Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY DONE BY A BOT!

Solomon Islands

What can we deduce from this? [1] (Solomon Islands immigration requirements.) Kosovo is listed as a country (or territory) whose nationals require approval before entering the Solomon Islands. Is this de facto recognition? Interestingly, Serbia isn't mentioned at all. Bazonka (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Like you said it also includes other territories. So it won`t say us anything interesting.Max Mux (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But the non-sovereign territories listed are those that (I believe) issue their own passports. If anything, I think that this indicates recognition of Kosovo's passport. Bazonka (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be. But kosovothanksyou.com has nothing yet about it.Max Mux (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Solomon Islands voted for the Serbian resolution at the UN. I'd expect Palau to recognise but I don't understand what happened with that.--Avala (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. Norway voted for it, but recognized Kosovo early on. Montenegro voted for it, but recognized Kosovo the very next day. --alchaemia (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd as it may sound, it's fairly common practice for countries to accept passports from states that they don't recognise, as we've seen with Kosovar passports in the case of Morocco, Georgia, Thailand, etc. The Republic of China passport is almost universally accepted even though only 23 countries recognise the ROC. That the Solomon Islands lists Kosovars as requiring a visa indicates tacit recognition of their documents but not of the Republic of Kosovo, per se. It's all legal hairsplitting, but diplomats love this sort of stuff. I wouldn't read any more into it than is on the webpage. All the same, I have sent an email to the Solomon Islands authorities enquiring whether they have recognised the passport or not. Yes, I know that "original research" is considered evil and heretical on wikipedia, but I'd like to know! I will share any reply I receive. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobby, I also sent them an email. So as this means that your research is not "original", we should be OK. :) Bazonka (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a scoop! I've received a response to my email from the Solomon Islands Director of Immigration, Jeffrey Deve. It reads:

Dan,

In response to your email:

1. Solomon Islands recognizes the independence of Kosovo

2. SI recognizes the passports of Kosovo

3. SI Govt recognizes the political status of Kosovo

4. but unlike other independent states, Kosovo Nationals would still need approval prior to their departures to SI, unless the Minister responsible for Immigration removes Kosovo from the restricted list by an Order under the appropriate Immigration Act.

We hope this answers your questions.

Thanks.

Kind regards

Director of Immigration

So there we are. Of course, some would consider this to be original research. However I can forward the email to anyone who wants to see it. Bobby, did you receive a response too? Bazonka (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, they did not answer me. I detect rank favouritism ;-) Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When did they supposedly recognise Kosovo? If it wasn't in the last few days (and news still traveling) then this sounds like some confused public servant. Anyway we need an accessible source and a date in order to list SI. --Avala (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we definitely need an official confirmation and some more details. I am energetically pursuing this through my own source. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable reference if we are to update the article. Ijanderson (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I haven't heard anything in Kosovo media about possible recognition from the Solomon Islands. --alchaemia (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if they recognised ages ago, but just didn't tell anyone. Bazonka (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you email him back and ask if they're going to make an official statement? Did you hear anything from the kosovothanksyou guys? Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'll reply to the email tonight. Nothing on the Kosovothanksyou website yet. I'm at work (slacking) and can't check emails at the moment so I don't know if they've replied. I'll let you know. Bazonka (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please solve that soon. We should write to other embassies as well, especially those who have not yet issued any statement.Max Mux (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou have sent me an email:

Thank you for this information.

We contacted the Mission of Solomon Islands to UN in New York, but they rejected these claims by saying that "Solomon Islands don't have a formal position about Kosovo yet..", and that ".. we are waiting on ICJ decision".

Howver we are still trying to confirm this by their authorities.

