Tag: Ukraine
Don’t blame the international organizations
Maria-Alexandra Martin, a SAIS Conflict Management graduate active in post-conflict reconstruction and recovery, contributed this post. A native of Romania, she previously served as an Operations Officer with the European Union in Georgia.
A year ago I was in Kiev’s railway station embarking on a train to Dnipropetrovsk. That was the closest to the frontline in Eastern Ukraine I could safely get. I had thought of other options, such as getting a press ID to enable me to go to the contact line to observe the war. But I quickly changed my mind when I realized I would put myself in danger, my family and friends under tremendous pressure and risk diplomatic turmoil for my country.
The train was packed with an array of colors and nuanced military uniforms, men and women of all ages, exchanging salutes, smiles and hopes. I sat quietly, trying to identify each badge and catch bits and pieces of their conversation with my poor Russian. I admired the Ukrainians’ patriotic drive.
I reached Dnipropetrovsk five hours later and found a noisy train station, hundreds of people coming and going. The faces were tired and somber, yet hiding a smile of hope, the smile of someone who will see loved ones again. The day I arrived, a massive rotation of one of Ukraine’s territorial battalions had taken place.
Since the beginning of conflict in Eastern Ukraine around 10,000 people have lost their lives. More than three million are in need of humanitarian assistance. The plethora of international organizations present in the country work continuously to improve the life of the people affected by war. But as in every conflict and post-conflict setting, planning is one thing, while the reality is different. Regardless of how well one plans, how much money and personnel one allocates, the resources will always be too scarce to cover all needs. The permanent threat of violence is a variable with tremendous implications for the way any organization carries out its business.
The largest international field presence in the country is the OSCE monitoring mission (OSCE SMM). These unarmed civilians were deployed at the Ukrainian’s government request after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The mandate of the mission is to
gather information on the situation in Ukraine in an impartial and transparent manner, to document incidents as well as violations of OSCE principles and commitments, and to report on its observations on a daily basis.
The SMM is further charged with monitoring the ceasefire agreements and the withdrawal of heavy weapons, as well as observing the withdrawal of all foreign armed forces, military equipment and mercenaries from Ukraine. Due to access restrictions and the often volatile security situation, the SMM can only monitor withdrawal on a limited basis.
Like any other international mission abroad, the OSCE SMM has a framework for operational purposes (its mandate), agreed in advance by all OSCE members, including Ukraine and Russia. The mandate of a mission represents its core, the source of international legitimization and basic guidelines for doing or not doing something in the field.
But the situation in Eastern Ukraine remains volatile, active fighting is gaining periodic momentum and jeopardizes the fragile ceasefire in place. The few hundred scattered OSCE monitors, unarmed and limited in their freedom of movement, try to perform their obligations according to the agreed mandate. But they perform under threats at gun point, shelling, and detentions, with no means of protection.
When things go south, international organizations get blamed for not being able to prevent it. Yesterday, this already familiar story came again to the surface. The New York Times published Andrew Kramer’s “Keeping Bankers’ Hours, European Observers Miss Most of Ukraine War”. He notes the monitors are patrolling only during daytime for security reasons, while the heavy fighting occurs at night. If unarmed civilians were to patrol during nighttime when shelling occurs, they would clearly be at risk.
Even during daytime, the OSCE SMM lacks freedom of movement and faces serious obstructions that hinder its patrols. These events are reported on a daily basis, but the political negotiations are not done by OSCE monitors. The people in the field are one component of a larger negotiation agenda, agreed at much higher levels, and based on a multitude of national interests. Blaming people on the ground for not doing more connotes a skewed understanding of how the work of international personnel is actually carried out. It also deepens resentments and prolongs conflict.
