My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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).
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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).
The Humanitarian Law Center published on Friday this account of the casualties in the NATO/Yugoslavia war of 1999, in order to counter disinformation in Serbia and elsewhere:
On Friday, March 24, eight year in a row (not including 2020, when there was no commemoration due to the Covid-19 pandemic and state of emergency), the central state commemoration of the anniversary of commencement of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was held. Humanitarian Law Center (HLC) draws attention to the established facts on the Kosovo war and bombing campaign of the FRY, warning against the threat of history revisionism undertaken by the state.
Let us recall that the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, used to make references to thousands of casualties of NATO’s air raids until 2022, most often mentioning 2,500 victims. At the 2018 commemoration, he stated that the Republic of Serbia had “more than 2,000 recorded, well remembered names”. However, as of 19 October 2021, when the Serbian Parliament rejected the proposal to set up the previously announced national commission which would be tasked with making a list of the bombing casualties, the President ceased to mention the number of victims. Speculating with the figures was resumed by the public broadcaster RTS, which this year highlighted that during the NATO bombing, “1,100 members of the Army and police were killed“ and “around 2,500 civilians, although the accurate list of victims has not been established yet ”.
Although the Republic of Serbia has never made a list of NATO bombing, Humanitarian Law Centre (HLC) and Humanitarian Law Center Kosovo (HLC Kosovo) published a list of all victims’ names in 2014, within the RECOM project. According to this register, during the NATO attacks, 756 persons were killed, amongst whom 452 civilians and 304 members of armed forces. Of the killed civilians, 206 were Serbs or Montenegrin by ethnic background, 218 were Albanians, 14 Roma, and 14 civilians of other ethnicity. In the bombing, 275 members of the Yugoslav Army (VJ) and Ministry of the Interior (MoI) were killed, whereas the number of the killed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was 29. A total of 261 persons were killed on the territory of Serbia, 10 in Montenegro, and 485 in Kosovo. This is the only and most complete list of victims of NATO’s bombing of FRY so far.
The Serbian President this year at the central commemoration also denied war crimes against Kosovar Albanians committed by Serbian forced before 24 March 1999, documented in the HLC reports as well as in those of international organisations. He stated that Serbia was found guilty for wanting to be “on its own” and proceeded with cynical discussion on the term “humanitarian disaster” which was used to describe the situation in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
Just like in the previous years, the President did not address the events in Kosovo during the NATO bombing. According to the data collected by HLC and HLC Kosovo, Serbian forces killed 6,872 Albanian civilians during the bombing. In the same period, KLA members killed 328 Serb civilians and 136 Roma and members of other ethnic groups. In the conflicts between Serb forces and KLA, 1,204 members of KLA and 559 members of the VJ and Serbian MoI were killed.
Humanitarian Law Center reminds the public broadcaster and institutions of the Republic of Serbia that by augmenting the number of the NATO bombing casualties, they are suggesting that the actual victims are not sufficiently important and thus offend their dignity. We call upon them to pay tribute to all killed citizens by accepting the list with individual names. Also, HLC urges on all national institutions to abandon historical revisionism of the Kosovo war. Recognising the accountability of the Republic of Serbia for the crimes committed against Kosovo’s Albanians is the only possible way towards overcoming the war past and building the common future for Serbs and Albanians.
– Budget hawk think tank CRFB, whose online game we use in class to help you understand what’s in the US budget, has a new report on balancing the budget. NYT’s Paul Krugman says we don’t have to worry so much about the debt.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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).
Charlie has been back a few days, but I’ve been down for the count, so here is a massive catchup edition:
January 23:
The ever-valuable D Brief has this: Norway’s military chief said around 180,000 Russian troops have been killed or injured in Ukraine so far. “Russian losses are beginning to approach around 180,000 dead or wounded soldiers,” and “Ukrainian losses are probably over 100,000 dead or wounded,” Defense Minister Eirik Kristoffersen told TV2 on Sunday. He also said an estimated 30,000 civilians have been killed in the war so far, though he didn’t elaborate on how he arrived at any of his numbers.
[This is interesting because the two subjects NOT covered by the western media are Ukrainian casualties and operational restrictions imposed by NATO couontries.]
– We talked in class about George Santos. New York magazine claims to list all of his lies.
