Bush: "Kosovars Are Now Independent"

Despite President's Proclamation, Serbia, Russia Fiercely Fighting Kosovo's Statehood

(CBS/AP)  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement that Bush "has responded affirmatively" to Kosovo's request to establish diplomatic relations.

"The establishment of these relations will reaffirm the special ties of friendship that have linked together the people of the United States and Kosovo," the statement said.

Rice welcomed "the commitments Kosovo made in its declaration of independence" to implement a United Nations-backed plan, "to embrace multi-ethnicity as a fundamental principle of good governance, and to welcome a period of international supervision."

"The unusual combination of factors found in the Kosovo situation -- including the context of Yugoslavia's breakup, the history of ethnic cleansing and crimes against civilians in Kosovo, and the extended period of U.N. administration -- are not found elsewhere and therefore make Kosovo a special case," she said. "Kosovo cannot be seen as a precedent for any other situation in the world today."

Earlier, Bush, touring Tanzania, declared that "the Kosovars are now independent."

Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leadership announced its independence from Serbia over the weekend, and suspense gripped the province on Monday as its citizens awaited key backing from the United States and key European powers.

By appealing directly to the U.S. and other nations for recognition, Kosovo's independence set up a showdown with Serbia - outraged at the imminent loss of its territory - and Russia.

Serbia recalled its ambassador to the United States in response to recognition of Kosovo's independence, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said Monday.

Serbia also filed legal charges against Kosovo's leadership Monday for creating a "false state" and vowed to block the nascent nation's attempts to join the international community in a fierce response to the declaration of independence.

The Interior Ministry said President Fatmir Sejdiu, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and Speaker Jakup Krasniqi had been charged with committing a "a serious criminal act against the constitutional order and security of Serbia" following Sunday's historic declaration by Kosovo's Albanian-dominated parliament.

Serbia said it would also seek to block Kosovo from gaining diplomatic recognition and membership to international organizations, including the United Nations.

"The so-called Kosovo state will never be a member of the United Nations," Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic.

"Serbia will use all diplomatic means at its disposal to block Kosovo's recognition," he said in an interview with the national television network.

Jeremic said Serbia will rely on Russia to block Kosovo's membership to the U.N. while Belgrade will block Kosovo's access to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe. Every member of the two organizations must agree to newcomers.

"As long as Serbia is a member (of the two organizations), the so-called Kosovo state will not be," he said.

In a closed-door emergency session of the U.N. Security Council Russia tried to block Kosovo's independence Sunday night, saying it was deeply concerned about the safety of Serbs living in the territory.

The discussion of the 15-member council on Sunday continued to expose divisions among members on the future of Kosovo. Russia backs its close ally Serbia, while the United States, Britain, France and many other European Union members support Kosovo's majority ethnic Albanians.

China, a veto-wielding U.N. Security Council member that had close ties with the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Milosevic, expressed its "deep concern" Monday over Kosovo's declaration and called on the province to reach a "proper solution through negotiations" with Serbia.

The council met at the request of Serbia and Russia, which argue that Kosovo's declaration of independence violates a 1999 council resolution that authorizes the U.N. to administer the territory.

European Union foreign ministers were meeting separately Monday in Belgium to discuss Kosovo's status. Spain said it would not recognize the new nation but Germany backed Kosovo's independence.

The U.N. session got off to a rocky start; shortly after it began, it had to be suspended for a couple hours because of a lack of interpreters.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Serbia's president told him that Kosovo's declaration carries no legal weight, while Kosovo's prime minister assured him he was committed to "equal opportunities and no discrimination" against anyone in Kosovo.

Ban urged all sides to "refrain from any actions or statements that could endanger peace, incite violence or jeopardize security in Kosovo and the region."

The 1999 Security Council resolution on Kosovo remains in force and the U.N. "will continue to implement its mandate in the light of the evolving circumstances," Ban said.

"The declaration is a milestone," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk at United Nations headquarters, "but U.N. membership and independence without a U.N.-mandated force is still a long way off."