I am a fierce promoter of better rules of engagement, improved effectiveness and greater capabilities for international missions abroad. Many faults and misbehavior mar the conduct and credibility of global and regional organizations. But too little is said and published about the good things these missions do. They have given millions of people around the world a chance to live, resettle, access basic services like healthcare, education and justice, and regain their dignity. Things would be much worse without the international missions we are so quick to criticize.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Don’t forget Hezbollah
Here is the draft of the State Department dissent message on Syria, on which the New York Times based its coverage yesterday. So far as I can tell the final version is not publicly available, but this draft is polished. The argument is basically that the US has sufficient moral and strategic reason to attack Syrian government forces with stand-off weapons with the goal of getting President Asad to abide by the internationally mandated cessation of hostilities and initiate serious negotiations on a political transition, as required by the Geneva I communique and numerous subsequent international decisions. The dissent memo admits some downsides: a deterioration of relations with Russia and possible “second order” effects.
Those downsides require more consideration. There is no international mandate to attack Syrian government forces. Intervention in this case would in that sense have even less multilateral sanction than the NATO attack on Qaddafi’s forces in Libya, where there was a UN Security Council mandate, albeit one that authorized “all necessary means” to save civilians rather than to change the regime. Asad has not directly attacked the US, even if his reaction to Syria’s internal rebellion has created conditions that are inimical to US interests by attracting extremists and undermining stability in neighboring countries.
The Russia angle is also daunting. Moscow may well react by intensifying its attacks on the opposition forces the US supports, who are already targeted by Russian warplanes. Unilateral US intervention against Syrian government forces would also help Moscow to argue it is doing no worse in Ukraine, where it supports opposition forces behind a thin veil of denials that its forces are directly involved. The US is not ready to respond in kind to Russian escalation in Ukraine, if only because the European allies would not want it. Kiev might be the unintended victim of US escalation in Syria.
Second order effects could also include loss of European, Turkish and Jordanian support, because of an increased refugee flow out of Syria, as well as increased Iranian support for the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, destabilization of Bahrain and Shia militias in Iraq. Greater chaos in Syria could also help ISIS to revive its flagging fortunes and al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nusra to pursue its fight against the Syrian government.
These downsides are all too real, but so is the current situation: Russia, the Syrian government, Iran and Hezbollah are making mincemeat of the US-supported Syrian opposition while more extremist forces are gaining momentum. President Obama is reluctant to attack sovereign states that have not attacked the US directly without an international mandate of some sort. That is understandable. But doing nothing military to respond to a deteriorating situation is a decision too, one with real and unfortunately burgeoning negative consequences for US interests.
Hezbollah is the way out of this quandary. It is not a state. It is a designated terrorist group that has killed hundreds of Americans, and many others as well. The Americans say they are fighting terrorist groups in Syria. Why not Hezbollah? Its ground forces there have become increasingly important to the Syrian government’s cause. Getting Hezbollah out of the fight would arguably have as much impact on the military balance as strikes on the Syrian army, which is already a declining and demoralized force.
Washington need not start with military action. It could lead with diplomacy, telling Moscow and Tehran that we want Hezbollah to leave Syria tout de suite. If it fails to leave by a date certain, we could then strip it of its immunity and treat it like the other terrorist groups in Syria. Moscow might even welcome such a move, since Hezbollah efforts in Syria strengthen Iran’s hold, not Russia’s.
Tehran would be furious, claiming Hezbollah is in Syria at the request of its legitimate government. Hezbollah would likely try to strike US, Israeli or even Jewish targets in the region or beyond. It has managed in the past to murder Jews as far away as Argentina. Doing so would confirm the thesis that Hezbollah is a terrorist group and redouble the need to act decisively against it.
No suggestions for what to do or not do in Syria are simple. The situation has gotten so fraught that any proposition will have complicated and unpredictable consequences. But the State Department dissenters missed an opportunity to duck some of the President’s objections and strengthen their own argument by focusing on a terrorist group, rather than the regime’s own forces. Don’t forget Hezbollah.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Declining, but not disappearing
Yesterday’s discussion of Russia: A Test for Transatlantic Unity at the German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Academy made for a grim morning. The European and American Russia scholars were pleased that the West has maintained a coherent and unified response on Donbas, including greater support for front line allies, unity on sanctions and support for Kiev. But they worry that sanctions will fray or even collapse in 2017 and that Ukraine is not making the reform progress it urgently requires.
