David Kanin responds

David Kanin writes, in response to my last: 

Dan–

Thank you for sending me your twist on our discussion–it’s your blog, of course, and so you can post any interpretation you desire. In my view, you conceded a great deal more to me than I did to you (for example, over the failed US diplomatic efforts to replace 1244, and the fact that the error of forcing an asterisk on Kosova makes it essential to get the recalcitrant 5 EU members to recognize the new state and to convince the EU to make it clear Serbia does not get in without a solution to the question of Kovosar sovereignty–which, whether you admit it or not, remains contested).

Still, I am disappointed that you chose to misstate my position so baldly.  From the beginning (by which I mean the piece I wrote that drew your ire), my position on the asterisk had nothing to do with the contents of 1244.  My choice not to challenge your legalistic defense or the asterisk was based–as I said repeatedly but you chose not to mention in your blog–was that the details of the resolution were irrelevant.  You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, but you really should at least reflect the views you are disagreeing with accurately.

In fact, I thought about bringing up 1244’s security annexes, because they provide a stronger Serbian claim to residual sovereignty than the language you noted, but–because I do not consider the 1244 argument important–I did not want to get bogged down in the minutiae of the resolution.

I could correct your misstatement of my views on your blog, but that would just draw out a discussion on a topic that–on this I agree with you–is getting somewhat old.  It would be nice if you would at least correct the dodgy strawman you misrepresented as my view (or choose to reprint this note on your blog), but I leave that to you.

All that aside, I very much enjoyed yesterday’s discussion and am grateful you proposed it.  I stand ready to reprise the experience on any topic at any time you desire.

David