Category: Daniel Serwer
Fantasy diplomacy is failing to appease
Chris Hill, the American Ambassador to Serbia, tweeted Friday:
I’ve dedicated my life to diplomacy – to finding diplomatic solutions to seemingly intractable problems. In the course of my career, I’ve learned that sometimes diplomacy fails. When it does, the results can be tragic. (1/4)
I offer my personal condolences to the families of those who lost their lives during the wars of the 1990s, including as a result of the NATO air campaign. I know that the Serbian people will never forget that terrible time, nor should they. (2/4)
The Serbian people will never set aside their grief, but I believe they are strong enough to set aside their grievances. The United States’ dedication to our partnership with Serbia is unwavering, as is our commitment to diplomacy. (3/4)
Together, we can build the better future the Serbian people deserve and want for future generations. (4/4)
He had previously tweeted:
The most important outcome from the Ohrid talks: Serbia has embraced its European future and a clear plan for how to get there—a decision that took wisdom, integrity, and courage. Much work remains, and the United States will be with you every step of the way.
If this last were true, his tweets Friday would have been unnecessary.
Fantasy diplomacy
This is fantasy diplomacy. There is no evidence in the Ohrid talks or elsewhere that Serbia has embraced its European future. To the contrary, Belgrade continues to refuse to align with EU foreign policy and leans heavily in the direction of Moscow and Beijing. The former provides military help and the latter investments. Here is Vucic with his favorite “European” a week after the Ohrid meeting:
Serbia no longer meets the EU’s Copenhagen criteria, if it ever did. Its “partly free” polity is moving in an authoritarian direction. Media are not free. The judicial system is not independent. And the opposition comes mainly from ethnonationalists who care not a whit about Europe. Belgrade has done nothing to apologize, or make amends, for the Milosevic regime’s brutal crackdown on Kosovo in the late 1990s.
It isn’t working
It is hard then to imagine what justifies condolences now for the action NATO took in 1999 to stop the murder and ethnic cleansing of the better part of a million Albanians from Kosovo. NATO caused around 454 civilian deaths (including more Albanians than Serbs and Montenegrins), according to the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Center.
The condolences come from someone who was part of the team that initiated the bombing in response to the Serbian failure to sign the agreement negotiated at Rambouillet. American diplomats then argued that Milosevic would only respond to the use of force. If I stretch, I imagine Chris is thinking his tweets will assuage his own conscience, appease Serbia, and soften its attitude toward normalization of relations with Kosovo.
I see no sign yet that this is working. President Vucic has refused to sign the two agreements recently reached with Kosovo,. Though he has said his oral agreement is legally binding, it isn’t clear just what he verbally agreed to. He has said explicitly he will oppose UN membership for Kosovo, despite a provision in the normalization agreement that reads:
Serbia will not object to Kosovo’s membership in any international organisation.
He has denied that Serbia has implicitly recognized Kosovo, even though the first agreement includes recognition of its documents and symbols, and has made it clear he will pick and choose what provisions of the agreement he implements or not. The EU will be incorporating the requirements in the agreements into its accession process, but that could mean postponing Serbia’s compliance by years if not a decade or more.
Ukraine could make the difference
Vucic is still trying to walk with Washington and ride with Moscow. That’s a difficult game these days. Rumors have it that Serbian ammunition has reached Ukraine, but Belgrade denies it has sold a single bullet there. Nor has it aligned with EU sanctions against Russia, which it is obligated to do. Still, if your lobbyists can keep the American ambassador and Washington believing that you are sincere in seeking a Western future, the game can work for a while. Putin is blessedly distracted and the US committed to appeasement, which is easier than the alternative.
The question is when the State Department and White House will wake up to reality. Serbia is not choosing to come West. Only if Russia loses in Ukraine will Belgrade reassess. Until then, it would be best to forget the fantasy diplomacy. Realism dictates that the US back countries that back Ukraine. Belgrade doesn’t.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Getting the numbers right
The Humanitarian Law Center published on Friday this account of the casualties in the NATO/Yugoslavia war of 1999, in order to counter disinformation in Serbia and elsewhere:
On Friday, March 24, eight year in a row (not including 2020, when there was no commemoration due to the Covid-19 pandemic and state of emergency), the central state commemoration of the anniversary of commencement of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was held. Humanitarian Law Center (HLC) draws attention to the established facts on the Kosovo war and bombing campaign of the FRY, warning against the threat of history revisionism undertaken by the state.
