dan collier

Der Spiegel Online, the largest European weekly magazine, has an interesting story about the recently concluded negotiations concerning the fate of Kosovo’s unhappy union with Serbia. The US, apparently not yet threatened by Vermont secessionists, is in favor of independence for Muslim-majority Kosovo. A two-state solution is also supported by 26 of the 27 EU member states. Not suprisingly, Russia is allied with the Slavic Serbians and objects to self-declared independence.

The implications of self-declared independence for Kosovo are both big and small. In former Yugoslavian territory Bosnia-Herzegovina, twelve years after the Dayton Agreement ended the war an EU envoy still governs alongside local representation and ethnic Serbian separatists threaten the long-term future of the nation. In Kosovo, at the very least, NATO would continue to provide military security. Meanwhile, in European countries dealing with secessionist groups, like Spain, Belgium, and Russia, the outcome will either weaken or strengthen the independence movements. While the situation may not draw as much attention as nuclear arsenals in Pakistan or Iran, it is worth remembering that the first and last major European armed conflicts of the twentieth started in the Balkans.

On the first page of the Spiegel article, there is this interesting German perspective on resurgent German foreign clout:

It’s rare that the European Union chooses a single diplomat to represent its interests. When it comes to the Middle East conflict or the Iranian nuclear program, the Germans always have a seat at the table, but so do other countries. Sometimes it’s a preventative measure designed to ensure that Germany, Europe’s dominant economic power, doesn’t overshadow the prestige-hungry British, French and Italians. But despite their neighbors’ fears, the truth is that the Germans have no qualms about being part of a collective endeavor.

Kosovo, though, is a different story. The war over the small, poor Serbian province in the spring of 1999 marked a turning point for German foreign policy. For the first time since its establishment in 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany took part in an armed conflict.

In a related serious but more amusing dispute, Greece and Macedonia, another former Yugoslavian nation, continue to fight over the name Macedonia.

foreign affairs & politics posted by: dan  @  10 Dec 2007 21:55 | Comments (0)

4 suicides - Interesting art on a delicate subject. Blublu.org has lots of great street art photos listed under “Walls“. Here are a few of my favorites(1, 2, 3).

---

Joint Failure - I’ve posted before about Andrew Bacevich. In his recent “Ideas” piece for the Boston Globe, he questions the suitability of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as currently established. In this piece he reviews the problem, claiming that the problem started early in the history of JCS.

Although himself a five-star general, Eisenhower railed in private throughout his presidency about members of the Joint Chiefs conspiring to undermine his policies whenever they happened to collide with cherished interests of the military services. His Farewell Address, warning that the “military-industrial complex” could well “endanger our liberties or democratic processes,” amounted to a tacit admission that as commander-in-chief he had lost control of his generals.

The problem more recently is generals that were unable or unwilling to offer honest and forthright advice to policy makers. I heard Bacevich on NPR’s On Point this morning discussing possible alternatives to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Seemingly humble and wise, he appears to be more interested in starting the discussion than providing easy answers. In another recent editorial for the LA Times, he slams the ‘08 candidates offering the sound-bite solution of increasing the size of the military to fight fundamentalist terrorism.

art & politics posted by: dan  @  20 Jun 2007 0:26 | Comments (0)

There is an interesting debate-as-article in the journal Foreign Policy titled “What’s Your China Fantasy” that delves into differing opinions concerning US-Chinese relations. It seems to me that anybody that thinks the US can successfully dictate domestic policy in foreign countries through economic (or military) means has not quite grasped the idea of globalization or sovereignty. If properly promoted, ideas like democracy and human rights will float or fail on their own worth.

There is a role for applying pressure on countries to align our interests, but the best pressure is cultural pressure. When it comes to winning hearts and minds, the PC is mightier than the sword. Policies that gently encourage engagement and integration with the world will succeed long before policies that require it. Every Blackberry owner knows that connection comes with compromises. A good example is Google agreeing to censor the internet for China, but in doing so they are able to provide services that will make total censorship of ideas more difficult (like free email to foster communication and the nearly uncensorable YouTube).

One should not overlook what our long-standing base in Guantanamo Bay and invasion of Iraq suggest: a nation’s adherence to international ideals is ultimately à la carte anyway.

foreign affairs posted by: dan  @  22 May 2007 15:54 | Comments (0)