Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Turkey is a candidate country like Croatia and Macedonia

In the article there is no "European Union candidate country" comment in Turkey but Croatia and Macedonia have it. Please put this comment. Izmir lee (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

TRNC also recognized Kosovo, but TRNC removed from "partially recognized states..." part to "other entities" part. So this mentality reveals why Kosovo deserved independence (There is no difference between Serbian over nationalism on Kosovo and Greek Cypriot over nationalism on Turkish Cypriots). Serbs etnically cleansed Kosovars and UN Force came to protect Kosovars in 1999. Greek Cypriots etnically cleansed Turkish Cypriots and UN Force came to protect Turkish Cypriots in 1963 (11 years before Turkish action on Cyprus!!). 88.252.64.238 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NATO, not UN came in to "protect" Kosovo. And it was not really protecting, as more of helping the Thaci thugs attack Serbs. Not to mention that there were more Serbian children killed and injured by NATO "humanitarian" bombings then Kosovars killed in the entire conflict. However it was NATO not UN. And Greek Cupriots fled to Southern Greece as a result of Turkey's army "protecting" the TRNC. Not suprisingly South Cyprus has done much better economically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Committee

The International Olympic Committee be listed with the other international organizations, like the UN and OSCE. Instead, it is effectively listed with separatist groups and unrecognized states, like North Cyprus, Wwestern Sahara, and the Part Quebecois. 141.166.154.222 (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Council of Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pakistan on wrong list

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

I think it is in the right place. They have strongly indicated that they will recognize Kosovo [1]--Trigor (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Tamil Tigers

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

-- I fully agree. (124.43.197.197 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

FIFA and UEFA

Any news on these two organisations? Bardhylius (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with sovereignty. The Football Federation of Kosovo was formed in 1946(!) but is not a member of FIFA or UEFA. Negotiations to become a member of FIFA started in 2006. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes it does. You can't become neither a FIFA or UEFA member if you're not an independent state. It's just that I don't know what's the exact criteria, whether you have to be a UN member or not. Bardhylius (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Under FIFA's by-laws, national football associations are its members. FIFA only recognizes one national football association per country, with the exception of the football associations of the Home Nations of the sport (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland), but that is because there is a special rule in the by-laws making an exception so that the UK can be represented by more than one national association. So, unless FIFA recognises Kosovo as an independent country, its football association will not be admitted into FIFA. Since the by-laws contain the rule of one association per State, FIFA must decide if it recognizes the Serbian FA or the Kosovar FA as the national association representing the sport in Kosovo. And, given that only FIFA members can be admitted into UEFA, the Kosovar Federation will not get UEFA membership until it becomes affiliated to FIFA first. --189.25.72.85 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of ambassadors

Serbia has also recalled its ambassadors from Germany and Austria. --91.55.122.123 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Senegal source

I think that the reference pointing to recognition of Kosovo by Senegal is not correct. However I am not able to find any other. Could someone try to find reliable information on the subject. BloodIce (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

here's a new source... see the last paragraph on Oman Tribune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.156.78 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany Recognized Kosovo

According to the German Cabinet, Germany approved recognition of Kosovo and the article says: The German Cabinet has today approved official recognition of the Republic of Kosovo and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the new state.

This is as of Yesterday 20.02.2008.

The Official link is at: www.bundesregierung.de/nn_6538/Content/EN/Pressemitteilungen/BPA/2008/02/2008-02-20-anerkennung-des-kosovo__en.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link from the German Foreign Office. I would say it's a done deal now [2]--Trigor (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic bold text

Some of these bold text summaries of the positions in the Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions (24) section are not very encyclopedic. Bangladesh is "Monitoring the situation in Kosovo, waiting to see what happens next.": who isn't? Plus how is that different from Greece, who "Will watch and see what happens first."? Technically, anyone that is in this section is in Canada's shoes in that they are "Not in a rush to pick sides." The bold text summaries are not helpful in actually summarizing these countries' positions, plus the fact that these countries are in the section in itself suggests that there is much nuance that cannot be captured in a few words. The bold summaries in States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations (7) appear more formal and not as bad. Kelvinc (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Denmark

