Month: October 2018
You decide
Below are some comments on the results of Sunday’s Bosnian elections. But as a prelude I should note that almost no one in Washington is paying attention to them. America’s focus is elsewhere: on the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, on military and economic competition from China, and on a fractured domestic polity headed for its own important elections November 6. The United States will want Bosnians to find their own solutions to their own political problems, within the context of a sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina. Europeans and Americans may be able to help, but you have to decide how your country is to be governed.
Erdin Halimic of Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz asked questions. I answered:
Q: Can we ask you for a comment on the election results in BiH? Can you comment individually on each new Member of the BiH Presidency? Šefik Džaferović? Milorad Dodik? Željko Komšić?
A: All I’ve seen so far is the presidency results: Dodik, Dzaferovic, and Komsic. That is not enough to comment on more than the presidency. Dodik and Komsic come from very different places: one favors independence for Republika Srpska, which would make it an unrecognized Russian puppet state, and the other a Bosnia and Herzegovina with serious European ambitions. Dzaferovic is widely thought to represent continuity with Izetbegovic. We’ll have to wait and see what they are able to do together. It is not very promising.
Q: Do you expect a government crisis in the coming period and why?
Government formation in parliamentary systems is often difficult. We’ll have to see the results at all levels to make an informed guesstimate, but even then we could be wrong.
Amil Ducic of web portal Klix.ba also asked questions, to which I replied:
Q: Milorad Dodik is elected as member of Presidency of BIH. Is this kind of paradox for you because he stated enormous times that BiH is impossible, now he is head of this state?
A: It is potentially a serious problem if he uses his position to prevent functional governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But we’ll have to wait and see.
Q: Željko Komšić is elected as well, for the third time. This is slap in face of Dragan Covic. As we expected the reactions are harsh from HDZ. Is it for you a surprise that prime minister of Croatia Andrej Plenkovic showed a very harsh reaction that Komsic is not a good choice for BiH?
A: Of course the reaction from the HDZ is harsh. They lost. Maybe they should worry more about the program they run on than about whether it is a slap in the face of Covic. Plenkovic’s reaction is no surprise. He too is HDZ.
Q: This year’s elections could be result of big election fraud: There is plenty of information about it. What is your comment?
A: I’ll be guided mainly by the OSCE on this issue. They saw problems but so far as I understand have not said that the presidential results were strongly affected by fraud. The main problem with elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not at the polling places, but in the political system, which mainly rewards nationalist parties that control state patronage. But the elections are competitive and people have other options. They don’t use them as much as I might like, but that is a their choice, not mine.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks: October 8 – 12
1. A new dawn for protectionism? From trade wars to mega-regional trade agreements | Monday, October 8, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Brookings Institution | 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The future of the rules-based trading system has never looked more uncertain. Due to negotiation paralysis at the World Trade Organization, the rulebook on trade and investment has not been updated in nearly 25 years. There is deep concern that the actions of the two largest economies in the world may further strain the multilateral trading system. China’s rise has not seen the emergence of a market-driven economy. Rather, its market distorting policies have created major trade irritants in areas such as overcapacity for steel production and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration is calling for a complete reset of United States trade policy, skeptical of multilateral trade agreements and the World Trade Organization. It has reverted to managed trade practices and the tariff is its tool of choice. The tariff war that the United States and China are currently engaged in risks escalation and may prove difficult to wind down any time soon.
However, other countries are doubling down on multilateral trade liberalization efforts, producing a series of ambitious mega trade agreements. Japan and the European Union have been at the forefront of this effort, recently signing a trade agreement that covers a third of world GDP and will eliminate on almost all tariffs between them. Japan also led the effort to rescue the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which is expected to go into effect next year. Against this backdrop, reform of the World Trade Organization has gained greater urgency.
On October 8, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies will host a panel of experts to examine the challenges facing the rules-based trading system in this geopolitical moment. They will discuss how we arrived at this critical juncture with protectionism on the rise, the parallels to previous eras of protectionist backsliding, and the survival of the World Trade Organization and what can be done to reform it. They will also address potential off-ramps for the U.S.-China trade war, how to prevent major rifts between the United States and its trade and security allies, and the role that Japan and others can play in sustaining the rules-based trading system.
