Kosovo – who does the ISG speak for?

With the ISG saying it plans to leave by the end of 2012, even whilst outstanding issues – including the north – remain, the UN must be prepared to play an essential buffering role between the two sides in the status dispute.

Suggested Reading

Conflict Background

GCCT

By Gerard M. Gallucci

The International Steering Group (ISG) met on January 24 in Vienna to consider its 2012 program for Kosovo. The forum issued a communique calling upon the government of Kosovo to continue to implement the Ahtisaari Plan, aiming to complete outstanding elements so that the period of “supervised independence” could terminate by the end of this year. The ISG reaffirmed its commitment to Kosovo’s “territorial integrity within its existing borders.” The ISG also called upon Serbia to “abide by its international commitments and refrain from interfering in Kosovo, including by withdrawing its police, security, and other state presences, and supporting efforts by international actors and the institutions of Kosovo to promote the rule of law.” The group also demanded that Belgrade “ensure that its local elections are not extended into northern Kosovo.”

The ISG has, in effect, demanded that Serbia pull out from Kosovo and assist in bringing the north under the administration of Pristina. It called the continued presence of Serbian institutions there “interference” and not in line with Serbia’s “international commitments.” Who is the ISG speaking for here? The answer can only be that it speaks for itself, a self-chosen group of 25 countries brought together – in another of those Bush-era “coalitions of the willing” – to legitimate Pristina’s unilateral declaration of independence.

The ISG does not speak for the international community and certainly not for the United Nations or the Security Council. It speaks for those countries – led by the Quint – that saw fit in 2008 to step outside UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and to take on the political and financial costs of shepherding the new state through a shaky start-up. Politically, the ride has been rougher than expected, with recognitions even now from less than half of the UN membership and many internal problems remaining. So now, the Quint is in a hurry to cut the costs and split. The ISG speaks very much for itself and certainly not for the people of Kosovo.

The ISG – really the US, Germany and Brussels – are tired of Kosovo and impatient to leave. This is dangerous. Being in a hurry may lead the Quint to make mistakes. Right now, Washington, Berlin and Brussels appear to be looking to diplomatic pressure on Belgrade. If Serbia’s president, Boris Tadic, wants EU candidacy enough, he’ll accept surrender on the ISG’s terms. Comments reportedly made by the EU’s enlargement commissioner, Stefan Füle, make that clear. He emphasized that Serbia’s chances to receive candidacy next month hinge on accepting further concessions in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue and bringing down the barricades in the north.

What happens if the “diplomatic” pressures fail to produce the desired effects? It’s possible that recent British and French comments indicate a possible opening for a negotiated, compromise solution for the north. Is that opening real, however, or simply wheel-spinning till spring? The Self-Determination party is already adding to the pressure on the Kosovo administration to do something about the north by making it crack down against barricades in the south.

It must be clear by now that there is no military solution to the north. Any determined use of force against the northern Kosovo Serbs by anyone will likely lead to violence and partition. Tadic cannot make this any less so. The ISG saying it plans to leave by the end of 2012, however, implies a threat to ensure the implementation by then of Kosovo’s “rule of law.”

As noted previously, the end of “supervised independence” also raises another issue. If the ICO and EULEX leave or substantively end their missions while outstanding issues – including the north – remain, who assumes the essential buffering role between the two sides in the status dispute? This can only be the UN, which still has the peacekeeping responsibility under 1244. The UN should be developing plans now for a stepped up presence – including police – for the north. Without political agreement – discounting a simple breakdown into renewed war – it will still need to do what the Security Council sent it to Kosovo to do, keep the peace.

Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat and UN peacekeeper. He worked as part of US efforts to resolve the conflicts in Angola, South Africa and Sudan and as Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008 and as Chief of Staff for the UN mission in East Timor from November 2008 until June 2010. Gerard is also a member of TransConflict’s Advisory Board.

To read TransConflict’s recently-released policy paper, entitled ‘The Ahtisaari Plan and North Kosovo’, please click here.

To read other articles by Gerard for TransConflict, please click here.

To learn more about both Serbia and Kosovo, please check out TransConflict’s new reading lists series by clicking here.

To keep up-to-date with the work of TransConflict, please click here. If you are interested in supporting TransConflict, please click here.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssFacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrss

27 Responses

  1. Diza Kosovar

    Mr Gallucci, when you mention UN Security Council Resolution 1244 I should remind you that the same resolution doesn’t give to Serbia any role in Kosovo. You say “who is ISG”? But who is Serbia to interfere in Kosovo affairs and create “institutions” in Kosovo? Who gave to Serbia such right? Resolution 1244 is VERY CLEAR that UNMIK transfers its authority to KOSOVO institutions NOT to Serbia. Therefore Kosovo institutions HAVE RIGHT to expel ILLEGAL Serbian “institutions”. Second thing is that according to article 11, paragraph (e) of resolution 1244, UNMIK had to “facilitate political process in Kosovo to determine Kosovo status based on Rambouillet accords”. As its known Rambouillet accords predict international presence in Kosovo for three years NOT MORE. Having this in mind then UNMIK has ended its mandate and it continuation is in breach of UN SC resolution 1244. Why UNMIK continues being present in Kosovo is because of veto used from one state – Russia. But we can’t be hostages of one state or individual. On Serbia request, International Court of Justice made clear that Kosovo independence is neither in breach of General International Law nor UN SC resolution 1244.

