Serbia facing "three dilemmas," says president

"Serbia as a founder of the UN" - Nikolic

Serbia was not a founding member of the United Nations, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a founding member of the United Nations. Serbia is not the successor state to SFR Yugoslavia. This is why Serbia and Montenegro (under the name 'Federal Republic of Yugoslavia') was not a member of the United Nations from 1992 to 2000. Had FRY been the successor to SFRY, it would have carried on SFRY's seat at the UN, but it didn't; it had to reapply instead.

Why doesn't Nikolic know this?

"We are not required to recognize the independence of Kosovo, but the diplomats are saying that it will be a necessary condition."
--
LOL! How can you not be required to recognise but at the same time have it as a necessary condition? Nikolic, you know exactly what you have agreed to and you will recognise it in about a year. The biggest traitor of all, just so he can crown his career.

because Serbia as a founder of the UN and unilaterally declared independent Kosovo cannot be in the same position," Nikolić noted.

Do your home work before you make bizarre statements, Mr. Undertaker.

The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

The only dillemma Serbia has to be honest is joining the EU before recognising Kosovo (or allowing them a UN seat). Another would be not joining NATO some day.
PS: I am not Albanian.

Why doesn't Nikolic know this?
(Ian, UK, 24 December 2013 16:43)

Simple answer to your question Ian.
Nikolic is a dumb undertaker.

"Serbia as a founder of the UN" - Nikolic


And you wonder why people laugh at Greater Serbian politicians and nationalists.

Whats even more tragic, is that there are people on this very forum who believe the above comment of Nikolic to be true!

How can anyone hope to live in a better reality when they exist in a total fantasy?

It seems that there are only Albanians showing here in these comments, when is necessary to say a few bad words against President Nikolic and Serbia.....

Only "three dilemmas"? Who would have thought?!

Nikolic's statement that "Serbia" was a founder of the "UN" is correct in practice....

(Commentator, 25 December 2013 01:56)

Actually that's totally incorrect. According to your logic then, if Serbs founded the United Nations(in practice) , then the UN was also founded by:

Abkhaz, Adyghes, Aleuts, Assyrians, Avars, Bashkirs, Buryats, Chechens, Chuvash, Cossacks, Evenks, Gagauz, , Ingushes, Inuit, Kalmyks, Karakalpaks, Karelians, Kets, Lezgins, Maris, Mongols, Mordvins, Nenetses, Ossetians, Roma, Tats, Tatars, Tuvans, Udmurts, and Yakuts.


........yea im thinking not so much.

For the record "Serbia" is not mentioned at all in any official record (in practice or otherwise).

So no, Serbia was not a founder of the United Nations - in practice.

Hope that clears thing up.

Commentator,
"I thought according to you guys, "Yugoslavia", especially the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, was just "Greater Serbia" anyway - right? Why now the fuss about Nikolic linking modern day Serbia to it? This is exactly what most of you are moaning about all the time, that "Yugoslavia" = "Greater Serbia".
There is the problem, the reason Yugoslavia broke up, Serbs began to think of it as Greater Serbia and Serbs as the ruler. No one else thought of it as such but were against the Serbian ambition to create a Greater Serbia.

Truthiness, Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's UN seat. Russia inherited the Soviet Unions seat.
(marKo, 26 December 2013 22:42)

Sure, but the Soviet Union (whose seat Russia inherited) became a UN member in 1945, whereas the FRY (whose seat Serbia inherited) became a UN member in 2000. So, since the FRY is not a founding UN member, Serbia's isn't, either.

Note for those who are not aware: the UN was founded in 1945, not 2000.

How can anyone take this idiot seriously. Nikolic should be an embarrassment for the Serb people.

Only three dilemmas???? Has Nikolich only three fingers???? Or can't he count beyond three. As a Serb I'm ashamed by his comments. Sort out his home problems first before blowing his trumpet...blah, blah, blah...

Perhaps Serbs ought to take the analogy of "Fiddler on the roof"? Panslavism links you to Russia but economic forces and necessity to the EU. Wrapping yourselves in a flag will not suffice.

