After yesterday's arguments presented by China – the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to participate in the proceedings – today the judges are hearing the arguments of Russia and the United States, and also Spain and Finland. Moscow and Washington are heading two blocks in the United Nations – one favoring, and the other opposing the Kosovo Albanian unilateral proclamation of independence. This was the first time in the last 50 years that Russians and Americans face each other directly in an international court, reports said. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing is set to continue until the end of this week, but the judges are expected to give their advisory opinion on the legality of the proclamation several months later. The case was forwarded to the court by the UN General Assembly last fall, at the request of Serbia. Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Netherlands, Kirill Gevorgian, who today acted as Russia's legal representative in the ICJ proceedings, said that the unilateral declaration was illegal, and stressed that UNSCR 1244 was still in force, guaranteeing Serbia's territorial integrity. Gevorgian also noted that general international law is preventing Kosovo from declaring independence, bearing in mind that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination. Russia believes that Resolution 1244 is still in force and that all sides are obligated to respect it, and the guarantees for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia, the ambassador stressed. "Resolution 1244 is still in force and for this reason, no institution can proclaim independence. Russia believes that the unilateral resolution on the independence of Kosovo is contrary to Resolution 1244 and international law," the Russian representative said, according to a Beta news agency report from The Hague. Gevorgian stressed that Resolution 1244, which proscribes a Kosovo status solution through negotiations and with the consent of both sides, and prohibits unilateral moves, cannot be overturned by a decision of UN secretary-general's envoy Martti Ahtisaari to end the negotiations and recommend independence as the only solution. Ahtisaari, the ambassador told the ICJ judges, "not only missed a chance to secure an agreement but also came forward with his own solution, contrary to the position of one of the parties". Ahtisaari's failure does not mean that the process has been concluded, Gevorgian said, and added that the Security Council decides on that. While describing the status negotiations, the Russian representative today quoted the words of Kosovo Albanian representative Skender Hiseni, who said that the negotiations were led on "whether or not Serbia will accept Kosovo's independence". The temporary international regime in Kosovo could only have been ended by the UN Security Council, in keeping with Resolution 1244, the ambassador added. Gevorgian went on to say that unlike Ahtrisaari, the Security Council had decided to extend the negotiations and that Serbia was offering an ever increasing level of autonomy to the Albanians, including membership in international organizations. Rejecting claims coming from those countries who support the unilateral declaration that international law "does not regulate independence declarations", the Russian representative reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context. Russia also pointed out that "severe violations of Albanians' human rights during the 1990s" cannot serve as justification for the unilateral proclamation made in 2008. "We often hear that international law is no law, that it does not apply to precedents, and that power is the law. This case is a chance to demonstrate that international law is in effect," Gevorgian concluded. To read the complete transcript from today's ICJ hearing, as well as the U.S., Spain and Finish testimony, please click here.
On the second day of the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, a group of skeptics is meeting in the Danish capital to counterbalance the main event. The group has laid down the gauntlet to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, saying that: if is the world is warming because of manmade factors, if the glaciers are melting and the sea level is going to rise – then prove it using the science you have come up with and we will counter it with our science. The purpose of the forum is to reach a political agreement to cut global emissions on greenhouse gas by 2020. The major sticking point is the role poor countries will play and how they will purchase the new technologies needed to cut emissions. There is still time to strike a deal, as the conference will last for another couple of weeks, but some are not in the Danish capital to support the deal. To read more or to view video from the event, please click here.
European foreign ministers criticised Turkey on Tuesday for failing to deal normally with Cyprus and opted to keep the brakes on Ankara's attempt to join the European Union. While Turkey avoided any fresh sanctions and the EU nations welcomed progress on some minority issues, there was overall disappointment at Ankara's failure to treat EU nation Cyprus in a "good neighbourly" way. The statement came after Turkey missed an EU deadline to do something about the Cyprus problem. The EU text, hammered out during two days of talks between the ministers, left little doubt that the 2006 decision to freeze parts of the accession talks with Turkey could be beefed up if progress is not forthcoming. That year the 27 EU nations froze eight of the 35 policy chapters which each EU candidate nation must successfully negotiate prior to membership over Turkey's failure to open its ports and airports to Cyprus. Since starting EU membership negotiations in 2005, Ankara has opened talks only in 11 of the 35 policy areas. The process has also been slowed down by opposition from some EU members, notably France and Germany, which argue that the populous and relatively poor Muslim-majority country should be given a special status rather than membership. The message to Turkey "strikes the right balance", between acknowledging progress and criticising failures, said EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn.
