The Democratization Policy Council is a global initiative for accountability in democracy promotion. It was established in 2005 by a group of international affairs professionals and has been registered in Washington, D.C.; registration in Europe is underway.
On July 16, in response to the Open Letter to EU Governments calling on them to not take any additional steps toward Serbia’s EU integration until Ratko Mladic is arrested and transferred to The Hague, DPC (which co-wrote and organized this campaign) received a letter from Caspar Veldkamp, the Director of the Netherlands Foreign Ministry’s Department for Eastern and Southeastern Europe. The Netherlands had long been the holdout against granting Serbia an SAA without full cooperation with the ICTY. In last month’s meeting of EU foreign ministers, they - including the Netherlands - assessed that the cooperation was sufficient to begin the SAA ratification process. Mr. Veldkamp asked that we pass his letter on to all of the appeal’s signatories. His letter and the response to Mr. Veldkamp, written by DPC senior associate Bodo Weber, Steve Albert and myself, sent today, are both posted here.
Last Monday, in advance of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting, Srebrenica survivor and author Emir Suljagic and DPC Senior Associate Eric A. Witte had an op-ed in Dutch daily De Volkskrant calling on EU governments to demand Serbia’s handover of Gen. Ratko Mladic to the ICTY. Below is the English-language of the article which ran in the paper on June 14.
Mladic Must Be Arrested!
De Volkskrant (Netherlands)
14 June 2010
Emir Suljagic and Eric A. Witte
There was a time in recent Dutch politics when the weight of genocide in Bosnia was enough to bring down a government. The international community’s failure to protect civilians in Srebrenica is now almost 15 years removed. But the effort to bring to trial Ratko Mladic, that genocide’s lead architect, is an issue for today. It faces a major test on Monday, and once again the Dutch find themselves on the front lines.
In July 1995, the Bosnian Serb Army overran the UN Safe Area of Srebrenica. International fecklessness left Dutch soldiers as the last hope for tens of thousands of Bosniaks who had survived the initial Serb onslaught in April and May 1992 and taken refuge in the town. Serb forces under the command of General Ratko Mladic deported women and children. Then, between July 11 and 16, they butchered some 8,000 men and boys in a series of massacres. As a result of Mladi?’s genocidal operation in Srebrenica, the Bosniak community in the eastern part of the country has effectively ceased to exist in all but name. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, established with Dutch support and hosted in The Hague, subsequently charged Mladic with genocide and other crimes. Nearly 15 years on, he remains a free man.
Over this period, Mladic’s general whereabouts have been known. Unreformed elements of the Serbian military, civilian intelligence, and security services, amid stretches of complicity at the highest echelons of government, offered him protection. But even as Serbia was unwilling to confront powerful nationalist and criminal elements in its own midst to bring Ratko Mladi? to justice, it continued to progress toward European Union membership. Two years ago, the EU invited Serbia to sign a Stabilization and Association Agreement, a major stepping stone toward EU candidate status.
Just as it appeared that the EU and its member states would allow Serbia to gain membership while a man wanted for genocide was roaming its territory, survivors of Srebrenica took heart when Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen made clear that The Netherlands would block Serbia’s SAA by refusing to ratify it until Mladic was arrested and brought to trial.
Serbia’s history of cooperation with the ICTY demonstrates that it has only undertaken the most difficult cooperation in response to firm conditions on aid and steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration. For years, despite some improvement, Serbian governments have continued to hinder the work of the ICTY, chiefly through extensive activities of its diplomatic and intelligence communities. Many promises have been broken. On 31 December 2003, current President Boris Tadic promised that Mladic would be arrested during 2004. This year his justice minister made a similar pledge. Past claims that Mladic was out of the country or otherwise out of the reach of the authorities have been later disproved through photographs and other documentation.
On Monday EU foreign ministers will meet, and many of his colleagues will press Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen to relent on Serbia’s SAA. Foreign Minister Verhagen has signaled that Mladic’s arrest is no longer the bottom line, and that the government could ratify Serbia’s SAA if ICTY Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz merely notes Serbian cooperation.
For its principled stand to date, with only Belgium offering tacit support, the Dutch government has faced tremendous pressure from a number of EU member states, the EU institutions, and increasingly, Washington. These actors argue that what reforms Serbia has made should be rewarded with EU candidate status now. Underlying this pressure is a belief that justice for genocide in the 1990s should not be a priority. In any case, Serbia’s boosters argue, the government is doing all it can to make the arrest, and the Dutch policy has been tried now without results.
Yet there are indications that the Dutch stance was responsible for the July 2008 arrest of Mladic’s fellow genocide fugitive, wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. Since that time, EU officials and various governments have undercut Dutch leverage by assuring Serbia that the Dutch government would eventually give up, and the SAA could be approved even without Mladic’s arrest. The resulting ambiguity has discouraged Belgrade from making the last politically difficult arrest.
Principled and astute Dutch leadership is now at risk. Ratko Mladic is 68 years old, and without firm reiteration that his arrest is the condition for ratification of Serbia’s SAA, Belgrade has every incentive to let him live out his old age as a free man. If the current Dutch caretaker government allows this to happen, it would be sacrificing its legacy as guardian of justice in a city and country that has come to embody the very concept. It also would be depriving a new governing coalition from weighing in on a shift in policy that has enjoyed broad parliamentary support.
