Tag: NATO
Stevenson’s army, September 18
The respected annual poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs finds sharp partisan divisions among Americans, even though they support engagement abroad. WaPo has a good report.
For Democrats, the five leading threats to US vital interests are, in order, the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, racial inequality in the United States, foreign interference in U.S. elections and economic inequality in this country.
For Republicans, the top five threats to vital US interests are the development of China as a world power, international terrorism, large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the country, domestic violent extremism and Iran’s nuclear program. Here’s the survey.
NYT says China is losing friends in Europe.
Senate Democrats have a $350 billion package to counter China.
Politico says China issue won’t determine US elections. Former DHS aide to VP Pence on coronavirus quits, blasts Trump
StratCom head sees no need for nuclear test. [Note: this is an issue in net week’s exercise]
NATO report says Taliban is flush with cash.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin has good reason to smile today
Montenegro’s parliamentary election Sunday put the collection of opposition parties on top by a single vote, defeating the current governing coalition led by President Djukanovic’s Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). DPS has been in power for 30 years. The opposition is far more pro-Russian, pro-Serb, and anti-NATO than the center-left DPS, which presided over Montenegro’s independence in 2006 and its entrance into the Alliance in 2017.
Election day by all accounts so far went well, with relatively few irregularities and none that appear to have affected the outcome. Three-quarters of registered voters went to the polls.
The campaign however was marked by interference from Serbia, which supported the opposition, and the Serbian church, which sponsored big demonstrations in recent months against a law it regarded as prejudicial to its interests. Moscow was also active with money and media outlets. There was little pushback from Brussels or Washington, belying the allegation of some European analysts that the West backs stability (“stabilocracy”) even at the cost of democracy. In fact, this has proven not to be the case in recent years in Macedonia with the fall of Prime Minister Gruevski and in Kosovo with the pending indictment of President Thaci. Djukanovic might have wished more backing than he got.
He will now have to preside over a government formation process with still highly uncertain results. The opposition parties have not cohered around a single platform. Who will lead the new government and who will occupy which posts is not clear. There is certainly a possibility that some of the former governing parties that participated in the DPS-led coalition, might want to join the new government, though its pro-Serb and pro-Moscow leanings will make that difficult for Bosniak and Albanian parties that have traditionally allied with DPS. One of the opposition parties has declared forcefully that it will not join a government that includes DPS. It may take a while before the fog clears and a new government can be sworn in.
At stake is Montenegro’s pro-Western orientation and even its sovereignty and independence. The Church-led protests were explicitly aimed at preventing the formation of a Montenegrin Orthodox Church and preserving the property claims of the Serbian Church. Much of the opposition now coming to power opposed Montenegrin independence and NATO membership. Some have denied the genocide at Srbrenica during the Bosnian war and oppose Montenegrin recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Kosovo. Montenegro has opened all the chapters of the EU’s acquis communautaire and is leading the regatta for accession. It is not clear that those coming to power will want, or be capable of, continuing in that direction.
So what we’ve got here is a democratic election that puts the future of democratic Montenegro very much in doubt. Without its commitments to NATO, the EU, and good regional relations, Montenegro could find itself Moscow’s leading achievement in hybrid warfare in the Balkans, where it has repeatedly tried to block countries from turning West. Putin has good reason to smile today.
Here is the video of the interview I did with Voice of America this morning:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Déjà vu all over again
Miodrag Vlahovic* writes:
Campaigning for the August 30 parliamentary elections in Montenegro is entering its final stage. A déjà vu impression is inevitable. The main-stream political battle has remained in the same trenches from 1997 until this day. Political differences and distinctions have been defined along the same lines in both presidential or parliamentary elections. Even most local elections follow the same pattern and reflect the same issues.
Milo Djukanović won the presidency in 1997 on the basic question of whether Montenegro should follow Milosevic’s Serbia by any means and in any situation. Montenegro opted not to follow, by a tiny margin. That result had direct and decisive influence on the position of Montenegro as a country during the NATO 1999 intervention and afterwards.
