Tag: Balkans
Anyone still think it was the downgrade?
Yesterday’s sharp bump upwards on the stock market following the Fed’s announcement that it would keep interest rates low for two years demonstrates all too clearly that the sharp falls the previous two days were not reactions to the S&P downgrade of U.S. government debt. I shouldn’t say it, but I will: I told you so.
The press this morning attributes the Fed action to concern about growth, which is surely in part true. But it also reflects concern about banks and the financial system, which are always close to the Fed’s heart. Low interest rates have helped to save the banks for several years now–their profits are soaring–and will continue to help in the future, as a result of the Fed’s commitment.
Does this change the picture for foreign policy? Is the Federal budget under any less pressure? The short answer is “no.” If Congress sticks with the debt deal, it still has to cut expenditures sharply starting in fiscal year 2013. All the Fed has done is to make monetary policy carry the burden of adjustment until then.
The longer answer is a bit more nuanced. Certainly U.S. government borrowing costs for the next two years will continue to be unusually low, unless the markets really do lose confidence in the dollar or inflation rears its you know what. Low interest rates will ease the government’s fiscal situation. I confess to relief about this, but it does not reduce the need for triage on foreign policy.
Nina Hachigian, who was overly optimistic about the American role in the world a few years ago, is overly pessimistic now. America is no less indispensable today that it was last week, but it is likely to be less available in the future. People who have grown to rely on the United States to help them out of the deep holes they dig for themselves–from the Balkans to Israel/Palestine to Iraq and Afghanistan–are going to find us preoccupied elsewhere, with our own top national security risks.
This is not a bad thing–most of them will discover their own capacities to manage are greater than they had imagined. And it is high time some of America’s burdens shifted to Europe and the Arab League, even if the former has financial problems of its own and the latter lots of money but little experience. Far more often than in the past, the message from America will be handle it on your own, or figure out a cheap way to get it done.
What we need to be careful about is cheap shortcuts that end up of creating expensive longterm problems. In the Balkans, that expensive delusion comes from those who advocate rearranging borders to accommodate ethnic differences, a sure formula for instability if not war. In the Middle East, it comes from those who resist defining clearly the borders of the Palestinian state or want to turn a blind eye to the Arab spring, ignoring Egypt and Tunisia because the revolutions there have been “successful.” Backing a revolution doesn’t necessarily mean paying for it or bombing a regime into submission, as Robert Ford (our man in Damascus) has demonstrated with his deft visits to protesters in Hama.
Diplomacy is not inherently expensive. Military action is. In tight financial times, we’ll do better with a foreign policy that relies less on deployed forces and more on alert diplomats.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Is Macedonia better off with Ohrid?
I am hoping to be in Ohrid Saturday. Here is an interview I did with Slobodanka Jovanovska of Utrinski Vesnik, a Macedonian daily. They planned to publish it today:
1. You will take part in conference about the ten anniversary of Ohrid Agreement. What will be your message there?
A. The Ohrid Agreement saved and consolidated the Macedonian state. That in my way of thinking is an excellent achievement. I find it hard to imagine that there are many people in Macedonia—Macedonians, Albanians or others—who think they would be better off today without the Ohrid agreement.
2. Macedonia celebrates the Ohrid Agreement, EU countries and US call it major achievement. If it is so good, why no one of the neighboring countries is not using this experience and, even implement the opposite policy? Greece is not recognizing minorities, Bulgaria didn’t allow questions about ethnic origin in the last census, Albania the same…
A. Each country has its own circumstances and will implement policies it thinks appropriate. I think it is a mistake to deny people the opportunity to define their own ethnic origin in a census, but I have to admit that the issue is a sensitive one also in the United States. We have moved in the direction of allowing more choices, but that is because we have confidence that the vast majority of citizens of all ethnic groups consider themselves first and foremost Americans. Maybe unwillingness to allow more choices reflects fear that some citizens will choose other identities as primary. Greece in particular seems to suffer from this fear.
3. There is a resolution in the US Congress calling for decrease of US aid to Macedonia, for conditioning it with the name dispute and referring to the country as FYROM instead of Republic of Macedonia. In Macedonia it was understood as a sign that Barack Obama’s administration is changing sides and inclining more to the Greek positions about the name dispute?
