Tag: European Union
Diminished West revisited
Hisham Melhem published a bold and compelling piece over the weekend about Western interactions with Iran that has garnered a great deal of praise from people I respect. Hisham lambasts the Italians for covering up nude statues during the visit of President Rouhani, mocks Rouhani for asking the Pope to pray for him, praises the French for insisting that any meal they serve has to include wine, excoriates the Supreme Leader for Holocaust denial, and decries the Iranian humiliation of American sailors. He appears to have convinced most that these recent incidents with Iran have diminished the West, perhaps irreversibly.
I think he is wrong on the merits, most notably the notion that anything that happened last week suggests diminished the West. If I have to live in a civilization in decline, let it be this one.
But let me respond to his points one-by-one.
On the statues and the wine: we all bend a bit to the preferences of our guests. I am a pork eater, but I wouldn’t serve it during a meal with Kosher or Muslim guests. I don’t know anyone who would. The French are entitled to their view that wine is essential to a meal, but I find that attitude rather intolerant and inhospitable. I bet their businessmen aren’t insisting on wine served at meals if their Iranian Airbus customers object. As for the statues, what the Italians did is at least as laughable as what John Ashcroft did in covering statues at the Justice Department, but that didn’t convince me America is in decline. Italian spinelessness shouldn’t convince anyone that the West is diminished.
As for the Pope, I bet Francis wishes he had a dollar for all the visitors who ask him to pray for them. What else does one ask of the Pope?
The parts of Melhem’s lamentation that have some merit are the complaint about showing photographs of the US sailors, who so far as I can tell really did violate Iran’s territorial integrity, as well as the complaint about Khamenei’s Holocaust denial.
My understanding is that display of prisoners is a violation of 1949 Geneva convention. The Americans should have objected, vigorously. I take it they did not because they were relieved to get them back quickly after they entered Iranian territory and did not want to undermine those who had made the arrangements for their return. That is screwy, as we need the Iranians reminded that the nuclear deal, and more generally Tehran’s return to the international community, entails responsibilities as well as privileges.
On the Holocaust, I thought Khamenei’s video seemed less committed to denial than previous utterances. He says “it is not clear whether the core of this matter is reality or not… Even if it is a reality, it is not clear how it happened.” That’s far from a resounding denial and might even be interpreted as an implicit retreat from it. I won’t be satisfied until Iran accepts not only the reality of the Holocaust but also one of the consequences: creation of the state of Israel. But listening to your enemies is at least as important as denouncing them. I’ll leave to Iran experts whether I have misheard.
I realize of course that Hisham’s tirade is in defense of the West and its liberal values. But I don’t think on close examination that it works. Insisting that others accept your standards and beliefs is not a liberal value. Listening to them and talking with them about why we believe what we do is. But that won’t attract anywhere near the same notice as a broadside.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ethics matter
On Wednesday, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York hosted a talk by Jean-Pierre Filiu, Professor of Middle East Studies, Sciences Po.
Filiu related that he chose this topic months before the Paris Attacks; he knew the ISIS threat was unprecedented.
Thirty years ago, Filiu met the first jihadis while doing humanitarian work in Afghanistan. He was introduced to the disturbing Arab “volunteers” who had already begun to sneak in. He heard about Bin Laden and Zawahiri but never met them. He concluded that they lived on a different planet and wished to annihilate our way of life. Nobody took his warnings seriously.
The jihadists founded Al Qaeda (AQ) in the last month of the Soviet occupation. Al Qaeda means “the base,” which refers to a territorial base and a transnational network.
In 2001, the US and its allies responded appropriately by hitting AQ in its base in Kandahar. It is important to strike such threats at the source, the territorial base, before going after the global network. The decision to rely on local forces in the Northern Alliance was prudent. This action prevented a second wave of planned attacks.
Then the US launched the Global War on Terror and invaded Iraq. France warned against this and was correct, as it opened the Middle East to AQ. It also provided the instability that led to the London and Madrid attacks. French jihadis who had fought in Iraq were the masterminds of last year’s attacks.
ISIS was formed as a continuation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), established by former Jordanian criminal Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Unlike Bin Laden (a son of a tycoon) and Zawahiri (a doctor), he was not bourgeois. He used his expertise in crime. He was the first to behead a hostage, Nicholas Berg, in 2004.
