Could EU lead the 3rd Way out from Confrontation?

This post was first published in TH!NK ABOUT IT site 25th February 2009.

During last twenty years war for humanitarian reasons has came quite popular in political vocabulary e.g. in Balkans and now with Georgia case. The ideal to use power in the service of ethics is good. The problem is the low level of ethics when US is using her power in world. EU has been mostly economical union without any significant military muscle – U.S. lead Nato has had that role.

As economical - if not military – power EU’s influence to conflicts is sc. soft power. Should EU take more distance to U.S. foreign policy? I think yes, an independent 3^rd way should be taken into consideration.

Balkans and Caucasus are suffering about US Cowboy policy

United States Foreign policy during last decades could be described as series of strategical errors. When Soviet Union splintered, the US saw possibility to widen its influence through breakaway republics and former satellites, do whatever want in the rest of world and feed her powerful military-industrial complex. Supporting on one hand nationalist/populist leaders (Georgia, Ukraine, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo) and with one hand elsewhere dictatorships (Asia, South & Middle America); making alliances with terrorist groups (Al Quida, KLA) shows that the aim was only reach short term tactical gain. Attacks to Serbia and Iraq were made on base of fabricated information/propaganda and probably also the intelligence from Afghanistan was not better.

Georgia was one again failed example about US Foreign policy which aims to create classical “banana republic” to Eastern Europe where US controls crucial foreign and/or domestic policies of another nation through ties with its military and intelligence institutions. EU's military, political, and corporate elites have already increasingly become dependents or confederates of the US military-industrial complex. While Russia wishes to safe its "inner courtyard" - sc "Russian World" US is doing the same with its MacWorld. However today it seems that those two worlds have more and more common zone: Many ex Soviet republics have joined or are dreaming of joining NATO, missiles and radars are coming closer and closer Moscow - it feels that new cold war, old polarization/confrontation, is coming.

All above mentioned has now leaded to polarization of world and confrontation between Russia and the US. When the US has acted (lunatic style) as one's own discretion one effect is that UNSC has been guided to sidetrack. United States policy in the Balkans has been dysfunctional, characterized by cynicism, duplicity and short term tactical gain and at world level as series of strategic errors. Let's hope that those errors are not duplicated any more in Caucasus or elsewhere.

The bluff of US Foreign Policy has normally been "western democracy" etc. However the record in Georgia was questionable. In one report, Human Rights Watch asserted that “the fragility of Georgia’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law were revealed on Nov. 7, 2007, when government forces used violent and excessive force to disperse a series of largely peaceful demonstrations in the capital, Tbilisi.” In the other report even (the Western nearly governmental elite lobby group) International Crisis Group warned of a creeping authoritarianism in Georgia and urged Western governments to pressure the regime in Tbilisi to respect democratic principles.

To show his admiration for the U.S. president, Saakashvili even renamed the main road to Tbilisi’s airport George W. Bush Street. The same was made earlier in Kosovo. It is good to think globally but better act locally. Like in Balkans before Caucasia is today suffering US cowboy policy which is creating unnecessary confrontation with Russia. There is maybe way out from banana republic status when local governments start to develop their policies more from domestic needs without too much adoring transatlantic short term games.

3^rd Way out

As a Finn I would like to ask if third way could be possible also elsewhere. Finland has over 1000 km common border with Russia, number of wars has been between us and Russia/USSR but also lot of good times like Autonomy time 1806-1917 as well last decades with increasing economic cooperation. With this background today more Finns are against than pro to join NATO and our dear neighbours in Sweden have similar results in opinion pools.

This neutral - unallied - position makes it possible to approach world politics, human rights, economical issues etc with critical way be that critics to east or west. I do not mean that critics should be end in itself or the top priority for e.g. Caucasian countries. However I am from old school and believe that real progress can be made only after fresh debate, dialogue or at least tolerance between local stakeholders not copying values or practices e.g. from Washington nor Brussels bureaucrats.

