Jeremić seeks support of Non-Aligned

If the ICJ rules that there are grouds for Kosova to declare independence from Serbia will the Serbian panel declare that the ICJ has "bowed" to American and most of EU pressure?. Will Serbia recognise Kosova's independence and move on in that case?
Waiting for your response)

B92 didn't report that Jeremic invoked the name of TITO (a founder of the non-aligned movement) in his attempt to garner support from these countries.

Tito was a leader of Yugoslavia, NOT Serbia. Tito was that same leader which allowed the Kosovars de-facto republic status just like Serbia and the rest of the Yugoslav republics.

And Serbia IS NOT Yugoslavia. With Kosova's independence, the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia is finally complete. Come on, Jeremic. Who are you fooling?

EA - The answer is probably "yes", but in line with the principle of "unilateral ethnic self determination" we will then unilaterally secede the Serb parts Kosovo from "Kosova" (and that is much more land than you Albanians imagine). Also RS, RSK etc... why not? All this is consistent with the new principle of take what you want and to hell with what everyone else thinks.

Mark - I thought Yugoslavia was "Serb dominated" even during Tito's time... we've been oppressing Albanians since 1912 etc etc.... make up your mind.
Are you saying if the communist party came back in Serbia/Yugo, you would want to join back in?

One more thing EA that I thought of... if the ICJ says "Kosova" is legitimate despite the KLA's killing and expelling of non-Albanians.... why can't Radovan Karadzic base his defence around this new principle... "it is allowed to kill and destroy in the name of your people if you are engaged in a war of independence from your "mother" country".

Looks like RS is definetly on the road to independence if "Kosova" is..

It's a bold and highly respectable move, but beware of what could be the consequences. Yugoslavia was left to destroy by itself BECAUSE it was one of the leaders of the non-aligned movement. When after the end of Cold War only one superpower was left, only one attitude has been considered good: to accept this superpower as the commander-in-chef. If you accept it then you are a good subject, non-terrorist and "democratic", otherwise you are the enemy of the "new world order", so you are a "rogue state", or a "terrorist", or an "un-democratic", who challenges the "credibility" of this new world order. The "neutral" states were useful only as long as the risks of direct territorial confrontation with the other superpower made useful these "neutral" territories. But today, when no other superpower is on the horizon, there is very little chance for "neutral", "non-aligned" attitudes. If you compare the list of the so-called "rogue states" or "dictatorial" states and the one of non-aligned states, you will see that they are very similar, with a few exceptions like India, because it's too big to be transformed in an enemy. So, for the "commander-in-chief", the tentative of still asking for support not to him but to the non-aligned movement, is a terrible act of insubordination, and also an act of roguery, and un-democracy, etc... I hope that Jeremic understands well what he's doing, or that his statement is only an act to obtain more consensus from the serbian nostalgics of the non-aligned movement without any true commitment to what he's saying, or a statement agreed before with the "commander-in-chief" friends. But I think that it could be more effective a behaviour of total loyalty to the "commander-in-chief", and possibly an offer done through a lobby in Washington, which could be lead by an "Atlantic" friend of yours. Let's make an example of offer: "how about 5.000 troops in Afghanistan if you give us back Kosovo?"; they will ask for 10.000 and then you will reach an agreement at 7.500... I know I'm a little joking, and probably it's too late for changing the course of events in any case, but I'm sure that the second behaviour, no matter how unrealistic it could be, would be more realistic than asking for support from India or to other members of the non-aligned movement, or to Russia. India is doing many agreements with United States, and one is on nuclear technology development, "strategical" today, and I don't think it will risk to compromise these agreements for the sake of non-aligned movement. And Russia is more interested to Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be coherent with its principle statements. It sounds very much like "realpolitik", or "double standards policy", or "quid pro quo", but it's how the world of the big powers reasons.

If the ICJ rules that there are grouds for Kosova to declare independence from Serbia will the Serbian panel declare that the ICJ has "bowed" to American and most of EU pressure?. Will Serbia recognise Kosova's independence and move on in that case?
Waiting for your response)

B92 didn't report that Jeremic invoked the name of TITO (a founder of the non-aligned movement) in his attempt to garner support from these countries.

Tito was a leader of Yugoslavia, NOT Serbia. Tito was that same leader which allowed the Kosovars de-facto republic status just like Serbia and the rest of the Yugoslav republics.

And Serbia IS NOT Yugoslavia. With Kosova's independence, the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia is finally complete. Come on, Jeremic. Who are you fooling?

EA - The answer is probably "yes", but in line with the principle of "unilateral ethnic self determination" we will then unilaterally secede the Serb parts Kosovo from "Kosova" (and that is much more land than you Albanians imagine). Also RS, RSK etc... why not? All this is consistent with the new principle of take what you want and to hell with what everyone else thinks.

Mark - I thought Yugoslavia was "Serb dominated" even during Tito's time... we've been oppressing Albanians since 1912 etc etc.... make up your mind.
Are you saying if the communist party came back in Serbia/Yugo, you would want to join back in?

One more thing EA that I thought of... if the ICJ says "Kosova" is legitimate despite the KLA's killing and expelling of non-Albanians.... why can't Radovan Karadzic base his defence around this new principle... "it is allowed to kill and destroy in the name of your people if you are engaged in a war of independence from your "mother" country".

Looks like RS is definetly on the road to independence if "Kosova" is..

It's a bold and highly respectable move, but beware of what could be the consequences. Yugoslavia was left to destroy by itself BECAUSE it was one of the leaders of the non-aligned movement. When after the end of Cold War only one superpower was left, only one attitude has been considered good: to accept this superpower as the commander-in-chef. If you accept it then you are a good subject, non-terrorist and "democratic", otherwise you are the enemy of the "new world order", so you are a "rogue state", or a "terrorist", or an "un-democratic", who challenges the "credibility" of this new world order. The "neutral" states were useful only as long as the risks of direct territorial confrontation with the other superpower made useful these "neutral" territories. But today, when no other superpower is on the horizon, there is very little chance for "neutral", "non-aligned" attitudes. If you compare the list of the so-called "rogue states" or "dictatorial" states and the one of non-aligned states, you will see that they are very similar, with a few exceptions like India, because it's too big to be transformed in an enemy. So, for the "commander-in-chief", the tentative of still asking for support not to him but to the non-aligned movement, is a terrible act of insubordination, and also an act of roguery, and un-democracy, etc... I hope that Jeremic understands well what he's doing, or that his statement is only an act to obtain more consensus from the serbian nostalgics of the non-aligned movement without any true commitment to what he's saying, or a statement agreed before with the "commander-in-chief" friends. But I think that it could be more effective a behaviour of total loyalty to the "commander-in-chief", and possibly an offer done through a lobby in Washington, which could be lead by an "Atlantic" friend of yours. Let's make an example of offer: "how about 5.000 troops in Afghanistan if you give us back Kosovo?"; they will ask for 10.000 and then you will reach an agreement at 7.500... I know I'm a little joking, and probably it's too late for changing the course of events in any case, but I'm sure that the second behaviour, no matter how unrealistic it could be, would be more realistic than asking for support from India or to other members of the non-aligned movement, or to Russia. India is doing many agreements with United States, and one is on nuclear technology development, "strategical" today, and I don't think it will risk to compromise these agreements for the sake of non-aligned movement. And Russia is more interested to Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be coherent with its principle statements. It sounds very much like "realpolitik", or "double standards policy", or "quid pro quo", but it's how the world of the big powers reasons.