10 Steps Towards a New Approach for the Balkans
Center for Strategic and International Studies | December 2011
As the past decade’s global war on terror and economic troubles push the Balkans further and further down the agenda, significant gains in peace and stability in the region are under threat. Whereas EU accession has long been a guiding goal for the Balkan states, expansion has now stalled as the EU is consumed by internal crises and institutional uncertainty. A new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warns that without plausible support from the US and EU, the politics of nationalism and divisiveness could again take hold.
However, CSIS researchers are optimistic that the Balkan states can still have “a stable future in the international community.” Based on interviews with key players in Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Belgrade, Pristina, Brussels, and Washington, the report offers a road map for European and American policymakers to recommit to shepherding the Balkans towards development and democratic reform, “a policy goal within reach.”
Recommendations from the report:
- Shift the focus of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue from purely “technical issues” to a broader and more far-reaching agenda to achieve more concrete political results. Include northern Kosovo and Serbia-Kosovo border demarcations as subjects in the talks, focusing on restoring and ensuring Kosova’s territorial integrity.
- Pursue a concerted campaign to expand Kosovo’s international recognition, beginning with the five remaining EU member states.
- Transition from Kosovo’s international supervision to the country’s development. Instead of managing problems and sustaining dependency relations, focus on fostering regional economic development, political competition, and democratic transparency. Develop cross-border civil society networks by involving nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), attracting businesses, and developing a middle class.
- End the European Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) supervisory mission and transition to a robust and senior EU special representative (EUSR) with strong engagement and interaction with the U.S. Embassy in Pristina.
- Include Kosovo in EU visa liberalization and offer Kosovo an EU Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) and a roadmap to candidacy status. This would incentivize conditions for domestic reform and provide the EU with greater influence in Kosovo.
- Develop new peace accords that strengthen the state and redefine the international presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, specifically the OHR. The agreement should limit the applicability of entity vetoes that prevent reform and block state institutions.
- Negotiate a new international structure in which the EU is in charge of state and regional political and economic development and the United States is responsible for security sector reform and NATO-led efforts. Ensure that international aid is performance-based by rewarding centralized projects and initiatives and sanctioning moves toward partition.
- Promote the economic benefits of greater European integration through an outreach program with the Bosnian public, mass media, and NGOs. Well-informed citizens can exert pressure on their leaders to implement reforms in support of integration.
- Proactively deter and prevent conflict by placing a small EU monitoring mission in the Brcko district, a vital choke point between the two entities.
- Promote regional dialogue, specifically a new trilateral dialogue with Serbia and Croatia, which offers consultation and mutual support for the development of a single, functional Bosnian state.
The full report, "A New Transatlantic Approach for the Western Balkans" by Janusz Bugajski, Heather Conley, Mihaela David, and Terry Toland, is available for download as a PDF from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Sat, Dec 3rd 2011, 01:32
AAron
The authors of this article have not mentioned that the UN Kosovo resolution 1244.
While the authors of this article unequivocally support self determination of Albanians in Kosovo, the Authors are suggesting the same self determination should not be allowed to 90% Serbian population in Republic of Srpska (Bosnia).
While the authors support closure of foreign supervision in Kosovo and letting Kosovo's locals run the politics, on the contrary in Bosnia the authors are suggesting that the foreign autocratic OHR representative to stay and rule over the local people.
The authors don’t point out that the OHR representative gives itself ultimate power and mandate to rule over the people in Bosnia, change laws and change Dayton agreement without approval from local representatives. OHR suspended 200 elected Bosnian of Serbian ethnicity officials for questioning the foreign autocracy rule in Bosnia.
The Authors do not once mention the Dayton agreement for Bosnia between the Serbs on one side and Muslim-Croat federation in Bosnia on the other. The Dayton agreement insured that no-one ethnic group can impose its will onto others by majority vote. Today the foreign autocratic OHR representative illegally changes the laws and imposes changes to voting representation to allow majority ethnic group to dominate other ethnic groups. The OHR is purposely and consciously imposing laws which undermine the security of minorities.
The authors are totally bias against Serbs who don’t want to live in unified Bosnia but rather in independent Republic of Srpska. If, by authors reasoning, Kosovo has right to self determination from Serbia than the Serbs in Republic of Srpska have the right to self determination from Bosnia.
This article is totally anti-Serbian and is not a solution to Bosnia problems but rather this article is instigating instability in Bosnia to justify international autocracy in Bosnia.