Austrian FM urges compromise on resolution

1. Mr. Spindelegger:

"If Belgrade did manage to get a resolution against the EU stance passed, it would be detrimental to Serbia's road towards Europe, Spindelegger warned in a statement with given to Austrian national news agency APA, adding that Serbia's European path would be jeopardized.

Pro-European forces in Belgrade already know that hardliner tactics will only get you so far, Spindelegger concluded."


2. dht:

I do not believe that countries like Germany or U.K. are really willing to give Serbia a serious chance to join the EU.

So, it shouldn´t matter what the FM of a member state of the EU says.

Now they want a compromise? You can accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question? Well get use to it. You will soon see that Serbia no longer stands alone and the majority of the world is against YOU and your illegal, immoral and unilateral actions. How ironic that the "democratic" world does not accept the fact that they are a minority now. They are starting to run around now like chickens with no head. Serbia stay steadfast and show no mercy. The WORLD is with you. You are not fighting just for Serbia but for all of us now. Godspeed!

"We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again, he pointed out."

And why not? Kosovo's independence is highly questionable. Keep in mind that only about 1/3 of the UN countries recognized it.

"We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again, he pointed out."

This Austrian fella is a real buffoon! That's precisely Belgrade's intention -- to question Kosovo's right to independence again and again! And to prevent it from gaining UN membership ever.

The Austrian talks of a compromise and then lets his mask slip by expressing irritation over the constant questioning of the ‘kosova/ë’ independence project. Belgrade will never ever concede to the creation of a Greater Albania at Serbia’s territorial expense. Perhaps one day, these wretched eurocrats will realise this.

Ian, what are the Albanians then, nationalistic, or patriotic? I would say they are exploiters - pure and simple.

Shame to those Pro-European Serbs who are willing to give up its cradle of civilization (Kosovo province) in exchange for money & membership from the EU.

So you understand Serbia is not recognizing Kosovo?! But it should not be question again and again?

Let me say this: it WILL be questioned again and again as it is illegal. It goes against Serbian constitution.

Why doesn't this person go to China and tell them to be quiet about Taiwan and Tibet!?

By the way: must Georgia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Ian, UK - "But be Patriotic rather than Nationalist" You're a hypocrit. If that's what you really believed then why back Albanians independence claim in Kosovo? As many Albanians have stated here, Kosovo independence (along with Presevo) has been an Albanian aim for DECADES, i.e. when Tito was alive and kicking and in charge. So the argument that it was Serbian oppression which is why they want independence is rubbish, and everyone here knows it. Where was the Albanians patriotism to Yugoslavia when Tito was in charge if they want to leave and join Albania. By my definition that's nationalism and this whole Albanian campaign has been driven by exactly that -nationalism.

"Shame to those Pro-European Serbs who are willing to give up its cradle of civilization (Kosovo province) in exchange for money & membership from the EU.
(PRO-SERBIA, 6 September 2010 11:13) "

You really think Kosovo is the Cradle of Serbian civilisation? As you're a Serb, I would like to ask you a few questions. Has everyday life changed for you since Kosovo declared independence? Do you feel any less Serbian because of this? Are the Serbs in Central Serbia, Vojvodina and in Bosnia any less Serbian because of Kosovo's independence? If you do feel less Serbian, what do you feel more of? French? Vietnamese? Nigerian? or Irish? Everyday life has not changed at all for most Serbs, Serbs are still Serbian and they should be proud of this; be proud of who you are. But be Patriotic rather than Nationalist; as Charles de Gaulle said, "Patriotism is where the love of your own people comes first, Nationalism is where the hate of other people comes first".

A few points to take away here:

1. "[Spindelegger] said that a unilateral resolution would harm Serbia's EU outlook."

-- Pristina's unilateral action didn't seem to upset Austria. It's own prospects for EU membership for sure, but its declared statehood apparently not.

2. "We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again, he pointed out."

-- It's not just Serbia bringing this issue up, but dozens of countries, 5 of which are in the EU. It is the Austrian FM's choice to ignore the 500 pound gorrilla in the room, and it is Austria's choice to overlook the ramifications of "agreeing to disagree" in legitimizing disunity over Kosovo's future, but the facts remain that Belgrade is certainly not alone when contesting the legality of Kosovo's unilateral secession and the nature of its current configuration of statehood and claims to sovereignty.

3. "Pro-European forces in Belgrade already know that hardliner tactics will only get you so far, Spindelegger concluded."

-- Pro-European forces in Belgrade have made it more than apparent they are willing to compromise and negotiate on Kosovo's resolution as a participant instead of a supplicant. Serbia's prospects for EU entry is just as much the responsibility of Brussels as it is Belgrade and a continued refusal to compromise and negotiate with Belgrade risks bringing those "hardliners" to power and squandering whatever potential could be gained from a DS-led government.

What is the other side willing to bring to the table? More importantly, if the issue of status is something they don't want to discuss, what concessions is the West willing to give Belgrade over Kosovo in exchange for Belgrade taking status off the table? How much of Kosovo's internal sovereignty will have to be compromised in order to save its overall independence?

Significant concessions are going to have to be made by both sides in order for a compromise to manifest.

Ian, UK,

Your British so how can you understand the Serbian people. Read Serbian history and you will know how the brave people of Serbia defended the province against a much superior and well equipped Ottoman Turks.
It is only the people of Serbia who will determine the future of Kosovo province and not the westerners.

Let me say this: it WILL be questioned again and again as it is illegal. It goes against Serbian constitution.

Why doesn't this person go to China and tell them to be quiet about Taiwan and Tibet!?

By the way: must Georgia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?
(Ron, 6 September 2010 13:41)
I notice you no longer claim it is a violation of international law but of Serbian law.
It is worth noting though that the Serbian constitution was not written until after Kosovo became a UN protectorate and not subject to Serbian laws.

2. dht:

I do not believe that countries like Germany or U.K. are really willing to give Serbia a serious chance to join the EU.

So, it shouldn´t matter what the FM of a member state of the EU says.
(dht, 6 September 2010 11:00)
I believe that all the countries of the EU are wanting Serbia in the EU, but as part of a pack not as a single entity.
But 3 things are certain.
1 Serbia will not enter with Kosovo attached.
2 Serbia will not be able to use the EU as a forum to contest Kosovo status.
3 Serbia will not be able to enter and block Kosovo admittance. (In most probability both will be admitted simultaneously)

To hell with EU membership when again and again the Serbian populace are told give up all that is sacred to them and so central that it all Serbs know it is the heart of Serbdom - Kosovo & Metohija.

Serbs will never give up on Kosovo and these EUcrats show pure ignorance of Serbia & what is important to it - who needs to join such and EU when it means total loss of sovereignity and national identity?

Austrian minister should know only too well that Serbs faced such choices before and always stood to their PRINCIPA

"Perishable is earthly kingdom, but forever and ever is the Kingdom of Heaven!"
"Земаљско је за малена царство, а Небеско увијек и довијека!"

- to hell with EU hegemony that one is asked to betray all of what is so dear!

Goran,

We have wanted for 600 years equal rights, not just in Kosovo for all Albanians everywhere (Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro,etc). It just happened that there was no other solution in Kosovo besides the DOI to ensure such fundamental rights.

RKS - Your argument as to why you want independence doesn't hold water. I can understand wanting more freedoms under Turkish rule, so did all subjected nations under the Ottoman empire, but if that were really the case then why were you causing so much trouble when Tito was in charge for 40 years? What's the excuse for your actions then? Freedom? Give us a break, it was nothing more than naked nationalism. Under Tito you had the same rights as any other ethnic group in Yugoslavia and could travel freely throughout most of the world with a Yugoslav passport. You had Albanian language schools and Universities. You had everything apart from self rule, but the hypocracy of some albanians in Kosovo is that they demand allegiance to the Kosovo albanian flag and rules for Serbs in kosovo - either that or leave. That's "freedom and justice" in albanian eyes, but when the boot is on the other foot, you scream loudly that you are being oppressed.