So perhaps the Director of Immigration was wrong. Bazonka (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's certainly odd. I guess the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing (saying). --alchaemia (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We should try to get informations about other countries over themMax Mux (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that we can't use the Solomon Islands source as evidence that they have/haven't recognised, but I think it's safe to use it as evidence that they accept the Kosovan passport; and this has been confirmed by the Director of Immigration who ought to know about that sort of thing - if not about official recognition. Verifiability not truth. I've therefore added something to the article. Bazonka (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you all sure that The Solomans recognize the Republic of Kosovo passport or the UNMIK passport? Kosovo under the UN administration had a special passport, and likely was recoginised widely. It had some standing even after the declaration of independence. It could be that the Director of Immigration site lists the UNMIK passport as valid entry, not the post-declaration passport as valid. The opposite could be true too. More specific clarification on this is needed. We really need to make sure that the passport issued by the declared Republic of Kosovo is accepted versus the old UNMIK passport before we say anything about it here or on the Kosovan passport article. Ajbenj (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I've clarified the information on Solomon Islands in the article. Bazonka (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comoros recognises/to recognise Kosovo (?)

Express is quoting Mr. Pacolli as reporting that the Comoros will recognise Kosovo very soon [2]. The translation is somewhat clouded on whether he's saying that they have recognised and haven't communicated it to the Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs or that they've decided to recognise and now have to go through the process. Any Albanian speakers/readers who can clear this up? -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He says that Commoros have recognized Kosovo and that will inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo very soon about this decision.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you for your help. Sadly, we can't act on this article. We have to wait for official confirmation, lest we have the heads of our resident drama queens explode ;-). Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but at least we know that Pacolli wont make us wait too long:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou.com is working to confirm the news. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe we should expand the article Behgjet Pacolli. Anybody? Colchicum (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Jeremic this is a pressure regarding the April 17 when the ICJ proceedings shall begin. Not that it sounds reasonable that The Gambia and Comoros can influence the ICJ but he did say something along those lines.--Avala (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He always says that, attempting to make his efforts appear more than what they are. If he's always fighting this "great pressure" and, in his eyes, "winning", then this will certainly make him look more "effective."--alchaemia (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You really think ICJ is gonna bring back Kosova to Serbia? None and nothing can bring back Kosova and I guess Serbia knows that and all it can is try to make live miserable for Kosova. There is nothing constructive in Serbias behaviour. Inat? --84.56.237.2 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum! Ijanderson (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, inat should not rule this discussion page but constructivism. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found out from my source that the decision has been made in Moroni and that all that remains is for the Kosovo Ministry of Foreign Affairs to receive the official letter of notification- which is what Pacolli said, anyway. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo has posted that it has received a note verbale (diplomatic note) from the Comoros extending congratulations on Kosovo's independence and expressing a desire to establish diplomatic relations. However, there is some confusion over whether this constitutes recognition or not. My own personal opinion is that it does, since you don't send diplomatic notes to polities you don't recognise, but the Ministry says it is working to confirm recognition. [3] -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to hold off until one side or another (or preferably) both verifie(s) this information. Although this is not a forum on this topic, it suprised me to see The Comoros recognize Kosovo considering their UN ambassador's statement at the vote on the ICJ proposal. But then there is at least one country that voted for the ICJ proposal in the UN General Assembly and ended up recognizing anyway (Panama). Hold off, and we'll see. Ajbenj (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is little doubt that this has happened, and it's probably safe to update the article. But I also find it surprising that they've recognised, considering their own problems. Of the four main islands claimed by Comoros, one is disputed with France, and two announced secession in the recent past. Pressure from elsewhere I suspect. Bazonka (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm confident that someone here shall catch the official announcement. Lots of MoFA website watchers out there. If even Kosovothanksyou.com won't add it, nothing on the Kosovan or Comoran MoFA sites, or on newkosovareport.com, not to mention Serbia's government sites saying something about it, then we shouldn't jump the gun. Not all of those sites have to say something- The Kosovo MoFA site is pretty good about announcing recognitions now that it exists. And yes, considering the Mayotte, Anjouan, etc. problems that Comoros has, this is a very suprising development. France still has a lot of pull there, despite the dispute, even if Bob Denard is dead. Ajbenj (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Canada has the Quebec problem and the UK has the Northern Ireland problem, yet they still recognized. Sometimes it isn't all about separatist movements. I suspect Comoros recognized because it feels as if Kosovo's case is stronger than those of its movements. --alchaemia (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The UK has many sepratists other than N Ireland, even the US has problems such as Hawaii, France has Basque and Bretons, Turkey has Kurds, most places have "secessionist groups", it doesn't affect all countries politically. Ijanderson (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comoros is much more like Serbia, Cyprus and Georgia than those cases - some of its territory declared independence and the central government had no control over it - it took an international invasion for it to regain control. Some people in the other areas you mentioned above want independence, but they've never actually been close to having it. In my opinion, Comoros has been forced into recognising - a Maldivian-style bung perhaps? Bazonka (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any news on Comoros' position is coming soon, so I've amended the article with details of the verbal note. Bazonka (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Will Russia recognize Kosovo's independence?

