Tag: NATO
Dear Albin,
First and foremost: congratulations on your election win and your successful efforts to form a coalition! While I still haven’t seen your government program, I would like to offer some thoughts on the problems you face and how to deal with them.
You now face the daunting challenges of leading a country that is less than two decades from a devastating war and only 12 years from independence. Kosovo lacks universal recognition and struggles to get treated fairly by the European Union, which has withheld the visa waiver, includes five non-recognizing countries, and blames Kosovo more than Serbia for the current stagnation of talks between Belgrade and Pristina. While Kosovo’s economy has grown pretty well, it is still plagued by poverty, corruption, political favoritism, and nepotism. Its politics are rough, its state less than mature, and some of its Serb minority as well as Belgrade still unreconciled.
There will be no instant solutions, but there are some things you can do that will set the right course.
My understanding is that the EU was prepared to fulfill its visa waiver promise if Kosovo would suspend its tariffs on Serbian goods in exchange for Serbia ending its de-recognition campaign and allowing Kosovo into international organizations like Interpol and UNESCO. This was a good deal that your predecessor rejected for domestic political reasons. The start of your mandate is the ideal time to suspend the tariffs, in exchange not only for the visa waiver and an end to the de-recognition campaign but also Serbian implementation of the several Pristina/Belgrade agreements, especially the one on energy.
Nothing you do will work well unless Kosovo’s economy continues to grow, preferably even faster than it has to date. I understand that your political movement Vetevendosje opposes privatization and is keen on state intervention in the economy and perhaps even a sovereign wealth fund. Some think the Trepca mining complex will be manna from heaven.
I doubt those are the directions in which you will find economic salvation. I’ve never seen a serious report on Trepca that was positive. The investments required to modernize the complex are big. Zinc and lead, its primary mineral deposits, are just not worth much on the market today. Kosovo’s growth in the future will depend far more on its business environment, which has not been improving as it should, and on its small and medium enterprises than on Trepca. You need entrepreneurs more than magnates, who too often turn into oligarchs.
You also need the state, by which I mean institutions that can guarantee continuity under the rule of law even as politics sweeps one government out and another one in. Kosovo has done pretty well in forming and developing some of those institutions. I would cite the Constitutional Court, the Kosovo Police, the Defense Ministry, the nascent Army, and the Foreign Ministry as good examples, but partly because I am more familiar with them than many of the other institutions. All however need more professionalism and parliamentary oversight if they are to meet European Union standards. Statebuilding is unglamorous, but vital.
Accession to NATO and the EU will, I trust, remain your strategic objective. You have some advantages over other aspiring states in the EU regatta. Kosovo’s press has been relatively free and its courts relatively independent, at least at the upper level. Your legislation has been EU-compliant since independence. Your main shortcoming is in implementation. You need to get much more serious about applying all the legislation you pass.
I am an enthusiast for EU membership and skeptical of propositions like the “mini-Schengen” proposal to eliminate borders among Serbia, Albania, and Macedonia as well as the recent agreement to open air service to Belgrade, which reiterates Serbia’s sovereignty claims and ignores far more important issues concerning control over air operations above Kosovo. Kosovo’s limited state capacity would have to be diverted from implementing the acquis communautaire in order to participate in mini-Schengen, which is one more regional effort to achieve many of the things that should have been achieved in the Regional Cooperation Council, the Belgrade/Pristina dialogue, the Central Europe Free Trade Area (CEFTA), and other fora.
Far more important is that you take the offensive in proposing things that would really matter to your country and shift the onus of refusing to Belgrade. Your Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff should make themselves available to talk with their Serbian counterparts. You could propose that the Kosovo/Serbia border be demarcated as a technical exercise (which it is) even without Serbian recognition. I would like to see the Serbian Church’s property rights recognized, consistent with Kosovo’s constitution, on a unilateral basis: the Constitutional Court’s decision on church property in Decan/Decani needs to be implemented. It is vital that Serbs in Kosovo see and feel that the Kosovo state is prepared to treat them fairly.
The Europeans and Americans may pressure you to re-enter the dialogue with Belgrade sooner rather than later. I see no advantage to Kosovo in doing that before Serbia’s parliamentary election in April, as the internationals will want to get something for President Vucic that he can use to his advantage in his electoral campaign. Best to play hard to get, insist on a good deal, and be prepared to wait for the period immediately after the election, when Vucic will be at the peak of his power and able to deliver on things that will be well forgotten before the next Serbian election.
