Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Kosovo Thanks You Webiste

www.kosovothanksyou.com say that the following countries recognize Kosovo:

Albania Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Fiji Finland France Germany Greece Greenland Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kuwait Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia, FYR Malaysia Malta Mauritania Monaco Montenegro Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Poland Portugal Saudi Arabia Slovak Republic Slovenia Sweden Switzerland Tonga Tunisia Turkey Tuvalu United Kingdom United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.255.18 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It also says that it is the Republic of KOSAVA not the Republic of KOSOVO

Even that (non-official) source says they will. NikoSilver 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is also unreliable. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia declarated that it will not recognize independet Kosovo. Czech Republic´s president Václav Klaus said that he disagree with indepedence of Kosovo - note that he is honor chairman of main coalition party ODS. Greece also declarated that it will not recognize independent Kosovo so your source is untrustable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Poland is going to recognize Rep. of Kosova, my source is in Albanian but a reliable source which says "Prime minister of Poland Donald Tust has announced today that his government will recognize the independence of Kosova in the assmbly held on Tuesday. ETC ETC"

LINK = http://www.kosova.com/artikulli/44635 also LINK = http://www.poland.pl/news/article,Polish_PM_wants_to_recognize_Kosovos_independence_President_advises_caution,id,314969.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.162.123 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

There's no such thing as "states that have recognised" (past tense). The title is WP:CRYSTALBALL at best. Also, the article needs to be merged with Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo#States_that_have_recognized_the_Republic_of_Kosovo (For the love of God, see the name of that section!). Now would be a good time. Main page can be always corrected. I'm saying this is not controversial. It's merely an editorial view (the first one IS though). NikoSilver 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Move or merge, take your pick. I added {{POV-title}} (which is double "hideous", but -sadly- very applicable. NikoSilver 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just move it to a more appropriate title, I offer no objection. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the title as long as it's not needlessly complex or just plain dumb. But I do have an issue with the merge, which I've registered elsewhere. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

International recognition of Kosovo ? Can be neutral, no ?Kormin (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag and fixed the double redirect from the main page (there may be more) and now, I'm going to bed. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. There can't be a neutral title as of yet. A neutral title should take consideration of what I say in my move summary,[1] and I can't see that happening (unless the title has the size of a train). NikoSilver 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "List of countries by diplomatic status with Kosovo" or "List of international recognitions of Kosovo"? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The former implies there are two kinds of statuses. The latter implies there is one (recognition). Both are POV, so the article should have simply not been created before the first recognition. BTW, the merge above is where we need the feedback mostly, because it solves it (ergo title becomes "Foreign relations of Kosovo", which is by far the most neutral). How about templatizing it as I said above? (reply above for continuity) NikoSilver 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia references- Watch out for these

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971916/posts

Copypasted from a different article I've seen elsewhere that was also not a reliable source. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it still is quoted on the French version of this page. The title is "Albania, Saudi Arabia first to recognize Kosovo?" It ios pretty much spammed all across the net and is only speculation written before 17 Feb. Another to watch out for is this Time article that is, if not of pre-independence vintage, was written ON that day: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1714164,00.html . I think that the article was later edited, as I can find no reference to Saudi Arabia in the article, but found an earlier version (off Time's site) that merely speculated on recognition. It is widely cited on non-English Wikipedia versions of this page. The title is "Joy in Kosovo, anger in Serbia". If you see these, delete them on sight! --Ajbenj (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council

Security Council update

Times of India has a report on the meeting. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council

I doubt that the Security Council will be able to take a position on the Kosovo declaration of independence: countries with veto power have taken up both sides. Pro independence: USA, UK, France (I think). Anti independence: Russia and China. Because of that, I suspect the following will occur: a move to approve recognition, vetoed; a move to deny recognition, also vetoed. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like standard operating procedure at the UN. Plus, as I have noted before with Japan, countries are not basing their recognition status on what the UN is doing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This means that Kosovo WILL NOT become a member of the United Nations, since, under the UN Charter, new members must be approved by the General Assembly, but, also under the Charter, the General Assembly cannot vote on an application for membership unless it has been recommended by Resolution of the Security Council. And, given China's and Russia's vetoes, such a Resolution will never pass, so that the application will fail on that preliminary stage, without the General Assembly ever voting on it. --201.17.90.204 (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And this also means that all countries that are waiting a decision by the UN are in reallity states unsympathetic towards recognition that are stalling. --Antonio Basto (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Or it could simply be states sympathetic towards recognition who are stalling. Or simply states that think the whole thing is a mess and don't want to take a stand in what they may consider as a power trip between the major powers of the world which doesn't involve them. Or that they think the problems in the UN are reflective of the problems in the wider world that lead to this and will recognise Kosovo when the problems in the UN are fixed rather then unilaterally taking action on a matter which doesn't concern them. Lots of possibilities. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

European Union

Is the EU itself expected to take a stand on official recognition? Is the EU in the business of recognizing states? What sort of permission from its members would it need?

