"Spain does not support Feith plan"

Excellent. Good for you, Spain.

And there we have it. Even if the US has recognised Kosovo, it is not a member of the international community, nor will it ever be without a proper solution.

Pristina took a hard line on independence and only independence and look what has happened. It has become little more than a protectorate, and a failing one at that. Let's hope that when new talks are held it might be willing to negotiate in a more constructive manner.

EA,

I asked you over and over again: if Kosovo why not Kurdistan?

Or Abkhazia or South Ossetia?

New states can only emerge by mutual agreement. There is no mutual agreement on Kosovo.

And please remember: international law is much more important than Kosovo!

EA,
Kosovo isn’t an international problem as you say.

Kosovo is rather an American and as you say 23 out of the 27 EU nation’s problems.

Now I don’t know about you, but democracy tells me that the nations not agreeing with the UDI would disagree with the US and their cronies, wouldn’t you agree?

Also, the most important factor in this tragic dilemma is that Serbia owns Kosovo!

who cares if spain support it or not? USA, 23 of 27 EU Member states support it and NATO supports it also.it dosnt matter if spain supports it or not the criminal north of kosovo will be integrated without or with Force serbs in the north have to choise if they will be integrated with force or without force.
(mijari, 13 February 2010, 11:32)

Apparently you missed your president's statement yesterday. No force will be used. Read it for yourself straight from Sejdiu.

EA,
the US of A signed a lease to rent property in Kosovo and then proceeded in building camp Bondsteel.

Did you know that the lease holder is Serbia?

Well... Spain doesn't have the essential cards here.

“There is a reality on the ground as far as Kosovo is concerned. Whether we agree about it or not, there is a problem that must be solved. I cannot speak on the return to negotiations, but I like to think about dialogue as a way to solve a problem which is waiting to be solved,”

Thank you Spain. Notice the missing "We will never recognize"

Sounds great "talking" and "talking". We are not talking about chatting in a bar or night club. Kosova has been and is an international issue. Talks about the status have been exhausted. I personally understand whose interest is to further frustrate the international community. Certain countries in EU including Spain are raising objections to Kosova's independence purely for their interest and not because they are bothered about international law. That is very obvious for everyone who really wants to see. Serbia has said "never will accept Kosova/o's independence". The reality is that Kosova is independent from Serbia. Now will the blocking tactics from one country work for ever that is something to be seen but one thing is for certain THERE WOULD BE NO Kosova's RETURN TO SERBIA. If someone can see or foresee that I feel sorry for him/her.

Well... Spain doesn't have the essential cards here.
(Ian, UK, 13 February 2010 11:28)
==================
Oh yes it does. It's called a veto.

who cares if spain support it or not? USA, 23 of 27 EU Member states support it and NATO supports it also.it dosnt matter if spain supports it or not the criminal north of kosovo will be integrated without or with Force serbs in the north have to choise if they will be integrated with force or without force.

More cracks appearing in EU "unity". The EU is looking more like a sick puppy these days. Greed has never done anyone any good.

The Albanians played their cards and Serbia, with the very skilled little wolf, played their cards. The Kosovo Albanians, at least their leaders, know today that they have lost and that the Kosovo saga was short-lived. Anyone to speak with in the diplomatic arena today, say that Kosovo will forever be in limbo and never an own country. I mean look at it, no UN ever, no EU ever, no own telephone code, no control of 35% of the territory, politicians that steal the last the people have left to get bigger villas and bigger cars, 99% of the world do not even know what Kosovo is or where its located, the UNSC will never agree, no chance to come to Europe ever for the majority etc etc. "But we have a police!" No, Im sorry, not that either. Eulex and UN are dictating what will be done and said. There are 100s of examples last year.

Indeed, that’s the point. That’s why Kosovo declared independence without violating international law because such law is much more important than Kosovo.
(icj1, 13 February 2010 19:26)

Resolution 1244 (1999)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting,
on 10 June 1999
The Security Council,
bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security,
determined to ensure the safety and security of international personnel and the implementation by all concerned of their responsibilities under the present resolution, and acting for these purposes under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations
decides that a political solution to the Kosovo crisis shall be based on the general principles in annex 1 and as further elaborated in the principles and other required elements in annex 2;
Annex 1A
political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of the KLA.

Annex 2,
After withdrawal, an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel will be permitted to return to perform the following functions:
Liaison with the international civil mission and the international security presence;
Marking/clearing minefields;
Maintaining a presence at Serb patrimonial sites;
Maintaining a presence at key border crossings.

