advertisement
Sat, May 26 2012
Bulgaria supports Kosovo independence in International Court of Justice
Photo: International Court of Justice
This is a transcript of the evidence presented to the International Court of Justice by the Bulgarian delegation on December 4 2009 in the case of the question of the legality of the February 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia by Kosovo.
Bulgaria was represented by Dr. Zlatko Dimitrov, Director of the International Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Head of Delegation; Danail Chakarov, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Krassimir Boyanov, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Ivan Yordanov, Political Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The President of the Court: I now call upon Mr. Zlatko Dimitrov to take the floor.
Zlatko Dimitrov: Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour and privilege to take the floor on behalf of the Government of Bulgaria and present observations in connection with the request by the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo.
The 20 March 2008 decision of the Bulgarian Government to recognise the Republic of Kosovo was in conformity with the aspirations of the Republic of Bulgaria in favour of the maintenance of stability and the security environment in the Western Balkans, in order to prevent tensions from escalating in and around Kosovo.
Our understanding was and remains that, by the end of 2007, blocking the resolution of the status of Kosovo would have led to a stalemate with severe consequences, including for the countries like Bulgaria in close proximity to Kosovo. The status quo at that particular moment could not be kept any longer, for it was becoming a burden for the development of both Kosovo and Serbia, as well as for the progress of the region as a whole.
Today, if considered within a long-term perspective, there can be no doubt that the decision to recognise Kosovo, taken almost two years ago, was the right one.
It is quite wrong to argue that the great majority of States opposed the declaration of independence. The fact is, that one third of the United Nations Member States have already recognised Kosovo while many others have not yet taken a position.
Today, we in Bulgaria are more than ever convinced that the recognition of Kosovo corresponded to Bulgaria’s consistent policy to ensure not only maximum stability and security but also to deepen the integration process in the region.
It contributes to both the achievement of the purposes I have already mentioned and the promotion of a democratic political process in Kosovo itself.
Bulgaria’s choice was a choice for the sake of prosperity and a clear European perspective for all countries of the Western Balkans, particularly the Republic of Serbia. We expect also that our good neighbourly relations with Serbia and the Serbian people will be preserved and further developed as an inherent component of the European mainstream.
In this statement, I intend to address, first, the issue of the historical background of the Declaration of Independence, in particular the situation in 2005-2007, and then to present some observations on the special nature of the Kosovo case, followed by Bulgaria’s views on the scope of the question before the Court and the accordance of the Declaration with international law, including Security Council resolution 1244.
І. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THE SITUATION IN 2005-2007
Mr. President, Members of the Court, the international community’s concerns over Kosovo go back a long way.
Deeply concerned with the continuing violence in the former Yugoslavia, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) adopted, back in 1992, the Budapest Declaration on Yugoslavia, which condemned the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of the ethnic majority community in Kosovo.
On 12 June 1992 the Committee of Senior Officials of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe decided to send an exploratory mission to Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina.
A few months later, the CSCE decided to send, in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Chapter III of the Helsinki Decisions, a mission of long duration, thus establishing the continuous presence of the international community in Kosovo.
The Members of the United Nations expressed their concern about the deteriorating human rights situation in Kosovo by adopting General Assembly resolutions 47/147 of 18 December 1992 and 48/153 of 20 December 1993.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities were urged to "take all necessary measures to bring to an immediate end the human rights violations" inflicted upon the majority community in Kosovo and "in particular, discriminatory measures and practices, arbitrary detention and the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and the occurrence of summary executions", and to "re-establish the democratic institutions of Kosovo, including the Parliament and judiciary".
Furthermore, the human rights situation in Kosovo was the focus of several United Nations General Assembly resolutions in the period 1994 to 1999. In a Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kosovo of 27 September 1999, the United Nations High Commissioner referred to "the mass exodus" from Kosovo of more than one million Kosovo Albanians.
The United Nations Security Council endorsed the efforts of the Contact Group to achieve a peaceful solution to the crisis and reach agreement between the FRY and the majority community leadership of Kosovo. These efforts resulted in an international conference, held at Rambouillet and Paris in February and March 1999, but the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia failed to sign the agreements negotiated there.
In March 1999 all diplomatic efforts ended in a stalemate and the NATO Member States decided to use force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in order to stop the violence which threatened not only the security of the civilian population of Kosovo but also the security of the whole region.
With the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999, the overall sovereignty of the FRY over Kosovo — political, economic, military, etc. — was practically suspended by a United Nations Interim Administration (UNMIK) and a NATO-led
peacekeeping Kosovo Force (KFOR). Resolution 1244 authorised the United Nations to facilitate a political process that will determine Kosovo’s future status "taking full account . . . of the Rambouillet accords".
In 2005 Ambassador Kai Eide was appointed by the United Nations Secretary–General as Special Envoy for Kosovo "to undertake a comprehensive review of the situation in Kosovo" with a mandate "to assess whether the conditions are in place to enter into a political process designed to determine the future status of Kosovo".
In his report, S/2005/635, the Special Envoy concluded that the time had come to move to the next phase of the political process because Kosovo could not remain indefinitely under international administration.
In November 2005 the United Nations Secretary–General appointed former Finnish President Mr. Martti Ahtisaari as his Special Envoy for the Future Status for Kosovo. In February 2006 Mr. Ahtisaari initiated a direct dialogue between the parties and facilitated
negotiations on the issues of decentralisation of local government, property rights, protection of the Orthodox Church heritage, and the institutional guarantees for the rights of Kosovo’s minorities with special emphasis on the rights of the Serbian community.
In this regard, and as a former member of the United Nations office of the Special Envoy for Kosovo, I reject absolutely any assertion that Mr. Ahtisaari was biased. This is simply not true.
After over a year of intensive negotiations, which failed to produce an agreement since the two sides remained diametrically opposed in their positions, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari submitted to the United Nations Secretary–General, on 26 March 2007, his report on Kosovo’s future status and a Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement (document S/2007/168/Add.1).
According to the report, uncertainty over the future status of Kosovo had become "a major obstacle to Kosovo’s democratic development, accountability, economic recovery and inter-ethnic reconciliation".
Such uncertainty was only leading to further stagnation, polarising its communities and resulting in social and political unrest. Pretending otherwise and denying or delaying resolution of Kosovo’s status risked challenging not only its own stability but the peace and stability of the region as a whole.
Under these circumstances Mr. Ahtisaari recommended independence supervised for an initial period by the international community as the only viable option for Kosovo.
The report explained Kosovo’s independence proposal as the "last episode in the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia" which will "allow the region to begin a new chapter in its history — one that is based upon peace, stability and prosperity for all".
Having taken into account the developments in the process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, the United Nations Secretary-General, in a letter to the United Nations Security Council, fully supported both the recommendation made by the Special Envoy in the report on Kosovo’s future status and the Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement (United Nations Security Council document S/2007/168).
However, during the ensuing months, the United Nations Security Council remained divided on the Ahtisaari plan despite the intensive consultations.
The countries of the Contact Group launched an initiative to establish a Troika comprising representatives of the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States, to engage in a period of further intensive negotiations on the future status of Kosovo.
On 1 August 2007, the Secretary-General welcomed this initiative, restating his belief that the status quo was unsustainable and requested a report from the Contact Group on these efforts by 10 December 2007.
The Troika facilitated high-level, intense and substantive discussions between Belgrade and Pristina. Nonetheless, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the final status of Kosovo. Neither party was willing to cede its position on the fundamental question of sovereignty over Kosovo.
Following the discussion of the Troika’s report at the closed formal session of the United Nations Security Council on 19 December 2007 the United States and European Union members of the Council read a joint statement which concluded that the potential for a negotiated solution had been exhausted.
Any attempts to encourage further negotiations on the final status were unrealistic and to recommend such negotiations would be destabilising for Kosovo and the region.
On 17 February 2008, elected representatives of the people of Kosovo adopted a Declaration of Independence, and on 18 February 2008, the Council of the European Union took note of that Declaration and concluded that the European Union Member States will decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations in Kosovo.
II. THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE KOSOVO CASE
Let me turn now to the special nature of the Kosovo case.
On 19 March 2008, Bulgaria, Hungary and Croatia released a joint statement with regard to their forthcoming national decisions on the recognition of Kosovo.
It was the firm conviction of the three States that Kosovo was a special case arising from the unique circumstances of the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia as well as the continued period of international administration.
The unusual combination of factors found in the Kosovo situation -the violent dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), the grave humanitarian crisis, and the gross violations of human rights which led to the NATO intervention in 1999, the continued administration of Kosovo under United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the efforts of the international community to facilitate a solution between Serbia and Kosovo on the basis of the Contact Group Guiding Principles -are not found elsewhere and therefore make Kosovo a special case.
III. SCOPE OF THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT
Mr. President, for the purpose of the present proceedings, it is necessary to address the issue of the scope of the question contained in the request by the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion.
The narrow wording of the question predetermines a limited number of issues the Court should pronounce itself on.
First, it is certainly beyond the scope of the question whether the so-called "Unilateral" Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo has led to the creation of a State or has produced any other legal effects in the field of international law.
The issue of the recognition of Kosovo as independent State by other States is also not covered by the question.
Second, the wording of the question indicates that the opinion of the Court is sought only with regard to the accordance of the Declaration of Independence as such with international law. It has been argued in some of the submissions to the Court that the question encompasses also the issue of the legal consequences arising from the Declaration and all of its legal aspects.
This could have been so in the case of a different wording of the question. Many possible formulations could have been chosen by the United Nations General Assembly, as had been the case with earlier requests for an advisory opinion, if the intention was indeed to request the Court’s opinion on broader matters.
In order for the Court to answer this question, it should examine whether there exists in international law a rule - a general rule or a treaty rule - prohibiting declarations of independence.
The main arguments submitted by some of the States advocating the position that the Declaration of Independence is in violation of international law are related to the principle of territorial integrity and to United Nations Security Council resolution 1244.
For that reason the Bulgarian Government would like to express its views on these particular arguments.
IV. UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is commonly accepted that declarations of independence are a matter of fact that are neither prohibited nor authorised by international law.
A declaration of independence is an expression of will by an entity aimed at the creation of a new State.
Whether this result will be achieved depends on a number of conditions and prerequisites, among which are population, territory, effective government over this territory and recognition by other States.
The issuance of the Declaration of Independence is governed only by domestic constitutional law.
In some of the written submissions, an argument was expressed that the unlawfulness of the Declaration within domestic law unconditionally excludes its intended effect - the creation of a new State. This argument is based on the position that consequences in international law stem directly from the Declaration of Independence, as recognitions have only a declaratory effect and cannot validate an unlawful act.
Bulgaria’s understanding is that a declaration of independence could be only one of a number of constituent elements of statehood.
Besides, it is not even a compulsory one, for it is well known that new States have emerged through secession without adopting declarations of independence.
It is up to the members of the international community to accept or reject the fact that a new subject of international law has appeared, based on their judgment of the specific situation and whether the necessary conditions are being met by the seceding entity in this particular case, by the former autonomous province of Kosovo.
Having said this, I would like to fully subscribe to the conclusion made yesterday by the delegation of Belarus, namely, that the autonomous province of Kosovo had equal rights with the six Republics under the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, Kosovo was a constituent element of the former Federation.
On the other hand, it is wrong to associate unlawfulness in domestic law with international unlawfulness.
It is also wrong to state that the agreement of the parent State is a condition sine qua non for the birth of a new sovereign State. Suffice is to mention the example of the States that emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslav Federation.
The international community has, indeed, treated some declarations of independence those of Southern Rhodesia and Katanga, for example - as unlawful, but this approach was motivated either by the intervention of a third State, or by a violation of international human rights rules such as prohibition of apartheid and racial discrimination.
Bulgaria wishes to reaffirm its commitment to respect for territorial integrity and sovereign equality of all States as fundamental principles of international law.
As to the argument that the Declaration of Independence is, in itself, a violation of these principles, it is widely accepted that territorial integrity applies only to inter-State relations and it is not related to events within States.