I'm asking because the article states that Croatia and the Czech Republic are waiting on the EU before making a decision. скоморохъ 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the EU is having a meeting sometime today to discuss the Kosovo situation Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU is having a meeting today in order to reach a common stand on the status. But the recognition is in hands of each country (parliament/government, whatever the case). --Tone 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU works in the following way, effectively every country is free to make its own derisions, the EU can only speak out what has been agreed by all member states. If all EU members where intending to recognise Kosova then the EU would state its recognition, however it would also be up to each member state to recognise it formally. If even one EU country had flat out opposed any of this then the EU could not take any stance on the issue at all. What will happen (has happend), is that all EU countries will agree to support the effort to secure peace and rights and freedom in Kosova, but not all countries will agree to formally recognise it. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of EU "recognition" (or whatever you want to call it), we seem to have a misread source. The article introduction (citing the Washington Post) talks about "formal EU recognition" in exchange for Kosovan acceptance of EULEX; the referenced Washington Post article, when I read it, only talks about "most of the European Union," as in most of its member states. The way this is represented in the Wiki article is NOT accurate at all (Spain, Romania, Cyprus, et al are strongly opposed to formal recognition, and no such recognition will go through without their consent) and I am editing that sentence to make it accurate. Vonschlesien (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

EU leaving it up to member nations

Xinhua reports that the foreign ministers have decided that the EU won't recognize a country, but instead leave it up to the member states. Keep an eye out for announcements from those nations that said they were waiting for the EU's response, since they'll likely decide soon. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, though, the EU cannot recognise a state, and never has--it cannot legally enter into international relations on its own. The statement merely confirms that there wasn't a consensus reached, which honestly should come as no surprise to those states that are "waiting for an EU response." The Tom (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it cannot legally, but it has a tendency to do such things anyway, in order to set a precedent. And anyway, assuming the Reform treaty gets through in the next couple of years, the EU might (on some interpretations) in fact have the right to maintain its own diplomatic relations with external countries. That the EU is "leaving it to the member states" was in fact a matter of some debate in the EU institutions, and it could well have been decided another way, were it not for the strong opposition of a broad group of members. Vonschlesien (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

European Council Conclusions on Kosovo

On 18 February 2008, the European Council published its conclusions on Kosovo followin the 2851st EXTERNAL RELATIONS Council meeting. Although the document does not clarify whether the EU recognised Kosovo or not, the last paragraph implies that Kosovo's declaration of independence is not a violation of international law and UN Security Council decisions. Here is the paragraph I would like to quote:

"The Council reiterates the EU's adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, inter alia the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and all UN Security Council resolutions. It underlines its conviction that in view of the conflict of the 1990s and the extended period of international administration under SCR 1244, Kosovo constitutes a sui generis case which does not call into question these principles and resolutions." Full text: [2]

Having said that Kosovo consitutes a sui generis case, we can conclude that all 27 EU member states have approved this statement unanimously. Yesterday, the Rep. of Cyprus Foreign Minister stated that Kosovo's UDI is legally invalid, now she approved the EC statement that this UDI does not constitute a violation of international law. Isn't this a dilemma? Can we conclude that the European Union has not decided whether to recognize Kosovo or not, but does not consider its declaration of independence illegal or "legally invalid". Any thoughts on that? Wikiturk (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a policy for this...

