Things in the Balkans can get worse
My post yesterday on Biden’s less than sterling foreign policy legacy disappointed my Balkan fans. They thought his weak performance in their region merited attention. So here is a moment of attention. Let’s start with Trump’s first term, 2017-21.
Trump disappointed
In 2020, then President Trump signed with Kosovo Prime Minister Hoti and Serbian President Vucic separate agreements on “economic normalization.” The US Administration advertised these agreements as great achievements. They provided for highway and rail connections, financing for small and medium enterprises, entry of Kosovo into what was then labeled a “mini-Schengen” zone that included Serbia, Albania and Macedonia, mutual recognition of diplomas, prohibition of “untrusted” (read: Chinese) 5G vendors, as well as a number of other provisions that have little or nothing to do with economic normalization between Belgrade and Pristina. The other economic provisions were even more minimal, except for a promise to Belgrade of more US investment.
These agreements mostly went unimplemented. Israel recognized Kosovo and Pristina located its new embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. Serbia got lots of new US investment. The most important provision, Serbia’s suspension of its anti-recognition campaign, never happened so far as I can tell.
Everyone had high expectations for Biden
People in the region, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo, had high expectations for the Biden Administration in 2020. Senator Biden had been a vigorous advocate of US interventions in the Balkans. Secretary of State Blinken knew the region well. Ambassador in Belgrade Chris Hill had been deeply involved at Dayton and thereafter at Rambouillet and as ambassador in Macedonia. Derek Chollet, Counselor at State, was likewise knowledgeable.
To my surprise, they decided to turn American policy in a decidedly pro-Belgrade direction. They also decided to back Albanian Prime Minister Rama to the hilt. I knew that Biden had favored Belgrade getting candidacy for the European Union, without having met the requirements. I had opposed him on this issue while testifying in the 2000s. But I did not understand this reflected a generalized lean towards Serbia. For much of the Biden Administration, Gab Escobar, former DCM in Belgrade, led on the Balkans at State. He made creation of the Association of Serb Majority Municipalities his exclusive priority. That meant giving Belgrade what it wanted most while giving Pristina nothing. That was never going to work, and it didn’t.
But Biden’s people kept on leaning towards Belgrade. When Serbia kidnapped two Kosovo police from Kosovo territory, they said nothing meaningful. When Vucic sent rioters to Kosovo to attack NATO peacekeepers, Washington said little. When Serbia organized and equipped a terrorist attack in Kosovo, they did nothing. In Bosnia, the Biden people prioritized getting rid of a Bosniak nationalist politician. They left the much-sanctioned Serb and the equally odious Croat for another time.
What to expect now
I don’t expect better of the second Trump Administration. Jared Kushner, Trump’s Saudi-funded son-in-law, has been prospecting for investment projects in both Serbia and Albania. So far as I am aware, he hasn’t even visited Bosnia or Kosovo. You can expect Trump to do nothing that will endanger Kushner’s projects or his Saudi money. That means a continued tilt towards Belgrade and away from Pristina, though not away from Tirana. Albania and Serbia agree on many things, including the need for their presidents to stay in power without serious opposition. The Americans have been supportive under Biden. That will continue under Trump.
People in the Balkans will be watching Marco Rubio’s confirmation hearing today for any questions involving the Balkans. That could be a hint of where things are going. But I wouldn’t bet on any Balkan issues getting raised, unless someone prompts one of the Senators to do it.
Mico Vlahovic quotes outgoing Assistant Secretary James O’Brien as saying:
We do not want to it to seem that one [US political] party or the other is taking responsibility, because in America both parties believe that a strong relationship is important – both for our country and for Serbia.
That implies continuity in the appeasement of Belgrade.
It could be worse than that, if Washington returns to wanting to partition Kosovo on ethnic lines. But neither appeasement nor partition will bring peace and stability. The route to that is strengthened sovereignty for all the region’s countries. In these waning days, the Biden Administration is pushing “strategic dialogues” with both Belgrade and Pristina. That’s not the worst idea I’ve heard, but it all depends on the agendas.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A stronger American still fumbles
President Biden made a farewell appearance at the State Department yesterday. As a former Foreign Service officer, I’m of course delighted that he did this. It is especially important and timely because the Department now faces Donald Trump’s threat of loyalty tests and mass firings.
