Story: Bosnia, Serbia pledge to mend ties, lure investors.
There hasn't been a whole lot of good news out of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the last several years. This year however has seen some progress in repairing the relationship between Serbia and Bosnia. At the end of March, the Serbian parliament voted to condemn the Srebrenica massacre- and Serbian president Boris Tadić agreed to attend this year's commemorations of the massacre. These are huge steps forward for the region- and I would venture to say aren't without risks as nationalism remains a potent force in Serbia.
However this relationship is complex (in a way that the article doesn't touch on). Bosnian Serbs and Republika Srpska have a rather close relationship with the Republic of Serbia (and its precedents) dating back before the 1992-95 war. Since the war this relationship has been exclusive to Bosnian Serbs (a previous visit by Tadić to the Republika Srpska- without an matching visit to national level institutions or the Federation- caused quite a few waves).
The Bosnian Serb member of the presidency is frustrated with recent improvements in the relationship between Bosnia and Serbia. On the surface this seems a paradox. But its not so much the close ties as much as it is who the close ties are with.
The meeting in Turkey threatens the Bosnian Serb leadership's exclusive hold on close ties with Serbia- and that likely plays into the objections of the Serb member of the Bosnian presidency. This time it was a Bosniak president of a state level institution that met with the president of Serbia, and not members of a Serb affiliated party or a someone associated with Republika Srpska. This does little to nurture the secessionist dreams still held by some leaders in Republika Srpska.
Bosnia and its people have suffered from these damaged dysfunctional relationships. For much of the late 1990s Croatian and Serbian nationalists funneled resources to obstructionist leaders in Bosnia and paralyzed its politics. Since 2000 changes in leadership in these neighboring countries have improved relationships, but progress is slow.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Upcoming Stories
Its going to be a rather exiting couple of weeks here in DC and I'm going to have quite a bit of writing to do.
In case someone in DC hasn't heard, we're having a big summit on Nuclear Weapons reduction and nonproliferation. Delegations from over 40 countries will be present.
American University is currently hosting an exhibit on Post Civil War Lebanese art. I'll be posting pictures when I get a chance to see it.
The Carnegie Endowment will be hosting an event on Armenian-Turkish rapprochement on Friday.
"Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010
Time: 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.
Location: Carnegie Endowment for International
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Tom de Waal, David L. Phillips, Amb. James F. Collins"
Apparently Carnegie does these things by invitation? AU's PCR list serve got an invitation so I'm going!
On Monday Dr. Abdul Aziz Said is speaking on the continuing mismatch in American and Muslim perceptions on global issues and conflict. I look forward to hearing him speak, as I've had too few opportunities to do so.
Moreover the Afghan-Karzai-election row continues to get even more heated, and I daresay quite personal.
In case someone in DC hasn't heard, we're having a big summit on Nuclear Weapons reduction and nonproliferation. Delegations from over 40 countries will be present.
American University is currently hosting an exhibit on Post Civil War Lebanese art. I'll be posting pictures when I get a chance to see it.
The Carnegie Endowment will be hosting an event on Armenian-Turkish rapprochement on Friday.
"Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010
Time: 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.
Location: Carnegie Endowment for International
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Tom de Waal, David L. Phillips, Amb. James F. Collins"
Apparently Carnegie does these things by invitation? AU's PCR list serve got an invitation so I'm going!
On Monday Dr. Abdul Aziz Said is speaking on the continuing mismatch in American and Muslim perceptions on global issues and conflict. I look forward to hearing him speak, as I've had too few opportunities to do so.
Moreover the Afghan-Karzai-election row continues to get even more heated, and I daresay quite personal.
Is Robert McDonnell Whistling Dixie in Virginia?
Washington Post: McDonnell's Confederate History Month proclamation irks civil rights leaders
Some 150 years after the end of our Civil War it continues to deeply impact our politics and exerts a powerful tug on many. This story is a reminder that conflicts simply do not vanish when one side triumphs militarily over the other or a peace agreement is made.
The long and the short of this article is that McDonnell was reaching out to part of his base- Sons of Confederate Veterans and their ilk, but neglecting to mention that the Civil War involved slavery. Richmond, the capital of Virginia was also the capital of the Confederacy and was site of a large slave market.
For Virginians and many other people in the southern states it would make sense that the war has a much stronger legacy- the battles were fought on their land and they were on the losing end of the war. Also the ancestors of a considerable number of people in these states were owned by the ancestors of other people living in these states. Altogether that's a considerable amount of resentment to overcome.
