Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Turning the clock back
I received this long letter (only slightly edited for spelling and other minor errors) from a group of people listed at the end. I was amused by its accusation that I favor Republika Srpska, since the authorities in that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina regard me as one of its sworn enemies. That said, the letter raises interesting questions about the validity of the Dayton constitution, without however offering any practical alternative in my view.
We are writing to you following the interview you gave to Aljazeera Balkans of June this year where you made a number of claims and statements in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina that we find unacceptable, and some of them also untrue and incorrect.
As you also used a pronoun ‘we’ in the same interview, we would like to ask you to confirm to us if you were speaking on behalf of the US State Department or if it was just a ‘slip of the tongue’? The way you presented your views and analysis to the critical judgement of the public in the interview left us under the impression that you were trying to impose them on the public as the only possible solutions. One would have expected you to act as an independent and well-meaning analyst. However, given the way you made your claims we felt that you were favoring Serbia and its interests of safeguarding the genocidal creation called Republika Srpska (further referred to as RS).
We would like to reflect on some of the claims you made during the interview:
– You claimed that the genocidal entity called RS was in the state of ‘transitional democracy’. We have never known a language where ‘transitional democracy’ is synonymous to Fascism and Neonazism, neither of which bear even a slightest resemblance to even the most primitive form of democracy. Therefore, apart from that claim of yours being untrue and incorrect, we find it also to be a very damaging and unacceptable promotional stunt favoring RS.
– You claimed that the Dayton Constitution has to be amended (or ‘reformed’). As someone who worked closely with Richard Holbrooke on creating Dayton Peace Accords one would expect you to reflect on it over the time, and to admit to yourself, at least from this time distance, what we all already know. And we have known for long that Dayton Peace Accords are a criminal agreement in that it rewarded genocide, war crimes, and aggression, and suspended the only legal Constitution – the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that had already extsted. It was a move that nobody had either a moral or legal right to make. We believe that you are familiar with the fact that the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was confirmed by the majority vote of the Bosnian citizens at the referendum of 29 February and 1 March 1992 as an expression of the highest level of democracy.
On the other hand, Annex IV of Dayton Peace Accords, which is considered to be the Bosnian Constitution at present, is illegal as it has ever been endorsed by the Bosnian Parliament, and as it is being breached by everybody, and in particular by Dodik on a regular basis.
We believe that you are well aware that Dayton Peace Accords, and Dayton ‘Constitution’ alike, are completely dysfunctional. Therefore, we are struggling to understand why you still continue to persist on it? The only reason we can see behind it could be that it is the only way to preserve the genocidal creation called RS as Serbia’s criminal war gain. So, we would like to ask you to put forward the arguments in your response to us that would prove us wrong with respect to those intents.
One cannot talk of any changes or ‘reforms’ to the Dayton ‘Constitution’ as the ‘Constitution’ itself is contrary to the basic international laws, Conventions, and the UN Charter. Such a ‘Constitution’ is contrary to the human rights and freedoms which explains why it has been defeated, and in effect, terminated several times at the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.
It may be that due to the way you feel about Dayton Peace Accords as its co-author you don’t seem to want to concede that Dayton Peace Accords, and ultimately Dayton ‘Constitution’, are the main and only obstacles to any progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina including the progress towards the Euro-Atlantic integrations which, at the same time you yourself (sic!) seem to be favoring.
– It is an unbeatable fact that Dayton ‘Constitution’ has to be terminated, and not changed or ‘reformed’ as you say, as it is morally and legally unacceptable, and as much as the whole of Dayton Peace Accords, it is the main obstacle to any progress of our country. Besides, the International Community have meant [the] Dayton Peace Accords to be only a temporary solution that was to stop the war. Please don’t try to affirm it as a permanent solution.
– In the same interview of June you were staunchly defending the April Package of the constitutional changes that you also co-authored. That was a ‘package’ of requests made by Milorad Dodik which the US State Department tried to push through via McElhaney and some of our politicians led by Sulejman Tihic. Its one and only aim was to preserve the genocidal RS, and to give it a right to veto as well as the decision-making powers that would be based on ethnicity which would have copper-fastened the genocidal entity, and made Bosnia and Herzegovina dissolve.