Biden’s understandably directed his remarks at justifying what his Administration has done on foreign policy. So how did he really do?
The bar was low
Certainly Biden can justifiably claim to have strengthened America’s alliances. The bar was low. Both in Europe and Asia the first Trump Administration had raised doubts. Allies could not depend on Washington’s commitment to fulfill its mutual defense obligations. Biden’s claim that compared to four years ago America is stronger because of renewed and expanded alliances is true. He is also correct in claiming he has not gone to war to make it happen.
The extraordinary strength of the American economy is an important dimension of this strength. Voters decided the election in part on the issue of inflation. But the Fed has largely tamed that and growth has been strong throughout. Manufacturing is booming, including vital semi-conductor production. Investment in non-carbon energy sources has soared. The defense industrial based is expanding.
Biden is also correct in asserting that America’s antagonists are worse off. Russia has failed to take Ukraine because of the US effort to gather support for Kyiv. Iran and its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria are weaker. Only the Houthis in Yemen are arguably stronger than four years ago.
China is facing serious domestic economic and demographic challenges. But I don’t know why Biden claims it will never surpass the US. On a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, it already has, though obviously per capita GDP in China remains much lower.
Some claims gloss over big problems
Biden is rightly proud that there is no longer war in Afghanistan, but he glosses over the chaotic withdrawal. He also doesn’t mention the failure of the Taliban to keep its commitments.
He vaunts progress on climate change, but without acknowledging that the goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade will not be met.
Biden talks about infrastructure in Africa. But not about its turn away from democracy, civil wars in Sudan and Ethiopia, and the unresolved conflict in Libya.
He urges that Iran never be allowed to “fire” a nuclear weapon. That is a significant retreat from the position that Iran should never be allowed to have one.
Biden mentions the impending Hamas/Israel ceasefire. But he says nothing about Israel’s criminal conduct of the war in Gaza. Nor does he blame Israel’s right-wing government for the long delay in reaching a deal.
Biden’s legacy
At the end, Biden seeks to bequeath three priorities to Trump: artificial intelligence, climate change, and democracy. He no doubt knows that Trump isn’t going to take the advice on climate or democracy. He might on artificial intelligence, as his Silicon Valley tycoons will want him to.
Sad to say, Biden’s legacy will lie in other areas. Fearful of nuclear conflict with Russia, he failed to give Ukraine all the support it needs to defeat Russia. He was reluctant to rein in Israel for more than a year of the Gaza war. He failed to stop or reverse the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. America is stronger than it was four years ago, but it has not always used that strength to good advantage.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Defending against Trump’s worst moves
I’ve already said what could go wrong in 2025. I’m not inclined to change any of that. If anything, the past two weeks has confirmed much of what I said on January 3. Trump has doubled down on his stupid proposals for Greenland, Panama (where China does not operate the Canal), and Canada. That is smokescreen. He is preparing to meet Presidents Putin and Xi. Those meetings have often led to unwarranted concessions on Trump’s part. Despite rumors of Trump’s dissatisfaction with Musk and MAGA’s attacks on him, Elon remains strong. He has also moved rightwards, to open racist and sexist tropes as well as support for fascists in Europe.
We are now a mere week from Inauguration Day. The issue now is how to defend against Trump’s worst moves.
Defeat these nominees
Presidents have more leeway on foreign than most areas of domestic policy. Unless it involves foreign aid, the President can do just about anything he wants abroad. This applies in particular to the US military and national security issues in general. It is crucial that the Secretary of Defense be someone trustworthy, reliable, and honest. Trump’s nominee, Pete Hegseth, is none of those things. Republicans willing to think about the risks should also be willing to vote against him.
The same applies to Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee for Director of National Intelligence. While that job is not the most important in the intel community, she is a disaster waiting to happen. She has been a shill for Syrian President Assad and Russian President Putin. As a candidate for an intel position, she would not get even a low-level a security clearance. She certainly shouldn’t get a top level one for the government’s main coordinator of 17 intel agencies.
One domestic policy issue on which a President can have his way is prosecutions. The nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, has spend the last four years listing Trump opponents he wants prosecuted. He has also fantasized about Trump’s revenge in, of all things, a children’s book. He should be blocked from confirmation by any Republican Senator who believes in the rule of law.
