2016 has not been kind to Kosovo. Plagued with too often violent internal dissent over its obligations to two of its neighbors, the government has been unable to assemble the votes it needs to demarcate the border with Montenegro or create an Association of Serb Municipalities in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s thoughtful criteria.
Nor has the external environment been conducive. The Brexit referendum and the American election results have diminished the attraction of two important touchstones: EU membership seems farther off and the incoming Donald Trump administration can be expected to be far less friendly to Kosovo than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been. Neither the EU nor the US seems likely to have much time or energy for Kosovo in the next couple of years.
Limbo is not a good place for a country in the Balkans. Forward motion is always needed to keep the bicycle of state from falling over. The training wheels are off. The Europeans and Americans are no longer holding tight to the seat. If it is to come at all, momentum will now have to be generated from within Kosovo, not outside it.
The current impasse is an opportunity for Kosovo’s citizens to send a clear message to its political leadership: we want real progress in providing jobs and prosperity while preserving security and guaranteeing European-style freedom of expression. No one should want less just because Trump is president or the Europeans are preoccupied with negotiating Britain’s exit.
I might wish that all the political forces in Kosovo would agree that their goals should be sought within the existing constitutional framework. But that will not be the case. Both among Serbs and among Albanians, there are people who reject Kosovo’s statehood, sovereignty and independence. They are clearly in the minority but have managed to hamstring the current government.
Kosovars will have to decide whether a new government or new elections are needed. Neither Europeans nor Americans want to be making decisions for a state they worked hard to make independent and sovereign. I trust the good judgment of Kosovars and wish all of them well in the new year!
Lukman Faily, formerly Iraqi Ambassador in Washington, writes:
Every year I write 12 tweets as end of year reflections. Would like to keep up this tradition, so here we go:
Defeating Daesh has been a strong factor in uniting Iraqis towards stabilization of their country 1/12.
Inter and intra community cohesion in Iraq is still not strong enough, political leaders need to lead 2/12.
Iraqis still lack defining enough common visions for their development and stability, e.g. national founding fathers need to rise to the challenge 3/12.
We are near the end of Daesh’s existence in Iraq, without common vision for Iraq’s endgame, terrorism will always find a vacuum to occupy, let us get our act together 4/12.
The Iraqi State still lacks cohesiveness, key legislations are still needed, plus common political will to pull together toward safer shores, this is doable but not simple 5/12.
Some steps were taken by Iraqi to fight corruption and mismanagement, not bold enough, this cleansing fight needs to be a national project and not just for the government 6/12.
PM Abadi did an excellent job in making sure that debts and salaries are paid despite oil prices plummeting , is this sustainable without revenue diversification? 7/12.
Iraqi cabinet still has key vacancies (defense, finance and interior) not filled, it is a reflection of parliament’s weak relationship with government, this is not sustainable 8/12.
US, international coalition and Iranian support to Iraq in the fight against Daesh has been a game changer, thank you all, this support has to be sustained for global security 9/12.
Regional geo-politics and socio-politics are becoming more complicated and disjointed, state leaders need to create strong platforms for dialogue, we own the problem and its solution 10/12.
The nature of Iraq’s relationship with some of the Gulf states and Turkey did not stabilize or grow positively during 2016, we need them to appreciate positively the changes in Iraq after 2003, otherwise we are all going to lose, however they also need to know that the Iraqi blood maintained the security of their countries 11/12.
The tenacity & endurance of Iraqis have been a point of admiration by outsiders, let us also show them that the cradle of civilization will always be a beacon of hope 12/12.
Early retirement from my ambassadorial post after seven years in Iraqi government services was not an easy decision, one can always serve his people via many routes, we owe it to our country.
Allah bless you all and may 2017 bring us peace, inner and social harmony and development.
John Oliver has already said it:
For me, 2016 was a lousy year on many fronts:
- Russian and Iranian intervention reversed the tide of war in Syria and chased many more innocent civilians from their homes and their country.
- North Korea has continued its increasingly capable missile and nuclear weapons programs.
- Major terrorist attacks have succeeded in Paris, Nice, Brussels, Berlin, Orlando, Lahore, Istanbul as well as on board a Paris/Cairo Egyptair flight.
- Britain voted in a referendum to leave the EU.
- Donald Trump won the American presidential election, despite a notable lack of qualifications, reasonable policy proposals, and a majority of the popular vote.
Sure some nice things happened too, like the Paris climate change agreement, but global warming continued apace. The Islamic State lost a lot of territory in Syria and Iraq, but many innocent people got killed in the process. The Cubs won the World Series, but Cleveland lost.
Really unalloyed good news has been rare. Or at least not enough to counter the sense of an inexorable slide into more instability, less equity, and more confusion.
Most concerning is that liberal democracy–based on individual rights and rule of law–is losing ground. It’s not just Putin and Russia, but also Xi Jinping and China, Sisi and Egypt, Netanyahu and Israel, Erdogan and Turkey, Duterte and the Philippines, Khamenei and Iran, Kabila and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma. Leaders and countries are turning in illiberal if not outright autocratic directions. Hopes for liberalizing politics and economics are limited to places like Tunisia and Taiwan, important in their own right but peripheral to the center of gravity in their regions.
