Month: May 2011
At last!
Ratko Mladic has been arrested, in Serbia, details still unknown. President Tadic is quoted by the New York Times:
Extradition is happening. This is the end of the search for Mladic. It’s not the end of the search for all those who helped Mladic and others to hide and whether people from the government were involved…this is happening on the day Catherine Ashton is coming to Serbia.
Yes, the moment is a good one, not only for the occasion of Ashton’s visit but also just as Chief Prosecutor Brammertz was to release his report on Serbia’s cooperation with the Hague Tribunal. Convenient, but welcome nevertheless. So too Tadic’s reference to searching for those who helped Mladic all these years, and his reference on NPR this morning to the importance of this arrest for regional reconciliation.
But the main thing this morning is just this: at last Ratko Mladic is headed for justice.
PS: Compliments to Nenad Pejic of RFE/RL for his well done “flash analysis.”
PPS: Too bad President Tadic can’t even mention “Kosovo” without adding something incomprehensible about “our autonomy Kosovo.” And too bad The Guardian couldn’t find a Bosnian Muslim who thought Mladic has a right to be defended:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Not if but when
A May 25 first-rate panel on Syria at the Carnegie Endowment had a clear bottom line: Bashar al Assad might survive in power for a while, but not for long. I took this to mean a year, not more.
Ammar Abdulwahid led off noting that the protests in North Africa and the Middle East should not have been a surprise to anyone who read the Arab human development reports: demographic growth, the youth bulge, unemployment, governments incapable of reform and out-of-touch oppositions, combined with the recent availability of social media, made the protests inevitable. The results of the protests in Tunisia gave the Syrians confidence. At the same time, Bashar al Assad–having broken out of the international isolation he suffered after the Hariri assassination–disappointed Syrian expectations.
The result is a movement which is now “self-organizing” with a clear goal: Bashar out. The next step will be organization of a transitional council, like the one in Libya but necessarily outside Syria under current conditions. A upcoming conference in Turkey will move in the direction of forming such a council. There is no possibility of restoring the status quo ante. A new era has already begun. The protesters are reaching out to the West and the United States for support.
The shift in President Obama’s speech last week was welcome, even if it rhetorically retained the option of Bashar staying to lead reforms, something that will not happen. The President needs to go farther and ask that Bashar step down–only that will convince regime loyalists to turn against him.
Murhaf Jouejati agreed there is no going back. Bashar al Assad has lost his legitimacy and authority. What is needed now is a “pincer movement” of the domestic and international forces to squeeze him out. The regime is determined to survive, and it may do so, but not for long. The economy is a shambles, inflation is up, oil production is down and the government can’t afford to keep the promises it is making.
Itamar Rabinovich said Israel is ambivalent about Bashar al Assad, who is at war with Israel but has kept the peace. Israel destroyed a Syrian reactor being built secretly by the North Koreans in 2007, but Bashar never retaliated. Israelis want to know, “what is the alternative?” The Palestinian demonstrations at the fence on the Golan Heights were an attempt to demonstrate the credibility of Makhlouf’s threat of instability if Bashar falls. Syria has a large number of Scud missiles that would create real problems for Israel. For the moment, there is definitely no “Syria option” for the peace process.
The regime will not survive, but it is unclear what will come next. Certainly the fall of Bashar al Assad would weaken Iran’s position, and Israelis naturally like the idea of a more democratic Syria. But the road to democracy is bumpy and bad things can happen along the way. It is particularly important that the peace agreement with Egypt be maintained–if it is not, Israel will not trust any agreements in the future.
Tamara Wittes reiterated that Syria has changed irrevocably as a result of the mass murders and arrests. Contrary to its claims, the regime is not a source of stability but of instability. The U.S. is pushing Bashar al Assad every day to stop the violence, release the prisoners and accept human rights monitors. There is little possibility he will agree. The international community is preparing additional sanctions that will sharpen the choice. Change is coming; we need to focus on how it happens.
Paul Salem, while agree the issue is not if but when, raised the question of what will happen? A Syrian implosion would affect the whole region. There is a possibility the regime will hang on for a while, even that Bashar might move in the direction of reform. There is also the possibility of civil war, perhaps with a quick opposition victory. Or a prolonged period of Syrian weakness, as in the period 1945-58. In short, there is a baffling array of scenarios.
