Tag: European Union
Turning the clock back
I received this long letter (only slightly edited for spelling and other minor errors) from a group of people listed at the end. I was amused by its accusation that I favor Republika Srpska, since the authorities in that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina regard me as one of its sworn enemies. That said, the letter raises interesting questions about the validity of the Dayton constitution, without however offering any practical alternative in my view.
We are writing to you following the interview you gave to Aljazeera Balkans of June this year where you made a number of claims and statements in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina that we find unacceptable, and some of them also untrue and incorrect.
As you also used a pronoun ‘we’ in the same interview, we would like to ask you to confirm to us if you were speaking on behalf of the US State Department or if it was just a ‘slip of the tongue’? The way you presented your views and analysis to the critical judgement of the public in the interview left us under the impression that you were trying to impose them on the public as the only possible solutions. One would have expected you to act as an independent and well-meaning analyst. However, given the way you made your claims we felt that you were favoring Serbia and its interests of safeguarding the genocidal creation called Republika Srpska (further referred to as RS).
We would like to reflect on some of the claims you made during the interview:
– You claimed that the genocidal entity called RS was in the state of ‘transitional democracy’. We have never known a language where ‘transitional democracy’ is synonymous to Fascism and Neonazism, neither of which bear even a slightest resemblance to even the most primitive form of democracy. Therefore, apart from that claim of yours being untrue and incorrect, we find it also to be a very damaging and unacceptable promotional stunt favoring RS.
– You claimed that the Dayton Constitution has to be amended (or ‘reformed’). As someone who worked closely with Richard Holbrooke on creating Dayton Peace Accords one would expect you to reflect on it over the time, and to admit to yourself, at least from this time distance, what we all already know. And we have known for long that Dayton Peace Accords are a criminal agreement in that it rewarded genocide, war crimes, and aggression, and suspended the only legal Constitution – the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that had already extsted. It was a move that nobody had either a moral or legal right to make. We believe that you are familiar with the fact that the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was confirmed by the majority vote of the Bosnian citizens at the referendum of 29 February and 1 March 1992 as an expression of the highest level of democracy.
On the other hand, Annex IV of Dayton Peace Accords, which is considered to be the Bosnian Constitution at present, is illegal as it has ever been endorsed by the Bosnian Parliament, and as it is being breached by everybody, and in particular by Dodik on a regular basis.
We believe that you are well aware that Dayton Peace Accords, and Dayton ‘Constitution’ alike, are completely dysfunctional. Therefore, we are struggling to understand why you still continue to persist on it? The only reason we can see behind it could be that it is the only way to preserve the genocidal creation called RS as Serbia’s criminal war gain. So, we would like to ask you to put forward the arguments in your response to us that would prove us wrong with respect to those intents.
One cannot talk of any changes or ‘reforms’ to the Dayton ‘Constitution’ as the ‘Constitution’ itself is contrary to the basic international laws, Conventions, and the UN Charter. Such a ‘Constitution’ is contrary to the human rights and freedoms which explains why it has been defeated, and in effect, terminated several times at the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.
It may be that due to the way you feel about Dayton Peace Accords as its co-author you don’t seem to want to concede that Dayton Peace Accords, and ultimately Dayton ‘Constitution’, are the main and only obstacles to any progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina including the progress towards the Euro-Atlantic integrations which, at the same time you yourself (sic!) seem to be favoring.
– It is an unbeatable fact that Dayton ‘Constitution’ has to be terminated, and not changed or ‘reformed’ as you say, as it is morally and legally unacceptable, and as much as the whole of Dayton Peace Accords, it is the main obstacle to any progress of our country. Besides, the International Community have meant [the] Dayton Peace Accords to be only a temporary solution that was to stop the war. Please don’t try to affirm it as a permanent solution.