Bin Laden thought this tactic too gory. But it made Al-Zarqawi a star. The US focused on targeting him, so other jihadis followed him. He was killed in 2006. His successors were killed in 2010 and were succeeded by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who had been detained in Camp Bucca in 2004, but was released for good conduct. Al-Baghdadi was able to maintain order in the camp by making other inmates listen to him; this would have made Filiu suspicious.
When Al-Baghdadi took over, AQI was losing ground because of the surge of US troops. AQI was later able to regain ground with the help of former Baathists alienated by the sectarianism of the Maliki government. AQI also gained ground in Syria thanks to Assad, who preferred to be up against jihadis rather than peaceful protesters for propaganda reasons. The more dictators you have in the Arab world, the more jihadis you will have. Ethics in international relations is not a luxury, but could be a real solution to many problems.
The US lost moral leverage after it did not act on its red line regarding chemical weapons in Syria. ISIS recruitment exploded. ISIS argued that the US and its allies were letting Syrians be gassed and presented its mission as humanitarian. ISIS learned from AQ not to depend on an external force, like the Taliban. ISIS runs its own totalitarian regime in a region more symbolic for Muslims than Khorasan.
The Levant is key to Muslim “end times” narratives. ISIS now incorporates much of this apocalyptic material into its propaganda; they talk about places mentioned in prophecies. In their narrative, the final battle will be in Jerusalem. The Israeli strategy of hoping ISIS and Hezbollah will just fight each other is shortsighted. ISIS is now recruiting inside Israel. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Diplomacy v war
I am pleased to publish this contribution from Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear safeguards inspector who holds a PhD in nuclear physics from the University of Vienna. Peacefare.net is, as always, interested in publishing well-argued contrary views:
“The IAEA has no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009.”
This Statement was made by Yukiya Amano, the Director General (DG) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Board of Governors (BoGs) of the autonomous UN Organisation on 15 December 2015 in Vienna. It was the conclusion of his report on the “Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme.” Amano’s Statement has satisfied the six world powers (P5+1) China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States plus Germany, members of the IAEA BoGs and parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement with Iran of 14 July 2015.
Ironically, this very statement was repeatedly made, almost 14 years earlier, by the then IAEA DG Mohamed ElBaradei during the decisive sessions of the UN Security Council on the Iraqi crisis in February 2003 in New York. ElBaradei was then requesting more time to enable the drawing of a credible IAEA broader conclusion on a Possible Military Dimension (PMD) in the Iraqi nuclear programme. The Council was deeply divided. While its permanent members, France, Russia and China and a number of other member States were in favour of providing more time to the Agency’s nuclear inspectors, the response from the United States, backed by Great Britain and Spain, was firmly negative.
The IAEA Statement was then insufficient to prevent a war. Combined forces from United States, Great Britain, Australia and Poland, the so-called “coalition of the willing,” invaded and in March 2003 without endorsement by the Security Council. The war did not confirm existence of any nuclear weapons or related activities in Iraq.
Colin Powell, at that time US Secretary of State and former head of US Army, regrettably admitted before his resignation from politics in 2005 that, in February 2003 there was “no doubt in my mind” that Saddam Hussein was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons. Later on, declassified US intelligence documents on the 2003 Iraq war affirmed the wrong assessment of the responsible US agencies on the country’s virtually non-existent weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The basic reason for this inability was analysts’ misinterpretation of the deceptive Iraqi behavior due to their failure to examine the situation “through an Iraqi prism.
In 2005 ElBaradei and the IAEA inspectors were awarded the Nobel Prise for Peace. IAEA’s current report about the “Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme,” a programme comprising sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities with PMD, led to a resolution submitted by the P5+1 and adopted by consensus by IAEA BoGs.
In comparison to the outcome of the Iraqi crisis, this resolution constitutes a major historic diplomatic achievement, which brings an end to a dangerous nuclear crisis. The Iran nuclear deal is a positive example of effective multilateral dialogue and negotiations. It alleviates tensions and leads to the removal of vital sanctions on Iran. At the same time, it leaves hundreds of billions of dollars in postential sanctions in place through an agreed mechanism to snap sanctions back if Iran does not cooperate. Last Saturday January 16, DG Amano announced in a special IAEA session that “inspectors on the ground verified that Iran has carried out all measures required under the JCPOA … to enable Implementation Day to occur.”