A. It is important to remember that the United States has separation of powers: the Administration is distinct from the legislative branch, where there has long been sympathy with the Greek perspective on the name dispute. It is also true that both President Obama and Vice President Biden have previously indicated sympathy with the Greek perspective when they were in Congress. The Administration clearly wants to see a compromise, and in the last year or two has come to the conclusion that Skopje is more an obstacle to compromise than Athens.
That said, the United States still recognizes Macedonia as Macedonia. I trust Skopje’s diplomats are doing everything they can to keep it that way.
4. How you you see Macedonia-American relations now? Good, excellent, downgraded…
A. So far as I know, relations are good, but I have to admit that few in Washington see Macedonia’s problems as among America’s top priorities.
5. From this time distance, do you think that the veto for Macedonia’s membership in NATO, initiated by Greece and supported by other countries, provoked some steps forward in the country?
A. I really don’t know, but I’d like to see Macedonia in NATO, where it belongs. If it remains willing to enter as FYROM, I think Greece should allow it to happen.
6. How do you comment the controversial project Skopje 2014?
A. I don’t. But I would note that Washington DC was designed in the late 18th century as the “new Rome.” Dreams of grandeur are not limited to Skopje. I just hope you have the money to pay the bills for it.
7. The leader of the Albanian coalition party DUI, Ali Ahmeti, last week said that he will not be able to guarantee the peace in Macedonia if Kosovo is destabilized and divided? Do you agree that the crisis in Kosovo inevitably will provoke crisis in Macedonia and what should be the role of Albanian leaders here?
A. Proposals to divide Kosovo cause strains not only in Macedonia but also in Serbia and Bosnia as well. The proper role of Albanian leaders in Macedonia will be to try to ensure that pan-Albanian political forces do not take advantage of the situation, but that will not be easy. One thing is clear though: the Albanians in Macedonia have a far stronger role in Skopje, partly due to the Ohrid agreement, than they would have in any Greater Albania.
8. This fall the International Court of Justice in Hague will decide about the case of Macedonia against Greece, about the veto in NATO. What you think could be decision and whether it will change something?
A. I really don’t know what the legal decision will be, but I think it is wrong for Greece to veto Macedonian (in fact FYROM) membership in NATO.
9. For the first time in the last US report for human rights there was a part about political prisoners in Macedonia. Independent media almost disappeared in the country, and instead of creating transparent and free society, the Government is hunting people, “collaborators to the secret services.” Why there is such a silence about this political climate in Macedonia in US and also in EU?
A. There are a lot of other problems in the world that affect the EU and US directly: Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, just to name a few. I think Brussels and Washington expect Macedonia to care for itself these days and not to rely too much on EU and US intervention.
10. Was the decision to give up the prosecution of war crimes in Macedonia during 2001 the right one? Is it possible to give amnesty for war crimes?
A. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there is no amnesty for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But in many countries prosecutors have discretion. If Skopje has decided to exercise that discretion, I would want to think twice before suggesting it was a mistake.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Back to Pristina
I’m headed again to Pristina this week, where I’ll focus mainly on northern Kosovo issues. That’s the 11% of its territory that Serbia still controls and wants to hold on to. To many readers not so interested in the Balkans, this will sound like a small problem in a small country, but it arouses great passions and has potential for unraveling several of the relatively new states that occupy the western Balkans, including not only Kosovo but Macedonia, Bosnia and even Serbia itself.
I think I understand the Kosovar side of this equation relatively well. The Pristina authorities want to maintain the territorial integrity of the state they declared in February 2008. They have been reasonably assiduous in implementing the Ahtisaari plan, the internationally imposed condition for independence that provides a wide margin of autonomy for Serb-majority municipalities. South of the Ibar river, where most of them live, Serbs have more or less accepted Pristina’s authority (if not its independence from Serbia) and are participating in its institutions.
The Kosovars see no reason why the north can’t be part of Kosovo, and good reason why it should be. Particularly troublesome from the point of view of most Pristina politicians (and the entire international community) is that partition of the north would strengthen irredentist Albanian passions for union with Albania and Albanian-majority portions of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro. Partition would also open the door to extremists who don’t want any Serbs south of the Ibar.
