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.