Tag: European Union
Peace Picks, May 28 to May 31
DC will be dark today for Memorial Day, but the rest of the week has ample and varied events:
1. Institutional Reform in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, Tuesday, May 28 / 1:00pm – 3:00pm , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Marwan Muasher, Frederic Wehrey, Ellen Lust, Jakob Wichmann
As Arab political transitions stumble and parties clash over the pace and direction of reforms, analysts are largely focused on the differences between political actors-Islamists, Salafis, liberals, and others-and the implications for political development. But critics argue that this distracts attention from trying to understand the critical institutional changes underway in these countries.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/28/institutional-reform-in-libya-egypt-and-tunisia/g5xy
2. Nuclear Terrorism: What’s at Stake? Wednesday, May 29 / 8:00am – 9:30am , American Security Project
Venue: American Security Project, 1100 New York Avenue, NW · Suite 710W, Washington, DC
Speakers: Jay M. Cohen, David Waller, Stephen E. Flynn, Stanton D. Sloane, Stephen A. Cheney
The U.S. is a leader in global nonproliferation efforts, from preventing new nuclear states to securing nuclear materials and technology. However, preventing nuclear terror also requires efforts on a domestic front. U.S. ports present a potential vulnerability and securing these ports requires improvement in the capacity to detect and secure nuclear materials that could arrive in shipping containers.
Please RSVP to:
events@americansecurityproject.org
For more information see:
http://americansecurityproject.org/events/2013/event-nuclear-terrorism-whats-at-stake/
3. A Syrian No Fly Zone: Options and Constraints, Wednesday, May 29 / 10:00am – 12:00pm, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Steven Heydemann, Frederic C. Hof, David A. Deptula, Jon Alterman, Joseph Holliday
Now in its third year, with no end in sight, the Syrian uprising against the authoritarian government of Bashar al-Assad has brought devastation, death, and displacement to the country. Today, more than a quarter of Syrians have fled their homes. Some 250,000 Syrians have been killed, wounded, or are missing. By the end of 2013, half of all Syrians, more than 11 million people, could need assistance in what the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, has called the worst humanitarian crisis the U.N. has ever faced.
As violence deepens, with the Assad regime using ballistic missiles and, reportedly, nerve gas, against civilians, the U.S. and its allies continue to search for viable options to shorten the conflict, bring the regime and the opposition to the negotiating table, and place Syria on the path of political transition.
Few options have received as much attention as the idea of creating a no fly zone (NFZ) over part or all of Syria. The Syrian opposition has appealed to the international community to create a NFZ. Members of Congress have called on the Obama administration to embrace an NFZ as the most effective way to protect Syrian civilians and achieve a political solution.
While debate around the NFZ option intensifies, there has been far less attention to the military, diplomatic, and regional complexities that such a move would entail. To inform and deepen the debate over an NFZ for Syria, the U.S. Institute of Peace is convening a panel of distinguished experts to discuss the diplomatic, strategic, tactical, and political implications involved.
Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am EST on May 29, 2013 at www.usip.org/webcast. Join the conversation and submit questions for the panel on Twitter with #SyriaNFZ.
RSVP for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/syrian-no-fly-zone-options-and-constraints
4. Serbia’s Challenges on Its Path to EU Accession, Wednesday, May 29 / 1:00pm – 2:00pm , Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speaker: Ljubica Vasic
Assistant Foreign Minister of Serbia Ljubica Vasic will discuss the challenges and opportunities that the Republic of Serbia faces on its path to European integration. Vasic will address key reforms that the country has introduced so far to advance its EU accession bid, and will explain why the European integration process is important for the overall development of the country. She will outline the steps that Serbia has taken to achieve one of its main foreign policy goals; EU membership.
