Tag: United States
Stevenson’s army, February 12
– Both US & Russia are withdrawing personnel from their Kyiv embassies. Biden & Putin are supposed to talk today. Politico says Biden told foreign leaders Feb 16 looks like invasion day.
– NYT says US disclosed possible Russian moves as part of info ops.
– Fred Kaplan sees some Russian military opposition to Putin.
-WSJ reports US moves to block Chinese base in Africa.
– In a Solomonic move, Biden splits frozen Afghan money, half to humanitarian relief, half to 9/11 victims’ families.
-I agree with Tim Noah’s article, Washington is not a swamp.
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. 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).
Geopolitics gives people in the Balkans an opportunity
I participated this morning by Zoom in a conference in Podgorica entitled “Podgorica Plenum: Quo Vadis Balkans?” organized by the Regional Academy for Democratic Development in Belgrade. My panel addressed “What can socialdemocratic politicans and CSOs further do?” This was the lineup:
• Ivan Vuković, Mayor of Podgorica and Deputy President of DPS, Montenegro
• Benjamina Karić, Mayor of Sarajevo, Social Democratic Party, Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Daniel Serwer, Professor, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (via ZOOM)
• Stipe Mesić, Former President of Croatia 2000-2010 (via ZOOM)
I was asked to focus on the broader geopolitical perspective:
- It is a pleasure to be with you, if only remotely. As Mayor Vukovic will know, however, I have a good Montenegrin source in the next office to mine—his cousin is my colleague at SAIS.
- I hear from many people who live in the Western Balkans, especially in Bosnia and Serbia, that nothing has changed since the breakup of Yugoslavia.
- This reflects their disappointment in what has happened in the last 25 years. I share that disappointment. I would like to have seen far more progress.
- But it is not objectively true. Average per capita GDP is twice as high as it was before the 1990s wars. Apart from Covid-19, it is safe to travel throughout former Yugoslavia, regardless of ethnic identity or national origin. You can say pretty much what you want in all the former Yugoslav republics and in Albania, even if organizing and publishing are still not always free. Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims mostly worship as they like, often in renovated churches and mosques.
- Progress has halted, with the end of what Americans have come to call the unipolar moment.
- The Balkans have not had an easy time of it since. All the Balkan states are heavily dependent on EU economic growth. The 2007/8 financial crisis, Greek financial crisis and economic collapse, the flood of immigrants after 2011 from the greater Middle East, and the Brexit referendum in 2016 gave Europe more urgent and higher priority problems than the Balkans.
- These developments also made Europe more cautious about the prospects for enlargement.
- So things may be a lot better in the Balkans than they were in the 1990s, but today’s world is dramatically different from the one that existed then.
- While still globally dominant, the US faces regional challenges from China, Russia, Iran and even North Korea that take priority in Washington over the Balkans.
- The Balkans in general, and Bosnia and Kosovo in particular, were the objects of top-tier attention in the 1990s. They now get much lower priority.
- That is true in Europe as well, where Brexit, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and illegal immigration are issues that cast a shadow over Balkan aspirations to join Europe.
- At the same time, Moscow and Beijing are engaging more than ever before in the Balkans.
- The Russians are using assassination, media manipulation, rented crowds, arms sales, and political financing to slow if not halt progress towards NATO and the EU.
- The Chinese are using their finances to loan, build and buy. Caveat emptor of course, though Beijing’s behavior is a lot less underhanded than Moscow’s and likely to produce some positive results for those Balkan countries and companies that know how to drive a good bargain.
- Turkey—a strong force in the Balkans for historical, geographic, and cultural reasons—has taken a dramatic turn in a more Islamist and autocratic direction.
- None of these powers share the European and American commitment to liberal democracy, that is pluralistic politics based on individual rights. They are far more inclined to ethnic nationalism.
- Even the US had an ethnic nationalist president who opened the door to changing Balkan borders to accommodate ethnic differences—an idea that makes no sense to a liberal democrat.
- Europe too has a Hungarian Prime Minister who is a committed ethnic nationalist as well as other presidents and prime ministers who flirt with nationalist populism.
