Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Awaiting the European Union's decision

It is not possible to be "Awaiting the European Union's decision" (as is the status of Montenegro according to this page) as the European Union has already made its decision, i.e. "that it would 'take note' of Kosovo's move, but leaves the question of recognition to its member states." Therefore there is nothing to wait for! I think Montenegro's stance would be very interesting to know, as this is the most recently independent country before Kosovo, it borders Kosovo, has a large Serbian population and an ethnic Albanian minority and it is historically tied closely to Serbia. Surely someone has some more up-to-date info on Montenegro's stance than this. Danielfranklin78 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'm afraid i can not find any information on Montenegro's view on Kosovo, most likely waiting for the UN's decision or it may follow other former Yugoslavian countries. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela

CBC Newsworld reported just before 12:00 PM on February 21 that Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez says that Venezuela does not recognise the independence of Kosovo. I cannot find an online document to back this up at this time. 24.83.90.35 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another nation to mark down as Orange. Apparently, that pott-head in Venezuela is against independence. Of course: if George W. Bush said that clouds are normally white, this chump would say that they are normally purple. Here is the link: [1] After reading that, you will see what I mean. Contralya (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard anything so stupid!, Venezuela is a soverain state and their people decide with liberty what he want, not like the bushist pro-yankee dictatorship of Panama. (300 workers arrested last week in a manifestation) Open your eyes, please, the world'll be better.

Actually, Contralya is right. I'm one of those who extremely dislike USA foreign policy, but Chavez is starting to remind me of Castro. They both do few good things in the right direction but then get completely lost in their bitterness, and keep on going and going in the same direction even when that direction is not suitable to modern circumstances. The logic behind not recognizing Kosovo in this case is very clear from the article: "America did X, so we will take anti-X stance." That's very childish, and is not a way you can run a country. JosipMac (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the off-chance that the Venezuelan government is only sticking to what is (or what it considers to be) the moral thing to do, ie not consenting to the territorial mutilation of a sovereign nation? How about considering the arguments made by Chavez (that the move will destabilize the Balkans) instead of plainly writing him off as a buffoon? I'm just saying here is all... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not discussing the morality behind it, I was commenting on the argumentation of their stance, which wasn't based on quasi-morality but on "USA did X, ergo we are doing -X". And yes, I'm writing him off as a buffoon in this case, exactly because of the part you quoted: "destabilize the Balkans". If he knew better the situation on Balkans he would know that this would only stabilize the Balkans not vice versa. Same thing with Bosnia. Many think that status quo and 'peace at all cost' is the best solution all the time but guess what, it is not, and it never was. Bosnia is like radioactive material for instance, it will fall apart because it's unstable, and cannot be stabilized. Divided Bosnia is on the other hand going to be a stable factor in the region. Same thing with Kosovo. If it remained in Serbia it would constantly be an element one would fight over. Kosovo staying in Serbia is about ideology, not about stability. Even Serbs could tell you that much. Therefore, all being said, any argument about stability in this case is flushed down the toilet. So please, I know you're Greek and will tend to support Serbia, but let's try to put ideology aside and look at all this from a more objective perspective. Also, since I'm a Croat I'm very aware of the fact that you could call me biased, but I'm trying not to be. International community didn't like the dissolution of Yugoslavia as well, because they cherished 'stability' and 'peace' over ethics and justice. Well guess what, things are more stable now, there is no Serbian hegemony anymore, and the only unstable factors are those that remained in the first place (Kosovo, Bosnia). === Now, let's touch the subject of morality since you started it. What you call "morality" (in this case) has been a standard practice in the history of the world, for eons, and it still is. Therefore you don't have any legal or moral high ground here. If you want to talk about "justice", and whether or not Kosovo independence is fair and just, then what argument do you have in that case? Territorial mutilation is not just or unjust. It is just that - territorial mutilation, neutral in itself. If you want to claim that injustice has been made, then you will have to provide arguments for that, in this very particular case, under these very specific circumstances. To me, the independence of Kosovo is just, because Serbian territorial ambitions backfired. Now, they are having a taste of their own medicine. Also, since all of you are pro-democracy, I'd also like to state that the independence of Kosovo is a very democratic move, since people of Kosovo voted for it (I couldn't care less about that since I was never pro-democracy). JosipMac (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly dislike your bringing up my nationality in this. It has nothing to do with my argumentation and similarly to me your nationality is irrelevant in this.

Your idea that the independence is a stabilizing factor is being disproven by the current state of affairs and by its forseeable future. We already have a Serbia in the brink of civil collapse, with a disgruntled and bitter populace, we already have the BBC reporting rumours that some Albanian ultranationalists are starting to Think Big about territories in FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Greece, and we already have the Russians threatening with the use of force. Now if that seems stable to you, I give up. As I see it, we are just ticking off time before a ridiculous thing happens (eg an Albanian-Kosovar policeman beating up a Serbian-Kosovar protester) and have the whole thing explode.

And what sucks is that it really didn't have to be that way. The Serbs had ousted Milosevic and taken serious steps towards stabilization. And what do they get? Amputation and being thrown back in the 1990ies. On the other hand, the political leaders of the KLA (ie the exact obverse of the Milosevic coin) get to be celebrated as a democratic government, vowing to protect minorities, whereas exactly those people that kicked Milosevic (eg Kostunica, Tandic etc) out are being treated with utter distrust of doing the very same thing (what is the independence if not distrust of Serbia to protect minorities?). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Our nationalities are very relevant in this because a part of our perspective comes from our nationalities, or at least our experience does. Me being Croat means I probably (but not necessarily) have more insight into the problem of Balkans than someone from Malaysia. You being Greek means your stance will tend to be pro-Serbian, before any objective matters taken into account. If you were from USA, or Albania, I find it difficult to believe that you would be saying same things you are saying now. Thus my point stands. We are not here to battle with our national background but we are trying to be as objective as possible.

My idea of stability isn't disproved and could not be disproved already at this point. Therefore your counter-argument (or an attempt of it) is invalid. But thanks for being so eager to disprove me I guess.. My idea of stability obviously differs from yours. Yours is "let's keep putting balsam over dead body so it rots more slowly". Mine idea of stability means exactly that - longterm stability. Short-term stability is what UN usually does, it doesn't solve any problems, it just postpones them. I also see that you didn't quite listen to what I said: I don't even care about stability, I do estimate better stability, but I don't care about it. If it's a Just think to do, I support Kosovo independence, even if hell breaks loose, even if World War III starts. The rest of things you said is completely irrelevant and I can't figure out why would anyone mention these things in a wannabe serious discussion on Wikipedia? "Rumors about big territories"? Wow big deal, Serbia was drawing imperialist charts all the time, but I'm sure that did not concern you. And please let's not start with rumors and gossip, you will find people in Croatia saying "Hrvatska all the way to Zemun" but hardly anyone is serious about that, and none will use it on Wikipedia as a proof of anything because it would be silly. Serbia is also not "on the brink of civil collapse", Serbia has internal problems and Kosovo has nothing to do with it, so stop pretending like it's that just to prove your invalid point. "Disgruntling and bitter populace", are you serious? Where have you lived last 20 years? Russians threatening with force? Woah, did you oversleep your history lessons in school? Russia is threatening with force since the beginning of Cold war. And it will especially threaten now because they elected Putin to be a strong leader who will bring back respect of Russia. It has nothing to do with Kosovo; if there was no Kosovo there would be Iran, oil links, Georgia etc, or they can just invent something. Give me a break.