Nor do they see any sign that Russia is prepared to deliver anything serious in Ukraine. Russian officials view the US as malevolently and incompetently denying Russia its rightful role in the world by limiting its natural sphere of influence. They believe the West is decadent and unwilling or unable to exert itself on behalf of Ukraine, while denying that Russia is directly involved there. Putin in particular is banking on the West weakening.
The only positive sign anyone reported was a palpable desire by Moscow officials to “engage” with Americans, which is difficult as they refuse even to discuss the war in Donbas. If Moscow wants progress, the Americans think it needs to deliver something on the Minsk II agreement.
On Syria, Moscow has gained some of what it sought. It is now engaged with the US in daily deconfliction of military operations as well as higher level political discussions. But we continue to disagree on Bashar al Assad and on who is a terrorist.
More generally, Russia is a declining power in key dimensions: its economy is in a tailspin, its population is imploding, its energy resources are no longer as irreplaceable as once they were. Most of Ukraine is lost, mainly because the West has proven more unified than Putin anticipated. His effort to reassert Russia’s great power status has largely failed except for Syria, where the reformed and refinanced Russian military has proven to have serious but limited capabilities. The Russian regime is self-deceiving, unable to correct its mistakes or face its own responsibility. It instead blames its problems on the rest of the world.
Even if the Ukraine sanctions were lifted, the Russian economy would not recover quickly. Nor would prospects for political change, which depend on an upper middle class that is shrinking because of emigration and economic difficulties. The regime has successfully repressed the political opposition and left it without significant representation.
Putin has become decreasingly pragmatic and increasingly ideological towards the West since 2012. He can still be pragmatic (e.g. with China) but less and less so with the West. He is openly preparing for more war as he challenges the West in Ukraine and the Middle East. His ruling circle is shrinking, becoming less predictable and disengaging from the West. He is unrealistic. The beat of the war drums coming from Moscow’s tightly controlled propaganda machine is loud. The risks are high.
The West is also subject to risk. EU unity on the sanctions may not last. Ukraine could fail to deliver on its part of Minsk II. Conditionality has worked with Ukraine on economic issues, far less so on political ones like electoral and administrative reform. The US election also raises questions, as even Hillary Clinton may not give priority to Ukraine and could try to reach out to Putin. Donald Trump is unpredictable, but he has said he is looking for a deal. That could mean divvying up Europe again, as we did at Yalta.
Washington in particular hasn’t made up its mind on the threat from Russia. Some believe Russia is a declining power that wants to deal with the US and poses relatively little threat. Neither its propaganda machine nor its military has proven very successful. In Ukraine and Syria, there is an imbalance of interests: they are far more important to Russia than to the West. Others think Russia is a serious and growing threat, evidenced by its burgeoning military strength. Still others think there is a need to reassess relations with Russia and in particular to anticipate an end to sanctions, striking as good a deal as the West can get before they collapse.
These uncertainties could become all too apparent this summer, as Moscow will want to react to the July NATO Summit. There is a real possibility of an August surprise in Ukraine or Syria, or perhaps in the form of a Turkey/Russia conflict, which would put NATO on the spot. Russia may be declining, but it is not going away.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks June 6-10
- A Transatlantic Strategy for a Democratic Tunisia | Tuesday, June 7th | 9:00-10:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council on June 7 at 9:00 a.m. for a discussion featuring US and European officials and a panel of experts on assistance to Tunisia and the way forward for a new transatlantic strategy. Five years after Tunisia’s revolution, democratic and economic reforms have stalled. Following the revolution, the United States, the European Union, and EU member states – namely France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – substantially boosted assistance to Tunisia. But simply increasing support has not proven to be effective. In a new report titled, A Transatlantic Strategy for a Democratic Tunisia, authors Frances G. Burwell, Amy Hawthorne, Karim Mezran, and Elissa Miller present a new way forward for western engagement with Tunisia that makes clear the country’s priority status in the transatlantic agenda as it moves away from the immediate post-revolutionary period. The speakers will discuss the challenges facing Tunisia in the areas of economic development, security, and democratic development, and what steps the United States, the European Union, and key EU member states can take to help Tunisia meet these challenges and achieve greater stability and democracy. Paige Alexander leads the Bureau for the Middle East at the US Agency for International Development, where she oversees the efforts of USAID missions and development programs in countries across the region. Nicholas Westcott manages the Middle East and North Africa at the European External Action Service. Andrea Gamba focuses on Tunisia at the International Monetary Fund. Amy Hawthorne directs research at the Project on Middle East Democracy and focuses on Arab political reform and democracy promotion. Karim Mezran specializes in North African affairs at the Atlantic Council, specifically Tunisia and Libya. Frances G. Burwell concentrates on the European Union, US-EU relations, and a range of transatlantic economic, political, and defense issues at the Atlantic Council.
