Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15


Albania

Albania will not be the first country to recognize Kosovo. It wants a "re-unification" instead... [1] ---Camptown (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be its eventual aim (though Kosovo's constitution currently does not allow the new Republic to join any other state) but Albania will recognise Kosovo before. David (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Trust me , albania would recognize it right away but it might cause problems , so it is awaiting other countries to do this first--Cradel 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What talks against a "re-unification" in the long term...? --Camptown (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The EU, the UN, everyone. It's written down as a constitutional law that Kosovo can not unify with any other country -- somehow like Austria was forbidden from unifying with Germany after WWII. —Nightstallion 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Constitution of Kosovo, Chapter 1, Article 1, §3 doesn't allow Kosovo to join any other state. Bardhylius (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good all around source

This is a good link that talks about Belgium, France, UK, Germany, Italy and the USA recognizing Kosovo [2]. In case there were any doubts...

And by the way, should Italy be on the recognize list? It is in the list at that link.Contralya (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognistion in Europe: which one ?

In french: http://fr.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080218/twl-kosovo-independance-ue-0ef7422_5.html

So, following country will recognise Kosovo declaration: Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Slovenia, Polska, Czeck republik. They all said they began the official process. 

Kormin (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam

What about the middle east? This link makes it look like a lot of middle eastern nations are going to recognize Kosovo: [3] Contralya (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the OIC under International Organizations. For individual countries, we'll have to wait for individual announcements. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised on turkey. I would think nations concerned about Kurdish breakaways (Turk,Iran,Iraq) would not recognize. Pak would cause a break (indian kashmir) would go in their favor. --Lemmey (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think they support it because of Northern Cyprus --Quastar Vaan (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria is on the wrong list perhaps, look at this page: [4] Contralya (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. —Nightstallion 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

[5] If not on the recognized list, than it probably belongs on the will recognize list. Contralya (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

lists wrong

Someone has messed up the lists big time. Now China, Greece etc. are in the "planning to recognize list" ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the US and UK too! David (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

German recognition scheduled for Wednesday

Deutschland will das Kosovo am Mittwoch anerkennen, kündigte Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Brüssel an.

— [6]

Translated, this gives: "Germany wants to recognize the Kosovo on Wednesday, as Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced in Brussels". Germany definitely hasn't formerly recognized it. - Comartinb (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


UN nation

I think only UN member state and Holy See should be listed. except Palestinian territories. Matthew_hk tc 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Taiwan? David (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For establish an diplomatic relation, currently no source for Kosovo willing to establish with countries "outside" UN, likes recognize Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Matthew_hk tc 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree there should be some consistent system. However, on what basis would you make a special exception for Palestine? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps move non-UN countries to their own section? I think there view on this matter is extremely relevent. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"Other self-proclaimed states with disputed status" or similar? That seems the fairest thing to do to me. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Mh. Yeah, I suppose so. —Nightstallion 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Map: serbia

Why Serbia isn't in Red ? Kormin (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Map: Belarus

On the map they refuse. In the article, they said nothing about recognition. ? Kormin (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is contradictory: Belarus is both in the "others" and "doesn't recognise" section, but the source does not clearly state that Belarus won't recognise. —Nightstallion 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked Lukashenko's statement, they said nothing about recognition. So I will remove it from the latter section until I get something more definite. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
nods I've updated the map, too. —Nightstallion 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
While I do see Belarus believing that Serbia should have Kosovo, it is just only a feeling and not explicit support for either side with regards to recognition. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As the statements explicitly points to the UNSC resolution, it seems we'll consider it to follow Russia's orders not recognise the UDI. ;) —Nightstallion 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that, but I don't see anything saying "we will not recognize the country". With the way this article is being edited, mind as well give up now and sort it out hours later. Tired of wasting my breath on this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can understand that. I was similarily tired of reverting Belarus on the map... —Nightstallion 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Now with the statement from the national parliament, I feel ready to accept that Belarus is in the No camp. I just have to read in between the lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscout370 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

