Month: July 2021
Republika Srpska unifies in defense of genocide, “again and again”
The Serb political parties of the 49% of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) called Republika Srpska (RS) have unified in rejecting the international community’s High Representative’s decision to prohibit denial of genocide and defense of war criminals under the country’s criminal code. This tells you all you need to know about about the RS, which is the product of the 1990s genocidal enterprise conducted principally against the country’s Bosniak population. It is entirely appropriate that the RS would stand up to be counted in defense of genocide and war criminals.
The question is what will the Americans and Europeans do about it? The RS is an essential component of the Dayton peace accords, which divided BiH into two regional entities, the RS and a Bosniak/Croat Federation. The latter controls 51% of the territory. Their active collaboration is required to make the central government (Bosnians call it the “state” government) to function. The Serb political parties are vowing not to participate in the central government.
Boycott is a frequent political tactic throughout the Balkans. Those who use it believe that nothing legitimate can be decided without their participation. This is of course untrue in a liberal democracy, where the majority rules, with respect for minority rights. But still the tactic is used: witness the Republican withdrawal of their pro-Trump members of the Congressional Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrectionary riot. The Republican leader in the House is hoping this will delegitimize the investigation. The Democrats will simply proceed with the committee, including Republicans who did not supported the riot and are willing to serve.
That is what the “state” government should do: proceed without the participation of those who decline to participate. This can be difficult in the BiH context, so it would require some ingenuity on the part of those who wish to do it and the internationals who support them, including the High Representative who issued the initial decision. Nonparticipation should have consequences. Nonparticipation by those who wish to defend genocide and war criminals should have serious consequences.
Why should it be illegal to deny genocide and defend war criminals? In short, because in the Bosnian context it constitutes incitement. Incitement to genocide is illegal under international law (the 1948 Genocide Convention) and also in the US, including by foreigners present here. An arrest or two would go a long way to making the point. The situation is presumably comparable in the countries of the European Union. For those who may wonder: Bosnia and Herzegovina is a state party of the Genocide Convention, as a consequence of its succession from Yugoslavia.
Odds are, nothing like what I am suggesting will happen. Instead, there will be some sort of fudged “solution” that concedes ever more ground to genocide deniers and inciters. I have been around too long not to know what that means. “Never again” can turn easily into “again and again.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | July 26 – August 1, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Past as Prologue: Revisiting Bernhard-Henri Levy’s 2002 Report on Afghanistan | July 26, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The Middle East Institute | Register Here
In spring 2002, French philosopher and human rights activist Bernard-Henri Lévy traveled to an Afghanistan newly freed from Taliban control at the request of the French president to assess the conditions on the ground and determine how France could contribute to Afghanistan’s rebirth as a nation. In his subsequent report, Lévy pressed for France to take on a key role in areas ranging from strengthening the rule of law and women’s rights to helping to restore the country’s cultural heritage.
Much has changed over the past two decades and as the U.S. and its international partners prepare to withdraw militarily from Afghanistan, MEI is pleased to announce the launch of a new book, Past as Prologue: Revisiting Bernard-Henri Lévy’s 2002 Report on Afghanistan. The book includes Lévy’s original report (translated into English for the first time) along with a foreword by General (ret.) David Petraeus and an introductory essay by Dr. Marvin G. Weinbaum. Following remarks by General (ret). Petraeus and Lévy, a panel of experts will discuss Lévy’s 2002 report and what has happened in the years since. What was once hoped and envisioned for the country? What has actually happened on the ground over the past two decades? How are Lévy’s recommendations relevant in today’s context?
Speakers:
Gen. (ret.) David Petraeus
Former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; former director, Central Intelligence Agency
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Philosopher, journalist, filmmaker, and public intellectual
H.E. Javid Ahmad,
Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United Arab Emirates; non-resident senior fellow, Atlantic Council
Marvin Weinbaum,
Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
- Transitioning to Non-Oil Economies in the Gulf: Successes, Failures, and the Path Forward | July 27, 2021 | 8:00 AM EST | The Arab Gulf States Institute | Register Here
Economic diversification strategies to wean Gulf economies away from a dependence on hydrocarbon revenue have existed for decades. Ongoing state-led investments in strategic non-oil industries have produced varied results. Recent development initiatives involving culture, renewable energy, and technology-oriented industries appear promising; however, the return on investment is neither immediate nor guaranteed. Proceeds from the oil and gas sector continue to constitute the majority of public sector revenue in Gulf Arab states.
