Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KFOR

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

Morocco, Sudan

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

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

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

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

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

Umm, the source for Chechnya, "Chechenpress (www.chechenpress.info/index.shtml) is a website linked to London-based Chechen rebel leader Ahmed Zakayev." London-based Chechen rebel leader. Is London getting two votes now? Or was Russia to give up Lugovoi to London to be questioned by Zakayev. But I digress. Case in point, it's a government without a country to rule, and they're not even in the country, so the source gives a false impression. Can we at least changed the name to "London-based gov't. for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria?" 67.101.109.142 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"does not recognize" vs. "expressed concern"

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

Move

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

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

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

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

Partially recognised states

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

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

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

Armenia against

I think that Armenia should be moved from undecided to mildly-against-independence [1] in the tables and in the map. Can someone do it? Best, Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No, Armenia is not against: "Armenia has no intention to recognize independence of Kosovo yet, RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said in Yerevan today." Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25057 So should we not correct the article as it is clear that Armenia will sooner or later recognise? --Tubesship (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

So,...

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

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

This is only Indonesian example.

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

Indonesia says it does not recognize Kosovo's independence

(Reuters)

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

(Associated Press - Jakarta Post)

http://www.thejakartapost.com

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

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

(TANJUG)

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

No Reason For Indonesia Not To Recognize Kosovo's Independence

(ANTARA)

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

(Bernama)

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

Indonesia delayed decision to recognize Kosovo’s independence

(Jakarta Post)

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

(ANTARA)

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

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

Belgium recognizes it

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

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

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

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

Serbia's diplomatic retaliation

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

The consultations will certainly take a finite amount of time but Serbia clearly intends to "downgrade, but not break" [2] - reduce the rank of the highest diplomats etc. - the diplomatic relations with any country that violates Serbia's territorial integrity until the moment when the recognition is annulled. So the planning really depends on the other countries, I guess, not on Serbia. So if you hypothetically imagine a truly stubborn country that would like to keep the recognition of the "new country" indefinitely, despite the disorder that will probably be becoming increasingly obvious, the downgrading of the diplomatic links with Serbia would be permanent.

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

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

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

Poland, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

What world do you live in Bardhylius? Of course Mujahedeen fighters were in Kosovo during the war. Who do you think was cutting of serbian heads.Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

again POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.179.57 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you have the London-Based Gov't. of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, no reason that these groups should also not be included. As per the Mujahadeen in Kosovo, umm, yeah, they were in Kosovo. Read something by the 82nd US Airborne division, you know the one that was shooting at Mujahadeen that didn't exist. Or read about their training camp in Bosnia: "http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=4&leader=0&sp=24" I love the internet age, so hard to publish flat out lies. 67.101.109.142 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Portugal and Malta

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

Malta is already grey (see the offical statement on Malta's Foreign ministry website: [3]). Concerning Portugal, that's what the current source says: Portugal's Foreign Minister Luis Amado said Monday that his nation was on the way to recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, but must first consult domestically and with other European Union (EU) nations. Gugganij (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Russian veto = does not recognize. That means NO. All of the 3 major candidates (Medvedev, Zuyganov, Zhirinovksy) have stated that they will NOT recognize Kosovo, and WILL use the veto power. Putin won't recognize Kosovo, and WILL use veto power. All of Russia's major parties back it up. Bogdanov and SPS (Union of Right Forces) are a big joke that are now sucessfully polling below 1%. They have as much chance of winning as Ralph Nader, they shouldn't even run. So again, switch Portugal and Malta to Orange. Shish. Portugal's light blue, when it should be light orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.109.142 (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They will boqw after a while, it's the same story as the US. Either they eventuly bow to the world view or a more supportive pres. takes over as pres of russia.--Cody6 (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tend to agree with Avala here. We can always move them once they start the procedure, we're in no hurry. —Nightstallion 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Czcech Republic needs to be in the "have initiated the formal proceedings" my source = http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8185/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

International Olympic Committee

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

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

Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

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

Regardless of the tone of the unsigned comment I will answer it. Republika Srpska has vetoed the recognition and the member of Bosnia presidency stated that Bosnia and Herzegovina will not recognize Kosovo (those are the latest news we have).--Avala (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina will not recognize Kosovo's independence as long as Republika Srpska is a part of the federation. --Tocino 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well doubts and other things are our personal feelings, but these do not express nor do they represent the reality of the political situation. It may be obvious that the recognition may be far away or non existent but still Bosnia and Herzegovina has issued no official statement about this issue. And since we are citing only Official and direct statements from Foreign Affairs Ministries of the Actual States and not single entities on that section, i think BiH should not be there. On the Other Hand Republika Srpska should stay on the Other Entities List. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AVALA.. Where is the Source for the latest news?--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"BANjALUKA, 21. FEBRUARA (SRNA) - Član Predsjedništva BiH iz Republike Srpske Nebojša Radmanović izjavio je da BiH neće priznati nezavisnost Kosova". This sounds pretty official - member of the presidency says that Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And the source is there where you deleted it when you vandalized the article - http://www.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest.php?id=49754.

