Category: Uncategorized
Reaching for the Heights, but failing
I enjoyed a discussion today at USIP prompted by Fred Hof’s Reaching for the Heights. The book treats Fred’s ultimately failed negotiation for peace between Israel and Syria. It would have returned the Golan Heights (and more) to Syria in exchange for Syria’s strategic reorientation away from Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas. Chet Crocker presided. Barbara Bodine and Bernie Aronson provided perspective on Yemen and (mostly) Colombia. My assignment was the Balkans. Here are the talking points I prepared, but used only in part:
- First: compliments to Fred for this forthright, interesting, and well-written account of an important but failed negotiation. We need to understand what makes things go wrong, even when so much has been done to make them go right.
- My role here is to comment on how Fred’s experience compares and contrasts with that in the Balkans. I am struck in the first instance by the stark differences.
Stark contrasts
- Both the Bosnia and Kosovo outcomes happened in the unipolar moment when the U.S. could do pretty much whatever it wanted, at least when it came to countries with a few million inhabitants. Working after America was weakened in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fred dealt with a potent ally and a substantial adversary, backed by Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas.
- Richard Holbrooke in the 1990s wielded all the levers of American power—not only diplomatic but also political, military, and economic. Fred at no time had all the levers of American power in his hands: his role was diplomatic and vaguely economic, not military or even political.
- Holbrooke’s objective in Bosnia was to end a war both sides were tired of fighting. Fred was trying to do something harde. After a long but not very hurting stalemate, entice Syria to reorient itself strategically, cutting ties with Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas that had helped the Assads survive in power for four decades. He was also trying to get Israel to give up attractive real estate on which it had settled tens of thousands of citizens.
- Other contrasts: the soft-spoken, detail-oriented, and considerate George Mitchell and Dennis Ross vs. the bold, egotistical, and bombastic Holbrooke, the zero-sum territorial equation in the Middle East vs. the identity-focused Bosnian conflict and the sovereignty-focused Kosovo one, the static stance of the Middle Eastern protagonists vs. the rapidly changing situations on the ground in the Balkans, the deep knowledge of Syria that Fred brought to the challenge vs. Holbrooke’s comparatively superficial grasp of the Balkans.
Parallels: the negotiating framework
- But there are also some enduring parallels. Most important is that negotiations need a mutually agreed framework. Holbrooke achieved this in a series of meetings leading up to Dayton that defined basic parameters: one country, two entities, mutual diplomatic recognition, return of DPs and refugees, a powerful international intervention.
- Fred achieved it by building on a framework that John Kerry initiated. Holbrooke likewise often used Congressional pressure from both sides of the aisle to good advantage in the Balkans. State Department officers often complain about Congress but woe to the American diplomat who hasn’t learned to use Congressional clout with foreign governments!
Parallels: key US roles
- The agreed frameworks in both the Balkans and the Syria/Israel negotiation were vulnerable to mutual mistrust and to domestic politics. The U.S. as guarantor was vital in both. Washington needed to be ready to play a major role not only in the negotiations but also in the implementation of any agreement.
- In Bosnia, Holbrooke delivered America’s friend, Izetbegovic, to an unsatisfactory agreement. Only the side-agreement equipping and training Bosnian forces made that possible. The side-letter between Israel and the U.S. would have played a similar role in the Syria negotiation, but delivering Israel was certainly a heavier lift.
- Fred notes the importance of “top cover,” protection from those in your own government who might have ideas of their own or not like yours. Holbrooke frightened off potential meddlers. That is different from the protection rooted in respect that Dennis Ross provided to Fred, but the effect was similar. Without top cover, no American negotiator can survive. It seems half an international negotiation is always with Washington.
- Relief from sanctions played a key role in the Balkans, as it would have had to do also vis-à-vis Syria. Lifting sanctions is at least as important as imposing them if you want to get results.
Failure is always an option
- It was Bashar’s violent crackdown on the demonstrators that made lifting sanctions impossible for Washington. Milosevic’s violent repression of the Kosovo rebellion did likewise in the Balkans. We shouldn’t expect autocrats to behave differently when challenged domestically. .
- One concluding thought, admittedly beyond my remit.
- Fred hasn’t entirely convinced me, or himself, that Bashar would have been able to reorient Syria in the Western direction, even if he regained every inch of territory he sought. The Iranians and Hezbollah would have made Assad’s life—and maybe his death—very difficult if he tried. Nor am I, or Fred, convinced that Bibi was prepared to give up the Golan Heights.
- Such re-orientations more often come before international agreements, not because of them. That is what happened with Sadat’s Egypt. That also happened throughout Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War and with Ukraine, though of course in Ukraine we haven’t yet seen whatever international settlement will emerge.
