(english / italiano / deutsch)
Vigliacco pronunciamento sul Kosmet all'Aia
0) CIG: La dichiarazione di secessione non viola il diritto internazionale (Politika)
1) UN court upholds Kosovo’s declaration of independence (WSWS)
2) Unwürdige Wortklauberei / Serbisches Parlament beschließt Resolution zum Kosovo (junge Welt)
3) KKE: Decision “adding fuel to the fire” of the imperialist interventions / Decisione che getta benzina sul fuoco degli interventi imperialisti
4) Reactions / reazioni:
Interview: UN court did not say Kosovo's declaration of independence is legal: law experts (Xinhua News Agency)
UN court ruling on Kosovo opens Pandora’s box – lawmaker (Interfax)
U.S. VP [Joe Biden]: Independence is irreversible (Beta)
5) Chain reaction / reazione a catena:
Kosovo, è contagio-indipendenza ora è scontro sui serbi di Bosnia (Repubblica 24/7/2010)
Kyrgyzstan protests against OSCE deployment (Voice of Russia 26/7/2010)Tatarstan Nationalist Leader Encouraged By Court Ruling On Kosovo (RFE 26/7/2010)
6) Kosovo: 2 disegni possibili di risoluzione (Politika 17/07/2010)
By Julie Hyland and Paul Mitchell
junge Welt (Berlin), 24./25. 07. 2010
Serbisches Parlament beschließt Resolution zum Kosovo mit großer Mehrheit
Klare Worte bezüglich der Haltung Serbiens zum Kosovo fand am Dienstag das Parlament in Belgrad. Mit großer Mehrheit verabschiedete die Skupstina eine Resolution, in der es heißt, man werde die selbsterklärte Unabhängigkeit der serbischen Provinz niemals anerkennen. Nach erregter Debatte stimmten 192 Abgeordnete für die Entschließung, 26 dagegen und zwei enthielten sich.
Der Beschluß erfolgte in Reaktion auf ein Rechtsgutachten des Internationalen Gerichtshofs in Den Haag aus der vergangenen Woche. Darin hatte eine Mehrheit der Richter die Abspaltung des Kosovo von Serbien im Februar 2008 als legitim erklärt. Hierfür erhielt das Gericht Beifall von USA, BRD und anderen westlichen Staaten. Kritik kam unter anderem aus Belgrad, Moskau und Madrid.
In seiner jetzigen Resolution sprach sich das serbische Parlament ausdrücklich für »friedliche Verhandlungen« zur dauerhaften Lösung des Konflikts aus und regte damit eine Wiederaufnahme des Dialogs mit den Verantwortlichen im Kosovo an. Die Regierung der selbsternannten »Republik Kosovo« in Pristina sperrt sich seit Abbruch der Verhandlungen im November 2007 gegen jedes Gespräch mit Serbien. Dessen Staatspräsident Boris Tadic kündigte nun an, daß sich Belgrad bei der nächsten UN-Vollversammlung im September um neue Statusverhandlungen bemühen will. Bis dahin wolle man versuchen zu verhindern, daß weitere Staaten das Kosovo anerkennen.
Tadic betonte, Serbien strebe eine Kompromißlösung an. »Wir sind in einer sehr schwierigen Lage, (...) aber wir werden nicht die Kriegstrommel rühren«, sagte er. »Wir können unsere Interessen im Kosovo nicht wahren ohne Einbindung in die EU und gute Beziehungen zu den USA, Rußland und China«, meinte der westlich orientierte Politiker. Bislang haben 69 Staaten das Kosovo als unabhängigen Staat anerkannt. Die USA und Deutschland gehörten dabei zu den Vorreitern. Viele der 192 in der UN-Vollversammlung vertretenen Länder zögern allerdings trotz des IGH-Gutachtens weiter.
Unterdessen betonte der deutsche Außenminister Guido Westerwelle bei einem Besuch im slowenischen Ljubljana erneut, daß »die territoriale Integrität des Kosovos ein unabweisbares Faktum« sei. Die BRD hatte nach 1990 maßgeblich an der Abspaltung Sloweniens wie auch Kroatiens und Bosnien-Herzegowinas von Jugoslawien mitgewirkt. (AFP/apn/jW)
=== 3 ===
6) Kosovo: 2 disegni possibili di risoluzione (Politika 17/07/2010)
7) FLASKBACK: l’Iraq appoggia la sovranità serba in Kosovo (febbraio 2010)
=== 0 ===
(trad. e sintesi a cura di CNJ-onlus)
Corte Internazionale di Giustizia: La dichiarazione di secessione non viola il diritto internazionale
L'AIA - La Corte Internazionale di Giustizia dell'Aja (CIG) ha dichiarato che la dichiarazione delle autorità provvisorie a Pristina sull'indipendenza del Kosovo non viola il diritto internazionale.
In questo modo, la Corte dell'Aja non ha riconosciuto il diritto degli albanesi del Kosovo alla secessione, e la decisione sul processo ulteriore di soluzione per il problema del Kosovo è passata alle Nazioni Unite.
La CIG dichiara che la dichiarazione di indipendenza non viola il diritto internazionale perché l'atto di Pristina praticamente non lo tocca.
"Le norme legali internazionali non dispongono delle disposizioni attive che limiterebbero le dichiarazioni di indipendenza. Pertanto, possiamo concludere che la dichiarazione del 17 febbraio, non viola le norme internazionali del diritto", si dice nella decisione del tribunale.
La Corte ha precisato che non discute sul diritto di autodeterminazione o sul diritto di secessione obbligata.
La CIS è difatti rimasta nel quadro del suo mandato, il che significa che si occupa di controversie tra gli Stati, e di fatto il diritto internazionale né riconosce il diritto dei movimenti secessionisti, né li vieta.
"Il caso del Kosovo" è in questo modo restituito all'Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite, e la Serbia ha una possibilità di verificare la correttezza della sua politica in autunno a New York.
Il Presidente della Corte internazionale di giustizia, Hisashi Ovada, ha annunciato che 10 giudici hanno votato perchè la dichiarazione di indipendenza del Kosovo non rappresenta una violazione del diritto internazionale, mentre quattro giudici hanno espresso l'opinione opposta. [...]
Grande interesse
L'aula principale della Corte Internazionale di Giustizia era riempita quasi fino all'ultimo posto.
Oltre alla delegazione serba guidata dal ministro degli Esteri Vuk Jeremic e alla delegazione di Pristina, tra gli ascoltatori interessati nella "sala grande" (l'aula principale) c'erano i rappresentanti di tutti i cinque membri permanenti del Consiglio di Sicurezza, così come dell'Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite.
Secondo il cancelliere della Corte, Andrea Poskakukhin, questo evento rappresenta il più interessante che si ricordi nella storia di questo organo delle Nazioni Unite.
Ha aggiunto che c'erano 96 giornalisti accreditati, i cameramen e fotografi di media leader a livello mondiale, e altri 60 rappresentanti di varie organizzazioni interessate.