Although the Bosnian Parliament rejected the April Package, given your criticism of Haris Silajdzic in your interview of June this year, it appears that you still intend on continuing to pursue the April Package. And, we believe that you are well aware of the facts that the April Package would have copper-fastened the genocidal apartheid called RS. Therefore, all of us who took part in preventing an attempt to copper-fasten the genocidal creation called RS, strongly condemn and fully reject any such criticism of yours.
We would like to invite you to work hard on terminating the genocidal creation called RS, being led and guided by the international laws and Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment. Although we believe that you are well familiar with the International Court of Justice Judgement of 27 February 2007 which declared RS guilty of act of genocide, we would still like to remind you of it. Anything that has been created on genocide cannot continue to exist as it is legally invalid and void. Article 297. of the Judgement reads as follows:
297. The Court concludes that acts committed in Srebrenica, which fall within Article II(a) and (b) of the Convention, had been carried out with a specific intention to destroy in part a group of Bosnian Muslims as such; and accordingly, those represent acts of genocide which were committed by the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) in Srebrenica and the surrounding area starting on 13 Juy 1995.
Based on that Judgement the genocidal entity RS is legally untenable – bearing in mind the ius cogens principle, the UN Charter, and the Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment, and with genocide having been committed in all of the country, and not just in Srebrenica. The fact that Annex VII of Dayton Peace Accords has been breached due to the Fascism and apartheid that is being carried out by the genocidal creation RS, only means that genocide continues. The fact that one of the key conditions of Dayton Peace Accords continues to be breached makes Dayton Peace Accords legally void and voidable as per Contract law.
According to both the country’s and international laws, the citizens have every right to revert to the previous Constitution which is the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no need to reform that Constitution as it is a civilian and European one, and as it is based on civil rights and freedoms.
– At 13:57 minute of your interview of June, speaking of the ‘constitutional reforms’ you contradicted yourself by saying:
‘We need to strengthen the government in Sarajevo’, and ‘That also means devolution of powers to entitites, cantons, and municipalities’.
Do not those two statements exclude each other?
Your statement on ‘devolution of powers’ led us to conclude that you support not only the preservation of the genocidal RS, but that you are also very much in favor of further decentralization of the Federation, which is unacceptable, and leads to the total destruction of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and gettoization of its Bosniak-Muslim majority population which would be squeezed to live on 24% of its territory till they finally disappear. At the same time RS would remain unitarian, monoethnic creation built on genocide of Bosniaks and Bosnian Catholics.
– In the same interview you also stated that you would ask Serbia for help with devolution of powers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is both unacceptable and illegitimate for anyone to ask or encourage a foreign country to interfere or intervene in our internal affairs. And, to make it sound even worse than it already is such an ‘invite’ is being made to the country that committed an act of aggression on us, and occupied half of our territory having also committed genocide in the process. Is not inviting Serbia to interfere in our country in any way, including ‘help with devolution of powers’ an act of aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina? Having signed Dayton Peace Accords, both Serbia and Croatia in effect admitted to committing an act of aggression on our country. By signing Dayton Peace Accords they both agreed to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, and not to continue the aggression on our country. Or, perhaps you are inclined to interpret their signatures as their right to intervene and interfere in our country any way they want- be it as they please or with the help and encouragement of the international community? Does that not constitute an act of aggression in international law?
Never in its 1,000 years old history has any part of our country been part of Serbia. But Sandzak which is now part of Serbia historically has been part of our country. Applying the same logic of ‘asking for help with devolution of powers’ would mean that we have even a much greater (and historically well founded) right to interfere in the internal affairs of Serbia and the way it should be organised as a state. Finally, given that for us Serbia is an aggressor, and still a Fascist country (judging by who sits in its government and Parliament), we would like to ask if you would find it acceptable for Nazi Germany (if it, hypothetically, still existed) to be a ‘tutor’ to one of the countries with the majority Jewish population, that it had occupied, and where it had committed Holocaust and war crimes?