In addition, Pristina wants to establish its customs enforcement at the northern border with Serbia. This is particularly important because Serbia won’t take products made in Kosovo, while Kosovo imports a good deal from Serbia. So the Pristina authorities want to be able to block Serbian imports, or at least collect taxes on them, and end the tax-evasion smuggling that deprives the Pristina government of tens of millions of euros.
I confess to less certainty about Serbia’s perspective. When Belgrade used to say that all of Kosovo is its Jerusalem and therefore cannot be independent, I understand both the sentiment and the implications, even if I can’t agree with the conclusion. But when Belgrade says, as it has lately, that it wants a deal to keep the north, that is more than a little puzzling. None of the main Serbian monuments, churches or monasteries are in the north. Most of the Serb population lives in the south. And the north would have a wide degree of autonomy if the Ahtisaari plan were implemented there.
The only serious objection to the Ahtisaari plan I’ve heard is that it would make Belgrade’s legitimate payments (pensions, teachers, etc.) to the north go through Pristina; some worry that they might be blocked there. This is a soluble problem, not an insurmountable one.
Some people tell me the real issue is Trepca, the large mine that has long dominated the economy of the north. Others say it is face saving: Serbia has to get something, if only “Ahtisaari plus,” whatever that means. Otherwise, Boris Tadic and his Democratic Party will lose the next election to the more nationalist, but now rhetorically quite tame, Tomislav Nikolic. Sometimes I think it is inat (usually translated “spite”) and the hope that by eventually surrendering Belgrade can extract concessions of more importance elsewhere (extraterritoriality for the Serb monasteries for example). Some claim that taking the north is just part of Belgrade’s persistent attachment to the idea of Greater Serbia, and the underlying notion that wherever Serbs are in the numerical majority that territory should be part of Serbia.
But I really don’t get it, so I invite readers to offer contributions to www.peacefare.net The rules of this game are the following: no vitriol, no personal invective, just a clear and compelling statement to non-Serbs and non-Albanians (who constitute most of my readers, and I don’t anticipate any Serbs or Albanians will be converted by any argument, however compelling) of what Belgrade hopes to achieve in dividing the north from the rest of Kosovo.
Comments on my understanding of the Kosovar perspective are of course also welcome. But again: no vitriol or personal invective. I’ll be delighted to be enlightened.
The preferred way to provide me with your contributions is to register with www.peacefare.net and submit a comment. Otherwise, daniel@peacefare.net should get an email to me. Editorial discretion is of course mine, and mine alone.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Roadblocks with more than one significance
Herewith an interview I did for Bekim Greicevci of Kosovo’s Daily Express on the situation in northern Kosovo (you can play the Kosovo band Gillespie, subject of a nice piece on PRI’s The World yesterday here in DC, while reading):
Gillespie – E Di (Official Video)
Gillespie | Myspace Music Videos
- Kosovo Government took a decision to establish control over border crossings along Kosovo’s northern border with Serbia. What is your opinion on Government’s decision?
There is no question in my mind about the right of a sovereign state to control its own borders, but Belgrade has not recognized Kosovo’s sovereignty. That is the underlying problem that needs to be resolved. It will not be solved quickly or easily. Nor will it be solved by unilateral actions or the use of force. Belgrade’s acceptance of Kosovo’s customs documents would be a good first step in the right direction and ameliorate the situation in the north.
- EULEX refused to help Kosovo authorities to establish the control at Northern border crossings. Kosovars are very unhappy with the EU Mission. What is your comment on EULEX and its position about the North?
EULEX reflects division within the EU, in particular between the five non-recognizing states and the 22 recognizing states. As control of the border is a sovereign function, it should surprise no one that the five non-recognizing states do not want to be responsible for establishing sovereign controls there.
- Belgrade and some EU officials have called for the situation in the North to return to what it was before July 25. Kosovo Government says there is no turning back. In your view, how can this be resolved?
