Tag: Balkans
The Balkans in Europe whole and free
My colleague here at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, Kurt Volker, testified earlier this month in the House on the Balkans. Kurt and I don’t agree entirely on some policy points in his presentation, but I think the analysis was spot on and the policy recommendations–as would be expected from a former ambassador to NATO and principal deputy assistant secretary for Europe at the State Department–were well crafted in the broader context of Europe whole and free. So I am delighted he has given me permission to post his written statement. It is well worth a read for the Balkan-watchers (and inhabitants) among you.
Here are Kurt’s main policy points:
• In the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Dayton framework has stalled out. It is time to launch a new, major push from the international community to go beyond Dayton and establish lasting, effective governing structures – a Dayton Two. The Butmir process of a few years ago was a good effort, but ultimately did not succeed. We should go further.
There are plenty of positive forces for change in Bosnia today – from reformers and young people to civil society to businessmen and so forth. The conditions for progress have never been better. But the current political structures have guaranteed long-term divisions inside the country that play to the hands of nationalist and separatists. We should not close down the Office of the High Representative, or phase out the EU Force, until political structures are settled and functioning. So we should make a major push to settle these very issues.
• Likewise, we need a fresh push for political progress on Kosovo – in particular arrangements for Mitrovica in the north. Ethnic Serbs in southern Kosovo are well-protected and able to participate actively in society in Kosovo. There is no reason ethnic Serbs in the north could not do the same, but they are radicalized and held back. Criminal interests – both local and from Serbia proper – Serbian interior ministry police, and of course the nature of the Kosovo government and international community’s past engagement, have all played a role. But it has gotten worse with time, not better, and it is time to push for a more wide-reaching resolution.
Here, one needs also to push the European Union on its role. Despite years of history and the ruling of the International Court of Justice, five EU member states do not recognize Kosovo’s independence, as the United States and 22 other EU members have done. This serves to perpetuate the belief in Serbia, and in Mitrovica, that Kosovo’s independence can be un-done. It can’t. And neither can partitions or territory swaps solve Kosovo’s problems. Indeed, such steps would add new problems in the entire region. While no one can force any state to recognize another, the sooner the EU develops a stronger and more unified position, the sooner both sides in Kosovo can stop looking backward and start looking forward. With all the other problems Europe has to tackle right now, it makes no sense to continue contributing to this one.
• I want to add a word on Macedonia as well. In 2008, Macedonia was ready to be invited to join NATO, but there was no consensus within NATO to do so, because the name dispute with Greece was unresolved. Under the interim agreement of 1995, Greece had supported Macedonia’s participation in international organizations under the temporary name of “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.” But Greece broke with this practice when it came time to admit Macedonia to NATO. Since then, Macedonia itself has slid backwards on some reforms, and has ramped up its use of controversial symbols of ancient Macedonia as a means of rallying the public and distracting from other issues at home.
Macedonia should be a vibrant crossroads of the Balkans – linking Greece to the north and linking the Western Balkans to Greece and the Mediterranean. The current stand-off serves no one’s interests: Not Greece, not Macedonia, not Europe, not the people of the Balkans, and not the United States. For years, we have supported the UN lead in negotiating a possible solution to the name issue. All of the elements have been put on the table at one point or another. It is time for the U.S. and EU together to make a concerted effort to (a) re-assert the validity of the 1995 interim agreement and use of FYROM as a temporary name, which – with Greek agreement – would allow Macedonia to join NATO and progress toward the EU; and (b) simultaneously, launch a major political push, including with incentives and disincentives, in support of the UN process, to get both sides to a final settlement.
Where would I differ?
Mainly on Bosnia: I would not be able to tell the Secretary of State that she should risk another failure like Butmir. Dayton 2 is much more likely to lead in a more ethnic nationalist direction, which is the wrong one in my view.
On Kosovo, only in nuance: I think we should make resolution of Kosovo issues–at least of the north–a condition for Serbia’s EU candidacy, which should not go ahead December 9 unless there is a clear and irreversible Belgrade commitment to cooperate in reintegrating the north with the rest of Kosovo.
On Macedonia, not at all: the interim accord is the way to go. I understand an International Court of Justice decision on this is due December 5. Let’s hope it is clear and unequivocal in Skopje’s favor.
Thank you, Kurt for a terrific overview!
The third law of holes
The first, well known, is that when you are in a hole, stop digging. The second, less known, is to fill it in to keep it from becoming a hazard.
The third: a hole not filled in will cause more damage in the future than it would cause if you took care of it now.
Europe needs to keep the third law in mind as December approaches. That is when the European Union, already facing an existential challenge from the euro crisis, is to decide on Serbia’s candidacy for membership. The EU can choose to ignore what is going on in northern Kosovo, where local Serbs are insisting on remaining part of Serbia, and go ahead with candidacy. Or it can insist on a clear and enforceable commitment by Belgrade to accept integration of the north with the rest of Kosovo, in accordance with the Ahtisaari plan. If it fails to do the latter, it will be violating the third law of holes.
