Saturday, May 26, 2012


Features

Major Foreign Affairs Challenges Of 2009, And What's In Store For 2010

U.S. Marines on the hunt for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan's Farah Province in September
TEXT SIZE - +
By Ron Synovitz
The year 2009 was a crucial one for U.S. foreign policy on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Bosnia. RFE/RL takes a closer look at developments and challenges involving those countries in the year ahead.

Obama Drafts New Afghanistan Strategy To Fight Resurgent Taliban

It was during 2009 -- with the inauguration of Barack Obama as U.S. president -- that Washington began to reformulate its strategy on Afghanistan.

The new view considers events in Afghanistan and Pakistan as intrinsically interrelated. The appointment of Richard Holbrooke to a newly created post -- Obama's envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan -- formalized the idea in Washington of a so-called "Afpak" perspective.

Holbrooke and the rest of Obama's foreign-policy staff began by redefining the definition of success in the region -- shifting away from President George W. Bush's transformative goals toward something more achievable.

Spending much of the year listening to Pentagon officials, regional experts, and lawmakers about conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama finally announced his new strategy in December.

It calls for the deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan -- raising to nearly 100,000 the total number of U.S. troops there. Obama's strategy recognizes the need to build up Afghanistan's governance capacity, fight corruption, and put more focus on civilian reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It also focuses on the need to train Afghanistan's own police and army for the day when Afghan troops take over responsibility for security from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

But as Washington was reexamining the mission, confidence in Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- both in Afghanistan and abroad -- was damaged by allegations that his reelection during the summer was the result of widespread fraud by electoral officials he appointed.

Meanwhile, a resurgent Taliban regained footholds in parts of northern Afghanistan where they had not been a force to reckon with since the collapse of the Taliban regime in late 2001. Militants also continued to wage guerrilla attacks -- including suicide bombings and assassinations of Karzai-appointed judges and clerics -- in the south and east of Afghanistan.

"I remain deeply concern by the growing level of collusion between the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups taking refuge across the border in Pakistan," U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in December. "Getting at this network, which is now more entrenched, will be a far more difficult task than it was just one year ago."

Also in December, USAID officials in Afghanistan said they had begun storing away the parts of a giant electrical turbine that had been hauled by international forces last year through the heart of Taliban territory to the Kajaki dam in Helmand Province.

Karl Eikenberry
The Chinese firm contracted to install the turbine abandoned the project because international forces have been unable to secure about 50 kilometers of road in Helmand needed to transport concrete to the dam.

The mothballing of the Kajaki turbine was an ominous year-end development. The U.S. military, as well as civilian reconstruction officials, had bragged for years that success in Afghanistan would be measured by their ability to install the turbine and bring electricity to 2 million Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

But Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, told RFE/RL in an interview in mid-December that he still hopes the work can be completed so that reliable electricity can be delivered to people in southern Afghanistan.

"When the security improves in the Kajaki and the Sangin area [of Helmand], and the connecting roads, we are optimistic that the third turbine can be renovated," he said. "With the third turbine being delivered on line or fully renovated, with the renovation and improvement of transmission lines from Kajaki down to Kandahar, and with the improvement of the electrical distribution in Kandahar city which we are working on right now -- with all of that, there will be much more power available making the lives of people in Kandahar and Helmand much better."

Iran Stalls, Then Stands Defiant In Nuclear Crisis

U.S. President Barack Obama came into office early in 2009 with a pledge to engage Tehran diplomatically in an attempt to resolve the crisis over Iran's controversial nuclear program.

But Iranian authorities rejected a compromise offered by the UN's nuclear watchdog -- the International Atomic Energy Agency -- that would have helped alleviate Western concerns about Tehran's uranium enrichment activities.

The United States -- along with allies like Britain and France -- are concerned that Iran is trying to secretly enrich uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. Such activity clearly would violate Iran's obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Tehran claims its nuclear program is only for medical research and generating electricity.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a nonproliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, says concerns were raised further by a report in "The Times" of London alleging that Iran has recently been conducting secret nuclear weapons-development work. The report was based on documents obtained by the newspaper that referred to a neutron source -- uranium deuteride -- that can be used as a trigger for a nuclear weapon.

Iran's suspected nuclear facility in Qom
"If it is proven that Iran was working on weapons designs and development as recently as 2007, this certainly will change the attitudes toward Iran," Fitzpatrick says. "The previous U.S. intelligence estimate that Iran had stopped that weapons-development work gave people reason to think, 'OK, we can negotiate with Iran and persuade it to accept some limits and we can accept some level of enrichment because it could be limited to civilian applications.'

