Ole R. Holsty. Duke University Photography, Jim Wallace

Fund slobodan Jovanovic nterview

You are one of the founders of political psychology , one of the branches of political sciences. Please tell our readers, what is the field of interests of political psychology.

Political psychology is concerned with the beliefs, perceptions, and opinions of political actors.  These may be the beliefs, perceptions and opinions of specific leaders- for example, of an American or Russian president or a political activist such as Martin Luther King – or of entire populations.  For example, voting studies attempt to determine who participates in voting and how and why the express their preferences.    In short, this is a very broad field.

Are you interested in psychology of politicians and why?

I first became interested in this field in my doctoral dissertation on John Foster Dulles [U.S. Secretary of State, 1953-59] and his perceptions and interpretations of the USSR and its policies.  That study showed that his belief system had a very significant impact on how he viewed various Soviet actions, ranging from reducing its armed forces  in 1953-4 to its invasion of Hungary in 1956.  That encouraged me to undertake a variety of other studies of political leaders, including those in various European countries during the weeks prior to the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and others.

We cannot understand policy decisions by just saying that “all leaders pursue national interests” [as most “realist” theories assert].  Leaders may vary widely in how they define “national interests.”  Consider the cases of George W. Bush and his father’s top adviser – Brent Scowcroft.  They had completely different views of how to deal with Iraq during the year prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Are politicians capable to make rational decisions,  if we take into consideration the fact that they also  have fears and stereotypes like all of us?

All politicians have fears and stereotypes [and beliefs, perceptions, and opinions, etc.].  Some of them are grounded in strong evidence [Kennedy’s belief that Khrushchev must be handled with great care during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis to avoid World War III], and some are not [Bush’s belief that Saddam was a madman who possessed weapons and mass destruction and could not be deterred - this was how he differed from Scowcroft].

Are American politicians capable to realistically perceive the example of Russian-American relations, if we take into consideration that they are more or less the children of the Cold war.

Not all who lived through the Cold War drew the same conclusions about the USSR/Russia.  Most U.S. leaders have a realistic view of Russia – that it is a powerful country with vast stores of nuclear weapons, etc.; that it has vast natural resources, including oil, etc. in its vast territory; that its people are talented and highly educated; and that its political system has not kept up with development toward the rule or law, etc.  Mr. Putin’s decision to resume the presidency for  probably the next 12 years is not an especially good sign in this respect.

Can we consider that Obama’s foreign policy is successful, if we take into consideration that START-3 is adopted in American Congress in different form.  Facts like rejecting the anti-missile defense, the  weakened  relations with Russia  are  included. To be precise,  the Bush’s politics of ‘’anti-missile armor’’  is continued  but in another form.

Obama’s foreign policy record is very mixed.  He inherited two wars that are probably not “winnable,” a major economic/financial crisis, and an issue that he bedeviled all American presidents in recent years: Israel/Palestine.  He has attempted to “reset” relations with Russia in the hopes of improving them, but so far without a great deal of success, and in some cases they are on opposite sides; for example, on the issue of Syria in the Security Council.

Can we trust Americans, when they say that  anti-missile armor isn’t directed to Russia, if we take into consideration that they have claimed that Poland is ideal spot for missiles a Czech Republic for radars, and now, they claim that  Romania and Turkey are the new-revealed territories for that kind of actions?

As you know from previous e-mails, I am not a supporter of the anti-missile system as it will be very costly and probably not effective [tests so far are not very favorable].  It cannot in any circumstances seriously affect Russia’s vast missile arsenal.  It might work against Iran’s small missile force, but there are less costly ways of dealing with that.

What do you think about the facts that general Petraeus  is the chief  of CIA and Leon Panetta  is Secretary of Defense?

General Petraeus is probably the most talented American military man.  The CIA lost some of its reputation in its pronouncements about the Iraq’s weapons before the invasion.  I doubt that Petraeus would accept the kind of meddling that Bush and his colleagues were involved in 2001-2003.  Leon Panetta is a very able administrator.  It is clear that the U.S. military budget will decline in coming years as part of the effort to deal with budget deficits.  He will have the task of trying to do this in a sensible way.  But it’s a hard job.  Consider the case of the F-35 fighter aircraft; it is way behind schedule and way over budget.  But could he kill the program?  No, because sub-contractors for the aircraft exist in 47 of the 50 states.  Congress would never allow killing it because it provides high-paying jobs in their districts.