Successful implementation of the Agreement would have a twofold consequence. Firstly, Iran would not be able to “sneak-out” by developing clandestine nuclear weapons related activities without detection. Secondly, in case of a “break-out” of the Agreement by Iran, as North Korea did in 2003, the time required for the production of one Significant Quantity of nuclear material for building a nuclear weapon has been now practically increased from two to ten months or longer. It is well understood by all parties involved, including, that this new reality provides enough time for dynamic “corrective” reactions.
In consequence, new parameters emerge in the geopolitical equation allowing for effective and efficient response to regional conflicts and to rising threats. This important diplomatic achievement offers realistic chances for peaceful developments on the road paved by extensive effort of all parties involved in the JCPOA agreement, including Iran. However, a potential threatening “failure-factor” would be the burning out of the advantages gained by both sites through the Agreement during a continuance of the Syrian crisis.
According to the last paragraph of the pertinent resolution, the Agreement is in effect “…until ten years after the JCPOA Adoption Day (18 October 2015) or until the date on which the Director General reports that the Agency has reached the Broader Conclusion for Iran, whichever is earlier.” In other words, until the DG would make the Statement: “the IAEA is able to provide credible assurance that all nuclear material and facilities in Iran remain in peaceful activities.” This means a direct and solid confirmation of both the “correctness” and “completeness” of Iran’s nuclear declarations, based upon continues monitoring and verification during an honest and flawless cooperation of Teheran with the IAEA inspectors, requiring sustained effort of both sites.
One could argue that the historic Agreement, including the Vienna IAEA resolution of the 15 December 2015, enabled a power shift in the wider area of Middle East which might contain dangerous developments in a persistently dynamic world. Even so, no development would be worse than possible nuclear proliferation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, January 11-15
- Japan-South Korea Relations and Prospects for a U.S. Role in Historical Reconciliation in East Asia | Monday, January 11th | 9:00-12:00 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Expectations are high that a landmark agreement on the legacies of World War II reached between Japan and South Korea will allow the two countries to further bilateral relations. Under the December 2015 agreement, Tokyo and Seoul stated they reached a “final and irrevocable resolution” regarding Korean women who were forced to serve as sex slaves under Japanese occupation. The deal is expected to allow the two countries to work more closely together on issues of mutual concern amid a rapidly changing economic, political, and security landscape in East Asia. For the United States too, successful implementation of the agreement is critical to bring its two closest allies in the region together and to establish a strong trilateral alliance that would work together to face common challenges. In this forum, scholars of history and international relations will discuss how to address issues of historical contention, and they will also discuss what role the United States could play to ensure that historical reconciliation between South Korea and Japan continues to move forward. See here for a full list of panels and speakers.
- Guantanamo Bay: Year 14 | Monday, January 11th | 3:00-4:45 | New America | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On January 22, 2009, just days after becoming president, Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13492, ordering the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Now in the last year of his presidency, 107 detainees remain. January 11th marks the 14th anniversary of the prison’s creation.New America is pleased to welcome Dr. Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University and author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days, Thomas B. Wilner, a lawyer with Shearman & Sterling LLP and co-founder of Close Guantanamo, who was the Counsel of Record to Guantanamo detainees in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and Andy Worthington, co-founder of Close Guantanamo and the author of The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison, for a discussion about what can or can’t be done in the next year, and whether President Obama’s promise will ever be fulfilled. Peter Bergen, Vice President of New America, will moderate the discussion Join the conversation online using #GTMO14th and following @NatSecNAF.
