Month: January 2022
Voting rights can cure the fantasy
The prevailing wisdom these days is that America is polarized. Accordng to PBS, Democrats and Republicans are living in alternate realities. Both see the threat to democracy as real, but coming from two different directions. The implication: we need to come together and heal our deep divides before something even worse than the January 6 attack on the Capitol happens.
This is nonsense
We are not living in alternate realities. Some of us are living a fantasy. They think Biden stole the election, that COVID-19 is not a big problem, and that public health requirements infringe on their freedom. They deny that the January 6 riot was a riot, that Trump incited it, or that Trump supporters were violent.
None of this is true. The evidence is plain. No one has demonstrated election fraud capable of affecting the outcome of the 2020 election. COVID has killed more than a million Americans. Wearing a mask and social distancing are not the equivalent of the Nazi requirement that Jews wear a yellow star and live in ghettoes and concentration camps. January 6 was a violent insurrection Trump encouraged to block consitutionally-mandated certification of the election results. The courts have already convicted 75 of the miscreants and are prosecuting hundreds more.
The fantacists among us are lying, not putting forward an alternate hypothesis.
The “other side” is firmly based on reality. Biden was elected in accordance with the Constitution. Stemming the epidemic requires vaccination, masks, and social distancing. Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6 and violently tried to block a constitutionally mandated procedure.
There is no doubt about these things. Fantasy is not an alternate reality.
The question is why?
Why would people choose a fantasy, one they know the facts do not support?
The main purpose is to consolidate identity. To be a Republican these days, you have to say you believe at least parts of the fantasy. That’s what holds the party together. It has no coherent governing proposals. It was not only unable to formulate an alternative to Obamacare but also abandoned fiscal conservatism during four years in the White House. Under Biden Republicans helped pass a giant infrastructure spending bill, but now oppose his social spending bill on fiscally conservative grounds.
Republicans now have an identity, one that its adherents can be relied upon to sustain, however flimsy its contact with reality. That identity is tightly entwined with white supremacy. The dog whistling about election fraud is all about tacitly claiming that black people can’t be trusted to count votes. The opposition to sensible public health measures originated when Americans thought the epidemic was mostly affecting black people and other minorities. The January 6 rioters were good people, as they were overwhelmingly white and Trump supporters.
Voting rights are the only cure
January 6 was a violent protest against a shift in demographic power. America is no longer as dominated as once it was by whites who alternate politely in power. It is doubtful whether any Republican can win a majority of the popular vote. Only one (George W) has done so, once, since 1992. Biden’s Electoral College margin was the same as Trump’s when he beat Hillary Clinton. But Biden ran 7 million votes ahead of Trump, even though Trump ran millions of votes ahead of his own popular vote count in 2016.
The January 6 rioters know this. Those who enouraged the riot also know that the Electoral College and the Senate favor less populous, more Republican states. And they know that state legistures, according to the Constitution, have the power to determine how Electoral Votes are cast, even if all have long since decided to do it in accordance with the popular vote. Republicans control more state legislatures, which are busy trying to restrict voting, get rid of non-partisan election officials, and open the possibility of determining themselves how the Electoral Votes will be case, no matter the popular vote outcome.
The only cure is national voting rights legislation, not “coming together.” If it forces Republicans to compete fairly in 2022 and 2024, they will see the need to drop the dog whistling and lying. They might even return to their former role as fiscal conservatives. Senate Majority Leader Schumer had better not be bluffing in promising limits on the anti-democratic filibuster, which has so far prevented passage, by January 17.
Remember January 6 for what it was: an attempted coup against a democratically elected President. Make sure it can’t happen again. Voting rights can cure fantasy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Those who ask for more than individual rights deprive others
Here are some reasonable questions a reader posed yesterday:
One question I have for you though? In your opinion, what can and should be expected from the citizens to take to prevent a possible escalation of the situation?
And one more question? Sometime in 2006, a constitutional program for Bosnia and Herzegovina was proposed. It is the so-called “April package” of 2006 proposed by the Americans and the EU. [It] was reportedly not accepted because one or two votes were missing. No one knows reasons why. Some politicians today still talk about the rehabilitation of the April package. I’m interested in your opinion on that? I was very young then, and do not have a notion of what “April-package” is?
