Tag: European Union
What Montenegro needs
Marija Jovićević of Montenegrin daily Pobjeda asked questions. I answered:
Q: Adoption of new law about property of religious community in Montenegro caused great tensions between Podgorica and Belgrade, protest all around Montenegro and violence in Montenegrin parliament. Lots of fake news and propaganda from Serbia is making situation more complicated because they want to keep ownership of Montenegrin churches and monasteries. Cyber experts think that Moscow also is using this tension to destabilize Balkan again. Your comment?
A: Issues of church property are often difficult. They need to be solved by Montenegrins in their democratic institutions and independent judiciary. Nonviolent protest is everyone’s right. Violence is no one’s right.
Q: Can Montenegro be a member of EU until 2025? Is that even possible?
A: I do think it possible, but really you have to ask the EU Council. Montenegro, if it is fully qualified, will be no burden on the EU, and accession would help to keep the European perspective alive for other countries.
Q: Do You think that EU is aware that Montenegro is target of hybrid war from Moscow?
A: I don’t know how they could miss it.
Let me add: Montenegro needs a pro-EU, pro-NATO, pro-democracy opposition. The constant diversion of opposition sentiment into pro-Russian, pro-Serbian channels is ensuring that alternation in power is difficult if not impossible. It is time for a serious, responsible opposition to emerge. There is no guarantee it will come to power, but democracy requires it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s other diplomatic initiative
Veljko Nestorović of ALO! asked questions. I replied (the Serbian version is here):
Q: Following the agreement on the establishment of an airline between Belgrade and Pristina, and the announcement of the establishment and a railway line, does this indicate that the dialogue will be resumed soon?
A. I don’t see how the dialogue can resume before government formation in Pristina. It may be delayed longer than that, because Serbian elections are coming by May. I doubt it is in Kosovo’s interest to negotiate during an election campaign in Serbia.
Q: Who has first to give up, Pristina or Belgrade, to abolish taxes or stop the campaign to withdraw Kosovo’s recognition?
A: Those moves will have to be simultaneous.
Q: Have you changed your mind when it comes to Richard Grenell or have you maintained that his appointment as Special Envoy is bizarre?
A: I’m glad progress has been made on the air link and railroad, despite the limits on use of the air link by people like me who arrive in Kosovo without coming from Serbia. I still think the appointment strange, but I’m glad to give credit where it is due.
Q: In your opinion, is territorial exchange something that is definitely no longer on the table now?
A: It is a zombie idea that wanders the earth, seeking someone who will revive it. I won’t be surprised if it finds someone, but I don’t think it is a good or feasible idea. The main barrier is a fundamental diplomatic principle: reciprocity. Whatever Serbia gets in the north it will need to give the equivalent in the south, and vice versa for Kosovo. I don’t think either capital is ready for that.
Q: Do you think President Trump is anxious to find a quick solution for the Kosovo because of the November election, or does the US election not affect the Pristina-Belgrade dialogue?
A: There is no doubt the President is looking for any kind of success internationally that distracts attention from his impeachment and the trial in the Senate. There are few countries where domestic politics don’t have an impact on foreign policy.
Q: In your opinion, can Belgrade and Pristina come to an agreement, and in your opinion, what should it entail?
A: Yes, I do think an agreement is possible. It will have to entail Serbia’s acceptance in some form of Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as exchange of diplomatic representatives at the ambassadorial level. It will also need ample provisions for protection of minorities and Serbian cultural and religious sites in Kosovo, with equivalent protection for minorities (including Albanians) in Serbia.
I should have added that there will need to be sweeteners from the international community: progress on EU membership for Serbia, at the very least the visa waiver and I hope candidacy for Kosovo, as well as a substantial economic aid package for both.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Optimism on Europe
With Brexit day around the corner on January 31, the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) hosted a panel titled The Future of Europe: French and German Perspectives. The panel was a discussion between German Ambassador Emily Haber and French Ambassador Philippe Etienne, moderated by Rachel Ellehuus, the Deputy Director of the Europe Program at CSIS.
Despite the looming fate of Brexit, Haber was adamant to make numerous comments about the continued strength of the European Union and proclaimed that the European cause has actually become more popular. Haber noted that the European Union has always been at the crossroads, continually changing its narrative and sense of purpose. The construction and functionality of the European Coal and Steel Community was entirely different than the European Union of today, thus the Europe Union will be able to move on and reshape after the loss of the UK.
