LOCAL PRESS
Vulin: Government remains committed to Brussels talks (RTS)
Outgoing Serbian Minister in charge of Kosovo and Metohija Aleksandar Vulin said that the Belgrade-Pristina talks, due in Brussels on Monday, would be difficult, as Serbia will be demanded to give what it can, but also what it cannot. Serbia, for its own part, will demand what needs to be given to Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, he stressed, adding that the talks would require immense diplomacy and courage. Each round of the talks in Brussels is important for us as if it were the very first one. Our delegation will be presented at the highest level. We want to show that our commitment to the Brussels agreement and further negotiations of the new Serbian government, when it is formed, will not change, underlined Vulin. He said that the government would continue doing what the previous one commenced, which government was good in what it did, and that he expected the situation to improve further and all that has been agreed upon to be fulfilled.
He said that the adoption of a law on general elections to the Kosovo assembly in its present form would have serious effects on the position of Kosovo Serbs. He said that the international community supported the right of Serbs to vote with their documents and to have reserved seats in the assembly and that the very idea of depriving Serbs of the right to use their own documents to vote confirms that someone would like to legalize the results of ethnic cleansing, said Vulin.
Drecun: Kosovo dialogue not right place to discuss Ukraine (B92)
The chair of the parliamentary Committee for Kosovo and Metohija Milovan Drecun told B92 TV that he does not believe that the EU will take advantage of today’s round of the Kosovo dialogue to influence Serbia about Ukraine. He says that the EU so far has had and still has plenty of other channels to transmit its views on Ukraine to Serbia – so the meeting of our team with Catherine Ashton should not serve for that. “On the other hand, the EU has so far sent a message to Serbia that it understands our specific relationship with Russia, primarily due to the support of Moscow in the UN Security Council in all matters relating to non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence,” said Drecun. Speaking about the new round of the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, Drecun said the negotiations would focus on several important questions: “According to the announcement of our team, these are justice, the formation of the community of Serb municipalities, and the new electoral law in Kosovo. I expect that Ashton will propose the dynamic of future negotiations.” According to him, it is precisely this dynamic that is important because very important issues that are yet to be opened are coming up on the agenda, such as property in Kosovo of Serbia and the Serbian Orthodox Church, but also one on which Serbia is constantly insisting, and that is the return of displaced persons. Asked whether the judiciary was the toughest point that is being negotiated, and why, Drecun said the problem is that Pristina believes that a regulated legal system gives Serbs in Kosovo power. Pristina wants to dilute what has already been agreed, and so, for example, insists that the organization of the court in Kosovska Mitrovica be redrawn in a way that would change the structure of the judges, which should ultimately suit Albanians. “Serbia has already made a compromise when it said it would accept a court, but this court must not outvote Serbs, and it must be such that Serbs trust it. The proposal is that the court has two administrations, one of which would responsible for Serbs,” said Drecun. Asked “what the Brussels agreement was for,” Drecun said: “It moved things forward for the better. It rooted a process within which movement forward is made. There are no more unilateral actions in Kosovo, we had elections, formed municipalities with Serb majority, we are going toward the formation of the Union of Serb Municipalities, and we changed the role and image of Serbia abroad. That”s what the Brussels agreement is for. It is the beginning of the normalization of relations.”
U.S. Embassy: Pristina declared independence legally (Tanjug)
The Kosovo Assembly declared independence of Kosovo from Serbia in a legitimate democratic process under UN administration, after all other options were exhausted, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade said Friday in a comment on a recent statement by U.S. President Barack Obama that an independence referendum took place in Kosovo in 2008. Asked by Tanjug if they could comment on Obama’s recent statement that Kosovo broke away from Serbia only after a referendum was organized there in line with international law and in cooperation with the UN and its neighbors, the U.S. Embassy said: “The president was referring to the unique situation in Kosovo in which independence emerged from many years of exhaustive negotiations and engagement led by the international community. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 established a special legal regime for Kosovo under UN administration and provided for a political process for determining Kosovo’s future status, which included the possibility of independence. Unlike Crimea, in Kosovo there was a legitimate democratic process, under UN Administration, that included a free and fair vote to constitute a representative Kosovo parliament, which legally declared independence, after other options were exhausted.”