The neighbors are each looking out for their interests. Turkey is pressing Bashar for reforms, which it prefers to come from the top down. Not wanting democracy to spread, Saudi Arabia is supporting the regime, at least in part as a quid pro quo for Syrian support on Bahrain. Egypt has already welcomed Hamas back from Syria. Iran is worried that its position in the region could be seriously damaged. A Sunni takeover in Syria would cut Hizbollah off from Iran.
In response to questions, Ammar said the middle class is protesting in the Damascus suburbs, less so in Aleppo. He thought a clear statement that Bashar must leave office is required before the army will engage seriously against the regime. Murhaf underlined that the protestors need to alleviate the fears of minorities like the Alawis and the Christians, who otherwise will stick with the regime. Salem and Rabinovich agreed Hizbollah will not risk a war with Israel, but it may be tempted to provoke further border incidents.
The protesters still face an uphill battle, because the wall of fear is not completely broken. The older generation is still not taking to the streets, and the demonstrations–while widespread–are not massive. But something irreversible has happened–it remains to be seen whether the outcome can be kept on a path towards democracy.
I might say the same thing about Libya and Yemen, where autocrats are holding on well after their sell by dates. Success in ousting Muammar Gaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh would no doubt have an inspirational effect also on Syrians.
PS: Read also Andrew Tabler on the end of days for Bashar al Assad.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
May 25 Yugo-nostalgia, not
A former Yugoslav friend writes:
May 25th was celebrated as Tito’s birthday, and was known as Youth Day. They used to take us out of school to wave flags at the runners carrying “best birthday wishes from students, peasants and workers of Yugoslavia” hidden in a baton. Students, peasants and workers started running a relay around the country around May Day, passing the baton hand to hand every couple of hundred meters — it was a huge honor to be a carrier. Factories would stop for a shift and schools would close while workers and students lined the streets to greet the passing baton. Every evening at 7:30, the daily news, which was mandatory viewing for all, would first show that day’s leg of the relay and all the happy workers and peasants celebrating.
Weeks of celebrations culminated on May 25th, at the Stadium of the Yugoslav People’s Army in Belgrade, where the baton would be handed to Tito, by a breathless Stakhanovite or his student equivalent. This one is Tito’s last birthday, in 1979. The lyrics of the song are: “Tito, Tito is our Sun. Tito, Tito is our heart. There is no end to our joy and one love binds us all. Tito-Party-Youth-Action.” Action refers to “work action” – unpaid physical labour that we performed for the motherland, digging ditches, picking corn, laying railroad tracks.
The determined young Albanian woman recites our collective wish: “that you continue to navigate the ship of our state for many more years with a steady hand and a clear eye.” The commentator gushes about the air being “charged with love, respect and gratitude.” The birthday boy manages to string a few semi-coherent short sentences.
I was in the audience. I was over the moon. Within a year, Tito dies. Life changes.
This helps explain how those same people lined up behind new leaders a decade later, and killed and died on command.
All the more glory to those who refused, and who still refuse today, to be led in the wrong directions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Own goal
Serbian President Boris Tadic is apparently prepared to skip a summit of Central and Southeastern European leaders in Warsaw Friday and Saturday because Kosovo’s president will be present and treated as an equal.
I of course understand Tadic’s domestic political problem. He doesn’t want to be seen acknowledging Kosovo’s sovereignty, which Belgrade continues to contest. He and Foreign Minister Jeremic seem almost in a competition to see who can move more aggressively in the nationalist direction. The Foreign Minister has come out strongly for withdrawal of the international community High Representative from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Tadic was pleased the other day to tell Serb school children from Kosovo that Serbia is their country.
This despite the fact that Serbia’s delegation to the EU-hosted talks has met with the Kosovo delegation at a symmetrical table, where rumor has it they will soon be able to announce modest progress on issues like mutual recognition of documents and customs stamps. Tadic needs that, in order for Serbia to gain EU candidacy status for Serbia before calling elections. Kosovo in the meanwhile will try to gain entry into the visa waiver program, whose technical requirements it claims to have fulfilled.
