Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Macedonia

Macedonia is in the favorable camp, "Macedonia's position regarding Kosovo's independence is clear. For us, the independence is acceptable and should be implemented on the basis of the Ahtisaari's plan." [1]. NN 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia should therefore be put in the "States planning to recognise the independent Republic of Kosovo" section. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? That kind of sounds like a full recognition to me worded really badly. Mikebloke (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, but has Macedonia officially as a state recognised Kosovo yet? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

EU flag

Hello, in my opinion it is totally exaggerated to list Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia with a EU-flag. They are only candidates (and Turkey and Macedonia will not become an EU-member in the next 10 to 30 years). Please remove that!

Why? They are Candidates of the EU therefore have the word candidate next to the flag. Its not making out that them countries are full EU members. Just candidates of the EU and it quite clearly states that. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

completely silly. Croatia, for example has no clear date of entry.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? Its still a candidate of the EU. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

and that is irrelevant to this topic. It gives no weight to their decision. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. The fact it is a Candidate country means its pro European, like Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

being pro-European doesnt make their vote more or less important. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

also, example, Croatia could be taken from the candidates list in the next days because of the ZERP. So candidate status is relative and can be subject of change. I will, however agree if other users support your stance.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Croatia will certainly not be taken from the candidates list because of a single issue -- the most serious thing that could happen would be a freezing of negotiations, and even that won't happen. I think it should be mentioned that they're candidate countries, but we needn't have the EU flag there for them, as well. —Nightstallion 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

yes i agree with Nightstallation. What i meant was that EU candidates are generally pro European, thats why the are a candidate in the fist place. So there pro European as opposed to pro Russian like Belarus and Serbia. So it is important as Kosovo is pro European too, so that is one of the reasons why EU candidates support Kosovo, so its important that we mention the fact that the they are candidate countries. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Must agree with the original point, EU candidates should be mentioned (since it will likely be influenced to go along with the EU) however they are not under any obligation to the EU nor have any say in the EU's stance. The flag should not be displayed alongside candidate countries. It should however be noted. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But also it is not the EU flag. As you can read under flag of Europe, the Council of Europe which is a separate international organisation with 47 member states including Turkey and others own the flag of Europe. The flag was adopted in 1955 and in 1980s the EU got "right to use it". That's why currently the European Union is trying to find another flag for itself; to stop using the flag of another international organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.171.190 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(This comment is a bit off-topic.) SineBot, you’re right that the flag was originally the flag of the Council of Europe. Yes, the CoE has “intellectual property” of the flag, to the extent IP is possible on a flag (which is not clear in all jurisdictions). However, the Council of Europe then encouraged other European institutions to adopt the same flag. The EU does extensively, to the extent the flag is now most commonly associated with the EU. I don’t know where you get the idea the EU is actively trying to find another flag for itself. In the proposed, but never ratified, Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Article I-8 would have said “The flag of the Union shall be a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background.” The flag is now most commonly associated with the EU, whether you like it or not. — Adhemar (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not about "liking it or not". I like the EU to use the flag of Europe, and it is not a problem for me. :) Yes, the Council of Europe holds its intellectual property and it has right to extend IP on this flag, because it is not the flag of a nation; but like a kind of logo. On the other hand, even though it encourages all other European institutions to use this flag, it can only be within the consent of the Council of Europe. For example, the right to use the flag was granted to the EU by the CoE. After that the European Central Bank used the flag on EUR banknotes and it caused a real problem. Because the European Central Bank has another international legal personality. It does not share the legal personality of the EU. That's why it was a real crisis between the CoE and the ECB, until the payment of a royalty fee. That's why, even if the EU Constitution includes such a provision, (and even though this is not possible in practice) if he/she prefers, a secretary-general of the Council of Europe may ban prevent all others to use the flag by a decleration addressed to those who had right to use the flag previously. In brief, I had just mentioned that the flag is the flag of the CoE which represents 47 member states. Since it is the flag of the Europe, not the flag of the EU only, the flag also represents Turkey, Russia, Serbia, Bosnia, even Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and all others... currently except Belarus and Kosovo, which are not member states of CoE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.82.145 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

