Tag: United States
The Balkans are coming apart
I’ve been too committed to book-writing to comment much lately, but the deteriorating situation in the Balkans prompts this post.
Bosnia faces the risk of secession
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serb member of the state presidency, Milorad Dodik, is reiterating his intention to declare independence. He nominally seeks incorporation into Serbia. His current issue is that the state judiciary won’t allow him to expropriate public land in Republika Srpska (RS), which he needs as collateral for the loans he will be refinancing from Russia and other dubious sources this summer.
But that contingency should not distract from the main objective. Dodik has long aimed to be free of the scrutiny that comes from both the state and the international community. His theft of RS resources and abuse of the funds Russia supplies make him vulnerable to prosecution. Dodik needs to free himself from Bosnia and find a home where he won’t risk arrest. It is unlikely Serbia will open its doors, as that would offend Brussels and Washington too much. But Dodik will be content with an independent RS.
Kosovo does too
In Kosovo, the situation has gone from bad to worse. Serbian President Vucic has demonstrated in two ways that he controls the Serbs who live north of the Ibar River. First, Sunday’s elections were peaceful. That could not have happened without his orders. Take it as confirmation that Belgrade ordered all the rioting there in the past. Second, the overwhelming majority of Serbs did not vote. Vucic ordered that too. Those citizens who did vote elected four Albanians as mayors in Serb-majority municipalities. Vucic and his prime minister reacted with the fury of ethnic nationalists offended that the minority decided the outcome, because of the boycott they ordered.
I wouldn’t want to be one of those mayors. They will get little or no cooperation from either local Serb officials or the majority populations. Vucic’s fury is intended to hide the fact that he will continue to de facto govern the four northern Serb-majority municipalities from Belgrade, using its network of security agents and organized criminals. Pristina will have a hard time getting anything done there.
Montenegro has already fallen
Vucic has already captured Montenegro. He has used savvy hybrid means with Russian support to elect a new president. Jakov Milatovic claims to be pro-EU but is more than affectionate towards Serbia. The Serbian Church, pro-Serbian political parties, and populist mobilization against corruption combined to chase from office Milo Djukanovic. He had held power for most of the last three decades, governing with ethnic minority group support. Upcoming June 11 parliamentary elections will give Milatovic a deeply pro-Serb, anti-minority majority in parliament.
Montenegro is a NATO member. Serbia claims militarily “neutral” status. This should be enough to prevent any annexation, but it also weakens the Alliance, inserting in its midst another spoiler like Hungary.
No accident
It is no accident that parallel efforts at removing Serbs from non-Serb governing authority are occurring in three countries. President Vucic is pursuing the “Serbian world,” that is a state for all Serbs that incorporates territory that lies in neighboring countries. This is “Greater Serbia,” Milosevic’s goal, by another name. In Bosnia, he needs only allow Dodik to do his thing. In Kosovo, he is taking advantage of Prime Minister Kurti’s reluctance to begin negotiations on a “self-management” mechanism for the Serbs in Kosovo. In Montenegro, elections have delivered what Vucic wanted.
While the Americans and Europeans continue to avow that Serbia is embracing the West, in fact Vucic has turned his country definitively to the East. For the “Serbian world” to become a reality, Belgrade needs to hope Russia will win in Ukraine. That would provide the precedent Vucic needs for annexing parts of Kosovo and Bosnia. He will also need China to provide the financing Greater Serbia will require. Montenegro he needn’t annex–just remarry to recreate the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, which existed 2003-06. Or cohabitate with lots of bilateral agreements an inch short of amalgamation.
The weak-kneed Americans and Europeans
Vucic knows the Americans and Europeans won’t want to accept de jure a Greater Serbia. But he hopes they will learn to live with a de facto one. They in turn are proving soft. Washington has been trying to ignore Dodik and mollify Vucic. American diplomats vigorously advocate for the Association of Serb-majority Municipalities he sees as the vehicle for Serb “self-management.” The Americans have also revivified military cooperation and provided lots of financing through multilateral European development banks. Complaints about corruption in Serbia are few and far between. This appeasement has gotten no positive results.
Splits handicap the Europeans. Hungarian Prime Minister Orban acts as a protector for both Vucic and Dodik, preventing sanctions against both. France and the Netherlands have slowed enlargement prospects for Macedonia, Albania, and Bosnia. That diminishes the EU’s appeal also in Serbia and Montenegro. The five EU member states that have not recognized Kosovo prevent a real consensus in its favor, even in the relatively non-controversial vote this week at the Council of Europe to Pristina’s membership process.
A change of direction is needed
The US and EU are failing in the Balkans. They need to change direction. Their basic analysis is flawed. They have been relying on Serbia as the pivotal state in the region to bring stability, in cooperation with Croatia and Albania. But Serbia is a revisionist power. It wants to govern all Serbs in the region. Croatia and Albania have lesser ambitions, but in the same direction: to control their compatriots in neighboring Bosnia and Kosovo.