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=30376 The times are changing, I hope we can soon update Russia's stance toward Kosovo in the article. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is repeating other press articles at best, bad journalism at worst. If you did not know that this article has already appeared elsewhere, that Martti Ahtisaari was a Nobel Prize winner or fostered the supervised plan for Kosovo independence (and mentioned by name in those articles), you'd think that this was something new. Perhaps the Armenian language version is much more accurate, but this is nothing, as most of us know, to warrant updating Russia's position. Ajbenj (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only the Armenian press is writing about it but the Bulgarian press, too: http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/04/10/703692_russia-could-one-day-recognise-kosovo-ahtisaari-says --84.56.237.2 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Many media groups are repeating news of Ahtisaari's speculation, so what? Ahtisaari can not speak on the behalf of Russia. Ijanderson (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian embassy in Serbian called his statement a "total stupidity".--Avala (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Which only goes to show who's really stupid here. --alchaemia (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be more optimist for a Serbian recognition, rather than a Russian one. Serbia fights for Kosovo, Russia fights for its status as a renewed world power. Asymmetric situations.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia has invested far too much of its prestige in opposing Kosovo's independence to suddenly turn around and say, "Well gosh, we've changed our minds!" Russia doesn't particularly care about Serbia or Kosovo, but as others have pointed out, it's solely doing all of this to cause as much trouble for the US and EU as possible. For some reason this You-want-it-so-I-hate-it strategy makes them feel accomplished. Russia wouldn't hesitate to throw Serbia under the bus if it became convenient/expedient. Naturally, Russia could change its policy, but it won't happen overnight. They'll have to slowly climb down. They'll start by toning down the rhetoric, then recognition of the Kosovar passport and then a period of public dithering and hang-wringing. Slovakia and Romania are up a little past recognition of the passport. A country like Argentina, which is far removed from the scene, can stick its head in the sand and ignore Kosovo indefinitely. Russia, Spain and the rest of the European holdouts really can't. At some point they'll have to face the reality. -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and I like the term you used: "You-want-it-so-I-hate-it" as this is exactly the meaning of inat and it seems not to be an exclusively Serbian behaviour but rather a Slavic mentality, quite childish and a sad thing as it causes people to suffer for nothing. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insult or attack any individual or group. This is highly sanctioned on Wikipedia. Thanks, --Cinéma C 02:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Uups, so sorry you find inat to be insulting. Maybe you should ask for deletion of inat? But don't hope to find many supporters. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) BTW, you got me wrong, I am a big friend of Serbia and I tried to extend inat to others to avoid that Serbs have to carry the burden of being the only ones with this stigma. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing about negative stereotypes on Wikipedia is one thing, saying that these negative stereotypes are true is insulting, and don't pretend like you don't know that. --Cinéma C 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi

Can somebody semiprotect this article? Until now we have seen no single contributive behaviour by anons, except repeated vandalisms.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support: This article has been vandalised and edited in a POV manner, from both pro and anti-Kosovo camps. Please view the article history for proof. I believe this to be strong reasoning to have the article semi-protected for the short-term. Ijanderson (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Same here. Gomes89 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Semiprotection is usually used in cases when there's a large number of anons vandalizing in a very short period of time, when the topic is a heated current event or is highly disputed. I have not seen any extreme vandalism on this site. --Cinéma C 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Thats why I requested semi, please see the history of the page. Only during the last two days there were at least 6 vandalisms. Isn`t this enaugh?Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support as it is vandalized mostly by pro-serbian fascists who are not willing to work constructively on the article. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Please be polite and do not insult groups of individuals.Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Me my friend am a big friend of Serbs and I think you got me wrong as I did not said that Serbs are fascists, but some fascists are pro-Serbian, this is not the same and definitely not an insult against Serbs. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You have already been warned about attacks on a individual or group! First you insulted Serbs and all Slavs, now you're calling all vandals on this article pro-Serbian fascists. You do NOT have a right to label anyone here, so please stop it. Thanks, --Cinéma C 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, my friend, some user or/and some group of users could feel insulted as you name him/them vandals. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is an accepted term for disruptive users on Wikipedia. "Fascists" is just plain insulting. And please don't call me your friend. We are all users helping to make Wikipedia better, not to establish friendships, vent frustration or engage in personal discussion. Thanks, --Cinéma C 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God, please tell me that you do not find even "friend" insulting! But ok, if you do not want to be my friend, I can live with that. I hope you will allow me at least to call myself a friend of Serbia. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment...and some fascists are pro French; some are pro Albanian; some are pro American, some are pro Russian; some are pro Brazilian and some are pro Liechtenstein. Some are even pro Nauru (they are the worst IMHO). Amazing isn't it, these fascists get everywhere :p
  

Strange they do not warn you like they do warn me! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not identify vandals or anyone else on Wikipedia as fascists, you can not label anybody here! --Cinéma C 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway regardless of whom is pro fascists, the page has still been vandalised several times recently and for the next week or so I suggest we have the page semi-protected Ijanderson (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support as it is clear vandalism has been on the rise recently. --alchaemia (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• comment - Protection is pointless unless it's permanent. There is no particular short-term event taking place that is the incentive for the vandalism, it's just constant. But this article is very well monitored, and no vandalism goes unnoticed. We can handle it. Bazonka (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are plenty of experienced editors who are monitoring this article and these people can revert the vandalism. I don't think a few bad apples should force this article to be closed off from anons. --Tocino 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Cinema C and Tocino. --Bolonium (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This article has had enough of vandalism and we should take some precautions. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Unfortunately it's needed. Emto (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Cinema C and Tocino. Verite2009 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose- no extreme vandalism here. Luka Jačov (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maldives

Kosovo and Maldives established diplomatic relations on 15 April [4] Digitalpaper (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So much for withdrawal of recognition.. ;) --alchaemia (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there won't be any withdrawal of recognition but there is obviously a withdrawal of reality by some people who still cannot accept the facts and there was a good analysis of them done by user Canadian Boy who called it the You-Want-It-So-I-Hate-It behaviour, also known as inat. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

84.56.253.226, this is your LAST warning. Please DO NOT attack any individual or group, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing topics, NOT editors or anyone else! --Cinéma C 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to issue "LAST" warnings. --alchaemia (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have the right to report what I notice. Would you say you support the views expressed by this unregistered user? --Cinéma C 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To report is one thing, but to act as if you're an administrator who's issuing "LAST" warnings is quite different. I don't support anyone in this battle of yours, just take it easy. --alchaemia (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrators require users to warn someone before reporting them. --Cinéma C 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Which means they're the ones issuing last warnings, if necessary, and not you. --alchaemia (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to teach things you don't know much about. --Cinéma C 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not teaching you, I'm telling you to cut it out as you have no authority to issue "LAST" warnings here.

--alchaemia (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think at least user Alchaemia knows the difference between warnings and last warnings. Never mind, sooner or later you will know yourself what a last warning is, if you continue to behave this way, dear Cinema. Thank you, Alchaemia. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I just cited Canadian Boy: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&diff=283699630&oldid=283625887 --84.56.253.226 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia (I know, I know...)