First of all I did not vandalize anything. Second, this is the Television of the Republika Srpska and not an Official Government Statement. All the other Sources are. Why cant you accept this? I don't Understand. If it's so important to you that put it there, but don't expect us to believe in some TV Agency.

Član Predsjedništva is one Member, one person and it's not the Foreign Affairs Minister of BiH.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source for your statements I will consider any removal of sourced material as vandalism. As someone mentioned before, don't use Wikipedia as playground for expressing your frustrations. If you don't believe news agencies then you can remove 90% of all wikipedia references. And also there are two references for Bosnia, one is the parliament of RS website where you can read all about B&H not recognizing Kosovo due to effective veto from RS. --Avala (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Man I think you are frustrated. Your Source is not valid. it's not official, i don't think you understand at this point. As long as it seems obvious that BiH will not recognize Kosovo, I repeat there is no Government Statement that says that. Foreign Affairs Statements from BiH are valid ones FOLKS and not one Entity Statements like Republika Srpska - REPUBLIKA SRPSKA is a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but she is not the only entity in that state. There are 2 entities and the process is blocked. So no BiH Statement, Only one Entity Statement.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Parliament of Republika Srpska is a valid official source unlike your hopes which have nothing to do with the official position of Bosnia. Republika Srpska as an equal entity has blocked recognition initiative and after that member of the presidency said Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo independence. I think this is clear as day. --Avala (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We need another opinion since you and I obviously do not agree.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one who claims news agency and official statement are not valid enough. --Avala (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should one Entity of one State should be considered as a STATE? I dont think so!!! .. News Agency - Not Good Enough for the part Recognition - Non Recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let it go. You don't need any source on this issue. Republika Srpska will not recognize Kosovo, at least not in the near future. Now, the only think you need to check out is if RS has a right of veto. If it does put Bosnia in red instantly. JosipMac (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if one entity disagrees Bosnia cannot recognize Kosovo and that is what the member of the presidency summed up in his statement. Look at it this way - EU can't recognize Kosovo because of Spain, UN because of Russia and Bosnia because of RS. --Avala (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok let me make it simple. The obvious thing to me as well is that there will be no recognition from Bosnia and Herzegovina, at least not in the near future, this is where we agree OK. The question is should we publish also News Agency Statements and Articles for the Recognition and Non Recognition lists or should we publish only Foreign Affairs Ministry, Presidential etc.(NON NEWS AGENCY) statements? This is all. This is where the issue is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding recognition yes because that is what is needed - an official document but if the state does not recognize they do not have to publish an official document stating so because they legally consider the situation has not changed. They are just not required to do so. Their recognition of Serbia is sufficient. If they think something changed, that there is a new country they publish a statement about it. --Avala (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait on official statement (other than RS one) because I don't see that's likely. What are they going to say? "We would like to recognize Kosovo but it's vetoed by.."? :) JosipMac (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes well also Croatian member of the presidency said that recognition by Bosnia is highly unlikely. --Avala (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Republika Serpska is not merely just some autonomous political "entity" that's separate from the Bosnian government; it is an integral part of the federal Bosnian government. So, while it is true to say that a declaration from the Republika Serpska is not the same as a declaration by the full government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it IS, nevertheless, a declaration from a major official branch of the Bosnian government.

Bosnia and Herzegovina obviously differs from countries that have made an official declaration for or against recognition, and also differs from countries in the process of making one. Countries in the process of recognizing basically have one political entity (a foreign minister, a cabinet, parliament, or head of state) endorsing recognition, and the other branches of government must then ratify it to make it official. But, in the Bosnian case, you have one side flatly declaring there is no recognition of Kosovo, and another side saying they do not oppose recognition. Neither side is going to ratify the position of the other, so they are deadlocked, and the full government will neither fully support or fully oppose Kosovan independance.

