Tag: European Union
Bosnia: the fighting continues
American lawyers ask me from time to time to testify in immigration cases for people from the Balkans. If they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of origin, a court will allow them to stay in the US. I am generally skeptical. The Bosnian war ended in 1996. The Kosovo and Macedonia wars in 2001. Hundreds of thousands of people have returned to their homes. Discrimination and ethnic quotas are common. Interethnic violence happens but is rare. Are there really places that are still unsafe?
The answer is yes, as my mailbox revealed this week. Here’s a note from a friend:
The editor in chief at Tacno.net [an internet-based news outlet], Ms. Štefica Galić, and her first assistant Amer Bahtijar are in serious jeopardy from both Croat and Muslim militant nationalists in their town, Mostar. Those otherwise mutually hostile extremists have now virtually unified against my friends because of Tacno.net’s anti-nationalist editorial policy that promotes tolerance and cooperation between peoples and countries in the region. Seriousness of the situation is such that Štefica and Amer are in danger even when going to a restaurant for lunch, because literally no part of the town is safe for them.
The problem is that local police are unwilling to protect them even though they are notified about all the threats and everything that’s going on. Last year Štefica was physically attacked by local Croat nationalists in her hometown Ljubuški (also in Herzegovina). Fortunately, she suffered rather minor injuries on that occasion, but when she reported the incident to the local police, the officers almost laughed at her, implicitly supporting the assailants. The authorities reacted, albeit fairly reluctantly, only after the U.S. Ambassador to OSCE intervened.
Now, the threat is even bigger than last year. So, I want to ask if you possibly have any idea what could be wise for them to do in such a situation, or if you know someone…who is influential enough to help them somehow?
The short answer is “yes,” so I am doing what I can to alert people to what is going on, including in this post. But what is really going on?
My correspondent went on to write:
The main reason is that during the war [Štefica] and her late husband, Neđo Galić, were rescuing local Muslims (Bosniaks) from a Croat concentration camp in their hometown Ljubuški. Last year, Svetlana Broz, a granddaughter of the Former Yugoslavia’s President Tito, filmed a documentary about their heroic deeds, which actually served as a pretext for local Croat extremists to attack Štefica in the street (the attack took place just a couple of days after the movie was premiered at the local cinema in Ljubuški and they were openly menacing Štefica all the time). Ms. Broz’s NGO also granted Štefica an award for civil courage.
This is not about ethnicity per se. It is about a much more profound divide in the Balkans: between ethnic nationalists and anti-nationalists. The ethnic nationalists have managed to keep Mostar, an important city in southern Bosnia, divided since the early 1990s, when clashes there helped initiate a series of wars. The political economy in Mostar depends on this division, which gives Croat and Bosniak nationalists political monopolies and the opportunity to divide the pie and drain resources from their own communities.
This would be far more difficult if Bosniaks and Croats got along well enough to sit in the same institutions together. They would watch each other with care. The failure to reintegrate Mostar’s institutions has left both the Croat and Bosniak populations at the mercy of their, forgive the expression, blood-sucking ethnic nationalists.
That is why the anti-nationalists are such a threat. They don’t get a lot of votes. But they are unreliable when it comes to covering up corruption and past ethnic crimes (as well as threatened ones). The people who threaten them do so for good reason. The European Union, which spent upwards of $100 million on reintegration in Mostar, should ask for its money back. The inter-ethnic war may be finished in Mostar, but the fighting continues between the nationalists and anti-nationalists.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Inviolability is like beauty
Unwilling to pledge adherence if a referendum on the Belgrade/Pristina normalization agreement fails, the Serbian opposition and its allies in northern Kosovo are instead going to court.
This is a smart move. A referendum would have be likely to show majority support for the agreement in Serbia, where people are far more concerned about jobs and the economy than political arrangements for a relatively small number of Serbs in northern Kosovo. The popular Deputy Prime Minister Vucic and his coalition partner Prime Minister Dacic are solidly in favor of the agreement they negotiated.