The unallied position is same time open to all kind of cooperation to all directions. The statements about world events are our own; they are not coming from Washington or Moscow. Personally I like this third way, is it possible also for Caucasus – I hope local stakeholders can decide.

I see that the only way out from today's confrontation is that the Great Powers start dialogue from empty table with equal basis, one output could be the restoration of UNSC as a forum for global conflicts. The global challenges e.g. environment, poverty, 3rd world conflicts etc are so big that no individual power can solve them. These challenges should be top priority, not short term wins of private armies, military industry and short-sighted politicians.

Could EU lead the 3^rd Way?

In Europe the Kosovo question highlights the core problem of EU - uncritical following of US foreign (cowboy) policy . Some times I ask if it is EU, only UK or ex-Sovjet lapdogs the 51st state of USA. To me it is alarming, that this US policy has been made both during democratic and republican US presidents. Future shows if the change will come with new president – I admit to have some doubts because he didn’t changed the old advisers. And will US succeed to gain support for these actions either through the use of NATO or by persuading the European Community or the newly emerging states of Central and Eastern Europe to get on side. I hope that change will come and different actors both sides of Atlantic could have debate from more equal base than before.

For economical development EU has e.g. its Neighbourhood programmes for non-member states. EU can also make any kind of individual agreements such as customs, visa regime etc with non-members so they can enjoy many EU benefits without membership.

Questions to answer for adopting 3^rd way in EU

• Does EU or the majority of its member states want more independence from U.S.foreign policy?
• Can EU’s Nato members and partners change Nato or challenge U.S. superiority in Nato?
• Can EU find a common vision, strategy and position with its external relations?

Realism?

I do not know if my proposal is realistic. I know that my mother was fleeing from home when USSR occupied that part of Finland during WWII. I also know that I have found some of my best friends from Russia. Lesson learned - one can forget past wrongdoings and look forward. Dialogue and tolerance at local level is in my opinion the best guarantee for sustainable solutions. Collecting guns on the borders is from my point of view the worst scenario excluding use of them.

Note: While speaking above about 3^rd way I have used term only as such. There is no direct connection to sc. Third Way philosophy designed by U.S. Democratic Leadership Council some 10 years ago. That philosophy rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves. Also term 3^rd way is now used in EU describing the efforts to find a privileged partnership for Turkey instead of normal membership.

More my views in my Archives:Blog!

balkan
caucasus
ari rusila

Use of Depleted Uranium proved in NATO Bombings

This post was first published in TH!NK ABOUT IT site 21st February 2009.

An Italian non-governmental organisation – the Rome-based “Un ponte per …” - is investigating consequences of NATO's 1999 bombings of Serbia and the effects of the use of depleted uranium (DU) on the civilian population. The NATO allegedly used shells with depleted uranium which are still today causing an increase in the number of cancer patients. NATO has admitted the use of DU in the bombing campaign and Italian media has reported that 45 Italian soldiers who served in the international forces in Kosovo (KFOR) died after the bombing and 515 became ill with cancer. In Serbia and its separatist province Kosovo the number of civilian victims is still unexplored but most likely the figures are manifold compared to those of soldiers.

This topic was discussed years ago when e.g. I was working in Kosovo, however any proof and warnings then did not came to my hands. Later more information was available and on 24^th Nov. 2008 I wrote an article “Depleted Uranium from NATO bombs killing people in Balkans” referring information I got from Croatian news portal Javno.

And DU is…?

To get picture above larger go to link .

The recent military use of DU

Over the 78 days of NATO bombing, a total of 31,000 shells with depleted uranium, weapons banned by international treaties, were dropped in at least 112 locations in Serbia and especially Kosovo region. Earlier in Bosnia-Herzegovina around 10,000 rounds were fired in operations around Sarajevo in the latter stages of allied operations in Bosnia. More than 100,000 DU shells were fired during the Gulf war 1991.

