Tag: Russia
Bear hug
Milan Marinković of Niš continues his series on the new government in Belgrade:
Last week Serbian defense minister Aleksandar Vučić spent a few days in his first official visit to Russia. After meeting with Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin, who previously served as ambassador to NATO, Vučić told media the two sides agreed to engage in defense industry cooperation. The project would involve joint participation in the international market. In relation to this, Vučić announced that Serbia was going to open a factory for manufacturing complex military systems.
The agreement is currently in the preliminary stage. An expert team should be formed soon to work out specific details. In Serbia analysts are divided on potential effects of the cooperation. Some believe it could benefit Serbia’s defense industry, which is already a successful exporter of military equipment to third-world countries. Others are more cautious due to insufficient information and fear that Russia will obtain too much influence in Serbia.
The likely strengthening of military ties between Russia and Serbia is not a surprise. Shortly after becoming defense minister, Aleksandar Vučić said that Serbia, as a “militarily neutral“ country, will not join NATO or any other military alliance, but remains free to develop bilateral relationships with anyone. He praised good cooperation of the Serbian army with the Ohio National Guard, but criticized his predecessor for neglecting “other parts of the world” – notably Russia. Although Vučić’s narrative suggests that Belgrade is planning to keep on walking a thin line between East and West, for the moment it appears to be tacking East.
It is not only in defense affairs that Russo-Serbian relations are on the increase, but also in the economy. Russia says it is seriously interested to take part in vital infrastructure projects in Serbia as a major investor. The Serbian government has admitted it may have to sell several state-owned monopolies in order to reduce the ever growing budget deficit and public debt. Instead of private companies – either foreign or domestic – the most likely candidate to buy some of these is the Russian state. Russia is also frequently mentioned as a potential buyer of the steel factory in the town of Smederevo, which Serbia recently re-nationalized following the withdrawal of U.S. Steel from ownership of the factory.
Serbia is thus slowly but surely getting sucked into Russia’s sphere of influence. Being almost devastated economically, Serbia is in no position – and generally has no reason – to antagonize any country, and certainly not one like Russia, which is a force to be reckoned with even when at its weakest. Serbia needs good relations with Moscow. But having a good relationship is quite different from building a strategic partnership. If Serbia is still committed to European integration, as its government claims, then it must seek major allies among leading EU states as much as in the Kremlin.
A big part of the orientation towards Russia is based on populism. Serbs love Russia, including many who also support the country’s bid for EU membership. Vladimir Putin would no doubt win presidential elections in Serbia by a large margin if he were eligible to run. At the same time, the ongoing economic crisis is making the EU look less attractive in the eyes of the Serbian public – as evidenced by latest opinion polls.
Russia’s deep pockets may help save Serbia in the short-term. The question is whether Serb affection for Russia will be good or bad for Serbia and its European ambitions in the long run.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
America should not play Asad’s game
David Rohde asks “Is Syria America’s Responsibility?” But he never really answers that question, which is a good one. Instead he answers another one:
We must embrace Syrian moderates and openly declare them our allies. Whether or not we should provide them with military aid is a separate debate. But if we are going to provide non-lethal aid we should do so wholeheartedly. We cannot say America is behind you — secretly.
Of course we can and have often said America is behind you secretly. The fundamental problem is not secrecy, it is whom to assist and how. There is a military opposition and a civilian one. I’d rather we pumped non-lethal support into the civilians, Islamist or not. They are organizing upwards of 100 peaceful demonstrations (often more than 150) each day in Syria. The military effort is scaring Allawites, Christians and others into supporting the regime. The day they go out into the streets to demonstrate–which they will not do so long as the Free Syria Army is attacking–is the day Bashar will be forced from power.
But let’s be clear: Syria is not America’s responsibility. What is happening there is Bashar al Asad’s responsibility. The “responsibility to protect” is in the first instance Syria’s. Russia and Iran, as Syria’s prime military allies, are also responsible for what is becoming an effort to frighten Syrians into submission through random, but sectarian, killing. This technique was used in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to establish the “republic of fear.”
I doubt it will work in Syria, because too many people have already lost their fear. But let’s be clear: there is a lot to be afraid of, as events in the past couple of days at Daraya, a community near Damascus, testify. Upwards of 200 people appear to have been murdered by regime forces. Don’t click on this video if you are even remotely squeamish:
It is of course difficult to suggest that people subjected to this treatment should not respond by defending themselves. They certainly have every right to do so. But it is not clear that revolutionary violence will win the day over a regime that is armed to the teeth and ready to kill. It is for Syrians to decide what the best strategy is. But those of us concerned to see the revolution come out on top and Syria eventually evolve into a democracy are rightly concerned when we see priority given to military assistance.