I am not a lawyer, but it is not difficult to anticipate at least part of the case the opposition will make. Article 8 (Territory and Border) of the 2006 Serbian constitution reads:
The territory of the Republic of Serbia is inseparable and indivisible.
The border of the Republic of Serbia is inviolable and may be altered in a procedure applied to amend the Constitution.
Part of the preamble reads:
Considering also that the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of the territory of Serbia, that it has the status of a substantial autonomy within the sovereign state of Serbia and that from such status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija follow constitutional obligations of all state bodies to uphold and protect the state interests of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija in all internal and foreign political relations.
Let’s leave aside the fact that this constitution was only passed because Kosovo Albanian names were not counted on the voting list, thus enabling the constitutional referendum to meet the requirement that 50% of registered voters participate. That’s true but likely irrelevant seven years after the fact. Does the normalization agreement alter the “inviolable” border of the Republic of Serbia, which seems to require an amendment to the constitution?
Inviolability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The normalization agreement certainly provides for the reintegration of the judicial, police and electoral systems of northern Kosovo into those of the Pristina-based institutions, which are outside Belgrade’s authority. It also implies that Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state that will proceed on the path to the European Union independent of Serbia. Belgrade has also agreed to an EU-invented border/boundary regime that is normally practiced only at an international border.
Still, the normalization agreement does not alter the Serbian border. The Serbs in Kosovo will govern themselves at the municipal level and participate in an association of Serb municipalities. They can receive assistance from Belgrade. I can imagine a court decision that simply confirms that the border has not changed. I can also imagine a court decision that declares the agreement in violation of the constitution. And then there are all those in-between possibilities: a decision not to decide for procedural reasons, a decision that the court is not competent to rule on matters of this sort….
Any judicial process will take time. If the Serbian government does what it is now saying it will do, implementation of the agreement will come well before a court decision, fait accompli. Delaying implementation to see how things will turn out would put at risk Belgrade’s big prize: the date for EU accession talks to begin. Dacic and Vucic won’t want to do that. Most of Serbia’s citizens won’t either.
So implementation will proceed. Those who take this case to court run the risk of winning so late that it makes no difference. But if they win it will mean that Serbia’s eventual entry into the European Union will require, as many of us have suspected, a constitutional amendment. That’s hard to picture, but not long ago it was hard to picture meetings between Dacic and Thaci. Inviolability, like beauty, may not last forever.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 29-May 3
Too many good events in DC this week:
1. The Media & Iran’s Nuclear Program: An analysis of US and UK coverage, 2009-2012, Monday, April 29 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004 5th Floor Conference Room
Speakers: Jonas Siegel, Saranaz Barforoush, John Steinbruner, Susan Moeller, Reza Marashi, Walter Pincus
How does news coverage of Iran’s nuclear program affect public understanding and policy outcomes? News media traditionally play an important role in communicating about foreign policy is this the case with coverage of Irans nuclear program? How specifically are news media framing the relevant issues? To answer these questions, researchers from the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) undertook a topical analysis of English-language newspaper coverage from 2009 through 2012, a period in which there was considerable public discussion about how the United States and others could and should resolve the dispute.
Register for the event here:
(http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/rsvp?eid=27221&pid=112)
2. Iran-Azerbaijan Relations and Strategic Competition in the Caucasus, Monday, April 29 / 9:00am – 11:30am, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006 Basement Level Conference Rooms A & B
Speakers: Andrew C. Kuchins, Farhad Mammadov, Asim Mollazade, Heydar Mirza, Alex Vatanka, Sergey Markedonov and more
Despite common cultural and religious heritage, relations between Iran and Azerbaijan remain tumultuous. Issues ranging from the status Iran’s ethnic Azeri minority to the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh to relations with Israel all complicate bilateral ties between Baku and Tehran. Iran-Azerbaijan relations also shape larger geopolitical questions related to the strategic balance in the Caucasus and the role of major regional powers Turkey and Russia. With tensions over Iran’s nuclear program again in the spotlight, the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program is hosting a discussion about the current dynamics of Iran-Azerbaijan relations and their regional and international implications.
