Tensions and violence are again on the rise in the Balkans. The latest incident, which Morton Abramowitz and James Hooper document in depressing detail, was a dust-up between government forces and angry Serbs in northern Kosovo. That episode follows on the heels of renewed efforts by Bosnian Serbs to prepare the ground for a new secessionist bid amid the continuing political disarray in the faux country of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The admission that instability and violence have returned to the region must be an especially bitter pill for Abramowitz to swallow, since he was one of the more vocal proponents of the U.S-NATO interventions in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. But only the most optimistic (or the most obtuse) analysts can deny the mounting evidence that the West’s grand nation-building plans in the Balkans have failed. The twin notions that such Rube Goldberg political entities as Bosnia and Kosovo would prove stable and economically viable and that ethnic hatreds would subside when the European Union dangled the carrot of eventual EU membership were always naïve.
The EU, facing its own daunting economic woes, now has a fundamental choice. It can persist with the policies initially adopted in the 1990s and resign itself to indefinite peacekeeping and economic life-support missions in the two dysfunctional entities it created, or it can adopt a radically different course and cut its losses. The latter approach would involve promoting (and possibly imposing) a comprehensive settlement based on significant territorial adjustments and mutual diplomatic concessions. The broad outlines of such a settlement would mean allowing the Bosnian Serbs to secede and perhaps merge their Republika Srpska with Serbia, and allowing Belgrade to reestablish sovereignty over the predominantly Serb portion of Kosovo north of the Ibar River. In return, Serbia would need to recognize the independence of a downsized Kosovo.
Such an initiative would require EU policy makers to overcome their allergy to partitioning Bosnia and Kosovo. Partitions are never perfect solutions, but they are sometimes better than the alternatives. And given the ongoing fiascos in Bosnia and Kosovo, partition would almost certainly be better than the status quo in those cases.
For the United States, the policy choice should be easier. Abramowitz and Hooper exemplify a national narcissism that is all too common in the American foreign-policy community. They casually assume the need for a U.S. leadership role without making the case why that should be necessary. As I’ve written elsewhere, Washington needs to do a much better job setting foreign-policy priorities. It should focus on dealing with developments that have the clear potential to threaten America’s security or pose a major threat to the stability of the international system.
Parochial quarrels in the Balkans do not come even within hailing distance of reaching the proper threshold for U.S. action. The Obama administration should inform its European allies that the ongoing mess in the Balkans is the EU’s problem to handle. If necessary, the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon should block phone calls and emails coming from EU capitals. That way, policy makers wouldn’t have to listen to pleas from whining European officials seeking to entangle the United States once more in that chronically quarrelsome region.
Comments
It is Rube Goldberg and based on a complete failure to understand the dynamics of tribal conflicts, which is the reality of the Balkans. I won't repeat my comments added to the Abramowitz/Hooper piece but the failure of the US to have a realistic policy for Kosovo and to find a way to help President Tadic rather than hinder him now also places US troops on a new front line. They are the NATO forces now implementing Pristina's blockade of goods entering from Serbia at the two crossing points in north Kosovo. This is both outside NATO's UN mandate for peacekeeping in Kosovo and putting Americans into the midst of a situation we do not understand and do not control. Dangerous.
