Calm in Pristina
I’ve been in Pristina all week, where yesterday Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj resigned. A Special Tribunal concerned with crimes committed after its 1998-99 war has summoned him to The Hague. It is not yet known whether he is an indictee or a witness. He has been tried twice before at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and found not guilty.
I talked with the Prime Minister Wednesday. He gave no hint of what was coming and likely didn’t know.
It’s a fraught time here. Tariffs Ramush levied on Serbian imports have stalled a European Union dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina that aimed to resolve the many issues remaining a generation after Slobodan Milosevic expelled half of Kosovo’s Albanian population but yielded after a 78-day NATO bombing campaign to UN administration of the Serbian-ruled province. Kosovo is now a parliamentary democracy–not yet recognized as sovereign by some–that requires elections within 45 days of resignation of the prime minister. The opposition, which had aimed for elections in October, is unlikely to be ready for them by the beginning of September.
Some will wonder whether the United States is behind the judicial maneuver that caused Ramush to resign. The Special Court is constituted under Kosovo law, but manned by mostly Europeans with an American chief prosecutor, one appointed by the Trump Administration. You don’t even have to be a practiced conspiracy theorist to imagine that the Americans, who were upset with Ramush’s tariffs and opposition to an ethnically based land swap deal with Belgrade, decided to get rid of him.
If so, they’ve made a big mistake. Ramush’s previous two court battles in The Hague did nothing but increase his popularity here. The tariffs and opposition to the land swap deal are popular here. Ramush’s summons to The Hague is far more likely to strengthen his political support than diminish it.
But it may well be that the court, acting on its own volition, thinks it has reason to question Ramush or even indict him. We just don’t know. Certainly Serbs and Albanians were murdered after the war; most people here think the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) of which Ramush was then a regional commander was in part responsible. I would favor holding the guilty accountable for those crimes. But it would be entirely premature to judge who.
So far, the popular reaction to Ramush’s resignation is calm. We attended the ongoing Pristina Film Festival last night, across from the Prime Minister’s office. A street basketball tournament occupied the space between the two. Families strolled happily in Mother Teresa Boulevard. Of course all that could change, but for the moment people seem more interested in enjoying the relatively cool, clear weather than worrying about what has happened to their prime minister.
Kosovo President Thaci, also a former KLA cadre, will need now to oversee the formation of some sort of caretaker government. That itself will be difficult as Ramush had a narrow margin in parliament. The election outcome is unpredictable. That’s the good news: despite political party abuses both in the campaigns and at the polling places, the press here is free by Balkan standards and elections are serious political contests. Coalition formation before and after leaves a lot uncertain about their outcome.
Elections are inherently divisive. Before it goes back to talks with Belgrade, Pristina will need more unity than it has had during Ramush’s tenure. My advice to whoever the powers will be: the only way to get a good deal is to be willing to walk away from a bad one. And the only way to make a good deal stick is to ensure that most of the citizens are convinced it is good.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Supporting those who serve
I received this moving and informative contribution from Kelli Brewer, who works with http://deploycare.org/; I hope it inspires others:
We were in our 30s when my husband announced he felt called to enlist. I had a preschooler, a tween, and a house to maintain, but after we talked, prayed, and talked some more, it was clear he needed to go. So began our four-year journey. It was life-changing and challenging, and we couldn’t have gotten through it without support from several sources.
Things happened fast
After my husband’s announcement, it seemed like I blinked, and he was gone – overseas, and into the Middle East.
At first, things weren’t so bad. I had close friends, my kids and I were healthy, and we were financially stable. As time wore on, carrying all the responsibility of home took a toll, and even with people close, I felt strangely isolated.
Wondering if he was okay, well, that was beyond overwhelming. It seemed unreal at times, and other times, so real it was devastating. I knew I could survive, but how was beyond me.
I became depressed, and things went downhill – my house was a wreck, I cried all the time, I ate constantly, and I started withdrawing.
Help from unexpected places
One of my dear friend’s husbands used to be an officer in the Army. Of all my friends, she was the one who recognized what was okay to talk about and what was off-limits, and that was so appreciated. She didn’t belittle my worries, nor did she inflate them, and that meant so much.
She knew I was struggling, and gently, she connected me with Mrs. Smith (name changed), a military social worker.
A lot goes into becoming a social worker. Mrs. Smith completed a master’s degree through an accredited online program provided by a U.S. university, then did about a thousand hours of field work to complete her qualifications, all while working full time. She said she wanted to give back to society, and having a family with a military background, it was the perfect fit.
