Stability is the problem in the Balkans

The House Europe Subcommittee held a hearing yesterday on “Flashpoint: A Path Toward Stability in the Western Balkans.” I doubt the region is really a flashpoint, though it could become on. I also doubt that its primary need is stability. But the testimony and questioning were more sensible than not.

What they got right

The witnesses and Congress members agreed that Serbia is the source of many issues in the Balkans. Its corruption, increasingly autocratic government, commercial and military ties with China, and political and economic ties to Russia are big problems. They wanted to see strong support for Kosovo and for Albanians in southern Serbia, despite the State Department bureaucracy’s distaste for Kosovo Prime Minister Kurti.

The witnesses and House members questioned the Trump Administration’s wisdom in relieving sanctions on Milorad Dodik, the former president of the Serb entity (Republika Srpska) in Bosnia, and his cronies. None could identify a clear benefit to the US. All wondered about whether it was done at the behest of well-known Washington lobbyists close to the Trump Administration. And perhaps in pursuit of private interests of the Trump family. Some advocated reimposition of the sanctions.

What they got wrong

I do not share the witnesses’ optimism about turning Serbia in the Western direction. President Biden tried that for four years and failed. President Vucic has no interest in putting his own hold on power at risk by restraining corruption, cutting ties with China and Russia, or ending his restrictions on the press and the justice system. He has no interest in Serbia or Bosnia joining NATO. Vucic is far more interested in helping Trump build a hotel project in Belgrade. He figures, with good reason, that will suffice to buy him credit in Washington.

Max Primorac of the Heritage Foundation advocated eliminating the international community “High Representative” in Bosnia. He also wanted a “third entity” for the Croats. Those two moves would collapse the Dayton accords and lead to secession of both the Serb and Croat entities, initiating war with an ill-defined Bosniak entity in central Bosnia. That is manifestly a bad idea. Wisely, Luke Coffey and Ed Joseph advocated sustaining the Dayton accords for Bosnia.

Max also emphasized the opportunities for export of US energy commodities to, and import of critical minerals from, the Balkans. I do not oppose that in principle, but those business propositions depend on economic factors that do not appear for now favorable to private investment. The world offers a lot better bets elsewhere. So long as corruption, autocracy, and ethnic tensions prevail in the Balkans, a wise investor would hesitate to risk much.

The stability figment

The Balkans in my view is too stable today. That stability is sustained by corruption, ethnic tension, and anti-democratic forces. The powers that be could decide one day to make more money and gain more power in a different way. If there is a flashpoint, that is it.

What the region needs today is political change, not stability. But it should be thoughtful change in a democratic, European, and Western direction. The Russians and Chinese are feeding on ethnic tension, uncertain status, and corrupt autocrats. Ditching Dayton would be a gift to them.

Change should mean more individual rights in Bosnia, more sovereignty in Kosovo, and less autocracy in Serbia. The US can encourage democratization and help those who want to achieve it, but it is up to Bosnians, Kosovans, and Serbians to take responsibility. Once they do, progress toward EU and NATO membership will be easy, not hard.