Un processo che è durato sette mesi
La decisione è stata attesa per più di sette mesi, dal dicembre dell'anno scorso, quando la CIG ha tenuto un dibattito di più giorni, in cui il parere sulla dichiarazione di indipendenza del Kosovo è stato esposto da 29 delegazioni.
La valutazione che la dichiarazione di indipendenza del Kosovo sarebbe in violazione del diritto internazionale è stata avanzata da Serbia, Cina, Russia, Spagna, Romania, Cipro, Argentina, Brasile, Vietnam, Bolivia, Venezuela, Azerbaigian e Bielorussia.
La tesi opposta, oltre ai rappresentanti kosovari, l'hanno esposta Stati Uniti, Regno Unito, Francia, Germania, Paesi Bassi, Austria, Norvegia, Danimarca, Finlandia, Bulgaria, Croazia, Albania, Giordania e Arabia Saudita.
Il rappresentante del Burundi ha detto che il Kosovo continuerà ad esistere come entità, indipendentemente dalla decisione della Corte internazionale di giustizia.
Il Kosovo il 17 febbraio 2008 ha emesso la propria dichiarazione di indipendenza, in seguito riconosciuta da 69 paesi.
---
Due anni e mezzo dalla dichiarazione unilaterale di indipendenza
Il preambolo della Costituzione della Serbia afferma che il Kosovo e la Metohija sono parti integranti della Serbia.
"Partendo dalla tradizione statale del popolo serbo e dall'uguaglianza di tutti i cittadini e comunità etniche in Serbia, partendo dal fatto che la provincia di Kosovo e Metohija è parte integrante del territorio serbo, che gode di una posizione di sostanziale autonomia all'interno dello stato sovrano della Serbia e che da questa posizione la Provincia del Kosovo e Metohija segue gli obblighi costituzionali di tutti gli organi di governo per rappresentare e tutelare gli interessi dello stato della Serbia in Kosovo e Metohija, in tutte le relazioni politiche interne ed esterne, i cittadini della Serbia adottano la Costituzione", sta scritto nel più alto atto legislativo della Serbia.
La secessione anti-costituzionale della parte albanese è arrivata otto anni dopo che le forze NATO nel 1999 hanno attaccato la Serbia senza alcuna autorizzazione dal Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU, per poi far entrare in Kosovo e Metohija le forze internazionali (KFOR), con l'amministrazione ad interim delle Nazioni Unite sulla provincia (UNMIK).
L'arrivo delle forze internazionali è stato preceduto dalla firma dell'accordo tecnico-militare a Kumanovo il 9 giugno 1999, che rappresentava la fine dei bombardamenti NATO. Il Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite l'11 ottobre 2005 ha espresso una decisione sui negoziati tra le autorità di Belgrado e Pristina sulla base della Risoluzione 1244 con cui al Kosovo e Metohija è garantita una sostanziale autonomia.
I negoziati diretti, mediati dall'inviato speciale Martti Ahtisaari, sono iniziati il 20 febbraio 2008 a Vienna, ed in seguito Ahtisaari ha definito il piano, e in data 7 febbraio 2007 l'ha presentato al presidente serbo Boris Tadic.
L'atto con cui la parte albanese ha dichiarato unilateralmente l'indipendenza del Kosovo, è stato adottata il 17 febbraio 2008 con una acclamazione nel parlamento provvisorio, senza la partecipazione dei deputati serbi, e perfino senza la presenza del Capo della amministrazione provvisoria delle Nazioni Unite, o del Comandante della KFOR.
Il giorno dopo, la decisione unilaterale dell'assemblea provvisoria sull'indipendenza del Kosovo, era già riconosciuta da otto paesi, il primo era l'Afghanistan, poi Stati Uniti, Francia, Albania, Turchia, Regno Unito e Senegal.
Su richiesta delle autorità di Belgrado, l'8 ottobre 2008, l'Assemblea Generale dell'ONU ha avviato un dibattito alla CIG sul tema se la secessione autoproclamata sia conforme al diritto internazionale.
L'Assemblea della Serbia, tenutasi immediatamente, ha confermato la precedente decisione di annullare la secessione anti-costituzionale, e il capo della politica estera Vuk Jeremic, ha ritirato i propri ambasciatori dai paesi che hanno riconosciuto l'indipendenza del Kosovo.
Notizie dalle Agenzie - pubblicato: 22/07/2010
=== 1 ===
UN court upholds Kosovo’s declaration of independence
By Julie Hyland and Paul Mitchell
30 July 2010
The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled last week by ten votes to four that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008 was legal.
The ICJ agreed to rule on the legality of Kosovo’s secession at the request of Serbia, which argued that the Serbian province’s declaration of independence was prohibited under international law. The verdict was condemned by Serbian President Boris Tadic, who warned that the ICJ opinion could open up “an entire process of creating new states … throughout the world, something that would destabilize many regions of the world.”
The ICJ’s ruling was a highly political decision of dubious legal merit. It provided judicial cover for the final act in a decade-long drive by the major Western powers to dismember Yugoslavia and weaken Serbia.
The most flagrant sophistry in the ruling was its assertion that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was not connected “with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law.”
Kosovo has been a constituent part of Serbia for centuries and was internationally recognised as such from 1912. It was only in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the imperialist powers switched to backing agitation by Albanian Kosovars for separation as part of their broader geo-political agenda in the Balkan Peninsula.
The demands for Kosovan independence had themselves been encouraged by Western backing for Croatia and Slovenia’s unilateral declarations of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.
These actions, in which a newly unified and more assertive Germany played the lead role, shattered the delicate political and legal framework that had been established within the Yugoslav federation to protect the rights of various minorities.
The result was a series of nationalist eruptions and reprisals, which were used by the United States to assert hegemony in the Balkans. Washington seized on the Bosnian civil war of 1992 to 1995 to champion Bosnia’s attempt to break from Yugoslavia in the name of “self-determination.”
The one factor unifying the Western powers was a common desire to undermine Serbia—the largest constituent part of Yugoslavia and one which traditionally had the closest relations with Russia—so as to divide the multiethnic Yugoslav state into ever-smaller autonomous units that would be more subservient to their interests.
The bloody outbreak of ethnic cleansing on the part of Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Serbs was encouraged by the West and the resulting humanitarian crisis utilised as a means of expanding imperialist military intervention in the region.
This is what determined the backing of the US and others for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)—a semi-criminal organisation linked to the drug trade and supported by the CIA and British intelligence.
There is no question that Serb policy in Kosovo had, since 1989, been characterised by chauvinism and repression. But when it suited Washington’s policies, as in Croatia’s mass expulsion of the Krajina Serbs in 1995, such atrocities were carried out with direct US support.
In the case of Kosovo, provocations were mounted by the KLA with the intention of causing reprisals by Belgrade, which in turn were used by the US to justify a military attack on Serbia in 1999.