States that will not recognize the independence of Kosovo

I have started to add some reasons to the list of countries that will NOT be recognizing Kosovo. Any thoughts? Thanks. --RobNS 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should either have reasons for everybody or nobody. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I was in the process of doing it for everybody, and think it's a good idea, but the idea got shot down, unfortunately IMHO.--RobNS 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favour, but ONLY if we've got sources which explicitly state the reason. —Nightstallion 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see reasons for everybody, since it would help build the article to a more comprehensive level. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are the reasons contained in the cited sources? If not, then reasons should not be added, Wikipedia not being the place for original research. Furthermore, the reasons already included don't seem official. After all, China is not announcing that it will deny recognition because it fears Tibet and Taiwan independence. It is saying that it is denying recognition because it recognizes Serbia's right to the territory of Kosovo under international law. So, it seems POV to add reasons that are not the official ones, as if you were "uncovering the excuses" created by sovereign States that don't want to recognize Kosovo. Also, since you only add reasons for those countries that won't recognize the declaration, but not for the countries that have recognized or that are planning to do so, it does seem a violation of the NPOV policy. It can seem as if a State needed to justify itself in order to deny recognition, but not to grant it, and, depending on the way the "reasons" are included in the article, it might seem as a critique of the country's foreign policy. And it is not right for the encyclopedia to take sides like that. So, my opinion is that such reasons should not be added. Such notes only make sense in the case of the "other" states (those that have announced no sides), because it then helps explain what are they waiting for, etc. --189.25.64.171 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually that makes perfect sense, and I hadn't thought of it. We should, therefore, not include reasons for not recognizing Kosovo, since it would really just be an opinion, rather than official fact.--RobNS 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's okay with me, too. —Nightstallion 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


The International Olympic Comitee

The IOC is not an international organization in the legal sense of the term under the Vienna Conventions. Its members are not sovereign States, but rather the several sporting federations of the different olympic sports (that are legally private entities operating internationally), such as FIFA, FIBA, etc. So, it should be included in the category "other organisations", and not in the same category of international organizations created by States and covered by the Vienna Conventions, such as the UN, the OCDE, the Council of Europe, etc. --189.25.64.171 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this page, IOC is set to accept Kosovo as a member. http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/sportsmonday/story.html?id=565c537a-bd2c-4a0f-bf78-4e0f62c655f7 Antipoeten (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest U-turn: IOC to recognize Kosovo

http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2008/2/19/sports/20376716&sec=sports

please update —Preceding unsigned 

comment added by Logitech999 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not any new development. There are two official IOC announcements floating around:
  • The older and shorter one, which you just happened to notice. It is a statement by the president of the IOC's commission of international relations, reported by ANSA. It was issued on Sunday, see e.g. [7].
  • The newer and more detailed one. It is a statement by IOC spekesperson, reported by Associated Press. It was issued on Monday, and it is widely reported in media, see e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11].
Clearly, we should prefer the newer, updated statement, which makes IOC recognition of Kosovo conditional on its UN recognition, hence unlikely in foreseeable future. -- EJ (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IOC

So according to the article, Kosovo must be a member of the UN before IOC will even consider membership. Sourced is a rather junior spoksman of the IOC, who doesn't seem that informed about the history of the IOC which early on "recognized" non-UN states such as Taiwan, Hong-Kong etc. Personally, I wouldn't be surprized if Kosovo, after all, will take part in the Beijing olympics. --Camptown (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A spokeswoman expresses the official position of the organization, that's her job. It is also widely reported in the media as such, see above in #Latest U-turn: IOC to recognize Kosovo, or just Google IOC Kosovo. I am sorry to say that whatever you personally are or are not surprized at is, after all, irrelevant. -- EJ (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if Kosovo is recognized by IOC, they can't participate in the 2008 Beijing Olympics for two major reasons. 1. They are not ready, and there is no possible chance of preparing in the months that are left. Not just from the Kosovo side, but also from the Comittee who have to go through different procedures in order to fully accept Kosovo. 2. China opposes Kosovo's independence, they will not accept their passports.
Anyway, it would be nice to clear up this confusion. Can IOC accept Kosovo without UN membership or not? Bardhylius (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it can, though it may call it "Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Serbia" (similar to Taiwan). —Nightstallion 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
yes it will--Cradel 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With Russia rejection Kosovo will never gain a seat in the UN.However I dont see them in olympic games 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

it's/its

I understand why the page is locked, but can someone please change the "it's" from the nations that don't recognize Kosovo box to "its?" It's very unprofessional looking.--Trebligoniqua (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chechnya

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria should not be on this list as an unrecognised country, because it's not even on the list of unrecognised countries -- it's currently only a rebel movement. It should be down with "other organisations", like the Basque and Quebecois separatist political parties. —Nightstallion 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above statement. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria really has little control over present day Chechnya.--RobNS 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria first to recognise?

