“I’m stating now that earth rotates around the sun… Are you going to ask for some proof about that ?

My point is that well known things don’t have to be proven…. except, of course, for somebody who is called Ahmadinejad who is so ignorant as to not know anything about things like Holocaust or that gays exist everywhere, etc… (btw, he happens to be one of the Serbia’s friends…)
(icj1, 18 September 2010 04:22)”

I don’t recall asking you for proof about the earth and the sun. I recalled asking you for evidence to back up what you wrote about Stalin and Belarus. -- which you have up to now failed to do so. To quote yourself, “Without that, all your argument fell apart” !!!

"Oh, so you have been diligently following the news in that region and now know that the Russians have collapsed there?

Then how about showing us some online articles to prove your case once and for all? Or will you try to wriggle your way out through fudging riddles yet again?
(lowe, 7 September 2010 15:29)

Nobody's talking about "total collapse" - so far it's just a seemingly inexorable spread of terrorist violence beyond its original focus in Chechnya. It's a constant drip-drip-drip of a few dead and wounded at a time - like Iraq, or Afghanistan (without, so far, the mass attacks against the civilian population - that's the big difference).

Just keep up with the articles on B92 on attacks on Russian police and army troops in the area, which has now spread to Kabardino-Balkaria. Have the Russians lost control? Not yet. Have they been able to prevent the spread of terrorist attacks? No.

icj1 - "From a legal perspective, Kosovo’s declaration of independence was solved a month ago thanks to Serbia." are you so naive or are you still deluding yourselves? If you read a little more carefully I wasn't talking about your declaration, I was talking about actual independence.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Actual independence from Serbia, as a matter of fact, has been a reality in Kosovo for at least 10 years. But, you are correct; the legality was clarified one month ago.


Let's clarify. The ICJ ruled that your independence was LEGAL, but it also stated that it wouldn't give an opinion on Kosovo's statehood and whether minorities have a right to secede and self determination, that being a political question.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Well, that being a political question, it means it’s going to be solved based on who is more powerful. The countries which count (i.e. most of Europe, including the big powers, and all Kosovo neighbors) think they had the right to do so. End of the story… Namibia or Lesotho can’t change that.


In a nutshell Kosovo isn't an independent state. You can claim you are, but you're not. Kosovo is simply a UN protectorate. If you were a state then you could simply tell the Un to leave. From what I've read you've already tried that and it hasn't worked. A "state" that isn't in control of it own affairs!!!
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Well Kosovo thinks it is an independent state. It does not appear they care what Serbia thinks. Kosovo does not want to tell UN to leave. They even said that in their declaration on independence. And Kosovo is as much in control of its own affairs as Serbia is. Nobody seriously thinks that Zannier can do anything without the approval of Kosovo’s government.


"The UNGA is not a court of law to rule on the legality of secessions." Point taken, I meant to write UNGA votes, not rules.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Again it’s wrong. The UNGA cannot vote on the legality of secessions. The UNGA can only vote about secessions in political terms. Even the Serbia’s proposed resolution does not mention the word “legality”.


"Even if it votes to approve Serbia’s resolution, such resolution is nothing more than a political statement." Correct, but it ties in with what I wrote above. The ICJ itself stated that Kosovo's independence will have to be decided by the UN member states, hence the "battle for hearts and minds" of UN member states by Serbia and kosovo at the UNGA.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

“battle for hearts and minds”. Such things do not exist in international politics. The battle is the battle of interests and power.

But you are correct. Each member state will decide by itself in accordance with its national interest (not Kosovo’s or Serbia’s interests). UNGA resolutions can’t recognize or un-recognize the independence of anything.


And if this isn't such a big deal as yourself and every other albanian claim, then why are your paymasters, the US and EU, so afraid of Serbia's resolution and why all the fuss about withdrawing it? If it were harmless, the EU and US would indulge Serbia, yet it's plain for all to see that they are vigorously opposing it. Their actions tell you just how important this is.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Of course they would oppose it since it’s against their foreign policy.


As long as Serbia resists Kosovo's "independence", then it'll be nothing more than a declaration. Legally it'll remain a part of Serbia, even if the UN are in charge.

(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Yes, under Serbia’s Constitution, it will remain part of Serbia. But I’m not sure Albanians in Kosovo care much about Serbia’s Constitution.


"The ICJ opinion and other provisions of general or special international law are what matters." Correct, which is why Serbia has been so successful in preventing investment ni Kosovo. Only your declaration was legal, nothing else is, and countries and companies understand this, hence the lack of meaningful investment.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Sorry, but what is the “else”. The factual independence has been achieved by Kosovo long ago. ICJ ruled that also the declaration of that fact was not illegal.

So, I’m sorry but I don’t understand what legal argument (under International Law) could Serbia bring against a company which says I invested in Kosovo without asking Serbia based on the fact that Kosovo told me that they had declared independence from Serbia. I (the company) checked and it resulted that such declaration did not violate any international law. So we decided to invest in Kosovo. Where is the flaw in this argument?

"End of the day, seems to me the Russians are doing far, far better there than you Yankees are in Afghanistan and Iraq!
(lowe, 8 September 2010 00:13) "

But they're having to do it in their own country - the U.S. is not fighting terrorist separatists in Florida, and Georgia, and Mississippi, and Alabama.

To pps: "So you imply that you have been following the issue of Russian desperation” to enter WTO! Alright then, can you show me some online articles that support your assertion about Russia’s purported desperation to join WTO and that the US is using WTO to blackmail them???? If you can’t, then you are probably not naive -- just plain untruthful.
(lowe, 7 September 2010 15:20) "

pss probably has better things to do than run around putting together a reading list for you, so here are a couple of Google hits:

Should and Can the US Fast-Track Russia into the WTO? — ECIPE
Sep 18, 2009 ... First of all, WTO accession should not become a geopolitical hot potato. The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation ...

COMMENT: Can and should the US fast-track Russia into the WTO ...
Sep 24, 2009 ... The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation and disorientation. It should not accept any policy linkage on the WTO ...

(You can google on the titles.)

BTW, how often do you provide evidence to back up your own claims?

BTW, how often do you provide evidence to back up your own claims?
(Amer, 9 September 2010 02:32)

Come one Amer... Lowe presents evidence for what he/she says. There is just a small issue that the evidence is... false.