Albin: when we met 21 years ago, I was with the United States Institute of Peace on my first visit to Pristina and you were the right hand to the Kosovo thinker and undaunted activist, Adem Demaci, who has continued to be an inspiration to you in seeking to contribute to your country’s freedom and welfare. I did not imagine when we first met that you would become the prime minister of an independent Kosovo with aspirations to join NATO and the EU. That is an enormous privilege, which you have won with skill and determination. I wish you success. As my grandmother would say about anything new, even if it couldn’t be worn: “wear it in good health.” (trog gezunterheit).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|February 3-9
- Making the Case for Sustained U.S. Engagement in a Transitioning Afghanistan| February 5, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM | CSIS | Register Here
In the United States, there is a sense of “Afghanistan fatigue.” While there are certainly valid criticisms that can be levied against U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, a significant amount of social, economic, political, and public health progress has resulted from our engagement and Afghans’ own hard work and commitment.
The under-five mortality and maternal mortality rates have nearly halved since 2000. Virtually no one in Afghanistan had electricity in 2000, but by 2016, nearly 85 percent of the population did. Women’s education was practically non-existent under Taliban rule, but 3.5 million Afghan women are now enrolled in school. 170 radio stations, hundreds of print media outlets, and dozens of TV stations have opened since 2001 as free media, cell phones, television, and the internet have transformed Afghan society. GDP per capita has tripled since 2001, and official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of central government expenditure decreased from 206 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2015. The Afghan National Army is now the primary group fighting the Taliban, and U.S. troop presence has dropped from 110,000 in 2011 to the current plan of 8,600. But Afghanistan’s political progress and social gains are at risk of collapse if the United States chooses to completely disengage from the country. Given the mix of gains and disappointments, how do we establish the correct framework for U.S. engagement with a transitioning Afghanistan in 2020 and beyond?
Speakers:
Representative Michael Waltz: U.S. Representative for Florida’s 6th Congressional District
Rina Amiri: Senior Fellow, NYU Center for Global Affairs and Steering Committee Member, Alliance in Support of the Afghan People (ASAP)
Peter Bergen: Vice President of Global Studies and Fellows, New America
Earl Gast: Executive Vice President for Programs, Creative Associates International and Former Afghanistan Mission Director, USAID
- A Women’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11 Policy Roundtable| February 5, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Stimson Center | Register Here
We will be joined by Dr. Joana Cook, author of the new book “A Woman’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11,” Seamus Hughes of the George Washington University Program on Extremism, and Lauren Protentis, communications and national security expert.
- United States Strategy for Central Asia: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity| February 5, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Heritage Foundation will host a moderated discussion to launch the United States’ new Strategy for Central Asia (2019-2025). Deputy Assistant to the President Lisa Curtis will join Ambassador Alice Wells and Acting Assistant Administrator Gloria Steele for a public address and discussion on the administration’s priorities and future prospects for U.S. engagement in Central Asia. Remarks will outline how the United States will support the five countries’ efforts to improve regional security, bolster economic connectivity, and ensure sovereignty and independence across the region.
Speakers:
Lisa Curtis: Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for South and Central Asia, National Security Council
Ambassador Alice: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State
Gloria Steele: Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Luke Coffey: Director, Douglas & Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
- Accountability in Syria: Achieving Transitional Justice in A Postconflict Society| February 5, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
Join us for a book discussion on the challenges of achieving accountability and justice in postconflict Syria. Gross violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Laws have been committed in Syria. After a full cessation of violence, launching transitional justice processes will signal to the victims that those responsible for committing these crimes will be brought to reparation and that the time of impunity is over. This book discusses the available options of justice and how accountability will be achieved through international systems and a new hybrid court system.
Speakers:
Mai El-Sadany: Legal and Judicial Director, The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy
Mohammad Alaa Ghanem: Syrian Academic and Pro-democracy Campaigner
Radwan Ziadeh: Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
- Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East| February 6, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 12:45 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The civil wars racking the Middle East have torn
the political, social and economic fabric of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
and Yemen. MEI has released a pathbreaking book, Escaping the Conflict Trap:
Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East, to deal with these difficult but
important issues. The book was co-edited by MEI President Paul Salem and MEI
Senior Fellow Ross Harrison, and includes contributions from former senior
diplomats, MEI experts and academics.
This half-day
conference will address the insights and findings from this important book.
Contributing authors will share their views about the individual civil wars, as
well as their regional and global geopolitical backdrop.