Is the comparison that made Michelle Bachman, when she accused Obama for supporting   the Arab spring and  that he got Israel in difficult situation with that action , appropriate?

Michelle Bachman is not to be taken seriously.  For example, she stated that the early American leaders worked as hard as possible to eliminate slavery.  In fact, 5 of the first American presidents owned slaves: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson.  Example: she believes that evolution is an “unproved theory,” that the world was created about 6,000 years ago, and that early men lived at the same time as dinosaurs.    She can make up stories about Obama’s policies, but no one should take notice.

What really hides  behind  Arab spring? The expelling China from Africa? China has had powerful interests in Libya and Sudan . In Libya started Civil war. The South Sudan is formed.

The Arab spring has multiple causes that vary from country to country.  I doubt that expelling China from Africa has anything to do with -why would people in Cairo or Tunis, or Libya care about that?  Libya’s prime asset is oil and that can be sold to any country.  The formation of South Sudan was an effort to deal with the religious differences that led to horrible massacres.

Are China and America independent countries if we take into consideration  the great ecomomic  dependence between themselves. British economic historian Niall Ferguson made an expression Chinamerica.

No country is “independent” in the sense that it can chart its own course without any impact from abroad.  Example: economic events in Greece affect the EU, the US and many other countries.  The U.S. and China have a mutually beneficial economic relationship but it also makes them dependent on each other.   Good economic relations may not always lead to great friendship.  Example, in 1914 Britain and Germany had a very strong trade relationship, but that did not prevent them going to war against each other in August 1914. Chinamerica is, I suppose, a clever term but not especially relevant.

Are good relations between USA and India desirable, if we take into consideration the fact  that that is strengthening   the relations between China-Pakistan and without Pakistan is impossible to solve the problem with Afghanistan.

Of course good U.S.-India relations are very important.  India is an emerging major power that has combined democratic institutions with a important economic development.  The military who govern Pakistan have a paranoid view of India and the U.S. has no need to change its policy of warm friendship with India.  Yes, Pakistan makes difficulties for U.S./NATO in Afghanistan, but India is more important than either Pakistan or Afghanistan.  Perhaps Russia, China and others could learn from the example of India.

How will  Americans  decide between candidates on elections 2012, regarding foreign policy or internal politics?

I would guess that domestic politics–especially the state of the economy–will be most important in the 2012 election.  Obama’s foreign policy problems were mostly inherited from Bush, making it rather hard for the Republicans to attack him on that–although they will certainly attack him even without cause.

Which questions, in your opinion, will distinguish the winner on elections 2012?

As noted above, economic issues and the level of unemployment are likely to be most importan

What can we expect after that elections?

It depends on who wins.  If the Republicans win, we can expect little major change in such foreign policy issues as Iraq and Afghanistan.  They will not be able to solve the Israel/Palestine problem without cooperation from leaders there. There will probably be more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – for example, eliminating estate taxes and cutting taxes on corporations – major reductions in assistance for others–for example, cuts in Social Security and eliminating the medical reforms of 2009 [“Obamacare].

I hope that comments these are helpful.

The claims were first made public in a book by Carla del Ponte, the former UN war crimes prosecutor, who also said hundreds of Serb civilians went missing and are believed to have perished in camps run by the Kosovo Liberation Army in neighbouring Albania's remote north.

A US prosecutor will investigate claims that Hashim Thaci, the Kosovo prime minister, led a criminal network that sold organs of prisoners during the 1998-99 Kosovo war.

Dick Marty, a Council of Europe investigator, has alleged that Thaci and other rebel commanders of the Kosovo Liberation Army ran detention centres where civilian captives, including Serbs, were killed and their organs sold on the black market. Thaci has denied the allegation and said he is ready to co-operate with any investigation.

John Clint Williamson has been named lead prosecutor in a task force set up to investigate the allegations. He was head of Kosovo’s justice department in 2001-2002 when the territory was under the administration of the UN. He oversaw Kosovo’s prisons and the justice system, then served as US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues.

Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in 2008, a move that is backed by 80 countries, including the US and most nations in the EU. Serbia says it will never recognise the new country.