"But if Iran has been working on weapons development, [this] really calls into question whether Iran can be trusted with any sensitive technologies if it's so clearly being used for weapons-development work."

The report by "The Times" emerged after Tehran defiantly rejected the IAEA compromise that would have seen Iran send its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France for further enrichment and packaging into nuclear fuel rods and sent back to Iran.

It also follows the revelation in the autumn of 2009 that Iran has been secretly building a second uranium-enrichment facility.

Revelations about the new enrichment facility near the city of Qom brought international condemnation -- raising the prospect of tighter unilateral sanctions by the United States, Britain, France, and other Western countries.

But wider international sanctions under a UN Security Council resolution would require support from Russia and China, which both wield veto powers as permanent Security Council members.

As 2009 drew to a close, neither Russia nor China appeared ready to back a Security Council resolution for tighter international sanctions.

Northern Iraq's Arab-Kurdish Rivalry Fuels Continuing Instability

After relative improvements in the security situation across much of Iraq, Baghdad faced a resurgence of suicide bombing toward the end of 2009.

Jeffrey Feltman, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, says the United States plans to continue training and equipping Iraq's security forces long after U.S. combat troops have left Iraq -- provided Iraq's government continues to want American help.

Jeffrey Feltman
"We understand that there is concern about the security situation. Of course, there is concern about the security situation," Feltman says. "And I know that the [Iraqi] government has acknowledged that there have been some gaps in security performance. So I don't want to sound like a typical American optimist that says everything is good, even when people on the ground know that there is room for improvement."

The Arab-Kurdish rivalry in northern Iraq is seen as a major source of Iraq's ongoing instability. Militant extremists with links to Al-Qaeda are thought to be exploiting the friction between Iraq's Arabs and Kurds.

It is a struggle for land and resources between Arabs in Iraq's central government and the leaders of the semiautonomous Kurdish region of the north. Ultimately, the dispute focuses on who will control oil-rich territory and energy revenues from the north.

In the northern province of Nineveh, Kurdish regional authorities control swathes of disputed land through deployment of their peshmerga security forces.

U.S. officials have been working to help resolve the political standoff between Sunni Arabs and Kurds in Nineveh's provincial capital of Mosul.

It was after a series of bombings in July and August that killed at least 143 people in the north -- mostly from minority groups -- that the U.S. military announced plans to deploy its troops along with members of the Kurdish peshmerga force and the Iraqi Army.

The Kurdish regional government has said the joint forces must include U.S. troops in order ensure security in the area and to implement Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution, which outlines how the fate of the disputed northern territories is to be resolved.

But while the Kurdish regional government insists on implementation of Article 140, Arab political leaders reject it.

With the Obama administration signaling that a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq is in the works, the Council on Foreign Relations has said that the stakes for a successful political transition in Iraq couldn't be higher.

Iraq's political system remains plagued by power struggles and tribal feuding. Nevertheless, Kurdish and Arab members of Iraq's parliament were able to overcome a political impasse and reach a compromise in November on a new electoral law needed for parliamentary elections scheduled for March 7.

The most contentious issue was over voting in the disputed northern province of Kirkuk -- where Sunni Arabs accuse Kurds of artificially boosting their population in an effort to eventually control the provincial capital and annex it to their autonomous region.

Kurdish and Arab lawmakers finally agreed that votes cast in Kirkuk would be examined closely for months after the ballot.

If that assessment changes the outcome of the results in Kirkuk, the process could further exacerbate tensions -- making the parliamentary elections a sensitive challenge in the year ahead.

To Reform Or Not To Reform -- Scars of War Still Fuel Divisions In Bosnia

The year 2009 marked the 14th anniversary of the Dayton accords that ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But despite the passage of time, the scars of the war could still be seen in the ethnic and political rivalries between Bosnia's two main political-territorial divisions.

It was the Dayton accords that split Bosnia into two semi-independent entities -- the Muslim-Croat Federation with Sarajevo as its official capital, and Republika Srpska with its parliament and government based in Banja Luka. But under the Dayton accords, the two entities remain united by weak central institutions and overseen by a foreign post, the Office of the High Representative (OHR), appointed by the international community to uphold the Dayton principles.

The plan was to phase out the OHR after Bosnia reached a stage of political maturity. But plans to eliminate the post 2007 have been delayed because of continued instability between the two entities and the failure of local politicians to pass necessary reforms.

Milorad Dodik
But Milorad Dodik, the prime minister of Republika Srpska, has made no secret of his disdain for the postwar structure of  Bosnia-Herzegovina created by Dayton -- particularly the OHR and its insistence on constitutional reforms that would weaken his entity's autonomy in favor of greater power at the center.

