US Needs Strategic Balance in Dealing with Saudi Arabia and Iran

October 26, 2018 by dgreca

1 David Filips

BY David L. Phillips*/

While the Trump administration believes that Iran is the source of all evil in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s nefarious activities necessitate a more steely-eyed assessment of both Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia’s malign activities cannot be ignored. The execution of Jamal Khashoggi shows contempt for international norms. Beheading and dismembering the body of a U.S.-based dissident journalist is unacceptable.
Moreover, there is growing and well-founded concern of Saudi Arabia’s direction under the autocratic rule of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the 33-year old son of King Salman.
In Yemen, Saudi Arabia indiscriminately bombs hospitals and school buses, committing war crimes.
Saudi Arabia abets violent extremism. It has been the Taliban’s most loyal patron. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. It finances mosques and madrassas across the Middle East, South Asia, Turkey, and the Balkans where youth are radicalized and become holy warriors.
Saudi Arabia funded Jihadi groups in Syria, sub-contracting with Turkey’s National Intelligence Agency to provide weapons, money, and logistics. Saudi-backed Salafist and Wahhabi warriors in Syria and Iraq morphed into ISIS, killing Americans.
Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic relations are in disarray. It kidnapped Lebanon’s prime minister, launched an embargo on Qatar, and turned a tiff with Canada into a major rupture of relations.

US Turns Blind Eye

The Trump administration is willfully ignorant. It turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s offenses for three reasons.
First, Riyadh presents itself as a counterweight to Iranian influence. Its role is especially important in the wake of Washington’s decision to increase the isolation of Iran after withdrawing from the nuclear accord.
Second, Washington supports Saudi Arabia’s so-called reform agenda even though authorities jailed hundreds of female dissidents and detained scores of wealthy Saudis at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh.
Third, Saudi Arabia spends extravagantly at Trump properties and promised to buy $110 billion in military equipment. Saudi Arabia bought $20 billion in U.S. products last year and committed $20 billion to a new investment fund run by the Blackstone Group. Who knows what was discussed at Jared Kushner’s late-night rendezvous with Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh.
There are no angels in the Gulf. While increasing its scrutiny of Saudi Arabia, the Trump administration must not sugarcoat Iran’s malign activities.
Iran supports Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq. It gives weapons to Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups, as well as to Houthi rebels in Yemen. Iran fires missiles in violation of resolutions by the UN Security Council. Prior to the nuclear deal, Iran was enriching uranium that could be weaponized in a break-out to build a nuclear bomb.

Though Iran’s threats preceded Washington’s decision to more closely align with Saudi Arabia, closer cooperation between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia may have accelerated Iran’s militarization and intensified its support for Shiite proxies.

Re-Balancing

The U.S. needs a strategic balance in dealing with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Balance would give the U.S. greater leverage over Saudi Arabia, requiring real progress on human rights and other reforms.

Greater strategic balance would also enable the U.S. to work with both Saudi Arabia and Iran on regional problems such as the civil war in Yemen. When the dust settles from the Khashoggi investigation, Washington could use its added leverage to demand a ceasefire in Hodeida, the Red Sea Port through which almost all of Yemen’s food supplies are delivered. A humanitarian pause would save many lives and lead to more vigorous diplomacy aimed at ending Yemen’s civil war.
The Khashoggi assassination is a wake-up call. The U.S. needs a more nuanced approach to enhance its influence and stability in the Gulf.
* Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. He served as a Senior Adviser and Foreign Affairs Expert working for the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau of the State Department during the administration of President George W. Bush

David Phillips: Amerika nuk e ka aprovuar korrigjimin e kufijve

October 17, 2018 by dgreca

Deklarimi që e ka bërë John Bolton për këtë çështje ka qenë plotësisht i panevojshëm. Natyrisht që ShBA-ja përkrah çfarëdo që palët pajtohen. Së pari, duhet të ketë një marrëveshje dhe marrëveshja duhet të jetë e shkruar dhe e detajuar. Duhet të jetë e miratuar nga Kuvendi, dhe duhet të përkrahet nga shoqëria civile. Akoma jemi larg çfarëdo marrëveshjejeje për të arritur në këtë përfundim./