Register for the event here:
(http://csis.org/event/iran-azerbaijan-relations-and-strategic-competition-caucasus)
3. Why the United States Should Err on the Side of Too Many (Not Too Few) Nuclear Weapons, Monday, April 29 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052 Lindner Family Commons
Speakers: Matt Kroenig, Assistant Professor of Government, Georgetown University
Enthusiasm for nuclear reductions is driven by three beliefs about arsenal size widely held by experts in Washington: First, a secure, second-strike capability is sufficient for deterrence and nuclear warheads in excess of this requirement can be cut with little loss to our national security. Second, proliferation to rogue states and terrorist networks is a greater threat than nuclear war with great powers, and reductions can advance our nonproliferation objectives in Iran and elsewhere. Third, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear weapons since 1945 and, in a time of budget austerity, reductions will result in cost savings. There is just one problem: all three beliefs are incorrect. A more pragmatic assessment suggests that the United States should not engage in additional nuclear reductions and should instead make the necessary investments to maintain a robust nuclear infrastructure for decades to come.
Register for the event here:
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDYwNmFlbk41QjZlZ1pySHUxNklHZFE6MA#gid=0)
4. Political Islam and the Struggle for Democracy in Egypt, Monday, April 29 / 6:30pm – 8:00pm, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS – Bernstein-Offit Building 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Room 500
Speakers: Michele Dunne, Nathan Brown
During this panel, our participant speakers will discuss the political situation in Egypt two years after the revolution. They will consider the results achieved, met and unmet objectives, and political reforms enacted since the spring of 2010. Furthermore, they will indicate the roles of the Muslim Brotherhood as a ruling party and President Morsi. They will discuss the recent happenings and unrest in Egypt and future scenarios.
RSVP to:
menaclub.sais@gmail.com
5. The Bread Revolutions of 2011 and the Political Economies of Transition, Tuesday April 30/ 10:00am – 11:30am, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars-1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 200046th Floor Flom Auditorium
Speakers: Pete Moore, Holger Albrecht, Haleh Esfandiari
The Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the United States Institute of Peace Present The Bread Revolutions of 2011 and the Political Economies of Transition. During the 2011 uprisings, Arab protestors channeled decades of discontent with failed economic policy. However, the demise of leaders will not be enough to answer this discontent nor ensure productive development. Scholarship on the political determinates of economic development finds that the common recipe of expanding the private sector and increasing trade openness may be valuable, but alone are not sufficient for successful development. The Arab World’s economic path to 2011 included implementation in these areas, yet reform in underlying socio-economic structures and interests lagged. Addressing these conditions constitutes one of the most serious challenges facing Arab economies and politics.
This event will be the fourth in a series of five papers and presentations on “Reshaping the Strategic Culture of the Middle East.
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the…
6. The Imperatives of the Inter-Religious Dialogue in Nigeria, Tuesday April 30/ 2:00pm-3:30pm, Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: H.E. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Sa’Adu Abubakar, John Onaiyekan
This dialogue seeks to ascertain the true nature and scope of religious tensions in Nigeria, as well as elaborate possible ways forward.
The Wilson Center’s Africa Program continues to monitor Nigeria’s progress and welcomes the opportunity to hear from a panel of such respected government and religious leaders.
Speakers:
H.E. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Governor of the Rivers State, Nigeria
Sa’adu Abubakar, Sultan of Sokoto and President of the Society for the Victory of Islam
John Onaiyekan, Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Abuja
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the…
7. Ten Years After Saddam, Tuesday April 30/ 2:00pm-3:00pm, Center for International Media Assistance
Venue: National Endowment for Democracy, 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Abir Awad, Tim Eaton, Theo Dolan, Shameem Rassam
It is a decade since the U.S.-led coalition troops entered Iraq in March 2003. “The years that have followed have been turbulent for an Iraq riven by divisions and sectarian violence, as elites have battled one another for control,” according to a policy briefing by BBC Media Action, The media of Iraq ten years on: The problems, the progress, the prospects. “It remains a country that is anything but stable and united.” The report, which the panelists will present and discuss, examines one element of Iraq’s journey over the last ten years: that of its media reform. The paper makes the point that while the Iraqi media landscape of 2013 may not be the free, pluralistic, and professional fourth estate that many in the West had envisioned in 2003, it nonetheless has real strengths. Those strengths–as well as weaknesses– reflect the complexity and reality of modern Iraq.
