The post The Vares  Mining Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Case Study of Corrosive Capital in an Already Corroded Political Economy appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

The post Reflection on the Dayton Peace Accords appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

The new US National Security Strategy is a troubling document, but at least provides total clarity into the way Donald Trump and his team think and intend to act. It should dispel any wishful thinking by European or other democratic governments that they can somehow ride out this challenge and hope that things will someday snap back to normal. Following months of “business as usual” after the first salvos in Munich and the berating of Zelenskyy in February, this complacency needs to be abandoned .

The strategy, which in large parts reads more as a manifesto, is not only a confirmation that the trans-Atlantic partnership and alliance is functionally over – including NATO’s Article 5 – but also sounds a clarion call to other reactionary, right-leaning thinkers and anti-democratic leaders that the US is embracing a foreign policy based on transactional self-dealing and the active undermining of democratic governments and open societies. It must be taken both literally and seriously.

From the perspective of Europe, a number of points have already raised alarms. This document is firmly closing the book on the notion that comprehensive security can be best ensured by providing support for functional, rights-based and rule of law-based democracies. However, while it is bad enough that venal transactionalism and swagger is replacing a values-based approach that has served the US quite well for over three quarters of a century, the one time that values (other than power and money) is raised in the strategy is within the context of Europe. This context is focused not on a vision of a democratic and mutually reinforcing alliance, but on  pulling Europe itself further to the illiberal right (a la Orbán’s Hungary) on issues related to migration and economic development, but also presumably big tech and the climate. We see that the Great Replacement Theory, which was once relegated to the far-right margins of politics, is an active thought system for Trump and his coterie – as it is in reactionary circles in Europe. This will boost regressive and anti-democratic elites and stoke grassroots-level polarization. The US is now seeking to export, as a matter of policy, the same polarity and domestic political dysfunction that has brought it to this point. The paragraphs referencing Ukraine, alone and in the context of the broader document, have already been enthusiastically embraced by  Moscow.

The references to the Monroe Doctrine and what they are branding the “Trump Corollary” are another sign of the US narrowing the full spectrum of its global engagement to focus on its hemisphere. This administration prefers the visions of centuries past over those of the 20th and the 21st, and is blind to the way that the 19^th century paved the way for the tragedies of World War I and World War II which ushered in the world order now being aggressively deconstructed. It is worth remembering that the Monroe Doctrine was aimed at asserting that the US would not interfere in Europe’s affairs, and similarly Europe would not interfere in the affairs in the western hemisphere. Yet taken together with the jettisoning of values, it sends a signal that while the US intends to support its ideological allies in Europe, it expects Europe to stay out of the way.

This view of geopolitics raises the question of what other spheres would exist, and reinforces the sense that Trump and Co would like to pursue a modern “three-way Yalta” of the world with Russia and China.

China is viewed as both an adversary and serious competitor, and one can wonder whether Trump envisions some new form of containment within these new spheres of influence.  Russia, perversely, is not even mentioned as a nuclear adversary, let alone a systemic or values rival. The vision for relations with the Middle East and Africa is a mix of values-free transactionalism with the potential for self-dealing among the well-connected elites; the final paragraph of the document on Africa refers to business opportunities and return on investment while noting extraction opportunities that are sure to raise concerns about a new form of colonial exploitation.

At no point in the 29 pages is popular agency mentioned at all; democratic accountability as an underpinning of security, prosperity, and dignity is relegated to the rubbish bin. Trump is attacking Europe precisely because it represents the values that he is actively discarding home and abroad; one can hear echoes of Putin’s invasion of westward-facing Ukraine.

As always, when playing this real-life version of Risk and drawing lines on the global game board a big question will be what Europe looks like without the US in its camp, and with a predatory Russia on its eastern flank. It is critical that Europe does not view this document either as something to be ignored, or as sketching out new rules of the game that it will figure out how to play.

Europe and other democratic allies – Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan and others (what could be termed “Europe Plus”) – will only be able to fight against these anti-democratic and frequently kleptocratic trends if they work together and offer a new vision for the democratic world. While EU enlargement continues to be a policy that has both energized and exasperated the continent, the fact that there are candidate countries that see the value of joining (Ukraine is fighting and dying for this right) shows that there are still citizens who recognize that their future would be better with this democratic orientation.

It is easy to turn fatalistic in the face of autocratic momentum; however, given the chance, people choose a life of opportunity and dignity over closed and repressive systems. Europe has an opportunity and an obligation to push back by recognizing its role in consolidating a democratic “Europe Plus” and immediately developing active strategies to counter the new threat that its erstwhile ally has become.

The post Europe Must Build Alliance to Counter Hostile US appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

The post Beyond Dayton: Imagining a Better Deal for Bosnia appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

The post An Opportunity to take Preventive Steps, and Catalyze a Forward Looking Rethink appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

As if there were any more need for evidence that the second Trump administration aims to throw the international liberal order game board off the table, taking the money and game pieces with them as they leave the wreckage, we are again seeing examples of what this could mean. Trump’s transactional, bullying, mafia politics on the international stage, combined with his zero-sum real estate mentality, brings a dangerous mix to complicated and sensitive regions around the world that have existed in a sort of geopolitical suspended animation for decades or in some cases generations.

We are seeing him seek credit for a “peace deal” between Armenia and Azerbaijan that is less a peace deal and more of a framework primarily aimed at securing a US role in a regional energy hub; an economic transaction taking advantage of Armenia’s weakened posture following Azerbaijan’s autumn 2023 offensive to remove Armenians who had lived in what was known as Nagorno-Karabakh for centuries. It also fully ignores the work Armenia and Azerbaijan have done themselves to get to this point. Yet this in many ways neatly encapsulated his view of geopolitics, and it’s difficult to avoid visions of Sharpie-fueled fever dreams inspired by the likes of Mountbatten and Radcliffe and the mapmaking  prior to the India – Pakistan partition; or talks between Slobodan Milošević and Franjo Tudjman at Karadjordjevo in 1991 as they sketched options for carving up Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Trump has been gearing up for a Friday meeting with Putin in Alaska and has already used the phrase “land swap,” with regard to the war in Ukraine, which must be music to Putin’s ears. (His erratic performance at the August 11 press conference where he noted his plans to deploy National Guard troops and federal law enforcement to Washington, DC, as well as referencing his upcoming plan to go to “Russia,” by which he presumably meant Alaska, must have also delighted the Kremlin.)  It is worth noting that the phrase “land swap” was heard during the first Trump administration when it was used to refer to the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo, and the notion of “solving” it by trading pieces of land. While the notion of a “swap” generally means some sort of like for like exchange, on Ukraine it is clear that Putin has not retreated from his aims to internationalize Russia’s territorial claims to occupied territory, deny Kyiv security guarantees, and ensure an open playing field for ongoing interference in and control over Ukraine’s destiny.

However, whether or not Trump is fully aware of the meaning and symbolism of this phrase, this language fits in with the image he holds of himself as a “dealmaker”. At the same time, it feeds into his preference for big-man politics, and short-term decision-making and pronouncements without regard for the long-term impact or consequence. From the perspective of a real estate agent, property has clear ownership. It’s mine; it’s yours. There is little patience for ambiguity. However, there are many places around the world that have occupied a sort of grey zone aimed at enabling a limbo status quo in the interest of avoiding heightened or even violent conflict.

Right now, Nagorno-Karabakh is on his mind, as is Ukraine and the current Thailand-Cambodia border conflict. While Trump’s views of maps may lead him to see these as real estate disputes, this kind of simplification ignores cultural, demographic and human experience. It also favors the appetites of the big man politics to which he is attracted.

Simplistic nationalist and irredentist ideologies sell the false narrative that some group of people cannot be secure and thrive unless they are the sole occupiers of some bit of land. Places that complicate simple lines and maps, and that challenge this mindset, need to be destroyed or oppressed. It is in the pursuit of this simplistic vision that we see yet another attack on the notion of the liberal international order.

Following decades of horrifying human tragedy in which people have been killed or forcibly moved in the pursuit of geopolitical sorting (the 1915 Armenian genocide; the swapping of millions between Greece and Turkey in 1922; the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Lebanon; the generational tragedy of Israel/Palestine), for a now seemingly short period of time there was the imperfect ideal that places of diversity and political “ambiguity” could be differently managed. The idea was that people living in places with a history of political and demographic contestation should not need to fear being forcibly moved, killed or subjugated, but should be able to enjoy rights as a minority or a majority in that space under the umbrella of the basket of human rights ushered into the post-World War II and post-Cold War orders that would guarantee minority rights and participation, and the basic right to exist.

This led to a number of ambiguous situations. Some were termed “frozen conflicts,” particularly in the former Soviet Union in places such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Transnistria in Moldova – places that have often been a part of Moscow’s irredentist appetites. (The Baltic countries with significant Russian populations, were lucky to solidify their relationships with the EU and NATO during the period of what could be considered from today’s vantage point “peak liberal democracy”.) Beyond the former USSR, this phenomenon has been seen in other places where the political status is somehow contested or believed by some polities to be up for grabs, such as Kosovo, Kashmir and Taiwan.

While realpolitik geopolitics increasingly seems to be ascendent, it’s worth remembering that practical ambiguity served multiple purposes. Perhaps most importantly it enabled human beings to stay in their homes and communities, turning the page on a history in which population expulsions were acceptable. It created political space for a process of political and economic normalization that, ideally over time (though imperfectly pursued), would eclipse narrow self-interest focused on bits of land. And it helped to minimize big power appetites for their own irredentist territorial expansion and renewed empire building that could potentially set off new geopolitical competition.

Were these ambiguous arrangements ideal? No. Critics will claim that these political conflicts were not definitively settled, arguing that that proves that this theory was flawed. What they fail to appreciate is the historically short period of time in which the liberal approach as even tried – decades of experience in which human rights were at least aspirationally a priority, compared to centuries and millennia of brute force regardless of the consequences.

The language that we are hearing now from the Trump administration is in line with his apparent agenda of wanting to erase (“cancel”) all liberalizing trends of the 20th century, whether domestic or global. And his singular psychological framing capacity as a real estate agent means that he has no cognitive space to understand the benefits of ambiguous solutions for diverse and complex places. In his worldview, only one person can control a plot or a building; while this may make sense in real estate sales, this creates a basis for complete zero-sum geopolitics.

These issues need to be kept in mind as there will be a very disruptive period ahead. Talk of land swaps impacts people, leads to a radicalized political environment and can lead to resistance and violence. While the people of Ukraine are certainly following this news with a sense of forboding, people in places including Kosovo, Taiwan, Palestine, Bosnia, Burma and beyond have reason to worry.

At a time in which the illiberals and far-right seem ever more ascendant and confident, it can be easy to lose hope and perspective. It has been in particular disappointing to see that the European Union has been unable to reorient itself in a way that reaffirms their values such as those outlined in both founding and enlargement documents, norms and policies;  it is rare to hear mention let alone embrace of the Copenhagen criteria.

Decision makers in the member states and Brussels have been ready to shift their own centers to the right rather than to recognize that their competitive advantage is in fact the support for open societies and the rule of law rather than the rule by law. As in the US, this shift has been accompanied by a narrative focused on the issue of migration. However, the perceived risks of migration and people on the move seeking safety would only increase in a renewed era of population transfers, expulsion, or endemic oppression. And people are not seeking to migrate to Russia, China or other autocratic states. 

In the short term the EU and its democratic allies around the world (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea etc.) need to recognize that they will never thrive in a world with a new geopolitical map in which illiberal autocracy is the dominant business model. Appreciating the extent of the threat and doubling down on the attraction of the liberal model to people who have lived under and fled from the alternatives needs to be at the heart of their reorientation to the world Trump is enabling.

The post “Sharpie Geopolitics” in a Time of Complexity appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal Party will return to power for a fourth straight term. This despite having been down double digits in polls just months ago against the opposition Conservatives, led by challenger Pierre Poilievre. Trump’s levying tariffs and open advocacy of annexing Canada as “the 51st state” were decisive for Canadian voters, who deemed Carney, former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor, the safer pair of hands, given the nature of the threat to the country’s economy and independence.

This electoral result has wider implications, being the starkest popular reaction thus far in the democratic world to Trump’s performative cruelty and assault on democratic norms at home, together with his direct confrontation with steadfast allies, partners, and the international system which the US previously championed. The tectonic ruction of Trump’s disruption-by-design has generated adjustment throughout the democratic world, but Canada’s has been deepest, most resolute, and profound. Foreign Minister Melanie Joly demonstrated this three weeks ago at a NATO meeting.

Voters have now reinforced her conclusion. Nowhere in the democratic world has the breach – driven by Trump – elicited so clear a response. This includes a redoubled commitment to Canada’s ties to Europe, but also Pacific democracies, those in the Western hemisphere, and Africa as well. Canada has demonstrated it’s possible to resist and adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining the values that have consistently made it a global magnet. This can provide a boost to Europe+ and hopefully provide momentum for resistance against the illiberal spasm that is doing so much harm to so many. Europe+ needs now to demonstrate a similar recognition of this changed world.

The will to straddle and hedge remains strong, as NATO SG Mark Rutte demonstrates. This is unequal to the moment. Europe+ should take this opportunity to maintain and strengthen the values that have enabled economic and social development for decades, in the face of a tide of self-dealing authoritarianism worldwide.

Countries that recognize the importance of democratic values for not only prosperity and rights, but individual dignity, would do well to recognize the need for far greater coordinated action to withstand the multifaceted threats to liberal movements and the kleptocracy that comes with them. The call for solidarity from Canadians is one that Europe+ – the remaining democratic world – must heed. This will demand creativity, popular solidarity within and among democracies, and crucially leadership.

The opportunity for Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin and others to rally to the challenge is clear. At the moment those with the most to lose from authoritarianism – Canadians and Greenlanders, along with Ukrainians – have demonstrated the strongest clarity of vision.

As Foreign Minister Joly underscored, the people with the power to stop Trump are Americans. After his first 100 days, it seems increasingly clear that they are recognizing the danger as well, not only to their neighbors, but themselves and their rights. Unless and until Americans brake and reverse his agenda, Europe+ has to make its own arrangements, wrenching though that may be. Canada leads the way.

The post Canadians Lead the Way appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

Introduction

Whether or not they voted for the winning side, Americans will be witness to tectonic changes in the forthcoming period. The rest of the world – which didn’t get a vote – is bracing itself as well. The potential shifts and disruptions are already taking shape through personnel appointments and statements of intent.

This essay presents some forward-looking themes, ideas, warnings and hopes from someone who has worked to promote democratic ideals, accountable good governance, rights-based rule of law and civic engagement outside of the US, in the former Yugoslavia, for over 20 years. Every aspect of American governance, institutions and civil society stands to be tested and strained; their strengths, weaknesses and resilience remain an open question. At the same time, this disruption will provide space for sorely needed progressive populist ideas to finally shatter demonstrably false assumptions about the impacts of neoliberalism and flawed democratic governance that have led to global outrage at the status quo and misplaced trust in strongman leadership. These fissures had been forming over years; deepened with the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath; and were rendered devastating by the impact of the pandemic.

Some of the themes considered here are abstract, some are concrete; some are practical, and some are warnings grounded in experiences seen elsewhere around the world. As a series of discrete yet inter-related reflections, they together form a post-election, pre-Inauguration baseline of ideas and issues to be flagged and further considered and developed over what is likely to be a period of realignment with material and ideological winners and losers. While focused on how these issues and dynamics will play out in the US, our interlinked and interconnected world makes it inevitable that there will be both positive and negative spillover and learning. The question is whether the end result will be more or less democracy and opportunity for more people, or a greater consolidation and concentration of both among a lucky few, in the US and beyond.

Read the full paper – in English

The post Reflections on American Democratic Threats and Opportunities: A pre-Inauguration Baseline appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

There are increasing signs that the links between polarization, endemic corruption and democratic struggle and decline are trends threatening weak states, hybrid regimes, non-democratic states and states long considered to be stable or “consolidated” democratic systems. Widespread popular dissatisfaction with economic options, economic decline and the attendant social pressures has been effectively exploited and weaponized by opportunistic spoilers, to date mostly from the right. This has fueled interest in right-leaning and far-right narratives, disinformation, and state and institutional capture, to the detriment of accountable, rights-based, democratic governance.

In 2021, the Democratization Policy Council (DPC) and Eurothink published, Sell Out, Tune Out, Get Out, or Freak Out? Understanding Corruption, State Capture, Radicalization, Pacification, Resilience, and Emigration in Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia. This initiative was inspired by Sarah Chayes’ book, Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security.  Chayes made the contention, based on her experience on the ground in Afghanistan and her study of other countries, that systemic corruption and self-dealing as practiced by governments (commonly referred to as state capture) fuels popular resentment. The DPC/Eurothink initiative was grounded in the question of whether this thesis could help in understanding the social, political, and economic dynamics of Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia.  The answer was yes, and the team developed three conceptual models to describe a) the problem set; b) citizen response options; and c) avenues to effect systemic change in these two countries, and beyond. The book and the models and diagrams are available here.

The panel organizers are interested in additional application of these models to other case studies. There are many possible relevant questions to explore. How can these models help to understand Serbia, Lebanon, Georgia, or other countries? What can people awaiting the second Trump administration in the US learn from these models and experiences? How can values-based organizations and alliance like the EU, Council of Europe, OSCE and others learn from this kind of analysis to ensure that their engagements have positive impact for the people in these countries?

In addition to participating in ASN, the panel organizers intend to prepare an edited volume based on submitted papers and cross-cutting framing chapters. Curious minds at all stages of their academic and professional careers are encouraged to submit a proposal.  If the panel is successful, all participants would be responsible for identifying their own travel funds to participate. However, all proposals may be considered for the volume.

If you are interested in applying please send your paper proposal (max. 400 words) and a short biographical statement (max. 250 words) to valeryperry@yahoo.com by December 4, 2024.

The post Call for Papers: Freaking Out…. Positively – Resisting Corruption, State Capture and Radicalization in a time of Democratic Decline appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS BY THE DEMOCRATIZATION POLICY COUNCIL

1. These third party observations are provided by the Democratization Policy Council (“DPC”). DPC’s mission is to press established and emerging democracies and transnational and international institutions to pursue policies based on liberal democratic values and principles within the scope of their international engagements and commitments. Through its research, analysis, advocacy and public engagement, DPC seeks to draw the attention of policymakers, legislators and civil society to encroachments on freedoms within the democratic framework.

2. Since its foundation in 2007, DPC has closely followed the political and security developments in the Western Balkans and the role of Western actors, in particular the US and the European Union, in line with its stated mission. DPC has undertaken wide-ranging research, analysis, and advocacy over the years, becoming the most consistent think-tank outside the region, tracking the ups and downs of democratic development and the involvement of outside actors in the six countries of the Western Balkans.

Interest and application to have these observations considered

3. DPC has provided these observations at the same time as making its application to intervene. DPC recognises that this application is made unusually, in that the request to be permitted to make observations is being made at the same time as submitting the proposed observations. This is as a result of the limited time available before the listed hearing before the Grand Chamber, and borne of a desire by DPC not to cause any unnecessary delay. No disrespect is intended toward the Court in this approach. DPC respectfully submits that consideration of these observations would be in the interest of justice for the purposes of Article 36(2) of the Convention and Rule 44(3)(a) of the Rules of Court. 

Observations

4. DPC makes these observations because of its reasonable concern that a reversal of the first instance decision would create an artificial ceiling on the potential for citizens to develop constitutional alternatives which would be compatible with the core findings informing the Kovačević ruling, as well as its five antecedents, starting with the Sejdić and Finci cases in 2009…

Read the full document – in English

The post DPC Third Party Intervention ECHR case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.