A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of UCK. Negotiations between the parties for a settlement should not delay or disrupt the establishment of democratic self-governing institutions.
http://www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

Now facts: the Rambouillet Accords did not offer a binding referendum on independence—at least, not explicitly. Chapter 8, Article 1 (3) reads:
"Three years after the entry into force of this agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures”

The reference in Article 1 (3) to the Helsinki Final Act is a reference to the principle of the inviolability of frontiers except by agreement. It is therefore clear that there was no commitment made by the United Kingdom-French co-chairs to a binding referendum on independence for Kosovo.

Yes a law was broken......

Can you please cite the specific paragraph from the Helsinki Final Act you are referring to rather than using your own words because that way you will easily see that you are wrong. Also I said above that nobody did offer a binding referendum. However nobody did forbid it. Something that’s not forbidden by law is not illegal.
(icj1, 14 February 2010 16:42)

It is like leading a horse to water and also teaching him how to drink.

"So no law was broken since you did not cite a sentence from a law which was broken."
(icj1, 14 February 2010 16:42)

Article 2[4] of the United Nations Charter includes territorial integrity as one of the principles that prohibits the threat or use of force in the resolution of international disputes. Territorial integrity is included in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations among states.
These are fundamental principles. They form an integral part of the framework of international law. They have universal application and cannot be put aside because of special circumstances or when they prove embarrassing or inconvenient.
Their message is simple and clear. Borders can only be changed by agreement between states.

The Helsinki Final Act of 1975 reinforced the principle of territorial integrity and went further by including a section on the inviolability of frontiers. .


"No, it did not offer a referendum, as it did not forbid it. Anyway, I was not saying that. What Rambuillet accords said is that the final settlement for Kosovo should be on the basis of"

Which basicly tells me that referendums on independence mean nothing without mutual agreement of the host nation(Serbia), when another state recognizes a state without it's host's mutual consent then a law is broken. When the Secretary of State of state of a nation guarantees partitioning of a sovreign state after period of time, even before either party signs a peace agreement, thats a violation of international law. When a nation arms a group even on their own terrorist list to wage war against a sovreign nation thats a violation.

A C Serb,

Who told you that Serbia owns Kosovo? Let me tell whoever told has lied.

Can Serbia sign any agreement on behalf of Kosova/a. Can Serbia exercise its authority in Kosova? Has Serbia got army and policy in Kosova?

Where is the "ownership"?

New states can only emerge by mutual agreement.
(Ron, 13 February 2010 13:03)

This is your opinion or you base it somewhere? If the latter, please provide the law source which says “New states can only emerge by mutual agreement”. Thank You

And please remember: international law is much more important than Kosovo!
(Ron, 13 February 2010 13:03)

Indeed, that’s the point. That’s why Kosovo declared independence without violating international law because such law is much more important than Kosovo.

Now facts: the Rambouillet Accords did not offer a binding referendum on independence—at least, not explicitly. Chapter 8, Article 1 (3) reads:
"Three years after the entry into force of this agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures”
(Dan, 14 February 2010 10:36)

No, it did not offer a referendum, as it did not forbid it. Anyway, I was not saying that. What Rambuillet accords said is that the final settlement for Kosovo should be on the basis of:

(i) the will of the people (which was expressed through their elected representatives in Feb. 2008)

(ii) opinion of relevant authorities (which were expressed and duly noted)

(iii) each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement (Kosovo signed it; Serbia didn’t but is bound by it due to 1244)

(iv) the Helsinki Final Act (see below)

The reference in Article 1 (3) to the Helsinki Final Act is a reference to the principle of the inviolability of frontiers except by agreement. It is therefore clear that there was no commitment made by the United Kingdom-French co-chairs to a binding referendum on independence for Kosovo.

Yes a law was broken......
(Dan, 14 February 2010 10:36)

Can you please cite the specific paragraph from the Helsinki Final Act you are referring to rather than using your own words because that way you will easily see that you are wrong. Also I said above that nobody did offer a binding referendum. However nobody did forbid it. Something that’s not forbidden by law is not illegal.

So no law was broken since you did not cite a sentence from a law which was broken.

