Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
One key to Gaza’s future is inside Israel
Prime Minister Netanyahu refuses to define an end-state for Gaza, beyond Israeli control of security there. But it is becoming clear what he intends. Along with his extreme-right coalition partners, Netanyahu wants to reproduce something like the West Bank in Gaza. The Palestinians would be limited to relatively small enclaves. Israeli security forces, possibly with support from Jewish settlements, would control corridors that separate them. The first of those already exists. Israel would control all movement in and out of the Strip, including from Egypt and the Mediterranean.
Occupation is occupation
In the West Bank, the Palestinians control security and civil administration only in Area A, which represents 18% of the territory. That control is often merely nominal. Nothing like it will be allowed in Netanyahu’s concept for Gaza. At best, the model for Gaza is Area B, where Israel controls security and the Palestinians nominally control civil administration. That represents 22% of the West Bank. But the reality will more than likely be close to Area C, where Israel controls both security and civil administration. Area C makes up 59% of the West Bank.
This is a formula for occupation but without the protection the 4th Geneva Convention affords. Israel claims the Convention does not apply because Palestine was not a state or legitimately part of one before Israel occupied it. Whatever the legalities, the fact is that Israel has not respected the Convention in the West Bank or Gaza in the past and cannot be expected to do so in the future. But occupation is occupation, even if you claim the Convention does not apply.
What could prevent it?
Netanyahu’s intentions are not however the only factor in determining what is going to happen. America, Europe, Arab states, Iran and its allies, and the rest of the world all have some influence. So too do the Palestinians.
US concurrence in this formula is possible if Donald Trump is re-elected. President Biden’s constituency would object vehemently. But Biden has demonstrated little capacity to influence the Israelis, even when he has had the will. Would he really cut off arms supplies to get a better deal for the Palestinians in Gaza? The Europeans have been mostly supportive of Israel so far. They aren’t likely reverse course. Even if they did, their influence is negligible.
Arab states will be under greater popular pressure not to accept Netanyahu’s ambitions. But they have not been willing during the war to levy any serious pressure on Israel. The fact is they are mostly glad to see Hamas battered. They are also interested in normalization with a state that will help them maintain internal security and improve their economic and technological prospects. The popular pressure has proven manageable. Why say or do anything that might make it less so?
Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen will speak up loudly against Israeli occupation and lob occasional missiles and drones at the Jewish state. But they have not been effective during the war and are unlikely to improve their performance afterwards. China and Russia will also shout denunciations of Israeli behavior, but they too have not been very effective in the past.
The rest of the world doesn’t like Israel’s occupation of the West Bank or Gaza, but what can they do about it?
Opposition has to come from within Israel
Within Israel, the main preoccupation so far among Netanyahu’s opponents has been the hostages. Israelis want them back. Netanyahu says military pressure will achieve that. A plurality of Israelis prefer a deal with Hamas. That implicitly would leave Hamas intact, even if weakened.
This situation is changing. Within the last week, Israeli officials, including the Defense Minister, have let it be known they are unhappy with not having a plan for how the war will end. They do not want the responsibility for a permanent occupation. Now Benny Gantz, by default Netanyahu’s key political rival, has demanded the Prime Minister enunciate a post-war plan by June 8.
Israelis would do well to contemplate what the failure to produce one could mean. Gaza may already be ungovernable. Chaos next door is never a good strategy. Burning down your neighbor’s house is a dangerous thing to do. Repression forever is no better. Like any agglomeration of more than 2 million people, Gaza reconstruction will need water, shelter, food, health, education, and security. That will require a major international effort. It is well past time to have begun thinking about it and organizing for it.
The odds of success for such a reconstruction effort are not high. But the outcome, even if only partly successful, would be a lot better than chaos or re-imposed occupation.
Resistance will continue
Whatever the Israelis decide–chaos, repression, or reconstruction–Palestinian resistance will continue until the Palestinian state becomes a reality. Jews should understand that better than they do, and better than those who have not suffered oppression, dispossession, and displacement. The question is whether the Palestinians will choose a more moderate path than the mass murder the Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades led them on, or an even more radical one.