Denmark will recognize the Republic of Kosovo later this day by dispatching a letter from the Danish Foreign Minister to President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Hashim Thaci.[3][4] [5] No official press announcement has been published on the Danish Foreign Ministry's official webpage, but the three newspapers all print an identical telegram from Ritzau News Agency which again quotes the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Affairs committee meets tomorrow,[6] which will allow the minister to make an official announcement to members of the opposition. An official press briefing will take place at 1600 CET.[7] 83.89.43.14 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Foreign Affairs Ministry Denmark Recognized Republic of Kosova, the link to the F.A.M. is this: www.denmark.dk/en/servicemenu/News/InternationalNews/DenmarkRecognisesKosovo.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ASEAN?

Is ASEAN membership really relevant to this issue so that it needs to be mentioned in the country notes? The EU and OIC have made efforts to have joint policies on this issue but ASEAN is just a regional grouping from the other side of the world. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because ASEAN has been mentioned in the International organizations, because they are usually seen as holding on to their consensus method when they want to have a joint policy (which was mentioned not going to happen on this issue) and because there are differences between nations in the organization regarding the independence (Vietnam oppose, Indonesia and Singapore undecided, Malaysia surprisingly to me formally recognize it). Other opinions are welcome. Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Response of conglomerate organisations such as the UN, EU, OIC, IOC, maybe FIFA and other sporting bodies are relevant in that they affect the potential aspiration of Kosovo to link with those organisations. As I have said in a series of edits "Kosovo most unlikely to ever covet membership of ASEAN", so ASEAN's collective opinion (or lack thereof), or the ASEAN membership status of individual countries passing their judgement on Kosovo's status, seems irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, then Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Western Sahara, etc have to be removed too. __earth ^(Talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related issue: the article has recently developed CIS membership indicators. How is that relevant to Kosovo? Just like ASEAN, Kosovo is highly unlikely to aspire for CIS membership, and CIS did not make a collective decision on its independence declaration. -- EJ (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As of this moment, all references to ASEAN have been removed (not by me). I guess the issue is closed for now. Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

The Source is not an Official State Declaration —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Comment on this one? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put back a link to the official announcement, which somehow got lost in the meantime. A more important question is, whether is it correct to list Kyrgyzstan in the opposing camp. Originally, someone put it in the "Other states" section, with the comment "Awaiting the UN Security Council's decision". However, it could be that Kyrgyzstan actually refused to recognize Kosovar independence, unless UN Security Council decides otherwise later. Neither my Russian nor German is good enough to resolve this subtle but important difference from the two sources at hand. -- EJ (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The report (in German; see [8]) actually states:

Die zentralasiatische Republik Kirgisien wird die Unabhängigkeit des südserbischen Provinz Kosovo, die Pristina (Hauptstadt der Provinz) am Sonntag einseitig verkündete, bis zu einer endgültigen Entscheidung des UN-Sicherheitsrates diesbezüglich nicht anerkennen.

Translation: The Central Asian Republic of Kyrgyzstan will not recognize the independence of the South Serbian province of Kosovo, [...], till a definite decision by the UN security council.

Based on this news report I think Kyrgyzstan should be listed in "Other states". Gugganij (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This makes their position identical to the Russian position; how much more unequivocal should it be for you to color it red? They left no ambiguity at all. They will NOT recognize without a decision by SC UN - this is what all 'red' countries are saying. --Dzordzm (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought "red" countries will not recognize Kosovo under any circumstances. The statement of the Foreign Ministry of Kyrgystan seems to me a bit more vague (more in line with the Chinese position). Gugganij (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Russia say that Kosovo will never have UN membership? So if other countries, like China and Kyrgyzstan state that they will only recognize Kosovo when it becomes a UN member, it means they will not recognize it, because Russia's veto will eternally block Kosovo's UN membership. Personally I think recognizing a country that will never have UN membership is a bit silly, but I'm too lazy to engage in Wikipaintbrush at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