Website: http://cima.ned.org/events/upcoming-e…
8. Future of US Ground Forces Report Roll-out Event, Wednesday May 1 / 9:00am-10:30am, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
Speakers: David J. Berteau, Nathan Freier, Barry Pavel, James Dubik, Frank Hoffman
The Center for Strategic and International Studies presents the roll-out event for the report
Beyond the Last War: Balancing Ground Forces and Future Challenges Risk in USCENTCOM and USPACOM with introductory remarks by
David J. Berteau
CSIS Senior Vice President and Director, International Security Program
followed by a discussion with
Nathan Freier
Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies
and
Barry Pavel
Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, The Atlantic Council
and
Lieutenant General James Dubik
U.S. Army (Ret.), Senior Fellow, Institute for the Study of War
and
Frank Hoffman
Senior Research Fellow, Institute for National Strategic Studies,
National Defense University
9. Drones and the Rule of Law and War, Wednesday May 1 / 10:00 am-11:15 am, Bipartisan Policy Center
Venue: Bipartisan policy Center, 1225 I Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: John Bellinger, Dafna Linzer, Hina Shamsi, Philip Zelikow
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Homeland Security Project will host a discussion convening legal and policy experts on the rule of law and war to discuss the use of drones and targeted killings. Join us as panelists evaluate issues like the current frameworks regarding the use of drones, the ramifications of a ‘drone court,’ the targeting of U.S. citizens abroad, and whether Congress should examine what these policies mean for the country.
Thomas Kean
Former Governor of New Jersey
Co-chair, 9/11 Commission
Co-chair, BPC Homeland Security Project
John Bellinger
Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP
Former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State
Former Legal Adviser, National Security Council
Dafna Linzer
Managing Editor, MSNBC.com
Follow @DafnaLinzer
Hina Shamsi
Director, ACLU’s National Security Project
Follow @HinaShamsi
Philip Zelikow
Associate Dean, University of Virginia’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Former Counselor, U.S. Department of State
John Farmer
Dean, Rutgers School of Law
For viewing purposes, we recommend the latest version of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Safari or Internet Explorer.
Having trouble viewing the webcast player below? Please click here.
If you are experiencing issues, please visit the webcast troubleshooter page here. Conduct a firewall test (see the side menu on the troubleshooter page) if the test video does not play.
Homeland Security Project
Website: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/20…
10. Afghanistan after 2014: Regional Impact, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Wednesday May 1/ 2pm-5pm, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Noah Coburn, Marlène Laruelle, Simbal Khan
Spotlight on Central Eurasia Series //
This event explores local and regional perspectives on the future of Afghanistan against the backdrop of the planned NATO withdrawal of military forces from the region. The first session focuses on local politics and governance in Afghanistan, and the second session investigates the ways in which Afghanistan’s neighbors have been discussing and planning for the upcoming changes.
This event is free and open to the public but requires event registration. Please RSVP.
Cosponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute and Asia Program, and the Central Asia Program, George Washington University.
