Tag: Balkans
Dodik’s folly
American University Professor Ulas Doga Uralp asked last night whether I had written anything about the Bosnian Serb referendum, which passed Sunday with over 99% voting “yes.” Turnout was modest: somewhere around 55%. The issue on the ballot was whether Republika Srpska’s national day should be celebrated January 9. I won’t bother to explain why that is important to some people. Nor do I regret not having written something about it, though I believe I wasted a few breaths on it in an interview.
The substance of the referendum deserves to be ignored. The significant thing was that it was held at all, after the Bosnian constitutional court ruled it unconstitutional, rightly or wrongly. If the referendum is allowed to stand, Dodik intends to move ahead with an independence referendum in 2018. For some in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that would be a casus belli, just as it was in 1992.
I don’t really expect real war to ensue, though the risk of violence needs to be taken seriously. Many approved independence referendums don’t result in widely recognized sovereignty, most notably Russian-inspired referendums in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea. Don’t know all those places? That’s because they are under normal circumstances obscure provinces, now converted into poor, backwater satellites of Moscow with no prospect of wide international recognition. Their main function is to destabilize and retard the countries that continue to claim them, in service to Moscow’s anti-Western, anti-NATO and anti-EU ambitions.
That’s the best Republika Srpska can hope for if it proceeds with its current course: to become a poor, unrecognized, backwater satellite of a country whose GDP is now less than that of Spain and still decreasing. Russia is a declining regional power with little to offer even a strategically important place like Crimea. Republika Srpska as a self-declared independent state will get little recognition and even less money, since it doesn’t happen to sit on significant real estate. Dodik will no doubt have increased opportunities to line his pockets if RS declares independence, but the population is guaranteed to lose access to World Bank funds as well as American and European assistance.
I don’t expect it to come to that. It would be far better if Bosnia’s courts would handle the issue, declaring the referendum null and void and doing what they can to hold Dodik accountable for conducting it in spite of a constitutional court decision. This is Bosnia’s Marbury v Madison moment, when the court’s authority to review legislation and executive decisions requires affirmation. If the Americans and Europeans have any interest left in Bosnia, they need to make sure that happens.
Of course they might have just used the “Bonn powers” of the High Representative, who has said the referendum violates the Dayton agreements. They can no longer readily do that because they have somehow allowed Moscow to acquire a de facto veto over their use, and they fear they have no way of implementing the HiRep’s decisions. Putin’s Russia is happy to use the veto and ostentatiously provided support to Dodik with a visit to Moscow just before the referendum.
But none of that changes reality: Republika Srpska won’t become a widely recognized independent state but may well join half a dozen other Moscow-sponsored backwaters in serving Moscow’s commitment to destabilization. The EU and NATO may not be perfect, but they offer a lot better future than Russia does. That’s Dodik’s folly.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Happy birthday Blic!
1. As the talk about Chinese growth intensifies, its military is getting stronger, and while Beijing is defying even USA in the South Chinese sea dispute…what is your prediction for the decades that are coming: Could China become a world’s number one superpower?
A: No. China is a rising power, but it also still very poor and undeveloped. It faces enormous internal challenges: environmental conditions are deplorable, economic growth is slowing, social tensions have few political outlets, global warming will have a big impact on its infrastructure. China will be an important regional power, and it is already economically active in Africa and Latin America. But it will be a long time before it can play the kind of varied and multi-valent security, political and economic leadership role that the US plays globally.
2. It seems that Russia is getting support from some political factors in the EU countries. Is it possible that some of them will abolish the sanctions and open a wider cooperation with Moscow, especially now when the EU has a lot of its problems?
A: Russia is also getting support from “some political factors” in the US, but our sanctions will remain in place.
The EU will need to review again its sanctions against Russia, but there aren’t any positive developments in Ukraine to justify loosening them.
None of the EU’s problems would be ameliorated by dropping sanctions. The Russian economy is in a deep recession from which it is unlikely to recover without a big increase in oil prices. That isn’t happening.
3. Right-wing movement is getting stronger in Europe, and it seems it could reshape the EU as we know it today. Is that comeback of national states good or bad for Europe?
A: I’ll let Europeans decide. I can see positive developments emerging from the current euroskepticism, but I also see big risks to the single market.
