Tag: European Union
Professionalism
Diplomats traditionally dread release of their cables, which often convey private conversations with foreign government officials. Having left the State Department more than 18 years ago, I’ve lost that sensitivity.
That’s a good thing, as the leading Italian daily Corriere della Sera has gotten hold of some from US Embassy Rome (presumably through the Freedom of Information Act), where I was deputy chief of mission and frequent Charge’ d’affaires from 1990 to 1993. Those were turbulent years in Italy. Its magistrates were investigating corruption, especially among political party leaders. Their “Clean Hands” (Mani Pulite) effort was strikingly successful, shaking Italy’s Christian Democratic and Socialist parties to their foundations.
The Embassy of course had lots of contacts in those political parties, which had collaborated in preserving Italy’s Western orientation throughout the Cold War. But we also by that time were expanding our contacts in the former Communist Party and in the relatively new Northern League (Lega Nord). We were determined not to intervene in what was going on, but to follow it with care and elucidate the events for officials in Washington, who sometimes had exaggerated fears and excessive concerns.
The published account of our cables (ignore the headline) shows just that: an embassy doing a highly professional job in the midst of political turbulence. We talked to lots of different people but managed to stay out of the fray. Flying below the radar in Rome is not easy. Italians are inclined to think the Americans, in particular their ambassador, are behind everything important that happens in their world. They were also quick to think we would protect this or that accused politician. Those suspicions were disarmed: we neither generated Clean Hands nor shielded anyone from judicial investigation.
Such probity doesn’t make for big headlines. I’m told the story is attracting little attention in Rome. It will attract none in the US. Americans have already had a giant dose of diplomatic cables from Wikileaks. Interest has been limited to those that suggest scandal or malfeasance, especially by still active politicians.
Will the publication of these and other cables inhibit non-Americans from sharing their perspectives with our diplomats? I suppose it will make some people more cautious in what they say. But most politicians understand perfectly well that what they say to diplomats will be conveyed, in one form or another, to a foreign capital. Diplomats hear what people want them to hear. That’s why it is so important to listen to many voices and reach independent judgments about what to believe, or not. I may not want what I say to a diplomat published tomorrow, but I definitely want it noticed and reported.
One small note about diplomatic cables: they are all signed by whoever is in charge of the embassy, either the ambassador or a charge’ d’affaires. That does not mean he has read and signed each and every one before it is sent. A number of section chiefs in a big embassy like Rome will have the authority to sign off on a cable if it is judged not to merit top-level attention or if the head woman is unavailable for some reason. I frankly don’t remember which of the cables Corriere has quoted I or the ambassador signed, though much of the wording is familiar. I likely read all of them, if not before sending then afterwards. And I am proud of the professional tone and substance, whether I signed them or not!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rot at the top
Two Bulgarian researchers, Ruslan Stefanov and Martin Vladimirov, yesterday presented Shadow Power: Assessment of Corruption and Hidden Economy in Southeast Europe here at SAIS. Their powerpoints are here and here. Corruption is now in many ways the most important challenge in the Balkans today, as it hinders economic growth, exacerbates inter-ethnic relations, heightens political tensions, slows the pace of reforms needed to qualify for NATO and EU membership, reduces state legitimacy, and threatens instability. Corruption is second only to unemployment as a concern the public’s estimation. What the Southeast European Leadership for Development and Integrity (SELDI) has managed to do is to measure corruption pressure and practices (not just perceptions, as the Transparency International index does) as well as elucidate “state capture,” in particular in the energy sector.
The results are not edifying: corruption pressure (share of citizens reporting demands for bribes from public officials) has not improved overall since 2014 in the region and has worsened in Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, while declining in Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Serbia (notably the countries in which the European Union has arguably been most active on corruption issues). More than half of the population in these Southeast European countries believes it will have to bribe someone to get things done. In all but Montenegro, more than half the population believes corruption cannot be substantially reduced. Irregular, “hidden,” employment is one of the consequences. Another is use of the non-liberalized energy sector to extract rents for state officials.
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, and to a lesser extent Albania and Kosovo, stand out as countries in which corruption levels are worsening. Tolerance of corruption in those four countries is also highest, and they are among the countries in which 50% or more of the population believes corruption cannot be substantially reduced. The public thinks the most corrupt officials in the region are political party and coalition leaders, members of parliament, ministers, and local political leaders. In short, what we’ve got here is deep-seated, endemic corruption, with the rot worst at the top.