Ljubica Vasic was appointed Assistant Foreign Minister of Serbia in January 2013. Previously, she served as a special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and headed the Serb Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe. Vasic began her political career in 2008, and has served as an adviser on European integration policies, and has been a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Serb National Assembly. Vasic holds two graduate degrees – in European Integration and in English Philology – from the University of Belgrade and the Unviersity of Kragujevac respectively, and is currently working on a doctoral degree at the University of Kragujevac. She is fluent in English, French, Italian, and Serb.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/serbias-challenges-its-path-to-eu-accession
5. Protecting People with Technology: Modernizing U.N. Peacekeeping , Wednesday, May 29 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm, Stimson Center
Venue: Stimson Center, 1111 19th Street Northwest, 12th Floor, Washington D.C., DC 20036
Speakers: Walter Dorn, Sarah Williamson
Protect the People, the Stimson Center, the Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping and the Better World Campaign present: Protecting People with Technology: Modernizing U.N. Peacekeeping
A conversation with Dr. Walter Dorn, author of ‘Keeping Watch: Monitoring, Technology & Innovation in UN Peace Operations’
As U.N. peace operations are asked and expected to do more in increasingly complex and dangerous environments, this discussion with Dr. Dorn will explore the challenges and opportunities of leveraging a broad spectrum of technologies to enable U.N. peace operations to more effectively and safely protect civilians.
Dr. Walter Dorn has also taught at the Pearson Centre and as a visiting professional in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He has served with the United Nations Mission in East Timor, the United Nations in Ethiopia, at U.N. headquarters as a training adviser and as a consultant with the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations. His book ‘Keeping Watch: Monitoring, Technology, and Innovation in UN Peace Operations’ was published in 2011 by U.N. University Press. Copies of his book will be available for purchase and signing.
Register for the event here:
http://www.stimson.org/events/protecting-people-with-technology-modernizing-un-peacekeeping/
6. Editing (Out) the Occupation, Thursday, May 30 / 9:00am – 10:00am , New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Linoy Bar-Geffen, Uri Misgav, Sarah Wildman
After nearly forty-six years of military occupation, two intifadas, a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and a stalled political process, the Israeli public seems to have lost whatever interest it had in the Palestinian issue. Public attention has turned inwards — looking at economic and social concerns. However a critical examination of these concerns, by necessity, requires an equally critical examination of the ongoing occupation.
New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force will host visiting Israeli journalists Uri Misgav and Linoy Bar-Geffen on May 30 for a conversation examining why the occupation is edited out of mainstream Israeli media and exploring how mainstream and alternative media can bring the occupation more forcefully into the Israeli national conversation.
Register for the event here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/editing_out_the_occupation
7. The Water-Security Nexus in Pakistan, Thursday, May 30 / 10:00am – 11:30am , US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Majed Akhter, Daanish Mustafa, Winston Yu
Because of overuse and misuse, Pakistan is headed toward a serious water crisis. The U.N. is expected to downgrade Pakistan from ‘water stressed’ to ‘water scarce’ by 2030. While issues between India and Pakistan often garner the most attention, water conflicts within Pakistan’s borders have the explosive potential to poison inter-ethnic and inter-provincial relations and turn simmering tension into violence. In a country where livelihoods depend heavily on reliable access to water, effectively managing water resources can transform a common lightning rod for conflict into an opportunity for building intra-communal cooperation and trust.
Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace on May 30, 2013 from 10:00 am until 11:30 am, for a panel discussion on USIP’s new PeaceWorks, ‘Understanding Pakistan’s Water-Security Nexus’, and the opportunities and pitfalls of peacebuilding through environmental policy in South Asia.
Register for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/pakistanwater
8. The Kaleidoscope Turns Again in a Crisis-Challenged Iran, Thursday, May 30 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Atlantic Council
Venue: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Yasmin Alem, Suzanne Maloney, Barbara Slavin
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center for the release of a new issue brief, “The Kaleidoscope Turns Again in a Crisis-Challenged Iran,” a discussion of Iran’s upcoming presidential elections. While the elections will not be free, fair, or competitive in a Western sense, they will be a barometer of the stability and durability of the Islamic Republic at a time of unprecedented external pressures and rising domestic discontent. Political factions will break down and regroup as a shrinking elite competes for diminishing spoils. The outcome of the elections and the manner in which they are conducted could also have important implications for Iranian policy going forward, including on the nuclear issue.
The Iran Task Force seeks to perform a comprehensive analysis of Iran’s internal political landscape, its role in the region and globally, and any basis for an improved relationship with the West.