Eksperti amerikan i politikës së jashtme, David L. Phillips, në një intervistë për KALLXO.com thotë se Shtetet e Bashkuara të Amerikës nuk janë pajtuar për idenë e korrigjimit të kufijve të cilën Presidenti i Kosovës, Hashim Thaçi, është duke e avokuar tash e disa muaj nëpër Kosovë dhe jashtë saj.
Phillips, drejtor i Programit për Ndërtim të Paqes dhe të Drejta të Njeriut në Institutin për të Studime të të Drejtave të Njeriut në Universitetin Columbia, i tha Jeta Xharrës se nëse Presidenti Thaçi po thotë që Qeveria amerikane e përkrah pozicionin e tij, atëherë “ai ose i ka keqkuptuar ata, ose po i keqinterpreton”.
Deri para pak ditëve, Phillips ka qenë i angazhuar në ekipin e ekspertëve të huaj të Presidentit Thaçi, por ka dhënë dorëheqje duke shprehur hapur mospajtimet me idenë për ndarje të Kosovës.

Jeta Xharra: z. Philips, së fundmi të dy liderët tanë, Hashim Thaçi dhe Ramush Haradinaj kanë qenë në Amerikë. Që nga koha që janë kthyer, ajo çfarë ne dimë është që të dy janë takuar me zyrtarë të lartë amerikanë dhe që të dy kanë thënë gjëra të ndryshme para delegacionit të njëjtë të qeverisë suaj. Si e shihni këtë dhe çfarë mendoni se tregon për Kosovën fakti që presidenti ynë shkon në takim dhe thotë “jam i gatshëm t’i negocioj kufijtë”, përderisa kryeministri thotë “kufijtë janë të paprekshëm, nuk dëshirojmë të negociojmë këtë”.

David Phillips: Së pari unë nuk i kam ndarë të gjitha takimet, takimi me Sekretarin e Shtetit ishte mbajtur vetëm nga z. Ramush Haradinaj. Ka pasur takime tjera të përbashkëta me zyrtarë tjerë të Departamentit të Shtetit. Është me rëndësi që të qartësojmë se cili është pozicioni i ShBA-së, kur (John) Bolton, këshilltari për Siguri Kombëtare, tha që ShBA dëshironte që palët të gjenin një marrëveshje dhe pastaj do ta konsideronin përkrahjen, nuk ka qenë një përkrahje për korrigjim të kufirit apo ndarje.

Jeta Xharra: A jeni i sigurt?

David Phillips: Po, jam i sigurt. Kam folur me zyrtarë amerikanë. Qeveria amerikane nuk e përkrah korrigjimin e kufirit, ajo përkrah gjetjen e një zgjidhje të përbashkët të cilën mund ta vlerësojë dhe ajo marrëveshje duhet të gjejë përkrahje nga qeveritë përkatëse dhe nga shoqëria civile.

Jeta Xharra: Prit, prit, me çfarë zyrtarësh keni folur, sepse presidenti ynë po e thotë të kundërtën e asaj çfarë po e thoni ju?

David Phillips: Nuk do të jap emra, por unë kam shërbyer si këshilltar i lartë për tre presidentë, mbaj lidhje me zyrtarët amerikanë, kam folur me zyrtarë të lartë të Qeverisë amerikane.

Jeta Xharra: Edhe me Administratën e Trumpit? Ajo çfarë di për ju është që keni punuar për qeveritë e Demokratëve. A jeni i sigurt që keni kontaktet edhe me Administratën e Trumpit?

David Phillips: Po, kam punuar për Administratën Demokrate dhe Republikane, jam i lumtur që kam bashkëpunuar me znj. Klinton. Kam folur me zyrtarë në Administratën e Trumpit. Askush zyrtarisht nuk e ka përkrahur ndarjen apo korrigjimin e kufijve. Kështu që nëse Presidenti Thaçi po thotë që Qeveria amerikane e përkrah pozicionin e tij, ai ose i ka keqkuptuar ata, ose po i keqinterpreton.

