Tag: Balkans
My Balkans recommendations for President Biden
Here is my testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs from this morning:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, not only for this opportunity to testify once again but also for your decades of commitment to Europe whole and free. But the job is not yet finished. Problems remain between Serbia and Kosovo as well as inside Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Serbia is also a factor.
The essential precondition for solving the remaining Balkan problems is American recommitment to the region, in tandem with European allies. Recent competition between the US and EU, which has demonstrated it cannot do the job on its own, hampered progress. As part of his global re-assertion of democratic values, President Biden should consult the Europeans and announce a joint vision for the Balkan region.
Completing Kosovo statehood
Independent Kosovo is still completing its statehood. Its security forces are progressing toward NATO. Other sovereign institutions are also gaining capability but lack universal recognition.
The Pristina/Belgrade dialogue the EU leads can help but needs more US engagement. The Americans should focus on implementation and reciprocity. The dialogue needs a monitoring mechanism, including for past agreements as well as commitments like Kosovo’s EU visa waiver. Reciprocity should include extension of the Special Chambers’ mandate to crimes committed in Serbia, including the post-war murder of three Americans.
The main US goal for the dialogue is mutual recognition and exchange of ambassadors. President Biden and Chancellor Merkel should make this goal explicit and press the non-recognizing EU members to declare they will recognize Kosovo no later than Serbia does. UN membership will require the Americans to convince Russia and China not to veto.
Post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are as fraught as Kosovo’s. The Dayton accords reached 25 years ago entailed territorial division and ethnic power-sharing, ending a terrible war. That formula no longer makes sense for the international community, which pays many of Bosnia’s bills, or for its citizens, who suffer dysfunctional governance.
Dayton today serves the interests of ethnic robber barons. One arms his statelet for secession while another eggs him on and the third complains. The US should press the Europeans to sanction those who advocate Republika Srpska independence and to strengthen and reposition their troops, visibly backed by the US, to the northeastern town of Brcko, to block secession. The US should seek to block Russian arming of entity police as well as Croatian and Serbian political interference.
Europe and the US want a post-Dayton Bosnia that can qualify for EU membership. That Bosnia will be based not on ethnic power-sharing but rather on majorities of citizens electing their representatives. The cantons and entities, as well as ethnic vetoes and restrictions, will need to fade. The Americans and Europeans should welcome the prospect of a new civic constitution.
No one outside Bosnia and Herzegovina can reform its constitution. A popular movement is needed. The United States, along with the Europeans, needs to shield that popular movement from repression while starving the entities of funding and redirecting it to the central government and municipalities.
Redirecting Serbia
Everything I’ve suggested will be easier if Serbia helps. President Trump allowed President Vucic to tighten control of Serbian courts and news media, which often indulge in hate speech, and to promote pan-Serb ambitions destabilizing to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. The Biden Administration will need to toughen up on Belgrade, together with Europe. If Vucic continues to prefer autocracy and alignment with Russia and China, the Europeans and Americans will need to await the day Serbia is committed to real democracy at home and better relations with its neighbors. Serbia’s citizens, more concerned about jobs than Kosovo or Bosnia, need to help. In the meanwhile, we may want to think about an interim arrangement, provided it gives Kosovo a seat at the UN. Getting a good deal requires readiness to reject a bad one.
Conclusion
President Biden will have bigger problems than the Balkans. But few regions promise better returns. Cooperating with Europeans, the US can save the sovereignty and territorial integrity of two potential allies—Kosovo and Bosnia—and help Serbia escape its legacy of autocracy and war. President Biden should support those prepared to make Europe whole and free and counter those who block progress.
PS: Here is a post-hearing interview I did for N1, the Balkans CNN. Patience, it’s in English.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dayton Bosnia is 25, time to act like an adult
The Foreign Service Journal earlier this week published my thoughts on how to reform the Dayton peace agreement under which Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently governed, 25 years after the war. I would like to see an end to the governance structures derived directly from the warring parties–the so-called entities, namely the Federation and its cantons as well as Republika Srpska–and a redistribution of their authority to the “state” (“national” in American lingo) government in Sarajevo to negotiate and implement the obligations of European Union membership (the acquis communautaire) and to the municipalities to deliver services to citizens. I would also like to see increased judicial capacity to protect individual rights and, though I don’t discuss it in the Foreign Service Journal paper, reduction in the mechanisms for exerting group rights.