I don't think Turkey being an OIC member has any significance regarding her recognition of the independence of Kosovo. More significant facts are that Turkey is a NATO member and a contributor state to KFOR and she is also a contributing state to EULEX. Other related points of interest may be that Kosovo has a Turkish minority and that Kosovo was formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire, to which Turkey is the successor. Yucina (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it in because even though what you said might be true, the OIC organization itself plays an important role in the issue, and as such knowing which nation is in OIC might give the reader a clear idea of what is going on. On another note, I think it might relate in a way because there's a connection between that recognition and Northern Cyprus - and Northern Cyprus is an observer nation in OIC. Quastar Vaan (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know OIC plays no role in the issue. There are several countries listed under "States which explicitly do not recognise Kosovo as independent" which are OIC members. On the other hand, NATO, OECD member countries recognizing Kosovo's independence has significance. Yucina (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is more the reason to include reference as OIC members next to the country: even though OIC have expressed their support, they left it to each individual nation to decide. It will be fun interesting to see which nation decided to prioritize their other commitments (example: Kazakhstan on their relation with Russia as compared to their membership in OIC) over the announcement by OIC. While I myself are not aware of any OIC official roles in Kosovo, many muslim countries have been helping Kosovo indirectly - financial, political, etc. From that point we can say that there's a small relation to OIC? And it is probable that in the near future, Kosovo might apply to be a member, or observer, of OIC. Anyway, the original argument was about Turkey being listed as OIC member - I think some people might not be aware of that, and that reference might help them to understand a little bit of Turkey's position as possible EU candidate, a NATO member, and at the same time a secular, muslim-dominant nation in OIC? Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be exaggerating the role and importance of the OIC, both globally and domestically for its member states. It has 57 members from different parts of the world with very different political cultures and interests. For example, it has a member with a leadership which sees Israel as an enemy of Islam (Iran) and it has another member which has not only economical and political relationship with Israel but also military cooperation (Turkey). Yes, it is true that many muslim nations assist Kosovo. But it is equally true that many non-muslim nations assist Kosovo, too, like some Western powers and their assistance has been much more effective, especially with the independence issue. Every country is a member in many international organizations and we can't list them all here. While it may be interesting for some that Turkey is a rare example of a predominantly muslim nation with a secular political tradition and Western-style democracy, nonetheless, 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.Yucina (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could Turkey's recognition of Kosovo backfire? It seems to me that the area in Turkey where the Kurds live bears similarity to the Kosovo case. Q43 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. Kosovo has been under UN administration and UN + NATO protection since 1999 and Belgrade has not controlled Kosovo since and thus Kosovo was already practically independent. Kosovo as a region has been within a well-defined border for decades, with a significant concentration of ethnic Albanians within those borders. If you want to draw similarities to any Kurdish region, you could mention Iraqi Kurdistan which shares more common elements to Kosovo, and a declaration of independence by Iraqi Kurdistan would indeed upset Turkey. However, it seems that when it came to Kosovo, Turkey preferred to uphold its historical, cultural and ethnic ties to Kosovo rather than its immediate political interests elsewhere. Yucina (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I dont think so. Kosovo had an autonomy for 50-60 years, but Serbs in 90s took it back. Kurds in Turkey never had an autonomy, there are no borders within Turkey. The separatist party only got votes from 1/3 of all Kurds living in Turkey in the last election. Also, Kurds and Turks have the same faiths which was not the case in Kosovo. There are thousands of intermerriages between Kurds and Turks. Moreover, there was big immigration wave from Kurdish areas to the west of turkey which makes a seperation of Kurdish and Turkish areas very problematic. Lastly turkish military forces are much stronger to resist such seperatist movements. However, Kurds in Northern Iraq may benefit from Kosovo in the long run.

Well Turkish recognition of Kosovo is already backfiring economically as the ever political wave of Russian tourists are likely to boycott Turkey in protest and find other destinations. They have boycotted France after the Kourshavel (SP) scandal, boycotted Latvia and Estonia as a response to these countries' insults on the Red Army, boycotted Ukraine in response to that country's deportation of politically active Russian tourists, so they are very political about where they go, call it Patriotic Tourism, or what not, point is that it will hurt Turkey's economy. Also Kosovo did not have autonomy for 50-60 years. Let's see, 1990-50 years = 1940. I don't recall Hitler giving the Kosovars political autonomy, nor do I recall Tito doing it. And Kosovo wasn't an autonomous part of Yugoslavia. So I don't exactly see how the Serbs took it back in the 1990's, considering they have already had it. But recognition of Kurds in Turkey by Russia is now possible, so recognizing Kosovo does hurt Turkey.