- My reservations about Fred’s assessment of the situation only increase my admiration for what he tried to do. Negotiations are never a sure thing. The Dayton agreements were completed in penalty time. Kosovo was settled only after a negotiation failure at Rambouillet.
Courage merits admiration
- Fred faults himself in the end for failing to convince American policymakers of the contribution a Syria/Israel peace agreement would have made to U.S. national interests and to a more comprehensive Israel/Arab peace.
- My bottom line is different. Fred Hof is a courageous man who tried to do the right thing on the issue entrusted to him. This book enables his substantial successes and his ultimate failure to educate those who come next. I am grateful for the book and admire the courage.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 12
– The House takes up the NDAA this week, with over 1200 amendments filed.
– GOP resists Democratic proposals for increased aid to UN to counter China.
– Big LDP win foreshadows revisions to Japan’s constitution.
– US says Iran is shipping drones to Russia.
– Putin goes to Tehran for meetings including Turkey.
– WSJ says US is working to reform WTO.
– WaPo says ISIS planned attacks in Western Europe.
– NYT sees Ukraine war turning into test of stamina.
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. 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, July 11
So I’m back home for a few days and have scanned the papers. What’s still significant?
-President Biden put his Mideast policy into a WaPo op-ed just before his Wednesday trip to the region.
– Reuters says US likely to resume arms sales to Saudis.
– Heads of MI5 and FBI put out joint statement on threats from Chinese Communist Party
– NYT says US will tighten export controls as part of plan to counter Chinese tech.
– Defense News says NATO will do country-pairings to strengthen eastern flank.
-Politico has good background article on CODELS.
– Hill staff survey finds hopeful signs.
– Report notes that Hill office budgets can be spent on non-election TV ads.
– Hill article summarizes research on sources of political outrage.
– And Dana Milbank says Gingrich and McConnell deserve significant blame for fueling distrust in government.
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. 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:
Here is something worth reading about the Balkans
My friends in the Balkans want the West to understand some things:
Appeal by Regional Civil Society to the Governments of EU Countries, the United States, and NATO
The Accession of the Western Balkans to the European Union is a Geopolitical and Geostrategic Inevitability
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has fundamentally changed the European security context and raised a number of questions about the future of the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans.
Although surrounded by the EU and NATO member countries, the Western Balkans is only partially integrated into the Euro-Atlantic political and security structures. The ambiguous EU policy pursued over the last two decades has contributed to the regression of this region and its turn towards other partners. Russia’s infiltration into the developments in the region and its influence on Serbia and (one part of) Bosnia and Herzegovina has opened the question as to where the Western Balkans actually belongs.
These new circumstances have put the Western Balkans back on the European agenda.
The EU’s enlargement policy is currently being adjusted to the new geopolitical environment, and a new accession process is being developed.
So far, despite numerous statements and initiatives related to the Western Balkans, the West (primarily the EU) has not offered real support, protection and a concrete perspective for the region’s future .
Accession to the EU is the geopolitical inevitability of the entire Western Balkans – given Russia’s constant efforts to destabilize it.
A more efficient EU policy is not possible as long as the EU countries keep balancing between the value principles on which the EU is based and the ‘unity’ embodied in its consensual decision-making principle. This approach has disastrous consequences for the Western Balkans.
Bearing in mind a very fluid situation in the Western Balkans as well as speculation about the possibility of Putin’s opening a “second front” in the Balkans, the fears of citizens in all our countries that the situation in the region could be dramatically worsened are justified. We should not forget that, insofar as the European continent is concerned, the Balkans as a whole – particularly its non-integrated part – is the most susceptible to Russia’s influence and the escalation is underway. By preventing such devastating influence, the one-time visionary acceptance of “unprepared” Bulgaria and Romania into the EU has played a decisive role.
