Tag: United Nations
Recognition can weaken Serbia’s leverage
Edward Joseph, a Senior Fellow at the SAIS Foreign Policy Institute, writes:
It’s the Newtonian law of policy debate: every idea that challenges orthodoxy produces an equal and opposite reaction.
We, the co-authors of the recent SAIS-Wilson Center report, ‘From Crisis to Convergence: A Strategy to Tackle Instability at its Source’, welcome debate on our approach, which has generated at least 16 articles, interviews and two controversies, along with interest in key capitals. At the very least, it represents an original way of thinking about a region where the West has struggled for too long, despite holding the strategic advantage.
We will host a live critique of our recent SAIS-Wilson Center report – along with an assessment of just how bad the situation in the Balkans is — on-line this Tuesday, 15 February at 9:30AM ET. Sign up here.
This event will feature leading experts from: Bosnia-Herzegovina – Srecko Latal (Balkans Crossroads); Kosovo — Engjellushe Morina (ECFR); Serbia – Igor Bandovic (BCSP); Albania – Albert Rakipi (AIIS.) They will explore: ‘Balkans 2022: How Bad Can It Get? Is a Breakthrough Possible?’
The report’s co-authors — who hail from the countries most affected by the strategy, including two respected experts from Serbia and Kosovo – will respond.
One of the more thoughtful critiques of our report appeared in Dan Serwer’s Peacefare post of 19 January. To summarize, Dan supports convergence by the European states that don’t recognize Kosovo, and, critically, he acknowledges the threat from “Serbian irredentism” in the Balkans. Dan then questions the impact of convergence – even NATO membership for Kosovo – on Belgrade’s policies. Instead of altering Serbia’s “strategic calculus,” as we state, Dan believes it will “incentivize Serbia in the opposite direction.”
Anti-democratic Serbia is the problem
Dan’s post raises essential and under-examined questions: what drives Serbia’s posture in the Balkans? Why does only Serbia (and its proxies) reject the liberal Western order for the region?
Let me begin with a challenge to Peacefare readers:
How do you explain that more than three-decades after the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia began, the region is not just stagnant – but going backwards, with open talk of “war” from responsible international and regional figures alike? Bear in mind that, unlike in Ukraine, the US, NATO and EU hold the strategic advantage in the Balkans.
We give our answer in the report. The Balkans is not a ‘morass’ of intractable ethno-national tensions. Instead, those ethno-national tensions – which stand in the way of the fight against corruption and the fight for rule of law and democracy – are a function of two factors: national power and strategic orientation.
And that’s the crux of the problem: the largest Western Balkans state – Serbia – has polities in four neighboring states, and is oriented towards the illiberal powers: Russia and China. In power for a decade, the Vucic regime has methodically rolled back Serbia’s weak democracy. The regime is protected within the EU by the leading European illiberal power: Hungary.
In sum, no matter how many Special Envoys are sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, fundamental reform will remain out of reach as long as this condition in Serbia continues. To put it another way, don’t expect democratic progress in BiH or its neighbors, with an anti-democratic Serbia.
Serbia’s leverage
But that only addresses Serbia’s strategic orientation. Where does the Vucic regime get the power to subvert its neighbors – and confound US and EU diplomats? Why do capable, dedicated US officials assail corruption and organized crime in Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo – but are generally quiet on official corruption in Serbia? Why do US officials in Serbia repeatedly laud a regime that openly – on billboards – promotes Beijing, and backs Moscow over Ukraine as, “the political and economic leader” in the region? Why was Serbia invited to the ‘Summit for Democracy’ after US officials stated clearly that it would not be invited? Why did the EU give Serbia a pass on rule of law standards?
The source of the leverage
We believe the answer is clear: Serbia has leverage over Kosovo, and through it, over the US and EU. The source of that leverage is the four NATO non-recognizers. The best way to understand Serbian leverage is by comparison with Bulgaria and North Macedonia. As an EU member, Sofia can unilaterally block the opening of Skopje’s EU accession negotiations. Similarly, Belgrade can unilaterally block Pristina’s pathway to NATO and the EU – even though it’s not a member of either organization. The reason: the non-recognizers have, effectively, handed their proxy to Belgrade: ‘we won’t recognize Kosovo, until Serbia does.’
Kosovo cannot advance until Belgrade, with the proxy of the non-recognizers, says so. The status quo – no settlement between Pristina and Belgrade – inflicts pain on only one side. Indeed, the status quo is beneficial for the Vucic regime as it insulates it from Western scrutiny.
