Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 10

Wow
This page is unfolding like a thriller. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"First state to recognise based on local time"
Is that so...? ;) --Camptown (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists a mess
There are a number of problems with the lists on the page. For instance, It has one list that is for "States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations" and another that is for "Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions". Shouldn't both lists be merged and both be colored the same on the map? What is the difference between the two stances?

It has a bunch of remarks and speculation listed as if it were official stances. Just look at the article, the way the list entries are written is not in keeping with the way wikipedia articles are/should be styled.

Another thing. The EU said that it will have individual states choose their response to independence, rather than having an official stance, and the UN security council is obviously not in agreement with each-other on the situation. So the entries that are marked as waiting for an EU or UN stance on it's position are either out of date or just irrelevant.

And how about using sources written in ENGLISH, because this is the English wikipedia after all.

If we are looking for sources, shouldn't we look at a given nation's govt websites or online embassies? Contralya (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure myself whether we should have those two categories as different categories, but I can live with either way.
 * EU and UNSC membership *IS* relevant in this situation for obvious reason: The EU has a very strong role in Kosovo (through EULEX, pre-accession negotiations with Serbia, ...), and the UNSC has the power to decide on such issues -- and since there's members of the UNSC on either side of the debate, there'll be no official position, therefore this is relevant.
 * Regarding sources -- if we have English sources, we should use those, but if no English sources are available, foreign language sources are fine, as well. — Nightstallion 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's of SIGNIFICANT importance to the article, but under the heading of "Internation Organisations", I believe NATO has a flag, and I've been reading this article day after day since the news came out and it's beginning to bug me. Could an Admin please remedy this? (Sixer Fixer (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
 * We currently haven't got a freely usable NATO flag, actually. — Nightstallion 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization of the Islamic Conference
All member states have endorsed the declaration and are expected to recognise Kosovo -- is it right? The given source rather says "the recognition of Kosovo is left up to each member state". That does not seem to me like any kind of automatic "package" recognition. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are OIC members for instance, and apparently oppose the independence declaration. -- EJ (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. That's strange, though, all OIC members supported the declaration...? — Nightstallion 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Check source No. 102. "As the 57 Islamic states, members of the organization of the Islamic conference, endorsed the declaration, the recognition of Kosovo is left up to each member state."--85.3.136.119 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland and Norway have not officially recognised Kosovo yet
They have said that they will, not that they have. It isn't official yet. The full procedure of recognition hasn't taken place yet.

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ doesn't say which countries have fully recognised Kosovo through the full legal system, just that they will do soon. So make sure that there is an official source before claiming that a country has fully recognised Kosovo please.Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of full recognition, it's a question of having started the formal procedure of recognition -- if we waited for the official signature from the head of state for all states, then we'd only have US and France in the list up to now, I believe. — Nightstallion 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is faulty argument. THE NORWAY RECOGNITION IS NOT formal as the headline suggests. Thus factuality has to be disputed. Norway only stated intention to do it like Sweden for example.--Trigor (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigor (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put it down again, please let us know when the Norwegian government has officially started procedures. — Nightstallion 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The same goes for Finland.

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=115324&nodeid=15145&culture=en-US

this says that "Finland announced it will recognise Kosovo's independence", not that it has recognised Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, then let's wait until the German Bundespräsident has signed the letter to his Kosovar colleague. Germany's decision is neither completely formal. Read our earlier discussion above under "Austria". Jakro64 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