Dodik's loyalties appear to be closer to Belgrade than Sarajevo. He has repeatedly threatened to hold a referendum on whether Republika Srpska should secede from Bosnia in favor of a liaison with Serbia.

In December, the rhetoric heated up further when Dodik proposed twin referendums on two issues  -- Bosnia's bid for NATO membership and the presence of foreign judges and prosecutors who have been brought in Bosnia's State Court to prosecute alleged war criminals and organized crime figures.

Dodik himself has been accused of using a powerful investment fund in Republika Srpska to grant preferential loans. He is currently under investigation by one of the international community's prosecutors in the Bosnian State Court.

The mandate for foreign officials in Bosnia's court system was to expire at the end of this year. But Austrian diplomat Valentin Inzko, the international community's high representative to Bosnia, recently extended the mandate of the foreign judges and prosecutors on war-crimes cases for another three years. (The organized crime team has been downgraded to the status of "advisers" for local judges and prosecutors.)

Bosnia's continued unrest comes despite a flurry of international attention. Western diplomats this year pushed hard for Bosnia to resolve its political differences and move forward with reforms. Bosnia holds presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010, and there is fear the West will abandon its efforts in Bosnia in a campaign season when an agreement on political reforms is unlikely.

At the same time, Bosnia will join the UN Security Council as a two-year member on January 1, in a move diplomats hope will help strengthen the country's institutions.

Charles English, the U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, says Washington is concerned about the ongoing divisions that characterize Bosnia's political landscape.

English has been urging Bosnian leaders to adopt the reforms needed to meet the conditions for an application of European Union membership and for the NATO membership action plan.

"First, the United States will accept nothing less than a peaceful, multiethnic, sovereign and unified Bosnia and Herzegovina," English says. "And second, the United States believes that the only real path to a secure and prosperous future for Bosnia and Herzegovina is European and Euro-Atlantic integration."

English says Bosnia is not functioning properly and its citizens are suffering as a result. He is urging constitutional changes that would improve Bosnia's functionality as a state.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Pau from: Barcelona
January 01, 2010 22:01
After US recognized (and many believes promoted) Kosovo's independence all these efforts to join serbs, croats and muslims in an artificial state despite it is obvious that they simply don't want to live together looks like hypocrisy.

And if western countries like so much serbs, croats, and muslims living together ¿why they recognized the secessions that ended Yugoslavia?. Yugoslavia was a total multiethnic state. ¿Why they destroyed it?

And more.. why Slovenjia or Kosovo had the autodetermination right and R. Sprska doesnt have the same?


by: Sergey from: Chicago, Illinois, USA
January 02, 2010 06:45
Regarding Serbia and Serbian republic of Bosnia:

In light of neverending Islamist/Jihadist violence around the world (Fort Hood massacre, attempt to blow up Detroit bound plane, suicide bombing in Pakistan and attempt to murder Danish Muhammad Cartoonist just to name a few incidents in the past few weeks), I think EU should change its stance toward Serbia and Serbian Republic of Bosnia. I think EU should continue to insist that Serbian authorities make an effort to arrest and punish Karadjic and Mladic for Srebrenica and concentration camps, but Serbian authorities may do it on their own territory without giving them to International Tribunal (unless they are captured elsewhere).

The fact is that in 1990's, Serbian nationalists fought against the very same Jihadist ilk who were responsible for 9-11 and numerous other Islamic terror attacks that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around the world. It does not mean that we should forget about Srebrenica and other horrendous abuses by Bosnian Serb nationalist forces in Bosnia and Serbian military and police in Kosovo.

However, in light of continuous Jihadi attempts to terrorize the world into submission to Islam and Sharia, Serbia, as one of the prime targets of Jihadists and as a key strategic country in the Balkans should receive better treatment from EU.

by: Sinisa from: Bosnia
January 02, 2010 11:00
It is very important for the modern world to support Bosnia's multiethnic society. There are many reasons, one being the fact that majority of Bosnian population supports tolerance and coexistence. Another reason is that advocates of ethnic apartheid should not be given slack, it is morally wrong and we should know by now that appeasing the intolerant never works. Third reason why Bosnia can not be divided is the fact that Bosniaks make up more than half of Bosnia's population, but all of the plans to divide Bosnia, see Bosniaks ghettoized on 20 something percent of Bosnia's territory. Dividing Bosnia is just not feasible, the sooner we stop talking about division, the closer we will be to stable and functional government.