This is pretty radical stuff. It would essentially convert Bosnia and Herzegovina to a civic state based on respect for the rights of individuals as citizens rather than a “multiethnic” state based on the privileges of favored ethnic groups, aka “constituent peoples.” Can it happen?
Yes, it can, but it would require an unusual coincidence of commitments. You can’t expect the current leadership to institute this kind of reform, which would quickly remove the ethnic nationalist political parties they represent from power. The impulse would have to come from the citizens in a popular movement, encouraged and supported by the key internationals, namely the US, UK, and Germany (spurring the EU to action). There have been recurrent signs of the kind of popular discontent required in recent years, but it has never coalesced into a movement with clear country-wide goals to alter the constitution. The internationals would need to starve the beast by dramatically reducing international funding to the entities and cantons and objecting to repression of popular discontent.
It is arguable that precisely the opposite direction is more likely: an ethnic breakup of the state into Croat, Bosniak, and Serb statelets, with accompanying violence and ethnic cleansing. I wrote my piece last spring, when the prospect of ethnic partition of Kosovo seemed possible, even likely, and I therefore emphasized that as a possible trigger for breakup of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That possibility has receded, not least because of the realization that partition of Kosovo would indeed create problems in Bosnia and elsewhere.
But there are still big risks of violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The excessive arming of Republika Srpska’s police by the Russians, Serbia’s willingness to support pan-Serbian sentiment not only in Bosnia but also in Montenegro and Kosovo, Milorad Dodik’s open advocacy of secession and denial of the 1990s genocide, the growing cooperation between Croat and Serb nationalists, and feelings of isolation and even desperation among Bosniaks all point to possible instability or worse.
It is clear we won’t get through the next 25 years with Dayton Bosnia. Whatever good it did in ending the war, Dayton Bosnia cannot fulfill its citizens’ aspirations for integration into the European Union. It would be far better to fix it as soon as we can, rather than let current problems fester until violence erupts. President-elect Biden wants to restore American leadership and reassert democratic values. Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a good place to start.
Dayton Bosnia is 25. It’s time to act like an adult.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Restoring individual rights and hope in Bosnia
I joined happily with knowledgeable colleagues in signing Fixing Dayton: A New Deal for Bosnia and Herzegovina, published yesterday by Dan Hamilton of the Woodrow Wilson Center. But my own thoughts go beyond that paper in some respects. Here is what I would advise the Biden Administration about what Dan Hamilton calls the “why, what, and how” of fixing Bosnia and Herzegovina:
Why: The Dayton agreements that ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina were a striking US foreign policy success in 1995, but the country risks becoming a disaster in the 2020s due to growing inter-ethnic strife. State failure in Bosnia would spew refugees into the EU and bring an end to a successful NATO effort to protect a vulnerable Muslim population. Breakup of the Bosnian state would strengthen Russian-sponsored secessionists not only in the Balkans but also in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia and cause further fraying of the NATO Alliance. The US needs to re-assert it leadership, in partnership with the EU, which is unable for now to proceed expeditiously with enlargement. Europe whole, free, and democratic is still a worthy vision, but the Europeans need America to help make it happen.
What: The objective in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be a functional, effective, and united state within its current borders capable of meeting the requirements for entry into NATO and the European Union. This will require elimination of the elaborate governing architecture created at Dayton that froze in place the warring parties (Republika Srpska and the Federation) and rewarded their commitment to ethnically based control of territory. Bosnia and Herzegovina should be governed in the future by a government in Sarajevo capable of negotiating and implementing its obligations to the EU as well as municipalities delivering services to citizens, with equal rights for individuals and vigorous legal and judicial protection for minorities.
How:
- Diplomatic: US/EU agreement on initiating a process of constitutional and other reforms, Zagreb and Belgrade convinced to support the effort, re-empowerment of the High Representative, deployment of additional NATO (read British and American) troops to Brcko to prevent either Serb or Muslim seizure of this vital chokepoint, pressure on Russia and Serbia to halt financial assistance Repubika Srpska.
- Legal: preparation by Bosnians of a new constitution that eliminates or drastically curtails the entities, full implementation of European Human Rights Chamber and Constitutional Court decisions, professionalization of the judicial sector, restoration of international prosecutors and judges in the court system, and prohibition of heavily armed police and paramilitary forces.