Falk said "Sunday's Security Council session showed the deep divisions between Russia and Serbia on one side and the U.S., the U.K., France and Kosovo on the other - and these issues are unlikely to be resolved this week, when the Council hears from Serbia's President."

Kosovo had formally remained a part of Serbia even though it has been administered by the U.N. and NATO since 1999, when NATO air strikes ended former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic's crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists, which killed 10,000 people.

In April 2007, U.N. envoy Ahtisaari recommended that Kosovo be granted internationally supervised independence. But talks that followed failed to yield an agreement between the ethnic Albanian leadership, which pushed for full statehood, and Serbia, which was willing to offer only autonomy.

"The Ahtisaari plan is our blueprint forward," Mr. Bush said. "We'll watch to see how the events unfold today. The Kosovars are now independent."

Before the Sunday Security Council session, Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin (seen at left) said Moscow was "highly concerned" about Sunday's decision by Kosovo's parliament in Pristina "to declare unilateral independence of Kosovo."

The past Security Council resolution means the U.N. still runs Kosovo and "it is not obvious at all what could possibly be the legal basis for even considering" Kosovo's declaration of independence," Churkin said.

He specifically addressed the estimated 120,000 Serbs living in enclaves in Kosovo.

"Our concern is for the safety of the Serbs and other ethnic minorities in Kosovo," Churkin told reporters. "We'll strongly warn against any attempts at repressive measures, should Serbs in Kosovo decide not to comply with this unilateral proclamation of independence."

U.S. and other Western countries said there was little danger to the Serbs in Kosovo and that the 1999 resolution does not preclude Kosovo's independence.

"We've knocked it down over and over again. This is an unprecedented situation, it creates no precedent," Alejandro Wolff, the U.S. deputy ambassador to the U.N., told reporters before the session

Wolff said the United States is not "particularly concerned or sees no particular danger to be worried about" with regards to the safety of Serbs in Kosovo.

"We're pleased by the commitments made to respect for religious and ethnic communities in Kosovo," he told reporters. "We're very much pleased that the declaration also reflects a position of the United States that's longstanding."

Council member Indonesia, concerned about its own secessionist movements, said it was following the situation closely but was not yet prepared to recognize Kosovo's statehood.

Kosovo's 2 million population is 90 percent ethnic Albanian, mainly secular Muslims, who do not want to be part of Serbia, a predominantly Christian Orthodox nation.

[inventagod]

USA - Bu$h Outside fence, close and lock the gate...

[asmauzum]

USA, United Kingdom and Turkey welcome you as the republic of Kosova. We love you :D

[ourtomorrows]

The Kosovars may indeed deserve independence. It isn''''t for the USA to declare them an independent state, however, that is a job for the UN.

Posted by IRLiberal

Actually, your statement is incorrect. All sovereign nations have the right to recognize the existence of a new sovereign state. UN recognition is based on the recognition by member states of a new political entity.

It is the right and responsibility of any sovereign state to respond to the request of a newly created state for diplomatic recognition. That has been the case for hundreds of years in international politics.

[irliberal]

The Kosovars may indeed deserve independence. It isn''t for the USA to declare them an independent state, however, that is a job for the UN.

Bush has the moral authority to declare what his breakfast is to be in the morning and that''s about it. Anything else - coming from his lips - is just laughable.

[formrusmcsgt]

The hahaha part.

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 07:14 PM : Feb 18, 2008

Too funny, Ice....

[iceman_1960]

"what part of:

The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions.

do you not understand???

hahaha"
- Posted by terrorislam9 at 05:38 PM : Feb 18, 2008
---------------

The hahaha part.

[bm6005]

Could we get the south to secede again just like Kosovo? It''d be nice to get rid of the majority of the ignorant, war mongering bible belt! Oh, Oh and they could especially take Crawfish Texass with them.

[formrusmcsgt]

Either way, I''''m glad he''''s gone and I wait for history to sort this out.

Have a good night Sgt.

Posted by AJMarine1 at 06:48 PM : Feb 18, 2008

Likewise, AJ.

Whether his being gone is worth the price is for each of us to determine.....