See for example:

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=69212

Then can you clarify which evidence in your link is purportedly false?
(lowe, 10 September 2010 10:30)

Well, you said "You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries" and to support this statement of yours, you brought as evidence the fact that "Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country".

This evidence was false and we agreed on that, I think

So this is your mind boggling "evidence"????? How disappointing!
True, I had initially thought that HK is a member -hence the statement I made which you conveniently called "evidence" but I considered it to be an incorrect statement at that time on my part based on an genuine mistake. But I did NOT provide evidence (whether true or false) from other sources to support my case. And when I realized my mistake, I acknowledged it in my very next post! My actions therefore, in my opinion, was not in any way reprehensible. Can you honestly declare that you have never made a mistake in your entire life??
(lowe, 10 September 2010 14:47)

You did not say that my opinion is that “Hongkong is an IMF member”. You presented it as a fact (aka evidence). Whatever you want to call it, fact or evidence, it still remains a false one.


And just for the record, I was asking pss for online evidence to support his/her case -- because he/she had alleged that I have not been following the news on Russia. And the internet is a major source of news. I was therefore not in any way unreasonalble, in my opinion, to ask for online evidence.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 14:47)

I did not say anything about you being reasonable or unreasonable to ask that.

Well, excuse me, I wasn’t aware that I was expected to be so legally and linguistically precise when I write on a public political, non-legal forum from a non-English speaking country. If these are your expectations, my view is that you are in the wrong forum
(lowe, 11 September 2010 09:47)

Well, if that was your only evidence to refute my argument, you have to be sure about that. That was not a side note… Without that, all your argument fell apart.


I should also point out that, in the thread contained in your link, you have stated things and failed to provide objective evidence from reliable sources when I requested them. I am referring, for example, to your assertion that Byelorussia was not independent or that over 20 million died under Stalin. In this regard, you are like pss.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 09:47)

I’m stating now that earth rotates around the sun… Are you going to ask for some proof about that ?

My point is that well known things don’t have to be proven…. except, of course, for somebody who is called Ahmadinejad who is so ignorant as to not know anything about things like Holocaust or that gays exist everywhere, etc… (btw, he happens to be one of the Serbia’s friends…)

I don’t recall asking you for proof about the earth and the sun. I recalled asking you for evidence to back up what you wrote about Stalin and Belarus. -- which you have up to now failed to do so. To quote yourself, “Without that, all your argument fell apart” !!!
(lowe, 19 September 2010 09:54)

Ha, ha, ha… Man, you really don’t understand things that are said for analogy or hypothetically to explain things more down to earth for minds which are not fully trained in a certain subject (in general, not referring to you) and not because you asked about them. I’ll be more explicit next time. I’ll divide my comments in sections clearly labeled “analogy” and “real” so even you can understand :)

If you don’t know what was the Soviet Union under Stalin, I’m sorry, but I’m satisfied that others who read this post know more than you about the topic. If my argument falls apart for you because I did not prove to you that Stalin murdered millions of people, then so be it. If you want to be convinced, go to Russia and start counting them and let me know when you’re finished some decades from now; I’m satisfied with what I’ve read and studied from multiple sources independent from each other, including from Russia itself. And you did not prove me wrong to make me change that belief.

Whereas I did prove you wrong without ANY doubt that Hong Kong is not an IMF member as you claimed.

Anyway, that’s fine. It’s not the first time you make false statements. This is at least the third time of you making clearly false statements as proven beyond any doubt in different threads in this site. Probably there are others that you put out there hopeful that nobody will scrutinize them, but when that happens the falsities that you put around are immediately evident. It's clear that you don't check your facts; you just state the facts as you want them to be, not as they really are.

Don't bow to western pressure and continue to fight for Kosovo province at any price including EU membership.

Serbia can't fight the EU with one hand and with the other try and gain EU membership. This resolution has annoyed many EU member states, even non-recognising states like Greece and Spain. Serbia agreed to draw up a resolution with the EU, then at the last minute Serbia pushed the EU to the side and rushed through it's own resolution to the UNGA. Then when this resolution fails, Serbia will play the victim and say the world is against it, even though Serbia is the one who pushed the EU to the side. Serbia is trying to be like Turkey, they're trying to set their own terms and conditions for EU membership. Well if Serbia carries on like this they'll end up like Turkey and have no chance of EU membership. The EU doesn't need Serbia, the EU can get along fine without Serbia's membership. Many EU member states are changing their approach to Serbia over EU membership, before they were trying to woo Serbia over Kosovo; that didn't work, now they're going to be a lot firmer with Serbia.

Jeremic has made some silly moves, it was his idea to ask the ICJ for their advisory opinion and Serbia choose the question, which the ICJ did answered. Now Jeremic is trying to get the UNGA to overwrite the advisory opinion from the ICJ even though Jeremic was the one who asked for it in the first place.

This resolution is expected to go down like flames in the UNGA, so will this mark the end of Serbia's diplomatic offence? What can Serbia do next? Play the UN veto card? PR China would never veto Kosovo, they have only used the UNSC veto three times in history, all of which were directly related to the Taiwan dispute; China prefers to abstain. Russia could veto Kosovo, however at some point there is going to be something Russia wants passing through the UNSC, which the UK, France and US are not too bothered about, this can be used as a bargaining chip. At the end of the day, Serbia isn't all that to Russia; Russia has bigger more important concerns.

the Court's decision does not imply that the Kosovo Albanians were granted the right to secede.

How naive of you Vuk. You were the one that asked a simple question to ICJ,and you received a clear cut answer. Why you did not ask the other question that you are talking about now? In the end it is the same question as the one before,since breaking international law on declaring independence and right to secede, is one and the same.Good luck at UNGA.

Vuk, what's new in this? We knew, as you do, that the resolution will not be withdrawn but it will change. This has already happended, but it will be fomralized tomorrow in the meeting of Tadic with Baroness Ashton. What will remain in your resolution? The will of Serbia for dialogue with the countries in the region, in order that all the region joins EU. You are becoming simply ridiculous. Stop it for God's sake, you know you don't have any better future without recognizing Kosovo.

Kosova-USA - the answer from the ICJ was a carefuly thought answer that was clear cut but also didn't address the point of the question. The ICJ said that 'saying your independent is fine and we won't comment on actually trying to be indepenednet'.
The ICJ really gave a cowardly answer. They (the ICJ) should have been much more clear, but since they weren't we have this mess now.