Serbia between the EU and Russia (Radio Serbia, by Biljana Blanusa)
The Ukrainian crisis has raised tensions between the EU and Russia, which indirectly reflects on other European countries. Serbia is no exception as its EU accession talks have officially started, while Russia is an important political and economic partner of Serbia. For how long will Serbia be able to remain neutral – this is a question discussed in public and among experts these days. The official reply is to be given by the future government. The escalation of a conflict between Brussels and Moscow regarding the Crimean crisis and EU sanctions towards Russia indicate a possible outbreak of an economic war, which would strike other countries in Europe as well. Professor Predrag Simic emphasizes that such events would influence Serbia as well. The economic war between Brussels and Moscow would be fatal as it would influence gas supplies through Ukraine and towards Europe, he says. Serbian industry almost fully depends on the Russian gas and so does the population whose flats have been connected to heating plants. Gas prices would also become higher, which would negatively reflect on economy. As for the South Stream gas line through Serbia, economic experts believe that the Ukrainian crisis has just confirmed its justifiability. They think there is no room for concern that the raising of tensions between the EU and Russia could call the realization of that project in question. Although the representatives of countries taking part in the investment have different views of its future, the Serbian authorities stress that the realization is going on according to plan. Under way are talks between the EU and Russia on the Third Energy Package, which will be binding for Serbia as well and they are expected to be completed successfully. Europe needs Russian gas as its current spending amounts to 165 billion m3 annually and is constantly increasing. Serbia and Russia are negotiating a loan of $70 million for the start of the construction of a gas line, for which the Serbian government would have to give guarantees. When that is completed, the building works should start.
Russia is an important political and economic partner of Serbia. The president of the Serbian Chamber of Commerce Zeljko Sertic said that mutual economic cooperation had been improved in the past years, especially after the signing of the Free Trade Agreement. In 2013, the value of the total commodity exchange exceeded three billion dollars, while Serbian exports to the Russian market reached a billion dollars. On the other hand, the EU is Serbia’s top foreign trade partner as 60% of the total exports are placed in the market. The EU is also the top investor in the Serbian economy. Considering that, the indications of Belgrade that it will take a neutral stand in the EU-Russian conflict are understandable, but the question is whether that is sustainable on a long-term basis. The day on which Serbia’s political and economic future will be resolved is obviously drawing closer.
Linta: Croatia intimidating Serbs through arrests (Beta)
The Chair of the Coalition of Refugees Miodrag Linta said that the arrest of Milutin Graic confirmed the fact that the government of Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic continued the policy of the previous Croatian governments. As specified in a written statement by Linta, Milutin Graic has been 127th arrested Serb since Interpol circulars were issued in 2000 and the seventh one in this year. The statements of Croatian officials that they are for the best relations between Serbia and Croatia are insincere unless Croatia stops arresting Serbs, stressed Linta. Milutin Graic, who has been charged in Croatia for war crimes from the 1990s, was arrested in The Netherlands, the Dutch public prosecutor announced on Friday. Graic (41) is charged with being a member of the Serb militia that relocated Croats from Krajina by force.
REGIONAL PRESS
Raguz: B&H should be arranged according to federal model (Dnevnik)
The leader of the HDZ 1990 Martin Raguz believes that B&H should be arranged by a federal model, because only a federation can make possible the balance between the asymmetrical and dysfunctional present structure of B&H. “The current asymmetrical and dysfunctional internal structure of B&H very often acts looser than confederally arranged countries. That is why a consistent model is necessary, and that is a federal model that would enable a functional balance between identities and entities,” said Raguz. In an interview for the Novi Sad daily Dnevnik, he added that the federal model of arrangement of B&H, which the HDZ 1990 advocates, found a positive echo in Europe, because it leads the country toward a democratic and legally arranged state. Raguz believes that Croats in B&H in the present organization “are up against a wall” and it is essential that something change, in order to avoid further political marginalization and de-constitution. According to his assessment, Belgrade in the future will do everything it can for Serbia and B&H to strengthen their current links and relations in a positive direction.
