Day: August 6, 2018
Havoc impends
Here are some of the reactions I’ve gathered to President Thaci’s “border correction” proposal, in addition to the comments on my Thursday post:
Veton Surroi writes from Pristina:
Evidently, the Macedonian referendum on Greek accord will be hard hit by discussions on border changes. The vote relies heavily on Albanians in Macedonia, and they are a target of this maneuver. “If Preshevo can why can’t Tetovo”- that’s an immediate question that arises in a debate that should be actually about North Macedonia becoming a NATO member! (Hint: I don’t doubt someone is smiling in Moscow right now)
Sinisa Vukovic at Voice of America says:
Postavlja se pitanje i da li je to rešenje u skladu sa strateškim interesima obe strane, a odgovor je ne. Pre svega ne treba smetnuti sa uma da se na severu nalaze resursi za Prištinu poput vodosnabdevanja. Drugo, opšte je poznato da većina Srba živi južno od Ibra, dakle problematizuje se budućnost manjina”,rekao je on.
This Google translates as
The question arises whether this solution is in line with the strategic interests of both parties, and the answer is no. First of all, one should be disturbed by the fact that in the north there are resources for Pristina, such as water supply. Second, it is widely known that most Serbs live south of the Ibar, so the minority’s future is being problematized.
Father Sava, the Abbott of Decani monastery, tweets:
Ripple Effects already – Bosnian Serbs Seek Same UN Status as Kosovo
An old friend writes from Pristina:
I think you already pointed out reasonably so many arguments against partition. There is nothing new to add there. It is a lose/lose situation that has been elaborated so many times.What I am worried about is the third party: the international community that is mirroring the strange world we live in. Neither Thaci,nor Vucic will ever dare to open the partition issue if this was not silently endorsed in some form or another. This is what worries me.Another thing is that I guess two presidents are somehow moving ahead with their agenda, and that’s not only partition. Partition could be a fog for many other issues, like the association of Serb municipalities or some sort of Republika Srpska, the general amnesty for all crimes in and around Kosovo, etc.Petritsch’s reaction worried me a lot: correction of borders with few villages.I believe the point should be why at all somebody would have opted for partition in principle when this was so many times elaborated as nonstarter agenda?
Question for Petritsch and Company: why is a small correction of borders needed? Is this to save face for Vucic? Why would a few villages of Kosovo save the face of a Serbian President?And definitely a question for Washington and Brussels if they support partition or “correction of borders” agenda? They need to declare themselves in public. Have Brussels and Washington abandoned their previous red lines? Prishtina and Belgrade are not talking for the first time…So, what is happening now?
And a little reminder: was all this famous “normalization” dialogue started as technical dialogue? Now that Serbia is a front-runner for EU Integration, the so called Copenhagen criteria (that nobody dares to mention in Brussels because of the 5 non-recognizers), Prishtina has to play a technical role of the dancing partner that will not be qualified. But, how can Prishtina save the face of Vucic who wants to go in Europe but needs “few villages” of Kosovo to sell a historic deal back home? Before the mandate of Mogherini and friends end their mandate, because who knows later?And let’s say everything will be OK and Serbia gets a green light for the EU. Who can than guarantee that Kosovo can have its wanted UN seat? Brussels? Belgrade? Not sure.
There is also a Special Court issue that obviously is postponed for some time, or better to say after the negotiations are concluded. Why?
The US and EU working together have a superb track record in the Balkans. Local ownership has a truly terrible track record there, especially when it comes to issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to mention treatment of minorities and rule of law more generally. Someone in Washington needs to wake up. Havoc impends.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks – August 6 – 13
1. Building the Bench for Inclusive U.S. Foreign Policy: Civil Society Leading by Example | Monday, August 6, 2018 | 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm | Open Society Foundations | Register Here
The Open Society Foundations, in collaboration with other partners, has supported research to better understand how civil society can drive inclusive innovation in foreign policy and national security. To this end, a new report, Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in the Foreign Policy Sector, demonstrates how think tanks and nongovernmental organizations can empower a diverse pool of experts to solve the world’s greatest challenges.
Civil society, as the core pool for expertise in government service, can address deficits in cultural, linguistic, and religious lived experiences to offer powerful insight and cultural competency for foreign policy. Experts will discuss best practices and recommendations for the field on how to draw from the United States’ tapestry of diverse communities to gain strategic contributions to diplomacy and national security outcomes.
Please join us for the Washington, D.C., launch of Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in the Foreign Policy Sector, in conversation with Vestige Strategies and the Truman National Security Project.
The panel discussion will be followed by a reception.
Speakers:
Moderator: Alex Johnson – Senior Policy Advisor for Europe and Eurasia, Open Society Foundations, Washington D.C.