I totally disagree with you that China will abstain based on its past record -- When it comes to the issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, no one is more inflexible than the Chinese because these are sacred beyond words to them -- and for good reason too -- I am talking about Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang of course.
(lowe, 6 September 2010 12:33)

I'm not sure what's the big fuss about the vetoes. Russia and China can continue to veto Kosovo's UN membership to eternity if they want, but they are powerless to veto Kosovo's statehood and independence, which is what matters.

Moreover, what is the final point that Serbia wants to make ? That unless Kosovo agrees to a solution in accordance with Serbia's Constitution, than it will not get a UN membership. Don't you people understand how ridiculous this is. How could a sane mind think that a UN seat is more important than independence. And even if somebody insane enough in Kosovo were to agree for Kosovo to be an autonomous province of Serbia, that would mean that Kosovo will not have a UN seat anyway, but will be represented by Serbia at the UN.

Serbia probably thinks that the rest of the world is stupid. But it's pretty clear that Serbia is asking Kosovo to renounce independence in exchange of nothing. Why should Kosovo do it ?

Kosovo-USA. Why don't you do yourself a favour and read the ICJ transcript instead of deluding yourself that the declaration and secession are the same things and the court ruled accordingly. You're gonna get a nasty shock when you read it and realise that the court SPECIFICALLY stated that it wasn't ruling on secession or the right to determination. Crashed and burned again - you seem to make a habit of it.

(lowe, 6 September 2010 12:33)
Lowe, I would save that last dime if I were you. I doubt that China feels so strongly in keeping Kosovo in limbo, they know as do everyone else that there is no returning Kosovo to Serbia. If Russia were to veto, China would probably abstain, why bother. If Russia were not to veto, then China would not go against Serbia's closest ally on the matter.

Will Russia veto? Once Kosovo secures enough votes to guarantee membership then you will see fierce lobbying for Russia.
One thing Russia wants more than the ability to thumb their noses at the west over Kosovo is to become a full member of the WTO, which the US has blocked since 1993.
However, if Russia does not veto, it will be with Serbia's blessing the same as with allowing Eulex into Kosovo.

"This resolution is expected to go down like flames in the UNGA, so will this mark the end of Serbia's diplomatic offence? What can Serbia do next? Play the UN veto card? PR China would never veto Kosovo, they have only used the UNSC veto three times in history, all of which were directly related to the Taiwan dispute; China prefers to abstain. Russia could veto Kosovo, however at some point there is going to be something Russia wants passing through the UNSC, which the UK, France and US are not too bothered about, this can be used as a bargaining chip. At the end of the day, Serbia isn't all that to Russia; Russia has bigger more important concerns.
(Ian, UK, 6 September 2010 11:26) "

I totally disagree with you that China will abstain based on its past record -- When it comes to the issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, no one is more inflexible than the Chinese because these are sacred beyond words to them -- and for good reason too -- I am talking about Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang of course.

You are from the UK, so you must know what happened to Mrs Thatcher and Chris Patten when they schemed to keep Hongkong under British control beyond 1997.

As you yourself pointed out, the Chinese vetoes in the past were over Taiwan and the issue of sovereignty and territorial integriy -- under the former Chen Shui Bian government, Taiwan submitted a UN membership application every year -- which was never put to a vote because of the fiercest Chinese opposition. Wager my last dime that, barring an agreement between Belgrade and Pristina, China will defintely cast that "rare" veto of hers if "Kosova" ever dare to submit a UN application tomorrow -- maybe that's precisely why Pristina has not yet done so to date.

It´s good that Serbia stands firm but the current regime whose only agenda is to please the participant countries in the -'99 onslaught on serbia & to join their "union", are simply not thrustworthy. Short of recognizing the NATO land grab in the south and €U´s further attemts to dismember serbia, they would do anything and at some convenient point, even do just that.

Serbia should keep its stance but with a government of its own choosing (in a referendum free from western threaths, blackmail and lies). Give Tadic and his team a ticket to Georgia and their friend Saakaswahili and let them stay there...

Great to see Vuk standing on the high ground on this issue. Its funny the Germans and British come to Belgrade within the past few weeks, but for years neglected to do so. A permeating sense of fear has prevailed in some European circles that this chapter is not closed, and in fact will open some ugly doors for some in the near future.

(lowe, 6 September 2010 16:08)
The problem with your argument is that the use of a veto nor the lack of in the case of Kosovo has no bearing on their ability to use it in any other matter. So neither country will be using it because of fears of their own.
Point is made with the recognition of the Georgian provinces, Russia claims they are a direct result of the situation in Kosovo but has no issue with not recognizing Kosovo.
No one has the authority to say if you vote this way today you cannot vote differently tomorrow, so saying they will vote out of fears in their own neighborhoods hold no water whatsoever.
As far as Russia in the WTO maybe you are right maybe not, but the fact is the only thing standing in the way is US and it is up to Russia to persuade the US to open that door.
Tit for Tat.

"...what Serbia wants at the United Nations is to close the proceedings that went on before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and to pave the way to new talks that would lead to a solution for Kosovo."

Why does Serbia wants to close the proceedings before ICJ now that it lost badly? Does Serbia thing that the UN is so stupid?

(Goran-V, 6 September 2010 12:31) :
"You're gonna get a nasty shock when you read it and realise that the court SPECIFICALLY stated that it wasn't ruling on secession or the right to determination. Crashed and burned again - you seem to make a habit of it."

Right - it didn't rule on secession (even though Team Serbia spent most of their effort arguing against it): so, no ruling, no reason to consider Kosovo's independence illegal.

(lowe, 6 September 2010 16:08) :
"As for the Russian veto, they have every reason to use it not only to, as you yourself aptly put it, thumb her nose at the West, but also to protect her own interest in her non-Russian majority areas like the Caucasus and Tannu Tuva."

Which, by the way, Russia has already endangered with her excellent adventure in So. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Especially Abkhazia, where the best she can argue is preventative war. The conflict in the North Caucasus has been spreading ever since Russia showed it was open to the idea of redrawing international borders. By using force. Whoops!

"What apreading conflict? The last I know the Russian territories in the Caucasus region are still firmly under Russian controls.