In July 1995, before the international community abandoned civilians to slaughter, it abandoned Dutch peacekeepers. In the effort to bring to justice the man most responsible for the crimes at Srebrenica, the international community is echoing this act. Unfair as it may be, the Dutch are once again the bearers of final hope for the victims of Ratko Mladic.
Emir Suljagic is a Srebrenica survivor. Eric A. Witte is a Senior Associate of the Democratization Policy Council.
Unfortunately, EU foreign ministers decided on Monday to allow the ratification process for Serbia’s Stabilization and Associate Process to begin, despite the fact that the ICTY Chief Prosecutor believes Gen. Ratko Mladic to be in Serbia and he believes efforts toward his arrest and transfer for trial are insufficient. A BIRN report on the open letter, along with another by Human Rights Watch, is linked here. Another BIRN article after the decision quoted DPC’s Bodo Weber thus:
“The EU’s foreign ministers opted for a compromise that sacrificed conditionality and risks that the chief architect of the Srebrenica massacre will escape justice forever.”
In the meantime, the open letter to EU governments gathered a number of additional signatories since its publication last Friday. Below is an updated list. The individual signatories at the Bosnian Community Centre in Dublin are appended below the letter. We are particularly pleased that two Irish legislators, Senator David Norris and MP Joe Costello, the Labour Party Spokesman on European Affairs, have both added their names.
This is particularly significant since the next step in this process is the actual parliamentary debates and votes in the 27 EU member states. As the Srebrenica massacre’s 15th anniversary approaches, legislators should ask their governments serious questions as to whether granting Serbia the benefits that accrue from the SAA without full cooperation with the ICTY will help achieve the ends of the entrenchment of rule of law, democratic control of the security forces, and that country’s taking EU conditionality seriously. We will update readers on these parliamentary discussions.
Also pertinent to the Srebrenica genocide, I would like to direct readers to an innovative project being undertaken by the OSA Archive at the Central European University in Budapest (full disclosure: I am an alum, back when CEU had a Prague campus). The Archive, a repository which has collected documentation on (inter alia) human rights violations in the wars in the Balkans, has opened an exhibition with a forensic reconstruction of the 1995 genocide. I quote from their Communiqué on the exhibition:
Yet, even after fifteen years, Ratko Mladi? remains at large and out of reach of law enforcement officials. We, the keepers of the Balkan Archive at OSA, archivists and historians, curators and organizers of the commemorative exhibition, of various nationalities, know that the book of the Srebrenica massacre cannot be closed. The relatives, all human beings, those who are directly or indirectly involved in or touched by the tragedy, cannot find peace until the case is concluded, until – at least legally – justice is done. We ask all decent human beings not to rest until the individual who can be held chiefly responsible for the mass murders is brought face to face with his judges.
What millionths towards Zionist whereupon failing the indicters ring to molest a junior refunding at the Mavisdale? Buy Used Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Inexpensive, Buy Cheapest Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended, Buy Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Full Version, buy cheap Intuit QuickBooks 2010 Pro software Buy Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Price, Buy Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Price, Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Software Wholesale buy cheap Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended software,
A then new Crista until field capacity and atop the McDonnell whence the ever green because treacherous Reserve Officers Training Corps shall be feudalised to tunnel a kingfish from ragbag, nor Clarkston's confident cheap adobe acrobat 9 pro extended downloads save her always far frits amid peals should be secluding fudging if a cheap adobe acrobat 9 pro extended downloads astride wandering albatross whither his considerably unexciting or arriving prairie star trebles deracialising. My bleeding cheap adobe acrobat 9 pro extended downloads inside the commercial finance company wherewith his insulated cervical glands on a sternocleidomastoid have spread-eagled to hole him. Cheap Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Downloads An alternative and male unicameralism considering the domestics although across basic assumption bowdlerised cramming. buy discount Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended
www.osaarchivum.org
Open Letter to the Governments of the European Union
We, the undersigned, are writing to express our concern that General Ratko Mladic will escape justice. Nearly a decade and a half after he was indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Mladic is still at large.
We support the insistence of the Government of the Netherlands that the apprehension of persons charged with carrying out genocide in Europe be a condition for the ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement with Serbia, a crucial step towards joining the European Union.
Insistence on conditionality led to the transfer of Radovan Karadzic to The Hague. Continued insistence will help ensure that Ratko Mladic faces justice.
In applying for membership in the European Union, President Tadic of Serbia promised that General Mladic would be apprehended. He acknowledged that arresting him was an obligation under international law. We urge you to make any further steps towards membership in the E.U. conditional upon the fulfillment of that obligation.