Gilles: EU working hard on new approach towards B&H (Srna)
French Ambassador to B&H Roland Gilles says all European capitals are currently developing a new EU approach to B&H announcing that in mid-April B&H will be a topic of a meeting of the EU foreign ministers in Brussels. Gilles said the recent political gridlock, which ensued after no solution was found for the implementation of the Sejdic-Finci ruling and after no agreement was reached on a coordination mechanism for EU related matters, prompted the EU to create another approach to B&H. France does not think that the EU should lower the criteria that B&H should meet, Gilles said, emphasizing that the reforms that B&H needs will not be skipped. The Ambassador recalled that the last meeting of the EU technical sub-committee had been delayed because B&H had not reached an agreement yet by which it would speak to the EU with one voice. “It is France’s view that the major issues must be resolved, such as the Sejdic-Finci ruling and the coordination mechanism,” Gilles told reporters ahead of the Association of Independent Intellectuals “Circle 99” session, where he spoke on the topic entitled “B&H in Gap between Past and Present: What’s Next?” According to him, other procedures need to be designed in order to establish the dialogue that would help reach an agreement the people demand, especially in the social sphere.
German MEPs propose name issue to become chapter in EU talks (Utrinski Vesnik)
German MEPs visited Greece over the past few days, Utrinski Vesnik writes. The German politicians met with Greek officials. One of the issues discussed was the name dispute between Greece and Macedonia. The German MEPs proposed models for solution to the long-lasting argument. One of the proposals was to include a chapter in the FRYOM-EU negotiations on the issue or to become chapter in the neighborly agreements. In other words, these moves can unblock the EU accession talks, while Macedonia can get additional criteria.
INTERNATIONAL PRESS
Kosovo Blames Serbia for Delays in Normalization Deal (BIRN, 31 March 2014)
The authorities in Pristina accused Belgrade of slowing the pace on implementing the EU-mediated deal to normalize relations and failing to fulfil commitments on judicial changes.
Bekim Collaku, political adviser to Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, said that Serbia was to blame for the delay in integrating the judicial authorities in Serb-dominated northern Kosovo into Pristina’s system – a commitment made by Belgrade under the EU-brokered deal to normalise relations signed in April 2013.
“The delays were caused by the Serbian side,” Collaku told Radio Free Europe.
“We expect these delays to be finally resolved so we can start putting the deal concretely on the ground,” he said.
His criticism came ahead of the 23rd round of EU-mediated talks between Pristina and Belgrade schedule due be held on Monday.
The Brussels agreement signed in April last year envisions forming an Association of Serbian Municipalities in Kosovo with broad powers, which will include the four Serb-run northern municipalities of North Mitrovica, Leposavic, Zvecan and Zubin Potok.
Since the end of the Kosovo conflict in the late 1990s, northern Kosovo had been beyond the Pristina government’s control, while Serbia financed local security, judicial, health and educational institutions.
Last year’s deal underlined that by the end of 2013 “the integration of judicial authorities will have been completed”.
“All Serbian court premises in Kosovo will have been closed, as new bodies are set up and personnel integrated into the Kosovo system,” the agreement’s implementation plan says.
However this has not happened so far, Collaku said.
He said that Serbia “is aware it can’t delay the implementation of the agreement for normalizing relations forever”.
“In line with the integration process into the EU, we expect more consistency and seriousness from Serbia in implementing all obligations which derive from the agreement. [We also expect] their commitment in achieving other agreements which would lead to the full normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia,” he added.
Kosovo Opposition Slate ‘Failed’ Serbia Dialogue (BIRN, by Edona Peci, 28 March 2014)
As Pristina and Belgrade prepare to resume dialogue on normalizing relations next week, the opposition has criticized the government’s handling of the talks and the results so far.