The massive air bombardment of Belgrade between March and June that year was illegal under international law. Never sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, it was launched unilaterally by the US and NATO. Involving 1,000 aircraft and the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles, it killed an estimated 5,000 Serb civilians, caused a flood of refugees, and gravely intensified the humanitarian crisis as well as leading to further ethnic reprisals.
UN Resolution 1244, which ended the air war, guaranteed the territorial integrity of Serbia, including Kosovo, even as it turned the province into a de facto UN protectorate. Under UN control, Kosovo was turned over to the KLA, which proceeded to attack Kosovan Serbs, forcing thousands to flee.
In its ruling, the ICJ acknowledged that UN Resolution 1244 and subsequent agreements stipulated that any final political settlement for Kosovo was dependent upon agreement by all the parties concerned. It also accepted that under the UN Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government, enacted in May 2001, Kosovo’s own institutions were specifically barred from making any unilateral decisions on the province’s status.
In a legal sleight of hand, the ICJ determined that the 2008 declaration of independence had not been made by the Assembly of Kosovo, even though its name was invoked at the meeting at which the declaration was issued. Rather, it stated obliquely, the declaration was made by “persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration.”
In truth, the declaration was made at the behest of the US and the European Union, which had been promoting Kosovo’s separation from Serbia over the preceding years.
It was the UN’s special envoy in Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari, who, under pressure from Washington, first set down explicitly the plan for the province’s independence in March 2007, giving the green light for the unilateral declaration just 11 months later.
Even before the ICJ’s ruling was announced, Washington made clear it would back Kosovo’s declaration regardless. A White House statement “reaffirmed the United States’ full support for an independent, democratic, whole and multi-ethnic Kosovo whose future lies firmly within European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.”
It should be noted that within months of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, Georgia attacked the separatist enclave of South Ossettia, provoking a brief war with Russia. In that instance, the US adamantly rejected South Ossettia’s demand for independence and continues to do so.
Washington makes no attempt to justify this brazen double standard, other than with the legally absurd assertion that Kosovo is a unique case, which “doesn’t set any precedent for other regions or states.”
The ICJ has similarly declared that its ruling applies solely to Kosovo. Nor would it rule on the “legal consequences” of the unilateral declaration, or as to whether “Kosovo has achieved statehood,” it stated.
The verdict is intended to legitimise Kosovo’s separation from Serbia by clearing its path for membership of the UN. For this, Kosovo requires the recognition of two-thirds of the UN General Assembly. To date, 69 of the 192 member countries have done so. Following the ICJ ruling, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated Washington’s “call on those states that have not yet done so to recognise Kosovo.”
Amongst those opposing UN recognition of Kosovo are Russia, China, Indonesia, Spain, Cyprus and Greece. All face secessionist movements in their own countries that will have been encouraged by the ICJ’s ruling.
Condemning the ICJ’s verdict, Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, stated, “We will not accept the splitting of a country that is a member of the United Nations. On principle, we consider Serbia a unified whole.” China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said that “respecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity is a fundamental principle of international law.”
Spain’s deputy prime minister, Maria Fernandez de la Vega, reiterated that Spain would not “recognize the seceded Serbian province as an independent country.”
Turkey, one of the first countries to recognize Kosovan independence, welcomed the ICJ verdict, hoping that it would aid its case for an independent Turkish state in Cyprus.
Talk of Kosovan independence, however, is little more than a legal fiction. Economically, it is heavily dependent on international aid and all major decisions pertaining to the economy, public spending, social programmes, security and trade are controlled by the US, the European Union and their various agencies.
More fundamentally, what the ICJ ruling has really established is a legal imprimatur for the assertion by the imperialist powers that they alone will determine who has the right to independence, based upon their interests at any given time.
=== 2 ===
junge Welt (Berlin), 24./25. 07. 2010
Unwürdige Wortklauberei
Das Rechtsgutachten des Haager Gerichtshofs zum Kosovo unter der Lupe
Von Cathrin SchützNun liegt das mit einiger Spannung erwartete Rechtsgutachten zur Abspaltung des Kosovo von Serbien also vor. Der Internationale Gerichtshof (IGH) in Den Haag erklärte am Donnerstag lapidar: »Die am 17. Februar 2008 verabschiedete Unabhängigkeitserklärung des Kosovo verstieß nicht gegen das Völkerrecht.« Daß die Bewertung derartig eindeutig ausfiel, kam überraschend. Viele Experten hatten einen »ausgewogenen Text« erwartet, der allen Seiten ein bißchen Recht gibt.
Für ein derartiges Ergebnis sprach einerseits die klare Hervorhebung der »Souveränität und territorialen Integrität der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien« in der UNO-Sicherheitsratsresolution 1244 von 1999. Diese regelt den Status des Kosovo und die Befugnisse einer Interimsverwaltung. Dem entgegen stand der politische Druck einflußreicher westlicher Staaten, die die Unabhängigkeit der serbischen Provinz forciert hatten.
Die Einholung des Gutachtens war auf Initiative Serbiens im Oktober 2008 von der UNO-Vollversammlung beschlossen worden. Die knapp anderthalb Jahre danach vorgelegte Entscheidung fällte das Gericht keinesfalls einmütig. Sie wurde mit zehn gegen vier Stimmen getroffen. Acht der 14 Richter legten der Entscheidung ihre gesonderten und abweichenden Meinungen bei. In diesen wird die Mehrheitsentscheidung teils scharf kritisiert.
So sehen einige Richter die Voraussetzungen für ein Gutachten des IGH nicht erfüllt. Ihre Begründung: Die UNO-Vollversammlung habe es zu einer Frage beantragt, die seit mehr als zehn Jahren nicht auf ihrer Tagesordnung steht, sondern auf der des UN-Sicherheitsrats. Tatsächlich hätte die serbische Regierung direkt beim IGH gegen alle Staaten, die das Kosovo als unabhängigen Staat anerkennen, klagen können – statt den Umweg über die Vollversammlung zu wählen. Doch verbot sich dieser Konfrontationskurs der westlich orientierten Regierung in Belgrad.
Besonders heftig kritisierten mehrere Richter, daß ihre Kollegen die von der Vollversammlung gestellte Frage, ob »die einseitige Unabhängigkeitserklärung durch die vorläufigen Selbstverwaltungsorgane des Kosovo völkerrechtsgemäß« ist, eigenmächtig umformulierten. Die Unabhängigkeitserklärung sei zwar vom Kosovo-Parlament verabschiedet worden. Doch handelte dieses nicht in seiner eigentlichen Eigenschaft als Parlament. Also wurden aus ihm »Repräsentanten der Bevölkerung des Kosovo außerhalb des Rahmens der Interimsverwaltung«.
Mit dieser bemerkenswerten Argumentation gesteht das Gericht ein, daß das Kosovo-Parlament keine Befugnis hatte, die Unabhängigkeit des Kosovo zu erklären. Doch zogen die Richter daraus nicht etwa den Schluß, daß die gestellte Frage folglich klar beantwortet ist, sondern formulierten sie um. Da das Kosovo-Parlament mit der einseitigen Loslösung von Ser bien seine Kompetenzen überschritten habe, hätte es nicht mehr als Teil der »vorläufigen Selbstverwaltungsorgane« gehandelt, von denen in der Anfrage der Vollversammlung die Rede ist.