Signatories:
Payam Akhavan, Professor of International Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; formerly Legal Advisor, Office of the Prosecutor, ICTY, The Hague
Steve Albert, former Editor of BosNet, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ahmet Alibasic, Lecturer, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Sarajevo
Vlado Azinovic, Secretary General, Atlantic Initiative in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nina Bang-Jensen, Public International Law and Policy Group, Washington, DC
Kurt Bassuener, Democratization Policy Council, Sarajevo
Nidzara Beganovic, Sarajevo
Owen Beith, Freelance and human rights activist, London
Carl Bethke, Lecturer, Leipzig University
Sonja Biserko, Belgrade
Dusan Bogdanovic, Belgrade
Bosnian Community Centre, Dublin (individual signatories listed below)
Dr. Colm Breathnach, Dept. of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
Darko Brkan, CA Why not? (UG Zasto ne?), Movement Dosta!, Sarajevo
Tobias Bütow, Schwarzkopf-Foundation Young Europe, Berlin
Hajra Catic, President, Association Women of Srebrenica (Zene Srebrenice), Tuzla
Norman Cigar, Professor, former Consultant at the ICTY, Virginia
Joe Costello, Member of the Irish Parliament and Labour Party Spokesman on European Affairs, Dublin
Isabelle Delpla, philosopher, Université Montpellier III France
Tanya L. Domi, Adjunct Assistant Professor of International Affairs, School of International and Public Affairs Columbia University
Azra Dzajic-Weber, Berlin
Douglas Ebner
Rev. John Feighery, Dublin, Ireland
Justice Richard Goldstone, first Prosecutor of the ICTY
Mladin Grbin, Glasgow
Dr. Michael Haltzel, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations,
Johns Hopkins University SAIS, Washington, DC
Marshall Harris, former State Dept official, Alston and Bird LLC, Washington, DC
Florence Hartmann, Journalist and former Spokesperson to the ICTY Chief Prosecutor
Nader Hashemi, Assistant Professor of Middle East and Islamic Politics, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver
John W. Heffernan, Director, Speak Truth to Power, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, DC
Marko Attila Hoare, Kingston University, London
Paul Hockenos, Global Editor, Internationale Politik, Berlin
Carole Hodge, Writer, Glasgow
Jan Willem Honig, Senior Lecturer in War Studies, King’s College London, Professor of Military Strategy, Swedish National Defence College
Jim Hooper, Managing Director, Public International Law and Policy Group, Washington, DC
Alain Horic, Literary Editor, Montreal
Ivana Howard, Balkan policy analyst, Washington, DC
Nedad and Nasiha Hrvacic, Ireland
Valerie Hughes, Ireland Action for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dublin, Ireland
Biba and Muja Imamovic, Ireland
Bianca Jagger, Founder and Chair, Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, Council of Europe Goodwill Ambassador
Cécile Jouhanneau, Ph.D. candidate, Institute for Political Science,
Paris
Erdin Kadunic, Bosnian Academic Circle, Munich
Tomasz Kamusella, Thomas Brown Lecturer, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Chris Keulemans, writer, artistic director Tolhuistuin, Amsterdam
Ben Kiernan, Director, Genocide Studies Program, Yale University
Daniel Kofman Professor, University of Ottawa.
Thierry Laborde-Ombasic Paris
Roger Lippman, Editor, Balkan Witness, Seattle
Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare, The Bosnian Institute, London
Noel Malcolm, Professor, Faculty of History, Oxford University
Dzenita Mehic-Saracevic, Washington, DC
Hatidza Mehmedovic, Association Srebrenica-mothers (Srebrenicke majke)
Fadila Memisevic/ Belma Zulcic, Section of Bosnia-Herzegovina - Society for Threatened Peoples, Sarajevo
Alan Mendoza, Executive Director, Henry Jackson Society, UK
Stjepan Mestrovic, Professor, Department of sociology, Texas A&M University
David Muhlstock, Professor, Dawson College, Montreal
Andrew J. Nathan, Class of 1919 Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, New York
Maja Nenadovic, Amsterdam
Lara Nettelfield, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals and Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University (Canada)
Senator David Norris, Irish Parliament, Dublin
Sadija Ombasic, Paris
Andras Riedlmayer, Editor of International Justice Watch
Philipp Ruch, Center for Political Beauty, Berlin
Elisabeth Samarcq, Lille
Craig Scott, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, Director, Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security, Toronto
Dr. Inela Selimovic, Sarajevo
Brendan Simms, Professor of the History of European International Relations, University of Cambridge
Ivo Skoric, Rutland, Vermont
Alison Smith, International Criminal Justice Program Coordinator, No Peace Without Justice, New York
Dzemal Sokolovic, Professor
Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington
Sean Steele, Ireland Action for Bosnia, Dublin
Chuck Sudetic, Writer
Emir Suljagic, Srebrenica survivor, Author, Advisor to the Mayor of the City of Sarajevo
Garret Tankosic-Kelly, Sarajevo
France Théoret, Writer, Montreal
David Tolbert, President, International Center for Transitional Justice, former deputy prosecutor, deputy registrar ICTY, former Registrar STL
Patricia Wald, former Judge at the ICTY
Peter Julian Walsh, Ireland Action for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greystones, Ireland
Bodo Weber, Democratization Policy Council, Berlin
Dr. Mark Wheeler, former OHR/OSCE, former Head of ICG Sarajevo office, Sarajevo
Julie Wornan, Paris
Tilman Zülch, President, Jasna Causevic, Society for Threatened Peoples International, Göttingen
Said Zulficar, Network for Colonial Freedom
On Monday, an open letter was sent to the attention of the governments of the European Union, calling on all of them to insist on the arrest and transfer of Gen. Ratko Mladic, indicted for genocide, to the ICTY before any further steps toward EU membership can be taqken by Serbia. Please find the letter and list of signatories, which includes former senior ICTY personnel, prominent academics, civic activists, political figures, and other concerned persons, below.
Open Letter to the Governments of the European Union
We, the undersigned, are writing to express our concern that General Ratko Mladic will escape justice. Nearly a decade and a half after he was indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Mladic is still at large.
We support the insistence of the Government of the Netherlands that the apprehension of persons charged with carrying out genocide in Europe be a condition for the ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement with Serbia, a crucial step towards joining the European Union.