Yes truthiness, this is why I said "in practice" and double quoted "Serbia", I'm not quoting from a literal document, what I'm doing that you can't appreciate is called "reading between the lines"... sometimes not everything is spelt out, some things can be derived from the context.
(Commentator, 25 December 2013 13:16)

Ok, and I read between the lines differently from what you read :) and 6+ billion people in the world might each have their own reading between the lines.

But there is only one reading of the actual lines... the FRY (aka, Serbia and Montenegro from 2003 and Serbia from 2006) was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000, so obviously can't be a founding member of the UN, since the UN was founded in 1945 and, I think, it is beyond dispute that 1945 is not equal to 2000 (unless math works differently in Serbia like many other things). So, end of the story - there is no debate about the fact that Serbia is not a UN founding member (beside Tomislav being ignorant of the facts).

But of course we can continue the debate regarding "reading between the lines", "in practice", etc, etc... Serbs, certainly have a real talent of reading (wrong) between the lines... like the legendary illegality of Kosovo's UDI under int'l law that Serbs read between the lines of UNSCR 1244 :)

@ xenon yeah right... I'm not Serbian.. so why then come on this site.

Commentator, 25 December 2013 16:15
I would not be reveling in anything as yet if I were you, as you are dead wrong on many fronts.
First I am not Albanian, I am as American as one can get. Like most in the US I have a mixture of heritages which is why so many of us do not understand this ethnic bs you all throw around.
2nd the UN did not form until 1945, there was similar attempts at an alliance prior but not the UN as it is known today. Yugoslavia was one of the original members, hardly a founder, and Serbia did not succeed the original Yugoslav seat but the FRY seat also known as Serbia and Montenegro.
When any speaks of Greater Serbia it has always been as a goal of the ultranationalist Serbs, not an actual existence. It is this goal that caused the break up of Yugoslavia as the world knows it. No one but Serbs wanted any part of a Greater Serbia, that is why it never saw reality.

Couple of things Albanian friends, in 1942 the Atlantic charter was signed by the Royal Yugoslav government in exile, not the "SFRY". You are right about one thing, the main purpose was to unify in the fight against Hitler... Given Croats and Albanians were close and enthusiastic collaborators of the Nazis, Nikolic's statement that "Serbia" was a founder of the "UN" is correct in practice.... or are you guys now saying the Karadjordjevic dynasty in London was your representative during Ww2?
Also, the "SFRY" did not exist till 1963... It's a technical point, but you are the ones claiming to know it all as opposed to the "dumb president".

Yes truthiness, this is why I said "in practice" and double quoted "Serbia", I'm not quoting from a literal document, what I'm doing that you can't appreciate is called "reading between the lines"... sometimes not everything is spelt out, some things can be derived from the context.
And the reality of WW2 is Serbs aligned themselves with the Allies, at huge cost to themselves. They could have gone the easy road and stayed neutral, but that's not in their nature, they chose to fight. Croats and Albanians took the easy road at the time and lined up with the Nazis, and with enthusiasm if anything.
Under these circumstances, "Serbia" absolutely can claim to be the moral successor to those persons that signed the Atlantic Charter on behalf of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, a document signed by nations struggling against Nazism at the time.
I thought according to you guys, "Yugoslavia", especially the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, was just "Greater Serbia" anyway - right? Why now the fuss about Nikolic linking modern day Serbia to it? This is exactly what most of you are moaning about all the time, that "Yugoslavia" = "Greater Serbia". Reading between the lines, you yourselves are saying that "Greater Serbia" was a founder of the UN.
You need to get your story straight guys. I know your WW2 history is embarrassing, but that is your problem, not Nikolic's.

The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.
(Kosova-USA, 24 December 2013 13:44)

Ahh love these Wikipedia Albanian academics that make a statement like “The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt”. He used the term in a speech, but he did not “coin” the name UN. Had you a more broader education in history you would have found out that the term UN goes back to the 19 century.

I will address my comments in regard to join EU and relations with Russia and Kosovo.From my perspective,we should join EU if our territorial integrity is guarantee and our relations with Russia is not compromised.
Kosovo status should be as is today,independent without sovereignty.That status should remain until Serbia decides, without outside pressure, that Kosovo Albanians reached level of maturity needed to live and govern in free society.Europe is enjoying longest period without major war and that credit should go to EU leadership.However,what is next for EU is more of post colonial wars in which Serbia should never participate.Serbia's political parties should continuously monitor World political development and EU positions.Just remember,without clear understandings of European historical facts no sound decisions to benefit Serbia could be made.

