RS in doubt
Delvin Kovač of Vijesti.ba asked questions; I answered:
Representatives of Republika Srspska (RS) at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) will suspend their participation in decision-making on any matter within the jurisdiction of the BiH authorities until a new Law on the Constitutional Court of BiH is adopted, with no foreign judges.
This position was taken at yesterday’s meeting of RS officials, institutions and representatives of parliamentary parties based in that BiH entity, after the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which declared unconstitutional the Law on Agricultural Land of the Entities of RS.
How do you see this newly created political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Seems like Bosnia remains politically deadlocked…
A: Indeed, deadlocked due to the Dayton peace accords, which left gaps and ambiguities that the RS exploits.
Q: Milorad Dodik said: “Either political leaders will come to a new agreement on what the Constitutional Court should look like, or Bosnia will be no more.” Is this a serious threat to Bosnia’s as well as Balkan’s peace and stability/security?
A: It certainly is, but it is not new. Dodik has been threatening the state for years. Were I a citizen, I would be concerned.
The real question is not whether the state should exist. It is whether RS should continue to exist, if it continues to make the state dysfunctional.Dodik also said that the RS National Assembly will adopt a decision to remove Serbian judges from the Constitutional Court of BiH. Can a lower level of government impose it’s decisions to a State?
I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the RS Assembly can name judges to the Court. I don’t know if can remove them. Nor do I know what happens once their seats are empty. I imagine the Court could continue to function without them.
Q: Dodik also said he would inform president of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić about the newly created situation, adding that he would ask for Vučić’s “understanding”. What do you think about that?
A: I think it amounts to Dodik demonstrating once again his disloyalty to the state. Vučić needs to read Dodik the riot act, which in English means telling him that he has to stop the nonsense.
The EU accession process is becoming more conditioned. Brussels should make it clear to Vučić that getting Dodik to stop undermining the functionality of the state in Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the conditions for Serbian progress in negotiating accession.
Q: We now have HDZ BiH and it’s leader Dragan Čović blocking the formation of the Federation government by imposing changes to the Election Law on one side, as well as SNSD and it’s leader Milorad Dodik blocking the work of state instutitions on the other side. How do you comment on that?
A: Bosnia and Herzegovina is suffering because Dayton ensured the persistence in power of ethnic nationalists who conducted the 1992/95 war and remain uncommitted to the state. Until that is fixed, such blockages will remain frequent. Ultimately, it is up to the citizens whether they vote to undo the legal and constitutional provisions that make governance so difficult.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 13
– Senate likely votes today on Sen. Kaine’s Iran war powers measure. Should pass, sure to be vetoed.
– A pro foreign aid group [yes, there is one] has its summary of the international affairs budget proposals by the administration.
– In our topic on the media and interest groups, we read a section from Dan Drezner’s book, The Idea Industry, where he raises concerns about foreign funders .of US think tanks. There’s a new report on that topic, which Drezner evaluates.
– In that same topic, I plan to add a new reading from Ezra Klein, who has a fine new book explaining why US politics has become so polarized. Here’s a review, telling some of its ideas.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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:
Realism redefined
Different from previous plans, Trump’s Middle East Peace Plan addresses key issues like borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. Although the plan has enraged the Palestinians , it has received a much more favorable reception from many states than experts predicted, such as Europe and the Middle East. Without a Palestinian partner, is the plan destined, as its critics argue, to fail? Or will it, as its supporters claim, reshape the conflict in significant, beneficial, and lasting ways?
On February 11, the Hudson Institute hosted a panel discussion on the topic of “President Trump’s Plan for Peace in the Middle East.” The discussion featured two speakers: Michael Doran and Jon Lerner. Both serve as senior fellows at the Hudson Institute.
Previous plans vs Trump’s
Lerner and Doran noted that Trump’s plan addresses all final status topics in detail, including Jerusalem, settlement, borders, and right to return, while previous plans left out these issues. Lerner believes that Trump’s plan accepts the reality, contrary to previous plans that sought to change reality on the ground. This plan guarantees Israel’s control over a unified Jerusalem rather than dividing the city. Since it is impossible for Israelis to uproot settlements from the West Bank, Trump legalizes Israeli settlements. Although this plan is a setback for Palestinians, it creates an independent Palestinian state with a capital, grants economic support to Palestinians, allows Palestinians access to Israeli ports, and proposes a tunnel connecting the West Bank and Gaza.
Bilateral or trilateral?
Because most Arab states have more concerns other than than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they didn’t offer united supports to pressure Israel into concessions, Lerner says. Due to the lack of support, Palestine should consider engaging with the US and Israel. Lerner predicts that,
- If the Palestinian were to engage in negotiations but didn’t accept the plan, they would receive a receptive audience, which could force Israel to stop its annexation.
- If the Palestinians don’t engage in negotiations, which is likely, Israel will keep moving forward and weaken the Palestinians further.
Lerner thinks the Palestinian made a wrong choice to cut all dialogue with the US after Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017. Instead, the Palestinians should have rejected Trump’s decision and worked with him on a plan until they achieved what they want. Lerner urges the Palestinian to engage in negotiations, or they will be more likely to lose ground.