– We would like to remind you of the historic fact that no Serbs or Croats ever lived in our country until the second half of the 19th century. There was only one people- Bosniaks of three different confessions that also welcomed Sephardic Jews from Spain who settled in our country, and have been living with us since. And our country was never part of either Croatian or Serbian territory. Unlike Serbia, we do not base our history on myths and lies, but on the actual historical facts and documents that nobody has any right to either deny or disregard. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Good ideas
State-building, the function American presidents love to hate, is the unavoidable foreign policy burden of our times. Without it, the war against the Islamic State and other extremists will last forever. Only when Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt are better governed will they be immune to the extremist infection that has roiled the Middle East.
Fortunately, I’ve got colleagues around DC who not only agree with this proposition but also are thinking hard what to do about it. I prefer not to spend my time and whatever intellectual energies I’ve got left thinking about reforming the US government, which has resisted most such efforts for well over 200 years. But I’m glad others are willing to engage.
Max Boot and Mike Mikclaucic want to reconfigure the US Agency for International Development into a state building agency, giving up most of its programs to international governmental and nongovernmental organizations better suited to the tasks and often better funded. They would toss out “poverty alleviation, global health, biodiversity, women’s empowerment, education, sanitation, and economic and agriculture development.” They want the US agency to focus on ungoverned or inadequately governed spaces, seeking to provide them with security forces, courts, professional civil services, and accountable financial mechanisms. In other words: the essential functions of sovereignty.
They also want AID–or maybe it would be called the US Agency for State Building–to focus on fewer countries, mainly but not exclusively in what some of us think of as the Greater Middle East (Morocco to Pakistan, more or less), plus countries at risk from Russian and Chinese expansionism, with a few Latin American countries thrown in for counternarcotics purposes. The point is to choose them based on their strategic importance to US national security.
John Norris, arguing that our current practices favor rewarding failed states with lots of money and attention, takes what he terms a”better” approach to fragile states. He proposes that willing and able fragile states–not the utterly failed ones–be invited to enter into repeatable 5-year, USAID-administered Inclusion, Growth and Peace compacts, with the aim of developing effective and legitimate institutions over a decade and more. While not proposing a definitive list, he suggests:
Niger, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Lebanon, Uganda, Myanmar, Cameroon, Egypt, Mali, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Nepal, and Rwanda all stand out as countries where a mixture of host country commitment, effective diplomacy, positive leverage, and sound assistance strategies could help move them more permanently out of the fragility category.
Adding Tunisia and Mali for good measure, Norris says the pay-off from focusing more attention on these not-yet-basket cases could be particularly high.
This approach is analogous to one the Millennium Challenge Corporation uses, usually for more consolidated states. Greater flexibility would be required for fragile states, and the money would be focused on improving legitimacy, which is something the host country naturally wants. But it would have to make specific, transparent and accountable commitments in exchange.
Implicitly, the array of current AID objectives that Miclaucic and Boot cite would be at least partly dropped in Norris’ approach as well, though of course improvement in state effectiveness would likely result in some of those objectives being met. Norris proposes specific indicators for his compacts, geared toward the problems of fragile states like return of refugees and internally displaced people, reduction of grievances and increased government effectiveness, among others. He also proposes getting rid of the parallel budgets funded as Overseas Contingency Operations, but only if equivalent amounts are re-inserted into regular appropriations of State, AID and Defense.
That’s about as much budgetese as I am capable and willing to speak. The main point for all three authors is just this: our current foreign assistance is not producing the best results because it is focused on the wrong objectives and countries and because it is spent on the wrong efforts. The stove pipes that rule the foreign assistance world are separating things that belong together, especially where fragile states are concerned. We could do much better if we re-thought the whole package strategically, from ultimate objectives to programs.