The principle enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter provides for an obligation imposed on Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State. On the other hand, this obligation does not apply to the actions of non-State actors. Furthermore, it does not restrict the political processes occurring within a State, even if they result in a territorial disintegration. This can be illustrated again by the events in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s of the twentieth century.
Mr. President, I now turn to the question of the accordance of Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence with United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).
Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence did not affect the applicability of Security Council resolution 1244. The authors of the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated that they: "shall act consistent with principles of international law and resolutions of the Security
Council . . ., including resolution 1244".
In the resolution, the Security Council established a particular order to deal with the unique circumstances of the Kosovo situation.
For a provisional period Kosovo would remain a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but Kosovo’s future status would remain open.
Resolution 1244 did not preclude any of the possible outcomes for the future status of Kosovo. In the resolution, the Security Council stressed the importance of the political process that sought to determine Kosovo’s future status, and tasked the international civil presence with responsibility for assisting that process.
From the legal point of view there was no requirement that the future status be "agreed". In other words, the resolution did not require specific agreement between Kosovo and Serbia, because the Security Council was aware of all the political obstacles to such an agreement.
The resolution did not require that Kosovo remain an autonomous province if no political agreement could be reached acceptable to both parties. According to paragraph 11 of the Security Council resolution, "the substantial autonomy" of Kosovo within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, pending the final settlement, was in the framework of an interim solution.
In resolution 1244 there is no answer to the question how the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity should be taken into account in the final status of Kosovo. Resolution 1244 did not preclude the possibility that independence might be most appropriate and/or the only viable option for Kosovo.
The territorial integrity of Yugoslavia is mentioned in resolution 1244 in connection with the interim period.
When the political process irretrievably failed it was clear that resolution 1244 had started to operate in a completely different situation. When it was obvious that the process of further negotiations was useless and further efforts were pointless, the Declaration of Independence became one of the possible outcomes of the situation.
Otherwise we have to assume that the parties had to live in conflict with unpredictable consequences which, indisputably, is not the case and the purpose of resolution 1244. This would be incompatible with the primary responsibility of the Security Council according to the United Nations Charter - the maintenance of international peace and security.
V. CONCLUSION
34. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in conclusion, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria submits that the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo of 17 February 2008 did not violate any public international legal rule, including Security Council resolution 1244 and, therefore, respectfully asks the Court to find in its opinion that the Declaration is to be considered in accordance with international law.
Bulgaria was represented by Dr. Zlatko Dimitrov, Director of the International Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Head of Delegation; Danail Chakarov, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Krassimir Boyanov, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Ivan Yordanov, Political Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The President of the Court: I now call upon Mr. Zlatko Dimitrov to take the floor.
Zlatko Dimitrov: Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour and privilege to take the floor on behalf of the Government of Bulgaria and present observations in connection with the request by the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo.
The 20 March 2008 decision of the Bulgarian Government to recognise the Republic of Kosovo was in conformity with the aspirations of the Republic of Bulgaria in favour of the maintenance of stability and the security environment in the Western Balkans, in order to prevent tensions from escalating in and around Kosovo.
Our understanding was and remains that, by the end of 2007, blocking the resolution of the status of Kosovo would have led to a stalemate with severe consequences, including for the countries like Bulgaria in close proximity to Kosovo. The status quo at that particular moment could not be kept any longer, for it was becoming a burden for the development of both Kosovo and Serbia, as well as for the progress of the region as a whole.
Today, if considered within a long-term perspective, there can be no doubt that the decision to recognise Kosovo, taken almost two years ago, was the right one.
It is quite wrong to argue that the great majority of States opposed the declaration of independence. The fact is, that one third of the United Nations Member States have already recognised Kosovo while many others have not yet taken a position.
Today, we in Bulgaria are more than ever convinced that the recognition of Kosovo corresponded to Bulgaria’s consistent policy to ensure not only maximum stability and security but also to deepen the integration process in the region.
It contributes to both the achievement of the purposes I have already mentioned and the promotion of a democratic political process in Kosovo itself.
Bulgaria’s choice was a choice for the sake of prosperity and a clear European perspective for all countries of the Western Balkans, particularly the Republic of Serbia. We expect also that our good neighbourly relations with Serbia and the Serbian people will be preserved and further developed as an inherent component of the European mainstream.
In this statement, I intend to address, first, the issue of the historical background of the Declaration of Independence, in particular the situation in 2005-2007, and then to present some observations on the special nature of the Kosovo case, followed by Bulgaria’s views on the scope of the question before the Court and the accordance of the Declaration with international law, including Security Council resolution 1244.
І. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THE SITUATION IN 2005-2007
Mr. President, Members of the Court, the international community’s concerns over Kosovo go back a long way.
Deeply concerned with the continuing violence in the former Yugoslavia, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) adopted, back in 1992, the Budapest Declaration on Yugoslavia, which condemned the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of the ethnic majority community in Kosovo.
On 12 June 1992 the Committee of Senior Officials of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe decided to send an exploratory mission to Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina.
A few months later, the CSCE decided to send, in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Chapter III of the Helsinki Decisions, a mission of long duration, thus establishing the continuous presence of the international community in Kosovo.
The Members of the United Nations expressed their concern about the deteriorating human rights situation in Kosovo by adopting General Assembly resolutions 47/147 of 18 December 1992 and 48/153 of 20 December 1993.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities were urged to "take all necessary measures to bring to an immediate end the human rights violations" inflicted upon the majority community in Kosovo and "in particular, discriminatory measures and practices, arbitrary detention and the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and the occurrence of summary executions", and to "re-establish the democratic institutions of Kosovo, including the Parliament and judiciary".
Furthermore, the human rights situation in Kosovo was the focus of several United Nations General Assembly resolutions in the period 1994 to 1999. In a Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kosovo of 27 September 1999, the United Nations High Commissioner referred to "the mass exodus" from Kosovo of more than one million Kosovo Albanians.
The United Nations Security Council endorsed the efforts of the Contact Group to achieve a peaceful solution to the crisis and reach agreement between the FRY and the majority community leadership of Kosovo. These efforts resulted in an international conference, held at Rambouillet and Paris in February and March 1999, but the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia failed to sign the agreements negotiated there.
In March 1999 all diplomatic efforts ended in a stalemate and the NATO Member States decided to use force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in order to stop the violence which threatened not only the security of the civilian population of Kosovo but also the security of the whole region.
With the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999, the overall sovereignty of the FRY over Kosovo — political, economic, military, etc. — was practically suspended by a United Nations Interim Administration (UNMIK) and a NATO-led
peacekeeping Kosovo Force (KFOR). Resolution 1244 authorised the United Nations to facilitate a political process that will determine Kosovo’s future status "taking full account . . . of the Rambouillet accords".
In 2005 Ambassador Kai Eide was appointed by the United Nations Secretary–General as Special Envoy for Kosovo "to undertake a comprehensive review of the situation in Kosovo" with a mandate "to assess whether the conditions are in place to enter into a political process designed to determine the future status of Kosovo".
In his report, S/2005/635, the Special Envoy concluded that the time had come to move to the next phase of the political process because Kosovo could not remain indefinitely under international administration.
In November 2005 the United Nations Secretary–General appointed former Finnish President Mr. Martti Ahtisaari as his Special Envoy for the Future Status for Kosovo. In February 2006 Mr. Ahtisaari initiated a direct dialogue between the parties and facilitated
negotiations on the issues of decentralisation of local government, property rights, protection of the Orthodox Church heritage, and the institutional guarantees for the rights of Kosovo’s minorities with special emphasis on the rights of the Serbian community.
In this regard, and as a former member of the United Nations office of the Special Envoy for Kosovo, I reject absolutely any assertion that Mr. Ahtisaari was biased. This is simply not true.
After over a year of intensive negotiations, which failed to produce an agreement since the two sides remained diametrically opposed in their positions, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari submitted to the United Nations Secretary–General, on 26 March 2007, his report on Kosovo’s future status and a Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement (document S/2007/168/Add.1).
According to the report, uncertainty over the future status of Kosovo had become "a major obstacle to Kosovo’s democratic development, accountability, economic recovery and inter-ethnic reconciliation".
Such uncertainty was only leading to further stagnation, polarising its communities and resulting in social and political unrest. Pretending otherwise and denying or delaying resolution of Kosovo’s status risked challenging not only its own stability but the peace and stability of the region as a whole.
Under these circumstances Mr. Ahtisaari recommended independence supervised for an initial period by the international community as the only viable option for Kosovo.
The report explained Kosovo’s independence proposal as the "last episode in the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia" which will "allow the region to begin a new chapter in its history — one that is based upon peace, stability and prosperity for all".
Having taken into account the developments in the process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, the United Nations Secretary-General, in a letter to the United Nations Security Council, fully supported both the recommendation made by the Special Envoy in the report on Kosovo’s future status and the Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement (United Nations Security Council document S/2007/168).
However, during the ensuing months, the United Nations Security Council remained divided on the Ahtisaari plan despite the intensive consultations.
The countries of the Contact Group launched an initiative to establish a Troika comprising representatives of the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States, to engage in a period of further intensive negotiations on the future status of Kosovo.
On 1 August 2007, the Secretary-General welcomed this initiative, restating his belief that the status quo was unsustainable and requested a report from the Contact Group on these efforts by 10 December 2007.
The Troika facilitated high-level, intense and substantive discussions between Belgrade and Pristina. Nonetheless, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the final status of Kosovo. Neither party was willing to cede its position on the fundamental question of sovereignty over Kosovo.
Following the discussion of the Troika’s report at the closed formal session of the United Nations Security Council on 19 December 2007 the United States and European Union members of the Council read a joint statement which concluded that the potential for a negotiated solution had been exhausted.
Any attempts to encourage further negotiations on the final status were unrealistic and to recommend such negotiations would be destabilising for Kosovo and the region.
On 17 February 2008, elected representatives of the people of Kosovo adopted a Declaration of Independence, and on 18 February 2008, the Council of the European Union took note of that Declaration and concluded that the European Union Member States will decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations in Kosovo.
II. THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE KOSOVO CASE
Let me turn now to the special nature of the Kosovo case.
On 19 March 2008, Bulgaria, Hungary and Croatia released a joint statement with regard to their forthcoming national decisions on the recognition of Kosovo.
It was the firm conviction of the three States that Kosovo was a special case arising from the unique circumstances of the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia as well as the continued period of international administration.
The unusual combination of factors found in the Kosovo situation -the violent dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), the grave humanitarian crisis, and the gross violations of human rights which led to the NATO intervention in 1999, the continued administration of Kosovo under United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the efforts of the international community to facilitate a solution between Serbia and Kosovo on the basis of the Contact Group Guiding Principles -are not found elsewhere and therefore make Kosovo a special case.
III. SCOPE OF THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT
Mr. President, for the purpose of the present proceedings, it is necessary to address the issue of the scope of the question contained in the request by the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion.
The narrow wording of the question predetermines a limited number of issues the Court should pronounce itself on.
First, it is certainly beyond the scope of the question whether the so-called "Unilateral" Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo has led to the creation of a State or has produced any other legal effects in the field of international law.
The issue of the recognition of Kosovo as independent State by other States is also not covered by the question.
Second, the wording of the question indicates that the opinion of the Court is sought only with regard to the accordance of the Declaration of Independence as such with international law. It has been argued in some of the submissions to the Court that the question encompasses also the issue of the legal consequences arising from the Declaration and all of its legal aspects.
This could have been so in the case of a different wording of the question. Many possible formulations could have been chosen by the United Nations General Assembly, as had been the case with earlier requests for an advisory opinion, if the intention was indeed to request the Court’s opinion on broader matters.
In order for the Court to answer this question, it should examine whether there exists in international law a rule - a general rule or a treaty rule - prohibiting declarations of independence.
The main arguments submitted by some of the States advocating the position that the Declaration of Independence is in violation of international law are related to the principle of territorial integrity and to United Nations Security Council resolution 1244.
For that reason the Bulgarian Government would like to express its views on these particular arguments.