Let us recall that the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, used to make references to thousands of casualties of NATO’s air raids until 2022, most often mentioning 2,500 victims. At the 2018 commemoration, he stated that the Republic of Serbia had “more than 2,000 recorded, well remembered names”. However, as of 19 October 2021, when the Serbian Parliament rejected the proposal to set up the previously announced national commission which would be tasked with making a list of the bombing casualties, the President ceased to mention the number of victims. Speculating with the figures was resumed by the public broadcaster RTS, which this year highlighted that during the NATO bombing, “1,100 members of the Army and police were killed“ and “around 2,500 civilians, although the accurate list of victims has not been established yet ”.
Although the Republic of Serbia has never made a list of NATO bombing, Humanitarian Law Centre (HLC) and Humanitarian Law Center Kosovo (HLC Kosovo) published a list of all victims’ names in 2014, within the RECOM project. According to this register, during the NATO attacks, 756 persons were killed, amongst whom 452 civilians and 304 members of armed forces. Of the killed civilians, 206 were Serbs or Montenegrin by ethnic background, 218 were Albanians, 14 Roma, and 14 civilians of other ethnicity. In the bombing, 275 members of the Yugoslav Army (VJ) and Ministry of the Interior (MoI) were killed, whereas the number of the killed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was 29. A total of 261 persons were killed on the territory of Serbia, 10 in Montenegro, and 485 in Kosovo. This is the only and most complete list of victims of NATO’s bombing of FRY so far.
The Serbian President this year at the central commemoration also denied war crimes against Kosovar Albanians committed by Serbian forced before 24 March 1999, documented in the HLC reports as well as in those of international organisations. He stated that Serbia was found guilty for wanting to be “on its own” and proceeded with cynical discussion on the term “humanitarian disaster” which was used to describe the situation in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
Just like in the previous years, the President did not address the events in Kosovo during the NATO bombing. According to the data collected by HLC and HLC Kosovo, Serbian forces killed 6,872 Albanian civilians during the bombing. In the same period, KLA members killed 328 Serb civilians and 136 Roma and members of other ethnic groups. In the conflicts between Serb forces and KLA, 1,204 members of KLA and 559 members of the VJ and Serbian MoI were killed.
Humanitarian Law Center reminds the public broadcaster and institutions of the Republic of Serbia that by augmenting the number of the NATO bombing casualties, they are suggesting that the actual victims are not sufficiently important and thus offend their dignity. We call upon them to pay tribute to all killed citizens by accepting the list with individual names. Also, HLC urges on all national institutions to abandon historical revisionism of the Kosovo war. Recognising the accountability of the Republic of Serbia for the crimes committed against Kosovo’s Albanians is the only possible way towards overcoming the war past and building the common future for Serbs and Albanians.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 27
– Israel in turmoil. US weighs in.
– Senator blocks DOD nominations in abortion fight.
– Military Times looks at vaccine refusers.
– NPR tells of military interest in the Arctic.
– Breaking Defense says Turkey is losing interest in S-400.
– AP says China is winning friends in Utah.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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, March 26
– NYT says Asia is gearing for war.
– WaPo sees “five families” in the House GOP.
-Reuters sees US-China fight over undersea cables.
– NYT analyzes Biden-Netanyahu disagreements.
-Poli sci study funds independent redistricting commissions lead to 2.25 times as many competitive districts. Hooray!
– Conservative prof wants to change GOP primary system. Intriguing ideas.
– Marine reservist sees legal opportunity to expand “1202 authorities.”
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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, March 24
– US retaliates after deadly drone strike in Syria.
– US complained to Israel about new law.
– Dan Drezner warns about Taiwan dilemmas, citing this article.
– CSIS study sees Chinese pressure ineffective. Here’s that report.
– WSJ says – Ukraine trouble getting troops.
-Canada doesn’t want to take lead in Haiti.