Citizens are the key
Citizens are the key to preventing escalation. Only if popular opinion in Republika Srpska turns against Dodik will he moderate. Ultimately how citizens vote in the next election will determine his fate and the fate of the much-needed constitutional reforms. The Americans and Europeans can help. They can hold Dodik accountable with sanctions and ensure transparency about his finances and his relationship with Moscow.
What reforms, should citizens support? My own preference is a Bosnia and Herzegovina that reduces its elaborate system of protection of (ethnic) group rights towards better protection of individual rights. Several European court decisions have pointed in this direction, which EU membership will require. Best to get it done sooner rather than later.
The current, ongoing negotiations about the country’s electoral law are not going to produce that kind of reform. To the contrary, the current ethnic group leaders will use these negotiations to consolidate their own hold on power and eliminate competition that could come from politicians whose appeal crosses ethnic divisions. EU and US leadership of the negotiations, which have marginalized the citizens, risks making the situation worse.
The April package failed because of narrow-minded politics
The April package was a complicated array of constitutional reforms negotiated in 2005/6 by all the main Bosnian political parties (caveat emptor: that was done with support from the US Institute of Peace under my supervision). Notably, it included an “EU clause” that ensured to the Sarajevo government the authority required to negotiate and implement the requirements of EU membership.
The package failed to gain a two-thirds majority in parliament by two votes, both of which belonged to members who broke party discipline to vote against. But that was not the real issue. A major political party that had been involved in every aspect of negotiating the April package voted against it. Its leader wanted to win a seat on the collective presidency and railed against the April package in ethnically explicit terms. He won his seat and the opportunity for serious constitutional reform evaporated.
What now?
The future direction is up to Bosnia’s citizens. If EU membership is the goal, the right approach is constitutional reform that protects individual rights. Even if some member states diverge from it, liberal democracy is a prerequisite for EU accession. Strengthening individual rights would ensure people of all ethnic groups an equal say in how power is exercised and limited . No individual should ask for more. Those who do, often in the name of group rights, are depriving others of their most fundamental liberties.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 5
– Cook Political Report says redistricting is a wash.
– Defense appropriations heading to higher figure.
– Austin & Blinken together testify on Afghanistan before SFRC next week, in closed session.
– DefenseOne criticizes US hypersonic missile program.
– Vox sees flaws in legal opinion on SEAL refusal to vaccinate.
Charlie also published this yesterday:
I’m always looking for good cases to illustrate the policy process. For diplomatic and military policies, the supply is vast. For foreign economic policy, however, I haven’t found many. Until this week, when I finally had a chance to read Edward S. Miller’s 2007 book for the Naval Institute Press, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Miller also has a revealing summary of U.S. economic sanctions policies starting with World War I, showing how reluctant U.S. officials were to use sanctions for foreign policy purposes. The key law empowering the president for almost any economic sanctions, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] of 1977, is actually based on a section of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. That law resulted from a bureaucratic fight between the Commerce Department, which historically ran export controls, and Treasury, which claimed jurisdiction over financial transactions laws. Treasury won that fight, not least because the assertive secretary was also President Wilson’s son in law.
A similar bureaucratic struggle occurred in 1940-41 over Japan.Secretary of State Cordell Hull, the key interlocutor with the Japanese, resisted harsh sanctions because he considered them too provocative. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, however, favored pressure but had only an advisory role on sanctions. In key meetings with FDR in July, 1941, the president decided on freezing Japanese assets in the United States and restricting exports of various commodities but not a full embargo. Roosevelt and his cabinet officers even expected to sell oil to Japan, but only after some delay and on a case-by-case basis.
At the sub-cabinet level, however, Dean Acheson dominated the interagency committee that wrote the rules implementing FDR’s executive order and did so to prevent any oil shipments to Japan, a red line that many historians argue made war inevitable. Hull was upset to learn of the impact of the rules when he returned from medical leave, but was reluctant to force a change that might be viewed as favorable to the Japanese. FDR himself was preoccupied with his meeting with Churchill in August and the growing naval conflict with Germany and did not force a change back to his original policy.
Miller cites a 1976 paper by a researcher at the National Archives which has even more details of the hawkish cabal in the bureaucracy on the broad range of export restrictions on Japan, including redefining “aviation gas” so as to prevent any oil exports.