Speakers:
Mireya Solis: Director, Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Edward Allen: Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Soumaya Keynes: U.S. Economics Editor, The Economist
Toshihiro Nakayama: Professor, Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University
2. The forgotten Americans: An economic agenda for a divided nation | Wednesday, October 10, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm | Brookings Institution | 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Widening inequality and the loss of jobs to trade and technology has left a significant portion of the American workforce disenfranchised and skeptical of governments and corporations alike. These economic shifts are changing what it means—and feels like—to be middle class in America.
On October 10, the Future of the Middle Class Initiative at Brookings will host Governors John Hickenlooper (D-Col.) and John Kasich (R-Ohio) for an event marking the launch of a new book by Brookings Senior Fellow Isabel Sawhill, “The Forgotten Americans: An Economic Agenda for a Divided Nation.”
The event will feature a conversation with Governors Hickenlooper and Kasich, moderated by Brookings Senior Fellow Richard Reeves. The governors will take questions from the audience.
After the governors’ discussion, Sawhill will present her new policy agenda for advancing the economic interests of a group she calls “the forgotten Americans.” The event will conclude with a panel of experts responding to Sawhill’s proposals. Panelists will take audience questions.
Speakers
John R. Allen: President, Brookings Institution
Richard R. Reeves: Senior Fellow, Economic Studies; Director, Future of the Middle Class Initiative
The Hon. John Hickenlooper: Governor, State of Colorado
The Hon. John Kasich: Governor, State of Ohioc
Isabel V. Sawhill: Senior Fellow, Economic Studies; Center on Children and Families
Panel Discussion: Elaine Kamarck, Jared Bernstein, Bill Kristol, Ruth Marcus, and Eric Rodriguez
3. Is a sovereign Palestine still possible? | Thursday, October 11, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
What will the recent changes in U.S. policy—including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, terminating assistance to Palestinians and UNRWA, and closing the Palestinian representative office in Washington—mean for the future of U.S.-Palestinian relations and the Palestinian national project? Will the accelerated pace of settlement construction and attempts to normalize Israeli control over the occupied Palestinian territory create irreversible realities with long-term ramifications for Palestinian self-determination and regional security?
Please join Carnegie for a discussion with Hanan Ashrawi, Robert Malley, and Daniel Levy. Michele Dunne will moderate.
Speakers
Hanan Ashrawi is a member of the PLO Executive Committee and the Palestinian Legislative Council and is a writer, activist and scholar.
Daniel Levy is the president of the US/Middle East Peace Project (USMEPP) and former senior adviser to Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and justice minister Yossi Beilin.
Robert Malley is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group and former special assistant to U.S. president Barack Obama and senior adviser for the Counter-ISIL Campaign.
Michele Dunne is the director and senior fellow of the Carnegie Middle East Program.
4. Tweaks or Transformation? New Models and Strategies for Tackling Global Challenges | Thursday, October 11, 2018 | 12:30 pm – 2:30 pm | Stimson Center | 1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Stimson Center, UNA National Capital Area, and the Global Challenges Foundation (GCF) are co-hosting a public discussion on the future of global governance. The aim is to reflect on lessons learned from previous reform, innovation, and renewal efforts, to draw attention to new initiatives, and to demonstrate ways that those interested in contributing to reform can become engaged in the movement. The GCF supports risk awareness and facilitates governance innovation aimed at mitigating global catastrophic risks.
Speakers
Brian Finlay, President and CEO, The Stimson Center (Welcome)
Fredrik Karlsson, Executive Director, Global Challenges Foundation (Introduction of the Global Challenges Foundation and New Shape Process)
Panel Discussion With:
Bruce Jones, Vice-President and Director of the Foreign Policy Program, Brookings
Augusto Lopez-Carlos, Senior Fellow, Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University (on leave from the World Bank)
Brett Schaeffer, Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, The Heritage Foundation
Kate Sullivan, Head of Partnerships, Global Challenges Foundation
Megan Roberts, Deputy Director for Policy Planning, United Nations Foundation (co-moderator)
Richard Ponzio, Director, Just Security 2020 Program and co-chair, UNA-NCA Peace & Security Committee, The Stimson Center (co-moderator).