IV. UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is commonly accepted that declarations of independence are a matter of fact that are neither prohibited nor authorised by international law.
A declaration of independence is an expression of will by an entity aimed at the creation of a new State.
Whether this result will be achieved depends on a number of conditions and prerequisites, among which are population, territory, effective government over this territory and recognition by other States.
The issuance of the Declaration of Independence is governed only by domestic constitutional law.
In some of the written submissions, an argument was expressed that the unlawfulness of the Declaration within domestic law unconditionally excludes its intended effect - the creation of a new State. This argument is based on the position that consequences in international law stem directly from the Declaration of Independence, as recognitions have only a declaratory effect and cannot validate an unlawful act.
Bulgaria’s understanding is that a declaration of independence could be only one of a number of constituent elements of statehood.
Besides, it is not even a compulsory one, for it is well known that new States have emerged through secession without adopting declarations of independence.
It is up to the members of the international community to accept or reject the fact that a new subject of international law has appeared, based on their judgment of the specific situation and whether the necessary conditions are being met by the seceding entity in this particular case, by the former autonomous province of Kosovo.
Having said this, I would like to fully subscribe to the conclusion made yesterday by the delegation of Belarus, namely, that the autonomous province of Kosovo had equal rights with the six Republics under the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, Kosovo was a constituent element of the former Federation.
On the other hand, it is wrong to associate unlawfulness in domestic law with international unlawfulness.
It is also wrong to state that the agreement of the parent State is a condition sine qua non for the birth of a new sovereign State. Suffice is to mention the example of the States that emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslav Federation.
The international community has, indeed, treated some declarations of independence those of Southern Rhodesia and Katanga, for example - as unlawful, but this approach was motivated either by the intervention of a third State, or by a violation of international human rights rules such as prohibition of apartheid and racial discrimination.
Bulgaria wishes to reaffirm its commitment to respect for territorial integrity and sovereign equality of all States as fundamental principles of international law.
As to the argument that the Declaration of Independence is, in itself, a violation of these principles, it is widely accepted that territorial integrity applies only to inter-State relations and it is not related to events within States.
The principle enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter provides for an obligation imposed on Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State. On the other hand, this obligation does not apply to the actions of non-State actors. Furthermore, it does not restrict the political processes occurring within a State, even if they result in a territorial disintegration. This can be illustrated again by the events in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s of the twentieth century.
Mr. President, I now turn to the question of the accordance of Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence with United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).
Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence did not affect the applicability of Security Council resolution 1244. The authors of the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated that they: "shall act consistent with principles of international law and resolutions of the Security
Council . . ., including resolution 1244".
In the resolution, the Security Council established a particular order to deal with the unique circumstances of the Kosovo situation.
For a provisional period Kosovo would remain a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but Kosovo’s future status would remain open.
Resolution 1244 did not preclude any of the possible outcomes for the future status of Kosovo. In the resolution, the Security Council stressed the importance of the political process that sought to determine Kosovo’s future status, and tasked the international civil presence with responsibility for assisting that process.
From the legal point of view there was no requirement that the future status be "agreed". In other words, the resolution did not require specific agreement between Kosovo and Serbia, because the Security Council was aware of all the political obstacles to such an agreement.
The resolution did not require that Kosovo remain an autonomous province if no political agreement could be reached acceptable to both parties. According to paragraph 11 of the Security Council resolution, "the substantial autonomy" of Kosovo within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, pending the final settlement, was in the framework of an interim solution.
In resolution 1244 there is no answer to the question how the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity should be taken into account in the final status of Kosovo. Resolution 1244 did not preclude the possibility that independence might be most appropriate and/or the only viable option for Kosovo.
The territorial integrity of Yugoslavia is mentioned in resolution 1244 in connection with the interim period.
When the political process irretrievably failed it was clear that resolution 1244 had started to operate in a completely different situation. When it was obvious that the process of further negotiations was useless and further efforts were pointless, the Declaration of Independence became one of the possible outcomes of the situation.
Otherwise we have to assume that the parties had to live in conflict with unpredictable consequences which, indisputably, is not the case and the purpose of resolution 1244. This would be incompatible with the primary responsibility of the Security Council according to the United Nations Charter - the maintenance of international peace and security.
V. CONCLUSION
34. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in conclusion, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria submits that the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo of 17 February 2008 did not violate any public international legal rule, including Security Council resolution 1244 and, therefore, respectfully asks the Court to find in its opinion that the Declaration is to be considered in accordance with international law.
-
Print
-
Send via email
- Translate to
-
Share:
Comments
To post comments, please, Login or Register.
Please read the The Sofia Echo forum comments policy.
Nato to cut KFOR to 5000 – Secretary-General Rasmussen
Nato says it will halve its force in Kosovo to 5000 military personnel over the next few months because of improving security
Police expel Serbian deputy minister from Kosovo
Belgrade says that Pristina is determined to escalate conflict.
Saudi Arabia to encourage other Muslim countries to recognise Kosovo – ambassador
Abdullah Abdulaziz Al-Abdulkarim, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Albania and to Macedonia, is now also ambassador in Pristina.
‘Malawi to recognise Kosovo’ – Pristina
The south-east African country of Malawi will become the 64th country to recognise Kosovo as independent, according to Skender Hyseni, the foreign minister in Pristina.
Bulgarian PM Borissov backs Serbia’s EU intentions
Serbia, which is to decide ‘soon’ when to apply for membership from the European Union, has been given an endorsement for the move by Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov.
Hearings on Kosovo at International Court of Justice nearing end
Nine days of oral argument end on December 11 2009 after advocates for and against Kosovo’s independence conclude their exchanges at the ICJ.
Bulgaria ‘again stabbed Serbia in the back’, Belgrade says
By defending Kosovo’s independence in the International Court of Justice, Bulgaria again had stabbed Serbia in the back, as it had done many times before in history, according to the Serbian delegation to the court case.
Bulgaria to give evidence in World Court case on Kosovo
Bulgaria, scheduled to appear on December 4 2009, is one of 15 countries presenting oral argument at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in support of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia.
International Court of Justice proceedings on Kosovo underway
Public hearings from December 1 to 11 2009 see presentation of rival arguments on the question of the independence of Kosovo.
More in this category
Czech Republic, Romania mull shale gas moratoriums
Governments in Prague and Bucharest could soon join Sofia in instituting temporary moratoriums on shale gas exploration.
Serbia: Tadić leads as presidential elections head for second round
Coalition around ruling Democratic Party has largest share of vote in Serbia's parliamentary election, according to exit polls.
Greek voters punish major centre-right, socialist parties at polls
Centre-right New Democracy is said by exit polls to have largest share of votes, but diminished even from its 2009 defeat, while socialists Pasok – the 2009 victors – gets somewhere around 14 to 17 per cent.
Deal on OSCE role in Serbian elections welcomed
An agreement reached with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will allow voters with dual citizenship in Kosovo to vote in the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Serbia.
Macedonia arrests 20 suspected terrorists
Twenty radical Muslims suspected of being members of a terrorist group that has been linked to the murder of five fishermen in early April.
© 2000-2012, Sofia Echo Media Ltd.
Web Design by RIZN
Sofia Echo Media is part of the Economedia Group.
The news and information content on this website is provided by our editorial team and is copyrighted.
Any unauthorised reproduction or use of it is strictly forbidden. Reproduction of this website's content is permitted only
with prior written permission from the Editor-in-Chief, should be propertly acredited and provide an active link back to our site.
Comments posted by the website's visitors are independent of the editorial materials and do not represent the views of sofiaecho.com.
Sofia Echo Media cannot be held responsible for the statements contained in visitor comments.
The percentаge change in the shares' prices are based on the price of the last transaction of the current session compared to the
price of the last transaction of the previous session. Bulgarian Stock Exchange data is not real-time, but updated every 15 minutes,
and should not be used as a basis for decisions about buying or selling stock options.
- Economedia Group portfolio:
- In Bulgarian:
-
Business:
Капитал,
Кариери,
Пазари,
Ho Re Mag,
Регал,
Градът.bg,
Одит,
Foton.bg,
Online shop
- News: Дневник, Европа, Foreign Policy - България
- IT: IDG.BG, Computerworld, PC World, CIO, Networkworld
- Entertainment: Бакхус
-
In English:
The Sofia Echo
@Ludvig Boltzmann
I don't know what to call you , perhaps the name forum-troll fits the best. You just don't know to stfu ,and talk always in the favor of those you claimed "victims" Serbs from the NATO or USA! Have you ever thought about to write as a neutral writer , it just get's more and more annoying reading your hyper-phisological (smartass) thinking...
I'm sure you just need a big wake up like the others that live in north of the Republic of KOSOVA. We have now modern times , but that nacionalist thinking (simple-minded) [...]
Read the full comment as an occupier is still buried into your genes ,i just don't get it , how are you still thinking that we have just 1% with you income??? And then to call our ethnic old historical land yours , just go ahead and read for once sake the real history , and not that that is manipulated by your educational intepreteers ,and you will think twice before writing such a large crap of yours"Im very intellegent and i know everything" method ,*cough* google's copy/paste rules!
So on Kosova is Albania.
the moral - and the message of "Send In The Clowns" is that we are all taking ourselves too seriously.
We should take a step back ane look at what we are REALLY saying.
As President Bill Clinton did in former Jugoslavija, to good effect.
I got one more unprecedented fact related to this NATO (Monica Lewinsky-Ahtisaari)manipulation on a grand scale/ shame case:
Israel was formed, as far as I know, in 1948. They asked Albert Einstein to be their first president, but he declined. Ever since they have been fighting and dying in never ending war with the Palestinians and other Arab States. There was a war in 1957, then in 1967, then 1973 ... on and on. Both sides have a case, and sometimes I think, if the US and other NATO countries really wanted to solve the problem [...]
Read the full comment once for all, they could do it.. They would have to become a IMPARTIAL PARTY to the conflict. The Muslims would have to be able to trust them.
.
.
.
Anyhow, talking about Kosovo, you have these two bloody enemies (Israelis and Palestinians), they hate each others guts, but they have one thing they agree on. What do you thing that thing is?
.
.
Yes, by now you guessed it - Both the Israelis and the Palestinians (both the Mahmut Abas' Palestinian Authority, as well as the Hamas) REFUSE TO BOW TO (US/EU) PRESSURE - DO NOT RECOGNIZE SO CALLED "KOSOVA"!!!
.
.
.
You do not know which one of the two sides is to be more admired: Is it Israel, the best US friend in the World, or her worst enemy the Palestinians, who share the same Muslim religion with the Albanians, but do not buy that S. Arabia's crap that in Kosovo brothers Muslims are fighting for occupation, pardon me - I meant to say - independence.
Or maybe you are going to like this FACT:
You cannot name a single significant-independent thinking country in the world that is supporting "Kosovu". (Note: The main NATO countries were pulled-dragged in by the Clinton Administration at the heals of Monica Lewinsky's sex scandal; now they have no choice, what do you want them to say? That they were wrong in the first place? Spain is a self made miracle in that regard). In other words, that would be significant countries that DO NOT TAKE ORDERS ON A REGULAR BASES. Those would be for example..... Israel, [...]
Read the full comment Basil, S.Africa, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, India, China, Russia, Ukraine, Argentina, Cuba, Nicaragua, Libya, Algeria, Maroko,
Or how about this one:
You have ISRAEL, one of the best US friends in the entire World. Many people argue, that Jewish media and financial might runs the US. Every year Israel gets a present from the US of about three billion dollars - just like that.
.
.
.
That same Israel REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE SO CALLED "KOSOVU"!!!! That is a mind boggling fact. But also goes as a credit to this Jewish State, that says - they are not Albania, Jordan, S. Arabia and Croatia [...]
Read the full comment - nobody ORDERS THEM AROOUND.
Please look at this detail:
Spain, the country that BOMBED Serbia (they had as I remember one or two planes) has submitted arguments at ICJ hearing, that taking away 15% of the Serbian territory RUNS CONTRARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW by which civilized people live! Imagine!!!