RSVP with name and affiliation to:
southasia@acus.org.
9. Reviving U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case for Putting America‘s House in Order, Thursday, May 30 / 3:30pm – 5:00pm , Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution,1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Martin S. Indyk, Richard N. Haass, Robert Kagan
A rising China, climate change, terrorism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a tumultuous Middle East, and a defiant North Korea all present serious challenges for U.S. foreign policy, but could internal factors actually pose the biggest threat to the United States, its security, and its position as a global leader? In his new book, Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in Order (Basic Books, 2013), Richard Haass argues that U.S. national security depends on the United States addressing significant internal issues: repairing its crumbling infrastructure, improving education, reforming its immigration policies and reducing its burgeoning debt. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, contends that these shortcomings directly threaten America’s ability to project power and exert influence overseas; to compete in the global marketplace; to generate the resources needed to promote the full range of U.S. interests abroad; and to set a compelling example that can influence the thinking and behavior of other nations.
On May 30, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host Haass for a discussion on the challenging issues facing the United States at home and their impact on the successful pursuit of U.S. foreign and security policies abroad. Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan will join the discussion. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy, will provide introductory remarks and moderate the conversation.
After the program, the speakers will take audience questions.
Register for the event here:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/05/30-us-foreign-policy-haass?rssid=UpcomingEvents&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopfeeds%2FUpcomingEvents+%28Brookings+Upcoming+Events%29
10. Varieties of Democracy: Global Standards, Local Knowledge, Thursday, May 30 / 4:00pm – 5:45pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Michael Coppedge, Staffan Lindberg, Massimo Tommasoli, Richard Youngs
The global diversity of democracy continues to grow, providing practical and analytic challenges to national policymakers and the international community. Varieties of Democracy, a new collaborative of fifteen social scientists, seeks to provide the first comprehensive approach to the conceptualization and measurement of democracy. Two of the principal investigators, Michael Coppedge and Staffan Lindberg, from the Varieties of Democracy Project, will demonstrate how innovative, freely available data make new kinds of democracy research and project assessment possible for the first time. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s Massimo Tommasoli will comment, and Richard Youngs will moderate.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/30/varieties-of-democracy-global-standards-local-knowledge/g46e
11. Tunisia’s Democratic Future: An Address by Rached Ghannouchi, Friday, May 31 / 10:00am – 11:30am, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Martin S. Indyk, Tamara Cofman Wittes, Rached Ghannouchi
In Tunisia, where the Arab awakening began, the move toward a more open society is experiencing growing pains. Economic pressures exacerbated by the revolution and the war next door in Libya, extremist violence, and the country’s deep divisions over drafting its new constitution all present pressing challenges to Tunisia’s democratic transition. Will the country that kicked off the Arab revolutions continue to inspire the region’s drive toward democracy? What can Tunisian approaches to resolving political conflicts and reconciling Islamism and democracy teach us about the prospects for successful transitions elsewhere in the Arab world?
On May 31, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Rached Ghannouchi, co-founder and president of Tunisia’s Nahda Party, for a special address on the future of Tunisian democracy. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy, will provide introductory remarks. Following Ghannouchi’s remarks, Saban Center Director and Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes will moderate the discussion and include audience questions.
Join the conversation on Twitter using #FPTunisia.
Register for the event here:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/05/31-tunisia-democracy-ghannouchi?rssid=UpcomingEvents&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopfeeds%2FUpcomingEvents+%28Brookings+Upcoming+Events%29
12. The Good Muslim and Religious Freedom, Friday, May 31 / 12:00pm – 2:00pm , Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs
Venue: Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs, 3307 M Street, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20007, 3rd Floor Conference Room
Speaker: Mona Siddiqui
The complexities and challenges of religious freedom in contemporary Islam find many of their roots in the development of Islamic law and theology during the Middle Ages, a fact largely unknown to the general public. In a new book, The Good Muslim: Reflections on Classical Islamic Law and Theology, Mona Siddiqui, professor of Islamic and Interreligious Studies at the University of Edinburgh and associate scholar at the Religious Freedom Project, attempts to fill this void. The book explores a wide range of topics from divorce, slavery, and perspectives on evil, to virtue and friendship within both Shari’a and medieval Islamic philosophy.
