Friday, 31.10.2008.
11:26
EU-Serbia dialogue on EULEX deployment in Kosovo is progressing and the mission will become operational in December.
Izvor: Tanjug
pre 15 godina
THis doesn't seem likely to happen. Judging by indicators we may be heading for a global recession. In times of recession, there is little expenditure on foreign policy initiatives that have no direct national interest. I may only hypothesize that there may be a few circles that will encourage a re-commnecement of negotitions b/w Pristina and Belgrade. Just a theory I guess
pre 15 godina
"Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.Good luck Kosova
(Ajsel, 31 October 2008 23:14) "
Ajsel,
Welcome to the club of confused pro-Albanians.
Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia & Montenegro in 2003. When Montenegro became independent in 2006, Serbia became the sole successor to Serbia & Mongtegegro and hence Yugoslavia. That is the situation and it has been explained so many times already in the past. But pro-Albanian posters like yourself however continue to profess to be confused about the name change.
pre 15 godina
'hey hey' said:
> Funny how you can read "international civil presence" and get UNMIK. I read it 20 times and even sideways and upside down and never read that. It always came up international civil presence.
Just because 1244 doesn't refer to the 'international civil presence' as UNMIK is hardly a surprise as the acronym 'UNMIK' (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) was only coined after the fact.
So perhaps you should've tried 'bouncing around upside down'. Might then have got some more neurons firing, for this is readily apparent to (almost) all.
And I for one am not calling for a new resolution as there is nothing inherently wrong with the structure of the old one. The problems that have arisen with the implementation of 1244 are solely due to the K-albanian Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
While 1244 does not explicitly state that an agreement must be reached through a concensus of all parties, the resolution does so implicitly in it's structure - as is obvious by the negation of some of the clauses listed, & the sudden irrelevance of others - all due to the UDI.
And what would be the point of a new resolution when the K-albanians would more than likely just ignore the parts that they didn't like just as they already have? Without an impartial agency that has the will & the means to enforce the provisions, there is no point.
That was & remains UNMIK's role, with or without EULEX's participation. And until that actually happens, nothing will change. And the children in Kosovo, or their children, or their children's children will pay the price.
'Ajsel' said:
> Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.
Only one wasting time is you as point you have raised has been answered many times. Serbia is the successor state to the 'Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' & has been recognised as such by the UN.
Which is a whole lot more than can be said for 'Kosova'.
pre 15 godina
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia".
Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.Good luck Kosova
pre 15 godina
peter,sydney
Funny how you can read "international civil presence" and get UNMIK. I read it 20 times and even sideways and upside down and never read that. It always came up international civil presence.
I guess you meant the peter interpretation is UNMIK.
As far as Ban not being able to do whatever, the only way to stop the ball from rolling is through a new resolution clarifying the peter version. Good luck on that.
pre 15 godina
> "The EULEX mission is based on the ‘Joint Action’ document from February. The document clearly states that the mission is based on UN Security Council Resolution1244. That’s the basis for the deployment,” Gallach said
Pity that the 'Joint Action' document is itself nothing more than a creation from 'brussels' & as such provides no legal certification under UN resolution 1244 - all it actually provides are the arguments that 'brussels' uses in it's attempts to legitimise EULEX under this resolution.
And in doing so, this 'document' paraphrases clauses 10 & 11 of 1244, selectively 'omitting' portions that do not 'comply' with the aims of those who are pushing this in 'brussels'.
What clause 10 of resolution 1244 actually says is:
> 10. Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant
international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in
Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while
establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning
institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for
all inhabitants of Kosovo;
Interesting that this 'Joint Action' document makes no mention of this bit: "under which the
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia".
Also note that UNMIK is the "international civil presence" referred to in 1244. And until such time as it is disbanded, it is the only ""international civil presence" authorised under 1244. So the only possible scope EULEX has for legitimacy is under UNMIK - & even that is in hot dispute. And UNMIK can only be disbanded by the UN SC (clause 19) - Ban cannot usurp this function, much as he may like to.
ps: though EULEX was supposed to be 'fully' deployed by December?
Thief will be disappointed.
pre 15 godina
> "The EULEX mission is based on the ‘Joint Action’ document from February. The document clearly states that the mission is based on UN Security Council Resolution1244. That’s the basis for the deployment,” Gallach said
Pity that the 'Joint Action' document is itself nothing more than a creation from 'brussels' & as such provides no legal certification under UN resolution 1244 - all it actually provides are the arguments that 'brussels' uses in it's attempts to legitimise EULEX under this resolution.
And in doing so, this 'document' paraphrases clauses 10 & 11 of 1244, selectively 'omitting' portions that do not 'comply' with the aims of those who are pushing this in 'brussels'.
What clause 10 of resolution 1244 actually says is:
> 10. Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant
international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in
Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while
establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning
institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for
all inhabitants of Kosovo;
Interesting that this 'Joint Action' document makes no mention of this bit: "under which the
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia".
Also note that UNMIK is the "international civil presence" referred to in 1244. And until such time as it is disbanded, it is the only ""international civil presence" authorised under 1244. So the only possible scope EULEX has for legitimacy is under UNMIK - & even that is in hot dispute. And UNMIK can only be disbanded by the UN SC (clause 19) - Ban cannot usurp this function, much as he may like to.
ps: though EULEX was supposed to be 'fully' deployed by December?
Thief will be disappointed.
pre 15 godina
peter,sydney
Funny how you can read "international civil presence" and get UNMIK. I read it 20 times and even sideways and upside down and never read that. It always came up international civil presence.
I guess you meant the peter interpretation is UNMIK.
As far as Ban not being able to do whatever, the only way to stop the ball from rolling is through a new resolution clarifying the peter version. Good luck on that.
pre 15 godina
"Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.Good luck Kosova
(Ajsel, 31 October 2008 23:14) "
Ajsel,
Welcome to the club of confused pro-Albanians.
Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia & Montenegro in 2003. When Montenegro became independent in 2006, Serbia became the sole successor to Serbia & Mongtegegro and hence Yugoslavia. That is the situation and it has been explained so many times already in the past. But pro-Albanian posters like yourself however continue to profess to be confused about the name change.
pre 15 godina
'hey hey' said:
> Funny how you can read "international civil presence" and get UNMIK. I read it 20 times and even sideways and upside down and never read that. It always came up international civil presence.
Just because 1244 doesn't refer to the 'international civil presence' as UNMIK is hardly a surprise as the acronym 'UNMIK' (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) was only coined after the fact.
So perhaps you should've tried 'bouncing around upside down'. Might then have got some more neurons firing, for this is readily apparent to (almost) all.
And I for one am not calling for a new resolution as there is nothing inherently wrong with the structure of the old one. The problems that have arisen with the implementation of 1244 are solely due to the K-albanian Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
While 1244 does not explicitly state that an agreement must be reached through a concensus of all parties, the resolution does so implicitly in it's structure - as is obvious by the negation of some of the clauses listed, & the sudden irrelevance of others - all due to the UDI.
And what would be the point of a new resolution when the K-albanians would more than likely just ignore the parts that they didn't like just as they already have? Without an impartial agency that has the will & the means to enforce the provisions, there is no point.
That was & remains UNMIK's role, with or without EULEX's participation. And until that actually happens, nothing will change. And the children in Kosovo, or their children, or their children's children will pay the price.
'Ajsel' said:
> Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.
Only one wasting time is you as point you have raised has been answered many times. Serbia is the successor state to the 'Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' & has been recognised as such by the UN.
Which is a whole lot more than can be said for 'Kosova'.
pre 15 godina
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia".
Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.Good luck Kosova
pre 15 godina
THis doesn't seem likely to happen. Judging by indicators we may be heading for a global recession. In times of recession, there is little expenditure on foreign policy initiatives that have no direct national interest. I may only hypothesize that there may be a few circles that will encourage a re-commnecement of negotitions b/w Pristina and Belgrade. Just a theory I guess
pre 15 godina
> "The EULEX mission is based on the ‘Joint Action’ document from February. The document clearly states that the mission is based on UN Security Council Resolution1244. That’s the basis for the deployment,” Gallach said
Pity that the 'Joint Action' document is itself nothing more than a creation from 'brussels' & as such provides no legal certification under UN resolution 1244 - all it actually provides are the arguments that 'brussels' uses in it's attempts to legitimise EULEX under this resolution.
And in doing so, this 'document' paraphrases clauses 10 & 11 of 1244, selectively 'omitting' portions that do not 'comply' with the aims of those who are pushing this in 'brussels'.
What clause 10 of resolution 1244 actually says is:
> 10. Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant
international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in
Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while
establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning
institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for
all inhabitants of Kosovo;
Interesting that this 'Joint Action' document makes no mention of this bit: "under which the
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia".
Also note that UNMIK is the "international civil presence" referred to in 1244. And until such time as it is disbanded, it is the only ""international civil presence" authorised under 1244. So the only possible scope EULEX has for legitimacy is under UNMIK - & even that is in hot dispute. And UNMIK can only be disbanded by the UN SC (clause 19) - Ban cannot usurp this function, much as he may like to.
ps: though EULEX was supposed to be 'fully' deployed by December?
Thief will be disappointed.
pre 15 godina
peter,sydney
Funny how you can read "international civil presence" and get UNMIK. I read it 20 times and even sideways and upside down and never read that. It always came up international civil presence.
I guess you meant the peter interpretation is UNMIK.
As far as Ban not being able to do whatever, the only way to stop the ball from rolling is through a new resolution clarifying the peter version. Good luck on that.
pre 15 godina
people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia".
Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.Good luck Kosova
pre 15 godina
'hey hey' said:
> Funny how you can read "international civil presence" and get UNMIK. I read it 20 times and even sideways and upside down and never read that. It always came up international civil presence.
Just because 1244 doesn't refer to the 'international civil presence' as UNMIK is hardly a surprise as the acronym 'UNMIK' (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) was only coined after the fact.
So perhaps you should've tried 'bouncing around upside down'. Might then have got some more neurons firing, for this is readily apparent to (almost) all.
And I for one am not calling for a new resolution as there is nothing inherently wrong with the structure of the old one. The problems that have arisen with the implementation of 1244 are solely due to the K-albanian Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
While 1244 does not explicitly state that an agreement must be reached through a concensus of all parties, the resolution does so implicitly in it's structure - as is obvious by the negation of some of the clauses listed, & the sudden irrelevance of others - all due to the UDI.
And what would be the point of a new resolution when the K-albanians would more than likely just ignore the parts that they didn't like just as they already have? Without an impartial agency that has the will & the means to enforce the provisions, there is no point.
That was & remains UNMIK's role, with or without EULEX's participation. And until that actually happens, nothing will change. And the children in Kosovo, or their children, or their children's children will pay the price.
'Ajsel' said:
> Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.
Only one wasting time is you as point you have raised has been answered many times. Serbia is the successor state to the 'Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' & has been recognised as such by the UN.
Which is a whole lot more than can be said for 'Kosova'.
pre 15 godina
"Peter can you please explain to me were is this country? is this some kind of joke as far as I know this country is not exicting any more.Dont waste your time to prove something that you cant change that was in the past we are talking future here.Good luck Kosova
(Ajsel, 31 October 2008 23:14) "
Ajsel,
Welcome to the club of confused pro-Albanians.
Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia & Montenegro in 2003. When Montenegro became independent in 2006, Serbia became the sole successor to Serbia & Mongtegegro and hence Yugoslavia. That is the situation and it has been explained so many times already in the past. But pro-Albanian posters like yourself however continue to profess to be confused about the name change.
pre 15 godina
THis doesn't seem likely to happen. Judging by indicators we may be heading for a global recession. In times of recession, there is little expenditure on foreign policy initiatives that have no direct national interest. I may only hypothesize that there may be a few circles that will encourage a re-commnecement of negotitions b/w Pristina and Belgrade. Just a theory I guess
6 Komentari
Sortiraj po: