Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

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)

Ukraine's reaction

I would not say Ukraine won't recognize Kosovo just yet. It is the job of Ukraine's Foreign Ministry to come up with a position on this issue. The source that is provided in the article refers to the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs, which is not the same thing as a foreign ministry. I would not speculate just yet. --207.177.241.28 (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are Right, but everyone else seems to think otherwise, even without proof of denying to recognize Kosovo. We should use official government sources of the Foreign Affairs Minister:. Please look at the official statement of the Foreign Affairs Minister at www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/16732.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 14:59, 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 [1]--Trigor (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine Plans to Recognize Republic of Kosovo

According to an Article published in the website of Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Ukraine Plans to recognize the Independence of Kosovo. There is no article whatsoever that indicates the contrary.

The Article that is attached next to the Ukraine Flag in Countries that will not recognize Kosovo regards Brazil's declaration.

The Link to the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Ukraine regarding the statement that i just wrote is: www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/16732.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 11:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Article that is attached next to the Ukraine Flag now is an Unofficial point of view of a RadioStation. We should try and show only official statements issued from Foreign Affairs Offices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I think Ukraine should be moved under the section of: States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations, or even better in Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 12:11, 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)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina's "not in the near future" is different from, say, the PRC's opinion which is still considering. "Not in the near future" is an outright refusal to recognize, at least in the near future, which of course is the politician's words for no. Any position can change over time, so this does not really differ from a straight no. Any comments? Herunar (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Its a Neutral Position its not a NO and its not a straight away YES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 14:55, 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.[2][3] [4] 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,[5] 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.[6] 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)

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)

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 [7]) 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)

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)

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.

Northern Cyprus

http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/2008/08-02-20.tcpr.html#01 Clearly states that the presidential spokesman for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has said that TRNC is not pursuing the process of recognition of Kosovo. The President's statement was commentary and congratulatory only and not a declaration of official recognition. TheWoody (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the fact that the TRNC's head of state has done so is in itself an act of recognizing the existance of a new country. The fact that Prime Minister Soyer is not at this time pursuing recognition of Pristina's GOVERNMENT does not change this. Expatkiwi (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.176.233 (talk)

This article is determining state recognition, not personal congratulations. In the example of the United States, George W. Bush offered congratulations, but the state department did not officially recognize it until a couple days later. In this case the TRNC president offered congratulations, but the foreign ministry is not moving to recognize Kosovo. TheWoody (talk) 21:52, 21 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: [8] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 [9], 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 [10] 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)

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)

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 [11] 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)

Indonesia doesn´t recognize Kosovo´s independence

Look at that link (in spanish). Indonesia doesn´t recognize formally Kosovo´s independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.131.166 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

UKRAINE in the Wrong List

No Government Official Statement has been issued that declares anti-independence for Kosovo. The Article is from a radio station and it has nothing to do with the Foreign Affairs Minister and his Government. It should be removed from the States that do not recognize Kosovo. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SEE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STATEMENT: www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/16732.htm

Until there is something Official that Denies this Statement then you can list it where it is now, but till then Ukraine belongs to the list of Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions

Please be OBJECTIVE!!!

--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. For the second time... --Camptown (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a radio station, it's a government radio station that informs population of its decisions.--24.186.170.167 (talk) 14:16, 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)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

Taiwan is a partially Recognized State and Should be in a Separate Section like it used to be. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Comments? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 13:07, 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)

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)

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)

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

[12], 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 [13], "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)

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)