- Liberal democratic influence in the Balkans has declined. The autocratic influence—if I can use that umbrella term to refer to the different roles of Russia, China, and Turkey—has grown.
- They are finding fertile ground. Ethnic populism is also thriving in the Balkans: it reignites and normalizes hate speech, divides people, and encourages untruthful historical revisionism.
- The surge of disinformation polarizes political discourse and accentuates social cleavages so that compromise is seen as a sign of betrayal and defeat.
- My bottom line: ready or not, responsibility for keeping Western aspirations and ideals alive now rests with the people of the Balkans: their governments, citizens, and society. The question is, can you do it and how?
- One ingredient for success is apparent on this panel: politicians committed to liberal democracy who are prepared to do what is needed to serve citizens and win their votes.
- Another important ingredient is civil society: the non-governmental organizations who take on the thinking and organizing required to support serious political and economic reforms.
- They need to define what it means for each of the countries of the Balkans to become European and press elected officials to deliver.
- Germany, Portugal, and Spain did that even in the midst of the greatest geopolitical confrontation the world has known. They chose the West, despite enormous obstacles. Berlin is now a stalwart liberal democracy and model of economic prosperity and social cohesion.
- It is my fervent hope that you in the Balkans will find your own way to that kind of political, economic, and social outcome.
. Along the way, I addressed four additional issues, more or less along the following lines:
- Montenegro’s recent government turmoil may concern many, but what happened in the past year or so was in line with the country’s constitutional system: an opposition government came to power after popular demonstrations, the coalition failed to hold together, so it fell. That’s what happens in parliamentary systems.
- Liberal democracy is a pluralistic system of governance based on individual rights. Social democracy is a political program or platform, one that fits well within a liberal democratic system.
- The politics of memory and commemoration are difficult and prolonged. In the US, we are just now getting rid of schools and highways in the South named for traitors who rebelled against the United States more than 150 years ago. I don’t want to discourage the effort in the Balkans, only to note that it can take a long time.
- In the real estate business, the key factors are “location, location, location.” In Balkan governance today, the key factors are “corruption, corruption, corruption.” The Americans and Europeans are sending clear signals that the rule of law is a central concern for those who want to make progress towards NATO and/or the EU. Arrests and prosecutions are a sign the prosecutors are doing the right thing, not a sign that the situation is hopeless (as many in the Balkans assume).
China and Russia are friends but not equals
Professor Evan Medeiros of Georgetown University analyzed the Xi-Putin declaration this week on NPR:
The Washington Post comes to similar conclusions: there is less to the declaration than some think.
Craig Singleton at Foreign Policy looks also at the readouts and Chinese press coverage. He goes a step further to suggest that President Xi gave President Putin little in order to protect Chinese economic interests, especially in Europe. Those interests he suggests could provide the West with a wedge to separate China from Russia. Economic prosperity trumps authoritarian solidarity.
The good news
The combined military and economic power and geographic extent of a China/Russia alliance would be formidable. It is good news that the Putin’s Olympics jaunt did not solidify into a genuine defense pact. Unless more was agreed than we know, Russia cannot rely on China to help beat Western sanctions. The Chinese may not like NATO enlargement, but it is not a primary concern for Beijing. The flagging Chinese economy is far more important.
The bad news
Moscow and Beijing are both exercised over human rights. Their joint declaration declares their own countries democracies but denounces human rights as a nefarious concern of the West. This may sound illogical to liberal democratic ears, but it is consistent with their distortion of “democracy.” To them, it means any system that somehow expresses the supposed will of the people, even if the people have no rights and have never validated that will in a free and fair election. Xi and Putin, like many other autocrats, think of themselves as the embodiment of the people’s will, evident in their successful assent to power.
China and Russia may be friends but are not equals
For now, Russians and Chinese are putting up with that claim, which in a perverse way demonstrates the power of the democratic example. Chinese and Russians all know the consequences of contesting the power of their leaders. But there is a big difference. Beijing can afford to repress the opposition and buy off the rest. For now, they are doing it in grand style in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, as well as in more retail ways in other parts of the country. Moscow can afford to buy off a few oligarchs but is leaving the majority of the population in straitened circumstances with shortened life expectancies, low incomes, and few free means of expression.