Alex:
>>Serbia’s delegation, on the other hand, was supported by the Chinese, Russian, Spanish, Romanian, Cypriot, Argentine, Brazilian, Vietnamese, Bolivian, Venezuelan, Azeri, and Belarusian delegations, stating that the declaration of independence of Kosovo was breaking the international laws. Not the best company to be in. I'd rather prefer:
the legitimacy of the declaration of independence of Kosovo was also supported by the US, UK, French, German, Dutch, Austrian, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, Bulgarian, Croatian, Albanian, Jordanian, and Saudi even with the last three tagging at the end<<
- - - - - - - [...]
Read the full comment -- - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- -
You are absolutely wrong here. In Anglo Saxon law at least, there is a so called "disinterested party" test in testifying. Anybody could be a material/factual witness, but when it comes to assigning weight, some witnesses stand to receive more respect-weight than others.
.
.
For example, if a wife is testifying for her husband, then, as you may expect, the weight of such a testimony is close to - zero. You kind of know in advance what she is going to say.
.
.
.
In many ways "Kosova" is that "wife" and main NATO countries are her "husband". They bombed Serbia for two months, they set the Rambouillet Ultimatum - either give us Kosovo (to build the largest military base in Europe) or - else, then they moved in under false pretenses (signing the Kumanovo Peace Aggreemant and voting for UNR 1244, which guaranted Serbia's sovereignty), then they dispatched the Albanians to "nagotiate" in Viena and NYC, while saying - nothing but "independance" around the NATO base would work...). Could the (AGGRESSOR) countries like that be considered disinterested party in any court? Could a husband give an impartial opinion about his wife? He could say whatever he wants, but the public/courts look at him as unimportant witness to the given events.
.
.
.
When you take in account the above SUPPORTED FACTS, that leaves you with Albania, Jordan, S. Arabia, Bulgaria and Croatia. OOOO.K., you are an "independant country" of Metropolitan Bondsteel.
PS for our Greek Albanian: Bondsteel has nothing to do with bond or steel. It was named by a famous WWII Sargent. Go back, we need you to spell check all those posts, that are piling up.
Serbia’s delegation, on the other hand, was supported by the Chinese, Russian, Spanish, Romanian, Cypriot, Argentine, Brazilian, Vietnamese, Bolivian, Venezuelan, Azeri, and Belarusian delegations, stating that the declaration of independence of Kosovo was breaking the international laws. Not the best company to be in. I'd rather prefer:
the legitimacy of the declaration of independence of Kosovo was also supported by the US, UK, French, German, Dutch, Austrian, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, Bulgarian, Croatian, Albanian, Jordanian, and Saudi even with the last three tagging at the end
Epaminondas, I know what Send in the Clowns is.
What I want to know what has the song got to do with the topic?
Peggy -
"Send in the Clowns" was an award-winning popular song for some years in Europe.
Geddit ?
Or do you just stick to Abo's with their didgeridoos ?
Great Bustard
Sun, Dec 20 2009 14:28 CET
"I must admit that, as these postings accumulate, I have less and less of an idea about what Ludvig is actually talking about.
And Peggy isn't much better, apart from her total lack of a sense of humour.
<< Send in the Clowns, send in the Clowns -
They ought to be here >>
...as the song puts it."
========================
You really [...]
Read the full comment think you're funny don't you?
You are arrogant and rude that's all.
BTW, why ask for more clowns. Aren't you enough Epaminiondas, George II and the rest of you?
Thank you Bulgaria, NEVER forget what Serbia did to Bulgarian people, they allied with the Turks to fight you! They stole FYROM from Bulgaria
This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained off-topic content
This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained off-topic content
I must admit that, as these postings accumulate, I have less and less of an idea about what Ludvig is actually talking about.
And Peggy isn't much better, apart from her total lack of a sense of humour.
<< Send in the Clowns, send in the Clowns -
They ought to be here >>
...as the song puts it.
This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained foul, abusive or discriminating language
GFK, everyone knows that these weak pissy little countries are ready to bend to the will of anyone stronger.
Funny thing is that countries like Bulgaria, Albania and Croatia have a habit of picking the wrong side.
Bulgaria has always been a "back-stubber" without any will, who does whatever it is told by the "big brothers" (Soviet Union before, USA/England etc now). Abhkazia and N Ossetia are no different then Kosovo. There was violent conflict and the inhabitants want independence from Georgia. They do not want to be part of Georgia. Why isn't Bulgaria recognizing them? Is it because "big brothers" don't want it to?
To Ludvig,
I don't actually know where to start. Firstly, there is no difference between the Albanians living in weather Kosovo or Albania. One and the same people. With the same language and the same traditions, from one mother and one father. Some of the Kosovo heroes are Hasan Prishtina, Isa Buletini, Ibrahim Rugova, Anton Ceta and so on. The Albanian population was divided after the WWI and confirmed after WWII. The topic is about the Bulgarian support on the unilateral call of independence. The Kosovars have every equal right to self-determination as any other group living in [...]
Read the full comment a particular territory where genocide and deportation has occurred. The Bulgarians are in every way showing that the call was in accordance to any international law practice.
Anonymous New Alliances Mon, Dec 14 2009 01:21 CET
Inappropriate comment?
>>Alliances are made and lost today we have the situation where Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria , Albania Kosova Macedonia and Montenegro are in a political alliance in support of the west and its policies and we have the old alliance of Serbia, Greece and Romania who still remain faithful to Russia and its polices and then we have Bosnia stuck in the middle which could be the next serious spark in the Balkans<<
=============================
This is what [...]
Read the full comment I am talking about. You could see this is no Albanian.
.
.
Albanian would never talk about alliances between "Kosova"-Albania and Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria. Macedonia is a pathetic creature. Albanians were killing Macedonians yesterday, they "liberated" the entire Tetovo region and when they were about to "liberate" Skopje, then and only then the "International Community" ordered them to stop. What kind of alliance could be between Albania (who supported the "liberation" war in Tetovo region) and Macedonia. And what about Bulgaria and Albania alliance? That's a good joke.
.
.
.
This funny guy mixes the order/pressure that came down from the key NATO countries to all these banana republics (formed after YU disintegration ...Croatia, Slovenia, BH, Montenegro as well Bulgaria, the neighboring banana republic) and freely formed alliances.
.
.
Could someone explain to me - who needs alliance with Albania? What could you get out of that alliance?
You could get only a headache. They going to flood your country, multiply, they will not assimilate, and in no time - they will ask for their new land, new country, to be newly "liberated", on the bases that they are Illyrian descendants. And if they could get a military force sponsor, you are in trouble... Alliance with Kosova and Albania...that is a good one
Alliances are made and lost today we have the situation where Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria , Albania Kosova Macedonia and Montenegro are in a political alliance in support of the west and its policies and we have the old alliance of Serbia, Greece and Romania who still remain faithful to Russia and its polices and then we have Bosnia stuck in the middle which could be the next serious spark in the Balkans.
Peggy:
>>Typical Albanian. When you can't win you start whinging to the big guy that you are being persecuted.<<
=========================
This one is funny.
PS:
For a joke to work,it has to have a semblance of truth in it
Koinos Nous
Sun, Dec 13 2009 14:01 CET
"
Moderators - Ludvig B is rather monopolising this set of postings, and is indulging in repetitive and tedious comment. You have been very keen to take action elsewhere - are you going to take action here ?
=========================
What's the matter? Ludvig kicking your behind and you can't take it any longer.
The moderators are not here to remove your opposition because you can't match them in intelligent argument but here to ensure [...]
Read the full comment no abusive and bad language is used.
Typical Albanian. When you can't win you start whinging to the big guy that you are being persecuted.
"
LUDVIG.
<< After the WW II again YU was liberated and recognized by THE ENTIRE WORLD IN ITS BORDERS. KOSOVO WAS AN AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE, and NOBODY IN THE WORLD MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SO CALLED "KOSOVA" PEOPLE, that were rightful successors of some Illyrian land, that Serbs occupied/stole - none of that ridiculous crap was ever mentioned anywhere in the World. Even nowadays in the Hague, no serious person mentioned anything about Serbians occupying the Illyrian land (which would apply not only on Serbia but on the entire Balkans). So, it is not a question that this cursing [...]
Read the full comment Albanians are asking us to go 700 years back in history, in that case US could not legally exist, because of colonization of the native Indian land. No sane person could speak about revising the borders established after WW I and confirmed after WW II.
=============================
correct all the way
After the dismantling of Yugoslavia into "avortements d'etats" the Croatian-Bosnian hatred took advantage of the separist tendencies and the winds of war started blowing.
+=====
Koinos Nous:
>>Moderators - Ludvig B is rather monopolising this set of postings, and is indulging in repetitive and tedious comment. You have been very keen to take action elsewhere - are you going to take action here ?<<
================
My guy, I'll be here stopping by only two more days (That is how much more time I could afford to waist). Now you atre squeezed in, not much space 'allocated' to you, but in no time you will get much more space available for you.
Moderators - Ludvig B is rather monopolising this set of postings, and is indulging in repetitive and tedious comment. You have been very keen to take action elsewhere - are you going to take action here ?
The title of the topic says - Bulgaria supported Kosovo independence. We are talking IL (International Law) here. Did Bulgarian people support Albanians on some "emotional bases" because both Albania and Bulgaria were with Germany and or Ottoman Empire on the loosing end of history? Or they too think that there is so called "Kosova People" who were occupied by Serbia in 1912 and according to I.L. NATO had a right to bomb Serbia w/o UN approvay, take 15% of its territory and hand it to "Kosova People"? If this later is the case, then they need to be reminded [...]
Read the full comment that I.L. through Helsinki Accords does stipulate who could secede. Namely, only colonized PEOPLES could gain independence and be recognized by the entire World. Then they go on and define what makes up the separate People entity. They have to have distinct own culture, tradition and history (their own kings and queens, heroes, poets, novelists, music, food, own pride... In other words they cannot be ethnic minority spilling over every country borders, spreading around, multiplying with an accelerated birth rate and then claiming they the land only for themselves! THAT IS WHY QUEBEC AND N. CYPRESS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SECEDE! That is why NATO never mentioned that "Kosova People" were colonized. They said "opressed", but not "colonized". Why? Because, they would not be able to explain (answer those questions of mine). How could they come with "Kosova People" kings, queens, poets, writers, musitians, painters, scientists, heroes that streatch back say for the last 700 years. Albania has Skender Beg. Fine. What about "Kosova People"? Do they claim he was their guy too? In that case that means there are no two separate Albanian peoples. If not Skender beg, what other hero "Kosovas People" has had throughout the entire history? What do the kids of "Kosova People" study about "Kosova People" history SEPARATELY FROM ALBANIAN PEOPLE HISTORY? Is there such a thing "history of Kosova People", separate from "history of Albanian People"?
Let us assume that the Albanians are right. Let us repeat what they say:
- There are two Albanian Peoples. There is Albanian People in Albania and "Kosova Albanian People".
- In 1913 Serbia colonized "Kosova People" and held them like that until NATO liberated them in 1999.
.
.
.
O.K. Fine. Now, could someone tell me the following:
1) What is the difference between those two peoples?
2)Do they speak different languages?
3) Do [...]
Read the full comment they have own history, writers, poets, separate traditions? If they do, what are they?
4) Do they have own heroes?
5) Concentrate on the "Kosova People", what battles were they fighting in "Kosova" and when? Name the dates and what happened in those battles?
6) Did "Kosova People" ever throughout their history have had a king, or emperor, and what was his name?
7) How did "Kosova People" called their cities, rivers, mountains..., before they got occupied by the Serbs (For the last 700 years all these names have been Serbian names. If Serbs occupied "Kosova People" in 1912, why all the names in Kosovo were Serbian for 600 years prior to that "occupation"? O.K. they were oppressed for 2,000 years, but how come that for the last 700 years they could not have come with their own names for their alleged land and the cities, villages they lived in? Does that make any sense?
.
.
.
Hey Albanians, any person with I.Q. of 50 could utter filthy language. But could you answer without filth these questions?
Peggy:
>>I wonder how far back in history do we need to go in order to satisfy everyone.