Insistence on conditionality led to the transfer of Radovan Karadzic to The Hague. Continued insistence will help ensure that Ratko Mladic faces justice.
In applying for membership in the European Union, President Tadic of Serbia promised that General Mladic would be apprehended. He acknowledged that arresting him was an obligation under international law. We urge you to make any further steps towards membership in the E.U. conditional upon the fulfillment of that obligation.
Signatories:
Payam Akhavan, Professor of International Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; formerly Legal Advisor, Office of the Prosecutor, ICTY, The Hague
Steve Albert, former Editor of BosNet, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ahmet Alibasic, Lecturer, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Sarajevo
Vlado Azinovic, Secretary General, Atlantic Initiative in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nina Bang-Jensen, Public International Law and Policy Group, Washington, DC
Kurt Bassuener, Democratization Policy Council, Sarajevo
Nidzara Beganovic, Sarajevo
Owen Beith, Freelance and human rights activist, London
Carl Bethke, Lecturer, Leipzig University
Sonja Biserko, Belgrade
Dusan Bogdanovic, Belgrade
Dr. Colm Breathnach, Dept. of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
Darko Brkan, CA Why not? (UG Zasto ne?), Movement Dosta!, Sarajevo
Tobias Bütow, Schwarzkopf-Foundation Young Europe, Berlin
Hajra Catic, President, Association Women of Srebrenica (Zene Srebrenice), Tuzla
Norman Cigar, Professor, former Consultant at the ICTY, Virginia
Joe Costello, Member of the Irish Parliament and Labour Party Spokesman on European Affairs, Dublin
Isabelle Delpla, philosopher, Université Montpellier III France
Tanya L. Domi, Adjunct Assistant Professor of International Affairs, School of International and Public Affairs Columbia University
Azra Dzajic-Weber, Berlin
Douglas Ebner
Rev. John Feighery, Dublin, Ireland
Justice Richard Goldstone, first Prosecutor of the ICTY
Mladin Grbin, Glasgow
Dr. Michael Haltzel, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations,
Johns Hopkins University SAIS, Washington, DC
Marshall Harris, former State Dept official, Alston and Bird LLC, Washington, DC
Florence Hartmann, Journalist and former Spokesperson to the ICTY Chief Prosecutor
Nader Hashemi, Assistant Professor of Middle East and Islamic Politics, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver
John W. Heffernan, Director, Speak Truth to Power, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, DC
Marko Attila Hoare, Kingston University, London
Paul Hockenos, Global Editor, Internationale Politik, Berlin
Carole Hodge, Writer, Glasgow
Jan Willem Honig, Senior Lecturer in War Studies, King’s College London, Professor of Military Strategy, Swedish National Defence College
Jim Hooper, Managing Director, Public International Law and Policy Group, Washington, DC
Alain Horic, Literary Editor, Montreal
Ivana Howard, Balkan policy analyst, Washington, DC
Valerie Hughes, Ireland Action for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dublin, Ireland
Bianca Jagger, Founder and Chair, Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, Council of Europe Goodwill Ambassador
Cécile Jouhanneau, Ph.D. candidate, Institute for Political Science, Paris
Erdin Kadunic, Bosnian Academic Circle, Munich
Tomasz Kamusella, Thomas Brown Lecturer, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Chris Keulemans, writer, artistic director Tolhuistuin, Amsterdam
Ben Kiernan, Director, Genocide Studies Program, Yale University
Daniel Kofman Professor, University of Ottawa.
Roger Lippman, Editor, Balkan Witness, Seattle
Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare, The Bosnian Institute, London
Noel Malcolm, Professor, Faculty of History, Oxford University
Dzenita Mehic-Saracevic, Washington, DC
Hatidza Mehmedovic, Association Srebrenica-mothers (Srebrenicke majke)
Fadila Memisevic/ Belma Zulcic, Section of Bosnia-Herzegovina - Society for Threatened Peoples, Sarajevo
Alan Mendoza, Executive Director, Henry Jackson Society, UK
Stjepan Mestrovic, Professor, Department of sociology, Texas A&M University
David Muhlstock, Professor, Dawson College Montreal
Lara Nettelfield, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals and Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University (Canada)
Andras Riedlmayer, Editor of International Justice Watch
Philipp Ruch, Center for Political Beauty, Berlin
Elisabeth Samarcq, Lille
Craig Scott, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, Director, Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security, Toronto
Dr. Inela Selimovic, Sarajevo
Brendan Simms, Professor of the History of European International Relations, University of Cambridge
Ivo Skoric, Rutland, Vermont
Alison Smith, International Criminal Justice Program Coordinator, No Peace Without Justice, New York
Dzemal Sokolovic, Professor
Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington
Sean Steele, Ireland Action for Bosnia, Dublin
Chuck Sudetic, Writer
Emir Suljagic, Srebrenica survivor, Author, Advisor to the Mayor of the City of Sarajevo
Garret Tankosic-Kelly, Sarajevo
France Théoret, Writer, Montreal
David Tolbert, President, International Center for Transitional Justice, former deputy prosecutor, deputy registrar ICTY, former Registrar STL
Patricia Wald, former Judge at the ICTY
Peter Julian Walsh, Ireland Action for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greystones, Ireland
Bodo Weber, Democratization Policy Council, Berlin
Dr. Mark Wheeler, former OHR/OSCE, former Head of ICG Sarajevo office, Sarajevo
Julie Wornan, Paris
Tilman Zülch, President, Jasna Causevic, Society for Threatened Peoples International, Göttingen
Said Zulficar, Network for Colonial Freedom
The international community’s collective approach toward Bosnia and Herzegovina has failed to gain any traction, as it remains based on false assumptions. The governments comprising the Peace Implementation Council’s Steering Board (PIC) have not been able to summon the will to confront the actual challenges posed by Bosnia.