I had never heard of such a thing, but as Encyclopedia of Social Work notes, military social workers are trained to help veterans, people in the military, and their families with their problems. They can even help with mental health concerns, which occur frequently in military spouses, such as what I was experiencing.
Mrs. Smith helped me through my dark period. Then the time came my husband would be home. He completed his term, and I thought things would be wonderful. As it turns out, we would still need help.
Change is hard
I thought life would go back to what it used to be, but of course, it couldn’t. My husband returned. He had changed, and so had I. I had resentment I didn’t realize I needed to address, as some buried feelings arose. And even though he wasn’t physically hurt during service, he had PTSD.
As Emory Healthcare explains, PTSD can affect someone in daily life, like not hearing car doors slam without jumping. Mrs. Smith again stepped in and helped us both, and while there may always be residual, things are better.
Community connections
My husband’s old job was waiting for him, but he couldn’t settle right back into things. The lifestyle change was so dramatic, and with him having nobody at his workplace who could identify, he now felt isolated. Mrs. Smith connected him with Hire Heroes USA.
This is one of several volunteer organizations that support military and their families. They worked with him to sort out skills he gained during service, meshed them with his other job experiences, and helped him find a new career path. They also work with companies looking to hire veterans and connected him with a local employer who understood the value of having a veteran on staff, so it was a terrific resource all the way around.
Things have gradually solidified, and we’ve adjusted to our new life.
Support to those in the military can come in many forms. Friends, professionals, and volunteers can all play a vital role in helping those who serve our country. For my family, people who were willing to get involved changed everything.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Only time will tell
Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) won Mexico’s July 1 presidential election with 5
Keen on understanding Mexico’s current political situation, the Woodrow Wilson Center hosted an event on AMLO and the Fourth Transformation: One Year After Historic Election Victory on July 8. The panel was composed of Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas Professors Blanca Heredia and Mariá Amparo Casar, Global Fellow and Director of Buendia & Laredo Jorge Buendia, as well as Albright Stonebridge Group Senior Vice President Antonio Ortiz-Mena. The panel was moderated by Deputy Director of the Mexico Institute, Christopher Wilson.
Wilson underlined that AMLO promised to fight corruption, portraying himself as someone who could be trusted also to maintain fiscal responsibility. The question is whether his wave of support will continue or crash? AMLO had one-third of voter support in 2006 and 2012, but he currently has an approval rating between 60 to 70 percent—impressive when compared with former President Peña Nieto. Expectations are high.
For example, 41
Blanca indicated that language is key for AMLO. He treats corruption as a moral rather than a legal problem. In addition, he focuses on transformation but not goals: destruction of the old system rather than construction of a new one. The new leadership has been described as a populist regime in the making—one that is unique because it is situated on the left side of the political spectrum. It is all about breaking apart a system that excludes parts of society. Blanca concluded that there is an opportunity to move away from the deformed development that has hindered Mexico in the past.
Though AMLO has indicated that he has already met 78 out of the 100 promises he made, Amparo Casar suggests AMLO administration policies aimed at security, inequality, and corruption are not as effective as they could be. AMLO’s insistence that “nothing and no one is above the law” and “if you have to choose between justice and the law, do not hesitate, choose justice” can be problematic and dangerous in a country like Mexico.
Ortiz-Mena concluded with an economic perspective—looking at the possibility of increased stability and growth in Mexico. While the growth rate has remained around that seen under Peña Nieto—2.3 percent—Ortiz-Mena believes that Mexico can reach a growth rate of 4
The panel showed wide variance on Mexico’s prospects. It is still not clear whether there will be major changes, or whether the country will regress to familiar patterns. A serious transformation is still uncertain. Only time will tell.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Corruption and concessions
On July 9 the American Enterprise Institute held a panel discussion about the intersection between authoritarian corruption, dictatorial regimes, terrorism, and criminal abuse of free markets. The panel guests included Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Julius Silver Professor of Politics at New York University and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and Daniel Twining, President of the International Republican Institute. The panel was moderated by Clay R. Fuller, Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at AEI, where he researches authoritarian governance, illicit finance, and corruption.
Mesquita noted that the traditional perpetrators of corrupt acts are not limited to autocrats, terrorists or drug dealers. Even democratically elected leaders present corruption risk, especially when they make deals with corrupt actors, even though the deals are meant to further the interests of a democratic nation. This is one of the reasons it is so difficult to combat corruption. To solve the problem, countries must address the question of how to please constituents on key policy issues without “concessions” to corruption. Corrupt government leaders can pay their cronies, to the detriment of the citizens.
Twining said that when democratic countries support corrupt governments through concession payments to further foreign policy agendas, there is a spillover into surrounding countries. Terrorism, migration, and human trafficking can be tracked to corrupt and kleptocratic governance.
