Tag: Russia
Shortest route to Balkans peace
A: It has been clear for a long time that Dodik opposes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is the core of the Dayton agreements. Respecting court decisions, even if you disagree with them, is vital to rule of law and democratic governance, not only in BiH but also here in the US.
Q: If Republika Srpska really decides to call a referendum on independence, do you see the possibility of the reaction from Federation and potentially a new military clash?
A: I don’t think you can expect those who support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which includes most people who live in the country as well as the international community, not to react in some fashion to a referendum on independence. But such referenda often are not fulfilled, since sovereignty requires recognition by other sovereign states. I would expect an RS that declares independence to end up in limbo, with minimal recognition, no serious foreign support, and little ability to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of its people for security and prosperity.
Q: Do you see some similarity in the situation and behavior of the political elites in Bosnia in the 90’s and today?
A: Yes, I do. But the circumstances are different. Serbia is no longer willing to risk its own prosperity for irredentist political aims, many people in Bosnia and Herzegovina are far better off than they were at the end of the war, Europe’s and NATO’s doors are in principle open to BiH, and its population expects more transparent and accountable governance. The nationalist fervor is far less murderous, but no less dangerous.
Q: Former English diplomat Timothy Less wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs in which he suggest disintegration of Bosnia – Republika Srpska would unite with Serbia and parts of Hercegovina with Croatia. What do you think about this idea?
A: It is just as bad an idea as it was in the 1990s. It would result in the formation of a non-viable rump Islamic Republic in central Bosnia and Herzegovina heavily dependent on Islamist funding from Iran, Saudi Arabia or somewhere else. Why would Croatia or Serbia want such a neighbor on their borders?
Q: You mediated between Croats and Muslims in the 90s and brokered the first agreement of the Dayton peace talks. How do you now look on these days and Dayton agreement. Was Dayton a good framework for Bosnia, and is it still good?
A: It was good enough to end the war, but not good enough to make real peace. It now needs updating, but how and what to do is now up to the citizens of BiH, not the internationals.
Q: Do you think that BiH should enter EU as quickly as possible?
A: I think BiH should qualify to enter the EU as quickly as possible.
Q: If Brussels will hesitate with BiH membership, is there a possibility and danger that Russia and Turkey will gain more influence in Bosnia and would it mean instability for the country?
A: Yes. Russia is already interfering in BiH in ways that are destabilizing. Moscow’s aim seems to be pernicious: to create as much trouble as possible at the least cost.
I don’t see Turkey’s influence in the same light, but it certainly increases the weight of Islamist politics and makes it harder to reach mutual accommodations among Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks.
Q: Croatian president Kolinda Grabar Kitarović recently said that Bosnia is becoming more radicalized in terms of more rigid interpretation of the values of Islam. Do you see Islamic radicalization? Is there a possibility of it if the situation in Bosnia remains tense?
A: I might not see things quite the same way President Grabar Kitarović sees them, but there is certainly a possibility of radicalization if Bosnia and Herzegovina is unable to succeed in satisfying its population’s aspirations. Tension produces polarization and exclusion, which are ingredients that will radicalize at least a few people.
Q: What could we expect from Trump administration for Bosnia and this region?
A: I don’t know what to expect. The new administration has said precious little about the Balkans and nothing to my knowledge about Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are not high on the priority list these days in Washington. The only clear statement I’ve seen is from Secretary of Defense Mattis, who supports the formation of the Kosovo Security Force.
Q: If you would advise Mr. Trump on Bosnia, what would you tell him to do?
A: I’d say a lot has changed for the better in the Balkans since the early 1990s. The United States should commit itself wholeheartedly to finishing the process by helping all the remaining countries to qualify for EU, and if they want it, NATO membership. I’d say that is the shortest and least troublesome route to lasting peace and stability.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
36 hours
Donald Trump’s first 36 hours as president:
1. He gave a dark inauguration address repeating the dystopian tone of his campaign, despite well-established facts on the economy and crime disproving his allegations.
2. He and his spokesman lied about the size of the crowd at the inauguration, with the latter threatening to hold the press accountable for what he claimed was their false (but thoroughly verified) reporting.
3, Trump appeared at the CIA with a claque to ensure applause while he falsely claimed not to have criticized the intelligence community, seemed not to understand the distinction between it and the military, and rambled on about the size of the inauguration crowd and taking Iraqi’s oil, whatever that means. If he weren’t a teetotaler, I’d have thought him drunk.