What is to be done?
The report recommends “effective prosecution of corrupt high level politicians and senior civil servants,” EU Commission engagement with civil society, and independent monitoring mechanisms. That is certainly logical, but I challenged whether this was adequate after the presentation at SAIS, noting that the successful prosecution of my wartime friend and former prime minister Ivo Sanader in Croatia seems to have had the opposite impact: the “Sanader effect” has made top politicians more cautious about reforms. Ruslan wisely underlined that the prosecutions could not be one-off but rather should be sustained, as they are in the US. I can’t fault the idea of stronger EU engagement with civil society, which Ruslan and Martin thought had been much weaker than in Romania and Bulgaria, where improvements are evident.
I am however still skeptical about anticorruption bodies. The kind of civil society monitoring SELDI has done is important, but most official anticorruption agencies are ineffectual, because corruption is not an aberration of the system but rather the system itself. The opposite of corruption in these countries is not anticorruption. It is good governance. I see more promise in improving transparency and accountability, in particular in political parties. Most of them in the countries of greatest concern are run as fiefdoms of the party bosses, with little possibility of changing the guard and lots of opportunity to reward loyalists with corrupt rents. Srdjan Blagovcanin and Boris Divjak have made this point for Bosnia and Herzegovina. It seems to me likely to be valid in other countries as well.
But that point should not detract from the courageous and perspicacious work Ruslan and Martin have done. They have greatly enhanced the tools available to measure corruption and corruption pressure and offered some important suggestion of what to do about it. That these accomplishments are coming from inside the Balkans, not outside, represents real progress. Bravi!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Filling my gaps
A number of readers have pointed out gaps in the piece I published yesterday on Macedonia. So here are my feeble attempts to fill the lacunae.
Yes, Martin Naunov (who commented on yesterday’s post), judicial accountability is also important. I should have mentioned the special prosecutor and the need to support her fully. But beyond that I don’t usually comment on judicial matters. People should be presumed innocent and tried in court, not in public opinion, no matter who they are or what positions they hold or may have held in the past. Elections should be no shield from judicial accountability. The special prosecutor last month indicted more than a dozen people, but their names are not yet known. They will have to defend themselves in court.
One Twitter critic denounced me for ignoring the Albanians in Macedonia, who he said have suffered from former Prime Minister Gruevski’s Macedonian nationalism. But my piece focused on what I perceive to be the major issues that most concern Washington, not those of most concern to Albanians and Macedonians. Ethnic tension would concern Washington. The wire tapping scandal and its ramifications have not however on the whole generated ethnic tension but rather ethnic cooperation in protests (and to some degree protection from them). Another critic suggested that I should have focused negative attention on Ali Ahmeti, who leads the Albanian political party that was in Gruevski’s coalition. I don’t see how that would have helped me to explain what is of most concern to Washington.
Another critic questioned why Macedonia should want to become a member of NATO, since it is already surrounded by NATO members. That’s not literally true, since neither Kosovo nor Serbia is a NATO member, but it is also irrelevant, as Macedonia really faces no threat from a neighboring state. It has faced serious threats from Albanian extremists, in part exported from Kosovo, but well below the threshold for triggering NATO obligations.
Macedonian citizens give many varied reasons for wanting NATO membership. Some think it is an elite, democratic club that represents an important way station on the path to the European Union. Others believe that the military reforms Skopje has undertaken and the performance of its troops in Afghanistan merit recognition through NATO membership. Albanians in Macedonia tell me they regard NATO membership as an important guarantee of the country’s multiethnic democracy and maintenance of its constitutional protection.
It is all of those things, and more. But for the US, the key is this: Macedonian army soldiers have fought integrated with the Vermont National Guard in Afghanistan. That’s enough for me to think that the Alliance would gain something from Macedonian membership. If its citizens also think there is something to be gained, let’s make a deal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What I’m thinking about Macedonia
With former Prime Minister Gruevski in DC and I gather a photo published of the dinner a few colleagues and I had with him last night, I’m finding people interested in my views on Macedonia. For what they are worth, here they are.
Gruevski came to power in 2006 as an economic reformer and has a very good record in that department. Macedonia has dramatically improved its business climate, generating small and medium enterprise and attracting foreign investment. Only the European recession has clouded the picture. I’ll leave it to Gruevski’s minions to provide the facts and figures.