Jeta Xharra: Më trego çfarë përkrahin ata? Me lejo që ta përkthej për audiencën tonë, nëse Qeveria juaj po thotë që “ne do t’ju përkrahim për atë që presidentët e juaj pajtohen”. A nuk nënkupton kjo që ata janë të hapur për të pranuar korrigjimin e kufijve, ndarjen, çfarëdo që e quani? Në fakt ata janë të hapur, Qeveria juaj është e hapur që të pranojë këtë.

David Phillips: Deklarimi që e ka bërë John Bolton për këtë çështje ka qenë plotësisht i panevojshëm. Natyrisht që ShBA-ja përkrah çfarëdo që palët pajtohen. Së pari, duhet të ketë një marrëveshje dhe marrëveshja duhet të jetë e shkruar dhe e detajuar. Duhet të jetë e miratuar nga Kuvendi, dhe duhet të përkrahet nga shoqëria civile. Akoma jemi larg çfarëdo marrëveshjejeje për të arritur në këtë përfundim.

Jeta Xharra: Në fakt, sot, çfarë dimë është që presidenti Thaçi është i vetmi që po e shtyen këtë marrëveshje, nuk duket që ka përkrahjen e partisë së tij, e cila ka dalë me një rezolutë ku thotë që “nuk dëshirojnë ndryshim të kufijve”. Opozita natyrisht që nuk e përkrah, ka pasur një protestë që ishte përkrahur nga njerëz që nuk e përkrahin këtë opsion. Kështu nuk jam e sigurt nëse dikush tjetër në Kosovë e përkrah këtë opsion. Dhe natyrisht që kryeministri publikisht po e thotë që nuk e përkrah këtë opsion. Kështu, ku na shpie kjo neve si vend dhe në veçanti përballë një administrate të tillë si kjo e ShBA-së, ku të dy liderët tanë shkojnë në Departamentin e Shtetit dhe thonë gjëra të ndryshme?
David Phillips: Pra nuk ka qëndrim të unifikuar në Kosovë, keni të drejtë. Bazuar në intervistat që i kam bërë, nuk do të jap emra, por ka qenë një mostër e gjerë me liderë të partive politike dhe politikanë. Askush nuk e ka përkrahur korrigjimin e kufijve. Pikë! Brenda Quint-it, po ashtu nuk ka qëndrim të unifikuar dhe Qeveria amerikane nuk e përkrah korrigjimin e kufirit.
Jeta Xharra: A mund të më thuash edhe një herë se cilat janë qëndrimet e ndryshme të vendeve të Quint-it. Është e qartë se çfarë shohim, por çfarë thuhet në diskutimet e juaja? Njerëz të afërt me presidentin tonë thonë që Quint-i do të ndryshojë qëndrim, gjermanët do të bashkëngjiten për të ndihmuar dhe mbështetur ndryshimet e kufijve. Kjo është ajo çfarë disa ndihmës të Thaçit po na e thonë, po ashtu po punohet me britanikët. A mendoni që kjo do të ndodhë?
David Phillips: Politikëbërja efektive nuk bazohet në dëshira dhe nuk ka asgjë që tregon që Gjermania, Mbretëria e Bashkuar apo ShBA-ja do të bashkëngjiten për të përkrahur propozimin për korrigjim të kufirit. Përpos nëse ka një pikëpamje të fortë midis Quint-it. Nuk mendoj që politikanët e Kosovës do të gjejnë një pozicion të unifikuar. Për fat të keq kjo ka shkaktuar një kaos dhe mosfunksionim. Dhe kjo përshtypje po manipulohet dhe po përdoret nga Beogradi për ta minuar më tej kredibilitetin e Kosovës dhe për të vënë në pikëpyetje nëse opinioni i GJND-së, i cili ligjërisht e autorizoi Kosovën si shtet të pavarur-sovran, është ende i zbatueshëm. Andaj i gjithë ky debat i brendshëm që po zhvillohet dhe të cilin Thaçi është duke e nxitur është duke u përdorur nga kundërshtarët e Kosovës për të minuar vendin. Është koha që ne të kemi një konsensus, që njerëzit të bashkohen dhe të kenë një dialog, të vijnë si një platformë e përbashkët. Kjo mosmarrëveshje publike që e kemi parë së fundmi nuk është aspak në interesin e shtetit të pavarur të quajtur Kosovë e të përkrahur nga bashkësia ndërkombëtare.
Jeta Xharra: Atë që e dimë prej bisedave që i kemi zhvilluar ne dhe ju me burime të ndryshme është që administrata amerikane i ka kërkuar presidentit tonë të “bëhet kreativ”, kjo duket të jetë shprehja që e kanë përdorur “negocioni me Vuçiqin dhe bëhuni kreativ sepse ju keni nevojë për një marrëveshje”. Tash, vendose veten në pozitë të këtij presidenti e më trego çka ishte dashur ai të negociojë tutje, çka kemi na Kosova të japim në këtë “marrëveshje përfundimtare”?
David Phillips: Nëse brenga e Beogradit ka të bëjë me nivelin e demokracisë që në fund do ta afektojë gjendjen e serbëve të Kosovës, nëse ata brengosen për këtë gjë, atëherë kjo është shumë e thjeshtë: mund të bëni decentralizim të plotë me kusht që qeveria e Kosovës i mban kompetencat në çështje të caktuara si në drejtësi, polici, planifikim urban, ambient, financa, i cakton rregulloret që do ta mbrojnë trashëgiminë kulturore që duhet të jetë një praktikë që vlen për gjithë qytetarët e Kosovës.
Jeta Xharra: Z. David, Kosova e ka nënshkruar planin e Ahtisarit si dhe Asociacionin e Komunave Serbe. Po të pyes, a ka tjetër çka të japë pas gjithë kësaj?
David Phillips: Të gjitha këto masa për të cilat fola duhen të zbatohen në plotëni dhe Kosova duhet të tregojë seriozitet në udhëheqjen e një qeverie që është kredibile. Duhet të ritregojë përkushtim ndaj parimeve të planit të Ahtisarit, përkushtim ndaj Kushtetutës së vet dhe duhet ta luftojë korrupsionin.

