Tag: European Union
It’s not only about Montenegro
Colleague Mike Haltzel has a lot to say about Montenegro:
Hard for me to disagree with any of this, but I might have put more emphasis on Russia’s and Serbia’s efforts to undermine Montenegro’s independence. It has been their troublemaking, including through the Serbian Orthodox Church, that has made it difficult for a pro-EU opposition to emerge in Montenegro. President Djukanovic has had a virtual monopoly on liberal democratic ideals because the main serious political alternative has been Serb ethnic nationalist.
Now Montenegro is in a kind of ethnic security dilemma: anything Montenegrins do to preserve their identity is perceived as attacking Serbian identity and the Serbian state; and anything Serbs in Montenegro do to preserve their identity is perceived as an attack on Montenegrin identity and the Montenegrin state. Perhaps the biggest losers in this have been minorities, whom the Serbs see as devotees of President Djukanovic because they have consistently participated in governing coalitions with his political party. With no apparent way of winning them over because Serb identity excludes them, self-identified Serbs in Montenegro are hoping to intimidate and chase out Bosniaks, other Muslims, and Albanians while enfranchising as many ex-patriot Serbs as possible.
Russia and Serbia are strong supporters of Serb ambitions in Montenegro, not least because the former aim to undermine NATO and the latter to pursue the latest Serb fantasy, the “Serbian Home.” That’s the updated moniker for Greater Serbia, a single state that incorporates parts of neighboring states that Serbs inhabit (i.e. part of not only Montenegro but also Kosovo, Croatia, and Bosnia). It isn’t going to happen, but Serbia is aiming at least to re-impose its hegemony on its neighbors, even if that means destabilizing them, slowing their progress towards the EU, or undermining their credentials as NATO allies.
I’ve never quite understood a country that wants unstable neighbors, but in a zero-sum world it would make sense. Whatever I gain will come at my neighbors’ expense. The world since the financial crisis of 2007/8 has been close to zero sum, especially in Europe. Unwelcome migration, Brexit, the Greek financial crisis (and the threat of other financial crises), slow economic growth, and nationalist populism have undermined the attraction of the EU and provided Moscow and Belgrade with opportunities to project their more autocratic alternatives. The availibility of Chinese money has compounded the incentives to turn East rather than West, though Montenegro’s own billion-dollar loan is already going south. It should be a warning to others.
The US has already begun its post-pandemic economic expansion. Europe has not. Let’s hope it comes sooner rather than later, not only for Montenegro’s sake.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ending the Kosovo conundrum
The Conflict Managment program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies sponsors a trip every January to a conflict area, after a semester of related study and briefings in DC. This year we did the trip virtually (via Zoom) to Pristina and Belgrade. You are cordially invited to attend our presentation of research results and recommendations for the future, 4:30 pm May 18, register here:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The one-sided war of dreadful non-papers continues, mine next!
Koha Ditore has published a non-paper on the EU-sponsored dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. The origins of the paper have not been verified, though it is widely referred to as French and German. They deny it originates with official Paris and Berlin.
I’m not worried about the origins of the paper. It clearly reflects ideas discussed within the EU. I comment below on its dreadful contents.
While asserting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of both Kosovo and Serbia, in practice this proposal requires that Pristina surrender practical application of sovereignty over economic development, health, urban and rural planning in Serbian communities both north and south of the Ibar River as well as sovereignty over dozens of Serbian Orthodox Church sites and institutions, whose protective zones would be extended in some undefined fashion. In the north, this proposal includes an “autonomous” district that would in addition acquire legislative authority over finance, property, infrastructure, culture, social welfare, the judiciary and police, housing, and European cooperation, with only a vague wave of the hand in the direction of Kosovo’s constitution.
In return, Pristina gets practically nothing: no bilateral recognition by Serbia and no UN membership, only vague promises of treatment as a sovereign state, including exchange of ill-defined permanent diplomatic missions. President Vucic was right when he said this offers more than the Ahtisaari Plan. It offers a great deal more to Serbia and requires much less of Belgrade. It would even roll back specific provisions of the 2013 Brussels Agreement that extended Pristina’s judicial and police authority to northern Kosovo.