4. Angela Merkel’s popularity has never been lower. If she decides not to run for fourth term, or if she loses, who do you see as her successor? Do you think that Germany will stop with the open door policy, with or without Merkel, because it is obvious that there is no solidarity between the member states?
A: I wouldn’t count Merkel out yet. She is at a low point in her personal popularity, but her political party is still polling very well. Europe is already controlling the inflow of migrants better than it had done. I expect that tighter control to continue.
5. Migrant crisis is shaking the EU for a while, but despite that, it seems that Brussels is avoiding to fulfill the promises given to Turkey, the main dam which is stopping the refugees to come in even bigger number to Europe. For how long could that take, especially now when Erdogan has grown warmer relations with Russia and Putin?
A: Brussels is in a bind. Turkey is taking an autocratic turn. It will be very hard to continue on the path to closer relations with Brussels if Ankara moves in a non-democratic direction. Erdogan has got some solace from Putin, who of course has no problems with autocrats, but Russia really has little to offer Turkey compared to the EU.
6. ISIS has become the world’s number one boogie-man. It seems that the strong actions in Syria has hurt this terrorist organization, but they didn’t destroy it, like something is missing. In your opinion, what is necessary to finally end “ISIS era”?
A: ISIS won’t “end.” It will be defeated in Raqqa and Mosul, then peter out. There never was an ISIS era. There was only an ISIS moment. ISIS has now lost lots of important territory in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. It will survive at least for a while as a terrorist group causing real harm to real people, but it is not, and never was, an existential threat to the West.
7. Hillary or Trump? What would the USA look like if Trump wins?
A: I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton for President. A Trump win would be bad for the US, bad for Europe, bad for the Balkans and good for Russia.
8. What is the best path for Serbia? Our ruling political elite is eager to bring Serbia in the EU, majority of people thinks the same, but that same majority wants good relations with Russia. Is it possible to sit on two chairs like that, or not? Also, do you think that some members of the EU will demand from Serbia to recognize Kosovo independence as a condition of joining the EU?
A: Lots of countries in Europe want good relations with Russia. Washington would also like good relations with Russia. It has become difficult to “sit on two chairs” only because of Russia’s renewed aggressiveness, especially in neighboring areas it regards as part of its “near abroad.” Russia’s behavior in Ukraine in particular is unacceptable and has aroused a strong–but peaceful–NATO response. It has also pushed several non-member countries to tighten relations with NATO. This is precisely the opposite of what Putin should want.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any possibility of Serbian membership in the EU without Belgrade’s acceptance of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kosovo, which is already de facto acknowledged in the Brussels political agreement. Belgrade has a choice of methods by which it can act to accept Kosovo’s de jure sovereignty and territorial integrity. It can recognize Kosovo and establish diplomatic relations. Or it can allow Kosovo to enter the UN General Assembly. There may be other clever solutions that I haven’t thought of. But the EU states that have already recognized Kosovo will not allow Serbia’s accession if this issue is still outstanding. Remember: this is not only a question for European presidents and prime ministers but also for their parliaments, which have to ratify accession.
Everyone in Belgrade knows that. But the current authorities don’t want to pay the price, and some like to think they can get a better deal on this issue at the end of the EU accession process than now. I think they are wrong about that. At the end of the process, Belgrade will be under enormous pressure from internal public opinion to remove any obstacles to EU accession, including Kosovo recognition. Serbia today could hope that Kosovo would accommodate some of its needs in return for recognition. I’ll leave it to Serbs and Albanians to cut that deal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Brains for peace
Ross Hurwitz, a second year SAIS student, writes:
Science has given the world heretofore unimagined access to the subconscious workings of the human brain. Every day we learn more about how human beings process their experiences of the world around them. These insights present a unique opportunity to reevaluate the strategies that have defined the work of peace builders throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
I had the privilege of spending the summer between my first and second year at Johns Hopkins SAIS exploring the potential of these advancements while working with Beyond Conflict, a Boston-based nongovernmental organization focused on finding innovative solutions to some of the world’s most intractable conflicts. For 25 years Beyond Conflict has engaged as a neutral facilitator with world leaders in over 20 countries. The small but dedicated team focuses on the human dimension of conflict, emphasizing the power of shared experiences to help parties see a way beyond obstacles to peace.