Classified UN documents, made public earlier this year, suggest the UN mission in Kosovo was aware of the organ-trafficking allegations as early as 2003. They briefly examined the claims in 2004 but never launched a full investigation.

The claims were first made public in a book by Carla del Ponte, the former UN war crimes prosecutor, who also said hundreds of Serb civilians went missing and are believed to have perished in camps run by the Kosovo Liberation Army in neighbouring Albania’s remote north.

So far, both the UN and EU’s rule of law mission, deployed in the country as part of an international agreement following Kosovo’s declaration of independence, have maintained that their investigations into the alleged organ harvesting have failed to yield any evidence, but mounting pressure from Serbia and its ally Russia for a full investigation has brought the issue to international attention.

guardian.co.uk

Markac, left, and Gotovina were sentenced in April to prison terms of 18 and 24 years respectively Photo: EPA/GETTY

“A special greeting I send to all Croatian veterans, all of Croatia’s generals and particularly to generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac,” Kosor said in the southern town of Knin at a ceremony marking the anniversary of Operation Storm, broadcast live by national television.

“Without Storm and the commanders that had led it … we would have not been here today, we would have nothing to celebrate and to be proud of,” Kosor said.

Launched on August 4, 1995, Operation Storm was aimed at recapturing part of Croatian territory held by Belgrade-backed rebel Serbs who opposed Croatia’s independence from the former Yugoslavia.

Hundreds of Serb civilians were killed and tens of thousands fled Croatia during and after the operation.

Gotovina and Markac were sentenced in April to prison terms of 24 and 18 years respectively by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

They were found guilty of conspiring with the Zagreb wartime leadership to kill or expel ethnic Serbs during and after the operation.

The verdict shocked Croatia, including top officials, where many see the country’s top wartime officers as national heroes.

Croatian President Ivo Josipovic, who has been actively involved in the reconciliation process in the Balkans since he was elected in early 2010, struck a milder tone than Mr Kosor.

He insisted Croatia “does not celebrate Storm because of the war … but because of the peace and freedom ensured by the victory.”

“In its essence, the brilliant military operation should not be put in question because of dishonourable actions of individuals responsible for crimes against our compatriots of Serb nationality,” Josipovic said.

“A crime is a crime and should be punished … One should have a compassion for the victims.”

In Serbia and the Serb-run part of Bosnia, politicians and religious leaders also commemorate Operation Storm every year, paying homage to the victims.

Serbian President Boris Tadic said on the eve of the anniversary that “the citizens of Serbia grieve and pay tribute to the innocent victims” killed during the operation.

Serbs had made up 12 per cent of Croatia’s pre-war population, while according to a 2001 census only four per cent of them still lived in the former Yugoslav republic after the war.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Gerard Galucci. Photo - R. Krstinic

Seems that the crisis in northern Kosovo created by Pristina’s polce invasion – it’s special units sent to seize the two boundary posts is being resolved. The northern Serb community reacted on strength to block the roads and there has been only a few reports of gunfire. It could have been worse.

EULEX denied it was involved in the police action by the Albanians and the EU said that unilateral actions were not the way to do things. Pristina says it gave EULEX a chance to take the northern posts to enforce it’s blockage of Serbian goods. As EULEX failed to act, Pristina ordered it’s police into action.

Problem here is that Pristina was evidently able to launch it’s police without EULEX even being aware. EULEX is at the least asleep on the job or perhaps quietly complicit. Real peacekeeping would require using the executive authority granted it by the UN in 2008.

KFOR is no better. It is supposed to prevent security problems and contain or reverse provocations such as Pristina’s police ploy.

Belgrade has appealed to the UN, EULEX, etc. Instead it may have to ask the UNSC to reinsert UN police and genuine UN peacekeeping

outsidewalls.blogspot.com

It’s encouraging to see Americans acknowledge the hole they are in. Pity they can’t agree how to get out of it

Timothy Garton Ash. Photo: www.timothygartonash.com

We are approaching the anniversary of America’s Independence Day. As we all know, 15 years ago an alien invasion, deploying giant saucer-shaped warships hovering over earth, was repulsed by the ingenuity, true grit and heroism of US forces, leading a worldwide coalition of the willing. President Thomas J Whitmore declared that 4 July would henceforward be celebrated as Independence Day not just for the US but for the entire world. His speech was described by one reviewer as “the most jaw-droppingly pompous soliloquy ever delivered in a mainstream Hollywood movie” – which, given the competition, is saying a lot.