Namely, WP:NOT#CBALL... Unless an article is written about the dates on which various countries recognized the independence of the US (for example), this list falls outside the guidelines... Tomer^talk 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With a smidge of WP:IAR and a dash of Exemption 1 of the guideline you've cited, we've whipped up a valid article, one made even more valid tomorrow. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

i doub tit , Hemlock. this article si going to be a source of violent constroversy over the next few week and for the sake of peace it woul d be better perhaps if it was speedily-deleted. i have already been forced to go into an indept review because a lot of sources don't actually say what the article pretends like their are saying and it is getting on my nerves. Smith Jones (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Every article written on Kosovo from here until the end of time, from sports to cooking to education is "going to be a source of violent controversy," shall we then speedily-delete them all? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

you dont knowthat. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you dont know what will happen after creating article until after creating the article and watching the flalout. Already after the creation of this article there is going rto be a special session of the UN to discuss it. After Russia fucks that up what yout do think is goingto happen? Major diplomatic fallout and possibly military prosturing to try and get Kosovo abck inside Serbia. people could die. which is why we have to report things during or after they happen instead of making wild speculation based on a handful of sources that some of them dont even match. Smith Jones (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no grounds whatsoever to speedy delete this article, regardless of what you think is more "peaceful". If anyone does so, I will revert. Superm401 - Talk 12:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Watch your POV and your mouth. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello pot, meet kettle. Tomer^talk 07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I defy you to qualify your snide remark. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to qualify yours. Better yet, work on improving something or contributing to constructive discussion. Thanks, Tomer^talk 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this "article" is in its very name... there are no criteria outlined for inclusion, so everything is dumped into it, without regard to the unasked question "Expected ... by whom?" Then we find in the list a section for countries "planning" recognition, among which I've only taken the time to examine the sources cited for the USA, and found that neither of them indicates that the USA has made any statement regarding recognition... although 3 Democrats have said that they'd like to see the US recognize Kosovo. In fact, from what I can see, the only entity "expecting" the US to recognize Kosovo is Reuters! That certainly doesn't qualify for the bald assertion that the US is planning to recognize Kosovo. Tomer^talk 07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan

[3] This should be taken into account in the Japan section. Contralya (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I had the Japan section expanded for a while, but it seems to have been cut down since. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With the source for Japan given now, shouldn't it be moved to this section? Since they are still reviewing the status and situation... --Bolonium (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Not to" vs "other"

Their difference is oblique. Some on the "not to" list have reasons to not do it 'at the time being' yet some on the "other" list are about the same. --Leladax (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

planning to not recognize v. countries that have stated that they don't recognize

The head of the section shouldn't be contries planning not to recognize or contries planning to not recognize. Those countries (Russia, Spain, etc.), have, according to the sources, already stated that they DON'T recognize the declaration of independence, and that they support Serbia's claim of territorial integrity. So, this is not a plan to not recognize, this is already the action of not granting recognition.

And we must remember that, under international law, only the recognition is a formal act, since the decision is made in writing, according to a certain protocol, etc. The act of not granting recognition, on the other hand, does not require such formalities. A country that does not recognize Kosovo need not reply to the Kosovar appeals for recognition, since they do not acknowledge the Kosovar "authorities" seeking recogition as having diplomatic status. Thus, such country can merely deny recongition by making an explicit statement of that position, for instance, in a press conference by the Foreign Minister, etc.

Denial of recognition works by omission, since one is not required to indicate denial by a formal document. Accordingly omission of a formal act of recognition of independence, coupled with a declaration that one does not recognize the declaration, or that one does not intend to make the act of recognition in any circumnstances, or that one support's Serbia's claim of territorial integrity, is already evidence of the decision not to recognize.

And Russia, Spain, etc, have already asserted in unequivocal terms that they do not recognize the declaration, and have indicated that they support Serbia. So, instead of saying that those countries plan not to recognize Kosovo, it should be stated that they recognize Kosovo to be a part of Serbia or that they have stated that they don't recognize Kosovar independence. --Antonio Basto (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Luxembourg

[4] Luxembourg is included in the so called 'second wave'. Contralya (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is sheer speculation. Tomer^talk 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess we will find out one way or another soon enough. Contralya (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit the map! 82.131.76.50 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Latvia

This article [5] states in Latvian, that Latvia will base its decision on the decision of EU. I couldn't find a translation of the article in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.243 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Latvia will recognize independece of Kosovo in next few days. Source: http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/72/articles/120828 Statement by minister of foreign affairs M.Riekstiņš. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.73.46 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Latvia recognized independence of Kosovo [6] --M2ger (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit the map! Piilu11 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

LATVIAN PEOPLE DON'T SUPORT "INDEPENDENCE" OF SEPARATIC AND OCCUPIED KOSOVO AND METOHIA.

Flags

Problems:

Brazil has the Cyprus

Canada has the Brazil flag

Portugal has the Canada flag

Sweden has the Portugal flag.