Siddiqui will discuss these themes with Charles Butterworth, renowned Islamic Studies scholar and professor emeritus of Political Philosophy at the University of Maryland. Karen Rupprecht, Religious
Freedom Project program assistant, will moderate.
Register for the event here:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/events/rsvp?id=the-good-muslim-and-religious-freedom
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Courage
Damian Gunjak, who describes himself as a “former refugee from Yugoslavia, currently exploring life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the US, tweeted yesterday in response to my “Freude!”:
tune has changed and the quislings in belgrade are singing according to notes from their american masters.
#kosovo charade
The “quislings” he is referring to are presumably the nationalist politicians in charge of the Serbian government, or possibly he meant the Serb clerics who live and pray in Kosovo. This is rich coming from someone enjoying the pursuit of happiness in the US, where of course he can thumb his nose at the US government while enjoying its protection and avoiding any real knowledge of what is going on in Kosovo or Belgrade.
I hear analogous sentiments from some Albanian Americans, who find it impossible to imagine that their long travails will not end in a single Albanian state. They dwell on the history of Serb mistreatment of Albanians and denounce efforts to achieve interethnic understanding as irrelevant and even traitorous.
These are the voices of fast-fading identity reasserting itself in anachronistic and counter-productive ways.
That is not what I hear however from many people in Kosovo, who resent the mistreatment but accept Serb presence as not only inevitable but also as desirable. Nor is it what I hear from my Serb visitors, who are more interested in their own economic situation than in holding on to Kosovo, which they know would be an expensive enterprise. For educated, cosmopolitan Kosovars and Serbs, how they treat each other is the ultimate test of whether they have achieved a serious democracy and can meet European standards for treatment of minorities.
I would like to see their voices raised in praise of what Bishop Teodosije said two days ago, but words do not suffice. Father Sava in a tweet said it well:
Words heard at the
#InterfaithRKS Conf are important encouragement but also an obligation for all. Need to be put in action.
It is encouraging to see that Serbs are visiting Pristina. It is also encouraging that the Serbian government, in accordance with a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, is preparing to pay pensions it owes to Kosovo Albanians. But we shouldn’t see these moves through rose-colored glasses. We are still far from the level of acceptance that would encourage a significant number of Serbs to return to Pristina. Nor do I expect Belgrade’s payment of pensions to go smoothly. There will be claims and counterclaims. But Serbs and Albanians are starting down the long road that leads, if they manage things civilly, to a significant measure of reconciliation and coexistence.
The two governments managing the process–one in Belgrade and one in Pristina–have impeccable nationalist credentials. Serbia’s President Nikolic and Prime Minister Dacic both tried hard to hold on to Kosovo and even recently would have liked to partition it. Kosovo’s Prime Minister Thaci was the political voice of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Kosovo President Jahjaga comes from different origins, as she is a lawyer and (post-war) police officer, but no one should doubt her commitment to the independence and sovereignty of the Kosovo state, albeit one that treats minorities correctly.
Context matters. Both these governments want to move their countries as rapidly as possible along the road to the European Union. They are on their best behavior as they try for dates to begin negotiations for Belgrade’s accession and Pristina’s Stability and Association Agreement.
Damian Gunjak, whoever he is, has opted to enjoy freedom outside what he would like us to imagine is his native country, as my own grandparents did. The political leaderships in Pristina and Belgrade have chosen a different path. They are guiding their countries into a free world in which they will have to establish good neighborly relations and treat each other with consideration and respect. I don’t fault my grandparents, who made the right decision, but I have to admire the courage of those who remain and try to set things right.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The land of dead is alive
The vast problems facing Mali and the greater Sahara region can be illustrated geographically. To provide a sense of scale, a map of Mali, superimposed over a map of the United States, stretches from Minnesota, down to Texas, west to New Mexico and east to Ohio. Have a look.
Conversely, a map of the United States superimposed on Northern Africa:
When we criticize national and international forces for not doing a better job transforming the North African region and ridding it of insecurity, it is important to keep in mind the geographic scale of what they are dealing with.