All you need to do to understand the profound unfairness of this proposal is to ask whether Belgrade would be prepared to make it reciprocal, empowering the Albanian-majority communities of southern Serbia in the way proposed here for the Serb-majority municipalities of Kosovo. “No” is the answer. Nor would Serbia be prepared to offer an undefined extension of protected areas around mosques inside Serbia. Reciprocity is one of the basic rules of sovereign states. This proposal would leave the Kosovo state significantly less sovereign than it is today while asking Belgrade to do little more than continue to maintain a representative in Pristina.
The non-paper war is not doing the cause of peace and stability in the Western Balkans much good. The two salvos so far have come from one side, the first in favor of moving borders to accommodate ethnic differences and the second in favor of keeping borders where they are but not respecting the Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. So I think I’ll prepare my own non-paper. It won’t move borders and will be consistent with official US policy of respect for the sovereignty and terrritorial integrity of all the states of the Balkans, but it will add some practical means of achieving what most in Europe, the US, and the Western Balkans says they want: prosperous and democratic states worthy of EU membership. Look for it in the next few days on peacefare.net!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Montenegro is under attack and needs American help
The last time Montenegro appeared in the US press President Donald Trump was shoving its Prime Minister out of his way during the Summit at which the former Yugoslav republic joined NATO in 2017. Now Montenegro’s government, which came to power last September, is shoving aside NATO in favor of improved relations with Serbia and Russia.
Until last fall, Montenegro had been governed for most of the last 30 years by Milo Djukanovic, either as President or Prime Minister. Still in the presidency, he has been a determined advocate of Montenegro’s independence, achieved in 2006, and its affiliation with the US and Europe. Montenegro has become a front-runner in the Western Balkan regatta for European Union membership.
Djukanovic’s multiethnic political coalition lost the parliamentary election last August by one seat to a coalition whose core support comes from people who resisted Montenegrin independence from Serbia and identify not as Montenegrin but as Serb. This occurred after months of raucous street demonstrations supported by the Serbian Orthodox Church, Serbia, and Russia, which conducted an intense disinformation campaign on conventional and social media.
The sponsors are getting their payback.
An effort to regularize the status of the Serbian Orthodox Church and its property in Montenegro has been dropped. Security officials have been replaced with people close to Russia. The conviction of two politicians involved in the Russian-backed plot to assassinate Djukanovic in 2016 has been overturned. Even the rector of the main university has been purged in exchange for a Russophile.
Belgrade and Moscow are gloating. Serbian President Vucic hopes to re-attach Montenegro to Serbia as part of a broader ambition to create what he calls a “SerbianWorld” that would include parts of Kosovo and Bosnia. His Defense Minister, who denies the genocide at Srebrenica, advocates a greater Serbian political space, the cause for which the genocide was committed. The Russians are using the friendlier officials in Montenegro’s defense establishment to gain access to confidential NATO information. Violence and vandalism are plaguing minority communities that have long supported Djukanovic.
President Djukanovic himself is staying calm, biding his time for a reversal of the electoral defeat. While his coalition lost a municipal election in his hometown of Niksic on March 14, his party did well and signaled that he is still a force to be reckoned with. His opponents are pouring in money and Russian-generated disinformation in their effort to weaken Djukanovic further, in preparation for the next presidential election in 2023.
The United States and the European Union have so far refrained from expressing strong concern, despite the well-known Serbian and Russian interference during the campaign. Election day was reasonably free and fair and the subsequent transition was constitutional and mostly peaceful. Djukanovic’s coalition had been in power for a long time and had worn out its credibility with some people in both Washington and Brussels by accruing repeated and persistent corruption and organized crime allegations. It looked initially like the kind of alternation in power that is normal and desirable in a real democracy.