Seeing how Serbian presence in Kosovo goes back way before white man discovered America and Australia we can safely conclude that American Indians and Australian Aborigines have a solid argument for kicking us out and taking their country back.
Indians and Aborigines we can prove but Illyrian myth is just that. Present day Albanian is no more descendent of this extinct Illyrian than I am.
[...]
Read the full comment So let's redraw borders all over the world to resemble maps that Albanians have in order to legitimize their claim. I'm sure Obama will agree if he agrees with Albanian histoty lessons justifying their land grab. <<
=======================
Exactly. They have to go 1,000 years back to stake Illyrian claim on the entire Balkan. According to that stupidity, Albanians should now "liberate" FYROM, Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania, CG, B.H. and Croatia. Why only Serbia? In the World Wars I and II pretty much the same alliances were formed. On our side were U.S., G.B., France, YU and Russia, Greece. On the other side were Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and Albania. The only difference was w/ Japan, who was in the WW I on our side and in the WW II with Nazi Germany, and also Ottoman Empire, that in the WW I was on the sides of the loosers and in the WW II stood by idle. After WW I and the Versailles Treaty the kingdom of YU (Serbs/Montenegrins, Croats and Slovens) was internationally recognized in its borders. We are talking 1918. NO ONE IN THE WORLD MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT "KOSOVA" AND SOME "KOSOVAR ILLYRIAN NATION"-COUNTRY-PEOPLE. Hey Albanians, could you explain - why was that? Didn't anybody see you? Then came WW II, people of YU with other allies fought against the fascist, and Albanians and Bulgarians fought again with the fascists. After the WW II again YU was liberated and recognized by THE ENTIRE WORLD IN ITS BORDERS. KOSOVO WAS AN AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE, and NOBODY IN THE WORLD MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SO CALLED "KOSOVA" PEOPLE, that were rightful successors of some Illyrian land, that Serbs occupied/stole - none of that ridiculous crap was ever mentioned anywhere in the World. Even nowadays in the Hague, no serious person mentioned anything about Serbians occupying the Illyrian land (which would apply not only on Serbia but on the entire Balkans). So, it is not a question that this cursing Albanians are asking us to go 700 years back in history, in that case US could not legally exist, because of colonization of the native Indian land. No sane person could speak about revising the borders established after WW I and confirmed after WW II. Whether Albanians are exclusive successors of Illyrian caves, who needs that?
I wonder how far back in history do we need to go in order to satisfy everyone.
Seeing how Serbian presence in Kosovo goes back way before white man discovered America and Australia we can safely conclude that American Indians and Australian Aborigines have a solid argument for kicking us out and taking their country back.
Indians and Aborigines we can prove but Illyrian myth is just that. Present day Albanian is no more descendent of this extinct Illyrian than I am.
So let's redraw borders all over the world [...]
Read the full comment to resemble maps that Albanians have in order to legitimize their claim. I'm sure Obama will agree if he agrees with Albanian histoty lessons justifying their land grab.
If you do not agree that Albania is/ and was the most backward - impoverished country in Europe, then I have to tell you the following joke, that we youngsters used to exchange in Belgrade: One chicken crossed the Montenegro border into Albania. Shortly after that, Tirana TV announced that the Albanian Gross National Product had moved up for 2%.
@Colonel paco:
>>Your other explanation of the Albanian population growth, namely immigration from Albania is a pure fantasy, as the border between the 2 countries was definitely closed for good in 1948.<<
======================
The best way for you to understand it, it is if you look what is happening at the US-Mexican border. "Definitely closed" borders do not help you. We have 15' high sheet metal fence. They keep cutting through. We have helicopters patrolling the border constantly, policemen in the trucks patrolling on the ground, dogs, surveillance camera. Nothing helps. [...]
Read the full comment Albania was and still is today the most backward, impoverish country in Europe. You know what you should do? Forget Serbs, talk to Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians, Montenegrin, ask them if they were able to seal the border against Albanian invasion. Just last month illegal Albanian bunch drowned in Tisa (little river in Vojvodina, while trying to make it through to Hungary. All the countries around Albania are AFRAID OF YOUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. You remember Germany case. They were so gallant in supporting you to steel Serbian land, but when it came to keep your refugees, they asked Serbia to take them back (they said - apparently "Kosovo is Serbia so there!" ... Here are your Albanians back!
>>Rediculous serviles, you have no idea were "home" is, yor brethren the sorboi know, ask them you retards.<<
========================
Did they let you out, or you escaped on your own?
Colonel Paco:
>>The fact that nobody at the ICJ presented that argument doesn't disqualify it.<<
====================
O.K. Doesn't that tell you that you cannot be the only one in the World (not counting these cursing half educated Albanians here), who is calling Serbia a colonizing power? Nobody ever came up with that one. Crackdown on her own people... thinks like that... But colonizing power? No. This is just for a starter.
>> http://kcomment.blogspot.com/
To Ludvig Boltzmann.
Firstly, your name is written LudWig and not Ludvig.
Second, keep reading again the Bulgarian statement to bright up your selves.<<
==========================
Señor, you are violating the rules of the language that you are using. Your name is not ... blogspot.. You should call yourself blog spot. You got the point, or no?
@Ludvig Boltzmann
For East-Timor, you are mixing Portuguese and Indonesian colonization, though the parallel with Kosovo is quite obvious. In both case a multinational colonial Empire (Portuguese/Ottoman) conquers and rules a country for centuries. When these Empires collapse (1975 or 1912), the neighboring country (Indonesia/Serbia), taking advantage on pseudo-historical claims, invades that country and imposes terror on the population. This occupation lasts respectively 24 or 87 years, and ends up with an international intervention, giving back the sovereignty to its inhabitants who unanimously choose independence. That's it!
The fact that nobody at [...]
Read the full comment the ICJ presented that argument doesn't disqualify it. The colonial fact was recognized by the Serbs themselves, like former politician, statesman and historian Dimitrije Tucovic, who considered it as a "foreign country", where ¾ of the population was Albanian, contrarily to what you say.
Kosovo couldn't have been "Serbian all throughout history", as you put it, since Serbs conquered it only during the XIIth century. Before that it was an Illyrian (ancestors of the Albanians), Roman, Byzantine, Bulgarian (!) province, before belonging to the Ottoman Empire. Hence, the Serbian episod was one among others, not less, not more. It is arbitrary to attribute Kosovo to Serbia, only because it ruled it during less some 800 years ago. Lithuania should then expand until the Black Sea, because all Eastern europe belonged then to the Duchy of Lithuania. And what about Western France, that was all English… Ridiculous, indeed!
You state that "Kosovo did not exist as a separate entity until Tito formed Yugoslavia 1945". That's true, but also for Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Croatia! So what?
And you add "Even Albania did not exist before 1912" Exactly like most of the countries in the world, otherwise we would still live under the Roman Empire, ...
I also disagree with your interpretation of the Albanian demography. It is a common believe that rural populations have a higher demographic growth than in cities, and this is also the case in former Yugoslavia, where also Serbians living in Kosovo had more children than those living in Belgrade. And in the truth the highest growth rate was not in Kosovo, but in Sumadja, in Serbia proper thus!
Your other explanation of the Albanian population growth, namely immigration from Albania is a pure fantasy, as the border between the 2 countries was definitely closed for good in 1948. To the contrary, the Serbian policy of terror against Albanians, be it before or after WW2, forced hundreds of thousands of Albanians to leave the country, while Serbian and Montenegrin colonists were settled in Kosovo in the 20's and 30's, in order to change the ethnic makeup in favour of Serbs, without success though. So despite the colonisation and the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Serbian authorities, Kosovo had always had an overwhelming Albanian majority.
As to the toponymy (names of the geographic places), it's true that it's Slavic since they invaded Balkans, but not only there, also in Greece and Albania (should those two countries also belong to Serbia, if we follow your reasoning?). Also keep in mind that "Slavian" doesn't mean exclusively Serbian, as Bulgarians (!) have also rules these countries during centuries, and all those names could perfectly be of Bulgarian origin.
That doesn't mean that people living there were all Slavs, those places had surely names before Slavs came in there, and in Greece for instance, they have renamed most of these "cities, towns, villages, mountains, Rivers and plains". Albania is going to do the same, retrieving the old Byzantine or Illyrian toponymy. And if they want to give Kosovo its antique name of Dardania, I don't have a problem with that!
Ludvig Boltzmann
Wed, Dec 09 2009 15:06 CET
>> Peggy I am a dirty plate cleaner at royal casino melbourne. my father likes me much for 2 dollars.<<
===============================
Your childish thinking process and Albenglish give you away.
________________
Ludvig, you're right. This should be condemned by all decent Albanians because it shames the whole lot of them.
Whoever you are, you are not doing anything positive for your people.
@Colonel Paco:
>>Since 1945, dozens of colonies have gained independence from their ruling power, the last being East-Timor in 1999.
Why should Kosovo be considered as a different case? When Serbia conquered it in 1912 against the will of the majority of its inhabitants, it could also have been considered as an illegal act.
Double standards?<<<
============================
Your question is very easy to answer.
You are right East Timor gain its independence in 1999 after their war against Indonesia colonization. In [...]
Read the full comment 2002 the entire World recognized them. The same was the case with Macao. They gained their independence in 1999. colonial rule. Macao was given back to China after 442 colonial Portugal rule.
And it is not just E. Timor and Macao, that the UN recognized after they fought anti colonial wars. Any country in the world that manage itself from a colonial rule was quickly recognized by all UN members. Even the colonizers had no stomach to fight the wars of liberation, notably G.B., Portugal, Holand, Danmark....
.
.
None of this has anything to do with Kosovo. You saw all those argument that ALBANIA, US, GB, Germany, Bulgaria (!), Croatia, Burundi, Jordan, S. Arabia, Sweden etc... presented to ICJ court. NOBODY, not even one sole presented your "argument" that Serbia colonized Albanians anywhere. Their argument was that Kosovo was Serbian all throughout history, except for 500 of Turkish occupation of the ENTIRE BALKAN. They fault Serbia for MISTREATMENT OF ITS ALBANIAN MINORITY. Kosovo did not exist as a separate entity until Tito formed Yugoslavia 1945. Even Albania did not exist before 1912. In 1912 Albanians were only 25% of Kosovo population. As you know Albanians are multiplying like no other ethnic group in Europe. I do not know how is it today, but 10, 20 years ago, each Albanian family in Serbia had 5 to 10 kids. The Serbs, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Montenegrins and Croats have normal 1, 2 or 3 kids. With that trend in Kosovo and Presevo Valley the ethnic makeup was changing very rapidly in favor of ythe Albanian ethnic group in all area in the Balkans, where they live. Besides this procreation phenomenon, another factor was impoverished Albania. Albania to this date is far the poorest/backward country in Europe. It is reasonable to assume that the Albanians were constantly escaping the poverty of Albania and settling in adjacent area first illegally, then through marriage and lack of immigration control they would stay and become "Kosovars", "Macedonians", "Montenegrins". Hence, now they make up 90% of Kosovo population. Before the bombing that % was around 80% (They cleansed 2/3 rds of Kosovo Serbs, who now live scattered throughout Serbia, unable to return homes). When you go further back, up to WWII (1940) the Serbs/Montenegrins were the MAJORITY in Kosovo. According to the Albanians, they now are 95% of Kosovo and Serb, Croats, Montenegrins, Gypses, Bosnians - they all represent 5% in their "multiethnic" state! Furthermore they say it was all the time like that since Adam and Eve. That means the Albanian families for the last 100 years had the same birth rate (1,3 or 3 kids per family) and Albanians did not flee Albania, spilling over in droves into the surrounding area. Obviously that does not make any sence. Those are lies, fabrication, what ever you want to call it. Plus remember what I said at the beginning that no country (included Albania) did not make that silly argument that Serbs colonized Albanians. The G.B. representative said in Hague tha the Serbs TOOK KOSOVO AWAY FROM OTOMAN EMPIRE (Notice, even he never mentioned Albanians)!! Imagine stealing Kosovo from Otoman Empire!