- Economic: an end to IMF and World Bank assistance to the entities and instead resources shifted to the municipalities and the “state” government (Sarajevo), vigorous enforcement of anti-corruption laws with European Union assistance, personal sanctions on corrupt officials levied by the US and EU in tandem, recovery and return to worthy causes of ill-gotten gains stashed in Europe or the US, strict conditionality on international financing requiring in response support for political and legal reform.
- Political: reform of the electoral law to disempower the ethically based political parties, election in parliament of a single president and two vice presidents, strict limits on the vital interest veto and the power of the House of Peoples, adoption of a law rendering all financing of political parties transparent and requiring democratic procedures for election of party leaderships.
- Public affairs: VoA/RFE/DW programming to counter Russian disinformation, redoubled international support to civil society and political forces that support serious reforms, diplomatic protection for citizens demonstrating against corruption and police abuse, and a concerted effort to publicize corruption among politicians and officials.
The obstacles to an effort of this sort are substantial. Those who govern today in Bosnia, who come to power in unfree and unfair elections conducted within a constitutional system that favors ethnic nationalists, have no interest in seeing serious reform or in preparing the country to become a serious candidate for NATO or EU membership. They will seek to use any reopening of the Dayton agreements as a means of increasing their own power and possibly breaking apart the state. The US and EU will need to be prepared to act vigorously against strong resistance by those who seek secession, ethnic separation, or ethnic domination by one group over others.
The rewards of success would be substantial. Making Bosnia into a serious candidate for NATO and EU accession would have a demonstration effect worldwide. It would restore American and European soft power, weaken ethnic nationalists in the Balkans and elsewhere, and illustrate the unmatched capacity of liberal democracy to govern effectively.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
EUSR Lajcak at SAIS 10:30 am Thursday
The Conflict Management Program
is pleased to invite you to attend a guest lecture by
Miroslav Lajcak
EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue
and other Western Balkan regional issues
Mr. Lajčák is a Slovak Diplomat who previously served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia (2009-2010 and 2012-2020), and as President of the United Nations General Assembly for its 72nd Session. He previously served as EU Special Envoy in charge of mediating the rules and procedures for 2006 Montenegro’s referendum on independence; he was also the EU Special Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2007-2009; and EEAS Managing Director for Russia, Eastern Neighborhood and the Western Balkans 2010-2012.
Welcome remarks:
Dr. Daniel Serwer: Director of Conflict Management
The lecture and subsequent discussion will be moderated by:
Dr. Siniša Vuković: Associate Director of Conflict Management
Thursday, November 19, 2020 from 10:30am-11:45am EST
Registration link for the Webinar: https://jh.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_lhe4P7eDRfcZzeA5lNIFQ
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
High hopes for Biden in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ismet Fatih Čančar gave this interview, originally published in Politicki.ba:
Q: Why are US presidential elections important for Bosnia and Herzegovina?
With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of the Soviet Union, the global order was marked by American hegemony, which gained its greatest momentum during the 1990s. A good part of those nineties was marked by the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina, first through aggression against our country, and then in the post-Dayton period. The United States has historically been involved in these processes. First, they stopped the war through the Dayton Peace Agreement. In the post-Dayton period, a new process of “state-building” began, which has not yet been completed.
The upcoming US presidential election is an opportunity to continue this process for several reasons. First due to the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden is one of the last active politicians in the United States who has a personal connection and experience with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Secondly, as early as in 1993, Biden has correctly identified, in his speech on “Face the Nation,” war criminals in Bosnia, clearly warned about genocide, and then, as he is today, was a strong advocate of a more proactive American role in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Biden’s vision of Bosnia and Herzegovina was too ambitious and too radical for the Clinton administration. For our country, that vision is far-sighted and far-reaching. It is still the same vision that Biden wholeheartedly defended behind the speaker podium of the Senate. Back then he explained it as a national interest and a moral obligation of the United States in the post-Dayton framework. Biden reaffirmed that vision in his recently published program. The founding idea of this program is to building a civil state based on the experiences of a multicultural and multiethnic democratic society.
And that is why the presidential elections in the United States are an opportunity for a turning point in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where we have been witnessing a general deterioration of conditions, both political, economic and social, for some period now.
Q: Biden has announced his vision which he intends to pursue when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina. What is good and what is bad in that document?
Biden’s vision that has been published is substantially positive. In any case, it is good that such document has come to life. This is perhaps the first concrete signal in the last decade of bureaucratic autopilot by both the US and the EU that the very top of the US leadership is putting the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the agenda, as well as the Balkans which have seen increased instability, growing appetite for redrawing borders, an increasing number of right-wing populist movements.