Interesting. But Turkey's recognition of Kosovo is primarily Serbia's problem, isn't it? Russia, of course, also opposes the USA and the EU on this matter. If Russian citizens boycott visiting countries with which their government has an argument, then I'm afraid they should sooner strike the USA and most of Western Europe off their itineries before forgoing the Turkish beaches. Regarding Kosovo's autonomy: Wikipedia's entry on Kosovo states the following: "The province was first formed in 1945 as the Autonomous Kosovo-Metohian Area ... but with no actual autonomy. ... Kosovo gained internal autonomy in the 1960s. ... In the 1974 constitution, the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo's government received higher powers, including the highest governmental titles — President and Prime Minister and a seat in the Federal Presidency which made it a de facto Socialist Republic within the Federation, but remaining a Socialist Autonomous Province within the Socialist Republic of Serbia. (Similar rights were extended to Vojvodina.)" If this information is incorrect, please update it citing relevant refrences. Also, please sign your posts. Yucina (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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: [9] 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)

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 [10], 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 [11] 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)

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 [12] 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.

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

[13], 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 [14], "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)

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)

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

New data

According to this source [15], 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)

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)

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

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".[16] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Ukraine

Is the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs Oleh Bilorus (who is against the independence of Kosovo) a member of the governing coalition or the opposition? --Camptown (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. He is from BYuT - one of two electoral blocks that form parliamentary coalition and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The fact that he is head of foreign parliament committee does not mean that he was specking on behalf of entire Parliament. It's only Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada who can (see item 4 of s:Constitution of Ukraine#Article 88). The only thing that matter - he is head of permanent Ukrainian parliament delegation in OSCE.

See also archived discussion Archive 2#Ukraine. --TAG (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The meeting that Bilorus has declared support for Kosovo is over now. It was 21-22 February. Unfortunately - I did not find transcripts. The only document is his membership confirmation (from here) in OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. --TAG (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to internal sources - on OSCE meeting (21-22 February) Bilorus took neutral stance and expressed opinion that UN must decide on Kosovo situation. Taking in account that reference mention information about his intentions for this meeting - but not actual participation I've put obsolete tag on his words in article. --TAG (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the Tymoshenko-blok issued any statement indicating its position? --Camptown (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. I bet they're waiting on Minister Ohryzko's position. --207.177.241.28 (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

KFOR

Does it make any sense to include information on armed forces of countries that support or not Kosovo ? Information from Kosovo Force is important enough. --TAG (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Morocco, Sudan

Someone added them to the list. The referenced article just states the added positions. Did their UN ambassadors say these things? Did the Moroccan and Sudanese FM's say anything? The article does not say. Without any official from the governments or ministry statement, I think these ought to be removed. Ajbenj (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria has less power then the Principality of Minerva. In other words they are pretty powerless and their stance is irrelevant, as no one (except the Taliban) recognizes Chechen existence, or their government-in-exile. Can someone just remove them from the list? Thanks. Otherwise I might start a Republic of Redheadia and recognize Vermont as Independent. The end result should be the same as Chechen recognition or lack thereof - zilch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

They are a separatist movement, and it is of some importance as to what separatists think of other separatists, whether Kosovo recognition is right and/or hypocritical etc. BalkanFever 09:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And the Chechen seperatists did support the Kosovo Liberation Army during the Kosovo war. --Camptown (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"does not recognize" vs. "expressed concern"

how is the position of Spain different from that of Brazil? Spain said "secession requires a U.N. Security Council resolution". Brazil said "the matter is before the UN Security Council". These states do not appear to even have an opinion on the question, they just say they will be happy to endorse anything the UN Security Council comes up with. I suggest the "orange" countries should be those that said they will follow whatever the UN decides, while the "red" countries should be those that said they will not recognize Kosovo unless there a "mutually accepted solution", viz. an agreement with Serbia. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It is really a copout because they know about Russia's stance. It would be more precise to put them in "does not recognise". BalkanFever 09:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

POLISH GOVERMENT WILL BE TOMORROW RECOGNISE KOSOWO http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/kosowo/news/tusk-nie-nalezy-krzywdzic-serbow,1064715,2943 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.67 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

Dear Camptown, I am sorry I couldn't clean up the links, I was interrupted and didn't get back to computer until now.