While I understand those who may not want to help Kosovo establish sovereign controls on the northern border, I find it hard to understand those who want a return to the previous situation. Belgrade cannot claim that UN Security Council resolution 1244 gave either Serbian officials or local hoodlums the right to control what it regards as the boundary between Kosovo and Serbia proper. That responsibility clearly should lie with the Kosovo institutions. The status quo ante should not be restored.
- Taking into account the statements by Serb high officials during past months advocating the change of borders do you think that Serbia’s final goal is partition of the North from Kosovo?
I think there is no question but that Belgrade’s goal is partition. It has been for a long time. Partition is a grave danger to peace and security throughout the Balkans, as it may precipitate problems in Macedonia, Bosnia, southern Serbia and Sandjak. Belgrade needs to get back to the Ahtisaari plan, read it carefully and specify precisely what more it wants than what is already provided there for the north.
- How do you see the role of the international community, namely the United States and the European Union regarding latest developments in Kosovo?
Washington and Brussels would like to see this problem resolved quickly and peacefully, with no partition. It is not clear whether those goals are all compatible. They are going to need to work hard to convince Pristina not to make unilateral moves and Belgrade to give up on partition.
- The international community is calling for discussions in the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia facilitated by the EU. After the events in North, what chances does this dialogue have? The Serb chief negotiator Borislav Stefanovic is everyday calling local Serbs not to remove the roadblocks in the North.
You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. Borko Stefanovic is not being helpful, but you still have to talk with him. I imagine he has some complaints about things that are said in Pristina, too. The EU-facilitated dialogue is the only show in town—it is important to try to make it a success. The Americans will look for a peaceful and mutually acceptable outcome and back it fully.
The Europeans have the ultimate leverage: control over Belgrade’s EU candidacy and the date for starting negotiations. Stefanovic, or one of his bosses, needs to worry that those northern Kosovo roadblocks might become obstacles on Serbia’s path to EU membership.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Change course, overhaul Dayton, fix Bosnia
Bruce Hitchner of Tufts and the Dayton Peace Accords Project writes:
If there is one lesson that ethnic nationalists on all sides in Bosnia learned from the 1992-5 conflict it is that their goals could not be achieved by war. They learned this lesson when the United States, finally accepting that one of its vital national interests—peace in Europe—was at stake, intervened to stop the war.
But the ethnic nationalists also absorbed another lesson, some to their relief, others to their dismay: that a Bosnia not at war did not have any special claim on the vital national interests of the United States. The Dayton Agreement, brokered by the United States, was first and foremost a peace treaty, and by any measure Washington has stood by its responsibility to enforce the peace.
The annexes are another story; they laid out the mechanisms and procedures for rebuilding Bosnia, but rather than root out firmly and finally the institutions and structures that had caused the war, the annexes glossed over many of them. And while there were many technical and legal solutions to political, constitutional, and economic problems articulated in the Annexes, supported by an international mission, the OHR, created to help implement them, their fulfillment ultimately depended on many of the same people and structures that had instigated the war.
All of this was not lost on the ethnic nationalists. They determined, each in their own way, that their respective goals could be achieved by exploiting the legal ambiguities and often complex institutional mechanisms embedded in the Annexes. It might take longer, but what could not be achieved by war, they determined, could be attained by peaceful political attrition.
If what I suggest here is true, the answer to the problems of Bosnia does not lie in further measures to enforce the peace treaty per se or in the re-empowerment of international authority to enforce the annexes, but in the recognition that securing the peace and creating a stable democratic society in Bosnia cannot be achieved under the existing Dayton post-war settlement. It is time, I suggest, that the United States, as well as the European Union, acknowledge that the Dayton Annexes have failed to achieve their ultimate purpose; and that the only acceptable way forward is a complete overhaul of the country’s constitutional, political, and electoral order.
This may appear a radical and not especially welcome proposal, but after 16 years of falling short of fully implementing the annexes and other necessary reforms, and no prospect of a change in this pattern driven by this generation of politicians, a fundamental policy shift of this magnitude is perhaps the only way out of an increasingly stalemated political environment in Bosnia. Otherwise, the very thing that the Dayton peace treaty clearly established–peace–will be at risk.
