Tag: United States
Belgrade: a question of when, not if
A friend writes from Belgrade:
Vucic continues to psychologically set the conditions to prepare the population for war against Kosovo through the media and other means. These efforts have intensified recently:
–Vucic plans to invade the north of Kosovo as soon as it is politically expedient to do so;
–Timing depends on his perceptions of relative Russian strength/support, and Western weakness;
Perceptions of Western weakness
–The continued strength of Western support for Ukraine will play a large role in these perceptions. If Western support for Ukraine is seen as tepid or pushing Ukraine towards unwanted negotiations, then Vucic will feel emboldened;
–Vucic’s perceptions of Western weakness depend in part on feedback from Serbia’s recently reinvigorated lobbying effort in Washington, as well as feedback from Orban and Lajcak;
–Vucic’s perceptions of Western weakness/resolve also depend in part on US Ambassador Hill’s continued highly embarrassing and debasing public efforts to kow-tow to Serbia;
Deterrence is failing
–Vucic believes the West will not respond militarily to an incursion in the north of Kosovo and will only wag fingers and protest impotently, while calling for renewed negotiations;
–These opinions are shared by most educated Serbs and are seen as painfully obvious to all but the most sycophantic Western politicians and diplomats;
–The only Serbs who seem to disagree with this evaluation are those with a vested financial interest courting the EU and Washington, or those who support retaking Kosovo and think they can fool the West.
Thus, it is a question of when, not if, and a question of whether or not the US and EU can retain any deterrent credibility in the short to medium term.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Failure is definitely an option
Things are coming apart in the Balkans, where a sometimes uneasy peace has prevailed for more than two decades. War in the 1990s mode is unlikely. No one can sustain a conflict like the one in Bosnia, which lasted more than three years. Nor would the NATO-led forces in Kosovo tolerate a full-scale Serbian invasion of its entire territory. But instability, armed clashes, ethnic strife, and dysfunction are more than possible. They are likely. US and EU policies and practices are not helping.
Dodik threatens Bosnia and Herzegovina with secession
Milorad Dodik is back as president of the Serb-majority entity (Republika Srpska, or RS) that governs on 49% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He has continued to salami-slice his way towards independence, de facto if not de jure. Recent moves include two notable ones. The RS Assembly has passed legislation that purports to invalidate the jurisdiction of Bosnia’s judicial system. In addition, Dodik himself has declared that the international community High Representative, responsible for the Dayton peace agreement, will be arrested if he enters RS territory. Both moves violate both the spirit and letter of the Dayton agreements. But apart from declaring the former invalid the HiRep, Washington, and Brussels have done nothing to counter them.
Dodik has also built up the police forces of the RS, obtained ample armaments and financing from Russia, and successfully enlisted Hungary to block any EU sanctions Brussels might propose. Washington has sanctioned him both for his challenges to Dayton and for blatant corrupt practices. But the lack of a unified Western response invites further salami slices. So too does Dodik’s warming relationship with Belgrade, which is seeking a “Serbian world” that incorporates the Serb populations of neighboring countries.
Vucic threatens part of Kosovo
That is an even more serious threat in Kosovo. Serbia already controls four Serb-majority municipalities north of the Ibar River contiguous with the border Belgrade calls a “boundary.” With encouragement from Belgrade, the Serbs there have abandoned the Kosovo institutions, boycotted recent elections, and rioted against installation of the non-Serb mayors who were consequently elected. Serbia has kidnapped Kosovo police from Kosovo territory, mobilized its army along the border/boundary, intimidated Serbs into leaving the Kosovo Security Force, threatened North Macedonia and Montenegro for having recognized Kosovo, and rejected agreements reached with Pristina that the US and EU claim are legally binding. The Americans and Europeans have responded only with mild verbal reprimands.
