Tag: NATO
Russia disrespects sovereignty and the Dayton accords
I did an interview yesterday with Aldin Tiro, who published it today at hayat.ba:
Q: You probably heard that [Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov] met with Milorad Dodik last night in Republika Srpska, where the BiH [Bosnian] flag was not hoisted at all.
Lavrov also praised the RS National Assembly’s decision to be militarily neutral. At the meeting, the state of BiH was degraded and disrespect was expressed, and Dodik said at one point that Lavrov first came to RS last night and that he would come to BiH only [the next day]?
How to comment on such behavior of Russia, that is, Lavrov, who is an experienced politician?
A: Lavrov knows what he is doing: providing support to a secessionist who seeks to do Moscow’s bidding and prevent NATO membership.
Q: How do you view the facts that today Sefik Dzaferovic and Zeljko Komsic (the other two members of the Presidency of BiH) refused to meet with Lavrov?
A: I think they did the right thing. The Sarajevo state institutions need to be respected. Lavrov will be furious.
Q: Has Russia expressed disrespect for BiH? One could constantly hear Lavrov’s statement that Russia respects the territorial integrity of BiH and sends it to Dayton, and it is persistently repeated that it wants the High Representative to leave?
A: Duplicity is Lavrov’s middle name. You can’t respect the territorial integrity of BiH and visit Dodik first in a room without the Bosnian state flag. You can’t respect Dayton and want the High Representative responsible for the interpretation and implementation of Dayton to leave.
Q: How do you view Milorad Dodik’s behavior during these visits?
A: Dodik is Moscow’s puppet. No more, no less.
Q: Who will “profit” the most, that is, who is the manager here?
A: Lavrov is the manager, but no doubt Dodik is profiting.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Restoring individual rights and hope in Bosnia
I joined happily with knowledgeable colleagues in signing Fixing Dayton: A New Deal for Bosnia and Herzegovina, published yesterday by Dan Hamilton of the Woodrow Wilson Center. But my own thoughts go beyond that paper in some respects. Here is what I would advise the Biden Administration about what Dan Hamilton calls the “why, what, and how” of fixing Bosnia and Herzegovina:
Why: The Dayton agreements that ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina were a striking US foreign policy success in 1995, but the country risks becoming a disaster in the 2020s due to growing inter-ethnic strife. State failure in Bosnia would spew refugees into the EU and bring an end to a successful NATO effort to protect a vulnerable Muslim population. Breakup of the Bosnian state would strengthen Russian-sponsored secessionists not only in the Balkans but also in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia and cause further fraying of the NATO Alliance. The US needs to re-assert it leadership, in partnership with the EU, which is unable for now to proceed expeditiously with enlargement. Europe whole, free, and democratic is still a worthy vision, but the Europeans need America to help make it happen.
What: The objective in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be a functional, effective, and united state within its current borders capable of meeting the requirements for entry into NATO and the European Union. This will require elimination of the elaborate governing architecture created at Dayton that froze in place the warring parties (Republika Srpska and the Federation) and rewarded their commitment to ethnically based control of territory. Bosnia and Herzegovina should be governed in the future by a government in Sarajevo capable of negotiating and implementing its obligations to the EU as well as municipalities delivering services to citizens, with equal rights for individuals and vigorous legal and judicial protection for minorities.
How:
- Diplomatic: US/EU agreement on initiating a process of constitutional and other reforms, Zagreb and Belgrade convinced to support the effort, re-empowerment of the High Representative, deployment of additional NATO (read British and American) troops to Brcko to prevent either Serb or Muslim seizure of this vital chokepoint, pressure on Russia and Serbia to halt financial assistance Repubika Srpska.
- Legal: preparation by Bosnians of a new constitution that eliminates or drastically curtails the entities, full implementation of European Human Rights Chamber and Constitutional Court decisions, professionalization of the judicial sector, restoration of international prosecutors and judges in the court system, and prohibition of heavily armed police and paramilitary forces.
- Economic: an end to IMF and World Bank assistance to the entities and instead resources shifted to the municipalities and the “state” government (Sarajevo), vigorous enforcement of anti-corruption laws with European Union assistance, personal sanctions on corrupt officials levied by the US and EU in tandem, recovery and return to worthy causes of ill-gotten gains stashed in Europe or the US, strict conditionality on international financing requiring in response support for political and legal reform.
- Political: reform of the electoral law to disempower the ethically based political parties, election in parliament of a single president and two vice presidents, strict limits on the vital interest veto and the power of the House of Peoples, adoption of a law rendering all financing of political parties transparent and requiring democratic procedures for election of party leaderships.
- Public affairs: VoA/RFE/DW programming to counter Russian disinformation, redoubled international support to civil society and political forces that support serious reforms, diplomatic protection for citizens demonstrating against corruption and police abuse, and a concerted effort to publicize corruption among politicians and officials.
The obstacles to an effort of this sort are substantial. Those who govern today in Bosnia, who come to power in unfree and unfair elections conducted within a constitutional system that favors ethnic nationalists, have no interest in seeing serious reform or in preparing the country to become a serious candidate for NATO or EU membership. They will seek to use any reopening of the Dayton agreements as a means of increasing their own power and possibly breaking apart the state. The US and EU will need to be prepared to act vigorously against strong resistance by those who seek secession, ethnic separation, or ethnic domination by one group over others.