Fuller discussed corruption more broadly, noting that corruption is not unique to kleptocratic, despotic, and authoritarian regimes. Rather, corruption in these systems of governance is more visible and perhaps more detrimental to large swathes of the populace because it privileges a small group, granting them nearly all legitimate government powers.
With regards to how to mitigate corruption, Mesquita focused on the promotion of transparency. More government transparency drives accountability, which can spur the development of good governance. Constituents can play an important role in democratic states. It is important to educate their publics about the effects that corruption has in authoritarian countries, and the way that concession payments can contribute to corruption. Education on this issue will increase the priority that democratic governments give to better governance overseas, rather than just a blind pursuit of foreign policy goals.
Furthermore, Mesquita believes that the promotion of democracy is key to good governance abroad. While the United States has tried to promote democracy, past attempts have frequently fallen short. Mesquita thinks that US efforts have not been sincere; autocrats will comply more readily to US policy in exchange for money if there are no stipulations regarding changes in government. However, the biggest barrier to dealing with corruption is the fact that despots rely on few people to stay in power. Corrupt leaders allow their cronies to steal, launder money, and pad their coffers at the expense of citizens as long as they remain loyal.
Twining discussed the effect that the Chinese Belt and Road initiative is having on corruption globally. Specifically, in parts of Asian, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, authoritarian leaders are taking Chinese loans, aid, and investments. These deals contribute to corruption in local politics because they are often not transparent. Furthermore, they involve a potential loss of sovereignty, especially if they default on loans. He concluded that the United States has an important role to play in buttressing transparency and accountability globally. The desire for freedom and good governance is universal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks July 15 -July 19
1. After Sistani and Khamenei: Looming Successions Will Shape the Middle East|July 15 2019|12:00pm|Atlantic Council |Register Here
At a time of rising tensions between the United States and Iran, Iran and the wider Shia world are facing important successions for leadership that will impact a number of issues. These include how independent Iraq will be of foreign influence, whether Iran finally succeeds in exporting its unique system of government, whether Iran continues to comply with a 2015 nuclear agreement, and the nature of both countries’ relations, or lack thereof, with the United States. Please join us for a discussion of these issues and the release of a new report, “After Sistani and Khamenei: How Looming Successions Will Shape the Middle East,” by Abbas Kadhim and Barbara Slavin.
Moderator: Moshen Milani, Executive Director, Center for Strategic & Diplomatic Studies
Panelists:
Kadhim: Director, Iraq Initiative, Atlantic Council
Barbara Slavin: Director, Future of Iran Initiative
Mohammed Ayatolahi Tabaar: Associate Professor, Bush School of Government and Public Service
2. US-Colombia Partnership: From Venezuela’s Crisis to Counter-Narcotics Efforts|July 16, 2019|9:00am|Atlantic Council|Register Here
Colombia is a strategic leader in Latin America and an indispensable partner for the United States. Its role in working to find a solution to the crisis in Venezuela is vital, while, domestically, Colombia continues to absorb more Venezuelan migrants. The Duque administration is also demonstrating an increased commitment to eradicating coca crops.
How can the US-Colombia strategic partnership further advance regional stability? What is the current Colombian perspective to finding a peaceful democratic transition in Venezuela? What new steps has Colombia deployed to reduce coca cultivation?
Join the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and the United States Institute of Peace for on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. (EDT) for a timely conversation on the US-Colombia partnership and its broader importance.
Speakers: To be confirmed
3. War in Syria: The Kurdish Perspective|July 17, 2019|12:00pm|National Press Club 529 14th Street Northwest First Amendment Lounge Washington, DC 20045|Register Here
Please join Turkish Heritage Organization on July 17th, 2019 as we host a panel on the war in Syria. More details to come.
Moderator: Katherine Brumund, Turkish Heritage Organization
Panelists:
Abdullah Kedo: Mebmebr of the Yekiti Party and the Political Commission of ENKS
Abdulaziz Tammo: President, Independent Syrian Kurdish Association
Farouk Belal: Syrian Activist, Co-Founder of the Syrian Cultural House
Shlomo Bolts: Policy and Advocacy Officer, Syrian American Coucil
4. U.S. and Turkey Relations |July 15, 2019|11:00am|National Press Club 529 14th Street Northwest First Amendment Lounge Washington, DC 20045|Register Here
Please join THO on July 15, 2019 from 11 AM-12:30 PM as we hosts Former Military Representative of Turkey to NATO, Lieutenant General (Ret.) Ergin Saygun for a discussion on U.S.-Turkey Relations on the Third Anniversary of the Attempted Coup in Turkey. More speakers to be added in the coming days.