Stefanie Brown James – Chief Executive Officer and Founding Partner, Vestige Strategies
Anthony Robinson – Director of Training and Public Engagement, Truman Center for National Policy and Truman National Security Project
2. Israel’s Nation-State Law: Consequences and Costs | Tuesday, August 7, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | Wilson Center | Register Here
Last month, the Nation-State law enshrining the principle that Israel is the “national home of the Jewish people” became one of Israel’s Basic Laws, giving it a quasi-constitutional status. The new law, which polls indicate a majority of Israeli Jews support, has generated enormous controversy at home and abroad, alienating and angering Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Druze community with its focus on Jewish primacy.
What are the consequences of the new law for comity, politics and governance in Israel?
Join us as three veteran observers of Israel’s politics and policies discuss the new law and its consequences.
U.S. toll-free number: 888-942-8140
International call-in number: 1-517-308-9203
Participant passcode: 13304
Speakers:
Introduction: Jane Harman – Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Moderator: Aaron David Miller – Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center
Ayman Odeh – Head of the Joint List, the third largest parliamentary group in the 20th Knesset
Anshel Pfeiffer – Correspondent, Haaretz; author, Bibi: The Turbulent Life and times of Benjamin Netanyahu
Shibley Telhami – Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland, College Park
3. Pakistan: After the Elections | Tuesday, August 7, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Pakistan has spent almost half of its 70 years as a nation under military rule and the rest under a semi-authoritarian democracy. Since 2008, Pakistan has ostensibly had civilian rule with a peaceful transfer of power in 2013. Analysts are hopeful that Pakistan’s 2018 election on July 25 will continue this trend of democratization.
Elections do not make a democracy. Yet free, fair, and inclusive elections are one of the pillars of a democratic nation. Most observers and analysts, both within and outside the country, have raised concerns about the influence of Pakistan’s military intelligence establishment on the July 25 general election.
On August 7, Hudson Institute’s South and Central Asia Program will host a panel to discuss Pakistan’s 2018 elections. Panelists will include Professor C. Christine Fair, Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor in the Peace and Security Studies Program at Georgetown University; Dr. Muhammad Taqi, a columnist for The Wire; and Ambassador Husain Haqqani, former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States and director of South and Central Asia at Hudson Institute.
4. Pakistan Elections: What Now? | Wednesday, August 8, 2018 | 9:30 am – 11:00 am | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Pakistan’s national elections on July 25 ushered in a new government, with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party now set to head a new governing coalition and former cricket star Imran Khan expected to become prime minister. After a controversial campaign period, the incumbent Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)—whose former leader Nawaz Sharif was imprisoned just days before the elections—has alleged rigging, military manipulation, and media censorship. Several political parties have also challenged the results of the elections. Should the results stand, the PTI appears to have swept races around the country, and now faces the challenge of governing.
To discuss the outcome of the elections, the shape of the next government, and the complaints and challenges to the outcome, USIP will hold a conversation with senior representatives from Pakistan’s top three political parties (PTI, PML-N and the Pakistan Peoples Party) via Skype along with experts Daniel Markey, Kiran Pervez and Moeed Yusuf in Washington, D.C. The event will take place from 9:30am – 11:30am on Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Join the conversation on Twitter with #PkElectionsWhatNow.
Speakers:
Moderator: Moeed Yusuf – Associate Vice President, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace
Syed Tariq Fatemi (via Skype) – Special Assistant to the Prime Minister
Daniel Markey – Senior Research Professor, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Kiran Pervez – South & Central Asia Regional Chair, U.S. Department of State
Shah Mahmood Qureshi (via Skype) – Vice Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
Sherry Rehman (via Skype) – Leader of the Opposite of the Senate, Pakistan
5. U.S. Arms Transfer Policy – Shaping the Way Ahead | Wednesday, August 8, 2018 | 10:30 am – 12:30 pm | Center for International and Strategic Studies | Register Here
The Trump Administration released its new Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) policy and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) export policy in April 2018. It constitutes the first update to the CAT policy since January 2014.
Please join CSIS as we host a public event to discuss the Administration’s new CAT policy. The event will commence with keynote remarks by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Tina Kaidanow. Following these remarks, a moderated panel consisting of government, think tank, and industry experts will contextualize and discuss challenges in implementation, as well as opportunities presented for U.S. strategy and U.S. business as a result of this policy update.
Speakers:
Ambassador Tina Kaidanow – Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Alex Gray – Special Assistant to the President for the Defense Industrial Base, White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy
Laura Cressey – Deputy Director for Regional Security and Arms Transfers, U.S. Department of State
Jeff Abramson – Senior Fellow, Arms Control Association
Keith Webster – President, Defense and Aerospace Export Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Melissa Dalton – Deputy Director, International Security Program and Director, Cooperative Defense Project, CSIS
Dak Hardwick – Assistant Vice President, International Affairs, Aerospace Industries Association
Andrew Philip-Hunter – Director, Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group and Senior Fellow, International Security Program, CSIS
RSS - Posts
