Tag: United States
With balance and proportionality for all
I don’t know why this fine letter from the chairs of the US, German, and UK legislative foreign relations committees appears in the Kyiv Post before other outlets, but what it suggests would be a good restart in the right direction:
Miroslav Lajčák
Special Representative to the Western Balkans
European Union
Gabriel Escobar
Special Representative to the Western Balkans
United States Department of State
The Lord Peach GBE KCB DL
Special Envoy to the Western Balkans
House of Lords
Your Excellencies,
We write to raise our concerns over the current policy of the EU, U.S. and UK towards Serbia–Kosovo relations. We believe that recent events and crises have highlighted flaws within our collective approach and would request it is reconsidered.
Whilst our focus must remain on the normalisation of relations and continued Euro-Atlantic pathway for both Serbia and Kosovo, the recent unrest requires all parties to renew focus on de-escalation and deterrence.
The boycott of the Municipal elections by Kosovan Serbs on 23rd April, subsequent attack on KFOR soldiers on 29th May and arbitrary detention of Kosovan police officers by Serbian authorities on 14th June all point toward a rapidly deteriorating situation which not only threatens the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, but regional peace itself. Recent discoveries of arms caches in northern Kosovo and reports of continued weapons smuggling across the Serbia-Kosovo border highlight the risks of further escalations.
Kosovo is a sovereign country and functioning democracy. This fact should form the basis for our
collective policy towards the current crisis. Attempts to disrupt democratic elections in Kosovo by Serbia must be criticised publicly as foreign interference with tangible measures implemented to hold them accountable if they continue to undermine free and fair elections. This will help to facilitate future elections with full participation from all communities present in the northern Municipalities. We must exercise deterrence diplomacy if the current crisis is to be resolved, the EU-facilitated dialogue is to yield positive results, and the implementation of the Ohrid Agreement is respectfully adhered to.
We are asking for balance and proportionality to return in dealing with Kosovo and Serbia.
Kosovo has faced significant repercussions following the efforts by Mayors to enter their offices in Northern Kosovo. Kosovo must coordinate with KFOR in the future to prevent escalations. But the lack of pressure placed on Serbia following the arbitrary detention of three Kosovan police officers and failure to hold to account those responsible for attacks on KFOR highlights the current lack of even-handedness in addressing such flash points.
We do note the recent sanctioning by the US Government of Aleksandar Vulin, head of the Serbian Security and Information Agency (BIA).
The current approach is not working. We would ask that the international community learns from our past and ensure we do not adopt a Belgrade-centred policy for the Balkans. We also ask that you consider adopting a policy of deterrence diplomacy to prevent further aggravation of the security and political situation in the north of Kosovo, with balance and proportionality guiding any statements and any punishments or sanctions issued and that those who do up-hold the rule of law and democracy are not scolded.
Signed,
Senator Bob Menendez
Chair
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
United States Senate
United States of America
Michael Roth
Chair
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Bundestag
Germany
Alicia Kearns MP
Chair
Foreign Affairs Committee
House of Commons
United Kingdom
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Montenegro’s long day’s journey into night
Miodrag Vlahović, former Montengrin Minister of Foreign Affairs and former ambassador to US, is now president of the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee. He continues his observations on his country’s current political course:
Post-election political chaos in Montenegro continues.
A winning “Europe Now!” Movement – which controls 24 out of 81 seats in Parliament – has announced the start of negotiations with the pro-Russian/pro-Serbian coalition “For the Future of Montenegro. ” These are the parties of the former “Democratic Front.” Their leaders are still faced with a pending second trial for their alleged participation in failed 2016 coup d’etat, backed by Russia.
That is no surprise. Europe Now! has repeatedly stated that no negotiations with the former ruling Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) would be possible. That pledge was an important element of their election campaign. That is the first contradiction of the current Montenegrin political constellation: the DPS, which is clearly pro-European, i.e. in favor of EU integrations, cannot be the partner of Europe Now! whose public political program is focused on EU membership.