– The pending appointment of Jeff Zients to be WH chief of staff resurrected this story about how he failed to create a Department of Trade. As we’ll discuss in class, congressional committees weren’t happy with either the plan or the reorganization power Zients proposed because it weakened their jurisdiction.
-The Economist often has clever headlines. Politico wins the prize this week for: Who Shot the Serif?
January 22:
Happy Year of the Rabbit!
As I read the accumulated papers, I see these items of special interest:
– Paul Kane laments the retirement of Senate “work horses” and includes data on diminished voting on amendments [because of the filled “amendment tree”]
I see that a lot has been happening during my travels. The big news on Ukraine is the dispute between US & Germany over tanks. A good catch-up piece is today’s D Brief, a newsletter worth reading regularly.
Good news for Congress: NYT says lawmakers changed the rules that in effect give them a $34,000 pay boost which they never would have voted for directly.
More good news at State: Sec. Blinken has ordered a shift from Times New Roman fonts for official documents to Calibri. When I worked on the Policy Planning Staff I failed to persuade Under Secretary Pickering to take advantage of the retiring of the Wang Computers and allow overseas cables to be written with upper and lower case letters instead of the required [by the former technology] ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME.
Also January 20:
Many of you know that I favor a return to Regular Order in Congress, the way the armed services committees do the NDAA, with vigorous oversight, a bill open to many amendments, and a compromise process that allows the ill to be signed into law — for 62 years now. But both Democratic and Republican leaders have opposed those open rules. Speaker McCarthy now wants to bring them back. Here’s what happened last time.
Fletcher’s Dan Drezner puts his economic statecraft syllabus in his Substack column. I like his work and will review this for things I should be assigning.
The Partnership for Public Service has a guidebook for new officials that has a lot of good ideas on how to be an effective bureaucrat. I probably should make it required reading.
On Politico a sometime historian compares FDR’s help to Britain before Pearl Harbor to the West’s help to Ukraine today. Good background, but I’d note that FDR was constrained by US public and congressional opinion, not by a fear of provoking war with Hitler. Biden is limited by concerns about Russia reactions.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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).
Derek Chollet, Counselor at the State Department, is the highest-ranking US government official dealing with the Balkans these days. He was in Pristina and Belgrade last week. What should we understand from his tweets about the trip?
The caveats
First: the caveats. We don’t know whether Chollet tweets for himself or has staffers do it. He surely supervises the tweeting, but that might be after the fact, not necessarily before. Nor should we expect tweets to reveal anything the US government regards as confidential. But tweets have become a main vehicle for getting into the public domain a diplomat’s narrative about trips and meetings. So it is worth some time and mental energy to interpret them.
Pristina
Derek began his trip on January 11 with this meeting and tweet:
Had a wide-ranging conversation with Kosovan journalists today. Once again commended for immediate and strong solidarity with Ukraine & discussed our perspective on ASM and next steps for the EU-facilitated, US-supported Dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia.
That “Kosovan” may signal that there was at least one Serb journalist in the group. Albanians in Kosovo refer to themselves as Kosovars; Kosovan is accepted way of referring to “citizens of Kosovo,” regardless of ethnicity. I can’t imagine why he would commend journalists for solidarity with Ukraine. More pertinent was his mention of the Association of Serb-majority Municipalities (ASM), which the Americans are pressing hard. So no real surprises here, but a pretty clear indication of priorities: Ukraine, dialogue, ASM.
Next up was a meeting with Prime Minister Kurti:
Important conversation with @albinkurti on Dialogue. Appreciate engaging constructively and flexibly. Looking forward to continued partnership on advancing ongoing efforts towards normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia.
This is pretty friendly to Kurti, who has aggravated the Americans a great deal in the past. It appears not only to acknowledge some flexibility and constructiveness on his part, but also states that the objective of the dialogue is normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina. That falls short of mutual recognition, which is what Kurti wants. But it corresponds to EU objectives and goes much further than Serbia has been willing to go so far. An “important” conversation in diplomatese means one that pointed in the right direction.