The most appropriate category for this, I think is the undecided/ambiguous category, because, even though the subnational branches of Bosnian government, like Republika Serpska, clarified their own positions, the full government has no position, and will not have one until everyone agrees on it. But one thing is clear, the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina neither officially opposes not officially recognizes independence.

The mere fact that they probably won't recognize Kosovo is insufficient to place it in the opposing group, because there's lots of countries that won't recognize it soon, or in the forseeable future, but are still in the undecided list because they have not declared a position, and at least in theory, Bosnia is a potential Kosovo supporter until its government can agree one way or another; only countries whose governments officially refuse to recognize Kosovo go in the non-recognition list. I say place Bosnia in the undecided section.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So based Željko Komšić statement 17/02 is more important then Nebojša Radmanović statement 21/02 as I can see that statement is now a reference for Bosnia. I am sorry but the member of federal presidency said on 21/02 - Bosnia and Herzegovina will not recognize Kosovo. Twisting this in any direction will not bring anything new because the statement is very clear.--Avala (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no need to be uncivilized, simply state your facts. I think you might have confused me for God and assumed that I was omnicient, so I was deliberately "twisting" facts rather than presenting my best informed opinion. But, I regret to disappoint you, for I am mere mortal and need to be enlightened with statements and data that disprove my argument, preferably in a polite manner without hostile condecension. I suspect that such automatic belligerence on the part of many humans is one of the main reasons why people often cannot solve their differences in situations like Kosovo. :)

So yes, the statement is very clear, and if accurate, I agree that Bosnia officially rejects Kosovo independence.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being rude. I am trying my best to supply this article with references and after I have found three another user blanked it all (not chaning just blanking, which is considered vandalism) and called me a truth twister so I was a bit frustrated at such disrespect so maybe I overreacted here. Sorry again. And also one more thing, I have also found another source (now in the article) which shows that the presiding member of the presidency made the same statement adding there is a consensus on this issue in presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Avala (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ARMENIA

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

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

Only countries to have an official parliament decision of no recognition are Serbia and Romania. It doesn't make Russia any less against. --Avala (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are wrong. This article clearly has a quote from the Armenian foreign ministry stating that they have no plans to recognize Kosovo's independence: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25057 . Just because you don't like the fact that all of these nations are refusing to recognize an independent Kosovo doesn't give you the right to take out your frustration on WP. --Tocino 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian President made an Official Statement... thats very different. The Russian Representative at the UN Security Council made it very official. You can not say the did not. We went through this with Ukraine. all the other sources have Official Government Statements on the Non-Recognition Part.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Putin did not make an official statement. He made a statement at the informal meeting of CIS countries. --Avala (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's not about what i like or dislike. Just go to the Armenian Foreign Affairs ministry WebSite and see if there is any statement of that kind.... The Issue about Russia is very clear and we don't need to discuss it here. I think that their statements at the UN Security Council made it very OFFICIAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It did but according to your comments one country must publish a formal statement on paper and on all gov websites to make it legal. That goes for recognition but legally country does not have to publish anything if it doesn't recognize as it just accepts previous situation as the correct situation. --Avala (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless something has changed in the rules regarding the publishing of information on WP than I'm sorry for the noise caused, but as far as I know about the Recognition and Non Recognition lists we published only official Government Statements. If I'm wrong than for god's sake put everything like it was, and I wont touch it. And we should write a comment about this issue on the article so everything is clear. and AVALA i did not vadalize nor did i delete sources of any kind. Please do not accuse anybody for something that you have no certainty on. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking sourced material is called vandalism.--Avala (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You did the same, so welcome home :). At this point we should try to find some common ground or we could go on forever.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Armenia has no intention to recognize independence of Kosovo yet, RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said in Yerevan today." Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25057 So should we not correct the article as it is clear that Armenia will sooner or later recognise? --Tubesship (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican

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

You are Right.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Vatican City not a member of the UN? Shouldn't it be under a different heading? Perhaps "Other Relevant Entities". PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican is an observer in the UN and recognized as a sovereign nation. It should be put with other countries where its relevant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think UN membership is necessary for a country to be considered sovereign. --K kc chan (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vatican is not a UN member, but it is recognized as sovereign by the UN.--Dojarca (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see they moved it, even if they had to make a whole new category. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican City is an independent and a sovereign state since the Lateran Treaty. Why is write that it is a "de facto independent state"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.209.3 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a non-UN member state, but that clause was added so if any actual de facto states take up similar positions, a new category will not be needed. Also, there is another category of non-UN member states and de facto states that do recognize independence (Taiwan and Northern Cyprus), so that heading keeps it in continuity. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Libya & Croatia

On the last session of the United Nations Security Council, Croatia declared that it will coordinate recognition of Kosovo with its EU partners. I know that so did Macedonia, but it's different in CRO's case than FYROM's, since they really stated that they'll recognize in time - thus, Croatia should be blue.