Speakers:
Noah Coburn, Professor, Bennington College, and author, ‘Bazaar Politics: Pottery and Power in an Afghan Market Town’ (2011)
Marlène Laruelle, Research Professor and Director, Central Asia Program, IERES, George Washington University
Simbal Khan, Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia, Institute for Strategic Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/afg…
11. The Strategic Environment in Southern Asia, Wednesday, May 1 / 3:30pm – 5:00pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Frederic Grare, C. Raja Mohan, C. Uday Bhaskar
The strategic environment in Southern Asia is rapidly changing. Over the next decade, the United States, China, and India will form a critical strategic triangle while the individual relationships of these three nations with ASEAN, Iran, and Pakistan will have significant regional and global implications. Although globalization will lead to more robust engagement among the major actors, this will inevitably result in dissonances that pose complex challenges in the southern Asian security domain. Please join Uday Bhaskar and C. Raja Mohan as they discuss the critical role of the United States and China in dealing with the delicate strategic framework in South Asia. Carnegie’s Frederic Grare will moderate.
Website: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?…
12. The Nuclear Security Summit in 2014: Challenges and Opportunities, Thursday, May 2 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Togzhan Kassenova, Piet De Klerk
Following the Nuclear Security Summits in Washington in 2010 and Seoul in 2012, the Netherlands will host the next summit in The Hague on March 24 and 25, 2014. The summit process, begun in 2010, is a response to growing awareness of the risk that weapons-usable fissile material might be acquired by non-state actors and terrorist groups. It seeks to further the goal of securing all nuclear material worldwide through engagement with key heads of state and international organizations. Please join Ambassador Piet de Klerk for a discussion of the continued importance of nuclear security, how the Summit in The Hague will build on the meetings in Washington and Seoul, challenges for the future, the expectations for 2014 and the Dutch role in this process. Togzhan Kassenova will moderate.
Website: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?…
13. The Road to Damascus: U.S.-Turkish Cooperation Towards a Post-Assad Syria, Bipartisan Policy Center, Thursday, May 2 / 10:30am – 12:00pm
Venue: Bipartisan Policy Center, 1225 I Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Mort Abramowitz, Eric S. Edelman, Alan Makovsky
Ridding Syria of President Bashar al-Assad has been the goal of the United States for almost two years. Should this objective be achieved, however, an enormous challenge will still remain: stabilizing and rebuilding Syria in a way that advances U.S. strategic goals and values. However, this will require the cooperation of Turkey—a U.S. ally with keen interests in Syria. Ankara’s interests, however, do not perfectly match Washington’s, posing the challenge for policymakers of finding the right tools to align more closely the two countries’ visions of Syria’s future.
Join BPC as it announces the creation of its Turkey Task Force, co-chaired by former Ambassadors to Turkey Morton Abramowitz and Eric Edelman, and releases a paper on the opportunities and obstacles to U.S.-Turkish cooperation towards a post-Assad Syria.
Read the press release here.
Mort Abramowitz
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
Alan Makovsky
Senior Professional Staff Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Paula Dobriansky
Former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
Press Release
Foreign Policy Project
Website: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/20…
14. Africa and The Global Arms Trade Treaty, Thursday, May 2 / 12:00pm – 2:00pm, Institute for Policy Studies,
Venue: Institute for Policy Studies, 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036 Conference Room
Speakers: Rachel Stohl, Adotei Akwei
Join us for a remarkable panel discussion on the impact and future of the small arms trade in Africa.
Can an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) help? How can world leaders and national governments both within and without Africa best help leverage the ATT to help deal with existing small arms violence and prevent violence in the future?
Join IPS’ Foreign Policy In Focus for a panel discussion examining the ATT and its implications for Africa with a specific focus on what the ATT is and what it is not, as well as what is next to help the treaty come in to force. Key areas of concern, such as conflict, commission of human rights abuses, the impact of the unauthorized/illicit arms sales on development and security in Africa will also be addressed.
Panelists:
Rachel Stohl, Senior Associate with Managing Across Boundaries initiative, Stimson Center and
Adotei Akwei, Managing Director for Government Relations, Amnesty International
Co-sponsors: Travis Roberts – Founder of Fight Back/Rebuilt campaign, Carl LeVan – IPS Associate Fellow and professor in the School of International Studies at American University, Estelle Bougna Fomeju – Senior at American University and Sciences Po Paris, Intern for IPS’ Foreign Policy in Focus.