"It just happened that there was no other solution in Kosovo besides the DOI to ensure such fundamental rights." Well the serbs in Kosovo feel the same way and want nothing more to do with albanians. if you truly believe in freedom then you should let them leave like you are demanding from Serbia.

johny, preemptive apologies for the long response to your long reply:

“Prishtina did not take a unilateral action. That is because if such an action would have been taken without the approval and consultation of EU powers and the US it would have been rejected by them instantly. Such action was taken in a multilateral and coordinated fashion with the US and EU powers.”

Ok, so If as you say Kosovo’s “unilateralism” was actually a coordinated policy with the US and other key EU countries, then it pretty much negated any reason to hold talks with Belgrade prior to 2008, right? I mean one could argue then that Kosovo was completely in the hands of Washington, which was the one that unilaterally decided before possible compromise was met that independence was the solution. Ok, so instead of acting rogue, you voluntarily decided to cast your fate with the US. You get something that you can interpret as independence, and Washington gains an ally. So the blame shifts from Pristina to Washington. It still doesn’t sit well with me because in the clear absence of any agreed solution with Belgrade and Moscow. That to me is a unilateral action. But no matter. In the event of unilateral free-for-alls, it seems both sides laid claim to a territory neither side can completely claim its own. Belgrade makes claim that Kosovo is still part of its territory and Pristina claims Kosovo is free, sovereign, and independent. Both are flights of fantasy if you want my honest opinion. And both are signs, at least to me, that unilateral actions seem to be done to reinforce the entrenched positions of both sides.

”Belgrade as you can see took another unilateral step with this resolution. Yet even though this resolution was taken in a unilateral fashion the text of such a unilateral resolution complains about unilateral moves. That is not only ironic but devious and indecent at the same time.”

-- As a UN member state, Belgrade has the right to draft whatever resolution it wants, no matter how intelligent or ridiculous. The same as Washington and Tirana. That the later two decided to withdraw their own resolutions is their own choosing. How this constitutes a unilateral action something maybe you can explain further. Washington is not complaining of the unilateralism of the resolution as I think they are of the potential of causing a rift in the UN and further embedding the doubt over Kosovo’s alleged sovereignty due to its wording. Who cares how the resolution was written, if it’s doomed to fail in the UN with a US veto if need be, the nature of the resolution is irrelevant. What matters more I think is how many countries either will vote for it or, in the case of Washington, need “coaxing” not to vote for it.

”None of those 5 countries where consulted about the resolution let alone bring the resolution up. Stop trying to hide under their shadow. This was all Serbia's doing. Serbia brought it up alone and it should own up to it.”

Fair enough, but it’s incredibly erroneous of you trying to argue that Serbia is alone in this. You know that’s not true. All 5 of those countries have repeatedly said they will not recognize Kosovo’s independence without the consent of Belgrade. You act as if they were left in the dark when you know as well as I they have repeatedly said they support Serbia’s territorial integrity and do not support unilateral acts of secession – even after the ICJ decision, which I doubt Serbia had any hand in pressuring them to keep their stances. They have also said that they support a solution which is mutual to both Belgrade and Pristina. It seems this isn’t important to you, but that’s the reality that must be undertaken if the entire EU is to support Kosovo. As for “hiding under their shadow”, that’s rich coming form someone supporting a government that has repeatedly shown its reliance on other powers to do its own work. Again, no matter. If you can put together a posse to look like you’ve got supporters and friends, so be it. Pristina has theirs, Belgrade has theirs. This isn’t a surprise to anyone.

”Actually Belgrade is indeed alone as far as when it comes to contesting. The others do not contest they just agree to disagree with the other side.”

-- If Serbia were alone in this, I seriously doubt they would continue doing what they’re doing. They know they have support – at least in getting everyone to find a more optimal solution – and that’s why they’re putting this resolution forward. If the odds were seriously stacked against them, if a “wave” of recognitions from key countries came after ICJ, it would have been game over for Belgrade. But there are countries that have kept the Kosovo issue in doubt. That’s contesting. Sorry to break it to you. You can narrow it down to live and let live versus actual obstruction (in many respects Belgrade’s decision to pursue non-violent actions in regards to Kosovo is also a live-and-let-live approach), but considering Kosovo’s goal of being a full sovereign state means at least getting recognition from these five states in Europe (and repeated calls of them being “bankrupt” “corrupt”, etc. doesn’t do anything for the Albanian side except show frustration and immaturity in arguing one’s side), I’d say their refusal to recognize is the most passively aggressive form of contestation – far worse than what Serbia could do on its own. Additionally, America’s seeming willingness to “agree to disagree” with Serbia has all but legitimized their efforts in pursuing a foreign policy that may or may not work, but has certainly removed any real penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, this contests their own foreign policy of trying to get as many states to recognize Kosovo as possible. By letting Serbia do its own thing with this modus vivendi, other countries can also “agree to disagree”, which in the end doesn’t destroy Kosovo’s partial sovereignty, but doesn’t improve it either. Therefore, the only way forward is to find a middle ground. Otherwise, Kosovo will remain a parastate.

”Nobody is asking Serbia to be a supplicant instead of a participant. Instead they're telling Serbia to undertake a complete attitudinal change as far as the resolution is concerned.”

-- If by “attitudinal change” you mean “take status off the table”, I can certainly be amenable to that. Seriously, I can. Trying to argue that Kosovo is all Serbian is a losing battle and one that will ultimately fail. I’m being perfectly honest here. But what are the chances that, given Belgrade’s acceptance that status is no longer an open issue, additional concessions will have to be made by Pristina – for the sake of stability and peace – that alter Kosovo’s internal structure just to get Serbia off its back and shut them up? Territorial adjustment? Internal cantonization? More than autonomy/less than independence for at least northern Kosovo? Would you give them the north just to shut them up? All are certainly practical solutions that Pristina carelessly dismisses. What will the West do in order to remove the Serbian obstacle and proclaim Kosovo’s independence for all to recognize and support? I can tell you that it’s not the “shut up and accept the Ahtisaari Proposal” solution.

”Serbia is in no position to impose its policies onto a union that it has applied to be a member of.”

-- Guess what, they’re doing it, and they’re taking advantage of the lack of unity in the EU over Kosovo to extract some form of compromise. On every other issue except Kosovo, they are “abiding to the union’s rules and policies” as you state. And might I add, if Serbia were alone in this fight in the EU, this would have been over a long time ago. But there’s two problems that you repeatedly overlook. First is the lack of agreement among its members that is needed to present a united front against Belgrade. Sure you can interpret that as being a “nuisance” from an Albanian point of view – and considering Kosovo’s near-complete acquiescence on all things related to the EU, not to mention the stalled road to full recognition, your irritation is understandable – but because there is enough doubt to consider a resumption of talks, be they status or technical, Belgrade’s opinion is still taken into account, no matter how irrelevant you think it is, or should be. I’m surprised even myself that the heavy hand of Brussels hasn’t come down harder on Belgrade. But that it’s not means they’re either deliberately pulling their punches, or they’re incapable of dealing the coup de grace many here think should come. The second point you overlook is that the EU can’t afford to push Serbia away. They want Serbia in the EU, otherwise the entire idea of European unity falls apart. Sure, Belgrade can flip its finger at Brussels and turn away, but they can’t be diplomatically isolated anymore. The politics of containment under Milosevic are over. The “do as we say or else” ultimatums will not materialize. The EU has put far too much stock in integrating the rest of Balkans, so therefore I think any threats to Serbia for EU membership can only be in delaying, not denying. This may probably fall in somewhere wherever “compromise” lies, but the EU can’t make the demands for Serbia to follow as you think.

“The audacity of you actually stating that the EU continuously refuses to negotiate and compromise is appalling.”