Over the past 11 years the EU has experienced multiple crises, including the euro crisis, the migration crisis, and Brexit. Haber argued that there exists a paradox in the effects of these crises, on the one hand they have led to a loss of confidence in the EU structure (sparking populist movements), while on the other they have strengthened governance structures. Haber emphasized that these structures create a protective barrier for the citizens, and it is these governance structures that will allow the EU member countries to combat larger issues of climate change and nuclearalization, for example.
Etienne emphasized that the France-Germany alliance is the backbone of the EU and is necessary for its functionality. He added that the most important characteristic of the EU is the will of the leaders and nations to achieve constructive compromises, not the actual member states.
Ellehuus inquired about the synergies and tensions that exist within the EU and the nation states’ agendas. Haber referenced the migration crisis as an exemplification of the confusion and possible tension between citizens, their governments, and the EU institutions. Due to the EU’s open borders policy, many governments wanted to discuss and solve the issue at the EU level rather than at their national level; however, this enraged many citizens as they felt their elected officials were not properly representing their desires.
Etienne added that the EU has an entire set of institutions, laws, and diplomatic processes that often make it confusing for citizens to comprehend and grasp its role. He accentuated that despite these confusions, the purpose of the EU is to protect its citizens and provide legitimacy to decision making processes. Both Etienne and Haber emphasized the benefits that the EU brings to the US as well as to its people. Ultimately, Etienne and Haber remained positive about the fate of the EU in this upcoming transition period.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|January 21-24
Ground Truth Briefing: What to Make of Putin’s Power Play| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | The Wilson Center | Register Here
On January 15, the Russian government resigned following President Vladimir Putin’s state of the nation address in which he proposed sweeping constitutional reforms. Putin then elevated former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the role of Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council and Medvedev’s replacement, Mikhail Mishustin, was approved as the new prime minister on January 16.
In this Ground Truth Briefing, our experts will assess Putin’s proposed reforms and political machinations.
Dial in phone numbers:
U.S. toll-free number:
800-369-2054;
International call number:
1-312-470-7127;
Participant passcode: 6238346
Speakers:
Mathew Rohansky is the director of the Kennan Institute.
Sergey Parkhomenko is a senior advisor and a journalist for “Echo of Moscow” Radio. He previously served as the editor-in-chief for the Russian journal Itogi and the Russian magazine Vokrug Sveta.
William E. Pomeranz is the deputy director of the Kennan Institute.
Maxim Trudolyubov is a senior advisor and an editor-in-chief for Russia File. He also serves as editor-at-large at Vedomosti Daily.
Unmaking the Presidency: A Book Discussion with Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes | January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | Brookings Institute | Register Here
The extraordinary authority of the U.S. presidency has no parallel in the democratic world. Today that authority resides in the hands of one man, Donald J. Trump. But rarely, if ever, has the nature of a president clashed more profoundly with the nature of the office. From the moment of his inauguration, Trump has challenged our deepest expectations of the presidency. But what are those expectations, where did they come from, and how great is the damage? In their new book, “Unmaking the Presidency: Donald Trump’s War on the World’s Most Powerful Office,” Brookings Senior Fellows Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes tell the story of the confrontation between a person and the institution he almost wholly embodies.
On January 21, Hennessey and Wittes will debut their new book at Brookings and will be joined by journalist Fred Hiatt for a conversation. After the discussion, speakers will take audience questions. This event will be webcast live.
Speakers:
Fred Hiatt is an editorial page editor for the Washington Post.
Susan Hennessey is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. She currently serves as the executive editor for Lawfare.
Benjamin Wittes is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. He currently serves as the editor-in-chief for Lawfare.
Disengaging from Violent Extremism Kickoff for USIP Initiative on Violent Extremist Disengagement and Reconciliation| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Governments and communities worldwide are now grappling with what to do when citizens who participated in violent extremist conflicts return home. Though the violent radicalization process is complex, it is inherently social in nature—and disengagement efforts will need to address those social factors too. Many returning persons will face prosecution, while others will reintegrate directly into local communities. But once the justice systems mete out their sentences, returnees need processes that enable them to abandon their violent attitudes and behaviors, and communities need approaches that can create social cohesion to avoid further violence, revenge, and future radicalization.