  2. The UNSC never transferred UNMIK authority to Kosovo institutions. UNSCR 1244 doesn’t do that either. The UN did facilitate an effort to determine status but that failed to win Security Council endorsement. The ICJ did say that international law is silent on declarations of independence but also said the Kosovo declaration occurred outside of the ambit of UNMIK. The ICJ also reaffirmed that 1244 remains international law.

    Pristina’s claim of authority in the north is a political assertion not a legal right. The effort to realize it through force is not sanctified by 1244 or international law.

  3. Vladimir Todorić

    1244 refers to Rambouillet which refers to Helsinki Act which proclaims that there are no legal unilateral change of borders

  4. Diza Kosovar

    I think I should quote article 11 of UN SC resolution 1244. I quote:
    11. Decides that the main responsibilities of the international civil
    presence will include:
    (a) Promoting the establishment, pending a final settlement, of
    substantial autonomy and self-government in Kosovo, taking full account of
    annex 2 and of the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);
    (b) Performing basic civilian administrative functions where and as long
    as required;
    (c) Organizing and overseeing the development of provisional institutions
    for democratic and autonomous self-government pending a political settlement,
    including the holding of elections;
    (d) Transferring, as these institutions are established, its
    administrative responsibilities while overseeing and supporting the
    consolidation of Kosovo’s local provisional institutions and other peacebuilding
    activities;
    (e) Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future
    status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);
    (f) In a final stage, overseeing the transfer of authority from Kosovo’s
    provisional institutions to institutions established under a political
    settlement;

    end quote

    -Paragraph (c) is very clear that elections can bi hold from UNMIK not from Serbia thus everything Serbia does in Kosovo is ILLEGAL.
    -Paragraph (d) is very clear that UNMIK transfers its administrative tasks to Kosovo institutions NOT to Serbia.
    -Paragraph (e) says very clear that Kosovo status should be solved based on Rambouillet accords and that means BASED on the WILL of Kosovo people as it CLEARLY stated in these accords plus three years of international civil presence in Kosovo. No more.

    ICJ said very clearly that declaration of independence of Kosovo IS NOT in violation of General International Law and secondly “The Court accordingly finds that Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) did not bar the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008 from issuing a declaration of independence from the
    Republic of Serbia. Hence, the declaration of independence did not violate Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) (page 14 of ICJ opinion).”

    Let me remind you that the Court found that for instance UN SC resolution 1251 prohibited Cyprian Turks to declare independence if one wants to interpret as ICJ didn’t gave proper answer.

    Finally, there is no single word of UN SC resolution 1244 that Security Council endorsement is required for determination of Kosovo status.

  5. Not sure why it seems so important for those favoring Kosovo institution to now claim it derives from UNSCR 1244 but it really does not. The language “the main responsibilities of the international civil presence will include” sets up a series of responsibilities for UNMIK that it was mandated to carry out until the Security Council decides otherwise. Indeed, it did transfer some administrative functions to the PISG but not to the current Kosovo government, established outside 1244. And 1244 requires the UN to continue to carry out oversight “pending a political settlement” and then elections. 1244 mandates the UN to oversee the final transfer and not the EU or Quint.

    “Taking into account” means just that and not according to each and every word of previous accords.

    The disagreement over status remains and Pristina’s claim to be the legal government of Kosovo cannot be based on UNSCR 1244.

  6. Diza Kosovar

    You are very contradictory person. You support illegal institutions of Serbia in Kosovo but this is not the case with Kosovo institutions. Apparently you have personal agenda.

    Other thing of your wrong understanding is this:

    “The language ‘the main responsibilities of the international civil presence will include” sets up a series of responsibilities for UNMIK that it was mandated to carry out until the Security Council decides otherwise”. end quote

    Look at article 11 again. There is no single word that SC has to decide about when UNMIK should stop to carry out its responsibilities. The only thing for which SC has clearly to decide is presence of UNMIK in Kosovo.

    This a process and article 11 of UN SC resolution 1244 prescribes that process saying that UNMIK first should establish substantial autonomy for Kosovo, promote it and transfer its responsibilities to Kosovo institutions. In the final stage UNMIK has to facilitate political process for determination of Kosovo future status based on Ramboiullet accords. You can’t change this even if you write 1000 opinions in media.

    So what happened in reality. UNMIK certainly was in breach of resolution 1244 by delaying political process after three years of operation. UNMIK did not take into account Ramboiullet accords as resolution 1244 says. But even in that case, Kosovo institutions tolerated such wrong attitude of UNMIK. But this can’t happen indefinitely. Kosovo institutions can’t be hostages of one state (Russia), which is using its veto. But this is agansit the basic laws of physics – time. Time can’t be stopped.