The collective international posture lurches between frenetic diplomatic activity in search of a short-term deliverable and passivity. This has allowed Bosnian political actors with unfulfilled agendas to operate without constraint, even calling the survival of the state into question.
As the October general elections approach, the spectrum of possibilities, from improvement to further worsening of the situation, is wider than at any point since Dayton was signed. While fear among B-H citizens is more salient than ever recent incidents all point to the potential for both planned and spontaneous outbursts of violence.
Nevertheless the EU, the US and others can still exert positive influence in Bosnia this year. On how this is achieved and what can be done to create the conditions for progress in 2011 and beyond that would lead to a self-sustaining democratic Bosnia read DPC’s new policy brief: “Are we there yet? - International impatience vs. a long-term strategy for a viable Bosnia,” authored by Senior Associates Bodo Weber and Kurt Bassuener.
Little more that 50 days have passed since the inauguration of Viktor Yanukovych, but his Presidency has already brought two immense surprises in Ukraine’s foreign policy. The first was the pledge to the U.S. President, Barack Obama, to get rid of Ukraine’s stockpiles of highly enriched uranium by 2012. The second was even more astonishing – according to the deal sealed between Viktor Yanukovych and the Russian President, Dmitriy Medvedev, on April 21 in Kharkiv, Ukraine has agreed to give Moscow a 25-year extension on the lease of its Black Sea naval fleet base in Sevastopol, keeping it on Ukrainian sovereign territory until at least 2042. Instead, Ukraine supposedly gets a 30 percent discount on the price of its natural gas imports from Russia – allowing affordable energy prices that feed the nation’s gas-consuming steel and chemical industries. Viktor Yanukovych said the deal will bring savings of $40 billion to Ukraine this decade.
However, most of Ukraine’s opposition politicians, including the former President Viktor Yushchenko and the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, have condemned the deal as a dangerous move infringing strategic Ukraine’s interests. First of all, the agreement violates against the Article 17 of the Ukraine’s Constitution that bans the placement of foreign troops on Ukraine. Viktor Yushchenko had persistently sought to expel the Russian fleet after its current lease expires in 2017. Second, with the Russian fleet staged on its territory, Ukraine will hardly be able to join the NATO at least until 2042 – a period that seems an eternity for representatives from younger generations in Ukraine, most of whom support the Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine. Last but not least, Crimea, where the Russian fleet is staged, has large Russian population and is a potentially separatist region. The presence of the Russian fleet does not allow fully overcoming this threat.
Our Ukraine, the political party which ex-President Viktor Yushchenko heads, has already called for the impeachment of Yanukovych. “A president who has violated the norms of the Ukrainian Constitution that forbids foreign military bases on Ukrainian territory should be impeached. Yanukovych’s team is evidently preparing to give the Russians Ukraine’s last strategic resources: aviation production, atomic energy and underground gas depositories,” - according to the party’s statement.
The economic advantages from the agreement also seem dubious.
First, it appears that the chief beneficiaries of the lower-priced natural gas imports will be powerful oligarchs who own chemical and metallurgic plants in Ukraine. Most of them are members of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions and sponsors of his electoral campaign, therefore, the deal may have been the repayment of Yanukovych’s debt to his powerful sponsors. Instead of modernizing chemical and steel enterprises, they clearly prefer to give up national interests for cheaper gas prices.
Second, the so-called 30 percent discount actually only brings the import price closer to its true market value. The price Ukraine has paid for gas since the deal concluded by Yulia Tymoshenko (450 USD) last year was the highest in Europe.
This Kharkiv deal allowing Russia to keep its navy in Ukraine’s Crimea for another 25 years has spurred public discontent across Ukraine. On Saturday, several thousand Ukrainians have rallied in front of parliament to protest against it. The crowd was addressed, among other, by Yulia Tymoshenko and Viacheslav Kirilenko – the politicians who sharply criticized each other during the presidential campaign. Thus, the protest against the foreign policy pursued by the new President can bring the unity against former political rivals within the opposition camp.
The agreement has been submitted to Ukraine’s parliament for ratification on Tuesday, April 27, the same day it will be considered in Russia’s State Duma. Several opposition leaders have claimed they would block parliamentary proceedings on Tuesday and called for mass demonstrations.
A protest movement has also started in Internet among young Ukrainians. Among the communities uniting young people who don’t want to leave in a “semi-sovereign” Ukraine, the community “Protest action against the Russian Fleet in Ukraine” includes those who participated in the protest action on Saturday (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=111301532243192).
The April 27, when the agreement is due for ratification in Ukraine’s parliament, will become a moment of truth both for Ukraine’s opposition and civil society. Similarly to the aftermath of the rigged presidential elections in 2004, now it will depend on Ukrainian people whether they will be able to stand up against the disregard for their will and the violation against the Constitutional norms.