Oh, and I will not comment your last paragraph because I'll end up flaming you, so I'll just state that I disagree. JosipMac (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User JosipMac should know that Serbia is internationally recognised state, and has internationally recognised borders, which include Kosovo (Kosovo and Metohija - to be precise). People of Kosovo and Metohija do not have legal right to proclaim independence, because it is against international law. Any lawyer can confirm that and there's no question about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.64.242 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous poster should know that Serbia wasn't internationally recognized state since the Beginning of Time, and that it fought it's way to independence by suppressing and defeating tribes on its way. As a matter of fact, Serbia was "internationally recognized" in the year of 1077 when Mihailo was crowned by the Pope. The Pope at that time in that part of the world was de facto "international recognition". And I'm pretty sure that at the time Serbia wasn't 'recognized' by all countries, nor did all countries agree on territorial boundaries. Kosovo is currently recognized by USA, UK, Australia, France, Italy and Germany, for start. That's as good if not better recognition than Serbia had in 1077, and it's only a start (with only two relevant countries, Russia and Spain, officially against at this moment). I find it amusing that you use "not recognized" argument, because countries are not instantly recognized by everyone in the world, the moment they emerge. Or at least that's not a rule. I'm still not sure whether you are completely oblivious of the history of the world, or you so badly need to support Serbia that your ideology makes you blind. Also, Serbia does not have internationally recognized borders which include Kosovo, not anymore. The recognition of Kosovo by the above-mentioned states also meant a derogation of the previous recognition of Serbia's borders which included Kosovo. In other words, as it stands now, more relevant countries officially recognize Serbia without Kosovo, than they recognize Serbia with Kosovo included. === And please don't mention lawyers and what they think, in a context of International law. You talk of them as if they were a Pope of 11th century whose every word is an expression of divine will. Well, I have a newsflash for you. Being a lawyer doesn't mean being a scientist. Being a lawyer doesn't mean having a superior sense of right and wrong. Being a lawyer means exactly that: being a person who can support by official means a side that he or she finds interest in. In this discussion, that's completely irrelevant since there is no such thing as "International law", in a way you think it exists. It's a matter of who is stronger, who has more power to promote interests. International law is a contradiction of terms, something like "Natural law". You can talk about "international standards" or whatever you want, but you can't talk of international law, unless there is a force strong enough to impose its rules on the whole world, and make sure that rules are obeyed. Since such a force doesn't exist (and if it did it would be USA, which is pro-Kosovo), your statement has no relevant meaning. So, if you wanted to say that Kosovo independence is against Serbian national law, then you are right. But no one was claiming otherwise. At the time of French revolution "international law" or at least "European law" (it makes as much sense) was against democratic regimes, and pro-absolutist regimes. So are you saying to me that you're against democracy in Europe, because democracy in European countries is illegal? You do know that joint absolutistic regimes were trying to aid French absolutism, but peasants in France acted illegally and were overthrowing the state? What is your stance on all of this, just out of curiosity? One more thing - of course that what you call "international law" will be against separation because each entity protects itself. International law is made by supreme entities only, and while from time to time you'll hear of "self-determination of nations" they will not be prone to make a "law" which goes against them. That being said, any attempts to judge independence on "international law" is flawed. Independence is not a matter of law, it's a matter of Force and/or Justice. If you want to state an opinion regarding Independence your arguments have to be pro or against Force and/or Justice. Using "law" as an argument in this case, whether pro or cons, makes absolutely no sense at all. JosipMac (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with some of your statements. USA has shown that it uses the force instead of justice. By international law I meant the United Nations Charter and Helsinki act which guarantee souverenity and territorial integrity of every member state. I think I don't have to remind that Serbia (then Yugoslavia) is one of the UN co-founding states. Your parralels with historic events are not relevant because during the French revolution etc. there was no such organization. After WWII the protection of international law was institutionalised. People simply sat down and made laws and rules to protect stability and peace (that's one of the main UN goals, isn't it?). But obviously USA and other countries who recognised Kosovo do not respect Security Counsil and other UN institutions, as well as UN itself. What would happen if every minority in every country asked for their independence? Why do you think Spain, among others, is against self-proclaimed independence? I am not saying there weren't crimes done by Serbian army in Kosovo, I don't claim that Kosovo should be governed from Belgrade, it should in my opinion have a wide autonomy, all I'm saying is that Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence goes against all relevant international laws concerning souverenity and territorial integrity of countries, and that is a fact. Now, whether the law is enforced or not, that's another story. My regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.64.242 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well, in my opinion USA has both Force and Justice on their side in this case. By "Justice" I don't mean human legal system. I mean Justice, as one of the highest principles (I have to mention this because it seems I wasn't quite clear about that in the previous post, so you misunderstood it). I have to admit I don't quite see what you're trying to do with mentioning again UN Charter and other documents. I've already said - those are lists of UN wishes. It's not a law per se, and thus it is not convenient to use the word "guarantee". UN is in no position to guarantee anything. UN can use a Force just like any single nation, but what they do is not "legal", and I already explained that in the previous post. UN works on a mob principle, similar to democracy. If you have Force strong enough to impose something, and a will behind that Force, then you do it. If not, you don't. My parallels with French revolution are very much relevant, and I would still like to hear your answer: do you support French revolution and democracy or not, even though such a thing was "illegal" then as much as Kosovo is illegal today? Also, do you consider USA an 'illegal' state, considering that their independence was illegal? And one more thing regarding legality - do you consider invasion of Iraq legal, and if not, what is UN doing in punishing the countries who invaded Iraq? If UN cannot or does not want to punish countries that invaded Iraq, your whole point of "UN law" or "International law" goes down the drain, instantly. One of the requirements of "law" is having a Force strong enough to impose it, and to make sure everyone obeys it. If there is no Force sufficient to ensure adherence to the law, then there is no law - it's a list of good wishes. One can then say that independence of Kosovo is against the wishes of some, but that hardly has any relevance at all when those whose wishes are for the independence are stronger. Back to your post. I agree with you that UN was made to protect stability and peace, and that's why I don't like UN. If UN was there to manifest Justice, I would support it. As it is, I don't respect UN, and I think not respecting UN is a good thing (you made it sound like it's a bad thing). To answer your question: not every minorities want independence, and those minorities who want it should get it. That's right, if Istria in my country wanted independence I'd be among the first to vote in their favor. I have entirely different concept when it comes to self-determination of minorities. I reject the idea of national state, I think it's a flawed concept which was historically useful as much as democracy was historically useful and as mush as the tyranny of Peisistratos was useful. It's not a concept that's in itself good, but it's a concept which helped bring a civilization to the next level. I wanted to make explanation a bit longer but this section of Wikipedia doesn't allow it so I won't bother. To sum it up: I think a country should be run so well, that no one in their right mind would even want to break-off. And if someone does want to break-off for whatever reason, an economic (and other) alliance should be made to neutralize bad side effects of having too many small countries (a concept similiar to USA or EU). Oh, and regarding the last part of your msg - I repeat, there is no such thing as 'relevant international law'. Also, "whether the law is enforced or not, that's another story" is a very strange figure of speech, since a law that is not enforced is not a law at all. It's a list of good wishes. JosipMac (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pozdrav. I don't agree with your opinion that USA has Justice on its side. I don't think it's right to take a piece of a territory of a country, if the country is against it, no matter why. That is not Justice, that is opposite of Justice. It is not a moral thing to do. A moral thing to do would be to ask the country involved if she agrees, and if the country does not - then it would be a moral thing to find some kind of a compromise. UN Charter is one of the most important documents of international law. As for UN and international law itself, I would like to believe that we live in a world where there IS a law that is binding for everyone equally, because that is also MORALLY right. If UN (or other international institutions) cannot guarantee enforcement of international law or any kind of law, for that matter, why do we need the UN? I don't think UN should work on a mob principle, I think it should work on the principle of morality and justice, but I agree that's not the case. French revolution was a civil war, the concept of international law as we know it today hadn't been institutionalised back then, as I already said. About USA, United Kingdom recognised USA and that makes it a legal state. If Serbia recognised Kosovo, Kosovo would also become a legitimate and legal state, and that's the point of my posts. Invasion of Iraq is illegal in my oppinion, as was NATO aggresion on FR of Yugoslavia in 1999. You are right, UN cannot and/or does not enforce international law fully, but I find that my duty as a citizen of Serbia, Europe, and finally, the world to fight against unjustice. If someone wanted to take Istria from Croatia, I would with all my heart be against it. I get an impression that you don't think that international law should be existant. If that would be the case, the world order as we now it (and which is relatively peaceful) would go to ashes. The institution of state would also dissapear, and I don't want to live in that kind of a world. "To sum it up: I think a country should be run so well, that no one in their right mind would even want to break-off." - I agree completely, but the world isn't a perfect place. "Also, 'whether the law is enforced or not, that's another story' is a very strange figure of speech, since a law that is not enforced is not a law at all." - you can't ignore a legitimate law, it is not moral not to enforce a law that is legitimate. I understand your point that at this time there de facto isn't an institution that can enforce international law, but I want to change that, i want to live in a rightious world and I don't want the Force to be greater than the Justice.

Hey. Please sign up your comment for easier reading :) Yes, I'm aware that whether or not Justice is on USA side is arguable, and therefore I didn't go into any details, I merely presented it as my opinion. However, since you touched that topic again I will try to explain my perspective as best as I can. You claim that "no matter why, it's not right to take a piece of a territory". That in itself has nothing to do with Justice, because Justice is not bound by such territorial rules; these are the rules of a lower order. Justice is a much higher principle and it depends on the circumstances, not on man-made rules. Then you mention "one should ask a country to agree", but that's like asking a slave driver to agree on releasing a slave, and if slave driver does not agree, then slavery is Just. I disagree with that. Justice has nothing to do with whether a man or a man-made entity agrees or disagrees. If that were so, Justice would be either 'law' or 'custom'. You mention "moral", but moral is society-made entity and has nothing to do with Justice. Justice can be moral or immoral. Then you mention "compromise", but Justice is uncompromising. Justice is absolutistic in nature. Compromised Justice is a contradiction of terms. I agree with you when you say abiding the law is morally right, if you define moral as a society-made set of informal rules. But as I stated before, Justice has nothing to do with that. Law can be unjust or just. I am not talking about law here but Justice, and I have already argumented why law is irrelevant when it comes to declarations of independence (see previous posts). I fail to see the difference between institutionalized international law and non-institutionalized one, when it comes to practical matters.

As for your view of international law, care to explain how the lack of international law would increase chances of conflict? Do you think that countries invade each other less because of international law? Or because of Force? Or because of democracy? Care to post any statistics that the number of conflicts in the world decreased with international law? Or projections that it would decrease it? And then, most of all, how would this correlate with the principle of Justice, since some wars are just and some peaces are unjust. I don't think that international law should be non existant, It's simply a fact that international law does not exist. So it's not up to me to think one way or the other. There are international suggested guidelines, lists of good wishes and propositions, mutual agreements between some parties, but none of that is "law". You claim that world order as it is now would go to ashes. I see no problem with that, if better one would emerge. Whether you want to live in such a world or not is your choice, but that's no argument in itself for anything. "you can't ignore a legitimate law, it is not moral not to enforce a law that is legitimate." ..mmm I think you're mixing few things here. First, "Moral" and "law" are not the same thing (thus it can be immoral to enforce a law). Second, yes I can ignore legitimate law and fight against it if I'm able. Third, I don't care about morality a single bit, I care about Justice, but you're more concerned about what society considers moral or not. A society which cares about morals but not Justice can be annihilated as far as I'm concerned. As the saying goes: "Fiat iustitia pereat mundus" - Let justice be done, though the world perish. And last of all - you say you want to live in a righteous world.. well fine, we can start with your country and war reparations to Croatia. ;)JosipMac (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a different opinions on Justice. How do you define Justice, and what is your definition based on? What is this "higher principle"? Who made it if not people? Your entire argumentation is based on this term which is not defined. God maybe? I'm sorry then, I'm an atheist :). Justice is uncompromising? Is it Justice to ethnicly clean Serbs from territory that had been their home for centuries, and to be rewarded for this? Is that this uncompromising Justice? Or is it Justice to steal what is yours? Justice can be immoral? I disagree with that characterization.