(lowe, 6 September 2010 22:38)"

You haven't been keeping up with the news from the North Caucasus, obviously.

I think we all know by now that the resolution will not be withdrawn but it’s equally important that the FM confirms that the resolution will not be amended or diluted through some so-called compromise with the EU.

Great to see Vuk standing on the high ground on this issue. Its funny the Germans and British come to Belgrade within the past few weeks, but for years neglected to do so.
(Dragan, Toronto, 6 September 2010 14:40)

Dragan, it's all about the years to come. EU doesn't want to permanentley destroy Tadic in the UN, because this will make stronger Nikolic and Kostunica, and if these two comes in power in Serbia, it means higher russian presence in the Balkans, which means that all the EU projects for the region will be postponed by at least 4 years

"Lowe, I would save that last dime if I were you. I doubt that China feels so strongly in keeping Kosovo in limbo, they know as do everyone else that there is no returning Kosovo to Serbia. If Russia were to veto, China would probably abstain, why bother. If Russia were not to veto, then China would not go against Serbia's closest ally on the matter.

Will Russia veto? Once Kosovo secures enough votes to guarantee membership then you will see fierce lobbying for Russia.
One thing Russia wants more than the ability to thumb their noses at the west over Kosovo is to become a full member of the WTO, which the US has blocked since 1993.
However, if Russia does not veto, it will be with Serbia's blessing the same as with allowing Eulex into Kosovo.
(pss, 6 September 2010 14:35) "

On the contrary, I would bet that last dime that keeping Kosovo in limbo matters plenty to China because of the implications for Tibet, Xinjiang and especially Taiwan. Don't forget, China today has no physical control over Taiwan -- the same way Serbia has no control over Kosovo since 1999. If China does anything less than veto "Kosova", she will lose all arguments over Taiwan.

As for Russia, I think it is ultimately in Western interest (including US) to have Russia inside the WTO than outside in the long run because trading activities over her vast mineral resources (especially the energy resources that the EU craves) can then be regulated according to WTO rules. A Russia that is outside the WTO is free to disregard its practices. Also do not forget that the Russians can choke Nato in Afghanistan by blocking the use of its airspace which is the fastest supply route to Kabul. Not to mention stop cooperation over Iran and North Korea. End of the day, the West do not hold as much cards as you might think.

As for the Russian veto, they have every reason to use it not only to, as you yourself aptly put it, thumb her nose at the West, but also to protect her own interest in her non-Russian majority areas like the Caucasus and Tannu Tuva.

LEGALITY of SECESSION. If the UNGA rules in Serbia's favour then it's a big global signal that investment will be impossible (or extremely risky from a legal standpoint) in Kosovo - Serbia will be holding the purse strings. So whether Kosovo declares independence is irrelevant.
(Goran V, 6 September 2010 18:24)

The UNGA is not a court of law to rule on the legality of secessions. Even if it votes to approve Serbia’s resolution, such resolution is nothing more than a political statement. It is not binding for anybody (like the UNSC resolutions) and it is not an authoritative legal opinion (like the ICJ opinions). If a company went ever to Court over the issue, such eventual UNGA resolution would be nothing from a legal standpoint. The ICJ opinion and other provisions of general or special international law are what matters.

As for WTO, do you see Russia banging on the door? Did it occur to you that she may actually find it more expedient not to be bounded by WTO rules that to be bound? And do you honestly think the US and West see Kosovo as so important that they will risk chaos in world trade for Pristina’s sake? Why should they, especially since they are already controlling you guys right now through “supervised independence”. Don’t be naïve!
(lowe, 6 September 2010 23:07)
Maybe you had a problem understanding my post, I am saying China, Russia, US, France, UK, have no fear when it comes to issues directly affecting them, they can veto and one veto is all that is needed. So none of them are going to vote on any issue that does not directly affect them (such as Kosovo) out of "fear" that it will affect a vote in their home domain.
I was saying there is "no" authority that could possibly say to China for example you abstained on the Kosovo vote so you "have" to abstain on a vote concerning Tibet.

To use your own words if you are so naive as to think Russia is not desperately trying to become a member of the WTO then you have not followed that issue at all.

Albo,

You are only partially correct on that matter. However, Russian presence is already there in a discreet and visible way - Nis Airport. A token presence, an aye on the future pipeline and a thwart against any other possible NATO incursion. Further, as mentioned earlier, the "fear" element is massive in some EU circles, that if Serbia does get their message through, a tsunami will occur. More recognitions for KiM? Maybe? But, hey their own backyards won't be safe either - the proverbial Pandora's Box will be finally unleashed in full view on the world stage - the consequences unparalleled to anything they envisioned. This will make South Ossetia, Abhkazia and Kosmet a mere fig leaf, when other movements spearhead themselves for showdowns within their encampments. Rather than extinguish the embers, flames will engulf secessionist movements.

icj1 - By preventing Kosovo's independence (from a legal perspective), it effectively kills Kosovo's economy. even the US and Eu won't invest in Kosovo if they can't control the resources which they "purchase".
(Goran V, 6 September 2010 18:24)

From a legal perspective, Kosovo’s declaration of independence was solved a month ago thanks to Serbia. On the other hand, preventing Kosovo to become a UN member does not prevent Kosovo’s independence. So I’m not sure what exactly you wanted to say… !

"You haven't been keeping up with the news from the North Caucasus, obviously.
(Amer, 7 September 2010 01:38)"

Oh, so you have been diligently following the news in that region and now know that the Russians have collapsed there?

Then how about showing us some online articles to prove your case once and for all? Or will you try to wriggle your way out through fudging riddles yet again?

"Oh, so you have been diligently following the news in that region and now know that the Russians have collapsed there?

Then how about showing us some online articles to prove your case once and for all? Or will you try to wriggle your way out through fudging riddles yet again?
(lowe, 7 September 2010 15:29)

Nobody's talking about "total collapse" - so far it's just a seemingly inexorable spread of terrorist violence beyond its original focus in Chechnya. It's a constant drip-drip-drip of a few dead and wounded at a time - like Iraq, or Afghanistan (without, so far, the mass attacks against the civilian population - that's the big difference).