- Taiwan’s 2016 election and prospects for the Tsai administration | Wednesday, June 8th | 9:00-12:15 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On May 20, 2016, Taiwan inaugurated its first female president, Tsai Ing-wen. Along with the executive office, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) gained a majority in the Legislative Yuan for the first time. The challenges facing the new administration, which President Tsai laid out in her inauguration address, are vast and complex ranging from pension reforms, environmental protection and unemployment concerns to regional economic integration and cross-Strait stability. On June 8, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings and the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) will co-host a conference on the future of Taiwan under the Tsai administration. Panelists will present papers on how the 2016 elections impact domestic politics, cross-Strait relations and Taiwan’s external strategy, and what the elections mean for Tsai’s social and economic policy reform agenda and Taiwan’s aspirations for a greater role in international space. Orbis, FPRI’s journal of world affairs, will publish a special Taiwan issue with the conference papers. Following each discussion, panelists will take audience questions. Panelists may be found here.
- The Future of NATO Enlargement and New Frontiers in European Security | Wednesday, June 8th | 11:30-1:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Recent events in Europe’s east and rising tensions with Russia have resurrected the debate of whether NATO enlargement is provocative or stabilizing. While NATO enlargement has boasted historic success stories, such as Poland and the Baltic States becoming strong and stable democratic allies. But Russia has designated Alliance enlargement as a threat to its national security. In Europe’s challenging new security environment, NATO took a bold step forward to sustain its open door policy by announcing Montenegro’s membership accession, paving the way for the Balkan country to become the Alliance’s 29th member. With Montenegro poised to potentially join NATO, the Atlantic Council is convening leading experts to discuss the Alliance’s future appetite for enlargement, the political implications of NATO expansion, and what it means for NATO’s frontiers in the south and east. Speakers may be found here.
- Learning to Live with Cheaper Oil | Wednesday, June 8th | 12:00-2:00 | Middle East Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The recent, dramatic decline in global oil prices substantially altered the economic context and growth prospects for oil-exporting countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. Ambitious fiscal consolidation measures are being implemented, but budget balances may continue to deteriorate given the sharp drop in oil revenue. This presents both an opportunity and an impetus to revise energy subsidies and make deep structural reforms to support jobs and growth and facilitate economic diversification. The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and The Middle East Institute (MEI) are pleased to host senior IMF officialsMin Zhuand Martin Sommer for a presentation on the policy adjustments undertaken by regional oil-exporters and the future prospects for their economies. Dr. John Lipsky (SAIS) will moderate an expert panel discussion following the presentation.