To avoid the same confusion that we had earlier, I'll ask first- doesn't this say that the Chechnians recognised Kosovo on the 17th? I think it should be moved out of 'other organisations' and into the section with Taiwan. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Chechnya is currently not even an unrecognised country, it's only rebel movement. —Nightstallion 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they really are just a movement at this point, and control little territory.--RobNS 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I guess I give them too much credit as a 'nation' then. So they're more comparable to the IRA than to Taiwan? It's just that that article says that Russia recognises that Ichkeria recognises Kosovo, and calls that a 'dangerous precedent'. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, IRA seem to be more appropriate comparison, may be even Real IRA and similar splinter groups, as number of less radical elements joined Russians. Therefore I'm not about their current placement in the same group with Parti Québécois and regional governments of Basque Country and Catalonia. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

Isn't that government, albeit currently in exile, still "recognized" by Estonia? --Camptown (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not that I know. —Nightstallion 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It was only recognised for a time by Georgia, and even that seemed to be a preference of the Georgian President at the time who was greatly fond (and I believe was buried there) of Chechnya, as it was removed when he left office. Given the current division within the Chechen movement it further complicates any recognition. It is fine where it is at the moment, under "other entities" Mikebloke (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland & Germany

Have they recognised Kosovo officially yet? The source doesn't really state that IMO... —Nightstallion 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reuters says that Britain, Germany and Italy followed Paris minutes later, saying they had or would imminently inform Priština of their decision. Finland said it would be among those recognizing too. " this is brety clear to me here pretty clear to me pretty clear to me here that this shows that Finland, and Germany have definitievley agreed to recognize Kosovar independence. Smith Jones (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany will recognize it on Wednesday. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"agreed to recognise" is fundamentally different from "have already recognised", that's why we've got two different sections for it. In the light of the evidence, I'm fairly certain both Finland and Germany belong in the "will recognise" category for now. —Nightstallion 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
...and Finland said it would be among those, in other words, still short of 'I's dotted and 'T's crossed. Much as the distinction is academic, I think we should move both of them back. The Tom (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
fine be anal about it i dont care. Smith Jones (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No need to be insulting; I know I tend to be quite pedantic, but in issues as controversial as this one, I think that's a good thing. So, I think we should move them back, then. —Nightstallion 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
sorry i lost my coolf or a sec there. dont worry; i already placed them where you wanted. Smith Jones (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Upon closer reading, I see I may have jumped the gun a little on Finland. Germany is a little more ambiguous, but if you have other sources saying it won't be until Wednesday, then feel free to revert. Just be careful because I had to rearrange some of the references. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
yeah well i think we are leaving goign to leave the finland and germany links on Planning TO REcognize UNtil they release a press statement or a source says that they alread hy have recognized. the, Smith Jones (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Parti Québécois

I'm really not sure why they are even mentioned, the Parti Québécois that is. They are not the ruling government in Québec, and in fact, are not even the main opposition party these days. Seriously, are we going to include quotes from every one of the hundreds of seperatist parties in the world (Femings, Tibetens, Peurto Ricans, etc?). I think it should be removed.--RobNS 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay, they are one of the strongest peaceful separatist movements in the world; their reaction is certainly notable. —Nightstallion 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really have anything against them, and I am a Canadian, born and raised in Québec. I just find that the statement on the main page from them makes it seem to the world that thye are a lot more important now than they really are. At least the Flemish Vlaams Belang seems to have more power.--RobNS 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
VB never managed to get one, never mind two referendums held on independence -- and they almost succeeded with the second one... —Nightstallion 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that Nightstallion, but today's Quebec people do not feel oppressed, and can separate anytime they want (with a majority vote). Anyhow, it's not that big a deal, but I do think we giving the party a lot of recognition here, more than they would really get back home (here).--RobNS 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The article here misinterprets the Parti Québécois as they could declare independence based on Kosovo's move where their party leader himself indicated Canada should recognize Kosovo because "Every case is different" [1] NewBorn08 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewBorn08 (talk • contribs)
Gilles Duceppe is the leader of the Bloc Québécois, not the Parti Québécois. Regardless, even though Duceppe may be saying this right now, we have no idea what their actual intentions are, nor do we know what will happen in the future. There is considerable concern over precedence, as echoed by Jean Chretien today, and this is the very reason why Canada has officially been silent on the subject. The reaction of the PQ and BQ on this matter is most certainly worthy of being included in this article, for the very reasons that Nightstallion mentioned. You may want to read over the Quebec sovereignty movement article. Snickerdo (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)



English sources?

