Posted on 02/22/2007 9:19:23 PM PST by Bokababe
February 22, 2007 (Tanjug) - Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Wednesday that ultimatums or imposed solutions could not be the right way to solve the future status of Kosovo.
Bolton is against an imposed solution to the Serbian province of Kosovo that would be unacceptible to the Serbian government because it is unlikely that such a resolution would ever be adopted by the Security Council.
Speaking for the Voice of America, he said that the future status of Kosovo should be acceptable to all sides.
If one side insists on independence, it is evident that there would be no agreement, Bolton said and added he believed that the Serbian government was prepared to offer a high level of independence to Kosovo Albanians and that he hoped that a negotiated solution would be reached.
Bolton said that Serbia could not be divided without the agreement of its government and that this issue was not in the competence of other countries or the United Nations, because this was the new and democratic Serbia and not Milosevic's old Yugoslavia.
It would be unprecedented if the United Nations interfered in the affairs of a country in democratic development and adopted its own solution, he said and added that China and Russia, each for its own reasons which may not have anything to do with Serbia, would not want a precedent to be set in this way.
Bolton said that many at the United Nations believed that under UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the UN Security Council had the right to impose a new resolution if the solution was not acceptable to both sides.
He said he believed that it would be very unwise if the UN Security Council tried to impose any solution - either Ahtisaari's plan or something else, because Russia or China, or both countries, would veto such efforts.
The UN Security Council should continue putting pressure aimed at continuing with the negotiations, refrain from imposing artificial deadlines and insist on goodwill approach to negotiations by both sides and finding of a solution, Bolton said.
Bolton is a good man!
That's why the Democrats hate him!
Wonder if Bolton would insist the Founders had to find an agreement that all sides would agree to, or if they had the right to independence.
I don't recall the Founders breaking any international laws or boundaries...and this is the 21st century. I'd like to think we've progressed a bit in terms of whose land is whose...I think those aforementioned laws were put in place to prevent occurrences like this from happening.
Have we 'progressed' beyond recognizing "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Either you believe in political self determination, or you believe 'international law' should dictate who lives under what government. I note the Founders didn't appeal to 'internation law' when deciding the boundaries of the King's power.
The Founders were not attempting to steal land from a recognized neighboring nation.
This is more akin to Mexicans in Texas, Arizona or California deciding to create an independant nation out of a piece of those States. Would you give it to them? If so, then I suggest you give them your house first!
PS The Founding Fathers didn't deal in sex slaves, drugs, and illegal arms. so don't insult them by comparing them to the Muslim Albanian Mafia stealing Kosovo!
They don't call it the Indian Treaty Room of the White House for nothing, FRiend.
This is more akin to Mexicans in Texas, Arizona or California deciding to create an independant nation out of a piece of those States.
You do know how Texas came to be right? American immigrants to Mexico decided they wanted their independence from the Mexican government. They fought for it and earned it. They didn't didn't trifle about 'international law' and 'boundaries', they appealed to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and encouraged Americans to come and help them in their fight for self government. CA and AZ were carved from Mexico by the U.S. by force, and threat of force. You need to check out the history before trying to use it to buttress your argument.
Would you give it to them? If so, then I suggest you give them your house first!
I prefer political self-determination for all people, how about you?
PS The Founding Fathers didn't deal in sex slaves, drugs, and illegal arms. so don't insult them by comparing them to the Muslim Albanian Mafia stealing Kosovo!
The Founders were happy smugglers, breaking the Crowns diktats on trade at every turn. John Hancock, the guy with the signature on the DoI so big that the King could read it without his glasses, was a smuggler. The Constitution the Founders wrote and adopted protected the slave trade in the U.S. explicitly. The U.S. was also quite happy to trade in tobacco and rum, the drugs of the age. Insofar as the question of 'illegal arms', it was the men on Lexington Green who opposed the King's efforts to confiscate their arms that inspired Patrick Henry's "Liberty or Death" speech and sparked the Revolution.
I don't assert that all, or even most, elements of society in Kosovo are upstanding in your eyes or mine, but I do assert their political self-determination is a human right, and it's their right, not ours or the UN's, to tell them how and by whom they will be governed.
To make Texas analagous to Kosovo you would have to turn things on their head! You'd have a scenario where Mexico pretty much defeated the secessionists. That The United States and the European powers stepped in and bombarded Mexican ports and coastal towns killing civilians and military alike.
The "fighting" is stopped when Russia brokers a deal between Mexico and the US and it's allies where Mexico agrees to withdraw it's military from Texas with the proviso that it is still Mexican territory!
But in this case it was an international airforce which "won" Kosovo for the Albanians. The Albanians without incredible international help from several of the strongest nations of the world wouldn't have Kosovo - nor either, probably Albania. It was Austria which created Albania as a way to block Serbia from the sea.
So if the international community earned Kosovo and funds and supports it to the hilt, then the Albanians didn't earn it - they were/are simply tools.
The vexing question is: Under whose authority, has the UN been given, ANY right to partition, a sovereign nation, be it Serbia, or Bum Orgy, Utah? |
Defence & Foreign Affairs describes the players & scenario impeccably http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789894/posts
What a find most interesting about the thread you just posted the link to is that the usual blow hard anti-Serb panderers stayed very clear of that thread.
Please re-write your post.
What a = What I
Good point.
Remember your words when the illegal immigrants declare self-determination for themselves in Aztlan, you will come to regret them.
The founders weren't dealing with a province that had been cleansed of its historical inhabitants by Hitler and Clinton and invaded by an influx of illegal jihadi immigrants from a neighboring third world muslim craphole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.