Other Trump nominees are dangerous. Pam Bondi as Attorney General and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Health and Human Services are both incompetent and deluded. But both jobs are pretty well insulated by law and regulation from the worst of what they want to do. They will try to change both the laws and the regulations. It will be up to Congress and the courts to restrain their worst instincts.
Hope Rubio and Waltz prevail
I don’t like any of Trump’s nominees, but some are better than those above. Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor and Marco Rubio as Secretary of State are within the spectrum of respectable. Both have been strong supporters of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon. Both have said they want to end the Ukraine war soon. Those wouldn’t be my positions, but they are not outlandish.
The problem is that these more respectable and knowledgeable names are not alone. Trump has also named Ric Grenell to handle Ukraine. Grenell is a failed Trump-appointed ambassador in Germany, special envoy for the Balkans, and Acting Director of National Intelligence. Trump has nominated Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel and Steve Witkoff as special envoy for the Middle East. Huckabee is an evangelical Christian and supporter of Netanyahu’s Greater Israel ambitions. Witkoff’s views on Israel don’t seem to be know. He is a New York lawyer and real estate tycoon.
I suppose in other circumstances this variety of nominees would garner praise. But there is a real risk that Waltz and Rubio are fig leaves intended to hide the junk. Grenell tried to partition Kosovo during the first Trump Administration. He will no doubt try that with Ukraine as well, if he gets a chance. None of the nominees seem prepared to rein in Israel. But Huckabee and Witkoff would be more likely than Rubio and Waltz to give Netanyahu a blank check. The portfolios of Rubio and Waltz will include relations with the Arab Gulf.
The problem from hell
Trump’s worst instincts have manifested on immigration. He has promised mass deportation. There can be no doubt that his nominees want to do it. Stephen Miller as White House deputy chief of policy and Tom Homan as border czar as have impeccable anti-immigration credentials. No one would accuse them of insincerity on the issue. But Homan has been trying to lower expectations. This is an area where law and regulation do constrain the new administration.
In the meanwhile, an intramural verbal spat has erupted between longtime MAGAtes like Steve Bannon and newcomers, especially Elon Musk. Musk and other tech giants want to keep or even increase H1B visas they use to import cheap foreign labor. Trump does likewise for his hotels and resorts. Musk and company will win this one, but the result will be an even more draconian crackdown on asylum-seekers. The MAGAtes regard them as “illegal” immigrants, though entering the US to seek asylum is legal.
The irony is that the US needs immigrants. Not only is the current labor market tight. We are not reproducing enough to grow the population at the rate needed to fund Social Security and other programs. Colleges are closing and we soon won’t have enough graduates. So while Republicans quarrel over H1Bs, the funding and personnel shortfalls get worse.
Immigration is the problem from hell because there is no political formula for doing what is needed. We need reform that will provide the person power while cracking down on real illegality.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What could go wrong in 2025
The next year promises to be a challenging one, both at home and abroad. I’ll leave the prognosticating inside the US to others. Abroad I expect the new Trump Administration to disappoint in many ways.
Ukraine
Trumpians have already proposed to Russian President Putin an end to the Ukraine war along current confrontation lines. Ukraine would stay outside NATO for 20 years. The Europeans would monitor the ceasefire. But Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has labeled this generous armistice offer a non-starter. The Russians want all of Ukraine, not a piece of it. They want President Zelensky out and their own puppet in. And they want a permanent bar on NATO membership for Ukraine.
It was of course a mistake for Trump to float a peace proposal even before taking power. That is by definition a moment of weakness. But Trump has never shown strength in dealing with Putin. His failure to support the Ukrainians will allow Russia to continue to gain territory. Unless Moscow suffers an economic or political collapse, the war will continue with Ukraine disadvantaged. Biden neglected to give Ukraine everything it wanted. Trump will refuse to give it everything it needs.
Middle East
That will have repercussions in other areas. Russia will retain its bases in Syria. It will use them to protect the Alawite-plurality west from alleged Damascus abuses. That will de facto partition Syria, just as Russian policy has de facto partitioned Ukraine. Trump will hesitate to lift sanctions on Syria, limiting the peace dividend to Syrians. He will withdraw the American troops, weakening the Kurds. More extreme armed groups in Syria will strengthen. Pro-democracy forces will weaken.