[ajmarine1]

There was none, as you know.

Posted by formrusmcsgt at 06:41 PM : Feb 18, 2008

Either way, I''m glad he''s gone and I wait for history to sort this out.

Have a good night Sgt.

[formrusmcsgt]

Posted by AJMarine1 at 06:31 PM : Feb 18, 2008

Sorry about the "emper Fi", bro. My wife spliied some wine on my keyboard and some of my keyes now stick, thats to her. Time for a new keyboard.

The Constitution requires us to abide by our agreement and treaties.

We signed the U.N. Charter which specifically states that individual member nations have no enforcement quthority regarding U.N. resolutions.

The authorization of force by Congress, by our own Constitution, would also have required a U.N resolution to that effect before being employed.

There was none, as you know.

[ajmarine1]

emper Fi, AJ.

Posted by formrusmcsgt at 06:16 PM : Feb 18, 2008


You taking up short hand Sgt.?

Semper Fi Marine.

It''s like I said it bepends on what the defintion of "is" is, whether you wanted Saddam gone, or wwhether we should have left him alone.


Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed October 2, 2002

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[formrusmcsgt]

Critics and proponents of the legal rationale based on the U.N. resolutions argue that the legal right to determine how to enforce its resolutions lies with the Security Council alone, not with individual nations.

Posted by AJMarine1 at 06:06 PM : Feb 18, 2008

emper Fi, AJ.

The UN Charter itself, of which we are a signatory nation, states that the U.N. itself, not individual member nations, has the sole right to enfore U.N. resolutions. Period.

[ajmarine1]

formrusmcsgt, terrorislam9,


The way I see it, it sit boils down to who''s kool aid you prefer.



Resolution 1441 was most prominent during the run up to the war and formed the main backdrop for Secretary of State Colin Powell''s address to the Security Council one month before the invasion. At the same time, Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq''s 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq''s compliance through military means.

Critics and proponents of the legal rationale based on the U.N. resolutions argue that the legal right to determine how to enforce its resolutions lies with the Security Council alone, not with individual nations.

[formrusmcsgt]

Here''s a little more help for your delusion, lars:
U.N. Panel Rejects Bush Stance on Military Action

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A15

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30 -- An influential U.N.-appointed panel challenged the Bush administration''s right to use military force against an enemy that does not pose an imminent military threat. The 16-member panel, which was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."

"Legal" my a$$.....

[formrusmcsgt]

bush just wanted additional support from the UN,,, it obviously was not needed even al bore said so,,,

get over it

the war is legal

Posted by terrorislam9 at 05:45 PM : Feb 18, 2008

You just shot yourself in the foot, lars.

If the war was legal under the cease-fire agreement why did Bush want, or need, more?

Obviously, because the invasion was NOT authorized by the U.N., say what you like.

[formrusmcsgt]

The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions.

do you not understand???

hahaha

Posted by terrorislam9 at 05:38 PM : Feb 18, 2008

Obviously, this is way beyond your comprehension.

The agreement was between the U.N. and Iraq.

Use of force for enforcement would have to be authorized by the U.N. through resolution.

There IS NO RESOLUTION authorizing the invasion, lars. NONE. ZIP. NADA.

Powell went to the U.N. in search of same in the fall of 2002 and got SQUAT.

[formrusmcsgt]

Well lars, as the invasion is "legal" as you say, let''s see the U.N. resolution authorizing it.

[formrusmcsgt]

The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions.

hahaha

Posted by terrorislam9 at 05:30 PM : Feb 18, 2008

That''s right, you giggly idiot, by the U.N itself, not individual member nations.

Let''s see a resolution authorizing the invasion.

[formrusmcsgt]

Posted by terrorislam9 at 05:27 PM : Feb 18, 2008

Congratulations, lars. You have finally learned that the cease-fire was signed between the U.N. and Iraq, not the U.S. and Iraq.

Now, as you claim the invasion of Iraq is legal because of cease-fire violations, YOU show ME the U.N. resolution authorizing the invasion on that basis.

[ioweign]

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq by George Bush Sr.



While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.''s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.