Join USIP as we kick off our VEDR initiative to progress past conventional notions of deradicalization—which generally focus on transforming a person’s beliefs about ideologies—and instead develop a systemic approach that simultaneously encourages disengagement and builds social cohesion and community resilience to prevent the reoccurrence of violence.
This panel will explore the cognitive, social, and structural factors involved in the disengagement, reintegration, and reconciliation of violent extremists within local communities. The premise of the panel is that sustained, positive, inclusive engagement with local communities is critical for building bonds, generating a sense of belonging, and fostering a cognitive opening to disengage from violent extremism.
Join the conversation on Twitter with #ReintegratingExtremists.
Speakers:
Dr. David Yang is the vice president of the Center for Applied Conflict Transformation (ACT) at the United States Institute of Peace.
Dr. Laura G.E. Smith is a senior lecturer at the University of Bath.
Dr. Mary Beth Altier is a clinical associate professor at the New York University.
Dr. B. Heidi Ellis is the director of the Refugee Trauma and Resilience Center at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Rebecca J. Wolfe is a lecturer at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Stevan M. Weine is a professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Mr. Chris Bosley is a senior program officer of the Countering Violent Extremism at the US Institute of Peace.
The Killing of Soleimani and the Future of the Middle East| January 22, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM | Carneige Endowment for International Peace| Register Here
The killing of Iranian major general Qassem Soleimani has sent shockwaves through Iran and the Middle East. What impact will his death have? And what will it mean for U.S. interests in the region?
Speakers:
Rasha Al Aqeedi is the managing editor of Irfaa Sawtak (Raise Your Voice) and a researcher and analyst of contemporary Iraqi politics and political Islam.
Dexter Filkins is a journalist for The New Yorker.
Emile Hokayem is a senior fellow for Middle East security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
The Future of Europe:
French and German Perspectives
A Conversation with
German Ambassador Emily Haber and French Ambassador Philippe Etienne | January 22, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM
| Center for Strategic International Studies|
Register Here
In 2020, Europe will be
facing a unique set of political, economic, and security challenges, including
Brexit. However, the beginning of the new decade also offers an opportunity to
lay out an ambitious vision for the future of Europe and for progress in areas
of common concern.
Please join us for a timely conversation with German
Ambassador to the U.S. Emily Haber and French Ambassador to the U.S. Philippe
Etienne as they discuss their vision for Europe over the next decade, the
foreign policy challenges facing Europe in 2020, and the future of
transatlantic relations.
Speakers:
Ambassador Emmily Haber, German Ambassador to the United States
Ambassador Philippe Etienne, French Ambassador to the United States
Rachel Ellehuus, Deputy Director, Europe Program
The New Status Quo in Northeast Syria: Humanitarian and Security Implications| January 23, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | The Washington Institute for Near East Policy| Register Here
President Trump’s announcement of a U.S. withdrawal from northeast Syria, followed swiftly by the Turkish military incursion, raised urgent questions about influence and control in that critical region. While a slimmed-down U.S. contingent remains in the area, a new status quo has emerged that includes a greater role for Russia and the Assad regime and a more circumscribed role for America’s local partners, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. How will this shifting balance of power affect counterterrorism efforts, humanitarian conditions, governance, and the political/military stature of various local and international actors, including the United States? To address these questions, The Washington Institute is pleased to host a Policy Forum with Gonul Tol, Wladimir van Wilgenburg, and Dana Stroul.
Speakers:
Gonul Tol is founding
director of the Middle East Institute’s Turkish Studies Program and an adjunct
professor at George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies.
She has written extensively on U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkish domestic politics,
and the Kurdish issue.
Wladimir van
Wilgenburg is coauthor of the 2019 book The Kurds of
Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts (with Harriet
Allsopp). A commentator for numerous international media outlets, he has
covered major battles against the Islamic State on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, among other regional topics.
Dana Stroul, the Kassen
Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Geduld Program on Arab Politics,
co-chaired last year’s bipartisan Syria Study Group with her
Institute colleague Michael Singh. Previously, she served as a senior
professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, covering
the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey.