4. Well over a million people attended peaceful rallies countrywide against him, in particular his attitude towards women. Trump’s surrogates were busy claiming the demonstrations were disorderly. No one was arrested at the big one in DC.
Can the country take another 1460* days of this?
I doubt it. Something has to give. It will either be American democracy, which depends on established rules of the game that Trump violates often. Or it will be his presidency, which is built on shaky foundations: he lost the popular vote by a substantial margin, he benefited from Russia’s cyber intervention, and he enjoyed a boost–intended or not–from an FBI director who breached his own organization’s rules to publicize an investigation (that then came to nothing).
American democracy is also looking shaky. Trump is lambasting the press and pledging to keep it in line. Fantastic quantities of money are pouring into elections at every level. Trump is defying ethics laws, regulations, contractual provisions, and expectations. He refuses to make an even modest effort to avoid conflicts of interest. At least two of his cabinet nominees are already tarred with scandal for nonpayment of taxes and failure to declare assets.
My Republican friends: this mess can only be sorted if you use your majorities in the House and Senate to channel the new administration into propriety and moderation. There is no sign of either yet. Trump is still trash talking the NATO Alliance, encouraging the breakup of the European Union, trying to befriend Putin, and threatening China with trade war and war in the South China Sea. Is that what you want? Have you done everything you can to stop him?
Propriety will be even tougher. I’m willing to predict now that this will be the most scandal-ridden administration in a century. Without more transparency on Trump’s taxes and businesses, suspicion will be rife, journalists will be digging deep, and prosecutors will be having a field day.
These 36 hours should be giving Republicans pause. But the campaign didn’t, so why should they wake up now?
*I originally gave an incorrect number here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Getting to enough
Americans elected Donald Trump president and he will be inaugurated tomorrow. I’m with John Lewis. Trump will be legal, but not legitimate.
Congressman Lewis cited Russia’s interference in the November election to justify his view. That is certainly one good reason for doubting that the Electoral College outcome reflected the will of the American people. Trump now denies the cyber hacking had an impact, but at the time he appealed for it and mentioned the leaked material frequently in support of his candidacy. Consistency is not one of the man’s few virtues.
Just as important is Trump’s behavior after the election. He first tried to deny the Russian interference, then grudgingly admitted it while maintaining his commitment to improved relations with Moscow and lifting sanctions, so long as Russia joins with the US in fighting international terrorism (or reaches an agreement to reduce nuclear weapons he said later). The Russians already claim to be doing the former (and have their own reasons to do so), so this essentially would give away the store without getting anything in return. Lifting sanctions without any Russian concessions on Ukraine would give Moscow Crimea and possibly Donbas for free,. This guy is a tough negotiator?
It now really is difficult to see an argument against viewing Trump as a Russian pasty. Despite a clear record of war crimes in Syria, aggression in Ukraine, and destabilization in the Baltics, the Balkans, Georgia and Moldova, Trump has issued not a peep of criticism of Putin and his little green men. Despite Republican sentiment in Congress, the new administration seems determined to give Putin whatever he wants while asking little or nothing in return.
I might like to think this is all due to the much-rumored Russian dossier on Trump’s personal behavior. But if it exists, it would likely have become public by now. Russian finance for Trump’s real estate deals is another possibility, but that too would likely have leaked in detail by now.
I’m afraid the explanation is all too obvious and even less salubrious: Trump likes Putin’s autocratic ethnic nationalism and thinks it is a winning ticket. Criticizing John Lewis, who is a tireless advocate of equal rights and integration, is not an aberration or a random one-off. It is consistent with Trump’s white supremacist and blatantly racist views. That is the heart of his (admittedly meager) political philosophy as well as his (declining) popular appeal.
Racism is inherently self-limiting. It is not going to appeal to those you regard as inferior. It is also inconsistent with America’s founding creed, at least as interpreted in the 21st century by our public, our courts, and our Congress. Trump does not understand “all men are created equal.” For the first time since the 1940s, we are now faced with the prospect of an executive branch that has no commitment to equality before the law. To regard such a government as illegitimate is not going too far. Trump regarded President Obama as illegitimate for more than seven years on much flimsier grounds.
The first step in denying Trump the legitimacy he so obviously craves is boycotting the inauguration. I know Michelle Obama wants to take the high road, but I was delighted to hear that scalpers are losing money on the tickets. I wish Hillary Clinton would stay away. Unfortunately America’s companies are said to have anted up record amounts, and foreign diplomats Lining up to offer toasts.
Not wise, as this new Administration is bound to suffer serious problems before spring, when the stupidity of denigrating NATO, wishing ill to the European Union, pledging to prevent China from reaching facilities it has built in the South China Sea, and abandoning Ukraine and Syria to please Russia will be all too glaring.