Would you care to explain what do you mean by "seek some support", and why you didn't voice your opposition before the move? The issue was raised on the talk page, about four people agreed with the move, and nobody disagreed in the course of over two days. -- EJ (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry EJ: I wasn't aware of the vote... I'd just move it back instead of getting involved in the tedious job fixing corrupt links. The argument for a move seem rather convincing, though. ;) --Camptown (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the page is moved again, please link to the discussion in the edit summary. I think nobody noticed the discussion because new sections are added so often, and it's hard to keep up. Also, remember to take care of the redirects - I changed it once when I noticed the move, and I didn't have time to change them back when I saw the revert, but a day later they were still double redirects until I changed them back. BalkanFever 10:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Partially recognised states

There are 23 states that do not recognize People's Republic of China. Shall we move PRC to this section?

Vincent.ws.kuo (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No because the PRC is on the UN security council. Partially recognised states is for non UN members. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Armenia against

I think that Armenia should be moved from undecided to mildly-against-independence [17] in the tables and in the map. Can someone do it? Best, Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It says that its not to recognise Kosovo "yet", therefore suggesting it will in the future. So it is in the correct group. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. If you read the whole text, you would also know that the Armenian government considers the declaration a violation of legal norms. The title summarizes it well: Armenia is not going to recognize Kosovo. --Lumidek (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision might not be formalised on paper but judging from this statement it's pretty obvious what will it say. Foreign Minister of Armenia Vartan Oskanian, stated that Armenia has no intention to recognize independence of Kosovo and that "Granting independence to Kosovo, the international community violated the legal norms but forgot Karabakh". It's not a neutral position, regardless of mythomania here where some are trying to repeat that Armenia is neutral so many times that other would start to believe it. --Avala 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just read what you wrote: Decision might not be formalised on paper but judging from this statement it's pretty obvious what will it say. Let me translate that for you: There is no formal decision. I think I know which way it will go, so I am engaing in original research by pre-deciding for Armenia in an extrapolation purely my own. And you are a Serbian Wiki administrator? These are dangerous, unscurpulous wikiedits, falsifying facts while claiming to be factual. Dear community, this editor, not only altered the article (again, after being corrected), but on the same flimsy basis, altered (doctored up) the SVG and PNG maps to display Armenia red. He also moved Bosnia into the same officially unrecognizing category, only because an internal constituent portion of Bosnia's political make-up went on record as opposing recognition. This editor then concluded for the whole of Bosnia, that this means "red color of no recognition", again, jumping the gun prejudicially on the Bosnian government's own official pronouncement. IMHO all these edits taken as a sum are unsubstantiated and hurt Wikipedia by skewing reality, and deserve censure, becaue they are being systematically made by a Wikimedia project administrator, not some anonynymous newbie. Furhtermore, the editor is not amenable to persuassion on the matter, and has made other falsifying edits to the maps (removed Northern Cyprus altogether from SVG without any annotation). Please see commons:user talk:Avala, with dissent by at least two experienced editors in the matter premature flagging red of Armenia. --Mareklug ^talk 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia ONCE AGAIN, or Is there any RELEVANT source AT ALL

So,...

Where is Indonesia in whole of that news sources mess??

I've read all previous posts on Indonesian position and you'll probably figure out what i am trying to say...

This is only Indonesian example.

There are, no doubt, many more, to show how some highly relevant info could became suspicious and hard to verify

Indonesia says it does not recognize Kosovo's independence

(Reuters)

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=24905

(Associated Press - Jakarta Post)

http://www.thejakartapost.com

http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080218/tap-as-gen-indonesia-kosovo-64ed358.html

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/indonesia-says-it-does-not-recognize/n20080217230809990006

(TANJUG)

http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Policy/CI/KIM/180208_8_e.html

No Reason For Indonesia Not To Recognize Kosovo's Independence

(ANTARA)

http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/2/18/ri-yet-to-recognize-kosovo-independence/

(Bernama)