Its not so much that McDonnell is talking about commemorating fallen soldiers as much as he chose to ignore the experiences of another large chunk of his state. It seems to me rather unnecessary and backwards to have done this. Both groups of people have valid histories. Virginia's history is in all of their stories, not just in that of fallen Confederate soldiers or freed slaves. McDonnell was elected as the governor of all Virginians, he really ought to seek to honor the histories of and lead all Virginians. History does not need to be a zero sum game- especially 150 years after the end of a war.
I must confess that as a Michigander the Civil War is somewhat academic to me. It was a war that happened a long time ago and its battlegrounds were hundreds of miles away. In my particular hometown the War of 1812 and the Indian Wars loom larger (Monroe, Michigan was the site of the Battle of Frenchtown, which was made notorious when 68 Kentucky militiamen were massacred in the aftermath of the battle). Monroe was also home to General Armstrong Custer who fought in the Civil War (and advocated a moderate approach towards the South in the post war era), but is better known today for his bloody battles against the Cheyenne and Lakotah and his last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
The racial dynamics are somewhat different in this part of the country than back home. People mix quite a bit more in Washington DC than they do up in the de facto segregation that is Michigan. Virginia too, is quite a different sort of place.
I attended a panel discussion last month on the subject of race and conflict in the United States, one of the panelists, Rob Corcoran, national director of the US chapter of Initiatives of Change works on racial reconciliation in Richmond, Virginia. In his work, he's worked alongside group on both sides of the divide mentioned in this article. I'm certain this event will give his organization quite a bit more work to do in the near future.
Some 150 years after the end of our Civil War it continues to deeply impact our politics and exerts a powerful tug on many. This story is a reminder that conflicts simply do not vanish when one side triumphs militarily over the other or a peace agreement is made.
The long and the short of this article is that McDonnell was reaching out to part of his base- Sons of Confederate Veterans and their ilk, but neglecting to mention that the Civil War involved slavery. Richmond, the capital of Virginia was also the capital of the Confederacy and was site of a large slave market.
For Virginians and many other people in the southern states it would make sense that the war has a much stronger legacy- the battles were fought on their land and they were on the losing end of the war. Also the ancestors of a considerable number of people in these states were owned by the ancestors of other people living in these states. Altogether that's a considerable amount of resentment to overcome.
Its not so much that McDonnell is talking about commemorating fallen soldiers as much as he chose to ignore the experiences of another large chunk of his state. It seems to me rather unnecessary and backwards to have done this. Both groups of people have valid histories. Virginia's history is in all of their stories, not just in that of fallen Confederate soldiers or freed slaves. McDonnell was elected as the governor of all Virginians, he really ought to seek to honor the histories of and lead all Virginians. History does not need to be a zero sum game- especially 150 years after the end of a war.
I must confess that as a Michigander the Civil War is somewhat academic to me. It was a war that happened a long time ago and its battlegrounds were hundreds of miles away. In my particular hometown the War of 1812 and the Indian Wars loom larger (Monroe, Michigan was the site of the Battle of Frenchtown, which was made notorious when 68 Kentucky militiamen were massacred in the aftermath of the battle). Monroe was also home to General Armstrong Custer who fought in the Civil War (and advocated a moderate approach towards the South in the post war era), but is better known today for his bloody battles against the Cheyenne and Lakotah and his last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
The racial dynamics are somewhat different in this part of the country than back home. People mix quite a bit more in Washington DC than they do up in the de facto segregation that is Michigan. Virginia too, is quite a different sort of place.
I attended a panel discussion last month on the subject of race and conflict in the United States, one of the panelists, Rob Corcoran, national director of the US chapter of Initiatives of Change works on racial reconciliation in Richmond, Virginia. In his work, he's worked alongside group on both sides of the divide mentioned in this article. I'm certain this event will give his organization quite a bit more work to do in the near future.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
President Karzai Points His Finger
Afghan President Karzai accuses UN over election Fraud
President Hamid Karzai is pointing his finger at the west today, accusing them of attempting to push him out of office. During President Karzai's statement he singled out American Ambassador Peter Galbraith. Incidentally I had planned on writing on the Ambassador before I read this story.
Last week I attended a presentation given by Ambassador Galbraith on this very subject, called Afghanistan: War of Necessity or Quagmire. A web search reveals that he's been traveling to quite a few places to give this presentation. Something he hinted at during his speech. Here's a link to a similar speech given to the Vermont Council on World Affairs.
