|
At UN, Indigestion at Request for
Court Ruling on Kosovo Independence
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of
Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, September 5 -- On
Serbia's UN resolution to seek a ruling by the International Court of
Justice
on the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, the
European Union is in a conflicted position. On September 4, Inner City
Press
asked Jean-Maurice Ripert, the Permanent Representative to the UN of
France,
which currently holds the EU Presidency, what the EU will go in the
upcoming
General Assembly meetings. Ambassador Ripert said it is still being
considered,
but "we do not contest" Serbia's right to "address the General
Assembly and we will even facilitate it." But question is what position
the EU will take on voting on the resolution, not Serbia's right to
present the
resolution.
An EU diplomat who insisted on
being
identified as such because not authorized to be quoted in his own name
told
Inner City Press that EU consultations are still ongoing. Some, he
said, are
urging EU support for the resolution as a way to support Serbia's
pro-EU
government by helping them "park" this burning domestic issue in the
Hague. The downside, he said, is that the pendency of such a case would
slow
down if not halt other countries' recognition of Kosovo's unilateral
declaration
of independence.
Serbian Amb. Pavle
Jevremovic, desire to win in The Hague not shown
Costa Rica's Ambassador Jorge
Urbina said
that his country, even though it has already recognized Kosovo's
declaration of
independence, will be voting in favor of getting ICJ review. Ambassador Urbina rhetorically asked Inner
City Press, how can we oppose a member state which has lost a province
getting
a court ruling?
Inner City Press asked U.S. Deputy Permanent
Representative Alejandro
Wolff how the U.S. will vote on the resolution. We haven't reached a
decision
on that yet, Ambassador Wolff replied.
Inner City Press asked Serbia's Ambassador Pavle
Jevremovic if he thinks
his country's resolution will pass. He nodded, and said, "We're trying
to
keep things uncontroversial." Some
cynics even speculate that Serbia's current government might want to
lose the
case, or at least wouldn't mind losing it, because then the Serbian
public
could be told, "We tried everything possible, now let's get on with the
business of business." Among the evidence presented for this theory is
Serbia's foreign minister's statement that if the ICJ rules against his
position, Serbia will have to respect it. Meanwhile, even if Serbia
won, the ruling would only be advisory. The theory goes, why
would anyone start a court case they could lose, but couldn't
meaningfully win, unless they want
to lose?
Another diplomat not authorized to
be quoted
by name said it will be difficult for his African country not to
support the
resolution, and he wonders how the United States could justify not
supporting
it. We'll see.
Footnote: Meanwhile the UN Mission
in Kosovo's position becomes more and more untenable. Without any
Security Council authorization, it is passing buildings and cars to the
EU's EULEX. The former chief legal officer of UNMIK, Alexander
Borg-Olivier, is getting paid by the EU, through the UN Development
Program, to advise the Kosovo government, despite legal ethics and UN
"post employment" rules. (Inner City Press has formally asked the UN to
explain why these rules wouldn't apply to Borg-Olivier, who was
involved in UN procurement).
Ban
Ki-moon's political advisor Nicholas Haysom, just back from Pristina,
was brooding his colleagues in the UN's basement cafe on September 4.
Perhaps they can explain how l'affaire Borg-Olivier is
consistent with the UN's claims to be status neutral on Kosovo.
Click here
for more on this ongoing story.
Watch
this
site. And this (on
South Ossetia),
this, on
Russia-Georgia,
and
this --
|