– In the same interview of June you were staunchly defending the April Package of the constitutional changes that you also co-authored. That was a ‘package’ of requests made by Milorad Dodik which the US State Department tried to push through via McElhaney and some of our politicians led by Sulejman Tihic. Its one and only aim was to preserve the genocidal RS, and to give it a right to veto as well as the decision-making powers that would be based on ethnicity which would have copper-fastened the genocidal entity, and made Bosnia and Herzegovina dissolve.
Although the Bosnian Parliament rejected the April Package, given your criticism of Haris Silajdzic in your interview of June this year, it appears that you still intend on continuing to pursue the April Package. And, we believe that you are well aware of the facts that the April Package would have copper-fastened the genocidal apartheid called RS. Therefore, all of us who took part in preventing an attempt to copper-fasten the genocidal creation called RS, strongly condemn and fully reject any such criticism of yours.
We would like to invite you to work hard on terminating the genocidal creation called RS, being led and guided by the international laws and Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment. Although we believe that you are well familiar with the International Court of Justice Judgement of 27 February 2007 which declared RS guilty of act of genocide, we would still like to remind you of it. Anything that has been created on genocide cannot continue to exist as it is legally invalid and void. Article 297. of the Judgement reads as follows:
297. The Court concludes that acts committed in Srebrenica, which fall within Article II(a) and (b) of the Convention, had been carried out with a specific intention to destroy in part a group of Bosnian Muslims as such; and accordingly, those represent acts of genocide which were committed by the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) in Srebrenica and the surrounding area starting on 13 Juy 1995.
Based on that Judgement the genocidal entity RS is legally untenable – bearing in mind the ius cogens principle, the UN Charter, and the Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment, and with genocide having been committed in all of the country, and not just in Srebrenica. The fact that Annex VII of Dayton Peace Accords has been breached due to the Fascism and apartheid that is being carried out by the genocidal creation RS, only means that genocide continues. The fact that one of the key conditions of Dayton Peace Accords continues to be breached makes Dayton Peace Accords legally void and voidable as per Contract law.
According to both the country’s and international laws, the citizens have every right to revert to the previous Constitution which is the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no need to reform that Constitution as it is a civilian and European one, and as it is based on civil rights and freedoms.
– At 13:57 minute of your interview of June, speaking of the ‘constitutional reforms’ you contradicted yourself by saying:
‘We need to strengthen the government in Sarajevo’, and ‘That also means devolution of powers to entitites, cantons, and municipalities’.
Do not those two statements exclude each other?
Your statement on ‘devolution of powers’ led us to conclude that you support not only the preservation of the genocidal RS, but that you are also very much in favor of further decentralization of the Federation, which is unacceptable, and leads to the total destruction of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and gettoization of its Bosniak-Muslim majority population which would be squeezed to live on 24% of its territory till they finally disappear. At the same time RS would remain unitarian, monoethnic creation built on genocide of Bosniaks and Bosnian Catholics.
– In the same interview you also stated that you would ask Serbia for help with devolution of powers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is both unacceptable and illegitimate for anyone to ask or encourage a foreign country to interfere or intervene in our internal affairs. And, to make it sound even worse than it already is such an ‘invite’ is being made to the country that committed an act of aggression on us, and occupied half of our territory having also committed genocide in the process. Is not inviting Serbia to interfere in our country in any way, including ‘help with devolution of powers’ an act of aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina? Having signed Dayton Peace Accords, both Serbia and Croatia in effect admitted to committing an act of aggression on our country. By signing Dayton Peace Accords they both agreed to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, and not to continue the aggression on our country. Or, perhaps you are inclined to interpret their signatures as their right to intervene and interfere in our country any way they want- be it as they please or with the help and encouragement of the international community? Does that not constitute an act of aggression in international law?