Just keep up with the articles on B92 on attacks on Russian police and army troops in the area, which has now spread to Kabardino-Balkaria. Have the Russians lost control? Not yet. Have they been able to prevent the spread of terrorist attacks? No.

icj1 - "From a legal perspective, Kosovo’s declaration of independence was solved a month ago thanks to Serbia." are you so naive or are you still deluding yourselves? If you read a little more carefully I wasn't talking about your declaration, I was talking about actual independence.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Actual independence from Serbia, as a matter of fact, has been a reality in Kosovo for at least 10 years. But, you are correct; the legality was clarified one month ago.


Let's clarify. The ICJ ruled that your independence was LEGAL, but it also stated that it wouldn't give an opinion on Kosovo's statehood and whether minorities have a right to secede and self determination, that being a political question.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Well, that being a political question, it means it’s going to be solved based on who is more powerful. The countries which count (i.e. most of Europe, including the big powers, and all Kosovo neighbors) think they had the right to do so. End of the story… Namibia or Lesotho can’t change that.


In a nutshell Kosovo isn't an independent state. You can claim you are, but you're not. Kosovo is simply a UN protectorate. If you were a state then you could simply tell the Un to leave. From what I've read you've already tried that and it hasn't worked. A "state" that isn't in control of it own affairs!!!
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Well Kosovo thinks it is an independent state. It does not appear they care what Serbia thinks. Kosovo does not want to tell UN to leave. They even said that in their declaration on independence. And Kosovo is as much in control of its own affairs as Serbia is. Nobody seriously thinks that Zannier can do anything without the approval of Kosovo’s government.


"The UNGA is not a court of law to rule on the legality of secessions." Point taken, I meant to write UNGA votes, not rules.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Again it’s wrong. The UNGA cannot vote on the legality of secessions. The UNGA can only vote about secessions in political terms. Even the Serbia’s proposed resolution does not mention the word “legality”.


"Even if it votes to approve Serbia’s resolution, such resolution is nothing more than a political statement." Correct, but it ties in with what I wrote above. The ICJ itself stated that Kosovo's independence will have to be decided by the UN member states, hence the "battle for hearts and minds" of UN member states by Serbia and kosovo at the UNGA.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

“battle for hearts and minds”. Such things do not exist in international politics. The battle is the battle of interests and power.

But you are correct. Each member state will decide by itself in accordance with its national interest (not Kosovo’s or Serbia’s interests). UNGA resolutions can’t recognize or un-recognize the independence of anything.


And if this isn't such a big deal as yourself and every other albanian claim, then why are your paymasters, the US and EU, so afraid of Serbia's resolution and why all the fuss about withdrawing it? If it were harmless, the EU and US would indulge Serbia, yet it's plain for all to see that they are vigorously opposing it. Their actions tell you just how important this is.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Of course they would oppose it since it’s against their foreign policy.


As long as Serbia resists Kosovo's "independence", then it'll be nothing more than a declaration. Legally it'll remain a part of Serbia, even if the UN are in charge.

(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Yes, under Serbia’s Constitution, it will remain part of Serbia. But I’m not sure Albanians in Kosovo care much about Serbia’s Constitution.


"The ICJ opinion and other provisions of general or special international law are what matters." Correct, which is why Serbia has been so successful in preventing investment ni Kosovo. Only your declaration was legal, nothing else is, and countries and companies understand this, hence the lack of meaningful investment.
(Goran V, 7 September 2010 10:43)

Sorry, but what is the “else”. The factual independence has been achieved by Kosovo long ago. ICJ ruled that also the declaration of that fact was not illegal.

So, I’m sorry but I don’t understand what legal argument (under International Law) could Serbia bring against a company which says I invested in Kosovo without asking Serbia based on the fact that Kosovo told me that they had declared independence from Serbia. I (the company) checked and it resulted that such declaration did not violate any international law. So we decided to invest in Kosovo. Where is the flaw in this argument?

lowe,
If you google "Russia WTO" you will get some 3 million+ hits, that should more than satisfy your request.

"I'm not sure what's the big fuss about the vetoes. Russia and China can continue to veto Kosovo's UN membership to eternity if they want, but they are powerless to veto Kosovo's statehood and independence, which is what matters.

(icj1, 6 September 2010 16:55)"

Nobody is making any fuss about "Kosova" being unable to enter the UN. I was just making a point with pss that his/her confidence about a Chinese and Russian climbdown was unrealistic.

"Which, by the way, Russia has already endangered with her excellent adventure in So. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Especially Abkhazia, where the best she can argue is preventative war. The conflict in the North Caucasus has been spreading ever since Russia showed it was open to the idea of redrawing international borders. By using force. Whoops!
(Amer, 6 September 2010 18:05) "

What apreading conflict? The last I know the Russian territories in the Caucasus region are still firmly under Russian controls.

As for Ossetia and Abkhazia, it all started with Nato invading Kosovo, "By using force" as you put it. So if anyone is gonna say "Whoops!", it must be those hapless Georgians who tried to be too clever over Ossetia and Abkhazia (thinking that the US will militarily support them) but ended up being abandoned and betrayed by Uncle Sam instead!

"The problem with your argument is that the use of a veto nor the lack of in the case of Kosovo has no bearing on their ability to use it in any other matter. So neither country will be using it because of fears of their own.

Point is made with the recognition of the Georgian provinces, Russia claims they are a direct result of the situation in Kosovo but has no issue with not recognizing Kosovo.

No one has the authority to say if you vote this way today you cannot vote differently tomorrow, so saying they will vote out of fears in their own neighborhoods hold no water whatsoever.

As far as Russia in the WTO maybe you are right maybe not, but the fact is the only thing standing in the way is US and it is up to Russia to persuade the US to open that door.
Tit for Tat.
(pss, 6 September 2010 19:27) "

I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your entire first paragraph. What "other matter" and what "fear of their own"? If the Russians or Chinese want to use their veto, they will just go ahead and use it. In their own self interests.

True, Moscow is now having its cake and eating it when it comes to Ossetia and Abshazia. And using Kosovo as an convenient excuse. To add insult to injury, the West couldn't do anything concrete for Georgia!

Your 3rd paragraph: What "authority" are you talking about? The Russians and Chinese? Yes, they have the authority to cast the veto in the UN, which is the brickwall Kosovo will run smack into if it applies for UN entry today. And the Chinese will veto Kosovo to protect her own interest over Taiwan as I mentioned earlier.

