Serbian parliament has approved the draft decision, which entails the rejection of any Kosovo conciliation not coming from the United Nations. Serbian President Boris Tadiç said that any agreement regarding the future of Kosovo could only be recognized by the international law on condition that the Security Council approves it. In this way, there is nothing to do to refrain from any crisis on Kosovo issue because Serbia knows that Russia will not consent to a draft decision on Kosovo against its own interests in the UN Security Council. The USA and European Union transferred the issue of Kosovo’s independence from UN Security Council to sextet contact group after Russia’s declaration that it would veto UN Security Council’s decision. In this way, England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the USA will decide the issue of Kosovo’s future together. However, Serbia’s decision means that it will take the “UN Security Council rather than the sextet contact group” as basis. it seems that after Marthi Ahtisaari quitted being the UN’s private agent in Kosovo, the sextet contact group formed by the USA, England, France, Germany, Italy and Russia will have some difficulties in developing a formula which will convince Russia and Serbia. At the current situation, it is also a distant possibility to reach any conciliation between Serbia and Kosovo Albanians because for the Albanians, who has received the support of the USA and EU and entered their requests into the UN plan, the existing tension should be resolved only amongst the USA and EU and Russia and Serbia. Kosovo, which is officially a part of Serbia, is under the administration of the UN mission since the operation organized by NATO in 1999 with the justification of Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Yugoslavia at the time, to put an end to the pressures against the Kosovo Albanians. Kosovos’ independence can set an example for many regions. In this way, global state system can experience a new domino process. However, there is another dimension, which is as important as this. United Nations’ attitude is a new one with respect to UN and it will also develop a new interpretation regarding UN’s role in conflicts. Kosovo will perhaps be the most important exam for the UN Security Council. UN, which is so busy and sensitive about Kosovo, was somehow quite silent when Yugoslavia fell apart. It was rarely hard working in Cyprus. It was always either late or never there for Libya, Algeria, Rwanda and Darfur. Moreover, it failed in Kosovo now. However UN not only failed but also left its initiative to a contact group and in this way this contact group has gained the right to say the last word on ethnical conflicts. However, it is very difficult to say that the west is aware of the risk that might be born by this situation because here is the interpretation by Fabian Schmidt, the editor from Germany’s Voice Radio; “Serbia is of course very happy with the support coming from Moscow because it still dreams that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. However, Russia rejected UN private agent Martti Ahtisaari’s plan and thus made a favour neither to the Kosovo Serbians nor to Serbian citizens. Russia is playing the role of a therapist who prescribes alcohol to an alcoholic to ease his pain. Belgrade administration had better admit that the majority of Kosovo people demands independence and that the policies it followed in Kosovo in the 80s led to the falling apart of Yugoslavia. In this way it can focus its energy on integration with Europe and establishing good relations with Kosovo and its neighbours.” When we consider what Fabian Schmidt says, we can see the western perspective to Serbia and Kosovo. According to this perspective; While Kosovo in within the boundaries of Serbia, Serbia’s idea on the matter does not have any significance. Instead of insisting on protecting its land integrity it should prefer submission and becoming a member of the EU. In fact, regarding the Ahtisaari Plan the western press supports the thesis “the plan guarantees the minority rights and takes them under international supervision”. In other words, there is no need for Serbia to worry about the Serbian population in Kosovo, plan –of course if it functions – will ensure their safety. However, it is not clear who will pay the bill if the plan does not or cannot function. The ones supporting Kosovo’s separation from Serbia often say “an independent Kosovo can integrate with the European Union and the boundaries will lose their meaning for the citizens”. Those are nice but empty words because the European Union has relations with Serbia as well and offered full membership perspective to Serbia. Therefore, even if Kosovo stays as a part of Serbia, it can still join the European Union and in this case, the boundaries –which somehow should lose their meanings – can disappear. At this point it might be proper to remind that the EU representatives often demand Turkey to reconcile on the issues of Cyprus and Aegean during their contacts in Ankara and that they base this demand to the argument of “when you become a member everywhere will be European Union, so there will not be any internal boundaries”. The ones supporting the separatist trends of Kosovo blame Russia, which objects to this, for “trying to be a super power with an influential voice”, “insisting on energy policies” and “repealing the conventional disarmament agreement” in line with its national interests and for “using the right to veto” which is a natural part of its membership in the UN Security Council. This rage against Russia’ non-commitment is summarized as follows; “There is still a dictatorship amongst the countries with the right to veto in the UN Security Council: China. Russia is also governed in an authoritarian way and it can hardly be defined as a democracy by too much good intention and closed eyes. Russia gives great harm to the UN system with its veto policy.” Of course, we should ask the people agreeing with this interpretation who are supporting the governments in Moscow and Beijing. But of course, the ones agreeing with this interpretation were either supporting that in the recent past that Iraq has mass destruction weapons or selling gas to Saddam to kill his own people while applying weapon embargo on some NATO countries.