This does not mean calling for a Dayton II or yet another international conference. What is required instead is the will and imagination to put forward a new vision of post-Dayton Bosnia that is matched by renewed international efforts at building fundamental trust and reconciliation. While there may always be a segment of the population of Bosnia who will desire separation over national unity, there are many among even among the ethnic nationalists who know implicitly that there are solutions to protecting group rights and interests in a unified, democratic, and functional Bosnia that hold far more hope for their future than a fateful and quixotic attempt at extreme autonomy or independence.
Indeed, there are many, I suspect, who will welcome it even among those who are thought to be against such things, but only so long as it is backed by a genuine commitment to building trust, confidence and political security across ethnic lines, and thereby ending the incentives to zero-sum politics that Dayton inherently encourages and sustains.
In the end, it comes down to facing up to a failure, and changing course. I think the United States and European Union have the capacity to do that in the case of Bosnia. More importantly, I believe the majority of Bosnians across the spectrum would welcome it. The question is whether Washington and Brussels are prepared to change course before things get worse, rather than when events compel them to do so.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Three blind mice
I first used this title 15 years ago in a piece for the Secretary of State’s Morning Summary about Presidents Tudjman, Milosevic and Izetbegovic. It drew a personal word of interest and praise from President Clinton. That doesn’t happen often, so a lowly office director tends to remember when it does. And maybe resurrect the charmed title at an appropriate moment.
Today’s three blind mice are chiefs of state Bashar al Assad, Muammar Gaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Syria, Libya and Yemen, respectively. While it is easy now to imagine that things will get worse in these three countries before they get better, it is clear enough that they would be better now if their chiefs had stepped aside long ago to allow orderly transitions. Sunday the Syrian armed forces made a clear summer day in Hama sound like this:
Bashar al Assad therefore rates a word of particular opprobrium: he and his brother Maher are showing themselves heirs to the blood-shedding tradition of their father Hafez. This should not surprise, but people have come to think Bashar is somehow better than the rest of his homicidal family. It just isn’t so.
Things are arguably worse in Libya and Yemen. A kind of multi-faceted tribal, regional and sectarian chaos reigns in the latter, on top of a popular protest movement that remains vigorous and terrorist bands who harbor in the hinterlands. In Libya, the killing by we know not whom of General Abdel Fatah Younes, a rebel military leader who came over from the Gaddafi regime, has raised lots of questions about the Transitional National Council (TNC) that leads the rebellion, which apparently had to fight off Gaddafi forces inside Benghazi over the weekend.
These three Middle Eastern potentates are blind not just to the interests of their countries but also to their own. A few months ago it would have been possible to arrange a decent exit for these embattled chiefs of state. Now the International Criminal Court has indicted Gaddafi, Saleh is nursing wounds in Saudi Arabia and Bashar al Assad cannot hope to escape responsibility for several thousand deaths of peaceful demonstrators. Only Saleh can hope to live out a peaceful old age, and only if he gives up on his ambition to return to Yemen.
What we are lacking here is the farmer’s wife, who is supposed to cut off their tails with a carving knife. By this I mean some international party that can persuade chiefs of state who have lost the consent of the people they govern to step aside. In the midst of this Arab spring Ban Ki Moon was reelected as United Nations Secretary General, but he has not been empowered to negotiate what the international community clearly seeks: abdication of these chiefs of state. He has a clear mandate only with respect to Gaddafi, and that is for a ceasefire and withdrawal rather than abdication.
Several “mediators” have sought compromise solutions. The African Union and Turkey have tried with Libya, Turkey has tried with Syria, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia and its wealthy monarchy friends) has tried with Yemen. None of this has worked so far. What we are witnessing is a failure of diplomacy, which should make us think harder about how to strengthen international norms and institutions that can deliver results more effectively.
That is precisely what is not happening, though I happily credit U.S. ambassador to Damascus Robert Ford (who testifies this week in Congress) for his courageous display of support to the demonstrators. Instead, the U.S. Congress is considering budgets that would slice diplomacy to the bone and limit contributions to international organization. I can’t really say there are 535 blind mice, since some members of Congress understand better than I do what is needed. But the collective decision is likely to disarm the farmer’s wife, leaving her standing there without even a carving knife to discipline the unruly despots of the 21st century.
RSS - Posts