5. China-Vatican Relations and Religious Freedom in China | Thursday, October 11, 2018 | 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
The Vatican recently reached a historic agreement with China when it allowed the Chinese government to appoint Catholic bishops in exchange for Beijing acknowledging the Pope as the leader of the Catholic church. On October 11, Hudson Institute will host a discussion to consider papal and Chinese motives for the deal, its diplomatic consequences, and the history of the Vatican’s relations with authoritarian communist nations. While additional details remain unclear, the agreement represents the first major change in relations between the Vatican and China since 1951 when the two states ended diplomatic relations.
Panelists will include Nina Shea, a Hudson Institute senior fellow and director of the Center for Religious Freedom; Daniel Mark, former chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Ted Lipien, president and executive director at FreeMediaOnline.org. The discussion will be moderated by Seth Cropsey, a Hudson senior fellow and director of the Center for American Seapower.
Speakers:
Nina Shea: Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute
Daniel Mark: Former Chairman, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Seth Crospey: Senior Fellow and Director, Center for American Seapower, Hudson Institute
Ted Lipien: President and Executive Director, FreeMediaOnline.org
6. Will Brazil Go Right or Left? | Friday, October 12, 2018 | 10:00 am – 12:00 pm | Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004-3027 | Register Here
In light of polling for the first round of the election on October 7th, it seems clear that the country will face a stark choice in the presidential runoff between far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro and the leftist former mayor of São Paulo Fernando Haddad. The presidential race has been characterized by an environment of fear and political intolerance. Yet the critical challenges that will confront the victor demand moderation and an ability to appeal to the majority of Brazilians who fall closer to the middle than the extremes of the political spectrum. Given the deteriorating fiscal situation, the next government will need to act quickly to reassure Brazilians and the world that it is up to the task—a task made all the more challenging by the deep partisan divide and widespread popular frustration with the failed political system and political leaders.
Join the Brazil Institute on October 12th for a discussion of potential economic and political scenarios based on the two final presidential candidates, and a look at what might lie ahead for Brazil after the end of this divisive election cycle.
Speakers
Paulo Sotero: Director, Brazil Institute
Fernando Rodrigues: Executive Director, Poder360
Antonio Britto: Board Member, Brazil Institute Advisory Council
Monica de Bolle: Director of the Latin America Program, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Your Saturday video
Al Jazeera‘s Mehdi Hasan challenges Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Let’s not forget
Greater Albania he suggested was a failed political project of Mussolini. Today Albanians throughout the region aren’t interested. What they want is to be part of the West, which means NATO and EU membership for each of the countries in which they live. Albanians are an important pro-Western factor throughout the Balkans. Already in NATO, Albania will now focus on its EU aspirations.
Albanian President Meta appeared at Johns Hopkins/DC yesterday. He made a good impression, in particular on the difficult issues of Greater Albania, border changes in general, and treatment of minorities.
Border changes, the President said, are not a good idea, in particular to accommodate ethnic differences. Discussing them opens a Pandora’s box of possibilities throughout the region and beyond. Far better to treat minorities, the Bulgarian and Macedonian minorities in Albania were mentioned in particular, properly. They want and deserve equal rights under the rule of law. They are not seeking more, a view contested by an audience member from the Macedonian diaspora.
The President was optimistic about the completion of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline segment in Albania this year and the link up to Italy soon. He suggested that tourism development on the country’s southern coast is progressing well, with major hotel chains making investments. A new north/south road near the coast is also planned, if I understood correctly.