Libya should definitely be orange. At the session, its representer was strongly "against Serbia", but in the end Libya couldn't support Kosovo because it stated that it supported the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

can you give us the sources to prove this please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure whether you asked for Lybian or Croatian sources, but I live in Croatia and the situation here is pretty clear - our government will recognize Kosovo but is postponing it a bit due to economic and political reasons. I have no idea if you can find a statement online though, and I can't copy paste TV clips. As a matter of fact Kosovo was/is considering opening a first embassy in Croatia (which would not be possible without Croatia's recognition of course) because of so many Albanians here. No, I don't have Internet source of that either. :) JosipMac (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Croatia will most probably recognize but for now their official policy is waiting. And Libya well I have to see the text of their speech. If they did state that then I will put it in orange. --Avala (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Text regarding Libya:

“ GIADALLA A. ETTALHI ( Libya) said he hoped that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence would not signal a return to the 1990s, when the former Republic of Yugoslavia dissolved in violence. Both parties had reiterated their determination to follow a path of peace and negotiated settlement. He reiterated his call to both parties to refrain from any provocative actions and to remain committed to their pledge to renounce violence. He welcomed the pledge by Kosovo authorities to implement the Ahtisaari plans regarding, among other things, minority rights, to create the conditions for the returns of internally displaced persons and regarding property rights. He called upon Serbia to refrain from any actions that would have a negative impact on the already poor living conditions of the people living in Kosovo.

He said his country would be supportive of the principles of justice and international law that stipulated sovereignty of all States and their territorial integrity. How would the world look like if those principles were forfeited? he asked. It must, however, be recognized that there was an exceptional situation in an exceptional region. His country could not accept that yesterday’s events constituted a precedent that could undermine the territorial integrity of States. The Council must state its respect for the territorial integrity of States and must make clear that the situation could not be used as a precedent.

”

Doesn't sound like it's a yes or a no, so they're neutral. —Nightstallion 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like they are really undecided praising and accusing both sides which brings us to neutrality point. --Avala (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial sources state that Croatia will recognize Kosovo on March 15th. JosipMac (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty reliable information. Croatia Recognize

Translation: title: Croatia formally will recognize Kosova on March 13th

Zagreb, March 4 - The Croatian government formally will recognize Kosova on the thursday meeting on March 13th. It talks about the ambassador to Prishtina will be Zltako Kramariq and this is based from a credited newspaper "Nacional". 128.206.160.6 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

.