Dorëhiqet David Phillips

October 12, 2018 by dgreca

Dorëhiqet David Phillips, nuk dëshiron të bëhet pjesë e ndarjes së Kosovës/

Eksperti i Politikës së Jashtme, David Phillips, njëherësh këshilltar për Marrëdhënie me Jashtë i angazhuar nga Hashim Thaçi, ka dhënë dorëheqje nga kjo detyrë.

Ai disa herë ka kundërshtuar idenë e ndarjes apo shkëmbimit të territoreve mes Kosovës dhe Serbisë, dhe ka thënë se është alternativa më e keqe për zgjidhjen e problemeve mes dy vendeve, raporton Koha.net.

Dorëheqjen e tij, siç mëson Koha Ditore, ai e ka dhënë sot.

Thotë se nuk mund të marrë pjesë në një plan të propozuar për ndarje, që, siç thotë ai, ka të meta strategjike dhe në thelb kundërshton vlerat e tij.

Phillips,është drejtor i programit për Ndërtimin e Paqes dhe të Drejtave të Njeriut në Universitetin Columbia të New Yorkut. Ai shërbeu si Këshilltar i Lartë në Departamentin e Shtetit në SHBA, nën presidencën e Clintonit, Bushit dhe Obamës. Autori i “Liberating Kosovo: Diplomacia detyruese dhe ndërhyrja e SHBA-së”, Phillips punoi edhe me Ambasadorin Richard C. Holbrooke në Bosnje dhe Kosovë.

Lexoni të plotë deklaratën e dorëheqjes së Phillipsit:

Unë kam punuar për pavarësinë e Kosovës mbi tridhjetë vjet, si zyrtar amerikan në Capitol Hill, në ‘think-tanks’ si Këshilltar për Marrëdhëniet me Jashtë, si dhe studiues në Universitetin Kolumbias. Qeveria e Kosovës së fundmi më ka kërkuar të shërbeja si këshilltar në dialogun Kosovë-Serbi. U pajtova sepse besoja se mund të arrihej një marrëveshje duke e fuqizuar pushtetin, duke rritur sundimin e ligjit dhe duke rritur presionin nga bashkësia ndërkombëtare në Serbi për ta njohur Kosovën si shtet të pavarur dhe sovran brenda kufijve të saj aktual.