President Vjosa Osmani is less directly engaged in the dialogue but has played an important role in staking out the Kosovo state’s posture on many issues:
Good to meet with VjosaOsmaniPRKS. Our partnership is steadfast. We commend Kosovo for solidarity with Ukraine in enacting sanctions, supporting refugees and journalists, and condemning Putin’s war. Grateful for Kosovo’s generosity in hosting Afghan evacuees & refugees.
That acknowledges Kosovo’s solidarity with the West on two key issues. It’s a good look for Pristina.
From here things get a bit harder to interpret. Chollet met next with the Kosovan Serb political party sponsored by Belgrade whose members have withdrawn from Kosovo’s state institutions:
Informative meeting with Srpska List members. Valuable to hear the concerns of all communities in Kosovo. Need Kosovan Serbs in Kosovan institutions. We continue to emphasize the importance of an ASM consistent with Kosovo’s Constitution.
This underlines the importance of the Serbs’ return to their official jobs and offers an ASM consistent with the Kosovo constitution as incentive. That last point on the constitution has not always been clear in US statements, but of course it reduces the incentive, as Srpska Lista has no interest in an ASM that isn’t controlled by Belgrade.
Chollet went on to meet with political opposition and civil society leaders:
Appreciate hearing from Kosovo’s opposition leaders. Constructive dissent is essential to a strong democracy. Grateful for the opportunity to engage and hear their views.
Really enjoyed the discussion with representatives of Kosovan civil society. Appreciate the important role you play in advocating for all citizens & holding institutions accountable. Your efforts advance the EU-led Dialogue & support inclusion of all communities in Kosovo.
These are pretty pro forma statements. It is good, standard practice for US diplomats to meet with opposition and civil society leaders. It tells you something mainly when it doesn’t happen, as we’ll see in Belgrade.
Belgrade
There Chollet stuck with protocol order, which means President Vucic first:
We seek a strong relationship with Serbia based on respect and a shared commitment to democratic principles. Thanks to @predsednikrs Vucic for good conversation on US-Serbia partnership.
This is not enthusiastic. He states the American objective without any hint that it was shared by Vucic and he refers to a “good” conversation, which in diplomatese connotes disagreement.
No one should agree to be photographed with Vucic standing up:
The contrast is immediately apparent in Chollet’s meeting with Foreign Minister Dacic:
Great conversation with FM Dacic. We value Serbia’s commitment to peace and stability, and we are committed to helping Serbia realize its European future.
This is odd though, as Dacic is a prime Russophile who may have been smart enough to quot the State Department statement on Chollet’s trip, which cited peace and stability. But his political commitments are far closer to Moscow than Brussels.
Things get worse at the next meeting:
Pleased to meet PM @AnaBrnabic and DPM/Minister of Defense @VucevicM to talk key issues from energy security to economic integration, to U.S.-Serbia defense relations and ensuring peace and stability.
Brnabic was particularly antagonistic toward Europe and the US during last month’s Belgrade-instigated blockade of northern Kosovo while Vucevic mobilized Serbian forces on the boundary/border. I suppose that soft reference to ensuring peace and stability betrays a bit harder line in private, but these two are prime movers behind Belgrade’s opposition to sanctioning Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and many other anti-Western Serbian government positions. Why no hint of that?
Chollet met with the press in Serbia and tweeted this:
Free and independent press is key to a flourishing democracy. Happy to spend time tonight talking with #Serbia’s dynamic press corps about where we can take relations in 2023 and beyond.
Serbia’s press is far from free and independent. It’s “dynamism” is manifest in finding ways every day to pump up fake fear of Kosovo Albanians and do the bidding of the government in myriad other ways.
Civil society in Serbia is in far better shape, in part because it lacks political weight. Chollet tweeted this:
Civil society is crucial to ensuring the rights of all citizens in every democracy. Enjoyed hearing from a diverse group about their important work here in Serbia.
But there was no photograph. Maybe someone wasn’t comfortable with being seen at that meeting.
One big difference between Belgrade and Pristina: no meeting with the political opposition in Belgrade. It is weak, but exists. It includes some ultra-nationalists as well as more liberal democratic folks. But not meeting with opposition is a notable departure from normal US diplomatic practice. Why not?
It might of course have happened in private. But even that tells us what we need to know. Unlike Kosovo, Serbia is no longer a democracy but is well on the way to autocracy. That should inform American policy. It doesn’t yet.
RSS - Posts
