I would hesitate to use the word "official". Perhaps someone in their mapping team has made a decision without fully considering the implications. In any case, I don't think we can mention this map in the article unless a corresponding report exists which clearly states that the EU considers Kosovo to be separate from Serbia. Bazonka (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The position of the EU is quite clear - the member states don't have common position on this one, some (majority) recognize the Republic of Kosovo, some don't. The EU institutions are deeply involved in day-to-day activities in Kosovo trough the EULEX mission. The EU and all of its member states support the UN Security Council resolution 1244 and the established by it UNMIK (whatever is left of it). The EU has signed international treaties with UNMIK as Kosovo representative - the agreements for the European Energy Community and for the European Common Aviation Area (both agreements are also ratified by Serbia). In the official EU documents (including recent 2011 progress reports for all candidates and potential candidates) Kosovo is aways mentioned as "Kosovo under UNSCR1244" (and without a flag) [2]. And as you see Kosovo is missing from the "list of european countries" that you linked above (I expected that it would be listed, again as "Kosovo under UNSCR1244", but they didn't do even this).
To summurize the facts - "EU recognize Serbia without Kosovo" is true only in the context of UNSCR1244 - and the resolution has the same "dual nature" as the EU member states opinions division - it confirms both 'sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia with substantial autonomy of Kosovo' (e.g. 'Kosovo is part of Serbia') and 'self-determination of Kosovo' (depending on the interpretation this may be a 'recognition of independence').
My opinion is that for day-to-day activities the EU institutions will try to push Serbia to have normal relations with Kosovo trough UNMIK/EULEX as intermediaries/proxies (so that official information can be exchanged between authorities in Pristina and Belgrade - without Serbia having to officially recognize Kosovo as independent state; so that the people live and economy/trade works regardless of diplomatic issues) - as you can see in the 2011 Enlargement progress reports this is the only requirement for Serbia to start EU accession talks. Whether such strategy is successful is yet to be seen (it aims to achieve a situation where "all is OK de facto" at the same time with "big territorial dispute de jure" - similar to a degree to the China-Taiwan cooperation - no big problems in trade&travel regardless of total lack of diplomatic recognition). The EU will not recognize Kosovo and will not require Serbia to recognize Kosovo - unless all EU members recognize it first. The only obvious wild card is what will happen if the Kosovo gets UN membership without all EU members recognizing it. Japinderum (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think people need to realise that the EU is a massive organisation made up of 27 state governments who have bigger things to deal with than deciding which maps to use when maintaining their website. IJA (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Japinderum, read the section on the EU's position on this page: " Although the European Parliament is not formally vested with the authority to shape the EU's foreign policy, it was seen to be expressing its acceptance of Kosovan independence when it hosted the Kosovan Assembly in an interparliamentary meeting on 30 May 2008. This was also the first time Kosovo's flag was officially hoisted at an EU institution. On 5 February 2009, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that encouraged all EU member states to recognise Kosovo." and " On 8 July 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution welcoming "the recognition by all Member States of the independence of Kosovo", and stating that EU Member States should "step up their common approach towards Kosovo"." While the EU does not make official recognitions, this seems to go beyond your idea that the EU is neutral to the question of Kosovo. As for requiring recognition before allowing Serbia to join, any one of the 22 countries in the EU that do recognize Kosovo could block Serbia's accession for that reason. Given the problems with the Cyprus situation, the EU probably won't want to admit any new members with significant territorial disputes. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, any EU member state can block Serbia membership. But so far this isn't reflected in official EU positions over Serbia negotiations. We shall see. The Turkey situation is similar and different. The EU adopts the same "OK de facto, problem de jure" goal - the Turkey negotiations are blocked, because Turkey doesn't yet implement the Ankara agreement (signed between the EU and Turkey), that would allow regular day-to-day activities between Turkey and Cyprus regardless of recognition, reunification, etc. If this agreement was implemented the negotiations would've progressed much further (of course, this doesn't mean that Cyprus, France, Greece, etc. wouldn't block Turkey membership/negotiations progress at some later stage "without official common EU reason"). Japinderum (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Serbian Nationalists Protest RFE/RL Use Of Serbia, Kosovo Maps. A Serbian ultranationalist organization has protested RFE/RL's Balkan Service's use of maps on its website depicting Serbia's former province of Kosovo as an independent country, RFE/RL's Balkan Service reports. Nasi issued a statement on October 26 in which it says that the website of RFE/RL's Balkan Service contains "incorrect" maps of Serbia without Kosovo and lists Kosovo as a separate Balkan country. (http://www.rferl.org/content/serbian_nationalists_attack_rferl_use_of_kosovo_map/24373128.html)
Serbian media, to reveal this information, have contacted the Foreign Ministry of Serbia, the latter said they will seek formal clarification from Brussels for this event. IH (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Ivory Coast formalized the recognition of Kosovo.
"Institutions of the Republic of Ivory Coast have released yesterday Note Verbale to the recognition of independence of the Republic of Kosovo", announced today the office of Deputy / Kosovo's first prime minister, Behgjet Pacolli.
The decision to recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state was confirmed Deputy / Prime Pacolli on September 20 in New York, during a meeting with President of Cote d'Ivoire, Alassane Ouattara. [3][4][5][6][7]IH (talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
According to MFA of Kosovo 82.Federal Republic of Nigeria 12 September 2011 / 83. Republic of Gabon 15 September 2011 / 84.Ivory Coast 20 September 2011. I believe we need to orient with MFA list for this. Note verbale is simply a formal aspect, most important is the decision. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Pacolli, on Saturday evening held a meeting with members of the Organization of Eastern Africa, which has laid claim to block recognition of the Republic of Kosovo. In this organization, includes powerful countries such as Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbambwe. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank You Bazonka for add new news from STP and Tunisia! Other information provided today, Foreign Minister Enver Hoxhaj said until the end of year 3 or 5 countries will recognize Kosovo. Recognition will come from Africa and Arab countries, but also may have recognition from Latin America. [8]Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A very bad idea. The map used to be like that, and it was a recipe for disaster - check the talk page archives for all the arguments about what colour different countries should be. We don't want to go back to that. The simple solution is just to give a non-subjective map of recognisers only. People can read the article and make their own judgements about the non-recognisers' positions. Bazonka (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
A very bad idea. Not definitive positions for labelling countries. Please see the archives for previous discussions regarding the map. IJA (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Bad example of Serbian map for Kosovo's independenceA very bad idea because countries change position (for example Gabon, Nigeria and New Zealand etc at the time of declaraion supported Serbia). Only juridical recognition are important. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
A terrible idea. A country either recognises Kosovo or it doesn't (you're either pregnant or you're not). How would you paint Greece? They have not "promised" to recognise but voted for Kosovo joining IMF and World Bank and its foreign minister visited Prishtina a few months ago, i.e. it is not hostile to Kosovo. Would we use a special 'Greece' colour as a result? It's a can of worms. A very, very bad idea indeed. Kosovar (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Prime Minister of CameroonPhilémon Yang said: the recognition of Kosovo is in process
There are still some IPs that once in a while remove Nigeria's recognition etc. As these users are of a predominantly Serbian background, they are based on some comments published by Serb officials. Should there be a FAQ, addressing this issue in order to lower the number of such edits?--— ZjarriRrethues —talk19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
IP's wouldn't read it, a better solution would be to semi-protect the article so that IP addresses and New Accounts cannot edit the article. Semi-protect it for a month or two so that things can cool down. IJA (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we could make the table of recognisers a template so it confuses IP addresses as they won't know how to edit it. IJA (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure if that's really what templates are for. It would probably help though. Also it would bring the article size down. Bazonka (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm up for doing it if no-one else is objecting. It won't exactly change the article, just improve technical and security issues ;) IJA (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Proposal for editing
Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia was enacted on Sunday, 17 February 2008 by the Assembly of Kosovo with a unanimous quorum. Kosovo's declaration of independence was enacted on Sunday, 17 February 2008 by the representatives of the people of Kosovo in the Assembly of Kosovo with a unanimous quorum.
In the original text of the declaration of independence did not mention Serbia and are the representatives of the people of Kosovo those who declared the independence no the Assembly (Assembly and the Presidnet, example Fatmir Sejdiu was not member of Assembly of Kosovo [14]). ICJ also mentions this. [15] The reason why Serbia is not mentioned I believe is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, because the sovereignty of Kosovo is not under Serbia. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 12:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me what a 'unanimous quorum' is. A quorum is the minimum necessary number for acts of a group to be official. If say the quorum for a Kosovo Assembly is 25, then if 60 Assembly members were present, 25 out of 60 could be a unanimous quorum. If "unanimous quorum" is a technical term used in parliamentary democracy, perhaps a link could be inserted for people like me. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What on earth is wrong with "from Serbia"? If it wasn't from Serbia, then who did they declare independence from? Even if it wasn't directly mentioned in the declaration then it was obviously implied. It is vital for the integrity of the article that Serbia is mentioned in the lead sentence. Bazonka (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe because I see very juridically the act, according to Security Council Resolution 1244 Kosovo was under international administration and temporarily under the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Serbia is never mentioned. So I think that Kosovo is Sui generis for this fact. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Serbia is the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, therefore all those FRY references in UNSCR1244 are to be interpreted as referring to Serbia. --Khajidha (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"President of Ghana announces recognition of Kosovo"
[16]. President John Atta Mills has told Deputy PM Pacolli that his country recognizes Kosovo. Naturally, different articles say different things. Gazeta is reporting Pacolli as asking for recognition and Mills as saying that Kosovo would "receive special treatment"[17]. I am not proposing an edit, but just putting this on the radar. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Pointless sentences
This sentence pushed by Irvi Hyka is pointless, and means nothing. In this article we should have only meaningful data, and not just trivial chat. "Kosovo issue would be very special treatment"? What that means? Is that yes or no? It is almost on the edge of the bad English... If we don't know, then we don't care. I am asking for this sentence to be removed. --WhiteWriter speaks21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a case of "lost in translation" aka it makes sense in the original language before it was translated. IJA (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"...would be very special treatment" makes no sense in English. IJA and I have both rewritten the paragraph - I got an edit conflict. Ian, I hope you don't mind but I've overwritten your text with mine; I've included a date, fixed the reference, and cut it down to just the pertinent points. Bazonka (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see anything special in that sentence worth including in this article... Of chores that it will be special, international relations are not ordinary. --WhiteWriter speaks21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nah Bazonka, I'm not bothered. It just seem rather weird terminology. It would have been better if they'd have stated something along the lines of "we'll treat Kosovo's recognition as a very special issue", that just makes more sense in English. Rolls off the tongue better. IJA (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Israel considering the recognition of Kosovo
The Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Danny Ayalon in Geneva said: "The Government of Israel is negotiating and considering the recognition of Kosovo, very soon, probably next year ..." and "Israel strongly supports Kosovo". [19][20]
I have been going through the section "States which do not recognize Kosovo as independent" in search of superfluous links and repeated descriptions. For example, I removed a second link to Dmitry Medvedev from Russia's listing and a second link to the Bosnian presidency from Bosnia's. I also removed multiple repetitions of full names and titles. Within each country's listing it should really only be necessary to link to an article once. This section of the article is huge and really needs to be trimmed, this is a good first step towards that. I would welcome any help on this. --Khajidha (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism on the page
A user removed Guinea-Bissau, Oman, and Nigeria without discussing it or offering any evidence for why they should be removed. I think our general approach here has been that unilateral edits of this kind are unacceptable. I've restored them. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It keeps on happening and happening. Cos this IP address from Serbia has been doing it for a while and has obviously created an account under the name of User:Lazar Milosavljevic and performed the same removal as when he was an IP. For this reason I suggest semi-protecting the page for a month or so, this way new accounts and IPs can't edit it. Therefore this user will eventually get bored once they realise they can't perform the edit any longer. IJA (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've given him a warning on his talk page... not that I expect him to listen or obey. All just keep an eye out for the time being please. IJA (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
He complained on the feedback dashboard see here "whatever i edit, someone delete it. Im sure that information i have edited are right. so why someone continues with deleting it." I've replied to him again. IJA (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
No, Its not vandalism, and he's right to do so, as the representatives of such states all told the Serbian minister of foreign affairs that they had either revoked recognition or never recognised in the first place, and for such reasons they should remain off the list http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=09&dd=08&nav_id=76304. Also, I would prepose removing New Zealand from the list, New Zealand has a special policy of having diplomatic relations with non state entities (eg. Taiwan), but not explicitly recognising them, (Recognition was not explicitly stated in the note given http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,4,324) and for such reasons, it should be removed, to call the actions of this user vandalism is the height of bigatory .122.60.49.48 (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether we want to call it vandalism or not, it is still highly disruptive to delete things from articles, especially when as controversial as this one, without any form of discussion or even an edit summary.
The recognitions of Guinea-Bissau and Oman have been discussed extensively on this talk page before - just search the archives.
An image of Guinea-Bissau's note verbale was even published on the talk page (though later removed due to a copyright violation) which conclusively showed that that country had recognised.
In the cases of Oman and New Zealand, both countries have established diplomatic relations with Kosovo. Whilst neither has a policy of issuing statements of recognition, their actions have shown that they have indeed recognised. Why establish relations with a country that you deem not to exist?
Diplomatic Relations is a step further than just plain recognition. NZ doesn't have diplomatic relations with Tawain, NZ has unofficial relations with them instead. GB and Oman have both reconfirmed their recognitions since, Jeremic claimed that they didn't recognise in the first place. He has been proved wrong. IJA (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, Can I please see the comfirmation of recognitions, all I have found are stories originating from the republic of Kosovo's own ministry of foreign affairs, and secondly being a lifelong New Zealander, I know the policy of my state (that is to not explicitly recognise), take Nuie as another example, If my nation had recognised an independent Kosovo, it would explicitly mention it . A similar example is the fact that Serbia itself holds relations in a diplomatic level with Thaci's reigime, the same example could be used to state Serbian recognition, and for that reason, New Zealand must be removed. On another note, you've brought attention to dubious recognitions from Nigeria & Gabon, the source stating recognition from Nigeria is Pacalli, who also claims South Africa is to recognise in the coming days, a little strange seeming Nigeria had many times previously stated they would not recognise, and that South Africa never extented recognition. For Gabon the claim is a 'Verbal note'; the source being the Republic of Kosovo's own ministry of foreign affairs, which isnt exactly a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.49.48 (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yawn I've had this discussion a million times and I'm not prepared to have it again, especially on Boxing Day. This why we have an archive. So that I don't have to have a massive conversation every time an IP comes along. Anyway your state NZ has received an ambassador from Kosovo who established full diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level. Not just recognition, but recognition with icing and a big fat cherry on top. Go back to B92 "New Zealander" IJA (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If there is news of RSA recognition in the coming days then we will look into it and judge accordingly. IJA (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to why these people feel that notification from the Kosovo MFA is not a reliable source? Would they be making these objections about any other country's MFA making announcements about what recognitions they have received? Really, the Kosovo MFA is where you would expect such announcements to come from. Making false statements about recognitions would hurt the Kosovo government's cause more than help it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested the creation of a FAQ page to deal with it. You don't have to reply to every individual user who read the B92 article. Btw there's a discussion on a Kosovo article so if anyone has some kind of enlightening input please feel free to drop a line[21].--— ZjarriRrethues —talk02:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
EARLIER this year Vasily Atajanyan, the acting foreign minister of Nagorno-Karabakh, told me that his "country" would recognise Kosovo if the former Yugoslav province reciprocated. I conveyed this message to Enver Hoxhaj, Kosovo's foreign minister. He declined to take up his counterpart's offer, but thought long and hard about how to do so politely.
This little episode speaks volumes for realpolitik in international relations, especially when it comes to small countries.
In Soviet times Nagorno-Karabakh was a mostly Armenian-populated autonomous region in Azerbaijan. In Yugoslav times Kosovo was a mostly Albanian-populated autonomous province of Serbia.
Armenians fought a war against the Azeris in the early 1990s, and the Kosovo Albanians against the Serbs in 1998-99. Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence in 1991. Serbia’s administration and security forces were expelled from Kosovo by NATO in 1999. The region was then run by the United Nations. It declared independence in 2008.
On the face of it there are plenty of similarities between Soviet breakaway statelets like Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo. But there are also many differences. No countries have recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state, but more than 80 have recognised Kosovo. Western countries emphasise that they believe that the Kosovo case is not a precedent for others.
In Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, this argument cuts no ice. Indeed, some have a clear case of "recognition envy". Marcel Petrosian, a foreign-ministry official, says that Nagorno-Karabakh has “stronger arguments” for independence than Kosovo does.
European and other countries that recognise Kosovo are, he says, practising “double standards.” Mr Atajanyan echoes this. “We see Kosovo as a precedent,” he says. “It is a vivid example of how conflicts like ours can be solved.”
The two conflicts see Armenians and Kosovars arguing in favour of a people’s right to self-determination, and Serbia and Azerbaijan defending the the right of a state to defend its territorial integrity.
There are inconsistencies everywhere you look. Russia, an ally of Serbia, does not acknowledge the independence of Kosovo. But, unlike any Western countries, it recognised the breakaway states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following its war with Georgia in 2008. Serbia might like to make common cause with Georgia but does not wish to irritate Russia. Likewise Georgia won’t work with Serbia because of the potential damage to relations with the United States.
Likewise, the Armenians have been forced to fashion shrewd arguments for not recognising Kosovo's independence in order not to antagonise their Russian patrons. Armenia has not in fact recognised Nagorno-Karabakh, as it reminds American diplomats when they come calling asking for it to recognise Kosovo.
Serbia and Armenia may be on different sides when it comes to territorial integrity. But they have much in common, too. Both are ageing nations with falling populations. Both talk of their respective enemies in the same terms, fearing the respective facts that both Kosovo Albanians and Azeris are young and Muslim, and dominate areas which they consider theirs by historic right.
Hayk Khanumyan, an Armenian journalist and civil-society activist, employs a novel argument. Kosovo, he says, is an “historic region of Serbia” that Albanians have taken. (Albanians, needless to say, would disagree with this analysis.) But the real comparison is between Kosovo and Nakichevan, a large Azeri exclave separated from Azerbaijan proper by Armenian territory.
Nakichevan, says Mr Khanumyan, was once Armenian. It was lost to the Azeris as Kosovo was lost to Albanians. Nagorno-Karabakh, by contrast, has not been lost and must be defended.
Back to Mr Hoxhaj. His message to Mr Atajanyan is that Kosovo can only have formal relations with members of the UN, even though Kosovo itself has not yet joined. "We understand the aspirations of others but we have to be careful," he adds. "We can’t shape the destiny of other small nations but we have to protect what we have and sometimes doing nothing is better than making a mistake."
In other words, just as the Armenians sympathise with the Kosovars but don’t want to annoy the Russians, the Kosovars don’t want to irk their Western backers. Such are the basics of diplomacy in the twilight zone of international relations, in which small states and nations must manoeuvre to secure their best interests.[22]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.79.156 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to post the entire report; just a link will do. I'll read this properly tomorrow and see whether there's anything we can use in the article. Bazonka (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's another article about it [24]. Neither report is definite - both have question marks in their title - but I think it is almost certainly true, so I'll update the article. This second report also mentions another country that has recognised, but its identity has not yet been made public. Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
After nearly a month there's still no official recognition documentation from Sao Tome - nothing that's been published anyway. The Kosovo MFA are announcing today's recognition by Ghana as the 86th, so is it safe to assume that Sao Tome hasn't actually recognised? Should we remove it from the list? Bazonka (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've become uneasy about Sao Tome's inclusion as well. Pending official confirmation, we should remove it. While we're at it, we should also remove the Order of Malta since that's never been confirmed, either, and its inclusion was more the result of a flight of whimsy by some editors rather than anything substantive. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Sao Tome and Principe has recognized Kosovo. This is official. The news is provided by Radio Television of Kosovo the public service broadcaster in Kosovo [26] and the 1st Deputy Prime Minister of Kosovo Pacolli. The Note verbale is question of time. I oppose the removal of Sao Tome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.79.156 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, I've moved Sao Tome back to the non-recognisers section, but I've left SMOM as a recogniser - the source that we're using is Kosovo's MFA, so is reliable. The real question is whether SMOM is worth mentioning at all, and I don't want to open that debate again. Bazonka (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Sao Tome may have recognised, but there is no reliable source. RTK is not as reliable as a foreign ministry. One question - if they had recognised, and the Kosovo MFA knows about this, then why are they stating that Ghana's recognition is the 86th, not 87th? Bazonka (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's because they have not received a Note Verbale or some other official communication from them. 'So-and-so said so' is not a good basis for recognition. As they say in business, if it's not in writing, it didn't happen. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. MofA says its 86, there's only 86. The Kosovar MofA usually shouts every new recognition from the rooftops to the world. Certainly its in their interests to announce it, so the silence from them says a lot. Some may not like this, but without the Saotomean MofA or Kosovar MofA, its pretty much bunko. Case in point: Nigeria. At elast Kosovo's MofA listed on their official list of recognizers as proof that was good enough for the article Ajbenj (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality??
How can only relevance source be RTK and Kosovo Albanian TVs or web sites??? Give some valid sources of governments of states which recognize this illegal separation, or don't bother and fake it!109.121.36.206 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I presume you are referring in particular to the reference used for the Sao Tome recognition. Unfortunately the only available reports of this recognition are in Albanian media, however I have no real reason to doubt them. If and when an official report is published (I expect something any day soon), then the reference will be changed. I'm sure you would prefer to see some Serbian media reports, but there just aren't any - not because it's untrue, but because this just isn't the sort of thing that's reported in Serbia - it's not good news. This isn't a lack of neutrality on our part, we are simply using what's available. Bazonka (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Odd to ask for neutrality and also use term "illegal separation". We saw earlier that quite some time (a month?) can pass between news circulationg and final confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.103.5 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
So you called this non neutral yet you called this illegal? Where's the neutrality here?
Republic of Ghana Recognised Kosova
There is new news that Republic of Ghana, anyone updating, can you check that is true first than update, but Serbian media is reporting it as well so it must be true.
[27]
19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)AK
There is also this B92 article in English [28] in which Jeremic implies that neither CAR nor Nigeria have actually recognised. He's at the African Union summit so presumably he's spoken to representatives from those countries. Who knows? I think that we should somehow highlight the countries whose recognition is doubtful, and I would include Sao Tomé in this category too. Bazonka (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another one [29]. "He said that the ministers of foreign affairs of Nigeria, Central African Republic and South Africa sent a message to the governments of those countries that they will not recognise Kosovo's independence." (Emphasis mine.) Bazonka (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Being that AKRs website Pacolli had actually posted the note verbale for CAR, I think we should take this with a grain of salt. All of a sudden Jeremic is questioning the past few recognitions and he's been wrong thus far. Verbale notes and state media releases have been released for almost all recognitions in 2011 and as well for Ghana.174.252.8.180 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
We should await further information before doing anything. If nothing more comes of it, we can disregard it, as with Oman and Guinea-Bissau. If Nigeria and the CAR confirm it, then we can act. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the Pro-Jermeic Anti-Kosovo Thought-Police are on to us yet again, capitalising words and telling us how things SHOULD BE. I think it is worth us keeping an eye out on the article to see if IP addresses insist on controversially removing content. Nothing we can't handle. IJA (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll believe it when it happens. And without knowing which five countries these are, there's nothing we can use in this article. Bazonka (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It is 87 recognition for the Republic of Kosovo. A few minutes before 24 o'clock on the Friday, the Foreign Ministry has announced that Haiti is the newest qa recognized Kosovo.
"Minister of Foreign Affairs of Haiti, Laurent Lamothe, after an official meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo, Enver Hoxhaj, in a joint press conference have made public the official recognition of independence from Haiti" stated in the notice of the Foreign Ministry.
Haiti is the 87th state to recognize Kosovo's independence. Recognition of this state comes at a time when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo has intensified efforts to conclude the maximum process of recognition of independence. http://www.gazetaexpress.com/?cid=1,13,73633
"Diplomatic recognitions" tally superfluous for introduction
I think for purposes of clarity and significance that only recognitions from UN member states should be mentioned in the introduction summary. I mean no disrespect to the Sovereign Order of Malta or the Republic of China (Taiwan), but the count of "diplomatic recognitions" is something of a finer point to be made elsewhere, as it carries much less political weight. Tommy1441 (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Any and all forms of diplomatic recognitions/contact need to be mentioned in this article. The article is called the International Recognition of Kosovo, not "the UN Member States' recognition of Kosovo". --alchaemia (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about the intro only. What quasi states and micronations think about Kosovo is not something that should be in bold, let alone in the introduction summary, in my opinion. Obviously they are diplomatic relations which need to be mentioned, but like I said, elsewhere in the article is the place for that. Tommy1441 (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, since you seem to have a comprehension problem: it doesn't matter whether those are "quasi states" (your lack of objectivity is rearing its ugly head here), or micronations; a diplomatic recognition is a diplomatic recognition, and it needs to be noted. In fact, the very next sentence makes a difference between regular diplomatic recognitions and UN Member States' diplomatic recognitions. So yours is a "solution" looking for a problem. --alchaemia (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You are the one with the comprehension problem who thought I wanted to get rid of the diplomatic recognition count altogether, when all I was saying was that it should be mentioned lower down as opposed to being bold and in the introduction. How on earth can you accuse me of lacking objectivity? Taiwan, Sovereign Order of Malta, South Ossetia, et cetera ARE quasi-states, no idiot would debate otherwise. Being semi-recognized non-UN member states makes them exactly quasi-states. And yet the diplomatic recognitions parameter itself treats these quasi-states equal with sovereign states. Stop telling me "it needs to be noted" as I am not disagreeing with you on that point and never did suggest that. Comprehend? The "next sentence" should not just be "next," it should take precedence, whereas the moot point of recognitions from quasi-states needs to take a back seat. There is a difference between "looking for a problem" and merely attempting to improve the relevance, format and quality of an article. Tommy1441 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
How is UN membership a criterion for validity of statehood? As an indicator of general acceptance of statehood, sure, but it can be argued that statehood exists whether anyone outside the state accepts it or not. The Republic of China (not Taiwan) and South Ossetia are states if their own populations accept them as states. SMOM makes no claim to statehood at all, merely to sovereignty. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "quasi-state". What you refer to as "quasi-state" are "normal" sovereign states that don't have universal recognition. Some, such as Palestine and Kosovo are recognized by substantial number of other states, others not so much or at all. Also, according to your logic the following are quasi-states: Israel, PRChina (many don't recognize those); Vatican City, Cook Islands, Niue (those aren't UN members); Switzerland and others in the period before they joined the UN. And of course SMOM is not a quasi-state - it doesn't claim statehood at all, it's a non-state sovereign entity, just like the Holy See in the beginning of the 20th century. Your wish for prominence of the UN count is already present prominently in the article - UN figure is bold in the lead and more importantly the list of recognizers is split along UN/Non-UN. Further "elevation" of the UN is not going to improve the relevance, format and quality, on the contrary.
I agree with Khajidha and Alchaemia. The issue was under discussion before and the conclusion is to count all recognitions, without making qualifications ourselves about which recognitions are "more important". Of course, notable organizations (UN, EU, NATO, OIC in this case) figures are also mentioned. Japinderum (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Prime Minister of Lebanon Najib Mikati: Lebanon will take into consideration the recognition of Kosovo
Is that really what it says? As far as I can tell (via Google Translate, which is good but not perfect), the text merely says that Lebanon has promised to take the matter seriously. Anyway, I've added a few words. Bazonka (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Uganda recognised the independence of the Republic of Kosovo
According to KosovaPress [33] Uganda has recognised the independence of the Republic of Kosovo. They report that the recognition was confirmed by Deputy Prime Minister Behxhet Pacolli, who has already received note verbale. The Kosovar MFA is yet to confirm. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Gazeta Express [34] is also reporting the same news. Still awaiting formal confirmation by the Kosovar MFA. Thanks for the link anonymous. Kosovar (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
We can call in the Embassy number +355 42379285 for the confirmation, but this pages is administered by the staff of the Embassy. Oftentimes Palestinian ambassador in Tirana Issam Massalha said that Jerusalem (Ramallah) de facto recognize Kosovo.
Vuk Jeremic says he had a phone call with Henry Oryem Okello, State Minister for Foreign Affairs (International Affairs) of Uganda and that he told him that there was no recognition - [39]
However not to trust Jeremic's words, let's take a look at the recognition letter - [40]. It just says that the president of Uganda congratulates Kosovo on it's advancement towards independence and that they are behind other countries that recognized Kosovo. But it's not a recognition per se. It's some kind of a diplomatic game to appease both sides I guess.--Avala (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The note verbale is adressed to the "former President of Kosovo" and the "First Dpt. Prime Minister, Government of Kosovo". It says that Uganda is "behind other countries that recognized Kosovo" and it "looks forward to enhanced diplomatic [...] relationship with the Government of Kosovo". I think that's pretty clear. No need to change anything. Gugganij (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't remember anyone refuting him? Anyway here he named the Ugandan FM by name and specifically said he talked to him and that no recognition took place. It would be a huge violation of diplomatic rules to make something like that up. One thing is to say "our sources tell us that this is not true" and a completely different thing is to quote someone. And as we can see in that letter it does talk about Kosovo going towards independence, in the future tense. It would be the violation of NPOV and an OR not to include this in the article because sources on recognition are from Kosovo and not from Uganda which makes sources from Serbia perfectly valid to dispute this. So until a source from Uganda is found both views must be included in the article and let the readers decide.--Avala (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Last year he said that Guinea-Bissau and Oman hadn't recognized. Those countries expressed surprise about it and said, "Yeah, we did." I would say that unless the Uganda authorities refute the recognition story, it stands. This is getting very silly. If he said the sky was green, would we have to include that, too? 'Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic said the sky is green. Even though he's the only person who said it, to be fair, we have to include it and consider the matter disputed.' Is that where we're going? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)The point is that Jeremic has disputed many recognitions and in all cases he was wrong so please read the previous discussions as Jeremic's statements to Serbian media have always been refuted. However, if Ugandan officials do refute it then it'll be removed, but we're not going to dispute it based on media statements of someone who has been repeatedly wrong, while the Kosovan foreign ministry has released to the public the official documentation [42]. --— ZjarriRrethues —talk17:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, but we can't decide on this talk page on that. The whole point of the NPOV is to provide the neutral point of view. And on matters of Uganda, Serbian and Kosovan Foreign Ministers are equally reliable. There is nothing that puts one or the other in front of the other one. And right now there is no source from Uganda for the recognition either so according to your logic we should remove Uganda until they refute Jeremic which we shouldn't do. Until there is a source from Uganda itself we must include both views. Pretty simple rule.--Avala (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not important how truthful Jeremić is or not. This recognision is disputed, while some others are definitely not. That is only relevant data, and that must be in article. --WhiteWriterspeaks18:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Jeremic has been proven wrong before. Lets wait and see if Uganda states that they didn't recognise before rushing to make decisions. IJA (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The recognizing country and the receiving country are the only ones whose announcements matter in situations like this. These "disputes" people keep mentioning are not the supposed recognizing country announcing to the world that they did not recognize, they are Jeremic saying that the supposed recognizing country has told him this. They are nothing more than hearsay. If Uganda or any other country wishes to dispute their supposed recognition they should make a statement to the world at large, not to Jeremic. Otherwise these "disputes" and "retractions" are just noise and may rightly be completely ignored. --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The Page is being vandalized
Some ambitious editors are removing countries from the list of those recognizing. So far they've whittled the list down to 84. It should be restored to 88 and protection added for the page. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
According Wikipedia [49] "Minister of State is a title borne by politicians or officials in certain countries governed under a parliamentary system. In some countries a "minister of state" is a junior minister, who is assigned to assist a specific cabinet minister." So fanny Jeremic believe that an assistant minister have more power than the minister or the president. Irvi Hyka (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Constitution of Uganda: 99/1 "The executive authority of Uganda is vested in the President and
shall be exercised in accordance with this Constitution and the laws of
Uganda." 98/1 "There shall be a President of Uganda who shall be the Head of
State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Uganda Peoples’
Defence Forces and the Fountain of Honour." [50]Irvi Hyka (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Fake recognitions
Jeremic claims that self called republic Kosovo is making fake recognitions. Same as Uganda hasn`t recognized Kosovo, there was few other fake recognitions when "Republic Kosovo" said that some contury recognized Kosovo, but this wasn`t true. He claim that fake recognition was in case central africa republik, oman, guinea bissao. Delegations of Oman and Guinea-bissao last year officiali confirmed to him that this conturies didn`t recognized Kosovo. There is news on Radio-television of Serbia, what can be reference for this that. --Јованвб (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yawn. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz We have an archive where this has already been thoroughly discussed. There is also a feed open regarding Uganda. Please don't create new sections when there is already an existing one. GB and Oman reconfirmed their recognitions after Jeremic denied them. He was proven wrong. Please see the archive for full details. IJA (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean "...or didn't happen"? Are you suggesting that the mighty IJA can alter history by publishing, or not publishing, something on this page? Search the archives. And look at [51], [52] and [53]. Bazonka (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau verbal notes are published on Albanian websites, but they're definitely not Albanian documents. Who else is likely to publish them anyway? Kosovo is not big news in CAR and GB, and there's no fantastic web-presence there anyway. You can stick your head in the sand and refuse to believe if you want, but these notes are good enough evidence for me. And I have no reason to disbelieve the report on Oman - it is entirely credible and the Omanis haven't refuted it. Bazonka (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Date of Ugandan recognition
We are currently listing Uganada as recognizing Kosovo on 5 December 2011 since that is the date on the Note Verbale. However, the Kosovo MFA is listing them as recognizing on 17 February 2012. Shouldn't we follow their lead? TDL (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Recognition happens when the recognising country makes their decision. This is an entirely internal matter. They may decide to tell Kosovo immediately or they could wait. In this case I suspect Pacolli has been holding on to the letter for a while. But it is clearly not a decision made by the Ugandans this month. I think the Kosovo MFA is wrong. Bazonka (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In an interview for Express Newspaper, the former President of Kosovo, Behgjet Pacolli, clarify the situation for the delay publication of the recognition of Uganda. He said that he has time to know that Uganda recognizes Kosovo, but on February 15, the note verbale came to Prishtina[54]. On 31 December, which was published the recognition of Sao Tomeo and Principe, Pacolli said that another state had recognized Kosovo, he was referring to Uganda.[55]Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oman should be removed from list of recognitions
Oman should not be listed amongst the states that have recognised Kosovo. There have been doubts in the past about the veracity of the claims that it has recognised Kosovo, but as the following report makes absolutely clear it has not done so. As the report notes, Rexhep Boja, the charge d'affaires of the Embassy of Kosovo in Saudi Arabia, has said that Oman has not recognised Kosovo:
On a related note, I think that this page needs to be treated with greater impartiality. This is an important reference source, and is being used far too often by a select group editors as a chance to press a particular viewpoint and suggest the maximum number of recognitions. There are very serious doubts about the accuracy of claims that Nigeria, the Central African Republic and Uganda have recognised Kosovo. A new category of contested recognitions should be established to reflect this situation. Stating that they have recognised Kosovo on the basis of statements from Pristina, while rejecting counter-claims from Belgrade, casts doubt on the neutrality of this page and undermines its value as a reference source. I am not asking that all recognitions be moved into this category unless evidence from the country concerned can be furnished, but I am asking that where serious doubts exist - and we are only talking about a small number of countries - they are reflected in the article. For the sake of those of us who use this site a serious reference tool (and Wikipedia has had to work hard to lose its reputation for inaccuracy), I would ask those editors to set aside their personal feelings and take an unbiased approach to editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.81.68 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Recognition from the Sultanate of Oman is reconfirmed. Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enver Hoxhaj received confirmation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Sultanate of Oman, Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah of full recognition of the independence of Kosovo. Prime Minister Thaçi and the Foreign Minister of Oman agreed that soon diplomatic relations will be established between the two states, through the exchange of ambassadors.The meeting between Prime Minister Thaçi and Hoxhaj and the Foreign Minister bin Abdullah was held at the Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman at the UN in New York on 20 September 2011 [56]. The article: "Boja said 88 UN member states have recognized Kosovo" (with Oman) Who is 88th??? I believe the article have a problem!!! Maybe he confuse Oman with Yemen. The article is not coherent Irvi Hyka (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No one would take seriously claims from (to pick a random country) Angola about what countries have or have not recognized (to pick another random country) Paraguay. Why should Serbia's claims in this case be taken any more seriously? Let me repeat what I said above: The recognizing country and the receiving country are the only ones whose announcements matter in situations like this. These "disputes" people keep mentioning are not the supposed recognizing country announcing to the world that they did not recognize, they are Jeremic saying that the supposed recognizing country has told him this. They are nothing more than hearsay. If Uganda or any other country wishes to dispute their supposed recognition they should make a statement to the world at large, not to Jeremic. Otherwise these "disputes" and "retractions" are just noise and may rightly be completely ignored. --Khajidha (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
An anonymous user with no prior edits is lecturing us on impartiality? Really? I believe what is meant when some editors refer to "impartiality" is that hearsay stories in the Serbian media should be presented as fact.
What is really at issue here is whether we should give Vuk Jeremic the right to veto any story regarding recognitions. All he has to do is say "no" and we are supposed to take the information down. I am not prepared to concede that to him. Has it never occured to any of you that planting doubt is a diplomatic strategy? If you can make things seem murky, it creates doubt and uncertainty. It is possible that he is trying to make the Kosovars look like liars and damage their international credibility in order to discourage recognitions. It would also be in his interest to claim they didn't happen because each recognition that happens represents a diplomatic failure on his part. These denials from Belgrade didn't begin to occur until we got to around 80 recognitions. Maybe that was the threshold for a new strategy such as I suggest? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that, but were there to be a credible reason, based on a reliable source, to believe that one country's recognition is questionable, then I think we should mention it in the article. I repeat: credible. Bazonka (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There are no compelling reasons to suggest why Oman should be "removed" from the list. Or does the IP think that if we removed it from the list on Wikipedia it will mean that Oman no longer recognises Kosovo the real world? Editing Wikipedia does not change reality. IJA (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
To Canadian Bobby: I think the total of recognitions is getting too close to 50% of the membership of the UN for Belgrade's comfort. The pro-Serb side has always made a big deal out of the fact that the majority of the countries in the world still consider Kosovo as part of Serbia. If that were to change, their position would take a massive hit. --Khajidha (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kosovo official claims that Oman hasn't recognised
In this Arab News article [57], Rexhep Boja, charge d'affaires of the Kosovo Embassy in Riyadh, states that Kosovo is still waiting for recognition from Oman. However, Boja is also quoted as claiming that 88 countries have recognised. Something's not right. I noticed that our friend Irvi Hyka has commented on the article, querying whether perhaps Boja meant Yemen instead of Oman. However the article is specifically about Gulf Cooperation Council members; Yemen is not a member (although it is a candidate). Bazonka (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
He could be confused as the recognition was done via the establishment of diplomatic relations rather than just stating "We recognise Kosovo" in a letter to the MFA. Or maybe he is Vuk Jeremic in disguise? IJA (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I am totally surprised by the behavior of Rexhep Boja. He is haed of the Embassy of Kosovo in Riadh (Saudi Arabia), but I notice he is playing the game of Jeremiç. Today I search for more information and found another article published in Arab News last year, on 10 June 2011. [59] even in this article Boja says that Oman has not recognized Kosovo. In June 2011, the media in Prishtina, especially Gazeta Express publish this as a scandal [60][61]. MFA of Kosovo not respond last year. Even in this article has no coherence. Boja says Oman that not recognize Kosovo but even been 76 countries (last year) that recognize Kosovo. Who is 76th? Oman is the 75th and Andorra the 76th. I will contact with Deputy FM Petrit Selimi for the irresponsible act of the diplomat of Kosovo in SA. In my opinion the problem is that Kosovo being a new state haven't career diplomat. For example Rexhep Boja is (was) a Mufti[62], the ambasasdor of Kosovo in Tirana is a Lieutenant General!!! Opposition and former chief of diplomacy Skënder Hyseni often criticizes the government for these selections. Irvi Hyka (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Ghana and Serbia in diplomatic row
Serbia has booted Samuel Valis-Akyianu, Ghana's Ambassador to Serbia, out of the country after a major diplomatic row. The FM of Ghana, Muhammad Mumuni, told Parliament on Wednesday the hitherto “cordial relations” between the two countries suffered serious bruises after Ghana recognised break-away Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia as an independent state. Following the row, angry Serbia sent Ambassador Valis-Akyianu packing in an attempt to mount pressure on Accra to reverse its decision to recognise neighbouring Kosovo, which declared independence in 2008. “Following the decision of the Ghana to recognise Kosovo, the Serbian authorities have asked Ghana's Ambassador in Belgrade to return home and consult with the Ghana to reverse the recognition,” the Minister said. He added: “Moreover, the Serbian Government has requested its Honorary Consulate in Accra to be closed down”. “The reaction of the Serbia to Ghana's recognition of Kosovo leaves us with no better choice than to order the complete closure of our mission in Belgrade,” Mumuni said. Ghana News[63]Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this development is very relevant to the international recognition of Kosovo since it lays to rest any doubts that Ghana has recognised the independence of Kosovo and, at least for me, it is the first time that a Ghanaian official -- in this instance its Foreign Minister -- has publicly stated that Ghana has recognised the independence of Kosovo and that the decision was taken by the Ghanaian president himself. I would not be surprised if in the coming days or weeks someone will come along and suggest that we remove Ghana or Oman or Country-X from the recognition list again because this media outlet or this Serbian official questions the authenticity of their recognition. So, I see value in these reports. Kosovar (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree in principle with you. This definitely casts much doubt on the claims that all the recent recognitions are "lies" and, in the words of Jeremic, "cheating." One doesn't expel ambassadors over events that did not occur. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Something's wrong
According to the article, Haiti is the 88th UN member states have recognised Kosovo but according to the official press release of the Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs [64], Haiti is only the 87th state to recognise Kosovo. So apparantly we're counting a country that Kosovo itself doesn't. Dinsdagskind (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The disagreement arises because the Kosovar MFA lists Uganda as the 88th state to recognize the ROK, while we have moved it to an earlier position based on the actual date that Uganda extended recognition and not on the date it was announced to the world. See the following link for the complete list from the Kosovar MFA. http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,33 --Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Date of recognition
Wikipedia list is not coherent with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo list. The case of Uganda made the most striking this fact.
Kosovo recognition lists when they come in Prishtina or published, and Wikipedia when they occur.
Palau - The problem begins with the 56th recognition from Palau [65]. MFA of Kosovo noted on 9 March 2009, but Wiki on 6 March 2009 based on the note verabel of the President of Palau, Johnson Toribiong.
Comoros - MFA of RoK on 19 May 2009, Wiki on 14 May 2009
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - MFA of RoK on 8 July 2009, Wiki 7 July 2009 (apparently according this link[66] the case of Jordan Wiki is wrong)
Dominican Republic - MFA of RoK on 11 July 2009, Wiki on 10 July 2009 (similar case as Jordan [67])
Malawi - MFA of RoK on 16 December 2009, Wiki 14 December 2009 (in this case is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo to accept that the Republic of Malawi decided on 14 December 2009, but the news was published on 16 December [68])
Mauritania - MFA of RoK on 13 January 2010, Wiki on 12 January 2010 [69]
Djibouti - MFA of RoK on 11 May 2010, Wiki on 8 May 2010
Guinea - MFA of RoK on 16 August 2011, Wiki accoeding the verbal note on 12 August 2011[70]
Uganda, Haiti and Ghana, MFA of RoK the 86th Ghana, 87th Haiti and 88th Uganda. In an interview for Express Newspaper, Behgjet Pacolli, clarify the situation for the delay publication of the recognition of Uganda. He said that he has time to know that Uganda recognizes Kosovo, but on February 15, the note verbale came to Prishtina. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
We should use the dates when the actual recognition took place (where known), which would be the date on the verbal note, and may be earlier than when the recognition was announced. If the Kosovo MFA want to use a different date on their website, then that's up to them - we don't have to match their list exactly. The only problem is that we don't always know the exact dates, so in some cases we will have to use the MFA list as the source. I'll review the list of countries above when I have more time, and make any changes as appropriate. Bazonka (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I've reviewed all of the countries that you queried, and I think the only one that we might need to change is Gabon. Djibouti is unclear as well.
Palau - the verbal note clearly indicates 6 Mar 2009. [71]
Comoros - the reference in this article is a dead link, but Kosovothanksyou has a verbal note dated 14 May 2009 [72]
Jordan - our reference is dated the 8 July 2009, but this Kosovothanksyou article [73] is dated the 7th, and refers to confirmation of recognition "today". Of course, this is when the Jordanians told Kosovo, which isn't necessarily the actual date of recognition.
Dominican Republic - here's a verbal note dated 10 July 2009 [74].
Mauritania - odd. The MFA report [75] is dated 12 January 2010 and talks about an announcement "made today", so I don't understand why the MFA list says that recognition happened on the 13th.
Djibouti - Not sure. See [Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 36#Djibouti recognizes (according to sources)]. The links in the thread are dead, but it looks as though recognition was unofficially announced on 8 May 2010, and officially on the 12th. The 8th is probably closer to the truth.
Guinea - The verbal note is clearly dated 12 August 2011 [76]
Gabon - We might have got this one wrong. The verbal note seems to be dated 15 September 2011 [77], but it's a fuzzy image.
Uganda - Verbal note is dated 5 December 2011 [78], which means it was actually the 86th to recognise, but the 88th to be announced.
I agree that when we have source with date from the government of the country in question we should use that and not the date at the Kosovo MFA list (which may be the date of receipt or some other different date). Japinderum (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Singapore would reconsider the position on Kosovo's independence
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Albania, Edmond Haxhinasto starts the diplomatic tour in some countries of Southeast Asia, with an official visit in Singapore. During this visit Minister Haxhinasto held a meeting with the Foreign Minister. During the meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Singapore, K. Shanmugam, they discussed about Kosovo. K. Shanmugam said that they would reconsider the position on Kosovo's independence in the light of the recent developments there, and in the framework of the EU integration perspective, that all these countries in the region have.MFA of AlbaniaIrvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. But I don't think it's quite correct to say that Tibet has recognised Kosovo. As far as I know, the Dalai Lama does not speak for Tibet, and he is not part of any Tibetan secessionist movement - he is an exiled leader of Tibetan Buddhism, but that's not the same thing. If this information were to be included in the article, it would probably be best in the Autonomous regions and secessionist movements section, but I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate. What do others think? Bazonka (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that while putting the Dalai Lama's statement alongside those of the Basque, Chechen, Uighur and so on movements isn't really appropriate, its the most appropriate option we have. One factor complicating this is that although the Dalai Lama is primarily associated with Tibetans, he is revered by many Mongols, Tuvans, Kalmyks and so on (though he admittedly does not much of an influence on, say, Mongolia's decisions) . Nonetheless it wouldn't be appropriate to treat him the same way the Vatican (which has a more developed state apparatus that is widely recognized), so the best place would be autonomist and secessionist movements. --Yalens (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
For a neutral position I think in the article can use no Tibet as region, but [Tibet (1912–1951)|Tibet]/[Tibetan Government in Exile] in the section Other states and entities. I am against that it be ignored. Neither SMOM, Republic of China or Tibet G in exile to be ignored.Irvi Hyka (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile are two different things. It would depend upon whether the Dalai Lama were writing in his personal capacity or on behalf of the government. In terms of classification, the Tibetan government would be considered a government unrecognized by any state, such as Transnistria or Somaliland. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
According this article in Wikipedia Dalai Lama in 2010 was the head of the state and the highest representative of Tibetan Government in Exile[83]"In a speech given on 10 March 2011, the 14th Dalai Lama stated that he will propose changes to the constitution of the Tibetan government in exile which will remove the Dalai Lama's role as head of state, replacing him with an elected leader. If accepted by the Tibetan parliament in exile, this will constitute the Dalai Lama's retirement from his formal political role, although he will retain his position as a religious dignitary.[84] He formally submitted his resignation as political leader to the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile in Dharamshala, India, on 14 March 2011.[85] On May 29, 2011, "His Holiness the Dalai Lama ... ratified the amendment to the charter of Tibetans delegating his administrative and political authorities to the democratically elected leaders of the Central Tibetan Administration."Irvi Hyka (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to the Central Tibetan Administration article, the Dalai Lama established the government in exile, and was previously its head of state and head of government. He is still clearly connected to this government, which is not recognised as a sovereign government by any country. On reflection, I think we could mention this in the Autonomous regions and secessionist movements section, but certainly not with SMOM or RoC. Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bazonka. Tibets Government in exile is neither a de facto state (since it has no control over any territory) nor is it recognized by any country (and therefore it does not maintain diplomatic relations with any sovereign entity). Therefore we could (and actually should) mention the Dalai Lama's statement, but not in the section Other states and entities but in the section Autonomous regions and secessionist movements. Gugganij (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
In the article is written than Positions taken by non-state actors. The term non-state actors for me is inappropriate. CTA totally have the right to call them self as a state. CTA have characteristics of a state, have a Prime Minister Kalon Tripa, a head of state, National Flag & Anthem , a foreign office, a Constitution [86], a Parliament. I know that Nazi Germany has recognized Tibet and sovereignty of Dalai Lama and the Government of Lhasa. I believe this article Tibet (1912–1951) can help us. Irvi Hyka (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In the sense of being an official of a gov't in exile, the Dalai Lama would in essence be equivalent to the statements of the exiled Ichkerian gov't, which is in the Autonomous regions and secessionist movements section. But this gets complicated because the Dalai Lama actually resigned from governmental functions and entrusted them to recently elected ministers. So if he made this statement after the date he retired (29 May 2011), he would not be saying it as representative of his government necessarily, it may be that his religious position that matters more than his political position.--Yalens (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC) EDIT: nevermind, he apparently made the statement before retiring...--Yalens (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
As for the CTA as a state, while it does have all the functions of a state, so does, for example, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. And that is placed under the Autonomous Regions and Secessionist Movements section, unless we decide to move it. To be consistent, that would naturally be where we'd place the CTA. --Yalens (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I wrote Tibet has recognised Kosovo in 2010 not in 2011, the Dalai Lama was the head of state of Tibet at this time. According to the score that I found all was published on April 11, 2010 but I don't know the date of the letter (verbal note as Uganda problem). The problem is the MFA of Kosovo because they never give interest that the states which are not UN members. Tim Judah wrote something for this to The Economist: In December 2011, Vasily Atajanyan, the acting foreign minister of Nagorno-Karabakh, had said that Nagorno-Karabakh would recognise Kosovo if recognition were reciprocated. In response, Enver Hoxhaj, Foreign Minister of Kosovo, said that Kosovo can only have formal relations with members of the UN. The Economist article Pristina until it becomes a member of the UN does not want to deal with other cases which might damage its foreign policy, as for that that Pristina don't recognized the Republic of China, Nagorno-Karabakh or other. Irvi Hyka (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no connection between Tibet and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Tibet (1912–1951) was a state and was illegally occupied by Beijing's communist hegemony and the so called Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was a unilateral state. I know now exist Caucasus Emirate a self-proclaimed virtual state entity, successor to the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria announced by former President of Ichkeria Dokka Umarov, who became the first Emir. Dokka Umarov to compare with the Dalai Lama is totally inappropriate, Umarov esponsible for numerous terror attacks on civilians, earning himself the nickname "Russia's Osama Bin Laden" with 14th Dalai Lama Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and religious leader. I raise a question: Why Somaliland? Irvi Hyka (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Tibet being "illegally occupied" is your opinion, Beijing doesn't say that. The matter is as controversial as the sovereign status of Kosovo itself. The point is that there is an authority in Tibet with subordinate status to Beijing and the world recognises PROC's sovereignty. All suggestions on what status Tibet should have had (suzerainty/autonomy/independence) involved foreign mediators with the Republic of China. Upon taking control, the communists applied their own ideas and these in turn were based on a long-standing irredentist Chinese mindset. So the notion of an "illegal occupation" is nothing more than world heads jumping up and down in protest, it has no official or universal validity. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Bazonka, the mention should go in the Autonomous Regions and Secessionist Movements category. That may not completely and accurately describe the Central Tibetan Administration, but then again according to the wiki page for it: "while its internal structure is government-like, it has stated that it is "not designed to take power in Tibet"; rather, it will be dissolved "as soon as freedom is restored in Tibet" and a government formed by Tibetans inside Tibet."