A map of places where DU has been used either in combat or by accident below:

Un Ponte per…

Un Ponte per… (UPP) is a volunteer association established in 1991 just after the end of the bombings on Iraq. Its aim was to promote humanitarian aid to the Iraqi population. When the war in the Balkans escalated, the association created new campaign and started various projects aimed at sending medicines and health supplies to the Yugoslav Federation and helping refugees from Kosovo. UPP’s institutional partners include ECHO, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNESCO,UNOPS,UNHOCI ,UNRWA, Italian Municipalities and Regions and Provinces, and more info about their activities can be found from their web-site .

New investigation in Serbia/Kosovo

Now the 'Un ponte per...' NGO investigator Alessandro di Meo told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the international community was turning a deaf ear to the problem, because the use of depleted uranium is prohibited by international conventions. “But ten years after the bombing, the world has the right to know what really happened and what the consequences are,” he said. Samantha Menngarelli – also investigator of “Un ponte per…” - said the truth about military casualties was slowly sinking in in Italy after a surprising increase in deaths and cancers amongst soldiers who served in KFOR. “But the civilian victims have been completely ignored and we want to shed light on this problem,“ she said. (Source: Andkronos International )

The ‘Un ponte per…’ investigators will tour several Serbian cities that were hardest hit during the bombings before submitting a report to the Rome-based NGO.

Same time a Serbian NGO, ironically called 'Merciful angel' the name of NATO's 1999 airstrikes, recently reported that cancer ailments have jumped about 200 percent in some parts of Kosovo and areas of Serbia that were most heavily bombed. Earlier Javno news portal reported that in Kosovo’s Kosovska Mitrovica in 2005 there were 38 percent more cancer patients than in 2004. In those two years, a total of 3,500 cancer cases in Kosovo Albanians were diagnosed. Elsewhere since 2001, medical personnel at the Basra hospital (Iraq) claimed that they observed a sharp increase in the incidence of child leukemia and genetic malformation among babies born in the decade following the Gulf War. (More e.g. in Croatian news portal “Javno” 17.11.2008)

Contradictory topic

The British and US governments have long denied that DU ammunition is harmful. The British Gulf Veterans and Families Association have for years called for systematic testing. It claims that "hundreds" of Gulf warriors have died of cancers and other illnesses contracted during active service. Also WHO is quite cautious about health risks of DU (More in WHO factsheets ).

There is huge contradiction between official position of DU users and findings on the ground. The situation is a bit similar like position of tobacco industry compared the one of smokers – many have been died but direct evidence of causality is missing.

There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of DU projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present. In United Nations in December 2008, 141 states supported a resolution requesting that three UN agencies: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), WHO and IAEA update their research on the impact of uranium munitions by late 2010.

From the other side there is also growing movement to ban DU military use. International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) – is now comprising over 102 member organisations in 27 countries. From their web-site one can check latest developments.

If the causality between DU military use and morbidity will came clear one could speak war crime and demand some responsibility from those who have decided to them. This could also be one connecting factor in Balkans because DU maybe is killing people - civilians and soldiers - there regardless of their ethnicity, religion and country as well foreigners in mission.

More my articles one may find from my Archives:Blog!

World Bank destroyed Albanian village in joint operation with corrupted Government – a typical crime story from Balkans

This post was first published in TH!NK ABOUT IT site 12th February 2009.

The internal report shows that a project of World Bank in southern Albania led to the destruction and destitution of a powerless village Jale in 2007. The report, obtained last week by Balkan Insight , a publication run by investigative journalists in southeast Europe, also noted allegations of corruption and efforts at a cover up. The Bank has already announced the suspension of a loan for the project. World bank, the world's largest and most influential anti-poverty institution and part of the U.N. system, is doling out $100 billion over the next three years for development projects. (Source BalkanInsight) As the case from my viewpoint is not unique exception it is maybe worth to analyze it a bit more.

The investigation by an inspection panel found that World Bank management failed to comply with its policies with respect to the design, appraisal and implementation of the project, harming the local people affected by it. The probe also found that WB assisted the demolition by pressuring local construction police to take action and by supplying them with equipment and aerial photos.

In addition to the project's failure to comply with World Bank policies, the investigators noted allegations of corruption and complaints that the demolition of the Jale settlements was part of a bigger scheme to develop the area as a tourist resort.