Never in its 1,000 years old history has any part of our country been part of Serbia. But Sandzak which is now part of Serbia historically has been part of our country. Applying the same logic of ‘asking for help with devolution of powers’ would mean that we have even a much greater (and historically well founded) right to interfere in the internal affairs of Serbia and the way it should be organised as a state. Finally, given that for us Serbia is an aggressor, and still a Fascist country (judging by who sits in its government and Parliament), we would like to ask if you would find it acceptable for Nazi Germany (if it, hypothetically, still existed) to be a ‘tutor’ to one of the countries with the majority Jewish population, that it had occupied, and where it had committed Holocaust and war crimes?
– We would like to remind you of the historic fact that no Serbs or Croats ever lived in our country until the second half of the 19th century. There was only one people- Bosniaks of three different confessions that also welcomed Sephardic Jews from Spain who settled in our country, and have been living with us since. And our country was never part of either Croatian or Serbian territory. Unlike Serbia, we do not base our history on myths and lies, but on the actual historical facts and documents that nobody has any right to either deny or disregard. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Brexit’s impact in the Middle East
The Middle East Institute, where I am affiliated as a Scholar, published my short assessment of Brexit’s impact in the region this morning, along with briefs by Paul Scham on Israeli reaction and Alex Vatanka on reshuffling of Syria portfolios in Tehran:
The Middle East seems far from Great Britain, but the reverberations of Brexit will still be felt there. The immediate impact on British and European stock and real estate markets, where Gulf oil sovereign wealth funds and individuals have a lot of money at risk, will be a dramatic fall. The E.U. economy, the world’s largest, was just beginning to pick up. It will likely now return to recession, due as much to uncertainty and lack of confidence as to any real economic impact of Brexit, which will take at least two years to implement.
Seasoned investors will hold on for the ride, but the impact on global economic prospects will be negative and persistent. Oil prices, which had gradually managed to climb back above $50/barrel, will slide again, due to reduced energy demand, a rising U.S. dollar as investors seek a safe haven, and the declining pound and euro. Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies will feel the renewed pinch brought on by Brexit.
The U.K. and other European states have been important partners for the United States in the Middle East, in particular when intervening militarily in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Allied help will be harder to come by in the future, as the U.K. and the rest of Europe turn inwards and seek to block Middle Eastern immigrants even more vigorously than in the past. Turkey’s European perspective will evaporate. Nativist sentiments in Europe and America will increase, potentially accelerating radicalization, especially among Muslims in the U.K. who largely voted to remain. This will further distance Americans and Europeans from the Muslim world and make the Middle East easier prey for both Russia and extremists.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Surprise!
Yes, the “leave” vote surprised me. I expected economic rationality and political equanimity to prevail over distaste for immigrants and flag-waving England firsters. Identity politics has triumphed once again. Let it be a lesson to me.
The immediate economic implications are already clear: a sharp fall in the British pound, a sell-off in stock markets worldwide, an even shakier euro, and more than likely renewed recession in Europe as well as a sharp slowdown elsewhere. The US may be the exception for a while, as many people will seek safe haven in the dollar, but that will drive it up, weaken exports, and slow already slow growth. Uncertainty will persist: Scotland will proceed with a second referendum, Wales may follow suit, and Catalonia will try to do so. Will the Netherlands or France put the EU to a vote?
What about the Balkans and Middle East, where my attention is focused?
In the Balkans, both the immediate and longer term effects are dire. The region is heavily dependent on European trade and investment, which are going to be hit hard right away. But perhaps more important will be the political impact. Balkanites (that’s what I call people who live in the Balkans) have already been finding it hard to believe in their European prospects, which seem farther away than they did five years ago. Now they would be fools not to doubt the willingness of Europe minus UK to accommodate their membership.
These doubts will open the door to increased Russian influence, not only in the Balkans but also in Ukraine. No one gains more politically than Putin does from the UK referendum: it weakens his antagonists in the UK and the EU, makes his annexation of Crimea and occupation of southeastern Ukraine look more acceptable, and validates his ethnic nationalism. The vodka should be flowing freely at the Kremlin today. It will also flow into the Balkans. Putin will no doubt intensify his efforts in Serbia, in Bosnia’s Republika Srpska and in Macedonia to wean Slavs from their EU and NATO dreams.
