Tag: Balkans
What the election means for the Balkans
I did this interview for Filip Raunic of the Croatian website Telegram about a week ago. They published it today.
Q: The situation in the Balkans, especially Bosnia and Hercegovina with separatist tendencies of its entity “Republika Srpska (RS),” is tense. Do you think US will regain its focus on Balkans any time soon? And should it?
A: It is difficult for Washington to focus on the Balkans. Apart from the election, the Americans have a lot of other things they are dealing with: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan, the South China Sea, just to mention a few. Washington long ago transferred the main responsibility in the Balkans to Europe. Still, the US will not accept an RS declaration of independence or other moves that threaten peace and stability in Southeast Europe.
Q: How do you see Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton with respect to foreign policy towards Europe and Balkans?
A: I think Hillary Clinton would be good for all those who look to the EU and NATO as anchors of their foreign policy. She understands the region and will want to see progress by those countries who seek membership in these organizations. Donald Trump appears to know nothing about the Balkans and likely cares less, except when it comes to collecting a few Serb or Croat votes in Ohio. I’ve seen no sign his wife has given him any instruction on Slovenia.
Q: Croatia is considered as the main US ally in the region. If so, would President Clinton because of her interventionist policy be better for Croatia and its political role in the region than president Trump?
A: It takes two to influence. Russia is a declining regional power with a GNP less than that of Spain, an aging and shrinking population, an imploding economy, and a petty autocratic as president. Anyone who wants Russia’s influence can have it so far as I am concerned, but I expect most people in the Balkans understand that the EU has a great deal more to offer, especially as it begins to recover from a deep recession.
Turkey, like Russia, has a long history in the Balkans, and its companies have done well there. But it too suffers from a burgeoning autocracy. Sure Ankara will have some influence wherever it plants its commercial activities, but I don’t think it today a very good model of how to administer rule of law or allow a free press.
The US will continue to be diplomatically present and influential in the region, but it will also expect the sovereign states that are allies and friends to handle as much of their own affairs as possible. That, after all, was the purpose of creating the independent states from former Yugoslavia: so that they could manage their own issues and enjoy the benefits of free democratic states.
Today, Milena Pejic of the Belgrade daily Blic asked another question about the election, and I answered:
Q: I was just hoping that you can give us some final predictions and thoughts about he US election? Who do you think is going to win and who would be the better choice for the rest of the world, particularly Serbia?
A: I have long supported Hillary Clinton and believe she will win: Go vote! – peacefare.net
Neither Clinton nor Trump is likely to give much priority to the Balkans, but Clinton would certainly be committed to stability and democracy there, including the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Kosovo.
With respect to Serbia, it seems to me recent events suggest it faces a serious political and criminal threat to its democracy and stability from Russian and Russia-aligned forces within Serbia. Trump’s “bromance” with Putin could lead to an increase in this threat. The safest place for Serbian democracy is inside the EU, not straddling between the EU and Moscow.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia’s shenanigans in the Balkans
My colleague Siniša Vuković and I published a piece on foreignpolicy.com today concerning the failed, Russian-backed coup plot in Montenegro last month. It concludes with this:
The Balkans will be way down the list of priorities for the next American president. The Islamic State and al Qaeda; China’s claims in the South China Sea; the wars in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan; North Korea’s nuclear program; and dozens of other problems are far more threatening to U.S. national security. But what America does not need is any further distraction in the Balkans, where two decades of investment have come close to stabilizing a chronically war-prone area that played unhappy roles in World War I, World War II, and the aftermath of the Cold War. It would be better and far less costly to counter Russian efforts there with a renewed preventive effort to enable all the Balkan countries, if they want, to enter NATO and the EU, where they will find themselves far less vulnerable to the Kremlin’s meddling hand.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 31-November 4
- Nuclear Arms Control Choices for the Next Administration | Monday, October 31 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | Brookings Institution | Click HERE to Register
Nuclear arms control has been a feature on the U.S.-Soviet/Russian agenda for nearly five decades. While discussions between Washington and Moscow currently are at a standstill, the limitations, transparency, and predictability provided by agreements such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty are more important than ever in times of tense bilateral relations. The next U.S. president and her or his administration will face a number of choices about nuclear weapons, nuclear policy, and arms control.On October 31, theBrookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative will host a discussion on nuclear arms control choices for the next administration. The panel will feature Brookings scholars Michael O’Hanlon and Steve Pifer. Following the discussion, the speakers will take questions from the audience.
