Tag: European Union
Kosovo indictments confirmed, dignity of the state maintained
The big presidential news this morning is not in the United States, where vote counting continues in several battleground states, but in Kosovo, where President Thaci and the current leader of the party he founded, Kadri Veseli, have been indicted by the Specialist Chambers in The Hague. That court, staffed by internationals, was
established pursuant to an international agreement ratified by the Kosovo Assembly, a Constitutional Amendment and the Law on Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. They are of temporary nature with a specific mandate and jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under Kosovo law, which were commenced or committed in Kosovo between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2000 by or against citizens of Kosovo or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
I do not see the text of the indictment yet on the Specialist Chambers website, but it regards allegations of crimes committed while Thaci and Veseli were leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army, possibly including murder and organ-trafficking described in the Council of Europe’s “Marty report.”
The indictees have done the right thing: resigned and pledged to confront the charges in The Hague, where they will join a number of their wartime colleagues. The political impact inside Kosovo is not yet clear: many supporters of the KLA will protest. I imagine the government will help their defense. But their absence will leave a big hold in Kosovo politics. It is unclear as yet who will fill it. I hope they will be figures of unimpeachable character.
The Specialist Chambers are a laudable effort to establish accountability after the war of the late 1990s in what was then a province of Serbia. The trouble is it is focused only on one side of that conflict. Serbia was of course subject to the jurisdiction of the now defunct International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), also in The Hague. But that Tribunal and the Serbian courts have failed to hold accountable many criminal perpetrators in Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic died in prison before the end of his trial. Several well-known commanders of the then Yugoslav army and police were never indicted and continue to hold prominent positions.
This makes the Specialist Chambers a one-sided instrument. It should not be so. Either the Serbian courts should bring charges against those who committed crimes in Kosovo or Belgrade should adopt the necessary laws to allow the Specialist Chambers to do so. The United States lost three of its citizens to a post-war murder inside Serbia for which no one has been held accountable. America and the European Union should be insisting far more strongly than they have to date on accountability in Serbia.
As for Thaci and Veseli as well as other indictees, I expect them to mount a vigorous defense against charges that may be difficult to prove, given the amount of time elapsed and the difficulty of finding and protecting witnesses. They should and will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And they should be credited with the dignity of resigning and facing the charges. In doing so, they make me long for the day when America will again have leaders prepared to be subject to the law.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbia should not be at stake in US elections
Saša Janković, expert on human rights and security governance, former Serbian National Ombudsman, and runner up at the Serbian presidential election of 2017, writes in Belgrade daily Danas:
From circles close to the Democrats in the United States, two short program documents of their candidate for US President Joseph Biden were recently published – one on the vision of American-Albanian relations, essentially addressed to Albanians from Kosovo and Albania, and the other on the future of American-BiH relations. In both documents, Biden emphasizes on the one hand his help and vision for Kosovo, Albania and BiH and, on the other hand, his efforts to suppress the harmful influence of Serbia and certain Serbian politicians. After the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, joined Donald Trump’s pre-election campaign, Biden hereby took the position “Serbia has chosen its side, I am also choosing it.”
Improving relations between Serbia and the United States is the utmost Serbian national interest. However, by the so-called economic agreement with Pristina under Trump’s patronage, in the middle of his presidential campaign, Aleksandar Vucic approached Trump, not America; he made a hazardous move, entered the gamble of extremely uncertain American presidential elections, and put Serbia as a stake.
It is clear why Vučić decided to gamble – he is slowly but surely losing his footing in the European Union, especially Germany, and without the previous open support from abroad, his government is on glass legs. But Serbia, which still avails of the remnants of once balanced and stable Yugoslav diplomacy, did not need such gambling.
In the previous presidential elections in the USA, Vučić supported the candidate who lost. That, a much less visible mistake, he paid with a three-and-a-half-year cold attitude of the winner. Now, at the very end of Trump’s (first) mandate, Vučić is paying for a ticket to fly to his bench by disrupting Serbia’s diplomatic relations with Russia, the EU, the Arab world and Palestine. In the event of Biden’s victory, Serbia will pay even more for Vučić’s new dice.
