Can peace finally exist within the Balkans?

 

Trigger warning: This post contains images and topics some might find sensitive. Please proceed with caution.

              On September 4^th, 2020, President Donald J. Trump brokered an economic peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo, two countries that have historically been at odds with each other, following centuries of conflict. The enacting of the peace deal between the countries marked a step forward for the region, but many are still skeptical about long term peace within the Balkans.

               Most people with familial ties to the region still remember the wounds caused by the Civil War of the former Yugoslavia. Both Serbia and Croatia, states within Yugoslavia, intended to create greater nation states of each. Their “Greater States” would be ethnically pure, either Serbian Orthodox in the Serbian region or Croatian Roman Catholic in the Croatian region. Both Serbian and Croatian forces invaded Bosnian regions, following the secession of Bosnia during a referendum for independence in the Yugoslav congress, marking the beginning of the most brutal conflict on European soil since the Second World War.

               The intertwined communities within Bosnia, which were propped up during the Communist Reign of Tito, caused the war to be a bloody internal conflict between neighbors at times. Multiple concentration camps across the region were established by both Serbian and Croatian forces, leading to countless torturing and killing of men and boys, while rape camps promoted the invaders to “cleanse” the Bosnian Muslim population with their “superior” genetics.

Trnopolje camp, 1992

               One of the most notable occurrences during the war was the Srebrenica Massacre in 1995, which is commemorated on July 11^th every year. July 11^th, 2020 marked the 25^th anniversary of the event that killed a reported 8,372 Bosnian men and boys after Serbian forces overtook a UN Safe Zone in Bosnia. The generals involved in the event, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, have been convicted and charged with multiple offenses by the ICTY, but many others are left still roaming the streets.

               The ICTY did not reach their conclusions haphazardly, rather they collected all the evidence they could. This included aerial photographs of all the scenes and witness testimonies, such as Witness K in 2001 reliving his experiences during the Srebrenica Massacre.

“I was not even able to touch the floor, the concrete floor of the warehouse… After the shooting, I felt a strange kind of heat, warmth, which was actually coming from the blood that covered the concrete floor, and I was stepping on the dead people who were lying around. But there were even people who were still alive, who were only wounded, and as soon as I would step on him, I would hear him cry, moan, because I was trying to move as fast as I could. I could tell that people had been completely disembodied, and I could feel bones of the people that had been hit by those bursts of gunfire or shells, I could feel their ribs crushing. And then I would get up again and continue . . . .”

Murder room in the Kravica Warehouse, Srebrenica

               

                A large source of tension between the countries involved is the denial of such acts. In August 2020, Ratko Mladic appealed his case again, continuing to state that nothing had occurred in Srebrenica. Further, in 2019 Karadzic attempted the same in the courts. Both are serving life sentences at this point. A major problem lies within the governments and extremists in the regions. The Serbian and Croatian governments have yet to admit to their acts, and both deny the atrocities that have taken place during the war.

               Despite the inactions of the governments and ruling parties, most people believe the true tensions arise within the populations of the countries. Members in all countries involved hold hatred towards the others. Bosnians, who believed in the communist slogan “bratsvo I jedinstvo” (brotherhood and unity), felt betrayed by their neighbors, while other parties involved still view their imprisoned generals as heroes. Evidence of this can be seen in this clip from July 10th, 2020, the night before the 25th anniversary of Srebrenica. Extreme Serbian nationalists gathered in the streets of Belgrade to celebrate and chant “Ratko Mladic” in addition to “Srebrenica wasn’t a genocide”.

 

Serbian Nationalists, July 10th, 2020, Belgrade, Serbia

               Actions such as these cause some call into question whether peace can ever truly be reached in this region. All parties felt betrayed by the Dayton Agreement that formally ended the conflict in 1995, and much of the hatred from the 1990’s still remains within the population. International courts and statements from world leaders have done little to promote peace and unity within this region, but that does not mean it is impossible.

               The recent deal brokered by President Trump proved this fact. The truth is all regions in the world can become peaceful. Peace requires cooperation on all sides, which with emotion based policy can be harder to achieve. The economic peace deal provided the first step in the uphill battle, but with the potential for more deals on the horizon, peace is absolutely possible. A peaceful and prosperous Balkan would benefit all parties involved, and as more time passes from past events, the chance of them recognizing this fact and working towards a better future grows exponentially. If all continues as is, there is no reason to doubt that a peaceful Balkan can exist in the near future.

           

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-vucic-serbia-prime-minister-hoti-kosovo-trilateral-meeting/

https://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/tjug/en/krs-tj010802e.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/27/radovankaradzic.warcrimes2

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53917671

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCg0y0RDUex/?igshid=grwmtscqivn9

http://www.bosnjaci.net/print.php?pid=34776

How many people does it take to oust a political leader?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54142487

What are the qualities that make protest effective? 

How many people need to take to the streets in order to oust a political leader? 

As we know country wide protest can cause tremendous political change. Take for example Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and the beginning of the Arab Spring where countries across Northern Africa and the Middle East overthrew oppressive governments. For an example we might understand better, look at South Africa and the anti-apartheid movements that we are emulating in class. Historically these are successful protests that actually inspired great change in their regions.

Some of the most recent political demonstrations are from Belarus (pictured here)2

Tens of thousands of Belarusians are marching in response to a disputed election. Police have been arresting non-violent protestors and subjecting them heavy surveillance, sudden detention and torture. The question of whether or not this protest will succeed can be illuminated by the insight of Professor Erica Chenoweth, Professor of Political Science at Harvard University. 