An election dominated by Serbian and Russian disinformation does not, however, betoken democratic alternation. Montenegro’s problem is that it never generated a pro-Western opposition capable of alternating with Djukanovic’s coalition. The current government has pledged not to reverse the Western thrust of the country’s foreign policy, but in practice it is doing just that. NATO has been concerned enough to send a security team to ensure that classified information does not go astray. The deputy prime minister has admitted to breaches of NATO classified information by a newly appointed security official. The European Union has objected to several legislative initiatives, including closing the special prosecution office charged with investigating the 2016 assassination plot.
Washington has been silent. It should not stay that way. President Biden, decorated by the Montenegro in 2018, knows the country well and supported its NATO aspirations when he was Vice President. So too did prominent Republicans like Secretary of State Pompeo and Senator Lindsay Graham. The U.S. Administration and Congress should both ring a loud alarm warning that the current Montenegrin government will not be allowed to undermine the Alliance from inside.
Montenegro has been a notable, decades-long success story. It stayed out of the Balkan wars of the 1990s, liberated itself from Slobodan Milosevic’s autocracy, declared independence peacefully, converted most of its economy to a market system, opened negotiations on all the required “chapters” for accession to the EU, and joined NATO, where it contributes in particular to cybersecurity. That long record of success is now at risk. If President Biden wants to encourage other countries to travel this difficult path, Washington should lend a helping hand.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A Bronx cheer for a dumb idea
COVID-19 isn’t the only epidemic in the Balkans. There is an even more deadly one: proposals to move borders. There is no vaccine to prevent their spread. Below is a good pictorial summary, courtesy of Rada Trajkovic, who tweets:
Balkans corrupt, criminalised, illiberal leaders have been so emboldened by their unfettered domestic power grabs that they now believe they can play a (bloody) game with our borders. Perfect distraction from their poor domestic records & a way to destabilise the EU for decades.
Greater Albania, Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia: the wet dream of Franjo Tudjman, Slobodan Milosevic, Hasan Pristina. Everyone wins!
But of course there are losers, both on this map and beyond. The Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims to the American press, no matter how unreligious) get an indefensible, rump state surrounded by sworn enemies and ripe for radicalization. The Kosovo Albanians lose their state and become the northeastern province of Albania. The major Serb Orthodox sites south of the Ibar River in Kosovo would no longer be sustainable. Macedonia loses perhaps 40% of its territory. Several hundred thousand people (maybe half a million or more?) on the “wrong” side of ethnically defined new borders would have to relocate or run the risks associated with minorities in ethnically defined states.
Beyond this map the repurcussions would also be dramatic: once the principle of not changing borders to accommodate ethnic differences is breached, the Russian position on South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, and Crimea and Donbas in Ukraine would be vastly strengthened. Russian challenges to the terriorial integrity of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would not be far behind.
All of this is well understood in the United States and Europe. Few in Washington, London, or Brussels are interested in opening Pandora’s Box. But the West is distracted. The US is confronting a long list of foreign policy challenges. The EU is preoccupied with COVID-19, economic recession, and the aftermath of Brexit. Ditto the UK. Chancellor Merkel, the EU’s trump card when it comes to pursuing liberal democracy in the Balkans and many other matters, is getting ready to retire without a worthy heir apparent.
The current preference in the West is not to move borders but to make them less cumbersome. This proposition goes under the heading of “mini-Schengen,” an effort on the regional level to mirror the EU’s borderless Schengen area. Removing visas, tariffs and non-tariff barriers while shortening the waiting time for trucks at the all too frequent border stations in the Balkans could improve efficiency and hasten the day that the Balkans can join the “maxi” Schengen area.