The project

In 2005 $18 million in WP financing was provided for a vaguely-worded $39 million "coastal zone management" project that would clean up the area's shoreline, "strengthen governance" of the zone, "enhance cultural resources," and "encourage community support for sustainable coastal zone management."

The World Bank only agreed to the financing after its board of directors in Washington was first assured that the Albanian government, headed by socialist Prime Minister Sali Berisha, had reached an agreement on a "moratorium" on demolitions of the houses of the Jale residents.

That assurance came in the form of a critical sentence in what is known as a "project appraisal document" (or PAD). But the statement was false. No such deal had been struck.

On April 3, 2007, the villagers were notified that their houses would be demolished. They were given five days to appeal to a local court, which they did, but the construction police did not wait for the hearing. According to the investigators, many of the dispossessed were told they should be happy, as the World Bank would soon be giving them better homes and lifestyles.

Since the World Bank board had been wrongly assured that there would be no demolitions without a formal agreement, there were, of course, no World Bank-financed homes on the horizon. (Moreover, the panel report notes, the bank has done nothing since the demolitions to assist the victims in any way.)

The bulldozing caused an immediate furore in the Albanian media and parliament if not in Washington with one politician after another arguing they were illegal under Albanian law.(As source I have used FOX News).

Political connection/corruption

While never mentioned by name in any of the reports or memos, the Albanian responsible for coordinating the World Bank-financed project was Jamarber Malltezi, an official with the country's Ministry of Public Works and the son-in-law of prime minister Berisha.

In March 2007, just weeks before Jale was demolished, Malltezi sent a letter to the head of the country's "construction police" on the official letterhead of the Bank-financed project, according to the panel's report discussing potential demolitions, "the importance of sustainable development" and the need for the police to act "as fast as possible." Attached to the letter were two CDs with aerial photography financed with World Bank funds indicating the houses to be destroyed.

In addition to the project's failure to comply with World Bank policies, the investigators noted allegations of corruption and complaints that the demolition of the Jale settlements was part of a bigger scheme to develop the area as a tourist resort.

World Bank Spent More Than a Year Covering Up Destruction of Albanian Village

The investigative panel also accused World Bank management of misrepresenting facts during the probe and hampering the investigation by withholding access to data, while it notes the unusual lack of recollection of facts and crucial events by staff. Investigators say that several WB staff members both in headquarters and on the field were “coached” to provide unusually consistent but factually incorrect or misleading information.

Managers at the World Bank provided false information to the agency's board of directors about a project and then spent nearly two years trying to cover it up. But what is crystal clear are the attempts by bank officials to hide something. The panel's report is filled with allegations of the bank obstructing investigators in their year-long probe in language highly unusual for a bureaucratic document. (Reference FOX News)

The Albanian Response: World Bank influenced by the Albanian mafia

On 9th February 2009 Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha accused a World Bank investigative panel of being influenced by the Albanian mafia for their report on a controversial coastal management project that was used to demolish parts of a village and leave many families homeless.

“I express my contempt for the unscrupulous slander of the investigative panel in what they call an independent report, but which has been dictated by the Albanian land mafia,” said Berisha in a press conference on Sunday, adding that he had asked World Bank officials to probe the panel’s ties to organized crime. (Source BalkanInsight)

Simultaneously in London’s FT

In a column in London's Financial Times on 25 January 2009, WB president Robert Zoellick called for an "Age of Responsibility" that would include developed countries giving nearly 1 percent of their economic stimulus packages to the world's poor.

"The World Bank could manage the distribution of the cash with the United Nations and the regional development banks," he wrote. "We could use existing mechanisms to deliver the funds fast and flexibly, backed by monitoring and safeguards so the money is well spent."

And the World Bank's board? It will meet February 17 to discuss the panel's report and management's official response to it.

How about EU?