The Middle East is a harder call. There are a lot of wealthy Gulf sheikhs with money and property in Britain. They won’t like seeing the pound collapse, and some may already be so strapped by low oil prices that they panic and get out. But my guess is that most will hang on. Slowed world economic growth will however crimp oil prices once again, after their recent rise to $50 and change. So the future of Gulf money in Britain is likely dimmer than it was in the past.
Britain’s role in the Middle East may also change. It has been a major European contributor to intervention not only in Iraq but also in Libya and Syria. A more inward-looking and reduced Britain is not going to have the same resources and will to underwrite such efforts.
Britain will of course raise its barriers to Middle Eastern immigrants, but it hasn’t been taking many of them in any event. The main focus of resentment has been against East Europeans and the threat of immigration from the Balkans. Young Albanians, Serbs, Bosniaks and Macedonians are going to lose both education and job opportunities that many have been enjoying in recent years.
Ironically, one of the many problems that need to be resolved during the two-year negotiation to implement Brexit, will be Brits abroad living in the rest of Europe, who number 1.2 million. Three million people from other EU countries live in the UK. If no accommodation is reached to allow these people to stay, we could see a massive population movement with unpredictable implications. Even if they are allowed to stay, this kind of migration is finished. The next British government will have to do everything it can to prevent foreigners from reaching its soon to be diminished shores.
Net net: Brexit is bad news for the UK, the EU, the US, the Balkans and the Middle East. It is good news for Vladimir Putin. My friends and I will not be celebrating.
PS: It took a couple of days, but John Oliver did a great, if pretty gross, explainer:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Counting on the census
A: I doubt that is the path President Ivanic wants to go down. But the way Bosnia and Herzegovina works he has to always appear to be protecting Serb interests. The problem is constitutional. The Dayton constitution provides no incentives for politicians to gain support across ethnic lines. This is just the latest exemplar.
The political controversy around the census results is a serious embarrassment for anyone who is concerned about the country as a whole, which is what a president would normally be concerned about. A census should be a technical exercise with political implications, not a political exercise that affects the techniques used.
Q: At the same time Dodik is calling the Assembly of Republika Srpska (RS) to reject the census results as irrelevant.
A: I assume the RS Assembly will do as Dodik commands.
I doubt the crisis has peaked. Dodik will take any opportunity he is offered to reject whatever the state government decides. He seems to me quite determined to take RS down a road that keeps himself in power right now but leads to disaster for his constituents in the longer term.
Q: Can the international community tolerate manufacturing crisis from RS officials in such an important moment for BiH?
A: Can Bosnians tolerate it?
So long as Dodik continues to be reelected you will face crises of this sort. The international community has a lot bigger problems right now than publication of the census results in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EU has delineated a clear path for Bosnia and Herzegovina towards reform. It also pays a lot of the country’s bills. The war ended over 20 years ago. Isn’t it time Bosnians accepted responsibility for their own census?
Q: At the same time we have a meeting of [Serbian Prime Minister] Vucic and [Croatian President] Grabar-Kitarovic who signed a declaration on relations between Serbia and Croatian, but problem child is against – RS! Their leaders obviously do not want reconciliation. Your comment?
A: RS under Dodik defines itself as opposed to Croat and Bosniak interests. Why would it welcome reconciliation?
It seems to me the divide between Belgrade and Banja Luka is getting bigger. What Dodik is doing is clearly not in Serbia’s interest. He is damaging Serbia’s EU prospects and championing a diehard Serb nationalist cause that has been defeated repeatedly both in war and in peacetime elections, except in RS.
I imagine Vucic will try to rein Dodik in, but I am not certain he’ll succeed. Dodik likes EU hard currency, but he is bent on making RS a Russian satellite. He has no serious interest in EU membership, unless he can achieve it as an independent and sovereign state. That isn’t going to happen.