The rewards of success would be substantial. Making Bosnia into a serious candidate for NATO and EU accession would have a demonstration effect worldwide. It would restore American and European soft power, weaken ethnic nationalists in the Balkans and elsewhere, and illustrate the unmatched capacity of liberal democracy to govern effectively.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, November 4
For only the 4th time since the Civil War, we won’t know the winner of a presidential contest within a day or two. In 1876, a congressionally established commission decided between competing electoral slates from 3 states in February. In 1916, Charles Evans Hughes waited until November 22 to concede to Woodrow Wilson. In 2000, the Supreme Court stopped the vote count in Florida in mid- December.And now we await final returns and possible recounts — and maybe additional legal challenges — in five states. The Senate majority is also uncertain — and may not be resolved until Georgia runoff election[s] on January 5.
WaPo says Cybercom ran an operation against Iran before the election .
A US general says US troops might be sent to Senkaku Islands.
WOTR has a provocative piece saying US military is wrong to plan against a fait accompli in the Baltics or Taiwan.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. 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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The emerging tetrapolar mad world
Pantelis Ikonomou, former nuclear IAEA inspector, writes:
Nuclear weapons are a vital but latent dimension of the growing geopolitical competition. Nuclear capabilities continue to constitute a prime source of power in shaping global power relations amid dangerous non-nuclear conflicts and military confrontations. New power balances are forming.
The main emerging poles are two well-established ones, the United States and Russia, and two emerging ones, China and Europe (led by France as the EU’s last remaining nuclear power post-Brexit). The US and Russia have failed in efforts to engage China in new nuclear and ballistic missile agreements. France is trying to exercise leadership in Europe and the Mediterranean. French President Emmanuel Macron has offered to open a “strategic dialogue” with willing European states prepared to accept the central role of France. He pointed out that “Europe should reinforce its strategic autonomy in the face of growing global threats and stop relying solely on the United States and the Transtlantic Alliance for its defense”
Any excited system will sooner or later reach a state of equilibrium. A tetrapolar structure is emerging around the leading nuclear weapon states: the US, Russia, China and France. These four nuclear powers are flanked by others based on criteria of pragmatism and strategic necessity. The whole process is guided more by bilateral agreements than existing treaties and international institutions. The new tetrapolar world order appears as follows:
- Around the US superpower stand nuclear UK as well as Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and several European NATO states. The connecting force within this pole is American geopolitical primacy and its ambition to strategically control East and South Asia.
- Around Russia will stand India, several former Soviet states, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and sometimes Turkey and Egypt. This pole’s source of cohesion is nuclear deterrence against the Chinese threat, as well as geopolitical influence in the Middle East region.
- Around China are Pakistan, North Korea and the majority of the developing countries in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In this nuclear pole the predominant parameter is China’s nuclear deterrence of its US, Russian, and Indian adversaries as well as Chinese economic, military and political assistance.
- France would be flanked by several southern European, Middle East and African states (and occasionally by Israel). The prevailing link in this alliance, besides historical and cultural references, is strategic influence on the wider region and security against a rising adversary, Islamic extremism.
Once a stable equilibrium is achieved, this new tetrapolar nuclear world order might allow the leading nuclear powers to realize the vast global threat they pose to humankind through their bilateral standoffs. Nuclear disarmament as requested by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT, Art. VI) and emphatically repeated by the international community in the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty of July 2017 should be a top priority. De-escalation of the current nuclear race and terminating weapons “modernization” ought to be the initial objectives of the world powers aiming eventually to complete and irreversible global nuclear disarmament.
The current nuclear threat to humanity arises from the suicidal so-called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) nuclear strategy, It ought to be abolished. The threat of a nuclear apocalypse, whether by intent, accident, or miscalculation, will be at its highest level ever so long as MAD prevails in this tetrapolar world.
* This article draws on the author’s book “Global Nuclear Developments – Insights of a former IAEA nuclear inspector,” Springer, May 2020.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 1
Happy New Year, 2021. US Government has money until Dec 12.
NYT has long report on GOP efforts to build case for voter fraud and weaponize it during and after the election.
Atlantic reports on right-wing militias.
WSJ says DNI overruled objections to declassifying unverified Russian reports on Hillary Clinton.
House Intelligence Committee says IC doesn’t have enough info on China.
HASC hearing has bipartisan criticism of Administration NATO troop plans.
Conservatives tell of safe ways to cut DOD budget.
WOTR has good ideas on improving US-Chinese crisis management.
RAND has a board game for doing strategy. Should I try it in class?
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. 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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 18
The respected annual poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs finds sharp partisan divisions among Americans, even though they support engagement abroad. WaPo has a good report.
For Democrats, the five leading threats to US vital interests are, in order, the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, racial inequality in the United States, foreign interference in U.S. elections and economic inequality in this country.
For Republicans, the top five threats to vital US interests are the development of China as a world power, international terrorism, large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the country, domestic violent extremism and Iran’s nuclear program. Here’s the survey.
NYT says China is losing friends in Europe.
Senate Democrats have a $350 billion package to counter China.
Politico says China issue won’t determine US elections. Former DHS aide to VP Pence on coronavirus quits, blasts Trump
StratCom head sees no need for nuclear test. [Note: this is an issue in net week’s exercise]
NATO report says Taliban is flush with cash.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. 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