In short, the West is participating in Vucic’s charade. Belgrade’s main aim in the EU-led Dialogue is simply to avoid being blamed for lack of progress, so that the Vucic regime can continue the pretense of interest in making EU reforms and becoming a member. Meanwhile, the regime draws Western praise, even as Vucic – through others – promotes what they call the ‘Serb World.’
The way forward
The way forward is also clear: Western strategy should focus on eroding Serbia’s leverage, reducing the illiberal Vucic regime’s ability to project its destructive vision in the region and domestically. Rather than “incentivizing Serbia in the wrong direction,” we see precisely the opposite: reducing regime power incentivizes it to scale back its destructive aspirations and cooperate. In other words, this is about power dynamics, not incentives. EU membership has incentives ample enough to attract Serbia’s neighbors, Albania and North Macedonia. Tirana and Skopje are desperate simply to have the same right that Belgrade already enjoys and exploits.
Eroding Serbian leverage is not a binary event, i.e. either full recognition by the four NATO non-recognizers, or nothing. Instead, we see Belgrade’s obsessive bid to isolate and weaken Kosovo – evidenced in its own words and actions – as proof of its vulnerability. That’s why senior Serbian officials run nervously to Greece and Spain to shore up – as officials openly state – non-recognition of Kosovo. That explains why at a time of grave European crisis, Serbian Foreign Minister Nikola Selakovic last week visited – of all places – Equatorial Guinea! – praising the country for not recognizing Kosovo. Same with the visits to dangerous countries like Iran and obscure ones like Suriname – all mainly in the name of isolating Kosovo.
Our strategy
Our strategy is entirely pragmatic. Steps towards ‘convergence’ beginning, for example, with returning Slovak and Spanish troops to KFOR, bringing Kosovo into NATO’s Partnership for Peace, aided by continuing movement from Greece, and steps by Romania as well, will have immediate impact on the regime’s posture. Greece’s role is particularly significant because Athens has its own clearly stated strategic reasons for moving toward recognition of Kosovo.
The Russian and Chinese vetoes in the Security Council are no match in this regard. A pathway to NATO membership is far more meaningful for Kosovo than UN membership.
Let’s finally bring the curtain down on the three-decade crisis over Yugoslavia, where it began – in Kosovo. Convergence is the way. Most current approaches, including the fight against corruption, and building a regional common market, continue under convergence — empowered by a US and EU that can finally apply the same standards across the region. Join us on Tuesday to hear how experts from the region process this argument!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A necessary and unavoidable but constructive failure
The UN’s Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP 26) ended yesterday with a lengthy, consensus declaration. The Glasgow Climate Pact includes something for just about everyone and not enough for anyone. That’s what you expect from a consensus document purporting to represent the views of 197 countries that are collectively fouling the global commons. Nor is it surprising that the current commitments of the parties, despite significant strengthening before and during the conference, will not achieve the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade.
The implications are dire. At higher temperatures than that goal, global warming will raise sea levels enough to drown some island countries and deprive many others of their current coastlines, generate even more dramatic storms and forest fires than we are already seeing, shift agricultural patterns in ways that hinder growing enough to meet global demand, and make parts of the planet even more uninhabitable than they already are. The costs will be astronomical. The human implications tragic. There is nothing to celebrate about COP 26 if you are looking only at the physical implications of what was decided in Glasgow, even if you welcome the substantial agreements reached on methane and deforestation.
The conference was however a success in another sense: without it, things would have been worse. Glasgow upped the ante on climate change. No government on earth can now ignore it entirely. Even laggards like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and India have been announcing new goals and counter measures. President Biden has put climate change high on his agenda, reversing President Trump’s foolish and counterproductive effort to ignore it. Island nations whose physical existence is threatened had their voices magnified. Less developed countries had their needs acknowledged, if not yet fully funded. None of this is enough, but much of it would not have happened without Glasgow.
This is typical of large international conferences. The UN is doing what it can and should. Such conferences serve to mobilize public opinion and shift attitudes, even if they fail to solve the problems they aim to solve. The key now is to maintain the momentum and raise the political pressure. The parties have agreed to meet again next year in Egypt, where no doubt the appeals for action and money will be heightened. Expanding economies in what we can hope will be the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic will likely make the prospects for meeting the goal of 1.5 degrees centigrade even dimmer than they are today. Don’t expect good news, but next year’s conference will again be a necessary, unavoidable but constructive failure.
