Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica threatened thusly:

With such an illegal decision, the EU would seriously violate the UN Charter and Resolution 1244, which would automatically mean that there is the Stabilization and Association Agreement is no longer *[sic]*. After this, only in case that the EU withdrew its decision on sending the mission would Serbia be able to discuss the Agreement once again.

That’s right, he’s threatening that he will junk the SAA agreement which the EU extended to Serbia as a measure of goodwill if the EU goes on with its Kosovo plans.

Imagine you have a petulant child. You buy the child a present in order to quiet him down. The child threatens to destroy the present if you don’t do exactly as it demands.

As parents well know, there’s no negotiating with children.

Headline Junky enters the fray:

But its heavy-handed dissection of Serbia’s territorial integrity would deal Russia another humiliation at a moment when Moscow increasingly feels the need to demonstrate its resurgent influence.

Russia deciding to inject itself into this process does complicate things, to be sure. But people should try to keep recent history in mind when they write about these issues. Kosovo’s story is long and tortured, but in modern times it existed as a semi-autonomous body in the context of Yugoslavia, and it had its sovereignty severely curtailed by Milosevic only in 1989. That the current Serbian government is motivated by the same raw myth-driven nationalism which brought Milosevic to power should not be lost on the commentariat either.

Those interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the Kosovo problem need look no further than Noel Malcolm’s superb Kosovo: A Short History. While you’re at Amazon, go ahead and buy Malcolm’s Bosnia: A Short History as well, since Bosnia is up next for Serbian irredentism.

“Tribunalations” is not my favorite pseudo-pun of all time, but it does the job. My afore-mentioned article in The American Interest is up, free to the loyal readers of this blog.

Click here to enjoy.

Ed Joseph and Mort Abramowitz penned an interesting op-ed in the WSJ last week. To get a sense of the nastiness of the situation unfolding in Bosnia today, read their article for a succinct backstory. The authors’ main insight, that EU membership is a rotten carrot—an ineffective inducement to better behavior—is a very important one.

But their suggested solution, perhaps borne of desperation at circumstances, seems impractical:

The way to recruit the Serbs for this project is to give them a stake in its success. As a result of the short-sighted implementation of the Dayton Agreement, Sarajevo, which before the war had the largest concentration of Serbs outside Serbia, is today a Muslim-dominated city. It is difficult to interest the Serbs in an effective multiethnic state without a major Serb presence in Sarajevo.

Converting the capital into a truly shared “national district” and encouraging all ethnicities to resettle there would vitiate a core Serb argument against centralizing state power. It would also reaffirm the principle that a country’s capital and institutions must reflect the interests and makeup of its peoples.

The problem is that the Bosnian Serbs’ goal is not a well-functioning Bosnia. Backed by a nasty nationalist government in Belgrade, which is in turn supported by Russia, and faced with a dithering EU which seems to take every opportunity to appease Belgrade over Kosovo, the Bosnian Serbs must be starting to believe that breaking apart Bosnia is a feasible course of action.

The authors quip:

Secession from Bosnia is not realistic as it would carry substantial political, human, and financial risks for the Serbs, whose economy has just begun to prosper. It should be noted, however, that realism has not been a Balkan trait. Nor can another war for “independence” be discounted; there is growing nationalism among all elements of the Bosnian population.

Is the Bosnian Serb secessionist attitude so unrealistic, given that their leaders’ goal has been incorporation into Greater Serbia from day one, and given that they see before them the opportunities to realize these goals?

Also note that “growing nationalism among all elements” is basically shorthand for the same sort of misunderstanding of that happened during the fall of Yugoslavia. Let’s get it straight: the rise of belligerent Serbian nationalism is forcing the other groups to seek protection among their own. Whatever happens in Bosnia, it’ll be important to remember how this ubiquitous nationalism came to be. “All sides are guilty” is a pernicious meme which has in large part gotten us to where we are in the Balkans today.

My article on the ICTY, the Vukovar Three, and the Balkans is up at The American Interest. Here’s the crux of the article’s relevance to things going on today:

Whatever the reasons, the Court’s policy is ill-conceived. It has cost the West credibility in the region. Serbia has already interpreted the West’s lack of resolve as a fundamental weakness and will likely attempt to extract maximum advantage over Kosovo. After all, Serbia rejected the Rambouillet agreement in 1999 and commenced cleansing Albanians from Kosovo in large part because a similar strategy in Bosnia was ultimately vindicated at Dayton. Furthermore, the question of Republika Srpska within the framework of Bosnia still remains an open sore. Serbia’s determination to eventually annex the territory is not likely to wane. It has already thumbed its nose at the West by threatening to call for a referendum on national self-determination within Bosnia.

I’ll try to get a link up to the whole article within the next few days. Bear with me.

Richard Holbrooke always seemed to be a particularly clear-headed type. His To End A War is a classic case study in how muscular diplomacy can and should be waged. Though the end result of his efforts, the Dayton peace accords, left much to be desired, Holbrooke’s aggressiveness and single-mindedness allowed America to bring peace to the Balkans despite the staggering inefficacy of its European allies. For better or for worse, it helped re-establish America as the indispensable power in Europe for at least another decade.

Some well-placed critics have convincingly argued that Holbrooke could (and likely would) have solved the Balkan crisis definitively had his boss Bill Clinton given him wider latitude. Given that he’s rumored to be Hillary’s choice for Secretary of State, and given the likelihood that Hillary would be keener than her husband to prove her toughness in international affairs, reading Holbrooke today should give us insight as to what Hillary’s foreign policy might look like.

Helpfully enough, in today’s Washington Post, Holbrooke offers up a blueprint for how America ought to tackle Kosovo. He identifies Serbia as the irrationally intransigent actor, and blames Russia for stoking nationalist and separatist sentiments in the region. His solution is for Bush to make an impassioned plea to Putin to back off, while at the same time bolstering NATO’s presence in the region to signal that we mean business.

One can have valid concerns about the consequences of such a policy. Though Serbia’s claims to Kosovo are spurious and largely illegitimate, Kosovo today is a corrupt enclave whose independence would destabilize neighboring Macedonia, a country with its own secessionist Albanian population. Are we empowering Albanian expansionism in the medium term?

Holbrooke is unconcerned. He sees Russia’s meddling as the root cause of problems in the region, and seems to identify Russia as an important adversary of the West. His willingness to use shows of military force to underscore the seriousness of his negotiating demands should also be noted.

Overall, I admire the man, and I think he’s largely correct about the situation in the Balkans, as well as in his determination to check this newly aggressive Russian stance in the world. I think I might be warming to a Hillary presidency. But is America ready for such a forceful administration coming on the heels of the bumbling Bush years?

Via Alex, I came across this story explaining one facet of England’s defeat at the hands of Croatia two days ago:

Tony Henry belted out a version of the Croat anthem before the 80,000 crowd, but made a blunder at the end.

He should have sung ‘Mila kuda si planina’ (which roughly means ‘You know my dear how we love your mountains’).

But he instead sang ‘Mila kura si planina’ which can be interpreted as ‘My dear, my penis is a mountain’.[^1]

That really made me laugh. Turns out, the Croatian team loved it too. It apparently helped to relax them before the match, which in turn supposedly lifted them to victory in the second half.

The article goes on to explain how the English opera singer was mortified and tried to apologize.

“It was the last thing that I would intentionally do, and all I can say is if I have offended any Croatians, then they have my deepest apologies.”

On the contrary, Henry is becoming a cult hero in Croatia… “The Croatians think it’s great, and they’ve invited him to come over and sing at Euro 2008…”

Such stories convince me of the validity of national stereotypes. There’s something in the soul of a Balkan slav that reliably lights up at unexpected ribaldry. It’s true of all the peoples of former Yugoslavia (with the possible exception of the Slovenes, who have a more Teutonic attitude towards humor). It certainly helps explain my own predilection for the filthy and lewd.

Expect more of this in the coming weeks:

“If the independence of Kosovo is recognized, it would not be the final stage of the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, but the first stage of new disintegration and secession in the Balkans,” Serbia’s Kosovo minister, Slobodan Samardzic, said.

For those not up to speed on what’s going on inside Serbia, this is a good primer on the political dynamics. The DSS is the party of Vojislav Kostunica, who was until recently fêted in the Western press as a welcome change after Milosevic. Whoopsie!

Signs point to most Balkan specialists still not really “getting” it. The International Herald Tribune runs an article titled “A Balkan crisis that some see as overblown”, which cites a certain European study:

In a recent paper published by the European Stability Initiative, a group based in Berlin that advocates the EU’s expansion throughout the western Balkans, argues that contrary to the rhetoric by Kostunica and Gregorian, Bosnia has made enormous strides in recent years, and this current crisis is political, not interethnic.

Fools!¹ It’s always been political, not interethnic! That’s the single biggest misapprehension of the recent Balkan wars: that they were the product of inscrutable ethnic hatreds. I’ve got an article coming out in the next issue of The American Interest on this very topic.

Stay tuned…

EU makes goodwill gesture towards Belgrade, signs pact beginning the process of accession. Serbs rejoice:

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica told the state news agency Tanjug the move showed Belgrade “can at the same time successfully handle European integration … and defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country.”

Translation: my government can get us into the EU without compromising on Kosovo. Plus we’re sure to get Republika Srpska chopped off from Bosnia sooner or later.

The Eastern Question never dies, but the Sick Man of Europe isn’t the Ottoman Empire any more…