Uganda, I have no idea.

Doug M.

Just FYI, there appear to be seven candidates for the five Security Council seats….

As you said, whichever two Western European countries get elected, that’s two votes for Kosovo…..The Asian seat is between Japan & Iran, which Japan heavily favored to win….that’s three seats for Kosovo. Mexico & Uganda are running unopposed (so far) for the other two seats, which are both sitting on the fence. Both could recognize Kosovo under pressure (like Burkina Faso), although after South Ossetia & Abkhazia, I doubt any major country will be recognizing any time soon….

We’ll see. I’m actually on the fence myself with regards to this conflict so I’m just an observer.

Spain has apparently been treating this as an opportunity to take a leadership role in LA and has been lobbying to prevent recognition. Ok, Spain needed a pass because of the Basques, but this is really pushing things. I suggest the US Ambassador in Spain start inviting Basque representatives to the 4th of July party, the way they used to invite Czech dissidents in Prague when the Soviets were still there. (Now, one more time, just why don’t the Basques deserve independence?) Any chance I wonder of Brazil running for that seat?

As for the Islamic states, a group of Kosovar intellectuals recently attended a conference in Jordan where they had an opportunity to counter the Russian and Serb propaganda that civic leaders from a number of the countries had been exposed to. The Kosovars returned highly encouraged - they’re expecting something to happen about Aug. 5-15. (We’ll see.)

China is indeed stronger today. And Tibet is an immediate problem these days, not a latent issue like it has been for decades. Urgent and important are not the same thing.

I’m sorry if I have insulted you, that was not my intension.

However, you’re changing your statements and are not ready or willing to admit to it.

In your first comment you said: “China is not going to approve separatism.”

In the last comment you said: “not all precedents of separatism are equally bad to China”

If you can’t see any difference between these two statements then of course you will be insulted.

The other contradiction in terms is the fact that in one post you say China is ’stronger’ but at the same time it seems more afraid of the recent Tibet crisis. I just don’t buy such arguments, that’s all, and I hope I do not insult you buy taking such a stance.

Kind regards,

F.

I will try one last time to enlighten you. Casting a veto has political costs. So a permanent member will not just cast a veto because it doesn’t like something. It will weigh the degree of disapproval, the importance of the issue and its ability to absorb the repercussions.

3. One can come to this conclusion only if one’s sympathy for a particular ethnic group clouds one’s reasoning. You can come to the correct conclusion that not all precedents of separatism are equally bad to China. Particularly bad are those which are aided militarily by the only power that might aid Taiwan.

4. Proposals are just that. The security council passed exactly one resolution. That says nothing about independance.

1. I scarcely believe that you managed to overlook numerous recent reports about uprisings and violent demonstrations in Tibet. In case you haven’t I wonder whether it has occured to you that such current trouble might cause the Chinese leadership to place even more emphasis on national unity?

2. The Chinese economy and hence the power of China was indeed much weaker at that time. You may do the math and compute what 1.5 decades of growth above 5% will do. And China’s reputation was still tarnished by crushing a student uprising. You might want to consider that permanent members consider the international reaction to their veto before they use it.

Doug M.