Lemmey is removing a lot of information cited to foriegn language sources, and I just want to get a discussion going to work out our stance on the matter. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, foriegn language sources are acceptable, and though an English source is preferable, a foriegn language source is preferable to no source. What do people think? J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Need foreign sources. Kormin (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as the sources can be considered reliable, it is okay to use them. Lemmey should instead replace them with english sources if he cares so much about the issue. Suva Чего? 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So far there is only 1 state with foreign sources that haven't been changed to English. Whats the point of WP:RSUE if the avg en.wp editor can't read the source? Currently 90+ eng sources are from sites all around the world. Its a big topic, eng sources are available for every country.--Lemmey (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Using that logic, print sources should not be allowed, as the average reader cannot summon the book/magazine/whatever into their hands. On the other hand, as I said, changing the sources is fine, but please stop removing them and leaving us with unreferenced entries. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don;t think print foreign print sources should be allowed for Current events. How can anyone verify a newspaper in spain if it doesn't have a weblink? --Lemmey (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You can fix the issue by replacing the current source with english one if you can find one. If you can't, then just wait when it pops up. Until then, the foreign language source is fine if it matches other conditions of reliable source. Disrupting the article by removing sources/sourced content is not good either way.
Also I have to remind you that, you are not making the rules. :) Suva Чего? 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You're comment has been noted. --Lemmey (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

recognised vs planning to recognise

This distinction is complete nonsense. The media seem to portray this as a kind of race to be among the first countries to recognise. Wikipedians want their country to be at the top of the list, Hence we find UK and USA in the recognised list, whereas all other countries keep swapping. I cannot find a shred of evidence that UK/USA have indeed recognised - only a lot of sloppy reporting by various media outlets. The only illuminating statement I could find is an interview with the German foreign affairs minister in The Spiegel that says he is going to recommend recognising to the cabinet and Germany should officially recognise on Wednesday. This is what I would expect: recognition is a formal process that meeds some time for the burocracy to work its way. Is the president of the USA powerful enough that he can just recgnise countries as he sees fit without consulting Congress/Senate? The UK foreign affairs minister is quoted as saying "The UK is starting the recognition process this evening". What does that mean? I presume the same as in the German case: recommending recognition to the appropriate bodies. So why is UK listed in recognised, but not Germany...? So why not join the two sections into: "states that have officially announced their intention to recognise". That is at least verifiable. And no: I'm not going to join the edit war and do it myself. --195.128.251.93 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. President doesn't need Congressional approval for diplomatic relations like this. The Senate's advise and consent power applies to treaties, not simple diplomatic recognition. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's "advice" to you.  ;-D Tomertalk 06:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Approx. 1000 edits in 24 hours

Just wondering if that is a Wikipedia record? --RenniePet (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. :) Suva Чего? 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So what sort of things result in greater numbers of edits, and is there a known record? --RenniePet (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
How do you know that Suva? Actually I'm curious about that now. Maybe the Virginia Tech massacre made a record for edits. 9/11 would have, but not sure of Wikipedias status at the time.--RobNS 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
9/11 really was covered well on Wikipedia, Jimbo has said he was amazed how well covered it was and that he realised Wikipedia was gonna be a big thing when he saw everyone writing about it. Wikirage is an interesting site, and puts this article top at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Indian Ocean Tsunami had a phenomenal number of edits as more and more information was discovered - it was fantastic for information on charities, etc Escottf (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove sources in other languages please

There are not trustworthy sources in English for everything. So please DO NOT remove the sources in other languages if you can't provide sources in English. Gothbag (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just here to re-iterate the point. Foreign language sources that are reliable and verifiable are welcomed. If you have concerns about these sources, please contact someone who can be trusted and who can translate the content through the user languages categories. Users who remove sources in languages other than English may be considered disruptive and might be blocked if they repeatedly remove foreign language sources. Nick (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland and Lithuania

according to this web site Finland and Lithuania have officially regognised Kosovo as an independent nation and it gives sources of proof too. So can someone please edit it so that it has Lithuania and Finland as recognised nations.