  7. Diza Kosovar

    @Vladimir Todorić

    I think you “forgot” the MAIN part of solution based on Ramboiullet accords and that is THE WILL of people of Kosovo. This very SPECIFIC thing. Helsinki act is very general document ans says to many things i.e human rights or self-determination. Who tells you that mentioning of Helsinki act has to deal with borders? If Security Council had in mind borders it would be mentioned SPECIFICALLY in R. 1244 as it was the case with UN SC resolution 1251 (adopted few days later than 1244), which specifically forbids declaration of independence of North Cyprus from Republic of Cyprus. Since resolution 1244 remains silent on final status of Kosovo then WILL of the people of Kosovo is the BASIS for solution. It already happened. Based on the will of people of Kosovo, representatives of its people declared independence, which is recognized by 46% of UN member states. In few months Kosovo will be recognized by majority of UN members.

  8. This Comment

    We have heard many things the same from all sides, and it is only fair that the STOSK Doctrine be given a chance to become known, but to be fair, the Kosovo is Serbia repetition is Legal and Legitimate.

    It could be that the Majority Albanian Areas of South Kosovo can be represented as South Kosovo or SK, because no Country can represent only the South, and we know that Kosovo is not a Country, but a Province of Serbia.

    It is very important that the words Serbia’s Territory, and not Serbian Territory is used, because Serbia is a Country, and Serbian is a Race, and so there must be no Racism implied in the name.

    There are People who think that a good way to allow the Majority Albanian Areas in South Kosovo to be represented in regional forums, is under the name of Serbia’s Territory Of South Kosovo, or STOSK, and that a United Nations Security Council Resolution could be made for this after both Parties agree.

    The People of North Kosovo can print the forms using A4 computer paper, with the Question, and the YES or NO answer, unless the Kumanovo Agreement, and STOSK or SK are agreed to, along with 1,999 Serbian police and soldiers to enter any part of Kosovo to see to it that a Referendum in Northern Kosovo can be delayed for a while.

    The terms Serbia and Serbia’s need to be defined several times as the English way of saying the recognized United Nations Country with Belgrade as its Capital, and Kosovo as its Province as United Nation Security Council Resolution 1244 says.

    All of South Kosovo will continue to be Serbian Territory, but the Majority Albanian Territories in South Kosovo can be represented as STOSK.

    I think that any STOSK Official in any forum should have a Serbian Official from the Ministry of Provincial Affairs be present, so that the World will know that Kosovo belongs to all the People of Serbia and Kosovo, and to all the Races of Serbia and to its Province of Kosovo.

    North Kosovo should not be included in this matter, because it and other Serbian Majority Areas should be Represented by Serbia, rather than having an Official of the Serbian Ministry of Provincial Affairs be present to signify that North Kosovo is part of the Country of Serbia.

    This is because North Kosovo will be joined to Serbia in every way, even if there is an Administrative line between North Kosovo and South Kosovo, and an Administrative line between Serbia and South Kosovo.

  9. Diza Kosovar

    @This Comment,

    You are asking very little. For instance why all Albanians from “STOSK” should not pay for your holidays in Palma De Mallorka? Or why Albaians from “STOSK” shouldn’t salute you every day for your generosity?

  10. PEN

    A Diza Kosovar,

    I find it astonishing that you can’t even see the contradictions in your own argument. What part of ‘pending a political settlement’ do you not understand. A political settlement involves reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties to a dispute. A unilateral declaration of independence resulting in the appropriation of 15% of a sovereign nation’s territory is not what any reasonable person would regard as a just political settlemnt acceptable to all sides. Surely even you can see that. I find it amusing that whenever you’re found out and start floundering, you get personnal. So naturally, Mr. Gallucci is a Serb propagandist simply because you don’t like what he has to say. Genius!

  11. Diza Kosovar

    @PEN

    Seems that you don’t understand very simple thing or maybe its very complicated for you. First, I don’t see any contradiction in my views. I said clearly that UN SC spoke about a process not a static situation. I should remind you that a process is series of activities with START – development and the END of process. You are speaking for the start of process but this is not the most important part of the issue discussed here. The most important part is THE END. In the end UN SC decided that international civil mission (UNMIK) should “facilitate political process for determination of Kosovo status taking into account Ramboiullet accords”. If you think that UN SC “forgot” FRY or something else you are wrong. I should repeat again that if security Council had in mind to say something it would say for sure. See resolution 1251 for example what it says.

    I quote:

    Resolution 1251

    29 June 1999 (just 19 days after R. 1244)

    11. Reaffirms its position that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as described in the relevant Security Council resolutions, in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession;

    end quote

    Do we have such similar wording in UN SC resolution 1244? NOT AT ALL!

    Secondly as for “political settlement” see interpretation of ICJ.