You are comparing slavery with Kosovo situation, I can compare it with stealing. Kosovar Albanians have stolen territory from Serbia. At least they can do is agree to a compromise that would be acceptable for all parties involved. Kosovo is an illegal state that was proclaimed by leaders of terrorist organization, and under this circumstances it can never be legitimate nor legal. I never said moral and law are the same thing.

About the lack of international law. I tend to believe that existance of international law at least for a little bit decreases the chances of conflict. I don't have any statistics or such, I am sorry. But, when you put your name (i.e. your country's name) on a paper that says that you will obey rules which are there to preserve international peace and stability, I think you are morally (and I mean inner morality - like when you feel guilty when you do something bad) obligated to respect them. If you don't, you are not serving justice, you are not a good man. There IS such document, the UN Charter, and it certainly is not "guideline" - it is rule.

I agree, my country should pay reparations, but also Croatia must be punished for ethnic cleansing, and return everything that was taken away from its citizens who happened to be Serbs. That is Justice. Bye 77.105.51.65 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Justice as in sense of right and wrong, and the manifestation of it, which is based on the perspective of God. The fact that you're atheist doesn't change it, just as the fact that most people believed Earth was flat didn't make it flat. Also, since you're atheist, I don't quite understand your usage of terms "right" and "righteous" or "just". I assume you meant "legal" and "moral", because from human perspective there is no "right and wrong" since you have nothing to measure it with. I have absolutely no intention in going to off-topic discussions now regarding Serbs; you know that my opinions differ from yours and we would never come to the same conclusion, so I don't see a point in starting a fruitless debate. :) I agree with you that one is morally obliged to respect rules which were laid down and agreed upon. But that is neither Just or unjust, and therefore completely irrelevant for me as I don't accept the concept of morality. As far as I'm concerned, breaking of legal rules can be a Good and Just thing (but doesn't have to be). No, I don't consider myself a "good man" by any social and moral standards, nor do I want to be. I would like to manifest Justice instead and have inner sense of that. And that UN Charter is not a law, as I have already stated. If it was a law, would you mind showing me what institutionalized body enforces that law and punishes those who don't obey it? If there is no such body and no such enforcement then it's not a law. It's a list of good wishes and guidelines. JosipMac (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there isn't a God (from my perspective) and therefore Justice by definition you provided, makes your arguments invalid. Hmm very interesting, now you're saying atheist can't differ right from wrong :). I do have inner sense for right and wrong, believe it or not, and it tells me it is plain wrong what Kosovar Albanians did. You can have a different opinion, but since you are basing your arguments on a highly disputable grounds (religion) I cannot accept them. The UN Charter IS law, and the body that (should) enforce it is the Security Counsil.

Just out of curiosity, what is your stance on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999? Is it Justice to punish innocent people because of the mistakes that their government did?

And I forgot, I want to apologize to you because of the recent development in Belgrade concerning your country's embassy. I think that kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I hope our two countries will be mutually respectful partners and I hope our two peoples will eventually forgive eachother for all the tragedies we created. All the best from Novi Sad 77.105.51.65 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there isn't a God from your perspective doesn't make my arguments invalid, it merely makes them unacceptable to you. Yes, I'm saying atheist can't differ right from wrong, because you have nothing to base it on. You can differ moral from immoral because in that case you can use the norms/customs/tradition of society as a reference, or you can differ lawful and unlawful while using law as a reference. If you do have inner sense of right and wrong, what do you use as a reference to measure that? Where does that inner sense come from? Were you born with it? If you were Kosovar or Croat, would you have the same inner sense? If not, then your inner sense is based on the society you grew up in. Therefore it's not really *your* inner sense - it's a society sense. I don't base my argument on religion because I don't like religions, I base them on sacred words and acts of sacred and divine people regardless of their origin, as well as my inner sense of Justice which I don't base on society but on what I feel is right from the divine perspective which I try to grasp (and by no means am I claiming it will be a perfect sense). I am not asking you to accept my arguments based on God, I am giving my perspective. :) If Security Council is a body that (should) enforce the law, then that is called bullying because it means UN SC members can bully other nations but since they have veto nothing will ever happen to them. That's not a law, law requires a monopoly of Force. UN Charter therefore isn't a law, it's just a set of rules where it says "you puny little countries have to do this or else", and that "law" is based on Force. If there is enough Force to enforce it then it's applied, and if not then it's not. Ergo, it's not a law. Law isn't optional. Either there is law, or there isn't. You can't have it so that in 30% of situations Charter is followed, in 20% of situations it's violated but nothing is done because country who did it put a veto, and in 50% of cases nothing is done because a country who did it is protected by a veto of another country. That's not a law, it's a consensus. Maybe Serbia has a law which is based on consensus, but I'm sure other countries are not like that. Maybe in Serbia when a guy gets killed, a mob gathers on the street and votes for options A and B, with city council members having a right of veto. But that's not a law, it's called wild wild west.

My stance on NATO bombing when it comes to innocent people? There are no innocent people. The King and the Land are one. Perhaps you should watch Excalibur movie. :) In a democratic country, you are responsible for your government. When a majority of people elect a government, a minority that didn't vote for it cannot ask to be an exception, especially when that minority supports democracy. If, on a personal level, the situation was about an individual who opposes democracy and didn't vote on the elections - then you could call that unjust. On a large-scale level, such as NATO bombing was, an individual is one with democratic leadership. I am completely against "it's all governments fault" statements in a democratic society. This is all theory. In practice, if you were to avoid civilians at all costs, you would lose a war.

Oh, and no need to apologize, I don't care about that embassy. I do care about the money it will take to repair damage. I also don't care about forgiveness, I think it would be good if Serbs realize the mistakes they did but I see a lot of them are still unable to accept history, probably including you, because even you try to make it seem like things are neutral and everyone harmed each other equally, which is not true (just take a look on whose territory war was fought, for instance). In any case, both nations need to change mentality drastically. Croats for instance have that lame servant mentality (along with primitive behavior of many), which annoys me so much. Right now we are EU bitc*, believe it or not we don't even have independent foreign policy - we can't wink unless EU tells us to. Government is OK with that because it means they have less stuff to do (why think when EU can think for you). People are also OK with that, it's absolutely disgusting. If there was a referendum of us becoming another Australian/Canadian state, I would vote for it. We would have a same amount of freedom, but with more benefits. And we wouldn't lose anything because we don't have an army (our army is in Haag along with your guys haha) and we don't have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (EU runs that for us now). Our economy plans are non-existent so even if Australia/Canada payed no attention to development of this 'territory' it would be no different than it is now. I know this is a bit off-topic, just wanted to point out that Croatia's relations to Serbia, ex-war and that embassy etc is really so irrelevant right now with all these problems. JosipMac (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is turning into a phylosophical debate, I see you're basing your arguments on the principle of "God", however nobody asked god how he/she feels about this situation, nobody asked for his/her opinion directly, so all of your arguments are merely your own interpretation of "divine will" or whatever you'd like to call it. I'm sure there are many people in Serbia who are religious and who deeply belive that God is on their side. Another thing, I said i was a Serbian CITIZEN, I didn't say I was a Serb. To me nationality is irrelevant.

About NATO bombing. First of all, it is well known that the votes of the people were stolen. You forget how many children were killed by NATO bombs. Isn't that against Justice, which you so fiercly emphasize? You, as a Christian (I presume you are Christian), should condemn such actions, and feel sorry for innocent people. Serbia during Milosevic's regime was not a democratic country, and everybody seems to forget that.

If UNSC enforces 20% of international law and perserves peace in 20% of cases concerned, still it is better than not to preserve peace at all. I agree, it's not efficient enough, but that's the best we have in practise. And I agree, we should change it if we find any better solution.

Of course I don't think everyone harmed eachother equally, but I think that generalization is a wrong thing to do. You can't blame every Serb for harm their countrymen did, and I believe that lots of Croats were against concentration camps, ethnic cleansing etc. I do not blame you for (hypothetically speaking) voting for that government.

And yes, I forgot, what do you think about Republika Srpska Krajina and Republika Srpska? Should they be allowed to proclaim their independence or is that against your vision of Justice?

I must say it was really refreshing to participate in this debate with you. Even though I don't share your perspective, it is always nice to hear bright people. Veliki pozdrav. Milanbergh (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my arguments are my own interpretation of "divine will", and I'm sticking to that. Other interpretations are not better in itself. Human will in "law"? I fail to see how that is better in itself, plus as I said law is irrelevant in this issue because independence is not bound by the law. Then you have what.. moral principles which are again based on society alone, and I don't see how that is necessarily better than my "interpretation of divine will"? :) (yes, I know you disagree!) The only "objective" criteria that you have right now, in this matter, is criteria of Force. As I see it, Force is with Kosovo, and hence they declared independence. If other countries had enough of power to prevent independence, they would. As simple as that.