It would have been better for everyone if Biden had ignored Vučić’s classification with Trump. Especially since Aleksandar Vučić does not really control the will of the Serbian diaspora – in the last presidential elections he won only 10% of its votes in the USA, and the second-runner, who is in opposition to him, won 60%. If Biden found the strength to stand up and extend his hand towards Serbia, that would be a real sign of a winning mentality. That sign would be noticed and rewarded by Serbs in America. They are small electorate, but it seems that every vote will be precious.
On this side of the ocean, the government in Serbia should pursue state, not private and party interests. And the opposition should not rejoice to the chance that anyone from abroad, including Biden, will punish Vučić. As in 1998, Serbia and its citizens would pay the largest fine in such a scenario.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Still polarization, this time in support of Bosnia
I missed until now Biden and Harris statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina:
This may at first reading by the uninitiated sound a bit less polarized than the statement on Kosovo and Albania, but that it is not how it will be read in the Balkans. Some Serbs and Croats will resent his mention of genocide, his advocacy on behalf of the Sarajevo government during the war, his support for the NATO intervention that ended it, his support for sanctioning Bosnian Serb leader Dodik, and even his call for reform and reconciliation.
Bosnian Americans, in particular Bosniaks, are at their most concentrated in St. Louis, where they aren’t likely to help Biden much. Missouri is a lock for Trump. Others live mostly in Democratic cities and states, but there are some in Florida, which is a battleground state where even a few votes this way or that can matter a lot, as Bush and Gore discovered in 2000.
The last line in the the Biden/Harris statement is the most important. It is a firm rejection of Dodik’s secession ambition, the likes of which we haven’t heard from the Trump Administration. Biden is not going to be tempted by moving borders in the Balkans and will revert the US to its traditional position in favor of EU membership for all its states. Sounds right to me.
PS: A correspondent claims I undervalued the Bosnian American populations in Georgia and Iowa. That could make a difference in both states.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 14
Bloomberg says Trump plans to pull US troops from Somalia.
FP says Israel is expanding settlements.
WTO says Europe can impose $4 Billion in tariffs because of Boeing subsidies.
NYT has table showing when absentee ballots will be counted by states.
FP says China’s money didn’t buy love in Australia.
Wired has big piece on Gen. Nakasone.
Some crazies in Portland pulled down a statue of Abraham Lincoln on Monday, David Van Drehle explains how uncalled for that was.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Escaping the shadow of the past
A Serbian friend writes:
The saying that “nothing grows in the shadow of a big tree” reflects the last 20 years of effort to normalize the relationship between Belgrade and Pristina. The “big tree of the past” provided a comfortable shadow for nationalism, negative stereotypes, corruption, and isolation. The wartime generation of political leaders did not look beyond their nationalistic mindsets and political agendas, which secured them leading positions in decision-making structures and the economy for decades. They controlled the money flow from dubious business people and kept the region outside global financial streams. Isolation was the way for them to hold on to power.
Kosovo was a convenient issue on which to demonstrate patriotism and solidify economic interests and political influence. For decades it was considered politically incorrect to offer an alternative approach. Resolution of Kosovo’s status was considered a sine qua non for stability and wellbeing of the region. The international community was hesitant to step beyond a conventional approach that mixed morality, selective interpretation of history, and conviction that Serbia was primarily responsible and would need to pay the price for generations to come. This approach did not yield tangible results.
How we should interpret Belgrade-Pristina economic agreement signed in the White House on September 4, 2020? Why did Ambassador Richard Grenell succeed where many failed before him? Has he ushered in a new peace?
Grenell’s approach: economy before status
Grenell came with an open mind, investing himself fully in the process while applying bulldozer style diplomacy once practiced by the architect of the Bosnia Dayton Peace Accords, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke. Coming from the President’s inner circle, Grenell could make things happen. His recent visit to Belgrade and Pristina (September 21- 22, 2020, two weeks after the White House event) made it clear that economic progress between Belgrade and Pristina is high on his agenda. He was accompanied by Adam Boehler, CEO of the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), US EXIM Bank officials, as well as representatives of various other US agencies. The DFC opened a regional office in Belgrade and signed a separate agreement with Pristina. The Americans committed to secure equity and insurance for infrastructural projects and financial incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Both Belgrade and Pristina needed a powerful interlocutor like Grenell, who serves as an alibi before their domestic constituencies to start with something new. Both gained at home. The White House meeting injected President Vucic with legitimacy. It is something no other Serbian leader has achieved, a tête-à-tête with a US President. The same applies to Pristina Prime Minister Abdullah Hoti, who is walking on thin ice at home. Opposition to parts of the deal by his coalition partner nearly destroyed chances to reach agreement. After some friendly arm-twisting, Hoti walked out of the Oval Office strengthened politically.