-- Then you’re not paying attention, or you’re looking at only what you want to see. I don’t know how more apparent it can be when a few EU countries are making demands on behalf of the entire organization that 5 members don’t agree with. As annoying as it might be, that’s enough to raise thought of compromise. Additionally, we never really hear what other EU states have to say over Kosovo. What does the Czech Republic say? Or Ireland? Or Bulgaria? Or Poland? Yes, they’ve recognized, but would they really oppose proposals made by Belgrade in exchange for abandoning status? All we hear of late is Germany and England, and I have to say their policies are quite uncooperative, unrealistic, and unsustainable. What is the EU willing to offer Serbia if it gives up its claim to Kosovo? Or at least the 85-87% Albanian part? How many EU members would be willing to compromise? What particular concessions within Kosovo is it willing to negotiate – or at the very least pressure Pristina to acquiesce? If all they can say is “fall into line”, Belgrade doesn’t need to as long as the EU itself doesn’t uniformly fall into line.

“It is solely the responsibility of the people of Serbia to choose whether or not squandering any potential is good for them or not. Its not the US' and the EU's responsibility. That lies solely with the Serb voters.”

-- And the majority of Serbian voters have been in favor of EU membership. But the goal of bringing Serbia into the EU is just as much the EU’s responsibility as it is Serbia’s. If the institution doesn’t provide acceptible prerequisites, they won’t join. And if they don’t join, it will be incredibly hard for Kosovo to do so. The refusal of the US and key EU members to even contemplate alternatives beyond the unacceptable provisions they unilaterally provided in 2008, the insistence that Kosovo has a “European future” without the slightest explanation of how that can be accomplished under current circumstances and the statements that Kosovo is a multiethnic democracy for all is more than insulting considering Kosovo’s leadership has not the slightest idea how to run a multiethnic community, most noted by its outright refusal to even contemplate flexibility on how to integrate the K-Serbs within a looser form of Kosovar sovereignty beyond what was already written by someone else in the Ahtisaari Plan.

”Status is off the table.”

-- As I said, I can live with that. I think most Serbs can too. Not to sound crude, but Washington efforts to siphon off Kosovo comes with the added bonus of getting rid of nearly 2 million unruly Albanians for Belgrade to deal with, and for which they have never provided a plan for reintegration. If Belgrade is smart, they can get more out of a compromise in which they abandon status than if they were to insist on it. But please do not be surprised if in order to get status off the table and Belgrade to the table, a number of additional concessions have to be made by Pristina. Germany’s not that much of your friend that they wouldn’t contemplate a Dayton-like model if it meant achieving consensus in Brussels and keeping independence. Remember Bosnia? Internally disjointed, but also stable and peaceful.

“They are telling you that you have no bargaining chips and do not delude yourselves thinking that you hold anyone else but yourselves hostage; and in case you do not realize that and think you do, they will make that clear by punishing you. It is the EU that has the bargaining chips not Serbia.”

-- Then an ultimatum would have been presented long ago. You once again place too much emphasis on the capabilities of the EU and not enough emphasis on the diplomatic gains already made by Belgrade. The language of late coming from all sides is one of "compromise". A year ago it was "Kosovo is a done deal". If I were Thaci, I’d be wary on what compromise ultimately ends up being, even if he still gets to wave a unique flag.

“You're weak financially, politically, militarily when compared to the EU and the US which in your euphoric delusions you think you can successfully heckle and confront them.”

-- I’m sorry if you think that Belgrade’s attempt at finding an optimal solution is “heckling” and being a “nuisance”. I’m equally sorry you and others fail to see the stalemate Belgrade is (un)fortunately putting Kosovo in and which can only be removed unless some concessions are given. I think Belgrade’s being strategic. You think they’re being an obstacle. Whatever history ends up writing them as being, it seems to be paying off in some form since the US is making considerable effort in making sure Serbia’s resolution doesn’t pass, and key EU members are looking for a middle ground in order for everyone to agree on and move forward. If the US and EU were as powerful, or as interested, as you euphorically think, Serbia would have been quashed years ago over this. Belgrade has certainly held its own, and while it will not ultimately hold on to Kosovo, it can, in the name of compromise, alter Kosovo’s current configuration to retain authority over a small part of it. It will certainly be interesting to see what ultimately is negotiated when a final compromise is settled.

And if at the end of the day it is nothing more than big stick policies to shut Serbia up, you can call me out for what you've regarded of late as my "BS" :)

A few points to make here Mike:


"Pristina's unilateral action didn't seem to upset Austria. It's own prospects for EU membership for sure, but its declared statehood apparently not."

-- This of course is incorrect. You know it to but you have to make a knee-jerk reaction. After all that is what traditionally has characterized the Serb camp;euphoric knee-jerk reactions.

1. The first unilateral action was undertaken by Serbia when in the middle of a negotiating process when it passed its constitution; claiming that the inhabitants of Kosova were its subjects, despite the fact that such subjects were denied the right to vote for such a Constitution, and despite the fact that by this constitution Serbia unilaterally broke the principles it had agreed with and that would govern the negotiating process. Meaning neither side, Serbia include were not to take unilateral steps that aimed to preempt the status before the negotiations were over. Serbia did exactly that. It unilaterally took an action which sought to settle the status by refusing the input of the other side through the adoption of its constitution.

2. Prishtina did not take a unilateral action. That is because if such an action would have been taken without the approval and consultation of EU powers and the US it would have been rejected by them instantly. Such action was taken in a multilateral and coordinated fashion with the US and EU powers.

3. Belgrade as you can see took another unilateral step with this resolution. Yet even though this resolution was taken in a unilateral fashion the text of such a unilateral resolution complains about unilateral moves. That is not only ironic but devious and indecent at the same time.


"It's not just Serbia bringing this issue up, but dozens of countries, 5 of which are in the EU. "

-- Actually that is no true and you know it. None of those 5 countries where consulted about the resolution let alone bring the resolution up. Stop trying to hide under their shadow. This was all Serbia's doing. Serbia brought it up alone and it should own up to it.

"It is the Austrian FM's choice to ignore the 500 pound gorrilla in the room, and it is Austria's choice to overlook the ramifications of "agreeing to disagree" in legitimizing disunity over Kosovo's future, but the facts remain that Belgrade is certainly not alone when contesting the legality of Kosovo's unilateral secession and the nature of its current configuration of statehood and claims to sovereignty."

-- Actually Belgrade is indeed alone as far as when it comes to contesting. The others do not contest they just agree to disagree with the other side. The difference is huge. Contesting means actively pursuing a confrontational role while the modus vivendi attitude means being able to live with a disagreement without being confrontational. As far as contesting and being confrontational Serbia is on its own. The rest have applied a modus-vivendi attitude.



"Pro-European forces in Belgrade have made it more than apparent they are willing to compromise and negotiate on Kosovo's resolution as a participant instead of a supplicant."

-- That means nothing. Nobody is asking Serbia to be a supplicant instead of a participant. Instead they're telling Serbia to undertake a complete attitudinal change as far as the resolution is concerned. That is where the compromise is, not on some lame excuse about participant versus supplicant. Its about the meaning and wording of the resolution rather than who wrote it. You can't sell to anybody the lame excuse that this is about who wrote it. That is not true. The fact that Serbia is not able to compromise on a resolution that has no legal power and no teeth is very telling about the lack of ability of the Serbian state to compromise on anything.

"Serbia's prospects for EU entry is just as much the responsibility of Brussels as it is Belgrade and a continued refusal to compromise and negotiate with Belgrade risks bringing those "hardliners" to power and squandering whatever potential could be gained from a DS-led government."