As I explained in the book advertised to your upper right, I doubt that can be done with existing institutions, which have proven irremediable. But Norris, Boot and Miclaucic have put forward good ideas worthy of attention.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s defeat
With Hillary Clinton clinching the Democratic nomination, it is time to consider the far more likely scenario: that she will win the November election, become the first Madame President, and return to the White House in January. What are the implications for America and its foreign policy?
Trump’s defeat, the third in a row for Republicans, will leave the party weakened and possibly divided. It could well lose control of the Senate if not the House. Blame for this will be heaped on those who backed Trump, a blatant racist, misogynist and xenophobe. Balancing acts like this one will look ridiculous in the aftermath of an electoral defeat:
Those who did not support Trump will try to resurrect the direction the party thought it had chosen after the 2012 election: towards becoming more inclusive rather than less. That will be a hard sell once more than 70% of Hispanics (and 90% of African Americans), similar percentages of gas and lesbians, and a majority of women have chosen Clinton. Some of the defeated will try to launch a new party or join the Libertarians. Diehard Trumpies will head off into the white supremacist/neo-Nazi corner of American politics.
The Democrats will seek to exploit their moment of triumph. I imagine top of their priorities will be “comprehensive” immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people. This would solidify their Hispanic support. I doubt Clinton will reverse her position on the Transpacific Trade Partnership (TTP), but she might well quietly encourage Barack Obama to get it done in the lame duck Congress, before she is sworn in, with some improvements. I hope she will back the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which raises fewer hackles that TTP.
Clinton will want to reassure America’s allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. She will look for ways to sound and act tougher on the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Russia, Iran and China, which have each taken advantage of Obama’s retrenchment from the over-extension of the Bush 43 presidency to press the envelope on what Washington will tolerate. She will maintain the nuclear deal with Iran and likely try to follow a similar model with North Korea. She opt for a no-fly zone in northern or southern Syria, hoping to stop at that.
Clinton will try to sustain Washington’s tightened relationship with India, Vietnam and other Asian powers as well as ongoing moves towards democracy and free market economies in Africa and Latin America. She’ll try to avoid sinking more men and money into Afghanistan and will try to get (and keep) Pakistan turned around in a more helpful direction. Israel/Palestine will be low on her priorities–why tred on turf where others have repeatedly failed?–unless something breaks in the positive or negative direction.
Domestic issues will take priority, including fixes for Obamacare, increased infrastructure and education funding, reductions in student loan debt, criminal justice reform, corporate tax reform and appointment of at least one Supreme Court justice (unless Merrick Garland is confirmed in the lame duck session) and many other Federal judges at lower levels. She will support modestly increased defense funding and tax cuts for the middle class, funded by increases on higher incomes. She will tack slightly to the left to accommodate Bernie Sanders’ supporters, but not so far as to lose independents.
In other words, Hillary Clinton is likely to serve Barack Obama’s third term, correcting the relatively few mistakes she thinks he has made, slowing retrenchment and adapting his pragmatic non-doctrine foreign policy to the particular circumstances and events as they occur. It will take some time for the Republicans, or whatever succeeds them as the second major party, to figure out whether they are protectionist or free traders, anti-immigrant or not, interventionist or not.
Trump’s defeat will be momentous for the Republican party, but it will leave the country on more or less the same trajectory it has followed for the past 7.5 years. If she can keep it pointed in that direction for four more, we should be thankful.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end of despair
Even as hope fades for peace talks, Syrian civil society gives me reason not to despair. Here is my preface to the Center for Civil Society and Democracy in Syria report Standing on the First Page of the End of Despair: Transparency in Emerging Syrian Institutions, published yesterday:
There is more to Syria than military forces and battles, though this is not immediately apparent to much of the international community, which currently seems to be focused on ISIS and the flow of refugees to Europe. Five years of conflict have seen the growth of vibrant civil society in both regime and opposition controlled areas. More than ever before in Syrian history, civilians have taken charge of their own lives, desperately trying to bring order, security, sustenance, services and shelter to their families, friends and communities. Civic associations, local councils, human rights and other legal advocates, relief organizations, food, water and service providers, media outlets, professional societies, and economic development incubators have grown like topsy in the ruins of the Assad regime, which was among the most opaque, autocratic and corrupt in the world in 2011 when the uprising in Syria began.