Washington and Brussels need a far more vigorous, united, and principled approach. That would support the rights of individual citizens, whatever their ethnicity. It would counter ethnic nationalism wherever it abuses minorities. It would reinforce the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the region’s states. And it would welcome to the West only those who demonstrate real solidarity with the West.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 20
– Axios has a preview of Treasury Secretary Yellen’s speech on China at SAIS this morning.
– NYT says Xi is rebuffing US.
– US gives more to Ukraine.
– Prigozhin says Russia has accomplished its mission.
– Reuters has Russia recruitment ad.
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, April 6
–Conflicts in Poland over Ukraine policies.
– Poland ready to give more MiGs.
– Putin blames Ukraine war on US.
– NYT has detailed graphics on Russian offensive.
– FP details Chinese spying.
– Vox has history of US industrial policy
– Reuters says China to inspect ships in Taiwan strait.
-Israeli concerns over Milley Iran comment.
– Semafor has report on Coast Guard’s global role.
– Freedom caucus & Progressives have some common goals.
Charlie added a Thursday bonus:
– WH has released a 12 page review of the Afghanistan withdrawal. AP summarizes.-
-FP says we need an economic war council for dealing with China.
-Lawfare praises State rules for military AI.
– FT says US opposes roadmap for Ukraine in NATO.
-Economist has fascinating story about improvements in camouflage.
– I’ve come across several Georgetown youtubes on the all-volunteer force at 50.
-Poli sci prof confirms decline in committee legislating
– Another reports benefits in grandstanding.
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:
Trump isn’t the only accused president
While the United States is understandably obsessed with judicial proceedings against Donald Trump, another president and his one-time comrades in arms is on trial in The Hague: Kosovo President Hashim Thaci. There is one common thread: Jack Smith was the prosecutor in The Hague before taking up his position in Washington to conduct investigations and possibly prosecute Trump. An expansive view of his mandate seems to be his trademark.
As the trial at the Specialist Chambers in The Hague started on Monday, Deutsche Welle‘s Elona Elezi asked some questions and I responded:
Q: Mr.Serwer, how do you consider the trial against Thaçi and other three former commanders of KLA?
A: The Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office “have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under Kosovo law in relation to allegations reported in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Report of 7 January 2011.” I am not a lawyer, but in my layman’s way of thinking the trial has departed markedly from this mandate. It seems to have forgotten the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly report.
Q: Does it diminish the role of Kosovo Liberation Army?
A: I’d say it exaggerates the role of the KLA in the abuses committed in Kosovo. The main allegations in the Council of Europe report appear to be unfounded and have been left out of the charges against the accused. The prosecutor is pursuing other, less specific, allegations against the KLA leadership quite unrelated to the CoE report.
Q: Will there be any implications if the court finds them guilty?
A: Certainly there will implications for the accused. They will be punished. But it will be a long time before there is a verdict. Their pre-trial detention seems to me unjust.
Q: In a macro perspective, does this trial affect the relationships between Kosovo and Serbia?
A: The trial is already exacerbating resentments in Kosovo, soothing consciences in Serbia, and making it harder for Pristina to normalize relations with Belgrade. That will get worse.
It was a mistake for Kosovo to agree to establish this court without a reciprocal arrangement with Serbia, that is a court with jurisdiction over “crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes” inside Serbia, where three American brothers were killed shortly after the 1999 war. Serbia was the main miscreant in the 1990s. The one-sided nature of the Specialist Chambers and Prosecutor’s Office prevents it from doing justice to the crimes Belgrade committed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Nukes could make things worse
Today the journal Survival: Global Politics and Strategy published a paper on “Assessing Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East.” I prepared it with two talented MEI research assistants, Aya Khan and Zuha Noor.
I have been concerned with nuclear issues since even before my professional career. My first participation in public protests was against fallout from nuclear weapons tests in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I wrote my doctoral thesis at Princeton on the history of radiation protection. When I joined the State Department in 1977, it was as a science and technology specialist. I spent seven years abroad as a Science Attache’ and Counselor in the US embassies in Rome and Brasilia. My main concern was Italian and Brazilian transfers to Iraq, as well as the possible military goals of the Brazilian nuclear program. I’ve visited many nuclear labs, reprocessing facilities, and power plants.
Nonproliferation in the Middle East
One of the interesting questions about the Middle East is why there has been little proliferation there in recent decades, despite the presence in the region of Israel’s nuclear weapons. Part of the answer is that Israel destroyed facilities in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) that might have allowed those countries to develop nuclear weapons. Libya, under American pressure, abandoned its nuclear program (2003). But why haven’t the heavier weights in the region, namely Turkey and Saudi Arabia, gone the nuclear route along with Iran?
