Tag: Balkans
What Serbia can get
Berlin will be hosting Balkan leaders Monday. This summit will be EU High Representative Mogherini’s last chance before she leaves office to strike a deal on “normalization” of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. The Germans have let it be known that they are firmly opposed to border changes as part of such a deal and hope to kill the idea. But that leaves open the question of what Serbia could get from recognizing Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state.
Belgrade lost sovereignty over Kosovo due to Slobodan Milosevic’s depredations, including annulment of Kosovo’s autonomy under Socialist Yugoslavia, the expulsion of Albanians from its Serbia institutions, the establishment of an apartheid-like regime, mass atrocities committed against innocent women and children, state violence to chase Albanians out of Kosovo, and continued hostility after the fall of Milosevic to the establishment of self-governing democratic institutions that provide significant privileges for Serbs. Even after the fall of Milosevic, Serbia did nothing to “make unity attractive,” in the Sudanese phrase.
Serbia is entitled to nothing in Kosovo, but of course not being entitled doesn’t mean you can’t ask for what you want and use what leverage you have to get it. Serbia has leverage because it has been successful in blocking entry for Kosovo into some international institutions, including the United Nations. No doubt they give awards for that in the Serbian foreign ministry, but it isn’t doing anything for Serbia or Serbs except denying the Kosovars their dreams and holding out the forlorn hope that some day Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo can be restored. Inat (spite, more or less) is emotionally gratifying but not otherwise rewarding.
The trick for Serbia and for Kosovo is to ask for things that your adversary, or someone else, can give. That is where President Vucic has failed. He has asked for a chunk of northern Kosovo that includes a municipality that was Albanian-majority before the war as well as Kosovo’s major non-energy mineral deposits and its main water supply. Alternatively, Vucic appears ready to accept an Association of Serb Municipalities that would allow Belgrade to govern all the Serbs of Kosovo, north and south of the Ibar river. No self-respecting Kosovo president could concede these intrusions on sovereignty, no Kosovo parliament would approve them, and no popular referendum is likely to confirm them.
What could Vucic reasonably hope for? First and foremost is removal of an otherwise insurmountable obstacle to European Union membership. Germany and several other EU member states have made it plain that they will not ratify Serbia’s membership without complete and irreversible normalization of relations with Kosovo. Even if their governments wanted to do so, which they don’t, their parliaments would not. If Serbia, as it has planned to do, waits until it is fully qualified for EU membership, it can expect nothing in return for normalization with Kosovo, since all the leverage will then be with the EU and its member states. All membership aspirants yield on the last issues remaining once they have met the other EU membership requirements. Ask the Slovenians and Croatians.
Having wisely decided to normalize earlier rather than later, what can Vucic hope for? Pristina’s recently approved negotiating platform gives one hint: a good deal on payment of former Yugoslavia’s sovereign debts. There are other possibilities:
- Kosovo has approved conversion of its lightly armed security force into an army, not least so it can join NATO. Belgrade says it fears the Kosovo army would be used against Serbs. It is not hard to imagine a Kosovo army entirely designed for international missions that would pose no threat to Serbs either in Kosovo or in Serbia, whose army is far larger and better equipped than anything Kosovo can afford. Two hints: focusing on helicopters (the Americans have them conveniently at hand at Camp Bondsteel) and cyber defense would give the Kosovo army opportunities to add real value to NATO.
- The most important Serb historical and religious sites in Kosovo are south of the Ibar river, where most of the Serb population lives in enclaves. Further enhanced security arrangements that would ensure the sites and the people remain inviolate but still respect Pristina’s sovereignty should be doable.
- Kosovo has imposed high tariffs on Serb imports, in an effort to force Serbia into normalization. That isn’t working: Serb goods are entering Kosovo without passing through the official entry points. The Europeans and Americans are berating and threatening Pristina. The tariffs need to end, as they are no more than an incentive for smuggling and enrichment of organized crime that neither Kosovo nor Serbia should want if they want to be taken seriously by the EU.
- Kosovo’s constitutional court has issued a ruling that clarifies what kind of Association of Serb Municipalities would be acceptable. If Serbia is prepared to respect Kosovo’s constitutional order, it should take what is on offer, and provide comparable arrangements for Albanian communities inside Serbia.
- The nub of territorial contestation between Kosovo and Serbia is the municipality of North Mitrovica, which is still controlled by Belgrade (insofar as it is controlled) but was majority Albanian before the 1999 war. The Americans managed a similarly sensitive town in northeast Bosnia, Brcko, by declaring it a condominium of both the Federation and Republika, the two halves of the country. That effectively removed it from control of both and made it a self-governing entity with a special status, under American tutelage, within the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty. A similar solution for North Mitrovica, within the sovereignty of Kosovo, is conceivable. Whether American tutelage is practicable is another question.