The key lesson for me is the power of the sub-cabinet bureaucracy to shape policy by implementation rules, regardless of presidential-level decisions. It happens all the time. The formal policy was to deter Japan from greater conquest by limited but significant export restrictions, not a full embargo. The actual policy Japan faced was an existential threat.
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:
Stevenson’s army, January 4
In the good old 20th century, when a heavy snowstorm hit, the federal government announced a “liberal leave” policy. Now they call it “unscheduled leave.” As I interpreted the old language, only liberals could stay home. Everybody else had to work.
Nearly 94 years ago, most nations agreed to the Kellogg-Briand pact, outlawing war as an instrument of national policy. Notwithstanding the [in]effectiveness of that agreement, five major nuclear powers this week declared that nuclear wars can never be won and should not be fought. Good luck.
The newly empowered National Cyber Director is hiring 75 staff.
WSJ reports Russia & China are cooperating militarily.
Defense contractors are bankrolling lawmakers who opposed certifying Biden’s victory.
So, yes, it’s time for another piece surveying research on collapsing democracies.
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:
Focus on what matters
In addition to the previous, I did this interview with Besnik Velija of Kosovo’s Gazeta Express on New Year’s eve (it was published in Albanian this morning):
Q: I am writing about the US involvement in Western Balkans developments. Mr. Jeffrey Hovenier now is officially the new US Ambassador at Kosovo, Mr. Christopher Hill at Serbia. We have also Mr. Escobar as Special Representative for the Western Balkans.
With the completion of this mosaic of important people in the Western Balkans, do you expect an offensive by Joe Biden in 2022?
A: I expect this new crew to want to accomplish something in the Western Balkans, starting in 2022. Their focus initially will likely be on preventing disaster in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but they will also want to achieve something with Kosovo and Serbia.
Q: Do you expect concrete developments in the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue?
A: Yes. I certainly hope to see progress on missing people and on financial issues. I would also like to see adoption in the Western Balkans, including by Pristina and Belgrade, of principles that govern correct behavior towards neighbors, along with implementation plans.
Q: Do you find the EU negotiation model profitable, and do you think that the US should take over the entire Kosovo-Serbia dialogue process, in order to end the protracted negotiations?
A: I think the EU process is still the best forum available, but it requires more support and commitment from the US, including monitoring implementation of agreements reached. I doubt the US will take it over, as the destiny of the Western Balkans is in Europe.
Q: What do you think about a meeting at the White House, led by Biden, that would not end without the parties reaching a final agreement?
A: Such spectaculars happen only when carefully prepared. I see no prospect that either Belgrade or Pristina will be ready for it before the Serbian presidential election next year, and perhaps not after that either.
Q: If a final agreement is not reached with these people and with Joe Biden at the helm of the US, what do you foresee for the Western Balkans and specifically for Kosovo and Serbia?
A: Whether a “final” agreement is reached or not, what I hope is the Western Balkans will focus on what matters: preparation for EU accession and, for those who want it, NATO membership. The benefits of both come mainly from those preparations. Once qualified, potential EU member states will need to wait for the political window to open, likely not much before the end of this decade. The road is long. Slow but steady will win this race.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Long live the dialogue, even if it is stalled!
Two interviews I gave last month were published in Kosovo, in Serbian and Albanian respectively, over the weekend.
Veljko Nestorovic of Kosovo Online did this one:
Q: Was 2021 an unsuccessful year when it comes to the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina?
A: Yes the dialogue is stalled and will continue to be stalled at least until after the Serbian elections in 2022.
Q: With the appointment of the UK Special Envoy, as well as two US Envoys for the Western Balkans, will the US and the UK take the lead in dialogue?
A: The US continues to want the EU to lead, but I think both the UK and US will be more prepared to work in tandem with the EU than was at times true in the past.
Q: How do you view US sanctions. Are you expecting new names on the US list?
A: Yes, I imagine there will be more people named.
Q: Prime Minister Kurti has repeatedly stated that the issue of the missing must be resolved. At the moment, about 1,600 people are listed as missing, but in addition to Belgrade, given that one-third of the missing are non-Albanians, most Serbs, does Pristina have a responsibility in the search for those missing?
A: Yes of course. Pristina should be accounting for any missing on which it has information. That should include any victims of the KLA or of other Albanian armed groups.
Q: Is there a possibility for an agreement and a new meeting between Kurti and Vučić during 2022?
A: There is always a possibility, but I doubt it before the Serbian elections.