I think the census results should be published, along with all the technical issues and how they have been resolved. Let the chips fall where they may.
Erol Avdo, also of Avaz, followed up with some additional questions later today:
Q: In today’s interview you are quoted to say that Aleksandar Vučić “will try to curb Dodik.” In what way and with which instruments Mr. Vučić can really curb Dodik, and does the Serbian leader want to do that? Or could it be that there is a change of mood in Belgrade (could they become more openly pro-Russian, with pro-Russian position (Šešelj radicals and others) in Serbian parliament?
A: You’ll have to ask Prime Minister Vucic whether he is comfortable with the Russophiles in Belgrade and whether he feels the pressure coming from them. It seems to me that giving in to them is a sure way of blocking his goal of EU membership.
As for curbing Dodik, the reasons to do so are clear: Dodik’s advocacy of RS independence puts Serbia in a lose-lose position. I’ll leave it to the Prime Minister to figure out what instruments to use, but I suspect that money is the prime leverage that would work with RS right now. Dodik is pretty desperate.
Q: Also, could Mladen Ivanic, who is an experienced and old politician, actually have a new assessment of that “change of heart” in Belgrade — and — in the worst case scenario — decide to show more resistance to all this EU accession process?
A: Ask him, not me, whether he has had a change of heart. In my way of thinking, he is not going to be able to outflank Dodik on the nationalism side, so he may as well stick with the EU.
Q: Or this is only all about census? Could Ivanic become more pro-Russian as well?
A: Russia is a declining regional power. Anyone who wants to tie the future of his country to a petro-state that lacks enough revenue to fund its budget is welcome to do so. Just don’t expect the U.S. or the EU to pay your bills or welcome you into their clubs if that is the choice you make.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
In
Of course I prefer that the UK stay in the European Union. The economic arguments are compelling, both for Brits and for Americans. Britain is clearly much better off today than it was when it joined the EU in 1973. Its economic future outside the EU is highly uncertain, causing stock markets worldwide to tremble until yesterday. Then they strengthened in response to indications the “remain” camp might win. A lot of US companies are established in Great Britain. Leaving would reduce trans-Atlantic trade and investment, hinder London’s role as a financial hub, reduce British and American access to European markets and hurt the fragile European recovery now just barely beginning.
But none of that has mattered much. Instead the “leave” campaign has gained momentum as a largely a populist rebellion against immigration, European bureaucrats and British (principally English) identity. Many Brits want out despite the economic arguments. The parallels to Donald Trump’s successful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination are all to obvious.
I hope the parallel does not end there. Trump’s effort so far is clearly a minority one. Assuming the polls are correct, the US election if held today would end in a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton, despite all the heavy baggage she carries. Great Britain will do the world, and the American election campaign, a great deal of good if it rejects “leave,” which has run a campaign only slightly less objectionable than Trump’s. The murder of “remain” parliamentarian Jo Cox cannot be pinned on the campaign itself, but it betrays the level of division and violence associated with this referendum. By the same token, if “leave” wins, it will put wind in Trump’s sails.
Both “leave” and Trump are drawing on a reservoir of resentment from globalization’s losers. They are protesting, loudly, and all too often with good reason: many have not seen an increase in wages for 20 years. Some blame that on trade agreements, immigration or people whose skin is not “white.” The real reasons are often tax policies that favor wealthy real estate investors like Donald Trump, lack of appropriate education to take on the new jobs globalization has created, the union-breaking Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher initiated, and a dearth of retraining opportunities or desire to exploit those that exist.
Ironically, a “leave” win will likely lead to at least one other “leave” vote. Most Scots are far more comfortable with Brussels Eurocrats than the English are. The First Minister has already indicated that Scotland will conduct another referendum on leaving Great Britain if Great Britain votes to leave the EU. Northern Ireland can’t be expected to follow suit, but what about Wales?
