Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Pragmatic Kosovo!
I enjoyed a conversation at SAIS yesterday with two of Kosovo’s finest: Deputy Prime Minister Slobodan Petrovic and Foreign Minister Enver Hoxhaj. Slobodan has led Serb participation in Kosovo’s government for the past three years, holding also the portfolio for local governance. Enver, a political science professor, has participated in many of the international negotiations that Kosovo has undergone over the past twenty years.
The watchword was “pragmatic.” Both speakers are clear about their goals. Slobodan wants improvement in the lives of Serbs who live in Kosovo. Enver wants the Kosovo state to have a well-recognized place in the international community. They have worked together to achieve these goals, but both are ready to compromise along the way, so long as things keep moving in the right direction.
Enver thinks normalization of relations between Pristina and Belgrade means eventual mutual recognition and exchange of ambassadors, but for the moment Kosovo has taken what it could get: an April agreement that recognized its constitution should govern in all of Kosovo and exchange of liaison officers located in the respective capitals’ European Union missions. Belgrade won’t accept Kosovo passports, but it has accepted its identity cards. The other “technical” agreements are also steps in the right direction.
Slobodan thinks the municipal elections held for the first time under Pristina’s authority in Serb-majority northern Kosovo were far from perfect: intimidation and even assassination determined the outcome, which favored a Belgrade-sponsored Serb list. But Petrovic’s Liberals got more votes than ever before and captured what seats they could. The international community should have taken a stronger stand against irregularities and supported those who have been committed to the political process. Next time, he hopes.
In the foreign minister’s view, Kosovo faces some difficult issues in 2014. It wants to get into NATO’s Partnership for Peace but needs to overcome resistance from the Alliance’s non-recognizing members. Kosovo also needs to decide the size, composition label for its security forces. It has passed the halfway mark in gaining recognitions from members of the UN General Assembly and hopes to make it to the two-thirds mark, but it will still face a veto by Russia in the Security Council. Kosovo hosts too many international missions. The UN has been superfluous for some time; the OSCE is overstaffed and undertasked.
The EU rule of law mission is still necessary to handle sensitive cases like that of the recently arrested mayoral candidate Oliver Ivanovic, but the deputy foreign minister thought it important that the remaining cases of this sort be settled expeditiously. In his view, 2014 will be important for the fall parliamentary elections. A gentleman’s agreement to maintain reserved seats for Serbs and other minorities, which were to be phased out after two election cycles, should be respected, not abrogated.
Asked whether the Pristina/Belgrade agreement and recent election results might presage “Bosnia-ization” of Kosovo into two ethnically identified entities, both Slobodan and Enver think not. The already functioning Serb municipalities south of the Ibar will not want to give up what they’ve gained. The northern municipalities are beginning to see clearly that they will gain from operating under Pristina’s authority, as they will retain a good deal of local control as well as substantial resources. If the agreement is implemented in good faith as written and the EU remains the guarantor, the risks are minimal.
I remember a time when I could not have imagined such a conversation. Enver reminded our audience that the war was fought between the Serbian state and the Albanian population of Kosovo. That may be true, but there were long periods when it seemed you could count on one hand the number of Albanians and Serbs willing to have a civilized conversation with each other. Now more than a handful are using democratic institutions to govern together. I know the challenges are still great, but pragmatic can go a long way with time.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Turkey: corruption, media, and power
Yesterday morning, Freedom House hosted a panel discussion about its recent special report on government corruption and freedom of the press in Turkey. The event featured Steven Cook (Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), Susan Corke (Director of Eurasia programs, Freedom House), and Andrew Finkel (Co-Founder of P24). Carla Anne Robbins, Clinical Professor of National Security Studies at City University of New York, moderated. The video above was shown at the event.
What is your reaction to the report?
Steven Cook: The issue of media censorship in Turkey should have received greater attention in Washington DC long ago. Frequently Turkey has gotten a free pass on this issue and more generally on illiberal politics in the last 4 or 5 years. One could argue that Turkey is more liberal than it was 20 years ago, but it is less open than 7 or 8 years ago. Freedom of the press is a barometer and hallmark of democratization. The fact that Turkey is experiencing these problems is a clear indicator to its illiberal turn. The most important aspect of the report is its focus on journalists who are in prison. That is simply part of a broader systemic problem that has developed over the last decade. Ownership structures of media properties have created an environment where journalists have to self-censor or get fired.
Washingtonians, however, are still in thrall to AKP, the Turkish Justice and Development political party. Yet AKP has a social media policy in which there is a virtual army of Twitter trolls. The government leverages technology to intimidate people. It also intimidates journalists into providing press releases for the government rather than reporting honestly on events.