There are signs of discontent with Hamas in Gaza. Encouraging the emergence of a more moderate resistance should be an Israeli priority. Israelis should be supporting aid into Gaza, not ransacking it. The International Criminal Court, whose prosecutor is seeking warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and the Defense Minister as well as three top Hamas leaders, is doing so because of abuse of the civilian population of Gaza:
That gives Israelis an opportunity to reverse the decisions that have deprived Palestinians of the physical necessities of life. Israel can’t erase the past. But it can reverse counterproductive policies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Could the message be any clearer?
I spoke this morning at Hudson Institute-US/Europe Alliance event on Foreshocks in the Black Sea and Western Balkans: Repercussions of the Russia-Ukraine War. I drew on this post:
All too often those who follow the Balkans view Moscow and Beijing as manipulating President Vucic. That is not the whole story. He “has agency” in the awkward syntax of political science. Vucic has decided to align his increasingly autocratic regime with Russia and China, as well as with Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Hungary. He likes their “might makes right” style, which gives him some hope of recovering Kosovo or part of it. He would no doubt befriend Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, if Pristina hadn’t beaten him to it by establishing its embassy in Jerusalem.
The many reasons why
Ethnonationalist, autocratic preference comes naturally to Vucic, who learned his politics at Slobodan Milosevic’s knee. But he had a choice when he became Prime Minister in 2014. He could have adopted a truly pro-Western approach. He has long talked pro-EU. If deed had followed words, Serbia would today have a consolidated democracy well on its way to accession. Instead, it has drifted towards authoritarian rule. Freedom House ranks it generously as “partly free.” Its ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) “has steadily eroded political rights and civil liberties, putting pressure on independent media, the political opposition, and civil society organizations.”
Vucic has not only presided over Serbia’s democratic decline. He has encouraged it. Many Balkan watchers complain about “stabilitocracy.” They mean by that the alleged Western preference for incumbent rulers because they provide stability, despite democratic shortcomings. But that ignores the fates of Macedonian Prime Minister Gruevski, Montenegrin President Djukanovic, and Kosovo President Thaci. Vucic fears lack of Western commitment to stability. He worries, I hope rightly, that the day he faces defeat in an election or indictment in an international court no one in Europe or the US will trouble themselves with him.
There are no doubt ample economic reasons for Vucic’s autocratic drift as well. China is not beneficent, but its mining, rail, and tire projects and investments leave ample room for hiring well-connected locals and skimming off a percentage to support Vucic-connected oligarchs and politicians. Moscow deals are even less transparent. Both the Chinese and the Russians are all too willing to help as well with internal security cooperation that might go a yard further than the Americans or Europeans would countenance, including extensive electronic surveillance.
Vucic is serious about the Serbian world
But in the end the biggest factor in Vucic’s Eastern leanings is his admiration for those who take what they want, without offering any excuses. Vucic wants to govern all the Serbs of the Balkans, de facto if not de jure. His minions call that ambition the “Serbian world.” In Milosevic’s era it was known as Greater Serbia. Vucic is achieving his objective de facto in Republika Srpska and in Montenegro with minimal violence. That won’t be possible in Kosovo. Any violent move there would throw the Balkans back into chaos and ethnonationalist slaughter.
Belgrade’s new government includes the strongest Serbian world advocate, Deputy Prime Minister Vulin. He claims to have organized the terrorist incident in northern Kosovo last year. It was intended to provide an excuse for Serbian military intervention.
The new Prime Minister was Defense Minister last year when a rent-a-crowd injured dozens of NATO peacekeepers and when Serbia kidnapped police from the territory of Kosovo. He denies genocide in Bosnia and vaunts his ambition to get Montenegro “closer” to Serbia. He shows no sign of accepting as valid the two agreements negotiated last year on normalization with Kosovo. His predecessor disowned them. The new Foreign Minister, the former Ambassador in Washington, can talk for an hour or so with an EU diplomat without mentioning them.
Vucic himself has made it clear he is biding his time until geopolitical circumstances allow him to grab at least northern Kosovo.