Disa në institucionet e Kosovës po ndjekin një rrugë tjetër. Ata pranojnë korrigjimin e kufijve, duke dhënë territor në Serbi. Unë besoj se ndarja apo korrigjimi i kufijve është marrëveshje e keqe, e cila nuk do të normalizonte marrëdhëniet me Serbinë apo do ta vendoste Kosovën në një pozicion për të fituar njohje më të madhe globale. Ithtarët e korrigjimit të kufijve besojnë se mos-njohësit e BE-së do të pranonin një Kosovë të rikonfiguruar dhe se SHBA-ja mund ta bindë Rusinë dhe Kinën që të heqin kundërshtimin e tyre ndaj anëtarësimit të Kosovës në OKB. Nuk ka bazë të njohur për këtë përfundim.

Për më tepër, korrigjimi i kufijve përfaqëson një tradhti historike të popullit kosovar. Ajo minon parimet demokratike të multikulturalizmit dhe pluralizmit politik për të cilin shumë prej tyre kanë vdekur në Ballkanin Perëndimor, transmeton Koha.net.

Është potencialisht e rrezikshme, destabilizuese dhe mund të çojë në dhunë dhe fragmentim të përtërirë.

Unë nuk mund të marrë pjesë në planin e propozuar të ndarjes që ka të meta strategjike dhe në thelb kundërshton vlerat e mia. Si parim i kam informuar edhe anëtarët e Qeverisë së Kosovës për synimin tim për të dhënë këtë dorëheqje, që të mos marrë pjesë në ndarje.

David L. Phillips

Prishtinë, Kosovë

11 Tetor 2018

***

Statement of Principle : Partition of Kosovo

I have worked for Kosovo’s independence over thirty years as a US official, on Capitol Hill, at think-tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and as a scholar at Columbia University. The Government of Kosovo recently asked me to serve as an adviser on the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue. I agreed because I believe that an agreement could be reached by devolving power, enhancing the rule of law, and increasing pressure from the international community on Serbia to recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state within its current frontiers.

Some in the Kosovo institutions are pursuing a different course. They endorse adjusting borders, conceding territory to Serbia. I believe that partition or adjusting borders is a bad deal, which will not normalize relations with Serbia or put Kosovo in a position to gain greater global recognition. The proponents of border adjustment believe that EU non-recognizers would recognize a reconfigured Kosovo and that the US can convince Russia and China to lift their objection to Kosovo’s membership in the UN. There is no known basis for this conclusion.

Moreover, border adjustment represents an historic betrayal of the Kosovar people. It undermines the democratic principles of multiculturalism and political pluralism for which many have died in the western Balkans. It is potentially dangerous, destabilizing, and could lead to renewed violence and fragmentation.

I cannot participate in the proposed partition plan, which is strategically flawed and fundamentally contradicts my values. As a matter of principle, I have informed members of the Kosovo government of my intention to resign, rather than be party to partition.

David L. Phillips
Prishtina, Kosovo
11 October 2018

The U.S. Should Not Lose Focus on the Balkans

October 10, 2018 by dgreca

BY ALQI KOCIKO, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Albanian Daily News/