Seems as if rumors about SA are popping up again.[5] This time it's an agency dealing with economic news of all things, but they do carry some political news as well. They say that SA will imminently publish news that it recognizes Kosovo. Not sure where they're getting this information, but just thought I'd post it here. --alchaemia (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Even www.kosovathanksyou.com reacted and lists Saudi Arabia now as "awaiting confirmation". --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Double as much supporters for Kosovo at the ICJ

http://www.ora-online.ch/index.php/kosova/270-titel-kommt-gleich-hehe says that about 20 countries will support Kosovo and only half as much will support Serbia in the courtroom. Sorry it's only in German as it is a Swiss based newspaper. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need these "reportedly" things in the article when the ICJ will publish everything on Monday so we can list all the countries that provided materials to the court. I think the only country that officially confirmed their involvement is Romania. But like I said, let's wait until Monday.--Avala (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ICJ should publish the information today. We only know that there are 33 countries participating in the process, 18 on Kosovo side and 15 on Serbian side. United Kingdom will most likely take over from the US as an official representative of Kosovo. Romania confirmed participation. The rest will come later during the day.--Avala (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What's up, Avala, today is tuesday!? Didn't you promise us the information yesterday? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

At least you now confess that there are more countries on Kosovas side than on serbias side. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as he confesed he will be sentenced to 10 years in prison! Shall you please stop regarding wiki as a forum? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If "confess" was a wrong expression, it was because I am not a native speaker, feel free to correct me. All I try is to make clear the "wind of change" as this is important to the article. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Maybe "admit" would have been the better word.

What's there to admit or not admit? This page deals with facts and news not personal presumptions so please stop destroying it.--Avala (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem that I wanted to point out is that many users say that Kosovo is not a state and refuse the using of signs of its statehood in the Kosovo article, for example the country box as it is on top of every country by stating that most countries do not recognize Kosovos independence. It seems they are wrong and they should at least admit now that most countries neither recognize nor not recognize, like New Zealand, for example. Therefore there are more countries that do recognize compared to the countries that do not recognize. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your point is logical. However, international politics is often NOT logical. Any nation that previously recognized Serbia (with Kosovo as an Autonomous Republic) is considered to STILL recognize Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo unless and until that nation officially recognizes Kosovo. Khajidha (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

35 countries provided opinion to the court. I think we can assume that these are the most ardent and strong supporters or opposers of Kosovo independence. On one side we have Czech Republic, France, Switzerland, Albania, Austria, Germany, Finland, Poland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Estonia, Norway, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Latvia, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Maldives and Sierra Leone and on the other side we have Cyprus, China, Romania, Egypt, Slovakia, the Russian Federation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Serbia, Spain, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Azerbaijan and Bolivia. It doesn't mean that Venezuela is any less of an opposer or that Belgium is any less of a supporter but I think in general we can assume that these states are the most interested in these proceedings and that they truly cemented their positions with this action.--Avala (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting to see Libya there even though it didn't even show up for the vote in the General Assembly, and to see Maldives and the Czech Republic though some people were announcing that they will de-recognize. I'm surprised by Iran and Libya, as well as Sierra Leone and Maldives. So we have a tally of 21 : 14 in Kosovo's favor (Serbia is included with the 14, of course). --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that countries like Libya or Maldives just did what they were asked/told to do, I don't think that they care that much.--Avala (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

These numbers prove exactly what I said from the beginning, there are more countries in favor of Kosovas independence than against it and most countries are just indifferent. However, time is on Kosovas side, every day nails Kosova firmer on the maps. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you include serbia into the 14, you should also include Kosova, that would make 22! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to state in the article which countries submitted opinions in favour, and which were in opposition to Serbia's position. Although it's fairly obvious to assume which are which, we would need an appropriate source for this information. Does anything exist, other than just the list of countries? Bazonka (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The ICJ press release says "the texts of the written statements and of the written contribution are confidential at this stage of the proceedings". — Emil J. 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

The "wind of change" came! Saudi Arabia recognized Kosovo. [6]Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Other sources. [7] and [8] --alchaemia (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody update the map please?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Refresh your cache. I've already updated the map an hour ago. — Emil J. 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that was it! Thank you! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

B92 is confirming it. [9] --alchaemia (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Radio Serbia confirms, too, but refuse to call Kosovo Kosovo: [10] --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs is confirming it [11] as well as RTK, which says that foreign minister Hyseni confirmed to them the acceptance "late at night" of an official letter from KSA. [12] --alchaemia (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, now it has been officially confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with an official article, posted on its website, regarding this recognition. [13] --alchaemia (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How is changing of the map done?