World Bank is only one donor in Balkans the big one is European Union and it also has its share of problems . Couple of months ago I wrote an article “Squandering Kosovo’s Aid Funds” referring information made in public in German daily Die Welt on 18 December 2008. The core message was that a big part of EU Aid for reconstruction projects of Kosovo has been wasted due criminal activities, corruption, frauds and mismanagement. As base of the claim were the investigations conducted by the EU Anti Fraud Office (OLAF), UN investigators and the Italian Financial Police. More than 50 cases of financial embezzlement was found - most of them in energy sector. In twelve of these cases there is proof of criminal liability.

While most of the 2.3 billion Euros invested in the reconstruction of Kosovo since 1999, after the NATO bombing of Serbia, has disappeared without a trace and when it is expected that by 2011 the EU will throw Kosovo another one billion euro it could be clever to spare a minute for quality-planning and future management.

Lessons learned

Unfortunately I do not believe that the case I have described is unique in Balkans or universally with development projects by big donors. From project management point of view I like to highlight following aspects:

• At planning stage the correct information from the field should be provided, not only high level marketing reports
• The Aim(s) and output should be clearly defined and understood by both donor and beneficiar
• The final project plan should include realistic Logical Framework Approach (LogFrame)
• At implementation stage the events on the ground and the progress reports should be compared to verification measures in LogFrame
• The feedback from the event on the ground level and about inappropriate connections on the management level should be used to make necessary correction to original plan
• If the aims of original plan look unreachable or the methods with implementation are incorrect the financier should have courage to stop project when it is still ongoing without waiting yearlong investigations to be ready
• Internal investigations should be supported not prevented by donor management.

The biggest mismanagement or misuse of Aid money is not according my opinion local criminal activities. The strategic error has made in international level by not knowing the demands on the ground, not adjusting ideas and plans according local needs or the moment of Aid delivery, using indefinite mixture of emergency relief and long term planning, lack of simple and unambiguous development strategy and strategic leadership.

The strategic error is to use Aid funds only in a right way, not to right purposes. The fatal crime will be if international community does not correct earlier errors and practices at strategic level – only after that one can demand smoothly flowing project at local level.

More my views in my Arhives:Blog

balkan
ari rusila
Bookmark this on Delicious

Kosovo status still administrative mess

Police from the European Union law and justice mission in Kosovo (EULEX) have set up two customs control points in Serb dominated north Kosovo. Customs is again in place after one year when angry Serbs burnt down and pushed to nearby river the border posts in reaction to the Albanian majority's declaration of independence from Serbia. Same time United Nations’ mission (UNMIK), EULEX and International Community Office (ICO) are twisting arms who will start talks on the realization of the six-point plan drafted by the UN. Separatist province’s local politicians are again bystanders only struggling between themselves about illusory administration of disputed puppet state.

With Albanian authorities having little control in Serb-inhabited areas that back onto Serbia proper, no efforts at rebuilding were made until this weekend. Kosovo has said it has lost millions in customs taxes in that period, as goods from Serbia entered freely and without any sort of control in these two points. EULEX spokesman Karin Limdal told Balkan Insight that while control have started, this doesn’t mean that the northern customs points are functioning normally, as EULEX only registered the goods, not asking people to pay customs tax. (Source BalkanInsight.com February 2nd 2009).

Implementing six-point-plan

Foreign Minister of Serbia Vuk Jeremić who has invited UNMIK chief Zannier to Belgrade in order to start talks on the realization of the six-point plan. Under the plan, the Kosovo Serbs will be granted broader autonomy in the areas of justice, police and customs. UNMIK spokesman Alexander Ivanko said on Sunday in Priština that before these talks begin, UNMIK must define its role in the dialogue, since authority in the three fields of discussion—courts, police and customs—have already been transferred to EULEX who’s field officers btw were twirling their thumbs over half an year while waiting permission even to go north Kosovo. “The UN and UNMIK will have a role in these talks, but it must be defined what kind of role it will have exactly, because the authority in the three main fields has been transferred to EULEX,” Ivanko told Radio Free Europe. (Source Serbianna February 2nd 2009).

More about six-point-plan in my article “UN adopts 6-point-plan for Kosovo – bye bye independence experiment”.