- Building Afghanistan’s Economy Through Regional Connectivity | Tuesday, January 12th | 3:00-4:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council for a special conversation with Dr. Mohammad Humayon Qayoumi on the economy of Afghanistan. More than a year after coming into power, Afghanistan’s National Unity Government has sought to re-establish Afghanistan’s role as a roundabout for economic connectivity between Central, South and East Asia, and Europe. With new progress made in the areas of power and gas transmission, fiber-optic linkages and movement of goods, the government has also launched a Jobs for Peace Plan, which seeks to provide near term economic opportunity across the country and soften the economic impact caused by the military drawdown. How will Afghanistan’s plans advance its self-reliance reform agenda, link its economy to the region, and provide jobs to its citizens? How can the US-Afghan strategic partnership best advance common security and economic interests? Join us for a special session with Dr. Qayoumi, Chief Advisor to President Ghani for infrastructure, IT and human capital who will provide firsthand what the Afghan government has in store to revive the Afghan economy. The conversation will be moderated by the Hon. James Cunningham, Senior Fellow and Khalilzad Chair, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council.On Twitter? Follow @ACSouthAsia and use #ACAfghanistan
- Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules that Run the World | Tuesday, January 12th | 4:00-5:30 | Center for Global Development | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The slave trade, colonial rule and apartheid were once all legal. Hard power then won lawful authority: might literally made legal rights. The global revolutions that abolished those coercive rights were extraordinary—yet they left today’s multi-trillion trade in oil and minerals untouched. Current law incentivizes authoritarianism, conflict and corruption so strongly that oil states in the developing world today are no freer, no richer and no more peaceful than they were in 1980. All of the recent reforms around extractives—from transparency to certification to oil-to-cash—point toward the modern idea that the people, not power, should have the ultimate right to control a country’s resources. Can the US lead the West toward the next global revolution, by abolishing its legal trade in authoritarian oil and conflict minerals? Join us for a conversation with Leif Wenar, Chair of Philosophy and Law, King’s College London and author of Blood Oil, and Todd Moss, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development and author of Oil to Cash: Fighting the Resource Curse through Cash Transfers.
- The Europe-Russia Relationship: From the Ukraine Crisis and the Rise of the Far Right to the War in Syria | Thursday, January 15th | 12:30-2:00 | GWU Elliot School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Two years ago, Ukraine’s Euromaidan revolution set off a new era in the Europe- Russia relationship. Europe responded to the annexation of Crimea with economic sanctions, prompting Russia to ban some European imports. Last fall, the conflict in Eastern Ukraine was overshadowed by Europe’s refugee crisis, Moscow’s strikes in Syria, and the Paris attacks. Taking advantage of rising anti-immigration sentiment and Islamophobia, Europe’s far-right parties, whose leaders express their admiration for President Putin, have fared well at the polls. European leaders must now work with Russia on conflict resolution in the Middle East while managing growing political polarization at home and helping Ukraine stabilize. Join us for a discussion on the topic featuring Marie Mendras, Transatlantic Academy; Alina Polyakova, Atlantic Council; and Marlene Laruelle, Research Professor of International Affairs; Director, Central Asia Program; Associate Director, Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, GW. Jeff Mankoff of the Center for Strategic and International Studies will moderate the discussion.
- Book Launch: The Outcast Majority: War, Development, and Youth in Africa | Thursday, January 14th | 2:00-3:00 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | While African youth are demographically dominant, most see themselves as members of an outcast minority. Their outlier perspective directly informs the fresh and compelling new thinking about war, development, and youth in The Outcast Majority: War, Development, and Youth in Africa by former Wilson Center fellow and youth expert Dr. Marc Sommers. Featuring interviews with development experts and young people, this book contrasts forces that shape and propel youth lives in war and post-war Africa with those that influence and constrain the international development aid enterprise. With an eye on the colossal populations of excluded and profoundly undervalued youth in conflict-affected Africa and far beyond, the concluding framework delivers practical steps for making development work significantly more relevant and effective.Please join the Wilson Center Africa Program in the 5th floor conference room as we speak with Dr. Sommers about his latest publication and examine the implications of his research for international development policy. This event will feature a conversation between Dr. Sommers and Mr. Mark Hannafin, Executive Secretary and Senior National Security Adviser at USAID and co-chair of the new USAID policy on youth in development. Monde Muyangwa, Africa Program Director, will moderate the conversation.
- Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution: On 5th Anniversary, What’s Next? | Thursday, January 14th | 2:30-4:00 | US Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Five years ago this month, the Tunisian people’s protests calling for respect of their civil liberties resulted in the downfall of the 24-year authoritarian regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the start of a rocky but largely peaceful process toward an inclusive political system. Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace and the International Republican Institute on Jan. 14 as we commemorate the 5th Anniversary of the Jasmine Revolution and examine the issues facing the country in the coming year and how the international community can help.Tunisia is confronting the regional rise of violent extremism that has led to terrorist attacks in its own country, spotlighting the struggle to balance security and human rights. Its frail economy remains a danger to social peace, with unemployment even higher than when the Jasmine Revolution began. Many of Tunisia’s youth are especially vulnerable to these factors.The panelists will consider these issues as well as specific decisions coming up in 2016, including the political situation, decentralization and economic reform. Join the conversation on Twitter with #Tunisia5. Speakers include: Ambassador Faycal Gouia, Embassy of the Republic of Tunisia; Scott Mastic, International Republican Institute; and Amy Hawthorne, Project on Middle East Democracy; Linda Bishai, U.S. Institute of Peace, will moderate the discussion, and Ambassador William B. Taylor will give opening remarks.