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd actually *READ* the sources, you'd know that both countries have only BEGUN the formal procedures of acknowledging the Kosovan independence. —Nightstallion 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So did France, UK and others countries..... So, which difference ? Kormin (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, those countries have different procedures for formally recognising a country as independent -- in the US and France, the president can do it without parliament, and so on. Finland, Lithuania and many other countries require parliamentary action to recognise a country as independent. —Nightstallion 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
God ! Student in Political sciences, aren't you ? :) Kormin (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Mathematics, actually, but I've got a really unhealthy interest in contemporary history, contemporary politics, contemporary international relations, ... ;) —Nightstallion 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The Finnísh government is entitled to decide, no Parlianetary approval needed. "Final preparations" only imply the practical arrangements. --Camptown (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you certain? The news reports seem to indicate that parliamentary approval is required... —Nightstallion 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There are no formal "recognition" procedure under Finnish law, such as a vote in Parliament etc. Only the fact that the Finnish Government intends to initiate formal diplomatic relations with a foreign country matters, and that was decided by the Finnish Foreign ministry today. You can compare that to Sweden with a similar system - but there, Foreign secreatry Carl Bildt said that he wants the issue to be discussed in the Foreign relations committee first. The next committee meeting will take place after the Russian Presidental elections, and the social democratic opposition has already critizised Mr Bildt for dragging his feet. --Camptown (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you seem to be wrong -- it's been publically stated, source is in the article, that formal recognition can only take place once the president is back in Finland, as it's the president's privilege to recognise foreign nations' independence. (One of the vestigial treats of Finland's de iure semi-presidential system, it seems.) —Nightstallion 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the President, of course, has to formally sign the decision. But then, I wonder if country that has formally recognised Kosovo today. --Camptown (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

this link says that Hungary will recognize kosovo but it is in albanian , anyone speaking albanian might confirm that--Cradel 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already got more than enough sources for Hungary, though... —Nightstallion 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The more the better--Cradel 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
To much sources kills the sources.... :) We have others sources and links about Hungary, and in english ;) Kormin (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Biased phrase

At first, most of them (eg. United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and France) declared informally that they will recognise the sovereign Kosovo, facing opposition by other members with separatist movements in their own countries, such as Spain, Greece and Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia.

This phrase basically divides the EU states into two groups: those with no separatist movements within and those having problems with secessionists. When someone reads this he will say: "Aha.. ok. so the countries that oppose Kosovo independence are the countries afraid of losing some territories to local secessionists! their only reason is this!". No my friends:

  • UK has much worse problems with the Sinn Fein than Romania has with the Hungarian minority

- The UK also has a nationalist government in Scotland and growing support for full independence, the UK itself is formed on this Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Italy has problems with German(Austrian) Southern Tirol
  • France: the bitterness is not over in Alsace-Lorraine.

On the other side:

  • In Romania the Hungarian minority is far from even thinking of autonomy. There are only some politicians promoting this idea.
  • Secessionist movements in Greece? Greece does have territorial disputes with Turkey but that is another story.

So no, the countries of EU that do not recognize Kosovo independence didn't take this stance for the reason illustrated in that phrase. The Balkan countries are those who really understand the conflict and are able to take an informed stance. Planck (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The phrase is POV as it implicitly ties those countries' stance to internal separatism, real or (in the case of Greece) non-existent. I am editing this out. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
However this statement is true for countries with separatists movements like Spain or Canada. (Jmrepetto (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
Then, further explanation can be offered further down the article on a per-country basis. And, naturally, a citation indicating that this is relevant to the non-recognition should be provided, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Minor detail, but I was under the impression that the Romanians were more worried about Trans-Dniestrians in Moldova than Hungarians in Romania. Back to the main point, you can just add "most of them" to qualify the categorization of those EU member states opposed to recognition. Vonschlesien (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been reintroduced to the article. Can someone please make the change?Nyknicks2 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) If you are looking for something to revert it was the 08:42 update ta.Nyknicks2 (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About Finland's recognition

