Paris, Brussels -- Krisztina Nagy says that Olli Rehn will call for the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) to be signed with Serbia.
Source: FoNet, Tanjug
Close the entire text of the article here
However, full cooperation with the Hague Tribunal would be required to ratify the agreement, Nagy said. Daily Novosti stated that, according to sources in Brussels, an EU work group for Serbia would be approved on Monday and that procedures for the liberalization of the visa regime would also be sped up.
“The EU is technically completely ready to sign the SAA with Serbia, which means that the SAA has been translated into all the languages of the EU. The only thing left is the political decision by the Council of Ministers,” Nagy said.
She said that Rehn expected Hague Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz to visit Belgrade before the Council of Ministers meeting and submit a report to him on Serbia's cooperation.
Nagy said that the European Commission did not see a problem with Serbia signing the SAA, because such an agreement did not have any bearing on solving the Kosovo crisis.
“As far as we know, Deputy Prime Minister Božidar Đelić has received the authority from the government to sign the agreement. We have not heard of anyone revoking that authority from him,” Nagy said.
There is still a chance, however small, that the EU will invite Serbia to sign the SAA, according to Novosti, quoting sources within various European institutions. The same sources state that Holland and Belgium do not want the agreement signed until Serbia achieves full cooperation with the Hague Tribunal.
My, my !! Is this the same Olli Rehn who just a week ago was criticising certain Belgrade politicians for failing to sign a lesser agreement ? Now he is so keen to move forward. Do I detect a note of panic on the part of this EU official ( and indeed on the part of his masters )in all of this ?
Of course as this week's 'Economist' magazine pointed out, operation of any arrangement entered into might well be made by the EU conditional on Serbia not actively undermining the new Kosovo entity. So Serbia is forewarned.
Let's hope that the Serbian position stays strong. If it does then EU will be forced to deal the reality that no self-respecting country would willingly accept loss of part of its territory through an illegality.
David Crowley
(David Crowley, 13 February 2008 16:50)
Serbia MUST hand over Mladic and Karadzic before it can sign the SAA.
Smacks of double standards. Croatia was allowed to sign before Gotovina was apprehended.
It's a convenient stumbling block to prevent Serbia coming into the EU, and if they can deny Serbia then they can deny "Kosova", Albania and Turkey for a variety of reasons. In the meantime, NATO controls Kosovo and it's mineral wealth, knowing (and expecting) that Serbia will never recognise Kosovo. The unresolved status will be the excuse to deprive both of EU membership.
If the SAA does not say Kosovo is a part of Serbia signing it would be an endorsement of Kosovo independence and the EU seizure of it.
(BRian, 13 February 2008 15:50)
I would ask my friend Mr. Rehn what's the hurry now with signing the SAA? Especially if the agreement does not "have any bearing on solving the Kosovo crisis"...
I'd say there's a fish smelling in the cupboard.
While it is clear that Kosovo is a cancer in Serbia's foot I would expect the doctor to ask patient's approval before the amputation of limb. As we have seen earlier agreements being interpreted out of the original wording, I would be quite careful with the SAA. I mean the doctor may soon interpret it as an amputation order by the patient.
There might be a crowd of EU an US lawyers hungrily waiting for the SAA to be twisted. Legally, of course.
(Olli, 13 February 2008 15:16)
Signing the SAA is effectively making Kosovo an EU issue and therefore permitting the EU forces into Kosovo. Russia has already mentioned that should it be signed, they will be powerless to assist.
So what's the plan? Will they (in the last minute) drop their demand to have Mladic handed over as a gesture to get Serbia to sign over Kosovo to the EU?
It seems obvious that deploying EU forces is ever so complicated without a Serbian signature and it would be devastating to the Serbian cause if one was given at this stage.
(ZK UK, 13 February 2008 11:22)
Signing the SAA is effectively making Kosovo an EU issue and therefore permitting the EU forces into Kosovo. Russia has already mentioned that should it be signed, they will be powerless to assist.
So what's the plan? Will they (in the last minute) drop their demand to have Mladic handed over as a gesture to get Serbia to sign over Kosovo to the EU?
It seems obvious that deploying EU forces is ever so complicated without a Serbian signature and it would be devastating to the Serbian cause if one was given at this stage.