Revolution and war are political struggles. Empowering those who will take Syria in a democratic direction is what America should worry about. Those are the civilian activists, who risk being pushed aside because Bashar al Asad prefers a military fight he thinks he can win. We should not be trapped into playing his game.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wishing Brahimi well, despite the odds
Yesterday’s Security Council decision to end the UN Supervisory Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is one of those inevitable moves that makes me wonder how the international system, such as it is, manages to survive. We had several hundred trained observers in Syria in close contact with officials of the Asad regime and at least some of the opposition activists. They played a critical role in reporting what was going on in Syria for several months and in assigning responsibility for events like the Houla massacre. We know we are going to need that kind of knowledge of the local terrain whenever a transition away from the Asad regime begins. What do we do? We withdraw the observers.
Fortunately the UN is wise enough to leave a couple of dozen international officials behind in Damascus. Their immediate concerns will be coordination of humanitarian assistance and support for the newly named UN/Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. But they will also be the vital brain trust of any future UN transition mission. My compliments to friend and colleague Edmond Mulet, who heads of UN peacekeeping, for maintaining at least a seed of something that can grow if and when circumstances permit.
While it is amply clear that the Annan plan failed, largely because the opposition was unwilling to negotiate with the regime so long as Bashar al Asad remains in place and Asad was unwilling to step aside, it is not clear if the savvy Brahimi has better prospects. He has rightly spent the last week or so trying to ensure stronger and more unified Security Council support for his mission, but he does not seem to have succeeded yet. The Americans have decided to go around the UN to collaborate with Turkey and provide more direct support to the Syrian revolutionaries. The Russians canceled a meeting scheduled for today in New York of the “action group” for Syria. When diplomats cancel meetings, things are not going well.
I won’t be surprised if withdrawal of the observers precipitates intensification of the fighting in Syria. With less likelihood of being observed internationally, both sides will try to gain advantage. The sectarian dimension of the fighting will deepen. The Iranians are playing a more and more critical role in supporting the regime, with the opposition reporting not only Iranian boots on the ground but also direct engagement in fighting. Saudi Arabia and Qatar will be upping their ante in the form of weapons for the opposition, which is begging for shoulder-fired missiles (MANPADs) to counter Asad’s increased use of aircraft.
None of this is good news. While conventional wisdom holds that Asad cannot last, when and how he goes will be important. Continuation of the violence for even a month or two more risks serious regional destabilization, which is the worst outcome for the United States. It is not uncommon these days for people to question whether the territorial division in the Levant, rooted in the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, can last. If the state structure of the region starts to implode, the consequences could be a good deal more chaotic, and geographically more widespread, than what happened during Iraq’s sectarian civil war in 2006-7.
I am wishing Brahimi well, despite the odds.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The worst of all possible worlds
It is getting hard to keep score, though this graphic from Al Jazeera English may help. Today’s big news is the defection of Syria’s prime minister, who didn’t like Bashar al Asad’s “war crimes and genocide.” About time he noticed. There are reports also of more military defections, even as the battle for Aleppo continues.
Does any of this matter? Or does Bashar get to hold on to his shrinking turf despite going into hiding and losing the support of regime stalwarts?
Michael Hanna offers an important part of the answer in a Tweet this morning:
Syrian defections follow strictly sectarian pattern, likely hardening core support. 1st big Alawi defection, if it comes,will be devastating
The Asad regime is increasingly relying on a narrow base of Alawite/Shia (about 12-13% of the population) support, as Sunnis (like the prime minister) peel away and denounce Bashar’s violence against the civilian population, which is majority Sunni. Christians and Druze have also been distancing themselves, and Kurds have taken up arms against the regime (without however aligning themselves with the opposition). The opposition draws its strength from the majority population and is supported by Sunni powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. What we are witnessing is a regional sectarian war in the making, one that could last a long time and involve ever-widening circles in the Levant.
The Alawites fight tenaciously because they think they know what is coming. This is an “existential” war for them: if the lose, they believe they will be wiped out.
That, along with Russian and Iranian support, could make this go on for a long time. If it does, the consequences for Syria and the region will be devastating. Damascus has already unleashed extremist Syrian Kurds to attack inside Turkey. Jordan is absorbing more than 100,000 Syrian refugees. Iraq’s efforts to guard its border with Syria have led to a confrontation with its own Kurdish peshmerga. Fighting between Sunnis and Alawites has spread to Lebanon, which is also absorbing large numbers of Syrian refugees. The Syrian opposition claims to have captured 48 Iranians in Damascus, sent there to help the regime (Tehran unabashedly claims they were religious pilgrims).