- Both Belgrade and Pristina want immunity from prosecution for their own citizens who participated in the 1990s fighting, some of whom still serve in high positions. Odious though it may be to me, mutual amnesty for everything but war crimes and crimes against humanity is permissible. In both capitals it is widely assumed that whichever leaders take up President Trump’s invitation to sign a historic deal in the Rose Garden will be immune from prosecution.
None of this can happen quickly or easily, but there are some immediate steps that would point in the right direction:
- The defense chiefs of staff should meet and begin the process, common among neighboring countries, of exchanging information on their respective forces and defense strategies. They should also discuss security for Serb communities and sites in Kosovo as well as for Albanian communities and sites in Serbia.
- CEFTA, the central European free trade association in which both Serbia and Kosovo participate should begin an intense process of examining trade complaints by both Belgrade and Pristina, including the tariffs, with a view to resolving them by the end of this year.
- Kosovo’s Ministry of Communities and Returns should begin talking with Serbia’s Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government about reciprocal cooperation arrangements for Serb communities in Kosovo and Albanian communities in Serbia.
- All those concerned should read Bill Farrand’s account of what he did at Brcko in the first years after the war and how he did it. It is hard to picture that any international could reproduce that success in North Mitrovica without extraordinary and plenipotentiary powers. And it is pretty much inconceivable that anyone but an American, aided by a Russian and a European, could even begin to hope for success in less than a decade of concerted, well-resourced efforts, including backup by whatever NATO forces can be provided.
- Both Serbia and Kosovo need foreign investment and faster economic growth, not least to provide employment and keep their young people at home rather than fleeing to the European Union. The EU and US should be prepared to ante up for a multi-billion dollar/euro package of economic support, provided Pristina and Belgrade implement a serious normalization process.
Normalization may not arrive in one magical package this year, as some overly sanguine diplomats have been hoping, but as the result of a long and difficult process. It is going to require a lot of intense and complex cross-border cooperation. The time to start that has arrived.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Your Saturday video
I appeared with Middle East Institute President Paul Salem and Dialogue Director Randa Slim to discuss my From War to Peace in the Middle East, Balkans and Ukraine this week. I presented the lessons learned from peacebuilding in the Balkans that I believe should be applied in the Middle East. Here is the video:
Here are the powerpoint slides I used as my notes:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 8-12
1. From war to peace: the Balkans, Middle East and Ukraine| Wednesday, April 10, 2019 | 12:30am- 2:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a book talk with MEI Scholar Daniel Serwer, the director of John Hopkins SAIS’s conflict management and American foreign policy programs and the author ofFrom War to Peace: the Balkans, the Middle East and Ukraine.
In his book, Serwer explores how lessons learned from peacebuilding initiatives in the Balkans in the 1990s can be applied to conflicts in the Middle East. Serwer draws comparisons between the sectarian, ethnic, and religious divides of the Balkans in the 1990s and similar tensions in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He also explores the impact of policies such as conflict prevention, engagement of neighbors, the establishment of safe zones, partition, decentralization, and power sharing arrangements, and how they can be effectively utilized, or not, in the Middle East.
Speakers
Daniel Serwer, , author
Scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim, discussant
Senior fellow and director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues program, MEI
Paul Salem, moderator, President, MEI
2. Youth: the missing peace | Tursday, April 11, 2019 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | United States Institute for Peacr | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here|
Join USIP and the Global Coalition on Youth, Peace and Security for an interactive, intergenerational conversation with the study’s lead author, Graeme Simpson, as well as youth and peacebuilding experts and young peacebuilders from around the world.
The event will look at the two-year evidence gathering process—which engaged more than 4,000 young people around the world and has been heralded as “possibly the most participatory process ever undertaken by the U.N.”—to draw out key lessons and recommendations regarding what works in the field of youth, peace and security, and what prevents youth’s meaningful inclusion in peace and security efforts. The conversation will also look forward, with an eye toward sustaining UNSCR 2250’s momentum and cementing our commitment to the role of youth people in preventing conflict and contributing to sustainable peace.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, welcoming remarks,
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aubrey Cox, Program Officer, Youth, U.S. Institute of Peace
Giannina Raffo, Youth Peace Leader, Venezuela
Graeme Simpson, Lead Author of the Progress Study and Director, Interpeace USA
Noella Richard, moderator, Youth Team Leader, United Nations Development Program
Saji Prelis, closing remarks
Director of Children & Youth Programs, Search for Common Ground
3. Will Sisi be Egypt president for life | Monday, April 8, 2019 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace| 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here|
The Egyptian parliament is in the process of finalizing amendments to the 2014 constitution that would allow President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to stay in office for twenty years, increase military control of politics, and end judicial independence. U.S. President Donald Trump has invited Sisi to Washington for a visit prior to a public referendum on the proposed amendments.