- Enhancing the US-Georgia Security Partnership | Monday, October 31 | 12:30pm – 2:00pm | Elliott School of International Affairs | Click HERE to Register
For several decades, Georgia has been one of the most important economic and security partners of the United States. The US is the largest bilateral aid donor to Georgia, having provided several billion dollars since 1991. This support has always enjoyed bipartisan backing. Since 2009, Georgia and the United States have had a Strategic Partnership through which both parties pledge to further Georgia’s democratization, economic development, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Georgia is the highest per capita contributor to the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan. Despite Washington’s efforts, however, Georgia has not yet received membership in NATO and finds itself in a challenging neighborhood. The next U.S. presidential administration will need to move decisively to strengthen this critical partnership.Richard Weitz is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute. His current research includes regional security developments relating to Europe, Eurasia, and East Asia as well as U.S. foreign and defense policies. Dr. Weitz is also an Expert at Wikistrat and a non-resident Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
- Iran, Israel and the United States: What to Expect Next? | Monday, October 31 | 1:30pm – 2:30pm | Woodrow Wilson Center | Click HERE to Register Is the JCPOA—now one-year-old—a vehicle for reducing Israel-Iranian tensions in the medium term? How will the outcomes of the impending U.S. and Iranian presidential elections affect both Iran and Israel’s security perceptions? Join us for a discussion with a panel of experts on what foreign policy adjustments we can expect from Iran, Israel, and the United States vis à vis each other in 2017 and beyond. Featuring Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, David Menashri, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University and Senior Research Fellow, Alliance Center for Iranian Studies and the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University (TAU) and Henri J. Barkey, Director, Middle East Program
- How Should the Next President Counter Violent Extremism | Tuesday, November 1 | 8:15am – 9:15am | Brookings Institution | Click HERE to Register
The next U.S. president will come into office in an era of dramatic disruptions around the globe. Violent extremism is spreading, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Adding to the friction, tensions over immigration, trade agreements, and globalization are giving rise to nationalist political movements across the Western world. While the next president will have to grapple with immediate questions of military and national security strategy, he or she will also have to set in motion a long-term strategy to counter the threat of violent extremism at its root cause.On November 1, veteran journalist Indira Lakshmanan of the Boston Globe will conduct a live podcast taping with two Brookings experts as they examine how America’s role in the world will change as the new administration takes office next year. As part of the Brookings-wide Election 2016 and America’s Future project, this event is the fourth in a series of live recordings distributed by the Brookings Podcast Network. Brookings Senior Fellow and Vice President of Governance Studies Darrell West recently published the book “Megachange,” focused on the proliferation of major, unexpected changes around the globe, and will talk about violent extremism as a social and political phenomenon. Brookings Visiting FellowRobert McKenzie is an expert in U.S-Islamic relations, and recently published a policy brief on how the next president can fight violent extremism in America.We hope you can join us for a lively conversation in which each expert will deliver a concrete course of action for the next president, and will be pressed by the moderator on alternate perspectives on the issue and the realistic obstacles the next administration will face.
- ISIS: The Day After Defeat | Wednesday, November 2 | 12:00pm | The Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register
Iraqi and Kurdish forces are closing in on Mosul, a major Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) stronghold in Iraq. Taking the city would seriously degrade ISIS territorial control in northern Iraq and force the organization to fall back into Syria. Meanwhile, ISIS is also experiencing rapid territorial loss in Syria to the Syrian Kurds, who recently captured Manbij, and to elements of the Free Syrian Army, which recently took Dabiq with Turkish support. In addition, there has been talk about an offensive on Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de-facto capital city in Syria.With the territorial defeat of ISIS apparently approaching, one key question stands out: What will become of ISIS after military defeat? The panelists will discuss the current developments in the war against ISIS and the tactics the group may adopt after it is ousted from Mosul and challenged in Raqqa.Hassan Hassan is a resident fellow at TIMEP focusing on Syria and Iraq and the co-author of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. Before joining ISW, Jessica Lewis McFate served as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Howard J. Shatz is a senior economist at the RAND Corporation and director of RAND-Initiated Research where he specializes in international economics. He is the co-author of Foundations of the Islamic State: Management, Money, and Terror in Iraq, 2005-2010. Aaron Stein is a resident senior fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, where he focuses on US-Turkey relations, Turkish foreign policy, the Syrian conflict, nonproliferation, and the Iranian nuclear program. He is the author of the Atlantic Council report, Islamic State Networks in Turkey.
