Tag: United States
The one-sided war of dreadful non-papers continues, mine next!
Koha Ditore has published a non-paper on the EU-sponsored dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. The origins of the paper have not been verified, though it is widely referred to as French and German. They deny it originates with official Paris and Berlin.
I’m not worried about the origins of the paper. It clearly reflects ideas discussed within the EU. I comment below on its dreadful contents.
While asserting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of both Kosovo and Serbia, in practice this proposal requires that Pristina surrender practical application of sovereignty over economic development, health, urban and rural planning in Serbian communities both north and south of the Ibar River as well as sovereignty over dozens of Serbian Orthodox Church sites and institutions, whose protective zones would be extended in some undefined fashion. In the north, this proposal includes an “autonomous” district that would in addition acquire legislative authority over finance, property, infrastructure, culture, social welfare, the judiciary and police, housing, and European cooperation, with only a vague wave of the hand in the direction of Kosovo’s constitution.
In return, Pristina gets practically nothing: no bilateral recognition by Serbia and no UN membership, only vague promises of treatment as a sovereign state, including exchange of ill-defined permanent diplomatic missions. President Vucic was right when he said this offers more than the Ahtisaari Plan. It offers a great deal more to Serbia and requires much less of Belgrade. It would even roll back specific provisions of the 2013 Brussels Agreement that extended Pristina’s judicial and police authority to northern Kosovo.
All you need to do to understand the profound unfairness of this proposal is to ask whether Belgrade would be prepared to make it reciprocal, empowering the Albanian-majority communities of southern Serbia in the way proposed here for the Serb-majority municipalities of Kosovo. “No” is the answer. Nor would Serbia be prepared to offer an undefined extension of protected areas around mosques inside Serbia. Reciprocity is one of the basic rules of sovereign states. This proposal would leave the Kosovo state significantly less sovereign than it is today while asking Belgrade to do little more than continue to maintain a representative in Pristina.
The non-paper war is not doing the cause of peace and stability in the Western Balkans much good. The two salvos so far have come from one side, the first in favor of moving borders to accommodate ethnic differences and the second in favor of keeping borders where they are but not respecting the Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. So I think I’ll prepare my own non-paper. It won’t move borders and will be consistent with official US policy of respect for the sovereignty and terrritorial integrity of all the states of the Balkans, but it will add some practical means of achieving what most in Europe, the US, and the Western Balkans says they want: prosperous and democratic states worthy of EU membership. Look for it in the next few days on peacefare.net!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 27
Census numbers show gains for GOP-controlled states. Republicans will be in charge of drawing new maps in 187 congressional districts this year, compared with 75 for Democrats, down from the GOP’s 219-44 advantage a decade ago, according to the Cook Political Report. The other seats are in states where power is split, a commission is in charge of the maps, or the states have only a single House seat.
Here’sthe full Cook Political report analysis.
– Combatant commanders want more information declassified.
-WSJ says troop phones put operations at risk.
– Kerry denies Zarif claim about Israeli attacks.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to 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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What if World War I had ended without US intervention?
SAIS Professor Charlie Stevenson writes:
Philip Zelikow, academic, diplomat, and executive director of the 9/11 commission, has written an excellent book with a deeply tragic story. The Road Less Traveled [Public Affairs, 2021] analyzes Woodrow Wilson’s failed effort to launch peace talks that could have ended the bloody conflict in Europe and kept the United States out of the war.
Zelikow knows how government works from the inside. He also co-authored the second edition of Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision, the landmark work on bureaucratic politics analysis. He uses that background to explain the many ways in which good intentions for peace were scuttled by zealots for war.
Among his assessments:
- Woodrow Wilson wanted to shepherd a peace conference but didn’t understand how to craft the diplomacy. He was more angry with Britain than Germany as late as January 31, 1917.
- Wilson was undermined by his close adviser, Edward House, who miscommunicated many of Wilson’s views to European diplomats and personally wanted to join the war in support of Britain.
- Wilson was also undermined by his senior State Department officials, who also favored joining the war with the Allies and who failed to turn Wilson’s goals into a plan.
- Germany’s civilian government desperately wanted peace and offered substantial concessions, but they were ultimately overruled by the military high command, who promised the kaiser a quick victory through submarine warfare.