Mr. David L. Phillips/

Serbia should not achieve through negotiations today, what Slobodan Milosevic failed to achieve using violence, says Mr. David L. Phillips. With almost three decades of experience working on peace-building for the U.S. Department of State, the United Nations, academia, think-tanks, and as a foundation executive, Mr. Phillips is currently Director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. His expertise on the Balkan and Middle East issues is world known. One of his recent pieces is titled “Kosovo partition is a dangerous solution”. I was privileged to have an exclusive interview with him in Tirana, the main topic being of course the recent Kosovo-Serbia negotiations, the Thaci-Vucic project of land swap as part of a final deal between Prishtina and Belgrade, described by the Kosovo president as “border correction”. Other topics were the situation within the European Union versus the Western Balkans integration process, and the United States’ current degree of involvement in the region. “It’s historically inevitable that Albanians will come together in order to be part of a normal Albania. The question is when and how. And what kind of support this movement has from the United States and international community,” Phillips states. If this phrase has drawn enough attention, read the interview below: – Mr. Phillips, taking into account the powerful reaction as well as the recent statements of respective leaders (Thaci and Vucic), can we say that the land swap project between Kosovo and Serbia has failed? -Well, it’s too soon to tell. The recent announcement of the opposition’s involvement is an important step forward. Whatever happens, the process must not remain behind closed doors. There is need for transparency. Ultimately, civil society needs to sign off. It must have an important voice. In itself, the idea of exchanging territories is basically the Milosevic project. -Your recent proposal regarding the Serbian areas in Kosovo involves a certain degree of decentralization. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that? -There are three options on the Serbia-Kosovo relations. Exchanging territories, devolving power, and keeping things as they are, that is a status-quo. The exchange of territories is complicated. If you look at the map, it appears simple but this is deceptive. There are a lot of difficult details, such as the population flows, how the properties and assets are divided, how to guarantee security. And the devil is in the details, as they say. That’s why the idea of exchanging territories is a shallow solution. Negotiating the details of an agreement is much more complicated. The second option – involves devolving power and competencies to Serbian majority municipalities. The Ahtisaari principles make clear the benefits to power sharing. Devolution is also embodied in Kosovo’s constitution. Specific power should be retained by the Kosovo government, that is, executive competencies which should be enumerated in an agreement. The Kosovo government should retain control of the police and judiciary, urban planning and environmental issues. Everything else can be handled locally. The ASM (Association of Serbian Municipalities) is redundant. You don’t need it. Devolution is already enshrined in the constitution. But since it’s been agreed to, it would be useful to define what ASM means, and to describe it as a tool for achieving social harmony. Serbian and orthodox icons and culture are important, so establishing safe spaces for Serbian culture in Kosovo should be part of a devolution plan. The third option is the status-quo. Things could stay as they are, but frankly this is not viable. Kosovo is recognized by some 112 countries. However, no additional country is likely to recognize Kosovo as long as this ambiguity in the negotiations continues to exist. -What is clear, is that both parties need this deal… Everybody needs this deal. It’s about peace and stability in the Balkans. The proposal to adjust borders, in my view is dangerous and destabilizing. It is a slogan, not a policy. -You stated earlier that basically, what Milosevic wanted to achieve by violence, they are trying to achieve with talks… -Yes, let me answer that. What the Milosevic project wanted to achieve, was a greater Serbia and to bring under Serbian control or influence all the territories where Serbs reside. And as a result of Milosevic’s aggressive, malign policies hundreds of thousands of people died, and millions were displaced. He chose to use violence. Now the same goal is being pursued, not with ethnic cleansing on the battlefield, but through negotiation in the boardroom. I believe the victims of Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing died for a reason, for the principle of pluralism, multiculturalism, ethnic and religious tolerance. We should not allow Serbia to achieve today through negotiations, what Milosevic failed to achieve using violence. -That leads me to the next question that is being asked a lot these days: Why and how President Thaci was possibly talked into this scenario? And who benefits the most from it?