Breaking this self-reinforcing cycle of sectarian polarization is an interest broadly shared in the international community. As The Economist pointed out last week, Russian interests won’t be served if Syria descends into total chaos. Some would like to suggest that territorial separation is a solution. This is nonsense: no one will agree on the lines to be drawn, which will be decided by force of arms directed against the civilian population. That is the truth of what happened in Bosnia, however much the myth-makers delude themselves.
There are several ways the violence might end:
- a definitive victory by the opposition (it is hard now to picture a definitive victory by the regime).
- an international intervention to separate the warring forces and impose what the U.S. military likes to call a “safe and secure environment.”
- a coup from within the regime, followed by a “pacted” (negotiated) transition.
Any of these would be better than continuation of the current chaos, which is the worst of all possible worlds. But I’m afraid that is the mostly likely course of events until Moscow and Washington get together and decide to collaborate in ending the bloodshed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Farewell Pristina
I traveled back to the U.S. yesterday, leaving behind this interview in English, published by Pristina’s Daily Express in Albanian:
Q. Finally there is a government in place in Belgrade, a few months after the elections there. What are the chances now for a dialogue between Prishtina and Belgrade, and the possibility of achieving eventual results?
A. It is too early to tell. The new prime minister Ivica Dacic has said some good things: he will give priority to Serbia’s economy, he is demoting the bureaucracy that is dedicated to Kosovo, and he says he will implement the agreements already reached with Pristina. But we have not only to hear what the new government says, but see what it does.
Q. On Friday there were contradictory signals in the Serbian Parliament during the government’s oath. Prime minister Ivica Dacic said that he will remain committed to keep Kosovo within the Serbian borders, but he appeared ready to continue the dialogue and to implement the agreements reached.
A. The Serbian constitution requires that Kosovo remain part of Serbia, so really Dacic has no choice about that. Serbia’s politicians created an enormous obstacle for themselves when in that the 2006 constitution. Continuation of the dialogue is not an end but a means. Let’s see if he fulfills the promise to implement the agreements already reached.
Q. What do you expect in the following phases as regards the relations Kosovo-Serbia? Can they be normalized soon?
A. I expect very little, but I do hope Serbia will recognize that its own interests are best served by normalization. Normalization means to me that Belgrade and Pristina should have representatives in each others’ capitals and accept each others’ territorial integrity. Belgrade is still far from that. I’m not sure Kosovo is quite ready for that either.
Q. How do you view the Kosovar diplomacy compared to the Serb one?
A. Serbian diplomacy is well-established and has been tactically very good: it has slowed recognitions and gained the presidency of the General Assembly. It has convinced too many countries that independent Kosovo is a threat to regional peace and security.
But I don’t really see what good any of that will do in the end. Recognitions are coming and will continue to come. The General Assembly presidency will end in a year, when I hope to see Kosovo with well over 100 recognitions.
Serbia lost its case at the International Court of Justice when it asked for an advisory opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence, and its policies in northern Kosovo have created serious problems with organized crime and political violence that have already delayed the opening of Serbia’s negotiations for EU membership.
Slowing things down really doesn’t help Belgrade if it hurts Serbia’s EU prospects and the eventual outcome in Kosovo is the same.
Q. There was criticism that Kosovo diplomacy has not functioned properly. How do you see this?
A. You are up against a tough and experienced opponent with longstanding ties around the world and backing from Moscow. Kosovo’s diplomatic apparatus is still young and under construction–you are little known in many parts of the world. The European Union has split on Kosovo, with five members not recognizing. You have often had to rely a good deal on the Americans, especially in Latin America and Asia. You have made good progress in Africa lately. You are not going to win every battle. But ultimately Kosovo will be a UN member and well accepted in the international community. It already is in many places.
Q. Should Kosovo change something as regards diplomacy, in order to increase the number of recognitions, as well as improve the image of the country?
A. Kosovo needs to use every resource available to project its reality abroad. Its women are proving a particularly strong asset. Arta Dobroshin and Majlinda Kelmendi are helping you tell the world that Kosovo is a creative and talented country. Vlora Citaku is providing leadership in preparation for the European Union. The “Empowering Women” conference that President Jahjaga will sponsor in Pristina in early October is another good example.