So it's not really claiming to be a legitimate government-in-exile for an ousted state, and in any case it doesn't control any sovereign territory or citizens. So: very different from Somaliland, Republic of China, or Nagorno-Karabakh. The East Turkestan Government in Exile is in the Autonomous Regions section, so there is good symmetry with including Tibet there as well. The CTA shouldn't be promoted into a different category that it's not really even claiming for itself.Konchevnik81 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
As has been stated above, ROC-run Taiwan, Karabakh and Somaliland actually control the lands that they claim as their own. The CTA, meanwhile, though it is a continuation of the government that Mao ousted decades ago, does not have any degree of control over Tibet, and is like the Ichkerian and East Turkestani governments-in-exile in this sense (one could also draw historical comparisons, to say, the govt's-in-exile of the Baltic states during the Cold War). By the way, you mixed up the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which is a gov't-in-exile of Chechen secularist separatists located in London, founded by factions of the Chechen separatist government which broke away from Umarov's faction in order to distance themselves from terrorism in 2007 (and who have no control in any form over any part of Chechnya) with the Caucasus Emirate (a rival, Islamist-affiliated faction that is waging a low-level insurgency actually on the ground). In any case, the point is to compare the Dalai Lama to anyone else, but that the CTA does not have any level of control over Tibet, and is in that sense not a sovereign government, being more like the exiled gov'ts of Ichkeria (London faction, let's not confuse this!) and East Turkestan. --Yalens (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we have reached consensus that the Autonomous Regions section is most appropriate. I've added a short paragraph to the article. Bazonka (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Correction of some dates and add new Verbal Note
In the new official website www.1deputyprimeminister-ks.net of First Deputy Prime Minister for International Recognitions and Foreign Investments in the government of the Republic of Kosovo, Behgjet Pacolli were published some verbal notes.
Côte d'Ivoire - [87] According to the verbal note on 16 September 2011 the decision of Gov of Côte d'Ivoire and the letter was written on 27 October 2011. I'm not sure what date we should use.
Niger - [88] According to the verbal note was written on 15 August 2011 not 16 Aug.
Other verbal note which I proposals to be replaced because the website of 1DPM of KS is an official source. Guinea and Central African Republic. All information on lobbying activity are published in the Annual Report 2011 by Pacolli's Portfolio [89]. Irvi Hyka (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Senegal - According to official reference published by Agence de Presse Sénégalaise, Dakar had recognised Kosovo on 18 February 2008 (Monday), but the news was published on 19 Feb (not Tuesday). Considering the precedence we should change the date and re-listing Senegal 8th and Australia the 9th. "Dakar, 18 fév (APS) - Le Sénégal a pris acte de la déclaration d’indépendance du Kosovo effective depuis dimanche dernier et a décidé du coup de ’’reconnaître le nouvel Etat’’, annonce un communiqué du gouvernement reçu lundi soir à l’Agence de presse sénégalaise."[90]Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Cook Islands and Niue
The Cook Islands and Niue are both self-governing states in free association with New Zealand. The UN recognizes both as non-member states, and New Zealand handles defense and foreign relations issues apparently as requested by both. Both countries have a few diplomatic missions and relations with other countries (Niue a very few). From some searching online, it appears that both issue visas to Kosovo passport holders, but neither country really has much to mention about Kosovo. Nor does the linked documentation for New Zealand's recognition and established relations say much about Kosovo. So presumably both countries are covered by New Zealand's recognition? Or no? Is this something worth mentioning either way? Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
They're not full sovereign states, however they recognise Kosovo via NZ's recognition. The same applies to territories of Denmark, France, Netherlands, UK and US. IJA (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That's not correct. There has been a massive debate about their status at Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue, and the decision was that they should be treated as sovereign. I understood that these territories operate their own foreign affairs.
Anyway, we had a similar situation a while ago with the Solomon Islands, whose immigration website states that visas are issued to Kosovo passport holders. This was mentioned in this article, but then removed on grounds of WP:SYN, though I don't entirely agree (see [91] and also Archive 33 of this talk page). Cook Islands and Niue (assuming there is a valid source for the claim about visas) should be treated the same as Solomon Islands, and all 3 included or all 3 omitted. Obviously CI and Niue would go into the Non-UN Member States section though. Bazonka (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If NZ handles their foreign affairs - and international recognition is a foreign affairs issue - then by default both recognize Kosovo unless they specifically distanced themselves from that position. I'm not aware of any such statement by either of these entities, so it's fair to say they recognize Kosovo - through NZ. --alchaemia (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
NZ recognize Kosovo and establish diplomatic relations with Pristina. On 25 February 2010 the Ambassador of Kosovo in London Muhamet Hamiti was appointed Kosovo’s non-resident Ambassador to New Zealand. He presented credential Letters to Governor-General of New Zealand Sir. Anand Satyanand not MFA or Pm of NZ (something important). The traditional ceremony of submission of credential letters took place in the Government House, the residency of the Governor-General in Wellington. [92] Some Serbian or other think even today that NZ has not recognized Kosovo. Niue for example haven't a Ministry of Foreign Affairs as we can see (Cabinet of Niue). According to the Niue Constitution Act the Niue Constitution vests executive authority in Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand and the Governor-General of New Zealand. Another case is Puerto Rico or officially the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. US recognize Kosovo also Puerto Rico. Ambassador of Kosovo in Washington, Avni Spahiu, visited San Juan, Puerto Rico in August 2011. During his visit in San Juan, Ambassador Spahiu also met with Mr. Kenneth D. McClintock, Secretary of State of Puerto Rico. At the meeting, Ambassador Spahiu, among others, thanked Secretary McClintock for the assistance that the National Guard of Puerto Rico has offered Kosovo, and asked for future cooperation in different areas of common interest. Secretary McClintock promised Ambassador Spahiu Puerto Rico’s continued support for Kosovo in the Caribean region.Website of Emb of RoK in Washington. I believe that Niue and Cook Is. de facto recognized Kosovo. Irvi Hyka (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The comparison with Puerto Rico is not helpful. Puerto Rico is a US territory, whereas Niue and the Cook Islands are not part of New Zealand and do not fully belong to it. They are almost sovereign and independent; however due to their small size and history (they were NZ dependencies), they rely on NZ for certain things such as defence.
The reference to the Governor General is also not helpful. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of NZ, the Cook Islands and Niue. The Governor General is her representative in NZ and Niue. Again, due to the small size of Niue, the same person acts as Governor General in both countries, however (as I understand it) his actions pertaining to NZ do not necessarily also pertain to Niue. (The Cook Islands is separately represented by a Queen's Representative.)
Niue represents its own foreign affairs, relying on NZ where requested. See [93]
The Cook Islands has its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs [94]. I don't fully understand how far NZ's involvement reaches into this, but it is probably a similar arrangement to that with Niue.
I am fairly sure that what applies to NZ does not necessarily also apply to the Cook Islands or Niue. Whilst the likelihood is that the Cook Islands and NZ have followed NZ's lead and de facto recognise Kosovo, without any firm evidence, this is just speculation and cannot be included in the article. User:Konchevnik81 said that he had found something online to indicate that they issue visas to Kosovo passport-holders. Please can a link be provided for this? (NB This site [95] states that the Cook Islands never issue visas.) Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It's my understanding that they're autonomous except that NZ handles defense and foreign relations as requested. The Cook Islands have taken up diplomatic relations with some countries on their own, but I am unfamiliar with them having ever recognized a state. It would be my understanding that they do not recognize states, particularly Niue. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
New Zealand has a policy of not explicitly recognising other countries, instead acting through the establishment of diplomatic relations. Both Niue and the Cook Islands have established diplomatic relations with other countries (see Foreign relations of Niue and Foreign relations of the Cook Islands). It wouldn't surprise me if they've adopted NZ's approach. Bazonka (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. The site that described Kosovan passport holders being allowed entry is "doyouneedvisa.com/passport/RK" (can't link..wikipedia says its a spam site); at first I thought it was one of those sites that copied wikipedia articles as the format looked familiar, but it actually appears to be different from the Kosovan passport article. Unfortunately they do not source their material, but their specifics are interesting...Niue apparently allows 30 days visa free access, and Cook Islands 31. Again, I can't tell just how their aggregating the info, and Bazonka is quite right that the Cook Islands does not issue visas, per their MFA website. Also, while I note New Zealand's policy of no recognition/diplomatic relations only, it might be a bit more complicated than that with the Cook Islands and Niue: the Cook Islands just established formal relations with the Philippines, but their MFA notes that they have had a long history of relations with that country previously. Niue has separate relations with the People's Republic of China, including apparently a controversial different position on Taiwan than does New Zealand. So in short, both countries seem to default to New Zealand's foreign policy, but can act independently. In this case, since the document from New Zealand describing its establishment of relations with Kosovo doesn't mention Cook Islands or Niue, and neither country have attempted to publicly state a contrary position, it would perhaps seem that they are defaulting to New Zealand's position...but I just don't know how presumptuous that is.Konchevnik81 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the first site I mentioned was spammy, I'll offer the IATA Travel Centre as a potential source. It says no visa necessary for Cook Islands, and a visa is necessary for Niue that would be issued by a New Zealand embassy. I tried Brazil to see if it would flag non-recognizing countries that also do not recognize Kosovan passports, and the site correctly did so. So at least as far as de facto recognition would go, this seems like evidence that the Cook Islands and Niue are following / not disputing New Zealand's lead.Konchevnik81 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
These tiresome discussions on whether Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tibet have recognized Kosovo or not seem to reflect a desire to "stuff" the list with more recognitions. It's a pedantic, asinine exercise. What's next? Are we going to have a huge debate on whether Antarctica recognizes Kosovo because some countries that recognize have bases there? Or whether New Caledonia does? This is getting silly. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Canadian Bobby: In general, I agree that there is overkill on this site, but I have to say I'm a little shocked that this thread is what breaks the camel's back for you. In general, you seem to be pretty reasonable in these discussions, and so I have to flat-out disagree that this is a "tiresome", "pedantic" or "asinine' exercise. These two countries, again, are recognized as non-member states by the UN. Sometimes they have their own foreign policies, most of the time they let New Zealand do the heavy lifting. I was merely asking a question whether in this case they would be considered to fall under New Zealand's remit, even though New Zealand does not specifically mention them in the communique with Kosovo, or not. The acceptance of Kosovan passports in both places would seem to be indirect evidence of recognition, but I am not saying an entry should be made based on that information alone.
Look, if you think the article is getting packed with unnecessary information, then great. Then let's also drop the Sovereign Order of Malta recognition, and the stuff about Tibet, East Turkestan, and the Basques. Cut all the non-recognition statements to one statement per country. End the arguments of what countries recognized on what date in what order and just use the Kosovan MFA website and cut the discussions about whether Niger recognized on August 15 or August 16. But otherwise, if all of that is fine, then I don't see why this discussion is not legitimate as well.
I like this article. I've been following it since 2008. I find the story interesting. But please let me remind you that no one "owns" this article more than any other. And I think I'm being very respectful in these discussions, and by not making random changes without discussing them first. I've even fixed some vandalism that happened a couple weeks back. I take that uncharacteristic remark on your part rather personally ... I think this is a constructive conversation, and don't really think that your kind of language helps.Konchevnik81 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm totally agree with Konchevnik81 arguments. Maybe these two countries have officially recognized Kosovo, but we can see the MFA of Kosovo don't published recognition from countries there are not members of the UN. Minister Hoxhaj said the homologue of Nagorno-Karabakh that Kosovo can only have formal relations with members of the UN. Kosovo is interesting only for UN member recognition. For we in Wikipedia isn't in our interest the opinion/politics of Kosovon MFA or Serbian MFA, but the real fact. Kosovo MFA don't published Republic of China recognition, SMOM recognition. The visit of the delegation of SMOM two years late, Deputy FM of Kosovo Petrit Selimi remembered even SMOM had recognized Kosovo. Other example is San Marino, media in Pristina or the MFA of Kosovo don't published nothing for the establishment of diplomatic relations between Kosovo and San Marion. I search and found this [96], Congress of State of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino published a "Delibera n.4 Pratica n.0066, Seduta del: 24 GENNAIO 2012/1711 d.F.R. Oggetto: Stabilimento delle relazioni diplomatiche con la Repubblica del Kosovo" on 24 January 2012. For Kosovon MFA and media this is a routine diplomatic news as the recognition by SMOM, diplomatic ties with small or distant countries, in the article Foreign relations of Kosovo San Marino isn't listed. MFA of Kosovo interest to don't published the recognition from non-UN members (example the Republic of China) and the interest of the MFA of Serbia for misinformation (for Belgrade US, Germany or Albania hasn't recognized Kosovo). For me and belives for Wikipedia is important the fact not the political interest of Pristina, Belgrade or other. Irvi Hyka (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that San Marino is member of UN, but my problem is "Why MFA of Kosovo don't published that Kosovo and San Marino establish diplomatic relations or the delayed news for the recognition by SMOM?". MFA of Kosovo considers that small and routine news, but this is not very good for the transparency of the process. Irvi Hyka (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Before this gets too off-topic, let me just rephrase my original question. Since these two countries have a semi-independent foreign policy, and otherwise allow New Zealand to handle their foreign affairs at their request, where would that leave them with regards to Kosovo? I will admit that I cannot find any direct documentation online, and both countries are so small (the Cook Islands government works out of a converted motel) that I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't really concerned themselves with this matter. A further complication is that as all Niueans and Cook Islanders are NZ citizens, they don't have much initiative to make any independent pronouncements on a matter about as far away from them as one can get. What makes the most sense then? No new info to the article until direct documentation can be found? A note in the New Zealand section? A full addition in the non-UN member states section (without direct documents, I admit I am not very enthusiastic on this option)?Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mention them at all unless someone can find a specific reference to their position(s) on this subject. There are still several UN member states that do not have a known position and they are not listed here. Why treat Niue and the Cook Islands any differently? --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Since they have the capacity to conduct their own foreign affairs (even though they may often follow NZ's lead), then any statement about them is going to be an assumption. Bazonka (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Egypt is ready to recognize Kosovo's Independence and other news
In an interview for Express newspaper, "Asia is moving" the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Albania Edmond Haxhinasto said that Brunei and the Kingdom of Thailand have made the first steps towards the recognition of Kosovo and very soon these countries will take a decision. It has promised the authority of these states. [97][98]
Thailand: In the web site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania: Haxhinasto during a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand, Yuthasak Sasiprapha. Thai Deputy Prime Minister, Yuthasak Sasiprapha expressed his attention to follow the developments in the Balkans and Kosovo, and said that contacts and human communications would be provided between the two peoples, and also steps will be taken to facilitate the travelling of the Kosovo citizens in Thailand. MFA of AlbaniaIrvi Hyka (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The web site of 1st Deputy Prime Minister for International Recognitions and Foreign Investments of the Republic of Kosovo published the note verbal of STP [103]. Irvi Hyka (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It was reported in the media, but it was never backed up with anything official. The date of recognition is the date in the Note Verbale. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Mauritius to Recognize Kosovo, Prime Minister says. In a cablegram of Wikileaks between USA and PM of Mauritus. "On 4 June 2009, Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam called CDA to report that he had decided Mauritius would recognize Kosovo on or soon after 17 July. When asked the reason for the complete shift of GOM position, the PM said that he had been swayed by the series of talking points delivered over the past year. He was taking the decision, he said, over the recommendations of his senior Foreign Ministry officials who strongly advised he not recognize Kosovo. According to the PM, the MFA continues to see recognition of Kosovo as undermining the GOM position on Diego Garcia. The
PM noted that he reviewed all the points and determined that the two situations were "quite different," and thus recognition would take place. With regard to the timing, the PM said he was going to wait until 17 July, a date he fixed to timing of a Serbian Advisory Opinion in the International Court of Justice. [105]" I think we can add something because in the article don't exist a voice for this country.