@Jakro64 I'm a german law student and I know very well the german law and german administration processes. The signt of the Federal President is a symbolic act that will nothing change decision of the federal government. Germany already recognise Kosovo'S independence, all other procedure's are unimportand the Bundespräsident (Federal President) he must does what the government say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.66.34 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In Finland, the formal recognition of Kosovo is in the authority of the President of Finland, formally decided in a presidential session of government. The next presidential session is held 29th February 2008, thus Finland cannot have as yet formally recognized Kosovo. --Vuo (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GENERAL NOTE
Up to now, we've added countries as officially recognising once they have started the process officially, not once they have ended the process through the signature by the head of state. If people want to change that, we'll have to change it now and review all the countries we've listed as recognising; if we want to keep it like that, we only have to make certain that countries we add have really started the process. — Nightstallion 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it how it is.Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where should we put Sweden than. They said they will recognize Kosovo, but officialy they will do it after committee for foreign relations (Utrikesnämnden) meets. It is chaired by the king and it is more less formal thing. But we are still waiting. I think we should wait for official procedure to be finished. Otherwise there is going to be a mix up. I know there are some people who are a bit anxious but trust me this is for the best. --Trigor (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the first step of the recognition process is the committee meeting, then we'll have to wait until the committee meets. — Nightstallion 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the last step. Prime minister and foreign minister Mr Bildt already said that they are in agreement that Kosovo should be recognized, as well most of the parties in the parliament (excluding Left Party). But until the process is finished for Sweden Kosovo will not be recognized. I have personally put the date 4th of March because that is when committee meeting will be held and Kosovo recognized .... but now I am not certain any more what should I do. The border between those two group of states became a bit blurry. To be clear. Apart from words to do it Sweden has not done anything official yet.--Trigor (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then it's the first *and* last step and we'll wait until then. — Nightstallion 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is kept as-is, then the subtitle "States that formally recognise the independent Republic of Kosovo" should be changed to something like "States that have officially started the process of formally recognising the independent Republic of Kosovo", since currently the subtitle is incorrect. 80.248.242.86 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Argentina
If I am not mistaken, Argentina has decided not to recognise Kosovo according to this article of Clarín:

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2008/02/20/elpais/p-00701.htm Apcpca (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

UN Note improvement NEEDED
In the section International organisations all information about UN-Kosovo UDI matter is one about Security Council and its recent meetings. In my opinion, question about UN-Kosovo relations is more important than lots of other informations in the article, which have, de facto, much more news and press coverage. My advice to admins (until the article editing lock remains actual) is to focus on this matter with more attention. Try to find out and publish data about formal regulations of UN law and therefore perspectives of one country (here Kosovo) UDI UN-recognition, or recogniton delay (or non-recognition), possible membership process, or membership problems, possible membership delaying etc. In short words, what will be the formal way of Kosovo in UN-membership. What are the chances and instruments of its potential delaying, or stopping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.106.36 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan and Northern Cyprus
The succession dates of Taiwan and Northern Cyprus should be somewhere stated, possibly in Notes section. For example Recognition after United Kingdom and before Belgium... --Janezdrilc (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

President Talat of TRNC recognized the independence of the new state, yet the TRNC GOVERNMENT under Prime Minister Soyer has not recognized the GOVERNMENT of Kosovo. A head of state recognizing a UDI while the head of state's government not extending recognition to the new state's government is an interesting position, to say the least... -- Expatkiwi (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.176.233 (talk)

To Nightstallion
"Initiated proceedings to recognize" is NOT what counts. It says they RECOGNIZE them. Diplomatic recognition is a complex process that means the foreign ministry or equivalent office of one nation sends a letter or fax to that of another country indicating recognition and intent to establish diplomatic relations immediately.

Saying that "we have started the process of recognizing them" is the same as a statement of intent. Please see the similar article about the recognition of Montenegro; cites for recognition there are actually links to the letters from individual diplomatic representatives to each other indicating their intent to establish formal diplomatic ties.

There is a distinction to be made here, and you are not making it. It's very important in the international diplomatic community, and you are completely ignoring it, making a mockery of this reference work we are both trying so hard to keep up-to-the-minute by ignoring conventions that have been around for centuries now. --Node (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then make the distinction, if you want. — Nightstallion 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have; I'm not sure why you reverted me though if you agree with me (or are at least willing to allow it). --Node (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't agree with you at first, and I can't get everything right on the first attempt, can I? ;) — Nightstallion 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Node. That would bring us some well desired clarity. But please don't be so hard on Nightstallion. I think that he is really nice guy doing his best to help. I would suggest that we make foreign ministry of respected country our main source and first point of reference. In other words when it says on their web page that they have recognized Kosovo, we should put them in the first group of countries--Trigor (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia
The press release says that Malaysia "welcomes Kosovo's declaration of independence" ("Malaysia mengalu-alukan kemerdekaan Kosovo yang telah diisytiharkan"). It is not explicit about whether it has extended formal diplomatic recognition or, if it has not, when it is planning to do so. Anybody have additional sources for Malaysia? --Node (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,651  on the offical website of the President of the Republic of Kosovo the chief of the office of malaysia mr Mustafa J Mansor alrady hand over the letter of recognition from the ministry of foreign affairs of malaysia (20.02.2008)