States that recognise Kosovo section

Why is it split in two? How many states that recognize Taiwan has nothing to do with Kosovo. And I notice the same thing isn't done (nor should it) for the section about states that won't recognize, i.e China and Cyprus. Narayanese (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PRC and Cyprus are nearly universally recognised and UN members, so their status is not questioned; ROC and TRNC have questionable international status, so they have to be differentiated from fully recognised UN member states. —Nightstallion 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nightstallion. Yes ROC and TRNC are technically states but are not fully recognised, so do not have the same influence as UN members. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Romania

"In a conference Constantin Degeratu presidential adviser on defence affairs said that Romania "will have to change its point of view according to the evolution of the things in Europe, but especially according to national interest." [2]

Basically, it means "no recognition for now, but this might change in the future". 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you got an English source for that? I'd like to see the rest of the text so that we can decide whether this amounts to a change in position or not. —Nightstallion 09:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All I could find was this:

"Romania introduces lights and shades in its position towards Kosovo" is the title in Evenimentul Zilei. The presidential Defense counselor, general Constantin Degeratu, declared that Romania may have to change its point of view accordingly to the European position. Even president Basescu, who firmly declared that Romania will not recognize Kosovo, had previously accepted that Romania will obey any decision of the UN Security Council. Degeratu added that a good time to find a viable and peaceful solution to the Kosovo problem may be the NATO summit in Bucharest (April 2-4). hotnews.ro

bogdan (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have trouble accessing that site... —Nightstallion 11:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I can see it. Mh, that doesn't really sound like it's a change of position for now, though. Maybe they'll change their mind at the NATO summit. —Nightstallion 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Poland

Poland's parliament has delayed the recognition of Kosovo at the request of the President, Lech Kaczynski. As a result, despite the earlier declarations of the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radoslaw Sikorski, that Kosovo will be recognized as independant by Poland, Poland's stance is now not that certain. As a result, I would propose that someone with more Wikipedia skills than me to remove Poland from the list of countries that claimed they will recognize Kosovo and added it to the list of countries that has delayed taking a stance on the issue. Relevant sources can be found at all Polish news and media outlets, such as the credible Polish-language daily Gazeta Wyborcza (gazeta.pl). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.243.102 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If i can see your source to prove it, i will do it for you. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Poland should be added in the list that are going to recognize Republic of Kosova here is my source http://en.rian.ru/world/20080217/99433876.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.143.85 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest U-turn: IOC to recognize Kosovo

http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2008/2/19/sports/20376716&sec=sports

please update —Preceding unsigned

comment added by Logitech999 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not any new development. There are two official IOC announcements floating around:

The older and shorter one, which you just happened to notice. It is a statement by the president of the IOC's commission of international relations, reported by ANSA. It was issued on Sunday, see e.g. [3].
The newer and more detailed one. It is a statement by IOC spekesperson, reported by Associated Press. It was issued on Monday, and it is widely reported in media, see e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7].

Clearly, we should prefer the newer, updated statement, which makes IOC recognition of Kosovo conditional on its UN recognition, hence unlikely in foreseeable future. -- EJ (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Norther Cypurs et al.

WHERE IS NORTHERN CYPRUS ???????

WHY NORTHERN CYPRUS WAS REMOVE ???? I'M FROM POLAND AND POLAND WILL BE recognize KOSOWO 25 FEBRUARY 2008 MONDAY 100%

this page is not exist !!! but the polish goverment will be meet in monday and they will be voting about recognise Kosovo and 3 parties gonna say yes (PO, PIS, LID) is enough 2 green light for Kosowo. i know that you need 2 prove it but sorry i not found this web site !! sorry about my written english !!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.111 (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

can you give me the web site thats says Poland will recognise Kosovo on 25th February please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Its is ok. We should have proof on Monday. Your English is pretty good. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

it's/its

I understand why the page is locked, but can someone please change the "it's" from the nations that don't recognize Kosovo box to "its?" It's very unprofessional looking.--Trebligoniqua (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NATO

Could someone re-word "Business as usual" in the NATO section? That doesn't make any sense to anyone unaware of the previous situation. Balkan Fever 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

You'll find that what is shaded in black and labeled 'Kosovo' is actually Montenegro! What a fundamental error! Has no one noticed this previously? Kosovo is not shown on this map, a new map must be used showing Kosovo.

