|
The Balkans are returning onto America’s radar
screen as threats to regional stability and European integrity
mount. To prevent a dangerous spiral of escalation, Washington must
pursue a more vigorous strategy to help secure the remaining states
within Western institutions and curtail Russia’s spreading
subversion.
Drift and delay in dealing with the Western
Balkans can give a false sense of security. After years of relative
peace and progress, a new crisis can erupt when ambitious
nationalist politicians and foreign governments are intent on
provoking armed conflicts to gain power or expand their influence.
In recent months, the region has witnessed several
ominous developments, including a Moscow-directed coup attempt in
Montenegro, the creation of a Russian-trained paramilitary force in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the assassination of a moderate Serbian
politician in Kosova. Whether or not there is a grand strategy
behind the three incidents, it is clear that nationalist radicals
and Kremlin operatives directly benefit from the resulting
instability.
In October 2016, Montenegrin police arrested
several suspects, including former Serbian gendarmerie chief
Bratislav Dikić, on charges of plotting a coup against the elected
government. Evidence indicates they were funded and directed by
Russia’s military intelligence service. The plot was confirmed by
Western intelligence and by Serbian authorities, which provided
Montenegro with assistance in apprehending the conspirators.
In recent weeks, reports have surfaced about the
creation of a paramilitary force styled as Serbian Honor (Srbski
Ponos) at the behest of Milorad Dodik, president of the Serbian
entity in Bosnia. According to local analysts, the unit has been
trained in Russia and at Moscow’s military outpost in the Serbian
city of Niš. Some of its members fought as mercenaries alongside the
Kremlin’s proxy separatists in Ukraine. Bosnia’s minister of
security, Dragan Mektić—a member of the opposition Serbian
Democratic Party— confirmed the existence of the paramilitaries,
whose objective is to defend the Serbian entity in case of conflict
with the central government in Sarajevo.
In another blow to regional stability, Oliver
Ivanović, a prominent Serbian politician in Kosova who favored talks
with the government in Prishtina, was gunned down outside his party
headquarters the same day Belgrade and Prishtina resumed talks on
normalizing relations. Although investigators have yet to find the
culprits, the assassination clearly profits politicians who want the
talks to fail. Indeed, the Serbian delegation withdrew from the
discussions after news of the murder was announced.
To prevent political radicalization and ethnic
polarization that could ignite armed conflicts, a more vigorous
Western Balkan strategy led by Washington is urgently needed. Such
an initiative must be grounded on three pillars: counter-subversion,
national security and regional collaboration.
Counter-subversion entails monitoring and
combating imminent security threats, whether these stem from illegal
paramilitaries, terrorist cells, criminal organizations, or
Russian-financed networks. Improved intelligence collection, police
effectiveness, banking transparency, judicial reform, media
responsibility, information literacy, and the elimination of
political corruption can reduce sub-military threats. Washington can
play a more prominent role in developing a comprehensive
inter-agency approach to help defuse the dangers.
In bolstering national security, each state needs
to be brought under the NATO umbrella with its defense structure
modernized according to NATO standards. Last year’s accession of
Montenegro into the alliance is a consequential step in this
process. Washington can take the lead role in unblocking Macedonia’s
and Bosnia’s progress toward NATO and offering both Serbia and
Kosova dual entry once they establish full bilateral ties and
complete the necessary military reforms.
However, even NATO inclusion is not sufficient to
ensure security. The alliance must not only assist each state in its
struggle against domestic and foreign subversion but also avoid
moves that undermine national stability. For instance, attempts by
some Western embassies to sideline Milo Đukanović, Montenegro’s most
important political figure, are a short-sighted strategic mistake.
One cannot assume that because Montenegro joined NATO, its security
problems are fully resolved. The Kremlin, together with Serbian
nationalists, will continue to undermine the state and without a
proven pro-Western leadership, opportunities for destabilization
will expand.
The third pillar of U.S. policy should enhance
opportunities for regional security collaboration, in which
practical initiatives defuse tensions. Countering political and
religious terrorism, organized crime and foreign subversion provide
valuable arenas for cross-border cooperation. For instance,
Ivanovic’s murder may actually improve ties between Belgrade and
Prishtina. Because the destabilization of one state has a ripple
effect on neighbors, each government will enhance its effectiveness
by working jointly. Moreover, such collaboration would also boost
their credentials for both NATO and EU membership.
In an important recent initiative, the U.S. House
Foreign Affairs Committee has ordered a report from the Pentagon on
Russia’s intrusions in the Western Balkans. It is especially
concerned about Serbia’s defense links with Moscow and how its
acquisition of new weapons systems may affect regional stability.
The investigation of both hard and soft security threats is the
first step in combating the dangers and demonstrating America’s
effectiveness in countering Putin’s strategy of destabilization.
|