We are in for a rough ride. It will end the day Republicans decide they have had enough. Getting them there will require a tough and smart opposition, starting with denying legitimacy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next US steps in Syria
Knowledgeable people gathered last Thursday under Chatham House rules to discuss shifting US objectives in Syria and how the new administration might pursue its ends. The explicit intent of American involvement in the conflict, most thought, should be population protection, because the greatest threat to US interests and security stems from violence against civilians and the resulting population displacement. The most likely outcome for post-conflict Syria is a fragmented and weakened state. The issue would then become how the United States could influence and stabilize the various regions.
The current Russian ceasefire is likely to prove little more than a strategic reset; a true end to the violence will not be realized. There are various strategies the United States might undertake to stop the bloodshed, including reducing the regime’s capacity for aerial bombardment and incentivizing a cessation of violence. It should be made clear that these moves aim to exact a cost on those who thwart US funded humanitarian efforts or directly harm civilians, rather than to engender regime change.
The United States needs to work with partners outside of the regime to establish a lasting ceasefire and dismantle terrorist control. It is particularly important to secure the borders of Syria, an effort in which both Turkish and Kurdish fighters need to be involved. The hostility between them derails peace efforts. One commentator called for senior US leaders to demand a ceasefire between Turkey and the Kurds as a necessary benchmark before any meaningful objectives or lines are drawn. Some participants demonstrated concern for the potential success of this strategy given a growing desire within the Pentagon to leave areas in the east under Assad’s control, and America’s general reluctance to get involved.
The conversation made it clear that the security of post-conflict Syria as a federal system of statelets depends on the “de-marbleization” of opposition groups. Separation of the groups would lead to their turning against Al-Qaeda and subsequently the stabilization of the country. International support today is not sufficient to achieve this. In addition the moderates must be linked to civil society to lead and maintain the separation. Though one speaker was averse to the moderate label, remarking that “moderates never win,” he described a need for a genuine Syrian nationalist movement. There is a lot of local discontent with extremist control. It is urgent to consolidate and support this resentment before it is supplanted with anti-Western rhetoric. The US government must determine which areas to support, and whether or not it is willing to trade off regions of control.
The United States is not alone. Turkey has actively worked to demarbleize opposition groups, and the upcoming peace talks in Astana are an example of its efforts. The Turkish government has reached out to local civil society and non-militant groups to attend these talks in addition to opposition political leaders, though no one expressed confidence in the potential of success of these efforts.
Turkey’s intentions are questionable. The growing power of Erdogan and his willingness to make territorial concessions to the Assad regime are worrisome to US interests and values. Successful implementation of US strategy in Syria requires long term commitment as well as clear limits on the expenditure of US blood and treasure. While the US must wholeheartedly commit to the effort, it cannot do so alone, nor can it dictate the outcome.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Challenges Trump can expect in the Middle East
As the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States nears, the Middle East Policy Council explored the challenges facing President-elect Trump in the region. The panel featured Derek Chollet, Counselor and Senior Advisor at The German Marshal Fund, Jake Sullivan, Visiting Lecturer at Yale Law School and Senior Policy Advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign, Dimitri Simes, President of the Center for the National Interest and Publisher of The National Interest, and Mary Beth Long, founder and CEO of Metis Solutions and Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Chollet said that the Obama administration faced several challenges: doubt over the future US role in the region, diverging interests in dealing with the Iran nuclear program and the conflict in Syria, and the perception that the US cares less about the region than before 2008. Chollet called the US approach to the Middle East under Obama a recalibration rather than a dramatic shift, stressing America’s sustainable commitment to the region. Most notably, this includes decreasing the US role as a problem solver in the region and encouraging collective security. The new administration will have to decide how to proceed on the Iran deal, the ISIS threat, Syria’s President Assad, and Gulf partnerships.
Sullivan identified five hard questions the incoming administration must answer. First, Trump will need to navigate the US relationship with Iran, both in approaching the nuclear deal as well as holding Iran accountable for its actions outside of the nuclear context, such as human rights abuses. Second, the administration must limit Iranian influence in the region while defeating ISIS in Iraq, a move that could very well strength Iran’s position. The third question concerns creating a long-term stability in Syria beyond supporting the strong man, whether Putin or Assad. Similarly, Sullivan’s fourth question asked whether supporting authoritarian regimes in the region is still sustainable post-Arab Spring, and whether regimes could hold up under pressure for reform. Finally, Sullivan questioned the new administration’s understanding of Russia’s role in the Middle East and where US interests converge with Putin’s objectives.
