It’s not all about Washington and Brussels
Florian Bieber of the Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG) has written an eminently sensible report on “Leadership Adrift: American Policy in the Western Balkans” based on a BiEPAG visit to Washington last spring. The subtitle really should have been “American and European Policy in the Western Balkans,” but I won’t insist too much.
The point is that neither Washington nor Brussels is approaching the Balkans with a clear concept and both are distracted by other issues, out of tune with each other, and divided at home. The results are dangerous. In both Kosovo and Bosnia there are signs of stagnation and retrogression. Even Macedonia, whose “name” problem seemed solved with the addition of “North” in front of it, is suffering a shaky moment with the arrest of its Special Prosecutor by less special prosecutors.
The “Quint” countries (that’s the US, France, UK, Germany and Italy) this month tried to unify their voices in a statement intended to restart the Kosovo/Serbia dialogue. They explicitly suggested a reasonable quid pro quo: Kosovo to suspend the tariffs it has imposed on Serbian imports and Serbia to suspend its campaign for “de-recognition” of Kosovo. This corresponds precisely to what Kosovo Prime Minister Haradinaj wants. It is unclear whether Serbian President Vucic, who met recently with Secretary of State Pompeo, is prepared to move in that direction.
The Quint called for urgent action. That really isn’t possible in the Serbia/Kosovo space, since the Kosovo Prime Minister has resigned in response to a summons from the Special Tribunal in The Hague. Elections are now scheduled for October 6. It would be nonsensical for anyone to expect real progress until there is a new parliament and government in Pristina. There too unity is a big issue: the next Kosovo government needs to go to Brussels with a platform for the dialogue agreed among its coalition at a minimum, and preferably by a much wider political group.
The Bosnia situation is more urgent. There no government has been formed for almost 11 months. The main issue appears to be (sorry about the pay wall) whether or not to proceed with the NATO membership process. The Serb member of the collective presidency is opposed. The Croat and Bosniak members are in favor. Fudging this is difficult, not least because the Serb member views NATO as an enemy, is in the pocket of the Russians, and is threatening to paralyze the country’s existing state institutions if he doesn’t get his way. The Croat and Bosniak have been unwilling to yield, as the people they represent regard NATO as a savior.
None of this registers on the Washington politograph. As Florian notes in his report, Washington is obsessed now with geopolitical challenges (that means jihadists as well as Moscow and Beijing, not democratization or rule of law, much less EU accession). Even in Brussels, Balkan problems are minor tremors. But the EU is worsening the situation, by making it appear that enlargement is over and maybe none of the Balkan countries will get in. That is a big mistake, one that my BiEPAG colleagues unfortunately ignore. French President Macron’s insistence on internal EU reform and nastiness about enlargement is a major factor in unsettling the Balkans.
That said, I share BiEPAG’s concern for increasing support to civil society and independent media. It is hard to see how the Balkans will climb out of the hole the region is in without new and more democratic leadership that is serious about taking advantage of whatever EU enlargement opportunities are offered. It’s not all about Brussels and Washington. Sarajevo, Pristina, and Belgrade are where the problems and most of the solutions lie.
RSS - Posts