-- Serbia is in no position to impose its policies onto a union that it has applied to be a member of. One becomes a member by abiding to the union's rules and policies. If you don't like them you do not apply for it. On the other hand shoving your policies onto the union and hoping for their eventual submission does not work. Serbia's prospect for EU entry is only Serbia's responsibility. Nobody forced Serbia to apply for membership. It chose to apply for it. The audacity of you actually stating that the EU continuously refuses to negotiate and compromise is appalling. Remember, it is Serbia that leaves international gatherings because someone from Kosova sits in the same room. That is not only immature but that spells rigidity and refusal to compromise and negotiate. That is solely Serbia's responsibility and fault. You cannot complain about refusal to negotiate when you do not have the guts to even sit on the same room with these people. Lame complaints like what you stated do not fly anymore. Having said that;you seem to have misunderstood what the Austrian FM stated. He actually stated that it is the DS-led government that is taking these unilateral and hardliner moves. It is of no importance if its called DS or radicals if these moves are the same unilateral and hardliner moves. Now that we've settled that, nothing is risked. The Serb voters choose who leads them, not the EU not the US. It is solely the responsibility of the people of Serbia to choose whether or not squandering any potential is good for them or not. Its not the US' and the EU's responsibility. That lies solely with the Serb voters.

"What is the other side willing to bring to the table? More importantly, if the issue of status is something they don't want to discuss, what concessions is the West willing to give Belgrade over Kosovo in exchange for Belgrade taking status off the table? How much of Kosovo's internal sovereignty will have to be compromised in order to save its overall independence? "

-- You still do not get the point. Status is off the table. That is what they are telling you and they are making it clear that they are the ones that have the power to decide that not Serbia. They are politely telling you to stop being a nuisance or you will indeed face repercussions. They are telling you that you have no bargaining chips and do not delude yourselves thinking that you hold anyone else but yourselves hostage; and in case you do not realize that and think you do, they will make that clear by punishing you. It is the EU that has the bargaining chips not Serbia. Not convinced? Just look at how much money they funnel for the survival of the Serb state.

"Significant concessions are going to have to be made by both sides in order for a compromise to manifest."


-- Yea in a utopia that is how it works. You're weak financially, politically, militarily when compared to the EU and the US which in your euphoric delusions you think you can successfully heckle and confront them.

Pro-Serbia said: “Your British so how can you understand the Serbian people. Read Serbian history and you will know how the brave people of Serbia defended the province against a much superior and well equipped Ottoman Turks.
It is only the people of Serbia who will determine the future of Kosovo province and not the westerners”.
It is clear that you read the Serbian history through rose-colored glasses. In the battle against the Ottomans the Serbs never were alone in their fight but most of the Balkan population took part in it, incl. the Albanians. Moreover it seems that it is not known by you and others that several Serbian men had in fact leading positions in the Ottoman government up to 12 times as Grand Vizier, the second position directly under the Sultan. The last one was Daltaban Mustafa Pasha (1702-1703).
It is also known that Serbians were on the side of the Ottomans to fight rebellions against the Ottoman rule or Roman-Catholic troops, because as Orthodox they didn't want to live than under the influence of the Pope in Rome: so far about the Christian solidarity in the 15th – 18th Century and the always strongly defended anti-Ottoman struggle by Serbian historians since the 19th Century.
Kosovo was always of a mixed population of Albanians and Serbs. It was their acceptance of the Christian faith in the 10th C. and the zealous building power of churches and monasteries by some of their Princes/Kings that have let arise the Orthodox monuments all over the region and after defeat had to leave behind again.
Maybe it would be of great interest for the Serbian people it-self that their history like that of all the other European nations is not that heroic as they are eager to make true. All existing countries in this part of the world have a lot of black pages and a lot of which they can’t be very proud of and Serbia is not an exemption.

'"We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again," he pointed out.'

What planet is this Austrian FM on?

Kosovo's so-called 'independence' has remained in question ever since its unilateral declaration which has NOT been recognised by the vast majority of UNITED NATIONS' Members.

This Austrian FM is coming from an EU school of arrogance which knows no bounds.

MB,Ireland

It will certainly be interesting to see what ultimately is negotiated when a final compromise is settled.
(Mike)

Mike, the story shows that terms change only when people kill each-other, while in negotiations in peace periods they change only the terminology. So, terms are already decided in 1999, now remains to be changed the terminology of the Ahtisari Plan, things like extra-territoriality of Churches and Monasteries, a kind of authonomy for Serbian entities to decide which road will be paved first within the commune etc. Don't wait nothing more my friend, at least not in the next 50 years. Kosovo file is closed for EU and USA, they are dealing on the files named "Serbia" and the serbian government has two ways to choose, either with the EU or without, everything else is just propaganda.

Mike,


Few points to take away here from your comment

1.
Pristina's unilateral action didn't seem to upset Austria."

There is a process mediated by President Ahtisari the Secretary General of the United Nation. Serbia has said that will never accept Kosovo independence while Kosovo Albanians said will never accept Serbia sovereignity over Kosovo. So far so good. While the status negotiations were taking place Serbia Unilateraly proclain its constitution declairing unilateraly the Kosovo is part of Serbia. A stab in the back of the UN. If Serbia allowed itself unilaterally actions why shouldld't Kosovo Albanians. Bear in mind there was a war between Serbia and Kosovo. You can call whatever you like!



2.

It's not just Serbia bringing this issue up, but dozens of countries, 5 of which are in the EU.

Mike,

Do you think using the disagreement of 5 EU countries most of each are almost bankrupt/corrupt and frigile is a good argument to support Serbia's claim. These EU countries are more concerned about their internal problem rather than something to do international law.

"... Belgrade is certainly not alone when contesting the legality of Kosovo's unilateral secession and the nature of its current configuration of statehood and claims to sovereignty."

Mike,

Are you suggesting that Kosovo is alone in gaining support for its independence? Use the common sense! Do you think that whatever happens in the diplomatic fight there is the slightest chance of a return of Serbia's sovereignity over Kosovo?

3.

"Brussels... continued refusal to compromise and negotiate with Belgrade risks bringing those "hardliners" to power and squandering whatever potential could be gained from a DS-led government."

Mike,

Why did German Foreign Minister and British Foreign Secretary visit Belgrade recently?

"... if the issue of status is something they don't want to discuss, what concessions is the West willing to give Belgrade over Kosovo in exchange for Belgrade taking status off the table?

Kosovo is not for trade Mike. Serbia lost sovereignity over Kosovo purely because of its policies...

What exactely you mean by "Kosovo internal sovereignity...and overall sovereignity"?

4-

"Significant concessions are going to have to be made by both sides in order for a compromise to manifest."

Mike,

What stopped the interested parties to come to a compromise so far? You know that there will be never a compromise between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to Kosovo independence. We have to agree to disagree on that.

The Austrian talks of a compromise and then lets his mask slip by expressing irritation over the constant questioning of the ‘kosova/ë’ independence project. Belgrade will never ever concede to the creation of a Greater Albania at Serbia’s territorial expense. Perhaps one day, these wretched eurocrats will realise this.
(Sean, 6 September 2010 13:09)


That statement is ironic.

1. alb jew

"Mike, the story shows that terms change only when people kill each-other, while in negotiations in peace periods they change only the terminology.
...
Don't wait nothing more my friend, at least not in the next 50 years."


2. dht:

Alb jew, your analysis (" terms change only when people kill each-other,")

is perfect,

but your outlook ("Don't wait nothing more my friend, at least not in the next 50 years")

is wrong !

-> It won´t last 50 years before the killing is starting again !

Well the serbs in Kosovo feel the same way and want nothing more to do with albanians. if you truly believe in freedom then you should let them leave like you are demanding from Serbia.
(Goran V, 6 September 2010 18:35)

Goran nobody on this side of the isle is stopping you or them. If they wanna leave they can leave. The problem is on the other side of the isle. Them living defiles the ill-thought politics of Belgrade. They've been running the world talking about metaphorical hearts. They have no guts (figuratively speaking) to beg the world for their heart and at the same time agree to chop it. Plus their constitution doesn't allow them to do that.

Believe me you'd have a whole lot more understanding of what you say above if Tadic and Jeremic or whoever after abolishing their constitution come up and say we're going to recognize Kosova if they agree to what Goran is saying. The reason is because that would be more of realistic attitude from them then hallucination they're under now.