I want to update the map. How to do? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition dates

I don't see any advantage with recognition dates given like "05 March 2008" (what is the zero standing for?). Is it able to return to the previous form? --DaQuirin (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't either. The other format looked better. --Tocino 18:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming it is just for consistency, so that all dates have two digits in the day. Personally I prefer it this way, but will not stand against changing it back (note: I didn't change it in the first place, so don't blame me if you don't like it). Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed now, thanks. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Point of Order

Why was the coat of arms of Kosovo removed and a map outline put in its place? -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a clear act of vandalism, please undo immediately. Thank you. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Someone destroyed the map again. The Kosovo Coat of Arms is missing. This vandalism is despicable. Torcino and company continue to violate the rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.125.44 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the loss of the coat of arms on all Kosovo articles and assumed it was a decision by Portal:Kosovo. Looking over the data however, this appears to not be the case. The removal of the coat of arms was inappropriate, though I would not blame Tocino, he seems the most rational of the bunch and not prone to vandalism. This should be reverted immediately. Also, what was changed about the map?--Astrofreak92 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a makeshift as I could not undo it. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Lj, participate in discussion before provocing an edit war! There was the Kosovo Coat of Arms before and therefore I did my edit. What is your reason for your edit? Do you have a better solution? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about the template takes place here. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I just wrote there. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovathanksyou delete Comores from the list "awaiting confirmation"

Was it a hoax that Comores recognized? Or did http://www.kosovathanksyou.com just made a mistake? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a hoax as the Kosovar Foreign Ministry confirmed the acceptance of a verbal note from Comoros. Discussions are on going for recognition. KosovaThanksYou probably didn't want to give that prominent space on their website. --alchaemia (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahmedinjad: Iran reviewing the recognition of Kosovo

Question: How are the relations between your country and Albania? Are you aware that they will soon be building a nuclear power station? What do think about the initiative on the part of Tirana?

Second question: Kosovo was recognized by 60 countries, most of them are members of the European Union but not by Arab countries. Do think that Iran will soon be recognizing the independence of Kosovo or will this be some sort of revenge?

President Ahmadinejad: Our foreign policy is based on the fulfillment of peace, security and a lasting fraternity. We are looking for a larger solution to global and regional problems. We do believe that issues in the world and the region should be resolved with the pursuit of revenge.

The issue of Kosovo falls within the same framework; it is being evaluated. Our stance certainly is in favor of helping to develop peace and brotherhood in the region. We have good ties with all countries and Albania.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92068 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.161.91 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good man, good move. Let's hope he recognizes not only Kosova but Israel, too, that would solve a lot of problems. Go, Mahmood, go for it! :-) But to be honest, I think there will be ohter countries that will recognize sooner as Iran has problems with separatist kurds, sadly. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably nothing. If someone feels like this information is considered valuable, then by all means add it to the article, I have no objection. But this information is most likely of minor importance. Also Iran will recognise Israel once a Palestinian State is established which is recognised by Israel. Ijanderson (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit that Iran is a mighty mighty country, not only compared to some islands like Nauru or Palau. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is, but the point is that there is essentially zero actual content in Ahmadinejad's answer. "Our stance certainly is in favor of helping to develop peace and brotherhood in the region," what the hell does that mean? It's just a diplomatic way of saying "we don't bother". — Emil J. 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If they don't care, then why did they submit a case in favour of Serbia at the ICJ? Bazonka (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing whatever they submitted in the court, we are discussing the above mentioned interview with Ahmadinejad. To reiterate, he did not say anything useful in the interview. — Emil J. 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, where can I find a source about which countries submitted a case at the ICJ? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

According to http://www.kosovathanksyou.com Costa Rica recognized at the 17th of February

Why is the date different in the article? Even the reference source says, it was the 17th of February local time. I think we should change the date to the 17th. --Tubesship (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's meaningless to compare local times of different locale, therefore all dates in the table are given in UTC. There is an explanatory note saying that it was 17 February local time, which you presumably missed. — Emil J. 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EmilJ, basing dates on local times is silly IMHO. We would be probably changing several countries dates if we were to do it this way. Lets just stick to GMT Ijanderson (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to add on Russia