Altogether I found him to be rather interesting, covering topic areas such as the country's need for decentralization and Afghanistan's recent history with Pakistan and the election:
The long and the short of it is that both Ambassador Galbraith and President Karzai have a lot of bad blood over last year's election fraud. According to Ambassador Galbraith the election was plauged with "wholesale" election fraud perpetrated by members of the election commission appointed by Karzai.
Karzai did manage to eke out a reelection- basically by getting his opponent to decline to stand for the runoff. Galbraith was dismissed from his role in the United Nations mission for criticizing events. Since then he has made it a point to speak out against Karzai's ongoing attempts to steal power in Afghanistan.
Galbraith is rightly angry- it it is NATO soldiers that protect his regime and Western dollars that fund his government and pay for elections. Karzai's vote rigging has made Afghanistan more dangerous and more expensive for its western allies. Karzai has since attempted to change election laws to remove international oversight of elections and replace them with his political allies. He did this over the objections of Afghanistan's parliament, and less than a year before this year's parliamentary elections.
Ambassador Galbraith had a couple suggestions for fixing Afghanistan's election system; first, truly remove the election officials appointed by Karzai and actually fire those found with their hands stuffing the ballot box. And in the long run constitutional reform designed to decentralize the country's governance structure- something that the Ambassador doesn't suspect is very high on the country's agenda. Galbraith also states an alternative "If Afghans want to have a fraudulent election, they should pay for it themselves."
This is the heart of the issue. The international community is not in Afghanistan because they want to be. It is an expensive intervention in a remote region. There is little to no economic gain out of being there. The country is a source of drugs and is a potential threat to international security. These issues are important, but the international community's patience is very limited and there are other countries that have the same problems and are easier to get to. What does President Karzai think he'll be the president of without his allies? Does he think his government will last long when he can't exercise its authority outside of Kabul? Or does he think that Afghanistan is so indispensable to the international community that they will stay there forever no matter what? Members of the Dutch government recently thought otherwise.
President Hamid Karzai is pointing his finger at the west today, accusing them of attempting to push him out of office. During President Karzai's statement he singled out American Ambassador Peter Galbraith. Incidentally I had planned on writing on the Ambassador before I read this story.
Last week I attended a presentation given by Ambassador Galbraith on this very subject, called Afghanistan: War of Necessity or Quagmire. A web search reveals that he's been traveling to quite a few places to give this presentation. Something he hinted at during his speech. Here's a link to a similar speech given to the Vermont Council on World Affairs.
Altogether I found him to be rather interesting, covering topic areas such as the country's need for decentralization and Afghanistan's recent history with Pakistan and the election:
The long and the short of it is that both Ambassador Galbraith and President Karzai have a lot of bad blood over last year's election fraud. According to Ambassador Galbraith the election was plauged with "wholesale" election fraud perpetrated by members of the election commission appointed by Karzai.
Karzai did manage to eke out a reelection- basically by getting his opponent to decline to stand for the runoff. Galbraith was dismissed from his role in the United Nations mission for criticizing events. Since then he has made it a point to speak out against Karzai's ongoing attempts to steal power in Afghanistan.
Galbraith is rightly angry- it it is NATO soldiers that protect his regime and Western dollars that fund his government and pay for elections. Karzai's vote rigging has made Afghanistan more dangerous and more expensive for its western allies. Karzai has since attempted to change election laws to remove international oversight of elections and replace them with his political allies. He did this over the objections of Afghanistan's parliament, and less than a year before this year's parliamentary elections.
Ambassador Galbraith had a couple suggestions for fixing Afghanistan's election system; first, truly remove the election officials appointed by Karzai and actually fire those found with their hands stuffing the ballot box. And in the long run constitutional reform designed to decentralize the country's governance structure- something that the Ambassador doesn't suspect is very high on the country's agenda. Galbraith also states an alternative "If Afghans want to have a fraudulent election, they should pay for it themselves."
This is the heart of the issue. The international community is not in Afghanistan because they want to be. It is an expensive intervention in a remote region. There is little to no economic gain out of being there. The country is a source of drugs and is a potential threat to international security. These issues are important, but the international community's patience is very limited and there are other countries that have the same problems and are easier to get to. What does President Karzai think he'll be the president of without his allies? Does he think his government will last long when he can't exercise its authority outside of Kabul? Or does he think that Afghanistan is so indispensable to the international community that they will stay there forever no matter what? Members of the Dutch government recently thought otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)