This is where the Chinese, who want to do likewise with Taiwan, and the Russians, who have already annexed something like 18% of Ukraine, are most useful. They help Vucic keep alive the hope that some day he can seize what he wants.
So where will the fate of the Balkans be decided?
We should take Vucic’s ambition seriously. Washington and Brussels need to extinguish it. It will be difficult to do that until Biden wins in November and Ukraine evicts Russia. It will be impossible if Trump or the Russians win. Washington, Donbas, and Crimea will decide the fate of the Balkans.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
See no evil is not good policy
Serbia’s parliament approved the country’s new government last week. The personnel and program represent a further turn to the ethnonationalist, anti-EU right. AP makes many of the details easily accessible. The government includes ministers the US has already sanctioned for corruption as well as blatant Russophilic sycophants. Not to mention a prime minister who led the Serbian Defense Ministry last year, when it was complicit in a terrorist attack in northern Kosovo, the kidnapping of Kosovo police, and rioting against NATO-led peacekeepers. He has already reiterated Serbia’s desire for good relations with Russia and refusal to align with EU sanctions against Moscow.
President Vucic is leaving little room for those who argue that Serbia is headed West. In recent months he has ostentatiously met with the would-be dictators of Hungary and Azerbaijan as well as the all too real authoritarians governing Belarus, Russia, and China. Vucic is making no secret of his ambition to extend his authority to the Serb-controlled 49% of Bosnia and Herzegovina, all of Montenegro, and Serb-majority northern Kosovo. Vucic also presided in December over a grotesquely unfair national election, and a fraudulent municipal election in Belgrade, that have prompted Freedom House to continue lowering Serbia’s democracy scores.
Why Europe and the US delude themselves
Still, officials in the US and Europe are prepared to tolerate and even reward Vucic. Some fear that any alternative might be worse. Others don’t want to admit the failure of three years of going easy on Vucic. Still others imagine that crumbs he hands out in the Western direction–Serbs using Kosovo license plates and identity documents–may presage improvement on bigger issues. The shells and bullets Serbia allows to reach Ukraine may influence some, though surely similar amounts–if not more–make their way to Russia.
But self-delusion is a big part of this story. Vucic has made clear that he will not implement agreements the US and EU regard as legally binding. Belgrade has opposed Kosovo membership in the Council of Europe. This is despite its qualifications and the benefits that could derive therefrom to the Kosovo Serbs. Surely intelligent Americans and Europeans understand that Serbian participation in NATO exercises generates a substantial flow of intelligence to Russia. But doing something about Serbia’s malfeasance requires heavy political lifting. Why take that on if no one above your pay grade objects to a “see no evil” policy?
An opportunity to shift
There should soon be an opportunity to take a more effective tack. The officials who forged the see no evil policy are headed elsewhere. Rumint says EU Special Representative Miroslav Lajcak and US Deputy Assistant Secretary Gabriel Escobar are both getting ready to move on. They invested heavily in Vucic and have little to show for it. So has the US embassy in Belgrade. Ambassador Hill has repeatedly denigrated Kosovo’s leadership while lauding Serbia’s.
The new leader of the State Department European Bureau, Jim O’Brien, has not fallen entirely into their unproductive rut. He has been notably blunt on some issues with Vucic. But he, too, continues to promise Serbia progress on instituting an Association of Serb-majority Municipalities in Kosovo that Vucic intends to use as an irredentist mechanism for governing Kosovo’s Serbs.
The Association requires fulfillment of the quid pro quo
This is unfortunate. Kosovo promised this Association in a 2013 agreement that included recognition of the validity of the Kosovo constitution on its entire territory and a commitment to allowing Kosovo and Serbia to accede to the European Union separately and without mutual interference. This amounted to de facto Serbian recognition of Kosovo, since only sovereign states can accede to the Union.
But Serbia has withdrawn from those commitments. Vucic has made it clear that he has no greater tolerance for de facto recognition than for de jure recognition. He has pulled the Serb mayors, police, judges, and other officials out of Pristina’s institutions in northern Kosovo. Belgrade encouraged the Kosovo Serbs to boycott the last municipal elections. Serbia is also opposing Kosovo membership in the Council of Europe and other regional institutions.