- Kazakhstan Nationbuilding and Kazakh Nationalism: A Debate | Thursday, January 14th | 3:00-6:00 | GWU Elliot School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | A new social activism has emerged in Kazakhstan, organized by different small groups self-defining as Kazakh nationalists. Who are they? What is their audience? What political and national projects do they advance? How do they position themselves toward the current authorities, the relationship to Russia, to the Islamic world, and to their Central Asian neighbors?Join us for a discussion with activists representative of this new trend and a roundtable with DC-based experts. Speakers include: Aidos Sarym, Altynbek Sarsenbayuly Foundation; Valikhan Tuleshov, Almaty Management University; Serik Beissembayev, Central Asia Program Visiting Fellow and Center of Social and Political Studies ‘Strategy’ in Almaty; Ulan Bigozhin, Doctoral Student at Indiana University; and Marat Raimkhanov, Hubert Humphrey Fellow at the University of Maryland.
- Foreign Intervention in South Asia: A Case Study from Sri Lanka | Thursday, January 14th | 3:30-5:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council for a conversation with a panel of experts to discuss Norway’s experience mediating conflict in Sri Lanka, and explore the role foreign actors play in South Asia more broadly.Across South Asia, external actors have often intervened to mediate conflict and build stability. Despite best efforts and often better resources, international involvement in South Asian conflicts has often faltered from lack of local support or consensus coupled with concerns over sovereignty. This was the case in Sri Lanka, where a five-year long Norwegian-led mediation process between the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lankan government unraveled, in part, due to a failure in securing bipartisan political support. The South Asia Center will convene a panel of experts to discuss Norway’s experience mediating conflict in Sri Lanka, and explore the role foreign actors play in South Asia more broadly. Speakers include Mark Salter, Author of To End a Civil War; Richard L. Armitage, President, Armitage International, L.C.; and Erik Solheim, Development Assistance Committee Chair, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The discussion will be moderated by Bharath Gopalaswamy, Director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council.
On Twitter? Follow @ACSouthAsia and use #ACSriLanka. - The Arab Spring Five Years Later: Towards Greater Inclusiveness | Friday, January 15th | 10:15-11:45 | The Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Five years have passed since the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia sparked revolts around the Arab world and the beginning of the Arab Spring. Despite high hopes that the Arab world was entering a new era of freedom, economic growth, and social justice, the transition turned out to be long and difficult, with the Arab world now in turmoil with revolutions, counter revolutions, wars, civil strife, and the worst refugee crisis of our times. The response to the Arab Spring and its aftermath has focused almost exclusively on political and security issues, and on the very divisive questions of national identity and political regimes. Economic and social questions have been put on the back burner. On January 15, Global Economy and Development at Brookings will host a discussion on a new book, The Arab Spring Five Years Later, which explores the critical economic and social issues driving the Arab Spring agenda and the real economic grievances that must be addressed in order to achieve peace, stability, and successful political transitions as well as provides an approach to addressing those grievances. Hafez Ghanem and Shinchi Yamanaka will present the key findings of the book, followed by a panel discussion featuring Masood Ahmed, Director of the Middle East Department, IMF; Sanjay Pradhan, CEO, Open Government Partnership; and Tamara Cofman Wittes, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. The panel will be moderated by Shanta Devarajan, Chief Economist, Middle East and North Africa Region, World Bank.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A bad way to start the new year
2015 was a disastrous year for the Middle East. Uncivil war in Syria raged on, with Russia pitching in on behalf of the Assad regime. Yemen also descended into full-fledged war, with Saudi Arabia pitching in on behalf of President (or former President, depending whose side you are on) Hadi. Libya’s UN-brokered peace agreement seems far from implementation, with two parliaments, two governments and many militias, as well as a growing Islamic State presence. The Islamic State lost territory in Syria (to Kurds) and in Iraq (to Kurds Yezidis, Shia militias and Iraqi government forces), but it would be hard to claim the tide of war has changed direction. Egypt continues to crack down on not only the Muslim Brotherhood and more extremist Islamist threats but also on moderate secularists. Israel and the Palestinians are at an impasse, one in which deadly violence on both sides is escalating.
Can it get worse?