Peter Tomka, der slowakische IGH-Vizepräsident, findet in seiner der Entscheidung beigefügten Erklärung deutliche Worte für dieses Manöver: »Die Mehrheit (...) gab ihre Antwort jedoch erst, nachdem sie die Frage ›angepaßt‹ hatte. Diese ›Anpassung‹ war für die gegebene Antwort von entscheidender Bedeutung. Tatsächlich bestimmte sie das Ergebnis voraus.«
Festzustellen bleibt, daß der Gerichtshof mit dieser unwürdigen Wortklauberei die eigentliche Frage, ob die Abspaltung des Kosovo von Serbien mit dem Völkerrecht vereinbar ist, gar nicht beantwortet hat.
Für ein derartiges Ergebnis sprach einerseits die klare Hervorhebung der »Souveränität und territorialen Integrität der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien« in der UNO-Sicherheitsratsresolution 1244 von 1999. Diese regelt den Status des Kosovo und die Befugnisse einer Interimsverwaltung. Dem entgegen stand der politische Druck einflußreicher westlicher Staaten, die die Unabhängigkeit der serbischen Provinz forciert hatten.
Die Einholung des Gutachtens war auf Initiative Serbiens im Oktober 2008 von der UNO-Vollversammlung beschlossen worden. Die knapp anderthalb Jahre danach vorgelegte Entscheidung fällte das Gericht keinesfalls einmütig. Sie wurde mit zehn gegen vier Stimmen getroffen. Acht der 14 Richter legten der Entscheidung ihre gesonderten und abweichenden Meinungen bei. In diesen wird die Mehrheitsentscheidung teils scharf kritisiert.
So sehen einige Richter die Voraussetzungen für ein Gutachten des IGH nicht erfüllt. Ihre Begründung: Die UNO-Vollversammlung habe es zu einer Frage beantragt, die seit mehr als zehn Jahren nicht auf ihrer Tagesordnung steht, sondern auf der des UN-Sicherheitsrats. Tatsächlich hätte die serbische Regierung direkt beim IGH gegen alle Staaten, die das Kosovo als unabhängigen Staat anerkennen, klagen können – statt den Umweg über die Vollversammlung zu wählen. Doch verbot sich dieser Konfrontationskurs der westlich orientierten Regierung in Belgrad.
Besonders heftig kritisierten mehrere Richter, daß ihre Kollegen die von der Vollversammlung gestellte Frage, ob »die einseitige Unabhängigkeitserklärung durch die vorläufigen Selbstverwaltungsorgane des Kosovo völkerrechtsgemäß« ist, eigenmächtig umformulierten. Die Unabhängigkeitserklärung sei zwar vom Kosovo-Parlament verabschiedet worden. Doch handelte dieses nicht in seiner eigentlichen Eigenschaft als Parlament. Also wurden aus ihm »Repräsentanten der Bevölkerung des Kosovo außerhalb des Rahmens der Interimsverwaltung«.
Mit dieser bemerkenswerten Argumentation gesteht das Gericht ein, daß das Kosovo-Parlament keine Befugnis hatte, die Unabhängigkeit des Kosovo zu erklären. Doch zogen die Richter daraus nicht etwa den Schluß, daß die gestellte Frage folglich klar beantwortet ist, sondern formulierten sie um. Da das Kosovo-Parlament mit der einseitigen Loslösung von Ser bien seine Kompetenzen überschritten habe, hätte es nicht mehr als Teil der »vorläufigen Selbstverwaltungsorgane« gehandelt, von denen in der Anfrage der Vollversammlung die Rede ist.
Peter Tomka, der slowakische IGH-Vizepräsident, findet in seiner der Entscheidung beigefügten Erklärung deutliche Worte für dieses Manöver: »Die Mehrheit (...) gab ihre Antwort jedoch erst, nachdem sie die Frage ›angepaßt‹ hatte. Diese ›Anpassung‹ war für die gegebene Antwort von entscheidender Bedeutung. Tatsächlich bestimmte sie das Ergebnis voraus.«
Festzustellen bleibt, daß der Gerichtshof mit dieser unwürdigen Wortklauberei die eigentliche Frage, ob die Abspaltung des Kosovo von Serbien mit dem Völkerrecht vereinbar ist, gar nicht beantwortet hat.
---
Serbisches Parlament beschließt Resolution zum Kosovo mit großer Mehrheit
Klare Worte bezüglich der Haltung Serbiens zum Kosovo fand am Dienstag das Parlament in Belgrad. Mit großer Mehrheit verabschiedete die Skupstina eine Resolution, in der es heißt, man werde die selbsterklärte Unabhängigkeit der serbischen Provinz niemals anerkennen. Nach erregter Debatte stimmten 192 Abgeordnete für die Entschließung, 26 dagegen und zwei enthielten sich.
Der Beschluß erfolgte in Reaktion auf ein Rechtsgutachten des Internationalen Gerichtshofs in Den Haag aus der vergangenen Woche. Darin hatte eine Mehrheit der Richter die Abspaltung des Kosovo von Serbien im Februar 2008 als legitim erklärt. Hierfür erhielt das Gericht Beifall von USA, BRD und anderen westlichen Staaten. Kritik kam unter anderem aus Belgrad, Moskau und Madrid.
In seiner jetzigen Resolution sprach sich das serbische Parlament ausdrücklich für »friedliche Verhandlungen« zur dauerhaften Lösung des Konflikts aus und regte damit eine Wiederaufnahme des Dialogs mit den Verantwortlichen im Kosovo an. Die Regierung der selbsternannten »Republik Kosovo« in Pristina sperrt sich seit Abbruch der Verhandlungen im November 2007 gegen jedes Gespräch mit Serbien. Dessen Staatspräsident Boris Tadic kündigte nun an, daß sich Belgrad bei der nächsten UN-Vollversammlung im September um neue Statusverhandlungen bemühen will. Bis dahin wolle man versuchen zu verhindern, daß weitere Staaten das Kosovo anerkennen.
Tadic betonte, Serbien strebe eine Kompromißlösung an. »Wir sind in einer sehr schwierigen Lage, (...) aber wir werden nicht die Kriegstrommel rühren«, sagte er. »Wir können unsere Interessen im Kosovo nicht wahren ohne Einbindung in die EU und gute Beziehungen zu den USA, Rußland und China«, meinte der westlich orientierte Politiker. Bislang haben 69 Staaten das Kosovo als unabhängigen Staat anerkannt. Die USA und Deutschland gehörten dabei zu den Vorreitern. Viele der 192 in der UN-Vollversammlung vertretenen Länder zögern allerdings trotz des IGH-Gutachtens weiter.