As for WTO, do you see Russia banging on the door? Did it occur to you that she may actually find it more expedient not to be bounded by WTO rules that to be bound? And do you honestly think the US and West see Kosovo as so important that they will risk chaos in world trade for Pristina’s sake? Why should they, especially since they are already controlling you guys right now through “supervised independence”. Don’t be naïve!

If the resolution will go down in flames as claimed by ian, then why all the fuss by the eu and the us to get it withdrawn? Keep going forward, Serbia!

icj1 - "From a legal perspective, Kosovo’s declaration of independence was solved a month ago thanks to Serbia." are you so naive or are you still deluding yourselves? If you read a little more carefully I wasn't talking about your declaration, I was talking about actual independence. Let's clarify. The ICJ ruled that your independence was LEGAL, but it also stated that it wouldn't give an opinion on Kosovo's statehood and whether minorities have a right to secede and self determination, that being a political question. In a nutshell Kosovo isn't an independent state. You can claim you are, but you're not. Kosovo is simply a UN protectorate. If you were a state then you could simply tell the Un to leave. From what I've read you've already tried that and it hasn't worked. A "state" that isn't in control of it own affairs!!!

"The UNGA is not a court of law to rule on the legality of secessions." Point taken, I meant to write UNGA votes, not rules.

"Even if it votes to approve Serbia’s resolution, such resolution is nothing more than a political statement." Correct, but it ties in with what I wrote above. The ICJ itself stated that Kosovo's independence will have to be decided by the UN member states, hence the "battle for hearts and minds" of UN member states by Serbia and kosovo at the UNGA. And if this isn't such a big deal as yourself and every other albanian claim, then why are your paymasters, the US and EU, so afraid of Serbia's resolution and why all the fuss about withdrawing it? If it were harmless, the EU and US would indulge Serbia, yet it's plain for all to see that they are vigorously opposing it. Their actions tell you just how important this is. As long as Serbia resists Kosovo's "independence", then it'll be nothing more than a declaration. Legally it'll remain a part of Serbia, even if the UN are in charge.

"The ICJ opinion and other provisions of general or special international law are what matters." Correct, which is why Serbia has been so successful in preventing investment ni Kosovo. Only your declaration was legal, nothing else is, and countries and companies understand this, hence the lack of meaningful investment.

"You haven't been keeping up with the news from the North Caucasus, obviously.
(Amer, 7 September 2010 01:38) "

Okay, then how about you citing some online articles that showed that the Russians have lost control over any of their territories in that region?

Or will you resort to talking riddles yet again?

"End of the day, seems to me the Russians are doing far, far better there than you Yankees are in Afghanistan and Iraq!
(lowe, 8 September 2010 00:13) "

But they're having to do it in their own country - the U.S. is not fighting terrorist separatists in Florida, and Georgia, and Mississippi, and Alabama.

So this is your mind boggling "evidence"????? How disappointing!
True, I had initially thought that HK is a member -hence the statement I made which you conveniently called "evidence" but I considered it to be an incorrect statement at that time on my part based on an genuine mistake. But I did NOT provide evidence (whether true or false) from other sources to support my case. And when I realized my mistake, I acknowledged it in my very next post! My actions therefore, in my opinion, was not in any way reprehensible. Can you honestly declare that you have never made a mistake in your entire life??
(lowe, 10 September 2010 14:47)

You did not say that my opinion is that “Hongkong is an IMF member”. You presented it as a fact (aka evidence). Whatever you want to call it, fact or evidence, it still remains a false one.


And just for the record, I was asking pss for online evidence to support his/her case -- because he/she had alleged that I have not been following the news on Russia. And the internet is a major source of news. I was therefore not in any way unreasonalble, in my opinion, to ask for online evidence.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 14:47)

I did not say anything about you being reasonable or unreasonable to ask that.

icj1 - By preventing Kosovo's independence (from a legal perspective), it effectively kills Kosovo's economy. even the US and Eu won't invest in Kosovo if they can't control the resources which they "purchase". Serbia must have been pretty effective on the international scene in disuading companies and countries from investing in Kosovo by threatening legal action - watch the BBC iPlayer (hardtalk with Jeremic and Zena Badawi). Serbia has been effectively blocking and meaningful investment in Kosovo, which is why the US and EU are so desperate for Serbia NOT to bring up the LEGALITY of SECESSION. If the UNGA rules in Serbia's favour then it's a big global signal that investment will be impossible (or extremely risky from a legal standpoint) in Kosovo - Serbia will be holding the purse strings. So whether Kosovo declares independence is irrelevant. It's how comapnies and countries view Kosovo legally, i.e. still a legal part of Serbia or not. those purse strings would be loosened if some kind of agreement was reached with Serbia. Looks like an impasse has been reached!

To pps: "So you imply that you have been following the issue of Russian desperation” to enter WTO! Alright then, can you show me some online articles that support your assertion about Russia’s purported desperation to join WTO and that the US is using WTO to blackmail them???? If you can’t, then you are probably not naive -- just plain untruthful.
(lowe, 7 September 2010 15:20) "

pss probably has better things to do than run around putting together a reading list for you, so here are a couple of Google hits:

Should and Can the US Fast-Track Russia into the WTO? — ECIPE
Sep 18, 2009 ... First of all, WTO accession should not become a geopolitical hot potato. The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation ...

COMMENT: Can and should the US fast-track Russia into the WTO ...
Sep 24, 2009 ... The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation and disorientation. It should not accept any policy linkage on the WTO ...

(You can google on the titles.)

BTW, how often do you provide evidence to back up your own claims?

BTW, how often do you provide evidence to back up your own claims?
(Amer, 9 September 2010 02:32)

Come one Amer... Lowe presents evidence for what he/she says. There is just a small issue that the evidence is... false.

See for example:

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=69212

Then can you clarify which evidence in your link is purportedly false?
(lowe, 10 September 2010 10:30)

Well, you said "You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries" and to support this statement of yours, you brought as evidence the fact that "Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country".

This evidence was false and we agreed on that, I think

Well, excuse me, I wasn’t aware that I was expected to be so legally and linguistically precise when I write on a public political, non-legal forum from a non-English speaking country. If these are your expectations, my view is that you are in the wrong forum
(lowe, 11 September 2010 09:47)

Well, if that was your only evidence to refute my argument, you have to be sure about that. That was not a side note… Without that, all your argument fell apart.