- The British government was ready to accept peace talks in the fall of 1916, only to be out-maneuvered and then replaced by David Lloyd George, who privately believed the war couldn’t be won yet publicly vowed a fight to the finish. [His plan for victory envisioned battles in the Balkans and Turkey.]
- The French and Russian governments faced growing public opposition to continuing the war and would likely have agreed to a status quo ante bellum peace.
If only experienced career diplomats had developed a plan for launching peace talks…
If only Wilson had pushed ahead and forced his subordinates to act on that plan…
If only the British had recognized their desperate financial situation and acted while Asquith was still prime minister…
If only the German Chancellor had persuaded the kaiser to delay the return to unrestricted submarine warfare…
The United States would not have entered the war. [Wilson had already cut off British access to US loans.]
Russia might not have had its revolutions and ultimately a communist takeover.
Postwar Europe would not have been so disrupted by political unrest and military conflict.
I’ve spent a lot of time over the years studying the outbreak of war in 1914. Since historians usually only write about things that have happened, it’s rare to have such a solid work about something that almost happened. Zelikow has profound lessons for practitioners on how ideas get turned into policies and policies processed into accomplishments.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | April 26 – April 30, 2021
Peace Picks | April 26 – April 30, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Supporting Sustainable Development in the Arctic: Estonia’s Role in Advancing Arctic Collaboration| April 26, 2021 | 10:00 AM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
There are many challenges in building sustainable and thriving communities in the Arctic while addressing the impacts of a warming and changing Arctic landscape due to climate change. As one of eight Arctic nations that comprise the Arctic Council, the United States, under the Biden Administration has called for an increase in international cooperation to address climate change in all facets of its domestic and foreign policy, including the Arctic. Estonia, a close neighbor of the Arctic, is applying for Observer status in the Arctic Council, is committed to mitigating the impacts of climate change, and advancing sustainable development in the Arctic. This discussion will offer an exchange of views by experts from the United States and Estonia on ways to promote collaboration to address the critical issues facing the Arctic, especially in the areas of research, environmental protection, and sustainable development.
Speakers:
Caroline Kennedy
Attorney, Author, Former US Ambassador to Japan
2. Soft Power and Practice of Diplomacy: A Conversation with Ambassador Caroline Kennedy| April 26, 2021 | 2:00 PM ET | Belfer Center| Register Here
In a conversation with Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, we will explore how she employed cultural diplomacy while serving as U.S. Ambassador to Japan (2013-2017), our key ally in Asia. Ambassador (ret.) Nicholas Burns, Harvard Kennedy School professor and Faculty Chair of the Future of Diplomacy Project, will welcome and introduce Ambassador Kennedy. Carla Dirlikov Canales, 2021 Advanced Leadership Initiative Fellow, will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
Ambassador Märt Volmer
Undersecretary for European Affairs, Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tarmo Soomere
President, Estonian Academy of Sciences
Ambassador David Balton
Senior Fellow, Polar Institute; Former Ambassador for Oceans and Fisheries, US Department of State
Ambassador Kaja Tael
Special Envoy for Climate and Energy Policy, Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Aimar Ventsel
Associate Porfessor in Ethnology, University of Tartu
David M. Kennedy
Global Fellow, Polar Institute; Chair, United States Arctic Research Commission
Michael Sfraga
Director, Polar Institute; Director, Global Risk and Resilience Program
3. Russian Aggression in the Black Sea: Regional and International Responses| April 26, 2021 | 2:00 PM ET | Middle East Institute| Register Here
Russia’s largest military buildup since the 2014 annexation of Crimea is taking place along the Ukrainian border and in the Black Sea. Moscow has resorted to escalatory measures, announcing the closing of the Kerch Strait and the Azov Sea to foreign ships and cutting off Ukraine’s ability to export. In response, the West has reacted with warnings and invitations to dialogue while Turkey is trying to walk a fine line between Russia and Ukraine. To prevent further escalation of the crisis, much will depend on the Biden administration’s response.