Truthiness, Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's UN seat. Russia inherited the Soviet Unions seat. The other nations/ethnic groups that you mention did not inherit anything. I am not offering an oppinion, this is a fact.

Truthiness, Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's UN seat. Russia inherited the Soviet Unions seat. The other nations/ethnic groups that you mention did not inherit anything. I am not offering an oppinion, this is a fact.
(marKo, 26 December 2013 22:42)

It may be a idea to understand the point before you counter - the point was that Nikolic claimed Serbia was a founder the UN - this is empirically and historically a lie - now this is a fact.

Whether Serbia is a successor to Yugolsavia is totally irrelevant.

Paying attention has it merits my boy - it protects one from opening their mouth and sounding the fool.

Kosovo status should be as is today,independent without sovereignty.
(lukebuyenovich, 25 December 2013 18:12)

"independent without sovereignty".... that is a laughable expression, but if you can provide the definition, we can probably make some sense out of it :)
----------

That status should remain until Serbia decides, without outside pressure, that Kosovo Albanians reached level of maturity needed to live and govern in free society.
(lukebuyenovich, 25 December 2013 18:12)

Serbia has already decided, dear. It's written in Serbia's Constitution. Obviously though that is immaterial and has the same impact on Kosovo as, say, any decision of Zimbabwe on the matter :)

So "think again", on Sep 24 1941 (adoption of Atlantic Charter), was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia government in exile (ie Karadjordjevic dynasty) = "Greater Serbia" or not?

If yes, then you consider "Greater Serbia" to be a founder of the UN.

If no, it's nice to see an Albanian admit that Yugoslavia (and the Royal version at that) was NOT "Greater Serbia".

And around the arguments go...... absolute key point however, the UN was formed as an anti-Nazi front, Albanians at that time were allied to the Nazis, Serbs were allied with the Allies. I wouldn't go around talking about this topic much, it always comes back to this simple, embarrassing (for you) point.

Attention to icj1 I have no intention to get to your level of arguments.If you need definition,find it in the credible dictionary.

It seems that there are only Albanians showing here in these comments, when is necessary to say a few bad words against President Nikolic and Serbia.....

"Serbia as a founder of the UN" - Nikolic

Serbia was not a founding member of the United Nations, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a founding member of the United Nations. Serbia is not the successor state to SFR Yugoslavia. This is why Serbia and Montenegro (under the name 'Federal Republic of Yugoslavia') was not a member of the United Nations from 1992 to 2000. Had FRY been the successor to SFRY, it would have carried on SFRY's seat at the UN, but it didn't; it had to reapply instead.

Why doesn't Nikolic know this?

@ xenon yeah right... I'm not Serbian.. so why then come on this site.

Couple of things Albanian friends, in 1942 the Atlantic charter was signed by the Royal Yugoslav government in exile, not the "SFRY". You are right about one thing, the main purpose was to unify in the fight against Hitler... Given Croats and Albanians were close and enthusiastic collaborators of the Nazis, Nikolic's statement that "Serbia" was a founder of the "UN" is correct in practice.... or are you guys now saying the Karadjordjevic dynasty in London was your representative during Ww2?
Also, the "SFRY" did not exist till 1963... It's a technical point, but you are the ones claiming to know it all as opposed to the "dumb president".

because Serbia as a founder of the UN and unilaterally declared independent Kosovo cannot be in the same position," Nikolić noted.

Do your home work before you make bizarre statements, Mr. Undertaker.

The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.
(Kosova-USA, 24 December 2013 13:44)

Ahh love these Wikipedia Albanian academics that make a statement like “The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt”. He used the term in a speech, but he did not “coin” the name UN. Had you a more broader education in history you would have found out that the term UN goes back to the 19 century.

"We are not required to recognize the independence of Kosovo, but the diplomats are saying that it will be a necessary condition."
--
LOL! How can you not be required to recognise but at the same time have it as a necessary condition? Nikolic, you know exactly what you have agreed to and you will recognise it in about a year. The biggest traitor of all, just so he can crown his career.

"Serbia as a founder of the UN" - Nikolic


And you wonder why people laugh at Greater Serbian politicians and nationalists.