2017 is likely to be worse rather than better. There is no visible barrier to deterioration in the Middle East. The North Korean regime is increasingly consolidated. China is exploiting Trump’s provocations to ratchet up its own defiance, the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem is likely to provoke dramatic Arab reactions, Angela Merkel is in peril, Marine Le Pen has a chance to win the French presidential election, Italian banks may fail, Khamenei, Erdogan, Duterte, and Kabila are determined to hold on to power.
But despair is no more a policy than hope. What counts more than anything else is not the pace of change. That might be very fast under Trump. But it is the direction that really matters. We need to find ways to make the world safer, more stable, more prosperous and more free. Even small steps in the right direction will eventually get you where you want to go. Let’s keep that in mind as we approach the end and the beginning.
Here’s the proof the pudding, but you have to take the long view to see it:
The next four years is unlikely to reverse any of these fabulously positive developments.
Or watch this via Zack Beauchamp (which dates from 2015 and therefore does not include the uptick in war deaths of the past couple of years, which still leaves the numbers low in historic terms):
Let’s count the potential international crises the President-elect has signaled he is prepared to initiate:
- Conflict with China over the South China Sea and/or Taiwan.
- Across-the-board tariffs that would cause a trade war with China.
- A nuclear arms race with his putative pal, Russia.
- Encouraging South Korea and Japan to get nuclear weapons.
- Movement of the US embassy to Israel to Jerusalem, precipitating an Arab and Palestinian reaction.
- Conflict with Russia and Iran by initiation of a no-fly zone in Syria.
- Withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), negotiation of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and/or the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Let’s not count withdrawal from NATO, as he has already reneged on that promise, or withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, as even Prime Minister Netanyahu no longer favors that but rather prefers its strict implementation. Let’s also forget about the wall on the Mexican border, as the Mexicans won’t pay for it and Congress is likely to balk as well, and other immigration restrictions, which are inevitable now but will hurt the US more than any other single country. Let’s however add, because it is probably unavoidable:
8. A North Korean demonstration of nuclear and/or missile technology that threatens the US.
This is a spectacular list of things likely to provoke dramatic international reactions. It is also a list too long for any US government, even one led by experienced statespeople, to manage all at once. The neophytes of the Trump administration–including the President-elect himself, his Secretary of State nominee Tillerson, National Security Advisor Flynn, and his trade czar Peter Navarro–are guaranteed to make a hash of it if Trump tries to do even two or three of these things at the same time, never mind all of them.
Trump is blithely unaware of the challenges. He continues to use Twitter as his main means of communication, not only for his personal vendettas but also for what would be major policy shifts, provided he is serious. His defenders have been reduced to claiming that obviously he doesn’t mean exactly what he says on Twitter, as the issues deserve fuller treatment. Let’s not take him too literally, only seriously, they suggest, espousing something closer to a reasonable position on the issues Trump has tweeted wildly about.
This ambiguity about what Trump really intends is an added peril. Our adversaries no longer know what to think and are therefore compelled to prepare for what they regard as the worst. Minor confrontations are inevitable, as is escalation, given Trump’s irascibility. While the US was definitely under a greater external threat during the Cold War (because of the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons) than it is today, the likelihood of major confrontation is now much higher, due to the uncertainty Trump has perpetrated.
Some are hoping for our institutions to compensate. But Congress and the courts can do little to reign Trump in. The confirmation process for some of his cabinet nominees may give a few in the Senate opportunities to signal their concerns, but there is little that can be done if Trump does not take the signals seriously. The courts rarely intervene on international issues, and then only after years of due process and appeals.
Two other possible brakes on Trump are likewise handicapped. The states can intervene effectively on domestic policy but are able to do little to affect foreign policy. American civil society–its citizens organized in nonprofit groups–will likely focus on domestic policy. The first big demonstration of the new era is likely to be the January 21 Women’s March on Washington. Preserving the benefits of Obamacare is likely to be a major domestic policy concern for civil society in coming months, along with exposure of Trump’s colossal conflicts of interest.
Ironically, it could be the business world that eventually reins in the businessman elect. The kinds of crises Trump is likely to precipitate are not good for US business, which knows how to get its voice heard in Washington. The US Chamber of Commerce was on the outs with Trump even before the election, over trade issues. But a South China Sea crisis or one of the others might be equally devastating to US business interests. Any international crisis will take a toll on economic growth, which is moving along at a decent pace even seven years into the recovery. Trump, whose personal business interests are paltry by big business standards, is going to come under a lot of pressure not to upset the apple cart.
Trump needs to be reined in. Whoever does it will merit the gratitude of the nation.
After decades of opposing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Washington yesterday finally did something about it: it abstained on a UN Security Council resolution fully consistent with US policy. This is being interpreted by some as a “kick in the teeth” to Israel and a sign that President Obama is anti-Semitic.