As I don’t follow things in Albania closely, I took the occasion to review quickly some of its data. Growth the last few years has been erratic. While still poor by European standards, Albania is middle income for the World Bank, with a per capita GDP approaching $5,000 (but close to $12,000 taking purchasing power into account). Since 1990, when its isolated Communist regime started to fall , the World Bank says GDP has grown by a factor of more than 6, life expectancy is up six years to 78, births per woman have dropped to 1.7, poverty and extreme poverty have declined. Yes, things have improved.
There are still big problems. The EU, which has indicated it may open negotiations for accession with Albania next year, first wants to see a more effective, merit-based public administration and a more independent judicial system capable of dealing especially with organized crime and corruption. Asked how Albania would react to the populist wave in Europe and the US, President Meta responded Albania would have to work harder and better to meet more stringent accession requirements.
No doubt I’ll get nastygrams in response to this post, reminding me that Meta himself has been accused of corruption and claiming him to be untrustworthy or worse. Sorry folks, I’m not omniscient. I don’t know any Balkan politician who hasn’t been accused of one thing or another. I rarely know the truth or falsity of the charges. I more often than not have to await that more independent judiciary to decide which allegations are true.
In the meanwhile, I take pleasure in the notion that people are living better in Albania than they were when I observed elections there in 1996, a grim moment punctuated by a lot of protest gunfire. I also take pleasure in the notion that there are still people who wisely realize that joining trans-Atlantic institutions is a worthy goal even if the uncertainties and pain are significant. Albania is surely closer to European Union membership than it is to the broken country I saw following the collapse of its state-endorsed pyramid schemes. If it keeps going in the right direction, it will get where it wants to go.
Let’s not forget what the Albanian exodus to Brindisi (Italy) was like in 1991.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ugh
The referendum on Macedonia’s agreement with Greece, which would enable it to join NATO next year and the EU when it qualifies, passed with more than 90% voting yes but failed to reach the 50% threshold of registered voters voting. That was always going to be difficult, not least because the voter rolls still contain names that likely shouldn’t be there. But still: the boycott organized by those opposing the referendum worked among the Macedonian population (but not among the one-quarter or so of the population that is Albanian).
From the point of view of those of us who wanted to see the referendum pass, this is regrettable. The referendum was advisory, but in a democratic society–and Macedonia is on the route to becoming one–it is hard to ignore the will of the people. The parliamentary majority can still try to pass the necessary constitutional amendments and other required legislation, but it won’t be easy.
So what next?
Prime Minister Zaev is saying he will try to implement the agreement, seeking the dozen or so votes he needs to reach a two-thirds majority from the opposition. If that fails, he says he will call early elections. That’s a risky strategy under the circumstances, but Zaev has proven himself a risk-taker.
I can’t help but wonder if the Greek and Macedonian governments could put their heads together to come up with a mini-package. One possibility would be a simple agreement to allow “North Macedonia” to enter NATO, along with confidence-building measures to implement at least some of the provisions of the Prespa agreement, including its provisions for enhanced bilateral cooperation. Athens will fear giving away carrots in advance of a full agreement, but that is not really a problem in the long term: it will still have a veto over EU membership.
To those who are celebrating the defeat of the referendum, claiming that it would have wiped out their identity and language, I say nonsense: in a non-violent context, only insecurity about who you are and what your language is can do that. Macedonia is fortunate that its Albanians are secure about their identity and language. Otherwise I could anticipate trouble from that quarter.
But Macedonia’s Albanians want NATO membership, sooner rather than later. They regard it as a guarantee of the country’s democratic ambitions and their own safety and security. I wonder how long they will continue their patience, especially if Serbian President Vucic and Kosovo President Thaci reach an agreement on border changes. At least some Albanians in Macedonia might think that is an opportunity to create Greater Kosovo, if not Greater Albania.
I am completely unsympathetic to those irredentist ambitions. The Americans and Europeans have had a clear agreement with the Albanians in the Balkans: Kosovo got independence, Albania got NATO membership, and Macedonia can have it as well, but if and only if borders are not moved, in particular to accommodate ethnic differences. In the wake of the referendum, Washington needs to wake up and re-establish the strict prohibition on border changes, which is a vital foundation for peace in the Balkans.
RSS - Posts