The Obama administration has been tepid in the way in which it has addressed the situation. In 2011 former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the Turkish government for its poor record of freedom of the press. Later, so did Ambassador Ricciardone, who was then silenced. Since then, the US has not spoken up.
What is it like to work with journalists in Turkey and what attempts are being made to get around the media censorship?
Andrew Finkel: At the moment, Turkish society is so polarized between supporters and opponents of the government that sections of the press are becoming more outspoken than they used to be. Media censorship is suppressive. At the same time, voices do get through from the mere nature of modern communication. However, many journalists are not given the opportunity to do their jobs. They are now banding together to try and fight back. With very little resources, we can still reach a large audience through the Internet.
From your experience, the EU has been quite critical – much more so than the Obama administration. Can you talk about what it can do in light of recent events?
Susan Corke: In the last several years I have observed shifting policy relations between Turkey and the European Union. What has changed in particular is where the red lines are. Starting in 2003, the EU served as an engine of reform. It spurred important improvements in Turkey. This continues to be the case today, although it floundered for a few years. Once again, it is a potential driver of reform. The EU should continue emphasizing media liberalization and transparency.
For the US, the problem of not being outspoken about Turkey’s internal democratic problems is not new. The US has concluded that having Turkey as an ally would justify overlooking problems within the human rights sphere. Turkey is critical to current issues in Syria and Iraq and President Obama has fostered a close relationship with Prime Minister Erdogan. In this situation, the opportunity for leverage was missed. Since the Gezi protests, the US does not know how to handle the situation, so it is ignoring its relationship with Turkey. Ignoring these problems will only allow them to fester. The Obama administration should develop a relationship with Turkey that places human rights and democratic issues on par with policy ones.
Steven, do you think Erdogan will listen?
Steven Cook: It is difficult for me to believe that the prime minister can be moved by anything that the US or the EU does. However, the EU could play a crucial role. If there is another prospect of Turkish membership, this could be used as leverage to change the current situation in Turkey. Instead of ignoring Turkey, the Obama administration should have taken a page from the Turks. Good friends speak bitterly to good friends. When looking at the Middle East, Turkey is at odds with every major country in the region. The US should speak up.
As long as AKP remains a potent force in Turkish politics, there will be no real break from it. There is no viable opposition and the press is under assault. Those framing the terms of the debate are those in the pay of the Turkish government. One day we will see a full-blown authoritarian system that does not look like the AKP of 2007.
Carla Anne Robbins: Since the report was released, there have already been updates. On Wednesday, the Turkish parliament approved a legislation allowing the government to block websites without a court order. It also applies if citizens complain of a “violation of privacy.” This law is also intended to enhance web censorship. Blocking proxies prevents Internet users from circumventing the government to access the blocked websites. The Turkish government has worked hard to suppress coverage of tapes that purportedly expose corruption at the highest levels of government. Now that the new legislation is on the desk of President Gül, we fear there are more orders to come. Prime Minister Erdogan is remarkably defiant and tone deaf to criticisms.
The full Freedom House report can be found here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Resting on your laurels crushes them
Foreign Affairs editor Gideon Rose stopped by last week for a public chat with SAIS professor Eliot Cohen, who was once upon a time his youthful professor at Harvard. Their theme was US foreign policy and the future of the global liberal order. Underlying the good-natured joshing between old friends and colleagues was a sharp disjunction in their views of the world and what the proper role of the United States should be.
Rose played the full-throated optimist. Think how much better an average American life is than Napoleon’s: what did he use for toilet paper? Would you want to go to his dentist? Life expectancy and physical body size are increasing. Poverty is down. Economic, social and political development go together and are all on the upswing. There is a general recognition that peace is better than war, cooperation is good, and capitalism works, even if unchecked markets are problematic. The global liberal order, a hybrid “good enough” system, was in place by the 1940s under US hegemony, which provides vital global public goods. The end of the Cold War brought an almost effortless expansion eastwards.
The primary role of US foreign policy in Rose’s view is to sustain, maintain and deepen this system. Washington should first of all do nothing that damages the global liberal world order. It should prevent or avoid great power wars, in particular involving China. It should protect the global commons (high seas, atmosphere, outer space, cyberspace). It should maintain and deepen free trade. Everything else is gravy.
Eliot agreed on the material progress that the world has made but challenged Gideon on two fronts:
- There are real risks to the liberal order originating from the darker forces of human nature. Competitive models present challenges that should not be ignored.