The willingness of both Gerry and Ted to ignore the consequences of what they advocate is marvelous. How would U.S. interests be served by an Islamic state emerges in central Bosnia? How would they be served by a Greater Albania? What they are proposing is state-building on an ethnic basis, without regard to U.S. interests--particularly ironic on this website.Daniel Serwerwww.peacefare.net
Actually the US isn't very picky in its choice of allies. Fundamentalist (Saudi Arabia), expansionist (Rwanda, Uganda, Albania) or modest: it all doesn't matter. The only thing that matters in US foreign policy is whether a country's government is pro-American and obediently following all the demands from the State Department. If the US can offer the Bosniaks a Muslim state or the Albanians a Great-Albania then they will be grateful and more likely to indulge American wishes in other areas. At least that is how quite a few people at the State Department think. But of course the US has to keep in consideration its other allies and keep at least the semblance of legality. At the moment we see such quasi-legal operations both in Bosnia and Kosovo: - In Bosnia the Croat member of the presidency was chosen with Muslim votes. A quirk in the Dayton Agreement allows people to vote for candidates of another ethnic group and the Muslims have abused this to such a extent that they determined the Croats presidency member. One would expect the West to condemn such a violation but when the Croats started a boycot of the Federation parliament and the electoral commission supported them it was overruled by the OHR. - In Kosovo we saw this summer the Kosovo-Albanian special police trying to grab control of the border posts in the Serb controlled part of Northern Kosovo. This was clearly something that should not have been done without consulation and permission of the peacekeepers. It was also a violation of the promise that the Albanians had done shortly before at the "technical negotiations" not to unilaterally chance things while the negotiations were going on. Yet when Serb drove the special police out KFOR brought them back and since then the Westeren powers have insisted that the Albanians get their way.
A useful link: http://www.opendemocracy.net/milan-marinkovic/clue-to-bosnian-puzzle-lies-in-its-neighbourhood
This deserves an extra comment, indeed. Theoretically, Mr. Carpenter is right: Balkans is really far more a European issue than American. But such a view neglects some other realities. The U.S. is the single most powerful state in the World, but it does not mean it is almighty. Because if America were almighty, it wouldn't need either NATO or any allies at all. Yet, America needs all of them, and not without a reason.And among all American allies, it is precisely the western European states which are the most reliable ones. America can close the door to its European partners when it comes to Balkans for example, but the Europeans could likewise close theirs to Washington for some other issues that matter to America the same.
Put mildly, Daniel Serwer is ironic in the way he raises a concern over a Muslim state in Bosnia and Greater Albania. (Perhaps I'm missing some kind of sarcasm on his part.) If anything, Greater Albania appears better advocated by supporting its independence from the relatively multiethnic rest of Serbia. That advocacy seems to be supported by Serwer, James Hooper and Morton Abramowitz. Regarding Bosnia, consider the 1990s era lack of neolib and neocon concern for the fundamentalist views of the Bosnian Muslim nationalist leader Alija Izetbegovic. Instead of choosing to remain part of what was still a very multiethnic Yugoslavia (even with the earlier secessions of Croatia and Slovenia - with FYR Macedonia seceding later on), the Bosnian Muslim nationalists chose separatism in an entity where their religious group would be in a dominant position as the plurality. While it’s true that Bosnian Croats en masse didn’t seek a continued existence in Yugoslavia, it’s also true that they aren’t/weren’t so keen in living in a Bosnian Muslim dominated state. Note how Bosnia's Croats and Serbs remain concerned about the Bosnian Muslim nationalist side. The latter continuously seeks to limit if not eliminate altogether Republika Srpska. Neocons and neolibs at large don't seem to be so aghast at this Bosnian Muslim nationalist effort. Like Serwer: Hooper and Abramowitz have an established advocacy that's noticeably biased against Serb interests. The recent National Interest article by Hooper and Abramowitz suggestively presents the image of an internationally recognized independent Kosovo, which isn't in sync with reality. The majority of nations don't recognize the south Serb province as an independent state. It's not recognized as such by a number of organizations including the UN. Hooper's and Abramowitz's article doesn't acknowledge the political and socioeconomic shortcomings in Kosovo vis-à-vis the repackaged KLA. Whether characterized as a nation or province, contemporary Kosovo is far from being a shining example of a successful entity - despite the considerable aid that it has received. Contrary to Hooper's and Abramowitz's article, the issue with accepting goods from Kosovo pertains to how they're packaged. Within reason, Serbia isn't going to accept goods suggesting that Kosovo isn't part of