Speakers:
Nadia Bilbassy: Senior Correspondent, Al-Arabiya TV and MBC TV
Chester Crocker: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of African Affairs; James R. Schlesinger Professor of the Practice of Strategic Studies
Ambassador (ret.) Robert Ford: Senior Fellow, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Syria
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald Feierstein: Senior Vice President, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Yemen
Ross Harrison: Senior Fellow, MEI
Anne Patterson: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Paul Salem: President, MEI
Dan Serwer: Non-resident scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim: Senior Fellow and Director, Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, MEI
Marvin Weinbaum: Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
Jonathan Winer: Non-resident scholar, MEI
- Is War Over| February 6, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | CATO Institute | Register Here
A scholarly debate has emerged over trends in global conflict and the future of warfare. Is the international system becoming more peaceful, or is it just as violent and war-prone as it always has been? Is great-power war a thing of the past, or has it merely been dormant under changing technological and institutional conditions? Crafting an appropriate U.S. foreign policy is dependent on accurately measuring the state of war and peace in the world. Please join us for a discussion of these vital issues.
Speakers:
Paul Poast: Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
John Mueller: Political Scientist, Ohio State University; Senior Fellow, CATO Institute
Christopher Fettweis: Professor of Political Science, Tulane University
Bethany Lacine: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester
John Glaser: Director of Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute
- NATO and the New Decade: Assessing the Transatlantic Alliance| February 7, 2020 | 11:45 AM – 1:00 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Last year, NATO marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the alliance. At the start of the new decade, a united, flexible, and future-minded NATO is needed more than ever.
Join Hudson Institute for a discussion with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana. Mr. Geoana has served as the minister of foreign affairs of Romania, the president of the Romanian Senate, and as ambassador of Romania to the United States. He has held his current role since July 2019.
Calls for a reexamination of NATO’s relevance and effectiveness come amidst a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. President Trump has been a vocal proponent of burden sharing to ensure the organization’s lasting success. Speaking in December at the NATO Leaders Meeting, he said the alliance had taken positive steps and “increased the numbers that other countries are paying … by $130 billion.”
How is NATO delivering on burden sharing and what impact does this have on the alliance’s ability to carry out its missions and operations? How is the organization adapting to a new security environment? What are the key challenges facing the alliance in the decade ahead?
Speakers:
Mircea Geoană: Deputy Secretary General, NATO
Peter Rough: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Ken Weinstein: President and CEO, Hudson Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What Montenegro needs
Marija Jovićević of Montenegrin daily Pobjeda asked questions. I answered:
Q: Adoption of new law about property of religious community in Montenegro caused great tensions between Podgorica and Belgrade, protest all around Montenegro and violence in Montenegrin parliament. Lots of fake news and propaganda from Serbia is making situation more complicated because they want to keep ownership of Montenegrin churches and monasteries. Cyber experts think that Moscow also is using this tension to destabilize Balkan again. Your comment?
A: Issues of church property are often difficult. They need to be solved by Montenegrins in their democratic institutions and independent judiciary. Nonviolent protest is everyone’s right. Violence is no one’s right.
Q: Can Montenegro be a member of EU until 2025? Is that even possible?
A: I do think it possible, but really you have to ask the EU Council. Montenegro, if it is fully qualified, will be no burden on the EU, and accession would help to keep the European perspective alive for other countries.
Q: Do You think that EU is aware that Montenegro is target of hybrid war from Moscow?
A: I don’t know how they could miss it.
Let me add: Montenegro needs a pro-EU, pro-NATO, pro-democracy opposition. The constant diversion of opposition sentiment into pro-Russian, pro-Serbian channels is ensuring that alternation in power is difficult if not impossible. It is time for a serious, responsible opposition to emerge. There is no guarantee it will come to power, but democracy requires it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end is nigh 2019
Except for my 401k, the teens have not been a great decade. We’ve watched the Arab spring turn into the Arab civil wars, Russia reassert itself annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine, China increase its overt and covert challenges to the US, and North Korea defy American efforts to limit or eliminate its nuclear and missile programs. The US has initiated trade wars, withdrawn from international commitments (including the Paris climate change accord as well as the Iran nuclear deal and the intermediate nuclear forces agreement), and abandoned its support for democracy and rule of law, not only but importantly in Israel and Palestine.