Whats even more tragic, is that there are people on this very forum who believe the above comment of Nikolic to be true!

How can anyone hope to live in a better reality when they exist in a total fantasy?

So "think again", on Sep 24 1941 (adoption of Atlantic Charter), was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia government in exile (ie Karadjordjevic dynasty) = "Greater Serbia" or not?

If yes, then you consider "Greater Serbia" to be a founder of the UN.

If no, it's nice to see an Albanian admit that Yugoslavia (and the Royal version at that) was NOT "Greater Serbia".

And around the arguments go...... absolute key point however, the UN was formed as an anti-Nazi front, Albanians at that time were allied to the Nazis, Serbs were allied with the Allies. I wouldn't go around talking about this topic much, it always comes back to this simple, embarrassing (for you) point.

The only dillemma Serbia has to be honest is joining the EU before recognising Kosovo (or allowing them a UN seat). Another would be not joining NATO some day.
PS: I am not Albanian.

Why doesn't Nikolic know this?
(Ian, UK, 24 December 2013 16:43)

Simple answer to your question Ian.
Nikolic is a dumb undertaker.

Only "three dilemmas"? Who would have thought?!

Yes truthiness, this is why I said "in practice" and double quoted "Serbia", I'm not quoting from a literal document, what I'm doing that you can't appreciate is called "reading between the lines"... sometimes not everything is spelt out, some things can be derived from the context.
And the reality of WW2 is Serbs aligned themselves with the Allies, at huge cost to themselves. They could have gone the easy road and stayed neutral, but that's not in their nature, they chose to fight. Croats and Albanians took the easy road at the time and lined up with the Nazis, and with enthusiasm if anything.
Under these circumstances, "Serbia" absolutely can claim to be the moral successor to those persons that signed the Atlantic Charter on behalf of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, a document signed by nations struggling against Nazism at the time.
I thought according to you guys, "Yugoslavia", especially the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, was just "Greater Serbia" anyway - right? Why now the fuss about Nikolic linking modern day Serbia to it? This is exactly what most of you are moaning about all the time, that "Yugoslavia" = "Greater Serbia". Reading between the lines, you yourselves are saying that "Greater Serbia" was a founder of the UN.
You need to get your story straight guys. I know your WW2 history is embarrassing, but that is your problem, not Nikolic's.

I will address my comments in regard to join EU and relations with Russia and Kosovo.From my perspective,we should join EU if our territorial integrity is guarantee and our relations with Russia is not compromised.
Kosovo status should be as is today,independent without sovereignty.That status should remain until Serbia decides, without outside pressure, that Kosovo Albanians reached level of maturity needed to live and govern in free society.Europe is enjoying longest period without major war and that credit should go to EU leadership.However,what is next for EU is more of post colonial wars in which Serbia should never participate.Serbia's political parties should continuously monitor World political development and EU positions.Just remember,without clear understandings of European historical facts no sound decisions to benefit Serbia could be made.

Truthiness, Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's UN seat. Russia inherited the Soviet Unions seat. The other nations/ethnic groups that you mention did not inherit anything. I am not offering an oppinion, this is a fact.

How can anyone take this idiot seriously. Nikolic should be an embarrassment for the Serb people.

Yes truthiness, this is why I said "in practice" and double quoted "Serbia", I'm not quoting from a literal document, what I'm doing that you can't appreciate is called "reading between the lines"... sometimes not everything is spelt out, some things can be derived from the context.
(Commentator, 25 December 2013 13:16)

Ok, and I read between the lines differently from what you read :) and 6+ billion people in the world might each have their own reading between the lines.

But there is only one reading of the actual lines... the FRY (aka, Serbia and Montenegro from 2003 and Serbia from 2006) was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000, so obviously can't be a founding member of the UN, since the UN was founded in 1945 and, I think, it is beyond dispute that 1945 is not equal to 2000 (unless math works differently in Serbia like many other things). So, end of the story - there is no debate about the fact that Serbia is not a UN founding member (beside Tomislav being ignorant of the facts).

But of course we can continue the debate regarding "reading between the lines", "in practice", etc, etc... Serbs, certainly have a real talent of reading (wrong) between the lines... like the legendary illegality of Kosovo's UDI under int'l law that Serbs read between the lines of UNSCR 1244 :)

Attention to icj1 I have no intention to get to your level of arguments.If you need definition,find it in the credible dictionary.