Please join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Project on Middle East Democracy for a discussion of the ramifications of the amendments and Sisi’s visit for the future of Egypt, the U.S.-Egypt relationship, and for regional peace.
Speakers:
MOATAZ EL FEGIERY, general coordinator for the Egyptian Human Rights Forum.
MAI EL-SADANY, legal and judicial director for the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.
MICHELE DUNNE, Director and senior fellow of the Carnegie Middle East Program.
SUSAN B. GLASSER, staff writer at the New Yorker.
4. The Taiwan Relations Act at Forty and U.S.-Taiwan Relations| Tuesday, April 9, 2019 | 8:30 am – 5:00pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Taiwan Relations Act, enacted by the United States Congress in April 1979, authorized continued “commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan” in the wake of the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China. By authorizing the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and other provisions, the TRA created a framework for relations between the U.S. and Taiwan which has enabled their partnership and friendship to thrive in the absence of diplomatic relations.
In observance of the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, this daylong public conference will feature analysis of the creation and implementation of the TRA, and how it continues to guide U.S.-Taiwan relations and interaction among Taiwan, China, and the United States.
This conference is co-hosted by CSIS, the Brookings Institution, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
8:35am Opening Remarks
John Hamre (President and CEO, CSIS)
8:45am Welcome Speech
Stanley Kao (Representative, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States) (Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
8:55am Speaker Introduction
Richard Armitage (President, Armitage International and CSIS Trustee)
9:00am VTC Speech and Q&A
Her Excellency President Tsai Ing-wen of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Q&A Moderator: Michael Green (Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS / Director of Asian Studies, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service)
9:45am Coffee Break
10:00am Panel One: Looking Back on U.S.-Taiwan Relations Since 1979
Moderator: Richard Bush (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 1: The TRA and the U.S. One-China Policy
Stephen Young (Former Director, American Institute in Taiwan)
Panelist 2: Cross-Strait Relations and U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Steven Goldstein (Associate, Harvard Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies)
Panelist 3: The Evolution of the U.S.-Taiwan Security Partnership
Shirley Kan (Former Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, Congressional Research Service)
11:15am Coffee Break
11:30am Speech and Q&A
Legislator Bi-khim Hsiao (Legislative Yuan)
(Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
12:15pm Keynote Remarks
Representative Gerald Connolly (D-Virginia)
(Introduced by Richard Bush)
1:00pm Lunch
1:30pm Panel Two: Taiwan’s Strategic Environment Today
Moderator: Bonnie Glaser (Senior Adviser for Asia and Director of the China Power Project, CSIS)
Panelist 1: Taiwan’s Changing Security Environment
Michael Chase (Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation)
Panelist 2: How Taiwan Should Ensure Economic Competitiveness
Eric Altbach (Senior Vice President, Albright Stonebridge Group)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Options Regarding China
Susan Thornton (Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
Panelist 4: U.S.-Taiwan Economic Ties
Da-nien Daniel Liu (Director of the Regional Development Study Center, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research)
2:45pm Panel Three: The Next Forty Years
Moderator: Abraham Denmark (Director of the Asia Program, Wilson Center)
Panelist 1: The TRA’s Continuing Relevance to U.S. Policy
Robert Sutter (Professor of Practice of International Affairs, George Washington University)
Panelist 2: China’s Strategies Toward Taiwan and Taiwan/U.S. Responses
Ryan Hass (David M. Rubenstein Fellow – Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Future Sources of Strength and Weakness
Jacques deLisle (Professor of Law & Political Science, University of Pennsylvania)
4:00pm Coffee Break
4:15pm Speech and Q&A
W. Patrick Murphy (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
(Introduced by Abraham Denmark)
5:00pm Conference End
5. China’s Influence Activities: Implications for the US-Taiwan Relationship| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 4:00pm-5:15| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
Last week, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Taiwan Assurance Act, which reaffirms the US commitment to Taiwan forty years after the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act. As China exerts increasing pressure against Taiwan’s position in the region, Taiwan’s leaders have sought greater support from the United States. Given US interests in the Indo-Pacific, what diplomatic, economic, and security steps should the United States take to signal support for Taiwan as a democratic partner in the region? What opportunities and challenges do the United States and Taiwan face moving forward? Where do US-Taiwan relations fit into the broader strategic picture?
KEYNOTE REMARKS BY
H.E. Bi-khim Hsiao, Legislator, Legislative Yuan, Taiwan
FEATURING
Mr. Ian Easton, Research Fellow Project 2049 Institute
Mr. Michael Mazza, Visiting Fellow, Foreign & Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
6. SSANSE Project: Symposium on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 8:45 am – 12:15pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
For both Russia and China, foreign political interference activities are a useful and cost-effective method of foreign policy. In Russia it is theorized as “smart power”, while China still uses the Soviet-era term “united front work”. The activities of Russia and China go well beyond accepted norms of public diplomacy and are having a corrupting and corrosive effect on many societies. This half-day symposium focuses on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States. The world is seeing a return of both “might is right” politics and spheres of influence. As history has shown, the weakness of small states in a time of rising security threats can undermine the security of larger powers. The Symposium examines case studies of some representative small NATO states experiencing Russia and China’s political interference activities, the patterns of interference to look for, and discusses what is to be done.