The templates are edit protected. I am going to fix it the old fashioned way until an admin that sees this fixes them. BalkanFever 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The icons are fine; no changes have been done to the templates. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I edited the page before I saw your comment, but I'm positive if you look at the two revisions you'll see something is wrong. BalkanFever 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the reversions, I looked at the templates; everything is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously confused here. BalkanFever 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying that next to the word "Canada" you see the flag of Canada, not the flag of Brazil, I'm going to have to take your word for it, but even after I reopened my browser, I am still seeing the Brazil flag there. BalkanFever 09:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you remember to WP:Bypass your cache and WP:purge wikipedia's cache? Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, it works. Thanks to both of you :)BalkanFever 10:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This website will not stand the test of time

I cannot imagine that we would have this website in a few years time - can you imagine us having List of states expected to recognise Montenegro or Countries that recognise Eritrea? I suggest we have this article entitled Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Kosova), as we have for other entities. Kransky (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is fraught with problems, as has been pointed out several times above. Please contribute constructively to the discussion there, rather than creating further "crystal ball" problems with sections such as this. Thanks, Tomer^talk 11:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As an afterword, let me say, when I first found this shoddy excuse for an article, my reaction was much the same as yours. Being something of a purist I regarded this article as an affront to the high standards I hold for Wikipedia. I have, however, come to understand the relatively relaxed attitude many people have apparently adopted with respect to it... give it a few days and the orgy of advocacy will go away. The single-issue anons will disappear back to whereëver it is they came from. Then the matter of what to do with the "article" can be resolved by responsible and regular editors, whether it's kept or merged can be resolved then. If it's deleted now, somebody somewhere has undoubtedly got a copy of it that they'll resurrect somewhere else. At least here the hyperbole and hypotheses are kept relatively well-restricted to a central location. For a few days the article will be completely unreliable, but that's what the tags at the top of it are for. Keep an eye on it to keep the more obvious rubbish out, but otherwise just let it run its course. Come Wednesday already, most likely, the cleanup will be able to commence in an orderly and reliable fashion. Cheers, Tomer^talk 11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is going to be merged, but given how this is in the press now and going to be rapidly changed over time, we can't do much now. But the new article title every 2 hours is making me a little bit pissed. Just pick a name already and stick with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

India

Announced won't recognize independence of Kosovo. Someone should find a source and add. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that but the source is not conclusive enough ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is India aganist it? http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=68188, (talk)

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.

Iraq

Some information is needed on Iraq and other middle-eastern countries. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuba

What about Cuba. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't believe Cuba will recognise, as Belarus, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela... Kormin (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Belarus is siding with Russia on just general feeling, but nothing on recognition yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"planning not to..." or "planning to not..."

"Countries planning not to recognize" vs. "Countries plaining to not recognize":

As Estoy Aquí mentioned, the "to not" phrasing is awkward. Which is in part why phrasing it that way conveys an emphasis on the definitive nature of the action in question. The usual word-order "not to" would imply that these countries are planning to have no formal opinion about it one way or the other. They are, for the most part, in fact planning to have a definite formal opinion about it. Leaving it as "to not" is the best way to convey that sense in a short-hand "headline-ese" way.

But not real important, either way!

--Wikiscient (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

article name

This article should be renamed International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Kingturtle (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

...won't recognize Kosovo. Any source? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No sources yet about Kazak'... Kormin (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard that all the members of the OIC will recognize it , isnt Kazakhstan a member ? --Cradel 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, it is up to individual OIC members to decide. I guess Kazakhstan decided not to individually acknowledge Kosovo's independence. Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

United States

False about recognition

People should actually READ sources. President Bush stated that an independent Kosovo was something that he personally was for, but the USA won't immediately recognize Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

this says that the US have officially recognized kosovo --Cradel 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This: [7] says that there has been no official recognition. What the news agencies is saying that the US has recognized it, but they are only talking about bush saying he supports it. In your source, it just talks about what he said in an interview. Contralya (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

US

According to this source the US has recognized (or is going to recognize) kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, US has thereby "recognized" Kosovo. The formal decisions will be where to set up the embassy to Prishtina. --Camptown (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7251359.stm ) "Washington formally recognised Kosovo as a 'sovereign and independent state'." So yes, the States have recognized it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it change, really. They do not recognize Kosovo juts right now, but tomorrow, or tonight, or in 2 days ! Kormin (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found confirmation: [[8]]

Yes, the section "planning to recognize" is probably not so fortunate. What planning implies is usually practical arrangements related to diplomatic functions etc. --Camptown (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

US recognition

The reference provided says Bush stated that "The Kosovars are now independent.". That does not constitute formal act of recognition, therefore I'm removing the US from the list of states that recognised Kosovo.