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=314952

Indonesia delayed decision to recognize Kosovo’s independence

(Jakarta Post)

http://www.ereos.com/post/indonesia-delayed-decision-to-recognize-kosovos-independence/

(ANTARA)

http://indonesia-oslo.no/Political-Affairs/Indonesia-In-No-Hurry-To-Recognize-Kosovo-S-Independence-FM.html 79.101.172.143 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia's position is purposely unclear. When Indonesia officially announces it, we will know. I thought we are going by official announcements here, not newspaper ramblings. According to the Washington Post Russia should really, really recognize Kosovo and begin giving free oil to the US. Case in point: newspapers are not credible, only official announcement made by heads of state, either the leader of the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch should be posted here. 68.166.129.105 (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Belgium recognizes it

I just heard on the news that The king of Belgium sent the note to kosovo that belgium recognized kosovo , please try to find some sources--Cradel 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it goes: http://www.focus-news.net/?id=n895270. It says Serbia called off its ambassadors from Peru and Belgium because these two countries formally recognized Kossovo. --Soft needed (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody change Belgium on the map to dark blue please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The royal decree recognizing Kosovo has in any event not yet been published in the Belgian State Gazette (http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi/welcome.pl), and I haven't seen any mention of it in Belgian media MaartenVidal (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbia's diplomatic retaliation

For how long does Serbia officially plan to withdraw its ambassadors from the countries which have recognized the independence of Kosovo? --Camptown (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The consultations will certainly take a finite amount of time but Serbia clearly intends to "downgrade, but not break" [18] - reduce the rank of the highest diplomats etc. - the diplomatic relations with any country that violates Serbia's territorial integrity until the moment when the recognition is annulled. So the planning really depends on the other countries, I guess, not on Serbia. So if you hypothetically imagine a truly stubborn country that would like to keep the recognition of the "new country" indefinitely, despite the disorder that will probably be becoming increasingly obvious, the downgrading of the diplomatic links with Serbia would be permanent.

Note that the words about downgrading are from Tadic, the most pro-Western and pro-democratic one among top politicians, and it would be absolutely ludicrous and unrealistic to imagine that the atmosphere will create another politician who would be even more co-operative than Tadic. Many Serbs are already burning pictures of Tadic himself, thinking he is not tough enough. --Lumidek (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. President Tadic must have one of the most difficult jobs you can possibly imagine... --Camptown (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ on one point: Jovanovic of the LDP is obviously more pro-European (he's actually in favour of Kosovan independence), but his poll ratings top out at about 10%. —Nightstallion 13:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Poland, again

Warsaw Business Journal announced that "Poland recognizes Kosovo's independence", but it says "PM Donald Tusk announced that the official decision on this issue will be made by the Cabinet later today."

Did it recognize it already or not? :-) bogdan (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Poland! Abdullais4u (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Oh sorry, it is already mentioned, as i see. Abdullais4u (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reaction of Mujahadeen, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Islamic Jihad etc.

Given the Mujahadeen sent a number of fighters to Kosovo in the 1990s, as did Al-Queda, is there any information on their reaction to indpendence? Obviously its hard to get a comment from Al-Queda, but what about Mujahadeen, Islamic Jihad who would obviously be pro-independence one would imagine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.96.72 (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely POV. There are no sources that prove Mujahedeen, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda or Islamic Jihad fighters were in Kosovo. Furthermore, there are absolutely no sources that say Kosovo Liberation Army supported or accepted these kind of fighters. So don't provoke. Bardhylius (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Portugal and Malta

Please have these two areas grayed out on the map, as they both said that they will wait until the UN Security Council announces its decision. Oh wait, that's where Russia's got the veto. Please switch Portugal and Malta from blue to orange, because saying "we will wait for Russia to veto" is like saying "we won't recognize those suckers, sorry". 68.166.129.105 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Malta is already grey (see the offical statement on Malta's Foreign ministry website: [19]). Concerning Portugal, that's what the current source says: Portugal's Foreign Minister Luis Amado said Monday that his nation was on the way to recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, but must first consult domestically and with other European Union (EU) nations. Gugganij (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian veto = neither yes nor no, right? So Russian veto = no decision for a long time, isn't it? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

"Undecided or ambiguous", some states need to go.

