Day: May 10, 2011
How to save Bosnia and Herzegovina
John Menzies, post-war U.S. ambassador in Sarajevo in 1996 and war-time Charge’ d’affaires in 1995, writes:
Background
The U.S. has made an enormous investment in Bosnia; billions of dollars, thousands of man-years, and actual blood. The Dayton system is unraveling due to the depredations of hard-line nationalist elements. We cannot afford the success of these elements. It is time to act quickly and effectively to reverse the current trend toward fragmentation and dissolution of the Bosnian state.
Current systems seem unable to address the urgency of the moment. Here are a few simple suggestions for correcting the current course.
Moving Forward
1. Name a Special Envoy to Bosnia; provide high level political support.
2. Create a new “Friends of Bosnia” group to meet on the margins of the North Atlantic Council (NAC). This group would include the U.S., the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Turkey. Membership should be open to those who genuinely want to make the peace work. No other venue serves the purpose of the NAC. Turkey can participate as a NATO member, and the NAC can discuss much tougher approaches than can the EU or any other umbrella.
3. Reinvigorate (if at all possible) the OHR. As unlikely as it sounds, it is worth trying; it is an institution already in place. This does not substitute for a U.S. Special Envoy. The Special Envoy will add resolve and strength to the OHR, and can extend the Envoy’s own mandate by supporting the OHR.
4. Press for a new Dayton-like process to correct the flaws of the original. The new effort should have an open mandate, but only to make Bosnia work. It should be clear from the outset that there will be no multi-state solutions.
We have invested far too much to allow Bosnia to fail. Heightened resolve is the key to finding solutions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
An aging peacehawk
Not everyone will like this interview with Israeli President Shimon Peres, but I find it remarkable. He declares Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas still a partner for peace, despite the unity agreement with Hamas. He says President Obama is a friend of Israel, in particular for vetoing a UNSC resolution on settlements that accorded with Obama’s views, something I wish the United States had not done (but I’m glad Obama at least gets credit from someone for it). And he says apropos of the Arab Spring:
“Either [the Arab world] will return to tribalism and poverty, or the Arab world will enter the 21st century. There’s no middle option.” Israel’s interest, he declared, was that “they should enter the 21st century, of course. We’re not idiots. All of Judaism is built on the basis that all men are created in the image of God. Our values must be stronger even than our policies.”
This would be enough for me to take back “Israelis are from Chelm,” if more of them agreed with their president.
That said, Peres is no pushover when it comes to Israeli security. An architect of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, he says:
There are two components: a Palestinian state and Israel’s security needs. If we only talk about Israel’s security needs, that’s only half of it. If they only talk about a Palestinian state, that would only be half of it. And if only half the work is done, that will mean a continuation of the conflict.
It is hard to believe a Palestinian state necessarily threatens Israel’s security more than the mess in Gaza and the West Bank today. More likely, today’s situation is far more perilous.
Of course Peres is only the president. Prime Minister Netanyahu holds Israel’s cards, which he’ll reveal in a May 23 speech to Congress. Michael Omer-Man suggests he announce an initiative at the UN in favor of a Palestinian state, security arrangements and borders to be settled later. This may be a bridge too far, but I hope Netanyahu is at least wise enough to listen to his aging peacehawk president.
RSS - Posts