Moderator: Mark Hall: Filmmaker and Lawyer
Panelists:
H.E. Edward Whitfield: Co-Founder of Turkish Caucus, Former U.S. Congressman
General (Ret.) Ergin Saygun: Former Deputy Chief of Turkish General Staff
5. Prospects for U.S.-Russia Relations: A Perspective from Moscow|July 15, 2019|3:00pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|Register Here
The conclusion of the Mueller investigation renewed President Trump’s desire to meet with Vladimir Putin and to intensify U.S.-Russian dialogue in general. Both countries face numerous problems, from Venezuela to strategic stability, that require management. Is more effective management of these problems and bilateral relations as such possible? How will Russia approach relations with the U.S. leading up to the 2020 elections and beyond? Does Russia have a strategy vis-à-vis the U.S., and if so, what are its major elements? Lastly, how will the election interference issue impact U.S.-Russia relations after the publication of the Mueller report, and how is Moscow going to address it?
Speakers:
Dmitry Suslov: Deputy Director, Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, Higher School of Economics (Moscow)
Jeffery Mankoff: Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
6. The Future of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy: A Conversation with representatives Abigal Spanberger and Michael Waltz |June 11th , 2019|2:00pm-3:30pm|National Endowment for Democracy, 1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004|Register Here
Please join the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Transnational Threats Project for a dialogue on U.S. counterterrorism strategy with Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Michael Waltz (R-FL). Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown Chair and Director of the CSIS Transnational Threats Project, will moderate a discussion between Rep. Spanberger and Rep. Waltz, who will offer their assessments on the current global terrorism landscape as well as the successes and enduring challenges of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
While growing strategic focus on great power competition with China and Russia is warranted, a parallel leadership effort is needed to address the future of the global fight against terrorism and extremism. Topics for discussion include managing the enduring threats posed by al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, defining a suitable end state in Afghanistan, developing a comprehensive strategy for countering violent extremism, and responding to homegrown violent extremist threats.
Moderator: Seth G Jones: Harold Brown Chair; Director, Transnational Threats Project; and Senior Adviser, International Security Program
Speakers:
Abigail Spanberger: United States Congresswoman (D-VA)
Michael Waltz: United State Congressman (R-FL)
7. U.S.-Taiwan relations: Reflections on 40 Years of the TRA|July 19, 2019|12:00pm|The Stimson Center|Register Here
Since President Jimmy Carter signed the Taiwan Relations Act into law in 1979, the United States and Taiwan have maintained unofficial relations, including trade, people-to-people exchanges, and cultural ties. In the forty years since the Act was signed, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship has been a long-standing friendship between two democracies, surviving periods of tension with China. Looking towards the future, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship will be increasingly important particularly as challenges intensify. Taiwan and the U.S.’s policies towards each other on economic and security issues as well as their shared values will be important factors in determining how these challenges are met.
Panelists:
Bonnie Glaser: Senior Adviser for Asia and Director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Shelley Rigger: Ph.D., Brown Professor in the Political Science Department of Davidson College
Janice I. Chen: Deputy Director of Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party Mission in the U.S.
8. Reporting on Civilian Casualties in the War Against ISIS|July 16, 2019|12:00pm|New America|Register Here
Reporters at U.S. media outlets strongly believed that civilian harm should be a central component of war coverage. Yet, civilian casualties from U.S. airstrikes have been patchily covered during the war against so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. This is one of the key findings in a new report by Airwars entitled, News in Brief: U.S. Media Coverage of Civilian Harm in the War Against ISIS. Authored by investigative journalist Alexa O’Brien, the report draws on new research and interviews with reporters at major U.S. media outlets, providing editors with recommendations for improved coverage. News in Brief is the result of a six-month study funded by the Reva and David Logan Foundation in the U.S. and the J. Leon Philanthropy Council in the U.K.
Moderator: Peter Bergen: Vice President, New America
Panelists:
Alexa O’Brien: Author, News in Brief
Azmat Khan: Future of War Fellows, Arizona State University & New America
Greg Jaffe: National Security Correspondent, Washington Post
Chris Woods: Executive Director, Airwars
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Little by little is too little
On July 8 the United States Institute of Peace hosted a panel discussion titled “The North Korea Sanctions Regime a Year After Singapore.” The panel featured Dan Wertz, Program Manager at the National Committee on North Korea, Joshua Stanton, a DC-based lawyer who played a significant role in North Korea sanctions, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, a member of the UN Panel of Experts (Resolution 1874) dealing with North Korea, and Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Frank Aum, former Senior Advisor for North Korea at the Defense Department, moderated the discussion.