This document, of course, has its own political context. It is an expression of Biden’s own election campaign; promoting democracy as the most effective social order, but also restoring the credibility of American leadership in the world as a reliable partner that can constructively and successfully solve extremely complicated problems. The character of the Bosnian state – a sui generis state – is such that cosmetic changes cannot help this country, but which rather requires serious structural reforms, which first imply the reform of the Dayton Constitution, and then a strong step forward towards NATO and EU membership. Biden’s vision recognizes a more efficient approach and its engagement means including Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Atlantic Pact, protecting Bosnia from foreign malignant influences such as Russia and China, and preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The document itself would have had a much stronger appeal if it happened in some normal circumstances, when no political career is being auctioned and in the midst of the presidential campaign. Hence, there is some doubt as to how high Bosnia and Herzegovina will be on the list of American politics even after the presidential election.
However, there is one dimension that is rarely talked about. Biden’s document testifies that in the American heterogeneous society, the Bosnian community has become visible, for whose interest are fighting both sides of the political spectrum, the Democrats and the Republicans. I appreciate that this is a positive phenomenon. These are our great national resources and opportunities that exist in interstate relations, which we do not know how to use. Or at least not yet.
Q: What if Trump wins?
No need to dramatize. We already have four years of experience of Trump’s mandate behind us. Nothing radical has happened in the region, although attempts have been made from all directions to push through a new, much more dangerous and insidious plan to redraw the borders and exchange territories between Kosovo and Serbia; a plan which would have very bad consequences for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Under Trump’s mandate, US leadership in the world has weakened significantly. The image of democracy has been destroyed through the constant undermining of the basic principles of multilateralism, disregard for human rights, and the encouragement of autocrats and nationalist movements. In addition, the importance of the alliance and the historical partnership between the US and the EU has been weakened. The so-called “soft power” has been undermined and an unprecedented level of polarization is caused in all fields.
Regardless of the outcome, Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to continue its work to improve the security framework for all its citizens and peoples, through the joint work of all relevant institutions and international partners. It is certain that Bosnia and Herzegovina will have the support of the US administration in this process.
Q: All polling shows that Biden is the winner and the next resident of the White House. What preparatory work should Bosnia and Herzegovina do?
First of all, we should wait for the election results. All polling showed Hilary Clinton’s victory in 2016 and we received a surprise instead.
However, it is true that our country has a unique opportunity to capitalize on this moment that could come from the Biden administration. Pro-Bosnian patriotic forces should take the initiative, in terms of creating a program and a roadmap for the radical changes identified in Biden’s document.
One should not be deceived that Bosnia and Herzegovina will so easily and so quickly position itself within the priorities of American foreign policy. From our side, it is necessary to purposefully engage all our resources that are available in American academic and business circles. This also requires a sophisticated diplomatic way of involving our traditional friends and partners in the project. A mitigating circumstance for achieving these goals is that Biden was personally and heavily involved in the Bosnian case and that his political influence and image in the world were partly built on it.
All this together requires the creation of a diplomatic orchestra that could meet these demanding tasks.
It is important to note that the foundations already exist. Through the actions of the US Embassy so far (previous and current Ambassadors) we could sense the possible development of the political concept of reforms. A civil democratic state, modeled on the example of dozens of modern European states, is the only possible solution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Western Balkans. Bosnia and Herzegovina must uncompromisingly insist on such principles.
Q: Trump has two special envoys for the Balkans. Does Biden need (at least) one? Is the Embassy enough?
The fact is that the outcome and effectiveness of a program or initiative does not largely depend on how many actors are involved. Especially in this case, efficiency is based on commitment, determination, and strength of material, political and diplomatic support put into the project.
During his visits, Special Envoy Matthew Palmer has on several occasions expressed a clear position on the indivisibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina, US support for our country’s Euro-Atlantic path, and the continuation and development of the partnership between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the United States. The goal is to raise this relationship to a higher level.
I still think that the two envoys for the small Balkans are a little too much. If we go back to the history of the 1990s and compare it with the mission of Holbrooke and the Clinton administration, who managed to create the Dayton Peace Agreement in a relatively short time, but in much more difficult war conditions, we can conclude that quantity is not crucial in these processes.