(ZK UK, 13 February 2008 11:22)
My, my !! Is this the same Olli Rehn who just a week ago was criticising certain Belgrade politicians for failing to sign a lesser agreement ? Now he is so keen to move forward. Do I detect a note of panic on the part of this EU official ( and indeed on the part of his masters )in all of this ?
Of course as this week's 'Economist' magazine pointed out, operation of any arrangement entered into might well be made by the EU conditional on Serbia not actively undermining the new Kosovo entity. So Serbia is forewarned.
Let's hope that the Serbian position stays strong. If it does then EU will be forced to deal the reality that no self-respecting country would willingly accept loss of part of its territory through an illegality.
David Crowley
(David Crowley, 13 February 2008 16:50)
If the SAA does not say Kosovo is a part of Serbia signing it would be an endorsement of Kosovo independence and the EU seizure of it.
(BRian, 13 February 2008 15:50)
I would ask my friend Mr. Rehn what's the hurry now with signing the SAA? Especially if the agreement does not "have any bearing on solving the Kosovo crisis"...
I'd say there's a fish smelling in the cupboard.
While it is clear that Kosovo is a cancer in Serbia's foot I would expect the doctor to ask patient's approval before the amputation of limb. As we have seen earlier agreements being interpreted out of the original wording, I would be quite careful with the SAA. I mean the doctor may soon interpret it as an amputation order by the patient.
There might be a crowd of EU an US lawyers hungrily waiting for the SAA to be twisted. Legally, of course.
(Olli, 13 February 2008 15:16)
Serbia MUST hand over Mladic and Karadzic before it can sign the SAA.
Smacks of double standards. Croatia was allowed to sign before Gotovina was apprehended.
It's a convenient stumbling block to prevent Serbia coming into the EU, and if they can deny Serbia then they can deny "Kosova", Albania and Turkey for a variety of reasons. In the meantime, NATO controls Kosovo and it's mineral wealth, knowing (and expecting) that Serbia will never recognise Kosovo. The unresolved status will be the excuse to deprive both of EU membership.
Serbia MUST hand over Mladic and Karadzic before it can sign the SAA.
Smacks of double standards. Croatia was allowed to sign before Gotovina was apprehended.
It's a convenient stumbling block to prevent Serbia coming into the EU, and if they can deny Serbia then they can deny "Kosova", Albania and Turkey for a variety of reasons. In the meantime, NATO controls Kosovo and it's mineral wealth, knowing (and expecting) that Serbia will never recognise Kosovo. The unresolved status will be the excuse to deprive both of EU membership.
I would ask my friend Mr. Rehn what's the hurry now with signing the SAA? Especially if the agreement does not "have any bearing on solving the Kosovo crisis"...
I'd say there's a fish smelling in the cupboard.
While it is clear that Kosovo is a cancer in Serbia's foot I would expect the doctor to ask patient's approval before the amputation of limb. As we have seen earlier agreements being interpreted out of the original wording, I would be quite careful with the SAA. I mean the doctor may soon interpret it as an amputation order by the patient.
There might be a crowd of EU an US lawyers hungrily waiting for the SAA to be twisted. Legally, of course.
(Olli, 13 February 2008 15:16)
If the SAA does not say Kosovo is a part of Serbia signing it would be an endorsement of Kosovo independence and the EU seizure of it.
(BRian, 13 February 2008 15:50)
My, my !! Is this the same Olli Rehn who just a week ago was criticising certain Belgrade politicians for failing to sign a lesser agreement ? Now he is so keen to move forward. Do I detect a note of panic on the part of this EU official ( and indeed on the part of his masters )in all of this ?
Of course as this week's 'Economist' magazine pointed out, operation of any arrangement entered into might well be made by the EU conditional on Serbia not actively undermining the new Kosovo entity. So Serbia is forewarned.
Let's hope that the Serbian position stays strong. If it does then EU will be forced to deal the reality that no self-respecting country would willingly accept loss of part of its territory through an illegality.
David Crowley
(David Crowley, 13 February 2008 16:50)
Signing the SAA is effectively making Kosovo an EU issue and therefore permitting the EU forces into Kosovo. Russia has already mentioned that should it be signed, they will be powerless to assist.
So what's the plan? Will they (in the last minute) drop their demand to have Mladic handed over as a gesture to get Serbia to sign over Kosovo to the EU?
It seems obvious that deploying EU forces is ever so complicated without a Serbian signature and it would be devastating to the Serbian cause if one was given at this stage.
(ZK UK, 13 February 2008 11:22)