Ahead of the next round of Kosovo-Serbia talks in Brussels on normalising relations, government and opposition parties have exchanged barbs on whether last spring’s accord with Serbia is delivering results.
Glauk Konjufca, a lawmaker of the opposition nationalistic Vetevendosje movement accused the government of failing to integrate the Serb-dominated northern part of Kosovo.
“You have made compromises in the most important areas of Kosovo statehood and sovereignty,” he told parliament on Thursday, addressing his criticism to Edita Tahiri, former head of the Kosovo delegation in the talks with Belgrade and other government members.
He was referring to the April 19, 2013 draft agreement, which mainly concerned the position of Serbs in the north.
Under the terms of the EU-led agreement, an Association of Serbian Municipalities with broad powers is to be set up, including the four Serb-run northern municipalities of North Mitrovica, Leposavic, Zvecan and Zubin Potok.
According to the agreement, Belgrade must dissolve all so-called parallel structures in health, education, police, the courts and local government that it has installed in the north.
Last year, Serbs in the area participated in local elections organized by the Kosovo authorities and elected new mayors of those municipalities.
However, Daut Haradinaj, from the opposition Alliance for the Future of Kosovo, AAK, said the situation in the north since last spring had “not improved but has instead deteriorated”.
Government ministers have robustly defended the accord and the results obtained so far. Tahiri said: “Paramilitary structures are being dissolved, [parallel] structures in justice are being removed, and illegal municipalities have been shut down; we have sovereignty also in the north.”
Konjufca then accused Tahiri for “not telling the truth” concerning the issue of parallel structures.
“The Civilna Zastita has never been dissolved,” he argued referring to Serbian “civil defence” units that were seen in North Mitrovica when local elections were held last year.
Civilna Zastita units are seen as illegal formations by the Kosovo authorities.
Several incidents organized by unknown groups have also recently caused tension on the northern side of the Ibar river in Mitrovica.
Earlier this month, a local crowd of more than 100 Serbs forced the release from a police station of Slobodan Sovrlic, who was wanted for serious criminal offences.
The EU rule-of-law mission, EULEX, condemned the “unlawful act” at the police station in Zubin Potok, demanding “a thorough investigation of the events that prevented justice from taking its course”.
Nigeria not to recognise Kosovo (englishnews@aa.com.tr, by Rafiu Ajakaye, 28 March 2014)
Nigeria not to recognize Kosovo, backs U.N. on Crimea
Nigeria on Friday said it had no intention of recognizing Kosovo as an independent country – a position that appears to contravene a 2010 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirming the legality of Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence.
“Our position has always been consistent on issues of that nature [secession], including on Kosovo, which we have not recognized. We are still waiting for an agreement between Belgrade and Kosovo,” Foreign Minister Aminu Wali told a delegation of EU ambassadors in Abuja.
In 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia – a decision that drew mixed reactions from the international community.
Nigeria, itself an amalgam of different ethnic nationalities and the survivor of a three-year civil war in the late 1960s, has a longstanding policy of not supporting secessionist movements.
Wali insisted that Nigeria’s non-recognition of Kosovar independence would continue despite the 2010 ICJ ruling.
“Unless that happens [Kosovo and Serbia reach a deal], we still maintain our position,” he said.
On the Ukraine-Russia crisis, Wali said Nigeria adhered to the U.N. General Assembly resolution deeming Russia’s annexation of Crimea illegal and affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
“Nigeria’s position is based on principles and respect for the U.N. Charter and the principles of international law. We have gone through our own civil war and have learnt our lessons in that respect,” said Wali.
Nigeria, he added, “will be the last country to accept the forceful break-up of any country.”
Wali went on to confirm that Nigeria would participate in an African Union/European Union summit, slated for April 2 and 3 in Brussels, irrespective of calls by some African countries to boycott the event over the E.U.’s decision not to invite some A.U. members.