- A View of the US Election from Iraq | Friday, November 4 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Click HERE to Register With the U.S. election less than 10 days away and a new presidential administration less than 90 days away, what changes can be expected for U.S. policy in Iraq? A centerpiece of current U.S. policy in Iraq is the ongoing fight against the Islamic State. The conflict reached a new stage earlier this month as coalition forces launched the offensive to retake Mosul and began planning the Raqqa Offensive. Beyond the current operation, how should the incoming administration approach the region’s challenges as internal and external powers exploit the sectarian rift in the northern Middle East? What strategy should the next president pursue to dismantle ISIS and, more importantly, prevent its resurgence?Hudson Institute will host a discussion on the implications of the election for U.S.-Iraq policy, including the critical operation in Mosul. On November 4, former Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Feisal Istrabadi will join Hudson fellows Michael Doran and Michael Pregent for a timely discussion of this important partnership and what lies ahead for U.S.-Iraq relations and the ongoing fight against ISIS.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Lose an election, try a coup
Montenegro, invited to join NATO less than a year ago, completed its accession negotiations in May. Eleven countries have already ratified the accession agreement. But opponents are not giving up: they planned and a coup immediately after Montenegro’s October 16 election, which pro-NATO forces won.
Here is what a Montenegrin colleague wrote about the evolving situation:
Two days ago [Serbian Prime Minister] Vucic held a press conference confirming that there was a serious threat to [Montenegrin Prime Minister] Djukanovic and a professional plan to destabilize his country through riots, targeted shootings, etc. The plan was extremely elaborate. It involved the participation of several groups, which would even wear police uniforms. One group was tasked to neutralize special anti-riot police forces, two others to stage a police shooting on the crowd and subsequent seizure of the Parliament building. They were given sophisticated weapons and GPS maps that are only available to major powers around the world. In other words, this was not a layman’s work.
Now after one group has been arrested, and the others have been disassembled, Vucic said that there is a strong indication of “foreign” involvement. The sudden visit of the head of the Russian National Security Council to Belgrade is suggestive. Officially he is there to talk about global terrorism. Unofficially he is going to inquire what went wrong with the Montenegrin case. One can only expect that he will put pressure on Belgrade, saying not to get too close to the West.
If Vucic was indeed hinting at Russia, it would be a major move, albeit a dangerous one for his political career. The plan depended on nationalistic and pro-Russian groups in Serbia. They might plan something similar for Serbia as well. [Serbian President] Nikolic was in Russia recently. Sputnik published news that he discussed a potential reunification of Montenegro and Serbia once the opposition wins in Montenegro, but has retracted that report and now denies it. It seems that the Russians are ready to invest substantial effort in countering Montenegrin accession to NATO, and asserting their dominance in the Balkans.
Asked for more clarification, he added:
There is still no hard evidence of Russian involvement. These are mainly political assertions base on available information.
The special public prosecutor for organized crime and corruption in Montenegro spoke extensively about the case in an interview for TV Vijesti.
Here is a summary of his statement: the arrested group was from Serbia. It included individuals of various backgrounds, predominantly associated with nationalist circles. The group entered Montenegro a few days before the elections with instructions to deploy to different cities across Montenegro. The commander of the group, former commander of the Serbian Gendarmerie Bratislav Dikic, entered Montenegro and spent two days in the coastal city of Budva before he was arrested in Podgorica. He was arrested on the night before the elections, as he was getting ready to inspect weapons. He and the rest of the group were under surveillance. So were the weapons, which never entered Montenegro.
According to the Special Prosecutor, these were highly sophisticated weapons that were destroyed before entering the country with the prosecutor’s permission. The entry point was supposed to be on the border with Albania. The arrested group was one of four or five that was expected to act. Other groups were not apprehended, but the prosecutor’s office is adamant that all of them will be arrested. One group was tasked to neutralize special police anti-riot forces, stationed close to Podgorica. The arrested group, together with two more, were supposed to act in front of the Parliament building, where they would first stage a shooting of (fake) police forces into the crowd and then seize the Parliament building. According to some reports the group was expected to receive 50 high-end rifles and 3500 bullets. The prosecutor identified Dikic as coordinator of the entire operation. His arrest crippled the entire plan.