Commentator,
"I thought according to you guys, "Yugoslavia", especially the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, was just "Greater Serbia" anyway - right? Why now the fuss about Nikolic linking modern day Serbia to it? This is exactly what most of you are moaning about all the time, that "Yugoslavia" = "Greater Serbia".
There is the problem, the reason Yugoslavia broke up, Serbs began to think of it as Greater Serbia and Serbs as the ruler. No one else thought of it as such but were against the Serbian ambition to create a Greater Serbia.

Commentator, 25 December 2013 16:15
I would not be reveling in anything as yet if I were you, as you are dead wrong on many fronts.
First I am not Albanian, I am as American as one can get. Like most in the US I have a mixture of heritages which is why so many of us do not understand this ethnic bs you all throw around.
2nd the UN did not form until 1945, there was similar attempts at an alliance prior but not the UN as it is known today. Yugoslavia was one of the original members, hardly a founder, and Serbia did not succeed the original Yugoslav seat but the FRY seat also known as Serbia and Montenegro.
When any speaks of Greater Serbia it has always been as a goal of the ultranationalist Serbs, not an actual existence. It is this goal that caused the break up of Yugoslavia as the world knows it. No one but Serbs wanted any part of a Greater Serbia, that is why it never saw reality.

Nikolic's statement that "Serbia" was a founder of the "UN" is correct in practice....

(Commentator, 25 December 2013 01:56)

Actually that's totally incorrect. According to your logic then, if Serbs founded the United Nations(in practice) , then the UN was also founded by:

Abkhaz, Adyghes, Aleuts, Assyrians, Avars, Bashkirs, Buryats, Chechens, Chuvash, Cossacks, Evenks, Gagauz, , Ingushes, Inuit, Kalmyks, Karakalpaks, Karelians, Kets, Lezgins, Maris, Mongols, Mordvins, Nenetses, Ossetians, Roma, Tats, Tatars, Tuvans, Udmurts, and Yakuts.


........yea im thinking not so much.

For the record "Serbia" is not mentioned at all in any official record (in practice or otherwise).

So no, Serbia was not a founder of the United Nations - in practice.

Hope that clears thing up.

Truthiness, Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's UN seat. Russia inherited the Soviet Unions seat.
(marKo, 26 December 2013 22:42)

Sure, but the Soviet Union (whose seat Russia inherited) became a UN member in 1945, whereas the FRY (whose seat Serbia inherited) became a UN member in 2000. So, since the FRY is not a founding UN member, Serbia's isn't, either.

Note for those who are not aware: the UN was founded in 1945, not 2000.

Only three dilemmas???? Has Nikolich only three fingers???? Or can't he count beyond three. As a Serb I'm ashamed by his comments. Sort out his home problems first before blowing his trumpet...blah, blah, blah...

Truthiness, Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's UN seat. Russia inherited the Soviet Unions seat. The other nations/ethnic groups that you mention did not inherit anything. I am not offering an oppinion, this is a fact.
(marKo, 26 December 2013 22:42)

It may be a idea to understand the point before you counter - the point was that Nikolic claimed Serbia was a founder the UN - this is empirically and historically a lie - now this is a fact.

Whether Serbia is a successor to Yugolsavia is totally irrelevant.

Paying attention has it merits my boy - it protects one from opening their mouth and sounding the fool.

Perhaps Serbs ought to take the analogy of "Fiddler on the roof"? Panslavism links you to Russia but economic forces and necessity to the EU. Wrapping yourselves in a flag will not suffice.

Kosovo status should be as is today,independent without sovereignty.
(lukebuyenovich, 25 December 2013 18:12)

"independent without sovereignty".... that is a laughable expression, but if you can provide the definition, we can probably make some sense out of it :)
----------

That status should remain until Serbia decides, without outside pressure, that Kosovo Albanians reached level of maturity needed to live and govern in free society.
(lukebuyenovich, 25 December 2013 18:12)

Serbia has already decided, dear. It's written in Serbia's Constitution. Obviously though that is immaterial and has the same impact on Kosovo as, say, any decision of Zimbabwe on the matter :)