(Umbongo91 (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

You, sir, are a genius. Balkan Fever 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How did that ever happen? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems it was fixed on the .png version, but not the .svg used in this article. Weird. Balkan Fever 08:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It could be worse, I suppose. At least they haven't marked the Republic of Tetovë in black. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the PNG for two reasons: 1) The SVG is wrong, hasn't got Kosovo on it, and labels Montenegro as Kosovo. 2) Many people, including me, have no easy way of updating SVGs -- and while the situations is as unstable as it currently is, we need as many people as possible to be able to update. We can use the SVG once the situation has stabilised. Okay? —Nightstallion 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be fixed as soon as possible. It's an essential problem. We're talking about Kosovo here and yet there is Montenegro marked in the map! Bardhylius (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

POland

" Rząd wstrzymał się z decyzją w sprawie niepodległości Kosowa na prośbę prezydenta Lecha Kaczyńskiego" "The government temporarily suspended the decision of recognising Kosovo independence after the request from president Lech Kaczyński" Source: http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80271,4944023.html

Seems that at least for the moment POland is not (yet) taking part in this new Munich. Szopen (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't really sound like its a new position. Once there's an official statement with a chance of position, we can update. (Temporary suspension doesn't mean too much, it means that the recognition will take place at a later time...) —Nightstallion 09:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"This new Munich"? What does that mean? No negotiations took place in Munich. I'm sorry to hear that Poland does not (yet) support the freedom and self determination of the people of Kosovo. I think it is unacceptable for member of the European Union not to support Kosovo after the Serb genocides. Obrighten (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There were no Serbian genocides in Kosovo. There was however ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo. This is a new Munich, because there are direct parallels to situation in 1938. As a note, please remember that Serbs in Krajina were refused independency and were cleansed from their regions, and Serbs in Bosnia were also refused the independency. I have no idea why member of UE would want to support breaking of international law and of division of European nations into those, who have right to states, and those, who have not.

Please also note, that I am not going to continue this discussion because this is not discussion board. I have already expressed my opinion and let's finish at that. Szopen (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan/Official list from Kosovo?

According to Asia Times

科索沃政府網站表示，已獲17個聯合國員已承認，但當中並不包括台灣，科索沃將台灣稱為“中國台灣”，並列明是非聯合國成員。中國大陸並沒有在已承認或將承認科索沃的名單中。
A Kosovo government website states 17 UN member countries now recognize it, Taiwan not included. Kosovo calls Taiwan "China Taiwan" and states it is not a UN member. Mainland China does not appear on the list.

Two points if this is true:

There is an official recognition list on a Kosovo government website
Kosovo is not going to recognize Taiwan.

I couldn't find the website this article refers to, can anyone help? F (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither could I, but that would be a very interesting website, indeed. We also need a (non-Chinese) source for Kosovo's non-recognition of Taiwan. —Nightstallion 10:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On further investigation, I think that journalist mistook http://kosovothanksyou.com for an official site. Also see my comment above.F (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just came to the same conclusion. —Nightstallion 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Official press releases

This site links to official press releases from governments around the world. I already added some of them to the article. F (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This page is unfolding like a thriller. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian Official Government Press Agency

No reason for Indonesia not to recognise Kosovo. This is according to Golkar Party (the party of incumbent Vice President). But they haven't decided whether to recognise kosovo
http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/2/20/no-reason-for-ri-not-to-recognize-kosovo-legislator-says/
--w_tanoto (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IOC

So according to the article, Kosovo must be a member of the UN before IOC will even consider membership. Sourced is a rather junior spoksman of the IOC, who doesn't seem that informed about the history of the IOC which early on "recognized" non-UN states such as Taiwan, Hong-Kong etc. Personally, I wouldn't be surprized if Kosovo, after all, will take part in the Beijing olympics. --Camptown (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A spokeswoman expresses the official position of the organization, that's her job. It is also widely reported in the media as such, see above in #Latest U-turn: IOC to recognize Kosovo, or just Google IOC Kosovo. I am sorry to say that whatever you personally are or are not surprized at is, after all, irrelevant. -- EJ (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if Kosovo is recognized by IOC, they can't participate in the 2008 Beijing Olympics for two major reasons. 1. They are not ready, and there is no possible chance of preparing in the months that are left. Not just from the Kosovo side, but also from the Comittee who have to go through different procedures in order to fully accept Kosovo. 2. China opposes Kosovo's independence, they will not accept their passports.