Bosnia pt.2

I'd like to let all Wikipedia users here know that user Avala has suggested that Bosnia refuses to recognise Kosovo. This is false. It is Republika Srpska which has NOT recognised Bosnia. The internationally recognised government of Bosnia in Sarajevo has not made a formal decision yet. If we followed Avala's logic, one would think the Serbs of Bosnia like to remain in Republika Srpska and not unite with Serbia proper--which is not true. this is just some pushing a Serb based POV on everyone and misrepresenting the facts. Republika Srpska is an independent entity and has its capitol at Banja Luka; it is NOT the Government of Bosnia at Sarajevo. Artene50 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all official policy of Wikipedia is no personal attacks so I edited title of this section as I feel hostility towards me. Second of all I don't know what do you mean by "It is Republika Srpska which has NOT recognised Bosnia"? Can you give us the source that RS does not recognise Bosnia? It doesn't sound truthful to me. And third - yes the federal presidency member from Sarajevo indeed said that Bosnia and Herzegovina will not recognise Kosovo independence and called Kosovo an internal matter of Serbia. It's not a POV, it's called sourced fact and removal of this without any basis is called editing vandalism. I ask you to refrain from such actions as in the end if we call the enadmin you know what the outcome will be - will he support the sourced information or a user who is removing this same information he doesn't like for that sole personal reason.--Avala (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit complicated -- the opinion of one of the three presidents doesn't really amount to an official statement, does it? —Nightstallion 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The other option is to put Bosnia in light orange based on the earlier statement of another presidency member who also said Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo but with only difference being he said "in near future" but that was on 17/02.--Avala (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's very difficult not to be angry over your edits, Avala, in the matter of recognition or nonrecognition of the Republic of Kosovo by other governments -- GOVERNMENTS, not INDIVIDUAL POLITICIANS! Avala, untruthful edits are galling, especially as you are an experienced editor and an administrator on the Serb Wikipedia. Willful misrepresentation of facts under the guise of supplying reasonable, verified information is not going to fool people looking closely at the edits involved. So, I for one, welcome an RFC into the matter of your portrayal of facts in a skewed, Wikipedia credibility-damaging way. Calling editors' removals of those edits vandalism, for attempting to remove such blatant untruths is especially insidious. You seem to have perfected the art of wikibullshit and wikidoubletalk, appearing reasonable in tone but damaging the goods with unreasonable edits. Which is worse for Wikipedia? Incesed editors or polite introductioin of untruths? This shall not pass, and a level, reasonable interpretation of facts will win out. Already. several editors have called into question the wisdom of your edits in this article, and I have reported your edits to the Village Pump on Wikimedia Commons (26 February 2008), requesting administrator intervention in the matter of your adulturating maps used in this article on various Wikipedias (PNG and SVG versions), and there are by now numerous objections in several sections on this very page, and in the article's history, which is rife with your breaking the 3RR rule. I would think an admin would know better... Sometimes a seeming personal attack is an objection to unscrupulous behavior of an editor, and an admin at that. I hope you heed the criticism in time. --Mareklug ^talk 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine edits are sourced so they can't be "untruthful" as you call them. Anyway I warned you on your talk page that removing sourced data is considered vandalism by Wikipedia. You first said Sarajevo needs to react, I gave you source of the presidency reaction but now you say the whole government needs to react. If they would react you would wait for the decision of the high representative? --Avala (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Also you have no right to call me names here and say I am misconducting. This is another violation of wikipedia official policy and if you rename the section title again you will force me to seek protection. And regarding 3RR it does not apply to vandalism, when someone is blanking other people's edits.--Avala (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it their Prime Minister has said he will not recognize Kosovo. Since Serbs have to agree for anything to happen in the Bosnian government, the fact the Serbs are resisting means they won't recognize Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no point in going any further on this matter as even the presiding member has stated the same thing.

Željko Komšić, presiding member of the presidency, has stated that "Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo in the following period and there is a consensus in the Bosnian State Presidency on the issue" --Avala (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I realy don't understand what the problem is here, two members of the Bosnian tripartite presidency, including the presiding member of the presidency, have stated that Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo. That's clear as day in my book. Bosnia is red. I think that the real problem is that certain Wikipedia editors, that support the independence of Kosovo, are just trying to find reasons not to put more countries on the list that will not support the independence. The thing is most, if not all, of those countries that are in orange (for further talks and against unilateral moves) on the map are actualy anti-independence. The thing is that all of the countries that are accepting Kosovo are doing it in such a way that everybody knows that. They practicly are yelling into loudspeakers to the world they accept Kosovo. The countries that will not accept Kosovo are not doing that, they say eather openly they are against or they are for more talks or against unilateral moves (anti-unilateral moves what do you people think that means). Ministers, ambassadors, prime-ministers and presidents have stated they are against the independence of Kosovo but for some of the Wikipedia editors that is not enough. According to them they should do it the same way that pro-independence countries are doing it. Well that's the thing people they are not telling it so openly but they have hinted that in their statements they are anti-independence. Everybody is twisting the wording of those statements. Both sides. This debate over Bosnia is just like over Armenia. I think people should stop fighting over this so much. I'm telling this to BOTH sides. But mostly to the pro-independence editors here on Wikipedia. As I see it 31 countries so far have stated they have or will recognise Kosovo, another 20 have said openly they are anti-independence but add to that 10 countries that are against unilateral moves and are for more negotiations. That's 31-30. Now you have got 29 other countries that have stated ambigious positions, but you can be sure that at least half of those countries are anti-independence but they can not say that openly, that's why their statements are so ambigious. That's 90 countries in all and they are split right down the middle. 50-50. (reminder there are more than 190 countries in the world) We can all lie to ourselves but the truth is this. And now listen to me I have my stance on the whole situation but I prefer cold logic than to be carried by my emotions. Kosovo will not get a seat in the UN. It will not be a fully recognised country. At beast it will be recognised by the US, 4/5 of the EU, and at least a dozen other countries. But at least 3/4 of the world will not recognise Kosovo or will cowardly take a neutral stance. This situation is exposing the world how it truly is. Those who are pro-Western (pro-US) and those who are pro-Eastern (pro-Russia and pro-China). And the fact is there are more countries that don't like the US. Kosovo will in the end be what Taiwan is. Part and not part of China. Kosovo will be part and it will not be part of Serbia. These are facts people, this is not something that you will find in any references. Because nobody will say this so openly. Now you can start attacking me because of the thing that I have said here but this is the truth and stop kidding yourselves people. Cheers!!!(Top Gun) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That figures... Avala is an Admin of the Serb Wikipedia. So this means you would like what seems obvious.. Non-Recognition of Kosovo. By The way since you did put BiH on the Non-Recognition list, would you be kind enough to delete the Republika Srpska from other entities. To Top Gun. don't make assumptions please. This is no place for assumptions or personal feelings. This is about the truthful display of information for billions of people reading the WP. The figures that you just gave are a lie.