Speakers:
Gen. (ret.) Philip Breedlove
Distinguished chair, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
Yörük Işık
Non-resident scholar, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
Iulia Joja
Senior fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
Mamuka Tsereteli
Non-resident scholar, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
Gönül Tol, (Moderator)
Director, Turkey Program; senior fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
4. Revitalizing NATO’s Political Cohesion | April 27, 2021 | 10:30 AM ET | CSIS | Register Here
In advance of the upcoming NATO Leaders Meeting, it is a timely moment to discuss NATO as a political forum and its future cohesion. NATO’s strength and resilience derive from Allies’ shared committment to the values and spirit of the Washington Treaty, namely the principles of democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the development of peaceful international relations. As NATO grapples with a challenging security environment, it must also confront an erosion of democratic norms within some member countries that undermines NATO’s unity. Will an updated strategic concept as well as a new U.S. administration provide an opportunity to prioritize transatlantic values and NATO’s political cohesion?
Speakers:
Ambassador Muriel Domenach,
Permanent Representative of France to NATO
MdB Omid Nouripour
Foreign Policy Spokesperson for the German Green party.
Rachel Ellehuus (Moderator)
Deputy Director of the CSIS Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
Heather A. Conley (Introductory Remarks)
Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctica
5. African and South Asian perspectives on the Leaders Summit on Climate| April 28, 2021 | 9:00 AM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Under the Biden administration, the United States is making climate action a top priority. While the Trump administration failed to properly drive United States’ environmental policy towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, the Biden administration is set for unprecedented action on climate issues, even going as far as to pledge commitment to working with China to fight climate change and to help developing nations finance their efforts to lower their carbon footprints.
As part of his efforts to tackle the imminent threat posed by climate change, President Biden will host a Leaders Summit on Climate on April 22 and 23, to conclude days before our event. Some of the key themes of the summit are to explore the possibilities of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate the consequences of a global temperature increase over 1.5 degrees Celsius as well as financing vulnerable countries’ efforts to transition to clean energy economies.
Speakers:
Jairam Ramesh
Former chief negotiation for India, Copenhagen Climate Change Summit;
Former cabinet minister for rural development, Government of India;
Present member of parliament (Rajya Sabha)
Dr. Syed Mohammed Ali
Non-resident scholar, Middle East Institute;
Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Ms. Ayaan Adam
Senior Director and CEO, AFC Capital;
Former Director of the Private Sector Facility, Green Climate Fund
Irfan Nooruddin (Introductory Remarks)
Director, Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center
Aubrey Hruby (Moderator)
Nonresident senior fellow, Atlantic Council’s Africa Center
6. The UK Integrated Defense Review: A Conversation with General Sir Nick Carter| April 28, 2021 | 11:00 AM ET | CSIS | Register Here
Please join the Center for Strategic and International Studies for a conversation with General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the UK Defence Staff. General Sir Nick Carter and Dr. Seth Jones, Senior Vice President and Director of the International Security Program, will discuss the UK Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, and how the UK military is prioritizing modernization.
Speakers:
General Sir Nick Carter
Chief of the UK Defence Staff
Dr. Seth Jones
Senior Vice President and Director of the International Security Program
7. Strengthening International Peace and Security | April 28, 2021 | 11:00 AM ET | German Marshall Fund of the United States| Register Here
The German Marshall Fund of the United States would like to invite you to a timely conversation with Helga Schmid, the new secretary general at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The conversation, moderated by GMF’s Ian Lesser, will focus on Secretary General Schmid’s priorities in her new capacity at the OSCE. This includes a focus on OSCE efforts to address the far-reaching impacts of COVID-19 and Secretary General Schmid’s vision on how multilateral organizations, including the OSCE, can strengthen peace building, prevent conflict, and empower women and girls.
Representing 57 member countries, the OSCE holds a unique position in the international security architecture. Promoting a comprehensive approach to security that encompasses politico-military, economic and environmental, and human aspects, the organization addresses a wide range of security challenges, including arms control, human rights, democratization, policing strategies, counterterrorism, and economic and environmental activities.
Speakers:
Helga Schmid
Secretary General, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Ian Lesser
Vice President, The German Marshall Fund of the United States
8. Putin’s Mediterranean gambit: Endgame unclear | April 29, 2021 | 9:00 AM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
A discussion on President Vladimir Putin’s successes in the Mediterranean, his broader objectives in the Mediterranean, the factors that have helped and hindered Putin’s achievement of these objectives and why the United States should be concerned and what it should do about growing Russian influence in the Mediterranean.