I should also point out that, in the thread contained in your link, you have stated things and failed to provide objective evidence from reliable sources when I requested them. I am referring, for example, to your assertion that Byelorussia was not independent or that over 20 million died under Stalin. In this regard, you are like pss.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 09:47)

I’m stating now that earth rotates around the sun… Are you going to ask for some proof about that ?

My point is that well known things don’t have to be proven…. except, of course, for somebody who is called Ahmadinejad who is so ignorant as to not know anything about things like Holocaust or that gays exist everywhere, etc… (btw, he happens to be one of the Serbia’s friends…)

I don’t recall asking you for proof about the earth and the sun. I recalled asking you for evidence to back up what you wrote about Stalin and Belarus. -- which you have up to now failed to do so. To quote yourself, “Without that, all your argument fell apart” !!!
(lowe, 19 September 2010 09:54)

Ha, ha, ha… Man, you really don’t understand things that are said for analogy or hypothetically to explain things more down to earth for minds which are not fully trained in a certain subject (in general, not referring to you) and not because you asked about them. I’ll be more explicit next time. I’ll divide my comments in sections clearly labeled “analogy” and “real” so even you can understand :)

If you don’t know what was the Soviet Union under Stalin, I’m sorry, but I’m satisfied that others who read this post know more than you about the topic. If my argument falls apart for you because I did not prove to you that Stalin murdered millions of people, then so be it. If you want to be convinced, go to Russia and start counting them and let me know when you’re finished some decades from now; I’m satisfied with what I’ve read and studied from multiple sources independent from each other, including from Russia itself. And you did not prove me wrong to make me change that belief.

Whereas I did prove you wrong without ANY doubt that Hong Kong is not an IMF member as you claimed.

Anyway, that’s fine. It’s not the first time you make false statements. This is at least the third time of you making clearly false statements as proven beyond any doubt in different threads in this site. Probably there are others that you put out there hopeful that nobody will scrutinize them, but when that happens the falsities that you put around are immediately evident. It's clear that you don't check your facts; you just state the facts as you want them to be, not as they really are.

“Maybe you had a problem understanding my post, I am saying China, Russia, US, France, UK, have no fear when it comes to issues directly affecting them, they can veto and one veto is all that is needed. So none of them are going to vote on any issue that does not directly affect them (such as Kosovo) out of "fear" that it will affect a vote in their home domain.
I was saying there is "no" authority that could possibly say to China for example you abstained on the Kosovo vote so you "have" to abstain on a vote concerning Tibet.

To use your own words if you are so naive as to think Russia is not desperately trying to become a member of the WTO then you have not followed that issue at all.
(pss, 7 September 2010 12:34)”

There is no fear on China’s part. I wasn’t referring to fear at all. But for purpose of their reputation, they want to appear CONSISTENT before the UN and the world. How can they claim sovereignty over Taiwan and yet accept “Kosova”’s right to secede??????
So you imply that you have been following the issue of Russian “desperation” to enter WTO! Alright then, can you show me some online articles that support your assertion about Russia’s purported desperation to join WTO and that the US is using WTO to blackmail them???? If you can’t, then you are probably not naive -- just plain untruthful.

“Nobody's talking about "total collapse" - so far it's just a seemingly inexorable spread of terrorist violence beyond its original focus in Chechnya. It's a constant drip-drip-drip of a few dead and wounded at a time - like Iraq, or Afghanistan (without, so far, the mass attacks against the civilian population - that's the big difference).

Just keep up with the articles on B92 on attacks on Russian police and army troops in the area, which has now spread to Kabardino-Balkaria. Have the Russians lost control? Not yet. Have they been able to prevent the spread of terrorist attacks? No.
(Amer, 7 September 2010 18:43)”

And here I was waiting with bated breath for your mind boggling evidence about Russia’s debacle in the Caucasus! As it turned out, your so called big bang evidence was nothing more than the ‘pop’ one normally associates with wet firecrackers. How disappointing! But not surprising coming from you when I think about it. End of the day, seems to me the Russians are doing far, far better there than you Yankees are in Afghanistan and Iraq!

"But they're having to do it in their own country - the U.S. is not fighting terrorist separatists in Florida, and Georgia, and Mississippi, and Alabama.
(Amer, 8 September 2010 06:27) "

Which explains why the Yankees are having such a hard time (midly put) in Afghnistan and Iraq right? With no end in sight despite putting an extra 30,000 sucker GIs in these places.

Not that I feel the least sorry for the US, given the extent of its absolutely criminal "collateral damage" of innocent civilians in these countries.

“lowe,
If you google "Russia WTO" you will get some 3 million+ hits, that should more than satisfy your request.
(pss, 8 September 2010 15:43)”

Not so fast! The issue here is NOT about how many online articles there are about Russia’s application to enter WTO.

The issue here is about YOUR claim that Russia is DESPERATE to enter WTO!
Since you made this claim, the onus is therefore on you to point out reliable articles that clearly showed this Russian desperation, which up to now you have NOT been able to do so. It is therefore pretty obvious to me that you cannot find any credible evidence to back what you write! So do not expect me to take your claims seriously!

Reply to Amer (post #39)
“pss probably has better things to do than run around putting together a reading list for you, so here are a couple of Google hits:

Should and Can the US Fast-Track Russia into the WTO? — ECIPE
Sep 18, 2009 ... First of all, WTO accession should not become a geopolitical hot potato. The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation ...

COMMENT: Can and should the US fast-track Russia into the WTO ...
Sep 24, 2009 ... The US should realize that Russia's demand is a sign of desperation and disorientation. It should not accept any policy linkage on the WTO ...

(You can google on the titles.)

BTW, how often do you provide evidence to back up your own claims?
(Amer, 9 September 2010 02:32)”

I couldn’t care less what “better” things pss purportedly has to do. I only asked for facts that he/she should already have given his/her definite claims. The mere fact that pss had to “run around” to put together the "facts", would suggest to me he/she never had them in the first place. I would have assumed that if he/she knows for a fact about Russian desperation, he/she would have the evidence ready at hand. Instead of conveniently expecting all of us to do a needle-in-a-haystack google search because he/she really doesn’t have any credible source to back his/her claims.