Finland will recognize Kosovo no earlier than on the 29th of February: [12]. Can someone add this to the list? Finland has not recognized Kosovo yet. – anonymous Finn

Australia was the first country that recognized Kosova. Macedonia also has recognized Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnix (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Afghanistan was the first country that carried out formal diplomatic recognition Kosovo. Australia was one of the first (if not the first) to announce its intention to recognize by virtue of it being early Monday Australian time when independence was declared. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland is currently under the 'has recognized' list, but also the 'will recognize' list. Which is it? Basser g (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Is the date wrong? Afghanistan was the first to make formal recognition but Costa Rica is dated earlier. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this is because of time zones, and that actually Costa Rica recognised after Afghanistan, US, Albania, and so on, but we'll be hard-pressed to find a source for that... —Nightstallion 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The year is wrong even if the date isn't. --84.249.12.39 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please translate that source used for Costa Rica? It seems to be the only source existing on the Internet, and I'm not sure if that is a formal recognition or just a statement of intention or something like that. --90.157.254.177 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It states they avalar the declaration of independence -- avalar means "guarantee", and I expect that this means "recognise" in diplomatic language. I could, of course, be wrong. —Nightstallion 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we need someone who is expert on this to review this document. If this document is formal recognition, then Costa Rica is first country to recognise Kosovo, not Afghanistan. I think this is quite important fact, and should not be relied on only one source that no native speaker has verified... --85.10.62.10 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't take an expert to determine who was first. The Afghanistan government issued a declaration recognising Kosovo. A short time later Costa Rica did the same thing. The fact that it was earlier in the day in San Jose is irrelevant.Kransky (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Libya

Can someone please find a reference for Libya's refusal of Kosovo. They oficialy stated tonight at the UN they are against Kosovo's independence but there is no mention of that in any of the press releases in the world. So how can we go through with this.(Top Gun) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot Burkina Faso has also refused to recognise Kosovo, so can somebody find a reference for that too. Thanks.(Top Gun) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk)

How do you know they refused if there is no reference ? Did you hear it on TV ? Kormin (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I heared it on TV, I watched the session of the UN security council. Both Libya and Burkina Faso said they are against independence and South Africa and Indonesia stoped just short of that. But there are no references anywhere on the net. So what do we do?(Top Gun) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk)


Italy

I don't know how and where this might fit in, but Italy appears to have recognised Kosovo; atleast, that is what the BBC reports. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evlekis (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that'll take two more days to finalise, actually. —Nightstallion 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they will make their official position known tomorrow (21st) after an extraordinary cabinet meeting. [14] Friûl-1077 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Italy recognized Kosovo yesterday (Feb. 21st), and Serbia promptly recalled its Ambassador Ms. Sanda Raskovic-Ivic (previously Permanent Representative of the Serb Government in Pristina). See ITAR-TASS [15] for reference.--Arturo57 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

Guys what happens with Ukraine?Will they Recognise Kosovo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ukraine MFA said they needed to study the issue. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's already been decided that Ukraine is backing Serbia. Can someone change the color on the map? http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=60919
--24.186.170.167 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine's reaction

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

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

Ukraine Plans to Recognize Republic of Kosovo

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

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

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

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

UKRAINE in the Wrong List

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

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

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

Please be OBJECTIVE!!!

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

Done. For the second time... --Camptown (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not just a radio station, it's a government radio station that informs population of its decisions.--24.186.170.167 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine (22 February)

This must be the 7th time that I'm stating that the source regarding Ukraine's non-recognition is not valid, and as such Ukraine should be removed from the list of Countries that explicitly do not recognize.... The comment on that source is not an official government statement, it's the opinion of one man Oleh Bilorus and wish of the Serbian Ambassador compiled by the Ukraine Radio Station. The Official Statement can be found at the following link and it does not state or declare in any way that Ukraine does not recognize the Republic of Kosova. The Link: www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/16732.htm

The Statement says: On 17 February 2008 Kosovo declared independence. The future of Kosovo and the whole region lies within a European perspective. This is the only way to secure stability... Ukraine is among a majority of the countries which state that the situation around Kosovo cannot be a precedent. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