Russia has a Liaison Office in Pristina. This is not added anywhere.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200511/08/eng20051108_219738.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.119.135 (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

404 Not Found! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC) BTW: This would be in accordance with Russias new stance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Will_Russia_recognize_Kosovo.27s_independence.3F

I don't think this should be added as it is not really relevant to international recognition of Kosovo. Russia's Liaison Office was there before the DOI and unless there has been a recent change attributing it to the RoK (if so then please add it), the office is held with UNMIK if I remember correctly. Certainly it has nothing to do with Russia's "new stance." Bernerd (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait and see, time is on Kosovas side, every day of its existence nails it tighter on the world map. Anyway, does anyone has a working link? The one above says 404. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Russia does have Liaison Office in Pristina, but it is not to the Rep of Kosovo. It is a Liaison Office to UNMIK. So because of this there is no reason to include it in the article as it is not relevant Ijanderson (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What will Russia do now, as Kosovo's president wants UN mission to leave? Right, they will either turn their Liasion Office into an Embassy or leave Kosovo together with the UN mission: http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6270011/Kosovos-president-wants-UN-mission-to-leave Bye-bye! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeremic: Whatever ICJ decides, we will not recognize Kosovo

Is he trying to turn the tide? Why at all do they go to court if they are not willing to accept the outcome? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, forgot the link: http://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6961&Itemid=26

Will the separatists give up their cause if the ICJ rules in favor of Serbia? --Tocino 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not them bringing the case to court, it was serbia. And no, they are not separatists, but serbia was the occupier. For a few decades. Remember, Kosova was a longer time part of the Ottoman Empire than part of serbia, therefore even Turkey as succesor of the Ottoman Empire would have a stronger right to claim Kosova his territory than serbia. The claims of serbia stand on very weak feet, on a short-time occupiers feet. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbia was under Ottomon occupation too, but the difference is that they didn't sell out their culture to the Muslims, which the Albanians and Bosniaks had no problem doing. This is a sign of a great and proud nation. So don't expect Serbia to back down in the unlikely scenario that the ICJ rules against international law. --Tocino 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Such a pity it is written in German: "Das Osmanische Reich - ein antikoloniales Imperium?" http://www.zeithistorische-forschungen.de/site/40208581/default.aspx Ottoman Empire was anti-colonialistic, multi-cultural and multi-ethnical, most of the serbian churches were build under the reign of Ottoman Empire, that lasted for more than half a millennium. The same with Andalusia. Your "proud christian culture" led to reconquista, inquisition and expulsion, even the Jews fled to Muslim countries, from Spain as much as from the Balkans. This, my "proud nation" friend, is the bloody truth, you better face it. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Again Tocino posts his propaganda here. Can someone do something against it?Max Mux (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ICJ case article

I just noticed that somebody recreated an article on the Kosovo ICJ case: Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo. — Emil J. 16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we did agree to reopen it once the proceedings begin but this isn't the article that was around before. This is a new article made by some new user apparently. I'll try to fix it.--Avala (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure that we have no double articles. The original title and content is under International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence which was made to be in line with other cases on ICJ trials (International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons etc.). I expanded it with some content of that newbie user but he reverted me and Ijanderson redirected it to a third title. So in the end we had three articles on the same thing.--Avala (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Avala, please do not make cut-and-paste moves. They do not preserve the editing history, which violates GFDL. — Emil J. 13:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see how else could I have done it? I copy/pasted what was added later on the article I created a few months ago and redirected the newbie made article to the old one.--Avala (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jordan preparing to recognize Kosovo

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=4156 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.120.187 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kuwait and Bahrain "to recognize soon"

Gazeta Express, a Kosovo daily, is reporting that Kuwait and Bahrain will recognize soon. [14] They claim that they have a good source and that a representative of Kuwait is in Kosovo already, where he/she will deliver the recognition letter personally. They're also claiming that Bahrain, having approved it earlier in Parliament, will seal the deal early next week. Just something to keep an eye on. --alchaemia (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Uruguay