My own family is surprised when I tell them how peaceful, safe and normal my visits to Pristina are. The end of international supervision gives you an excellent opportunity to tell the world that this is a country that meets its international obligations and will continue to do so even after formal international supervision comes to an end.
One of the most important things you need to do is project Kosovo’s reality to people in Serbia, where the press never ceases to portray circumstances here as chaotic, violent and unfriendly to Serbs. That image is also harmful to you in other countries.
Reaching out to ordinary Serbs and showing them that Kosovo knows how to treat people of all ethnic backgrounds fairly is a patriotic thing to do.
All countries in the democratic world are judged in part by how they treat their most disadvantaged minorities. America handicapped itself for many years on the world stage by not treating minorities correctly at home.
The human rights of Serbs, Roma and other citizens of Kosovo have to be fully protected if Kosovo is to be seen as a serious democracy worthy of international recognition. Implementation of the Ahtisaari plan has helped you a great deal. Continuing efforts in this direction will also pay off.
Q. You are in contact with Kosovo officials. Do you think that there are competent people in the Kosovo diplomacy?
A. Yes, I do believe your diplomatic officials are a wonderful, talented group of well-trained and highly committed people working under the strong leadership of Enver Hoxhaj. I am pleased to collaborate with them. The resources they have to work with are necessarily very limited, so they need to be clever and creative in generating opportunities to showcase Kosovo abroad and pursue its interests effectively. You are never going to have embassies like the American one I ran in Rome 20 years ago, which had 800 employees. But a few good Kosovars can work wonders if they are willing to work together and apply their limited resources in well-focused ways.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
1. Crisis in Syria: What are US Options? Middle East Policy Council, 9:30am-12:00pm, July 23
The Middle East Policy Council invites you and your colleagues to our 69th Capitol Hill Conference. Live streaming of this event will begin at approximately 9:30am EST on Monday, July 23rd and conclude around noon. A questions and answers session will be held at the end of the proceedings. Refreshments will be served. If you are watching the livestream and want to submit a question for one of the speakers, email MEPCQuestions@gmail.com. Please be sure to be concise and specify the speaker you are addressing.
Speakers:
|
Spokesperson, Syrian National Council |
Professor, George Mason University; Author,Leaving without Losing |
|
Senior Adviser, Middle East Initiatives, USIP; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown |
Senior Analyst, Wikistrat |
Moderator:
Executive Director, Middle East Policy Counci
Location: Rayburn House Office Building, Room B338/9
RSVP Acceptances only: (202) 296-6767 or info@mepc.org
Website: http://mepc.org/hill-forums/crisis-syria
2. Police Reform in Pakistan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3:00-5:00 pm July 25
Pakistan’s police force faces formidable challenges, ranging from rising crime rates and sustained terrorist campaigns, to limited resources, inadequate training, and poor management. Despite this reality, policymakers have yet to include the law enforcement sector as a top priority for investment and reform.
In this context, Asia Society Senior Advisor Hassan Abbas and experts from both Pakistan and the United States have collaborated to provide a framework for law enforcement reform throughout the country. The culminating report by the Independent Commission on Pakistan Police Reform is the result of extensive interviews conducted throughout Pakistan with experienced police officials, security analysts, and legal experts, in addition to articles contributed by experts in the field. The report is also informed by Dr. Abbas’s service in Pakistan’s police force in the 1990s and his subsequent research and work on counterterrorism during his academic career in the United States.
In conjunction with the launch of the report, Commission members will discuss the current state of Pakistan’s police force and offer recommendations for enhancing the capacity of police to check the growth of organized crime and conduct critical counterterrorism operations throughout the country.
This event is being held in partnership with the Middle East Institute.
SPEAKERS: Hassan Abbas is a Senior Advisor and Bernard Schwartz Fellow at Asia Society and Professor of International Security Studies at National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs. As a former government official in Pakistan, he served in the administrations of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1995–1996) and President Pervez Musharraf (1999–2000).
Aitzaz Ahsan is a Barrister-at-Law and a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He is a former Federal Minister for Law and Justice, Interior, Narcotics Control, and Education. Elected to the Senate of Pakistan in 1994, he then served as the leader of the House and the leader of the Opposition. He was previously the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Arif Alikhan is Deputy Executive Director for Law Enforcement and Homeland at Los Angeles World Airports and a former Distinguished Professor of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at National Defense University. He previously served as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and as Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles.
Wendy Chamberlin (moderator) is President of the Middle East Institute. She previously served as Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees from 2004 to 2007. A 29-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service, she was Ambassador to Pakistan from 2001 to 2002.
Location:
1779 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20036
Website: http://asiasociety.org/calendars/polic…
3. Bearing Witness to Syria’s Tragedies, New America Foundation, Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 12:15pm-1:45pm
The New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force and the Syrian American Council invite you to a discussion with Rev. Paolo Dall’Oglio on the situation inside Syria and future prospects for the country.
A month ago, Father Paolo, an Italian Jesuit priest, was expelled by the Syrian government for his work on behalf of the opposition and his outspoken criticism of the government’s repression. Father Paolo left behind a 30 year long legacy of promoting interfaith dialogue, having helped to restore a 1,000 year old monastery in Nebek, north of Damascus, which became a site of Christian and Muslim understanding and welcomed all faiths.
What are the prospects for political and religious unity among the opposition? What is the likely impact of a new Syrian government with much broader ethnic and religious representation should the current Regime fall? What avenues for action does the international community have so long as Russia and China remain opposed to pressure? Father Paolo will speak about the dynamics between different minority groups, the current state of play on the ground, and focus especially on what lies ahead.
PARTICIPANTS
Featured Speaker
Father Paolo Dall’Oglio
Italian Jesuit Priest
Moderator
Leila Hilal
Director, Middle East Task Force
New America Foundation
Location: 1899 L Street NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036
Website: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2012/bearing_witness_to_syria_s_tragedies
4. IISS-US Roundtable Discussion-Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Tuesday July 24th, 2-3pm
Michael Elleman is Senior Fellow for Regional Security Cooperation at the IISS-Middle East, located in Bahrain. He previously worked at Booz Allen Hamilton, where he supported Department of Defense, Department of Energy and Defense Threat Reduction Agency programs. Prior to that, he worked for the United National Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission as a missile expert for weapons inspection in Iraq and Lockheed Martin’s Research and Development laboratory. He is a graduate of physics from the University of California, Berkeley.
This meeting was moderated by Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS-US and Corresponding Director, IISS-Middle East.
IISS-US events are for IISS members and direct invitees only. For more information, please contact events-washington@iiss.org or (202) 659-1490.
Location: IISS-US, 2121 K Street NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20037
Website: http://www.iiss.org/about-us/offices/washington/iiss-us-events/irans-ballistic-missile-capabilities
5. Israel and Egypt: In-Depth Reports from a Changing Region, July 25th, The Washington Institute, 12:30pm-2:00pm
Egypt and Israel, whose chilly peace has long provided an anchor of stability in a troubled area, are responding politically and strategically to powerful forces within their countries and from abroad. Egypt’s new government is a dynamic work in progress. Israel’s broad new coalition government confronts domestic tensions as well as potential threats from the north, south, and east.
During his recent visit to Israel and Ramallah in the Palestinian Authority, David Makovsky interviewed top political and military leaders who shared their thoughts on the Arab Spring, Syria, Iranian nuclearization, and peacemaking. Eric Trager spent the past month in Egypt, where he met with the emerging leadership of the Egyptian government, opposition members, diplomats, and academics.
Makovsky and Trager will provide a detailed account of evolving events and highlight potential hotspots for U.S. policymakers on July 25, 2012, in Washington DC. The discussion begins at 12:30 p.m.
Request an invitation to this event.
Location: 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036
6. The Obama and Romney Foreign Policy Agendas: A Discussion with the Candidate’s Leading Advisors, Brookings Institution, 2:00pm-3:30pm, July 25th, 2012
On July 23 and July 24, President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will address the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, laying out their foreign, defense and national security agendas just weeks before the national political conventions. Following his speech, Governor Romney will depart on a multi-country overseas trip, with stops in Britain, Israel, and other possible destinations in Europe. These campaign events come as the crisis in Syria dissolves into civil war, the European economic crisis continues to unfold, and U.S. troops prepare to leave Afghanistan.
On July 25, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a discussion examining the foreign policy, defense and national security agendas of candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, featuring Michele Flournoy, co-chair of the National Security Advisory Committee for Obama for America and Rich Williamson, senior adviser for foreign and defense policy for Romney for President, Inc. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy, will provide introductory remarks. Brookings Guest Scholar Marvin Kalb will moderate the discussion.
After the program, speakers will take audience questions.
EVENT AGENDA
- Introduction
Vice President and Director
Foreign Policy
- Moderator
Guest Scholar
Foreign Policy
- Featured Speakers
- Michele Flournoy
Co-Chair, National Security Advisory Committee
Obama for America
- Rich Williamson
Senior Adviser for Foreign and Defense Policy
Romney for President, Inc.
Location: Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Website: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/07/25-obama-romney-adviser
RSS - Posts