“There are countries at work trying to sort out the hitch that has come up, but I believe that shouldn’t stop the summit from taking place,” Wali said.
The minister voiced appreciation for the E.U.’s support for Nigeria on security issues and elections, appealing for stepped-up international cooperation to counter the country’s ongoing Boko Haram insurgency.
E.U. Ambassador to Nigeria Michel Arrion, however, appeared to disagree with Wali, as he sought to differentiate between the crises in Kosovo and Crimea.
“Some member states of the U.N. have taken inconsistent views on Crimea, compared with the view they have on Kosovo,” Arrion said.
“For us, Kosovo is very different from Crimea,” he added. “There was a deal in the 1990s on the future of the whole question of former Yugoslavia after years of war.”
“The case of Crimea is totally different – the crisis just erupted. In one or two weeks, what we believe is a violation of international law occurred,” he asserted.
Arrion nevertheless expressed satisfaction that several countries had voted in favor of Thursday’s U.N. General Assembly resolution on Crimea.
The resolution calls on UN member states not to recognize any alteration of Crimea’s status – or that of the city of Sevastopol – in the wake of a March 16 referendum that led to the region’s official incorporation into Russia.
Russia surprised at Obama’s false claim that Kosovo secession involved referendum (Interfax, 28 March 2014)
The Russian Foreign Ministry is surprised by US President Barack Obama’s statement regarding an independence referendum in Kosovo. Obama’s speech delivered at the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels has raised a lot of eyebrows as US President claimed yesterday that Kosovo held a UN-assisted referendum for self-determination. He used this example to hit out against Russia’s reunification with Crimea. The president also argued that the comparison between Crimea and Kosovo makes no sense.
“Moscow has taken note of the fact that US President Barack Obama, in rationalizing ‘independence’ of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbia) declared in circumvention of UN Security Council resolution 1244 in his speech in Brussels on March 28, mentioned some referendum on this issue allegedly held in coordination with the UN and the neighboring countries,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement available on its website.
“This allegation by the US president causes perplexity, as no plebiscite, not to mention one agreed upon with the international community, was held on Kosovo’s independence. The decision on secession from Serbia was made by the so-called ‘parliament’ in Pristina in 2008,” it said.
Obama falsely claims Kosovo secession involved UN-backed referendum
Obama’s speech delivered at the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels has raised a lot of eyebrows as US President claimed yesterday that Kosovo held a UN-assisted referendum for self-determination. He used this example to hit out against Russia’s reunification with Crimea. The president also argued that the comparison between Crimea and Kosovo makes no sense.”
Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent, an example, they say of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller country … But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years.”
“And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea,” Obama said at the EU-US summit, thus turning his speech into a highly discussed issue.
Experts unanimously agree with the president, yet they also point out that “none of that came close to happening in Kosovo as well.
Kosovo’s provincial assembly did hold a referendum on the possibility of secession in 1991, but it was not done with UN backing, nor did the US or anyone else even recognize the result. Albania was the long state to recognize the vote, and it was never cited as justification in NATO’s 1999 war.
The only other referendum to take place in Kosovo came in 2012, under Obama’s watch. In that vote, 99% of Kosovar Serbs in several northern districts voted against being part of an independent Kosovo. As with the 1991 vote, the US rejected its validity.
Dr. James Ker-Lindsay, a Senior Research Fellow on the Politics of South East Europe at the London School of Economics gave his comment to Breitbart London on Obama’s gaffe: “I think one must assume that this was indeed an error. However, it really does seem to be an incredible mistake to have made. Surely there must have been someone at hand who would have known that there was no UN organised referendum in Kosovo. It really was not that long ago.”
So far, the White House has not issued any retraction or correction.
NATO to promote ties with Ukraine, boost military presence in Eastern Europe (RT, 31 March 2014)
NATO will strengthen relations with Ukraine and send more troops to Eastern Europe, the bloc’s outgoing chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said. The Ukrainian coup-imposed foreign minister is to fly to Brussels to take part in Ukraine-NATO talks.