- Irreversible Damage: Civilian Harm in Modern Conflict | Wednesday, June 8th | 1:00-2:00 | U.S. Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | U.S. forces and their allies abroad have underestimated the irreversible damage done to their missions when they kill or harm civilians, says a new report by combat veteran and strategist Christopher Kolenda and human rights researcher Rachel Reid. Yet military forces can make changes to dramatically reduce civilian casualties-and did so in Afghanistan-without undermining their own force protection or ceding military advantage. Tragically, this hard-won lesson is often lost, as in the disastrous U.S. airstrike on an Afghan hospital that killed 42 people in October. Reid led research work for Human Rights Watch amid the Afghan war after years of reporting from the country for the BBC. Kolenda commanded airborne troops in Afghanistan and later helped shape U.S. strategy there and at the Pentagon. The authors interviewed more than 40 senior U.S. and Afghan officials as part of their study examining the complex relationships among civilian harm, force protection and U.S. strategic interests in Afghanistan. In that war, civilian harm by Afghan and international forces fueled the growth of the Taliban insurgency, and undermined the legitimacy of the international mission and Afghan government. In 2008, international forces were responsible for 39 percent of civilian fatalities. Major reforms by U.S. forces reduced that to 9 percent by 2012. The lessons about the irreversible damage of civilian harm have not been fully understood or institutionalized. U.S. partners fighting the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are inflicting high rates of civilian casualties with weapons and support from the United States, yet they seem no closer to success. The tragedy of the October U.S. airstrikes on the hospital in Kunduz run by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), showed that without consistent leadership attention, resources and training, hard-learned lessons can be lost relatively rapidly. In their report, published June 7 by the Open Society Foundations, the authors outline recommendations to promote civilian protection in ways that protect soldiers and advance U.S. interests.
- Engaging the Arts for a Vibrant, International Ukraine | Wednesday, June 8th | 3:00-4:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Jamala’s victory at the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest reminded the Ukrainian political class of the critical role arts and culture play in foreign relations and their unique ability to promote national interests. Ukraine’s culture holds tremendous potential to counteract what many perceive as a growing “Ukraine fatigue” in the West. To what extent do Ukraine’s political and economic elites grasp this possibility and have a strategy? The speakers will discuss how to develop Ukraine’s “soft power” in light of existing economic constraints and informational challenges. Speakers include Hanna Hopko, Member of Parliament and Head of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and Kateryna Smagliy, Director of the Kennan Institute in Ukraine. The panel will be followed by a reception celebrating the exhibition of Victor Sydorenko‘s photos, statues, and video works.
- Sub-Saharan Africa: IMF Regional Economic Outlook | Thursday, June 9th | 10:00-11:30 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | After an extended period of strong economic growth, many sub-Saharan African countries have been hit by multiple shocks – the sharp decline in commodity prices, tighter financing conditions and a severe drought in southern and eastern Africa. Growth fell in 2015 to its lowest level in some 15 years and is expected to slow further to 3 percent in 2016. The growth performance, however, differs across countries, with most oil importers faring reasonably well. On June 9, IMF African Department Director Antoinette Sayeh will present the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook for sub-Saharan Africa, which argues that the region’s medium-term prospects remain favorable but that many countries urgently need to reset their policies to reinvigorate growth and realize this potential. To this end, she will elaborate on how countries should both adjust their macroeconomic policies in the short run, and refocus policies to facilitate structural transformation and export diversification, so as to strengthen resilience and boost growth. After the presentation, Steven Radelet, Georgetown University Professor, and Amadou Sy, Director of the Africa Growth Initiative, will join Dr. Sayeh for a panel discussion moderated by Reed Kramer, Co-founder and CEO of AllAfrica Global Media. Afterward, questions will be taken from the audience.
- Brazil Under Acting President Michel Temer | Thursday, June 9th | 10:30-12:30 | Wilson Center | The uneven start of the administration of acting President Michel Temer, following the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff by the House of Representatives and her suspension by the Senate, confirmed the complexity of the governability crisis that has and will continue to reverberate in Brazil for some time. During Temer’s first two weeks in office, two of his ministers were forced to resign after revelations of their alleged involvement in efforts to derail federal investigations into bribery schemes at state oil company Petrobras. The corruption probe has continued to enjoy widespread public support. The new government managed to approve a new 2016 budget deficit target in Congress – the first step in a difficult reform agenda meant to restore investor and consumer confidence, and ease the crisis later this year. The announcement of a new more pragmatic foreign policy, a shift away from the alliances between the Workers’ Party and its Bolivarian partners in South and Central America, encouraged Washington to express its sympathy for the constitutional process that led to Rousseff’s ouster. This has culminated in the US administration appointing a veteran career diplomat, Peter Michael McKinley, as the new US ambassador for Brazil. On June 9, with the Senate preparing to start Rousseff’s impeachment trial, the Brazil Institute will convene a panel of experts to take stock of the crisis and its possible developments. The discussion will start with an assessment of the economic outlook and the release of a survey conducted by Ideia Inteligencia on public sentiment regarding Temer’s interim government, the impeachment trial and the anti-corruption investigations. Speakers may be found here.