    I quote:

    Bearing this in mind, the Court cannot accept the argument that Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) contains a prohibition, binding on the authors of the declaration of independence, against declaring independence; nor can such a prohibition be derived from the language of the resolution understood in its context and considering its object and purpose. The language of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) is at best ambiguous in this regard. The object and purpose of the resolution, as has been explained in detail, is the establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo, without making any definitive determination on final status issues. The text of the resolution explains that the

    “main responsibilities of the international civil presence will include . . . [o]rganizing and overseeing the development of provisional institutions for democratic and autonomous self-government pending a political settlement” (para. 11 (c) of the resolution; emphasis added).

    The phrase “political settlement”, often cited in the proceedings before the Court, does not modify this conclusion. First, that reference is made within the context of enumerating the responsibilities of the international civil presence, i.e., the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Kosovo and UNMIK, and not of other actors. Secondly, as the diverging views presented to the Court on this matter illustrate, the term “political settlement” is subject to various interpretations. The Court therefore concludes that this part of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) cannot be construed to include a prohibition, addressed in particular to the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008, against declaring independence.
    The Court accordingly finds that Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) did not bar the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008 from issuing a declaration of independence from the
    Republic of Serbia. Hence, the declaration of independence did not violate Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).

    end quote

    As you can see, you are totally wrong. According to ICJ “political settlement” is subject to various interpretations. Indeed UN SC said in the beginning that Kosovo is part of FRY but this is not the case for THE END of process. In the END for Kosovo status UN SC did not say anything about FRY nor it consent of Kosovo status but mentioned only Ramboiullet accords. UN SC resolution is the best argument against Mr. Gallucci’s interpretation.

    You and Mr. Gallucci should bear in mind that you are individuals and your interpretation is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to ICJ opinion.

    As for “unilateral declaration” I should remind you that Serbia is that entity that began unilateral actions abrogating Kosovo autonomy on 1990. Kosovo became part of so called and recognized state FRY by force with heavily military and police presence from Serbia.

    Having this in mind you should understand that UN SC resolution is absolutely NOT in favor of Serbia. I should remind you what US officials said to Serbian leaders as they should stop self-destruction and self inflicting activity. Serbia can continue destroying itself but should not blame Kosovo for that. I don’t believe that those who support Serbia in destroying itself are sincere people.

  12. PEN

    @ Diza Kosovar;
    ‘You and Mr. Gallucci should bear in mind that you are individuals and your interpretation is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to ICJ opinion.’
    Spoken like a true democrat. Enver Hoxha would be proud. Individual opinion doesn’t count. The Politburo knows best.
    Naturally your interpretation is highly relevant. of course.

  13. Diza Kosovar

    @PEN

    Seems like you understand democracy in wrong way. In democracy if there is a court case than individuals are free to say their thoughts but only Court can take decision or give opinion which is relevant. You should read more carefully what I said that ICJ opinion is more relevant then yours or Mr. Galluci’s. If that is not the case then you should ask government of Serbia why they decided do address the issue to ICJ and not to you or Mr. Gallucci. Is government of Serbia behaving like Enver Hoxha in such case?
    OK I understand frustration of individuals. Those individuals may have personal agenda.

    But Serbia is a state that did commit terrible crimes not just on ’90. Serbia did commit crimes and massacres against Albanians since 1912. Look at this link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars

    Everything is written there and proven from international commission for Balkan wars. Americans, Russians, Germans and others were in that commission. Look at New York Times archive and this link:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0CEEDA1E3AE633A25752C3A9649D946396D6CF&scp=22&sq=december+31%2C+1912&st=p

    Title is: SERVIAN ARMY LEFT A TRAIL OF BLOOD

    This is what international commission prescribes terrible crimes committed from Serbian army against Albanians and NYT prescribes it as “beast like cruelty”.

    I think you and Mr. Galluci should read this carefully.

    Nevertheless we have to go ahead. Serbia should seriously start to think rationally and be aware that should be very happy to have this borders it has if we count crimes that did commit against the others since creation.

  14. Mil

    @Diza Kosovar,

    “I should repeat again that if security Council had in mind to say something it would say for sure. See resolution 1251 for example what it says.”

    So where does it say independance is permitted. lets take the South Sudan resolution example,
    “The Security Council,

    “Welcoming the establishment of the Republic of South Sudan on 9 July 2011 upon its proclamation as an independent State,”

    No such declaration by the Sec coucil on Kosovo, so in its absence it cannot be.

    Now as to the argument put forward by you using the ICJ opinion. The NON-State actor as the authors of the declaration were dubbed, are not regulated by international law, hence how could it be illegal.

    Here too is a Swiss professor of law is he like Gulluci biased towards Serbs or is he advocating a systematic line in interpreting the situation as it should be consistent with internation law and not an exception or unique.

    http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=466

    Simply put the political process part in 1244 was not agreed to by Serbia and certainly not intended by Serbia to lead to independence. In this case we have to recall the political process to adhere/revert to the principles of the Helsinki act as quoted in the 1244 text as there is no agreement by the parent country to grant independence. In this case we must also clarify that there was a unanimous agreement by the SC that independence is an option that requires no agreement by Serbia and if that was the position of the members when drafting 1244.