-Well, one would have to ask President Thaci on this. Where did this idea come from? Did it come from the Serbian Academy of Social Sciences in the 1990s and Dobrica Cosic? Did it come more recently from Ivica Dacic? Did it originate from Moscow and was transplanted to Serbia? This concept is a foreign idea. I don’t know where it came from, and how it was popularized. I do know it is a fool’s errand to think that one could redraw borders and achieve peace. Redrawing borders will lead to more violence. -Right. I believe you are familiar with recent statements by the Albanian President on the issue, who has said that ethnic borders are an offence to the very foundations and concept of the European Union. -Yes, the EU is not just a political or economic space, it’s about European values. It was meant as an antidote to nationalism enshrining European values, that are focused on human rights. Thinking about your earlier question, who benefits from this proposal? Who makes money from it? Who politically benefits? Are they people in Belgrade, Moscow, Prishtina or Tirana? We need to understand the motivation of the parties, in order to understand the origin and the impact of the partition plan. -Mr. Phillips, the European Commission president, Mr. Juncker, said in Vienna that losing focus from the Balkans (by the EU, but the US too) could drag the region back to possible military clashes… Is this focus loose right now? -Well, the US for sure lost focus on the Balkans. During the eight years of Obama administration, Washington neglected the Western Balkan countries. Issues that have arisen today are a direct result of America’s inattention. The West needs to draw the Balkans closer, it should not push countries of the Western Balkans away. I have always maintained that the United States has no better friend than Albania, and Americans and Albanians have a special relationship. It’s time to strengthen that relationship, to invest in peace and progress and economic development, so that Albania and Kosovo and other countries, move forward. When the US steps back, the space is filled by nefarious actors. Let me be specific. Turkey’s export of Islamism to the Western Balkan countries is an evil action designed to undermine the United States, to degrade secularism and destroy democracy. Russia’s intelligence base in Nish and its sale of weapons to Serbia are a direct challenge to NATO. The US needs to be steely-eyed in recognizing the agendas of Turkey and Russia, and react accordingly. So this raises a broader question about the unification of Albanian territories. Every Albanian dreams of a big Albania, and this is entirely normal… -By the way, normal is the word… they call it the normal, or natural Albania… -Yes, it’s a normal Albania. Unfortunately, a normal Albania would also lead to a greater Serbia, and the elimination of some of the smaller countries in the Western Balkans, such as Macedonia and Montenegro, and Bosnia. The chain reaction remains unpredictable. It is, however, historically inevitable that Albanians will come together in order to be part of a normal Albania. The question is when and how. And what kind of support this movement has from the United States and international community. If you resist progress, there will be friction. But if you manage the transition, it can be a positive outcome for everyone. -Speaking on the inevitable, do you have an assessment on the actual state of affairs in the European Union? Apart from Brexit, euro-skeptic forces are on the rise. Is this a temporary crisis or a serious one that casts doubts on the EU’s survival in the near future? -It is a crisis, of course, caused by Brexit and expansion fatigue. The European project is in crisis, and countries on the margins no longer have a clear path for integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. So the positive effect of Europe in countries like Albania is diminished. That’s why your country’s accession, as well as Macedonia’s, was delayed a year. Today’s crisis in Macedonia could have been prevented by more pro-active measures from the EU. With Germany and France driving the EU agenda, Albanian has fewer friends. The United States may influence the EU, but it’s not a member. It has no formal role. -With EU elections next year, centrifugal forces gaining momentum and the fresh debates such as that between Brussels and Italy, for example; is the EU’s future uncertain as a project? -Well, civilization will survive. We have to recognize that Russia is driven by a single goal: To undermine the EU and NATO, and to diminish the power and influence of the United States. Russia’s meddling in the US elections and other elections, is part of a broader plan to push Russia’s interests forward. Let’s wait and see. Let’s strengthen trans-Atlantic cooperation with the goal of enhancing the EU. Profile David L. Phillips is currently Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. Phillips has worked as a senior adviser to the United Nations Secretariat and as a foreign affairs expert and senior adviser to the U.S. Department of State. He has held positions as a visiting scholar at Harvard University’s Center for Middle East Studies, executive director of Columbia University’s International Conflict Resolution Program, director of the Program on Conflict Prevention and Peace-building at the American University, Associate Professor at New York University’s Department of Politics, and as a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. He has also been a senior fellow and deputy director of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Center for Preventive Action, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, director of the European Centre for Common Ground, project director at the International Peace Research Institute of Oslo, president of the Congressional Human Rights Foundation, and executive director of the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Mr. Phillips is author of From Bullets to Ballots: Violent Muslim Movements in Transition (Transaction Press, 2008), Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco (Perseus Books, 2005), Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation (Berghahn Books, 2005). He has also authored many policy reports, as well as more than 100 articles in leading publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, and Foreign Affairs.

TURKISH-FINANCED MOSQUES ARE EMBASSIES OF POLITICAL ISLAM

October 2, 2018 by dgreca

By David L. Phillips/

I strongly reject Islamophobia. Almost all people whose human rights I work to defend – Rohingya, Kashmiris, Kurds, Kosovars, Bosniacs – are Muslim. I believe that religious freedom and other human rights are sacrosanct.