That’s how the international system works. Get used to it. This is going to go on for decades.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Libya is taking baby steps in the right direction
Wolfgang Pusztai writes:
In order to end the conflict and to achieve security and stability in Libya as a basis for peace and state-building, first and foremost an executive – a government – and a legislative – a parliament – legitimated by credible elections are required.
There was nothing really new at [last week’s] International Libya Stabilization Conference, which was organized by Libya’s Foreign Minister Najla Al Mangoush. There was not even a common final statement, because the delegations could not agree about some key points like the withdrawal of foreign forces. However, the final drive to the elections must now come from the Libyans themselves anyway.
On the security side reliable supervision of the ceasefire is necessary, but I doubt that 60 civilian UN observers will be sufficient. A secure environment must be also established in the greater capital area, where there is fighting between the various militias (who are all considered part of the GNU’S security forces) almost every week.
On the political side regionalization and an agreement about the distribution of the oil revenues between the central state and the three historic provinces are without any realistic alternative.
Security and political stability should help to stabilize the oil and gas production, but Libya still needs foreign know-how and foreign investors. Most companies are still very hesitant to return. Therefore Libya also needs to build credibility, honor obligations from the past and find settlements with the many companies who lost a huge amount of money during and after the revolution (not only with the Turkish ones). Such agreements should help to build trust again.
Fortunately there is a drive towards the elections. Several persons have announced officially to run for presidency. Fathi Bashagha, ex-Minister of the Interior and promising presidential candidate from Misrata committed already to accept the outcome of the elections. The others should follow his example to ensure a broad acceptance of the election results.
Libya really needs a man of integrity as president, well-rooted in Libyan tradition, but with good connections to international actors and who stayed preferably out of day-by-day politics in Libya during the last years.
Wolfgang also discussed the Libya situation with last night on VoA with Mohamed Elshinnawi.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria: no attractive propositions, so Biden is staying the course
Secretary of State Blinken at a press conference with the Israeli and UAE foreign ministers today said more about Syria than I remember since the beginning of the Biden Administration, in response to a question about normalization that other countries are indulging in:
…let me talk about Syria first and then come to the second part of the – the first part of the question second.
First, to put this in focus, these initial nine months of the administration we have been focused on a few things when it comes to Syria: Expanding humanitarian access for people who desperately need that assistance, and we had some success, as you know, with renewing the critical corridor in northwestern Syria to do that; sustaining the campaign that we have with the coalition against ISIS and al-Qaida in Syria; making clear our commitment, our ongoing commitment to demand accountability from the Assad regime and the preservation of basic international norms like promoting human rights and nonproliferation through the imposition of targeted sanctions; and sustaining local ceasefires, which are in place in different parts of the country. So this has been the focus of our action for these last nine months.
As we’re moving forward, in the time ahead, keeping violence down; increasing humanitarian assistance and focusing our military efforts on any terrorist groups that pose a threat to us or to our partners, with the intent and capacity to do that. These are going to be the critical areas of focus for us, and they’re also, I think, important to advancing a broader political settlement to the Syrian conflict consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
What we have not done and what we do not intend to do is to express any support for efforts to normalize relations or rehabilitate Mr. Assad, or lifted [sic] a single sanction on Syria or changed [sic] our position to oppose the reconstruction of Syria until there is irreversible progress toward a political solution, which we believe is necessary and vital.
https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-israeli-alternate-prime-minister-and-foreign-minister-yair-lapid-and-united-arab-emirates-foreign-minister-sheikh-abdullah-bin-zayed-al-nahyan-at-a-joint-press-availab/
This is a restatement of well-established US priorities: humanitarian assistance, reduction in violence, counter-terrorism, and irreversible progress toward a political solution before reconstruction or normalization.
So nothing new. What’s missing? should always be the next question.
Tony fails to deal with the threat of a serious military clash between NATO ally Turkey and the Kurdish-led forces that are conducting the campaign against both terrorists and the regime in northeastern Syria, with American support. He is silent on concerns about Iran using Syrian territory to threaten Israel. Nor does he indicate that the United States opposes normalization by others, in particular Jordan and the UAE. And he is silent on brutality-laced Russian and Iranian support for the Syrian regime, which in due course may become capable of challenging the Kurdish presence in the northeast and the Turkish presence inside Syria’s northern border. So yes, continuity of a policy that is silent on important issues and has so far failed to produce substantial results.