2. dht:

I do not believe that countries like Germany or U.K. are really willing to give Serbia a serious chance to join the EU.

So, it shouldn´t matter what the FM of a member state of the EU says.
(dht, 6 September 2010 11:00)
I believe that all the countries of the EU are wanting Serbia in the EU, but as part of a pack not as a single entity.
But 3 things are certain.
1 Serbia will not enter with Kosovo attached.
2 Serbia will not be able to use the EU as a forum to contest Kosovo status.
3 Serbia will not be able to enter and block Kosovo admittance. (In most probability both will be admitted simultaneously)

"Shame to those Pro-European Serbs who are willing to give up its cradle of civilization (Kosovo province) in exchange for money & membership from the EU.
(PRO-SERBIA, 6 September 2010 11:13) "

You really think Kosovo is the Cradle of Serbian civilisation? As you're a Serb, I would like to ask you a few questions. Has everyday life changed for you since Kosovo declared independence? Do you feel any less Serbian because of this? Are the Serbs in Central Serbia, Vojvodina and in Bosnia any less Serbian because of Kosovo's independence? If you do feel less Serbian, what do you feel more of? French? Vietnamese? Nigerian? or Irish? Everyday life has not changed at all for most Serbs, Serbs are still Serbian and they should be proud of this; be proud of who you are. But be Patriotic rather than Nationalist; as Charles de Gaulle said, "Patriotism is where the love of your own people comes first, Nationalism is where the hate of other people comes first".

Ian, what are the Albanians then, nationalistic, or patriotic? I would say they are exploiters - pure and simple.

Shame to those Pro-European Serbs who are willing to give up its cradle of civilization (Kosovo province) in exchange for money & membership from the EU.

Now they want a compromise? You can accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question? Well get use to it. You will soon see that Serbia no longer stands alone and the majority of the world is against YOU and your illegal, immoral and unilateral actions. How ironic that the "democratic" world does not accept the fact that they are a minority now. They are starting to run around now like chickens with no head. Serbia stay steadfast and show no mercy. The WORLD is with you. You are not fighting just for Serbia but for all of us now. Godspeed!

Let me say this: it WILL be questioned again and again as it is illegal. It goes against Serbian constitution.

Why doesn't this person go to China and tell them to be quiet about Taiwan and Tibet!?

By the way: must Georgia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?
(Ron, 6 September 2010 13:41)
I notice you no longer claim it is a violation of international law but of Serbian law.
It is worth noting though that the Serbian constitution was not written until after Kosovo became a UN protectorate and not subject to Serbian laws.

Ian, UK - "But be Patriotic rather than Nationalist" You're a hypocrit. If that's what you really believed then why back Albanians independence claim in Kosovo? As many Albanians have stated here, Kosovo independence (along with Presevo) has been an Albanian aim for DECADES, i.e. when Tito was alive and kicking and in charge. So the argument that it was Serbian oppression which is why they want independence is rubbish, and everyone here knows it. Where was the Albanians patriotism to Yugoslavia when Tito was in charge if they want to leave and join Albania. By my definition that's nationalism and this whole Albanian campaign has been driven by exactly that -nationalism.

Ian, UK,

Your British so how can you understand the Serbian people. Read Serbian history and you will know how the brave people of Serbia defended the province against a much superior and well equipped Ottoman Turks.
It is only the people of Serbia who will determine the future of Kosovo province and not the westerners.

Goran,

We have wanted for 600 years equal rights, not just in Kosovo for all Albanians everywhere (Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro,etc). It just happened that there was no other solution in Kosovo besides the DOI to ensure such fundamental rights.

1. Mr. Spindelegger:

"If Belgrade did manage to get a resolution against the EU stance passed, it would be detrimental to Serbia's road towards Europe, Spindelegger warned in a statement with given to Austrian national news agency APA, adding that Serbia's European path would be jeopardized.

Pro-European forces in Belgrade already know that hardliner tactics will only get you so far, Spindelegger concluded."


2. dht:

I do not believe that countries like Germany or U.K. are really willing to give Serbia a serious chance to join the EU.

So, it shouldn´t matter what the FM of a member state of the EU says.

"We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again, he pointed out."

And why not? Kosovo's independence is highly questionable. Keep in mind that only about 1/3 of the UN countries recognized it.

The Austrian talks of a compromise and then lets his mask slip by expressing irritation over the constant questioning of the ‘kosova/ë’ independence project. Belgrade will never ever concede to the creation of a Greater Albania at Serbia’s territorial expense. Perhaps one day, these wretched eurocrats will realise this.

So you understand Serbia is not recognizing Kosovo?! But it should not be question again and again?

Let me say this: it WILL be questioned again and again as it is illegal. It goes against Serbian constitution.

Why doesn't this person go to China and tell them to be quiet about Taiwan and Tibet!?

By the way: must Georgia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

A few points to make here Mike:


"Pristina's unilateral action didn't seem to upset Austria. It's own prospects for EU membership for sure, but its declared statehood apparently not."

-- This of course is incorrect. You know it to but you have to make a knee-jerk reaction. After all that is what traditionally has characterized the Serb camp;euphoric knee-jerk reactions.

1. The first unilateral action was undertaken by Serbia when in the middle of a negotiating process when it passed its constitution; claiming that the inhabitants of Kosova were its subjects, despite the fact that such subjects were denied the right to vote for such a Constitution, and despite the fact that by this constitution Serbia unilaterally broke the principles it had agreed with and that would govern the negotiating process. Meaning neither side, Serbia include were not to take unilateral steps that aimed to preempt the status before the negotiations were over. Serbia did exactly that. It unilaterally took an action which sought to settle the status by refusing the input of the other side through the adoption of its constitution.

2. Prishtina did not take a unilateral action. That is because if such an action would have been taken without the approval and consultation of EU powers and the US it would have been rejected by them instantly. Such action was taken in a multilateral and coordinated fashion with the US and EU powers.

3. Belgrade as you can see took another unilateral step with this resolution. Yet even though this resolution was taken in a unilateral fashion the text of such a unilateral resolution complains about unilateral moves. That is not only ironic but devious and indecent at the same time.


"It's not just Serbia bringing this issue up, but dozens of countries, 5 of which are in the EU. "

-- Actually that is no true and you know it. None of those 5 countries where consulted about the resolution let alone bring the resolution up. Stop trying to hide under their shadow. This was all Serbia's doing. Serbia brought it up alone and it should own up to it.

"It is the Austrian FM's choice to ignore the 500 pound gorrilla in the room, and it is Austria's choice to overlook the ramifications of "agreeing to disagree" in legitimizing disunity over Kosovo's future, but the facts remain that Belgrade is certainly not alone when contesting the legality of Kosovo's unilateral secession and the nature of its current configuration of statehood and claims to sovereignty."

-- Actually Belgrade is indeed alone as far as when it comes to contesting. The others do not contest they just agree to disagree with the other side. The difference is huge. Contesting means actively pursuing a confrontational role while the modus vivendi attitude means being able to live with a disagreement without being confrontational. As far as contesting and being confrontational Serbia is on its own. The rest have applied a modus-vivendi attitude.



"Pro-European forces in Belgrade have made it more than apparent they are willing to compromise and negotiate on Kosovo's resolution as a participant instead of a supplicant."

-- That means nothing. Nobody is asking Serbia to be a supplicant instead of a participant. Instead they're telling Serbia to undertake a complete attitudinal change as far as the resolution is concerned. That is where the compromise is, not on some lame excuse about participant versus supplicant. Its about the meaning and wording of the resolution rather than who wrote it. You can't sell to anybody the lame excuse that this is about who wrote it. That is not true. The fact that Serbia is not able to compromise on a resolution that has no legal power and no teeth is very telling about the lack of ability of the Serbian state to compromise on anything.

"Serbia's prospects for EU entry is just as much the responsibility of Brussels as it is Belgrade and a continued refusal to compromise and negotiate with Belgrade risks bringing those "hardliners" to power and squandering whatever potential could be gained from a DS-led government."