This led to the peaceful and democratic referendum on independence in May 2006, as well as to Montenegrin accession to NATO in 2017. The opponents of this strategic orientation and political course remain the same: political parties and para-political structures commonly known as “pro-Serbian.” Their internal divisions and constellation have evolved from the late 1990s, and especially after their “grand defeat” in 2006, but the core content of their political agenda has been changed only slightly.
The pattern of their ideology is still the same: Montenegro should not be independent, or, at least, it should not exercise its independence in a way that conflicts with the positions and interests of Serbia and/or Russia. Montenegro’s membership in NATO should be abolished, not only because “the Alliance is dead” and “criminal” – but also because NATO remains the strongest Montenegrin bond with the Atlantic community and the best insurance against border and other Balkan-type changes.
Representatives of the opposition political block (now represented by two main “pillars” – Democratic Front and Democrats – together with one “auxiliary” smaller group – “URA” coalition) formally accept EU membership as an option, but it is very distant and unlikely for years to come. At the same time, they are reluctant to make any statement or action that would defend Montenegrin interests when opposed to those of Vučić’s Serbia or Putin’s Russia.
The same applies to the whole range of important issues concerning the origins, responsibilities, and consequences of the last Yugoslav war. The Srebrenica genocide is a non-issue for them: not “a genocide” at all. This pro-Serbian opposition regards Montenegro’s recognition of Kosovo independence as “treason.” In the sphere of cultural and identity issues, they think Montenegro cannot have an identity and history outside “Serbdom” (“srpstvo”). That is at the bottom of all “pro-Serbian” political programs in Montenegro. Montenegrins, Muslims/Bosniaks, Albanians, and other citizens should comply and obey.
The new element is open involvement of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the electoral campaign. Or, to be more precise: its dramatic and aggressive involvement. The Serbian church as an “umbrella organization” for the opposition. Not only do the leaders of Democratic Front publicly express their subordination and servitude to Serbian priests, but both Democrats (fully supporting the Serbian Church in the matter of the new Law of Religious and Freedom of Opinion) and URA (“non-interference” position; “the Law is controversial”) have also acknowledged the Serbian Church as their political leader and political partner. The latest expression of that mixture of “faith” and politics are the so-called “religion processions” organized in cars and boats, where Serbian and Serbian Church flags are the dominant insignia. Difficult to describe to those who have not seen that charade ever.
So, elections in Montenegro are déjà vu all over again, in Yogi Berra’s immortal phrase. Same runners, same result. An opposition not loyal to its own country makes this inevitable. It should not be so hard to understand, even if the country is hidden away in the Balkans.
*Montenegrin ambassador to the Holy See and a former foreign minister of Montenegro. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the official Montenegrin positions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 7
So I’m back from a few days by a river, relaxing and canoeing. What did I miss?
– The Saudis may be developing nuclear capability.
– CIA isn’t helping GOP investigation of the Bidens. But the real issue it seems to me is to preserve exclusive responsiveness to the intelligence committees.
– Congress may block Trump drone sale policy.
– Provocative US official’s visit to Taiwan.
– We are trying to get Syrian oil.
– Esper may move US troops from Germany to Romania, Baltics, Poland.
– New book by CNN reporter says Pentagon withheld military options from Trump.
– Fred Kaplan has a good piece on Hiroshima,
AEI’s Norm Ornstein laments changes in the GOP over the decades.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 19
In class I make a big deal about legal authorities and bureaucratic processes. They matter. I also mention the Administrative Procedures Act that sets rules for how government can change its regulations. That was the basis for the Supreme Court ruling yesterday on DACA. The Chief Justice, writing for the 5-4 majority didn’t say DACA was legal, just that the Trump administration was arbitrary and capricious in trying ti void it.
Process matters in national security, too. The president may want to reduce US troop levels in Germany, but he hasn’t signed an order.
And I remain puzzled about the pandemic vaccine program called Operation Warp Speed. I still haven’t seen any authorities for its operation. And testimony yesterday from a 4-star who is supposed to be heading it says he’ll direct report to the Defense Secretary. Huh?