This is an especially pertinent question right now, as Tehran approaches the nuclear threshold, at which it will have enough highly enriched uranium to build one or more nuclear weapons. The answer is at least in part that until recently Turkiye and Saudi Arabia have been largely content to rely on US security guarantees. Turkiye is a NATO member and has US nuclear weapons stationed on its territory. Saudi Arabia has until recently regarded the US as a reliable security partner. Ankara and Riyadh complain loudly about Israeli nuclear weapons, but so far as we know they have not tried to reply with nuclear weapons programs of their own.
Things are changing
But the strategic environment is changing for both of those countries. Turkiye and the US are trapped in frictions over Ankara’s purchase of Russian air defenses, the American reaction to (and alleged role in) the 2016 attempted coup, and Turkiye’s hostility to the Kurds who are allied with the Americans in Syria. Saudi Arabia resents the American failure to react strongly to the 2019 Iranian attack on its oil production facilities. Nor did it like President Biden’s criticism of Saudi human rights abuses and American efforts to lower oil prices. Security guarantees that once seemed ironclad are now doubtful.
At the same time, Russia and China are making inroads in the Middle East. Moscow has collaborated with Saudi Arabia in maintaining oil prices the Americans think too high. China is importing a lot of Saudi oil and offering to build nuclear power reactors in the Kingdom. Beijing has also mediated an agreement to restore diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Tehran. Rosatom is building nuclear reactors in Turkiye. Russia and China both have good reasons to fear nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. But is not clear that they will be as exigent on that score as the Americans.
Rosatom is also building power reactors in Egypt.
Leadership matters
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Erdogan have both said that if Iran gets nuclear weapons their countries will follow suit. It is not clear whether deeds have followed those words. Saudi Arabia’s technological capabilities in that direction may be limited. It only recently started up its first research reactor and is thought to be seeking US nuclear power reactors, which come with strong nonproliferation constraints. But we really don’t know. The Kingdom is opaque in that direction. The Turks are likely farther advanced, as they have had research reactors for many years. But there is no public evidence of enrichment or reprocessing research in Turkiye.
Egypt’s President Sisi has said his country doesn’t need to have nuclear weapons to achieve great power status. But what will he do if Turkiye or Saudi Arabia acquire nuclear weapons? And what will his successor do in that case?
Prevention is better than cure
My colleagues and I argue in our piece that prevention is better than cure. We need to be monitoring the nuclear capabilities of possible nuclear proliferators assiduously as well as building a regional security architecture that discourages nuclear weapons. We will also need to collaborate with Europe, Russia, and China in ensuring that other Middle Eastern states don’t follow Israel and Iran down the nuclear path. The Middle East is already a mess. Nuclear weapons would make things worse.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Politics won’t wait for a court decision
Donald Trump’s indictment dominates the news today and will remain a major issue until a plea bargain or verdict. The Republicans are claiming it is politically motivated and unjustified. The Democrats are claiming it is a response to malfeasance and an assertion of the rule of law.
What we don’t know
The truth is we don’t even know what he stands accused of. The grand jury that indicted him holds its proceedings in secret. Only at his arraignment next week will we learn the charges for certain.
These might be, as the Republicans are claiming, election law violations associated with his hush money payments to a porn star in 2016. Or, as many Democrats believe, they may involve business fraud related to those same payments, which were allegedly recorded in his company books as legal fees and laundered through his personal attorney.
No one knows at this point. It might be wise to refrain from comment on the charges until they become public.
What we do know
No other American president has ever been indicted. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. Any number of presidents have been guilty of malfeasance, before, during, and after their time in office. But the nation’s prosecutors have not seen fit to drag them into court. This is the basis of the argument that Trump’s indictment is “unprecedented.”
But it is not. Lots of prominent people are indicted. Prosecutors go after company chief executives, members of Congress, lawyers, and yes professors. The list of indicted Federal officials is long. Unless you believe a president or former president should be above the law, you should not be objecting on grounds of “precedent” to indictment of a former president.
Indictment of presidents and prime ministers in other countries is common. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a prominent current example, but so too are former Kosovo President Thaci and former Serbian President Milosevic. The list of former heads of government later imprisoned is also long, but of course not all of them deserved what they got.
Only time will tell
We are going to have to wait a while–maybe even a year or two–to learn whether Trump’s indictment will lead to a plea bargain, acquittal, or conviction. In the meanwhile, the indictment will become a political football, with both Democrats and Republicans trying to score big before the November 2024 election. Most Americans believe an indictment should disqualify a candidate from running for president. But Republicans mostly back Trump and think the indictment is an unjustified political move.
Politics won’t wait for a court decision and the inevitable appeal if Trump is found guilty. In the meanwhile, many other investigations are ongoing. Some involve potentially far more serious violations than the current indictment, including election interference in Georgia and insurrection for the January 6 riot at The Capitol. Only time will tell how this all shakes out.
RSS - Posts