Are overlapping initiatives to develop non-oil industries in the region opportunities for cooperation or competition? With a steady rebound in oil prices since the oil price shocks of 2020, will oil- and gas-producing countries in the Gulf relax economic diversification efforts? Do protests in Oman signal a wider dissatisfaction with the fiscal adjustments implemented since 2020? What does this reveal about the rentier state theory and the nature of economic reform and development in the Gulf?
Speakers:
Talik Doshi
Visiting Senior Fellow, Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore
Kate Dourian
Non-resident Fellow, AGSIW; Contributing Editor, Middle East Economic Survey; Fellow, Energy Institute
Robert Mogielnicki
Senior Resident Scholar, AGSIW
Clemens Chay
Research Fellow, Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore
- Report Launch: Mapping the Human Rights Risks of Facial Recognition Technology | July 27, 2021 | 12:00 PM EST | Register Here
Thanks to a decade of rapid progress in the field of computer vision, facial recognition technology (FRT) has become a commercial product available to almost any government or business in the world. Organizations ranging from law enforcement agencies to independent retail outlets are beginning to integrate FRT into their operations. Proponents hope that facial recognition may support public safety initiatives and improve access to services, but the risk of errors and abuse mean that FRT deployments carry substantial risks to a variety of fundamental rights and freedoms. This is particularly true in the case of nations with weak rule of law.
Speakers:
Marti Flacks
Director and Senior Fellow, Human Rights Initiative
Amy K. Lehr
Senior Associate (non-resident), Human Rights Initiative
- Prospects for Peace and Security in Zimbabwe | July 28, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The Brookings Institution | Register Here
After 37 years of dictatorship, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe finally resigned on November 21, 2017. For many, his departure and Emmerson Mnangagwa’s rise signaled hope for the politically and economically devastated and once pariah state of Zimbabwe. Today, the increasing political violence and polarization, as well as economic emaciation serve to undermine the ruling administration and highlight the enduring legacies of Mugabe’s reign, even after his death on September 6, 2019.
On July 28, the Africa Security Initiative will host a discussion on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe and future political course of action. Following the discussion, the panel will take questions from the audience.
Speakers:
George F. Ward
Adjunct Senior Research Analyst, Institute for Defense Analyses
Michelle Gavin
Senior Fellow for Africa Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Dew Mavhinga
Director, Southern Africa, Human Rights Watch
Piers Pigou
Senior Consultant, Southern Africa, International Crisis Group
Michael E. O’Hanlon (moderator)
Director of Research, Foreign Policy; Co-Director, Center for Security, Strategy and Technology, Africa Security Initiative; Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology; The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
- The Convention on Refugees at 70: A Conversation with Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield | July 28, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
On July 28th, the world will mark the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention, a historic multilateral agreement that clarified the rights of refugees under international law and the obligation of host countries to provide for their protection. The principles enshrined in the Refugee Convention set precedents for the rights, repatriation, and resettlement of refugees that still resonate to this day.
However, these precedents are increasingly under strain amid a changing global context. Driven by violent conflict and insecurity, the world is facing a new displacement crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated displacement trends, pushing healthcare infrastructure to the brink and creating dire economic conditions as countries struggle to contain the virus. Meanwhile, climate change uprooted more than 30 million people—the highest figure in a decade.
Speakers:
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Lise Grande
President am CEO, U.S. Institute of Peace
- How Modern CIOs Innovate for Impact | July 28, 2021 | 12:00 PM EST | The Atlantic Council | Register Here
Modern Chief Information Officers (CIOs) today drive transformation, connecting the dots between customers, and the tools and infrastructure needed to support them. Not only do they have legacy systems that needed stabilizing, but also, customer demands are accelerating, along with the pace of and changes in technology. In order to cope, modern CIOS will need to address concerns with a matrix of technology, people, and customer needs in mind.
Join us for a GeoTech Hour, co-hosted by David Bray and Jamie Holcombe discussing how to drive cultural change for enterprises and discuss what it is like to steer, lead, and shape IT and organizations in the federal realm.