And what about other EU countries? We can expect several of them to want to follow Britain’s lead, which will mean a very hard line against concessions in the two years of departure negotiations that would follow the referendum. Germany and France in particular will be hard over not to make departure easy for Britain, in hopes of discouraging other members from following suit. Not to mention Spain, which faces a possible secession of Catalonia.
Nothing could please Vladimir Putin more than to watch the Europe that has united with the US in imposing sanctions in response to Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine, in particular on the basis of a referendum, since that is the meretricious device he used in Crimea. Never mind the possibility that parts of the Russian Federation might want to follow the precedent. Putin knows well how to deal with that, as he demonstrated in putting down the Chechnya rebellion.
So “out” is bad for the US and bad for the rest of Europe. It is good for Trump and Putin. That is enough reason for me to want the United Kingdom to remain “in.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
One thing not to worry about
Yesterday’s front-page New York Times piece on radicalization in Kosovo is every diplomat’s nightmare: a well-written, prominent story with solid facts that contradict what his or her government wants the Americans to believe. But there is another two-thirds of the story that got short shrift:
- the Kosovo government has already reacted vigorously and effectively to the inroads Islamic extremists have made, and
- Kosovo Albanians as well as their government remain overwhelmingly and enthusiastically pro-American and pro-European.
The article would have been a clarion call to action three or four years ago. But today it is largely old news. The story of relatively high levels of extremist recruitment and Saudi funding Carlotta Gall tells has already been amply documented. In fact, radicalization according to Adrian Shtuni is not uniform across Kosovo but focused in four municipalities:
The Kosovars themselves have spilled a lot of electrons on the subject, in particular the Saudi connection that is one of Gall’s main, and well-told, points. They figure:
In terms of the number of foreign fighters per capita amongst their Muslim population, Kosovo is in the bottom half of the list of countries, ranked 14th among 22 countries with the highest number of foreign fighters per capita of their respective Muslim populations.
The Kosovo government is claiming there have been no known Kosovar recruits to the Islamic State (ISIS) in the past year or so. To my knowledge, no one is denying that claim.
ISIS recruitment worldwide is down overall, due to its loss of territory and fighters over the past year. But in addition Pristina has been conducting a legal crackdown, described by the Police Director earlier this month in Brussels. It includes 110 arrests, 67 indictments and 26 convictions so far. This is not an easy thing to do for a young country still not a member of Interpol with lots of other problems. But it is getting done. The government has also prepared a 2015/20 strategy for countering violent extremism covering early identification, prevention, intervention and de-radicalization and reintegration.
The overall political environment is favorable to blocking ISIS recruitment: Kosovars are remarkably pro-NATO and pro-Europe, with over 90% supporting membership in the Alliance and the European Union. Despite divisive domestic politics that have led to street demonstrations focused on the wisdom of continuing Pristina’s dialogue with Belgrade, dissenters from the Euroatlantic path Kosovo has chosen are few and far between.
Americans are quick these days to see threats, in particular from Muslim populations. Kosovo however is a constitutionally secular state whose mostly Muslim population is as friendly to the West as any on earth. The Alliance saved Kosovo Albanians from Serbia’s effort to expel them in 1999, has protected the country ever since and is now in the process of helping it to build up its security forces. The European Union has been generous and helpful, providing most of the NATO troops deployed there and much of the international aid. It is not surprising that most Kosovars view Washington and Brussels as friends and protectors, not enemies.
Of course there are some individuals who feel differently. Unprovoked, a Kosovar killed two US airmen five years ago in Frankfurt. Other incidents may happen. What we need to do to ensure they are few and far between is to continue to help ensure the success of Kosovo’s democracy and economy, as well as its application of the rule of law. Despite the Times’ front-page article, Kosovo is one of the last things Americans should have to worry about.
RSS - Posts