According this news, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon. Sam Condor and Senior Foreign Service Officer Kaye Bass support the independence of Kosovo [106]
This can't be used in the article. "They both support our independence; that is the impression I got" is an opinion, and not even an indirect quote. Bazonka (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Ambassador of Fiji to Japan, Russia, Korea and Philippines met time ago the ambassador of Kosovo in Tokyo Sami Ukelli. In the web site of Fiji they use the term "Republic of Kosovo". [107]
I don't think we can use this. Ukelli's job title is Ambassador of the Republic of Kosovo to Japan, whether you recognise Kosovo or not. Bazonka (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I believe is interesting because some states "de facto" recognized Kosovo and have cordial relations with Kosovo (don't consider Kosovo part of Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity). Irvi Hyka (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Brunei
In the web site of Gov of Brunei they call Kosovo is a country. [108]
Department of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of South Africa (the foreign ministry of the South African government.) in the list of 2012 listed Kosovo as a country with other UN country. [109] Several weeks ago Jeremiç said that South Africa respect Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but the MFA of SA don't confirmed that according this publication. [110]
The pilot James Berisha during his mission in Lesotho met at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. J.T. Metsing, Principal Secretary to the Minister. Mr. Metsing stated that his government and the Ministry totally agree that we should be an independent country and that they had advised Serbia many times of their position and stance on our independence. The only concern that they have is that they want it done right and to make sure that we maintain peace and stability in our neighborhood. I should note here that Lesotho has a long history of supporting just causes. Though they are sometimes vulnerable to the political and economic decisions that are made by South Africa, Lesotho was one of the original supporters of the end of Apartheid and at one time offered a number of South African refugees political asylum during that time. Additionally, they are one of the minority of countries that officially recognize Palestine as its own state. Something interesting for position of Lesotho. [112]
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines position [113]. Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves was very welcoming, saying, "if the people of a country want independence, then I think they should have it."
Grenada, Minister David promised that he will do everything possible to make sure that the topic of Kosovo’s independence will rise to the top of the agenda. [114]
Suriname and region so that Kosovo Independence is not an unfamiliar matter for this region. [115]
Wikileaks published something interesting for the positions of some countries [116]
St Vincent - the statement that you quoted is not in the cited source.
Grenada - all this means is that they're going to talk about it. It gives no hint as to whether they support or oppose independence.
I will look at the Wikileaks report more thoroughly another day. (I note that this is where Gonsalves' quote is.) Bazonka (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Gonsalves's quote is for me interesting. I think we can use something because in the article St Vincent don't exist. I add the quote of Wikileaks. In this article [117] is something for Louis Straker initiation. Irvi Hyka (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The only thing of use in the leaked cable is the position of St Vincent. However, the cable dates from 14 Feb 2008, a few days before Kosovo's declaration of independence. I'm not sure whether we can use it because of this. Back when this article was titled International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, we made a decision that prior positions couldn't be used because they were not a reaction. But with the current article name perhaps we can. What do others think? I don't think there's anything of use in the Flying For Kosovo article - it just vaguely says that there are forces that support Kosovo's independence in St Vincent. You could probably say the same about anywhere. Bazonka (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Should be discussed
The positions of some small countries (not USA official comments) in Wekeleaks, we can use this information in this article.
According MOFA Statements of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China the date of recognition is 21 February or I read wrong [118]
According KUNA the date of recognition of Kuwait is 10 Oct, but the news was published in Kosovo on 11 Oct during the visit of Hoxhaj in Kuwait. [119]
Burkina Faso, the date of recognition. In this link [120]"Le 23 avril 2008, le Conseil des ministres a examiné et adopté un rapport relatif à la reconnaissance par le Burkina Faso de la République du Kosovo dont la déclaration d’indépendance est intervenue le 17 avril 2008. Le 25 avril, le ministre des Affaires Etrangères et de la Coopération Régionale, SEM Djibrill Bassolé, a fait, en présence de la presse nationale et internationale, une déclaration sur le sujet." I'm confused for the date of recognition.
San Marino date of recognition. According the official communication "Delibera n. 8 del 12/05/2008 - Riconoscimento della Repubblica del Kosovo da parte della Re-pubblica di San Marino" Seduta del: 12 MAGGIO 2008/1707 d.F.R. San Marino recognize Kosovo on 12 May 2008, not on 11. [121]
Interesting, but I don't think we can use it. Kosovo is contemplating applying for membership. This is Kosovo's position, not the position of the CoE. The rest of the article seems to be a description of standard CoE procedures, and speculation. Bazonka (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, but is important the fact that Gov of Pristina have taken a decision. I think that Kosovo will try to join in the CoE during Albanian presidency (May 2012 - November 2012). Irvi Hyka (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
IMF & WB VOTING FOR KOSOVO'S
I find something about Kosovo membership in IMF. Is important add the voting of the countries.
According this cable:
The states who vote FOR Kosovo are: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu, Yemen, and Zambia. (Even some countries witch Jeremiç said that don't recognized Kosovo).
The following countries submitted written abstentions: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, and Uruguay.
The following countries voted NO: Angola, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, El Salvador, Georgia, Greece, Pakistan, Romania, Slovak Republic, and Venezuela.
The following countries did not participate in the IMF vote: Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Iran, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe. [123]
I propose add the vote of this couriers in the section Positions taken by intergovernmental organisations/World Bank.
For the link [124] "Njohja nga Egjipti do të vijë shumë shpejt" exist, isn't dead. I can open this link. Irvi Hyka (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this would be clutter. Kosovo is a member of the IMF and World Bank, and it should be left as such. Just because a country voted OK to its membership bid doesn't mean that it recognizes Kosovo. And now that its a member all members of the IMF and WB have to deal with it as such, so in this sense *all* members "recognize" Kosovo. It's a bit like Taiwan being part of the WHO. Or Israel being a member of the UN, for that matter. Kosovo is a member of two international organizations, but its membership and countries' votes to that effect do not have a direct bearing on whether those countries recognize it as an independent state.Konchevnik81 (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This isn't really anything to do with recognition, even if they voted yes it doesn't necessarily imply recognition or that they intend to do so. It is not really notable encyclopaedic information apart from the result of the the vote. The specific way countries voted isn't of use to us here. Sorry IJA (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
In other article of Wikipedia, International recognition of the National Transitional Council used the information of a "voting process". I believe Wikipedia don't have double standard. I said to write no that these countries have recognized Kosovo, but only add in the section Positions taken by intergovernmental organisations. In the context for more transparency. Irvi Hyka (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Recognising a government is different to recognising a country. Besides that was a full UN vote on accepting the NTC as the legitimate representatives of Libya, which is a hell of a lot different to the WB/ IMF accepting Kosovo as a member; besides you don't even have to be a sovereign state to have full membership in the IMF/WB unlike the UN. The UN vote on the NTC and the WB/IMF vote on Kosovo are two very different things and it is not right to draw parallels between the two. Also every time Kosovo applies to an organisation do we include the result of the vote here? Just imagine how silly that'd get. If this information belongs anywhere, it belongs on "Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo" in a drop down list, below "Membership in international organisations". But even then, I'd bet some editor will come along and remove it on the grounds of it being 'pointless'. IJA (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Taiwanese membership of WHO is instructive. According to the WHO article, membership can be offered by a simple majority vote of existing members on the World Health Assembly. Taiwan was offered membership based on such a vote, even though far less than half of the members of the WHO recognize Taiwan as a legitimate state. These votes are votes on membership to an international organization, not recognition (or lack thereof) of said member's de jure existence. Otherwise, as noted, Kosovo is a member of the World Bank and IMF, so it received the necessary votes for membership. Does it really add transparency to detail the votes? I think at most a simple note that it received the approval of x members to join the organization is fine.Konchevnik81 (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
@Bazonka, I find the information in this cable-link [125]. The US diplomacy worked very hard for this I read a lot of cable and see some their position Bhutan ex. @Konchevnik81 Republic of China isn't a full member of WHO, is only observer under the name "Chinese Taipei", Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is also observer in OIC (OIC=WHO). The British newspaper The Guardian gave importance of the process of voting Palestinian membership in UNESCO [126]. For me and I believe and for other is interesting the voting. Irvi Hyka (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Where does it talk about the importance of voting Palestinian membership in UNESCO in The Guardian? That is just a list of which way countries voted. Nothing to do with recognition, just that Palestina wants UN recognition. IJA (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Irvi Hyka: Points taken, and I understand that these voting patterns are interesting to study, but as this article deals with the international recognition of Kosovo, adding voting patterns to international organizations that Kosovo has been accepted as a member to seems to be straying off topic. I would advise again that the most that should be said is x countries voted to extend membership and add a link. That Antigua and Barbuda voted in favor of Kosovo's membership in the IMF, for example, doesn't really substantively change the fact that Kosovo is an IMF member, nor does it change the fact that Antigua hasn't extended recognition of Kosovo's independence yet. Konchevnik81 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Very informative source! Regarding its use in the article - I don't think listing this voting breakdown in the IMF/WBG rows is good (for reasons similar to those stated in the above debate). But I think it's highly relevant and notable - an official real world act of the countries. Yes, it's not the same as announcement of diplomatic recognition, but much more notable than "statements" and "opinions" of some MFA PR or other government official . That's why I propose that we mention the particular country IMF vote in the rows of these countries that still don't recognize Kosovo, but voted "for/abstain" instead of "against". Japinderum (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with adding the information into the country rows even more than into the IMF section. This is not information about recognition of Kosovo - see the article title. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
As said above - IMF vote is much more notable (actually some argue that for countries who don't do diplomatic recognitions such international treaty/organization interaction is the only type of unilateral diplomatic recognition granted - until both governments decide to establish diplomatic relations - which could be never for states like Bhutan, Turkmenistan or Niger that have limited foreign relations) than the government official statements such as "we will look into it and decide what to do" that we have on the page. I don't suggest using this to move countries to the recognizers section, but only to mention their vote in their rows in the non-recognizer section.
Voting "yes" for Republic of Kosovo (not "Kosovo under UNSCR1244" or something like that) membership in the IMF is highly relevant fact and we should mention it in the rows describing the positions of: Bahamas, St.Kitts, Antigua, Dominica, Barbados, St.Vincent, Trinidad, Cape Verde, Togo, Chad, Cameroon, Congo, DRCongo, Rwanda, Kenya, Sudan, Egypt, Zambia, Mozambique, Mauritius, South Africa, Yemen, Iraq, Fiji.
On the other hand the "written abstention" of Poland is also interesting, because at the time of voting it had already recognized Kosovo (and unlike many other EU members with similar size currently it still hasn't established diplomatic relations with it - so Poland seems to be acting as a non-recognizer. There were similar announcements by its officials too.) Japinderum (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Old information
Is it really necessary to have such a huge section on non-recognizing countries? So much of that information is old and obsolete and it's the most unwieldy thing I've ever seen. For example:
- If a country said in 2008 it won't recognize, and then reiterated that in 2009 and 2010, why is it necessary to have any but the most recent info?