The weekend’s events answer that question: yes. Friday Saudi Arabia, current chair of the UN Human Rights Council, executed 47 people, one of whom was a Shia cleric whose commitment to nonviolence seems uncontested, even if he was no friend of the (Sunni) monarchy. Yesterday Iranians responded by sacking part of the Saudi Embassy, a move that will remind the world of how little the Islamic Republic can be relied upon to protect diplomatic facilities. Today the Saudis claimed that Iran executed hundreds last year with little legal basis. The Iranians are promising that God will punish the Saudi monarchy.
We are clearly in the midst of a downward spiral that could well end in more sectarian bloodletting. Iran can pump more weapons and fighters (both Hizbollah and its own Revolutionary Guards) into Syria. Saudi Arabia can beef up support for insurgents there and escalate its attacks on the Houthis in Yemen. The more regional conflict and chaos, the stronger the Islamic State and Al Qaeda grow in Syria, Yemen, Libya and Afghanistan, even if they are losing territory in Iraq and northern Syria. Instability breeds instability.
President Obama wants to keep the United States out of the fray, except to attack those who directly threaten the homeland. That means the Islamic State as well as Al Qaeda and its affiliates. His astoundingly disciplined refusal to engage otherwise leaves a vacuum that militants expand to fill. Those who think the President indecisive or irresolute have misunderstood. He is determined not to get drawn back in to the Middle East. Watching the Iranians and Saudis go at it should be enough to make many Americans sympathize.
But not doing things is just as much a policy as doing them. It has consequences. The downward spiral is unlikely to stop of its own accord. The Middle East is a high wire act without a net. There is no regional security framework or even a loose association like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to help de-escalate. The Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation is far too weak a reed. The Gulf Cooperation Council is an adversary of Iran, not a neutral. Neither Europe nor the U.S. has had much success in getting the Islamic Republic and the Kingdom to temper their conflict.
It is difficult to see how this ends well. It may well be we are heading for a conflagration with much more catastrophic consequences than we have seen so far. Only when the Saudis and Iranians see that happening are they likely to stop. And then it may be too late.
We haven’t seen much yet of 2016. Just enough to know it is a bad way to start a new year.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Not a good year
Kosova Sot, a Pristina daily, asked for a year-end review, published in Albanian. Here is what I sent :
Today brought me the welcome news that Kosovo has been judged eligible for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a US government agency that focuses on supporting economic policy reform and good governance. That and European Union signature of a Stabilization and Association Agreement that provides substantial benefits to non-EU members are two important milestones for a country that has otherwise had a rough year.
The Kosovo government is under siege in parliament, where its opposition has several times attacked with tear gas, nominally to protest two international agreements: one with Montenegro demarcating the border with Kosovo and one with Serbia on the creation of an Association of Serbian Municipalities. The real motives lie deeper: the current Kosovo government was formed after a ruling party with the largest number of seats broke up a coalition that included its chief rival by surrendering the prime ministry and other key posts. The current rump opposition, which thought it had an unassailable advantage in forming a coalition to govern, found itself left out in the cold.
Still deeper is the existence in Kosovo of anti-constitutional political forces: on the Albanian side of the equation, Vetvendosje (Self-Determination), which insists on the right to a referendum on union with Albania excluded by the constitution; on the Serb side, most politicians, who deny Kosovo is an independent state, even if some are prepared to participate in its governance and acknowledge its laws. It is not easy for a state to accommodate political forces that deny its right to exist or insist on their right to end its existence.
Nor is life easy when your nearest and largest neighbor supports those who deny your right to exist and blocks your access to international organizations that pride themselves on virtually universal membership. Serbia, which has acknowledged in the Brussels talks sponsored by the EU the validity of Kosovo’s constitution and legal system on the entire territory of the country, nevertheless refuses to allow it admittance even into UNESCO. This has had the perverse effects of encouraging more virulent Albanian nationalism and Islamic extremism, both of which represent serious risks to Serbs and Serbian cultural and religious centers in Kosovo. So too does the recent EU decision not permit visa-free travel by Kosovars.
So I can’t count 2015 as a good year for Kosovo, despite its achievement of important milestones with Washington and Brussels. I can however hope that both anti-constitutional Serbs and anti-constitutional Albanians will come to their senses and realize that a stable, prosperous and democratic Kosovo is in their interest. That is certainly what concerned Americans wish for in 2016.
RSS - Posts