Speakers:
Sally Grant
Vice President, Lucd AI
Nagesh Rao
Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Industry and Security, United States Department of Commerce
David Bray, PhD
Director, GeoTech Center, Atlantic Council
Jamie Holocombe
Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Nuclear Security Policy in an Era of Strategic Competition | July 28, 2021 | 1:30 PM EST | The United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has relied on diplomacy and the maintenance of its nuclear enterprise as a means of strategic deterrence. However, 30 years later, Russia and China are pursuing the maintenance and modernization of their nuclear weapons and systems — and the current U.S. construct is ill-suited to this new, complex geopolitical environment.
The Congressional Nuclear Security Working Group, co-chaired by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL), is a bipartisan caucus dedicated to facilitating awareness and engagement on the urgent threats posed by the prospect of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. The caucus goals include strengthening nuclear safeguards, securing fissile material and preventing the misuse and spread of sensitive nuclear materials and technologies.
Speakers:
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
U.S. Representative from Nebraska
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL)
U.S. Representative from Illinois
Lise Grande, moderator
President and CEO, U.S. Institute of Peace
- Jordan’s Digital Future: A Conversation with Jordanian Minister of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship | July 29, 2021 | 9:00 AM EST | The Wilson Center | Register Here
Join the Middle East Program for a conversation with His Excellency Ahmad Hanandeh, Minister of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship in Jordan, who will describe Jordan’s journey to becoming a regional tech leader, and strategy to using digital transformation as a means of recovering form the coronavirus pandemic.
Speakers:
Ahmad Hanandeh
Minister of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
- Unlocking the Potential of U.S. Offshore Wind | July 29, 2021 | 12:45 PM EST | The Bipartisan Policy Center | Register Here
Achieving domestic and international climate goals will require a dramatic expansion of energy production from zero-carbon resources. Offshore wind has an important role to play in that expansion and a robust domestic industry will create jobs, advance manufacturing and tap a growing global market. Realizing this potential, however, will not be easy for a host of reasons, some of which are common to the early large-scale deployment of most new energy technologies and some of which have to do with the unique characteristics and demands of offshore wind.
Speakers:
David J. Hayes
Special Assistant to the President for Climate Policy
Bobby Jindal
Former Governor of Louisiana
Bill White
Vice President, Offshore Wind, Avangrid
Lesley Jantarasami (moderator)
Managing Director, BPC Energy Program
- Is the U.S. Really Leading the World in Hypersonic Munitions? | July 29, 2021 | 2:00 PM EST | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
Hypersonic weapons travel more than five times the speed of sound, enabling them to close on targets in ways that could significantly impact the next major armed conflict. Realizing their potential, Russia and China have well-developed programs and have likely fielded operational hypersonic weapons. In contrast, the U.S. has yet to complete testing on its first such munition.
Join Dr. Mark Lewis, one of America’s leading experts in this field, as he confronts the offensive potential, defensive challenges, and myths surrounding hypersonic munitions.
Speakers:
Dr. Mark Lewis
Executive Director, Emerging Technologies Institute, NDIA
John Venable
Senior Research Fellow for Defense Policy
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 24
The beach weeks with grandchildren are over. What news did I miss?
-Some in Congress want to claw back some foreign policy powers. Sen. Murphy [D-CT] describes the bill –with changes to war powers, national emergencies, and foreign arms sales.
– Looks like the House is hooked on remote voting.
– Sen. Cruz has a hold on several State nominations. Remember, holds are a norm. not a rule. But Senators do them because the party leaders dare not ignore them.
– WSJ notes that Democrats also use budget games.
-US will shift to formal advisory role in Iraq.
– But it’s giving air support to Afghans and new drone strikes in Somalia
– Influence peddling is alive and well. Haiti factions are hiring. Trump buddy was indicted.
-There’s a Nordstream2 deal, but some doubts about enforcement.
–Chip shortage may last until 2023.
– Quincy Institute tallies Middle East interventions.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Time for EU and NATO to get real with Serbia
To his credit, Serbia’s President Vucic is acknowledging the “Serbian world” concept as his own. Serbia’s borders are inviolable he says, and “we don’t care about other people’s borders.”