- Some of the governments don't even exist any more. Is Gaddafi's position really relevant? The old government of Egypt?
- Does it really require an entire screen worth of info to explain that Russia won't recognize?
Not to mention the insane reference list it creates. The list is longer than the reference list for the articles on the US and Russia combined. I suggest getting rid of all but the most recent info on any country. Sonar1313 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that if the same government repeats the same message, then there is no point in us also repeating it. But many countries give mixed messages - it is useful to show their changing views over time as it indicates their indecision etc. Retaining the old government's information can be useful if a new government gives a statement - it shows whether the new leaders have the same or a different view. Bazonka (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That's similar to saying the article on the US needs a full, in-depth discussion of slavery to reflect changing views over time. If that's the case, couldn't a single sentence or two with one or two references suffice, instead of leaving every minute previous detail in with eight or ten references? Take Egypt: it's a massive section with 13 paragraphs and 16 references. A simple passage that mentions the previous government's reticence with one or two references would certainly suffice. Or Slovakia: six paragraphs and 13 references that all say the same thing. Sonar1313 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Keep the most recent statement of non-recognition or support that mirrors everything else. If there are any relevant details of why the country in question takes its position that aren't stated in the most recent statement, those should stay. Otherwise repeating the same thing over and over again is reference link bloat.
Today, European Parliament passed a resolution of Ulrike Lunacek. Parliament urges the five EU Member States that have yet to recognize Kosovo's independence to do so. Euro MPs asked the International Olympic Committee to allow Kosovan athletes to compete at the forthcoming London Olympics. The European Parliament has underlined "the importance of improving relations and the representation of Kosovo in international institutions that deal with culture and cultural heritage and sporting organisations". The resolution was passed with 375 votes in favour, 97 against, and 76 abstentions. EPAnsaB92 After the vote Lunacek said that EP support independent Kosovo. TCHIrvi Hyka (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
On 5 February 2009, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that encouraged all EU member states to recognise Kosovo. In this resolution EP urges. The new: EP calling for the participation of Kosovo at London 2012. Irvi Hyka (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
According this leaked of US Embassy in Freetown when posted the verbal note of SL. At the end of the verbal note written that SL recognized Kosovo on 11 June 2008. Date should be changed. [127]Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Grenada had recognized Kosovo?
I find in this days the official link. The Speaker of the Parliament of Grenada, George J.Mc Guire regarding the independence of Kosovo. In his letter Mr. Mc Guire writes: I am satisfied of announcing that after the meeting we had in the World Conference of Geneva, Grenada took into consideration your request for recognizing Kosovo as a legitimate country and totally independent. In his letter, the Speaker of the Parliament of Grenada ensured the Speaker of the Parliament that “the highest personalities of Grenada will further lobby in support of your right cause.” [128]
I'm so confused about this letter. Our friend Bazonka noted some time ago about the problem of translating the information Albanian - English. [129] Now that I'm riding literally the letter of Mc Guire in Albanian and English create me confusion. Grenada had recognized Kosovo? Irvi Hyka (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the phrase "as a legitimate country and totally independent" is simply a descriptive clause explaining what is meant by recognition. The recognition itself is still being debated. --Khajidha (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hyseni? The communication is between Albanian Head of Parliament Jozefina Topalli and the chairman of the Grenadian Parliament, George J. McGuire. Isn't the first time that Kosovo received recognition by an interlocutor who help Prisitina. Example Sierra Leone recognition, the US Embassy in Freetown was interlocutor between Prisitina and Freetown [130] or the recognition from Honduras, Ilir Meta (Minister of FA of Albania at the time) was the first to announcing that Honduras recognize KS during his visit there [131]. Now, I'm confused for Grenada. Irvi Hyka (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to be confused about, as Bobby and I both said the note is saying "You have asked us to recognize you as an independent state, we are currently considering doing that." There is no recognition. There isn't even really anything interesting here. --Khajidha (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
@Khajidha I don't confuse the first part of the letter but the second. In his letter, the Speaker of the Parliament of Grenada ensured the Speaker of the Parliament of Albania that “the highest personalities of Grenada will further lobby in support of your right cause.” Grenada will support and lobby for Kosovo if they recognize Kosovo. Something isn't coherent. I will write Topalli's cabinet to publish the original letter. Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Irvi there is really nothing interesting in that letter. I doubt you will receive any useful information for this article from Topalli's cabinet. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting news
Romania: Gandul newspaper published an interesting article about the vote of Romanian European MP. Most Romanian MEPs voted last week a resolution urging the five EU members that do not recognize Kosovo, including Romania, to do so. Between them even president's daughter, Elena Băsescu. She was for, but "a technical error". Something is moving in Romania. The representative of Romania opposition National Liberal Party (Romania) and member of EP Adina Vălean said that Romanian should change its stance on Kosovo. 17 voted "yes", 7 "no".[132]EurActiv[133]
Greece: In an interview for Express the head of the Greek Office in Pristina said that the recognition by Greece will arriving "step by step". The Greek diplomat clearly the position of Athens. [134]
Articles on following links are written in English. Please consider information as reliable because source is FM of Serbia
I saw that you considered unproven statements from Bedjet Pacoli as true without searching and verifying those statements
No it is NOT a reliable source. We've been through this repeatedly. If it were the FM of Nigeria saying this directly, that would be a reliable source. For recognitions only the recognizing country and the recognized country's FMs are reliable sources. What you have here is hearsay. --Khajidha (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This is an old story that we've already discussed ad nauseam. Any browsing through the talk archives will show that this issue has long since been exhausted. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Yawn old story, check the archives. This is why they exist, so we don't have to have a debate every time a new user comes along. IJA (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please, stop the vandalism. It is unacceptable to eliminated the recognition without a consensus. We are open to discuss. First, Jeremiç last year claimed that he had letter (DOCUMENTS) from Oman and GB officials but Jeremiç never published "letter" about this. Kosovo published all the letter. The reconfirmation by Oman and GB, also good relations Kosovo-Oman are reconfirmation by Oman Daily last month [136]. Some countries not say explicitly that they recognize Kosovo but establish diplomatic relations with Pristina. Albania is one of these countries. In this statement of PM Berisha and FM Basha [137] Albania decided to establish diplomatic relations. Albania, Kuwait, Qatar, NZ and other recognize KS not explicitly but establish dip rela. We can't think that Albania or Qatar hasn't recognized Kosovo. Good relations with KS and Nigeria are reconfirmed in March 2012 by the Governor of Imo State Mr Rochas Okorocha in Pristina who said that the best friend of Kosovo in Africa is Nigeria. [138] other links reconfirmed Nigeria-Kosovo good relations. In 2011 the Minister of Trade and Investment of FR of Nigeria, Mr. Olusegun Aganga the signing MOU with the 1st Deputy Prime Minister and Head of International Affairs and Investments, Republic of Kosovo, Mr. Behgjet Pacolli. [139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147]
I don't understand why CR of Africa eliminated by some user. We can read the verbal note of CAR firmed by ANTOINE GAMBI, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration, and of the Francophonie of the Central African Republic. [148]. Jeremiç said that Albanian businessmen pay money for recognition and accused western countries not that CAR don't recognized KS. These are simply speculations of Jeremiç, he accused Albanian pay money or western countries and Albanian respond/accused Belgrade to sends arms some dictator al-Assad, Gaddafi or Mubarak. Isn't the first time Jeremiç accused. He also accused for the the recognition by Maldives, but Maldives not only recognized KS but strongly supported KS in ICJ. Isn't a valid argument to say recognition not address of MFA of KS don't happens, Monaco, Palau, Belize sends the verbal note in the office of President of KS Sejdiu other in the office of PM of KS, MFA or Deputy PM Pacolli. Irvi Hyka (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The first time an IP claimed that B92's interviews are reliable sources I suggested to create a FAQ page to deal with the claims efficiently and not have to enter these discussions every time they resurface.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk14:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
How about we expand the "Serbia's reaction" section by adding something to the effect that "Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic has repeatedly made claims that various countries never recognized Kosovo or had rescinded their recognitions, all of these claims have been refuted by the countries in question." --Khajidha (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
MFA of Kosovo confirm the news. Brunei Darussalam recognizes Kosovo. The MFA of Brunei Prince Pengiran Muda Mohamed Bolkiah sands a letter in Prishtina. Brunei Darussalam has recognized Kosovo as an independent state according to a communique issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Kosovo. The recognition was communicated via a letter sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Minister Mohamed Bolkiah of the Brunei Darussalam Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This makes Brunei Darussalam the 90th UN Member state to recognize Kosovo.[150]Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
El Salvador has recognized Kosovo?
A leaked 2008 cable from the US Embassy in San Salvador states that President Saca told the Ambassador that El Salvador had made the decision to recognize Kosovo and was hoping to make a joint announcement with other Central American countries within the next few days. However, Saca said that if there was no joint statement, El Salvador could make an announcement on its own to recognize Kosovo at some point in the future. [151]Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not very clear! New Kosova Report in an article published in 2009 states that "the Government of the Republic of El Salvador decided to recognize the Republic of Kosovo yesterday evening, reports the US edition of the Kosovar daily Bota Sot. Bexhet Pacolli, an influential Kosovar political leader and president of the political party ARK, who attended the inauguration of the new President of El Salvador, Carlos Mauricio Funes Cartagena, confirms that "the Government of the Republic of El Salvador last evening decided to recognize the Republic of Kosovo as an independent and sovereign country." [152] So both, the former president Antonio Saca and the new president Mauricio Funes had said that the recognition happen. Maybe Salvador (as example Guatemala, Paraguay) has recognized Kosovo but do not disclose the news by fears of Russia. Irvi Hyka (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, this is old news. Read these Talk page archives. El Salvador's recognition, as mentioned in the New Kosova Report article, never happened because it wasn't ratified by the president - at least that's what we assume. I've added a short paragraph based on the Wikileaks cable though. Bazonka (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what would an undisclosed recognition accomplish? Recognitions show support for a country and a willingness to deal with it, not revealing a recognition is not effectively different from not recognizing. --Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
World Evangelical Alliance
Does the World Evangelical Alliance really need to be mentioned in this article? I don't think so, but Irvi Hyka disagrees with me. What do others think? Bazonka (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say no, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. How important is this group? How much influence do they have? --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Scratch that, as you said in your initial removal this group is granting membership to a church not to the Kosovar state. Thus, it does not belong on THIS page regardless of how important the WEA is or isn't. --Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
OK Bazonka! If we remove WEA should remove also International Olympic Committee because they can recognize Olympic Committee of Kosovo not the state of Kosovo, also EBU because they can recognize Radio Television of Kosovo not the state of Kosovo. Kosovo Protestant Evangelical Church is recognized by the Government of Kosovo. WEA for me is important because WEA have Special status at UN [153][154][155][156] They aren't a simply NGO, WEA have an office at UN but their status for me is incomprehensible if WEA is a Intergovernmental organization candidate under UN??? Irvi Hyka (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
WEA only has consultative status, which means they get the opportunity to comment on various economic and social matters. They don't make UN decisions. Over 2000 other organisations have this status, so the WEA really isn't that important. Bazonka (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The non-recognisers table is insanely long, and this can cause problems when attempting to editing it on certain hardware, e.g. tablet computers. (I had to get out of bed early this morning to make an edit because my tablet couldn't cope, and the laptop was downstairs.) So I propose splitting the table into manageable chunks, proabably by letter. Would anyone object? Bazonka (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of ending the table after each letter, and simply starting a new table. The column widths might be inconsistent, so we might need to force them to be a certain width. I'm also toying with the idea of adding a subheading above each table - the drawback with this is that the table of contents at the top of the article will become very long. What do you reckon? See the example below (column width issue obviously not addressed). Bazonka (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I kind of wish that the TOC did show each segment of the table, as that would allow someone to click through to "S" if they are looking for "Suriname". Is there any way to get some of that functionality back? Maybe a section link at the beginning of the table? --Khajidha (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
We could add a compact TOC just before the table like this {{CompactTOC8|side=yes|name=States|align=left|sep=·}}
Love the idea. We could also use this opportunity to trim some of the needless repetition issues. I mean, do we really need a whole screen of Russia saying "Nope, we still aren't going to recognize"? Keep the initial reaction and the most recent comment. Even if we keep all the other references, many of them can be appended to a sentence like "Since 2008 Russia has repeatedly supported Serbia's position." --Khajidha (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Job done. I decided that it looked better with each letter as a separate table rather than grouping them - but this can be easily changed if necessary. I agree with Khajidha that this is an opporutunity for reducing some of the text, but I think the suggested abridgement is a bit too severe! Perhaps we should move the Russia text to a completely new article. Bazonka (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
To me your version seems a little more severe than mine, but either way the general principle is a good one. --Khajidha (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
New article on Russia's reaction
I have created a new article Russia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence with text copied as-is from this article. I've replaced the Russia section here with a short sentence and a link to the new article. What do you think? We can easily put the text back here if necessary. But if you think this is a good approach, then perhaps we can do the same for other countries with lots of information - Spain, Slovakia, Egypt perhaps. Bazonka (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. This article is way too long and it would be great to move a lot of the info into separate articles. Del♉sion23(talk)17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The changes made so far to the article have really made it easier to look at. We should move the bigger reactions to a page like the Russia one. I really second Bazonka's call for moving those long descriptions of national reactions that just tell us the same thing ad nauseum. If people want to know who in India is saying something about Kosovo or the details, then they can access the Indian reaction page. We should also put Cyprus into that lot too. Lots of "We're never going to recognise" statements from them. We could also move Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, etc... They keep saying different things and just a short "[Nation] has given mixed reactions to Kosovar independence, with the government officially stating [X], and some officials/personalities/entities have [publicly/privately/officially/unofficially/personally] expressed [Y]..." will suffice here. Plus a link to "[Nation] reaction to reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", of course.