Website: http://www.ips-dc.org/events/africa_a…
15. Turkey’s Peace Process, Thursday, May 2 / 3:00pm – 4:30pm, SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Venue: SETA Foundation at Washington, DC1025 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Suite 1106, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Erol Cebeci, Kadir Ustun
Resolution of Turkey’s Kurdish question has been the subject of much debate. Today, there is more hope about the prospects of success than ever before with the ongoing peace talks with Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This latest attempt comes after previous initiatives such as the so-called “Democratic Opening” of 2009 and the following secret talks dubbed the “Oslo Process.” In the wake of heightened stakes in the Middle East, a possible end to PKK violence and resolution of the Kurdish question through democratic means could have dramatic implications for regional security and Turkey’s democratization. What are the possibilities and limits of finally resolving the Kurdish question?
Join us for a discussion with Henri Barkey, professor of international relations at Lehigh University, and Erol Cebeci, executive director of the SETA Foundation at Washington, DC, moderated by Kadir Ustun, research director at the SETA Foundation.
Website: http://setadc.org/events/50-upcoming-…
16. Israel’s Periphery Doctrine: Then and Now, Thursday, May 2 / 3:30pm – 4:30pm, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Venue: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2121 K Street, NWSuite 801
Speakers: Yossi Alpher
During its first three decades, Israel employed a grand strategy whereby it leapfrogged over the ring of hostile Arab neighboring states and forged partnerships with non-Arab and non-Muslim countries and minorities in the region. Most well known are Israel’s alliances with Iran and Turkey and its aid to the Iraqi Kurds. Beginning in the late 1970s, the peace process and the collapse of friendly periphery regimes rendered the doctrine of secondary importance. Now, with Islamists and even Salafists threatening to surround Israel, is a new periphery strategy viable?
Yossi Alpher
Co-editor, The Bitterlemons Guide to the Arab Peace Initiative
17. The Way of the Knife, Friday, May 3 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Center for American Progress
Venue: Center for American Progress, 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Mark Mazzetti, Ken Gude
In his most recent book, Mark Mazzetti argues that the most momentous change in American warfare over the past decade has taken place away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq in the corners of the world where large armies can’t go. The Way of the Knife is the untold story of that shadow war—a campaign that has blurred the lines between soldiers and spies and lowered the bar for waging war across the globe. The United States has pursued its enemies with armed drones and special operations troops, trained local assets to set up clandestine spying networks, and relied on mercurial dictators, untrustworthy foreign intelligence services, and proxy armies.
Please join us for a discussion with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Mark Mazzetti on his provocative new book.
Copies of The Way of the Knife will be available for purchase.
Featured author:
Mark Mazzetti, author, The Way of the Knife; correspondent, The New York Times
Moderated by:
Ken Gude, Chief of Staff, Vice President, Center for American Progress
A light lunch will be served at 11:30 a.m.
Website: http://www.americanprogress.org/event…
18. Post-2014 Afghanistan: Pakistan’s Concerns, Anxieties and Expectations: A Conversation with Ambassador Sherry Rehman, Friday, May 3 / 5:30pm – 7:00pm, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Rome Auditorium
Speakers: Sherry Rehman
Pakistani Ambassador to the US will speak about post 2014 Afghanistan. Question and answer session to follow Ambassador’s remarks.
19. The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat, Friday, May 3 / 7:00pm – 8:00pm, Politics and Prose
Venue: Politics and Prose, 5015 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008
Speakers: Vali Nasr
As senior advisor to Richard Holbrooke from 2009 to 2011, Nasr, dean of SAIS and author of The Shia Revival, witnessed both how the Obama administration made its foreign policy and how these decisions played out abroad. His book finds that Obama failed to chart a new course in the Middle East, and warns that the next Arab Spring may be an angry uprising against America.