The Edits The Best way for valid edits is that you first must create the rules for editing a special article or come to a conclusion with the other editors contributing in this theme, and stick to those rules. This can not be a totalitarian regime Avala. Not everything is what you say it is. DO NOT HIDE BEHIND YOUR PHRASE --- VANDALISM. Everything here is sourced, and you most of all has changed information and often made invalid edits, so chill out and try to listen to other people as well. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about assumptions. Like I said I don't work on assumptions and I was not relaying on personal feelings. I'll repeat, like I said before everything I said is based on cold logic. If some of you have a problem with that that's your right but do not twist my sentences. Also don't attack Avala so much. He is making his edits and you are making yours. Don't you tell people if they are against the recognition of Kosovo and then tell them they want to make a totalitarian regime here on Wikipedia. You of all people can't speak about personal feelings user GreenClawPrishtina. Your username by itself says who's side your on so don't talk to me about truthful display of information for billions of people. Don't bother posting a reply because I'll not be returning to this discussion again. You can vent your anger if you want. I don't care.(Top Gun) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy my friend not angry. My User name does say I'm from Prishtina and that's it. And regarding my edits or my contributions, I think you should read more on this discussion page and you will see that i made no false statements, no accusations of any kind (unless somebody insulted me), and most of all i told the truth in my edits. So Top Gun... Peace man. So to finish this inutile discussion between all the conflicting parties, I just would like to add that no matter what every single edit that is non transparent will always receive Critics and edits till they are crystal clear, without making differences on Recognition or Non-Recognition parts (Pro-R. of Kosova or Anti-R.of Kosova).

So in few words it ain't over till it's over. MAY PEACE AND LIGHT PREVAIL!!!--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GreenClawPrishtina - the fact that Avala is an admin of Serb Wikipedia doesn't mean he's wrong. I'm Croat, and as such no one would expect me to support a Serb right? Well see, I don't care about that :) Bosnia, IMHO, should be red unless proven otherwise. Even without any official statements at all you can tell that it's going to be a big fat no. Serbian member of presidency is going to be against (no proof needed), and Bosnian member of presidency is probably going to be against because of fear of Republika Srpska doing the same thing (and rightly so) as Kosovo. Now, I don't expect Wikipedia to form articles based on guessing, but from what I've seen here there are enough sources to put Bosnia in red as is. The only reason of not putting Bosnia in red right now, would be political. Most of us here are not interested in political reasons. We simply want the most accurate display as is possible with scant informations available to us. JosipMac (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Josip.. you are right. I also stated the same about BiH Recognition, It is pretty obvious that it is a blocked process from the Republika Srpska. The only issue was if we are going to use News Agency Declarations as sources or only Official Government Sources like for example Foreign Affairs Ministry. This thing has gone 2 far. I said yesterday that we need to clearly make a comment on the Article what can be seen as a valid source for the edits. I have nothing against anybody in this place. I was just playing by the rules that were on place 3 or 4 days ago. Nearly the same discussion did go on also about Ukraine and the validity of the sources used. This is what has to be setup and then i don't foresee any problems. If my comments insulted anybody then I'm sorry, but at the same time I will not allow someone to call me a vandal or overreact at something. We can be civil you know. Peace!!! --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria

I think Bulgaria should be put in the delay/neutral column given their conditions for recognition but also this recent report.--The Devil's Advocate

Let's wait until tomorrow as that news article suggests things should be more clear by then at the meeting in Sofia. --Avala (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)