Meanwhile, Politico says there’s a loyalty purge going on in the Pentagon [corrected link]
Vox says Steve Bannon wants to turn VOA into a propaganda ministry.
NYT says Trump has regularly undermined his own China policy.
Keeping hope alive, several national security professionals are now running for Congress.
FYI, DOD has released its newest Defense Space Strategy.
And a new civ-mil prof has a good piece on keeping the military apolitical.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbia should align
A group of people described to me as “prominent individuals from all walks of life in Serbia” have issued an appeal in the runup to the (remote) EU/Western Balkans Summit meeting on Wednesday:
The tone is muted, but the overall message is clear: democracy is in danger in Serbia, due in part but not only to executive action in response to the Covid-19 epidemic.
In fact democracy was at risk in Serbia well before this year. President Vucic had already accumulated vast power, including over the media and judiciary as well as uncontested control of the executive branch. There has been no effective opposition in parliament for years. Protesters against his rule came from all ends of the political spectrum, liberal and ultra-nationalist, but they had little impact. Any hope they had of winning in elections evaporated when the epidemic caused the polling to be postponed.
As in so many other countries, including my own, the epidemic has aggravated tendencies that already existed in Serbia. In mid-March, President Vucic had harsh words for the lack of EU solidarity with his country and praise for the Chinese, who have been investing more in Serbia than in the rest of Balkans. This was an intensification of his effort to return Serbia from the nominally pro-Western stance he adopted in the last Serbian presidential election in 2017 to a “non-aligned” one in keeping with the Socialist Yugoslav tradition. He had already balanced Serbia’s cooperation with NATO by leaning heavily in Russia’s direction, including by procuring its military equipment and refusing to implement EU-levied (Ukraine-related) sanctions.
Much of the rest of the Western Balkans is choosing an unequivocally Western path for its economic and political development, even if performance often falls short. Bosnia is the exception, but only because its Serb-run Republika Srpska constrains the country from making a serious run at NATO. Montenegro is still struggling with an anti-independence, anti-NATO opposition, but it has joined NATO and its government is clear about its goal of aligning economically and politically with Europe. The same is true in North Macedonia, which likewise has joined NATO after settling its “name” issue with Greece. Kosovo has always been clear about its pro-NATO, pro-EU ambitions, despite the obvious shortfalls in its performance.
Serbia is different for several reasons. The Orthodox connection is stronger than in the other countries of the Balkans, Russophilia and ethnic nationalism are dominant sentiments in the still unreconstructed right wing of its politics, and Belgrade is the successor state to Socialist Yugoslavia in much more than the legal sense. Some Serbs are nostalgic for the unaligned Yugoslav role, which they believe brought goodies from both East and West. Others just like the familiarity of the Slav-dominated East.
No one should begrudge Serbia the benefits of Russian and Chinese investment. Belgrade needs every dinar it can get for its moribund economy. Germany does a lot of business with Russia too, but has nevertheless remained a leader in the liberal democratic world.
But it is high time the EU makes clear that the path to accession will not be open unless Serbia aligns itself economically and politically with Western standards, however much it enjoys Russian and Chinese cash. It is far from that ideal today. That is the significance of the pre-Summit appeal. Brussels and the EU national capitals need to send a strong message to Serbia: you are not getting into our club unless you meet entry requirements, in particular the Copenhagen criteria:
Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate’s ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/ec/cop_en.htm
Sad to say, the Europeans can expect no support for now from the US in the effort to turn Serbia into a viable accession candidate. Washington is hostile to the EU, uninterested in promoting democracy except in adversary states, and cares only about quid pro quo rather than international norms or maintaining alliance relationships.
So yes, the EU/Western Balkans Summit should send a message not only about solidarity in the face of Covid-19, but also about maintaining European standards and requiring adherence to them by countries that seek membership. An anocratic Serbia is not one that can accede to the EU. Vucic should be told to align, or find Serbia lagging in the regatta for EU membership.
RSS - Posts