For more than 250 years, Russian leaders have sought to project power and influence in the Mediterranean region. Sometimes these efforts have met with a significant degree of success. At times, though, Russia has pulled back from the Mediterranean because of setbacks in the region, events in Europe, or convulsions inside Russia. These pullbacks, however, have never been permanent and have always been followed by renewed Russian efforts to gain influence in the region.
Speakers:
Christopher J. Bort
National Intelligence Officer for Russiaand Eurasia
National Intelligence Council
Laura K. Cooper
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia
United States Department of Defense
William F. Wechsler
Director, Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East ProgramsAtlantic Council
Mark N. Katz (Moderator)
Nonresident Senior Fellow
Atlantic Council
9. World order in the 21st century: Illiberal orders, a concert of power, or a Western revival?| April 29, 2021 | 6:00 PM ET | Chatham House| Register Here
In the years after World War I, many international affairs schools and think tanks opened their doors, dedicated to educating students, informing publics, and devising solutions to the problems of war, peace and international order.
A century later, political, socio-economic and geopolitical change has raised profound questions about whether today’s ideas and institutions, many of which emerged in the aftermath of World War I and World War II, are fit for purpose.
The stumblings of liberal democracy, the onset of the digital economy, growing inequality within and among nations, the COVID-19 pandemic, mounting great-power rivalry and many other developments necessitate a re-evaluation of how best to preserve order in an interdependent world.
Speakers:
Professor Charles Kupchan
Professor of International Affairs, Georgetown University; Senior Director for European Affairs, US National Security Council (2014-17)
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Director, US and the Americas Programme, Chatham House
Dr Anne-Marie Slaughter
CEO, New America; Director of Policy Planning, US Department of State (2009-11)
Professor Rana Mitter
Professor of the History and Politics of Modern China, St Cross College, Oxford University
Dr Robin Niblett
Director and Chief Executive, Chatham House
10. Criminal justice reform in America: Policing and pretrial detention |April 30, 2021 | 10:00 AM ET | Brookings Institute| Register Here
The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world. Recidivism rates continue to be high as millions of people cycle in and out of the criminal justice system and deal with a cumbersome pretrial detention process. Black people are disproportionately more likely to die from police violence, and racial and ethnic minorities are simultaneously over- and under-policed. After 50 years, it is clear there are a plethora of unintended consequences of the War on Crime and the War on Drugs, which have led to issues across the criminal justice system.
Speakers:
Rashawn Ray
David M. Rubenstein Fellow: Governance Studies
Brent Orrell
Resident Fellow: American Enterprise Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Montenegro is under attack and needs American help
The last time Montenegro appeared in the US press President Donald Trump was shoving its Prime Minister out of his way during the Summit at which the former Yugoslav republic joined NATO in 2017. Now Montenegro’s government, which came to power last September, is shoving aside NATO in favor of improved relations with Serbia and Russia.
Until last fall, Montenegro had been governed for most of the last 30 years by Milo Djukanovic, either as President or Prime Minister. Still in the presidency, he has been a determined advocate of Montenegro’s independence, achieved in 2006, and its affiliation with the US and Europe. Montenegro has become a front-runner in the Western Balkan regatta for European Union membership.
Djukanovic’s multiethnic political coalition lost the parliamentary election last August by one seat to a coalition whose core support comes from people who resisted Montenegrin independence from Serbia and identify not as Montenegrin but as Serb. This occurred after months of raucous street demonstrations supported by the Serbian Orthodox Church, Serbia, and Russia, which conducted an intense disinformation campaign on conventional and social media.
The sponsors are getting their payback.
An effort to regularize the status of the Serbian Orthodox Church and its property in Montenegro has been dropped. Security officials have been replaced with people close to Russia. The conviction of two politicians involved in the Russian-backed plot to assassinate Djukanovic in 2016 has been overturned. Even the rector of the main university has been purged in exchange for a Russophile.
Belgrade and Moscow are gloating. Serbian President Vucic hopes to re-attach Montenegro to Serbia as part of a broader ambition to create what he calls a “SerbianWorld” that would include parts of Kosovo and Bosnia. His Defense Minister, who denies the genocide at Srebrenica, advocates a greater Serbian political space, the cause for which the genocide was committed. The Russians are using the friendlier officials in Montenegro’s defense establishment to gain access to confidential NATO information. Violence and vandalism are plaguing minority communities that have long supported Djukanovic.