Anyway, it would be nice to clear up this confusion. Can IOC accept Kosovo without UN membership or not? Bardhylius (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can, though it may call it "Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Serbia" (similar to Taiwan). —Nightstallion 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

yes it will--Cradel 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With Russia rejection Kosovo will never gain a seat in the UN.However I dont see them in olympic games 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"First state to recognise based on local time"

Is that so...? ;) --Camptown (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists a mess

There are a number of problems with the lists on the page. For instance, It has one list that is for "States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations" and another that is for "Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions". Shouldn't both lists be merged and both be colored the same on the map? What is the difference between the two stances?

It has a bunch of remarks and speculation listed as if it were official stances. Just look at the article, the way the list entries are written is not in keeping with the way wikipedia articles are/should be styled.

Another thing. The EU said that it will have individual states choose their response to independence, rather than having an official stance, and the UN security council is obviously not in agreement with each-other on the situation. So the entries that are marked as waiting for an EU or UN stance on it's position are either out of date or just irrelevant.

And how about using sources written in ENGLISH, because this is the English wikipedia after all.

If we are looking for sources, shouldn't we look at a given nation's govt websites or online embassies? Contralya (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself whether we should have those two categories as different categories, but I can live with either way.

EU and UNSC membership *IS* relevant in this situation for obvious reason: The EU has a very strong role in Kosovo (through EULEX, pre-accession negotiations with Serbia, ...), and the UNSC has the power to decide on such issues -- and since there's members of the UNSC on either side of the debate, there'll be no official position, therefore this is relevant.

Regarding sources -- if we have English sources, we should use those, but if no English sources are available, foreign language sources are fine, as well. —Nightstallion 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's of SIGNIFICANT importance to the article, but under the heading of "Internation Organisations", I believe NATO has a flag, and I've been reading this article day after day since the news came out and it's beginning to bug me. Could an Admin please remedy this? (Sixer Fixer (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

We currently haven't got a freely usable NATO flag, actually. —Nightstallion 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Austria

Austria has recognised Kosovo, see this[8]. Should we add it?217.24.247.25 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it has not. Austria *WILL* recognise it, but has not yet done so. —Nightstallion 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case Germany has NEITHER recognized Kosovo, because the Bundespresident did not send the formal letter yet. This is the case with Norway too. In all these cases the government has made the decition and is only waiting for the formal signature from the symbolic head of state. Jakro64 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the way I read the news reports: The Norwegian communique does not state that the government has decided to recognise Kosovo, it just states that the government *will* decide to recognise Kosovo, whereas in the case of Germany, the federal government has already decided to do so. You're right, though, the Austrian government just decided a few minutes ago. —Nightstallion 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland, though, is a typical example where the decision to "recognize" was made Monday, but is still pending the President's symbolic signature. --Camptown (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mh, you may have a point there -- I'm trying to access the Finnish foreign ministry website, but it's not responding right now. —Nightstallion 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mh. Both Finland and Norway seem unclear to me right now, as I have not been able to find an official statement that the government has decided to recognise Kosovo and is only waiting for formalities... —Nightstallion 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Norwegian case this is simply a formulation as it is the king who officially is recognizing foreign countries. The decision is done, otherwise it would not be published so broadly on the ministry's netpage! Most likely the formal statement will come on Friday after the King weekly meeting with his council (government). Jakro64 (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Government's statement: here. And the Government would fall should the King have any objection to sign the decree. --Camptown (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Now, what about Finland? —Nightstallion 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very likely. The king of Norway has during the last 102 years never had any objection to any decition of his government. Jakro64 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the President of Finland is an elected politician with real veto power, we'd mayb better wait till she returns from her foreign trip. --Camptown (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, so's the Austrian politician; I think we should have the same standards for all. So, when did Finland officially state it had begun recognising Kosovo, and where's the source? :) —Nightstallion 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's [9] here, but although if the Finnish president is elected she does not have any real veto power. The president of Finland is only a state symbol. Jakro64 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Belgium

The Kingdom of Belgium already on Fevruary 18th recognized the independents of Kosovo

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/files/Belgium_recognizes_Kosovo.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.66.34 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Belgium was removed by someone who probably anticipated restistance by the King of Belgians. Returned. --Camptown (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would actually read the whole of the source you would have read

"This week, the Government will propose His Majesty the King Albert II to sign a Royal Decree recognizing the Republic of Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state, after which Belgium and Kosovo can establish diplomatic relations."