    If that is not the case the political process has to reflect a broad autonomy as paved by UNMIK in order for the process to finish.

  15. This Comment

    Although all of the right is seldom on one side of a Conflict, the Bribed and Corrupt Western Puppet Main Stream Media will present a war in stark terms of 100 % good and 100 % evil.

    The Western Media ignores the fact that there are atrocities by all sides in all wars, and old atrocity stories will be dusted off and recycled.

    Some of those stories will be true, but many will be false, and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to tell during the war, which are true and which are propaganda, because the truth of both sides of the conflict is the first casualty even before the war, and during the war, and after the war.

    After the war, although some of the atrocity stories will be confirmed, because once a war starts, atrocities will be committed, and there will be a silent retreat from many of the most outrageous ones.

    For the Albanians of Serbia’s Province of Kosovo, who Present Themselves as the savoir of civilization, humanitarian, caring, and compassionate, then here is the Perfect Opportunity to accept that a Negotiated Autonomy for Kosovo Albanians is the way to prove this to themselves and others.

  16. Diza Kosovar

    @MIL

    If you want to say something and cite something and taken seriously you should cite relevant authors or organizations. When you cite advocate of Serbia then you are not serious. Mr Fleiner is Serbian advocate and everybody can understand his views. He is PAID for that. If I start citing Kosovo advocates or advocates of independence of Kosovo we would need months to discuss. Take for example one of most known professors of international law Mr. James Crawford. His arguments in Kosovo case at ICJ were so strong that nobody could argue on that.

    Nobody is saying that UN SC explicitly said that Kosovo will be independent. But UN SC remained silent on that issue. The only thing UN SC said in its resolution 1244 for final stage was that it should be based taking into account Ramboiullet accords. Ramboiullet accords then say that the WILL OF PEOPLE is THE BASIS for solution. It DOESN’T require consent of the entity (FRY), which at that time was neither formally recognized nor UN member. Second thing is that UN SC int its R. 1244 said that in the beginning of process Kosovo should have substantial autonomy within so called FRY, which was NOT recognized entity neither UN member. But so called FRY was federation so that autonomy of Kosovo was within federation and NOT within Serbia. Such federation collapsed and why Kosovo should be within Serbia when SC didn’t say that?
    As for Helsinki act it says to many things and why Kosovo should take into account your views? Helsinki act for instance speaks for human rights or principle of self-determination. Do you want to say that? As for UNMIK, according to UN SC Resolution 1244 it had only to facilitate political process based on Ramoiullet accords in the end of process. NOTHING MORE. After that UNMIK DOESN’T have any roles in Kosovo but GO HOME. If you want to something differently and prove it you should cite relevant paragraphs of R. 1244 or opinion of ICJ. Everything else is IRRELEVANT.

    You are mentioning case of south Sudan. Indeed that case was solved quickly because Republic of Sudan agreed on independence of South Sudan and there were no objections of UN SC. Unfortunately Serbia didn’t have such rational thinking but wanted something impossible. Serbia should think seriously about its criminal past and should stop continue Monty Python way of thinking and acting. Serbia is very lucky that lost only the territory of Kosovo because it is known in history that states that do behave like Serbia do lose territory.

    Having all these facts now its very clear that Serbia is modern Monty Python that damages itself. Serbia can’t get back neither whole Kosovo nor any part of it. Look at statistical data and experts of statistics say. Serbia loses every year 35K-40K of its people and it was said that this like losing one city as Jagodina every year. This is reality and those who don’t live in reality became big losers.

  17. Mil

    “If you want to say something and cite something and taken seriously you should cite relevant authors or organizations. When you cite advocate of Serbia then you are not serious. Mr Fleiner is Serbian advocate and everybody can understand his views. He is PAID for that. If I start citing Kosovo advocates or advocates of independence of Kosovo we would need months to discuss.”

    So why would you want to cite a doctored Austro-Hungarian report aimed at extinguishing danger to their pre WW-1 imperialistic expansions?
    Your understanding and claims are ridiculous.

    “Take for example one of most known professors of international law Mr. James Crawford. His arguments in Kosovo case at ICJ were so strong that nobody could argue on that.”

    Please don’t attribute all the credit there, do leave some for the hard working Judges that tailored the opinion, leaving more questions and uncertainty.

    http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/12/131.html
    http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/smartsite.html?id=12077
    http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/12/090.html

    “Nobody is saying that UN SC explicitly said that Kosovo will be independent. But UN SC remained silent on that issue. The only thing UN SC said in its resolution 1244 for final stage was that it should be based taking into account Ramboulliet accords. Ramboulliet accords then say that the WILL OF PEOPLE is THE BASIS for solution.”