- Islamic exceptionalism: How the struggle over Islam is reshaping the world | Thursday, June 9th | 5:30-8:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | With the rise of ISIS and a growing terrorist threat in the West, unprecedented attention has focused on Islam, which despite being the world’s fastest growing religion, is also one of the most misunderstood. In his new book “Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle over Islam is Reshaping the World” (St. Martin’s Press, 2016), Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid offers a novel and provocative argument on how Islam is, in fact, “exceptional” in how it relates to politics, with profound implications for how we understand the future of the Middle East. Hamid argues for a new understanding of how Islam and Islamism shape politics by examining different modes of reckoning with the problem of religion and state, including the terrifying—and alarmingly successful—example of ISIS. On June 9, Shadi Hamid, Isaiah Berlin, Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy, and Leon Wieseltier will discuss the unresolved questions of religion’s role in public life and whether Islam can—or should—be reformed or secularized. After the discussion, Hamid will take audience questions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbia wants stability
I am finishing up a first day of meetings and interviews in Belgrade. I hadn’t been here for I don’t remember how many years. Commerce is notably more active and everything a bit spiffier, except for the rather tired Hyatt hotel, once the glitziest place in town. Prime Minister Vucic, whom I saw this morning, is readying a new government for parliamentary approval following on his good performance in the April 24 election.
Serbia today worries about stability in its neighborhood. That alone is good news, since under Slobodan Milosevic it spent a good deal of time and effort creating instability throughout the Balkans. There is unfortunately a lot to worry about. Macedonia is suffering a major political crisis, initiated over illegal wiretapping but now extending far beyond that. Bosnia and Herzegovina has its perpetual political problem: Republika Srpska President Dodik wants his 49% “entity” to be independent and is doing his best to render the Sarajevo government dysfunctional. Kosovo has weathered a normal succession of presidents but faces continuing violent opposition, in particular to talks with Belgrade, and advocacy of union with Albania, which Kosovo’s constitution prohibits. Scandal allegations and political ambiguity are buffeting Croatia.
Things in Serbia are relatively calm and clear. Vucic may not have won quite as many seats as he would have liked, but he has a clear majority and will bring in a few other parties to consolidate his hold on power. His more challenging opposition, part of which will be within the government and even the presidency, is from nationalists and Russophiles who really don’t stand a chance. Their Greater Serbia program has been rejected in both war and peace. Moscow, while thumping its chest quite a bit, really has little to offer anyone in the Balkans, as its treasury is running dry due to low oil and gas prices. Moscow is also exhausting its military and credibility in wars in Ukraine and Syria.
On the more democratic and civic left of the political spectrum fragmentation and confusion reign in Serbia. Former President Tadic has been unable to assemble a critical mass and has prevented others from doing so.
Vucic is therefore as free as any Serbian prime minister has been for a long time to set Serbia’s direction. My hope is that he will double down on the more politically difficult parts of qualifying for EU membership, in particular by allowing far more media freedom, instituting significant security sector reforms and developing a more independent and efficacious judicial system. I discuss these issues in a recently published book chapter on “Challenges of Democratization in Serbia, which I know the PM has read.
Beyond that, it seems to me the regional issues really are very important. The priorities include completing the Durres/Pristina road to Nis, the Belgrade/Bar road through Montenegro, railway improvements and added intra-regional flights, especially between Belgrade and Pristina. The Kosovo/Serbia boundary/border needs demarcation. These are the subjects of what former Croatian Foreign Minister Pusic calls “boring politics”(as opposed to the heroic politics of state formation) but they are vital in providing the kind of economic stimulus and interconnectedness required for stability in a place like the Balkans.