Intro
The intro includes the statement Most of them have declared they will, but some countries (Spain, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia) have chosen not to recognise Kosovo, at least in the short term, due to fears of other separatist movements using Kosovo as a precedent for their claims but when The United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Australia are some of the major countries that have recognised the Republic is stated there is no mention of Turkey hoping to use this as a precedent for Northern Cyprus. Nergaal (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral article
All right what is wrong with this article. Why is almost every editor here pro-Kosovo independence and against Serbia. Some of you even insulted Serbia talking about genocide. You have attacked again and again editors that are not of your opinion who want to add countries that are against the independence of Kosovo to the list. You remove those countries again and again from those lists and put them to the neutral list. You have a problem with them not officialy yeling at the whole world and saying they are against independence like the US and 4/5 of the EU are doing. They are talking non-stop about parliament decisions and their goverments positions on the pro-independence decision. But you are constantly removing the countries that are against independence because their parlament didn't said so, because their president or prime-minister didn't said so. The thing is they cann't all say so openly they are against, because then they will be attacked by the US or some other pro-independence country for taking that position. We have to rely on statements from the press like in the case of Uruguay, or ministers like in the case of Cuba. Fidel Castro himself has said he is against independence for Kosov, and now some people are not letting Cuba on to the list of those that are against independence because Fidel Castro is not president anymore so it is not an "official" statement. First of all Fidel was still president at the time when Kosovo said they are independent, so what does that tell you, also he was president of Cuba for 50 years and if you think he is not running the country still then you are a MORON. No offence. Also as for China, and you know which China I am talking about the Red China because there is no other, Taiwan is not accepted by the international comunity to be independent and doesn't have a seat in the UN. Back to the topic, as for China like user 68.166.135.163 said, China stated that Kosovo's unilateral declaration was "illegal" and because they said it is illegal and didn't say they are against independence you do not want to put China on the list of anti-independence. C'mon people, illegal, what do you think they are trying to say. I know this is a very hot topic but as for the anti-independence countries you just have to read between the lines. And also stop attacking editors that are against the independence of Kosovo, none of them have attacked the pro-independence editors. Stop attacking editors like Tocina, Camptown, Avala and me. And I am specificly telling this to users GreenClawPristina, Mareklug (who is the greatest violator of all) and user Ijanderson977. And this is on a personal note to Ijanderson977, I saw your user page, where do you come off representing yourself as a Marxist. You probably don't have an idea what Marxism is realy. A real Marxist wouldn't be doing what you are doing. And you shouldn't be involving yourself with things like this and have no right speaking on this discussion page because you are just a 17-year-old kid who realy doesn't know what he is talking about.(Top Gun)

Thank you! The pro-Kosovo editors have pretty much hijacked the article and taylored it to their needs. No one except for them wanted to call the article International Response to Kosovo's Declaration, and most editors were happy that it was called Diplomatic Response, but it wasn't radical enough for these guys, so they went ahead and implemented their changes. Furthermore they lumped all of the countries that don't recognize Kosovo together, so now you have Lithuania, which is likely to recognize Kosovo on the same list as Russia, which will never recognize Kosovo. Then they completely did away with the map that was made earlier, coloring everything into green and gray. Finally they went ahead and put every entity that recognized Kosovo, no matter how minute into the article. For instance: London-based Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? International Handball Federation? Is Sealand next? I move for this entire article to be diagnosed as blatant pro-Kosovo POV by wikipedia editors, deleted and completely redone. Because for an American, a Californian, such as myself, calling this article NPOV is like calling Pravda Newspaper - the absolute truth. I also move for editors such as GreenClawPristina, Mareklug and Ijanderson977 to be scrapped of all access to Kosovo-related articles. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article POV
With the current map and format, this article is extremely biased in favor of Kosovo over Serbia and does not adhere to wikipedia standards. For instance countries like China, which stated that Kosovo's unilateral declaration was "illegal" are listed under the same heading as countries like Sudan, which have no position on Kosovo. So either "illegal" is the same thing as no position, or this article's biased, you - the reader - get to decide which is the case. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Map and Lists
The list be divided as follows:

1. Countries recognizing Kosovo (with a note at the end RE Taiwan and TRNC) 2. Countries intending to recognize Kosovo 3. Countries that have stated explicitly they will not recognize Kosovo 4. Countries stating concern, neutrality, etc (including Vatican City; this could include a note RE Western Sahara) 5. International organizations (UN, NATO, etc) 6. International Sports Organizations (the Olympic Committee, etc) 7. Religious organizations (Serbian Church, Islamic Community of Serbia, Russian Patriarch, etc) 8. Separatists movements and political parties - this shouldn't inc/ partially recognized entities like Taiwan (ROC), TRNC, Western Sahara, the PA. (inc/ Tamil Tigers, Parti Quebecois) 9. All miscellaneous (including, for eexample, reactions from Catalonia & Crimea) 10. Serbian reaction (could include both the reaction of the Serbian government and the reaction of Serbs in Bosnia, Kosovo, and other countries)

The map should be dones as follows:

1. Kosovo - denoted by black 2. Countries recognizing Kosovo - in green 3. Countries that explicitly will not recognize Kosovo - in red

141.166.230.9 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Old Map and Old Lists were Better
A distinction should be made between countries that have explicitly stated that they will not recognize Kosovo, countries that state they will recognize Kosovo, and countries with ambiguous positions; neither recognizing Kosovo nor stating that they won't recognize Kosovo. The new map (which leaves out Malaysia for some reason) is unnecessarily simplistic and unhelpful. At the very least, it should denote countries like Russia and Serbia that have stated explicitly they won't recognize. 141.166.243.146 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, the updated map could denote countries explicitly refusing to recognize Kosovo in red. And it could properly show Malaysia in green. 141.166.243.146 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * New map is meaningless. It has WP:NPOV violation as it show only countries that recognize - and say nothing about others. --TAG (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Malaysia
Malaysia recognized Kosovo in February 20, but have not listed this state.. shame

European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center - WHAT?!!!???
What is this organization? I've never heard of them? And wikipedia apparently hasn't heard of them since they don't have an article, not even a stub. Hence, they do not belong on the list of 'other relevant entities' or on nay other list in this article 141.166.230.9 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is a candidate country like Croatia and Macedonia
In the article there is no "European Union candidate country" comment in Turkey but Croatia and Macedonia have it. Please put this comment. Izmir lee (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ive just done that for you. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
TRNC also recognized Kosovo, but TRNC removed from "partially recognized states..." part to "other entities" part. So this mentality reveals why Kosovo deserved independence (There is no difference between Serbian over nationalism on Kosovo and Greek Cypriot over nationalism on Turkish Cypriots). Serbs etnically cleansed Kosovars and UN Force came to protect Kosovars in 1999. Greek Cypriots etnically cleansed Turkish Cypriots and UN Force came to protect Turkish Cypriots in 1963 (11 years before Turkish action on Cyprus!!). 88.252.64.238 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NATO, not UN came in to "protect" Kosovo. And it was not really protecting, as more of helping the Thaci thugs attack Serbs. Not to mention that there were more Serbian children killed and injured by NATO "humanitarian" bombings then Kosovars killed in the entire conflict. However it was NATO not UN. And Greek Cupriots fled to Southern Greece as a result of Turkey's army "protecting" the TRNC. Not suprisingly South Cyprus has done much better economically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Committee
The International Olympic Committee be listed with the other international organizations, like the UN and OSCE. Instead, it is effectively listed with separatist groups and unrecognized states, like North Cyprus, Wwestern Sahara, and the Part Quebecois. 141.166.154.222 (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Council of Europe
The Council of Europe's statement can also be used under the International Organisation. As is known, the CoE is a separate international organisation with 47 member states. (Its flag is also flag with 12 stars. The EU uses the flag of the Council of Europe as indicated under the flag of Europe.)

Here is the CoE's statement about the Kosovo's independence:

Reacting to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, Lluís Maria de Puig, President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), called on all parties to keep their pledge to preserve peace and dialogue in all circumstances and to refrain from any incitement to violence as well as to fully comply with Council of Europe standards with respect to human rights, the rule of law, the rights of national minorities and the treatment of refugees, displaced and stateless persons.

“Whatever its status, Kosovo should be an area which is safe for all those who live in it regardless of their ethnic origin, and in which the values of democracy, tolerance and multiculturalism are shared by its population and institutions,” he said.

“I regret that the two sides have been unable to reach compromise on the status of Kosovo – as the Assembly has repeatedly called for,” he said.