The problem is democracy
To expect Kosovo to form the Association without the benefits that Serbia promised in return is foolish. Kosovo Prime Minister Kurti has held a commanding position for most of the past five years in Kosovo politics. There would be no quicker way for him to lose it than to give the Association to Serbia without getting anything in return. He likely faces an election next year. To expect him to commit political suicide to please Belgrade is diplomatic malpractice.
Of course the same is true for President Vucic. Serbia may be headed towards autocracy, but it is not there yet. Few Serbian politicians risk saying the obvious: that Kosovo is lost and Serbia would be better off admitting it. Vucic’s main opposition for years has been more hawkish on Kosovo than he is. It would require unusual courage for him to buck the political currents in Belgrade.
The only way of reviving the Association is to revive the 2013 quid pro quo as well. That should include genuine participation of Serb citizens in Kosovo’s governance, Belgrade acceptance of Pristina’s constitutional and judicial authority in the north, and an end to Belgrade’s opposition to Kosovo membership in international organizations. Kurti might then be able to boast that he had made a good deal. Vucic could claim to have have gotten what Belgrade wanted. And the US and EU would be able to claim real progress in bringing both Serbia and Kosovo closer to EuroAtlantic institutions and values.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kosovo is more qualified than Serbia
Serbia is currently engaged in a ferocious campaign to block Kosovo membership in the Council of Europe (CoE). This is despite an explicit commitment in the February agreement the Americans and Europeans claim is legally binding not to do that for any international organizations:
Serbia will not object to Kosovo’s membership in any international organisation.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/belgrade-pristina-dialogue-agreement-path-normalisation-between-kosovo-and-serbia_en
The merits of the case
I don’t know if the CoE will admit Kosovo later this spring. It certainly should. The main CoE qualification is rule of law:
Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
https://rm.coe.int/1680306052#:~:text=Every%20member%20of%20the%20Council,as%20specified%20in%20Chapter%20I.
Kosovo has been steadily improving and ranks above the median regional average on eight dimensions of rule of law. It is third in the region, slightly behind Montenegro and more behind Georgia, but well ahead of Serbia’s declining scores. Pristina recently resolved a major complaint. It recognized the Decan/i monastery’s property rights, an issue outstanding for more than 20 years. Corruption, regulatory enforcement, and criminal justice are its weakest dimensions. All of these are symptoms of a new and relatively weak state.
Benefits for Serbs
The main purpose of the CoE is
To promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law across Europe and beyond
In principle, you would think that people who really are discriminated against would welcome their country’s membership in such an organization. Instead, Belgrade is dead set against it.
The issue is not only one of ideals. There are practical consequences of CoE membership. It opens to citizens access to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). That is a serious privilege. If a national justice system fails in the eyes of a citizen of a member state of the CoE, that citizen can appeal to the ECHR, which has a strong tradition of ruling in favor of equality and non-discrimination, including the Balkans. That doesn’t mean its decisions are always implemented, as Bosnians will be anxious to tell you, but it does strengthen those who suffer discrimination. Member states can also file complaints against other member states, another privilege that Belgrade should welcome.
Why not?
Belgrade opposes Kosovo CoE membership for several reasons. First, Belgrade doesn’t want to acknowledge that Kosovo is a state. Second, it fears that Kosovo will file complaints against Serbia. There is ample reason for such complaints stemming from discrimination and other human rights violations against the Albanian majority inside Serbia, the treatment of Kosovo citizens in Serbia, and the failure of Serbia to account properly for its wartime malfeasance in Kosovo.
Third, Belgrade is also trying to pressure Kosovo into creating an Association of Serb-majority Municipalities, which it sees as important to formalizing its relationship with the Serb population inside Kosovo. The CoE Parliamentary Assembly regards this as an issue Kosovo should resolve after membership. Such minority associations are common among CoE member states and Kosovo has promised to create one. But it quite reasonably doesn’t want to do so until Serbia acknowledges its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Bottom line
The sad fact is that non-member Kosovo today is more qualified for CoE membership than current member Serbia. It is high time to fix that.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The best president Russia never had
I don’t often watch two-hour videos. But a couple of years ago I did watch this one. It helps to explain today’s news that Alexei Navalny died in a Russian prison. May his memory be a blessing. Radek Sikorski, once again Poland’s Foreign Minister, said it well on NPR this morning: Navalny will be remembered as the best president Russia never had.