For this reason, I have struggled to understand Turkey’s financing of mega-mosques. After deep soul searching about the meaning of spirituality and Turkey’s political agenda, I have concluded that Turkish financed mosques are not legitimate places of worship. They propagate political Islam as sources of division and proponents of discord. Turkish financing of mosques outside of Turkey should be banned.

Turkey’s foreign policy aims to propagate Islamism, destabilize secular democracies, and thereby enhance Turkey’s influence. It finances mosques across Europe to support for President Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist and neo-Ottoman agenda.

“Diyanet”, Turkey’s Department of Religious Affairs, is Erdogan’s vehicle for spreading political Islam. It is not staffed by imams and religious scholars. Rather, Diyanet is run by bureaucrats and political henchmen who undermine the noble principles of Islam as a religion of peace. Diyanet has become Erdogan’s instrument for corrupting Islam by pursuing a political agenda.

The latest controversy around a Turkish funded mosque occurred in Cologne, Germany. When Erdogan showed up last weekend to open the Cologne Central Mosque, thousands, including many Muslims, gathered to protest and criticize Erdogan’s presence.

The ceremony in Cologne occurred at the end of Erdogan’s contentious trip to Germany. At every event, Erdogan was chastised for Turkey’s abysmal human rights record, restrictions on press freedom, and violations of minority rights. Chancellor Angela Merkel refused to attend the state dinner for Erdogan and many members of parliament boycotted his visit. Hurt feelings linger after Erdogan called Merkel a Nazi last year.

Germany is not the only country where Turkey uses Islam as a wedge issue to divide societies and radicalize youth against the West. Turkish financed mosques in Albania and Kosovo are also embassies of Islamism.

The Great Mosque of Tirana — Namazgâh Mosque – will be the largest mosque in the Balkans. In Kosovo, the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) – in coordination with Diyanet — has restored more than 30 religious structures from the Ottoman period and built at least 20 new mosques since 2011. Erdogan personally pledged to sponsor construction of Kosovo’s mega-mosque in Pristina.

The same occurs in the Turkic republics of central Asia. Rather than nation-building in newly-independent states, Turkey supports Muslim community building.

These mosques have classrooms for Islamic education as well as Turkish language instruction. TIKA-supported facilities function like madrassas, corrupting Qur’anic education to radicalize impressionable youth. Some from the western Balkans have joined the Islamic State to become fighters in Syria and Iraq.

There are different interpretations of Islam, as in every religion. In one view, Islam is a righteous religion, which teaches that believers must live in modesty and peaceful co-existence with each other and their environment, exemplified by the life of the Prophet Mohammed. Religious devotion and love of God are the basis of a just world order.

In another view, mankind can only attain personal peace by utterly submitting to Allah. Islam means submission to God, accepting His authority, as well as obeying His orders. Individuals who submit are more vulnerable to manipulation. Some have been convinced to commit acts of sensational violence against unbelievers, moderate Muslims, and Muslims who belong to other sects.

Of course, all people including Muslims have the right to worship as long as their religious practice brings no harm to others. They have the right to build places of worship, as long as those places of worship espouse personal purification rather than acts of violence. The noble qualities of Islam must be upheld.

However, Turkey practices a double standard. Erdogan has used religion to divide Turkish society and galvanize his political base. In 2002, Erdogan was jailed by secular judges for preaching: “the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.”

By embracing political Islam, Erdogan has created a fertile ground in the name of Islam for radical groups such as ISIS. He rhetorically rejects radicalization, but Erdogan should be judged by the result of his actions. Syria is a case in point.

At home and abroad, Erdogan continues to use religion in service of his political agenda. Under Erdogan’s direction, Turkish authorities restrict the restoration and construction of non-Muslim shrines and places of worship in Turkey. Requests to open new places of worship by religious minorities are routinely denied. Even assembly houses (“Cemevi”) for Alawites, a division of Islam, are restricted. Non-Sunni Muslims are seen as heretics.

The mosque in Cologne is a lightning rod for controversy, highlighting Turkey’s insidious perversion of Islam. Muslims in Germany should build their sanctuaries without support from Turkey. By politicizing Islam, Erdogan poisons the purity of their devotion and gives Islam a bad name.

Mr. Phillips is Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columba University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. He previously held position as a Senior Adviser to the US State Department and the United Nations Secretariat.