Website: http://www.politics-prose.com/event/b…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The world turned upside down
Jim Hooper, who is a treasure trove of Balkan experience, wrote to interested friends yesterday (and kindly gave me permission to publish):
It is interesting to watch the battle over the Brussels (i.e. Belgrade/Pristina) agreement. No one in Serbia has ever stood up to the northern Kosovo Serbs this way before. Tadic started, but timidly, during the previous technical talks and after the July 2011 attempt by the Kosovars to seize the northern border posts, but he flinched. The heavy lifting was done by KFOR–and they are used to getting their own way.
The northerners portray themselves as the “conscience of the Nation” on the Kosovo issue and have ready-made allies among the Democratic Party of Serbia (Kostunica’s DSS) and Seselj’s Radicals. They also assume they can tap into the deep emotions of the Serbian people on Kosovo, tug on the heartstrings, and thus shape the agenda. They believe they will have no difficulty, should they wish to continue on their current path, in creating an emotional atmosphere in Belgrade in which violence is possible and indeed likely. They will have sympathizers in the Progressive (SNS) and Socialist (SPS) parties as well as in the security services and military.
The situation bears a modest similarity to what happened in France when DeGaulle returned to power and, against everyone’s expectations, decided to give Algeria its independence. That violent period in France is largely forgotten now, only a distant memory because things all worked out well in the end.
It is hard to make a prediction on whether there will be a referendum in Serbia on the agreement. Vucic is standing firm on a 15-day campaign and the government defining the question:
Do you support the Brussels agreement?
or words to that effect. Whereas the anti-agreement forces want something rather different
Do you agree to allow the regime to betray the birthright of every Serb to keep Kosovo forever as our eternal homeland and resist the rule of the vicious terrorists who seized power in Pristina and duped the international community into supporting their war to steal our beloved homeland?
or words to that effect.
Vucic is insisting that for any referendum to take place, opponents of the deal would have to agree in advance to abide by the outcome, which obviously would be anathema to the northern Kosovo Serbs, Kostunica and the Radicals.
The parliamentary debate on Friday went well for the government. The vote was overwhelming in support of the agreement. Neither the Progressives nor Socialists has split on the agreement. The Democratic Party and most of the smaller parties joined them to vote in favor. Vucic, Dacic and Nikolic have all taken firm supportive positions in public on the deal moving forward. So far, things appear under control in Belgrade.
So far. A referendum won by the government that did not lead to significant violence would be another watershed for the Serbs. It would enable them to move forward on Kosovo and EU accession without constantly looking over their shoulders prepared to flinch whenever a northern Kosovo Serb mayor began clearing his throat. Such an outcome would delegitimize the “Kosovo forever” crowd in Serbia and leave them as outliers rather than major players with a future.
A referendum won by opponents of the agreement would obviously have different repercussions. In the Serbian context, this is a titanic struggle, though not much noticed outside Serbia. It may turn out that there is no referendum, but that the debate and political battle over whether there will be a referendum will become the proxy for the referendum itself. The stakes in all this are pretty high in Serbia, and of some importance for Kosovo and Bosnia, the region in general, the EU and the US.
I continue to be amazed that it is the Progressives who are leading this fight and standing up to the anti-agreement extremist forces. One has to get used to the world turned upside down.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The referendum gambit
Serbian President Nikolic and his “progressive” party compatriot Deputy Prime Minister Vucic have been suggesting that a referendum might be called on the first Pristina/Belgrade “normalization” agreement. It would be held in northern Kosovo as well as Serbia proper only on condition that everyone, including northern Kosovo Serbs, promise to comply with whatever the result will be. It is not clear to me whether the Serbs living south of the Ibar in Kosovo would be able to vote.
The European Union and the United States do not want this to happen. The Serbian (and Kosovo) parliaments have already voted to approve the agreement. Adding another step to the process would not be welcome in Brussels and Washington, which want to pocket success and move on to implementation.
A referendum would certainly be a gamble. If the agreement were disapproved, the consequences for Serbia would be serious: an indefinite delay in getting a date to start negotiations on EU accession, including a delay in the financing that comes with the date decision. Disapproval would essentially lock Serbia into pursuing partition, making Belgrade non grata with the EU and the US.