The relevance of Boris Godunov
I also enjoyed, so to speak, a performance of Mussorsky’s Boris Godunov at the Bolshoi opera about 10 years ago. In it, Godunov is elected Tsar after murdering the rightful heir. That may be historically accurate or not. But it is hard not to see in this most Russian of Russian operas parallels to Putin. That too tells you something about Navalny’s death.
As with Godunov, it really doesn’t matter whether Putin ordered Navalny murdered. It is possible Navalny succumbed to the harsh conditions in a Siberian prison. He should not have been there. A classical political prisoner, Navalny challenged Putin’s legitimacy and might have competed in a fair election to displace him from power. That was enough to earn him a decades-long sentence and eventual death.
How the West should react
There is little the US and Europe can do to respond directly to Navalny’s death. A few sanctions maybe on prison and security officials? A week or two of badmouthing Putin?
Putin won’t care about any of that. What he cares about is Ukraine. And what he understands is power. He has enjoyed for months now watching Washington twist itself into knots over military assistance for Kyiv. The time has come to straighten that out. One way or another, the House needs to take an up or down vote on the aid package. There is no doubt now that it will pass if the Speaker allows it to be voted on.
But that should not be the end of the story. The US needs to remove the qualitative limits on what it ships to Ukraine. Washington should be supplying whatever weapons Kyiv needs to win the war this year. Nothing short of that will bring about a quick end to a war that has already gone on far too long. Russian defeat is a sine qua non for peace.
What should Russians do?
His own guilt and a pretender combine to bring down the operatic Godunov. That isn’t a likely outcome for Putin. The presidential election there is but a month off (March 15-17). Putin has already eliminated any serious rivals, but there is always ballot destruction or I suppose write-ins that could at least embarrass him.
Another possibility is a palace coup. AP has identified a few possible replacements if Putin were to disappear. But that isn’t likely either. If nothing else, Putin has made sure that he faces no serious rival or risk of rebellion, including among people close to him. .
Putin is 71. That is already above the life expectancy at birth of the average Russian male. Of course he has lived a privileged existence as a KGB officer and politician. But that may not lengthen his years. Holding power seems to keep people alive more often than it kills them.
More than likely…
So more than likely we’ll have to put up with Putin for a while yet. But we shouldn’t put up with jackasses in the US who support his geopolitical objectives, his invasion of Ukraine, or his claim that life is better in Russia than in the West. Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and others in this category need to be shown the exit.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 12
Trump targets:
– NATO and foreign aid — and he has allies
– CISA and cyber
– Insufficiently loyal officials — they even have a Feb 19-20 “boot camp”
– Ecuador wants to mimic El Salvador
– Academics say that’s the wrong way to go
NYT has a revealing article on Ukraine troop problems. I was struck by these facts:
The bill on mobilization has passed a first reading in Ukraine’s Parliament. It would lower the conscription age to 25 from 27 and stiffen penalties on draft dodgers.
Ukraine currently drafts men between the ages of 27 and 60. Under martial law, all men 18 to 60 are prohibited from leaving the country, lest a decision be taken to draft them.
Men with three or more children are exempted, but men with three children or fewer who volunteered, or whose families expanded as they served, have not been permitted to leave the military.
Lowering the draft age, for example, would bring more lithe, healthy soldiers to the fight but would pose long-term risks for sustaining Ukraine’s population, given the country’s demographics.
As in most former Soviet states, Ukraine has a small generation of 20-year-olds because birthrates plummeted during the deep economic depression of the 1990s. Because of this demographic trough, there are now three times as many men in their 40s as in their 20s in Ukraine.
Drafting more men in their 20s, given the likely battle casualties, would risk reducing the number of births in this small generation of Ukrainians, resulting in declines of draft- and working-age men decades from now and endangering the country’s future security and economy.
—
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