I agree with the comments above: splitting off Russia's reaction does look good and make for a more navigable article. The Russia's reaction article is no stub, let me say! Since that country's reaction alone has made such a substantial article in itself, I agree that there seems to be more countries that should get similar treatment. Just a quick perusal, my candidates would be: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine. Bosnia, Egypt, Indonesia and Slovakia in particular have insanely long reaction boxes, so I would recommend starting with them. If these countries get broken out into separate articles, then maybe a consideration can be made to get rid of that navigability tag that's been at the top for a year. Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This has been long overdue. I support these new articles. The article size was already far too big. And if lets say Egypt for example were to recognise Kosovo sometime in the future the article can be renamed "Egypt-Kosovo relations". IJA (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed...effectively these articles really are "x Country - Kosovo relations" articles where the country in question does not currently recognize Kosovo. There is some precedent for this, such as Iran-Israel relations or Republic of China - United States relations: not perfect analogies, but you get the idea. Nevertheless, for the time being the "X country reaction to etc etc" titles are probably more neutral, if a bit more unwieldy. Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree! Is impossible to short the countries because a lot of countries have mix reactions. In article "Greece's reaction to Kosovo's independence is largely one of opposition." What is it? Greek position is neutral and Greek will see their interests. Slovakia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article is copy-paste of Kosovo–Slovakia relations article. At London School of Economics Indonesian in 2008 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said "we are still following the situation in Kosovo now and it is quite possible that some day Indonesia recognize the independence of Kosovo". On this page is written "Indonesia declines to recognise or support Kosovo's independence, largely due to concerns about how it was achieved." What is it? Very subjective prejudices. I'm for a neutral point of view. Irvi Hyka (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I admit that I didn't put a lot of thought into the abbreviated statuses for these countries. Either they should be summarised properly (but briefly - I wouldn't want the summaries to be more than a sentence or two), or removed entirely, leaving just the links to the new articles. Bazonka (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the best way to go in the case of such countries as Indonesia or Greece would be a stock phrase like "Although government officials have offered a range of opinions, to date x country does not recognize Kosovo's indepdendence". Then the link to the new article. If someone is interested in what SBY or Papandreou said on the matter, they can check the relevant articles, otherwise if someone just wants the synopsis viz Kosovar indepdendence, they get it here. The other stock phrase would be for countries like Russia where you can just say "x country has repeatedly refused to recognize Kosovo's indepdendence". I agree with Khajidha - Greece isn't "neutral". A diplomatic recognition is a diplomatic recognition is a diplomatic recognition: anything else is non-recognition, and complex explanations of the details in certain countries' cases can go in the breakout articles.Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not easy to condense the amount of information into just one or two sentences, so the easiest approach would be to remove these summaries altogether, and just leave the link to the new articles. But would this be a step too far? Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree Bazonka's arguments. Is impossible to condense the information into one sentences, but Greek have clearly positions. Athens is neutral and will see their interests. The last interview in March 2012 for Gazeta Express is interesting, the head of the Greek Liaison Office in Kosovo Dimitris Moschopoulos who clarify the Greek position. Irvi Hyka (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Well actually I think that example actually rather supports my stock phrase. A Greek official is quoted saying something positive about Kosovar independence, but Greece still does not recognize Kosovo. "Neutrality" on this matter still means non-recognition.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not necessarily opposed to reducing the length of the page, some of these one-sentence entries are so short (and simplistic) that in my view its actually a problem. For example, all the page has to say about Indonesia is that its opinion is "one of opposition", which is so simplistic that it can hardly be called true. Indonesia could hardly be called "in opposition" to Kosovo's independence. On the contrary, Kosovo doesn't have any direct effect on Indonesia and Indonesia has never "opposed" the recognition of Kosovo by other countries- it won't recognize Kosovo itself because on the one hand, it could set a bad precedent for Indonesia's own problems with regional separatism, and on the other, it doesn't see major gain by recognizing Kosovo. If we need to leave only a single sentence, it could be one that actually describes Indonesia's position, such as "Indonesia declines to recognize or support Kosovo's independence." --Yalens (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed it. The inclusion of the CompactTOC template in the "Splitting the table" thread above seems to have caused it to disappear. I've nowiki'd this out, so we're back to normal. Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm working my way through converting the reactions in the tables into fully fledged articles. The ones I will definately move onto will be: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, Iran, Morocco, Romania, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, Vietnam. I may do some others as there may be room for expansion in some of them. For those interested in getting Kosovo-related articles onto the main page, there is the potential to get the articles considered for the Did you know section. If anyone would like to help me in creating/nominating these articles, the help would be much appreciated. Personally, I would not like to take credit for a DYK when all I have done is move the info to a new article space. After all, a lot of work has gone into this article over the years and it's only fair that the people who have worked on it get the credit. Del♉sion23(talk)00:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, enough has been moved now. The Article size is not in violation. We were only moving the very long ones as they're notable enough for stand alone articles. Please ensure you get a consensus before creating any more articles. IJA (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Singapore, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Israel, Bangladesh and Pakistan should all be merged back into this article as they are not notable topics for stand alone articles, unlike Russia and Spain due to their connections to the UN and EU respectively meaning that they're more notable. But Singapore for example, how can you justify their non-recognition of Kosovo as notable enough for an entire article? I think we have gone too far with creating new articles. IJA (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Creating new articles on Kosovo might be a worthy goal, but only if they're substantial articles. CountryA's diplomatic reaction to CountryB's declaration of independence doesn't usually deserve a separate article unless there's something which really makes it notable; most of them should just be a single row in a table here. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I say leave as-is, if for no other reason than the fact that otherwise this article will be going back and forth constantly between breaking out articles and adding info back in to the table. Perhaps the above countries "should" only get a single row in the table, but the fact of the matter is that the working consensus on this article seems to be to note all potentially relevant information on a country's reaction to Kosovar independence. The above countries already had substantial information in the table, and the articles created out of that moved information are far more than stubs. These are in effect "X country - Kosovo relations" articles, and are not labeled as such simply because of the controversy of Kosovo's independence and the fact that the countries in question do not recognize it. However, as I noted elsewhere, this is more a matter of neutral language: there can be articles on the foreign relations of, say, Iran and Israel, despite the fact that the former does not recognize the latter. Regarding noteworthiness: Is Singapore's stance on Kosovo's independence less noteworthy than San Marino-Serbia relations? Probably not.
I think that, at this point, if any breakout articles are going to be either added or deleted, they probably need to be voted on by users first. Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've restored some of the smaller countries into this articles because they're simply not notable enough for their own articles. Some I make sense to have their own article, others don't. IJA (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
There are articles for many different combinations of foreign relations between countries. I don't see why the articles suddenly become non-noteworthy if one of the countries doesn't recognise the other. See here (Category:Bilateral relations) for a list of all the articles on relations between countries. As has been said already, the only reason those articles weren't called "Israel–Kosovo relations" is due to keeping neutrality. If you simply think of them as those kind of articles, but with unusual names, there is no reason to say they are less notable than any other foreign relations article, e.g. Israel–Palau relations, Djibouti–Yemen relations, or Ghana–Togo relations. Having them in separate articles also really helps this article. It is still waaaaay too long and is difficult to navigate. Del♉sion23(talk)14:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The best place for the information about any country's opinions on recognition of Kosovo in this article. The only problem is the article size - it's only the technical reasons that have led us to moving some info into new articles. Now we've taken out the big ones, and split the table into manageable chunks, I don't think that the size is a problem any more - I certainly don't think it's difficult to navigate, as implied by Delusion23, and I'm not really pleased that the Too Long template has been readded. Is size really a problem any more? Bazonka (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is twice as large as the level suggested for "almost certainly should be split", so yes it is too big. I just find it insane that we are told to split off material to make the article a more manageable size but are then told that those articles aren't notable enough and should be merged back here. I'm with Delusion23, these articles are no less valid than any article detailing the relations between two random countries.--Khajidha (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Relations are different to non-recognition. I'm not saying that relations aren't notable, I'm saying that Armenia's (for example) non-recognition of Kosovo isn't notable enough for a single article. IJA (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The Foreign relations of X articles are a bit too general. By all means they can mention country X's recognition/non-recognition of Kosovo, but I don't think we should move all of the text about X from here to there. Either it stays here (possibly abridged), or it gets moved to a standalone Kosovo & X article. Bazonka (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Thailand: In the near future you will hear positive news for Kosovo
Kosovo's Minister of Foreign Affairs Enver Hoxhaj visits Thailand. During a meeting Hoxhaj submits Thai authorities an official request for recognition. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand Surapong Tovichakchaikul has welcomed the visit of Minister Hoxhaj in Thailand and has assured him that the request for recognition to be considered seriously by the state. "In the near future you will hear positive news for Kosovo", said Minister Tovichakchaikul, adding that Kosovo's independence has contributed to peace and security in the region and Europe. MFA of KosovoIrvi Hyka (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Libya
Do we really need such a long paragraph detailing the reasons why Gaddafi's government didn't recognize Kosovo? It's not as if that is relevant in post-revolutionary Libya. My suggestion is to say something like "The pre-revolutionary government of Libya did not recognize Kosovo in order to preserve its relationship with Russia. Libya's current government has not commented on the issue."Jsaldarr (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why information about previous governments shouldn't be kept here, although perhaps it could be reduced a bit. Bazonka (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
In most cases you are right, of course, changes in government don't automatically mean radical changes of policy in things like this. But I guess my point is that the case of Libya is an exception. Whichever reasons the pre-revolutionary government gave to explain their non-recognition of Kosovo are only relevant in an historical sense, and I am not sure that they need to be kept in the article; I think it is safe to assume that the current Libyan government will pay absolutely no heed to what Gaddafi did or didn't do with respect to Kosovo or anything else (and that's the difference to changes in government in other countries). Since we are discussing ways of reducing the size of the article, I think this is a good place to do that.Jsaldarr (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Jeremiç and Guinea-Bissau [www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,4,625]
Browsing in the web site of Kosovo's Foreign Ministry I see a very interesting news which brings liar Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremiç. Jeremiç said that Guinea-Bissau has not recognized Kosovo, he said that an official of GB (who is this official Jeremiç never published his name?) stated him that GB has not recognized Kosovo. Also Jeremiç said that this "official" has written this in a letter (that GB has not recognized Kosovo). Never Jeremiç publish this letter.
I find this old news [157] Some day after the publication of Kosovo's Foreign Ministry the decision of GB to recognize Kosovo. (Acting) Minister of Foreign Affairs Vlora Çitaku had a meeting today [29 January 2011] with Colonel Braima Sanha, Envoy of the President of Guinea Bissau Malam Bacai Sanhá, who delivered the letter of recognition, by which this country had recognized Kosovo. Minister Çitaku thanked the President and the peoples of Guinea Bissau for their recognition of independence of Kosovo, and expressed readiness for establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Çitaku stated that the peoples of Kosovo had suffered great sacrifice just like did the people of Guinea Bissau when they liberated themselves from a despot regime. Minister Çitaku underscored the need for Guinea Bissau to become a voice to advocate support for Kosovo, primarily among the West African countries, and also on the African Continent in general. In his reply, Envoy of the President of Guinea Bissau, Colonel Braima Sanha, expressed his appreciation for the meeting with Minister Çitaku and spoke about a genuine will of the President and the peoples of Guinea Bissau to recognize independence of Kosovo. Among other issues, Colonel Sanha stressed that the institutions and the peoples of Guinea Bissau were well aware of the sacrifice that the people of Kosovo suffered, and that the independence of Kosovo was a well deserved and necessary step. In the second photo [158] is the document of recognition firmed by the President of GB which the representative of Guinea-Bissau shall submit Minister Çitaku. This is the document of recognition which holds in hands Çiatku in the photo [159]Who is lying?Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Is interesting the fact that was a delegation of GB who brought the verbal note in Pristina. This is very important fact was not mentioned in December. Irvi Hyka (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
![[30]](http://www.akr-ks.eu/article/image/225/letra_e_njohjes.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](http://www.lajmeshqip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/njohja-Guinea-Bissau.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](http://www.telegrafi.com/fo/kosove/f.0802225920634_m.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](http://www.kosovapress.com/ks/repository/images/nota_njohse.JPG){kind=link}
![[77]](http://www.akr-ks.eu/article/image/273/Verbal_Note__Gabon.jpg){kind=link}
![[87]](http://www.1deputyprimeminister-ks.net/repository/images/20.09.2011_nota_verbale_Bregu_i_Fildishte_.jpg){kind=link}
![[88]](http://www.1deputyprimeminister-ks.net/repository/images/16.08.2011_nota_verbale_Nigeri.jpg){kind=link}
Algeria
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bangladesh![[158]](http://www.mfa-ks.net/repository/images/IMG_4579.JPG){kind=link}