Serbia. As I've previously expressed, the diplomatic mess over Kosovo could've been averted with balanced advocacy. Before any recognition of that province's independence was stated, the major powers could've presented a united stand in support of Kosovo becoming an irrevocably autonomous republic in Serbia, with its own UN and IOC delegations. (Precedents for such are evident.) Having received a good deal of independence recognition, the Albanians aren't likely to accept a non-independent Kosovo. Down the line, one settlement option could involve Ted Galen Carpenter's suggestion of Republika Srpska linking with Serbia in exchange for Belgrade's acknowledgement of an independent Kosovo. For now, this scenario isn't likely to happen anytime soon. The Western neoliberal and neoconservative leaning foreign policy advocacy of the 1990s remains quite evident. That line of thinking continues to be slanted against seeing things from a mainstream Serb perspective, which is within reason. Michael Averko - http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2713 - http://www.eurasiareview.com/author/michael-averko/
Alija Izetbegovic may have been a Muslim fundamentalist, but he became it only after the war in Bosnia entered its later stage. Neither of the two wars - in Croatia and Bosnia - would have taken place if the Serbian national elite, led by Slobodan Milosevic, had not seen the imminent collapse of the former Yugoslavia as a unique opportunity to finally materialize an old Serbian nationalist dream of creating greater Serbia. Otherwise, Yugoslavia would have dissolved peacefully as Czechoslovakia did, or even the Soviet Union - one of the two world superpowers at the time and a country whose regime was among the most totalitarian ones that emerged after the WW2. So, stop blaming alleged Muslim fundamentalism in Bosnia for something that primarily was a consequence of Orthodox Christian extremism in Serbia but also, in part at least, its Catholic counterpart in Croatia. And precisely because of people with prejudices, who believe that being a Muslim means being a (potential) terrorist, various Andres Breiviks will continue to crop up from time to time to sober the bigots, reminding them that Christian extremism goes hand in hand with Islamic, and vice versa.
Izetbegovic wrote his Islamic Declaration in 1970. The contents of that work serve as evidence of an intolerant Bosnian Muslim nationalism. Breivik wasn't Orthodox Christian. He's a demented individual, who subscribed to some pro-Israeli views, among other issues. It therefore comes across as disingenuous to suggest a blame on the Serbs for his actions. One can counter your comments by noting that Orthodox-Christian activists don't appear to do things like fly airplanes into office buildings. Macedonia separated from Yugoslavia without war. The not so pro-Serb Warren Zimmerman among others have acknowledged Slovenian culpability in igniting the short war that developed in Slovenia. Croat culpability under Tudjman is rather clear as well. Regarding Bosnia, Fikret Abdic was a relatively prominent Bosnian Muslim. Along with his supporters, he preferred the Serbs and Croats opposed to Izetbegovic. The state of West Virginia is a product of the American Civil War. At the outbreak of that conflict, the majority of Virginians chose to side with the upstart Confederacy, whereas the rest of that state preferred to exist within the established Union. The Bosnian Serbs found themselves in a similar position. Instead of choosing to remain part of what was still a very multiethnic Yugoslavia, the Bosnian Muslim nationalists chose separatism in an entity where their religious group would be in a dominant position as the plurality. Michael Averko - http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2713 - http://www.eurasiareview.com/author/michael-averko/
Bosnian Muslims did not commit armed aggression against either Serbia or any other neighbor in order to create a greater (islamic) Bosnia. And even if Izetbegovic himself was a Muslim fundamentalist (which is arguable), it still cannot serve as evidence that all, or at least majority, of Bosnian Muslims are. To the contrary, Bosnian Muslims are largely secular and tend toward European values.
I didn't say Breivik was an Orthodox Christian, nor did I suggest a blame on the Serbs for his actions. I said that he had done what he had done in the name of (what he believed were values of) Christianity, having been driven by islamophobia. Please read again what I wrote in my previous post, but this time more attentively. Finally, as for secession of former Yugoslavian republics, it was the valid Yugoslavian Constitution that had given the right to self-determination to all of them (to republics, not to ethnic groups within those republics), including Serbia as well. Serbia was not appointed a "keeper of Yugoslavia", it was just one of six equal constituent republics, along with two autonomous provinces. By the way, I am an ethnic Serb who was born in Serbia when it was a constituent republic of Yugoslavia. I have spent my whole life in Serbia and am still living here. I am stressing this lest you or anyone think that I have any interest in condemnation of Serbian national policy. I am just not a nationalist and that's the reason why I don't have a problem to tell the truth as to the Yugoslavian war(s) of 1990s.