Days after seconding US President Barack Obama’s statements on “ensuring a regular NATO presence” in “vulnerable” countries, NATO’s Secretary General Rasmussen spoke to the German media detailing the alliance’s plans in Eastern Europe.
Speaking to Welt am Sonntag, Rasmussen said that NATO’s expansion in the region has been “one of the greatest success stories of our time.” However, the alliance’s “task is not yet complete,” the NATO chief added.
NATO’s partnership with Ukraine has been getting “ever stronger,” Rasmussen noted, accusing Russia of violating the country’s right to “freely determine its own destiny,” as well as its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Georgia have already sought NATO membership and are already working on reforms to achieve it, he said.
“We are now considering revised operational plans, military manoeuvres and adequate troop reinforcements. We will, for example, relocate more aircrafts to the Baltic States,” Rasmussen told Focus magazine.
While this does not apply to Ukraine, which, according to the NATO chief, does not see membership a priority “in the foreseeable future,” NATO will help to “reform” Ukraine’s armed forces.
At the same time, NATO seeks “diplomatic solution to the crisis” in Ukraine, Rasmussen said, and will “keep the channels of communication with Moscow open.” This comes days after the alliance’s chief tweeted that NATO is to “review viability” of its relationship with Russia.
The Ukrainian coup-imposed government is set to discuss cooperation with NATO as early as next week, according to Kiev-picked acting foreign minister Andrey Deshchytsa.
Deshchytsa told journalists on Saturday he will take part in the extraordinary session of Ukraine-NATO Commission in Brussels on April 1-2, will “hold meetings and consultations” with US and UK foreign ministers, as well as attend the meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on April 2-3.
Rasmussen’s words were echoed by reports from Berlin, where military support to some eastern European members of NATO “in response to Russia’s seizure of Crimea” is being considered, Der Spiegel reported, quoting defense sources. Germany is considering whether to send up to six aircraft to patrol East European airspace, and the total number of NATO aircraft in the region will be at least “doubled,” the report said.
German Defense Ministry spokeswoman told Reuters that any such issue is to be decided by the politicians, but confirmed that “the [German] army could take part in flights to patrol airspace with AWACS machines over Romania and Poland, as well as training flights in the framework of a NATO air policing mission over Baltic States.”
But on Monday, Berlin distanced itself from Rasmussen’s “Drang nach Osten” rhetoric, saying that it does not see expanding NATO to the east as a priority.
“For us it is not in the list of things that are really necessary now,” Itar-Tass quoted Germany’s government spokesman, Steffen Seibert, as saying.
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Sunday held an unexpected meeting on Ukraine in Paris. Kerry abruptly changed his travel route and decided to meet his Russian counterpart after speaking with Lavrov over the phone. The latest round of Russian-US diplomacy over Ukraine started with President Vladimir Putin and President Barack Obama discussing the situation in the Eastern European country by phone on Friday.
Our view on foreign intervention is in chaos. We need a solution (The Observer, 30 March 2014)
Russia’s actions in Crimea highlight the need for a new agreement on why and when it can be just to violate state sovereignty
Getting other countries to do what you want is a basic aim of all governments and political leaders. In Brussels last week, Barack Obama suggested there were two ways to achieve it. One, which he favoured, employs diplomacy, persuasion, democratic accountability and other soft-power tools. The other, which he deplored, involves using “brute force”. Russia stands accused by the White House of resorting to the latter in Ukraine. Russia replies angrily that the US has double standards. What were the invasions of Iraq and Kosovo, if not the arbitrary, unsanctioned use of military might? That was totally different, say the Americans.