by: Abdul Majid
January 03, 2010 22:14
Exactly, Sinisa. Yours is one of the more insightful comments on the issue of Bosnia. It is injustifiable to fence in the Bosniaks, who make up about 50% of Bosnia's population into about 20% of the territory, turning them into the Palestinians of Europe. Besides that,according to the UNDP surveys of November 2008 it seems that only about 13% or less of the people (Bosniaks or Bosnian Serbs ) oppose the return of minorities from other ethnic groups. And since in the last years only very few anti-Bosniak incidents on part of Bosnian Serbs or vice versa have been reported, it seems likely that people will slowly learn to get along as they have for most of the time; a recent TV report from Hrasnici or some such place in the RS near Sarajevo, where local Serbs and returned Bosniaks seem to get along pretty well, indicates that people have other worries than statehood of "RS" or the anti-Bosniak crusade. "It's the economy, stupid!"
If Bosnia's political leadership really cared about their people (or their respective peoples) they would concentrate on the economy. But they don't, and ethnic-hate incidenst still occur, like the burning of the rebuilt mosque at Fazlagica Kula early in 2009 or that some Bosniak girls were arrested in Srebrenica after they replied to some Chetnik thugs that "This is Bosnia" (which in fact it is). So people should remain watchful, and even though this may be the biggest political crisis since the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it's not 1992. And also, as opposed to Pakistan or Afghanistan, Bosnia is not "crawling with jihadists", as some here would have to justify why the Bosniaks must be kept in limbo and under the thumb. OK, there are those who say that since Islam is "terrorist by nature" and "All Muslism are jihadists" they must be fought anywhere on the world with all and any means, and brought to their knees. Even if we admit that a government like that in Iran is an evil and repressive clerical-fascistoid regime: 1.) What happens in Iran or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere has NOTHING to do with Bosnia, and is no justification for denying Bosniaks their right to live in a free and sovereign state. 2.) To acknowledge Serb war crimes and at the same time to justify and uphold the geopolitical outcome of those very same crimes is hypocrite in extreme, especially that bit about Serbia judging Mladic and Karadzic themselves (the Japanese also claimed that in 1945 for their own war criminals, and it was dismissed out of hand; it should be here too.) 3.) Whatever the Serbs did to Bosniaks in Bosnia makes no part of Bosnia Serb; this is Bosnia, not Serbia! 4.) Even knowing that the West has the capacity to conquer every Muslim territory in the world or to nuke the Muslim world three times over it is completely unrealistic of the West to face the Muslims only under security-polittical aspects, that is, as enemies and military opponents, for that way they may conquer, but they will not convince, and Muslims are not the only ones in te world who have opposite views to the West. And 5.) there is no need to throw invective and ridicule at me and to come with the usual anti-Muslim blah blah blah of a Geert Wilders or Jean-Marie Le Pen. Who does that will not convince me but of one thing, of his moral and intellectual shortcomings.

by: Patric from: USA
January 04, 2010 17:18
If Kosovo is not recognized as independent country by UN, why it is not represented on your "map of Balkans" as part of Serbia? I suppose this is an honest mistake and hope you will correct it.
Alternatively, next to the map you may place an asterisk explain that Kosovo declared independence from Serbia but it has not been recognized by UN.
Thank you

by: Mark from: Canada
January 11, 2010 19:16
The West needs to decide one set of rules. It cannot support independent Kosovo while push Serbs in Bosnia to a centralized government. We often hear the phrase "People of Kosovo have the right to decide their future". Going by those rules and ignoring the soverign right of countires like Serbia over its land will make many other regions believe they should be entitled to the same "right", including Quebec in Canada.

In such scenario Bosnian Serbs absolutely have the right to decide their own future. In my opinion the experiment that Bosnia and Herzegovina really is will not last in the long run. When it comes to Bosnia one important aspect is often overlooked and that is the wish of Croatian people for a third entity. They absolutely deserve their own entity as they are heavily marginalized at the moment.

At some point the West will lose its patience and will be reluctant to put up the heavy resources Bosnia requires to function as a disfunctional state. In such a place economy will always suffer and at the end of the day that is the most important. My suggestion is for the three sides to agree on peaceful parting. It is better to be happy in a room you can call your own, no matter how small it is, than live with three fighting families in a two bedroom apartment.