During the Bosnian Civil War, Bosnian Muslim nationalists, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs alike respectively received support from outside Bosnia. The history of religious based nationalism includes a mix of the religious and not so religious. Pakistan, Israel and Bosnia serve as examples. There's no denying what Izetbegovic wrote in 1970. Serbia and Montenegro were the last two Yugoslav republics that continued the Yugoslav ideal unlike the others, which pursued more nationalist agendas. Bosnia has proven to be a place of different allegiances. Note how many Bosnian Muslims rooted for Turkey in a football (soccer) match against Croatia. That sentiment contrasted with the Bosnian Croat population. Kissinger among others has suggestively questioned the viability of trying to maintain Bosnia as a single state. On reading "more attentively," you should exhibit what you erroneously suggest of me. From a purely technical point of view, I've done a much better job replying to your points when compared to how you've responded to mine. I appropriately answered the way you brought Breivik into the discussion. Your ethnicity means nothing to me. Quislings have existed among numerous groups. Unfairly characterizing Serb actions and downplaying the faults of nationalist non-Serbs is the kind of propaganda which shouldn't be confused with earnest analysis. I prefer keeping the discussion on the actual subject matter as opposed to personal asides like your ethnicity and mis-characterizing what I comprehended. At the same time, I don't feel obligated to gloss over negatively inaccurate remarks about what I said. Michael Averko - http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2713 - http://www.eurasiareview.com/author/michael-averko/
So, following your logic, Germans who opposed Adolf Hitler were "quislings"?
As a term, "Qusiling" has been used towards those going against the legitimate interests of their country. Suggesting that Serbia of the 1990s was like Nazi Germany is absurd hyperbole - especially when considering what was evident elsewhere like in Tudjman era Croatia - a country which continues to have elements lauding the Ustasha regime.
Well, if you believe that territorial expansion through armed aggression, ethnic cleansing and genocide - and on principles overwhelmingly reminiscent of the Nazi concept called "Lebensraum" - represents "legitimate interests" of any country, then I give up and accept that I am a quisling.
At times, the analogy with Nazi Germany can get overly simplistic. An unfortunate aspect of war (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Middle East, eastern Turkey's borders and elsewhere) is that civilians often die in large numbers. The Nazis sought expansion in areas outside Germany and with an openly bigoted and genocidal policy. Bosnian Serbs are indigenuous to Serbia. Contrary to what you suggest, nationalist non-Serbs greatly contributed to the demise of Yugoslavia. Note Albanian nationalist actions in Kosovo and what the Croat nationalists did in Krajina and some other areas beforehand. (Kosovo being part of Serbia in Yugoslav and pre-Yugoslav times, as well as in accordance with UNSCR 1244 and the opinion of most of the contemporary nations.) There's also the previously mentioned (at this thread) example of an (at the time) prominent Bosnian Muslim (Fikret Abdic) and his supporters who preferred the Croats and Serbs opposed to Izetbegovic. The wars of the last decade in former Yugoslavia are more intricate than how some have propagandistically characterized them.
Another useful link: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/thecafe/2011/08/201181310184441234.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=FacebookPosting
Bravo Michael! Your responses were quite brilliant, however, I must admit that your opponent in this debate (Milan) was rather poor; I think you could have used more of a challenge! Nonetheless, your responses were certainly worthy of acknowledgement and you have definitely won over many fans who frequent this site. Well done!
Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion. I sense that he's very much influenced by the high number of Western neocon-neolib leaning NGOs in Serbia. He exhibits more sympathy towards the questionable adversaries of the Serbs, versus taking a stand against anti-Serb bias. Of possible interest: http://www.eurasiareview.com/29092011-russian-limits-in-supporting-serbia-and-some-peripheral-issues-analysis/
Women of all ages love the look of heels, but that doesn't mean that they still don't love how flat shoes make them feel. Flat shoes are perfect for a woman when she wants to look good, but wants to keep her feet a little closer to the ground. While there are many different kinds of flats that are perfect for a woman's casual style, there are also a lot of fun patterns that a lady can wear to really amp up her look. Many of us only think of Teva as casual sandals, but you can also find a lot of other great styles as well, including some fantastic flats! The Women's Kiru Ballet T is ultra radiant in the waterproof leather and poly webbing detail. When you are looking for flats that will really keep you warm, soft and fashionable, these are just the ones for you. The faux fur lining will really keep your toes toasty and the rubber outsole will always keep you on your toes. The MICHAEL Michael Kors Townsend Flat are what every fashion forward woman needs in her closet. When you are looking for some classy shoes that will really keep your feet comfortable without losing any of your style, these strappy flats are superb! This multi-strap design with metallic decoration and block heel offers just the right amount of sophistication in a flat. The leather lining, lightly padded insole and rubber sole help keep your feet comfy with good traction. The Rocket Dog Capucine Flat is super flattering with the ruched pointed toe. These soft fabric shoes with rubber soles are easy to walk in, even if you need to wear them all day long at the office. Some women prefer the look of a smooth, round toe, while other ladies really love the look and feel of a pointy toe shoe, and these are just the ones to be worn. Are you looking for the perfect office shoe? The Liz Claiborne Hartley is a very smooth leather loafer that adds just the right amount of comfort and style. The rubber soles help keep your feet from feeling tired when worn all day at work and the detail stitching really adds a lot of professionalism to this shoe. Forget about trying to wear pumps all day long while you are running around the office and wear a pair of shoes that will keep you happy the entire time they are on your feet! The Edie Flat is just right for a woman who does not want to wear just any old plain shoe on her feet! These round toe flats have gold hardware that offer a really stylish look to a normally plain shoe. If you love the look of flats, but want to have a dressier pair to wear when you need to get all primped up, these are just right for your classy toes! Flat shoes are perfect for so many women because they are so cute and fashionable, but they really keep your feet comfortable. You do not have to always wear shoes that hurt your feet in order to look good! Instead wear a pair of hot flats to keep your style sizzling! For wildly good fashion, flats are always the way to go when you want to keep your feet happy. View more Women's Shoes from Like.com Nike Air Max Griffey 1 White Black Red Retro Training Shoes Shoes and in particular flat or low heeled boot shoes can be worn in any kind of event or occasion. This can either be when attending official or casual events. To top up on the good news is that boots shoes are not just for particular people but can be worn by anyone. When selecting boots shoes you will never run out of selection to choose from since you have the option of selecting from numerous designs either made out of suede or leather. You also get to choose from a variety of beautiful colors ranging from brown to black. You can do comfortably do away with all the old unfashionable pair of boots and get yourself this stylish boots shoes and comfortably wear them in any occasion. As earlier stated there are various types you can select from. These would include the lace up front flat ankle, solid slouch flat high and print flat snow knee boots shoes. This is just a few of the numerous designs available for you. It was mentioned before that this boots shoes can be worn to any event and even depending on a particular season all you have to do is select the most suitable one. A good example of this is the print flat snow knee Nike Air Max Griffey 1 Black Red Trainning Sports that are specifically suitable for the snowy season. This is because they have been to withstand the extreme conditions that come as a result of cold weather. A good example of this is snow. You can comfortably wear them even when taking part in winter sports or any activities you may take part in during this time. These snow knee boots shoes have been made out of very tough material which makes them long lasting and the same time quite comfortable and warm. There design as ranked this shoes as one of the most popular shoes among ladies. Therefore all you have to do in order to get that fashionable and classy look is getting yourself this boots and matching them up well with your outfit. You will always walk around henceforth with a renewed sense of style and confidence. The material used to make this boots not only makes them durable and comfortable to wear as earlier stated but also allows your feet to get good ventilation. This keeps the feet comfortable and stylish. Nike Air Max Griffey Fury 2012 Black Basketball Sports
Can<p>someone<p>remove<p>this<br/>spam