President Djukanovic himself is staying calm, biding his time for a reversal of the electoral defeat. While his coalition lost a municipal election in his hometown of Niksic on March 14, his party did well and signaled that he is still a force to be reckoned with. His opponents are pouring in money and Russian-generated disinformation in their effort to weaken Djukanovic further, in preparation for the next presidential election in 2023.
The United States and the European Union have so far refrained from expressing strong concern, despite the well-known Serbian and Russian interference during the campaign. Election day was reasonably free and fair and the subsequent transition was constitutional and mostly peaceful. Djukanovic’s coalition had been in power for a long time and had worn out its credibility with some people in both Washington and Brussels by accruing repeated and persistent corruption and organized crime allegations. It looked initially like the kind of alternation in power that is normal and desirable in a real democracy.
An election dominated by Serbian and Russian disinformation does not, however, betoken democratic alternation. Montenegro’s problem is that it never generated a pro-Western opposition capable of alternating with Djukanovic’s coalition. The current government has pledged not to reverse the Western thrust of the country’s foreign policy, but in practice it is doing just that. NATO has been concerned enough to send a security team to ensure that classified information does not go astray. The deputy prime minister has admitted to breaches of NATO classified information by a newly appointed security official. The European Union has objected to several legislative initiatives, including closing the special prosecution office charged with investigating the 2016 assassination plot.
Washington has been silent. It should not stay that way. President Biden, decorated by the Montenegro in 2018, knows the country well and supported its NATO aspirations when he was Vice President. So too did prominent Republicans like Secretary of State Pompeo and Senator Lindsay Graham. The U.S. Administration and Congress should both ring a loud alarm warning that the current Montenegrin government will not be allowed to undermine the Alliance from inside.
Montenegro has been a notable, decades-long success story. It stayed out of the Balkan wars of the 1990s, liberated itself from Slobodan Milosevic’s autocracy, declared independence peacefully, converted most of its economy to a market system, opened negotiations on all the required “chapters” for accession to the EU, and joined NATO, where it contributes in particular to cybersecurity. That long record of success is now at risk. If President Biden wants to encourage other countries to travel this difficult path, Washington should lend a helping hand.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No first use of nuclear weapons
Pantelis Ikonomou, former IAEA inspector, writes:
Last week, the No-First-Use Act (NFU) was reintroduced in the US Senate to establish in law that the US policy is NOT to use nuclear weapons first in any conflict. This is a key initiative necessary to advance NFU policy in the US, in its nuclear allied countries (NATO, Japan. South Korea, and Australia), and ultimately in all other nuclear armed states.
President Obama, who had considered ruling out the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict, eventually abandoned the idea. Allied countries maintained the option of first use of US nuclear weapons was needed for their protection. There was conern in the US that NFU would embolden Russia and China.
President Biden could now run into these same problems. Armed conflicts in the NATO vicinity have grown stronger. Strategic tensions between the US and the two nuclear powers, Russia and China, are escalating. There is no clarity about their policy on first use of nuclear weapons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated “Our nuclear weapons doctrine does not provide for a pre-emptive strike…” however, “… we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory.”
Beijing in its White Defence Charter 2011 underlines the posture of maintaining a “minimum nuclear deterrent,” with the commitment of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, but without a detailed analysis of the term “minimum.”
The need for NFU nuclear doctrine is becoming more important than ever. Continuously modernized nuclear arsenals are getting more capable. They can wipe out humanity and civilization on the planet (more than once). The probability of nuclear Armageddon due to accident or miscalculation is dangerously increasing.
Unfortunately, global peace and mankind’s existence depend currently upon an irrational equilibrium, that of Mutually Assured Destruction. The deadlock of of nuclear deterrence ought now be obvious to all: sensible superpower leaders, their expert advisors, and the terrified world public.
There is no better moment for a great world power, such as the US, to take the leadership and steer the world towards the adoption of global NFU. Doing so would challenge the Russians and Chinese to clarify their doctrines, lower the risk of nuclear war, and pave the way for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons, the most dangerous invention the world has ever seen, must be prevented from ever being used again. May the US Senate open the door to this way.
RSS - Posts