.
.
.
If all the above is not convince you, just think what are the names of all cities, towns, villages, mountains, Rivers and plains? All of those names are Serbian since they were formed (Kosovo, Pristina, Pec, Djakovica, Djokovici, Gracanica, Mitrovica, Ibar etc etc... There no significant town, mountain, river, village in Kosovo that has today or ever had anything but SERBIAN NAME. Even the name Kosovo (land of black birds), Albanians BASTARDIZED (spell check utilized here) our sacred name into "KOSOVA". Now ask yourself, is there a chance in the world that Albanians owned Kosovo, gave it name "KOSOVA" (which means NOTHING IN ALBANIAN, then Serbs came in 1912, colonized them and changed the name of this Albanian second country into KOSOVO? Is it any clearer now?
Colonel paco.
Because East Timor is certainly
not geopolitically Equivalent to Kossovo simple as that
Hope that is helpfull
merci
Since 1945, dozens of colonies have gained independence from their ruling power, the last being East-Timor in 1999.
Why should Kosovo be considered as a different case? When Serbia conquered it in 1912 against the will of the majority of its inhabitants, it could also have been considered as an illegal act.
Double standards?
This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained off-topic content
This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained off-topic content
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
(ARTICLE IN FRENCH)
(MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE)
Effet domino de l’éventuelle indépendance du Kosovo
La boîte de Pandore des frontières balkaniques
Statut du Kosovo, impasse politique en Bosnie-Herzégovine… Tous les éléments d’une nouvelle crise régionale semblent réunis, sanctionnant l’échec des politiques menées depuis quinze ans par la « communauté internationale ». Dans ce contexte délétère, la vieille idée de redéfinir les frontières des Balkans refait surface. Alors que peuples, minorités et revendications s’entremêlent, cette approche pourrait plonger la région dans le chaos.
PAR JEAN-ARNAULT DERENS [...]
Read the full comment
Probable, l’indépendance du Kosovo risque d’avoir de lourdes conséquences régionales. Elle sera considérée comme un précédent par les Serbes de Bosnie-Herzégovine, qui revendiquent aussi leur droit à la sécession d’un Etat qui n’a jamais véritablement fonctionné. Elle pourrait aussi entraîner une vague de déstabilisations en chaîne, notamment en Macédoine et au Monténégro, risquant de remettre en cause toutes les frontières des Balkans.
Mais ces frontières seraient-elle un tabou que l’on pourrait dépasser, ainsi que le suggèrent à voix haute de plus en plus d’« experts » et de diplomates ? Les guerres des années 1990 ont été menées au nom des « grands » Etats, de la « Grande Serbie » ou de la « Grande Croatie ». Derrière la revendication d’indépendance du Kosovo se profilerait le spectre de la « Grande Albanie »... Serait-il temps de remettre à plat toutes les revendications territoriales et de définir de nouvelles frontières qui seraient enfin « justes » puisqu’elles coïncideraient avec la répartition ethnique des populations ? Faut-il redessiner la carte des Balkans pour garantir enfin une paix durable à cette région et, partant, à toute l’Europe ? L’idée, ancienne, resurgit régulièrement.
En 2001, lors du conflit de Macédoine, l’éditorialiste Alexandre Adler proposait d’utiliser « la chirurgie plutôt que l’homéopathie (1) » et d’envisager le partage de cette république post-yougoslave entre régions albanaises et macédoniennes. Cette même année 2001, lord David Owen, ancien coprésident de la Conférence internationale sur l’ex-Yougoslavie, avait avancé son plan de redéfinition des frontières balkaniques (2). Leur faisant écho, M. Arben Xhaferi, figure historique du nationalisme albanais en Macédoine, réclamait la création d’Etats « ethniques » (3).
Face au constat d’échec des négociations sur l’avenir du Kosovo et à l’impossibilité de trouver un compromis serbo-albanais, l’idée d’une partition de la province, longtemps considérée comme impensable par la « communauté internationale », a refait surface. M. Wolfgang Ischinger, diplomate allemand représentant l’Union européenne au sein de la troïka diplomatique (un Américain, un Européen, un Russe) chargée de mener les négociations sur le Kosovo, estimait en août dernier qu’aucune option ne devait être écartée si elle résultait d’un accord entre les parties impliquées : si Belgrade et Pristina parvenaient à s’entendre sur un partage du Kosovo, l’Union européenne n’aurait qu’à approuver cette scission !
L’idée a pour elle toutes les apparences du bon sens : si des populations ne veulent pas vivre ensemble, autant les séparer, quitte à devoir envisager des déplacements « limités » de populations pour faire coïncider les nouvelles frontières avec la répartition ethnique des communautés.... Imaginons un instant que les plans des apprentis sorciers se réalisent, qu’une conférence internationale permette un nouveau tracé, pacifiquement négocié, des frontières des Balkans occidentaux sur des bases ethniques. Il faudrait alors envisager une unification de toutes les régions où les Albanais sont majoritaires, soit l’Albanie, le Kosovo, le quart nord-ouest de la Macédoine, mais aussi la vallée de Presevo dans le sud de la Serbie, et les franges orientales du Monténégro.
Terriblement amputée, la Macédoine ne serait plus qu’un Etat croupion, à moins que ne l’emportent les courants probulgares et que le pays ne se rattache à son voisin oriental. La question des minorités en Albanie ne manquerait pas d’être soulevée : les Grecs du sud du pays pourraient réclamer leur rattachement à la Grèce, tandis que les Albanais expulsés après 1945 d’Epire du Nord, grecque – une région que les Albanais appellent Çamëria –, n’oublieraient pas de rappeler leurs droits bafoués. Le Monténégro pourrait demander des compensations dans la région de Shkodra, où vivent toujours des minorités serbo-monténégrines, et la Macédoine réclamerait le rattachement des villages slaves des alentours des lacs d’Ohrid et Prespa.
Naturellement, les Serbes de Bosnie-Herzégovine se rattacheraient à la mère patrie, ce qui sonnerait le glas de la Bosnie, d’autant que les Croates d’Herzégovine occidentale, de Bosnie centrale et de Bosanska Posavina (Orasje, Odzak) se réuniraient à la Croatie. Il resterait tout au plus un micro-Etat musulman-bosniaque, centré autour de Sarajevo, Zenica et Tuzla. En somme, le plan de partage de la Bosnie-Herzégovine, esquissé dès 1991 par Franjo Tudjman et Slobodan Milosevic, se réaliserait (4). Certes, la Bosnie s’accrocherait à la défense de l’enclave orientale de Gorazde, et réclamerait le rattachement du Sandjak de Novi Pazar (lire « Simple corridor ou carrefour d’échanges ? »), actuellement partagé entre la Serbie et le Monténégro (5).
Il va de soi que l’Etat monténégrin ne subsisterait pas dans ses frontières actuelles. En plus de la sécession des régions albanaises et bosniaques, il devrait faire face à celle des régions serbes. Les populations bosniaques et serbes étant souvent entremêlées, un épisode guerrier serait inéluctable, afin d’arriver à des déplacements de populations permettant de fixer une frontière acceptable. La Croatie obtiendrait les bouches de Kotor, qui ne furent rattachées au Monténégro qu’en 1918. Bref, le Monténégro reviendrait à ses frontières du milieu du XIXe siècle.
Une « macédoine »
de peuples
et de revendications
contradictoires
De même, la Serbie se retrouverait dans une situation paradoxale. Amputée de ses zones albanaises et bosniaques, mais agrandie du territoire de la Republika Srpska de Bosnie-Herzégovine et des zones serbes du nord du Monténégro, elle devrait gérer le casse-tête de la Voïvodine. Dans cette région autonome du nord du pays, une vingtaine de minorités représentent toujours près de 50 % de la population. Les Hongrois forment la principale communauté (environ trois cent cinquante mille personnes), et les communes de Subotica, Senta, Kanjiza reviendraient bien sûr à la Hongrie, à moins que la Voïvodine ne proclame son indépendance, devenant un îlot de multiethnicité dans ces Balkans en folie...
Puisque les remaniements frontaliers n’épargneraient pas les pays déjà membres de l’Union européenne, la question des minorités en Grèce ne se limiterait pas aux Albanais. Les musulmans – Turcs et Pomaks – de Thrace occidentale demanderaient leur rattachement, respectivement, à la Turquie et à la Bulgarie, annulant les accords de Lausanne de 1923 (6). La question des Slaves de Macédoine grecque, sujet tabou dans l’Etat hellénique, devrait également être ouverte. Pour sa part, la Slovénie obtiendrait satisfaction dans les conflits microterritoriaux qui l’opposent à la Croatie (7). Elle réclamerait l’annulation des plébiscites de 1918 (8), et s’élargirait dans la Carinthie autrichienne, où vivent toujours des minorités slovènes. En raison de son attitude positive dans la gestion des conflits régionaux, Ljubljana pourrait recevoir une partie du Frioul italien, et peut-être la ville de Trieste (Trst, en slovène) (9).
Certes, cette vaste rectification des frontières négligerait les revendications de certaines minorités : que faire, en effet, des Gorani du Kosovo, des Ruthènes de Slavonie orientale croate ou des Aroumains de Macédoine, d’Albanie et de Grèce ? Pour leur part, les trois à quatre millions de Roms qui vivent dans les Balkans occidentaux demeureront ce qu’ils ont toujours été : un peuple sans Etat.
Il est peu probable que ces rectifications frontalières puissent se réaliser sans contestations, qui entraîneraient des conflits armés de moyenne intensité. Des troupes européennes seraient chargées de rétablir la paix. En revanche, les inévitables déplacements de populations ne devraient pas être considérés comme un dommage collatéral, mais comme l’objectif central de l’ensemble du processus. Ils seraient supervisés par le Haut-commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (UNHCR), avec le concours de très nombreuses organisations non gouvernementales (ONG). Le budget de l’aide humanitaire d’urgence accordée aux Balkans occidentaux serait bien supérieur à celui débloqué lors de la crise du tsunami de décembre 2004...
Ce scénario peut sembler extravagant, mais plusieurs dossiers sont d’ores et déjà ouverts, qu’il s’agisse de l’avenir de la Bosnie-Herzégovine ou de la « question nationale albanaise ». Les partisans de l’indépendance du Kosovo soulignent que celle-ci ne doit pas avoir valeur de précédent, mais il s’agit d’un vœu pieux : le règlement apporté à cette question aura valeur de précédent si les porteurs d’autres revendications nationales le considèrent comme tel.
L’idée que des changements de frontières pourraient résoudre toutes les questions nationales repose sur une illusion fondamentale, celle qu’il existerait des frontières « justes » parce qu’ethniques. En réalité, toutes les frontières – pas seulement dans les Balkans – sont des créations historiques, le résultat de rapports de forces politiques et militaires. Il n’existe pas plus de frontières « justes » que de frontières « naturelles ».
L’usage du terme « Balkans » se généralise au cours du XIXe siècle, avec une lourde charge idéologique. Alors que l’Empire ottoman, « l’homme malade de l’Europe », se désagrège peu à peu, les revendications contradictoires des peuples commencent à se heurter. Les Balkans deviennent donc synonymes de complexité nationale, de conflits sans fin, d’éclatement et de morcellement. La « balkanisation » donne sens aux Balkans, devient la marque identitaire majeure de cette portion d’Europe. Le concept de Balkans est idéologique avant d’être géographique. Dans cette « macédoine » de peuples, d’aspirations et de revendications contradictoires, les frontières ont été âprement disputées.
L’émergence des Etats et la définition des frontières sont un phénomène marquant de l’entrée des Balkans dans la modernité politique. Ces nouveaux venus s’appuyèrent généralement sur une conception nationale de l’Etat, reprenant et adaptant des modèles issus de l’expérience historique particulière de l’Europe occidentale. La Grèce et la Serbie, au début du XIXe siècle, se sont fondées sur un « nettoyage ethnique », sur l’expulsion ou l’assimilation de populations considérées comme allogènes, notamment du fait de leur religion : les « Turcs » (c’est-à-dire les musulmans, aussi bien slaves qu’albanais ou turcophones) furent expulsés des nouveaux Etats.