    3. Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities, each Party’s efforts regarding the implementation of this Agreement, and the Helsinki Final Act, and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Agreement and to consider proposals by any Party for additional measures

    That is what it says and like many who have tried to make you understand, the Helsinki accord requires permission from the parent country (inviolability of borders). None to dissimilar to this example how the Commonwealth acts in regards to WA independence.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/too-rich-too-weak-to-succeed-seceding-20100510-uoma.html

    Do tell though, do you advocate and support the will of the Serbs in Kosovo as per Rambouillet if we are reasonable?

    “Having all these facts now its very clear that Serbia is modern Monty Python that damages itself.”

    First you need some facts then correctly interpret them. Although, I did envision the Basil Fawlty goose step following your posts but not relating to Serbia.

  18. Diza Kosovar

    @MIL,

    You say:

    “So why would you want to cite a doctored Austro-Hungarian report aimed at extinguishing danger to their pre WW-1 imperialistic expansions?
    Your understanding and claims are ridiculous.”

    That “doctored Austro-Hungarain Report” was PROVEN to be TRUE 100% from International Commission on the Balkan Wars. One of Serbian officer that took part in these massacres against Albanian said:

    “We have carried out the attempted premeditated murder of an entire nation. We were caught in that criminal act and have been obstructed. Now we have to suffer the punishment…. In the Balkan Wars, Serbia not only doubled its territory, but also its external enemies.” — Dimitrije Tucović.

    So you don’t “believe”, “doctored Austro-Hungarain Report”, you don’t believe to Internations Comission (Americans, Russian, Germans were in that comission) and finally you don’t “believe” to Serbian officer who took part in that war?? Who is here ridiculous?

    You say:

    “Please don’t attribute all the credit there, do leave some for the hard working Judges that tailored the opinion, leaving more questions and uncertainty.”

    You are trying to change judicial system in the planet Earth or what? For your information there was voting during the adoption of legal opinion for the question on whether declaration of independence of Kosovo was in accordance with international law. TEN judges said there was no violation of neither international law nor UN SC resolution 1244. Four had different view. Seems like you want to convince us that 4 is bigger than 10!!! You should seriously ask yourself what’s going on with you. This is more than ridiculous.

    You say:

    That is what it says and like many who have tried to make you understand, the Helsinki accord requires permission from the parent country (inviolability of borders). None to dissimilar to this example how the Commonwealth acts in regards to WA independence.”

    Helsinki accord in its Chapter deals with the principle of equality and self-determination.
    Second, how come that UN SC would protect “inviolability of borders” for the entity that was neither recognized nor UN member?

    Third, we are writing here for explicit things not these that have different meanings. What is EXPLICITLY mention in UN SC resolution 1244 is Ramboiullet accords. What is EXPLICITLY mentioned in Ramboiullet accords as the BASIS for status si the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    As for Serbs, of course their will is accounted. They are part of Kosovo people as citizens of Republic of Kosova.

    You say:

    “First you need some facts then correctly interpret them”

    Yes of course. Facts are very clear that Serbia was criminal state since occupation of Kosovo with terrible crimes and genocide committed up to 1999. On 1999 Serbia lost the war. On 2010 Serbia lost legal battle.

    You say:

    “Although, I did envision the Basil Fawlty goose step following your posts but not relating to Serbia.”

    I understand completely frustration of some people. Fortunately that frustrations apart of making laugh can’t be taken seriously.

  19. PEN

    @ Mil,

    I fear you and I aren’t going anywhere with this. Debating with Mr. Kosovar is like beating your head against a brick wall. His world view boils down to one thing; I’m right, and you’re all wrong. We poor innocent Albanians have never done anything to be ashamed of. It’s those dasterdly ungrateful Serbs!
    I leave you with one thought. Imagine a non Albanian living in Kosovo surrounded by people with the same mindset. Truly frightening.

  20. Diza Kosovar

    @PEN,

    “Mr Kosovar” is not trying to convince you for anything but just presenting facts. I am writing here for behavior of the state of Serbia not individuals. Of course there were some individual Albanians that did commit crimes against the others including Serbs but this is a matter of individuals and nothing more. Even as individuals, Albanians in the WW2 had a chance for retaliation and exterminate all Serbs in Kosovo but it didn’t happen although crimes and genocide from Serbian military were still fresh in minds of Albanian kosovans. In other side look at your compatriot who speaks about “theft land” but the question is that land is brought from Carpathian Mountains into Balkans? This is primitive logic of those who don’t understand 21 century.

    So lets give history to historians because dealing with it will be discovered to many bad things.