Eamonn Gearon of John Hopkins SAIS and the Middle East Policy Council began his presentation this week at the Center for American Progress with these powerful visuals. Geographic context also needs historical context. As far back as ancient Egypt, the land west of the fertile Nile river valley was referred to as the land of the dead. Egyptians saw the Sahara as insecure and unstable, and its inhabitants ungovernable.
When discussing conflicts in North Africa, everyone wants to hear about the jihadist threat or al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. But these are part of the larger security threat in the region.
Mali’s problems are political, social and economic. They are also interconnected and overlapping.
Politically, Mali’s democracy is a lightweight. Voter turnout around 30% suggests weak community engagement in politics due to jaded attitudes in the northern, more impoverished regions of the country. They see the elite population in the south as corrupt and self serving. This has been a problem in Mali for more than 30 years and is a major roadblock to fixing its democracy.
The political dynamic overlaps with the social dynamic of the country. Northern populations are mostly Arab and identify as white while most of the southern population identify as black. This north/south divided is not however a clash of civilizations. Ninety per cent of Malians considers themselves Muslim. Their Islam is heavily influenced by Sufism. The influx of foreign jihadist elements has only occurred in the past 15 years. Without the Muslim Brotherhood as an alternative to Sufism, Salafist Islam has gained a strong hold.
Economically, Mali has never been an easy place to live. Poverty, violence and failing crops all create desperation that feeds criminal and terrorist activity. Criminal gangs have the ability to pay off struggling families more effectively than the Malian government. Crime and corruption is rumored to exist in the highest rungs of the government as well.
Ransoms are the key mechanism perpetuating criminal and terrorist groups in Mali. Some millions of dollars are requested every year in kidnapping cases. Every ransom paid fuels these groups for more. Groups are forming faster, and splintering more often. As a result, they are smaller and more difficult to track down. Drone usage for surveillance is an important tool for counter terrorism, but it should be used with caution and in conjunction with other practices. International efforts in Mali have a bad reputation, but in Gearon’s opinion this comes from a dearth of development and training. The international community should be stepping up itsefforts and shaping its efforts towards long term development.
Any solutions proposed to fight Mali’s problems should come from the Malians themselves. International forces should seek to partner with willing groups within the country. Often, when the British or French attempt dialogue with the people of Mali, they go to the Tuareg population because of their familiarity. The Tuareg are fine interlocutors, but dialogue at any level within Mali must become more inclusive and diverse than it is now.
Gearon posed strong objection to the upcoming July elections in Mali. Many regional and international players are pushing to hold elections as soon as possible, hoping it will move Mali towards greater stability. But elections this soon will not be credible. Mali is facing a massive internal displacement issue, rendering a large part of the population unable to vote. Additionally, infrastructure and roads are still lacking in the northern part of the country. Travel is made more difficult in the July rainy season, when many roads will be washed out and communication is often down. Take into account the size of Mali, as illustrated above, and understand how much of the country could be excluded from the democratic process.
Gearon concluded with some thoughts on Libya’s role in the Malian crisis. The fall of Qaddafi was an accelerant, not a catalyst, to the violence in Mali. Libya faces big problems, but they are different from Mali’s. Libya is wealthy enough to pay for whatever it needs from abroad. The West should be providing training, not arms, to the Libyan security forces. Regarding the attack on the American facility and ambassador in Benghazi, Gearon believes that the tragedy is not central to the future of Libya. Continuing to play the blame game will make us miss the opportunity to ask the Libyans what they need to prevent it from happening again. The attack should not distance America from Libya, but instead should lead to more engagement on the ground and more efforts toward finding solutions to Libya’s economic and political woes.
When proposing any solution, Gearon added, whether in Libya or Mali, we must remember that these countries are alive and always evolving. There is never a point when every problem is solved and society becomes utopian. Solutions must be adaptable and continuous.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The jig is up, time to waltz
Jerry Gallucci, who is an eloquent spokesman for the views of northern Kosovo Serbs, writes:
No matter what the Kosovo Albanians say to their internationals, the local Serbs do not believe that they will be allowed to remain in possession of the land, water and border with Serbia in the north should they be forced to accept Pristina law and control.