This growth of civil society in wartime Syria is one of the country’s saving graces. As the authors of this fascinating and path-breaking report put it, despite the humanitarian disaster Syria is standing on the first page of the end of despair, because it has generated one of the key elements of a more open and democratic society. Syrians have been ingenious in inventing the institutions that fill the vacuum collapse of the dictatorship left behind.
But it is fitting that the Center for Civil Society and Democracy (CCSD), itself a civil society organization, takes nothing for granted. It wants to know how transparent nongovernmental organizations in Syria are, both in their internal processes and in their interactions with their beneficiaries and other institutions. This extensive and perceptive report based on a survey of 280 civil society organizations—including local councils that provide de facto governance in many areas—is the result. It is intended to lay the basis for improvements in the future.
Considering the extraordinarily difficult conditions in which they operate, the results are what I would describe as good, even extremely good. The vast majority of the organizations surveyed have clear internal structures, by laws, and boards of directors. They report on and publicize their work and conduct monitoring and evaluation. Most document their expenses and consult with stakeholders, though a bit more consultation with beneficiaries would be a good idea. This performance would be remarkable and praiseworthy even in more stable environments. With civilians facing daily bombardment, Syrians have reason to hope that the civil society they have created will serve them well in the future.
That is, if it survives. The first page of the end of despair could also be the last page, if the dictatorship wins the war and re-imposes the kind of draconian and opaque rule it enjoyed before 2011. Military defeat could spell the end of the burgeoning of Syrian civil society that Americans and Europeans should be anxious and determined to preserve and nurture. Whatever the military outcome, people of good will everywhere should be thinking about how to preserve, fertilize and enhance the extraordinary array of institutions that Syrians have generated. And international governments and donors in particular will do well to pay attention to this issue amidst the cacophony of the Syrian people’s very important needs. If they hope to see a stable and secure Syria in the future, one of the building blocks will be this nascent web of interconnected civil society groups, whose legitimacy and sustainability depend upon their transparency and accountability to their communities.
Let’s try to make sure that despair leads to hope, not more despair.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Now comes the hard part
While it is still unclear how many seats he will have in parliament, Serbian Prime Minister Vucic has won a big victory, garnering close to 50% of the vote and far outdistancing his nearest competitors, his Socialist coalition partners at over 12% and Vojislav Seselj’s Radicals at close to 8%. The uncertainty about seats, which are awarded proportionately, derives from the results at the lower end, where several parties appear to have come in close to the 5% threshold. If any of those results changes, Vucic’s Progressives could gain or lose seats.
The Prime Minister’s victory is a big vote of confidence in his pro-European stance. His more nationalist opponents are much more inclined to view Serbia’s future as closely tied to Russia. His more liberal opponents share his commitment to EU membership but suffer from splitting into personality-based groups. Vucic may want to bring one or more of these personalities into his coalition, to strengthen its pro-European stance.
These election results were widely foretold. Vucic has managed to draw both on his nationalist past and his promise of a European future for wide support. Now comes the hard part: governing.
From the domestic perspective, the key issue will be the economy, which has been sputtering, along with the rest of the Balkans and Europe. Despite some real progress on economic reform, Serbia is in recession and unemployment is high. There isn’t a lot the government can do to promote recovery in the near term. Serbia, like most of the Balkans, is highly dependent on what happens elsewhere. Prospects in the euro zone and in Russia are not good.
From an international perspective, the main issues are corruption, the legal system and media freedom. When in the West Vucic appears comfortable and open in dealing with the media, but at home he is less comfortable and all too often attacks the questioner as much as he answers the question. He is widely believed to control appointment of editors, even in privately owned media. The courts are slow, disorganized and lack real independence, which Vucic acknowledges.