Strategic Implications of Iraq’s Multiple Crises| January 23, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Gulf States Institute| Register Here
A series of seismic systemic shocks has rocked Iraq in recent months. Fragile internal cohesion was severely disrupted by a series of demonstrations in the final months of 2019, with young protesters denouncing corruption, unemployment, state dysfunction, and, increasingly, undue influence by Iran and its client militias. An ensuing crackdown by security forces and pro-Iranian elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces left hundreds of people dead and thousands injured. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi resigned, leaving the country without a stable government or national consensus.
Perhaps even worse, Iraq has been increasingly dragged into the confrontation between the United States and Iran. A series of rocket attacks attributed to one of the largest pro-Iranian militia groups, Kataib Hezbollah, killed a U.S. contractor and two Iraqi police officers and injured four servicemen. U.S. strikes in response killed at least 24 Kataib Hezbollah militia members, prompting supporters of the group to besiege the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. Although that confrontation ended without loss of life, a U.S. drone strike on January 3 killed senior Iranian commander Major General Qassim Suleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, leading to angry vows of revenge from Iran and widespread calls in Iraq for the removal of all U.S. military forces from the country.
How can Iraq avoid being further dragged into the intensifying U.S.-Iranian confrontation? Can U.S. and other foreign forces stay in Iraq, even just in parts of the country such as the Kurdistan region, and if not, what impact would that have on Iraqi society? Will the anti-government, anti-militia, and anti-Iranian protests continue or has the national focus now shifted to the U.S. rather than Iranian role in Iraq? And how do these multiple and intersecting crises impact the strategic and foreign policy interests of Gulf Arab countries and their still-fledgling efforts to re-establish strong relations with Baghdad while limiting Iranian hegemony in Iraq?
A light lunch will be served. Unable to attend? Check back to watch live on January 23 at 12:30 pm EST.
Speakers:
Ambassador Feisal Amin Rasoul al-Istrabadi, Non-Resident Fellow, AGSIW; Founding Director, Center for the Study of the Middle East, Indiana University Bloomington
Ambassador Douglas A. Silliman, President, AGSIW
Randa Slim, Senior Fellow and Director of the Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute
Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar
Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania: The Criterion Association| January 23, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Wilson Center| Register Here
In 1930s Bucharest, some of the country’s most brilliant young intellectuals converged to form the Criterion Association. Bound by friendship and the dream of a new, modern Romania, their members included historian Mircea Eliade, critic Petru Comarnescu, Jewish playwright Mihail Sebastian and a host of other philosophers and artists. Together, they built a vibrant cultural scene that flourished for a few short years, before fascism and scandal splintered their ranks. Cristina A. Bejan asks how the far-right Iron Guard came to eclipse the appeal of liberalism for so many of Romania’s intellectual elite, drawing on diaries, memoirs and other writings to examine the collision of culture and extremism in the interwar years. The first English-language study of Criterion and the most thorough to date in any language, this book grapples with the complexities of Romanian intellectual life in the moments before collapse.
Cristina A. Bejan is an Oxford DPhil and a Rhodes and Fulbright scholar. She has held fellowships at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), Georgetown University and the Woodrow Wilson Center. Currently she teaches world history at Metropolitan State University of Denver. A theatre artist, Bejan has written 17 plays and directed/sound designed/produced countless shows in the US and abroad. A spoken word poet, she got her start at Washington DC’s Busboys & Poets. Her poetry collection Green Horses On the Walls (Finishing Line Press) will be released this year and grapples with the inherited trauma of communism within the Romanian diaspora. While a researcher at USHMM in 2013, she founded the arts & culture collective Bucharest Inside the Beltway (BiB), which currently promotes local and international art in Colorado. For more info please visit cristinaabejan.com.
In dialogue with the author of the book’s foreword, Vladimir Tismaneanu, Professor of Politics, University of Maryland (College Park); Global Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center
Speakers:
Blair A. Ruble, Distinguished Fellow; Former Wilson Center Vice President for Programs (2014-2017); Director of the Comparative Urban Studies Program/Urban Sustainability Laboratory (1992-2017); Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies (1989-2012) and Director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Resilience (2012-2014)
Vladimir Tismaneanu, Former Wilson Center Fellow and Director, Center for the Study of Post-Communist Societies, University of Maryland
Cristina Bejan, Founding Executive Director, Bucharest Inside the Beltway; Researcher, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; Former East European Studies Title VIII Scholar, Wilson Center
Non-Violent Resistance and Palestinian Self- Development| January 24, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East Institute, in conjunction with the Foundation for Middle East Peace, the New Israel Fund, Americans for Peace Now, and J Street, is pleased to welcome Ali Abu Awwad to Washington, DC. Abu Awwad will discuss his work to mobilize a movement of nonviolent resistance to the occupation in the Palestinian Territories, what led him to this path, his reception in Palestinian society, his engagement with Israeli civilians and military authorities and his hopes and concerns for the future.