Let’s not dissemble. No one is intending to leave the local Serbs in control of the land, water and border with Serbia in the north. Under the agreement Belgrade and Pristina have signed onto, the local Serbs would govern themselves at the municipal level in most respects. Their property rights would be respected under Kosovo law. But sovereignty would clearly be exercised by Pristina, not by the locals or by Belgrade.
This means customs duties would be collected at the border. Pristina will manage the Gazivoda reservoir and other water resources. I assume this will be true also for the mines of the north. Whoever told the northerners that they would be allowed to walk off with most of Kosovo’s water supply and a good piece of its (so far as I know worthless) mining assets?
I get, as Jerry puts it, that in the north
the great majority simply refuse to accept rule from Pristina because they see it as eventually being used against them. They don’t trust NATO and the EU to remain and protect them.
They are correct. NATO will not be in Kosovo five years from now. The troop contributing countries want out. The EU likely won’t be there either. The EU rule of law mission has been extended only through mid-June 2014, but it isn’t very good at protecting anyone anyway.
In five years though, Kosovo can hope to be lining up to get candidate status and a date to start negotiations with the EU. So I fully expect the northern Serbs to find EU leverage used on their behalf, if need be.
Those whom Jerry describes as frightened and hating need to consider their serious options. They mock Pristina’s office in the north as “Potemkin,” but it is clearly intended to begin providing services there, and Pristina has made it clear it is prepared to expand economic development efforts in the north. Those who don’t want that are entitled to stay and vote their consciences, as Serbs south of the Ibar have done in recent years. Last time I passed through Štrpce/Shtërpcë there was a big sign painted in English on a rock at the entrance to town: “Kosovo Is Serbia” it read. Those Serbs who don’t want to stay should be entitled to leave. Belgrade should be prepared to absorb those who want to live under its rule.
Jerry describes the northern Serb resistance this way:
The northern Serb resistance so far has been almost entirely peaceful. Perhaps KFOR is simply more aware of the tensions in the north as the locals feel that they have been abandoned by their government as the price for EU admission.
KFOR knows better because of experience. Its soldiers have been injured. That’s one of the many reasons Chancelor Merkel decided she would not put up with the resistance any longer. And no one should doubt that northern Kosovo Serbs prevent return of Albanians, and exercise of UN and Pristina authority there, by the threat and use of force.
The truth is Belgrade has abandoned its claim of sovereignty over northern Kosovo as the price for beginning negotiations on EU admission, which won’t actually happen until after 2020. Making the best of this deal would require that serious people in the Serb communities of northern Kosovo sit down with the Pristina authorities, including Serb officials, and discuss the details, in order to ensure a smooth and peaceful transition.
The jig is up. Time to waltz.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Odd duck
I livetweeted Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s appearance in Washington at SETA (a Turkish thinktank for political, economic social research) yesterday, but the performance merited more. Maybe my numerous Turkish readers will find it interesting, even if the Americans don’t. I rarely attend such high-level public events, as little new gets said.
But Erdogan did not disappoint. Speaking in Turkish (I was listening to the simultaneous translation), his main theme was this:
no justice means no humanity, no dignity, and no peace.
He went on to talk about the “bottom billion” living on less than $1 per day, most of whom are innocent children, as well as the suffering in Somalia and Darfur. Personally moved by starvation and circumcision done with a simple knife on several children, he underlined the injustice of racism and discrimination, referring in particular to violence against Muslims in Myanmar.
Lack of justice in one place is a threat to justice elsewhere. Palestine is not a territorial issue but a justice issue. Israeli settlements are making a two-state solution impossible. Israel should release Palestinian prisoners and end the blockade. Hamas will have to be at the negotiating table. It was elected and then denied the right to govern. Israel has apologized for its raid on the Turkish aid flotilla. Compensation is under discussion. Then Turkey will press for an end to the occupation.