-- Serbia is in no position to impose its policies onto a union that it has applied to be a member of. One becomes a member by abiding to the union's rules and policies. If you don't like them you do not apply for it. On the other hand shoving your policies onto the union and hoping for their eventual submission does not work. Serbia's prospect for EU entry is only Serbia's responsibility. Nobody forced Serbia to apply for membership. It chose to apply for it. The audacity of you actually stating that the EU continuously refuses to negotiate and compromise is appalling. Remember, it is Serbia that leaves international gatherings because someone from Kosova sits in the same room. That is not only immature but that spells rigidity and refusal to compromise and negotiate. That is solely Serbia's responsibility and fault. You cannot complain about refusal to negotiate when you do not have the guts to even sit on the same room with these people. Lame complaints like what you stated do not fly anymore. Having said that;you seem to have misunderstood what the Austrian FM stated. He actually stated that it is the DS-led government that is taking these unilateral and hardliner moves. It is of no importance if its called DS or radicals if these moves are the same unilateral and hardliner moves. Now that we've settled that, nothing is risked. The Serb voters choose who leads them, not the EU not the US. It is solely the responsibility of the people of Serbia to choose whether or not squandering any potential is good for them or not. Its not the US' and the EU's responsibility. That lies solely with the Serb voters.

"What is the other side willing to bring to the table? More importantly, if the issue of status is something they don't want to discuss, what concessions is the West willing to give Belgrade over Kosovo in exchange for Belgrade taking status off the table? How much of Kosovo's internal sovereignty will have to be compromised in order to save its overall independence? "

-- You still do not get the point. Status is off the table. That is what they are telling you and they are making it clear that they are the ones that have the power to decide that not Serbia. They are politely telling you to stop being a nuisance or you will indeed face repercussions. They are telling you that you have no bargaining chips and do not delude yourselves thinking that you hold anyone else but yourselves hostage; and in case you do not realize that and think you do, they will make that clear by punishing you. It is the EU that has the bargaining chips not Serbia. Not convinced? Just look at how much money they funnel for the survival of the Serb state.

"Significant concessions are going to have to be made by both sides in order for a compromise to manifest."


-- Yea in a utopia that is how it works. You're weak financially, politically, militarily when compared to the EU and the US which in your euphoric delusions you think you can successfully heckle and confront them.

"We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again, he pointed out."

This Austrian fella is a real buffoon! That's precisely Belgrade's intention -- to question Kosovo's right to independence again and again! And to prevent it from gaining UN membership ever.

Mike,


Few points to take away here from your comment

1.
Pristina's unilateral action didn't seem to upset Austria."

There is a process mediated by President Ahtisari the Secretary General of the United Nation. Serbia has said that will never accept Kosovo independence while Kosovo Albanians said will never accept Serbia sovereignity over Kosovo. So far so good. While the status negotiations were taking place Serbia Unilateraly proclain its constitution declairing unilateraly the Kosovo is part of Serbia. A stab in the back of the UN. If Serbia allowed itself unilaterally actions why shouldld't Kosovo Albanians. Bear in mind there was a war between Serbia and Kosovo. You can call whatever you like!



2.

It's not just Serbia bringing this issue up, but dozens of countries, 5 of which are in the EU.

Mike,

Do you think using the disagreement of 5 EU countries most of each are almost bankrupt/corrupt and frigile is a good argument to support Serbia's claim. These EU countries are more concerned about their internal problem rather than something to do international law.

"... Belgrade is certainly not alone when contesting the legality of Kosovo's unilateral secession and the nature of its current configuration of statehood and claims to sovereignty."

Mike,

Are you suggesting that Kosovo is alone in gaining support for its independence? Use the common sense! Do you think that whatever happens in the diplomatic fight there is the slightest chance of a return of Serbia's sovereignity over Kosovo?

3.

"Brussels... continued refusal to compromise and negotiate with Belgrade risks bringing those "hardliners" to power and squandering whatever potential could be gained from a DS-led government."

Mike,

Why did German Foreign Minister and British Foreign Secretary visit Belgrade recently?

"... if the issue of status is something they don't want to discuss, what concessions is the West willing to give Belgrade over Kosovo in exchange for Belgrade taking status off the table?

Kosovo is not for trade Mike. Serbia lost sovereignity over Kosovo purely because of its policies...

What exactely you mean by "Kosovo internal sovereignity...and overall sovereignity"?

4-

"Significant concessions are going to have to be made by both sides in order for a compromise to manifest."

Mike,

What stopped the interested parties to come to a compromise so far? You know that there will be never a compromise between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to Kosovo independence. We have to agree to disagree on that.

Pro-Serbia said: “Your British so how can you understand the Serbian people. Read Serbian history and you will know how the brave people of Serbia defended the province against a much superior and well equipped Ottoman Turks.
It is only the people of Serbia who will determine the future of Kosovo province and not the westerners”.
It is clear that you read the Serbian history through rose-colored glasses. In the battle against the Ottomans the Serbs never were alone in their fight but most of the Balkan population took part in it, incl. the Albanians. Moreover it seems that it is not known by you and others that several Serbian men had in fact leading positions in the Ottoman government up to 12 times as Grand Vizier, the second position directly under the Sultan. The last one was Daltaban Mustafa Pasha (1702-1703).
It is also known that Serbians were on the side of the Ottomans to fight rebellions against the Ottoman rule or Roman-Catholic troops, because as Orthodox they didn't want to live than under the influence of the Pope in Rome: so far about the Christian solidarity in the 15th – 18th Century and the always strongly defended anti-Ottoman struggle by Serbian historians since the 19th Century.
Kosovo was always of a mixed population of Albanians and Serbs. It was their acceptance of the Christian faith in the 10th C. and the zealous building power of churches and monasteries by some of their Princes/Kings that have let arise the Orthodox monuments all over the region and after defeat had to leave behind again.
Maybe it would be of great interest for the Serbian people it-self that their history like that of all the other European nations is not that heroic as they are eager to make true. All existing countries in this part of the world have a lot of black pages and a lot of which they can’t be very proud of and Serbia is not an exemption.

A few points to take away here:

1. "[Spindelegger] said that a unilateral resolution would harm Serbia's EU outlook."

-- Pristina's unilateral action didn't seem to upset Austria. It's own prospects for EU membership for sure, but its declared statehood apparently not.

2. "We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again, he pointed out."

-- It's not just Serbia bringing this issue up, but dozens of countries, 5 of which are in the EU. It is the Austrian FM's choice to ignore the 500 pound gorrilla in the room, and it is Austria's choice to overlook the ramifications of "agreeing to disagree" in legitimizing disunity over Kosovo's future, but the facts remain that Belgrade is certainly not alone when contesting the legality of Kosovo's unilateral secession and the nature of its current configuration of statehood and claims to sovereignty.

3. "Pro-European forces in Belgrade already know that hardliner tactics will only get you so far, Spindelegger concluded."

-- Pro-European forces in Belgrade have made it more than apparent they are willing to compromise and negotiate on Kosovo's resolution as a participant instead of a supplicant. Serbia's prospects for EU entry is just as much the responsibility of Brussels as it is Belgrade and a continued refusal to compromise and negotiate with Belgrade risks bringing those "hardliners" to power and squandering whatever potential could be gained from a DS-led government.

What is the other side willing to bring to the table? More importantly, if the issue of status is something they don't want to discuss, what concessions is the West willing to give Belgrade over Kosovo in exchange for Belgrade taking status off the table? How much of Kosovo's internal sovereignty will have to be compromised in order to save its overall independence?

Significant concessions are going to have to be made by both sides in order for a compromise to manifest.

johny, preemptive apologies for the long response to your long reply:

“Prishtina did not take a unilateral action. That is because if such an action would have been taken without the approval and consultation of EU powers and the US it would have been rejected by them instantly. Such action was taken in a multilateral and coordinated fashion with the US and EU powers.”