For the last 5 years Beyond Conflict has sought to build bridges between conflict management practitioners and scientists researching neuroscience and behavioral sciences. Their work to date has challenged the enlightenment notion that humans are rational actors who act in their own self-interest, influenced by facts and data. Advances in brain science contradict this established philosophy and show that humans are inherently emotional. We only make rational decisions when we feel our identity is safe and supported. This scientific understanding of human behavior is vital to preventing the destructive impact of emotionally based responses to conflicts.
My work with Beyond Conflict this summer focused primarily on the ongoing Syrian peace negotiations in Geneva, specifically how to use this psychological lens to mitigate the negative emotional impacts of victim-hood narratives, which are inevitable in times of conflict. They have occurred from time immemorial and are often used by political and military leaders to instigate crisis. Slobodan Milošević used the 14th century Battle of Kosovo Polje to stir Serbian nationalist sentiment in the rapidly disintegrating Yugoslavia. Hitler used the narrative of betrayal following the Treaty of Versailles to build membership to the Nazi Party. Even the American South still holds onto stories and symbols of its “glorious” defeat in the Civil War, including the Confederate Flag.
Narratives of this sort in post-conflict societies often signify the likelihood of resurgent violence. The recidivism rate of civil conflict in the later half of the 20th century is around 57%. While victim-hood narratives are far from the only factor in this trend, we would be remiss not to consider their influence and seek to temper it.
Victim-hood narratives often convey the emotional, psychological, and even physical impact of war, but they do not have to lead the parties toward future animosity and violence. Neuroscience and behavioral science have shown the potential of inclusive victim narratives, or the ability for societies to recognize a shared experience of trauma with other communities through powerful empathetic bonds.
Beyond Conflict has worked around the world bringing leaders from various conflict zones together to discuss the obstacles facing their respective communities. These discussions have developed into lasting relationships between individuals who, despite all their differences, connect through empathy for each other’s suffering. In this way, once destructively exclusive narratives of victimization become powerful stories that connect people around the world; their suffering is not unique nor do they have to face their challenges alone.
Facilitating the development of these inclusive narratives in Syria is vital to reducing the impact they will have on conflict resurgence. This isn’t an easy task and requires more study and practical execution, but I have no doubt that it is a vital step in creating a self-sustaining peace, both in Syria and around the world.
The human brain is remarkable. Its subconscious workings impact our lives in ways we can only begin to comprehend. It’s vital for future students and practitioners to continue to study this remarkable organ’s potential. Within it lies the key to achieving the lasting peace that so many have sought for so long.
The UNESCO Constitution touched on this idea when it stated: “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” Research is only beginning to illuminate this potential, but in time I trust that these insights will revolutionize how we approach the important work of building sustainable peace.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What Kosovo needs
Fitim Gashi of Pristina daily Koha Ditore asked some questions last week. I replied:
Q: Kosovo is facing numerous discontents as objections about the demarcation of the border with Montenegro and the Association of Serbian Municipalities, wiretapping scandal, the high level of corruption, lack of security. Can accumulation of many problems over the years bring Kosovo to any dissatisfaction and unrest?
A: Sure: dissatisfaction and unrest are possible in any democratic society. We are seeing a lot of those sentiments in the US at the moment. But there is no excuse for violence.
Q: Which are the biggest failures that brought Kosovo to the currently situation?
A: Kosovo faces two anti-constitutional political constituencies: one among the Serbs, some of whom want to return Kosovo (or at least themselves) to Serbia, and one among Albanians who want the option of union with Albania. These are two big challenges to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kosovo state, which is new and still unseasoned. I think the state will meet the challenge, and that in fact its struggle with these anti-constitutional forces will strengthen it. But that is hard to see through the fog of tear gas.
Q: Largest opposition, “Levizja Vetevendosje,” has called a protest on the day when the Kosovo parliament is going to vote the agreement with Montenegro, to set the border. Can the situation change through protests?
A: Sure. I think peaceful protests might have a big impact on how members of parliament see the situation. But violent protests are counter-productive from the perspective of Vetevendosje, which is risking big losses at the polls. I hope the border agreement will be approved, but that won’t settle anything since Vetevendosje will continue its efforts to undermine the Kosovo state.
Q: The dialogue with Serbia has consistently followed the path of state building. Integration of Serbs into Kosovo system has not fully happened and is not revealing the fate of missing persons. Did this dialogue give the expected results?