La définition des frontières apparaissait comme une manière d’ordonner la « confusion » balkanique, de la faire rentrer dans un ordre européen idéal, fondé sur la coïncidence entre les peuples, les frontières et les Etats. La diversité des identités linguistiques, « nationales » et confessionnelles qui caractérisait les Balkans ottomans a commencé à se réduire.
Le processus s’est accéléré durant les guerres yougoslaves de la fin du XXe siècle : la présence serbe a été drastiquement réduite en Croatie (passant de 12 % à environ 4 % de la population totale du pays), la mosaïque bosnienne a été transformée en larges zones monoethniques contrôlées chacune par l’une des trois communautés du pays.
Aux XIXe et XXe siècles, les Etats les plus puissants – Autriche-Hongrie et Russie, mais aussi France, Grande-Bretagne et Italie – se sont battus pour élargir leurs zones d’influence sur les décombres de l’Empire ottoman en soutenant, voire en excitant, les revendications nationales des peuples balkaniques. Les politiques des Etats sont relayées par les journalistes ou les voyageurs qui arpentent la région. La romancière britannique Rebecca West se moquait, dans les années 1930, des partis pris « humanitaires et philanthropiques » de ces observateurs embrassant les diverses causes nationalistes, notant que « les Bulgares des frères Buxton et les Albanais dont Miss Durham s’était faite la championne ressemblent fort au tableau de l’enfant Samuel peint par sir Joshua Reynolds (10) ».
Des pions européens
dans le nouvel
affrontement
russo-américain
Certains moments charnières marquent la définition progressive des frontières. Tout d’abord, en 1878. La « grande crise d’Orient » trouva un premier épilogue avec le traité de San Stefano, qui prévoyait la création d’une « très grande Bulgarie », sous protectorat russe. Cette perspective, lésant la Serbie et la Roumanie, suscita un tollé, et fut annulée quelques mois plus tard par le congrès de Berlin, qui octroya un mandat à l’Autriche-Hongrie sur la Bosnie-Herzégovine et sur le Sandjak de Novi Pazar.
Les guerres balkaniques de 1912-1913, puis la première guerre mondiale, marquèrent l’autre moment essentiel de cette immense partie de poker territorial. En 1918, la Serbie et la Roumanie reçurent d’immenses gratifications pour leur engagement dans le camp des Alliés : la dynastie serbe des Karadjordjevic put créer le nouveau royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes, ancêtre de la Yougoslavie, tandis que Bucarest formait la « Grande Roumanie ».
Malgré les principes wilsoniens proclamés au sortir du premier conflit mondial, ces Etats ne tenaient nullement compte du droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes, et intégraient un grand nombre de groupes placés en situation de minorités nationales. Le Komintern voyait en la Yougoslavie royale, dans les années 1920, une nouvelle « prison des peuples ». Il est vrai que l’Etat centralisé créé sous le sceptre des Karadjordjevic n’avait que peu à voir avec les rêves romantiques d’unité des peuples slaves du Sud, ou « yougoslaves » (11).
Les frontières internes de la Yougoslavie socialiste et fédérale, dessinées en 1945, furent « le moins mauvais compromis possible », selon les mots du principal responsable de leur définition, le futur dissident Milovan Djilas. Le système yougoslave reposait sur une dissociation entre la citoyenneté et la nationalité, héritée de la pensée austro-marxiste du début du XXe siècle (12). On était citoyen de sa république fédérée de résidence (et de la fédération socialiste), tout en appartenant à la communauté nationale de son choix : dans les recensements yougoslaves, la déclaration de nationalité était libre.
L’expérience balkanique montre que les aspirations des peuples ne se traduisent en revendications étatiques qu’au prix de conflits incessants. Au Kosovo, deux ambitions nationales exclusives et antagonistes sur un même territoire ne peuvent trouver que deux types de solutions : la victoire d’un peuple sur l’autre – qui suscite immanquablement frustrations et désir de revanche – ou bien l’invention de formes nouvelles de coexistence politique et de cosouveraineté. Le cadre européen devrait pourtant amener à imaginer des formes politiques nouvelles permettant de dépasser les conflits territoriaux et frontaliers.
L’intervention des « grandes puissances » est essentielle pour comprendre la formation progressive des frontières balkaniques. De ce point de vue, l’histoire bégaie : la question du Kosovo est devenue un enjeu dans le vaste bras de fer planétaire qui se joue entre la Russie et les Etats-Unis. Dans ce combat de titans, il va de soi que les intérêts réels des Albanais, des Serbes et de toutes les populations qui vivent au Kosovo risquent fort d’être oubliés.
Vouloir régler les questions balkaniques par de nouveaux partages territoriaux ouvrirait une spirale dangereuse. Il serait temps d’imaginer d’autres réponses aux revendications des peuples que de nouveaux découpages territoriaux.
JEAN-ARNAULT DEREN
This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained foul, abusive or discriminating language
My apologies to the Serbian people. If the Bulgarian people had a say in this we would stand in Serbia's corner.
For once, I entirely agree with Ludvig as regards his last comment.
Keep the board clean, please, and don't post unless you really have something to say.
@tr3 zotet at al,
please refrain from tossing skunk onto the otherwise decent discussion board.
>> Peggy I am a dirty plate cleaner at royal casino melbourne. my father likes me much for 2 dollars.<<
===============================
Your childish thinking process and Albenglish give you away.
To zolet OR WHATEVER!!!!!
Those hairy Greeks have done the
worst thing they could have possibly done they lifted the state of war condition to a state still governed by Kanun of Lek
mentality back in the 1980 and the
minister of foreign afffairs then was Carolos Papoulias and prime minister then Andreas Papandreu
CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE UTTERING
NONSENSE.
Anonymous Ludvig Boltzmann Tue, Dec 08, "One may fault the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins for holding them down, not providing them with proper education etc.."
Well it is always great to have good neighbours as the Slaves who would try to veto the Albanian UN membership, or the Greek state of war that those hairy greeks still have up till today. Whatever the outcome, all the barbarian thinkers around the alblbanian lands have still crazzy imaginations.
According to some posters in here albanians should drop their forfathers becouse the servs would [...]
Read the full comment feel empty, sad peggy grow up, the carparthians are a far way for you.
And for your stolen land BS, well it is BS.
Servs are a pathetic virus left of from the czarists russia, even today thats all they got, an upside down russian flag and nothing else. if you will behave as you are now, well that foretold prophecy of all serbs under a palm, will come true faster than a quants plane to heathrow.
Rediculous serviles, you have no idea were "home" is, yor brethren the sorboi know, ask them you retards.
I am a dirty plate cleaner at royal casino melbourne. my father likes me much for 2 dollars.
@Ludvig Boltzmann.
In the course of history nations
have the leaders whom they really
deserve.
In response to the 32 Heads (B.Js)
attributed to be given by Monica to Biil.
Just think of this one: Right after the 1999 war, the three NATO countries Supreme Courts (Germany, Austria and Greece) rendered the Finding, that the bombing of Serbia and Montenegro was ILLEGAL! Imagine! In my homeland, the US Bar considered the same case and came to just a little bit different conclusion: THE WAR WAS ILLEGAL BUT LEGITIMATE. Something for you to ponder, this morning (or afternoon over there). As you all know, according to the Chapter VII UN Charter, only UNSC (not NATO) has a right to authorize application of force against another sovereign country. P.S.: IN ORDER TO [...]
Read the full comment WIN, YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHT, FIRST.
As we speak, the World Court is hearing arguments in favor and against the ethnic Albanians right to carve their Second (so called "independent") State within Serbia. About 95% of the Albanian comments are unfounded high-five bravado and misplaced "Thanks to Bulgaria" refrain. The right question posed to ICJ was supposed to be: "Did NATO (700 million population) have the right to launch an aggressive war (without being provoked) on little, sovereign country of Serbia (8 million population) in the middle of Europe, at the end of 20 th century? According to the I.L. that is clearly a War Crime [...]
Read the full comment against Peace. There is a reason why present Belgrade government did not frame the question like that (EU candidancy, visas ...ICJ alredy has distance itself from that topic in previous Miloshevic government attempts to sue NATO countries). The Albanians, just like the Bulbarians, are totally insignificant participants in the entire game of this global tangling, that goes far beyond teh Balkans. Therefore, these Albanian "Thanks to Bulgaria" cheerleaders, if they knew better, should have said: "Thank you Bil Clinton! Thank you Monica Lewinsky (and their 32 B.J.s in the Office endeavor, if you want to be precise)!" P.S.:IN ORDER TO WIN, YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHT, FIRS.
Just one glance at this board may tell you what may be a cross section of ethnic Albanian population. One may fault the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins for holding them down, not providing them with proper education etc.. But that argument cannot hold water, since their mother country Albania has been, since its conception in 1912, the most backward, isolated eyesore of Europe. That is not to say that every Albanian is primitive, uneducated, drug pusher and alike. I, for instance, had a chance to meet at one gathering in Paris the former President of Albania Redzep Meidani, who is [...]
Read the full comment an accomplished scientist in his own right and any country would be proud to have him at its helm. Unfortunately, his case is more of an exception than the rule in Albania. Ibrahim Rugova, the late Kosovo Albanian leader was another Sorbona educated Albanian. There must be more people like that among Albanians; you will not find them easily and not here, that's for sure.
udvig Boltzmann
Tue, Dec 08 2009 10:40 CET
"I am a dirty monkey who is searching for his mother, please help."
You are an Albanian idiot who thinks he is funny.
I am a dirty monkey who is searching for his mother, please help.
To >>http://kcomment.blogspot.com<<
You are mixing my temp. nick name, with which I am signing all my comments, with a real life person. I explained that my nick name only "has something to do with my profession". That means, it is not a copy of a real person name. Do you understand it now?
Naum Mon,
>>Bulgaria done the right thing. If there is one good thing our leaders in Macedonia done, it is also to support Kosovo. <<
------------------
O.K. I understand your cheering. Now could you please unswer this question: After NATO "liberated" Kosovo Albanians, the same Albanians spilled the war into Macedonia (or FYRM, whatever you are allowed to call yourself these days). They were very successful, because as you know, you Macedonians were never known as big freedom loving fighters. You also know that the Albanians "liberated" the entire Tetovo region, [...]
Read the full comment killed a lot of macedonian soldiers and policmen. When they were about to "liberate" Skoplje, then and only then NATO put their foot down and ordered them to holt the "liberation". Now comes my question: Had NATO not stop the ANA - Albanian Liberation Army and the Tetovo Region became the youngest new country with Skoplje as their Capital, having in mind all what you previously said, would you support both Kosova Republic and Tetova Republik, or only Kosova Republic?
To Ludvig Boltzmann.
Firstly, your name is written LudWig and not Ludvig.
Second, keep reading again the Bulgarian statement to bright up your selves.
Third, Serbian filibustering brings only delays in Balkan EU integration process. This is why it's action gets so low support in this region where normally, because of pan-Slavic and pan-orthodox sympathy could had bigger support.
I'm repeating again, Bravo Bulgaria. This is a visionary politics and not a stab in Serbia's back.
Finally the Balkan countries [...]
Read the full comment are showing to be deign for UE integration and you are taking the lead.
Love you
http://kcomment.blogspot.com/
serbs are insane,ill,mad psycho
realy they are a bunch of psychos
In Macedonia we also have many Kosovars who never returned to Kosovo after the Yugo-Wars. But it is important that Kosovo receives recognition from all Balkan conuntries because we can't ignore the Albanian presence forever. When our country made a new encyclopedia stating Albanians only came into Macedonia a few hundred years ago everybody who reads a little of history knew this would bring trouble. The illyrians c.1000 BC. have been shown to be the ancestors of the Albanians. As we are all Slavs in the Balkans we should allow this people to be part of the regional ethnic mosaic [...]