Nota bene: I'm not doing that because I hate Kosovo or something, it is quite obvious that US wil recognise Kosovo sooner or later. The problem is that order in which states recognised Kosovo is important. Therefore, please keep US off the list until it formaly recognises kosovo. Thanks, 90.157.254.177 (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

US has officially recognised Kosovo. See http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2008-02-18T131827Z_01_HAM534379_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOSOVO-SERBIA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-worldNews-2

find the BBC report then. Single sentence news reports aren't very helpful. "Biggest meat recall ever announced, independent source." --Lemmey (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts straight

There has been no official recognition from the United States yet. Bush said he is for it but it didn't come into law.

Afghanistan has indeed recognized Kosova, being the first nation to do so.[9] I thought it would be Albania. (Maybe it has to do with how Afghanistan's government came to power: NATO intervention.) Contralya (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the source: "The United States has officially recognized the former Serbian province of Kosovo's declaration of independence." So ? Kormin (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[10] Bush said he was for it, but there has been no official recognition. The news agencies are only talking about bush's support. It is NOT official yet. Contralya (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found confirmation: [[11]]

"planing"

There is no such thing as "planning not to recognize". If the state says they do not recognize it that's it, they consider Kosovo to be what it was up until yesterday. And all countries that haven't specifically said they recognize Kosovo are in the group of countries that haven't recognized it. --Avala (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map is wrong - it shows Afghanistan has recognized kosovo whereas it should be Pakistan that is shaded blue. ReluctantPhilosopher ([[User talk:ReluctantPhilosopher|talk]]) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's Afghanistan that recognizes Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::But the article list says pakistan and not afghanistan! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry my mistake. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

This sounds to me like they haven't made up their mind, rather than deciding against it:

"We neither recognise nor not recognise," she said. "We are not intending to make a formal statement."

They don't explicitly say they are against it. So I guess that is why it is in purple, right? Contralya (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"New Zealand will not recognize Kosovo", premier says and She told a news conference that "it was never the government's position to offer diplomatic recognition in such circumstances." --Avala (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My point it that that the text is confusing and self-contradictory about the subject. What is with "We neither recognise nor not recognise"? So how do we know either way? Contralya (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"We will neither recognise nor not recognise" sounds more like neutrality to me, than concern or a wish for further negotiations. NZ is in the wrong category IMHO Bazonka (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Map - New Zealand

Surely New Zealand should be blue on the map? David (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

indonesia should be grey--w_tanoto (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because New Zealand is not recognising Kosovo.

Incorrect. They are simply not going to make a decision now.--James Bond (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The New Zealand government is not going to provide official recognition of Kosovo or official denial of recognition and that has already been their decision: "It's never been the New Zealand Government's position to recognise in such circumstances." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.216.240 (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

France

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-france-kouchner-ca02f96_1.html

France is "going to" recognize Kosovo this evening. Not done yet. Be patient ;). The same for UK and Germany. Kormin (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-uk-kosovo-serbia-ca02f96.html According to this, they already have. MILLANDSON (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to all others french source and the foreign ministry, France haven't yet ! http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-france-kouchner-ca02f96_2.html

France is going to send the letter tonight: "Le président de la République a écrit en ce sens au président du Kosovo, la lettre va partir ce soir et, dès que cet échange aura eu lieu, et bien, la reconnaissance par la France de l'indépendance du Kosovo sera acquise", a-t-il ajouté.

When the Kosovo will receive the letter, the recognition process will be ended. Not before !

I won't change anything in the article, because it's doesn't change anything, right now, tonight, or tomorrow ;) Kormin (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

France, Germany, UK

[12]This says says that they are officially planning to recognize it, but haven't yet. This looks more concrete than the US links, since it has this quote from a foreign minister: "On behalf of the United Kingdom, I can announce that the British government has decided to recognize Kosovo," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told reporters at the end of the EU foreign ministers talks in Brussels.

The UK minister's statement has got to be more concrete than an informal statement like Bush's was. Should this be marked as official recognition? In any case, there is the link.

I also found this [13]:

-"Germany will recognise the independence of Kosovo, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Monday.