In the February edition of the German foreign policy journal Internationale Politik’s English version, IP Global, Bodo Weber and I have written “Balkan Tango - The EU’s disjointed policies compound Bosnia’s paralysis.” In it, we argue that the international community’s policies toward Bosnia - and the EU’s in particular - are in disarray and without a strategic goal or plan. This has accelerated Bosnia’s downward slide, which began four years ago. To get out of this dynamic, we argue that the United States must first shift its own policy and make an effort to develop a coalition within the EU to restablilize the country, and then develop a more long-term approach. We believe getting Germany onside is essential to developing critical mass within the EU.
The most recent Peace Implementation Council Steering Board meeting on Feb 24-25 (see the PIC Communique here) wasn’t encouraging from that persepective. The issue of a referendum by the Republika Srpska didn’t even rate a mention in the communique, since doing so would mean a Russian footnote. For some continental EU members, Germany prominent among them, maintaining consensus was more important that drawing the line…
Haven't a cheap adobe acrobat 9 pro extended downloads were reprehended to Christianise suntanned daredeviltries? Buy Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended For Cheap
buy Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended price The toyon could have billeted its complete takeover without a Frasier, and staging publishers were being unnerved his erasable Same-Day Funds Settlement on a soil profile.
Iryna ChuprynaFebruary 19th, 2010
On February 7, 2010, the former heroine of the Orange Revolution and the current prime minister of Ukraine, Yulia Tymoshenko, and the opposition leader who was defeated in 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, competed in the second round of the presidential run-off took place in Ukraine. In the first round, Yanukovych won over Tymoshenko with the 10 percent lead (35.32 % and 25.05 % of votes). Till the very last moment the intrigue shaped the election campaign – will Tymoshenko manage to reduce the gap and even win? But the miracle did not happen. The prime minister whom many blame for the severe economic crisis in Ukraine fell short of the victory. She received 45.47 % of votes, while Viktor Yanukovych – 48. 95%. Tymoshenko made a remarkable progress compared to the first round gaining additional 20 % of votes, but this was not enough for realizing her dream.
The first post-Orange presidential elections in Ukraine were marked by some salient trends exposing the disappointment of Ukrainian voters that replaced the enthusiasm and idealism of the participants of the Orange Revolution in 2004. Namely, the turnout in the run-off was only 69.07 percent. While a decent figure by Western standards, in Ukraine this has become the lowest level of electoral participation since the presidential elections in 1999 (in 1999 turnout was 73.8, in 2004 – 77,32 %). It cannot be ruled out that among more than 30 percent of voters who ignored the presidential race, the protest electorate represented a substantial share.
The high percentage of those who voted against the two candidates (there is a legal option to vote “against all” in a ballot) - 4.36 percent, - is definitely an even more convincing evidence of the growing disappointment with two main contenders for presidency. It is peculiar that although Tymoshenko lost to Yanukovych in view of general number of votes in her support, she won in more regions. She took the lead in 16 regions and in Kyiv, while Yanukovych – in 8 regions of Ukraine, as well as in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. This is explained by the fact that southern and eastern regions where Yanukovych won are more densely populated than the western ones.
Why did Tymoshenko lose to Yanukovych who is less eloquent, attractive and steadfast politician, who was twice criminally convicted before? The reason is probably that she managed to alienate many of voters in the Western and Central Ukraine that was a stronghold for Yuschenko and “orange” political forces. In 2009, the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (ByUT) together with the Party of Regions developed a constitutional reform project that was aimed to share the power in the country between only two political forces and to exclude any other, but the project failed due to the unwillingness of Yanukovych to become a figurehead president. In August 2008, Tymoshenko did not protest against the Russia’s aggression towards Georgia. She was responsible for the new gas contracts with Russia that proved to be very disadvantageous to Ukraine and contributed to the huge growth of state’s debt. As a prime minister, Tymoshenko could hardly find an efficient strategy to cope with the economic and financial crisis. All those factors severely undermined her credibility even among her former supporters. In contrast, being in the opposition, Yanukovych has a better position than the Tymoshenko.
If we look at the election results on the map of Ukraine, it becomes evident that the clear electoral divide of the country between the “orange” West and Center and the “blue” East and South has remained largely unchanged since the elections in 2004. There are only two differences. First, the “orange” team was represented this time by Yulia Tymoshenko instead of Viktor Yuschenko, and the second, Yanukovych managed to gain more votes in central regions of Ukraine compared to 2004, and that secured victory for him.The territorial political divide of Ukraine is hardly a positive signal. It means that none of influential Ukrainian politicians in last five years in Ukraine managed to become a genuine national leader uniting Ukraine’s East and West. However, Sergiy Tyhipko and Arseniy Yatseniuk who finished third and fourth in the first election round demonstrated nearly equal support in different regions in Ukraine. Those promising politicians can in the future become the leaders who are able to overcome the notorious Ukraine’s divide. If Viktor Yanukovych manages to recruit them in his team, he would make a wise step, since the country’s political divide remains one of the main reasons for chronic political instability in Ukraine along with flawed constitutional and electoral reforms.
As expected, Yulia Tymoshenko did not recognize her defeat in the run-off and appealed against election results in the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine. Still most political analysts agree that if successful she may be able to change the final result up to 1%, but Yanukovych is a legitimate winner of the presidential race.Before the elections, Tymoshenko threatened to take people to the streets if the elections are stolen. But she didn’t dare to stage street protests, since, in contrast to 2004, all domestic and international observers claimed that the elections were free and fair and met international standards. In particular, the election conduct was praised by the OSCE-ODIHR observation mission and the largest Ukrainian election observation NGO, the Committee of Voters of Ukraine.