Votes stolen? What votes? Whose votes? I hope you're not going to say that the rebellion in Croatia by terrorist Serbs was done by few individuals, and the masses gathered on squares for... what exactly? And I don't care if the votes were stolen or not. You're a citizen of Serbia as you said. You carry a part of responsibility for what your government does. If you're not OK with that, you can leave Serbia anytime you want, or you can organize coup d'etat, or make protests (and we both know how many Serbs protested against war on Croatia and Kosovo). I don't like government in Croatia, but as long as taxes are being paid, I'm unfortunately indirectly supporting it. Ok, moving on. Killing children isn't against Justice, I already explained that. Justice has nothing to do with or without killing children, those are human criteria. Killing children can be Just and a very good thing to do. It all depends on the circumstances. Yes, I do feel sorry for innocent people, such as our general Gotovina, but I believe we have different definitions of "innocent". :) No, I am not a Christian, I stopped being Christian somewhere around age 15 when I simply had it with that backwards religion. I'm not sure how I should define my belief system.. I don't belong to any formal religion, I take good, smart and sacred stuff from all sources where I find it.

Hmm, well I am not saying that UNSC never does anything right. I am saying that it cannot be called "law", that's all. The ratio of good vs bad that UNSC does is unknown to me since I did not do any extensive analysis on that matter.

No, don't worry, I'm not blaming every Serb for everything. I just take a more careful approach usually, but there are a lot of cool Serbs of course, and one can run into them online as well. The main problem however is mentality of a nation, and if you look at the current events (protests and riots in Austria for instance), how exactly do you think West will stop looking at us here as "Balkan tribes" when everyone acts like barbarians from Middle Ages? Here in Croatia I would personally start by declaring some soccer fan clubs as terrorist groups (which they are, in practice) and use these barbarians for hard labor or some socially useful activity.

Regarding your question: I think Serbs in Krajina should be glad that they were not altogether annihilated in the last war (which would be Just, as far as I'm concerned). I will not go into history overviews here, let's keep it simple (and yes, I know you disagree so let's not debate over it). As for Republika Srpska, what's done is done. In my opinion, a reasonable war reparations should be payed to Bosnia, and then Republika Srpska can declare independence, and if they want (and I assume they do) become a part of Serbia. That would provide long term stability and would make some sense IMO. There is a catch 22 here though, I don't believe that it should become independent in its current boundaries. Independent Republika Srpska should be no bigger than 33% of current Bosnia (which I think would be fair, considering the recent history and all that). Not sure if you would agree with this or not, but 33% of Bosnia being a full part of Serbia sounds OK to me. Croatian parts of Bosnia (which are not even 33%) should merge with Croatia if they desire. Now, before anyone starts flaming, you are from Serbia so I'm pretty sure you understand situation in Bosnia more than western politicians - Bosnia, in its current state, is not a stable country. It's not even country which can work properly on its own. Constant quarrellings and vetoes will prevent any constructive moves. Unlike western politicians, I don't think many people in ex-Yugoslavia have delusions that Bosnia will suddenly start working and everyone will all of a sudden get along just fine. No, they won't. As a Croat I don't care that much if Croatia gets a piece of Bosnia; it's more about convenience than some imperialistic tendencies. In practice, Croats in Bosnia don't care about Bosnia, and Serbs in Bosnia don't care about Bosnia. I don't see how Bosnia can last like that and be prosperous country. I'd much rather have smaller Bosnia which is truly Bosnia, instead of having a bigger Bosnia which only exists on paper and is no-mans-land.

PS: We will need a separate Wikipedia section for this; our discussion is almost as big as the rest of the sections put altogether on this page :) JosipMac (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, it took several post to get clear that Justice is merely your point of view, and not a universal principle, and therefore there isn't a point of me "proving" my point to you, because everything I say you can counter with your "Justice". I just think you have double standards. Tell me, how the situation in (former) RSK differ from situation in Kosovo? RSK was proclaimed on territory with Serb majority - Kosovo was proclaimed on territory with Albanian majority. Serbs felt endangered by Croatian government - Kosovars by Serbian government. Serbs in Croatia, as Albanians on Kosovo, were involved in terrorist activity, right? And about annihilation, I think Croats should consider themselves very lucky, too, for not being destroyed by JNA, wouldn't you agree?

I was a minor when the war was going on, and so were a lot of other children. They cannot be responsible for government actions because they had no influence whatsoever in government being elected. Therefore they are absolutely innocent. I think I don't have to remind you how many people were on the streets of Belgrade, Novi Sad and other cities in Serbia during the nineties that were AGAINST Milosevic. They were brutally beaten by Milosevic's police, political rivals were killed, as were journalists. You can't say that there were no movements against tyrrany: OTPOR and DOS overthrew Milosevic's government. Everything is not so black and white, you know.

Force is not with Kosovo, in my opinion. I consider Russia and China to be great powers also, and they declared they are not pro-independence. As did Spain, Argentina etc. Why do you think that USA is the referent body upon which we can say that someone has the Force on their side? Do you think that USA is stronger than China and Russia, that USA is Justice and Force? If you do, well, I think we should stop debating (actually, I think we should stop debating in any case, cause there's no point, is there?).

Yes, I agree, Bosnia isn't a stable country. But if any action should be done, it should be done based on compromise and agreement between the parties. I think it would be unfair for Serbs or Croats or Bosniaks (whatever :) ) to proclaim independence not worrying about how their neighbours and countrymen (whether we like it or not, they are countrymen, they are all BosniaNs) feel about that. I think that is one of the reasons why this horrible war began in the first place. If only Serbs on one side and Croats on other side agreed on compromise, I believe we could have avoided it. For example, look at Slovaks and Czechs, or Serbs and Montenegrians. There was no Justice in ex-Yugoslav wars, there was only interest and profit. Milanbergh (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. Justice IS a universal principle, it's not my point of view. My point if view is about how much I have grasped of what Justice is. It's like watching various labels at a distance - labels are there, but some of these labels may be too far and then I will not have a clear picture of what is written, but by seeing few letters I may be able to decipher a whole word, and then a whole sentence. That "deciphering" is subjective in a way that it is based on the clarity of my (eye)sight and cognitive process behind it (to illustrate the point).

As for Krajina, I think the very fact that you ask "what's the difference" shows that nothing changed in Serbia. Serbs still don't get it what was wrong in the whole process, and I don't know whether it's your TV, your lack of education, the propaganda, or is it just that your whole nation has such backwards primitive mentality? So what's the difference? For start, Serbs decided that it would be best to go on a killing spree instead of wasting time on any negotiations. How long did it take for Kosovo to get their independence? Serbs on the other hand act like a little baby. If they want something, they need to get it right now, right there, and no matter the cost. They also did not want just Serbian entity. They wanted ethnic cleansing. At least that's not difficult to prove (except to UN court of course, and to other Serbs, but that's not my problem). Then, after the treatment Croats got in Yugoslavia and former Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes - after Croats were nice to allow Serbs to settle on Croatian territory (Krajina) when they were fleeing from Turks - after Serbs used JNA (which was, let's face it, a Serbian army) to attempt to stop the independence of Croatia with all available force regardless of casualties - after all that you have the guts to ask what was wrong with additional move of stealing Croatian territory? Yes, that's right, stealing. You know what would be Justice according to me? A decimation of Serbian population not only in ex-Krajina but in Serbia as well. I would rather give half of Croatia to Italy, than give one village to Serbia, and I would rather have whole Croatia as British colony than give independence to Krajina. Oh, and I forgot. Stop manipulating. "Serbs in Krajina being endangered by Croatia" only because Croatia wanted independence, isn't a reason to start ethnic cleansing. Moreover, it's not the same situation with Kosovo because Kosovo had autonomy before, Kosovo had history. And what did Krajina have? It never had autonomy, it was never Serbian, and as a matter of fact historical Krajina was a *Croatian* frontier. And then you dare compare Kosovo terrorist activities with the ones Serb did? No one with at least a bit of moral integrity would even think of that. I could go on and on, but I would rather import 2 million Chinese and secede Krajina to China. Croats shouldn't consider themselves "lucky" for not being defeated by JNA. We had no weapons at all, we had embargo, but we won, because we were better, we had better tactical plans, we had higher morale, we were more virtuous and Justice was on our side. There is no luck.

China isn't against independence, at least it's not yet listed as such on Wikipedia. China is for more negotiations or whatever, and stalling, but I'm sure they are not too thrilled about the idea of Tibet and Taiwan being independent so I understand their reasons. So you have what, Russia Spain and Argentina versus USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Turkey, a bunch of other European countries, and a bunch of countries which are in the process of recognition but wait for political reasons (Sweden, for instance). As it stands now, Force is definitely on the side of Kosovo. And the proof of that is that Kosovo functions as autonomous country for quite some time already. I don't see any Russian protectorate, or Serbian rule in Kosovo. That says enough. And stop putting words in my mouth, I never said USA was Justice, nor did I ever say it's not. That phrase makes no sense at all. I said that the independence of Kosovo was Justice IMO.