Is there a better approach? We could certainly tighten sanctions so that jet-setting scions of the Syrian elite don’t roam Los Angeles in Ferraris, but that won’t change anything in Syria. We could help the Germans mount a “universal jurisdiction” case against President Assad himself, in absentia, but that would set a legal precedent that might boomerang on prominent Americans. We could try harder to mediate some sort of accommodation between the Syrian Kurds and Turkey, as we did once with a modicum of success between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. Or we could try to negotiate autonomous status for the Kurds within Syria in return for US withdrawal, though the regime would be no more likely than the Taliban to stick to the terms of a withdrawal agreement. The Kurds would likely revert to attacking inside Turkey as well as Turkish-controlled Syria in order to curry favor with Assad. It suits the Kurds and Turkey to have the Americans remain in Syria.
I won’t even bother with military options against the Russians or the regime. The Americans take some shots against the Iranians and their proxies in Syria, but they aren’t going to risk war with Russia or the civilian casualties that taking on the regime would entail.
So no, there are not a lot of attractive propositions in Syria. Especially after the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Administration can ill afford a comparable mess in Syria, never mind an influx into the US of tens of thousands Syrian Kurds and Arabs who helped the US during the past decade and have legitimate claims to asylum. No wonder Biden is staying the course.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 28
US air strikes in Iraq and Syria against Iranian-linked militias. NYT background. Official release.
UN told Russian mercenaries commit war crimes in Africa.
Bruce Riedel remembers the Khobar Towers bombing 25 years ago. He notes how US retaliated against Iran. The incident also led to a civ-mil clash when SecDef Cohen wanted to punish senior officers and USAF Chief of Staff wanted to punish only those immediately responsible. The chief retired early in quiet protest. For me it was a clash between the Navy and Air Force approaches to command responsibility.
Fred Kaplan reviews West Point’s long history of teaching about race.
Tucker Carlson attacks Gen.Milley.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. 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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Advice from the classics for Washington, Beijing, and Moscow
Alexandros P. Mallias, Ambassador of Greece to the United States ( 2005-2009) writes:
Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a fine diplomat and a seasoned top national security official, followed the footsteps of several American Presidents. During his first trip in Europe, he paid an important and much anticipated visit to NATO’s Headquarters in Brussels. The top American diplomat reiterated the Biden’s Administration strong commitment to NATO, while expressing the expectation that the allies will remain committed to cope with the three main challenges/threats as reflected in NATO’s reports and joint declarations. Is that so?
The response is neither easy nor linear. Let’s elaborate:
- The unprecedented though foreseeable rise of China’s capabilities. China is a privileged commercial, economic, trade, shipping, financial, and investment partner for NATO’s European allies. She is also an indispensable enabler in addressing climate change and the COVID pandemic. A Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, swiftful rising China is a global antagonist and potentially a strategic challenge for American interests. China has been a major concern issue for Congress and the top foreign policy priority, with important domestic parameters, for the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations.
China’s Asian-Pacific claims and interests as well as its global designs are supported by political, economic and increasing military capabilities, yet under a “soft power” cover. It is increasingly difficult to draw a clear line among cooperation, engagement and deterrence. Economic, energy, trade, and financial interdependence are the basic characteristics of China’s bonds with her leading global partners. It is now more difficult for the United States alone to prevent by coercive measures China’s ascent to primacy.
The 2500 years old “Thucydides trap” syndrome is now becoming a useful tool of analysis when examining US-China relations. Washington runs the risk of eventually projecting the image of a hegemon, like the city of Athens. But America’s soft power is colossal and global, much stronger than coercion. If hard power towards China and pressure on allies are the best policy option, then the probable product is a brotherhood of non-willing allies. A third powerful pole has already taken shape opposing US policies, including politico-military rapprochement among China, Russia and others .
2. Russia’s assertiveness and come-back policy under President Vladimir Putin, which includes prestige, self-confident power politics, and territorial ambitions. Russia, a big power, is today an important energy, trade, tourism and economic partner for many NATO allies, with whom it sided in the fight against international terrorism. Russia is also a key player albeit a hard power antagonist in Eurasian affairs.
The Russian Federation, also a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, is focusing on the European theater of energy, political, and military operations as well as on the greater Middle East (MENA).
Notwithstanding justified and legitimate opposition and apprehension among NATO allies and the European Union, Russia considers itself a shareholder of European cultural heritage, from the Atlantic to the Urals. But Russia’s invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing aggressive moves against Ukraine , in violation of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and the Paris Charter for a New Europe are illegal. The status quo in Crimea cannot be tolerated. Russia has undermined its own role as an important stakeholder in European security and cooperation. US, NATO policies and EU sanctions are justified.