It’s just a movie, of course, but the 1996 blockbuster is also a document of its time. It returns us to a moment when America seemed to rule supreme, all-powerful, irresistible, in life as in the movies. The new Rome, Prometheus unbound, boasting the mightiest military the world has ever seen: here was the hyperpower at the heart of a unipolar world.

What a difference 15 years make. The mightiest military the world has ever seen has since fought two major wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of them can be said to have ended in resounding victories. Iraq, which dominated US debate for so many years, is largely forgotten in the media here. It’s history – in the American usage of the phrase.

What a difference 15 years make. The mightiest military the world has ever seen has since fought two major wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of them can be said to have ended in resounding victories. Iraq, which dominated US debate for so many years, is largely forgotten in the media here. It’s history – in the American usage of the phrase.

Afghanistan is not over yet. The suicide attack on the Kabul Intercontinental this week showed how far that country still is from basic security, let alone liberal democracy. But, despite mutterings from his military commanders, Barack Obama has declared that American troops will be pulling out according to his preordained timetable. The US, he says, needs to concentrate on nation-building at home. Most Americans seem to agree. The latest Pew poll has 56% of them saying US troops should be brought home from Afghanistan as soon as possible. A recent blog compares Obama with another leader who pulled out of Afghanistan after a decade of military action so as to concentrate on economic and social reconstruction at home. It describes the US president as “Barack Gorbachev”.

Yet clearly the US is wrestling with its own version of the kind of economic, social and political problems that tend to accumulate whenever a country has been a great power for some time.

Well, hang on. To compare the US in 2011 with the Soviet Union in 1988 is to highlight the huge differences between them. Maybe a comparison with Britain in 1911 would be nearer the mark. Yet clearly the US is wrestling with its own version of the kind of economic, social and political problems that tend to accumulate whenever a country has been a great power for some time.

I sometimes think that the only trouble with the historian Paul Kennedy’s famous book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is that it was published a quarter-century too early, and picked the wrong rising power. Appearing in 1987, shortly before the Soviet Union collapsed and Japan went into a decade of stagnation, it could be dismissed by bullish Americans as scaremongering. But imagine it being first published this year, and identifying China as the rising power.

The US carries some of the burdens of strategic overstretch that Kennedy described. The cost to the US of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other post-9/11 operations, has been calculated at nearly four times that of the cost to the US of the second world war, in today’s dollars. Because of the tremendous growth of the American economy this translates into a much smaller proportion of GDP: an estimated 1.2% in 2008, as against 35.8% in 1945. But the decade of worldwide armed struggle – initially forced on the US by Osama bin Laden but then followed by a war of choice in Iraq – has devoured a much larger percentage of Americans’ time, attention and energies. Even when Washington tries to leave a conflict to others, as with Libya, it keeps getting dragged in as, so to speak, the military lender of last resort.

Beside strategic overstretch, the US suffers from welfare overstretch. In this respect the differences between Europe and the US are smaller than most people on both sides of the Atlantic imagine. Our self-images differ more than the realities. According to Peter Orszag – a former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget – Medicare, Medicaid and social security will account for almost half of American government spending by 2015. The other half is mostly interest payments on the country’s soaring debt and discretionary spending, with about half of the latter going on defence. In some individual states, such as California, the fiscal picture is even more grim.

Public spending has to be cut, yet the country’s own infrastructure shows all the marks of long neglect. Every time I come back to the US, I am struck by the signs of visible decay.

So public spending has to be cut, yet the country’s own infrastructure shows all the marks of long neglect. Every time I come back to the US, I am struck by the signs of visible decay.

Beyond the potholes there are much deeper issues, such as the shortfalls in primary and secondary education. Far from leading the world in the rankings of OECD’s programme for international student assessment, the US hovers around the middle. Only its universities are still second to none.

To address these deep structural problems America needs decisive political action across party lines. On this, most agree. This is what Obama promised in the brief, unforgettable dawn of 2008-09. This is what he has so far failed to deliver, in part through shortcomings of his own but mainly because it will require something close to an American Gorbachev on steroids to break through this country’s polarised politics and gridlocked political system.