I’ll also hope that Belgrade will prepared to restart talks with Pristina, focusing initially on implementation of the existing agreements but eventually extending to a settlement of all outstanding issues, including entry of Kosovo into the United Nations and establishment of diplomatic relations between Belgrade and Pristina. With respect to Bosnia, Belgrade needs somehow to rein in Dodik and convince him to throw in his lot with a government in Sarajevo that can credibly begin to prepare the country for EU membership. Solutions in Bosnia and Kosovo would do a great deal to ensure the kind of stability democratic Belgrade needs.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Professors on the Montenegrin coast
Saturday was a recovery day for me after 15-hour trip to Podgorica, where I’ll be speaking Monday at a university event commemorating Montenegro’s tenth anniversary of independence. So naturally Sinisa Vukovic, my Montenegrin colleague at SAIS, and I took in the sights on the coast, in addition to a busman’s holiday morning at a conference on Global Security at Stake–Challenges and Responses that happened to be occurring in Budva.
The first of the three sessions we attended was on the Balkans, featuring the presidents of Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia. The message was clear: they want us to speed up entry of the remaining Balkans countries into NATO and the EU. Their plea is that accession is not only a technical question but a political one as well. It should be conceived as consolidation of Europe rather than enlargement. Montenegro’s entry into NATO is a strong positive signal, but it needs not only approval at the July Warsaw Summit but also quick ratification in the 28 member states. A membership action plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina should follow, as should membership for Macedonia, which had met the criteria for membership before its most recent crisis.
President Borut Pahor of Slovenia was less certain about membership in the EU for Ukraine and Turkey. He thought some sort of special status needed. President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic claimed Croatia is not blocking Serbian negotiations with the EU but only insisting that Belgrade meet the standards the EU sets, just as Croatia had to do in becoming a member. She was also keen to point out that the problem of refugees entering the EU is not the main issue, but rather the conditions in the Middle East and North Africa that are generating the refugee flow. Europe has to do more about that, she suggested. All three presidents seemed keen on infrastructure connections (transport, telecommunications and energy) not only within the Balkans but also around the Black Sea and with eastern Europe, all the way to the Baltics.
The second session focused on the US election and likely shifts in foreign policy. The European panelists–Julian Lindley French and Stefano Stefanini–agreed that either candidate as president will want Europe to do more. Both also thought it should, but suggested that the benchmark should not necessarily be 2% of GNP spent on defense (the NATO goal) but rather a broader measure of national security expenditure that takes into account relevant civilian diplomatic, development and state-building efforts.
Former US Ambassador to Turkmenistan Laura Kennedy (retired) had the unenviable task of explaining America, in particular the candidate she does not favor, to the Balkan audience. Hillary Clinton, she said, would be well within the centrist, multilateralist tradition that Barack Obama also represents, even if she differs with him on Syria and other things. Donald Trump, however, would be a radical departure, one more friendly to Russia, far less concerned about human rights, doubtful of US alliances (including NATO), and much more unpredictable than Clinton.
The third session discussed the Islamic State (ISIL) challenge. There was much the usual discussion of radicalization and deradicalization, with some observers noting a sharp decline in the once high rate of Balkan Muslims leaving to fight in Syria and Iraq. This is apparently the result of a sharp crackdown in Kosovo and Bosnia. Reintegration of those returning to the Balkans and elsewhere is however still a big challenge, even if there has been no sign so far of violent extremist events in the Balkans attributable to returnees.
Much the most interesting moment was General (ret.) John Allen’s outline of the longer-term challenges that are likely to make the governance challenges we face in the Middle East (and elsewhere) harder: shifts of wealth to the east, growing inequality, urbanization, youth bulges and climate change are the factors I remember him mentioning. Terrorism, he suggested, is a symptom of much deeper problems that are not going to go away because ISIL is defeated militarily. We need to meet the governance challenges the longer-term factors pose if we want to live in peace.
RSS - Posts