Vucic wants Serbs to be united in a single political space and state, without violence. Fat chance. Serbia has eight immediate neighbors. All have Serb minorities, though Bulgaria’s is small. Six are NATO members (Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Romania). Two others host EU and NATO troops committed to their territorial integrity (Bosnia and Kosovo). What happened when Serbia tried in the 1990s to extend its political space and unite some of those minorities in one state? War with Slovenia, war with Croatia, war with Bosnia, war with Kosovo, and war with NATO. The result: Serbs fled to Serbia from neighboring countries, but not a square inch of the neighboring countries was ceded to Serbia.
The German analogy, of which Vucic is fond, is nonsense. Germany was not re-united by absorbing the territory of a neighboring state. East Germany was not part of another state. It was part of Germany occupied by the Soviet Union, which was unable to maintain its autocratic control. Reunification did nothing to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Germany’s neighbors. Everyone in Belgrade forgets to mention Austria, which lives happily as a separate, German-speaking state, despite Hitler’s ambitions. Not to mention German minorities in several other European states.
Vucic’s avowal that not a single shot will be fired in his effort to unite Serbs in a single state is as hollow as the German analogy. If he believed it, he wouldn’t be re-arming Serbia with Russian and Chinese weapons. Serbia faces no military threat from its eight neighbors. He is figuring that if Serbia gets strong enough and creates enough brouhaha, its neighbors will cede territory rather than risk a fight. There is no reason to think that will happen, or that Serbia will not resort to arms if it thinks, like Milosevic, that it can win.
One of the requirements of EU membership is good neighborly relations. Not caring about other states’ borders is the epitome of bad relations with neighbors. Vucic is ready to give up on retaking all of Kosovo and all of Bosnia. All he wants are the Serb slices, 15% or so and 49% respectively. He would be happy for a slice of Croatia as well. Eastern Slavonia? He wants all of Montenegro. It is high time Brussels told him the EU will no longer pretend that membership is a possibility for a country harboring territorial ambitions and disrespect for its neighbors’ borders. And it is time for Washington to signal clearly that NATO will defend all of Serbia’s neighbors from Belgrade’s unneighborly intentions.
It is time for the EU and NATO to get real with Serbia.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Who comes to equity must come with clean hands
Serbian President Vucic, after meeting with Kosovo Prime Minister Kurti yesterday, said:
We have received EU proposals that have been harmonized with our chief negotiators and Serbia has fully agreed with what the EU has proposed, three points – to intensify efforts to identify the remains of missing persons, to refrain from actions that could potentially destabilize the situation…on the ground and third, that the main negotiators meet regularly once a month and prepare meetings when necessary. We could not agree on these three points.
Kurti was rather more graphic:
The lack of agreement is not a surprise. It was foretold. Belgrade and Pristina are into the blame game. Neither Kurti nor Vucic has much to gain politically at home from an agreement. Both are posturing, mainly for their respective domestic political audiences but also for Brussels and Washington.
What can we learn from the posturing? Vucic is taking a minimalist approach. Agreement on missing persons 20 years after the war is no big step. Nor is a proposal on destabilization, because it would apply presumably inside Kosovo, not in Serbia. Meeting once a month is easy too, since it is unlikely given the current atmosphere that more than one or two meetings more will be necessary before Brussels tires of the posturing and lets the schedule slide.
Kurti is taking a maximalist approach, in part to distinguish himself from his predecessors. He regards them as patsies. A non-aggression pact would apply principally to Serbia, as there is no likelihood of Kosovo, which lacks an army, attacking Serbia, which has a big and well-armed one. Facing the past applies to both, but in much larger measure to Serbia, as it was the prime aggressor and human rights abuser in the 1990s conflict. And the barriers to free trade cited are all Serbia’s of course.
I am personally more sympathetic to Kurti’s maximalist agenda than Vucic’s minimalist one, but that doesn’t mean we are likely to see progress. These two are talking past each other, not with each other. The EU mediator, Miroslav Lajcak, is under pressure to produce something, so he may well want to continue the process. But if he does, he needs to underpin it with a more constructive conversation at lower levels, out of the public eye.
My guess is–and it is only a guess–that Belgrade and Pristina could really make some progress on missing people, on protection of Serbs in Kosovo and Albanians in Serbia, and on freeing up trade. Kurti seems intent on threatening to reimpose tariffs on Serbian goods if he gets no satisfaction on access to Serbia’s markets. It’s a good idea only if it leads to lowered barriers. Protection of their respective minorities in the other country is important. There is no excuse for interethnic violence in Kosovo, and in southern Serbia there is a concerted effort to displace the Albanian population through administrative means. Both should stop.