He has two problems in Washington:
1) a wire tapping scandal that has revealed what reasonable people believe to be wide-ranging abuse of power during his last mandate as prime minister;
2) his failure to make significant progress with Greece in resolving the “name” issue (Athens objects to the name Macedonia, claiming it should be exclusively Greek).
Gruevski has a long way to go to convince people here that the abuses of power we’ve seen revealed in the last couple of years are finished and that a new era of transparency and accountability is starting. That will have to begin with an impeccable election in December, one that provides both Macedonian citizens and the internationals who count (that’s the US and EU) with an outcome that is widely recognized as legitimate.
Transparency and accountability will require big changes in the way the Macedonian government operates and in its relationship to the press. In a way, that has already started: the local media covered the wire tapping scandal in detail and at length. Future Macedonian governments need to learn to live with the kind of sharp and constant criticism that characterizes democratic societies. They will also need to operate far more cleanly than in the past.
On the “name” issue, some in Washington still think a compromise solution can be found. They urge Skopje and Athens to come up with something that Washington, Berlin and Brussels will find worthy enough to push as part of a broader package of reviving Balkans ambitions to become part of Europe.
My own view is skeptical of that approach. I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket. It is certainly difficult for Gruevski to compromise because his political constituency may not accept it, which could lead to a defeat of the necessary referendum. It is difficult for Athens to compromise because it is already feeling humiliated. Berlin and Brussels don’t really want to ask Athens to do anything more than meet the requirements of its various financial bail outs. In weakness there is strength.
Linking Macedonia’s problems with Bosnia’s and Kosovo’s risks compounding the difficulty and making a solution less likely. Nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed, which may be never.
The alternative is NATO membership as The FYROM (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the term used in the United Nations). Both an interim agreement and an International Court of Justice decision weigh in favor of that ugly solution. But it requires getting the issue back up to the President of the United States (in the next administration, not this one). That is extraordinarily difficult. President Bush tried hard at the NATO Bucharest Summit in 2008 to force a solution. The Greeks balked. He failed. Who in the US government wants to tell a new president to put her prestige on the line for something that has a good probability of failure? You can forget about the issue completely if Trump is elected.
Macedonians detest the appellation “The FYROM,” but most tell me they are willing to swallow it, sometimes adding that it also needs to lead to EU membership. That in my view is a bridge too far. Greece will insist on a real solution before Skopje accedes to the EU. I don’t think there is any way out of that vise, in which Athens has a great deal of leverage.
Even getting NATO membership as “The FYROM” will require a significant reduction in Greece’s resistance. The next Macedonian prime minister needs to think about what he can do to reduce the impression among Greeks that calling Macedonia Macedonia threatens their identity. I don’t know what that is, though I can think of a lot of options. How to find out which one the Greeks will value? Ask them, in private, what they would appreciate.
The notion that Macedonia’s problems merit high priority in a Washington consumed with an election campaign, the war against the Islamic State, the roguish challenge from Russia, the economic and military rise of China and dozens of other issues is not convincing. Macedonians need to look for a solution they and the Greeks can bring to Washington for a blessing, without much heavy lifting from the Americans. I hope they do that, early in Hillary Clinton’s presidency.