Yes, I see Slovaks and Czechs, and they didn't have war because they are not as barbaric as Serbs. There was Justice in ex-Yugoslav wars - Croatia won. JosipMac (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• What Wikipedia is not?
  • WP:FORUM
    • Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference Desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avala (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was aware we went too much into off-topic. Well I've said everything I wanted to say, wrote quite a lot on the topic and don't see a point in continuing. EOD :) JosipMac (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your last post, you have shown how much ignorant you are. I don't even want to start counter-argumenting your words, because they really lack any logic and facts. Maybe if you weren't so full of hatred you could see the real Truth about exYu wars. I wish you to be able to forgive in future, because forgiveness is not an atribute of the weak, it is the atribute of the strongest. As long as you have your silly little Croatian complex, you won't be able to be free, free from hatred, and it will eventually eat you up. I'm sorry that you mislead me into saying that you are bright, I now see how much wrong I was. Best of all to you and your "God", maybe you'll learn something from him. Over and out. Milanbergh (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure if I agreed with you on this point I'd suddenly be bright and shiny, but since I don't I'm all the opposite. Forgiveness is irrelevant here, I don't blame Serbs for what they did before but who they are now, and looking at you as an example it seems they still didn't accept the cruel truth of history. I don't have anything against Germans, but hey, Germans felt sorry for what they did, and they comprehended what they did. Serbs dunnot, Serbs just say "oh there was war, both sides did lots of wrong, let's move on". That means your nation did not repent. And I don't have 'silly little Croatian complex' because I don't even consider myself a "Croat" in particular. You could as well call me Canadian, Swede, Singaporean or Australian, and the only thing that would change about me is nationality in my ID. Unlike you, I have no problem seeing bad things about Croatia and Croats, and saying something is wrong when it seems wrong to me. But child Serbia is always about "he did it to!". I don't want to be free from hatred either, I just want to feel hatred towards things that deserve hatred (while you see hatred as universally wrong, I don't). And last but not the least, if you 'realized how wrong you were about me', perhaps there are other things you still haven't realized, which are wrong as well. JosipMac (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I keep saying to myself I won't be bothered to answer to your quasi-arguments, and this is for sure my last post on this subject. You have a really large problem of generalization: Serbs this and Serbs that. Where did you hear Serbs are not sorry for what they did? If you expect a collective begging for forgiveness from angelic Croatia, I'm sure you won't get it, because it's not Just, as you would put it. (Notice you can't contradict me when I use the argument of Just, very convenient). Didn't our president said he apologises for any harm that his countrymen did? I again think that nation has no relevance in this - the crimes were committed by individuals, and I, as a citizen of Serbia, (and even if I considered myself Serbian) feel absolutely no guilt or responsibility for crimes that some people (which were or weren't Serbs) in your country may or may not have done. I have no problem saying bad things about Serbia neither, but you constantly insist on your perspective which you consider the ultimate truth. Well guess what, either you are god, in which case I beg you not to crush me, or you have a bad case of delusion. I don't reject possibillity that I might be wrong, but you do. You can now say what you want, I don't really care, and maybe you shouldn't, too. Milanbergh (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can contradict you when you use argument of "Just", but that's not even necessary. I already beat you with arguments of Force and law (which are more exact), and you lost on both those fronts. Kosovo isn't unlawful, and the Force is on their side. No need to even argue over whether it's Just or not (since you don't care about the concept). Your president's apology was nice, but it was so general that I can use the same wording to apologize to just about anyone; I can apologize the same way to Serbs as well. This is what he said: "I apologize to all the citizens of Croatia for the injustice done by my people." Well there you go, I apologize to Serbs for all Injustice don't to them by Croats. How about that? The only problem is that such a politically correct apology is too general to have any worthwhile meaning (it's nice, but hardly changes anything). If he apologized for an exact thing, like stating that Serbs were wrong to start open rebellion in such a way, and that they are responsible for the bloodbath in ex-Yugoslavia - that would have been something. Also, let's not forget, many Serbs don't share his enthusiasm; #1 Party in Serbia (last elections) is that of Vojislav Seselj. The crimes were committed by individuals, but the collective known as Serbia and "Serbs" stood behind them. When Japanese attacked pearl harbor, why did USA declare war on Japan? Why didn't they just organize a search party for Naoko, Takumi and Kouhei? Why did allies carpet bomb German cities? They should have made a list of "responsible individuals" and then use snipers and guided missiles. After 30 years of sniping, the war would be over with no civilians killed. JosipMac (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NATO States

In the list of countries that recognise Kosovo, the notes section should also specify which nations are members of NATO, and provide the NATO flag. 24.83.90.35 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no point mentioning every organization in the world. EU and UN are the only important organizations on the issue of Independence for Kosovo. However NATO is playing a big role in Kosovo with its troops been sent to the northern boarder after Serbs destroyed two posts. I duno about NATO? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that there is not point in mentioning every organization in the world. But I think most peole would agree that NATO is not just any other organziation. NATO has huge relevance for Kosovo. And if the organizations that are important and relevant need to be mentioned, then what is OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) doing there? Somebody took the time and meticulously mentioned all the OIC member countries in the list, inserting the organization's flag, which I have also seen for the first time since it is not in use alongside the national flags anywhere I've been. How many people know about the OIC? How significant is it for Kosovo? How relevant is it for Kosovo's independence? On the other hand, which is the military force that assured Kosovo's autonomy from Belgrade since 1999? KFOR. What is KFOR? It is the NATO-led international military force which has been responsible for security in Kosovo. So which is more important, OIC or NATO? And yet, NATO membership is not mentioned but OIC is. I don't understand why.. Yucina (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read about the subject a little bit before writing such comments. Did you know that the predominant religion in Kosovo is Islam and that Albania is a member of OIC since 1992? --pabouk (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pabouk, I am well aware of the predominant religion in Kosovo and that Albania is also predominantly Muslim and a member of the OIC. If you read my post more carefully you will see that I do not debate the dominant religion in Kosovo or Albania. People who know Kosovo and ALbania would also know as a fact that Islam does not play a big role in the everyday lives and civic cultures of neither Kosovo nor Albania. But that is another discussion. My point is that if any membership is significant for Kosovars when it comes to which countries recognize their independence, I believe they would be international structures that can provide stability and security such as the EU and NATO and not a mostly symbolic membership in the OIC which, I believe, has no importance whatsoever in the issue. Yucina (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

This suggests that the United Arab Emirates will eventually recognise Kosovo, due to its relations with Albania.

http://www.parlament.al/eng/dokumenti.asp?id=1709

Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Austria

What's about Austria? http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/132630.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.206.152 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this is English at all? My German is not too good. What is it saying?

This says (sais?, my English is not so well ;-) ), that Austria almost recognized, that Kosovo is independent. The Austrian President is not in Austria so far, so they cannot recognize it official. They will recognize it next week (february 25th to march 2nd). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.206.152 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, it says that Austria will recognise Kosovo from the 25th February on the wiki page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Poland 2

Poland should be moved to that 'to recognise' list, according to this site: http://www.poland.pl/news/article,Warsaw_to_recognize_Kosovar_independence,id,314508.htm 24.83.90.35 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not before the President has signed the decree, so we'd better wait a couple of more days for him to do so. --Camptown (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Minister of Foreign Affairs put forward a proposal to recognize the independence of Kosovo on the Cabinet session on Tuesday (19.02.2008). But PM put off a decision untill his meeting with President. After this meeting, President said that the Cabinet should deleyed this decision, and waited for progress. On next Cabinet session (probably on 26.02.2008) the Government will decide on recognising the independence of Kosovo or still waiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aotearoa from Poland (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbian ambassadors

Serbian ambassadors are recalled from all states who recognized Kosovo.

Germany & Afghanistan: http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/:Kosovo-Unabh%E4ngigkeit-Serbien-Botschafter-Deutschland/611693.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.206.152 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

... and USA and Italy and France etc.--Cradel 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Colombia

In the reference cited [2], the Colombian Foreign Ministry DOES NOT MENTION anything about any UN Security Council decision. The article says:

"Consulted by El Tiempo, Colombian Foreign Ministry said: Colombia is doing a careful analysis over its recognition (of Kosovo) and will make a statement within the next few days on the issue'".

There's nothing else on the Colombia's FM website [3] or the Presidency website so far. --Julián Ortega - drop me a message 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Basque

Please don't manipulate the facts, about the PNV had stated support because it's a right ultracatholic party but for the independentist, like in Gara was stated that Kosovo independentism is fascist and "reaccionario" (ultra-right). So the status should be disagreement. The source is this. About catalonia you should seek information about all factions (CiU, ERC, in general "tripartito") instead saying "support". Update it please.

GUAM (Organization)

Can someone add the flag of GUAM to Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova in the tables? Thanks.--24.186.170.167 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Have they made some sort of statement regarding Kosovo that we should know about? If so, maybe you could let us know what it is.--RobNS 04:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there are CIS flags there, they haven't made any statements either, but GUAM unilaterally agrees that they will not recognize independent Kosovo. Like EU, CIS and NATO, GUAM deserves to be represented just as well. --24.186.170.167 (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above, see #ASEAN?. GUAM membership is not relevant to Kosovo in any way, as there is no expectation of Kosovo aspiring for GUAM membership, nor has GUAM issued a joint declaration on Kosovo. Therefore there is no reason why we should clutter the lists further with its indication. The same holds for CIS, which I've just removed. -- EJ (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with what EJ said. Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Other partially recognized or unrecognized states

Northern Cyprus' contrary position is noted, but has anyone heard from Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Transdnistra, South Ossetia, or Sealand about their stance on Kosovo's UDI? --Expatkiwi (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (PST)

Sealand? OK, now we are going to far, me thinks.  ;-) --RobNS 04:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1539745,0,1,wiadomosc.html - THIS IS THE WEB SITE ABOUT RECOGNISE KOSOWO BY POLAND IN 26 FEBRUARY 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.66 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Poland is a partially recognized or unregonized state? Heh your comment is under wrong heading dude. As for Sealand, it is funny that you've put it in the same list together with TRNC and other unrecognized countries.Wikiturk (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia said that if Kosovo is recognized by a majority of countries (very unclear whether they are EU or World) they will petition Russia for recognition. Transdnister supports recognition and wants independence too, (wow a shocker!) Sealand? ROFL. Although if Sealand refuses to recognize Kosovo, it would be quite embarassing for the Brits, hehe. I don't know about the first two. I am going to state that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are close allies of Russia, and considering that Russia pays for some of their services, yet they want independence from Georgia, they will be purposely vague. Feel free to declare them neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed external words added to a statement of NKR official. VartanM (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

TRNC reaction to Kosovo independance

Unfortunatly the TRNC gets added repeatedly to the list of countries that supposiedly recognized Kosovo's independance. In fact it has not (yet) done so.

