Belgrade team head: Serbia will protect its interests

Serbia as such, has no interests in the EU.

Economical Centralisation only benefits the Center,
while the outskirts are sucked out of its Juice.

Arn.Sweden.

Tell the people of Serbia what they already know. Kosovo was lost in 1974 with the adoptation of new Yugoslav Constitution, which the EU and the US used to dismantle the country. Energy needed to keep the rest of Serbia together is being wasted on efforts to keep Kosovo. Yes, talks are needed, but they should be discussed on a state to state level. Protection of whats left of the Serbian population there as well as the Cultural and Religious Heretige is something that can achieve. That is something that we can demand from the EU, the US and the Albanians in exchange for recognition of Kosovo. The same can be demanded of all successor countries of Yugoslavia where our people live, although less overt diplomatic actions should be used.

the West will manipulate any treaty for its own purposes as it sees fit; simply look at their "spin" on UNSC Resolution 1244.
(Michael, 27 June 2011 02:07)
"spin" is an interesting word, considering that Serbia takes one sentence out of the document and uses it as the text while disregarding the entire rest of the document. Serbia takes "committed to the territorial integrity of the FRY" to say Kosovo will forever be a province of Serbia.
Ignoring:
"Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);"
Which clearly states that Kosovo's status was not predetermined therefore meant remaining as a province is one of many scenarios and not a guaranteed outcome.
Any mention of Kosovo being an autonomous province of FRY is paired with the word "interim" meaning temporary.
Actually the Accords envisioned a 3 Republic Federation Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. (the split of Montenegro really crushed that idea). So it was never meant for the final status to actually be a province of Serbia but as an equal partner in a federation. Actually more than equal while Serbia would have no political influence over Kosovo, Kosovo would have influence over Serbia.
"Three years after entry into force of the Accords, an international meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo"

Is that something you could accept, Kosovo and Serbia as equals in a new Yugoslavia sharing a new flag, probably rotating representatives to the UN, having to have every international decision Serbia wants to make agreed on by Kosovo?

By the way "Committed to the territorial integrity of" is a pretty standard part of many UN resolutions irregardless of border disputes and was not adopted specifically for this resolution for special meaning.

The west did not put a "spin" on 1244. It is Serbia that took one phrase, changed its wording, manipulated its meaning, and then accepted that as the entire text of 1244.

With all due respect Beli, you are absolutely wrong and your position would ruin our position in this struggle. First of all, the 1974 Constitution is illegitimate as it was a creature of a dictatoral communist regime, and not a democratic process; Tito's dictates belong in the garbage can. Secondly, as Vuk Jeremic has stated correctly, if you give up on Kosovo, you encourage separatists elsewhere in the country: Serbia under your strategy would end up being Belgrade and Kragujevac with a highway in between. Thirdly, the idea that the West would "keep its word" in the future regarding assurances or treaties if we give up Kosovo is absurd if you study history; the West will manipulate any treaty for its own purposes as it sees fit; simply look at their "spin" on UNSC Resolution 1244.

Tell the people of Serbia what they already know. Kosovo was lost in 1974 with the adoptation of new Yugoslav Constitution, which the EU and the US used to dismantle the country. Energy needed to keep the rest of Serbia together is being wasted on efforts to keep Kosovo. Yes, talks are needed, but they should be discussed on a state to state level. Protection of whats left of the Serbian population there as well as the Cultural and Religious Heretige is something that can achieve. That is something that we can demand from the EU, the US and the Albanians in exchange for recognition of Kosovo. The same can be demanded of all successor countries of Yugoslavia where our people live, although less overt diplomatic actions should be used.

With all due respect Beli, you are absolutely wrong and your position would ruin our position in this struggle. First of all, the 1974 Constitution is illegitimate as it was a creature of a dictatoral communist regime, and not a democratic process; Tito's dictates belong in the garbage can. Secondly, as Vuk Jeremic has stated correctly, if you give up on Kosovo, you encourage separatists elsewhere in the country: Serbia under your strategy would end up being Belgrade and Kragujevac with a highway in between. Thirdly, the idea that the West would "keep its word" in the future regarding assurances or treaties if we give up Kosovo is absurd if you study history; the West will manipulate any treaty for its own purposes as it sees fit; simply look at their "spin" on UNSC Resolution 1244.

Serbia as such, has no interests in the EU.

Economical Centralisation only benefits the Center,
while the outskirts are sucked out of its Juice.

Arn.Sweden.

the West will manipulate any treaty for its own purposes as it sees fit; simply look at their "spin" on UNSC Resolution 1244.
(Michael, 27 June 2011 02:07)
"spin" is an interesting word, considering that Serbia takes one sentence out of the document and uses it as the text while disregarding the entire rest of the document. Serbia takes "committed to the territorial integrity of the FRY" to say Kosovo will forever be a province of Serbia.
Ignoring:
"Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);"
Which clearly states that Kosovo's status was not predetermined therefore meant remaining as a province is one of many scenarios and not a guaranteed outcome.
Any mention of Kosovo being an autonomous province of FRY is paired with the word "interim" meaning temporary.
Actually the Accords envisioned a 3 Republic Federation Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. (the split of Montenegro really crushed that idea). So it was never meant for the final status to actually be a province of Serbia but as an equal partner in a federation. Actually more than equal while Serbia would have no political influence over Kosovo, Kosovo would have influence over Serbia.
"Three years after entry into force of the Accords, an international meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo"

Is that something you could accept, Kosovo and Serbia as equals in a new Yugoslavia sharing a new flag, probably rotating representatives to the UN, having to have every international decision Serbia wants to make agreed on by Kosovo?

By the way "Committed to the territorial integrity of" is a pretty standard part of many UN resolutions irregardless of border disputes and was not adopted specifically for this resolution for special meaning.

The west did not put a "spin" on 1244. It is Serbia that took one phrase, changed its wording, manipulated its meaning, and then accepted that as the entire text of 1244.