PS: So here is what I get in response to this post:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 3-7
- Charting a Way Forward in Afghanistan | Monday, October 3 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | The Brookings Institution | Click HERE to register
Fifteen years after the September 11 attacks drew the United States into Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida and their hosts, the Taliban, cooperation with the Afghan people remains key to the generational conflict against violent extremists in the region. While multiple conflicts rage across the broader Middle East, continuing to build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan is pivotal. The situation in Afghanistan remains difficult, but the country is considerably better off today than it was at the start of this conflict, and the Afghan people are an important ally. In a new paper, former ambassadors, military commanders, special representatives, and Afghanistan scholars outline a way forward for the United States and its Afghan partners, centered on the concept of enduring partnership.On October 3, the Brookings Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligencewill host an event to examine the effort in Afghanistan and the region based on the recommendations from the paper. Former Special Representative for Afghanistan/Pakistan James Dobbins and former Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann, as well as former Ambassador James Cunningham will join retired General David Petraeus, who led the NATO military effort there from 2010 to 2011, as panelists. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon will moderate the event. - Crossroads of the Caucusus: Implications of Georgia’s Elections for the Region and Beyond | Monday, October 3 | 2:00pm – 3:15pm | The German Marshall Fund of the US | Click HERE to Register
The instability stretching from Ukraine to Turkey to the Middle East places Georgia at the middle of regional and geopolitical developments. Though Georgia’s relationship with the Alliance is long standing, Georgia has made significant strides in greater governmental transparency and efficiency that have bolstered the country’s democracy and pulled Georgia closer to NATO and Europe. However, escalating tensions between the ruling Georgian Dream party and the opposing United National Movement, as well as controversial amendments to the country’s constitutional courts, have raised questions about the direction of internal politics. With this in mind, The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) invites you to a discussion with Ambassador Tedo Japaridze, member of the Georgian Parliament and chairman of the International Relations Committee, who will discuss the upcoming elections on October 8, Georgia’s strategic context in a rapidly changing region, and Georgia’s relationship with Europe and NATO. The discussion will be moderated by Transatlantic Academy Executive Director Stephen Szabo. - What Does Success in the Middle East Look Like for the Next President? | Wednesday, October 5 | 8:15am – 9:15am | The Brookings Institution | Click HERE to Register
Syria. Iraq. Iran. It’s no secret that many of the top challenges for the security and stability of the world lie in the Middle East. On day one of their administration, the next president will be forced to make major strategy decisions in the region. Will the U.S. choose to engage militarily in Syria? How will the U.S. move forward with the Iranian nuclear agreement? After four years of the next president’s first term, what would success in the Middle East really look like?
On October 5, come have breakfast at Brookings and hear an exciting conversation about how the next president can navigate these hot spots in foreign policy, and make both the U.S. and the world a safer place. As part of the Brookings Election 2016 project, this event is the first in a series of live podcast recordings.
Brookings Senior Fellow and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Robert Einhorn has released a new set of recommendationsto the next president on Iran on how the U.S. can reinforce support for the Iran nuclear deal at home and abroad and promote stability in the region. Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon recently delivered a policy recommendation on the Syrian conflict, and will speak to how the next president can balance the dual goals of U.S. security and the protection of Syrian lives.
The event will be moderated by veteran journalist Indira Lakshmanan of the Boston Globe, who will prompt each expert to deliver a recommended course of action in a concise manner, press them with alternate perspectives on the issue, and ensure a lively conversation about realistic pathways to success and the obstacles that lie in the way.
- Stronger with Allies: The Future of Europe after Brexit | Thursday, October 6 | 8:30am – 1:00pm | Atlantic Council | Click HERE To Register
As British and EU policymakers map out the UK’s exit from the European Union, Europe is already confronted with a triple threat: Russia’s aggressive posture to the East, Mideast wars and instability producing waves of migrants and extremism from the South, and centrifugal, nationalist forces tearing at the continent’s internal fabric. The UK referendum, horrific terrorist attacks, and a continually sluggish economy put the future of Europe in question. Against this backdrop of uncertainty, this conference is organized in partnership with the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic to flesh out a strategy for Europe and transatlantic cooperation following the Bratislava EU Summit in September.
The event will feature: E. Miroslav Lajčák, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, Mr. Carlos Costa, Governor, Bank of Portugal, Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Future of Diplomacy Project, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling, LLP; Former US Ambassador to the European Union, Ms. Ashlee Godwin, Committee Specialist, Foreign Affairs Committee and Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, UK House of Commons, Mr. Benjamin Haddad, Research Fellow, Hudson Institute, H.E. Ratislav Kacer, Ambassador of Slovakia to Hungary, Ms. Laure Mandeville, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Future Europe Initiative, Atlantic Council, Dr. Andrea Montanino, Director, Global Business and Economics Program, Atlantic Council, H.E. Pierre Moscovici, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs, EU Commission, H.E. David O’Sullivan. Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, Minister Ana Palacio, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Former Prime Minister of Denmark and Secretary General of NATO, Ms. Teri Schultz, Freelance Reporter, National Public Radio and CBS Radio, Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Programs and Strategy, Atlantic Council - Pakistan’s Economic Turnaround: What Basis for Peace? | Thursday, October 6 | 9:30am – 11:00am | US Institute of Peace | Click HERE To Register
Reforms under the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif have boosted economic growth. Still, the world’s sixth most-populous country faces the economic and long-term security imperative of providing jobs, especially for young adults, who form 30 percent of the population—a demographic “youth bulge” that is one of the world’s largest. And security problems, including violent extremism, threaten economic development and risk derailing Pakistan’s efforts toward rapprochement with its neighbors, including India. Mohammad Ishaq Dar has served as finance ministry throughout the current government’s term, and is a longtime leader within the governing Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz). He will speak at USIP in a visit to Washington that will include the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This event will feature Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Finance Minister of Pakistan and will be moderated by Moeed Yusuf, Associate Vice President, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace - Shifting Paradigms: The Role of Young People in Building Peace and Security | Thursday, October 6 | 2:00pm – 4:00pm | Woodrow Wilson Center | Click HERE to Register
The Wilson Center’s Global Sustainability and Resilience Program, in coordination with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), invites you to an expert discussion on building peace and countering violent extremism with young people.