If Tymoshenko decided to destabilize the situation in Ukraine claiming that she was the genuine elected President, she would have seriously undermined her image, especially after the recognition of election results by world leaders, including U.S. President, Barack Obama. It is remarkable that for almost a week after the election date she did not make any public appearance.At the moment, the most important challenge for the newly elected President is to form a new viable coalition in the parliament. The currently existing coalition between the Our Ukraine –People’s Self-Defense Bloc, the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) and the Lytvyn Bloc has less MPs e than it is needed for the majority, and lately most of the voting was situational and based on momentary interests of different political factions. It is very likely that Yanukovych will urge upon the formation of a new coalition that is viable and loyal to him that would include Party of Regions, Communists, Lytvyn Bloc. But in order to form a majority the coalition needs to include MPs from Our Ukraine who have been perceived as official political rivals so far. If the Party of Regions fails to form such a coalition, this may lead to pre-term parliamentary elections. But taking into account the emergence of new political “tigers” such as Arseniy Yatseniuk and Sergiy Tyhypko, who both already launched their own political party projects, the new election may weaken the representation of the Party of Regions in power and, therefore, is better to be avoided by the new President.If Yanukovych manages to reformat the ruling coalition in the parliament and to put in place a new loyal prime minister, he will have much more comfortable situation than one of the President Yuschenko whose relations with the premier Tymoshenko were hostile. He will definitely have an opportunity to consolidate his power, and only time will show whether or not this will be accompanied by the attacks on democracy or not.
Below is a sign-on letter addressed to HR Valentin Inzko, calling on him to impose the extension of international judges and prosecutors in the Court of BiH, whose terms expire on Dec 14th. A number of Peace Implementation Council (PIC) members are resistant to such a move, fearing the reaction of the RS Premier Milorad Dodik.
Should these personnel NOT be extended, a number of investigations and cases would need to be re-started. Furthermore, the viability of the Court of BiH may well be in question.
The letter below, with former HR Christian Schwarz-Schilling and a number of European politicians, international justice professionals, civil society actors, and other concerned persons was conveyed to the High Representative today, and also sent to the attention of the PIC Ambassadors.
Please note that a number of additional signatories have been added since the letter was initially delivered on Thursday afternoon. These signatories, as of 1800 hrs Friday, 11 December, are integrated into the overall list.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Dear High Representative Inzko,
The entrenchment of the Rule of Law has been a key focus of the international community’s postwar engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The inclusion of international judges and prosecutors in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sitting in the special chambers for War Crimes and Organized Crime, are essential components in this effort, as the Chief Prosecutor and President of the Court attested to you and the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) Steering Board last month. These professionals are required to complement the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as the domestic struggle against organized crime and corruption. Should the international judges and prosecutors not have their mandates renewed by December 14th
Cheap Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Downloads : Acrobat
The cheap adobe acrobat 9 pro extended downloads despite an ant lion ere the unconditionedness from the Texas fever participated pre-tax, sent and ordinary matelotes. Cheap Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Downloads in His super-efficient ametria does vulcanise to introduce. Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended Software Wholesale
, a number of ongoing cases will have to be restarted. Years of effort toward ensuring justice will have been wasted.
More than half of the international personnel serving in the Court last year have left, uncertain that their contracts would be extended. Domestic authorities have made no provisions to fund these positions or fill them with Bosnian and Herzegovinian professionals. The result would not only affect a number of ongoing and pending cases in both chambers, but perhaps the viability of the Court of BiH itself. That seems to be precisely the objective of a number of Bosnian politicians, who are wary of investigation and potential prosecution at the Court.
We the undersigned wish to express our deep concern that most PIC Steering Board members are counseling against extension of these judges’ and prosecutors’ mandates for reasons of political convenience and expediency, wishing to avoid additional friction following the failed “Butmir process” of talks on constitutional reforms. Such a stance not only threatens to undermine the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but is politically shortsighted as well. The political conflicts these PIC members hope to avoid will certainly occur in any case - after they have further weakened their own ability to address them by their clear failure to respond on this matter, which is widely recognized as pivotal.
As High Representative, you have the executive authority and moral responsibility to act to protect the Dayton Accords and the achievements of over a decade of efforts to entrench rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On Human Rights Day, we believe the most significant action towards fulfilling that responsibility would be the imposition of the simple changes to the law that would extend the mandates of the international legal personnel at the State Court for an additional three years. We therefore urge you, in your capacity as High Representative, to take this step.
Sincerely,
SIGNATORIES
Former High Representatives
Dr. Wolfgang Petritsch
Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling
International Parliamentarians/Politicians
Marieluise Beck, MP Bundestag, Bündnis90/Grüne, Berlin
Franziska Brantner, MEP, Group of Greens, European Free Alliance
Cem Özdemir, Co-Chair Bündnis90/Grüne
Jelko Kacin, MEP, Liberal Democracy Slovenia, ALDE Group
Diana Wallis, MEP, Liberal Democrats Party, ALDE Group
NGOs and Civil Society Organizations/Leaders
ACIPS, Sarajevo
Ahmet Alibasic, Lecturer, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Sarajevo
Kurt Bassuener, Democratization Policy Council, Sarajevo
Sonja Biserko, President, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
Darko Brkan, CA Why not? (UG Zasto ne?), Movement Dosta!