So there appears to be at least some limited progress on practical issues, but Serbia is unwilling to take the next step. Atifete Jahjaga is the constitutionally elected president of Kosovo. Whatever Kosovo’s status, she is clearly its legitimate leader. Tadic needs to learn to make this distinction: between recognizing Kosovo as sovereign and independent, and accepting its leader as its legitimate representative. He should take the advice of Sonja Licht, president of the Foreign Policy Council at the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
I personally believe that the time has come that the policy of the Government is reconsidered in order that more creative solution is found. That solution has to respect the fact that the circumstances have changed in the meantime. We have started dialog with Kosovo and accepted it as a side in negotiations. More courageous and determined steps are necessary.
Tadic’s refusal to go to Warsaw is an own goal. The Americans will certainly want to think more than twice before inviting Tadic to Washington if he is unwilling to join President Obama for this group summit in Warsaw.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Veh is mir!
The issue is not the 1967 border–President Obama did not ask the Israelis to accept it, but to use it as the basis for negotiation of territorial swaps that would result in a more secure and defensible Israeli border. There is nothing controversial about that. It is what all Israeli prime ministers before Netanyahu have accepted.
Nor did Netanyahu use his speech to Congress to pick at that scab. In fact, he was at pains to close ranks with President Obama as much as possible. But note that he did not talk about “swaps,” which imply equal exchanges of territory, only about generosity.
But he made it clear that he is asking much more than other Israeli prime ministers have been prepared to accept. He wants explicit recognition of Israel as a Jewish state (the existing PLO recognition of Israel tout court is not sufficient), he wants all of Jerusalem (which would presumably preclude part of it being the capital of Palestine), he wants Israeli troops along the Jordan river (not clear to me which way the guns will be pointing), he wants no return of Palestinian refugees to Israel (even though Israel would end up with the lion’s share of the land).
And he expects American support for these positions, which would wreck any near-term hope of a negotiated agreement. So does he really accept the two-state solution? I think not, despite his explicit reference to it as free, viable and independent.
The next big move in this diplomatic game will be at the General Assembly in the fall, when the Palestinians attempt to get a resolution that will “recognize” their state. This is a bit silly, since the GA doesn’t recognize states, and GA resolutions are cheaper by the dozen and often ignored. But Israeli and American opposition to the resolution has made it symbolically important. The GA does recommend states for UN membership, but President Obama has signaled clearly that the U.S. would veto that in the Security Council, which has the final say.
My grandmother would support Netanyahu. I say what she taught me: “oy, veh is mir.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Netanyahu channels Jefferson
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke last night at AIPAC. The speech was notable for three things:
- No vision of what peace with the Palestinians would look like–he promised that for today in Congress.
- His assertion that “Israel is America’s indispensable ally.” I thought it was the other way around.
- His welcoming of the Arab Spring, and his related claim that Arabs have equal rights in Israel.
On this last point, I’m glad Netanyahu took the line he did on the Arab Spring, but I’m afraid he was as insincere as the slave holder Thomas Jefferson, whose memorial he visited. Rather than debate complex issues, I’ll quote the State Department’s last human rights report:
Principal human rights problems were institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against Arab citizens…
In Israel proper, see the New Israel Fund. For the occupied territories, pay a visit to B’tselem. Prepare to not like what you read.
The question of whether Israel is indispensable to the U.S. or the U.S. is indispensable to Israel is an important one. The fact is that the U.S. is indispensable to Israel. The United States would survive without the Jewish state, but Israel would not survive without American support.
Like most Americans, I am glad for that support, which helps to ensure Israeli security. But when an Israeli prime minister gets the basic relationship backwards I’ve got to wonder what we are doing wrong.
The answer is too much support and not enough questioning. President Obama did well last week to make clearer what everyone (including Israeli prime ministers before Netanyahu) has always assumed: that a peace settlement would include 1967 borders with land swaps. Putting Netanyahu on the spot was far better than conspiring with him, as Aaron David Miller would have preferred.
I’ll be listening today for what Netanyahu has to say about his vision for a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. I hope it proves better than what I expect.
RSS - Posts