# Sounds great "talking" and "talking". We are not talking about chatting in a bar or night club. Kosova has been and is an international issue. Talks about the status have been exhausted. I personally understand whose interest is to further frustrate the international community. Certain countries in EU including Spain are raising objections to Kosova's independence purely for their interest and not because they are bothered about international law. That is very obvious for everyone who really wants to see. Serbia has said "never will accept Kosova/o's independence". The reality is that Kosova is independent from Serbia. Now will the blocking tactics from one country work for ever that is something to be seen but one thing is for certain THERE WOULD BE NO Kosova's RETURN TO SERBIA. If someone can see or foresee that I feel sorry for him/her.
(EA, 13 February 2010 11:50)

Thank you, EA, as usual, i have nothing of substance to add here.

in this forum, we can chitty chat till the cows come home, position ourselves, argue endlessly. and who cares? and in real life, as i have said, there is a great deal to discuss. endlessly, and one day i hope that that happens.

as a matter of fact, it has already started, but it goes under the radar screen. liberals and human rights people, not just sonia and natasa, have long been talking with pristina -- with folks in and out of govt. i know this for a fact, and it happens on many levels. as just one not-so-minor example, mrs. kelmendi (justice minister) told us she has long been working w kandic, as is her daughter. so that is true and positive collaboration.

so if the other side here is ignorant of that, well, now you know. though i'm sure the ignorance is willful.

also, people like andrej nosov, who is a former colleague of mine fr otpor (we met after) is often meeting with young counterparts in kosova. that is nothing radical. he brought some of them and their work to belgrade -- ah yes, it was trashed (check the records). no surprise there.

so the talking, in some ways, has never stopped. even during the worst, the very worst of serb repression in the spring of 99, when they were transforming kosova into a burning hell, the indomitable kandic was riding around, verifying human rights abuses! this is no joke. to say it was at great personal risk is but to speak the obvious. which is why this woman became Time Europe's woman of the year, some years ago. well, one reason.

if people on the other side were so very concerned about talks, they would go down to kosova themselves, and begin a dialogue. respectfully, if they wished it to succeed.

but forcing pristina to go back to the table with THOSE leaders in belgrade -- to negotiate/give up their independence?! it is an utterly bizarre not to mention very dangerous idea.

and it will NEVER happen.

i wish to send all the people of kosova my very best, from far-away california. freedom and independence are very precious commodities, to be treasured and nutured and never to be taken for granted.

Felimendarit.

roberto
frisco

Sounds great "talking" and "talking". We are not talking about chatting in a bar or night club. Kosova has been and is an international issue. Talks about the status have been exhausted. I personally understand whose interest is to further frustrate the international community. Certain countries in EU including Spain are raising objections to Kosova's independence purely for their interest and not because they are bothered about international law. That is very obvious for everyone who really wants to see. Serbia has said "never will accept Kosova/o's independence". The reality is that Kosova is independent from Serbia. Now will the blocking tactics from one country work for ever that is something to be seen but one thing is for certain THERE WOULD BE NO Kosova's RETURN TO SERBIA. If someone can see or foresee that I feel sorry for him/her.

who cares if spain support it or not? USA, 23 of 27 EU Member states support it and NATO supports it also.it dosnt matter if spain supports it or not the criminal north of kosovo will be integrated without or with Force serbs in the north have to choise if they will be integrated with force or without force.

Well... Spain doesn't have the essential cards here.

“There is a reality on the ground as far as Kosovo is concerned. Whether we agree about it or not, there is a problem that must be solved. I cannot speak on the return to negotiations, but I like to think about dialogue as a way to solve a problem which is waiting to be solved,”

Thank you Spain. Notice the missing "We will never recognize"

Excellent. Good for you, Spain.

A C Serb,

Who told you that Serbia owns Kosovo? Let me tell whoever told has lied.

Can Serbia sign any agreement on behalf of Kosova/a. Can Serbia exercise its authority in Kosova? Has Serbia got army and policy in Kosova?

Where is the "ownership"?

EA,
Kosovo isn’t an international problem as you say.

Kosovo is rather an American and as you say 23 out of the 27 EU nation’s problems.

Now I don’t know about you, but democracy tells me that the nations not agreeing with the UDI would disagree with the US and their cronies, wouldn’t you agree?

Also, the most important factor in this tragic dilemma is that Serbia owns Kosovo!