The only source available (for a supposed recognition is the rather spurious Tiraspol times from Transdniestr, and even that article does not state that an official letter of recogition has been sent, which is needed for the diplomatic recoigntion to take place. While Talat has voiced support for Kosovo independance, the TRNC has not officially recognized Kosovo as a country. See [4] for a translation of an Anadolu newspiece. Please do not add the TRNC without properly sourcing this with a reliable, Cypriot (north or south) reference ! For additional reasoning, also see the Talk:Foreign_relations_of_Northern_Cyprus Travelbird (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. TRNC has not officially recognised Kosovo. The President has welcomed Kosovo's independence, but current Turkish Cypriot Administration does not seek international recognition for North Cyprus as the current official policy is to find a comprehensive solution for the Cyprus problem, i.e. unification of the island. I, myself, am a Turkish Cypriot who work in the govt. Wikiturk (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Could someone archive this talk page? It is getting very long. I would do it myself but I'm afraid I don't know how. Thanks. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can someone archive this page, or at least the first 100 or so comments! It is getting very, very long. I'd do it but am not sure how. Thanks!--Scotchorama (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs)

LIST ONLY OFFICIAL GOV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

In order to be just and objective we should list only official government statements from (Foreign Affairs Ministry). In this way we would be sure of the exact and reliable information. Allot of statements are politically motivated or do not express the official government statement on the issue.

Comments? --80.80.167.177 (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that has been the case in the currently stated nations. There has been some confusion, but I think it is remedied. TheWoody (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. That way no one gets carried away and the civility is maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suisse

Suisse with the majority of votes has declared in their parliament that they are for Independent Kosovo, therefore yesterday the swiss government has initiated proceedings for recognition. See the article of the Federal Assembly. www.parlament.ch/E/Medienmitteilungen/Pages/mm-apk-s-2008-02-21.aspx --80.80.167.177 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suisse? Last time I checked, this country is still referred as Switzerland in English. Wikiturk (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. so what? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

VENEZUELA

The Article that suggests that Venezuela has stated something over the situation in Kosovo is wrong. This article regards China and its not an Official Venezuelan Government Statement. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Entities: The European United Left–Nordic Green Left political group in the European Parliament

Why list a political group of the European Parliament? If we list a smaller group of the EP, we should also list all the major groups as well as the other smaller groups and independents. I had deleted it, but user Top Gun reverted my delete. And why stop at the EP? We should also add the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE PA, the WEU PA, the Council of Europe PA, and all of their respective political groups. The GUE-NGL is only the sixth largest political group of the European Parliament. Please delete it.--Scotchorama (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I Think you are RIGHT about this issue,I Completely agree. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally deleted it again myself, and am keeping an eye on it... --Scotchorama (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who orginally added it to the article. I did a Google News search for Kosovo and it was one of the first entries that came up. Kosovo will probably want to join the EU... well I think it is noteworthy that there is opposition within the EU to recognizing an independent Kosovo. I would be supportive of including in this article what the other parties within the EU have to say on this issue. --Tocino 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The problem is that all other EP groups have published statements on Kosovo. GUE/NGL is actually one of the smallest political groups, with only just above 40 MEPs. The group does not have any other status outside the EP. By adding this group, it will create a precedent, and we'll end up, for fairness purposes, with all EP groups, as well as other interparliamentary assemblies. Furthermore, the European Parliament doesn't have any role other than consultative in this matter. The Council is the one that can officially recognize Kosovo, but opposition from Spain, Cyprus and other countries mean that there is no consensus. I hope you understand why I believe that GUE/NGL's opinion is not notable enough, even within the EU, let alone the global international sphere, and will further clog the article. Besides, the group's opinion has been echoed by several states. Opposition within the EU already comes from EU-member States. --Scotchorama (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

States which explicitly do not recognise Kosovo as independent

Notes needed on which specific grounds these countries are against the Kosovan declaration of independence. Preferably sourced with official statements. --Camptown (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

Portugal is not in the way of recognizing Kosovo. If we exclude the Communist Party and the Left Block, that already spoke against recognition, everyone wanted more talks and agreements. Portugal's position is somehow a "wait and see". It is not starting any kind of process that will lead to recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapedro (talk • contribs) 11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Proof needed...--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Portugal still has not established a position.

http://www.agencialusa.com.br/index.php?iden=14151 Apcpca (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Two more links:

http://ww1.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=328326&visual=26&tema=1

http://ww1.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=328384&visual=26&tema=1

IMHO Portugal should be listed in Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions Apcpca (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I second it. Portugal has clearly declared neutrality until a future point in time. So it should be colored in gray.

Nope. Portugal is pro and will declare recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesship (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You got sources, or are you a representative of Portugal? I third it, Portugal should at the very least be gray. 67.101.109.142 (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

India again

I put this text before but seems that people don't read old talks. I found this article

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/02/19/stories/2008021959721000.htm

The article quotes the Foreign Office and says that the official standing of India is that sovereignty ans territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected and that India supports further dialog of the concerned parties.

I think that India should be moved on the list of countries which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations. Popara13 (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

India position should be changed to the list of the undecided countries based on this statement from the Ministry of Exterior dated 18.02.08

"India has a long standing and consistent policy on the issue of recognition. Recognition is normally accorded on the basis of a country having a defined territory, a duly constituted Government in charge which is accepted by the people and which has effective control over an area of governance.

It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties.

We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation".

Belarus

This Country Should be moved on to States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations because there is no explicit statement that Belarus does not recognize Kosovo as independent. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Comments? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The official statement of the Ministry of Foreign affairs states that the settlement of the "Kosovo and Metochia" status should progress in the framework of UN SC resolution 1244, which it interprets as "certifying the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia". I'd say this does constitute a rejection of the independence declaration. -- EJ (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the Parliament commission "condemns the decision of the Kosovo authorities and appeals to parliaments of the world to announce the declaration on independence as invalid". That's even more clear. -- EJ (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Belarus won't recognise, since it's a charter member of Putin's neo-Soviet sphere of influence better known as the League of Dictators. Nor will any of the ex-Soviet dictatorships (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc). Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Toad, please keep your biased comments to yourself. More Russians have voted for Putin then for any other Russian leader. How is a Democratically elected leader a dictator again? Same thing with Lukashenko and Belarus. I know McCain wanted to invade and Putin said no, but the Kosovar article isn't exactly a place to cry about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

UN SC resolution 1244 is a bit ambiguous EJ, and that's why all this is going on. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The resolution may be ambiguous, but its interpretation in the Belarusian statement is not. You have to convince Belarusian authorities about the ambiguity, not me. -- EJ (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the resolution 1244 is 'ambiguous' just to those who'd like it to be ambiguous. In fact, it suddenly became ambiguous after five unsuccessful attempts by the US and its allies to pass a new resolution in the UN SC in the middle of the last year. Popara13 (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Algeria

[5], says that Algeria has never had a position on Kosovo independence; "Sur le volet international, les deux chefs d'Etat devraient évoquer la situation inquiétante dans certains pays africains, comme le Tchad et le Kenya, et les tensions interminables au Moyen-Orient. Quant au Kosovo, et alors qu'Alger n'a jamais fait connaître sa position sur sa probable indépendance, Moscou a réitéré jeudi dernier sa totale opposition à une telle déclaration." --Soman (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is from February 16, isn't it? Whatever the official Algerian position on the matter might be, we wouldn't learn it before the declaration. -- EJ (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

True, my bad. I has looking at the allafrica.com time-stamp '20080219', which is the date of its online publication. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Niger Delta, Nigeria

See [6], "JRC [Joint Revolutionary Council] said they suspected the arrest of Okah was planned by the major oil companies and other anti Niger Delta elements who they have assured would be paid back in due time.They called on all Ijaws to rise up and fight for their rights, pointing out those events in Kosovo should be their beacon of hope." --Soman (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Street protests

The topic of the article is "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", not "Diplomatic reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence." How are street protests in Serbia not part of the nternational reaction? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the Serbs would disagree about the "international" part. More importantly, this article is supposed to give "a list of countries that have taken a position on the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" as it self-describes in the lead, not a survey of all related events happening in Serbia or elsewhere. The proper place to mention the street protests is, for example, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, where it is, indeed, reported. In fact, it already seems to have its own article: 2008 unrest in Serbia. -- EJ (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the article should be renamed Diplomatic reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is actually a good idea. Apparently, the article started as "List of states that have recognised the Republic of Kosovo", got renamed to "List of states expected to recognise the Republic of Kosovo", and then after a brief discussion (#article name) to its current name. However, I agree that "Diplomatic reaction to ..." describes more precisely both the original intent of the article, as well as its current and former content, so I support your suggestion. -- EJ (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else reacted so far. I would move the article to Diplomatic reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, but I hesitate to do such a major change without prior consensus. -- EJ (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely in favour. —Nightstallion 09:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Me in favour as well. -Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be renamed Diplomatic Response to the Independece of Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic reaction... is more specific than international reaction and more reflective of the substance of the article. Therefore I agree too. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge categories

I suggest that the categories of states which do not recognize Kosovo, and the category of states which have in fact not recognized it but added explicitly that they are in favor of continued negotiations, should be merged. Not recognizing is not recognizing, no matter what your subsequent proposal for the conflict is. In fact, countries which do not recognize it most probably would have done so, if the declaration of independence was a result of negotiations. I.e. if Serbia agreed, they would have followed. So I think one way or the other, these two categories should be merged. At the end day, the distinction we are making here is recognition, non recognition and an ambivalent declaration. Not recognizing AND suggesting further negotiations falls under non recognition. --Bgdboy011 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

China

Judging by their rhetorics towards recognition by Taiwan and that in general Chinese diplomatic vocabulary is rarely direct I think it's safe to say that "grave concern" is pretty much non recognizing. --Avala (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No Declaration of Not Recognizing... The Support Further negotiations. --80.80.167.177 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Probably wont recognise Kosovo as independent.Unofrtunately I cant find a source but every source will be welcomed.I tried looking at the Guatemalan foreign mionistry website,however it doesnt say anything about Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

I think this is getting personal for allot of people posting here. Allot of listings are completely not objective and do not show true statements from governments and their foreign ministries.