If, however, the agreement were approved, that would presumably end resistance to implementation. It might even be the end of Serbia’s quixotic claim to sovereignty over Kosovo, since the agreement is clear about Kosovo’s territorial integrity and implies its sovereignty.
Vucic is betting that a referendum would approve the agreement and the northerners will therefore back off. He has threatened to resign if the agreement is not approved. Despite terrible socioeconomic conditions, he figures that most of Serbia is pleased with this government and in particular with him, as the leader of a popular anti-corruption campaign. Vucic has given the northerners until Tuesday to accept the agreement, or face a referendum 15 days later. That doesn’t sound practical to me, but maybe the election machinery in Serbia is better oiled than I imagine.
Polling suggests 50-60% of Serbia supports the agreement, but those who oppose it are much more committed than those who are favorable and far more likely to go to the polls. A simple up or down referendum to approve the agreement could lose. A referendum on disapproving it might have a better chance (of failure), in particular if a “double majority” is required.
This was the requirement for Serbia’s 2006 constitutional referendum: 50% had to approve, and 50% of registered voters had to vote. There is no way the second requirement can be met if the Kosovo Albanian voters on the register are counted. They were not for the 2006 referendum, but the constitution was adopted anyway. I’ll be glad to hear from someone who knows whether the “double majority” requirement is permanent or only used for the constitutional referendum.
If the northerners call Vucic’s bluff, how the referendum question is formulated and the requirements for it to pass are going to be decisive. But I wouldn’t yet bet on a referendum being called.
PS: Milan Marinkovic provided some of the material in this post, but the views here are not necessarily his. They are mine.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Keep going in the right direction
Here is my full testimony this afternoon to the Subcommitee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The prepared oral version (I was limited to five minutes) is below:
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the pathway to peace for Kosovo and Serbia, which has been a long and difficult one. With your permission, I’ll summarize and submit my full testimony for the record.
I’d like to make five points:
- This is a good agreement. If fully implemented, it would go a long way to establishing democratically validated institutions as well as clear legal and police authority on the whole territory of Kosovo while allowing ample self-governance for Serbs in northern Kosovo on many other issues.
- Implementation will be a challenge, one that requires Pristina to make integration attractive and Belgrade to end the financing that makes resistance in northern Kosovo possible. Belgrade and Pristina will need to cooperate to end the smuggling of tax-free goods that has enriched organized crime and spoilers, both Serb and Albanian.
- The agreement should end any discussion of exchange of territory between Kosovo and Serbia, which is a bad idea that risks destabilizing Bosnia, Macedonia and even Serbia proper. We should work to make northern Kosovo a model of win/win reintegration for the rest of the Balkans.
- Belgrade and Pristina have taken an important step towards normalizing relations, but they will need to do more, including eventual recognition and exchange of ambassadors. If that does not happen, neither will be able to get into the EU and both may try to arm themselves for a possible new confrontation. In accordance with this agreement, each will apply for EU membership as an independent and sovereign state.
- We owe props to the EU and in particular Catherine Ashton, not only for the mediation work she did but also for the vital incentives the EU provided. The US government shares supporting actor credit with leading Lady Ashton, which is as it should be.
Mr. Chairman, I am relieved that an agreement has been reached, but still concerned about the future. The Belgrade/Pristina dialogue is a classic case of elite pact-making without a broader peacebuilding process. The underlying drivers of conflict have not been addressed. Many Serbs and Kosovo Albanians still think badly of each other and rank themselves as victims. There has been little mutual acknowledgement of harm. Few Albanians and Serbs have renewed personal ties. It is becoming increasingly difficult to do so as many younger people lack a common language other than English. It is almost 14 years since the end of the NATO/Yugoslavia war. To be self-sustaining, this peace process is going to need to go deeper and involve many more citizens on both sides.
The road is long, Mr. Chairman, but we are near its end and we need to keep going in the right direction.
RSS - Posts