US interests
Doran argues that the US has more issues in the region nowadays and needs to cooperate with its allies. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has weakened its Israeli ally, especially after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza failed to bring stability. If the US forced Israel out of the West Bank and handed its control to Abbas, he would not have the capability to maintain control and fend off Hamas. Jordanian security could not be guaranteed either. Lerner added that the US avoided the unproductive perception of even-handedness with allies on one side, and sympathy towards Palestinians on the other. Trump’s plan is rooted in realism and the administration’s support for allies.
Lerner pointed out that irrespective of who wins the presidential election in November, the content of this plan has changed political dynamics in both Israel and the US. It will be hard for the Israeli government to accept a less generous plan than Trump’s in the future. It will also be difficult for future US administrations to propose any plan more like previous plans and less like Trump’s plan.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 12
– Last year I asked a group of friends with longtime experience in the US intelligence community whether I should be worried about Huawei. Sure, they said. But would China really use the company to spy on us? I asked. They responded, we would if we could. And now we know we did. That’s the story released by WaPo yesterday and on 3 pages today. And then last night, NSA O’Brien disclosed that Huawei already can access telecom networks.
-A few days ago I praised the Harris & Sullivan article calling for economics to play a bigger role in US national security strategy. Dan Drezner says, hold on,not so fast, and questions our ability to do economics smartly. Since I respect his views on so many topics, his points are worth considering.
– Duterte says begone to US military forces, triggering a 180 period ending our status of forces agreement. He’s cozying up to China.
– NYT says Trump has tentatively approved a deal with the Taliban.
– O’Brien defends Vindman dismissal.
– FP article says Trump Israel plan is like one Israel proposed in 1979.
– And New Hampshire? I say there’s now a better than 33% chance that the Democratic convention will take more than one ballot to choose a nominee next July in Milwaukee –the first such situation since the Democratic convention in 1952.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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:
No surprise
Attorney General Barr’s decision to overrule prosecutors who had asked for a 7-9 year sentence for one of President Trump’s cronies should be no surprise. Barr is a vigorous advocate of a unitary executive, which means he believes the President has complete authority over the entire executive branch and can do as he likes
The President Barr serves is someone who likes to protect his friends and supporters, regardless of their legal infractions. He has pardoned an Arizona sheriff convicted of criminal contempt of court and racial profiling as well as a Special Forces officer convicted of a war crime. He is packing the Federal courts with unqualified toadies. What more do you need to know about President Trump’s respect for the rule of law?
The much-vaunted “independence” of the Justice Department is a tradition, not of particularly long standing. Deference to professional prosecutors has proven politically advantageous to many presidents. It relieves them of the burden of deciding controversial issues and enables them to stay above the fray.
Trump however knows that independent institutions will not put up with his multitudinous lies. He cannot afford to let professionals make decisions that put his friends in prison. They might turn against him.
He prefers to enter the fray and frighten the government’s professionals into submission. An FBI director who won’t agree to protect the President? Fire him. A whistle blower in the National Security Council? Out him. An ambassador in Kiev who is not subservient? Fire her. A much-decorated military officer and another ambassador who testify in Congress when subpoenaed? Punish the former and fire the latter. Intelligence analysts who fail to support the President’s views? Deny their unanimous conclusions about Russian interference in the 2016 US election and praise President Putin’s denials.
The objective here is clear: it is 100% control over the entire executive from top to bottom. That can’t be achieved if there are people who can make decisions independently. So purges are necessary, not just to punish but also to warn those who remain in place that toeing the line is not optional. For every professional fired, many more are intimidated.
The people Trump targets will not be assassinated or even jailed. But they will live the rest of their lives fending off threats from the President’s over-zealous supporters, who can rely on not being prosecuted so long as Trump holds office. Some of the professionals will get book contracts, but most will suffer dramatic declines in income and difficulty finding jobs. The three prosecutors who resigned yesterday to protest the Attorney General’s decision to reverse their recommendation on sentencing will not be getting good assignments at Justice. They’ll likely all soon join the one who quit.
None of this will be apparent to people who get their news on Fox, which will portray the President as the victim of secret cabals, the “deep state,” plotting to unseat him. The Republicans in Congress know what the President is doing is wrong and would vigorously object if he were a Democrat. But their concerns about being “primaried” (challenged in Republican primaries this year) or dissed by the President outweigh their sense of decency. Senator Mitt Romney and Congressman Justin Amash stand alone in protesting Trump’s abuse of power. There is no sign anyone else will join them.
The November 3 election will be judge and jury on President Trump’s claim of complete control over the executive branch and his efforts to protect himself and his friends from punishment for their criminal offenses. Bernie Sanders looks to be the front runner in the Democratic primaries so far, but these are early days. Super Tuesday March 3 will give us a much better indication of who is likely to carry the Democratic standard.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 11
– When even the Republican Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee says Trump’s new budget is “dead on arrival” and he won’t even have a hearing on it, you figure it must be true. In fact, all presidential budgets can be called DOA because what matters is what Congress does. But it’s also true that the presidential budget is the baseline from which puts and takes occur,and about 95% or more gets approved.
I found this helpful on defense plans. Was glad somebody discovered this change regarding Europe. And recommend 3 items from CSIS people: Kath Hicks suggesting how to cut defense wisely as well as analyses of the budget and its future implications.
OMB’s big package is here. Each agency has its own budget page. [I’m still waiting for an analysis of the international affairs budget [function 150].
WaPo says CIA has read encrypted communications of allies and adversaries for years.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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