A: The dialogue has achieved a lot of results in many areas, but it is still far from resolving everything. The reason Vetevendosje opposes the dialogue is precisely because it has been successful in consolidating Kosovo statehood, which Vetevendosje opposes.
Q: Is the international community responsible for the situation in Kosovo? If yes, which is their fault?
A: The international community has spent a lot of resources and effort in Kosovo, including by writing the constitution, so I suppose you can blame anything that goes wrong on them. But Kosovo’s problems today are largely internal ones that lie entirely within the purview of its own parliament, courts and government. The internationals are now responsible mainly for Kosovo’s external security, which they guard well. I regard the fact that Kosovo’s institutions are now responsible for resolving the country’s problems as success, not failure.
That didn’t satisfy Fitim, so he sent some more questions and I again tried to answer:
Q: Does Kosovo need to change something in the way of doing dialogue with Serbia. Our government has admitted that there are problems with the integration of Serbs and extinguishing parallel structures? Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s quandaries
I did a lengthy interview this week with Bosnian Federation Radio on Bosnia’s current quandaries. Here it is in English:
and in Bosnian:
I’ve got a book manuscript drafted that delves deeper into these issues. More on that anon.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No exoneration
Časlav Ninković of the Humanitarian Law Center (HLC) in Belgrade sent this letter out, in response to statements by Serbian government ministers Ivica Dačić and Aleksandar Vulin claiming exoneration for Slobodan Milošević:
Responding to the claims of certain analysts and bloggers, according to whom the former president of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) Slobodan Milošević was „exonerated“ of the charges for crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the ICTY judgment rendered in the case of Radovan Karadžić, Serbian government ministers Ivica Dačić and Aleksandar Vulin have rushed to accept such a view and to conclude that „the ICTY has confirmed the legitimacy of Milošević’s policy“. The Humanitarian Law Center (HLC) strongly condemns statements the purpose of which is to deny the facts about the wars in the former Yugoslavia and to restore Milošević’s policy. The HLC demands that the state authorities of Serbia start a broad social debate on the past and initiate setting up the Regional Commission for the establishment of the facts about war crimes and other serious violations of human rights committed in the former Yugoslavia from January 1, 1991 until December 31, 2001 (RECOM).
The HLC takes this opportunity to remind the public that during the Radovan Karadžić trial, the evidence presented related to the criminal responsibility of the indicted wartime president of the Republic of Srpska, and no one but him could be convicted or acquitted by the judgment. Therefore, there can be no judgment of acquittal for Milošević or anyone other than the person who was charged in the actual case; and in this case, the indictee (Karadžić) was sentenced by the first instance judgment to 40 years in prison for genocide and other crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The role of Slobodan Milošević and the Serbian leadership in the wars of the 1990s can be seen in numerous ICTY judgments, including the Radovan Karadžić judgment, but it cannot be inferred by selective reading of individual sentences and paragraphs, only by an overall assessment of the evidence and judicial facts. Thus, any conclusions about Milošević’s innocence and the alleged validity of his policy are contradicted by citations from other ICTY judgments (such as in the cases Milan Martić and Vlastimir Đorđević) in which he is described as a participant in various joint criminal enterprises in the wars in the former Yugoslavia, as well as by judicially established facts in the Karadžić case about the role of the state of Serbia (led by Milošević at that time) in helping the wartime leadership of the Republic of Srpska throughout the entire war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One can see in the judgment, for instance, that Karadžić maintained regular contact with Milošević during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that Serbia sent help to the Bosnian Serb army in the form of money and fuel, as well as special police units such as the Crvene beretke (Red Berets) and „Arkanovci” (units under the command of Željko Ražnatović Arkan). (See, for example, paragraph 3287 of the Karadžić judgment).
In addition, a lot of evidence was presented during the trial of Slobodan Milošević on charges of crimes committed in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, which pointed to his role in the crimes for which he was allegedly exonerated by the Karadžić judgment. After the prosecution had presented its case, the Trial Chamber dismissed the motion of the amicus curiae for Milošević to be acquitted at that stage of the proceedings. In the Decision on the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of June 16th, 2004, it is stated that „there is sufficient evidence that the accused (Milošević) was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise“ which included the perpetration of genocide and other crimes against Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Read more
RSS - Posts