Vucic’s press conference revealed that Serbian authorities seized a large number of police uniforms that were supposed to be worn during the riots, a large amount of cash (125,000 euros), and highly sophisticated GPS footage only available to advanced armed forces. A few days before the elections, the Demoratski Front had announced a “celebration” of their electoral victory in front of the Parliament, and in case of their electoral loss adamant resistance and contestation of the results.
Some conspiracy theorists initially spoke about a Djukanovic plot, even claiming he staged the whole thing. However, recent statements by Vucic only confirmed what the prosecutor’s office in Montenegro initially said. The Serbian group was closely following Djukanovic’s every step, aiming to “arrest” him if he declared victory at the elections.
Vucic also confirmed what Montenegrin authorities previously stated, that this was a plan strongly supported by outside players, with strong meddling of intelligence services from abroad. Although there is only speculation that this might be pointing toward Russian secret services, Serbian authorities have expelled a number of Russian citizens from Serbia following the failed plot in Montenegro. This may be the reason why the Russian national security council chief abruptly came to Serbia.
Officially he came to discuss terrorism with his Serbian colleagues and offer strong collaboration to them. However news about the expulsion of Russian citizens came only few hours after Vucic said that the whole situation regarding Montenegro had strong foreign involvement. He also said that he is aware that the decision to speak publicly about this might politically jeopardize him, but he did not want to keep silent and minimize the risk of what almost happened in Montenegro. He even used the example of failed assassination attempt on Djindjic, which was ridiculed in the media only few days before the assassination happened.
Prime Minister Djukanovic has announced his withdrawal from office, in favor of his deputy prime minister, Dusko Marovic.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
He’s finished
There were a lot of things Trump said in this third presidential debate that I disagreed with and lots more that undermined his claim to have the temperament and judgment to be president. But the coup de grâce for his campaign was his refusal say he would accept the outcome of the election. Here is the suicidal candidate, making a mockery of American democracy the day after the debate:
It has long been apparent that Trump lacks liberal democratic values. Witness his claim that an American-born judge is biased because of his Mexican heritage. Witness his pledge to put Clinton in jail if he wins. Witness his willingness to accept the support of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Trump’s world is one in which white and male privilege is a good thing, taxes are for others to pay, and illegal immigrants are manual labor to be exploited and deported. He is a self-declared law and order candidate with no respect for equal rights.
None of his anti-liberal stances have much affected Trump’s attractiveness to something close to 40% of the electorate. He will get most of those votes, apparently no matter what. The Republican party, sadly, will be reduced not to its core principles of less intrusive government and more private initiative, but rather to arbitrary government power and no respect for individual rights. How they are going to get out of that trap I don’t know.
To win Trump would need more. That’s where he failed last night. And that’s where his refusal to make it clear he will accept the election outcome hurts him the most. He has no chance of extending his reach to independents without respect for the electoral process he is participating in. Failing that respect, he will also lose a lot of Republican voters who know that the election is organized at the state level, where Republican governors and legislatures have if anything been over-vigilant in their effort to prevent almost non-existent voting fraud.
On foreign policy questions, especially Syria, Trump was mostly incoherent last night. He continues to wish for a good relationship with Vladimir Putin, which is ironically an attitude Hillary Clinton initially took as Secretary of State, only to find that her “reset” was unsuccessful. Trump also continues to refuse to acknowledge that Russia is responsible for hacking American emails, something he has urged Moscow to do. Neither candidate had much to say about China, though Trump emphasized its unfair trade practices (against which Obama has been retaliating) and seemed to think the US could somehow approach its claimed growth rate of 7% (actually 6.7%, and no one seems to believe that figure).
Trump even promised 5-6% growth in the US, achieved by lowering taxes on the rich and vastly expanding government spending for infrastructure.
Lots of foreign policy issues went unmentioned: vast areas like Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, current crisis areas like Ukraine and Libya (though Trump mentioned the latter in connection with ISIS, which has been largely defeated there), North Korea, the pending trade pacts in Pacific and with Europe (TTP and TTIP to the cognescenti), Egypt and Israel…. I hardly need to mention that my readers’ favorite part of the world, the Balkans, did not make the cut.