As for your ECIPE article, it is a blog comment by someone called Iana Dreyer in her private capacity – I am not sure how this meets the reliability criteria. And as ECIPE clearly pointed out “All blog posts are made in a personal capacity and only represent the views of the author.” A cursory reading of Iana’s article actually revealed, IN MY OPINION, not Russian desperation for trade benefits in joining WTO but her desire for prestige reasons – which is really not what one would associate with WTO and its possible trade benefits. Finally, just as there are articles the likes of Iana’s, there are others who take a rather different view of Russia’s desire for WTO entry at any cost – see for example http://www.twq.com/10april/docs/10apr_Aslund.pdf. So there can be no conclusion one way or other.

What evidence do you want? I never claimed that Russia is or is not desperate for WTO entry AS A FACT, unlike pss. If you read my posts, I merely raised questions that beget answering about Russian intentions over WTO. In contrast to pss who stated in his/her earlier post definitely that “……. if you are so naive as to think Russia is not desperately trying to become a member of the WTO then you have not followed that issue at all.” thereby implying that he/she in fact possessed facts which lesser mortals like me don’t have. It was therefore not unreasonable for me to ask to see those “facts”, which pss couldn't produce in the end.

"Come one Amer... Lowe presents evidence for what he/she says. There is just a small issue that the evidence is... false.

See for example:

[link]
(icj1, 10 September 2010 05:06) "

Which evidence are you referring to in your link that is purportedly false?

"Come one Amer... Lowe presents evidence for what he/she says. There is just a small issue that the evidence is... false.

See for example:

[link]
(icj1, 10 September 2010 05:06) "

Then can you clarify which evidence in your link is purportedly false?

"Well, you said "You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries" and to support this statement of yours, you brought as evidence the fact that "Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country".

This evidence was false and we agreed on that, I think
(icj1, 10 September 2010 14:04) "

So this is your mind boggling "evidence"????? How disappointing!

True, I had initially thought that HK is a member -hence the statement I made which you conveniently called "evidence" but I considered it to be an incorrect statement at that time on my part based on an genuine mistake. But I did NOT provide evidence (whether true or false) from other sources to support my case. And when I realized my mistake, I acknowledged it in my very next post! My actions therefore, in my opinion, was not in any way reprehensible. Can you honestly declare that you have never made a mistake in your entire life??

And just for the record, I was asking pss for online evidence to support his/her case -- because he/she had alleged that I have not been following the news on Russia. And the internet is a major source of news. I was therefore not in any way unreasonalble, in my opinion, to ask for online evidence.

“You did not say that my opinion is that “Hongkong is an IMF member”. You presented it as a fact (aka evidence). Whatever you want to call it, fact or evidence, it still remains a false one.”

Well, excuse me, I wasn’t aware that I was expected to be so legally and linguistically precise when I write on a public political, non-legal forum from a non-English speaking country. If these are your expectations, my view is that you are in the wrong forum.

I have already admitted that my fact about HK was initially wrong due to a mistake. But it was certainly not an evidence as you claimed. As I understand it, an evidence in everyday language refers to information from a reliable source other than myself intended by me to collaborate what I have stated. I did not cite any source when I made that HK statement.

I should also point out that, in the thread contained in your link, you have stated things and failed to provide objective evidence from reliable sources when I requested them. I am referring, for example, to your assertion that Byelorussia was not independent or that over 20 million died under Stalin. In this regard, you are like pss.


“I did not say anything about you being reasonable or unreasonable to ask that.
(icj1, 11 September 2010 05:27)”

I just wanted to make sure that others who may read your last post is aware of what I was asking from pss and why I feel that my request for online evidence from him/her was reasonable. Otherwise they may be misled into thinking that there was deliberate misrepresentation or unreasonableness on my part.

“Well, if that was your only evidence to refute my argument, you have to be sure about that. That was not a side note… Without that, all your argument fell apart.”
And how is this an “evidence”? I was making a point about your unrealistic expectations in this forum. And how on earth did my argument “fell apart” as a result?


“I’m stating now that earth rotates around the sun… Are you going to ask for some proof about that ?

My point is that well known things don’t have to be proven…. except, of course, for somebody who is called Ahmadinejad who is so ignorant as to not know anything about things like Holocaust or that gays exist everywhere, etc… (btw, he happens to be one of the Serbia’s friends…)
(icj1, 18 September 2010 04:22)”

I don’t recall asking you for proof about the earth and the sun. I recalled asking you for evidence to back up what you wrote about Stalin and Belarus. -- which you have up to now failed to do so. To quote yourself, “Without that, all your argument fell apart” !!!

“Ha, ha, ha… Man, you really don’t understand things that are said for analogy or hypothetically to explain things more down to earth for minds which are not fully trained in a certain subject (in general, not referring to you) and not because you asked about them. I’ll be more explicit next time. I’ll divide my comments in sections clearly labeled “analogy” and “real” so even you can understand :)

If you don’t know what was the Soviet Union under Stalin, I’m sorry, but I’m satisfied that others who read this post know more than you about the topic. If my argument falls apart for you because I did not prove to you that Stalin murdered millions of people, then so be it. If you want to be convinced, go to Russia and start counting them and let me know when you’re finished some decades from now; I’m satisfied with what I’ve read and studied from multiple sources independent from each other, including from Russia itself. And you did not prove me wrong to make me change that belief. “

End of the day, your assertion that so many millions died under Stalin remains unsupported by any reliable source. And yes, your argument, in my view, does fall flat as a result.


“Whereas I did prove you wrong without ANY doubt that Hong Kong is not an IMF member as you claimed.”

I have already admitted this mistake a long time back. Once I am shown to be mistaken, I gladly acknowledge the correction. I don’t think objective readers would begrudge me for my oversight about HK. Unlike you who chose stubbornly and futilely to continue to fudge issues when you haven’t a clue of any evidence to back your sweeping statements about Stalin or Byelorussia!


“Anyway, that’s fine. It’s not the first time you make false statements. This is at least the third time of you making clearly false statements as proven beyond any doubt in different threads in this site. Probably there are others that you put out there hopeful that nobody will scrutinize them, but when that happens the falsities that you put around are immediately evident. It's clear that you don't check your facts; you just state the facts as you want them to be, not as they really are.”

For someone who couldn’t back up what he/she professed about Byelorussia and Stalin with evidence from reliable sources, you have a lot of nerve accusing others of false statements and not checking their sources. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!