– Blinken refuses to declassify dissent cable.
– RollCall finds less party unity in House, more in Senate last year.
– Senate is taking up AUMF repeal, but look at Politico’s list of amendments:
Here’s a quick rundown of amendment to expect in the Senate next week on the AUMF:
- Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) amendment would empower “the President to use force against forces of Iran, a state responsible for conducting and directing attacks against United States forces in the Middle East and to take actions for the purpose of ending Iran’s escalation of attacks on, and threats to, United States interests.”
- Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) amendment would require Senate approval for any World Health Organization convention or agreement or treaty.
- Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) amendment would create a joint select committee to look into the United States/Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021.
- Sen. Pete Ricketts’ (R-Neb.) amendment would require the president to certify “that Iraq, Israel,and other United States partners and allies in the region have been meaningfully consulted on the ramifications of repeal.”
- Sen. Dan Sullivan’s (R-Alaska) amendment ensures that the AUMF repeal won’t impact the effectiveness of U.S. response to Iran.
- Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) amendment would appoint an inspector general to oversee Ukraine aid.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A Biden Middle East doctrine full of holes
Brett McGurk, the senior White House Middle East official, last month set out a “Biden doctrine” for the region. It is based on partnerships, deterrence, diplomacy, integration, and values. Best you read it yourself. It is blessedly short and clear.
Jonathan Lord, formerly Iraq director at the Defense Department and now at the Center for New American Security, has taken Brett to task for ignoring both Syria and Iraq, where the US still has a few thousand troops doing counter-terrorism work. In fact, McGurk never mentions terrorism, the threat on which he worked for many years.
What else isn’t mentioned
Those are glaring omissions, but not the only ones. As Lord notes, McGurk says little about economic issues. He omits oil entirely, though he mentions freedom of navigation. It is hard to imagine the US would be concerned with the Middle East if there were no oil there. He fails to note the growing geopolitical competition in the region with Russia and China. Brett ignores the more than 18,000 deployed US troops in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
He forgets the Palestinians entirely, as well as the Kurds, with whom the US is allied in Syria. There is not a word about the disastrous state of Lebanon and Hizbollah’s role there, though he boasts about Beirut’s maritime boundary agreement with Israel. He ignores the plight of women in much of the region.
McGurk also fails to note the contradictions among his five principles. He acknowledges the main tension between values and partnerships with autocrats. But he ignores the current and growing tensions on human rights issues with Israel, as well as the more traditional ones with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. What do the five principles tell us to do about the UAE and possibly Saudi Arabia reestablishing diplomatic relations with Syria? There are also problems reconciling diplomacy and deterrence. The US has essentially abandoned the former for the latter when it comes to Iran. And there are obstacles to integration arising from human rights, like the Saudi refusal to recognize Israel without real progress on creating a Palestinian state.
Iran, Iran, Iran
Brett is clever. I imagine he would reply to this critique that it is about time we had a Middle East policy focused on partnerships rather than oil, the Palestinians, or competition with Russia and China. He might also claim that it is obvious US troops are in the Middle East for deterrence purposes, against both terrorism and Iran. He would be correct to say that any discussion of economic and social issues requires more time and space than this short presentation allowed.
But there is no excuse for many of the other omissions. They reflect prioritization, not ignorance. Brett knows the the current Israeli government is a threat to its already ethnically-limited democracy. He knows Iraq is drifting away from the US, Syria is a drug-exporting nightmare, and Lebanon is in a downward spiral. The Biden Administration has simply decided to ignore these developments and focus on whatever will help the US confront Iran. That is the real purpose of four of the five principles: partnerships, deterrence, diplomacy, and integration. Values play a distinctly secondary role.
If that’s what it’s about, say so
Iran’s role in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and with Hizbollah more than justifies priority treatment. Moreover Tehran’s increasingly successful nuclear program could ignite an arms race in the region. Turkey’s President Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have explicitly stated they will not stand idly by if Iran gets nuclear weapons. That could put the US in an awkward situation, as it would increase the need for security guarantees and make criticism of human rights behavior impossible.
If it’s all about Iran, say so. Don’t hide it behind five nice principles. Then we can debate whether you’ve got the priorities right.
RSS - Posts