The new Rome has not yet become the new Greece. But between the EU and the US it may now be a case of competitive decadence. America definitely still has the edge, but it was a Republican not a Democrat senator I heard say last year “this country is going to become Greece, except we don’t have the European Union to bail us out”.

That Americans have obviously now woken up to the hole they’re in is a sign of hope. Less encouraging is the fact that they cannot agree how to get out of it.

In a press conference today the president vented his frustration at the latest example: partisan cliffhanging about lifting the country’s debt ceiling. The obstacles lie both in Washington, where the heart of the problem is the supermajority hurdle in the Senate, and in many individual states. A magnificent constitutional framework of checks and balances, designed to prevent the return of British tyranny, has atrophied into a system that makes reform almost more difficult than revolution.

And this, too, is familiar from history. Over time, superpowers acquire dysfunctionalities which they can carry because of their sheer plenitude of wealth and power, rather as a super-strong athlete can carry deficiencies in technique. When your strength wanes you suddenly need the technique; but it may be too late to get it back. Beside technique, there is the all-important confidence. But the old American can-do optimism is shaken. Even those who most loudly proclaim American exceptionalism strike a note of cultural pessimism. “It’s breaking my heart,” emotes Glenn Beck, “to see this nation basically going down the tubes.”

Of course others are still worse off. The new Rome has not yet become the new Greece. But between the EU and the US it may now be a case of competitive decadence. America definitely still has the edge, but it was a Republican not a Democrat senator I heard say last year “this country is going to become Greece, except we don’t have the European Union to bail us out”. That Americans have obviously now woken up to the hole they’re in is a sign of hope. Less encouraging is the fact that they cannot agree how to get out of it.

Guardian

Stefen Dragojevic

This situation slowly started to change after the 5th of October 2000 or – more literally – after the so-called ‘Bulldozer Revolution’. The EU was keen on having the role of supervisor in developing relations between the former Yugoslav Republics, especially on monitoring the evolution of the situation in Kosovo.

After the unilateral declaration of the independence of Kosovo, the EU was in a deadlock: technically, it could not institutionally recognize the independence of Kosovo, even if a majority of member states did. Furthermore, five member-states (Slovakia, Romania, Spain, Greece and Cyprus) have not recognized the secession, and that poses a barrier to the improvement of relations between Kosovo and the EU.

The next step towards more active European engagement in Kosovo was the deployment of the EULEX mission. Even though the mission initially supported the Ahtisaari plan and no resolution of the UN allowed another mission to be sent to Kosovo, an agreement was reached: EULEX was deployed under resolution 1244 of the Security Council, and it did not replace UNMIK.

The Serbian side initially opposed the mission but the current Serbian government, following elections, has posed no objections, as the main goal of Serbia is to join the EU.

But will Serbia recognize Kosovo on the demands of the EU? Will that be one of the conditions for the accession of Serbia into the Union? I will not quote the statements of some officials but instead the decision of prominent institutions within the EU. The European Parliament has played a major role in supporting an independent Kosovo: it adopted a resolution on the 5th February 2009 urging the recognition of an independent Kosovo. Meanwhile on the 8th July 2010, during a resolution on the ‘EU membership prospects of Albania and Kosovo’, the Parliament stated that the EU member should find a common approach towards Kosovo.

The Serbian withdraw of its own resolution in the UN in September 2010 showed to the international community how powerful is the EU’s influence over Serbia. The new resolution called for talks between Kosovo and Serbia and, as noted by a number of Serbian scholars, “that was a direct recognition of the independence of Kosovo”. Even though the Serbian foreign minister, Vuk Jeremic, still has a firm position towards Kosovo independence, his voice stands alone in the Serbian government and it certainly appears that Kosovo is not anymore one of the ‘urgent’ issues for Serbia.

It is widely speculated both in Serbia, and elsewhere in the world, that the EU will eventually demand the establishment of ‘friendly’ relations between Serbia and Kosovo – but this time as independent nation states. No more technical talks, but equal talks of two independent states.

Will Serbia choose the ‘European’ perspective or it will choose the so-called ‘Kosovo path’. Will Serbia continue the struggle to uphold and protect its territorial integrity and sovereignty as is prescribed by its constitution, or will Serbia seek to amend it in order to enter the EU? Let us wait until the next elections to see.