The American bulldozer provided both leaders with an excuse to step aside from well-rehearsed nationalist rhetoric, at least for a moment. The immature political culture and zero-sum thinking of the 90s could certainly return.
By putting “economy before status,” Grenell’s achieved a lot:
- The US returned as an active and committed political, economic, and security factor in the region. Belgrade and Pristina are back on America’s radar.
- There is new hope in the region with the shift of diplomatic focus to the economy and well-being of ordinary citizens.
- The US military presence in the region, essential for stability, has been reaffirmed. It is now unlikely that the Trump Administration will pull US troops out of KFOR and close Camp Bondsteel, close to the Serb community of Urosevac.
- Washington will close the strategic gap and prevent further expansion of Chinese and Russian influence in Belgrade, Pristina, Tirana, and Skopje by investing in infrastructure and economic projects that counter the Chinese sponsored Belt and Road Initiative.
A new game
Economic progress cannot resolve the status issue, but it could relax the negotiating atmosphere. Until now, profound distrust and zero-sum logic has prevailed. The war generation of leaders were unable to step out of their comfortable habits to become peacemakers.
Rarely do hawks transform into doves. The hawks controlled local economies, generating significant personal wealth from illegal and half-legal businesses. In most cases, state institutions turned a blind eye or even openly supported wartime barons in exchange for material compensation. Professional patriots exploited economic activities aimed to increase personal wealth. They had zero incentive to change things.
Only outside intervention could break the decades-long connection between shady local money and nationalist political options. Substantial US investments can marginalize their influence and empower ordinary citizens, build knowledge-based capacity, introduce strict business standards, strengthen the entrepreneurial spirit, and support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). US money comes with conditions.
The peace process is a marathon with numerous obstacles on the way. Agreements are just benchmarks on the way. Implementation is crucially important. Furthermore, although basic elements have been publicized (the promise of overall $3.2 billion allocated to rail, roads, air projects as well as support for SMEs), the specific elements are still not clear. Both Belgrade and Pristina would have to be careful taking multi-billion loans since that would be a significant economic burden for generations to come. Additionally, it is yet to be seen if the US presidential election will influence implementation.
Not everybody is delighted with this US pivot to the Western Balkans. Maria Zaharova, spokesperson of the Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tweeted that the Trump-Vucic meeting looked like a scene from the film “Basic Instinct,” implying that Vucic looked like he was being interrogated. Later she and Foreign Minister Lavrov apologized, unconvincingly. Marko Djuric, an official of Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party, reminded the Russians that Vucic waited for an hour and a half for a meeting with President Putin.
Despite Serbian high hopes, Belgrade is not high on Russia’s agenda. Lacking confidence in Serbian loyalty, Moscow is suspicious and resentful of this American initiative for economic normalization.
Europeanization vs. Americanization
Connecting the US initiative with ongoing EU efforts is important. Positive things happen when the US and the EU join efforts in the region. The EU has invested significant amounts of financial aid and political capital in the region since the 2003 EU – Western Balkans Summit, when the Union pledged to open a European perspective for the countries of the region. That was 17 years ago. In the meanwhile only Slovenia (2004) and Croatia (2013) have become member states, while the other countries have made only modest progress in the accession process. The EU is the largest investor in the region, but so far has not managed to capitalize on its role and secure normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina.
The EU sponsored Belgrade – Pristina dialogue has gone on for 9 years without yielding impressive results. There are many reasons for that, but one of them certainly is not a lack of effort and goodwill by the EU. On the contrary, the EU has invested a lot of its political credibility. One of the fundamental reasons for the modest success so far is the complex EU decision-making process. Henry Kissinger asked, “who do I call if I want to call Europe?” It is easier for Grenell to wield both carrot and stick than for EU High Representative Joseph Borrell, who cannot move quickly because he need multiple approvals. Grenell is not the most popular diplomat in Germany or the EU, but he has made significant progress.