Recalling the texts adopted by PACE on 22 January, Mr de Puig stressed the need for Kosovo to be an area where Council of Europe instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Anti-Torture Convention and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities are fully applicable and their respective control mechanisms fully operational.

In connection with the EU's attitude to Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence, the President invited EU member states, which are also members of the Council of Europe, to agree on a single position.

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1250095&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.171.190 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan on wrong list
Pakistan is clearly on the wrong list, and the reference currently listed is a broken link. However, as a newly registered user, I cannot edit this page. Koraki (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is in the right place. They have strongly indicated that they will recognize Kosovo --Trigor (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan has strongly advocated in the Security Council of the UN the right of indipendent for Kosovo

Tamil Tigers
The Tamil Tigers source is a joke! It should be removed from the article. NN 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

-- I fully agree. (124.43.197.197 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

FIFA and UEFA
Any news on these two organisations? Bardhylius (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with sovereignty. The Football Federation of Kosovo was formed in 1946(!) but is not a member of FIFA or UEFA. Negotiations to become a member of FIFA started in 2006. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it does. You can't become neither a FIFA or UEFA member if you're not an independent state. It's just that I don't know what's the exact criteria, whether you have to be a UN member or not. Bardhylius (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Under FIFA's by-laws, national football associations are its members. FIFA only recognizes one national football association per country, with the exception of the football associations of the Home Nations of the sport (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland), but that is because there is a special rule in the by-laws making an exception so that the UK can be represented by more than one national association. So, unless FIFA recognises Kosovo as an independent country, its football association will not be admitted into FIFA. Since the by-laws contain the rule of one association per State, FIFA must decide if it recognizes the Serbian FA or the Kosovar FA as the national association representing the sport in Kosovo. And, given that only FIFA members can be admitted into UEFA, the Kosovar Federation will not get UEFA membership until it becomes affiliated to FIFA first. --189.25.72.85 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of ambassadors
Serbia has also recalled its ambassadors from Germany and Austria. --91.55.122.123 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Senegal source
I think that the reference pointing to recognition of Kosovo by Senegal is not correct. However I am not able to find any other. Could someone try to find reliable information on the subject. BloodIce (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

here's a new source... see the last paragraph on Oman Tribune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.156.78 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany Recognized Kosovo
According to the German Cabinet, Germany approved recognition of Kosovo and the article says: The German Cabinet has today approved official recognition of the Republic of Kosovo and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the new state.

This is as of Yesterday 20.02.2008.

The Official link is at: www.bundesregierung.de/nn_6538/Content/EN/Pressemitteilungen/BPA/2008/02/2008-02-20-anerkennung-des-kosovo__en.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link from the German Foreign Office. I would say it's a done deal now --Trigor (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic bold text
Some of these bold text summaries of the positions in the Other states, including undecided or ambiguous positions (24) section are not very encyclopedic. Bangladesh is "Monitoring the situation in Kosovo, waiting to see what happens next.": who isn't? Plus how is that different from Greece, who "Will watch and see what happens first."? Technically, anyone that is in this section is in Canada's shoes in that they are "Not in a rush to pick sides." The bold text summaries are not helpful in actually summarizing these countries' positions, plus the fact that these countries are in the section in itself suggests that there is much nuance that cannot be captured in a few words. The bold summaries in States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations (7) appear more formal and not as bad. Kelvinc (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Denmark
Denmark will recognize the Republic of Kosovo later this day by dispatching a letter from the Danish Foreign Minister to President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Hashim Thaci. No official press announcement has been published on the Danish Foreign Ministry's official webpage, but the three newspapers all print an identical telegram from Ritzau News Agency which again quotes the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Affairs committee meets tomorrow, which will allow the minister to make an official announcement to members of the opposition. An official press briefing will take place at 1600 CET. 83.89.43.14 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Foreign Affairs Ministry Denmark Recognized Republic of Kosova, the link to the F.A.M. is this: www.denmark.dk/en/servicemenu/News/InternationalNews/DenmarkRecognisesKosovo.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ASEAN?
Is ASEAN membership really relevant to this issue so that it needs to be mentioned in the country notes? The EU and OIC have made efforts to have joint policies on this issue but ASEAN is just a regional grouping from the other side of the world. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is relevant because ASEAN has been mentioned in the International organizations, because they are usually seen as holding on to their consensus method when they want to have a joint policy (which was mentioned not going to happen on this issue) and because there are differences between nations in the organization regarding the independence (Vietnam oppose, Indonesia and Singapore undecided, Malaysia surprisingly to me formally recognize it). Other opinions are welcome. Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Response of conglomerate organisations such as the UN, EU, OIC, IOC, maybe FIFA and other sporting bodies are relevant in that they affect the potential aspiration of Kosovo to link with those organisations. As I have said in a series of edits "Kosovo most unlikely to ever covet membership of ASEAN", so ASEAN's collective opinion (or lack thereof), or the ASEAN membership status of individual countries passing their judgement on Kosovo's status, seems irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If that is so, then Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Western Sahara, etc have to be removed too. __earth (Talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related issue: the article has recently developed CIS membership indicators. How is that relevant to Kosovo? Just like ASEAN, Kosovo is highly unlikely to aspire for CIS membership, and CIS did not make a collective decision on its independence declaration. -- EJ (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As of this moment, all references to ASEAN have been removed (not by me). I guess the issue is closed for now. Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan
The Source is not an Official State Declaration —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenClawPrishtina (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Comment on this one? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put back a link to the official announcement, which somehow got lost in the meantime. A more important question is, whether is it correct to list Kyrgyzstan in the opposing camp. Originally, someone put it in the "Other states" section, with the comment "Awaiting the UN Security Council's decision". However, it could be that Kyrgyzstan actually refused to recognize Kosovar independence, unless UN Security Council decides otherwise later. Neither my Russian nor German is good enough to resolve this subtle but important difference from the two sources at hand. -- EJ (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The report (in German; see ) actually states:


 * Die zentralasiatische Republik Kirgisien wird die Unabhängigkeit des südserbischen Provinz Kosovo, die Pristina (Hauptstadt der Provinz) am Sonntag einseitig verkündete, bis zu einer endgültigen Entscheidung des UN-Sicherheitsrates diesbezüglich nicht anerkennen.


 * Translation: The Central Asian Republic of Kyrgyzstan will not recognize the independence of the South Serbian province of Kosovo, [...], till a definite decision by the UN security council.


 * Based on this news report I think Kyrgyzstan should be listed in "Other states". Gugganij (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This makes their position identical to the Russian position; how much more unequivocal should it be for you to color it red? They left no ambiguity at all. They will NOT recognize without a decision by SC UN - this is what all 'red' countries are saying. --Dzordzm (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I thought "red" countries will not recognize Kosovo under any circumstances. The statement of the Foreign Ministry of Kyrgystan seems to me a bit more vague (more in line with the Chinese position). Gugganij (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Russia say that Kosovo will never have UN membership? So if other countries, like China and Kyrgyzstan state that they will only recognize Kosovo when it becomes a UN member, it means they will not recognize it, because Russia's veto will eternally block Kosovo's UN membership. Personally I think recognizing a country that will never have UN membership is a bit silly, but I'm too lazy to engage in Wikipaintbrush at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.20.90 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey
I don't think Turkey being an OIC member has any significance regarding her recognition of the independence of Kosovo. More significant facts are that Turkey is a NATO member and a contributor state to KFOR and she is also a contributing state to EULEX. Other related points of interest may be that Kosovo has a Turkish minority and that Kosovo was formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire, to which Turkey is the successor. Yucina (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I put it in because even though what you said might be true, the OIC organization itself plays an important role in the issue, and as such knowing which nation is in OIC might give the reader a clear idea of what is going on. On another note, I think it might relate in a way because there's a connection between that recognition and Northern Cyprus - and Northern Cyprus is an observer nation in OIC. Quastar Vaan (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know OIC plays no role in the issue. There are several countries listed under "States which explicitly do not recognise Kosovo as independent" which are OIC members. On the other hand, NATO, OECD member countries recognizing Kosovo's independence has significance. Yucina (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is more the reason to include reference as OIC members next to the country: even though OIC have expressed their support, they left it to each individual nation to decide. It will be fun interesting to see which nation decided to prioritize their other commitments (example: Kazakhstan on their relation with Russia as compared to their membership in OIC) over the announcement by OIC. While I myself are not aware of any OIC official roles in Kosovo, many muslim countries have been helping Kosovo indirectly - financial, political, etc. From that point we can say that there's a small relation to OIC? And it is probable that in the near future, Kosovo might apply to be a member, or observer, of OIC. Anyway, the original argument was about Turkey being listed as OIC member - I think some people might not be aware of that, and that reference might help them to understand a little bit of Turkey's position as possible EU candidate, a NATO member, and at the same time a secular, muslim-dominant nation in OIC? Quastar Vaan (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may be exaggerating the role and importance of the OIC, both globally and domestically for its member states. It has 57 members from different parts of the world with very different political cultures and interests. For example, it has a member with a leadership which sees Israel as an enemy of Islam (Iran) and it has another member which has not only economical and political relationship with Israel but also military cooperation (Turkey). Yes, it is true that many muslim nations assist Kosovo. But it is equally true that