Ok, so If as you say Kosovo’s “unilateralism” was actually a coordinated policy with the US and other key EU countries, then it pretty much negated any reason to hold talks with Belgrade prior to 2008, right? I mean one could argue then that Kosovo was completely in the hands of Washington, which was the one that unilaterally decided before possible compromise was met that independence was the solution. Ok, so instead of acting rogue, you voluntarily decided to cast your fate with the US. You get something that you can interpret as independence, and Washington gains an ally. So the blame shifts from Pristina to Washington. It still doesn’t sit well with me because in the clear absence of any agreed solution with Belgrade and Moscow. That to me is a unilateral action. But no matter. In the event of unilateral free-for-alls, it seems both sides laid claim to a territory neither side can completely claim its own. Belgrade makes claim that Kosovo is still part of its territory and Pristina claims Kosovo is free, sovereign, and independent. Both are flights of fantasy if you want my honest opinion. And both are signs, at least to me, that unilateral actions seem to be done to reinforce the entrenched positions of both sides.

”Belgrade as you can see took another unilateral step with this resolution. Yet even though this resolution was taken in a unilateral fashion the text of such a unilateral resolution complains about unilateral moves. That is not only ironic but devious and indecent at the same time.”

-- As a UN member state, Belgrade has the right to draft whatever resolution it wants, no matter how intelligent or ridiculous. The same as Washington and Tirana. That the later two decided to withdraw their own resolutions is their own choosing. How this constitutes a unilateral action something maybe you can explain further. Washington is not complaining of the unilateralism of the resolution as I think they are of the potential of causing a rift in the UN and further embedding the doubt over Kosovo’s alleged sovereignty due to its wording. Who cares how the resolution was written, if it’s doomed to fail in the UN with a US veto if need be, the nature of the resolution is irrelevant. What matters more I think is how many countries either will vote for it or, in the case of Washington, need “coaxing” not to vote for it.

”None of those 5 countries where consulted about the resolution let alone bring the resolution up. Stop trying to hide under their shadow. This was all Serbia's doing. Serbia brought it up alone and it should own up to it.”

Fair enough, but it’s incredibly erroneous of you trying to argue that Serbia is alone in this. You know that’s not true. All 5 of those countries have repeatedly said they will not recognize Kosovo’s independence without the consent of Belgrade. You act as if they were left in the dark when you know as well as I they have repeatedly said they support Serbia’s territorial integrity and do not support unilateral acts of secession – even after the ICJ decision, which I doubt Serbia had any hand in pressuring them to keep their stances. They have also said that they support a solution which is mutual to both Belgrade and Pristina. It seems this isn’t important to you, but that’s the reality that must be undertaken if the entire EU is to support Kosovo. As for “hiding under their shadow”, that’s rich coming form someone supporting a government that has repeatedly shown its reliance on other powers to do its own work. Again, no matter. If you can put together a posse to look like you’ve got supporters and friends, so be it. Pristina has theirs, Belgrade has theirs. This isn’t a surprise to anyone.

”Actually Belgrade is indeed alone as far as when it comes to contesting. The others do not contest they just agree to disagree with the other side.”

-- If Serbia were alone in this, I seriously doubt they would continue doing what they’re doing. They know they have support – at least in getting everyone to find a more optimal solution – and that’s why they’re putting this resolution forward. If the odds were seriously stacked against them, if a “wave” of recognitions from key countries came after ICJ, it would have been game over for Belgrade. But there are countries that have kept the Kosovo issue in doubt. That’s contesting. Sorry to break it to you. You can narrow it down to live and let live versus actual obstruction (in many respects Belgrade’s decision to pursue non-violent actions in regards to Kosovo is also a live-and-let-live approach), but considering Kosovo’s goal of being a full sovereign state means at least getting recognition from these five states in Europe (and repeated calls of them being “bankrupt” “corrupt”, etc. doesn’t do anything for the Albanian side except show frustration and immaturity in arguing one’s side), I’d say their refusal to recognize is the most passively aggressive form of contestation – far worse than what Serbia could do on its own. Additionally, America’s seeming willingness to “agree to disagree” with Serbia has all but legitimized their efforts in pursuing a foreign policy that may or may not work, but has certainly removed any real penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, this contests their own foreign policy of trying to get as many states to recognize Kosovo as possible. By letting Serbia do its own thing with this modus vivendi, other countries can also “agree to disagree”, which in the end doesn’t destroy Kosovo’s partial sovereignty, but doesn’t improve it either. Therefore, the only way forward is to find a middle ground. Otherwise, Kosovo will remain a parastate.

”Nobody is asking Serbia to be a supplicant instead of a participant. Instead they're telling Serbia to undertake a complete attitudinal change as far as the resolution is concerned.”

-- If by “attitudinal change” you mean “take status off the table”, I can certainly be amenable to that. Seriously, I can. Trying to argue that Kosovo is all Serbian is a losing battle and one that will ultimately fail. I’m being perfectly honest here. But what are the chances that, given Belgrade’s acceptance that status is no longer an open issue, additional concessions will have to be made by Pristina – for the sake of stability and peace – that alter Kosovo’s internal structure just to get Serbia off its back and shut them up? Territorial adjustment? Internal cantonization? More than autonomy/less than independence for at least northern Kosovo? Would you give them the north just to shut them up? All are certainly practical solutions that Pristina carelessly dismisses. What will the West do in order to remove the Serbian obstacle and proclaim Kosovo’s independence for all to recognize and support? I can tell you that it’s not the “shut up and accept the Ahtisaari Proposal” solution.

”Serbia is in no position to impose its policies onto a union that it has applied to be a member of.”

-- Guess what, they’re doing it, and they’re taking advantage of the lack of unity in the EU over Kosovo to extract some form of compromise. On every other issue except Kosovo, they are “abiding to the union’s rules and policies” as you state. And might I add, if Serbia were alone in this fight in the EU, this would have been over a long time ago. But there’s two problems that you repeatedly overlook. First is the lack of agreement among its members that is needed to present a united front against Belgrade. Sure you can interpret that as being a “nuisance” from an Albanian point of view – and considering Kosovo’s near-complete acquiescence on all things related to the EU, not to mention the stalled road to full recognition, your irritation is understandable – but because there is enough doubt to consider a resumption of talks, be they status or technical, Belgrade’s opinion is still taken into account, no matter how irrelevant you think it is, or should be. I’m surprised even myself that the heavy hand of Brussels hasn’t come down harder on Belgrade. But that it’s not means they’re either deliberately pulling their punches, or they’re incapable of dealing the coup de grace many here think should come. The second point you overlook is that the EU can’t afford to push Serbia away. They want Serbia in the EU, otherwise the entire idea of European unity falls apart. Sure, Belgrade can flip its finger at Brussels and turn away, but they can’t be diplomatically isolated anymore. The politics of containment under Milosevic are over. The “do as we say or else” ultimatums will not materialize. The EU has put far too much stock in integrating the rest of Balkans, so therefore I think any threats to Serbia for EU membership can only be in delaying, not denying. This may probably fall in somewhere wherever “compromise” lies, but the EU can’t make the demands for Serbia to follow as you think.

“The audacity of you actually stating that the EU continuously refuses to negotiate and compromise is appalling.”

-- Then you’re not paying attention, or you’re looking at only what you want to see. I don’t know how more apparent it can be when a few EU countries are making demands on behalf of the entire organization that 5 members don’t agree with. As annoying as it might be, that’s enough to raise thought of compromise. Additionally, we never really hear what other EU states have to say over Kosovo. What does the Czech Republic say? Or Ireland? Or Bulgaria? Or Poland? Yes, they’ve recognized, but would they really oppose proposals made by Belgrade in exchange for abandoning status? All we hear of late is Germany and England, and I have to say their policies are quite uncooperative, unrealistic, and unsustainable. What is the EU willing to offer Serbia if it gives up its claim to Kosovo? Or at least the 85-87% Albanian part? How many EU members would be willing to compromise? What particular concessions within Kosovo is it willing to negotiate – or at the very least pressure Pristina to acquiesce? If all they can say is “fall into line”, Belgrade doesn’t need to as long as the EU itself doesn’t uniformly fall into line.