CEFTA

Kosovo’s local financial authorities have also other problem than non payment of custom taxes because Serbia and Bosnia are both blocking the import and transit of goods stamped with the seal of the Kosovo Customs authority, insisting that UNMIK and not Pristina should represent Kosovo in regional and international affairs, including the regional CETFA free trade agreement. Kosovo authorities have said the blockade is unacceptable because Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo all signed the CEFTA agreement, which stipulates the free movement of goods and services throughout the Balkans. However the agreement is signed by UNMIK on behalf of Pristina. Since their declaration of independence, Kosovo Albanian want to denigrate UNMIK's role and insist to be the sole representatives of „the Republic of Kosovo", while Serbs imperatively stick to UNSC Resolution 1244, which stipulates that Kosovo can only be represented by UNMIK . (Source KosovoCompromise January 31st 2009)

Many players in small sandbox

Besides UN/UNMIK and EU/EULEX there is also European Union High Representative in Kosovo Pieter Feith who simultaneously leads International Community Office wondering his role with coming talks. Same time Nato-troops (KFOR) tries to keep ethnic tensions moderate, OSCE do not know its role nor length of its mission’s mandate in Kosovo, EU delegation office, few influential foreign liaison representatives an of course sc. Kosovo government which does not recognize the whole six-point-plan and thinks that Kosovo institutions have no obligation to respect it. (Source Serbianna February 2nd 2009).

It shows amazing creativity to establish this kind organizational nightmare in one tiny province and more amazing is that after nearly nine years of international administration and capacity building and squandered billions of Euros both the administration and the situation on the ground are beneath all criticism.

Some aspects of freedom in Balkans here and spending Kosovo’s Aid money here

€ 2.4 bn propaganda

This post was first published in TH!NK ABOUT IT site 1st February 2009.

EU taxpayers are paying over 2,410 million (€ 2.4 bn) Euros to receive EU propaganda of EU bureaucracy. This amazing figure can be found from recently published study “The hard sell: EU communication policy and the campaign for hearts and minds" (December 2008) made by UK-based think tank Open Europe.

Open Europe is an independent, non-party political think tank which contributes bold new thinking to the debate about the direction of the European Union. Open Europe believes that the EU must now embrace radical reform based on economic liberalization, a looser and more flexible structure, and greater transparency and accountability if it is to overcome these challenges, and succeed in the twenty first century. (More about Open Europe here)

The calculation

The very well detailed and quoted new study with its 151 pages has concluded that total EU’s total propaganda spend amounts to more than € 2,410,231,282 per year. Alarming is that this €2.4bn estimate of EU propaganda spending is very conservative, calculated using only those budget lines which explicitly indicate their use. The study claims that “Indeed much of the funding that goes on propaganda is hidden deep inside the EU budget, under headings which do not suggest from their titles or descriptions that this is how the money was spend.”

(The full study can be found from here)

How the propaganda was made

The study has divided the money spending (or squandering if you like) into four chapters which are telling how the propaganda was – and still is – made:

• “Communicating Europe”: The EU’s biased information campaign
• Funding the cheerleaders: Paying NGOs, think-tanks and lobby groups topromote the EU
• Buying loyalty: Promoting European citizenship and a common European culture to engender support for the EU
• Investing in the long-term: Targeting young people

My conclusions

As said before, the study “EU communication policy and the campaign for hearts and minds” is well detailed with well-grounded arguments. However must disagree that EU funding itself creates EU propaganda. For example the study mentioned that e.g. cafebabel organization gets support from EU. I am one blogging under that platform and my writings have been quite euro-skeptical, I have e.g. claimed EU covering its own weaknesses by blaming member states, proposed to EU wannabees to seek also other alternatives, accused EU missions and its external policy about short-sighted and disastrous etc. – probably not what they want hear in Brussels.

My point is that even EU facilitates organizations, groups or media it can not know if these are telling their side of the story.

View my page on TH!NK ABOUT IT

(More my views one may find from my Archives:Blog)