Speakers:
Neringa Bladaitė, University of Vilnius
Anne-Marie Brady, Wilson Center/University of Canterbury
Donald J. Jensen, Center for European Policy Analysis
Ryan Knight, Georgetown University
Martin Hála, Charles University
Margarita Šešelgytė, University of Vilnius
Khamza Sharifzoda, Georgetown University
Mark Stokes, 2049 Project
Alan Tidwell, Georgetown University
Baldur Thorhallson, University of Iceland
Moderator: Abe Denmark, Asia Program, Wilson Center
AGENDA:
8:45am – Panel One
Donald J. Jensen: Assessing Contemporary Russian Interference Activities
Anne-Marie Brady: Magic Weapons? An Overview of CCP Interference Activities
Mark Stokes: Huawei and One Thousand Talents: China’s military links and technology transfer activities
Ryan Knight: Russia’s use of the Orthodox Church in Small NATO states
Alan Tidwell: Active Measures: Lessons Learned from the Past
10:10am – Morning tea
10:30am – Panel Two
Martin Hála: The CCP’s Magic Weapons at work in the Czech Republic
Khamza Sharifzoda: Armenia’s Struggle: Escaping the Kremlin
Baldur Thorhallson: Iceland’s engagements with Russia and China
Neringa Bladaite: Russia’s Political Interference Activities in Latvia
Margarita Šešelgytė: Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities and Lithuania
The Small States and the New Security Environment (SSANSE) Project is funded by NATO-SPS
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The world is watching
I received this letter last week from Kosovo Assembly members Xhelal Sveçla and Driton Selmanaj. I’m pleased to take up their suggestion that I make this case more widely known as the one year anniversary of the events investigated approaches on Friday. I hasten to add that Kosovo is a young democracy that deserves credit for this investigation as well as any steps it takes to correct the issues revealed. I also hasten to add that I know little more about this case than I have read in the attached documents. Anyone who would like to exercise the privilege of a reply should let me know.
We write to you in our capacity as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee established last year to elucidate the matter of the expulsion of six Turkish nationals from the territory of the Republic of Kosovo on 29 March 2018.
We would like to let you know that the committee has completed its work. We have uncovered a total of 31 legal violations during the whole course of the expulsion process, a number of them committed by high-ranking state officials of the Republic of Kosovo.
The details of the committee’s work are summarized in the following four documents:
- A list of the 26 witnesses interviewed by the committee;
- A brief timeline of events relating to the expulsion;
- A detailed report with recommendations prepared by a US human rights expert, engaged by the committee for the purpose of fact-finding and legal evaluation of the case;
- A list of the 31 legal violations uncovered by the committee, indexed to the report.
This is the first time in the Republic of Kosovo’s brief history that a parliamentary committee has thoroughly investigated allegations of serious human rights abuses. We have now submitted all of the above materials to the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo for further investigation, focused on possible crimes committed during the expulsion process.
However, due to the culture of impunity that still plagues Kosovo institutions, we do not believe that state prosecutors will conduct a meaningful investigation and bring high-ranking perpetrators to justice without significant international support. Indeed, it is in large part due to the international concern surrounding this case that the Assembly agreed to establish our committee in the first place.
Surely, even more international encouragement will be required to ensure both that the prosecutors handling the case conduct a thorough criminal investigation, and that the Assembly institute the necessary legislative safeguards to prevent similar human rights violations from ever happening again. Putting these safeguards into place has become even more urgent in recent days, given that Turkey continues to insist that last year’s expulsions were completely legal; and according to recent reports, Turkish authorities are already laying the groundwork for a second round of expulsions.
The Embassies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany in Prishtina have already released statements in support of the committee’s work (see the U.S. Embassy’s statement).
In conclusion, we firmly believe that the expulsion of the six Turkish nationals would not have happened if state officials knew that the world was watching. And we just as firmly believe that, in order to bring this case to a successful conclusion, it is absolutely essential that the Special Prosecution Office and the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo be made aware that the world is still watching — and waiting for them to fulfill their legal and institutional responsibilities to the fullest extent possible.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Balkans in perspective
I did this interview for Al Jazeera Balkan March 1. How and why they waited until March 19 to publish it I don’t know, but it means I have little recall of what I said. I hope it is still current:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Your Saturday video
I’ve written many screeds against partition schemes, but none more effective than this from Yes Prime Minister:
RSS - Posts