In 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2250, which marked the emergence of a youth, peace, and security agenda. What should policymakers prioritize to support young people’s active engagement in peacebuilding processes? How can Resolution 2250 support the United States’ domestic and international efforts on peace? Panelists will explore these questions and invite questions from the audience. The event will feature Joyce Banda,Distinguished Fellow, Roger-Mark De Souza,
Director of Population, Environmental Security, and Resilience, Benoit Kalasa,
Director, Technical Division, United Nations Population Fund Natalia Kanem, Deputy Executive Director, Programme, United Nations Population Fund, Alaa Murabit, Medical Doctor; High-Level Commissioner, Health Employment and Economic Growth, United Nations and Andy Rabens, Special Advisor, Global Youth Issues, U.S. Department of State
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dodik’s folly
American University Professor Ulas Doga Uralp asked last night whether I had written anything about the Bosnian Serb referendum, which passed Sunday with over 99% voting “yes.” Turnout was modest: somewhere around 55%. The issue on the ballot was whether Republika Srpska’s national day should be celebrated January 9. I won’t bother to explain why that is important to some people. Nor do I regret not having written something about it, though I believe I wasted a few breaths on it in an interview.
The substance of the referendum deserves to be ignored. The significant thing was that it was held at all, after the Bosnian constitutional court ruled it unconstitutional, rightly or wrongly. If the referendum is allowed to stand, Dodik intends to move ahead with an independence referendum in 2018. For some in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that would be a casus belli, just as it was in 1992.
I don’t really expect real war to ensue, though the risk of violence needs to be taken seriously. Many approved independence referendums don’t result in widely recognized sovereignty, most notably Russian-inspired referendums in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea. Don’t know all those places? That’s because they are under normal circumstances obscure provinces, now converted into poor, backwater satellites of Moscow with no prospect of wide international recognition. Their main function is to destabilize and retard the countries that continue to claim them, in service to Moscow’s anti-Western, anti-NATO and anti-EU ambitions.
That’s the best Republika Srpska can hope for if it proceeds with its current course: to become a poor, unrecognized, backwater satellite of a country whose GDP is now less than that of Spain and still decreasing. Russia is a declining regional power with little to offer even a strategically important place like Crimea. Republika Srpska as a self-declared independent state will get little recognition and even less money, since it doesn’t happen to sit on significant real estate. Dodik will no doubt have increased opportunities to line his pockets if RS declares independence, but the population is guaranteed to lose access to World Bank funds as well as American and European assistance.
I don’t expect it to come to that. It would be far better if Bosnia’s courts would handle the issue, declaring the referendum null and void and doing what they can to hold Dodik accountable for conducting it in spite of a constitutional court decision. This is Bosnia’s Marbury v Madison moment, when the court’s authority to review legislation and executive decisions requires affirmation. If the Americans and Europeans have any interest left in Bosnia, they need to make sure that happens.
Of course they might have just used the “Bonn powers” of the High Representative, who has said the referendum violates the Dayton agreements. They can no longer readily do that because they have somehow allowed Moscow to acquire a de facto veto over their use, and they fear they have no way of implementing the HiRep’s decisions. Putin’s Russia is happy to use the veto and ostentatiously provided support to Dodik with a visit to Moscow just before the referendum.
But none of that changes reality: Republika Srpska won’t become a widely recognized independent state but may well join half a dozen other Moscow-sponsored backwaters in serving Moscow’s commitment to destabilization. The EU and NATO may not be perfect, but they offer a lot better future than Russia does. That’s Dodik’s folly.
RSS - Posts