Three consequences
The option to invite pro-Russian parties to join the new government has provoked three immediate negative consequences.
The first problem already exists. In two governments since the fall from power of DPS there have been no ethnic Montenegrins, a detriment largely ignored by the US and EU. The Serb nationalist narrative prevails.
The second concerns the Albanian, Bosniak, and Croat minority parties, which have 10 seats in parliament.* It is not yet clear whether they will lend their support to a government that denies the Srebrenica genocide, negates Montenegrin identity, and supports Russian aggression in Ukraine. But it is highly unlikely they would participate in a government which (re)confirms the political platform that the Serbian Orthodox Church, backed by Aleksandar Vučić regime, has promoted since 2020.
The third consequence concerns the international community’s Quint (US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy) diplomatic representatives in Montenegro. They continue to hesitate to voice public opposition to participation of pro-Russian parties in the next Montenegrin government. The Ambassadors remain attached to the formula “stable government with clear EU orientation.” Their inertia gives encouragement to pro-Serbian/Russian nationalists.
A serious and present danger
The statements of the Quint do not disturb “Europe Now!” because they fit well with its lip service to EU integration and allow room to include in the government those who have for decades obstructed Euro-Atlantic integration. Still, the unofficial prime minister-designate Milojko Spajić, President of Europe Now!, has been unable to say how many MPs or even parties will support his government, nevermind name a cabinet.
Because of loopholes in the Montegrin constitution, this hiatus allows the “technical” Prime Minister Abazović, to continue in office. His “out-going” mandate has lasted almost a year, despite the lack of accountability for dubious deeds. One of the rare points of consensus (minus Serbia and Russia) is that Abazović should go as soon as possible.
Wrong direction
But that would not suffice to calm the situation. Instability and uncertainty loom over the smallest country in the Western Balkans. Without a clearer and more precise position of the Quint, Montenegro will continue to face enormous problems. It will likely revert to negative and destructive political developments, with implications for the economy and security.
Montenegro continues its long journey in wrong direction. Where and when it may arrive to the point of no return is not only a rhetorical question, but a serious and clear danger.
* This sentence has been corrected from the original, which had omitted the Croats and cited 11 rather than 10 minority seats.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Security trumps democracy in the Middle East
Prime Minister Netanyahu is proceeding with his takeover of Israel’s judiciary branch. This is despite objections from massive protests as well as the US government. The State Department has nevertheless announced that US security assistance to Israel will continue. It is “ironclad.”
No surprise
This should surprise no one. The only real leverage the US has is security cooperation. But President Biden, like his predecessors, has deemed it vital to the US, not only to Israel. If you believe that, you don’t want to use it as leverage. Besides, how long would it take for domestic politics to overcome a decision to interrupt security cooperation with Israel?
Israel faces no immediate threat from its Arab neighbors. The Iranian threat is real, but that is another reason the Americans won’t want to interrupt security cooperation. It would significantly relieve pressure on Tehran. The rhythm of US-Israel cooperation for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities accelerated noticeably last year. The US wants to maintain military pressure on Iran, not relieve it.
Consequences
What the Americans don’t do has consequences. Netanyahu’s coup against the judiciary is going to make it easier for his right-wing ultra-nationalist coalition partners to pursue their goals. They seek permanent Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Jerusalem. With the Supreme Court now limited in when it can intervene, legislation that de facto accomplishes that end is not only possible but likely. That will deal the death blow to the already moribund two-state solution.
The Palestinian Authority may cry foul but will remain quiescent. Palestinians will not. Israel is already facing an armed rebellion on the West Bank, where this year more than 160 Palestinians have been killed. It could face attacks from Gaza and perhaps Lebanon, but none of that will change the strategic picture. Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will be relegated to third class non-citizenship in a one state reality. Palestinians inside Israel proper already are relegated to second class citizenship.
The Saudi reaction
Netanyahu hopes the Saudis will ignore the Palestinian reality and make their peace with Israel, as the Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco have already done. He could be right. Mohammed bin Salman may tell the world that the Palestinians are the central issue for the Arab world, but four years ago he told American Jewish leaders that the Palestinians need to take what they can get and make their peace with Israel.