Unterdessen betonte der deutsche Außenminister Guido Westerwelle bei einem Besuch im slowenischen Ljubljana erneut, daß »die territoriale Integrität des Kosovos ein unabweisbares Faktum« sei. Die BRD hatte nach 1990 maßgeblich an der Abspaltung Sloweniens wie auch Kroatiens und Bosnien-Herzegowinas von Jugoslawien mitgewirkt. (AFP/apn/jW)
Decision “adding fuel to the fire” of the imperialist interventions
The international Court of Hague decided today that the so called “declaration of Kosovo independence” did not violate the International Law. Although this decision is not legally binding it is obvious that it will make a serious legal precedent.
This decision of the International Court of Hague proves once again what KKE has long ago warned of, namely that the international law formed after the Second World War, as a result of the correlation of forces between imperialism one the one hand, and the Soviet Union and the people’s republics on the other, no longer exists. It has gone to pieces!
On the one hand, the international organisations cover for the USA, NATO and other imperialist forces so that they can promote their interests. On the other hand, they have been turned into a field of confrontation and provisional compromises between the big imperialist powers. For that reason, the decision of the International Court of Hague “legitimates” the war machine of NATO, the imperialist war in Balkans and of course its results, that is the protectorate of Kosovo.
This decision constitutes a warning for the Greek people as well, who see the Greek governments of PASOK and ND to rely on NATO, the EU and the International Court of Hague as regards the problems between Greece and Turkey. At the same time this decision is particularly dangerous as it adds fuel to the fire of the existing and non existing minority issues which are utilized by the imperialist powers for their interventions. The Balkan region is in danger of entering a new cycle of imperialist interventions and bloody conflicts under the pretext of the “protection” of minorities.
The peoples should not have any illusions about the so called “international institutions” and the alleged “global democratic governance “of capitalism. The only hope for the peoples is the firm and mass anti-imperialist struggle, their common front against imperialism and its unions, a struggle which is inextricably linked with the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism.
The international Court of Hague decided today that the so called “declaration of Kosovo independence” did not violate the International Law. Although this decision is not legally binding it is obvious that it will make a serious legal precedent.
This decision of the International Court of Hague proves once again what KKE has long ago warned of, namely that the international law formed after the Second World War, as a result of the correlation of forces between imperialism one the one hand, and the Soviet Union and the people’s republics on the other, no longer exists. It has gone to pieces!
On the one hand, the international organisations cover for the USA, NATO and other imperialist forces so that they can promote their interests. On the other hand, they have been turned into a field of confrontation and provisional compromises between the big imperialist powers. For that reason, the decision of the International Court of Hague “legitimates” the war machine of NATO, the imperialist war in Balkans and of course its results, that is the protectorate of Kosovo.
This decision constitutes a warning for the Greek people as well, who see the Greek governments of PASOK and ND to rely on NATO, the EU and the International Court of Hague as regards the problems between Greece and Turkey. At the same time this decision is particularly dangerous as it adds fuel to the fire of the existing and non existing minority issues which are utilized by the imperialist powers for their interventions. The Balkan region is in danger of entering a new cycle of imperialist interventions and bloody conflicts under the pretext of the “protection” of minorities.
The peoples should not have any illusions about the so called “international institutions” and the alleged “global democratic governance “of capitalism. The only hope for the peoples is the firm and mass anti-imperialist struggle, their common front against imperialism and its unions, a struggle which is inextricably linked with the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism.
---
da Partito Comunista di Grecia - inter.kke.gr/News/2010news/2010-07-23-kosovo
Traduzione dall'inglese per www.resistenze.org a cura del Centro di Cultura e Documentazione Popolare
Decisione che getta benzina sul fuoco degli interventi imperialisti
22/07/2010
La Corte internazionale dell'Aja ha deciso oggi che la cosiddetta "Dichiarazione di indipendenza del Kosovo" non viola il diritto internazionale. Anche se la decisione non è legalmente vincolante è evidente che costituisce un precedente giuridico di grande rilievo.
Questa decisione della Corte internazionale testimonia un fatto sui cui il KKE aveva messo in guardia da tempo, ossia che il diritto internazionale - formatosi dopo la seconda guerra mondiale come correlazione tra l'imperialismo e Unione Sovietica assieme alle repubbliche popolari - non esiste più, è andato in frantumi!
Le organizzazioni internazionali sono contemporaneamente "la foglia di fico" che fornisce a Stati Uniti, NATO e alle altre forze imperialiste la copertura per promuovere i loro interessi, e, dall'altra, il terreno di scontro e di compromesso - temporaneo - tra le potenze imperialiste. Così la decisione della Corte internazionale dell'Aja "legittima" la macchina da guerra della NATO, la guerra imperialista nei Balcani e, naturalmente il suo risultato: il protettorato del Kosovo.
Questa decisione costituisce un monito per il popolo greco che guarda i governi che si avvicendano al potere - PASOK (socialdemocratici) e ND (Nuova Democrazia, conservatori) - fare affidamento sulla NATO, la UE e la Corte Internazionale dell'Aja per quanto riguarda la situazione greco-turca. Questa decisione è particolarmente pericolosa perché aggiunge benzina sul fuoco delle questioni delle minoranze, reali o artificiose, utilizzate dalle potenze imperialiste per i loro interventi. La regione dei Balcani rischia di entrare in un nuovo ciclo di interventi imperialisti e sanguinosi conflitti sotto il pretesto della "protezione" delle minoranze.
I popoli non dovrebbero nutrire illusioni sulle cosiddette "istituzioni internazionali" o sulla presunta "governance democratica mondiale" del capitalismo. L'unica speranza per i popoli è la dura lotta di massa antimperialista, il fronte comune contro l'imperialismo e le sue unioni, una lotta inestricabilmente connessa con la lotta per il rovesciamento del capitalismo e la costruzione del socialismo.
=== 4 ===
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-07/24/c_13412534.htm
Xinhua News Agency - July 23, 2010
Interview: UN court did not say Kosovo's declaration of independence is legal: law experts
Xinhua News Agency - July 23, 2010
Interview: UN court did not say Kosovo's declaration of independence is legal: law experts
by Wang Xiangjiang
UNITED NATIONS: In its ruling on Kosovo's declaration of independence, the International Court of Justice ( ICJ) did not declare the breakaway territory's act is legal, simply because international law does not address such declarations, law experts told Xinhua on Friday.
In response to a question raised by UN General Assembly, the ICJ ruled on Thursday that Kosovo's declaration of independence of February 2008 "did not violate general international law." International law experts interviewed by Xinhua said they believed that it was the first time that an international judicial body has ever been asked to rule on such a question.
"Whilst the declaration was not illegal, the Court did not actually declare it legal either; simply that international law does not address such declarations," said Ian Bancroft, co-founder of TransConflict, an organization undertaking conflict transformation projects and research throughout the Western Balkans.
"The broader issue of the legal rights to self-determination and secession, however, do not appear to have been addressed by the Court," Bancroft said.
Echoing a similar point, Paola Gaeta, a law professor of the University of Geneva, said that there exists a difference between legal and not contrary to the law.
"To be very picky I would say better: it is not contrary to international law," she said.