Give me a break. Obama has provided ample military, economic, political and diplomatic support for Israel, whose Prime Minister Netanyahu has returned the favor with efforts to undermine the President at every turn, including blatant support to his Congressional opposition and to candidate Trump, who is promising that things will be different at the UN after January 20. The fact is US abstentions and vetoes of UNSC resolutions critical of Israel have been much more common under previous presidents than under Obama:
The operational part of UN Security Council resolution 2334 includes this on settlements:
The Security Council…
1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution….
This is blunt language by diplomatic standards, but it is not unfair. What it essentially does is to try to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution by preventing unilateral Israeli occupation of territory that is vital to the formation of a Palestinian state. A UNSC resolution of this sort has substantial support among Americans, especially but not only Democrats:
The resolution also includes this, clearly directed for the most part at the Palestinians:
6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;
The “stabbing” intifada is not acceptable, in other words.
The Council seems to me to have understood Donald Trump perfectly well: while he promised to be fair to the Palestinians early in his campaign, he has shown no sign since the election of anything but willingness to accommodate the most radical Israeli views, both on Jerusalem and settlements.
This resolution is an attempt to send a strong message to him and to those Israelis who want to ditch the idea of a Palestinian state. Their thinly disguised subterfuge of settlement expansion is being called out for what it is: opposition to the two-solution and imposition by one state of unequal protection of rights for Palestinians.
The immediate impact is unlikely to be salutary. Trump, who got the Egyptians to withdraw the resolution two days ago only to see it reintroduced by others and passed on Friday, will want to do something to show he is Israel’s great white hope. Netanyahu will no doubt tell Trump that the resolution is one more reason to signal strong support for Israel by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.
I’m not sure that will trigger a third intifada or other dire consequences, as some predict. Arabs have a lot of other things on their minds these days. But it is still the wrong thing to do, as the issue of which capitals are where has always been regarded as a “final status” issue subject to negotiations. That is not true of settlements, which have long been regarded, including by the US, as a violation of international humanitarian law that prejudices the outcome of negotiations.
No end of the Israel/Palestine conflict is on the horizon. But this Security Council resolution is a useful reiteration of norms that Israel is violating. When the time comes for final status negotiations, it will make a difference that the Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 lines, including in Jerusalem, are illegal. They will have to be abandoned or legalized, with proper compensation. Anything less would be unjust and unsustainable.
Nari Safavi sent this holiday message and kindly provided permission to publish it:
Often Iran in the mind of the uninitiated conjures up the image of a desert country with monotone climate that is largely dependent on income from petroleum. Surely the climate of a great percentage of country can be described as arid/semi-arid and the oil revenues have historically played a great role in the economy of the country .
Yet when one travels to Iran, it quickly becomes evident as to how important the change of seasons are to the Persian calendar as well as the celebrations of harvests since Iran is a nation of micro-climates . Also when one reads the history of municipalities like the desert city of Yazd which through its Qanat system of guiding the underground water from dozens of miles away for agriculture and the fact hundreds of thousands of people in that city lived off being a supplier to the Silk Road with quilts, scarves and carpets; one realizes that Iranians have a rich history of being innovators , designers and that their culture is really one that is one the last remaining legacies of the ancient fertile crescent.
You may now ask , what relevance does any of this have to do with the sense of mayhem that is currently dominating our world ?
My response would be one of personal experiences and anecdotes. When I try to look back at my formative years and experiences and decouple the commercialism of the holidays from their historic meaning, I find the Yalda (Persian Winter Solstice Holiday) must have meant to be a quiet occasion of reflection about the longest night of the year and coming to terms with nature while spending time with those you value most. Hence, my annual Yalda, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza letter to you and the exploration for potential common bonds. Please forgive the redundancies, if you have received this letter in the previous years.
The Pagan Romans once engaged the Persian (Partians/Ashkani Dynasty) in a five century long struggle for the control of Anatolia. Such conflicts always create unexpected consequences and exchange of traditions. It is said by many historians that the Romans became fascinated with the Mithraist Persian calendar and its precision of rituals for celebrating the change of seasons. Particular in their attention was the winter solstice – YALDA fest (in Latin-Solis Invictus, the Unconquerable Sun ), which celebrated the bounty of the fall harvest, consisting of dried and preserved agricultural products/fruits. It is also said that Yalda (the probable origin of the word Yuletide) coincided with the birthday of some of the legendary Persian mythical figures and kings like Mithra the god, as well as Artaban/Artabanus, among them. After the conversion to Christianity, the narratives of a new king born in that season and the three wise men who were by most accounts Persian, caused the newly Christianized Romans to appropriate the Yalda holiday as the approximate birth date of the Jesus of Nazareth.
Whatever the historic merits of such claims, one can not help but be attracted to the narratives of connections and the commonalities of our holidays and spiritual traditions. I think that similar connections can probably be found about Hanukkah and Kwanza as well. But what is really important is that they are pretexts for us to develop bonds with one another outside of our daily context of routines and transactions.
It is my hope that during the culminating days of this most turbulent year, we remember the greater cycles of nature and rediscover that there is nothing new under the sun . The challenges that our generation faces can be overcome with a sense of perspective and long term commitment to reforming or rebuilding our institutions; while always maintaining the moral high ground regardless of its short term costs.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanza and Yalda Mobarak,