This is where the US does have some cards, but it is unlikely to play them. Netanyahu, hoping for an agreement with Saudi Arabia, is pressuring Washington to give MbS what he wants: a civilian nuclear deal and a security guarantee. Biden understandably hesitates about both. US law requires the Administration to get an agreement that its civilian nuclear technology would not be used for enrichment or reprocessing. That the Saudis aren’t likely to accept. Congress would be unlikely to approve a security guarantee. In any event, the Saudis won’t be anxious to give a rabidly nationalist Netanyahu government the satisfaction of a peace agreement. So that seems a bridge too far under current circumstances.
Security suffices
I was asked on Al Hurra last night whether security was a sufficient basis for US relations with Israel. The answer is yes. It has been the basis for American relations with other Middle Eastern countries for decades. Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Turkey know they have to listen to American lectures on democracy and human rights. But they also know those values will not interfere with security cooperation.
Where the Israeli departure from democracy will have a real impact is on American Jews, who are devotees of individual rights. A poll recently found “about three-quarters of Americans, including 80% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans, would choose a democratic Israel that’s no longer Jewish, over a Jewish Israel without full citizenship and equality for non-Jews living under its authority.” But that won’t matter, because Christian evangelical support for Israel will more than compensate for any loss among America’s Jewish population. Security trumps democracy in the Middle East.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The West needs to rebalance Balkans policy towards tough love
The US Congress has now conducted hearings on the Balkans in both the Senate and House. Members from both sides of the aisle evinced discomfort with Biden Administration policy. It has leaned heavily towards appeasement of Belgrade and has failed to react strongly to secessionist moves in Bosnia. What is the alternative?
The US is oblivious to the obvious
Administration officials are fond of reiterating the laudable 1990s strategic objective: Europe “whole and free.” They are oblivious to the obvious. It is not happening anytime soon. President Putin has forced the drawing of a new line in Europe. The Russian-dominated parts Europe will remain for now on the Eastern side of the line. This includes Russia and Belarus as well as parts of Georgia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and Moldova (Transnistria). The remaining questions are about Ukraine and the Balkans. Will the line go through them, or will they join the West?
In Ukraine, conventional warfare will answer the question. In the Balkans, it is already decided. For the foreseeable future, there is no serious prospect that Serbia or Republika Srpska (the Serb-dominated part of Bosnia and Herzegovina) will join the West.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
For the RS, that is obvious. Its president, Milorad Dodik, is a wholly-owned Russian proxy. He is doing his best to end any accountability to the Sarajevo “state” government. The RS parliament has already passed legislation denying the validity of Constitution Court decisions. It is only a matter of time before it passes legislation claiming state property, which the RS needs as collateral for its international loans. The international community’s High Representative will presumably annul all secessionist legislation from now on, but how he will enforce his decisions is not clear.
Dodik may not proceed all the way to declaring independence, as even Serbia would be reluctant to recognize the RS. But whether he does or not, RS will remain attached to the East so long as he is in power. The only hope for getting rid of him is to bankrupt the entity and bail it out with Western financing, conditional on his resignation and an end to secessionist ambitions. It is not yet clear whether Washington and Brussels have the stomach for that.
Serbia
Serbia is different. President Vucic is hedging between East and West. He plays Washington and Brussels off against Moscow and Beijing, hoping to get all he can from all four. Belgrade has a policy of military neutrality, for example, and conducts exercises with both NATO and Russia. Serbia buys weapons from both East and West. It ships weaponry to both Russia and Ukraine. Belgrade has refused to align with EU sanctions against Russia, but it votes against Russia on some General Assembly resolutions denouncing Russian aggression.
This Yugoslav-style “non-aligned” foreign policy is linked with ethnic nationalist domestic politics and ambitions for regional hegemony. Judging from ongoing anti-Vucic demonstrations, there are a lot of Serbs who aren’t happy with the current regime, which they view as violent, corrupt, and repressive. But the only viable electoral opposition to Vucic stems from his Serbian nationalist right. He has all but obliterated the liberal democratic opposition, which was weak to begin with. He controls most of the popular media and judicial system in addition to the executive. The Serbian security services and their allies in the Serbian Orthodox Church are wedded to Moscow.