Speaker:
Ali Abu Awwad is a leading peace activist and a leader of several peace-building initiatives, including the Taghyeer (Change) Palestinian Nonviolence Movement and the Karama Center. His life and work have been featured in two award-winning films, Encounter Point and Forbidden Childhood.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 28-31
I was traveling over the weekend, so managed to miss some first-rate recommendations by Charlie Stevenson:
December 31
Forward: Protesters storm US embassy in Baghdad — in response to US airstrikes, as reported by WaPo and NYT stories.
– Likely changes in congressional representation after 2020 census.
– Chinese impact in Djibouti.
– Navy tries again to decommission carrier Truman and cut an air wing.
Backward: Sarah Binder reflects on Congress in 2019.
– FP lists top ten stories.
See you next year….
December 30
– NYT has long piece with previously unreported details of administration fights over Ukraine aid. OMB began working in June to halt aid; Trump met in late August with Pompeo, Esper & Bolton and rejected their unanimous advice to release aid.
-WaPo reveals backchannel of Giuliani & Cong. Pete Sessions negotiating with Maduro.
–US struck forces linked to Iran in Iraq & Syria in response to attacks in Kirkuk that wounded Americans. Here’s Reuters background.
– NYT explains al shabab’s strengths.
– Armed Services chairmen vow smaller NDAA next year. It was amazing to me how many foreign policy and non-defense matters were shoehorned into the bill. But, then, few other bills were debated in the Senate.
December 29
– NYT has long article documenting Trump administration’s demotion and disregard of scientific expertise.
-Newly released documents show how banker David Rockefeller maneuvered to help the shah of Iran.
-Hard to dispute:article calls Sen. McConnell the “most consequential US politician of the past decade.”
December 28
– NYT says Russia is ahead in hypersonic weapons.
– Congress is more assertive against Trump on foreign policy.
– Huawei is making nice in Europe and winning.
– Fed study says Trump tariffs backfired.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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:
Untied Kingdom
The UK parliament approved Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan today, intended to implement the June 2016 referendum approved by less than 52% of those voting.
Formal withdrawal from the EU will happen on January 31. The immediate economic consequences are not dramatic. The UK will remain part of the European Union’s single market during a transition period that lasts until the end of next year, when Johnson has promised a free trade agreement with the EU will be in place. Ever since the 2016 referendum UK businesses have been adjusting to the prospect of Brexit, with mainly negative consequences for a private sector economy now headed towards recession. The BBC offers a good summary of what happens next.
But that is not where the beef is. Two swords already hang over the Brexit process: one is Scottish, the other is Irish. A third Welsh sword isn’t far behind.
Scotland voted to remain in the EU. Its pro-EU Scottish National Party won the vast majority of Scotland’s seats in the UK election earlier this month. Its leader has promised a new referendum on secession from the UK in 2020. The 2014 Scottish referendum, conducted before Brexit was on the horizon, failed but gathered almost 45% of the vote. The next one is likely to pass.
Northern Ireland also voted to remain in the EU. Johnson’s Brexit plan calls for customs checks between England and Northern Ireland, in order to allow Northern Ireland to avoid border checks with EU member Ireland. The Protestants of Northern Ireland aren’t ready to throw themselves into the arms of Dublin, but they are getting a big push in that direction. Most Catholics need no push. They would be glad to see a reunited Ireland.
Wales voted to leave the EU 52-48, but that was likely due mainly to English voters living in Wales. When the Welsh, who have revived their language in recent decades, begin to understand that their substantial EU benefits are drying up, who knows what will happen.
So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is at risk. Boris Johnson knows this and is emphasizing that it is the United Kingdom that will leave the EU at the end of January. But he is going to have a hard time blocking the Scots from secession. He would have to offer a massive economic package in order to prevent it, and even then the Scots may decide they are more interested in maintaining their ties to Europe. Will Northern Ireland and Wales be far behind?
RSS - Posts