- World history is replete with big disjunctions that depend on individual choices, like the decision of the Archduke Ferdinand not to retire to his hotel on June 28, 1914 after the first assassination attempt in Sarajevo.
Agency cannot be ignored in favor of structure. The triumph of the liberal world order is not inevitable but needs to be nourished and maintained against forces that would happily destroy it.
On the issue of global governance, Gideon recommended Stewart Patrick’s “Global Governance Is Getting Messier. Here’s How to Thrive” in the latest Foreign Affairs, which underlines the jury-rigged but still more or less effective system we are living with. He added that it is important the US tend its role as hegemon by making sure it behaves well and correctly so that it is accepted widely as a legitimate authority.
While agreeing with Gideon in this last respect, I confess to grave doubts about his conception of the US role in the world. It is not sufficient to sustain, maintain and deepen the system, managing the rise of China but little more. There are two reasons:
- The global liberal order is based on concepts that are universal, in particular human rights. If you believe “all men are created equal,” their treatment in autocratic societies (including China) and the treatment of women in many countries is not something you can write off to historical circumstance, cultural differences or your own powerlessness.
- The global liberal order–like its trading arm–needs growth. It cannot sit self-contented and wait for a Berlin Wall to fall. It certainly didn’t do that during the Cold War and there is much less reason to do it now.
Gravy is in the eye of the beholder. But any worldview that relegates the fundamentals of the liberal order to “gravy” can’t have it quite right. Resting on your laurels crushes them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Upside down to right side up
Serbia has been governed for the better part of two years by an increasingly awkward coalition of Prime (and Interior) Minister Ivica Dačić’s Socialists with Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić’s Progressives. The Socialists weren’t socialists and the Progressives weren’t progressives. Both have deep roots in Milosevic’s avowedly ethnic-nationalist autocracy.
This was an upside down coalition. The Progressives had more seats in parliament as well as the presidency. Vučić’s anti-corruption campaign made him the most powerful political figure in the government, overshadowing Dačić, who merits the lion’s share of credit for reaching agreements with Kosovo that have enabled the European Union to open accession negotiations with Belgrade.
The time has apparently come to turn things right side up. Calling early elections for March 16, President Nikolić explicitly intends to see Vučić take his rightful place as prime minister, atop a coalition still to be decided. The Progressives are expected to do well, at the least remaining the largest party in parliament. The main opposition, the Democratic Party, seems to be coming apart at the seams, with former President Tadić leading defections to some still unspecified destination. If needed, any number of smaller parties will scramble to join the Progressives in the majority. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
L’état c’est le soldat
Georgetown University’s conference on Egypt and the Struggle for Democracy included a final panel discussion on “Restoration of Democracy and the Rule of Law in Egypt: The Roles of Pro-Democracy Groups and the International Community” featuring Abdul Mawgoud Dardery (former Freedom and Justice Party member of Parliament), Nathan Brown (George Washington University), Dalia Mogahed (CEO, Mogahed Consulting), and Emad Shahin (American Univesty in Cairo). Tamara Sonn (College of William & Mary) moderated.
Abdul Mawgoud Dardery: Egyptians have been suffering for decades living under a police state. In order to understand current events, it is crucial to understand the historical context. During the revolution, Egyptians were against Mubarak and also the entire system. On February 11, 2011, Mubarak fell, but the system did not.
The March 19 referendum was the first challenge to the revolution. It moved the country from a revolutionary mode to a reform agenda. The referendum put Egypt on the course of formal democracy, which is long and gradual. Some political actors thought siding with the military was an easier, faster way to move forward.
Morsi ruled with a nationally unified government, but the challenges it faced were tremendous. Forces of the old regime were still in place: the military, police, judiciary, and state bureaucracy. Some say Morsi failed. He was made to fail. In spite of this, Egyptians were pleased because they lived in a democracy where they were able to move and hold meetings freely. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A decent Syrian election: result, not prelude
Jimmy Carter and Robert Pastor propose an election to resolve Syria’s civil war. They suggest three principles that would have to be accepted as preconditions for negotiating the war’s end:
● Self-determination: The Syrian people should decide on the country’s future government in a free election process under the unrestricted supervision of the international community and responsible nongovernmental organizations, with the results accepted if the elections are judged free and fair;
● Respect: The victors should assure and guarantee respect for all sectarian and minority groups; and
● Peacekeepers: To ensure that the first two goals are achieved, the international community must guarantee a robust peacekeeping force.
And they spell out first steps: Read more
RSS - Posts