Ukraine is one of them. --80.80.167.177 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think by now all unsourced edits have been removed. --Avala (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

CIS Meeting

According to the Turkmenistani government,the president of Turkmenistan will fly to Moscow for a meeting with the CIS countries.It is expected they will give statement regarding Kosovo on that meeting.And that will probably be CIS official response.

Can somebody please put more informations regarding this.All that I tried to find is this:

President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov will participate in the unofficial CIS Summit in Moscow on February 22.

As an associated member of the Commonwealth of Independent States Turkmenistan pursues the policy of wide bilateral co-operation with the CIS states and stands steadfast to the strategy of promoting co-operation that meets the national interests.

Last year, Ashgabat hosted the heads of the CIS governments, who held the regular sitting in the Turkmen capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We will have to wait until they do it. --Avala (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

MOSCOW. Feb 22 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the recognition of Kosovo's unilaterally declared independence by several major world powers as "a terrible precedent."

"The independence of Kosovo is a terrible precedent. In effect, it breaks up the entire system of international relations, a system that has taken not even decades but centuries to evolve. And undoubtedly, it may entail a whole chain of unpredictable consequences," Putin said at an informal Commonwealth of Independent States summit in Moscow on Friday.

Supporters of Kosovan independence "cannot foresee the results of what they are doing," Putin said.

"Ultimately, it is a double-edged sword, and the other edge will bash them on the head some time," he said. as rp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And looks at this source too http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=712314 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Greece

Greece colour should be changed to light orange since it is among countries that "have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations". 79.175.64.242 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Light orange it is. Try to bypass your cache. -- EJ (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Greece does not recognize it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1718556,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukyi (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Entities

Is there any rule on what should be categorized as Other Entities. What I mean is what could be considered an Entity. ANY COMMENTS --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that an appropriate entity would be a major, notable,recognized, national or international organisation. Hard to give an exact definition. Recognized separatist groups could be admitted, for argument's sake, but I would not add individual national or international political parties: there would be way too many "entities".--Scotchorama (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, groups like the "Islamic Community of Serbia" which doesn't appear to have ever made any statements in the past (at least, none notable enough for it to have a page on wikipedia) shouldn't be on this list. Mikebloke (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That is a very odd addition. You'd also have to add the other minorities in Serbia, and also all the other minorities in Kosovo, to be fair and NPOV.--Scotchorama (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to add minorities living in the former Yugoslavia regions. I doubt anyone here will argue that the Kosovo declaration isn't related to the conflict of Yugoslav minorites. I think every minority organization of former Yugoslavia should be included as other entities, because while we talk about, it is a situation that they will have to live with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

Can somebody update Switzerland and add the note according to the The Swiss Federal Assembly, that Switzerland Initiated the Recognition of the Republic of Kosova. The Link is this one: www.parlament.ch/E/Medienmitteilungen/Pages/mm-sda-2008-02-22.aspx --91.187.98.251 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland is not neutral on something? Are you serious? I'd have to wait for more sources to believe it, coming from a country that hasn't joined the EU. Other countries I'd believe, but for Switzerland it's a double precedence, the fact that new countries can now grow out of old ones, (hiya Vermont) and the fact that Switzerland will start taking sides for the first time in four centuries. Just to be NPOV here, I'd be equally shocked if Switzerland issued a strong statement critiquing Kosovo's Independece declaration. 68.165.20.90 (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Swiss Cheese

Well, apparently, after Italians, ethnic Albanians are major foreign-origin minority group in Switzerland, they have quite cordial relations, so it is not such a surprise for us locals :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.45 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New data

According to this source [7], the Danes will recognize Kosovo. Contralya (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare:

(removed, nothing to do with improving the article; see WP:OR#SYN) <eleland/talkedits> 02:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

CIS membership

Why CIS membership is continiously being removed from the article? Is it irrelevant?--Dojarca (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah im asking the same question:CIS is organisation like the others and even bigger in territory than terrible EU.It should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk • contribs)

I agree that both GUAM and CIS does not need to be listed here. Those are not active in international relations and mostly focused on their members interactions. --TAG (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated by EJ before, only list down organizations which have direct connection to Kosovo. As such, ASEAN, GUAM, CIS have been removed. - Quastar Vaan (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How is OIC connected to Kosovo?--79.120.51.223 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's here #Organization of the Islamic Conference and here #Turkey. - Quastar Vaan (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? How it is important for the article? Why the membership in the OIC is more important than membership in CIS?--Dojarca (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For two reasons. (1) Kosovo is a country with a predominantly muslim population, hence it is reasonable to expect that it may apply for OIC membership. (Notice that Albania is a member.) (2) OIC has taken sides clearly by issuing a joint declaration on the issue of independence of Kosovo, thus it provides a relevant context for interpretation of the reaction of its individual member states. -- EJ (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the OIC has no significance in the issue whatsoever. Some OIC members have chosen to recognize Kosovo's independence and some have refused. The fact that most Albanians and Kosovars are muslims has no bearing on which countries have recognized Kosovo. However, due to Russia's strong opposition to Kosovo's independence and the fact that Russia is the de facto leader of the CIS (similar in a a way to the UK's de facto leadership of the British Commonwealth), I believe that it is politically significant which members of the CIS choose to recognize Kosovo's independence, thus going agaisnt Russia's will. Yucina (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CIS is an organization and i support that CIS should be mentioned no matter what.Its even biggesr than itself America and EU,and secondly it is an organization,they held summits like EU does.OIC is strictly muslim organization,but if we are talking correctly here we will put the commonwealth of independent states in too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think CIS membership is even more relevant: OIC is divided on the issue, even EU and NATO divided, but there is no CIS member to recognize Kosovo so far.--79.120.50.6 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Galicia

I think galician support should be mentioned as well as catalan and basque. You can find references here. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.239.74 (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of recognition

Should it be ordered by time of recognition by UTC instead? E.g. Australian recognition on the 19th could have been made hours ahead of that of the US on the 18th. Satomi Kataoka 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actual time of recognition is hard to find. Time of press-release can be different from actual recognition. Also it's unknown which moment of recognition process to take as final one - passing a law or degree or stating support publicly vs. private talks to Kosovo. --TAG (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then i say on the date on, which countries recognised Kosovo, put all the countries in alphabetical order. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

UNSC

For the sake of easy reading and overall article clarity, I propose that we shorten United Nation Security Council to UNSC - since even the UNSC article itself make use of the short form, unless it is against Wikipedia format - Quastar Vaan (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine and China

The two are concerned about independence of Kosovo, but they have also (after declaration of independence) declared that they think a negotiated status is the best solution - does that not make them automatically red, rather than orange? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

no Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine did not say that it does not recognize Kosovo, but stated that it supported further negotiations.. The orange field on the map's legend says that "States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations." As per this they should be orange. —dima/talk/ 20:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the states that don't recognize and those which want further negotiations? Non-recognition is simply a lack of recognition, and vice versa. Those states which haven't expressed support for Kosovo's independence are non-recognizers. I bet most if not all the states in the non-recognizing list would also say that they want further negotiations. 86.165.211.143 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You miss the fact that that there are more then Kosovo - there are still Serbia country exists and some can give support to it. So it's at least 3 possible outcomes - pro-Kosovo, pro-Serbia and neither. You can read more about similar and common problem at false dilemma --TAG (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok correct me if I am wrong, but what I am getting from the map in very simple terms is: If you are red or orange, you aren't going to recognize Kosovo until it becomes a UN member, which Russian veto prevents. If you are blue (light or dark) you either recognized Kosovo or planning. If you are any other color you either want neutrality on the issue, at least at this point, or don't give a shit. Am I right?