That is a much easier and more promising prospect than moving half a million people, many of them against their will. Violence is the only force that could achieve what the map above projects. American and European troops would either need to suppress murder and mayhem in Kosovo, Bosnia, and North Macedonia or evacuate, something that would no doubt be celebrated in Moscow. Nor would violence stop there: the Serbs of Montenegro would seek union with Serbia while the Bosniaks of Serbia’s Sandjak seek union with rump Bosnia, pushing aside people of other ethnicities in the effort. Perhaps the Russians could use renewed Balkan violence as a pretext for deploying their own troops, as they did recently to end the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
In short: the map above is a proposal for death and destruction, instability, NATO and European embarrassment, and still another Russian win, in addition to ensuring the ethnic nationalist political stranglehold in the Balkans for another generation. Those who propose such an outrage merit oppropbrium from real democracies. I hope the US and EU can spare a few moments from their many other priorities to give this distraction the diplomatic equivalent of the Bronx cheer it deserves:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | April 5 – 9
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream
1. The Cold War in the Middle East or the Middle East in the Cold War? | April 5, 2021 | 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
Speakers
Lorenz Lüthi: Associate Professor, McGill University
Eliza Gheorghe (moderator): Scholar, Romanian Cultural Institute
Guy Laron: Senior Lecturer, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Alexander Shelby: Professor, Indian River College
In this discussion with Guy Laron, Alexander Shelby and Eliza Gheorghe, Professor Lüthi will discuss the Middle East angle of his book, with a focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Long one of the most controversial and significant issues of the 20th century, Professor Lüthi removes the “great power” lense and seeks to provide the perspective of those parties directly involved, Israel and the Arab states.
2. Preventing nuclear proliferation and reassuring America’s allies | April 7, 2021 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Speakers
Sec. Chuck Hagel: Former US Secretary of Defense
Christopher Ford: Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation
Elaine Bunn: Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy
Missy Ryan (moderator): Reporter, Washington Post
A task force, co-chaired by Chuck Hagel, Malcolm Rifkind, and Kevin Rudd, with Ivo Daalder, argues that fraying American alliances and a rapidly changing security environment have shaken America’s nuclear security guarantees and threaten the 50-year-old nuclear nonproliferation regime. Please join Sec. Chuck Hagel, former US Secretary of Defense; Dr. Christopher Ford, former assistant secretary of state for international security and non-proliferation; and Ms. Elaine Bunn, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, for a discussion moderated by Washington Post national security reporter Ms. Missy Ryan on preventing nuclear proliferation, strengthening America’s nuclear security guarantees, and a recent Chicago Council of Global Affairs report on these issues.
3. Mitigating the Impact of Sanctions on Humanitarian Action | April 7, 2021 | 9:30 AM – 10:15 AM ET | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Speakers
Representative Andy Levin: Vice Chair, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation
Jacob Kurtzer: Director and Senior Fellow, Humanitarian Agenda
J. Stephen Morrison: Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center
To discuss the impact of sanctions on humanitarian assistance, the CSIS Humanitarian Agenda welcomes Congressman Andy Levin (D-MI-9), Vice Chair, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation, and author of the “Enhancing North Korea Humanitarian Assistance Act”. This armchair discussion, hosted by Jacob Kurtzer, Director and Senior Fellow of the Humanitarian Agenda, will explore some of the consequences of sanctions on civilian populations and policy solutions that could mitigate their humanitarian impact.
4. China’s sanctions on Europe | April 8, 2021 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM ET | Brookings Institution | Register Here
Speakers
Reinhard Bütikofer: Member of the European Parliament
Miriam Lexmann: Member of the European Parliament
Dovilé Sakaliene: Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Thomas Wright (moderator): Director, Center on the United States and Europe
The Chinese government recently imposed sanctions on EU and U.K. parliamentarians, think tanks, academics, and EU committees. Beijing said its sanctions were a response to European sanctions on officials connected to human rights violations in Xinjiang. China’s sanctions have been condemned by EU and U.K. officials as an attack on democracy and are likely to complicate the ratification of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). On April 8, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings will host parliamentarians targeted and sanctioned by China for a panel discussion on China’s actions, what they mean for future EU and U.K. relations with China, and the role of human rights in foreign policy.