"To say it is not contrary to international law means that international law does not prohibit it; to say it is legal it means that has been done in accordance with international law, as if international law regulates the issue of declaration of independence, which is not the case."
Gaeta also said that the Court has not discussed whether Kosovo had the right to exercise the right of self-determination and to become an independent state, a right which surely exists under international law for certain categories of people.
Therefore, the Court has only discussed the legality of Kosovo' s act of declaring independence and clarified that general international law does not prohibit people from declaring independence, said the law professor.
"Although the Court has not discussed it, however, it is clear that Kosovo cannot come under the three categories of people surely entitled to self-determination -- people subjected to foreign occupation, colonial domination and apartheid," Gaeta said.
Dex Torricke-Barton, an international security analyst, noted the importance not to exaggerate the legal impact of the Court's decision.
"The ICJ ruled that nothing in international law prevented Kosovo declaring its independence. But it didn't make any broader claims about rights to self-determination or independence," Torricke-Barton said. "This was a highly specific ruling and shouldn't be used to set a precedent, partly why it was a non- binding judgment."
IMPLICATION
Bancroft expressed concern about the ICJ ruling's implication on international politics.
"The ruling itself in a way emphasizes the prevalence of realpolitik over international law. What is important are the ' facts on the ground', not the legal arguments advanced for or against independence or secession," he said.
"The implication of the ruling is that states can no longer rely upon international law to guarantee their territorial integrity," Bancroft said.
"If a secessionist movement is prepared to take the step of declaring independence and other sovereign nations are willing to recognize that, then the country set to lose part of its territory will have to find other ways to deter and prevent this," he said.
"Unfortunately, this will include a resort to the use of force and other means of discouragement. In many ways this has always been the case, but now there is greater legal clarity about declarations of independence." he said.
Gaeta, however, played down the implication of the Court's ruling and the possibility that separatists around the world would invoke it as a lawful precedent.
"I don't think so, unless one wants to read in the ruling what the ruling clearly does not say," she said.
UNITED NATIONS: In its ruling on Kosovo's declaration of independence, the International Court of Justice ( ICJ) did not declare the breakaway territory's act is legal, simply because international law does not address such declarations, law experts told Xinhua on Friday.
In response to a question raised by UN General Assembly, the ICJ ruled on Thursday that Kosovo's declaration of independence of February 2008 "did not violate general international law." International law experts interviewed by Xinhua said they believed that it was the first time that an international judicial body has ever been asked to rule on such a question.
"Whilst the declaration was not illegal, the Court did not actually declare it legal either; simply that international law does not address such declarations," said Ian Bancroft, co-founder of TransConflict, an organization undertaking conflict transformation projects and research throughout the Western Balkans.
"The broader issue of the legal rights to self-determination and secession, however, do not appear to have been addressed by the Court," Bancroft said.
Echoing a similar point, Paola Gaeta, a law professor of the University of Geneva, said that there exists a difference between legal and not contrary to the law.
"To be very picky I would say better: it is not contrary to international law," she said.
"To say it is not contrary to international law means that international law does not prohibit it; to say it is legal it means that has been done in accordance with international law, as if international law regulates the issue of declaration of independence, which is not the case."
Gaeta also said that the Court has not discussed whether Kosovo had the right to exercise the right of self-determination and to become an independent state, a right which surely exists under international law for certain categories of people.
Therefore, the Court has only discussed the legality of Kosovo' s act of declaring independence and clarified that general international law does not prohibit people from declaring independence, said the law professor.
"Although the Court has not discussed it, however, it is clear that Kosovo cannot come under the three categories of people surely entitled to self-determination -- people subjected to foreign occupation, colonial domination and apartheid," Gaeta said.
Dex Torricke-Barton, an international security analyst, noted the importance not to exaggerate the legal impact of the Court's decision.
"The ICJ ruled that nothing in international law prevented Kosovo declaring its independence. But it didn't make any broader claims about rights to self-determination or independence," Torricke-Barton said. "This was a highly specific ruling and shouldn't be used to set a precedent, partly why it was a non- binding judgment."
IMPLICATION
Bancroft expressed concern about the ICJ ruling's implication on international politics.
"The ruling itself in a way emphasizes the prevalence of realpolitik over international law. What is important are the ' facts on the ground', not the legal arguments advanced for or against independence or secession," he said.
"The implication of the ruling is that states can no longer rely upon international law to guarantee their territorial integrity," Bancroft said.
"If a secessionist movement is prepared to take the step of declaring independence and other sovereign nations are willing to recognize that, then the country set to lose part of its territory will have to find other ways to deter and prevent this," he said.
"Unfortunately, this will include a resort to the use of force and other means of discouragement. In many ways this has always been the case, but now there is greater legal clarity about declarations of independence." he said.
Gaeta, however, played down the implication of the Court's ruling and the possibility that separatists around the world would invoke it as a lawful precedent.
"I don't think so, unless one wants to read in the ruling what the ruling clearly does not say," she said.
---
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=178886
Interfax - July 22, 2010
UN court ruling on Kosovo opens Pandora’s box – lawmaker
MOSCOW: Dangerous trends could make themselves felt after the UN highest court ruled that Kosovo's independence does not break international law, said Leonid Slutsky, the first deputy chairman of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee.
The International Court of Justice earlier on Thursday ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008 did not break international law.
"This ruling could be likened to Pandora's box, and I can foresee a lot of dangerous trends emerging globally similar to what was going on in Kosovo at one time," Slutsky told Interfax.
But he said that the International Court of Justice's decision was predictable.
"It is awful, though, that a majority of the world's advanced nations backed the position of unilateral recognition of Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence. Yet, this is happening in the 21st century," Slutsky said.
"This ruling and the position assumed by a majority of Western countries seems extremely strange, to say the least. We were witnessing one ethnic group aggressively ousting and destroying another ethnic group that had lived in Kosovo for centuries," he said.
Today's ruling is a vivid example of how double standards are being applied in the politics of many countries, he continued. "Neither logic, nor common sense is to be found here. Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence is recognized as normal, while the independence, proclaimed by Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is not recognized by an overwhelming majority of the international community," he said.
The ruling passed by the International Court of Justice is "a clearly collective and very serious twist in international politics, in institutions of law and in the world's leading nations," Slutsky said.
The International Court of Justice's decision is political, rather than legal, said Leonid Kalashnikov, first vice chairman of the International Affairs Committee.
"But if the question is tossed to the UN court, whether the self-proclaimed independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was legitimate, the answer will be different in principle - negative," he said.
The International Court of Justice "has actually legitimatized the deadly bloodshed we witnessed several years ago before Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence," he also said.
Kalashnikov said that most countries recognized Kosovo's independence long before the ruling was passed, "which fuelled separatist sentiment in a number of trouble regions."
Interfax - July 22, 2010
UN court ruling on Kosovo opens Pandora’s box – lawmaker
MOSCOW: Dangerous trends could make themselves felt after the UN highest court ruled that Kosovo's independence does not break international law, said Leonid Slutsky, the first deputy chairman of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee.