Due to all the reasons mentioned above, we, the undersigned, expect the following from the EU as well as the United States:
- To eliminate any possibility of changing Balkan borders;
- To ensure that the future and functionality of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not depend on Belgrade’s policy, which has been integrating/annexing B&H’s Republic of Srpska (RS) entity at all levels (economic, cultural, educational and informational) without hindrance for two decades. In addition to combating corruption and radically nationalist policies, the EU and the United States should encourage the coalescence of educational and cultural space in order to build Bosnian and Herzegovinian identity apart from its particular features. Only cultural awareness and education, as the fundamental backbone of society, can guarantee integration and solidarity within Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Croatia’s advocacy for a new election law, which would only contribute to the further ethnic disintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is unacceptable, and it is high time that the EU and the United States clearly condemn and prevent such policy options. Granting candidate status to Bosnia and Herzegovina would send a clear message to Belgrade, Zagreb and Moscow that the EU and the United States stand behind the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Due to its reliance on Russia, Serbia keeps Kosovo in a state of frozen conflict. Without the mutual recognition of Serbia and Kosovo, the region has no European perspective. As the first step Kosovo should be granted visa liberalization for which the conditions have long been created;
- When it comes to Montenegro, it is necessary to strongly and effectively support its European integration process, which is also the basic proclaimed goal of Montenegro’s minority govern-ment. It is also necessary to prevent interference in its internal affairs, which primarily originates from the governing structures in Serbia, with great help from the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro, Serbian media and security services, as well as Russia’s direct and indirect influence;
- It is necessary to unblock the situation regarding North Macedonia’s accession negotiations. It is unacceptable that North Macedonia, which has met all EU requirements for candidate status, is still on hold due to Bulgaria’s blackmailing and destructive attitude;
- It is necessary to help Albania, which deserves candidate status. In the opposite, other tendencies and policies are encouraged – like in all other Western Balkan countries;
- It must be made clear that the Open Balkans Initiative cannot be an alternative to EU membership. Chancellor Scholz announced the revival of the Berlin process which, coupled with increased control by Berlin and Brussels, opens up prospects for more intensive regional cooperation on which the EU insists, as the basis for continuing the European path for all countries in the region, based on their individual merits and achievements;
- To continue without compromise with strengthening the security and legal mechanisms in all the countries of the Western Balkans in the fight against corruption and organized crime within the state apparatus, corporations and society in whole.
Bearing all this in mind, Europe and the United States must boost their military, political and economic involvement in the region in order to prevent the further malignant influence of non-Balkan and non-European factors. At the same time, it is necessary to maintain an active relationship with the pro-European opposition and political structures in all countries in the region as well as with the authentic civil society in order to confirm and strengthen the support for the Euro-Atlantic orientation and future of the Western Balkans.
Many of the signatories are people I regard as friends, some of very long standing:
Dr. Prof. Ivo Komšić, sociologist, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Dr. Vesna Pusić, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Croatia
Dr. Prof. Edina Bećirević, University, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Momcilo Radulovic, president of European Movement, Montenegro
Dr. Prof. Zarko Korać, psyhologist, Srbija
Azem Vllasi, lawyer, Kosova
Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee, Serbia
Petar Todorov, historian, North Macedonia
Tamara Nikčević, journalist, Montenegro
Dr. Boris Varga, journalist, Serbia
Shkelzen Maliqi, writer, Kosova
Dr. Prof Husnija Kamberović, historian, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Dr. Prof. Dubravka Stojanović, historian, Serbia
Dr. Prof. Dinko Gruhonjić, University in Novi Sad, Serbia
Dr. Milivoj Bešlin, istorian, Serbia
Miodrag Vlahović, former Ambassador, president of the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee, Montenegro
Dr. Aleksandra Bosnić-Djurić, culturologist, Serbia
Dr.Prof. Nikola Samardžić, historian, Serbia
Dragan Banjac, journalist, Serbia
Boško Jakšić, journalist, Serbia
Ylber Hysa, historian, Kosova
Adil Kulenović,journalist, Krug 99, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Senad Pećanin, advokat, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Prof. Ejup Ganić, izvršni direktor Sarajevo Schol of Science and Technology, BiH
Sladjan Tomić, journalist, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Izabela Kisić, executive director of Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, Srbija
Akad. Prof. Rusmir Mahmutčehajić, president of the International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Jelena Krstić, political scientist, Serbia
Andro Martinović, film director, Montenegro
Balša Božović, president of the Regional Academy for Development of Democracy, Serbia
Rade Radovanović, journalist, Serbia
Nerzuk Ćurak, University Professor, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Srećko Djukić, Ambassador, Serbia
Dušan Mijić, enterpreuner, Serbia