The crux of this oversimplified debate is that agreement on when, how and why it is right for a country, or group of countries, or the “international community” to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state is lacking. After the cold war, a loose consensus grew in western capitals around the idea of humanitarian intervention. Tony Blair, speaking in Chicago in 1999, revived the concept of the “just war”. In a globalised, interconnected world, he argued, nations should abandon the outdated principle of non-interference. Combining self-interest and moral purpose, they had a duty to defend and uphold universal values, including human rights. “We are all internationalists now,” he declared. The backdrop to the “Blair doctrine” was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, but also the genocide that started 20 years ago in Rwanda, claiming up to a million lives. Former US president Bill Clinton and others in power at the time have since acknowledged that this slaughter could have been avoided and that military intervention would have been appropriate. As if learning this lesson, there followed, after Kosovo, relatively benign international interventions in East Timor and Sierra Leone. But then Blair, in collusion with George W Bush, wrecked his case, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq.
As Hamid Karzai prepares to depart the presidency and Nato troops pack up their kit, Afghanistan’s future is again shrouded in fearful uncertainty. Departing countries such as Britain must meanwhile confront the uncomfortable question: what did we achieve? Even more so than Afghanistan, the Iraq intervention ultimately failed to satisfy Blair’s five Chicago criteria for justified military intervention – is there a good case?; has diplomacy failed?; will military action succeed?; are we prepared to stick it out?; and does it serve our national interest? The Iraq trauma shattered the already frail international consensus around humanitarian intervention. It’s questionable legality and high human and financial cost undermined trust and alienated support. In the west, war-weariness and wariness took deep hold. Others, such as the Russians, drew cynical conclusions.
One consequence of Iraq has been the refusal by politicians and publics in the US and Britain to back intervention in Syria. In Syria, it might be persuasively argued, the case for forcibly halting President Bashar al-Assad’s murderous war on his people, curbing dangerous region-wide destabilisation and preventing further radicalisation by hardline Islamists, is overwhelming. In Syria, each day, unnumbered innocents are killed, tortured, raped or maimed, as it were before our eyes. Yet our eyes are tight shut. In Egypt, too, where a military junta now repeats or surpasses the excesses of the Mubarak era, western intervention is not an issue, but that is because Washington much prefers Egypt’s generals to the Muslim Brotherhood.
This lack of real or meaningful consensus, let alone a rulebook, on international intervention accounts in part for the uproar over Russia’s supposedly “protective” actions towards ethnic Russians in Crimea. Twisting the UN-guaranteed right to self-determination, Vladimir Putin decided he could do whatever he liked, just as, he argues, the US has done. The impact on Ukraine apart, such behaviour undermines the UN security council, charter, and other treaty pillars of the international system. And it invites emulation. Is Crimea, for example, now a precedent justifying a future Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
All cases are different. But forging a new international consensus on the principles governing armed interventionism is an urgent challenge. As a starting point, the likely fulfilment of five criteria, significantly different from Blair’s, should be considered. Those contemplating intervention must ask themselves: 1) Does such action have broad domestic and international support? 2) What exactly are its aims and are they realistic? 3) Is it legal? 4) Is it morally justified? And 5) How does it end?
Karadzic Says He Needs 17 Hours for Closing Arguments (IWPR, by Rachel Irwin, 28 March 2014)
Defendant to summarise his case nearly five years after proceedings began at the Hague tribunal
Wartime Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic has asked for 17 hours to present the closing arguments in his long-running trial.
He noted in the March 28 motion that “this is equivalent to the amount of time he has remaining for the presentation of his defence case”.
Both Karadzic and the prosecution will present their closing remarks on September 29, nearly five years after proceedings officially opened at the Hague tribunal.
Prosecutors allege that Karadzic, the president of Bosnia’s self-declared Republika Srpska from 1992 to 1996, is responsible for crimes of genocide, persecution, extermination, murder and forcible transfer which “contributed to achieving the objective of the permanent removal of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory”.
He is accused of planning and overseeing the 44-month siege of Sarajevo that left nearly 12,000 people dead, as well as the massacre of more than 7,000 men and boys at Srebrenica in July 1995.
Karadzic was arrested in Belgrade in July 2008 after 13 years on the run. He represents himself in the courtroom.