So Belgium has actually officially recognised Kosovo yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See below, we take the starting date of the official process as the date. —Nightstallion 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, someone once had a go at me for saying what you have just said. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization of the Islamic Conference

All member states have endorsed the declaration and are expected to recognise Kosovo -- is it right? The given source rather says "the recognition of Kosovo is left up to each member state". That does not seem to me like any kind of automatic "package" recognition. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are OIC members for instance, and apparently oppose the independence declaration. -- EJ (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mh. That's strange, though, all OIC members supported the declaration...? —Nightstallion 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Check source No. 102. "As the 57 Islamic states, members of the organization of the Islamic conference, endorsed the declaration, the recognition of Kosovo is left up to each member state."--85.3.136.119 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti Republic of China bias

Some user insist that the Republic of China is moved to a separate section called "partially recognized states", and also insist on adding that "PRC claims that Taiwan has no right to give recognition to the Republic of Kosovo".

Meanwhile, the same user insist on removing the fact the PRC itself is not recognized by all states, and is as such itself only partially recognized.

The Republic of China does not recognize the PRC, since the Republic of China claims to be the legitimate government for all of China, and hence of course disputes the right of the PRC to recognize or not recognize. Also, in contrast to the PRC, the Republic of China is recognized as the legitimate Chinese government by the Holy See and as such by 1 billion catholics.

Either we remove the PRC claim from the Republic of China section, OR we also include the point of view of the Republic of China on the PRC. Obrighten (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against that, but we *NEED A SOURCE* which states that the ROC disputes the PRC's right to withhold recognition -- and I haven't seen any source for that up to now. —Nightstallion 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, found two sources. F (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland and Norway have not officially recognised Kosovo yet

They have said that they will, not that they have. It isn't official yet. The full procedure of recognition hasn't taken place yet.

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ doesn't say which countries have fully recognised Kosovo through the full legal system, just that they will do soon. So make sure that there is an official source before claiming that a country has fully recognised Kosovo please.Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of full recognition, it's a question of having started the formal procedure of recognition -- if we waited for the official signature from the head of state for all states, then we'd only have US and France in the list up to now, I believe. —Nightstallion 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is faulty argument. THE NORWAY RECOGNITION IS NOT formal as the headline suggests. Thus factuality has to be disputed. Norway only stated intention to do it like Sweden for example.--Trigor (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [[10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigor (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put it down again, please let us know when the Norwegian government has officially started procedures. —Nightstallion 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The same goes for Finland.

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=115324&nodeid=15145&culture=en-US

this says that "Finland announced it will recognise Kosovo's independence", not that it has recognised Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, then let's wait until the German Bundespräsident has signed the letter to his Kosovar colleague. Germany's decision is neither completely formal. Read our earlier discussion above under "Austria". Jakro64 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

@Jakro64 I'm a german law student and I know very well the german law and german administration processes. The signt of the Federal President is a symbolic act that will nothing change decision of the federal government. Germany already recognise Kosovo'S independence, all other procedure's are unimportand the Bundespräsident (Federal President) he must does what the government say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.66.34 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In Finland, the formal recognition of Kosovo is in the authority of the President of Finland, formally decided in a presidential session of government. The next presidential session is held 29th February 2008, thus Finland cannot have as yet formally recognized Kosovo. --Vuo (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Norway

Norway recognized today Kosovo as an independent state.