I don’t know what to say that hasn’t already been said about missing people. Twenty years is far too long for governments that claim to be democratic to fail to give a full accounting and return the bodies. I fear that in both countries it is people responsible for the crimes that killed civilians who are now sufficiently powerful to prevent their respective governments from doing what they know is right.
If there is one thing I would prioritize to improve the prospects for the dialogue, it is not at the table in Brussels but before anyone gets there. The day Pristina comes to the table with visible support from Kosovo’s Serb population is the day things will begin to move in a more peaceful, stable direction. Vucic has worked hard to prevent that from happening: he controls the political party that holds all the Serb seats in the Kosovo Assembly. Kurti should be working hard to gain Kosovo Serb support by preventing violence against Serbs and Serb property in Kosovo, ensuring that both are respected fully, and facing Kosovo’s own past, which includes deadly violence by fighters of its Liberation Army against both Serbs and Albanians before, during, and after the 1999 war.
Who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Kosovo can wash its hands a lot easier, and with much greater effect, than Serbia can.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The “Serbian world”* is a peril to non-Serbs and regional security
Aleksandar Vulin, Serbia’s Interior Minister, has become chief spokesman for an idea he attributes to President Vucic: the “Serbian world.”* This is a warmed up version of the Greater Serbia Slobodan Milosevic failed to create because he lost four wars in the 1990s. Vulin is clear that what he intends is military conquest, if need be. Serbia, he says, must “have an army capable of preserving both it and the Serbs wherever they live.” Serbs of course live in many places–notably also the US and Canada–but Vulin’s real meaning is clear to everyone in the Balkans. He means Serbia should be capable of defending Serbs in neighboring countries: principally Bosnia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Croatia.
In classic aggressor fashion, Vulin attributes this need to harm done to Serbs. Self-victimization is a classic precursor to violence. The Serbian Academy memorandum that Milosevic used to justify his wars focuses on the claim that Serbs were the victims of an unjust Yugoslavia. Hitler justified his aggression against Czechoslovakia and Poland on grounds that Germans were victims. Stalin claimed Communists were the victims when he joined with the Nazis to invade Poland. The factual basis of such claims is irrelevant. Their main purpose is to justify aggression, not to seek justice.
Meanwhile, the Serbian member of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Milorad Dodik, is preemptively warning the US ambassador that he won’t accept the decision to replace the international community “high representative” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who is responsible for implementation of the Dayton peace accords. Dodik claims he will defend Dayton himself. What he means is that he will defend his version of the agreements, which claims that Republika Srpska (RS), the 49% of the territory he represents, is sovereign and should be independent. You won’t find that in the Dayton accords. Dodik would no doubt take an independent RS into the “Serbian home.” Never mind that the Dayton accords guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In Kosovo, the Serbian aim is also partition. Serbia wants the four majority-Serb municipalities in the north. In Montenegro, a pro-Serbian coalition now has a one-vote majority in parliament. Most of them, too, are “Serbian world”* affiliates, but their purpose seems not to divide Montenegro but to make it a solid Serbian stronghold, despite the resistance of both those who identify as Montenegrins and well as the country’s Albanian, Bosniak, and other minorities. The “Serbian home” doesn’t like to acknowledge that non-Serbs have rights too, or that they are sometimes victims.
President Vucic was elected on a pro-European platform. But he abandoned that years ago. He is now an unabashed supporter of ethnic division throughout the Balkans. He may get the word out through Vulin and Dodik. And he is cautious in dealing with Serbia’s own minorities, as was Milosevic. You don’t want to start nasty at home if you are planning nasty to your neighbors, as that could weaken the home front. But Vucic is increasingly aligned with China and Russia, both of which are much closer to his views on ethnicity and minorities than Brussels or Washington.
Bottom line: the “Serbian world”* is a peril to non-Serbs and a threat to regional peace and stability. The Americans and Europeans need to recognize it for the illiberal, anti-democratic notion that it is and counter it and its advocates as best they can. They aren’t doing that yet.
*I originally wrote for “home” for “svet.” It should have been “world.” My bad.
RSS - Posts