Looming on the horizon are difficult choices for Serbia with respect to Kosovo. Vucic has been vital to the progress made in years of talks with his Kosovar counterpart. Serbia has accepted the validity of the Kosovo constitution on its entire territory (including the Serb-majority north) and has acknowledged that Kosovo will qualify for EU membership separately and at its own pace. It seems to me a short step to mutual recognition and exchange of ambassadors, but that short step is still regarded as a yawning chasm in Serbia, one its politicians all seek to avoid.
Fixing these things isn’t easy. Nor is it likely to garner a lot of votes unless the economy also recovers. But Vucic now has four years in which to deliver. If he does, Serbia will make serious progress in negotiating EU membership, though I doubt it can meet expectations that it complete the process before the next election. Failure could mean a turn backwards towards the nationalists who were Vucic’s closest competitors, albeit lagging far behind. Brussels and Washington will want to avoid that turn and encourage Vucic to proceed in the pro-European direction he campaigned on.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This doesn’t make sense
US Ambassador to NATO Lute said Friday:
I think Russia plays an important part in the strategic environment…[which] will put a break on NATO expansion. If you accept the premises…about Russia’s internal weakness and perhaps steady decline, it may not make sense to push further now and maybe accelerate or destabilize the decline.
I am assured that this statement represents no departure from Article 10 of the NATO treaty, which provides for the membership to unanimously “invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty.” Montenegro has already received such an invitation and will be admitted to membership at the July 8/9 NATO Summit in Warsaw.
What doesn’t make sense to me is Washington accommodating Moscow’s aggressiveness internationally in order to avoid destabilizing it internally. Quite to the contrary: pushing back on Moscow’s increasingly aggressive stance against NATO expansion would provide incentive and opportunity for Russia to refocus its energies on its internal problems, which lower oil prices and Ukraine-induced sanctions are aggravating.
This is particularly true for NATO expansion into the Balkans, a region not contiguous with Russian territory. NATO expansion to tiny and distant Montenegro can in no way be reasonably perceived as a threat to Russia, no matter how often Russian diplomats repeat that refrain. The same is true of Slovenia, Albania and Croatia, all of which became NATO members with little or no comment from Moscow. Even if all of the remaining Balkans countries join–that’s Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Serbia–Russia is in no way militarily at risk.
That makes the Balkans different from Georgia and Ukraine. Location matters.
This hasn’t prevented Moscow from mounting aggressive campaigns in all but pro-American Kosovo against Alliance membership, as well as a rearguard action against Montenegrin accession. Moscow uses its diplomats to speak out crudely against NATO membership, its money to fund anti-NATO protests, and its commercial influence to turn local politicians against the Alliance. Russia has even planted a proto-base (allegedly for humanitarian rather than military purposes) in southern Serbia, hoping this will inoculate Belgrade from catching the NATO flu.
Russia’s anti-NATO efforts threaten to destabilize the Balkans, where the prospect of NATO membership is an important factor in promoting democratization and reducing inter-ethnic tensions. This is especially true in Macedonia, where much of the Albanian population regards the prospect of NATO membership as vital to its own security. It is of course also true in Kosovo, where NATO troops have been vital to maintaining a safe and secure environment since the NATO/Yugoslavia war in 2001. Bosnia and Serbia are more ambivalent towards NATO, though Serbia’s prime minister recently noted (in the runup to a parliamentary election) that NATO troops in Kosovo protect the Serb population there.
So Ambassador Lute’s comments–even if not meant to qualify Article 10–will be read in the Balkans as discouraging hopes for NATO membership and in Moscow as a green light for Russian efforts to undermine the generally positive trend the region has taken for the past 20 years. It would be good now for the American Administration to reiterate that Washington still wants a Europe “whole and free,” including in particular the Balkans and even Russia if it so chooses. Anything less than that gives Moscow further incentive to muck in what it increasingly considers its sphere of influence, which could set back decades of democratization and run the real risk of destabilization.
RSS - Posts