Trump will support the expanded Israeli role in the region. This will include security control not only over the Gaza and the West Bank, but also Lebanon south of the Litani River, the Golan Heights, Jordan, and Sinai. Israel will involve the US in an attack on Iranian nuclear sites that will succeed in setting back the program. But it will also give Tehran reason to redouble its nuclear efforts.
The Houthis will continue their attacks on Israel and shipping in the Red Sea. Intensified US and Israeli bombardment will fail to dislodge them from Sanaa.
Balkans
Russia’s success in Ukraine and Syria as well as Israel’s in neighboring countries will encourage irredentist ambitions in the Balkans. Serbia will continue to look for a pretext to move into northern Kosovo, claiming Serbs there are mistreated. If Belgrade invades, NATO troops would fail to repel the Serbian army. Albania would then propose a referendum on union with Kosovo. The net result would be ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo south of the Ibar and Albanians from southern Serbia. Republika Srpska would secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina, precipitating ethnic cleansing and split of the state into three parts.
China and Taiwan
Under the influence of Elon Musk, Trump will allow Bytedance to continue to operate TikTok in the US.
But he will go through with heightened tariffs on imports from China, which will retaliate with tariffs on US goods. The resulting trade war will send the world economy into a tailspin.
Unwilling to fulfill American alliance commitments, Trump will encourage South Korea and Taiwan to get their own nuclear weapons. That will cause Beijing and Pyongyang to accelerate their own nuclear buildup, worsening the security situation in the Pacific.
What I missed
Trump will ignore the several wars in Africa. He will end US efforts to deal with climate change. He will continue to blabber about taking over Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal but those ambitions are smokescreens. Trump’s real ambition is to make everything about him. He has no fear of failure because he is confident he can spin whatever happens as success. That is what he is really good at. At least half of America believes it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The foreign policy smokescreen
As Donald Trump prepares to assume the presidency January 20, he is talking obvious nonsense about Canada, Greenland, and Panama. What is he up to?
The nonsense
The three propositions, as best I understand them, are these:
- Canada should become the 51st state;
- Denmark should sell Greenland to the United States;
- Panama should lower shipping fees through its canal or the US will take it back by military force.
None of this is happening. Nor is any of it desirable from America’s or even Trump’s own perspective.
Canadians pride themselves on their differences with the US. They include a national health system and wide social safety net. Absorbing its population of more than 40 million would tilt the American political scene definitively towards the Democrats. Nor would most US citizens want the francophone part of Canada. Absorbing even anglophone Canada would remove a buffer that shields the US from direct Arctic confrontation with China and Russia.
Denmark has already said it is not interested in selling Greenland, which has a population of only 57,000 or so. It has relatively large deposits of rare earth minerals. Those are available to the US with Greenland under Danish sovereignty. We only need pay the price. Owning Greenland would shift the burden of its defense to the US. It would also make the island a juicy target for America’s adversaries. We wouldn’t be able to limit its defense to the minimalist approach Denmark has taken.
The 1977 Panama Canal Treaty turned the Canal Zone over to Panama in 1979 and the Canal itself in 1999. A Panama-government-owned entity has run it well since. Trump has complained about high transit prices and claimed Chinese soldiers control the Canal. Prices are up due to water shortages that affect Canal operations. The claim about the Chinese is bogus, though there are Chinese companies running ports and building infrastructure in Panama.
The why
Why would a President-elect stake out objectives that are obviously not going to be reached? One reason is to gain leverage in upcoming negotiations. Trump is transactional. He figures weakening the Canadian government by pooh-poohing its prime minister will be to American advantage in coming trade negotiations. He’ll hope to get a deal for Greenland’s minerals that will exclude China. And he’ll try to get a discount for American shipping through the Panama Canal.
But there is more to this flood of bad propositions. Trump is trying to hide what is going on within his own electoral coalition. Its MAGA loyalists are in a verbal fracas with his new-found tech friends, including Elon Musk. The techies want H1B visas so they can import overseas technical talent they claim is not available in the US. Trump wants them too, as he uses them to import cheap labor for his hotels and golf clubs. But his MAGAtes see them as one more hole in the proverbial fence at the border.