In addition, the question of both the Peace Implementation Council and its role in all of this arises. We are witnesses that the mandate of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been derogated for a long time and that it is at a very low level. Perhaps it would be more economical, politically profitable for the US administration to focus on the function of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina instead of creating new initiatives. I am deeply convinced that resolving the Bosnian issue opens the way for the complete integration of the Balkans into the Western currents of the advanced democratic world.
Q: Given that Biden will work closely with the EU, how much will that prevent him from implementing this plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina?
It is clear that Biden has identified the EU as a necessary partner in this process, with a desire for the Western bloc to act in a coordinated manner. At the same time, I think that will be the biggest challenge for Biden. How to successfully bring partners together in a Europe that, although there has been increased rhetoric about European independence, suffers from even larger internal lines of division. There is also the United Kingdom, which, as the most loyal partner in the transatlantic alliance, is looking for its place in the post-Brexit space and I believe that they can play a very important role in key processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina together with the United States.
Under the Obama administration, transatlantic ties have been successful or very successful through a number of joint programs in Europe. With the arrival of Biden, the caliber of people who would return to leading foreign policy positions would be consistent with that alliance. The US and the EU need each other, and the current experience of the Trump administration is an exception. To Democrats, this is proof of the value of the alliance. Hence, we can expect that Biden will work on renewing that alliance, but also on restoring American leadership on the European continent. This means reaffirming NATO’s role as the most effective security umbrella in the world, a closer relationship with Brussels for a coordinated approach, a tougher stance towards Russia and further investment in democratic processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EU-led “structural dialogue” in Bosnia has shown all the shortcomings in its actions. American leadership is therefore a necessary corrective factor.
In addition, it is important to point out that the main motivator of US cooperation with the EU is not Cold War nostalgia, but rather the understanding in Washington that – America alone – is a weak America, and that in a more competitive world we face, Europeans are still the most important American allies.
All this is a complex process. I appreciate that in the efforts to implement fundamental reforms and build lasting peace and prosperity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, partnership and close cooperation between the United States and the EU is desirable for the realization of this project.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kosovo indictments confirmed, dignity of the state maintained
The big presidential news this morning is not in the United States, where vote counting continues in several battleground states, but in Kosovo, where President Thaci and the current leader of the party he founded, Kadri Veseli, have been indicted by the Specialist Chambers in The Hague. That court, staffed by internationals, was
established pursuant to an international agreement ratified by the Kosovo Assembly, a Constitutional Amendment and the Law on Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. They are of temporary nature with a specific mandate and jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under Kosovo law, which were commenced or committed in Kosovo between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2000 by or against citizens of Kosovo or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
I do not see the text of the indictment yet on the Specialist Chambers website, but it regards allegations of crimes committed while Thaci and Veseli were leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army, possibly including murder and organ-trafficking described in the Council of Europe’s “Marty report.”
The indictees have done the right thing: resigned and pledged to confront the charges in The Hague, where they will join a number of their wartime colleagues. The political impact inside Kosovo is not yet clear: many supporters of the KLA will protest. I imagine the government will help their defense. But their absence will leave a big hold in Kosovo politics. It is unclear as yet who will fill it. I hope they will be figures of unimpeachable character.
The Specialist Chambers are a laudable effort to establish accountability after the war of the late 1990s in what was then a province of Serbia. The trouble is it is focused only on one side of that conflict. Serbia was of course subject to the jurisdiction of the now defunct International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), also in The Hague. But that Tribunal and the Serbian courts have failed to hold accountable many criminal perpetrators in Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic died in prison before the end of his trial. Several well-known commanders of the then Yugoslav army and police were never indicted and continue to hold prominent positions.
This makes the Specialist Chambers a one-sided instrument. It should not be so. Either the Serbian courts should bring charges against those who committed crimes in Kosovo or Belgrade should adopt the necessary laws to allow the Specialist Chambers to do so. The United States lost three of its citizens to a post-war murder inside Serbia for which no one has been held accountable. America and the European Union should be insisting far more strongly than they have to date on accountability in Serbia.
As for Thaci and Veseli as well as other indictees, I expect them to mount a vigorous defense against charges that may be difficult to prove, given the amount of time elapsed and the difficulty of finding and protecting witnesses. They should and will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And they should be credited with the dignity of resigning and facing the charges. In doing so, they make me long for the day when America will again have leaders prepared to be subject to the law.
RSS - Posts