The "Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions" includes some states which have not initiated proceedings to recognise Kosovo but generally agree on the independence. So that doesn't make their position "undecided or ambiguous". These states are:

• Croatia - After the majority of the EU countries do so. (Which they do.)
• Czech Republic - Conditionally pro-independence, but does not want to be first to recognise Kosovo.
• Iceland - Does not want to be among first to recognise Kosovo, but will not act against the will of the international community or Europe.
• Israel - Not right away. But it will eventually.
• Japan - (The notes need to be updated. Here are the new sources which claim that the Japanese government will assess the situation but will likely recognise independent Kosovo.)
• Republic of Macedonia - Will wait for a few weeks. The Republic of Macedonia will likely recognise Kosovo, but not right away.
• Montenegro - Awaiting the European Union's decision. (EU asked the countries to decide separately. The most members have recognised Kosovo. Also, I found another source which says Montenegro will recognise Kosovo.)
• Netherlands - Not in a hurry to recognise independence.
• South Korea - Leaning in favour of recognition, but a change in administration may affect that stance. (This is valid here as long as the current government is in power.)

These countries need a new section, something like "Countries that support the independence but have not initiated formal proceedings" Bardhylius (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Croatia's description needs to be changed. The clause isn't "until majority of the EU countries do so". Croatia will recognize Kosovo, but recognition is postponed because of economic and political reasons (waiting for dust to get settled a bit). That, and other reasons such as typical procrastionation ;)

And I do agree with you - "neutral" and "delayed" should not be in the same group. Croatia is now listed in the same group as undecided countries who couldn't care less. I think it should be obviously stated that some countries are not neutral, but have postponed recognition. The difference is huge. JosipMac (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. Bardhylius (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we also have to move countries who will support the UN security council decision = russian veto = no. Also your sources for Japan are from 17/02 and the one in the article is 19/02. Netherlands, South Korea, Montenegro, Macedonia are still to ambiguous to be listed in either place. Czech R. is also waiting with taking side, especially since the president expressed his concern. Israel, Iraq both seem to be going into different directions and therefore having no clear position. Indonesia is a mess with statements from their officials going from "we are strongly against kosovo independence" to "indonesia must recognize". So as you can see this is the reason for this section to exist - these countries are too far away from clear position on this issue. --Avala (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

International Olympic Committee

I think that is obvious that Kosovars will not compete under Serbian flag and by the way according to the source the declaration regarding this issue clearly states in the article what I mentioned above. The following is a short piece of that statement:

Short of full recognition, the IOC could allow Kosovar athletes to compete as independent competitors under the Olympic flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, its true that is a blocked process for the moment but no official statement from the Foreign Affairs Ministry has been issued in the Name of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Statement has been Issued only by Republika Srpska as one Entity. So I guess Republika Srpska as an Entity should be listed where it was before but Bosnia and Herzegovina should be removed from the existing list for lack of official declaration. I Think somebody in here is keeping score hahaha. As soon as somebody recognizes Republic of Kosova they try to add more states on the non recognition part so it gains something for the eye. BE EXACT, PRECISE AND FAIR IN YOUR EDITS PLEASE!!! - This is not politics, it's an International Encyclopedia and we should publish only the truth, no matter of the results.

Actually, if the process of recognition is how I think it is, Bosnia should be in red. Somehow I doubt that Bosnia can recognize Kosovo if Republika Srpska is against, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. JosipMac (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ARMENIA

We have been through this before with Ukraine. There is no statement whatsoever at the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Armenia regarding the article presented here as a source from the Armenian news. Even if you used that source as a starting point for assuming something about a possible statement from the Ministry reading this article you will understand that no final position has been reached at this present time. The article clearly states: The issue is under discussion and the decision will be announced when the time comes, according to RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian.

So this means that no parliament or cabinet or presidential or official Foreign Affairs Ministry conclusion has been reached till today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican

I think it dosn't look very serious to put the Vatican in the same category as the "de facto independent states" Transnistria, West Sahara and Northern Cyprus. The Vatican is not just another "de facto independe state", but a sovereing state with official diplomatic relations with most sovereign states in the world.--Camptown (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)