That has not been true for Pristina, which has incurred “consequences” for its insistence on installing the non-Serb mayors in their offices and deploying paramilitary police in response to disorder. While northern Kosovo has calmed since the spring, US and EU diplomats are still insisting on their own demands for withdrawal of Kosovo police from Kosovo’s sovereign territory. Meanwhile, Serbian President Vucic has been busy trying to prevent Ukraine from recognizing Kosovo independence, in clear violation of the agreement the Europeans and Americans say is binding.
Vucic also threatens the whole of Montenegro
The situation is even less salubrious in NATO member Montenegro. It lacks a fully empowered government following June elections. The President wants Russophilic political parties in the government. The Prime Minister-designate does not, but he also resists bringing in the former ruling party, the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). The result will either be a government with a thin majority in parliament or new elections. In any new election, Serbia will pull out all the stops to support the Russophiles, who are also pro-Serbian.
The obvious solution would be a coalition between the Europe Now! winners of the June election and DPS, which is also pro-European. But Belgrade will exert enormous pressure on the President and Prime Minister-designate to prevent such a combination. Serbia sees the possibility of regaining de facto, if not de jure, control of all of Montenegro. That would eliminate a potential rival for EU membership. It would also render Montenegro’s NATO membership a practical dead letter. Podgorica would continue to be a member, but serve Russian interests.
Blind to the obvious
The sources of threats in the Balkans to peace, stability, and progress towards the EU are clear. They lie in Banja Luka and Belgrade. Moscow supports both. But Brussels and Washington remain blind to the obvious. They are still trying to bend Bosnia, Kosovo, and Montenegro in directions the majority does not want to go. Failure is an option. Now is the time to re-assess and correct course. Democracy and rule of law require it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 11
– Intercept says Africom leader misled Congress.
– In FP, Cato analysts say Colombia is not proof US military can stop drug cartels.
– NYT says some Members oppose Ukraine aid despite benefits to their districts.
– Lawfare draws security assistance lessons from Ukraine.
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:
Arab rebellion in eastern Syria
Former Syrian diplomat Bassam Barabandi writes, prompted by the current Arab rebellion against Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) rule in Deir ez-Zur:
Insincerity has consequences
The way the current US administration deals with the Arab world is controversial and confusing. On the one hand, senior American officials visit Arab countries and confirm the strategic relationship that binds Washington with these countries as well as the need for Iran to stop its policy aimed at instability in the region. Then they give Iran access to more than 10 billion dollars, knowing that part of it will be used against countries that Washington claims to be its allies.
Washington claims that it supports human rights, democracy, and transparency, and then allows its Kurdish Communist allies (PKK) in Syria to use American weapons to bomb Arab civilians who demand justice and trust American values.
Washington should be aware that American policy and actions are being analyzed, studied, and built upon by all countries and peoples. The result is an irreparable loss in credibility and sincerity.
False claims
In Deir ez-Zur, the SDF is trying to attach three accusations to the movement of the Arab tribes:
- SDF claims the Arabs launched their movement for the sake of a militia leader named Abu Khawla, but the truth is that Abu Khawla is the creation of the SDF. No one rebelled because of him, but rather because of the repressive and corrupt practices of the SDF. The Arab clans are the ones who demanded the dismissal of Abu Khawla when the SDF supported him.
- The SDF claims the region supports ISIS, but in fact the Arab clans fought ISIS before the formation of the anti-ISIS coalition and the emergence of the SDF. ISIS has killed thousands of Arab clansmen. The clans themselves have been at the forefront in the fight against ISIS, including under the leadership of the coalition.
- SDF claims the clans cooperate with the regime and the Iranians, but it is the SDF that deals with the regime and says its relations with Iran are good. The people of Deir ez-Zur liberated the region from the regime and have continued to fight it since mid-2012. It is the Arab youth who fight the Iranian militias. The regime has destroyed large parts of the province in retaliation.
The US needs to act
The US government should intervene to solve the problems in Deir ez-Zur. The continuation of the conflict there is not in the interest of anyone except Iran, Russia, and the Syrian regime, which is working to fuel it with all the means available. The silence of the Department of Defense and Centcom’s Operation Inherent Resolve will not help.