The International Court of Justice earlier on Thursday ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008 did not break international law.
"This ruling could be likened to Pandora's box, and I can foresee a lot of dangerous trends emerging globally similar to what was going on in Kosovo at one time," Slutsky told Interfax.
But he said that the International Court of Justice's decision was predictable.
"It is awful, though, that a majority of the world's advanced nations backed the position of unilateral recognition of Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence. Yet, this is happening in the 21st century," Slutsky said.
"This ruling and the position assumed by a majority of Western countries seems extremely strange, to say the least. We were witnessing one ethnic group aggressively ousting and destroying another ethnic group that had lived in Kosovo for centuries," he said.
Today's ruling is a vivid example of how double standards are being applied in the politics of many countries, he continued. "Neither logic, nor common sense is to be found here. Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence is recognized as normal, while the independence, proclaimed by Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is not recognized by an overwhelming majority of the international community," he said.
The ruling passed by the International Court of Justice is "a clearly collective and very serious twist in international politics, in institutions of law and in the world's leading nations," Slutsky said.
The International Court of Justice's decision is political, rather than legal, said Leonid Kalashnikov, first vice chairman of the International Affairs Committee.
"But if the question is tossed to the UN court, whether the self-proclaimed independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was legitimate, the answer will be different in principle - negative," he said.
The International Court of Justice "has actually legitimatized the deadly bloodshed we witnessed several years ago before Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence," he also said.
Kalashnikov said that most countries recognized Kosovo's independence long before the ruling was passed, "which fuelled separatist sentiment in a number of trouble regions."
---
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=07&dd=22&nav_id=68591
Beta News Agency - July 22, 2010
U.S. VP: Independence is irreversible
WASHINGTON: U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden said that "Kosovo’s independence is irreversible" and that economic progress and integration progress await Kosovo.
After meeting with Kosovo Albanian Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, Biden said that the American administration holds the Kosovo government’s orientation towards implementing the rule of law in high regards.
He assured Thaci that the "territorial integrity of Kosovo" cannot be questioned and that rights and laws must be implemented on the "entire territory of Kosovo".
Biden said that Kosovo’s future is within the European Union and NATO.
According to a statement from Biden, the two officials talked about current political events in Kosovo, the economic process, and the progress made in achieving democratic standards.
Thaci said that he is convinced that there would be a new wave of recognitions for Kosovo soon, which would "prove that Kosovo’s independence has contributed positively to peace, stability, and development in the region".
During his visit to Washington, Thaci met with senior officials of the State Department, International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
Beta News Agency - July 22, 2010
U.S. VP: Independence is irreversible
WASHINGTON: U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden said that "Kosovo’s independence is irreversible" and that economic progress and integration progress await Kosovo.
After meeting with Kosovo Albanian Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, Biden said that the American administration holds the Kosovo government’s orientation towards implementing the rule of law in high regards.
He assured Thaci that the "territorial integrity of Kosovo" cannot be questioned and that rights and laws must be implemented on the "entire territory of Kosovo".
Biden said that Kosovo’s future is within the European Union and NATO.
According to a statement from Biden, the two officials talked about current political events in Kosovo, the economic process, and the progress made in achieving democratic standards.
Thaci said that he is convinced that there would be a new wave of recognitions for Kosovo soon, which would "prove that Kosovo’s independence has contributed positively to peace, stability, and development in the region".
During his visit to Washington, Thaci met with senior officials of the State Department, International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
=== 5 ===
Kosovo, è contagio-indipendenza ora è scontro sui serbi di Bosnia
Repubblica — 24 luglio 2010 pagina 16 sezione: POLITICA ESTERA
ALL' INDOMANI del parere favorevole all' indipendenza kosovara da parte della Corte internazionale di giustizia altre voci secessioniste si sono fatte sentire, in altre regioni del pianeta. Voci che le cancellerie e gli Stati sovrani hanno subito cercato di tacitare. I serbi di Bosnia, per esempio, hanno ieri ribadito con forza il loro desiderio di indipendenza dal mosaico nazionale che Washington abbozzò, forse con troppa fretta, all' indomani della sanguinosa guerra finita nel 1995. A perorare la causa dell' autonomia della Repubblica serba di Bosnia (Srpska) è stato il suo primo ministro, Milorad Dodid, il quale s' è detto pronto a combattere per un nuovo status «compatibile con la legge internazionale, in linea, cioè, con la Corte dell' Aja». Alle velleità indipendentiste del premier Dodid ha risposto l' ambasciatore statunitense a Sarajevo, Charles English, IL PREMIER Il primo ministro della repubblica serba di Bosnia, Milorad Dodik, è tornato a chiedere la indipendenza dalla BosniaErzegovina. sentenziando che «ogni divisione della Bosnia è inaccettabile per legge». Oltre all' Abkhazia (che si è de facto staccata dalla Georgia nel 2008), hanno applaudito al pronunciamento della Corte anche la Croazia e la Macedonia. Per il ministro degli Esteri tedesco, Guido Westerwelle, il Kosovo rappresenta un caso "particolare" e non dovrà perciò creare precedenti. La posizione tedesca corrisponde a quella dei 69 Paesi che hanno riconosciuto l' indipendenza kosovara ma che non intendono sottoscrivere la tesi del "vaso di Pandora" aperto dalla Corte internazionale. Temendo un effetto di contagio alla Catalogna e ai Paesi Baschi, il governo spagnolo ha invece confermato che non intende riconoscere l' indipendenza del Kosovo. In serata, Belgrado s' è detta pronta a lanciare una vasta offensiva diplomatica per arginare gli effetti del pronunciamento di due giorni fa, spedendo inviati in una cinquantina di paesi che potrebbero riconoscere la sovranità del Kosovo. Sempre ieri, le forze dell' Unimik hanno arrestato a Pristina il governatore della banca centrale del Kosovo, Hashim Rexhepi. Un arresto non casuale, perché l' Ue insiste da tempo sulla necessità che il paese balcanico lotti a fondo contro la dilagante corruzione. Pristina ha capito che Bruxelles continuerà ad elargirgli aiuti finanziari a patto che vengano sconfitti il malcostume e la disonestà, a partire dai più alti livelli istituzionali. - PIETRO DEL RE
---
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/07/26/13428012.html
Voice of Russia - July 26, 2010
Kyrgyzstan protests against OSCE deployment
Residents of Bishkek and Osh have resumed protest actions against the deployment of OSCE police forces in southern Kyrgyzstan. Fearing the repetition of the so-called “Kosovo scenario”, participants in numerous rallies say they will take extreme measures if the government refuses to comply with their demands.
In an interview with the Russian media, President of Kyrgyzstan Roza Otunbayeva stressed that the political decision on deploying an OSCE mission in southern regions has already been made by the interim government.
Through training and consulting, the 50-strong group of police officers will aid the republic's law enforcement agencies in easing interethnic tension between the Kyrgyz and Uzbeks. Over 300 people were killed and some 2,000 sustained injuries in mass disorders which hit the south of the country in June this year.