Aleksandra Jerkov, founder of the Regional Academy for Development of Democracy, Serbia
Dino Mustafić, theater director, Bosnia-Herzegovina
mr.sci. Memnuna Zvizdić, Regional Women Lobby, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director of the Center for Civic Education, Montenegro
Stefica Galic, Editor of Tacno.net Portal, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Milan Jovanoović, president of the Forum for Security and Democracy, Serbia
Prof. dr Duško Radosavljević, Faculty for Legal and Business Studies, Serbia
prof dr. Mehmed Slezović, painter and art theorist, Serbia
Tanja Petovar, lawyer, Serbia
Srdjan Sušnica, Master’s degree of cultural and religious studies, lawyer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Zlatko Lagumdžija, former Foreign Minister, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nada Drobnjak, Regional Women Lobby, Montenegro
Zoran Vuletić, president of Civic Democratic Forum, Serbia
Tanja Šuković, journalist, Monteneggro
Darko Šukovic, journalist, Montenegro
Ivana Šundić Mihovilović, journalist, Serbia
Davor Gjenero, politologist, Croatia
Andrej Nikolaidis, writer, Montenegro
Tinka Đuranović, sculptor, Montenegro
Draško Đuranović, Editor of Pobjeda, Montenegro
Đorđe Šćepović,writer, Montenegro
Milorad Pustahija, journalist, Montenegro
Rajko Todorović Todor, painter, Montenegro
Boro Kontić, journalist and writer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Rade Bojović,lawyer, Montenegro
Miodrag Strugar, communicator, Montenegro
Danilo Burzan, journalist and writer, Montenegro
Majda Šahman Zaimović, University Professor, Montenegro
Kaćuša Krsmanović, journalst, Montenegro
Vladimir Šibalić, Lawyer, Montenegro
Janko Ljumović, professor FDU, Montenegro
Andrej Nedović, economist, Montenegro
Nada Bukilić, playright, Montenegro
Jelena Đurović, journalist, Montenegro
Momčilo Zeković, artist, Montenegro
Ljubomir Filipovic, political scientist, Montenegro
Danilo Marunović, film director, Montenegro
Aleksandar Saša Zeković, activist, Montenegro
Šeki Radončić, writer and journalist, Montenegro
Miodrag Živković, lawyer, Montenegro
Izudin Gusmirović, economist, Montenegro
Irina Peckova, economist, North Macedonia
Ines Sabalić, journalist, Croatia
Raif Dizdarević, former Foreign Minister of SFRY, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Lula Mikielj, activist, Serbia
Pavel Domonji, political scientist, Serbia
Edin Omerčić, historian, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Andrea Lešić, Literature and Culture Theorist, Univerzitet u Sarajevu, Bosna-Herzegovina
Zilka Spahić Šiljak, University Professor of Gender Studies, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Aleksandar Obradović, antropologist, Director of Philopolitics Association, Srbija
Prof.dr. Ivan Obradović, Belgrade University, Serbia
Nebojša Kaludjerovi, Ambassador, Montenegro
Prof,dr.Amila Buturović, Toronto York University, Canada
Slobodan Beljanski, lawyer, Serbia
Dr Adnan Prekić-Historian, Montenegro
Jakob Finci, writer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nenad Prokić, playwright, Serbia
Prof.dr Šerbo Rastoder, Academic,Montenegro University, Montenegro
Prof. Dr. Edin Šarčević, Law School Leipzig, Germany
Srdjan Dvornik, , translator, consultatnt, Croatia
Xhezair Dashi, journalist Albanian Post, Albania
Prof. Asim Mujkić, University Sarajevo, Bosna-Herzegovina
Žarko Papić, director IBHI (Nezavisni biro za humanitarna pitanja), Bosnia-Herzegovina
Zlatoje Martinov, writer and publicist, Serbia
Mirsada Čolaković, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Reuf Bajrović, Vice President of the US-Europe Alliance in Washington, DC, USA
Prof. Senadin Lavić, Faculty of Political Science, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Ljilja Spasić, Executive Director, Civic Actions, Serbia
Staša Zajević, Women in Black, Serbia
Isidora Farley, UK
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 10
How many wars are in involved in today? Fifteen plus, according to the latest war powers report to Congress. The uncertainty comes because the report says” approximately 90,000 United States Armed Forces personnel are deployed to North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in Europe” without naming the countries. The conflicts are basically the same as in recent reports: Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti, Niger, Cuba [at Guantanamo], Philippines, Egypt, and Kosovo plus NATO. The law requires reporting of places where troops equipped for combat are deployed; there does not have to be active combat.
FP, citing an unnamed “senior defense official” on Gen. Milley’s plane to Singapore, says the US wants more hotlines with China to prevent miscalculations.
WSJ says Ukrainian forces are being outgunned.
Nicaragua welcomes Russian troops.
Writer in Foreign Affairs says China is “using the global South to constrain America.“
WSJ says US is trying to get Israel and Saudi Arabia to work together on air defenses against Iran.
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. 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, June 8
– Does US govt know more about Russian military than about Ukraine’s? NYT says yes.
– Can the Marshall Plan be repeated? The author of a fine history of the MP says no and explains it wasn’t just pouring money into Europe.
– What’s in retired SAIS prof Michael Mandelbaum’s new book? Tom Friedman tells.
– What was Jared Kushner doing while President Trump plotted Jan 6? Peter Baker of NYT says he was scouting real estate in Florida. NOTE: Baker and his wife Susan Glasser, who writes for the New Yorker, have a book about Trump coming out in September. Often reporters who write such books get criticized for saving nuggets for their books. It seems that these authors are in effect releasing chapters early in their respective publications.
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. 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).
RSS - Posts