Steps required from the US side, to help it return to its mission:
- Change all the leaders of the SDF/PKK in the Deir ez-Zur region, because they are the cause of the problems.
- Call for a general meeting of the representatives of the people of the region, including sheikhs, notables, and intellectuals, to listen to the people’s demands directly. The purpose of the meeting would be to find a new administrative, economic, and military mechanism for Al-Deir that meets the demands of the people without interference from the SDF or its cadres.
- Avoid dealing with Arabs the SDF nominates.
- Investigate whether the SDF has used US weapons in the commission of war crimes in Deir ez-Zur.
The Department of State delegation that visited the area last weekend failed to meet any of the real local representatives. The SDF launched a massive attack in the wake of the meeting, which confirms that the mission failed.
The SDF needs to act too
The SDF cannot continue in its current direction. It needs to
- Release Deir ez-Zur people from 21 SDF detention centers.
- Change its media discourse, which constantly accuses the people of Deir ez-Zur people of being criminals, agents, and smugglers.
- Allow International human rights organizations to enter Deir ez-Zur under the protection of US forces to investigate the war crimes.
Deir ez-Zur is a test for the US
The US is currently trying to negotiate a “mega-deal” with Saudi Arabia and Israel that will have to give something to the Palestinians. But the same US Administration has failed to stop SDF/PKK killing of Arabs in Deir ez-Zur. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should test any US offer by asking the US officials to listen to the Arab demands in northeast Syria. He should want to see if the Americans can deliver before moving one step further.
At the end of the day, the US forces will leave Syria and the Kurds and the Arabs will stay. Helping the two indigenous communities to find common ground will pay dividends to the US in the long term.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The right direction for Balkans policy
Labor Day weekend is over, so everyone in the US is back at work. It’s a good moment to reflect on EU and US policy in the Balkans.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is pointing in the right direction. It has decided, subject to confirmation, that the Bosnian constitution, agreed at the Dayton peace talks in 1995, violates the individual rights of its citizens. They cannot all vote for their choice as president, due to geographic and ethnic restrictions, which also dominate in the election of other officials.
This power-sharing arrangement was essential at the end of the Bosnian war. It reassured the warring parties that they could hold on to power. Other ethnic groups would not be dominant. Twenty-eight years of peace have ensued.
That is nothing to sniff at. The Dayton scheme seemed a house of cards when it was signed in December 1995. The Americans made the constitution difficult to amend because they realized how fragile the arrangement would likely be. But the constitution they imposed was precisely what the then warring ethnic nationalists wanted. They have used its bizarre concatention of group rights to protect their own hold on power. They have also prevented citizens who don’t identify with a particular group from gaining power.
This is not the first time the ECHR has intervened in favor of individual rights regardless of ethnicity. Bosnian politicians have mostly ignored its previous decisions. This one will likely suffer the same fate, unless something is done to counter the inertia.
Kosovo
Kosovo is different, arguably more successful. Its minority communities are much smaller relative to the majority than those in Bosnia. Still, Kosovo has strong constituitonal arrangements to protect minorities, including a veto on constitional changes. There are reserved seats for minorities in parliament as well as the government, minority vetoes, and an advisory Council of Communities linked directly to the President. But there are no ethnic restrictions on voting rights comparable to Bosnia’s.
Belgrade, Washington, and Brussels have been pressing Pristina hard to implement a 10-year-old agreement that calls for an Association of Serb-majority Municipalities (ASMM). Belgrade wants it to have executive powers. That would make it a level of governance intermediary between Pristina and the country’s municipalities, which have ample powers of their own.
The ASMM could thus become analogous to Republika Srpska in Bosnia. Advocates of the ASMM say that such arrangements for minority governance exist in more than a dozen European Union member states. But in all those instances the neighoring countries recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their neighbors. That is not the case with Kosovo, as Serbia has steadfastly refused recognition and its officials now assert it will never happen.
What is to be done?