Several of these developments could worsen in 2020. The Iran/US tit-for-tat is more likely to escalate than de-escalate. Some Arab civil wars like Yemen and Syria are burning out, but others are spreading beyond the Arab world, with Turkey intervening in Syria and Libya, Russia and Egypt in Libya, and Iran in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia is not advancing in Ukraine, but it seems disinclined to withdraw via the Minsk II agreement that would re-establish Ukraine’s control over its southeastern border with Russia and allow a significant degree of autonomy for Luhansk and Donetsk. China and the US have reached a limited and partial agreement on trade, but no more comprehensive accord is in sight. North Korea is bound to test more missiles, if not nuclear weapons.
US mistakes are especially concerning. The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has freed Iran to begin to violate its provisions, accelerating the date at which Tehran will have all the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons. Global warming is accelerating and the arms race with Russia is quickening. NATO is not brain dead, but US leadership of the alliance is more in doubt than ever before due to the President’s inability to recognize the real advantages a multilateral partnership gives to American power projection. American abandonment of even the pretense of evenhandedness in Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians has opened the door to extremist Jewish ambitions to annex the West Bank.
Only 11 months remain before the next US presidential election. It will focus mainly on domestic issues like the economy, health care, religion, and race. But there can be no doubt the United States is less well positioned internationally than it was in January 2017, when President Trump took office. The rest of the world increasingly regards the U.S. as a menace to peace and security, not its guarantor. Excessive reliance on military force and erratic decisionmaking have reduced American influence. Even the relatively strong economy, which has continued to grow at the pace established in the Obama administration and thereby reduced unemployment to historic lows, has not propped up American prestige, because of Trump’s trade wars. Enthusiasm for America is at a nadir in most of the world.
We can hope for better and toast the prospects this evening. But there is little reason to believe the United States is going to recover until it gets new leadership, not only in the White House but also in the Senate, where the new year will see some semblance of a “trial” of President Trump on self-evident impeachment charges. He tried to extort Ukraine into investigating a political rival for his personal benefit using US government resources and has withheld cooperation with the resulting investigation. But few if any Republican Senators seem ready to acknowledge the facts. I might hope Chief Justice Roberts will refuse to preside over a sham procedure and insist on testimony, but he has given no hint of that yet.
America is a great country. It has survived many mistakes. But whether it can get through the next year without doing itself irreversible harm is in doubt. It could “acquit” and re-elect a president most of the world regards as more of a threat to peace and security than Vladimir Putin. Or it could, against the odds, redeem itself and its role in the world with a conviction, a good election free of international interference, and inauguration of someone the world and most its citizens can respect. Take your choice, America.
And happy New Year!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Turkey sandwich: between NATO and Russia
On Wednesday December 4, the Middle East Institute and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation held their 10th Annual Conference on Turkey. The conference brought together policymakers and experts to discuss the challenges Turkey faces domestically and its relations with the Middle East and the West. The conference consisted of three panel discussions. The third panel was entitled Turkey between NATO and Russia. The panelists consisted of Ivan Safranchuk, Associate Research Scholar & Lecturer, MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University, Aydin Selcen, Columnist, GazeteDuvar & DuvarEnglish, General (ret.) Joseph Votel, Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security, MEI, and Jim Zanotti, Specialist, Middle Eastern Affairs, Congressional Research Service. The panel was moderated by Barbara Slavin, Director of Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council. Here are the key takeaways from the panel.
- Turkey’s Future in NATO
Recent actions by Turkey in Syria against the Kurds and the purchase of S400 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia exemplify how far formally shared values and interests between Turkey and NATO have diverged. Votel said he is unsure if the West can look at Turkey as a reliable NATO ally anymore. They are working against the coalition’s efforts in Syria and their overall military and political support in NATO has waned in recent years.
As for the purchase of S400s, Votel argued the Turks are looking to free of themselves of dependence on the West for weaponry. Russia wants to sell the air defense system to Turkey in order to drive a wedge between NATO allies. If they are successful, Russia could slowly undermine the Alliance and decrease its capabilities and global reach. Turkey is slowly shifting from a friend to a “frenemy.”
The US has historically led the Alliance too address problems, but Washington is no longer playing that role. NATO needs to discuss the options for future Turkish involvement in the organization. However, Selcen stated that NATO does not have set mechanisms to kick a member out. Additionally, he argued that Turkey’s geographic strategic importance raises its value to remain a part of the organization. NATO will have to pursue other measures.
- Turkish – Russian Relations
The developing relationship between Turkey and Russia is not a recent phenomenon. It started in the 1990s. Anger towards the US is a partial explanation for increased relations between the two countries, but it does not fully explain it.
Safranchuk argued that before the explosion of globalization, Russia and Turkey had to sacrifice part of traditions and culture in order to develop their economies via modernization, which depended on their relationships with Europe. In order to become more powerful, Moscow and Ankara had to become more Western. Otherwise they faced stagnant growth but could maintain their cultural traditions. Now Russia and Turkey can be powerful without Europe and they, along with China, would like to help each other to be successful.
Selcen agreed and stated that Erdogan is emulating Putin’s style of governing by shifting to more authoritarian rule. Despite historical and current grievances, Turkey and Russia continue to grow closer. On the purchase of the S400s, Selcen explained that the Turkish air defense was based on the strength of its air force to deter attacks, but now it has grown weaker and they must pursue a proper air defense system. However, the S400 batteries can only offer certain protective bubbles around Ankara or the presidential palace.
- Turkey’s Objectives in Syria
Turkey is in its consolidation phase in Syria. Votel notes it may not have gotten everything it wanted, but Ankara continues to fortify the territory in Syria it gained during the past several years. There continues to be violence between the Turkish military and Turkish-backed armed groups, and the one hand, and the Kurds on the other, but the expansion of Turkish control in northeast Syria has stopped for now.
Selcen said that Turkey has had a feeling of encirclement since the end of World War I. Ankara is pursuing an assertive foreign policy in Syria to establish its position there, but Selcen thinks there are better and cheaper ways to pursue foreign policy goals and secure border security. There is increasing friction between Russia and Turkey in Syria because of their divergent goals, but Safranchuk stated that Russia is not opposed to Erdogan securing Kurdish areas. Moscow sees the necessity to secure national borders and national security.
- Washington and Ankara
Congress and the White House have differing opinions on Turkey, particularly following the October offensive against Syrian Kurds. Zanotti said that it is too early to tell if Congress has definitively turned away from Turkey. There is still fence sitting by a number of Republican Senators on legislation to impose CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) sanctions in response to the S400 arms deal with Russia. It took Congress 8 months to pass CAATSA against China after they purchased Russian military platforms and it has only been 4 months since Turkey began receiving the defense batteries. The arms deal is set to finalize in March 2020, so the Republican majority Senate may be allowing things to play out as other strategies are attempted to dissuade Ankara from mobilizing the Russian defense system.
Anti-American sentiments have increased throughout Turkey and cut across the entire political spectrum. US-Turkey relations are arguably at their nadir and a desire to push away from the West is evident throughout the population. Selcen stated that traditional diplomacy does not exist between Washington and Ankara anymore. Relations rely on President Trump’s and President Erdogan’s interactions. A phase of “diplomacy without diplomats” has begun. According to Selcen, the Turkish Foreign Ministry has been sidelined in important decision making. He thinks this approach is working for now but is unsure if it will continue to do so in the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army December 5 and 6
December 6
– DIA has done a big unclassified report on Iran’s military power.
– A law firm has done a good summary of recent sanctions policy.
– FP says State is excluding officials from information on senior officials’ phone calls.
-David Ignatius says State blocked a contract to train Saudi intelligence.
December 5
Something’s going on. I don’t know whether there has been a genuine increase in the threat from Iran or whether the administration is creating a pretext for military action in the region. Here are the dots that seem to connect: US officials are now revealing that Iran has secretly moved short range ballistic missiles into Iraq. Despite public denials, Pentagon reporters hear that the military wants to send an additional 14,000 US troops to the Middle East [but no details on location or types]. SecState Pompeo had an urgently scheduled meeting with IsraeliPM Netanyahu, where the key topic was said to be Iran. Under Secretary Rood made an even more explicit warning of Iranian military action.
Meanwhile, a former senior intelligence official says Trump often disputes what IC briefers tell him.
Kim Jong-un also seems to be ratcheting up his threats to change policy at the New Year.
Reuters says Jared Kushner is now playing a big role in China trade talks.
NYT study says US cluster munitions have caused many US friendly fire deaths.
A Syracuse professor burns a straw man in a WSJ op-ed. He decries any value in the “interagency process” because the president is in charge of foreign policy. Of course the president is the ultimate authority. But wise and successful presidents over the years have used the process to vet and revise their policies, and to implement them. Many of Trump’s setbacks have come precisely because he acted impulsively or ignorance of contextual details. [See, I don’t only send things I agree with.]
As an example of this process internationally, look at the detailed official statement from the NATO summit.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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