Read the full comment and not an outcast. History repeats itself over and over when people don't try to compromise with each other. Look at my land and the Greeks, our leaders are still incapable of progress. Bulgaria done the right thing. If there is one good thing our leaders in Macedonia done, it is also to support Kosovo.
Dimitrov:
>>The international community has, indeed, treated some declarations of independence those of Southern Rhodesia and Katanga, for example - as unlawful, but this approach was motivated either by the intervention of a third State, or by a violation of international human rights rules such as prohibition of apartheid and racial discrimination.<<
------------------------------
Isn’t that actually the Kosovo story too?
NATO (the “third State” here), unilaterally (w/o the UN authorization) attacked an independent U.N. state without being provoked. Once NATO occupied Kosovo, Albanians under NATO protection twice - in 1999 and 2004 [...]
Read the full comment expelled 2/3 rds. of the Province Serbian population, in the process burning 700 year old churches, desecrating graves etc. Even today, the handful of the Serb population left behind lives within razor barb wires enclaves and have to be accompanied by the NATO soldiers when they're going to buy necessities. This is called nowadays - high jack the country or 15% of the country and start building a new nation ("nation building phenomenon" routed in nothing but brute force and somebody's so called interests. The problem is that this is the top U.N. court, where those "nation building" for my selfish mioptic interests does not hold, cannot represent a valid legal argument. Military Industry/ establishment and its lobbyists use the word "TO WIN" (We have to win in Kosovo, in Iraq, in Afganistan...). Obama (may God bless him/ keep him) is not taking about "VICTORY" (which actually implies occupation/military victory, submission of a banana state & people), he is talking only about SUCCESS in the long run. Whether one is talking about victory or success, it does not matter, in order to be victorious, successful IN THE LONG RUN, ONE HAS TO BE RIGHT. In the case of the bombing and taking away 15% of the Serbian territory, NATO and their proxies, Albanians are the immoral, unjust side. Look at the Dimitrov arguments. he is parroting the old NATO cliches that all diplomatic efforts failed, Albanians(actually NATO behind them) negotiated in good faith! In all those "negotiations" the Albanians and NATO protege were ONLY REPEATING, exactly what they are repeating now - Nothing but independence will do. That is fine. But how could an Bulgarian representative call all that "DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS"? And finally leave all that aside - why not negotiate now? I do not mean phony theatrical "negotiation", but real, true negotiation supervised not by NATO countries, but by a disinterested party such as ICJ? How about that my friends? You do believe in International Court of Justice and justice in general, don't you?
Z. Dimitrov: >>In March 1999 all diplomatic efforts ended in a stalemate and the NATO Member States decided to use force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in order to stop the violence which threatened not only the security of the civilian population of Kosovo but also the security of the whole region.<<Every word is wrong. “All diplomatic efforts” is a copout for the Albright’s Ultimatum handed to the authoritarian Serbian government in Rambouillet . That Ultimatum had 67 page Military Annex, which asked Serbia to hand Kosovo to NATO control and also to allow NATO forces to cross Serbia [...]
Read the full comment at will, as they please with immunity. Please ask your rep. Dimitrov, to talk a little bit about those “diplomatic efforts” that ended on March 24, 1999 when the bombs stated flying. Does he blame Serb for not accepting such an Ultimatum? What does that have to do with the U.N. and the I.L.?
People please consider this post:
@Princip
>>Seems a very weak argument to say because 1244 does not say it cant be done it implies it should be.
How would Bulgaria feel if one its ethnic minorities - some of whom have stated they were discriminated mobilized into a terrorist group and set about clearing the region around Veliko Tarnovo and created an independent Tarnov'a' Republic ?
How would any Bulgarian feel? Would you not feel betrayal when Serbia stab you in the back and recognized such a scenario? [...]
Read the full comment
There are some old Bulgarian sayings which come to mind;
У старо село нов закон не бива.
A new law in an old village won't do.
Който копае гроб другиму, сам пада в него. - He who digs someone else’s grave, falls in it by himself.
Кажи ми какви са приятелите ти, за да ти кажа какъв си ти. - Tell me who your friends are, so I can tell you who you are.
На лъжата краката са къси. - A lie's legs are short it won't get far before is shown as a lie.
Sooner or later the lie will be shown for what it is! <<
-----------------------------------
Brilliant, absolutely brilliantly formed intelligent argument with your own Bulgarian aroma. My hat goes down to you, whoever you are.
Regards,
Ludvig
@Here is another one.
>> Having said this, I would like to fully subscribe to the conclusion made yesterday by the delegation of Belarus, namely, that the autonomous province of Kosovo had equal rights with the six Republics under the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, Kosovo was a constituent element of the former Federation.<<
--------------------------
You just repeated the 100% falsehood that the Bulgarian representative has also stated. Kosovo never had equal rights as six YU republics. Kosovo and Vojvodina were autonomous provinces, not [...]
Read the full comment republics. If they had the same rights as the six republics, as the two of you stated, then why Kosovo and Vojvodina were not also called republics?
1) Did Kosovo deserve it?
-Perhaps not any more then Abhazia.
2) Was Serbia Violated?
-Perhaps no more then Georgia.
3) Have Bulgaria backstabbed Serbs again?
-Certainly not proving support.
This is the way how Balkan states, should go over their group & religious sympathy & alliances, and how to be rightfully when they declare the true opinion. Russia should had this courage, but this is an other argument.
They are other ongoing conflicts in the area like Macedonia name issue, Bosnia issue, the hidden conflict in East Kosova (Presheva walley, Bujanovc and Medvegje), North Kosova etc... .
This attitude shows perfectely that Bulgaria had merits to be an UE country, and is ready to play a bigger role in Balkan.
[...]
Read the full comment />
Bravo BULGARIA!!!!
http://kcomment.blogspot.com/
GOD BLESS BULGARIA.
Thanks to BULGARIA
The ultimate question we should ask our self is do we want peace and prosperity or war's ?
for kosovo it was the only way forward as it was very well presented by Mr. Zlatko Dimitrov
Thank you !
it was a great statement, serbia has shoot herself on the foot by going to the ICJ.i wonder what they gonna say about the crimes they committed in kosovo over the years. why did serbia not want to talk to the albanians before the the war ? i can tell you, that's because the thought they were gonna get away with it by killing thousands off people, but when that didn't work they wanted to talk . serbia seems to be very confused who doesn't know what to do with her self and her own people so keeps winding up [...]
Read the full comment her neighbours . finally the rest of the world will hear the truth and make up her mind. i feel sorry for the serbian people but at the end of the day the have done it to them self !
nice one Bulgaria.
You seam to still remember the Serb crocodile tears about their "holy land touching the black sea" in the early 1900's.
Bulgaria did the right thing
thumbs up
Thank you Bulgaria, this means a lot. In fact, Serbia has damage a lot in the Balkans. Today we see that Bulgaria is an democratic and a EU member, well done! Some day we will drink tee or coffee in Sofia or Prishtina:)
Serbia deserve this and a more! They have started 4 wars in the Balkans. As we, albanians has allways lived in Balkan, the slaves came in year 500 A.C. Kosova is albanian territory!
GOOD! Even Serbias Orthodox brother shows Serbia it's long finger, hahaha! Slavonski Picki!
Striped from the long verbiage, the
Statement of Zlatkov amounts to rejection of the most elementsry principle of international law: the
sovereignty of the nations to hold
inviolable the integrity of their territory. When a situation developes where a minority opt for independence the central government resist it by force. Serbia resisted it, but NATO forced her to submit. Ultimatelyphysical force settle such situattion. The American revolution is a case for consideration. There is much to be said by history on the subject. But
this is enough. In a way, Serbia paid [...]
Read the full comment for its wrong policies in the past.
All that was said, was an interpretation of international law, Res 1244, peace talks, history facts dating back only to one generation ago, put together in wording to suit and fit the reasons for why Pristinas self proclaimed independance was just. Read over the Argentinian arguments! But this site is biased, human rights respected by the bulgarian state over the large turkish minority, of which half were deported and the remainder taken away there basic rights to live, or the support of bulgaria to nazi germany only 65years ago. How does such a state have the right to comment when [...]
Read the full comment they have lost all there credibility. Its in the interest of the bulgarians to have a weaker serbia, but unlike in the past, todays societies do not openly speak about the national interests in such a manner but go around it another way. Hungary was in support to strengthen its own support for hungarians in vojvodina, croats because the love the serbs, and the bulgarians because of history. Macedonia , if it had not done so, would have felt the albanian seperatism from within its own borders, but also its interest in connection to bulgaria. The whole reason by bulgarias team to as why kosovo was unique, special, within international law, not against res 1244 is ridiculous. Its sad that the way man has learned for thousands of years to communicate, and simplify and evolve himself using words, that even today a word or group of words can bet taken out of concept and put back together meaning the total opposite of its initial meaning! Kosovo was, is and will be Serbian!
I read the entire statement. I was very much impressed by the solid legal arguments put forward by the team of Bulgaria. The law is stated clearly and unambgously and so is the factual situation. To speak otherwise is to pretend to be blind or deaf. Well done!
@ Princip
Mr you don't have to start writing in Bulgarian to make them feel sorry, all they are doing is telling the truth.
Long live Bulgaria and Kosovo of course.
Aries,
we in Serbia understand that the Bulgarian peoples do not share in this illegal act by their govt against Serbia but the sad fact remians your government clearly has acted in a very unfriendly manner to Serbia and all Serbians.
Which is why I ask Bulgarians to consider how they would feel in the same scenario were it to unfold on them. In this way they may come to their senses so that wrongs can be put right especially between those whom still would be Bulgaria's friends.
Приятел в [...]
Read the full comment нужда се познава.
Yrs Princip 100% correct my friend
Niamame prinzip sega.
I am deeply ashamed of my country once again
Thank you very much Bulgaria!
Seems a very weak argument to say because 1244 does not say it cant be done it implies it should be.
Lets use Ahtisaari's Thief analogy he stated against Serbia - could a Thief therfore in any court in any land say I could steal because there was no sign saying I couldn't? This is what is being suggested by Bulgaria espite quite explicily 1244 upheld Serbia's sovreignty and territorial integrity.
How would Bulgaria feel if one its ethnic minorities - some of whom have stated they were discriminated mobilised into a [...]
Read the full comment terrorist group and set about clearing the region around Veliko Tarnovo and created an independent Tarnov'a' Republic ?
How would any Bulgarian feel? Would you not feel betrayal when Serbia stab you in the back and recognised such a scenario?
There are some old Bulgarian sayings which come to mind;
У старо село нов закон не бива.
A new law in an old village won't do.
Който копае гроб другиму, сам пада в него. - He who digs someone else’s grave, falls in it by himself.
Кажи ми какви са приятелите ти, за да ти кажа какъв си ти. - Tell me who your friends are, so I can tell you who you are.
На лъжата краката са къси. - A lie's legs are short it won't get far before is shown as a lie.
Sooner or later the lie will be shown for what it is!
This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained foul, abusive or discriminating language
Bravo to Bulgaria.
Great, this is apsoluatly fantastic and it's all true.
Thank you very much in deed Bulgaria.
No more Terro!
Thanks Bulgaria for not accepting the Terroriale Integrity of Serbia.
Awsome statement, thank you Bulgaria
' Having said this, I would like to fully subscribe to the conclusion made yesterday by the delegation of Belarus, namely, that the autonomous province of Kosovo had equal rights with the six Republics under the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, Kosovo was a constituent element of the former Federation.'
This is the most convincing argument so far. Congratulations Bulgaria
'Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is commonly accepted that declarations of independence are a matter of fact that are neither prohibited nor authorised by international law.' - Says it all!
Thank you Bulgaria!
great, just great.
Dear Bulgar Nation,
I shall take my hat off every time I meet a Bulgar and shake hands.
Bulgaria, thank you for your hard work and effort. Thank you for defending your dignity, your statehood and your position. It's a lesson for all the Balkan countries, how powerful and respectful Bulgar nation is.
Bulgaria has another strong ally, Kosovo.
Proud of this newborn nation, Kosovo and our friend, Bulgaria which we shall be indebted for ever!
Thank you BULGARIA .
god bless you.