There’s more. Trump is trying to distract from his blatantly unqualified presidential nominees. The worst of these, Matt Gaetz, for Attorney General, is gone. He fell victim to his own abuse of young girls. But the equally abusive and alcohol abusing Pete Hegseth is still up for Secretary of Defense. And Kash Patel, sworn to avenge what he alleges is Trump’s mistreatment, is hoping to sneak by as FBI Director. Not to mention the blatantly unqualified RFK Jr as Health and Human Services Secretary. And the Moscow-compromised Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
He’s succeeding
The presidential nominees and the Republican split on immigration policy are both more real than Trump’s dumb imperialist proposals. Canada is doing to remain independent, Denmark will keep Greenland, and Panama will keep the Canal. But once again he has us talking about things that don’t matter instead of the things that do. Trump isn’t really a master communicator in the sense of Ronald Reagan. But he is a master at setting the daily agenda, not only to attract but also to distract. His foreign policy smokescreen is succeeding.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Between a rock, a hard place, and the US
Syria’s Kurdish forces were once spread along Syria’s northern border with Turkey in three main concentrations. Afrin lay in the west, Kobani east of the Euphrates, and Hasakeh in the east. They have now lost control of Afrin to Turkiye and its proxies, who are threatening Minbij. Ankara wants all Kurdish forces at least 30 km from the border.
Meanwhile Syria’s de facto new leader, Ahmed al Sharaa, wants Kurdish forces brought under the Ministry of Defense. The United States has long cooperated with the Kurds in fighting the Islamic State and imprisoning its cadres.
The American side of the triangle
The Americans won’t want anything to happen that weakens that mission. But American support for the Kurds is the least certain side of this iron triangle. President Trump has long wanted the Americans out of Syria. His National Security Advisor nominee, Mike Waltz, is known as a long-time friend of the Iraqi Kurds.
He is also strongly committed to destroying the Islamic State (IS). That goal requires Kurdish cooperation. But there are few IS fighters remaining in the wild, where the Americans bomb them often. The main IS threat now is from the fighters whom the Kurds have imprisoned. If the Kurds were to release the jihadis, that would revive IS. A secondary threat is from their families, mainly concentrated in a refugee camp in the south.
The rock and the hard place
Ankara and Damascus are the more rigid sides of the triangle. Both have vital interests vis-a-vis the Kurds.
Ankara wants the Kurds off its border with Syria. Or at least diluted with some of the three million Syrian (mostly Arab) refugees Turkiye wants to return to Syria. Ankara has said it would take responsibility for the IS prisoners and their families. Damascus wants the Kurdish forces either demobilized or absorbed into the new Syrian army. It will also want the Kurdish governing institutions in the north absorbed into the Syrian state.
None of this will appeal to the Kurds. But they are weaker militarily than the Turks. And they have long accepted that their institutions, including the armed forces, should be subservient to a post-Assad state. The Americans, their main supporters, will not support a bid for independence.
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide
The Kurds are cornered. Iraq’s Kurds have their own problems and won’t want to support Syria’s Kurds, who espouse a different governing philosophy. They even speak a different Kurdish. Iran, which has sometimes appeared supportive of Syria’s Kurds, also has its own problems. It has evacuated most of its cadres and their leadership from Syria. Kurds still control a slice of Syria’s oil resources. Turning that over to Damascus could be a bargaining chip. Iran and Iraq have halted exports of oil to Syria.
Reaching an accommodation with Ankara and Damascus will not be easy, but the Syrian Kurds have little choice. Unless Syria descends into chaos, the days of their wide autonomy will end. They would do well to offer up their armed forces in exchange for Damascus acceptance of Kurdish governing institutions. Damascus might even want them to maintain a strong police force and intelligence capability. The Kurds should also try to convince Ankara of their willingness to break ties with Kurdish rebels inside Turkiye. In exchange they could ask that Kurds return to their homes along the border.
Politics rather than force
Kurds often portray themselves as the largest ethnic group without a state. That is a dubious claim. And in any case there are no guarantees of a state based on population size. The Kurds live in four contiguous states, none of which they can call their own: Iraq, Turkiye, Syria, and Iran. They need to use their political strength and savvy to gain what they can from these non-democracies. Necessary as it has been, military force has not produced a desirable outcome.
RSS - Posts