From an outside perspective, it is obvious that the US and the EU need each other to secure long-term stabilization of the Western Balkans and other parts of the world. With loads of energy and strong influence in Belgrade and Pristina, Grenell could move things forward quickly. The EU could provide a slower but more systematic and institutional-based process that solidifies American efforts. The US needs to rediscover the advantages of multilateral diplomacy and put aside the do it alone approach. The EU should embrace Grenell’s initiative and try to build on it, since it furthers EU objectives in the region. Both partners should be ready to share glory and burdens to achieve sustainable results.
Where next?
Outside intervention can be an important element, but local players are the main agents of any profound change. Grenell’s involvement is positive and important, but he should not be seen as a messianic figure. He still has a lot to do. Neither Washington nor Brussels can resolve decades of problems with a magic wand.
Everything comes down to Belgrade’s and Pristina’s estimates of what is good for them. President Vucic decided to invest his political capital in President Trump’s process because it offered an alternative to well-known ready-made blueprints coming from Washington for decades. By contrast, the Kosovo side might want to wait for the results of the US Presidential elections before committing. Former Vice President Biden has strong feelings for Kosovo. If he wins, American policy may shift. Every option comes with risk. The important thing is to choose a strategic orientation wisely and keep moving forward in that direction. Every process takes time to solidify and produce tangible results.
The Economic Normalization Agreement is a step in good direction. If we keep moving, we can escape the shadow of the big tree.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The emerging tetrapolar mad world
Pantelis Ikonomou, former nuclear IAEA inspector, writes:
Nuclear weapons are a vital but latent dimension of the growing geopolitical competition. Nuclear capabilities continue to constitute a prime source of power in shaping global power relations amid dangerous non-nuclear conflicts and military confrontations. New power balances are forming.
The main emerging poles are two well-established ones, the United States and Russia, and two emerging ones, China and Europe (led by France as the EU’s last remaining nuclear power post-Brexit). The US and Russia have failed in efforts to engage China in new nuclear and ballistic missile agreements. France is trying to exercise leadership in Europe and the Mediterranean. French President Emmanuel Macron has offered to open a “strategic dialogue” with willing European states prepared to accept the central role of France. He pointed out that “Europe should reinforce its strategic autonomy in the face of growing global threats and stop relying solely on the United States and the Transtlantic Alliance for its defense”
Any excited system will sooner or later reach a state of equilibrium. A tetrapolar structure is emerging around the leading nuclear weapon states: the US, Russia, China and France. These four nuclear powers are flanked by others based on criteria of pragmatism and strategic necessity. The whole process is guided more by bilateral agreements than existing treaties and international institutions. The new tetrapolar world order appears as follows:
- Around the US superpower stand nuclear UK as well as Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and several European NATO states. The connecting force within this pole is American geopolitical primacy and its ambition to strategically control East and South Asia.
- Around Russia will stand India, several former Soviet states, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and sometimes Turkey and Egypt. This pole’s source of cohesion is nuclear deterrence against the Chinese threat, as well as geopolitical influence in the Middle East region.
- Around China are Pakistan, North Korea and the majority of the developing countries in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In this nuclear pole the predominant parameter is China’s nuclear deterrence of its US, Russian, and Indian adversaries as well as Chinese economic, military and political assistance.
- France would be flanked by several southern European, Middle East and African states (and occasionally by Israel). The prevailing link in this alliance, besides historical and cultural references, is strategic influence on the wider region and security against a rising adversary, Islamic extremism.
Once a stable equilibrium is achieved, this new tetrapolar nuclear world order might allow the leading nuclear powers to realize the vast global threat they pose to humankind through their bilateral standoffs. Nuclear disarmament as requested by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT, Art. VI) and emphatically repeated by the international community in the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty of July 2017 should be a top priority. De-escalation of the current nuclear race and terminating weapons “modernization” ought to be the initial objectives of the world powers aiming eventually to complete and irreversible global nuclear disarmament.
The current nuclear threat to humanity arises from the suicidal so-called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) nuclear strategy, It ought to be abolished. The threat of a nuclear apocalypse, whether by intent, accident, or miscalculation, will be at its highest level ever so long as MAD prevails in this tetrapolar world.
* This article draws on the author’s book “Global Nuclear Developments – Insights of a former IAEA nuclear inspector,” Springer, May 2020.
RSS - Posts