Stanton views the history of US leadership on North Korea issues as many “instant gratification policies” instead of better thought out and more effective long-term policies. North Korea is highly dependent on access to US financial systems because of the status of the dollar. Since many North Korean transactions have to go through US banks, financial sanctions blocking transactions and freezing North Korean accounts can be highly effective.
Stanton believes the conversation on sanctions relief is coming about two years too early. More pressure on the Kim regime is needed so that he has a diplomatic incentive to work with the US. Even small sanctions relief is enough for North Korea to catch a breather and continue the status quo. The argument that North Korea can’t survive without nuclear weapons and therefore won’t give them up is ahistorical, according to Stanton, because North Korea has survived for decades without nuclear weapons and can continue to do so. The threat to North Korea is mainly internal.
On possible sanctions relief, Stanton clarifies that Congress has set strict rules dependent not only on issues such as nuclear disarmament and denuclearization but also contingent on human rights, human trafficking, and other issues. The current direction in congress is towards stricter rules for sanctions relief, with the goal of complete, verifiable and undisputed denuclearization of North Korea. The US has to work together with its allies to set up financial sanctions that pressure Pyongyang while at the same time allowing transactions for non-military purposes that benefit the North Korean people. Humanitarian aid should be given to North Korea regardless of political or military actions since it benefits the poor and starving civilians, a point all the panelists agreed on.
Kleine-Ahlbrandt notes that the goal of the UN sanctions regime is to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs and prevent the proliferation of WMDs. Sanctions shouldn’t be the objective, which is to catalyze what she calls “effective dialogue.” At the same time the negative impact of sanctions on the economy and civilian population of North Korea should be limited. The UN sanctions regime is broad, but member states have insufficiently implemented the sanctions and evasion tactics by North Korean entities and individuals have undermined compliance. North Korea currently has full access to the international financial system through complicit foreign nationals, a network of agents, and cyberattacks aimed at financial institutions.
Wertz views the sanctions as having a threefold purpose: signaling to North Korea that provocative actions such as missile tests come at a cost, constraining progress on WMDs and other military capabilities, and coercing North Korea through sanctions pressure to make concessions and abandon the nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Coercion is difficult because translating economic pressure to political actions is difficult. UN sanctions, which are focused on the missile and nuclear programs, can be modified if political consensus is reached within the UNSC on whether North Korea’s behavior warrants relief.
US sanctions are trickier since they are premised on a broad range of topics from WMDs to human rights, cyber-attacks, currency counterfeiting and more. The executive branch has some leeway on how it administers individual sanctions or waives them on a case by case basis, but to lift sanctions as a whole the White House has to certify to Congress that North Korea has made significant progress on several of the issues listed. This divergence of US and UN sanctions could potentially lead to a clash if North Korea abandons its nuclear program but doesn’t improve on human rights or other issues.
Wertz suggests that a program of phased sanctions relief in return for meaningful concessions on the nuclear program could be in the US interest down the road and lists five principles for sanctions relief:
- Any trade of sanctions relief for North Korean nuclear concessions should be premised on the ultimate goal of denuclearization but should also make sense on its own terms.
- The US should start with the sanctions that have the least direct connection to the nuclear program and can be most easily adjusted and snapped back.
- The US shouldn’t ease up on measures intended to deny hard currency to North Korea until it can guarantee the money won’t be funneled to military programs.
- Sanctions relief should be structured in a way that pushes North Korea towards an open economy and minimal respect for labor rights.
- If sanctions relief goes forward the United States and allies should continue to enforce sanctions that haven’t been lifted, but not expand the scope of sanctions.
Rosenberg suggests the lack of compliance with sanctions is in part because many individuals or companies don’t understand or know about the rules. Awareness and compliance protocols in industries other than finance are rare. Before sanctions are removed, Rosenberg says it is valuable to think about what unwinding sanctions could look like. Sanctions shouldn’t be lifted as an incentive; behavioral change has to happen before sanctions are lifted because they are in place for specific concerns. Instead more work should be put into establishing communication and cultural as well as diplomatic exchanges as incentives, none of which require sanctions relief.
Rosenberg also warns that a “little-by-little” approach to removing sanctions in exchange for limited progress doesn’t work. North Korea’s track record of cheating on sanctions means incremental change might create a façade behind which North Korea can do as it pleases. The only politically viable way ahead for the US is major sanctions relief after North Korea makes major and verified progress on denuclearization.
Here is the video of the event:
RSS - Posts