# Sounds great "talking" and "talking". We are not talking about chatting in a bar or night club. Kosova has been and is an international issue. Talks about the status have been exhausted. I personally understand whose interest is to further frustrate the international community. Certain countries in EU including Spain are raising objections to Kosova's independence purely for their interest and not because they are bothered about international law. That is very obvious for everyone who really wants to see. Serbia has said "never will accept Kosova/o's independence". The reality is that Kosova is independent from Serbia. Now will the blocking tactics from one country work for ever that is something to be seen but one thing is for certain THERE WOULD BE NO Kosova's RETURN TO SERBIA. If someone can see or foresee that I feel sorry for him/her.
(EA, 13 February 2010 11:50)

Thank you, EA, as usual, i have nothing of substance to add here.

in this forum, we can chitty chat till the cows come home, position ourselves, argue endlessly. and who cares? and in real life, as i have said, there is a great deal to discuss. endlessly, and one day i hope that that happens.

as a matter of fact, it has already started, but it goes under the radar screen. liberals and human rights people, not just sonia and natasa, have long been talking with pristina -- with folks in and out of govt. i know this for a fact, and it happens on many levels. as just one not-so-minor example, mrs. kelmendi (justice minister) told us she has long been working w kandic, as is her daughter. so that is true and positive collaboration.

so if the other side here is ignorant of that, well, now you know. though i'm sure the ignorance is willful.

also, people like andrej nosov, who is a former colleague of mine fr otpor (we met after) is often meeting with young counterparts in kosova. that is nothing radical. he brought some of them and their work to belgrade -- ah yes, it was trashed (check the records). no surprise there.

so the talking, in some ways, has never stopped. even during the worst, the very worst of serb repression in the spring of 99, when they were transforming kosova into a burning hell, the indomitable kandic was riding around, verifying human rights abuses! this is no joke. to say it was at great personal risk is but to speak the obvious. which is why this woman became Time Europe's woman of the year, some years ago. well, one reason.

if people on the other side were so very concerned about talks, they would go down to kosova themselves, and begin a dialogue. respectfully, if they wished it to succeed.

but forcing pristina to go back to the table with THOSE leaders in belgrade -- to negotiate/give up their independence?! it is an utterly bizarre not to mention very dangerous idea.

and it will NEVER happen.

i wish to send all the people of kosova my very best, from far-away california. freedom and independence are very precious commodities, to be treasured and nutured and never to be taken for granted.

Felimendarit.

roberto
frisco

And there we have it. Even if the US has recognised Kosovo, it is not a member of the international community, nor will it ever be without a proper solution.

Pristina took a hard line on independence and only independence and look what has happened. It has become little more than a protectorate, and a failing one at that. Let's hope that when new talks are held it might be willing to negotiate in a more constructive manner.

who cares if spain support it or not? USA, 23 of 27 EU Member states support it and NATO supports it also.it dosnt matter if spain supports it or not the criminal north of kosovo will be integrated without or with Force serbs in the north have to choise if they will be integrated with force or without force.
(mijari, 13 February 2010, 11:32)

Apparently you missed your president's statement yesterday. No force will be used. Read it for yourself straight from Sejdiu.

EA,

I asked you over and over again: if Kosovo why not Kurdistan?

Or Abkhazia or South Ossetia?

New states can only emerge by mutual agreement. There is no mutual agreement on Kosovo.

And please remember: international law is much more important than Kosovo!

New states can only emerge by mutual agreement.
(Ron, 13 February 2010 13:03)

This is your opinion or you base it somewhere? If the latter, please provide the law source which says “New states can only emerge by mutual agreement”. Thank You

And please remember: international law is much more important than Kosovo!
(Ron, 13 February 2010 13:03)

Indeed, that’s the point. That’s why Kosovo declared independence without violating international law because such law is much more important than Kosovo.

Now facts: the Rambouillet Accords did not offer a binding referendum on independence—at least, not explicitly. Chapter 8, Article 1 (3) reads:
"Three years after the entry into force of this agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures”
(Dan, 14 February 2010 10:36)

No, it did not offer a referendum, as it did not forbid it. Anyway, I was not saying that. What Rambuillet accords said is that the final settlement for Kosovo should be on the basis of:

(i) the will of the people (which was expressed through their elected representatives in Feb. 2008)

(ii) opinion of relevant authorities (which were expressed and duly noted)

(iii) each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement (Kosovo signed it; Serbia didn’t but is bound by it due to 1244)

(iv) the Helsinki Final Act (see below)

The reference in Article 1 (3) to the Helsinki Final Act is a reference to the principle of the inviolability of frontiers except by agreement. It is therefore clear that there was no commitment made by the United Kingdom-French co-chairs to a binding referendum on independence for Kosovo.