This dates back to February last year, but we have nothing in the article about Uruguay's position. Do you think it can be used? [15] Bazonka (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it was here but it was removed by a known remover. I will re-add it.--Avala (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't "forget" to mention that it's a news agency claiming this. Your edit sounded like it was an official source, rather than a news agency claim. --alchaemia (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo to Join IMF and WB by June

Balkan Insight 28/04/09 Ijanderson (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another source, Bloomberg News [16] --alchaemia (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sao Tome Position

This is original research on my part, which I know makes it extremely wicked, evil and all-around scandalous for me to thus offer up it for your consideration here, but all the same, I have been in touch with the Permanent Mission of Sao Tome and Principe to the UN. The Representative was very kind and answered my query. I am pasting in the email response below:

---

Dear Mr.Robert,

This is the position right now:

"The government of Sao Tome and Principe is considering the matter and later on will publish the final decision".

Best regards,

Domingos Ferreira Sao Tome and Principe Mission to United Nations 460 Park Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022

Tele: 212-317-0644 Fax: 212-317-0624

---

You can all take this for what it's worth. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to bullinng here? It is worth something and I think we should check up each country that isn't included here this way.Max Mux (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair play, that is the sort of position I would expect from a banana republic, they probably don't care about Kosovo, Serbia or the Balkans ect. However I don't think a personal email can be classed as a reliable source. Ijanderson (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Its not a banana republic 2) Try to be polite 3) We don't want too see anti-Kosovo propaganda posted here!Max Mux (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not Anti-Kosovo, I support the Rep of Kosovo FYI

2) I try my very hardest to be polite

3) How come come pro-Kosovo propaganda is allowed to be posted here? Ijanderson (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You should not be disrespectful and refer to a country as a "banana republic." That is most discourteous and it is offensive. You should apologise and withdraw that remark, Ian. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I received very similarly worded reply from Rwandan embassy a few months ago. It's just the diplomatic language, and there is no statement or content behind it at all. Either way thanks for the information however you know we can't add it to the article because we require external sources.--Avala (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats it.Max Mux (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=28&nav_id=58800Max Mux (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That information has already been added to the article Max Ijanderson (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't noticed that. Sorry!Max Mux (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbia expects no more countries will recognise Kosovo

[17] Jeremic said this at a Non-Aligned Movement meeting, should we add to the article? Ijanderson (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the idea was to say that Serbia expects from these countries that no more of them would recognise rather than a crystal ball-like statement. Of course more countries will recognise but maybe not from NAM. But either it's too vague I think.--Avala (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just crystal-balling on his part. At the same time he said that KSA was lobbying hard with other countries but that he's "trying to prevent that." I think it's just more chest-bumping by Jeremic without much solid proof of anything. --alchaemia (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Jeremic has lost his mind if he made such statements.Max Mux (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1) He hasn't lost his mind 2) Try to be polite 3) We don't want too see pro-Kosovo propaganda posted here! ;) Ijanderson (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares what jerepic expects? It is not worth mentioning as it is serbian propaganda. --Tubesship (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mauritania and Qatar "to recognize soon."

According to Gazeta Express[18] and Telegrafi.com[19], Qatar and Mauritania have told the Kosovo Defense Minister that they'll recognize Kosovo soon "in light of the Saudi recognition." Might be worth mentioning, if only as a reference point should recognition come from those two countries. --alchaemia (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There have also been meetings with Chad, Tanzania, Mongolia and Kenya. Ijanderson (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

… and South Korea, which suggests that the meetings were not necessarily about recognition. — Emil J. 12:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly says that he requested recognition by the countries mentioned here (sans SK) so it doesn't matter what the meetings were originally for. --alchaemia (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And the US requested from North Korea to stop their nuclear tests. Either way it's not a reaction by these countries but a request from the third party which they could listen to or not.--Avala (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you have to think hard about that example? Mujota requested, Qatar and Mauritania promised that they'll recognize. It's certainly more noteworthy than Jeremic and his crystal-balling. Not to mention the fact that I merely posted it here as a reference point, and not some fact that needs to inserted into the article immediately. Get off your high horse. --alchaemia (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Kosovo attended the Military Industry Summit where 80 countries participated and Serbia left the place in protest of Kosovo presentation at the summit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.125.81 (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)