ISIS was a big deal in this debate. Trump blames its existence on Clinton, which is clearly nonsense. Even if you think the American withdrawal from Iraq opened space for it and choose to ignore Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s contribution and the impact of the war in Syria, the agreement to withdraw and the timing were decided in the George W. Bush administration, not by President Obama or Hillary Clinton. Neither Trump nor Clinton offered much idea what they would do about ISIS other than what is already being done. Clinton said she would not put US troops on the ground to stabilize Mosul. Trump did not make that commitment but instead insisted that the attack on Mosul should have been a sneak attack.
He hasn’t got a clue. You can’t move tens of thousands of troops into place, carpet the civilian population with leaflets urging them to shelter in place or rise against ISIS, begin to soften up the defenses with air attacks and artillery, and prepare for the inevitable displacement of people by constructing shelters for them to live in without alerting the enemy that something is up. Trump’s knowledge of how war is fought seems grounded in playing Risk with his kids.
I’m not willing to see him play Risk with the United States. Nor it seems are most of the American people. It’s a shame the election isn’t today, but millions have already voted early and many more will do so in coming days. The only good thing that can come of Trump’s candidacy is a resounding defeat.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rot at the top
Two Bulgarian researchers, Ruslan Stefanov and Martin Vladimirov, yesterday presented Shadow Power: Assessment of Corruption and Hidden Economy in Southeast Europe here at SAIS. Their powerpoints are here and here. Corruption is now in many ways the most important challenge in the Balkans today, as it hinders economic growth, exacerbates inter-ethnic relations, heightens political tensions, slows the pace of reforms needed to qualify for NATO and EU membership, reduces state legitimacy, and threatens instability. Corruption is second only to unemployment as a concern the public’s estimation. What the Southeast European Leadership for Development and Integrity (SELDI) has managed to do is to measure corruption pressure and practices (not just perceptions, as the Transparency International index does) as well as elucidate “state capture,” in particular in the energy sector.
The results are not edifying: corruption pressure (share of citizens reporting demands for bribes from public officials) has not improved overall since 2014 in the region and has worsened in Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, while declining in Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Serbia (notably the countries in which the European Union has arguably been most active on corruption issues). More than half of the population in these Southeast European countries believes it will have to bribe someone to get things done. In all but Montenegro, more than half the population believes corruption cannot be substantially reduced. Irregular, “hidden,” employment is one of the consequences. Another is use of the non-liberalized energy sector to extract rents for state officials.
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, and to a lesser extent Albania and Kosovo, stand out as countries in which corruption levels are worsening. Tolerance of corruption in those four countries is also highest, and they are among the countries in which 50% or more of the population believes corruption cannot be substantially reduced. The public thinks the most corrupt officials in the region are political party and coalition leaders, members of parliament, ministers, and local political leaders. In short, what we’ve got here is deep-seated, endemic corruption, with the rot worst at the top.
What is to be done?
The report recommends “effective prosecution of corrupt high level politicians and senior civil servants,” EU Commission engagement with civil society, and independent monitoring mechanisms. That is certainly logical, but I challenged whether this was adequate after the presentation at SAIS, noting that the successful prosecution of my wartime friend and former prime minister Ivo Sanader in Croatia seems to have had the opposite impact: the “Sanader effect” has made top politicians more cautious about reforms. Ruslan wisely underlined that the prosecutions could not be one-off but rather should be sustained, as they are in the US. I can’t fault the idea of stronger EU engagement with civil society, which Ruslan and Martin thought had been much weaker than in Romania and Bulgaria, where improvements are evident.
I am however still skeptical about anticorruption bodies. The kind of civil society monitoring SELDI has done is important, but most official anticorruption agencies are ineffectual, because corruption is not an aberration of the system but rather the system itself. The opposite of corruption in these countries is not anticorruption. It is good governance. I see more promise in improving transparency and accountability, in particular in political parties. Most of them in the countries of greatest concern are run as fiefdoms of the party bosses, with little possibility of changing the guard and lots of opportunity to reward loyalists with corrupt rents. Srdjan Blagovcanin and Boris Divjak have made this point for Bosnia and Herzegovina. It seems to me likely to be valid in other countries as well.
But that point should not detract from the courageous and perspicacious work Ruslan and Martin have done. They have greatly enhanced the tools available to measure corruption and corruption pressure and offered some important suggestion of what to do about it. That these accomplishments are coming from inside the Balkans, not outside, represents real progress. Bravi!
RSS - Posts