“It is solely the responsibility of the people of Serbia to choose whether or not squandering any potential is good for them or not. Its not the US' and the EU's responsibility. That lies solely with the Serb voters.”

-- And the majority of Serbian voters have been in favor of EU membership. But the goal of bringing Serbia into the EU is just as much the EU’s responsibility as it is Serbia’s. If the institution doesn’t provide acceptible prerequisites, they won’t join. And if they don’t join, it will be incredibly hard for Kosovo to do so. The refusal of the US and key EU members to even contemplate alternatives beyond the unacceptable provisions they unilaterally provided in 2008, the insistence that Kosovo has a “European future” without the slightest explanation of how that can be accomplished under current circumstances and the statements that Kosovo is a multiethnic democracy for all is more than insulting considering Kosovo’s leadership has not the slightest idea how to run a multiethnic community, most noted by its outright refusal to even contemplate flexibility on how to integrate the K-Serbs within a looser form of Kosovar sovereignty beyond what was already written by someone else in the Ahtisaari Plan.

”Status is off the table.”

-- As I said, I can live with that. I think most Serbs can too. Not to sound crude, but Washington efforts to siphon off Kosovo comes with the added bonus of getting rid of nearly 2 million unruly Albanians for Belgrade to deal with, and for which they have never provided a plan for reintegration. If Belgrade is smart, they can get more out of a compromise in which they abandon status than if they were to insist on it. But please do not be surprised if in order to get status off the table and Belgrade to the table, a number of additional concessions have to be made by Pristina. Germany’s not that much of your friend that they wouldn’t contemplate a Dayton-like model if it meant achieving consensus in Brussels and keeping independence. Remember Bosnia? Internally disjointed, but also stable and peaceful.

“They are telling you that you have no bargaining chips and do not delude yourselves thinking that you hold anyone else but yourselves hostage; and in case you do not realize that and think you do, they will make that clear by punishing you. It is the EU that has the bargaining chips not Serbia.”

-- Then an ultimatum would have been presented long ago. You once again place too much emphasis on the capabilities of the EU and not enough emphasis on the diplomatic gains already made by Belgrade. The language of late coming from all sides is one of "compromise". A year ago it was "Kosovo is a done deal". If I were Thaci, I’d be wary on what compromise ultimately ends up being, even if he still gets to wave a unique flag.

“You're weak financially, politically, militarily when compared to the EU and the US which in your euphoric delusions you think you can successfully heckle and confront them.”

-- I’m sorry if you think that Belgrade’s attempt at finding an optimal solution is “heckling” and being a “nuisance”. I’m equally sorry you and others fail to see the stalemate Belgrade is (un)fortunately putting Kosovo in and which can only be removed unless some concessions are given. I think Belgrade’s being strategic. You think they’re being an obstacle. Whatever history ends up writing them as being, it seems to be paying off in some form since the US is making considerable effort in making sure Serbia’s resolution doesn’t pass, and key EU members are looking for a middle ground in order for everyone to agree on and move forward. If the US and EU were as powerful, or as interested, as you euphorically think, Serbia would have been quashed years ago over this. Belgrade has certainly held its own, and while it will not ultimately hold on to Kosovo, it can, in the name of compromise, alter Kosovo’s current configuration to retain authority over a small part of it. It will certainly be interesting to see what ultimately is negotiated when a final compromise is settled.

And if at the end of the day it is nothing more than big stick policies to shut Serbia up, you can call me out for what you've regarded of late as my "BS" :)

Well the serbs in Kosovo feel the same way and want nothing more to do with albanians. if you truly believe in freedom then you should let them leave like you are demanding from Serbia.
(Goran V, 6 September 2010 18:35)

Goran nobody on this side of the isle is stopping you or them. If they wanna leave they can leave. The problem is on the other side of the isle. Them living defiles the ill-thought politics of Belgrade. They've been running the world talking about metaphorical hearts. They have no guts (figuratively speaking) to beg the world for their heart and at the same time agree to chop it. Plus their constitution doesn't allow them to do that.

Believe me you'd have a whole lot more understanding of what you say above if Tadic and Jeremic or whoever after abolishing their constitution come up and say we're going to recognize Kosova if they agree to what Goran is saying. The reason is because that would be more of realistic attitude from them then hallucination they're under now.

The Austrian talks of a compromise and then lets his mask slip by expressing irritation over the constant questioning of the ‘kosova/ë’ independence project. Belgrade will never ever concede to the creation of a Greater Albania at Serbia’s territorial expense. Perhaps one day, these wretched eurocrats will realise this.
(Sean, 6 September 2010 13:09)


That statement is ironic.

It will certainly be interesting to see what ultimately is negotiated when a final compromise is settled.
(Mike)

Mike, the story shows that terms change only when people kill each-other, while in negotiations in peace periods they change only the terminology. So, terms are already decided in 1999, now remains to be changed the terminology of the Ahtisari Plan, things like extra-territoriality of Churches and Monasteries, a kind of authonomy for Serbian entities to decide which road will be paved first within the commune etc. Don't wait nothing more my friend, at least not in the next 50 years. Kosovo file is closed for EU and USA, they are dealing on the files named "Serbia" and the serbian government has two ways to choose, either with the EU or without, everything else is just propaganda.

RKS - Your argument as to why you want independence doesn't hold water. I can understand wanting more freedoms under Turkish rule, so did all subjected nations under the Ottoman empire, but if that were really the case then why were you causing so much trouble when Tito was in charge for 40 years? What's the excuse for your actions then? Freedom? Give us a break, it was nothing more than naked nationalism. Under Tito you had the same rights as any other ethnic group in Yugoslavia and could travel freely throughout most of the world with a Yugoslav passport. You had Albanian language schools and Universities. You had everything apart from self rule, but the hypocracy of some albanians in Kosovo is that they demand allegiance to the Kosovo albanian flag and rules for Serbs in kosovo - either that or leave. That's "freedom and justice" in albanian eyes, but when the boot is on the other foot, you scream loudly that you are being oppressed.

"It just happened that there was no other solution in Kosovo besides the DOI to ensure such fundamental rights." Well the serbs in Kosovo feel the same way and want nothing more to do with albanians. if you truly believe in freedom then you should let them leave like you are demanding from Serbia.

To hell with EU membership when again and again the Serbian populace are told give up all that is sacred to them and so central that it all Serbs know it is the heart of Serbdom - Kosovo & Metohija.

Serbs will never give up on Kosovo and these EUcrats show pure ignorance of Serbia & what is important to it - who needs to join such and EU when it means total loss of sovereignity and national identity?

Austrian minister should know only too well that Serbs faced such choices before and always stood to their PRINCIPA

"Perishable is earthly kingdom, but forever and ever is the Kingdom of Heaven!"
"Земаљско је за малена царство, а Небеско увијек и довијека!"

- to hell with EU hegemony that one is asked to betray all of what is so dear!

'"We understand that Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo tomorrow, but we cannot accept Kosovo's independence being brought into question yet again," he pointed out.'

What planet is this Austrian FM on?

Kosovo's so-called 'independence' has remained in question ever since its unilateral declaration which has NOT been recognised by the vast majority of UNITED NATIONS' Members.

This Austrian FM is coming from an EU school of arrogance which knows no bounds.

MB,Ireland

1. alb jew

"Mike, the story shows that terms change only when people kill each-other, while in negotiations in peace periods they change only the terminology.
...
Don't wait nothing more my friend, at least not in the next 50 years."


2. dht:

Alb jew, your analysis (" terms change only when people kill each-other,")

is perfect,

but your outlook ("Don't wait nothing more my friend, at least not in the next 50 years")

is wrong !

-> It won´t last 50 years before the killing is starting again !