You are adding old news. Oleh Bilorus is the Chief of Foreign Affairs of Rada. That radio is the radio informing Ukrainians on acts of their government. --Avala (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Avala on this, this was a statement from the chief of Foreign Affairs of Rada, how official of a statement can you get.(Top Gun) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See the message I left on your talk page. — Alex Khristov 23:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's like one of European Parliament members saying they'll work on admitting Ukraine to the EU. Does that mean it will happen? Not necesarily. You'd need an official with more authority to make a statement. — Alex Khristov 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine has no decision on Kosovo yet. Read http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/9060.html - official statement of President of Ukraine. President emphasized that Ukraine in its position proceeds from the opinion that the decision on recognizing Kosovo or not requires timing for most of world countries. “We proceed from hope that resources of regulation through talks have not been yet exhausted”, he added.
It's his responsibilities to act on behalf of Ukraine in international relations (Article 106 item 4 of Constitution of Ukraine). In order to recognize state - he need to pass degree - not just a press-release on website. --TAG (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
He is not any member he is the Chief of Foreign Affairs of Rada. He acts on behalf of his party which is ruling. It so clear that I honestly don't see a problem. --Avala (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to separation of powers - Verkhovna Rada is legislative part, in no way Rada person can talk on behalf of Executive part. Rada has no power to recognize states by Constitution. Even more - Rada decisions done by voting - opinion even of Chief of Foreign Affairs mean nothing more then one opinion out of 450 possible. --TAG (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is unclear if Bilorus is expressing his own position or the official position of the Government (and whether he is has an authority to do so). I would support to move Ukraine to another list unless a clearer indication of the official position are found Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Next meeting at the Council of Europe will be essential during the vote for Kosovo recognition. If Bilorus says that Ukraine will back Serbia there I don't think that he is saying that without reason and that backing is indeed the position of Ukraine. He is a high official of the ruling party (BYT) where is in the top board and I can guess that PM and President will act the same. Also unlike recognition, unrecognition does not require an official degree. It means that the position of Ukraine towards Serbia is unchanged and that it still regards Kosovo as part of Serbia. --Avala (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
a) There is no ruling party in Ukraine. It's coalition of two electoral blocks - BYuT and Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc who has weak majority in Rada. b) Rada majority elect Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. But it's President of Ukraine who recognize states - if he will decide to not do - then also some deputies from President's party Our Ukraine will not recognize. All powers are in hands of President in this case. Please read Constitution of Ukraine - I've tried my best to present it to English speaking readers on WikiSource. --TAG (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There are separate list for undecided countries in this article. I'm going to move Ukraine to it in agreement with Alex Bakharev. --TAG (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but obviously if Ukraine decides to recognize it is shown through presidential decree. If Ukraine decides not to recognize it is shown through the activity in international organizations as there is no such thing as "unrecognition decree". Russia is strongly condemning Kosovo, Ukraine is doing it silently through voting for Serbia's position. --Avala (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please cite your references. Maybe I've missed something. --TAG (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Avala - you are hand-picking arguments against Kosovo. Please see more or less representative picture of all opinions inside Ukraine at http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/28432/. I may repeat - but it's only President who decide and you have placed Ukraine in list based on opinion from some lone person from Parliament - not President one. --TAG (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuania hasn't yet recognized Kosovo. The article that is cited only says that the President requested the legislature to quickly approve recognition. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Neutral?!

The Swiss are taking sides! What is this abomination?! They're always supposed to be neutral... Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The horror! the horror! it's like the French not surrendering! — Rickyrab | Talk 03:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Or the US not attempting to police the world! :o  — AMK1211talk! 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: explanation on the states that refused to recognise

Suggestion: it might be better if there is a small sentence (like the countries listed under other states) describing why they did not recognise Kosovo. Such as Russia, having a strong relationship with Serbia, etc--w_tanoto (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we might as well note why the countries recognizing Kosovo decided to recognize Kosovo. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Problem with that: there is more than one reason, and if we did that, we'd have to expand onto others. And secondly, there is no "official" reason(s) (e.g. no government will admit that they're denying recognizing Kosovo's independence because of secessionists movements in their own), and would prove to be POV, and thus has no place in an encyclopedia. --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Philippines

Another undecided. "While the Philippines does not oppose the idea of independence for Kosovo, it would prefer a settlement...taking into account the internationally accepted principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity," Alberto Romulo, the country's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, said in a statement. [16] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=868285ca-be57-4da4-98ec-7f63e292a11a&k=7914
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo/Archive_8&oldid=1145855531"