Yes a law was broken......
(Dan, 14 February 2010 10:36)

Can you please cite the specific paragraph from the Helsinki Final Act you are referring to rather than using your own words because that way you will easily see that you are wrong. Also I said above that nobody did offer a binding referendum. However nobody did forbid it. Something that’s not forbidden by law is not illegal.

So no law was broken since you did not cite a sentence from a law which was broken.

Well... Spain doesn't have the essential cards here.
(Ian, UK, 13 February 2010 11:28)
==================
Oh yes it does. It's called a veto.

EA,
the US of A signed a lease to rent property in Kosovo and then proceeded in building camp Bondsteel.

Did you know that the lease holder is Serbia?

More cracks appearing in EU "unity". The EU is looking more like a sick puppy these days. Greed has never done anyone any good.

Indeed, that’s the point. That’s why Kosovo declared independence without violating international law because such law is much more important than Kosovo.
(icj1, 13 February 2010 19:26)

Resolution 1244 (1999)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting,
on 10 June 1999
The Security Council,
bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security,
determined to ensure the safety and security of international personnel and the implementation by all concerned of their responsibilities under the present resolution, and acting for these purposes under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations
decides that a political solution to the Kosovo crisis shall be based on the general principles in annex 1 and as further elaborated in the principles and other required elements in annex 2;
Annex 1A
political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of the KLA.

Annex 2,
After withdrawal, an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel will be permitted to return to perform the following functions:
Liaison with the international civil mission and the international security presence;
Marking/clearing minefields;
Maintaining a presence at Serb patrimonial sites;
Maintaining a presence at key border crossings.

A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of UCK. Negotiations between the parties for a settlement should not delay or disrupt the establishment of democratic self-governing institutions.
http://www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

Now facts: the Rambouillet Accords did not offer a binding referendum on independence—at least, not explicitly. Chapter 8, Article 1 (3) reads:
"Three years after the entry into force of this agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures”

The reference in Article 1 (3) to the Helsinki Final Act is a reference to the principle of the inviolability of frontiers except by agreement. It is therefore clear that there was no commitment made by the United Kingdom-French co-chairs to a binding referendum on independence for Kosovo.

Yes a law was broken......

Can you please cite the specific paragraph from the Helsinki Final Act you are referring to rather than using your own words because that way you will easily see that you are wrong. Also I said above that nobody did offer a binding referendum. However nobody did forbid it. Something that’s not forbidden by law is not illegal.
(icj1, 14 February 2010 16:42)

It is like leading a horse to water and also teaching him how to drink.

"So no law was broken since you did not cite a sentence from a law which was broken."
(icj1, 14 February 2010 16:42)

Article 2[4] of the United Nations Charter includes territorial integrity as one of the principles that prohibits the threat or use of force in the resolution of international disputes. Territorial integrity is included in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations among states.
These are fundamental principles. They form an integral part of the framework of international law. They have universal application and cannot be put aside because of special circumstances or when they prove embarrassing or inconvenient.
Their message is simple and clear. Borders can only be changed by agreement between states.

The Helsinki Final Act of 1975 reinforced the principle of territorial integrity and went further by including a section on the inviolability of frontiers. .


"No, it did not offer a referendum, as it did not forbid it. Anyway, I was not saying that. What Rambuillet accords said is that the final settlement for Kosovo should be on the basis of"

Which basicly tells me that referendums on independence mean nothing without mutual agreement of the host nation(Serbia), when another state recognizes a state without it's host's mutual consent then a law is broken. When the Secretary of State of state of a nation guarantees partitioning of a sovreign state after period of time, even before either party signs a peace agreement, thats a violation of international law. When a nation arms a group even on their own terrorist list to wage war against a sovreign nation thats a violation.

The Albanians played their cards and Serbia, with the very skilled little wolf, played their cards. The Kosovo Albanians, at least their leaders, know today that they have lost and that the Kosovo saga was short-lived. Anyone to speak with in the diplomatic arena today, say that Kosovo will forever be in limbo and never an own country. I mean look at it, no UN ever, no EU ever, no own telephone code, no control of 35% of the territory, politicians that steal the last the people have left to get bigger villas and bigger cars, 99% of the world do not even know what Kosovo is or where its located, the UNSC will never agree, no chance to come to Europe ever for the majority etc etc. "But we have a police!" No, Im sorry, not that either. Eulex and UN are dictating what will be done and said. There are 100s of examples last year.