peacefare.net

Wake up: in the Balkans bad ideas never die

Six years ago I published a piece criticizing electoral reform proposals for the Federation 51% of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was clear then and even clearer now that this reform would

1. Disempower people who happen to live in parts of the Federation where their particular ethnicity doesn’t amount to more than 3% of their total in the country;
2. Empower ethnically nationalist political parties, some of which oppose the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

The High Representative (responsible for interpreting the Dayton accords and making sure the country stays on target implementing them) is considering imposing these so-called “reforms.” The only justification for them is the ambition of European and American diplomats. They want to be able to say they’ve done something.

But what they want to do would be inimical not only to the peace agreement but also to US and European interests. It’s a bad idea promoted by local politicians determined to make it virtually impossible to remove themselves from power. It would also guarantee that Bosnia would remain dysfunctional and vulnerable to Russian mischief-making. Sooner or later, it would lead to secession of both a Croat and a Serb entity, undermining the Western position on Ukraine and creating a new radicalized Muslim state.

Politicians who want to choose their voters

The main proponent of these ideas is a Croat nationalist political party (HDZ) that aims to create a third, ethnically defined “entity” inside Bosnia, splitting the Federation. The HDZ wants to remove the representatives of Croats living in relatively small numbers in some cantons. That would shift the Croat electorate entirely to cantons in which the HDZ holds an overwhelming majority.

This “reform” would be a classic case of politicians choosing their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Getting rid of votes from Croats who coexist with their fellow-citizens would boost the nationalist monopoly. With enhanced representation it has been unable to win at the ballot box, the HDZ would be able to cooperate with one or another Serb nationalist party to ensure no real electoral reform in the Federation or any constitutional reform in the state.

Secession on the horizon

The HDZ would likely even go further. It could encourage the 49% of the country that is Republika Srpska to follow through on its many threats to secede. That would prompt the secession of the HDZ-dominated parts of the Federation, leaving one or two non-viable, rump Islamic states in central Bosnia. Avoiding this scenario was a major reason for NATO intervention in Bosnia during the 1990s. It is no more attractive now than it was then. Only radical Islamists would rejoice if it were realized. Most Bosniaks would feel abandoned and resentful, though some of their nationalists would also benefit.

The Russians would love it

A dysfuntional or partitioned Bosnia serves Russia’s interests well. Either makes NATO or EU membership impossible. Moscow has long supported secessionist rhetoric on the part of Republika Srpska. It also supports the Croat ambition for a third entity. The situation is in many ways analogous to that in Ukraine. Moscow opposes effective government in Kiev by supporting secessionists in Donbas as well as in Crimea (which Russia has annexed). “Reform” along the lines the High Representative is considering would bring glee to President Putin, who will quickly use it to justify the dismemberment of Ukraine.

Why would Washington and Brussels support this?

Politicians who want to choose their voters. Ethnonationalist separation the Russians would love. Stalling NATO and EU enlargement. Justifying the dismemberment of Ukraine. Why are the US and the EU, in principle opposed to all these things, allowing (perhaps even encouraging) such “reform.” In the Balkans bad ideas never die. The adults in Washington and Brussels need to wake up.

Does the US still care about human rights?

That’s the question President Biden’s trip to the Middle East raised. He met “bilaterally” with “pariah” Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, UAE President Sheikh Zayed, and Egyptian President Sisi:

The purpose was to reset the relationship with Saudi Arabia as well as amp up cooperation with the UAE and Egypt. The signal was clear: human rights abuses in these and other Middle Eastern countries will not be allowed to obstruct diplomatic, security, an economic cooperation with the US.

Human rights demoted, not forgotten

Some have interpreted this signal as meaning the US will forget about human rights. That just isn’t possible. US history is the history of extending equal rights to ever wider categories of people. Our institutions could not forget human rights if they tried. The State Department will continue to issue its annual report, which will document abuses worldwide. Even Israel gets its comeuppance there, though not in the strident terms many would like.

But what the annual report says has not generally been the basis for US relations with other countries. Biden was the exception, not the rule, in claiming human rights would be the wellspring for American foreign policy. He has now walked that back, as the politicians say. I’m reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s reputed response when asked why he did not in the Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves in states that supported the Union: “I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.”

The Middle East is about geography, energy, and money

The reasons the US cares about the Middle East are basically three. Its geography makes it a vital bridge among Europe, Africa, and Asia. Mostly we fly over it these days, but shipping needs to go through it. The Suez Canal gives Egypt an importance it would otherwise lack. Most of the world’s oil and gas reserves lie in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia and Iraq. While the US today is a net oil and gas exporter, the prices of oil are set in a global market. That is increasingly true for gas as well. Oil and gas have given the Gulf monarchies vast quantities of hard currency, which is an important factor in world financial markets.

So what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East. American presidents understand this and therefore generally favor stability in the region, even at the expense of human rights. Several have tried to reverse the order of things, by claiming greater respect for human rights would favor stability. President Obama gave that a try in his 2009 Cairo speech, before the “Arab spring.”

Stability first

But the Arab spring did not work out well. Egypt restored its autocracy in a coup. Libya fell into civil war. Syria’s dictatorial regime has brutalized the country’s population. Bahrain reverted to autocracy with help from Saudi Arabia. Even Tunisia, which appeared to be on a democratic path, has now suffered a setback. Its elected president has suspended parliament and proposes a new constitution that would vastly increase his own powers.

Apart from Bahrain, there was no real attempt at Arab spring in the Gulf. The Saudis are reforming from the top, with Vision 2030 (not a human rights approach) in mind. Qatar is a bit farther along the same path. It has elected municipal governments and now also a partly elected consultative assembly. Oman is an absolute monarchy, though a mild mannered one under most circumstances. Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy with a human rights record above the regional norm.

Mutual complaints will continue

So the Americans will continue to criticize even their friends in the Middle East, but their friends will criticize the US as well. One of the most common responses is “Look at Black Lives Matter,” which means America has not yet come to terms with its Black population. That is true, though no excuse for Middle Eastern governments throwing people in jail for saying what they think and even murdering them when they come for a visa.

A better founded Middle Eastern response is “Look at American unwillingness to criticize Israel for abuses against Palestinians.” Those are daily occurrences. It is not just the May killing of Shireen Abu Akleh at issue, but systematic discrimination against Arabs both in the occupied territories and in Israel proper. It is time Biden took off the blinders. Or does he need Israel more?