Q: Do you expect visa liberalization for Kosovo in 2022?
A: I’d be foolish to expect it, but I do hope it will happen in 2022. The French and Dutch need to tell Pristina why they have hesitated and give Pristina an opportunity to satisfy them.
Q: Do you expect a greater role of the USA in the Western Balkans during 2022 when it comes to dialogue, but also BiH [Bosnia]?
A: The US is already more focused on BiH than it has been in the past and will likely continue its diplomatic efforts there in 2022. But let me be clear: the right direction for the US should be more respect for individual rights in BiH. Nothing the US does should strengthen the stranglehold of ethnic nationalist political parties on power. They are the problem, not the solution. A more civic state would be a more functional state in BiH.
Besnik Gashi of Lajmi.net did this one:
Q: The first issue that I would like to discuss is the steps that Kosovo has taken in recent years in the framework of the dialogue with Serbia. I would like to ask what do you consider to be the most progressive and regressive agreements since the beginning of the technical dialogue between the two countries, where they were mediated by Brussels?
A: I’m not going to answer your question, for a good reason. There is no definitive evaluation of the agreements and their impact, despite the laudable efforts of civil society organizations in both Kosovo and Serbia.
This is not good. I believe the US and EU should regularly issue progress reports on implementation, obstacles to implementation, and impact. These should be based on close cooperation with civil society and government organizations in both countries.
Speaking more broadly, I think the dialogue has had a positive impact on Kosovo’s international standing by putting it on an equal and symmetrical basis with Serbia in the EU context, even though it has had a negative impact by allowing Serbia to encourage countries to delay recognition while the dialogue proceeds.
Q: Since we are talking about Brussels, it should be noted the achievement of the Agreement on the formation of the Association of Municipalities by Kosovo is facing full opposition from the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Albin Kurti. According to him, the agreement has been achieved by previous governments and is endangering the “Bosnianization” of Kosovo, in the sense of building a new Republika Srpska.
What is your opinion about the Association and the opposition that is being made to it by the Prime Minister?
A: The Prime Minister is doing something I think is a good negotiating tactic: holding back on Serbia’s top priority because Serbia is holding back on Kosovo’s top priorities, namely recognition and UN membership. The Association issue would look very different if Serbia were prepared to recognize Kosovo and tell Moscow and Beijing to allow Pristina into the UN.
Q: On the other hand, the US has issued a sort of ultimatum to Kosovo to reach a comprehensive agreement with Serbia during the term of the current Kosovo government, which culminates in mutual recognition of the two countries. What do you think, can the mentioned agreement be finalized within 3 or 4 years?
A: It can be finalized in 3 or 4 months once there is the political will on both sides to make the necessary compromises. But there is no sign at all of that from Serbia, and little of it from Kosovo.
Q: There has also been rumours of active US involvement in the dialogue, or even direct, in order to speed up a final agreement. Do you think such a thing should happen?
A: It can happen, but if it triggers Russian involvement it would not be a good thing.
Q: The US, namely the U.S Department of the Treasury, has recently targeted smuggling and criminal groups in Kosovo, some of them politicians. Do you think that there is a example of similar actions that the US has implemented in other countries and will follow them in the case of Kosovo, as well as whether the politicians of the countries in the region can be spared?
A: My understanding is that the US sanctions for corruption are and will continue to be global, not just the Balkans. No one guilty should be spared.
Q: In an interview last year, you told that Grenell is not a friend of Kosovars. Does this opinion still stand, given that Grenell during this year, following the diplomacy in the shadow of Kosovo, came to visit and said that he would take care of the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue and the implementation of the Washington Agreement?
A: Grenell should be avoided by anyone in either Serbia or Kosovo who wishes the dialogue well. He is a grifter, not a diplomat. The Washington Agreement isn’t worth much more than the two separate pieces of paper it was typed on.
Q: We are nearly in the end of this year and next year is expected to be more promising for Kosovars when it comes to visa liberalization. Hope has been raised with the arrival of a new chancellery in Germany, which in their political program for the Western Balkans also envisage visa liberalization for Kosovo. Do you think that Germany will be active enough to convince the skeptical countries of the EU Council?
A: I certainly hope so. Kosovo merits the visa waiver. Germany is the de facto leader of the EU in the Balkans. Berlin needs to make its weight felt.
RSS - Posts