"A majority of (European Union) member states will recognise a democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo founded on the rule of law. Germany, too, will make this step," Steinmeier said following talks among EU foreign ministers in Brussels."-

I know all of this may not be official, but it is more concrete than most of the other nations on the list of 'planning to'. Perhaps a section of text quoting the respective Minister's statements? Contralya (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Online mapping service

What about online mapping service such as Google Maps, Google Earth, Yahoo! Maps, and Live Search Maps? So far I see that Kosovo is still part of Serbia according to these websites. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those kind of maps don't get updated to state boundaries that often. And there would probably have to be UN recognition and half-a-year before it was updated. Contralya (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It took Google Maps about 2 years to update Montenegro as a separate political entity when it voted to break from the union, and that wasn't even anywhere near as controversial as Kosovo. Don't expect online maps to change overnight, or overyear. Mikebloke (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the delay that Google Maps had updating Montenegro, the lack of recognition of Kosovo should not be interpreted as a political statement. Hence, I removed the Google Maps mention from this article. Lovelac7 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Padlock needed?

There seems to be a little bit of an edit war over adding UK, Germany, France, USA, Belgium and Taiwan to the 'have recognized' list. The way I understand it, there have been statements that the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and USA are confirmed to be PLANNING to recognize it, but haven't actually done it yet. Chances are they will have recognized it by a day or two from now. Should we take a vote or something? Contralya (talk)

Belgium's foreign minister Karel De Gucht just released a statement to television in which he declares he will send a KB (Royal Decision aka a law ;-) ) for the King to be signed tomorrow (http://www.deredactie.be/cm/de.redactie/buitenland/080218_Kosovo_EU (only for people understanding Dutch, i'm afraid))--SalaSSin (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I found this link about two other nations [14], perhaps these count? Contralya (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, "recognition" is a rather elastic concept, and most EU member states who are in the "planning", are only waiting for an official resolution by the EU council. France, Britain and others have decided not to wait for that decision. --Camptown (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this, France has announced it's recognition - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-uk-kosovo-serbia-ca02f96.html MILLANDSON (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the little 'war' is still going on. Contralya (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yesss!! Vote! I love votes!! Lets have a vote!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I vote that the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and the US be put on the list of countries that have officially recognised Kosovo MILLANDSON (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A big yes vote on semi-protection. As a perma-anon this would lock even me out, but the sheer volatility of this article's lists make it necessary. --85.5.222.103 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

[15] (USA) [16] (Afghanistan)

It doesn't get much more formal than this. You can't say that they haven't after reading these, can you? Contralya (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

finally --Cradel 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC confirm that the Western Great Powers now recognise Kosovo - [17] - Germany, Italy, France, Britain and America. David (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright let's update the map then. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Le président de la République a écrit en ce sens au président du Kosovo, la lettre va partir ce soir et, dès que cet échange aura eu lieu, et bien, la reconnaissance par la France de l'indépendance du Kosovo sera acquise", a-t-il ajouté.

The recognistion process is on the way. The french president will send the letter tonight, and the process will be complet when Kosovo governement will receive it. Not before ;) This is the administrative part of the process. So, if you are really "pointilleux", you can edit, cause France doesn't recognise Kosovo legaly, but doesn't change anything, tonight, or tommorow morning... Kormin (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

References

I'm trying to template all of the refs. If someone can lend a hand, that would be appreciated. Spencer^T♦C 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbered lists

Perhaps we should put numbered lists to know how many countries are in each section --Cradel 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but only for those sections where a common view is held by those countries (i.e. the first three). -- SCZenz (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Should North Cyprus be on the map?

2. Did Italy really recognize Kosovo (yet)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-union-ca02f96_1.html For Italy yes, as Germany, France and UK. Legaly not, cause the process is on the way, but right now, or tonight or tommorow change anything ;)Kormin (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany will recognize it in Wednesday.

And did Latvia recognize it? Its source only says that it will. What about North Cyprus? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus can be with other reaction (like Chechnya, Québécois), but can't really count as a country ... Kormin (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And why can Taiwan? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

North Cyprus is only recognised by Turkey AND NO ONE ELSE! Kosovo will, within a few weeks, be recognised by most of the Western world including the major powers of Britain, France, America, Germany, Japan... David (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read actually what this is about and cool down. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't going to take a position on whether Kosovo is a country, it just lists which countries have recognized it as such—so I don't see how your comment helps. A relevant point for discussion would be whether Taiwan and/or North Cyrprus belong on the list of nations supporting Kosovar independence, but you seem to have missed that. Please use the talk page only for discussing how to formulate the article, not to argue. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Taiwan recognise by most country in the world ? Kormin (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like 23. See Political_status_of_Taiwan#Position_of_other_countries_and_international_organizations -- SCZenz (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)