Simes focused on the US-Russia relationship and expanded on Trump’s challenges in working with Putin. The primary challenge in working with Putin, who Simes noted is not Trump’s friend, will be strategic confrontation with Russia. Because Russia and the US diverge greatly on issues such as Syria, it would be prudent to pursue a more effective relationship with Russia and prevent a rivalry from forming. Simes believes that a poor relationship with Russia will be detrimental to the US and could lead to a stronger Russia-China relationship or even Russian use of terrorism as a weapon against America. Trump has an opportunity to develop a strong relationship with Russia, but must first determine US interests and take Russia seriously as a player on the world stage.
Long said the incoming administration will take a more transactional and pragmatic approach to foreign policy based on US interests. This will result in more straightforward relationships. However, she warned this also has the potential to create inconsistency in the Middle East, because policy will be situational and reactionary in nature. Although the challenges in the region are great, including the battle for Mosul, the refugee crisis, and the US relationship with Iran, Long said the US cannot afford to do everything at once and must rely on regional partners to step up.
In response to a question about US strategy in combating terrorism, specifically ISIS, and the strengths and weakness of US engagement, Chollet said a key US strength lies in its ability to militarily target states. The Islamic state is no different. To this point, Sullivan argued that US military action against terrorism targets the symptoms rather than the causes of radicalization, and more needs to be done to win over moderates, create strong state structures, and increase the confidence of US regional Sunni partners. Long stressed the danger in creating vacuums in which terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda can resurge and become powerful.
The panel also addressed the implications of moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Chollet said a move to Jerusalem would be disruptive and could undermine the strategic convergence between Israel and Sunni states working together to confront their shared adversaries in the region. Sullivan agreed that the embassy move would jeopardize efforts to balance the terrorist threat in the region and said the US needs to recognize the challenge, be honest, and identify what it can do to support its partners. Long hoped the embassy issue would lose its primacy in the early days of the administration. The panel agreed the embassy move would not serve US strategic interests.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Montenegro, Russia, NATO
Marija Jovićević of Montenegro’s Pobjeda asked these questions. I responded:
1. Can we expect ratification of Montenegrin Protocol in US Congress in January? Do you see any obstacle in this process?
A: I really don’t know. There appears to be no real opposition, but the Senate has a lot of things on its plate. I hope it will be quickly
reported out of committee and approved in the full Senate in the next couple of weeks. If it doesn’t happen before January 20, I have my
doubts the new administration will make it a priority. Then it will be up to key senators to make it move, which they might want to do to send an unequivocal signal of commitment to the Alliance to both Trump and Putin.
2. Relations between USA and Russia are very complicated at this moment, can this situation affect ratification of Protocol and Montenegro entering NATO?
A: I don’t think anyone in Congress is wanting to slow ratification because of Russian opposition, but it remains to be seen what the new administration will do. I would hope it would want to send the Russians a very clear signal that the NATO door remains open to those who qualify and want to enter. Europe whole and free (which means, among other
things, free to join NATO) is a good idea.
3. Do You expect that relations between Russia and USA could be closer and better after inauguration of Donald Trump?
A: Trump will make an effort to improve relations with Russia, in part by accommodating Russian demands on NATO, Ukraine and Syria. But I don’t think it will work out well for long. Putin doesn’t want good relations with the US. He wants to lead a defiant anti-US, illiberal coalition and establish a Russian sphere of influence in its “near abroad.”
4. What will be policy of the new American administration when we talk about the Balkans?
A: It is hard to tell, as it will be way down the list of priorities. But the new administration is in part an ethnic nationalist one, which doesn’t bode well from my liberal democratic perspective.
5. How do you see relations between Montenegro and USA. Do you expect
any changes after the inauguration of Donald Trump?
A: Certainly if Trump fails to press for Montenegro’s NATO accession, that won’t help Montenegro or its relations with the US. It could even drive Montenegro into Russian arms.
6. We are witnessing Russian interference in elections in USA, in elections in Montenegro also. Russia is using every possible way to
stop Montenegro’s way to NATO. Do you think that this is already lost battle for Moscow?
A: It isn’t over until it’s over. Moscow will continue fighting and will have an easier time of it in the initial phase of a Trump administration. But in the end I think Montenegro will enter NATO this year and help to keep the door open to other aspirants. I for one am grateful to Montenegro for its fortitude and persistence. Let it be rewarded soon!
RSS - Posts