Washington and Brussels should be pressing Bosnian politicians this fall to implement the most recent as well as previous ECHR decisions. The Europeans and Americans should also back off pressing Pristina for the ASMM, explaining to Serbia that its formation will have to await Belgrade’s recognition as well as recognition by the five non-recognizing EU members. Washington and Brussels should also be prepared to guarantee that the ASMM will be consistent with the Kosovo constitution. They have said as much in op/eds. They should say it in a formal international agreement.
Along with these diplomatic moves should come a vigorous effort to upgrade the judicial systems in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Unfortunately, the Bosnian ruling parties are gutting serious reform. Bosnia needs to make its prosecutors and judges far more independent of politics. Extending the existing international OSCE judicial monitoring to prosecutors would be a major step in the right direction. In Kosovo, it is vital that Belgrade encourage the Serb judges and police to return to the country’s institutions, which they exited last spring at Belgrade’s behest. Belgrade also needs to refrain from influencing their decisions.
Group rights–including the ASMM in Kosovo as well as Bosnia’s existing constitutional provisions–are the wrong direction. The right direction for EU and US policy in the Balkans is greater support for individual rights under the rule of law. This is still at least a decade-long project, despite the many well-intentioned efforts that have preceded it. The sooner Pristina and Sarajevo start, the sooner they’ll finish.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Appeasement without limits
This interview, which I did Tuesday for Anja Ivanović at Podgorica daily Pobjeda, has attracted some attention, so I am posting here the original English version:
Q: The Minister of Serbian defense, Miloš Vučević, stated that the recognition of Kosovo will come back to haunt Montenegro and North Macedonia, much like it has for Ukraine and to all those who promoted Kosovo as an independent state. US ambassador in Serbia Christopher Hill did not make any criticism on this statement but said that he does not see the statements of Serbian officials as an attempt to destabilize the region. What kind of policy do you think Hill is demonstrating with such an attitude toward Belgrade’s propaganda? Why do you think Hill didn’t criticize Serbia at all?
A: US policy now favors Belgrade. Washington is silent on many things: corruption at high levels in Serbia, Serbian threats of the use of force, a Belgrade-sponsored attack on NATO troops, Vucic’s refusal to commit to implementing agreements reached recently in the Belgrade/Pristina dialogue. You will have to ask Ambassador Hill and Deputy Assistant Secretary Escobar why. My impression is that they have convinced themselves they can bring Serbia towards the West, despite a good deal of clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. They also appear to be prioritizing Serbia’s allowing arms supplies to get to Ukraine.
Q: Do you believe that the absence of a critical attitude of the American ambassador is proof of a “soft policy” towards Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić? What do you believe needs to happen to change Hill’s approach?
A: Yes, US policy towards Serbia is now all about appeasement. I don’t see this changing while present personnel are in place.
Q: Is it possible that Hill, who openly supported the “Open Balkan” initiative, abstains from reacting to the disputed statements of Serbian officials because of possible privileges in the Initiative “Open Balkan”?
A: So far as I am aware, Open Balkans is a dead letter. Nor do I think it offered much to the US. American support for it was part of the appeasement policy.
Q: This month, US and EU officials sent a letter in which they called for a change of soft policy towards Serbia and Aleksandar Vučić in relation to Kosovo. Do you think that this approach by Hill confirms their request? Is Hill opposing US officials with this statement?
A: The “officials” you mention were legislators. They would like a dramatic change in the current approach. I see no sign yet that US and EU executive branch officials will give it to them. Much more pressure will be required.
Q: The former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro and the first Montenegrin ambassador in Washington, Miodrag Vlahović, assessed in an Open Letter (published by Pobjeda) to the US Ambassador in Belgrade, Christopher Hill, that the “Pax Americana” policy promoted by His Excellency Hill through concessions and pandering to the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, was “deeply wrong and compromises decades of positive and effective US engagement in the Balkans.” Do you have comment about Vlahović letter?
Q: I think Ambassador Vlahovic is correct.
RSS - Posts