Europe does not need another candidate for membership in this difficult moment. Serbia has done well in meeting many EU requirements since the fall of Slobodan Milosevic, but Serbia’s small population and its aging demographic make it a marginal addition to the Union, at best. At worst, it could become a financial burden on the other 27 or 28 members (Croatia is already slated to become the 28th). While certainly not a candidate for the euro zone, Serbia’s economic performance is not going to contribute much to European vitality: the latest IMF projection is 2% growth in 2011 with 11.3% increase in consumer prices. Next year the IMF is projecting 3% growth and 4.3% increase in prices, which sounds unlikely in both dimensions.
The counter-argument is this: getting Serbia irreversibly on track for EU membership will ensure that problems like Kosovo and Belgrade’s relationship with independence-minded Republika Srpska (the Serb-controlled 49 per cent of Bosnia and Herzegovina) fade rather than grow. These issues will evaporate as Serbia gets closer to EU membership. Besides, Serbia has parliamentary elections next year. It would be better if Boris Tadić’s pro-Europe Democratic Party were to win once again. Giving Serbia EU candidacy will help.
I repeat these arguments for the sake of completeness. I don’t know of any evidence that they are true. Tadić has had more than ample opportunity to choose Europe over Kosovo, something he has steadfastly refused to do. Maybe someone with less tarnished nationalist credentials would be able to accept what everyone knows: Kosovo is lost. But this unsubstantiated pro-Tadić reasoning provides ample justification for kicking the can down the road, which is where most of the 27 EU members would like to see it. They don’t have any stomach for worrying about additional bits of Balkan real estate when their common currency is on the verge of going down the drain.
I am hoping that there is at least one EU member that will see the situation differently and invoke the third law of holes. This is one of those odd situations–like the Dutch insistence on turning Ratko Mladić over to the Hague Tribunal–when a single EU member can have a profound impact by standing on principle. That’s what the third law of holes requires.
I know you are wondering: no, there is no fourth law of holes. That’s it!
PS: I’ve corrected in the above text a mistake in the original that said presidential elections will occur next year. In fact, parliamentary elections will occur next year (the rumored date is May 5–certainly there is no reason to rush candidacy for that deadline) and presidential elections will occur in 2013.
The second law of holes
As I’ve dared give advice to Belgrade, I might as well go on and compound the felony by giving advice to Pristina.
The problem is this: Pristina does not control the relatively small part of its territory north and west of the Ibar river, including two border/boundary (Pristina regards it as a border, Belgrade as a boundary) posts with Serbia. Much of the population there–majority Serb even before the war in the three northernmost municipalities–wants to remain in Serbia.
In the short term, it seems to me the best Pristina can hope for is collection of its taxes and enforcement of its laws at the border/boundary. Exactly who will do this and under what supervision are the issues that need to be decided. It might also hope for a clear statement from Belgrade that it regards Kosovo as a single entity, which is consistent with UN Security Council resolution 1244.
Achievement of these shorter-term goals will not however solve the problem of north Kosovo, where there is a population that does not accept Kosovo institutions. Pristina needs to compete for the hearts and minds of the Serb population north of the Ibar, who are nearly as resentful of Belgrade as they are apprehensive about Pristina.
This is going to be difficult. More radical Serbs from all over Kosovo have retreated to the north, where they have built up a lucrative trade in untaxed goods shipped not only into the north but also back into Serbia and to Kosovo south of the Ibar. Pristina has successfully competed for the hearts and minds of at least some Serbs and other minorities living south of the Ibar, many of whom now participate in Kosovo’s institutions and derive benefits from them even if they reject Kosovo’s independence. There is no reason to settle for less in north Kosovo, but lots of reasons why it will be a greater challenge.
The right approach is to use implementation of the Ahtisaari plan, which provides the Serb municipalities with ample self-government, adjusting as need be to meet legitimate concerns and changed circumstances. This should be done in cooperation with Serbia, which will need to dissolve or withdraw some of its institutions in the north even as it commits to maintaining and even expanding others. Educational, health, religious and cultural institutions and personnel that serve the Serb community in Kosovo should in principle be welcomed, because they will encourage members of that community to stay. The last thing Kosovo needs is a big exodus of Serbs from the north.
Pristina will need to back its efforts with substantial resources and high-level attention. It should appoint a minister to coordinate the government’s efforts on the north and provide generous funding. It should also have a representative in Belgrade to improve cooperation and ensure coordination.
It would be reasonable to aim for the next municipal elections, in autumn 2013, to be held in the communities of north Kosovo, in accordance with the Ahtisaari plan. By then, Belgrade and Pristina should have developed a joint plan for reintegration that will among other things decide the disposition of the Serbian institutions in the north, including the status of their personnel and programs.