TransConflict

Greeks in run

The Greek government finds itself trapped between Scylla and Charybdis. The European Union and the International Monetary Fund are demanding drastic spending cuts and large tax rises in return for their emergency funding. But those austerity measures have brought tens of thousands of protesters on to the streets of Athens. And those protests have turned violent. The pressure from above and below is in danger of crushing George Papandreou’s government to death. One attempt by Mr Papandreou to get his new budget through parliament has failed. With a revolt in his own Socialist party and a refusal from the opposition to co-operate, it is unclear whether a second will succeed.

The Greek state certainly needs to reduce its spending and to curb its borrowing. Successive governments overspent during the boom years. They also faked their national accounts in order to conceal the true level of public borrowing. There are also huge structural problems in the Greek economy (from excessively early retirement for state employees, to endemic tax evasion) that must be addressed.

But by demanding austerity on such a massive scale – and over such a short period of time – the IMF and EU leaders are playing with fire. The fiscal consolidation imposed over the past year has already pushed Greece back into a painful economic slump. Industrial production is down 11 per cent. Unemployment has risen to 16 per cent. It is this agony that has provoked the street-level opposition. And the EU/IMF wants to pile more austerity on top.

This is not only unreasonable; it is likely to prove self-defeating. Normally a relatively small economy in Greece’s dire situation would see the value of its currency plummet. This depreciation would increase the cost of imports, but also give exporters a large boost. Thus the pain of the necessary economic correction would be muted. But since Greece is locked into the European single currency, this cushion is absent.

The more painful European policymakers contrive to make this necessary correction, the greater grows Greece’s incentive to default on its sovereign debts and perhaps even to leave the single currency (which is the very last thing EU policymakers want). Default and a eurozone departure would certainly be painful for Greece. Athens would still have to cut spending and it would be shut out of international debt markets. Yet life in the single currency is looking still more painful at the moment. Mr Papandreou will stage a vote of confidence in his government on Sunday. But solutions to Greece’s plight cannot only come from Greece. Europe needs to face up to some harsh realities too. Successive Greek governments were profligate. But so were the banks, from all around Europe, which lent to the Greek state on the idiotic assumption that its debt was as safe as that of Germany. Greece is heading for a level of debt – 160 per cent of its total annual output – that it cannot reasonably be expected to repay, and certainly not while its national growth prospects are so weak. Yet instead of working with European private banks to ease Greece’s debt burden, the European Central Bank and the IMF are demanding that Athens repays in full, no matter the short-term impact on the Greek economy.

European leaders were far too slow to recognise the need for a Greek rescue last year. And now they are failing to recognise that the original rescue package is not working. They have set their face against a managed Greek default, but that means they are heading for a chaotic one. And that could easily lead to contagion across wider European debt markets. Ireland, Portugal and Spain are all in a similar boat to Greece. European leaders need to get up to speed with this crisis. Otherwise the single currency itself could come under unbearable pressure.

The Independent

Since NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 over the conflict in Kosovo, the issue of NATO membership has been politically sensitive.

Serbia’s Army Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Miloje Miletic, will open the conference whose main topics are international military cooperation, ensuring access to shared global resources and developing partnerships.

Serbia became a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace, PfP, programme in December 2006, after signing a cooperation agreement with NATO in which democratic, institutional and defence reforms were key.

Prior to becoming a formal member of NATO, Serbia has engaged in limited security and defence reform cooperation with the Alliance, while military officers and civilians have participated in various PfP activities.

But whether Serbia will ever join the Alliance remains a moot point. In April 2009, Serbia unveiled drafts of national security and defence strategies in which it maintained its doctrine of military neutrality.

And ever since NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 over the conflict in Kosovo, the issue of NATO membership has been politically sensitive.

Reflecting continued anger over the conflict with NATO, a group of 200 academics, writers and journalists opposed to membership of NATO launched an initiative last year for a referendum to be held on the issue.

The NATO issue has not been Serbian priority in recent months as the country focuses on EU reforms, the arrest of war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic as well as on talks with Kosovo.

But most Serbs are still against membership. According to the latest research, only 20 per cent of Serbs would support NATO accession.

Meanwhile, the Center for Strategic Alternatives along with the opposition Democratic Party of Serbia and some NGOs are preparing an anti-NATO protest next week as well as staging round tables against Serbia’s NATO membership.

Aleksandar Mitic, head of the Center for Strategic Alternatives, said it was shameful for Serbia to host a NATO summit only 12 years after the Alliance bombed the country.

“The aim of the campaign is to express our dissagrement with Serbia’s NATO membership as well as with the politics of [Serbian President Boris] Tadic and Defence Minister [Dragan] Sutanovac who are taking Serbia into NATO step by step,” Mitic told Balkan Insight.

Balkan Insight

Fyodor Lukyanov - All five BRICS countries feel that the West has virtually monopolized global discourse. That is not only at odds with the economic and even political alignment of forces, but prevents new decisions from being made.

The West’s response to every BRICS summit scarcely varies. The first reaction is to dismiss it as an artificial organization with no future, because its member countries have practically nothing in common. The second reaction is anxiety, because the policies of its members are in opposition to those of the United States. These two reactions contradict each other, because if BRICS is a phantom organization, what does the West fear?

What has particularly raised eyebrows among Western commentators in the wake of the world financial crisis is Russia’s presence in the BRICS: What can a commodity-oriented state with uncertain prospects for modernization contribute to a group of “future leaders?” Indeed, Russia is a bit of an odd man out: Its rate of growth is far below that of China and India. More importantly, Russia faces problems that are totally different from those in other BRICS countries. In spite of their impressive growth rates, they remain developing countries; Russia is a developed country that has lived through an unprecedented period of decline and degradation and is now trying to bounce back. The challenges the BRICS members face are therefore similar in some ways and different in others.

Any arguments against Russia would be more legitimate if the discussion was exclusively about economics. But obviously the member countries see the BRICS structure above all in political terms. This reflects the objective need for a more diverse and less Western-oriented world order. The institutions that have been functioning since the Cold War are unable to provide answers to the multiplying problems of the 21st century. New arrangements have not taken shape, and the countries that are unhappy about the situation are not trying so much to find a replacement for them as to find ways around them.

A multi-polar world needs formats other than those that catered to a bipolar world. It is no accident that BRICS declarations occasionally question the legitimacy of the existing system. Don’t keep your fingers crossed, however, for any reform of the UN Security Council—the current permanent members are not going to share their privileges with anyone, and this applies to Russia and China, which are BRICS members.

All five BRICS countries feel that the West has virtually monopolized global discourse. That is not only at odds with the economic and even political alignment of forces, but prevents new decisions from being made. All five members are aware that their attempts to increase their international weight and influence exclusively within the existing structures are doomed. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are seeking to bolster their negotiating position during the time when a future world system is being created. The fact that they represent parts of the world that are becoming more and more significant lends more weight to their aspirations.

For Russia, which has been searching for a foreign policy identity since 1991, the BRICS idea has come in very handy. It would be hard to find another format that would encourage a non-Western orientation in foreign policy, remind the world of Russia’s global ambitions, and stress the country’s similarity to states that are world leaders in terms of economic growth. An additional benefit is the group’s principle of non-confrontation; all the BRICS members strongly deny that their organization is directed against anyone.

But whatever the talk and even the thinking in the BRICS capitals, it stands to reason that increasing the influence of one group of countries can only happen at the expense of diminishing Western influence. Certainly that is not necessarily bad if it happens in an evolutionary way. The objective reality is that the world needs a new balance, and this calls for encouraging the rise of new centers. If one group seeks to retain its privileges and other groups quietly work to erode them, the world will definitely experience a new upheaval. The world order that would emerge from it would depend on the outcome of that upheaval. The criteria would be clearer, but the price would be dear.

Fyodor Lukyanov is chief editor of the magazine “Russia in Global Affairs.”

For Russia, which has been searching for a foreign policy identity since 1991, the BRICS idea has come in very handy. It would be hard to find another format that would encourage a non-Western orientation in foreign policy, remind the world of Russia’s global ambitions, and stress the country’s similarity to states that are world leaders in terms of economic growth.

Russia Today

Classified By: AMBASSADOR WARE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D)

HELSINKI 1210

Classified By: AMBASSADOR WARE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D)

1. (C) SUMMARY: UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari told Ambassador Ware that he remains determined to deliver his recommendations for Kosovo’s final status within two weeks of Serbia’s Jan. 21 election, fearing that any delays will “destabilize” Kosovo. Ahtisaari “would find it rather strange” if Moscow used its veto in the UNSC; however, he is not yet as confident as Washington and Berlin are that Russia will abstain. Like the Finnish Government, he is working hard to maintain EU unity and is “pressuring” the incoming German EU Presidency to continue that effort. He continues to dialogue with other UNSC members to ensure their support, but President Putin has not responded to his offer to meet. As for Serbia, Ahtisaari said that PM Kostunica is “hopeless” and will press Belgrade to stall as long as possible. The international community also “lost some credibility on ICTY” when NATO offered PfP to Serbia, although he acknowledged that the gesture did serve the important function of shoring up President Tadic. Ahtisaari expressed great appreciation for USG support of his efforts and for the collaboration with Ambassador Wisner.

End Summary.

Russian Uneasiness

2. (C) UN Special Envoy for the Future Status Process in Kosovo and former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari called on Ambassador Ware Dec. 7. Ambassador opened the discussion by telling Ahtisaari that President Halonen — who has had several conversations with President Putin over the course of Finland’s EU Presidency — had expressed “uneasiness” (reftel) about how Russia might respond should Serbia reject Ahtisaari’s recommendations regarding Kosovo’s final status. (Halonen has previously told the Ambassador that Putin’s views stem from his “experiences” in the Caucuses and with Islamic extremism.)

3. (C) Ahtisaari responded that Halonen has communicated that view to him as well and that in many ways he shares her concerns. Putin fears a “shrinking of the Orthodox world,” Ahtisaari explained, in this case the establishment of a small Muslim state in the Balkans to which the international community will pay attention for five years, then abandon. More disturbingly, Russia continues to argue that Kosovo’s independence would set a precedent for the “frozen conflicts” on Russia’s borders — an argument Ahtisaari views as a signal that Russia has joined Serbia in seeking “to deny what occurred in 1999.” He noted that his report to the UN will argue specifically that if Moscow and Belgrade want to “send a message that what Milosevic did was OK and that sovereign borders are holy,” that will prove a sad commentary on both countries’ values. Given the gravity of other problems facing Russia, “I would find it rather strange, at the end of the day, if Moscow did not cooperate” on Kosovo, Ahtisaari said. Nevertheless, he added, Washington and Berlin are confident that Russia will

abstain in the UNSC, but “I am not yet so confident.”

Lining up Support

4. (C) Ahtisaari has requested a meeting with President Putin to discuss his concerns and to help move Russia toward at least an abstention in the UNSC. However, he said, Putin has not yet accepted the offer, saying there are no new points that he has not heard already. Ahtisaari is also directly lobbying EU member states and current or incoming UNSC members. Some (he named South Africa, Spain, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia) have needed more persuading than he would have expected, while Italy, the UK and the US have provided the strongest voices of support. Finland has done a good job of maintaining EU unity during its Presidency, Ahtisaari added, and he is “pressing Germany” to continue that effort.

5. (C) In the end, of course, everything depends on the main protagonists, with Serbia continuing to stall and to press for unrealistic concessions from the Kosovars. Ahtisaari believes that any delay would “destabilize Kosovo;” to emphasize the seriousness of his point, he has begun arguing that he will recommend that the Finnish Government withdraw its troops from Kosovo if there is any delay beyond the late January/early February timeframe he has established. As for Serb intransigence, PM Kostunica “is hopeless” and continues to lobby Russia

HELSINKI 00001215 002 OF 002

and neighboring states for delays. President Tadic “is the only democrat left” and needs to be supported, Ahtisaari said. In that regard, he specifically raised NATO’s offer of PfP membership to Serbia, saying that while Europe and the US “lost some credibility on ICTY cooperation,” the decision did have the upside of supporting Tadic.

Comment

——-

6. (SBU) Going into the home stretch, Ahtisaari appeared about as confident as could be expected. He expressed great appreciation for US support, noting specifically that the naming of Amb. Wisner as the Secretary’s Special Representative was a “marvelous stroke” and that collaboration with the US has been “first class.” The Ambassador offered the Embassy’s assistance if it should in any way prove useful.

WARE

]]> http://www.slobodanjovanovic.org/2011/05/03/wikileaks-ambassador-wares-meeting-with-ahtisaari/feed/ 0