---
Voice of Russia - July 26, 2010
Kyrgyzstan protests against OSCE deployment
Residents of Bishkek and Osh have resumed protest actions against the deployment of OSCE police forces in southern Kyrgyzstan. Fearing the repetition of the so-called “Kosovo scenario”, participants in numerous rallies say they will take extreme measures if the government refuses to comply with their demands.
In an interview with the Russian media, President of Kyrgyzstan Roza Otunbayeva stressed that the political decision on deploying an OSCE mission in southern regions has already been made by the interim government.
Through training and consulting, the 50-strong group of police officers will aid the republic's law enforcement agencies in easing interethnic tension between the Kyrgyz and Uzbeks. Over 300 people were killed and some 2,000 sustained injuries in mass disorders which hit the south of the country in June this year.
---
http://www.rferl.org/content/Tatarstan_Nationalist_Leader_Encouraged_By_Court_Ruling_On_Kosovo/2109747.html
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - July 26, 2010
Tatarstan Nationalist Leader Encouraged By Court Ruling On Kosovo
KAZAN, Tatarstan: There have been mixed reactions in the Russian republic of Tatarstan to the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling that Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia did not violate international law, RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service reports.
There has been no official comment by officials in Tatarstan about the court's ruling on July 22.
But the decision was welcomed by Fauzia Bayramova, the chairwoman of the Milli Medjlis, a self-proclaimed pan-Tatar national assembly. She said on July 23 that she hopes Tatarstan can follow the same path as Kosovo and declare its independence.
"The [ICJ] decision on Kosovo gives us [Tatar independence activists] hope and the chance that in the future Tatarstan and other nations of [Russia's] Volga region can become independent," Bayramova told RFE/RL. "But the leadership of Tatarstan has never appealed to the international community asking for recognition of Tatarstan's sovereignty [and] I don't believe they would do it now."
In 2008, the Milli Medjlis sent out a proclamation on Tatarstan independence to the United Nations and more than 30 other countries. The appeal was later published on several websites and received a lot of publicity.
It came just a few months after Russia had recognized the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Russian authorities said the Milli Medjlis appeal was an attempt to violate Russia's territorial integrity and that it provoked interethnic hatred.
In February, Bayramova was found guilty of fomenting interethnic hatred via the media and given a one-year suspended sentence.
But Midkhat Farukshin, a professor of political science at Kazan State University, said the UN court decision will make no impact on political life in Tatarstan.
"Tatarstan and Kosovo are in different situations," he told RFE/RL. "You can't compare them to each other. The status of Kosovo can be compared to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, but never to the republics in the Russian Federation. There is no separatism [in Russia]."
Tatarstan is about 800 kilometers east of Moscow. It has a population of some 3.8 million that includes a large ethnic Russian minority.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - July 26, 2010
Tatarstan Nationalist Leader Encouraged By Court Ruling On Kosovo
KAZAN, Tatarstan: There have been mixed reactions in the Russian republic of Tatarstan to the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling that Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia did not violate international law, RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service reports.
There has been no official comment by officials in Tatarstan about the court's ruling on July 22.
But the decision was welcomed by Fauzia Bayramova, the chairwoman of the Milli Medjlis, a self-proclaimed pan-Tatar national assembly. She said on July 23 that she hopes Tatarstan can follow the same path as Kosovo and declare its independence.
"The [ICJ] decision on Kosovo gives us [Tatar independence activists] hope and the chance that in the future Tatarstan and other nations of [Russia's] Volga region can become independent," Bayramova told RFE/RL. "But the leadership of Tatarstan has never appealed to the international community asking for recognition of Tatarstan's sovereignty [and] I don't believe they would do it now."
In 2008, the Milli Medjlis sent out a proclamation on Tatarstan independence to the United Nations and more than 30 other countries. The appeal was later published on several websites and received a lot of publicity.
It came just a few months after Russia had recognized the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Russian authorities said the Milli Medjlis appeal was an attempt to violate Russia's territorial integrity and that it provoked interethnic hatred.
In February, Bayramova was found guilty of fomenting interethnic hatred via the media and given a one-year suspended sentence.
But Midkhat Farukshin, a professor of political science at Kazan State University, said the UN court decision will make no impact on political life in Tatarstan.
"Tatarstan and Kosovo are in different situations," he told RFE/RL. "You can't compare them to each other. The status of Kosovo can be compared to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, but never to the republics in the Russian Federation. There is no separatism [in Russia]."
Tatarstan is about 800 kilometers east of Moscow. It has a population of some 3.8 million that includes a large ethnic Russian minority.
=== 6 ===
Kosovo: 2 disegni possibili di risoluzione
(trad. e sintesi a cura di CNJ-onlus)
Possibili due progetti di risoluzione
Subito dopo la decisione della Corte internazionale di giustizia e prima del dibattito dinanzi alle Nazioni Unite, il Kosovo tenterà con un nuovo riconoscimento della propria indipendenza
17/07/2010
Dopo l'annuncio del parere consultivo della Corte Internazionale di Giustizia, con il dibattito nell'Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite, la questione del Kosovo sarà di nuovo passata dal terreno legale a quello politico. Qualora il parere della Corte non sia risolutivo e se nessuna delle parti interessate si arrenderà, il terzo martedì di settembre, in occasione della riunione annuale dell'Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite a New York, si svolgerà la battaglia politica intorno alle due risoluzioni proposte. Una che ha già annunciato la Serbia, che chiede che la formulazione del parere consultivo possa essere letta in favore di Serbia, in cui si chiederebbero negoziati globali con gli albanesi del Kosovo, ed un'altra, che hanno presentato i paesi che hanno riconosciuto l'indipendenza del Kosovo (forse anche il Kosovo), con cui si "cementifica" l'indipendenza e si interpellano tutti i paesi che si sono finora astenuti a riconoscere il Kosovo.
Qualunque sia la proposta di risoluzione adottata, è certo che la Serbia dovrà affrontare conseguenze politiche. Se il parere della Corte sarà tale che la Serbia con l'aiuto dei paesi che la sostengono, a New York potrà spingere avanti una risoluzione con cui si affermi chiaramente che l'indipendenza del Kosovo è illegale, questo fermerebbe i nuovi riconoscimenti dell'indipendenza del Kosovo; ma, visti gli avvertimenti dei diplomatici dei paesi che danno sostegno all'indipendenza, ciò comporterebbe il deterioramento delle relazioni con gli Stati Uniti e l'Unione Europea.
Non sono soltanto gli stati che hanno riconosciuto l'indipendenza del Kosovo a seguire le mosse della Serbia. Anche i paesi che hanno sostenuto la Serbia, tra cui anche un certo numero di paesi importanti nel panorama politico internazionale, aspettano di vedere come si muoverà la Serbia, e da questo dipenderà, ovviamente, il dibattito in Assemblea Generale. "Stiamo già ricevendo informazioni secondo cui le dele
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)