I would expect the Kosovo Government to be prepared to discuss these issues, but it cannot be expected to allow Serb institutions that undermine Pristina’s authority in order to lay the groundwork for partition. Belgrade has to be clear about the goal: reintegration of the north with the rest of Kosovo.
One wag has proposed a second law of holes: fill it in and keep it from becoming a hazard.
Next week’s peace picks
It surprises me that anyone would try to do an event during Thanksgiving week, but there are in fact a few good ones on the docket. And don’t forget the AEI/CNN/Heritage Republican Presidential [Candidates] debate, 8 pm November 22. That promises to be the most amusing of the lot: watch for the Taliban in Libya, fixing the debt problem by zeroing out foreign aid and how tough talk will scare the nukes out of Iran.
1. The View from the Middle East: The 2011 Arab Public Opinion Poll
Polling and Public Opinion, Arab-Israeli Relations, Middle East, The Arab Awakening and Middle East Unrest, North Africa
Event Summary
Event Information
When
Monday, November 21, 2011
2:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Where
Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Map
Event Materials
RELATED CONTENT
Have the Arab Uprisings Made Israel Less Secure?
Daniel L. Byman
Slate
August 11, 2011
Can Israel Survive Without a Palestinian State?
Shibley Telhami
The New York Times (Room for Debate blog)
September 15, 2011
Participants
Presenter
Shibley Telhami
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
Discussants
Steven Heydemann
Senior Advisor for Middle East Initiatives
The United States Institute of Peace
Margaret Warner
Senior Correspondent
PBS NewsHour
2. A Bottom-Up View of the Continuing Conflict in South Kivu
-
Monday, Nov 21, 2011 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm
with
Dr. Ferdinand Mushi Mugumo
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
8:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
B1 Conference Room
CSIS 1800 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
As the sixteenth anniversary of the Dayton Accords approaches, it is time to reassess the policies of the United States and the European Union toward the Western Balkans. Please join us for a morning conference featuring policy experts and officials from the United States, European Union and the Western Balkans as we discuss the new CSIS report entitled: “A New Transatlantic Approach for the Western Balkans: Time for Change in Serbia, Kosovo, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.” The conference will feature separate panels on Serbia and Kosovo as well as Bosnia-Herzegovina, in addition to keynote addresses from senior United States and European Union government figures.
Please find a draft agenda here.
Light breakfast will be served.
Please contact Terry Toland at ttoland@csis.org to RSVP.
The discussion will be ON the record.
4. Iran and International Pressure: An Assessment of Multilateral Efforts to Impede Iran’s Nuclear Program
Iran, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Energy, Weapons of Mass Destruction
Event Summary
Event Information
When
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
9:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Where
Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Map
Event Materials
RELATED CONTENT
Osiraq Redux: A Crisis Simulation of an Israeli Strike on the Iranian Nuclear Program
Kenneth M. Pollack
The Brookings Institution
February 2010
A Transatlantic Front: United Against Iranian Nukes
Charles Grant and Philip H. Gordon
International Herald Tribune
September 15, 2005
Iran’s Nuclear Program: The U.S. and EU have to Come Together
Ivo H. Daalder and Michael A. Levi
International Herald Tribune
February 27, 2004
Participants
9:00 AM — Panel 1: Iran’s Internal Dynamics and the Nuclear Program
Moderator: Kenneth M. Pollack
Director, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
Charles Ferguson
President
Federation of American Scientists
Kevan Harris
Jennings Randolph Peace Scholar
U.S. Institute of Peace
Ray Takeyh
Senior Fellow
Council on Foreign Relations
10:45 AM — Panel 2: Maintaining International Unity
Moderator: Fiona Hill
Director, Center on the United States and Europe
John Parker
Visiting Research Fellow
National Defense University
Francois Rivasseau
Deputy Head of Delegation
European Union Delegation to the United States
Yun Sun
Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies
1:00 PM — Keynote Remarks
Introduction: Strobe Talbott
President, The Brookings Institution
Moderator: Steven Pifer
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Tom Donilon
National Security Advisor
The White House
The first law of holes
Belgrade daily Pravda asked for my views on Kosovo and Serbia’s EU candidacy. Here is how I responded:
Belgrade has dug a hole for itself. It has told the world it will not recognize Kosovo as sovereign and independent. It has exhausted its diplomatic credits trying to block recognition by other countries. It has bought a Russian veto in the UN Security Council. It has held on using its security forces to the northern corner of its former province. It spends hundreds of millions of euros each year to keep its institutions functioning there.
It can expect none of this effort and expenditure to produce worthwhile results. Whatever Kosovo’s status, it is clear that the democratically validated institutions in Pristina are the legitimate government of the whole territory of Kosovo, which is treated as undivided territory in UN Security Council resolution 1244, to which Belgrade has sworn fealty.