http://www.kvp.se/nyheter/1.1055230/norge-erkanner-kosovo

--Albanau (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Norwegian, but if it says that Norway has recognised Kosovo, then it should go into the recognised group. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Swedish. This is article from Swedish newspapers. And here they say that Norway has recognized Kosovo. It quotes Norwegian foreign minister on reasons for recognition (same like in press release) Serbian media also reported the same. But I still think that we should observe press release on Norwegian foreign ministry web page. There they say formal decision has not yet been taken. But if you want to make it official do it. I just think we should just respect headlines we have put up, and the fact of the matter is that decision is not official. --Trigor (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to trust you on this, just let us know when the Norwegian government has officially started the process. —Nightstallion 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trigor and Nightstallion. Sorry i assumed it would have been Norwegian as it was about Norway. So its Swedish. Sorry if i have offended anyone. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what to do any more. Norway is in the first group again. I just want you to know that my actions were motivated with quality of this article in mind. I know that there are many people here with other motivations than to have factuality. Some want number of countries who recognized to be as big as possible while others have opposite aim. I for one am completely unbiased and my interest is truth and quality of wikipedia. So if there is so big desire to have Norway there ok, but based on that merit some other countries should be there as well, even though apart from deciding to start the process in the future they have not done anything more. Thanks to Nightstallion and Ijanderson977. I really think they care about same things I do. --Trigor (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Trigor. This is an encyclopedia, so we should tell the truth, not lie to make a country seem better or different. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries it's down in the second group again. —Nightstallion 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Norway should be in the first group. There is absolutely not doubt the King will sign the decree. If Norway remains in the second group, we should also pretend that Germany is also only planning to make up it mind. --Camptown (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wait for the government to make a formal decision. It will happen soon. And than I will be the first to put Norway in the first group. Norway has decided in principle. The reader can see that it is only question of time until they formally recognize. I don't think that somebody will think that they haven't decided. It's plane and clear. The formal decision has not yet been taken. --Trigor (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GENERAL NOTE

Up to now, we've added countries as officially recognising once they have started the process officially, not once they have ended the process through the signature by the head of state. If people want to change that, we'll have to change it now and review all the countries we've listed as recognising; if we want to keep it like that, we only have to make certain that countries we add have really started the process. —Nightstallion 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it how it is.Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where should we put Sweden than. They said they will recognize Kosovo, but officialy they will do it after committee for foreign relations (Utrikesnämnden) meets. It is chaired by the king and it is more less formal thing. But we are still waiting. I think we should wait for official procedure to be finished. Otherwise there is going to be a mix up. I know there are some people who are a bit anxious but trust me this is for the best. --Trigor (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If the first step of the recognition process is the committee meeting, then we'll have to wait until the committee meets. —Nightstallion 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the last step. Prime minister and foreign minister Mr Bildt already said that they are in agreement that Kosovo should be recognized, as well most of the parties in the parliament (excluding Left Party). But until the process is finished for Sweden Kosovo will not be recognized. I have personally put the date 4th of March because that is when committee meeting will be held and Kosovo recognized .... but now I am not certain any more what should I do. The border between those two group of states became a bit blurry. To be clear. Apart from words to do it Sweden has not done anything official yet.--Trigor (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, then it's the first *and* last step and we'll wait until then. —Nightstallion 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is kept as-is, then the subtitle "States that formally recognise the independent Republic of Kosovo" should be changed to something like "States that have officially started the process of formally recognising the independent Republic of Kosovo", since currently the subtitle is incorrect. 80.248.242.86 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

If I am not mistaken, Argentina has decided not to recognise Kosovo according to this article of Clarín:

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2008/02/20/elpais/p-00701.htm Apcpca (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

UN Note improvement NEEDED

In the section International organisations all information about UN-Kosovo UDI matter is one about Security Council and its recent meetings. In my opinion, question about UN-Kosovo relations is more important than lots of other informations in the article, which have, de facto, much more news and press coverage. My advice to admins (until the article editing lock remains actual) is to focus on this matter with more attention. Try to find out and publish data about formal regulations of UN law and therefore perspectives of one country (here Kosovo) UDI UN-recognition, or recogniton delay (or non-recognition), possible membership process, or membership problems, possible membership delaying etc. In short words, what will be the formal way of Kosovo in UN-membership. What are the chances and instruments of its potential delaying, or stopping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.106.36 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Senegal, the accuracy of its notation.

Senegal hasn't been a Security Council Member since 1989.[11] They recognized the Republic of Kosovo largely because of the OIC resolution in support of such recognition (Dakar is the host of the OICs Summit this year). [12] Sorry, the source about the recognition isn't in English. The best information isn't always in English. Translations are often poor substitutes for original sources. Nevermind the fact that plenty of Anglophone people speak plenty of other languages. "Le Soleil" is the government-owned, national newspaper of Senegal and the newspaper of record. I used to write for them but I had to come back home to America to finish my degree. --Madahlen (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference for Indonesia is WRONG.