5. “Taking Stock of the Arab Uprisings” | April 8, 2021 | 1:30 PM – 2:45 PM ET | Belfer Center | Register Here
Speakers
Michael Hanna: Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation
Tarek Masoud (moderator): Faculty Director, Middle East Institute
As the initial promise of the Arab uprisings has collapsed and curdled, many have revisited nagging questions posed by political dysfunction in the Arab world. Special guest Michael Hanna, Senior Fellow of The Century Foundation joins MEI to discuss the question of whether or not the Arab uprisings were a failure and what this all means for the new Biden Administration.
6. How Can Middle-Power Democracies Renovate Global Democracy Support? | April 8, 2021 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM ET | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register Here
Speakers
Ken Godfrey: Executive Director, the European Partnership for Democracy
Rachel Kleinfield: Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Roland Paris: Professor, University of Ottawa
Lisa Peterson: Senior Official for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
As autocracy engulfs ever more countries, how should the world’s remaining democracies respond? Many are struggling to address internal demands from aggrieved citizens and pandemic pressures, while fending off attempts from authoritarian governments to undermine them from without and within. The conventional menu of democracy support tools seems too meager to meet this geopolitical moment. Germany wants a Marshall Plan for Democracy; Sweden emphasizes a Drive for Democracy. Can middle power democracies enact a strategy commensurate with the challenges at hand?
7. Building Resilience in the Sahel in an Era of Forced Displacement | April 8, 2021 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
Speakers
Lauren Herzer Risi (moderator): Project Director, Environmental Change and Security Program
Ngozi Amu: Team Leader, UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel
Elizabeth Ferris: Professor, Georgetown University
Florian Morier: Head of Stabilization, UNDP Cameroon
WIse Nzikie Ngasa: Justice and Resilience Program Director – Mali, Mercy Corps
Kayly Ober: Program Manager, Climate Displacement Program, Refugees International
In the Sahel, a growing crisis driven by ongoing violence and devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and food insecurity, has led to the internal displacement of more than 2 million people—four times the number displaced just 2 years ago. This humanitarian crisis demands an urgent response to ensure adequate provision of shelter, food, and water for those forced from their homes. It also points to a need for comprehensive approaches and sustained investments to address the drivers of forced displacement in the region. Join the Wilson Center and Population Institute for a discussion with experts who are working across disciplines to identify entry points for policies and programs that strengthen the resilience of communities across the region.
8. AI and democracy: Transformative and disruptive potential | April 8, 2021 | 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET | Chatham House | Register Here
Speakers
Marjorie Buchser: Executive Director, Digital Society Initiative
Cornelia Kutterer: Senior Director, Rule of Law & Responsible Tech
Matthias Spielcamp: Co-Founder and Executive Director, AlgorithmWatch
Philip Howard: Professor, Oxford Internet Institute
Rebecca Finlay: Acting Executive Director, Partnership on AI
This panel discusses the transformative potential of AI and how policymakers, technology companies and civil society can work together to make sure that these advancements are for the betterment of, rather than a detriment to, democratic norms and practices. It also explores some existing and future AI applications, encouraging participants to share their views, hopes and concerns regarding AI and democracy.
9. The Future of U.S. Cultural Diplomacy | April 9, 2021 | 1:00 PM – 2:15 PM ET | Belfer Center | Register Here
Speakers
Nancy Szalwinski: Director of the Cultural Division in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
Ambassador Nicholas Burns: Professor, Harvard Kennedy School
Carla Dirlikov Canales (moderator): Co-Creator, Culture Summit
Nancy Szalwinski, Director of Cultural Programs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, and Ambassador Nicholas Burns, Goodman Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School will discuss ways in which cultural diplomacy can play a significant role in furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives and the Biden administration’s promise to “restore America’s global standing.” The conversation will focus on current cultural diplomacy priorities for the United States and how changing technologies, geopolitical trends, and recent events have led to new approaches, initiatives, and challenges. Carla Dirlikov Canales will moderate the discussion.
RSS - Posts