The European Union and the United States have made it clear that Kosovo will not be divided and that Belgrade needs to conform its efforts to the Ahtisaari plan, which offers a wide degree of self-governance to the north and other Serb-majority areas of Kosovo. Pristina will no doubt be prepared to talk with Belgrade about how the Ahtisaari plan is implemented, but not about “Ahtisaari plus” or other efforts to reopen what has already been agreed by the Kosovo authorities.
I imagine that the European Council will want in December to approve Serbia’s candidacy for membership in the Union, as recommended by the Commission. While there is some possibility one or more EU members will still block Serbia’s candidacy because of Belgrade’s failure to cooperate with UNMIK and NATO efforts to resolve border/boundary issues, I would much prefer to see those issues settled and Serbia’s candidacy ensured. If Serbia fails to get candidacy in December, it may have to wait a long time for another opportunity. I doubt it will get a date to start the negotiations—it does not even appear to want one.
In any event, I am certain that the Union will not accept Belgrade as a member until it settles all its outstanding issues with Pristina. Little progress on these can be made before the Serbian elections, but I hope to see a government after the elections that can move expeditiously in a new direction.
The first law of holes is stop digging. Belgrade would benefit from ending its diplomatic efforts against Kosovo’s recognition and sitting down with Pristina to develop a cooperative approach to implementing the Ahtisaari plan in north Kosovo. It may be too much to ask Belgrade to recognize Kosovo’s sovereignty, but it is not too much to ask Belgrade to accept the legitimacy and authority of the Pristina institutions. It can best do this by unblocking the Security Council and allowing Kosovo to enter the General Assembly.
The places we’d like to forget
Busy morning: conversations with people who know the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo really well. What’s the common denominator? Ethnic strife, which makes everything so much harder. Each of my interlocutors (that’s people you talk with in diplomatese) has his/her own agenda and views. Here are my conclusions:
1. Iraq:
Not going badly. Much more Sunni ethnic nationalism than in the past, with Sunnis and Kurds getting on better as the Sunnis start thinking about wanting one or more regions of their own. Maaliki managing to maintain the fragmentation and shifting alliances that keep him in power, even as he continues to gain greater control over the army. Arrests of Ba’athists and Exxon contract with the Kurds are not causing giant problems: Iraqiyya is staying in the government and the Exxon move brings pressure on Baghdad to pass the oil law. Both sides reasonably content with the American withdrawal, looking forward to stronger implementation of the Strategic Framework Agreement that will now govern the bilateral relationship. Not clear however whether they see implementation of that agreement in the same way.
2. Afghanistan:
Not going well. Governance is the main issue. This is well-recognized among the Americans, who regard the 2014 presidential succession, strengthening of independent institutions, and improvement of national and provincial planning and budgeting as the governance priorities. But there is not a lot of sign of progress, despite substantial effort. Governance is difficult. President Karzai’s way of governing is not one we can ever much like, as it involves behaviors that we regard as corrupt, but creating an alternative requires a degree of commitment and sophistication that the now declining American presence is not likely to display.
3. Bosnia:
No prospect of forming a “state” government (that’s what they call the central government), ten months after elections. Meanwhile the Federation half (51%) of Bosnia, led by engineer turned Social Democrat Zlatko Lagumdžija, is competing with Republika Srpska (49%), led by social democrat turned ethnic nationalist Milorad Dodik, for both improved governance and political clout. RS is thought to be running out of money and is borrowing at high rates. Federation has recently borrowed at lower rates. RS is trying hard to negotiate pre-accession funding and other matters directly with the European Commission, which is inclined to accommodate. The Federation is intervening to prevent this, in order to preserve the prerogatives of the state government and block RS from weakening it further.
4. Kosovo:
No clear solution has emerged yet to the problems of the north, where Serbia still controls the territory. There is hope NATO and EULEX will resolve the issue of collection of taxes at the border posts, seized by Pristina last summer, but governance in the north is a bigger problem and can only be solved with Belgrade’s cooperation, which has not been forthcoming. It is not clear what the Europeans will insist on as the price for a positive decision on EU candidacy, due December 9, even though Merkel was clear enough on the need to eliminate the Serbian “parallel structures.” Meanwhile Pristina is weighing constitutional amendments, which may provide for popular election of the president (rather than election in parliament). But then they might have to augment the functions of the president as well.
All in all, not such a bad picture, if you consider the very real difficulties of post-war state building, which is a decades-long process. Afghanistan is the greatest of the concerns–it is just very difficult to picture how the situation there comes out well enough for U.S. troops to be able to stay on after 2014, an idea Karzai has been trying to sell to this week’s loya jirga. And even more difficult to picture how we would leave Afghanistan if things do not straighten out.