Putin has reasons to invade
It seems likely Putin will go ahead with the invasion of Ukraine. The Russian deployment is not a Potemkin village. It has gotten him little so far that he could not have gotten for more polite asking. The Americans have offered to limit armaments in Europe, provided the agreement is reciprocal. Putin’s moves have also unified NATO in favor of drastic sanctions, including extinction of the Nordstream 2 pipeline, and solidified Ukrainian support for the Alliance, precisely the opposite of what Putin wanted.
None of that however will make Putin hesitate. He wants to prove to the world that Russia is indispensable. “Nothing about Europe without Russia” is his motto. He is trying to reassert Moscow’s claim as a superpower capital, a claim that died with the Soviet Union. For someone for whom power is he be-all and end-all, only the successful use of force can revalidate it.
Beijing stands to lose little
Beijing won’t be happy if Russia invades Ukraine and disrupts the world’s economy, but it will be in his corner when he tries. If he succeeds, the Chinese will enjoy the outcome as a defeat for the Americans, NATO, and human rights. If he fails, the Chinese can walk away unscathed, comforted in the knowledge Putin will need to sell even more natural gas. China and Russia are friends, but not equals.
Stevenson’s army, Febuary 5
– Presidents Xi and Putin issued a strong joint statement, highly critical of the US. WaPo analyzes it.
– Jonathan Swan of Axios analyzes the new coalitions in the GOP.
– FP says Modi is having foreign policy troubles.
-WaPO sees debate over legal justification for ISIS leader killing.
– IISS assesses cyber strategies.
-AU Prof analyzes US public opinion on Ukraine.
– FP notes Russian history of false flag operations.
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. 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).
Dialogue will work when people support it
Koha today published an interview I gave yesterday to Besjana Bajrami:
Q: Do you think that this year will bring the final recognition between Kosovo and Serbia?
A: No, I don’t. I don’t see any sign the leadership in either country is preparing for a final recognition agreement.
Why is it stuck?
Q: Where do you think the dialogue is stuck?
A: It’s stuck in the domestic politics of both countries. Neither President Vucic nor Prime Minister Kurti sees the benefit of agreements, especially a comprehensive one.
Mutual benefit is the way forward
Q: Emissaries from the US and the EU are staying in Kosovo for dialogue. The same after the meetings with Prime Minister Kurti and President Osmani have stated that a solution must be found for dialogue. Where do you think the solution should be sought in Kosovo or Serbia?
A: I think the way forward now is what worked in the past: focus on issues with real benefits to citizens in both countries. That worked before 2013. I also think there is a big need for monitoring of implementation of past agreements. The EU and US should do that together.
Q: Do you think that Kosovo is being pressured regarding the dialogue?
A: Of course. Serbia will also be pressured. But I don’t think pressure is the key. Mutual benefit is the key.
Missing persons should not be stalled
Q: The topic of missing persons has somehow stalled in dialogue. Should Kosovo continue the dialogue if the issue of missing persons is not resolved?
A: I do not understand why the issue of missing persons has not been resolved. It is standard procedure to resolve such issues after war. It is best done promptly. Twenty years is not prompt.
The Association depends on context
Q: Should the Association of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo be allowed? The answer to this question depends on context. If Serbia were prepared to recognize Kosovo and advocate its UN membership, an association consistent with the Kosovo constitution would not, I think, look as troubling as it does today.
Stevenson’s army, January 27
-NYT has the most sources describing US response to Russia on Ukraine.
– SAIS Prof Eliot Cohen weighs in.
– NYT also notes GOP divide over Ukraine.
– NYT summarizes Russian military modernization.
– NYT also warns how dependent US is on Taiwan computer chips— at risk in any conflict with China.
– DNI Haines criticizes US classification system.
– Just Security has updated versions of its excellent papers on war powers reform, posse comitatus reform, emergency powers reform.
– Dan Drezner writes on bridging the gap between scholars and policymakers.
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. 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).