Notwithstanding the Russian Federation’s important fossil fuel resources, its economic and military capabilities at this stage may not sustain its superpower aspirations. A framework of a “principled (value based) cooperative engagement” is possible. Russia’s desire to become a big power player in Eurasia, MENA, and beyond should be matched by the Kremlin’s attachment to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter and the fundamental principles and values of the European legal, political and security post cold-war commitments and architecture.
There is a basic prerequisite before engaging with Russia. It pertains to NATO’s credibility, cohesion, and deterrence capability. Russia has managed to establish–against NATO’s interests–strategic defense procurement agreements and unprecedented confidential bonds with Turkey, a NATO member. The S-400 issue is a serious “intra muros” challenge undermining NATO diplomatically and politically. It is not an issue to be dealt with simply between Washington and Ankara. Further to Turkey’s provocative and aggressive policies against Greece and Cyprus, it poses a credibility problem for NATO as a whole and seriously affects Alliance security. It has to be addressed as a priority issue in order to preserve NATO’s credibility, restore intra-Alliance confidence, and revive the indivisible collective security axiom.
3. Preventing, countering and deterring hybrid threats. Often, the sources of these attacks directed against NATO members and institutions are also related or correlated to Moscow and Beijing. But it would be naive to attribute them solely to NATO’s two global antagonists. Cyberspace is the most difficult theater of operations for an undeclared global confrontation. More so, if associated with the possibility of rogue or failed states, authoritarian leaders, and non-state actors (terrorists, secessionist groups, etc.) getting access to nuclear weapons systems and/or long range ballistic capabilities. This is the 21st century nightmare scenario.
“Reset” global politics, starting with the UN Security Council
There is nothing new in stating that the world is characterized by power politics, rivalry between states and the promotion of state interests. Synergy is partial, alliances challenged, while the ecumenic symmetry is rather elliptic. The bipolar world order collapsed \; today, superpower monopoly is challenged. We should be in search of a new world order.
The Biden-Harris Administration’s much anticipated “reset” of multilateral diplomacy has a name: international cooperation, in particular within the United Nations and the Security Council. Multilateralism is the prerequisite for restoring the efficacy of the collective international security system: securing, shaping and reshaping the problematic world order.
It is a common secret that the United Nations is today unable to discharge its mission; synergy is missing among the five Permanent Members (P5) of the Security Council. The antagonism and conflict among the five stem both from a different hierarchy of values, attachment to human rights issues included, mostly though for geopolitical and economic reasons.
Attachment to the principles and purposes enshrined in the United Nations Charter has eroded. As long as the Security Council is unable to operate and act as mandated by the Charter, it will be impossible to reach the necessary consensus to prevent and counter threats against peace, stability, and security. The “veto” power prerogative should not be synonymous with idleness and inertia. The “zero sum game” equilibrium point cannot become the world order power equilibrium.
At times the United Nations Security Council was considered to be the refuge of the weak or the haven for weaker UN members. Now it is the indispensable condition for the P5 in resetting and restoring the much wanted world order.
In their legitimate search for common ground, the United States may wish to test the waters by hosting a ‘closed door retreat” of the P5 at Ministerial or Head of State level. Such a move could display of the American “smart power” (hard+ soft + principles and values) in reshaping the world order. Coping with the pandemic, climate change, and unity in fighting against terrorism could figure as the starting point of the agenda.
Engagement, negotiation, leadership: get advice from the Classics
What lessons can we draw from the ancient Greek classics that are relevant today? I refer to war and peace prototypes: Athens, Sparta, and Corinth were the three key city-states at the origins of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides’ History of that War remains by far the most complete handbook on strategy and tactics, on peace and war, on alliances and hegemony, on the cleavage between principles and interests, might and right, on negotiating of truces and treaties and definitely on leadership. We often use a famous quote from the Melian Dialogue:
…since you know as well as we do that right is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Thucydides refers also to the argument used by the Athenian ambassadors warning the Spartans not to start the war by saying:
….Consider the vast influence of accident in war before you start it. For a long war as it continues for the most part ends in catastrophe… It is a common mistake in going to war to begin at the wrong end, to act first and wait for disaster to negotiate…
Many scholars argue that we already move in the footsteps of the Peloponnesian War. I earnestly hope that the Athenian message will not be ignored by Moscow, Beijing or Washington.
RSS - Posts