many non-muslim nations assist Kosovo, too, like some Western powers and their assistance has been much more effective, especially with the independence issue. Every country is a member in many international organizations and we can't list them all here. While it may be interesting for some that Turkey is a rare example of a predominantly muslim nation with a secular political tradition and Western-style democracy, nonetheless, if any membership is significant for Kosovars when it comes to which countries recognize their independence, I believe they would be international structures that can provide stability and security such as the EU and NATO.Yucina (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could Turkey's recognition of Kosovo backfire? It seems to me that the area in Turkey where the Kurds live bears similarity to the Kosovo case. Q43 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. Kosovo has been under UN administration and UN + NATO protection since 1999 and Belgrade has not controlled Kosovo since and thus Kosovo was already practically independent. Kosovo as a region has been within a well-defined border for decades, with a significant concentration of ethnic Albanians within those borders. If you want to draw similarities to any Kurdish region, you could mention Iraqi Kurdistan which shares more common elements to Kosovo, and a declaration of independence by Iraqi Kurdistan would indeed upset Turkey. However, it seems that when it came to Kosovo, Turkey preferred to uphold its historical, cultural and ethnic ties to Kosovo rather than its immediate political interests elsewhere. Yucina (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I dont think so. Kosovo had an autonomy for 50-60 years, but Serbs in 90s took it back. Kurds in Turkey never had an autonomy, there are no borders within Turkey. The separatist party only got votes from 1/3 of all Kurds living in Turkey in the last election. Also, Kurds and Turks have the same faiths which was not the case in Kosovo. There are thousands of intermerriages between Kurds and Turks. Moreover, there was big immigration wave from Kurdish areas to the west of turkey which makes a seperation of Kurdish and Turkish areas very problematic. Lastly turkish military forces are much stronger to resist such seperatist movements. However, Kurds in Northern Iraq may benefit from Kosovo in the long run.

Well Turkish recognition of Kosovo is already backfiring economically as the ever political wave of Russian tourists are likely to boycott Turkey in protest and find other destinations. They have boycotted France after the Kourshavel (SP) scandal, boycotted Latvia and Estonia as a response to these countries' insults on the Red Army, boycotted Ukraine in response to that country's deportation of politically active Russian tourists, so they are very political about where they go, call it Patriotic Tourism, or what not, point is that it will hurt Turkey's economy. Also Kosovo did not have autonomy for 50-60 years. Let's see, 1990-50 years = 1940. I don't recall Hitler giving the Kosovars political autonomy, nor do I recall Tito doing it. And Kosovo wasn't an autonomous part of Yugoslavia. So I don't exactly see how the Serbs took it back in the 1990's, considering they have already had it. But recognition of Kurds in Turkey by Russia is now possible, so recognizing Kosovo does hurt Turkey.
 * Interesting. But Turkey's recognition of Kosovo is primarily Serbia's problem, isn't it? Russia, of course, also opposes the USA and the EU on this matter. If Russian citizens boycott visiting countries with which their government has an argument, then I'm afraid they should sooner strike the USA and most of Western Europe off their itineries before forgoing the Turkish beaches. Regarding Kosovo's autonomy: Wikipedia's entry on Kosovo states the following: "The province was first formed in 1945 as the Autonomous Kosovo-Metohian Area ... but with no actual autonomy. ... Kosovo gained internal autonomy in the 1960s. ... In the 1974 constitution, the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo's government received higher powers, including the highest governmental titles — President and Prime Minister and a seat in the Federal Presidency which made it a de facto Socialist Republic within the Federation, but remaining a Socialist Autonomous Province within the Socialist Republic of Serbia. (Similar rights were extended to Vojvodina.)" If this information is incorrect, please update it citing relevant refrences. Also, please sign your posts. Yucina (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)