Pretty much, although positions can change very quickly. BalkanFever 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Map needs to be simplified

4 Categories 4 colors. 1. Recognized independence of Kosovo 2. Denies independence of Kosovo 3. Has other, complex opinion 4. No information available. This was also how the map was originally done and the current setup was said to be only temporary when it was changed. The tool to depict the exact stance of countries is text in the article not the map. Hobartimus (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's what the map should be like eventually. But for the moment, as we have countries in the process of recognizing (or not), I think it's better to leave it as is. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed. Map is good as it is. JosipMac (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

Judging from Prime Minister Clark's comments, it looks like NZ will not be supporting Kosovo independence. Should it be moved to the "No" list? batobatobato (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the comments quoted in the article, then it should stay where it is. If you are referring to something else she has said, please supply the source, and we'll see. BalkanFever 01:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers did interpret her position as a no. All headlines regarding this were "New Zealand will not recognize Kosovo" but I guess as part of her politics to get closer to Asia and China and not interfere with European affairs so much she added that New Zealand will not publish anything formal. I guess it means it will stay at that - they will not go further and advocate Serbia's position and bother about it too much but will certainly not recognize Kosovo. I guess it's fine where it is. --Avala (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting UN security council

Shouldn't those countries that await UN security council decision be moved to non-recognizing list because the decision is impossible without Russian consent?--Dojarca (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This struck me too; referring the case to the UN security council is of course only a cowardly way of saying 'no'. As such, there is little difference between the light orange states asking for further negotiations and the gray ones with the UN-excuse. Technically, however, it's hard to express this without veering into interpretation and POV. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Iran

I find it strange that Iran, as one of the greater Muslim powers of the world, have not declared themselves yet. This could be because they have their hands full with the UN nuclear sanctions. At the same time it is a delicate issue because, even though it would be natural for them to support the independence of a new Muslim state:

1. They would prefer to align themselves with Russia rather than with the US
2. They are concerned about precedent, vis-a-vis the Kurds

    Kosovo is not a muslim state.  You should read the constitution of Republika e Kosoves regarding that. Besides the constitution, Albanians simply feel more albanian then muslim or christian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.179.57 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 

All I've been able to find is a speech by former President Khatami from 1998, saying: "the legitimate rights of the embattled people in this province should be recognized".[8] This, of course, can not be used to describe the current position. Does anybody else have anything more current? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 03:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is any news, it will most likely be in Persian....BalkanFever 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, though you'd think some western news agencies might have picked it up. I'm guessing they're just opting for 'no comment'. But if there should be any Persian-speaking editors out there... Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 03:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're pretty good about getting their POV out in English. Nothing about Kosovo though. The main places you'll see an announcement, if any is made, are at the Islamic Republic New Agency (http://www.irna.ir/en/) or at their MFA. The IRNA site happens to have a Serbian version, maybe it's there? I can't read Serbo-Croatian no matter the alphabet. Could someone who does look please? Ajbenj (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Iran has a big role in OIC, which recognized Kosovo and a lot of Muslims look to Iran for leadership. On the other hand should Iran recognized Kosovo, it means that "It's Time To Play Starve Iran to Death With Resolutions". I think Iran's just waiting to see the Muslim reaction to Kosovo, and how Russia will behave come veto time on Iranian sanctions. Eventually Iran will have to move one way or another, most likely not recognize Kosovo, but for now it's definetely gray. Right now Kosovo is a trump suit that Iran could play against Russia, to get Russia's veto on Iranian Sanctions. For right now it's definetely gray.

Indonesia should be in don't recognize as indenpendent group

Source: Jakarta Post and Associated Press http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailgeneral.asp?fileid=20080218113450&irec=53 --82.208.206.65 (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That link didn't work for me. I did find this:

JAKARTA (AP): Indonesia said Monday it does not recognize Kosovo's declaration of independence, a move that reflects Jakarta's concern that the pronouncement could energize its own separatist movements.

"The government of Indonesia will follow closely developments in Kosovo, but it is not yet in a position to recognize this unilateral declaration of independence," the statement said.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailgeneral.asp?fileid=20080218113450&irec=54 but no promises this will work for you...

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the link index is probably changed by the time, but your citation is from that article, I've found recently ago.

The full name of that article is Indonesia says it does not recognize Kosovo's independence, notably signed by The Associated Press acronym (AP)

Therefore, for me, the article origin and its contents is clear and pretty much enough for convincing me, that Indonesia should be regarded as one in the group of states that don't recognize as indenpendent

How about you? 82.208.206.116 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada

This is what globeandmail reported today:

Tread carefully on Kosovo, Chrétien says OMAR EL AKKAD

February 23, 2008

OTTAWA -- Former prime minister Jean Chrétien spoke out about Canada's potential recognition of an independent Kosovo yesterday, urging Canadian officials to be careful because of the impact a decision could have on Quebec separatists.

"Canada has to be careful because people want to separate from Canada," Mr. Chrétien told reporters yesterday after he was asked for his thoughts about Kosovo's independence. However, he added that the situation in Canada is less ambiguous than in Kosovo because the Clarity Act outlines the rules for separation from the country.

Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia less than a week ago has prompted strong reactions around the world. Serbia signalled it will withdraw its ambassador from any country that recognizes the new state.

Many of Canada's most important allies - including the United States, the United Kingdom and France - have already recognized Kosovo's independence. However, Ottawa has been silent on the issue so far.

Mr. Chrétien spoke about Kosovo with reporters in Rideau Hall, moments after being inducted into the highest rank of the Order of Canada at a ceremony headed by the Governor-General.

While Mr. Chrétien was forthcoming with his thoughts on Kosovo, he was less so on the issue of a possible federal election call next week. The former prime minister said the decision to have an election rested with the opposition parties, and he would not act as a "Monday morning quarterback" on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Former US state secretary Eagleberger was against the recognition of Kosovo. So does it really matter what a former official has to say on an issue like this. That is his opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.179.57 (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please use useful edit summaries when editing the article. Edits like this and this require explanations. Superm401 - Talk 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Partially recognized state" category is highly misleading

The category of "partially recognized state" is highly misleading because it implies that all states other than Taiwan are "fully recognized states", which is blatantly untrue (e.g., the PRC is not recognized by at least 23 states). I've therefore removed and merged this category. The best alternative, of course, would be to move almost every state into this category, since very few states (if any) are "fully recognized" by every other state. Konekoniku (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is all of the other states have been recognised by the MAJORITY of the world except for Taiwan, only 23 states. And northern Cyprus, only Turkey recognises them. The thing actualy isn't if they are full recognised or not but if they have a seat in the UN, Taiwan and Northern Cyprus are the only two "states" in the world thare are not represented in the UN, which will also happen with Kosovo. Taiwan is officialy still part of the People's republic of China as is Northern Cyprus still part of Cyprus, so Kosovo may say it has separated itself from Serbia, they may say they are not part of Serbia and are independent but that won't matter in the UN because they will not be part of that international comunity and that's what counts.(talk) 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think states that recognise Taiwan don't necessarily not recognise the PRC - simply the PRC refuses to extend diplomatic relations to such countries. Kransky (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't TRNC in the "partially recognised" section? Instead, it's in a different section. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

If you are a member of the UN, you are a recognized state. If you aren't a UN member you are not a recognized state. It's really not that complicated. China's a UN member, Taiwan and North Cyprus are not. Hence they aren't recognized states, but rather partially recognized states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying countries such as Switzerland, which joined UN in 2002, was not a recognized state until then? --K kc chan (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A country does not need to be a member of the UN in order to be a country. Countries existed before the UN was founded in 1945, you know...Kransky (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with all these arguments -- for one, North Korea is recognized by fewer than half the UN member states, if I remember correctly. For two, it doesn't mean anything to say that all other "states" are recognized by a majority of "all other states" when you've never clearly defined "state" in the first place. Third, as Kc Chan stated, if you're using "UN member state" as the definition of "state" then Switzerland prior to 2002 and the Vatican currently are not "states". If by saying "partially recognized state" we really mean "Non-UN member or observer states", which is what most people here seem to be saying, then we should just go out and say so directly instead of beating around the bush with highly misleading terms. I have changed the title of the section accordingly. Konekoniku (talk) Konekoniku (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing recognition with diplomatic relations. ALL UN member states recognize each other as states, even if they don't maintain diplomatic relations. 193 countries recognize North Korea as a state. Two states, Switzerland and the Vatican, were widely recognized for a long time before joinging, and the Vatican still hasn't joined, but is recognized as a state. UN membership has absolutely nothing to do with recognition as a state. The US doesn't have diplomatic relations with N. Korea, Iran, or Cuba, but does recognize them as states, to give an example. What it all boils down to is do the majority of the world's countries recognize you as a state.--165.95.228.4 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we make this dumb distinction between "partially recognised" and normal states? A country like Taiwan which is independent in everything except name is nothing like the puppet state of Northern Cyprus, or the rebel held regions of the Western Sahara. Do we now include South Korea and Israel in this list too because they are not universally recognised? Why can't this list be like any other normal list! Kransky (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The key here is majority. There is a fundamental difference between states recognized by the majority of the world, and state recognized by a minority. De facto states are those that possess attributes of statehood, but are not recognized by the majority. This does not mean Taiwan is the same as TRNC, it just means it is relatively more like TRNC than it is like Turkey or Cyprus.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand said "It's never been the New Zealand Government's position to recognise in such circumstances. We will neither recognise nor not recognise. Over time the way in which we deal with those who govern in the territory will I suppose imply whether there is recognition but we are not intending to make a formal statement". Avala has been trying to summarize that as "Does not recognise unilateral moves". In my opinion, it is much more reasonable to just say "Does not recognise or not recognise", the terms the country itself chose. Superm401 - Talk 15:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is questionable whether any of these summaries are appropriate at all, or just unpublished synthesis. 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superm401 (talk • contribs)

Newspapers did interpret her position as a no. All headlines regarding this were "New Zealand will not recognize Kosovo" so it would be OR to suggest different, actually we already are by putting it into 4th instead of 3rd table. The other part of PM statement refers to that they will not go further with the issue with issuing Kosovo condemnation statements (like Russia). I guess it's fine where it is and as it is. --Avala (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)