    As for non Albanians living in Kosovo don’t worry about them. They have more rights than Albanians and live very good. Of course in the same economic environment as Albanians. If you speak about Kosovo you should visit Kosovo and see reality. I must repeat that trying to save something Serbia doesn’t have is destroying itself.
    As a fact that Kosovo and its people want to go ahead and leave the past behind is recent demonstration of few individuals against Serbian goods in Kosovo. Its estimated that figures are some 500 million euros annually for import of goods from Serbia in Kosovo. In economic aspect it means at least 1.5 to 2 billion Euros of Serbia’s GDP. This is 5-6% of total GDP of Serbia. If Kosovo decides to block Serbian goods that means Serbia will fall into collapse and go to deep recession. Kosovo leaders know that they can do that but don’t want it because this is not a way to go ahead regardless of hostile policy from Belgrade with apparent interference in Kosovo. Do you really believe that Kosovo police can’t go from Pristina to Gracanica (7 Km away) and remove Serbian flag and tables from illegal institutions of Serbia where is written “Republic of Serbia”? Of course Kosovo police can do it for few hours but they won’t do that. So situation is clear. Kosovo and Serbia as two independent states should leave the past behind and try to normalize relations. Ahtisaari plan is good way to go ahead meaning that the same would apply for Albanians in south Serbia.

  21. PEN

    @ Diza Kosovar
    I can assure you that the Albanians did their very best to exterminate all Serbs in Kosovo during WW2. The only problem was that the war didn’t last long enough for them to achieve their aims. And as allies of the Axis, the Albanians were defeated along with their Nazi friends. This policy had nothing to do with the indiscretions of a few individuals, but was state policy condoned by tribal elders who could hardly wait to eradicate any Serbian presence in Kosovo. And of course the programme goes on today.
    Cernica resident Srdan Menkovic near Gnjilane spoke yesterday of how two Serb homes were first burgled, then burnt to the ground. ‘They stole everything. It’s getting worse by the day, robberies are ever more frequent and the police do nothing about it.’ I suppose they should count themselves lucky they weren’t murdered for good measure. But naturally according to you, ‘Serbs have more rights than Albanians, and live very good.’ I think I’ll pass up your offer to visit Kosovo. My insurance policy wouldn’t cover my losses.

  22. Diza Kosovar

    @PEN,

    I say to you that you are under propaganda. In his book “Kosovo question” from the Croatian author Branko Horvat, author cites an Albanian leader from Kosovo during WW2 saying “Serbs must go in Serbia but nobody is allowed even to touch them”. Of course those Serbs who occupied land from Albanians in Kosovo since 1912. In fact, state of old Serbia then Yugoslavia since 1913 confiscated land from Albanians and gave to Serbs. When Italians came in Kosovo as occupators in the beginning of WW2 knowing what happened supported Albanians as majority. Regardless of that, Albanians fought against fascism and Nazi. Albanian brigades on the end of WW2 liberated not just Albania and Kosovo but other parts in Balkans i.e part Bosnia or were even in front of Srem (North Serbia).
    I am telling you that as long as you and your compatriots deal with history, you will be loser. As for individual cases against Serbs, these things happened after the war in Kosovo or on March 2004. On March 2004 were 19 dead people but 11 of them were Albanians. Of course according to you and your compatriots dead Albanians shouldn’t be counted.

    When I say that Serbs in Kosovo have more rights than Albanians that is based on facts. I am repeating you that since independence of Kosovo there were only few cases of incidents against Serbs. There is no country in the world with 100% security. You are still speaking for the past trying to misinterpret things. Of course you fail to prove that state of Kosovo is doing something bad to Serbs. You simply can’t do that.
    You are free to come in Kosovo and see the reality. You can see that even in southern part, Kosovo authorities tolerate illegal structures of Serbia. There are no illegal mayors only in the north of Kosovo but in the south too. These illegal structures operate freely. If illegal structures operate free you can imagine how is situation with ordinary people or those Serbs who are part of Kosovo society.

  23. Pingback : Kosovo - the referendum reconsidered | TransConflict | Transform, Transcend, Translate - TransConflict Serbia

  24. Mil

    @Pen,

    A Serb living in Kosovo in these times is tantamount to being held hostage and the international community telling everyone of a “great” democracy they created.

    @Diza

    Doctored yes, they had an alterior motive Tucovic with Socialism and Austr-Hungary with Imperialism.For the Serbs the motive was simple reverse the Ottomon displacement of Serbs and payback, specifically against the beys (mostly foreign Albanians and Turks) for centuries of oppression and plunder. Being a slave class (raya) will do that.

    You do know Albania was known as the Garden of Viziers inflicting centuries of genocide on the Balkans under the Ottomon wing. Kosovo as any scholar will tell you was a majority Slav/Serb land when invaded by the Ottomons. Only a few years after that report the newspapers worked it out,

    http://truth-justice-peace.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/1918_07_28PrsWilsonSerbFlag.256112759.pdf

    ———–
    1244 was in force and still is, right at this moment “reafirming” a member state’s territorial integrity, Serbia.
    ———–
    I was refering to the territory of the Serbs that do not wish to be part of Albanian Kosovo but since it’s that way then accept Serbian sovreignty the same way you expect it to be the other way.
    ————-

    Of course you fail to prove that state of Kosovo is doing something bad to Serbs. You simply can’t do that.
    You are free to come in Kosovo and see the reality. You can see that even in southern part, Kosovo authorities tolerate illegal structures of Serbia. There are no illegal mayors only in the north of Kosovo but in the south too. These illegal structures operate freely. If illegal structures operate free you can imagine how is situation with ordinary people or those Serbs who are part of Kosovo society.”