Reference for Indonesia is WRONG. It does not mention Indonesia at all.--Maduixa (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan and Northern Cyprus

The succession dates of Taiwan and Northern Cyprus should be somewhere stated, possibly in Notes section. For example Recognition after United Kingdom and before Belgium... --Janezdrilc (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

President Talat of TRNC recognized the independence of the new state, yet the TRNC GOVERNMENT under Prime Minister Soyer has not recognized the GOVERNMENT of Kosovo. A head of state recognizing a UDI while the head of state's government not extending recognition to the new state's government is an interesting position, to say the least... -- Expatkiwi (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.176.233 (talk)

To Nightstallion

"Initiated proceedings to recognize" is NOT what counts. It says they RECOGNIZE them. Diplomatic recognition is a complex process that means the foreign ministry or equivalent office of one nation sends a letter or fax to that of another country indicating recognition and intent to establish diplomatic relations immediately.

Saying that "we have started the process of recognizing them" is the same as a statement of intent. Please see the similar article about the recognition of Montenegro; cites for recognition there are actually links to the letters from individual diplomatic representatives to each other indicating their intent to establish formal diplomatic ties.

There is a distinction to be made here, and you are not making it. It's very important in the international diplomatic community, and you are completely ignoring it, making a mockery of this reference work we are both trying so hard to keep up-to-the-minute by ignoring conventions that have been around for centuries now. --Node (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, then make the distinction, if you want. —Nightstallion 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have; I'm not sure why you reverted me though if you agree with me (or are at least willing to allow it). --Node (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't agree with you at first, and I can't get everything right on the first attempt, can I? ;) —Nightstallion 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Node. That would bring us some well desired clarity. But please don't be so hard on Nightstallion. I think that he is really nice guy doing his best to help. I would suggest that we make foreign ministry of respected country our main source and first point of reference. In other words when it says on their web page that they have recognized Kosovo, we should put them in the first group of countries--Trigor (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

The press release says that Malaysia "welcomes Kosovo's declaration of independence" ("Malaysia mengalu-alukan kemerdekaan Kosovo yang telah diisytiharkan"). It is not explicit about whether it has extended formal diplomatic recognition or, if it has not, when it is planning to do so. Anybody have additional sources for Malaysia? --Node (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,651 on the offical website of the President of the Republic of Kosovo the chief of the office of malaysia mr Mustafa J Mansor alrady hand over the letter of recognition from the ministry of foreign affairs of malaysia (20.02.2008)

Intro

The intro includes the statement Most of them have declared they will, but some countries (Spain, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia) have chosen not to recognise Kosovo, at least in the short term, due to fears of other separatist movements using Kosovo as a precedent for their claims but when The United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Australia are some of the major countries that have recognised the Republic is stated there is no mention of Turkey hoping to use this as a precedent for Northern Cyprus. Nergaal (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe's statement can also be used under the International Organisation. As is known, the CoE is a separate international organisation with 47 member states. (Its flag is also flag with 12 stars. The EU uses the flag of the Council of Europe as indicated under the flag of Europe.)

Here is the CoE's statement about the Kosovo's independence:

Reacting to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, Lluís Maria de Puig, President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), called on all parties to keep their pledge to preserve peace and dialogue in all circumstances and to refrain from any incitement to violence as well as to fully comply with Council of Europe standards with respect to human rights, the rule of law, the rights of national minorities and the treatment of refugees, displaced and stateless persons.

“Whatever its status, Kosovo should be an area which is safe for all those who live in it regardless of their ethnic origin, and in which the values of democracy, tolerance and multiculturalism are shared by its population and institutions,” he said.

“I regret that the two sides have been unable to reach compromise on the status of Kosovo – as the Assembly has repeatedly called for,” he said.

Recalling the texts adopted by PACE on 22 January, Mr de Puig stressed the need for Kosovo to be an area where Council of Europe instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Anti-Torture Convention and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities are fully applicable and their respective control mechanisms fully operational.

In connection with the EU's attitude to Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence, the President invited EU member states, which are also members of the Council of Europe, to agree on a single position.

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1250095&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.171.190 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan on wrong list

Pakistan is clearly on the wrong list, and the reference currently listed is a broken link. However, as a newly registered user, I cannot edit this page. Koraki (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is in the right place. They have strongly indicated that they will recognize Kosovo [13]--Trigor (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan has strongly advocated in the Security Council of the UN the right of indipendent for Kosovo

Tamil Tigers

The Tamil Tigers source is a joke! It should be removed from the article. NN 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)