In the region, Vucic aims to create the “Serbian world,” analogous to Putin’s “Russian world,” an idea that supported the invasion of Ukraine. In its weakest form, the goal is Belgrade political control over the Serb populations in neighboring states. Belgrade has already achieved that in Montenegro and Kosovo. In Bosnia, only Dodik, whose interests are not congruent, stands in the way. In its stronger form, the Serbian world entails annexation of territory Serbs occupy in neighboring countries and creation of Greater Serbia.
Rebalance the policy
Belgrade has not moved one inch closer to the West in the six years of Vucic’s presidency, despite consuming a truckload of diplomatic carrots. Strengthening of his links to Beijing has more than compensated for any weakening of his links to Moscow. The RS has spent 17 years moving towards secession. It is not going to reverse course without vigorous pushback. This situation requires a more realistic Western policy in the Balkans.
We need to lower expectations and raise incentives. Dodik’s RS and Vucic’s Serbia are not going to voluntarily embrace the West. The US, UK, and EU will need to starve the RS of all Western funds in order to end Dodik’s secessionist ambitions. They will also need to end Serbia’s immunity from Washington and Brussels criticism. Washington recently sanctioned Aleksandar Vulin, Director of Belgrade’s Security Intelligence Agency, for corruption, drug and arms trafficking, and supporting Russia’s malign influence. That was a step in the right direction. The EU should do likewise. A public demand for Vulin’s removal as well as for the arrest and extradition to Kosovo of the thugs who attacked NATO peacekeepers in May would be another.
Possible benefits
Rebalancing toward Serbia and the RS would have the great virtue of testing not only their intentions, but also Moscow’s and Beijing’s. Moscow under current conditions is not going to want to increase funding to the RS. China hopes to use Serbia as an entry point to Europe. Beijing might think twice about investing in a Serbia that is on the outs with the EU. We could well be happily surprised if China and Russia decide to cut their losses and leave Serbia and the RS on the Western side of the new division of Europe. If they don’t, we will at least have saddled them with significant burdens.
Rebalancing could also help to revive the moribund dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. Washington and Brussels have focused their pressure on Pristina, which has no hedging option and has traditionally bandwagoned with the West. There is a long history of Pristina responding better to carrots than sticks. Even longer is the history of Belgrade responding better to sticks than carrots. If Vucic saw Washington and Brussels coming after him with a stick rather than carrots, he would be inclined to hedge more in their direction. Tough love would bring better results than appeasement.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 24
– WSJ says China has greatly reduced its FDI in the US
– Politico says China has sent a lot of military hardware to Russia.
– NYT calls Ukraine war a violent stalemate
– Spanish elections end in deadlock, not the right wing takeover predicted
Today is the 75th anniversary of Truman’s executive order desegregating the US armed forces. Yes, good policy can be good politics.
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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 21
Several items caught my eye this week. More to come later.
– NYT had a big story — a welcome change from the usual campaign horse race stories — on Trump plans for a stronger, more assertive presidency.
– New Yorker had good interview with a law professor on how it might work.
– WSJ sees a visceral clash among Americans in the 2024 elections. Too much hate and fear.
– Anne Applebaum wonders whether Tennessee is still a democracy.
-New Yorker tells how the House Administration committee is the “traffic cop”
– House & Senate appropriators differ on foreign aid including Taiwan.
– National Security Archive has documents on the president’s nuclear “football”
– RollCall explains the administration’s new cybersecurity strategy. Here’s the document.
– SIGAT summarizes its reports on Afghanistan in reply to Senators.
– CRS has new report on covert actions and congressional notifications.
-AEI’s Kori Schake comments on NATO summit
And since ChatGBT seems capable of passing Harvard courses, I’m sticking with my oral exams.
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