The twentieth century was one of war and injustice. The twenty-first century should be one of peace and justice. Turkish policy is based on justice and humanity. This is why Turkey supported the people in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. But the UN Security Council is doing nothing. The system is blocked, and wrong. Humanity cannot be in the hands of one or two countries; the system has to be changed. Events like those of the 1990s in Bosnia and Rwanda are happening again, but the Security Council is doing nothing.
A world in which babies are slaughtered is not a religious world. This is not honorable and it makes me mad. When you witness things of this sort, you have a responsibility. Why is the media not covering the slaughter in Banias (Syria)? The babies dying are not only their parents, but also ours. You have to act. You have to stop these things. Society shares responsibility for this evil. There is a need for global conscience and justice. We have to see that the elements bringing us together are stronger than those that drive us apart. We have to help the poor and the weak. We cannot step on each other and remain connected to our ideals and faith.
Somewhere around this point, Erdogan took a diversion that I wasn’t able to capture tweeting but I’ll try to reproduce here. God’s justice, he said, is ever present but manifests itself at different times and places. He reminded the audience of the Koranic phrase
Bismillah al rahman al rahim
This is generally translated
In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate
But, Erdogan said, its real meaning is that God has two aspects. The first he shows to everyone on earth during their lifetimes. This is the same for everyone (most Gracious). The second is reserved for the faithful in the afterlife (most Compassionate). I’m no theologian, but this struck me as a millenarian concept rather similar to that of the raptured Christians or the Puritans’ “elect.” No ecumenism in this second aspect. Only true believers enter heaven.
I imagine some aide in the front row was figuratively urging him to move on at this point, which is what he did. Turkey will fulfill its obligations, Erdogan said. We want to see more countries concerned about Syria, where the regime does not control much of the territory but uses its weapons to fire on the population. Asad has fired hundreds of missiles and used sarin gas.
President Obama is trying to do the right thing, but what is needed is UN Security Council action, which would accelerate the process. Russia needs to step forward. Turkey will continue to cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
In the Q and A, Erdogan said he would go soon to Gaza and the West Bank (he did not mention Israel). He is against war, but sometimes justice requires it. The clergy should help us avoid getting to that point by reaching across borders. An EU/US trade agreement is a fine idea, but it will need to take into account Turkey’s interests, as Turkey has a customs union with the EU. Turkey will continue to press China on respecting the rights of the Uighurs.
The session ended without questions about Kurds inside Turkey, imprisonment of journalists or other human rights violations. As questions were submitted in writing, the moderator presumably tossed those.
This is an odd duck: a religious and social conservative who has instituted vigorous free market economic reforms but also holds liberal internationalist views on the world, while ignoring those views when it comes to internal politics and human rights.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Territorial claims or good neighbors
Serbian President Nikolic said today:
We are not giving Kosovo away. And [the] Bundestag should think about what kind of a decision it would make if it were about Germany.
This is a good point, whose meaning is precisely the opposite of what Nikolic intended. My guess is that many members of the Bundestag know full well that Germany has given up many territorial claims since 1945: to Alsace-Loraine (now part of France), to the Sudetenland (now part of the Czech Republic), and to a big chunk of Poland. Not to mention its pretensions to rule as an empire over Russia, France, Britain, North Africa and much of the Middle East.
Where would Germany be today if it had not given up these ambitions but instead, like Serbia, continued to maintain them in principle? It would not be the largest and most prosperous member of a large and prosperous Europe, albeit one with current economic and financial problems. It would not have been allowed to return to military prominence. It would not be a key ally of the United States or a major player in the world’s most successful military and political alliance. It likely would have been involved in several more wars and reduced to rubble many times. Or maybe it would have won one of the wars, thus enabling it to preside over an expanded Germany struggling to protect itself from hostile neighbors and domestic insurgency.
So if the Germans ask for Serbia to give up its claim to Kosovo, or at least to the north of Kosovo, it is asking no more than successive German governments have been prepared to do with claims to far more extensive and valuable territory, in order to secure peace and prosperity. Nikolic’s argument might be more compelling if it were addressed to the American Congress, which has presided over vast expansions of territory during the past 225 years or so. But it cuts precisely the opposite way when used against the Germans, who learned the hard way that territory is far less valuable than good neighborly relations.
RSS - Posts