    You do realise it took a while before locking up the Croat generals for State crimes against the Krajina Serbs. Do you realy think it will be different for the Kosovo Albanian leadership during the war and present? The problem with your “cosmetic” arguements is they can’t last the distance.

  25. Diza Kosovar

    @MIL,

    I find very strange trying from you to neglect crimes that Serbia did commit against Albanians. Fortunately not just Albanian predecessors told us the stories. So you don’t believe what New York Times wrote on 1912!! You don’t believe to Serbian officer (Dimitrije Tucovic) but i don’t know why you don’t believe to international Commision comprised of:

    MEMBERS OF THE BALKAN COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

    AUSTRIA :

    Dr. Josef Redlich, Professor of Public Law in the University of Vienna.

    FRANCE:

    Baron d’Estournelles de Constant, Senator.

    M. Justin Godart, lawyer and Member of the Chamber of Deputies.

    GERMANY :

    Dr. Walther Schiicking, Professor of Law at the University of Marburg.

    GREAT BRITAIN :

    Francis W. Hirst, Esq., Editor of The Economist.
    Dr. H. N. Brailsford, journalist.

    RUSSIA :

    Professor Paul Milioukov, Member of the Douma.

    UNITED STATES:

    Dr. Samuel T. Dutton, Professor in Teachers’ College, Columbia University.

    If find very strange that all those allegations were proven from these people above and you say it is “doctored”?? I don’t understand you how come that Russian professor Paul Milioukov, Member of the Douma would agree on “doctored report”? In fact I know your reaction on this.

    You say:

    “1244 was in force and still is, right at this moment “reafirming” a member state’s territorial integrity, Serbia.”

    It is true that UN SC resolution 1244 remains in force BUT it reafrims COMMITMENT of OTHER UN member States of “territorial integrity of FRY (NOT Serbia). First Kosovo was not UN Member states, thus i doesn’t apply to Kosovo. Second FRY is not Serbia but federation. Third, this is preamble and as such not BINDING for Kosovo. Fourth, UN SCE resolution says (in provisional period) Kosovo has autonomy within FRY (federation) NOT Serbia. So where do you find word “Serbia” in resolution 1244? In fact it is but ONLY when it comes to Serbia’s WITHDRAVAL (and never return) from Kosovo.

    As for territory and wishes I think I explained perfectly about that. For instance why Serbia doesn’t respect wishes of majority in Kosovo to be independent? Why Serbia doesn’t respect wishes of Albanians in south Serbia? Why Serbia doesn’t respect wishes of Bosnicas in Serbia or Hungarians in Vojvodina? So which wish to respect?

    Yous say:

    “You do realise it took a while before locking up the Croat generals for State crimes against the Krajina Serbs. Do you realy think it will be different for the Kosovo Albanian leadership during the war and present? The problem with your “cosmetic” arguements is they can’t last the distance”.

    I am speaking for reality and wont deal with your imagination. The true is that NONE of Serbs in Kosovo can claim any mistreatment from the state of Kosovo since creation on February 17, 2008.. Even on individual basis there were just few of incidents in four years.

  26. Mil

    “I find very strange trying from you to neglect crimes that Serbia did commit against Albanians. Fortunately not just Albanian predecessors told us the stories. So you don’t believe what New York Times wrote on 1912!! You don’t believe to Serbian officer (Dimitrije Tucovic) but i don’t know why you don’t believe to international Commision comprised of:”

    New York Times? or did they just publish a report by the Hungarian government.

    Doctored:
    Change the content or appearance in order to deceive, falsify.

    I posted,

    “For the Serbs the motive was simple reverse the Ottomon displacement of Serbs and payback, specifically against the beys (mostly foreign Albanians and Turks) for centuries of oppression and plunder. Being a slave class (raya) will do that”

    It is bad enoungh to see the reems of transperant propaganda arguments by yourself, but now you have been reduced to placing and quoting words on my behalf. A bit like your interpretations of legal documents and imaginery interpretations.

    “I am speaking for reality and wont deal with your imagination. The true is that NONE of Serbs in Kosovo can claim any mistreatment from the state of Kosovo since creation on February 17, 2008.. Even on individual basis there were just few of incidents in four years.”

    http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kosov2/
    http://english.blic.rs/Society/3605/We-were-finding-bodies-of-killed-Serbs-every-morning
    http://www.faustobiloslavo.com/articoli/29203.pdf

    As I stated before “cosmetic” only 400 Serbs left in Pristina after ethnic cleansing between 1999 and 2008 and you state after 2008. You must take the world for stupid or something. Here is the real theme only a few months ago.
    http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=10&dd=20&nav_id=76946

  27. Pingback : Kosovo – referendum, barricades and EU plans | The Roman Gate

Leave a Reply

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons