Dielli | The Sun

Albanian American Newspaper Devoted to the Intellectual and Cultural Advancement of the Albanians in America | Since 1909

Kosovo needs a steely-eyed response to the malign intentions of Russia and China

by


By David L. Phillips


Russia has been Serbia’s primary protector, providing security assistance and diplomatic cover aimed at undermining Kosovo’s state-building and efforts to gain greater global recognition.
Today, however, Russia’s influence is waning. China has filled the breach with economic diplomacy; Kosovo and other countries in the Western Balkans should recognise Beijing’s growing influence and guard against its malign activities.
The Western Balkans have been Russia’s strategic priority since NATO intervened to prevent the genocide of Kosovo Albanians in 1999. President Vladimir Putin is still seething at America’s unipolar moment. He is not motivated by Slavic solidarity, but by anti-Americanism and hostility to western liberal values.
Russia and China work in tandem. Premier Xi Jinping and Putin are united through their sense of historic humiliation. They oppose the integration of Western Balkan countries into Euro-Atlantic institutions. Serbian President Aleksander Vucic is a malleable figurehead eager to do their bidding.
China has surpassed Russia as the leading authoritarian influence in the region. It has also replaced Russia as Serbia’s great backer. While Russia seeks to foster chaos and instability, China is systematically taking steps to integrate and control the economies of Balkan countries.
Chinese debt diplomacy
Russia’s influence is diminishing not only in Kosovo, but throughout the region. Montenegro joined NATO in 2017 over Russia’s objections, followed by North Macedonia. Romania blocked Russian arms shipment to Serbia in July 2019. The following year, Serbia cancelled its participation in “Slavic Brotherhood” military exercises with Russia and Belarus.
Serbia and China, on the other hand, have found common ground through China’s Belt and Road Initiative, BRI. Its financing saddles countries with debt and fuels corruption. China benefits by capturing resources needed for its economic growth. Montenegro is especially vulnerable to China’s ravenous drive to control ports and infrastructure.
Financing comes at a cost. BRI leaves countries beholden to Beijing’s political agenda. Serbia supports China’s crackdown on democracy in Hong Kong, its human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and its tough stance towards Taiwan.
As cooperation between China and Russia has advanced, security cooperation between Russia and Serbia has faltered. Though Serbia is an observer in the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, it conducted 13 military exercises with NATO and only four with Russia in 2018. Russia further strained relations with Serbia by transferring six MIG-29 fighter jets, then sending a repair bill of $185 million. Serbs were outraged when a video surfaced showing a GRU officer at Russia’s embassy in Belgrade bribing a former Serbian official.
Serbia is in the market for diverse and different military equipment. In August 2020, Serbia agreed to purchase the Chinese anti-aircraft FK-3 missile system. Serbia also chose France’s Mistral portable air-defense system, MANPADS, over Russian technology.
In 2019, Serbia’s trade with Russia and the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union accounted for just eight per cent of Serbia’s total trade, with exports totaling 5.4 per cent and imports 9.4 per cent. China is proving to be a better economic partner, providing $4 billion in direct investments and over $5 billion in loans and infrastructure projects.
Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, is an instrument of China’s foreign and security policy. As part of the “digital Silk Road”, the US accuses Huawei of advancing China’s interests by gathering information for intelligence purposes, something Huawei denies. Huawei is facilitated through commercial channels, as well as the Digitisation and Innovation Center in Belgrade. In addition to Serbia, it has an especially strong presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
China is also adept at vaccine diplomacy. Serbia initially relied on Sputnik, Russia’s vaccine for COVID-19. Today, it is deepening cooperation with China, using Sinovac in response to the pandemic.
NATO should take in Kosovo by 2028
China’s capacity is overestimated. Xi’s reputation has been tarnished by lack of transparency over the COVID-19 pandemic. China’s economic miracle is slowing down; its economy growing just 6.6 per cent in 2018, the lowest rate in 28 years. Its population is ageing, further slowing economic development. The Chinese Communist Party is comprised of elites, hardly representative of 1.4 billion Chinese.
Kosovo needs a steely-eyed response to the malign intentions of Russia and China. It should launch an inter-agency “Strategic Planning Group on Russia and China” to study their activities and develop a policy and security response.
It needs a regional strategy and communications plan. Kosovo should cooperate with like-minded neighbours to collect and share information. It should also expand cooperation with Western intelligence agencies.
The US can build Kosovo’s armed forces through training and equipment that meet NATO standards. It should consider a Road Map of Defence Cooperation with Kosovo, similar to US agreements with the Baltic states, or a Mutual Defence Treaty, similar to the US agreement with South Korea, to protect Kosovo from external threats.
NATO can play a pivotal role building Kosovo’s capacity, giving Kosovo a fast track to NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program and providing a clear path towards NATO membership by 2028.
As China ramps up its malign operations, Western Balkan countries need a more effective counter-intelligence strategy. China’s “peaceful rise” is a myth. While Russia is still a menace, China is emerging as the greater threat.
Mr. Phillips is Director of the Program on Peacebuilding and Human Rights at Columbia University.
This article was initially published in Balkan Insight on September 29, 2021

Sanctions as a Tool of US Foreign Policy

by

Comment: The Use of “Public Designation” under Section 7031 (c)

Republican and Democratic administrations have taken a similar approach to 7031 (c)… reflecting their foreign policy priorities or attitudes towards different countries… 7031 (c) serves as a versatile and effective tool of foreign policy. However, safeguards are needed to prevent any mishandling or politicization of a designation.

From: David L. Phillips and David J. Felsen


New York and Tirana — The U.S. Secretary of State can combat corruption and gross human rights violations by invoking the Section 7031 (c) provision, which bars individuals found to be highly corrupt or as egregious violators of human rights from entry to the United States. The recent designation of Albania’s former President and Prime Minister Sali Berisha raises questions about the process of sanctioning an individual under Section 7031 (c):  Should the person being investigated have the right to confront the accusations  through a transparent process? Once sanctioned, should there be the right to an appeal?

The U.S. Congress authorized a “public designation” visa restriction under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.  This provision was included in foreign operations appropriations legislation beginning in FY2008.

Under Section 7031 (c), the Secretary of State is authorized to deny entry to the U.S. by foreign officials about whom credible information exists indicating that they have been involved in “significant corruption”, including corruption related to the extraction of natural resources, or if these individuals are involved in the “gross violation of human rights”.   The entry restriction automatically applies to immediate family members of the foreign individuals in question even if they have not been directly involved in activities warranting sanctions.  

The designation is typically a “public designation”, though the Secretary of State may choose to invoke it “privately”.  It is the result of a lengthy interagency process, with conclusions made by the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). INL is the lead agency organizing input from within the Department of State as well as from law enforcement, security, intelligence and other relevant agencies from the federal government and other levels of government. However, the designation should not be necessarily interpreted as involving any narcotics-related activity.

What is also noteworthy about Section 7031 (c) is that while the Secretary of State’s designation may be made publicly or privately, all records concerning banning of the designated individual are not confidential. That is, the information can be accessed publicly through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This is a clear variance from general policy and practice regarding the decision to issue or deny a visa, as provided in Section 222 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires that any records regarding the issuing or refusing of U.S. visas be kept strictly confidential.  

Section 7031 (c) is a powerful yet underutilized tool of US foreign policy. The threat that foreign officials may be publicly designated and shamed for engaging in significant corruption or human rights abuses and the threat to family members of being barred from entry to the U.S. is a strong disincentive or deterrent to foreign officials.  

U.S. foreign and treaty obligations may create some exemptions for individuals who may have been publicly designated.  An exemption from Section 7031 (c) can be made if the individual’s subsequent entry to the country furthers U.S. law enforcement objectives, if there are compelling national security interests, if circumstances have changed that had caused the designation in the first place, or if the individual’s entry fulfills U.S. obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement.

Republican and Democratic administrations have taken a similar approach to 7031 (c). Yet, different administrations may interpret significant corruption and human rights abuses in different ways, reflecting their foreign policy priorities or attitudes towards different countries. The Trump administration designated the former President of the Gambia for significant corruption in 2018. Nicaragua’s Supreme Electoral Council President was designated for significant corruption, and Serbian Goran Radosavljevic was publicly designated for violation of human rights in the murder of three Albanian-American brothers in Kosovo during the war.

During the Biden administration, Berisha was sanctioned in mid-May 2021 under Section 7031 (c) for significant corruption.  7031 (c) was also used to designate the former Prosecutor General of Slovakia for significant corruption; Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi was designated in March 2021. A Paraguayan Congressman was designated for significant corruption in April 2021. Congressman Boris Espana Carceres of Guatemala and two former Nambian government ministers were designated for significant corruption in June 2021. 

Yet the Trump Administration also extended the use of 7031 (c) to further political goals in Iran and Cuba. In November 2020, towards the end of the Trump Administration, Secretary of State Pompeo designated two Iranian military officials as human rights violators. In the case of Cuba, the final days of the Trump Administration saw the designation of Defense Minister Leopoldo Cintra Frias for violations of human rights. This was followed by Cuba’s labelling as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”. Cuba was placed on the SST list though it had previously been removed from the list by the Obama administration in 2015. 

In addition to the 7031 (c) designation, Executive Order 13818 of December 20th, 2017, which implemented the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (GMA), is another vehicle to target corruption and human rights violators.  GMA uses very similar language to 7031 (c).  However, E.O. 13818 also allows for the freezing of assets and blocking of transactions for designated individuals. During the Biden administration, several Bulgarian nationals charged with corruption in early June 2021 were designated under 7031 (c), while E.O. 13818 and other sanctions brought by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) were applied at the same time.  The Department of State’s statement of June 2nd indicated that E.O. 13818, which implements and builds upon the Magnitsky Act, targeted three oligarchs and 64 of their owned entities, while at the same time 7031 (c) designated five Bulgarians as ineligible for entry owing to “significant corruption”.

In sum, 7031 (c) serves as a versatile and effective tool of foreign policy. However, safeguards are needed to prevent any mishandling or politicization of a designation. Individuals should have the right to address questions about their conduct at some point in the process. Individuals should be able to argue why they may warrant an exemption. Once designated, a mechanism should exist to permit an appeal by the individual.  Lastly, until a final determination is made the process requires discretion so that reputations are not ruined unnecessarily.  

This article was originally published by Exit News on July 7, 2020

Mr. Phillips is Director of the Program on Peacebuilding and Human Rights at Columbia University in New York. He served as a Senior Adviser and Foreign Affairs Expert to the US State Department during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Mr. Felsen holds a doctorate in politics from Oxford University and is Vice-Rector for International Relations at Epoka University in Albania.

Të pagjeturit e luftës të përfshihen në bisedimet Kosovë-Serbi

by

By David L. Phillips*/

Javën e kaluar u shënua 25 vjetori i Gjenocidit në Srebrenicë. Nga Bosnja, ne e dimë se identifikimi i viktimave është thelbësor për shërimin shoqëror. Një llogari e personave të pagjetur nga lufta në Kosovë duhet të jetë pjesë e negociatave për të normalizuar marrëdhëniet midis Kosovës dhe Serbisë. Paqja e qëndrueshme kërkon zbulim, drejtësi dhe përgjegjësi.

Sipas Fondit për të Drejtën Humanitare (HLC) në Beograd, rreth 1,500 persona u zhdukën gjatë konfliktit të Kosovës. Sipas HLC-së, rreth 4,000-5,000 persona ishin viktima të krimeve të luftës. Ky total përfaqëson rreth një të tretën e shqiptarëve të Kosovës që vdiqën gjatë luftës.

Më 1999, në Serbi u zbuluan varreza masive. Sikurse në rastin e Bosnjës, Serbia shkatërroi dëshmitë forenzike dhe mbetjet mortore në një përpjekje sistematike për t’i mbuluar krimet e veta. 

Deklarata përfundimtare e samitit të Triestes e procesit të Berlinit bëri thirrje për një Komision Rajonal (KOMRA) për të zbuluar faktet (24 mars 2017). Procesi i Berlinit është një proces ndërqeveritar që ka për qëllim rikthimin e raporteve mes vendeve të Ballkanit Perëndimor dhe disa vendeve të BE-së. Megjithatë identifikimi i personave të pagjetur është zbehur. E intervistova një nënë në Gjakovë e cila më tregoi fotografi të djalit të saj të pagjetur. Derisa ajo nuk e di se çfarë ka ndodhur, plagën do ta ketë të hapur. 

Njëzetenjë vjet pas luftës së Kosovës, vështirë se ndonjë prej të pagjeturve është i gjallë. Megjithatë, është esenciale që të dihet statusi i tyre. Kosova si shoqëri nuk mund të shërohet derisa të ketë zbulim të plotë dhe familjet të mund të mbajnë zi për fëmijët e tyre në pajtim me zakonet lokale. 

E rivitalizuar me financim nga vendet donatore, KOMRA duhet t’i identifikojë viktimat; identifikojë varret masive; dhe të zbulojë fatin e atyre që humbën. Personat e pagjetur duhet të qëndrojnë në agjendën e procesit të Berlinit, i cili po vazhdon.

Komisioni Ndërkombëtar për Personat e Pagjetur (ICMP) luajti rol të rëndësishëm pas Srebrenicës. Ai ka bërë punë të rëndësishme edhe në Kosovë. Në fillim të vitit 2003, ICMP asistoi Kosovën përmes identifikimit forenzik të viktimave përmes ADN-së, duke punuar në bashkëpunim me Misionin e OKB-së në Kosovë dhe me Misionin e atëhershme të BE-së për Sundim të Ligjit. 

Përpjekjet e ICMP-së po vazhdojnë. Detyra e tij nuk është thjeshtë teknike. Fati i personave të pagjetur duhet të jetë në agjendën e dialogut Kosovë-Serbi.

E kuptoj se shqiptarët e Kosovës dhe serbët e Kosovës janë prekur nga lufta. Shoqata e Viktimave Serbe mbajti një ekspozitë para parlamentit me fotot e personave të pagjetur për vite me radhë. Megjithatë, ka një dallim në kuantitet. Shumica absolute e të pagjeturve dhe viktimave ishin shqiptarë të Kosovës. Është edhe një dallim kualitativ. Shqiptarët e Kosovës u vranë si pjesë e ndërmarrjes kriminale të drejtuar nga shteti, ndërsa shumë më pak serbë të Kosovës u viktimizuan përmes veprimeve ad hoc të individëve. 

Presidenti i Serbisë, Aleksandar Vuçiq, udhëheq delegacionin e Serbisë në dialogun me Kosovën. Moralisht, ai është i papërshtatshëm si bashkëbisedues. 

Vuçiqi ishte gazetar në Pale (Bosnje e Hercegovinë) më 1992-1993, duke punuar përkrah kriminelëve serbë të luftës. Ai ishte partner i lojës së shahut i Gjeneralit Ratko Mladiq, kasapi i Srebrenicës, i cili udhëhoqi forcat serbe të Bosnjës dhe organizoi masakrimin e myslimanëve. 

Veç kësaj, Vuçiqi shërbeu si Sekretar i Përgjithshëm i Partisë Radikale Serbe, parti nacionaliste serbe e ekstremit të djathtë e themeluar më 1991 nga lideri paramilitar Vojisllav Sheshel. Kur Gjykata Ndërkombëtare Penale dënoi Sheshelin për krimet kundër kroatëve në Vojvodinë, Shesheli u përgjigj: “[Jam] krenar për të gjitha krimet e mia të luftës” dhe “jam i gatshëm t’i përsëris sërish ato. 

Vuçiqi ishte edhe palë e nxitjes së urrejtjes, duke deklaruar më 10 korrik, 1995: “Nëse vritet një serb, do të vrasim njëqind myslimanë”. Vuçiqi ka një reputacion të ndyrë pasi shërbeu si ministër i Informacionit për Sllobodan Millosheviqin gjatë luftës së Kosovës. Me atë rol, ai drejtoi një mision për mbulimin e krimeve duke ndaluar ekipet e huaja televizive nga Beogradi. Si propagandist kryesor, ai me zell punoi për të nxitur urrejtje të serbëve ndaj shqiptarëve të Kosovës. Gjatë një paraqitjeje në Këshillin e Sigurimit të OKB-së, Vuçiqi deklaroi: “Dikush duhet t’i zbusë e disiplinojë ata”. 

Nëse Gjykata Speciale i bën fajtorë shqiptarët e Kosovës për shkelje të Ligjit Ndërkombëtar Humanitar (IHL), duhet të ketë një proces që do t’i mbante përgjegjës edhe Vuçiqin e bashkëluftëtarët e tij për krimet e tyre. 
Kosova s’e ka luksin t’i zgjedhë bashkëbiseduesit e vet në negociata. Megjithatë, Qeveria e Kosovës mund të kërkojë drejtësi. Krimet mund të ekspozohen duke i identifikuar të pagjeturit. 

Nevoja për t’i zbuluar të pagjeturit në konflikt është e mishëruar në IHL. Konventa e Katërt e Gjenevës kërkon që palët në konflikt lehtësojnë hetimet për individë të pagjetur si rezultat i armiqësive. Protokolli shtesë 1 në mënyrë eksplicite “kërkon nga të gjitha palët e konfliktit të kërkojnë për personat që janë raportuar të pagjetur nga pala kundërshtare”. 
Normalizimi dhe pajtimi nuk mund të arrihen derisa personat e pagjetur të identifikohen dhe që kryerësit e krimeve të luftës të dalin para drejtësisë. Kurrë nuk është vonë për të vërtetën dhe kërkimfaljen. Nëna që e takova në Gjakovë, si shumë të tjera sikurse ajo, kërkojnë drejtësi dhe meritojnë kompensimin. 

Adresimi i çështjes së personave të pagjetur do të përmirësonte shumë perspektivën e negociatave të suksesshme për normalizim të raporteve Kosovë-Serbi. Një marrëveshje në të cilën Serbia e njeh Kosovën brenda kufijve të vet nuk mund të neglizhojë fatin e personave të pagjetur dhe viktimave të krimeve të luftës. 

*Përktheu dhe përshtati: Zeri.info*

David L. Phillips është drejtor i Programit për Ndërtimin e Paqes dhe të Drejtat e Njeriut në Institutin për Studimin e të Drejtave të Njeriut në Universitetin Columbia në Nju Jork. Ka shërbyer si Këshilltar i Lartë i Departamentit të Shtetit duke punuar mbi ish-Jugosllavinë gjatë Administratës Clinton. Ai është autor i librit “Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and US Intervention” (Harvard’s Kennedy School). Libri i tij i ri është “Front Line Syria: From Revolution to Proxy War”

SQARIM: Të gjitha opinionet në këtë rubrikë reflektojnë qëndrimet e autorit.

*(Dergoi per Diellin autori)…

Finding the right solution

by

Only a deal in which Serbia recognises Kosovo and agrees to implement all 33 agreements from the Brussels dialogue can resolve the conflict./

BY David  L. Phillips*/

The presidents of Kosovo and Serbia will visit the White House on June 27, and US mediation could lead to a historic deal on mutual recognition and normalization of relations between embittered Balkan adversaries. Diplomacy is critical. In Kosovo, the absence of violent conflict does not mean that conflict is over. 

NATO intervened to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians by Serbia’s armed forces and paramilitary thugs in 1999. Ever since, Kosovo has been in limbo. Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and was recognized by 111 countries. The legality of its declaration was affirmed by the International Court of Justice. However, Serbia refuses to accept it lost Kosovo. It has waged an insidious campaign to undermine Kosovo’s government and thwart its efforts to gain greater global recognition. 

It is time to bury Balkan ghosts. After more than 20 years of hostilities, sustainable peace can be achieved by taking the following steps:   

Serbia should recognize the Republic of Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state within its current borders. It would abandon efforts to block Kosovo’s recognition by other countries, as well as international organizations. Regional economic cooperation through trade, travel and infrastructure would consolidate progress. 

Serbia would fully and verifiably implement 33 agreements brokered by the European Commission as confidence building measures. It would provide a full accounting of persons who were killed or apprehended during the War. In addition, Serbia would provide compensation for assets destroyed or removed during the conflict.

Kosovo’s international relations would be normalized. Five EU Member States that refuse to recognize Kosovo would lift their objections, putting Kosovo – a candidate country for EU membership – on track for integration into European structures. Russia would lift its veto, enabling Kosovo to become a UN member. 

Both countries would prioritize minority rights. Serbia would implement minority rights for ethnic Albanians living in the Preshevo Valley, which today is a part of Serbia. In parallel, Kosovo would enforce local self-government benefitting its Serbian minority in accordance with Kosovo’s constitution and the Ahtisaari principles that enshrine minority rights.

Benefits would flow to both countries. Serbia’s EU membership would move forward. Investments would enable economic connectivity between Kosovo and Serbia, benefitting both countries.

Importantly, Serbia would shed its pariah status. The stigma of Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and slaughter of Kosovo Albanians would be removed when Serbia implements the deal. 

These arrangements are difficult, but viable. The big question: Will the Trump administration do the hard work of diplomacy to achieve sustainable peace or push for a quick-fix in the form partition. 

Trump is desperate for success on the world stage, given devastating domestic problems. His envoy Richard Grenell seems to have found a pliant partner in Kosovo President Hashim Thaci who promotes territorial exchange as pivotal to peace. 

Grenell says the delegations are coming to Washington to discuss economic issues. Why would so many travel to the US for talks on highways and railroads? Something else is in the works. Many suspect the real agenda is territorial exchange.

Partition is a bad idea. Rather than a panacea, adjusting borders would unleash a Pandora’s Box of problems. Partition represents the fulfillment of Milosevic’s project to create ethnically pure states in the Balkans, enabling Serbia to achieve at the negotiating table what Milosevic could not achieve in the battlefield. Keeping borders intact would obviate the potential for population flows catalyzing renewed violent conflict. 

The Trump administration has sent mixed signals about partition. US officials say they would support whatever agreement is reached by Kosovo and Serbian negotiators. A deal involving the exchange of territories might burnish Trump’s credentials in the short term. It would, however, lead to renewed hostilities between Kosovo and Serbia. It also risks destabilizing other fragile multi-ethnic states in the Western Balkans. 

Moreover, partition is strongly opposed by both Kosovo Albanians and Kosovo Serbs. Albanian-Americans, who are numerous in US swing states – Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas – also strongly oppose redrawing borders. 

Many people died in the 1990s to preserve multi-ethnic states. Sovereignty, pluralism, and human rights remain bedrock principles of conflict resolution.  

Mr. Phillips is Director of the Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. He served as a Senior Adviser to the State Department under Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama. He is author of Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and US Intervention.

The opinions expressed in the opinion section are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.

*The author sent it for Dielli Newspaper