by: Antifascist
January 13, 2010 11:53
Hah! To give the Serbofascists "RS" to do with it as they please would be to rewared genocide, and would mean to lock in the Bosniaks in two small isolated pockets of land comprisiong 25% of teh Bosnian twerritory for 50% of the peopulation, and that is UNACCEPTABLE, UNJUST, UNFAIR, and Bosniaks will NEVER allow that to happne, will NEVBER Relinquish teh homes they were driven from and will NEVER accept the outcome of genocide. But maybe that is the plan that those who would want to partition Bosnian follow. If Bosniaks are locked in two small pocketas of land and surrounded on all sides by enemies, if they are made dependent on humanitarian aid forever - for the thus created Bantustan, er, Bosniakistan could never make it on its own - THEN, and only THEN wil they be open for radicalism; and then all the anti-Muslims will have a pretext to exterminate them. But the Bosniaks are NOT going to allow ANYONE to turn them into the Palestinians of Europe, and the West would be more than foolish to allow this to happen. But then their attitude towards the Bosniaks has always been dubious, erratic, foolish, dishonest and at times malevolent and downright CRIMINAL! But even so the Bosniaks will not knuckle under. The Cross will NEVER chase the Crescnt from Bosnia!

by: Abdul Majid
January 14, 2010 22:34
"In light of neverending Islamist/Jihadist violence around the world (Fort Hood massacre, attempt to blow up Detroit bound plane, suicide bombing in Pakistan and attempt to murder Danish Muhammad Cartoonist just to name a few incidents in the past few weeks), I think EU should change its stance toward Serbia and Serbian Republic of Bosnia."
Guilt by association, eh, sergey? None of the implicated in all you mention is Bosniak, yet EU should support Serbia and RS who clobbered the Bosniaks, after all Bosniaks are moozlims, so they are jihadists, and thus by your logic all Bosniaks are guilty by association of each and every jihadist incident that happens anywhere. Or in any case they must pay for all the evil the Turks did to the Serbs, right? And Serbia was right in its 'punitive expedition against those evil jihadists'.
"The fact is that in 1990's, Serbian nationalists fought against the very same Jihadist ilk who were responsible for 9-11 and numerous other Islamic terror attacks that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around the world"
Again, do you have proof that one single Bosniak was involved in 9/11 or some such? No. There isn't any. So again, guilt by association.
"It does not mean that we should forget about Srebrenica and other horrendous abuses by Bosnian Serb nationalist forces in Bosnia and Serbian military and police in Kosovo."
How dishonest and disingenuous. So, we should mourn them, but the fact that they were murdered or expelled and are no longer around is fine and dandy with you? Or would you prefer that Mladic had killed them in a more humane way, by putting them all to sleep with lethal injections? Or if you really consider the mass murders to be wrong than why do you approve of the outcome, the establishment of RS on ethnically cleansed Bosnian territory? And that's not enough, you want the Bosniaks to be completely dispossessed. Because even if Bosnia is partitioned and they are given a plot of land for themselves this would be a "jihadist hell-hole, a beachhead for the Moozlim invasion of Europe", right?
Sergey, I would dismiss your childish anti-Muslim patter as what it is, loony drivel, were it not that you spit on the graves of the murdered Bosniaks and into the faces of their survived relatives, of the girls who were raped, you mock their suffering. You insult them, you insult me. And in your true cowardly manner then you say you condemn Mladic's actions, as if they were some sort of regrettable excess and not integral part of the "final solution of the Muslim question in Bosnia". Just that worthless disclaimer of yours and all is fine and dandy. You could really be a typical Islamophobic loony like Batty Yeor or Oriana Fallacy (note that the “Y” is not a typo), but then it is also quite possible that you are nothing but a cold, heartless bigot. In other words, I am not sure if your personality corresponds more to Biljana Plavsic (a certifiable psychopath) or Milosevic (a stone cold, heartless thug). It is not important to me. It suffices that either is completely and utterly repulsive.
Elsewhere I have read a refutation of Robert Spencer that fits you right:
“All you ever do is cherry pick the absolute worst examples from Islam and compare them with the cherry picked best examples from Christianity, and then draw erroneous conclusions from this unequal comparison. This sort of selective and shoddy scholarship typifies your entire ideological camp, and epitomizes your modus operandi.
Perhaps it be that when your own religion and religious community is held to the same absurd standard that you set for Islam and Muslims you might realize the error in your ways. It is my sincere hope that you reflect on your behavior, and correct yourself. Sergey, I call on you to eschew xenophobia and fear-mongering, opting instead for tolerance and cautious optimism. Do you really want hate to be the sum total of your life’s work? It is not too late to set your course aright.”

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

No Saturday Night Fever, As Armenia Mulls Eurovision Blackout

Latest Comment (23 total)

greg: Rafi. you go through round after round accusing me of raping and killing ... More

Loophole Offers Legal Out For Doctor Convicted In Bin Laden Case

Latest Comment (3 total)

khan: i think everyone in the paki gov should be hanged the traiters suking ... More

Putin Wants To Party Like It's 2007

Latest Comment (3 total)

nirvichara: It is so boring to hear all this crap about Putin's "old KGB ... More