Turkey faced a new obstacle to joining the European Union after Cyprus, its rival in the Mediterranean Sea, widened a threat to veto the membership talks. Cyprus, its northern part occupied by Turkey’s army since 1974, will block EU talks in six more policy areas unless Turkey meets conditions yet to be spelled out, Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou said. The Cypriot step is a “targeted response, not a complete freeze or a complete halt to the process,” Kyprianou told reporters after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels today. The EU froze talks in eight areas in 2006 to punish Turkey for barring traffic from the Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus at its ports and airports. Cyprus, an EU member, has a veto over every step of Turkish membership talks. Cyprus didn’t threaten to use those powers to scuttle Turkey’s prospects for good, Kyprianou said. Instead, it will consider blocking talks to align Turkey’s policies with the EU in six areas: labor mobility, fundamental rights, justice system, education, foreign policy and energy.
Greek foreign ministry sources described as "satisfactory for Greece's positions" the reference to FYROM contained in the text of conclusions of the EU Council of Foreign Ministers-General Affairs adopted on Tuesday morning by the EU foreign ministers following the political agreement they reached on Monday after long deliberations. More specifically, the text agreed does not contain any reference to commencing EU accession negotiations with FYROM in March, but instead states that the Council will return to the issue during the next EU presidency, which is assumed by Spain on January 1, 2010. The Council of Ministers, in its conclusions, welcomed the progress achieved by FYROM in a number of important issues and the fact that the country has to a large degree faced the fundamental priorities of the partner relationship. The smooth implementation of the Stability and Association agreement is expected to facilitate further steps, according to the conclusions, while the presidential and local elections of 2009 fulfilled most of the international standards. It further said that implementation of the Ochrid Framework Agreement remains an essential element of democracy and a just state, and stressed that the reform program must continue. More specifically, the conclusions said, continuation is necessary of the effort to combat corruption and ensure the independence and objectivity of Justice. The Council of Ministers further noted that the European Commission has recommended the commencement of accession negotiations with FYROM, and that it will come back to this issue during the course of the next EU presidency. The conclusions further stressed that the maintenance of good neighborhood relations, including a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue following negotiations under the auspices of the UN, remains essential, adding that the Council of Ministers encourage the recent positive developments in relations between Greece and FYROM.
Both Jerusalem and Ramallah were satisfied with the European Union's decision to support declaring Jerusalem the joint capital of Israel and the future Palestinian state, should such a decision derive from negotiations. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad welcomed the decision, saying "this is an important step en route for the international community assuming full responsibility for its role in ending the occupation of all lands seized in 1967, including east Jerusalem, thus enabling the Palestinian people to form their independent state." The decision, he added, clears the path for the EU to join the US and play a major role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "It's time the Israeli leadership realizes there is no point in trying to go around international law and international decisions guaranteeing the Palestinian people's right to statehood. Israel is not above the law," he said. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was also pleased by the decision: "I'm pleased that the foreign ministers didn’t make any rash, one-sided decisions. "The decision stating the some of the core issues between Israel and the Palestinians must be settled by negotiations is even an improvement to Europe's previous stand." A senior Foreign Ministry source told Ynet that "ensuring such a decision was made was not an easy task." The ministry, added the source, worked hard to rally the support of Italy, Germany, Hungary and other central-European countries against the Swedish initiative. The source added that in any case, Tuesday's decision addressed the Palestinian Authority, not a Palestinian state: "One example is Article 8, which mentions Jerusalem and says that in case of durable peace, an agreement would be reached regarding Jerusalem via negotiations meant to set its status as the capital of both nations. "Such decisions render demands like the one made in the Swedish initiative groundless," he said. A senior source in the Prime Minister's Office said that "Israel is profoundly disappointed with Sweden's term as EU president. The Swedes have been biased… and not one Swedish delegate visited Israel during the term. Sweden acted like it was one of the participants of the Fatah convention." Another senior political source in the PM's Office said that "at the end of the day the Swedish initiative amounted to nothing. "The decision made is not exactly pro-Israeli, but one can certainly say that following our (diplomatic) activity, nothing too dramatic happened. This is a classic EU position and it's not as bad as it could have been had the Swedish initiative's first draft been carried through."