Chenoweth first take time to differentiate between forms of protest by first dividing them into forms of violent and non-violent protest. Violent protests would include assassination or rioting whereas non-violent protests can take many forms like: boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, ect. In fact Prof. Chenoweth cites 198 diffrent forms of non-violent protest from her research. And nonviolent forms of protest are also more effective than violent protest because people are more likely to commit to non-violent protest for a variety of reasons like a low risk or injury among others. Because non-violence has a lower risk it is more likely to draw on more groups of people, often involving women, children, the elderly and the disabled. The Professor ways that it only takes on average 3.5% of a country's population to launch a successful protest. Chenoweth's latest research has shown that the rate of armed insurrection and violent protest is on the decline whereas the rate at which non-violent forms of protest are being used is increasing. A much more disturbing statistic is that 9/10 protest movements of these sorts fail.

Chenoweth's argument seems reasonable, if great change can only be achieved by the masses, then making it more inviting for the masses to take to the streets would in turn garner more support for that protest. Violence on the side of protestor seems to alienate all those other groups who may have joined should the protest have been peaceful. The lesson of this thought seems to be firstly; that those who take up violence only serve to alienate themselves from the rest of their base, and secondly, that non-violent protest is the most effective way to gain public support.

Questions for the Reader:

• Professor Chenoweth says that it takes 3.5% of the population of a country to be in protest of the leadership to oust a political leader. What do you make of this?

• What would you define as "violent" protest? Are attacks on property violent? What about verbal abuse that doesn't involve a physical confrontation?

Sources:

1. Edmonds, D. (2020, September 19). How many people does it take to oust a political leader? Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54142487

2. Koltsova, O. (2019, October 12). Why the tech scene in Belarus is growing. Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://innovationorigins.com/why-the-tech-scene-in-belarus-is-growing/

Danish Vegan Party gains enough support to run for Parliament

 

The Little Mermaid statue as a result of a protest by the Danish Vegan Party https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/07/denmark-s-vegan-party-says-it-has-enough-support-to-run-for-parliament 

Unlike the United States, Denmark isn’t overruled by two main political parties. They have a multi-party system in place that currently has 13 different political parties. The Constitutional Act was created in 1849 and has been used as the base of democracy in Denmark ever since. Every four years a general election occurs, and the next one will be held in June 2023. They have similar checks and balances of power (like the U.S.) by splitting power into branches (legislative, executive, judicial). New political parties must obtain 20,000 signatures to be deemed legitimate or occupy one or more seats in the Parliament already.

  https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/denmark/ 

The Danish Vegan Party (​Veganerpartiet) was ​founded in around 2018 as a political party that calls for animal rights, and improvement in not only the environment but also public health. As of July, the Danish Vegan Party acquired 20,182 signatures which would entail that they would be allowed to operate as a functional political party for the election. It is not unusual to see Green parties pop up in various countries in Europe, yet it is rare to come across a vegan specific political party. 

Excerpt from the official website of the Danish Vegan Party 

https://vgpt.dk/ 

The idea behind this blog post was not to argue the legitimacy of the Danish Vegan Party or if this sort of political party could be viable in the United States. I chose this article to continue the dialogue on the comparison between the U.S. and Denmark on how they view/conduct their political parties. What are your thoughts on having 13 different parties represented on your voting ticket? Is it unnecessary or does it provide more representation in politics? Even looking at how polarized the U.S has become with the Democratic party and the Republican party being the top two ruling parties, would introducing more parties aid in alleviating this polarization? 

Sources:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/07/denmark-s-vegan-party-says-it-has-enough-support-to-ru n-for-parliament
https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/en/political-parties https://tyrkiet.um.dk/en/about-denmark/government-and-politics/ https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/en/democracy/elections-and-referendums https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/denmark/ https://www.thelocal.dk/20190510/the-locals-guide-to-denmarks-election-parties-part-one-the-ri ght 

Should Trump Fill the Supreme Court Vacancy?

 Before diving into this post, I would like to first start by honoring Justice Ruth Bader because she was a tremendous judge.

This topic that we are about to discuss is, is Trump in the right of filling the Supreme Court Vacancy?

In my opinion, Trump as or right now is the sitting President of the United States, so that births him authority to nominate a Judge to the Supreme Court. That being said there is around 40 days to the election and will be difficult to fill the empty seat. However, Trump has said that he will be announcing his nominee later this week. Also, I can't wrap my head around why Trump wouldn't nominate someone because Obama did the same exact thing following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 

When she past away Democratic leaders said: 

Joe Biden: " The American people deserve a fully-staffed court of nine"

Hillary Clinton: "The president nominates and then the Senate advises and consents, or not but they go forward with the process"

Nancy Pelosi: "What we're seeing here, and I hope this is temporary, is a disrespect for the Constitution... The American people expect the president's nominee to be given a fair hearing and a timely vote in the Senate".

Bernie Sanders: "The Constitution is 100% Clear. The President of the United States has the right to nominate someone to be justice of the Supreme Court. Senate's function is to hold hearings and to vote."

Chuck Schumer: " Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done". 

So what has changed? Why are democrats saying Trump can't fill the spot and wait? 

In 2016, the Senate was majority Republican's and voted no on Obama's nominee. Now in 2020, the Senate is majority Republicans and the path of getting another Trump Supreme Court Justice will start this week. 

Source:   https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-party-highlights-what-top-democrats-said-about-filling-scotus-seat-in-2016