USCIRF sent the following letter to President Obama regarding his meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. Dear Mr. President, As you prepare for your upcoming meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom urges you to make freedom of religion a key component of your discussions. In particular, we strongly recommend that, among other issues outlined here, you ask the Prime Minister to commit to a date certain for return of ownership and control of the Halki Seminary to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Christian Church, and to commit to eliminating the state controls on the internal governance of that Church and the Greek Orthodox community. During your speech to the Turkish parliament in April you noted that “[f]reedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state,” and that “[a]n enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people . . . . Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.” We welcomed those remarks and believe it is most fitting again to raise these important points when you meet with Prime Minister Erdoğan. While Turkey has a democratic government, the state has applied the concept of secularism to fully control religion in public life in a manner that has resulted in many restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief amounting to violations for persons living in Turkey, for its majority Muslim as well as its minority religious communities. Ensuring greater respect for freedom of religion or belief will foster a strong and secular Turkish state, while protecting the human rights of those living there. The Turkish government places major restrictions on freedom of religion or belief for its non-Muslim religious minority communities, including state policies and actions that effectively deny them the right to own and maintain property, to train religious clergy, and to offer religious education. These policies have led to the decline—and in some cases virtual disappearance—of some religious minorities on lands they have inhabited for millennia. Several legal cases in 2009 highlight the continued difficulties of Turkish religious minority communities in regaining or retaining their property, including the historic Mor Gabriel Syrian Orthodox Monastery in eastern Turkey. In addition, since the summer of 2009 the Turkish government has refused to allow worship at the Catholic pilgrimage site of St. Paul’s Church in Tarsus. Moreover, although the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Greek Orthodox foundations have received favorable rulings from the European Court, the church has not recovered confiscated communal property, including the orphanage on the island of Buyukada. The Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate’s proposal to open a university department for the Armenian language and the training of clergy has been pending for a number of years, without resolution. We ask that these points be included in your discussion, and hope you will urge Prime Minister Erdoğan to follow-up on his January 2008 statement that the Ecumenical status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate should be an internal church issue by granting official recognition to the Ecumenical status of the Patriarch. We hope, as well, that you will raise the issue of freedom of expression as it pertains to the Muslim community. Despite legislative efforts in early 2008 to remove prohibitions on wearing Islamic headscarves in public institutions, the Turkish Constitutional Court ruled the ban should continue. We hope that the United States will explore ways to cooperate with Turkish authorities on allowing women the freedom to express religious or non-religious views through dress, so as to respect their beliefs and the secular status of the Turkish republic. In addition, the Directorate of Religious Affairs, or the Diyanet, an agency in the Turkish Prime Minister’s office, controls all 80,000 mosques in Turkey and employs all imams as state functionaries. Muslim religious practice and education follow Hanafi doctrine as promulgated by the Diyanet. Individual or communal practice of Islam outside of government-regulated institutions is not permitted; several Muslim groups, such as the Sufi orders, exist but are officially banned. The Turkish government also does not officially recognize the Alevi, Turkey’s largest minority religious community. In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the compulsory religious education in Turkish schools should be optional for Alevis, since the curriculum only taught Sunni Islam. Although that curriculum was modified in 2008, Alevis maintain that the new texts do not accurately present their community. We ask that you encourage the Prime Minister to address this issue and work with the Alevi community regarding their numerous concerns and to grant official status to those Alevi houses of worship that apply for such status. On a potentially positive note, the Turkish Interior Minister announced in November the formation of a new, independent National Human Rights Institution in 2010, and a separate commission against discrimination. The Commission hopes that the new anti-discrimination commission will examine cases of discrimination, including anti-Semitism, as well as hate crimes based on religious prejudice. So far, according to the 2009 report on hate crimes of the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Turkey has a low rate of prosecution of such crimes. For example, the trial of the alleged killer of noted Armenian journalist Hrant Dink and the separate trial of five alleged killers of three Protestants have continued since 2007; no verdicts are in sight and allegations of official collusion have not been addressed. The Commission hopes that the Turkish authorities will provide police protection if requested, as in the recent case of Turkish-Armenian journalist Sevan Nisanyan. The Commission placed Turkey on its “Watch List” in May 2009. We very much hope to be able to revisit this designation in the spring, in the event that the Turkish government properly addresses the problems I have identified here. Your meeting, by strongly and specifically raising the issue of freedom of religion or belief, could be a very productive first step in achieving the necessary progress.