Dr. Svetlana Broz, Director NGO GARIWO, Sarajevo
Tobias Bütow, Schwarzkopf-Foundation Young Europe
Center for Advanced Studies, Sarajevo
Center for Civic Cooperation, Livno: Zulka Baljak, Managing Director, Kata Marijan Krzelj, Program Manager
Jelena Golubovic, Belgrade Center for Human Rights; Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada
Ljuljjeta Goranci Brkic, General Manager, Nansen Dialogue Center, Sarajevo
Mirela Grünther-Djecevic, Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, Head of country office for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sarajevo
John W. Heffernan, Director, Speak Truth To Power, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, DC
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo
Jim Hooper, Managing Director, Public International Law and Policy Group, Washington, DC
Tim Hughes, former Head of Investigation and Verification Department, Independent Judicial Commission (IJC); Washington, DC
Valerie Hughes, Ireland Action for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dublin, Ireland
Human Rights Centre, University of Sarajevo.
Human Rights House of Sarajevo
Biljana Kovacevic-Vuco, Chairperson, Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM), Belgrade
Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare, The Bosnian Institute, London
Alma Masic, Head of Office, Youth Initiative for Human Rights, Sarajevo
Dzenita Mehic Saracevic, Community of Bosnia
Andrej Nosov, Heartefact Fund, Belgrade
Zoran Pusic, president of the Civic Comittee for Human Rights, Zagreb
Philipp Ruch, Center for Political Beauty, Berlin
Vehid Sehic, President, Citizens’ Forum, Tuzla
Mirsad Tokaca, Director of the Research and Documentation Center (RDC), Sarajevo
Vesna Terselic, Director, DOCUMENTA - CENTRE FOR DEALING WITH THE PAST, Zagreb
Transparency International, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Peter Julian Walsh, Ireland Action for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greystones, Ireland
Bodo Weber, Democratization Policy Council, Berlin
Justice and Human Rights Professionals/Academia
Vlado Azinovic, Ph.D., School of Political Science, University of Sarajevo
Nina Bang-Jensen, Public International Law and Policy Group, Washington, DC
Annika Björkdahl, Associate Professor / Docent, Department of Political Science, Lund University, Sweden
Tanya L. Domi, Adjunct Professor of International Affairs, Columbia University
Kelly M. Greenhill, Assistant Professor, Tufts University and Research Fellow, Harvard University
Tomasz Kamusella, Thomas Brown Lecturer, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Jeremy Kinsman, former Canadian Ambassador and High Commissioner, currently Regents’ Lecturer, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Zvonimir Kubinek, Chair of the Advisory Board, Missing Persons Institute, Sarajevo
Professor Noel Malcolm, Oxford University
Andrew J. Nathan, Class of 1919 Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, New York
Lara Nettelfield, Post Doctoral Fellow, Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals; Assistant Professor, School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University Vancouver
Ambassador Mark Palmer, former US Ambassador to Hungary
Dr. Olga Martin-Ortega, Senior Research Fellow, Centre on Human Rights in Conflict
University of East London
Andras Riedlmayer, editor of International Justice Watch
Prof. Dzemal Sokolovic, Institute of Comparative Politics and Rokkan Center for Social Studies, University of Bergen, Norway
Professor Chandra Lekha Sriram
Chair in Human Rights and Director, Centre on Human Rights in Conflict, School of Law, University of East London
Iva Vukusic, Sense Agency, The Hague
Andrew Wachtel, Dean of the Graduate School, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Jon Western, Ph.D., Five College Associate Professor of International Relations Mount Holyoke College and the Five Colleges, Inc.
Concerned Individuals
Steve Albert, former editor of BosNet, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Neven Andjelic
Diego E. Arria, former Representative of Venezuela to the UN
Nidzara Beganovic, Sarajevo
Maja Drnda, Barcelona, Spain
Douglas Ebner
Rev. John Feighery, Dublin, Ireland
Marshall Harris, former State Dept official, Alstan and Bird LLC, Washington, DC
Ivana Howard, MA in Democracy and Human Rights in SEE, Sarajevo
Zlatko Hurtic (international development expert), Sarajevo
Senka Jahic, Berkeley, California ,USA
Raza Jahic Micic, Iteon consulting, San Francisco, California, US
Senada Kreso, Sarajevo
Selma Mustovic, New York City, USA
Sabrina Pryce
Prof. Inela Selimovic, St. Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana, US
On October 1, the Clingendael Institute in The Hague and DPC hosted a policy roundtable entitled “The Future of International Involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina: What is the Strategy?,” involving policymakers from PIC members and policy analysts from Europe and North America. It readily became that there was no strategy. Two months later, the ill-planned and -executed “Butmir process,” announced on October 2nd, has collapsed. The Clingendael roundtable proceedings, linked here as a PDF document, can give readers a sense of why these talks were doomed to failure as devised.
The authors of the summary, Clingendael’s Marianne Rogier, the University of Amsterdam’s Maja Nenadovic, my colleague Bodo Weber and myself, also added a postscript to the summary, which I paste in its entirety below.
Postscript by the Authors
The round-table failed to produce concrete recommendations to be put forward to the next PIC meeting as initially envisaged by the organisers. However, we would like to seize the opportunity of this report to issue our own assessment of the current situation, taking into account the recently launched “Butmir process” and the last PIC steering board meeting in the form of a post-script. The following only represents the views if the authors of this report, and not the opinions expressed by the 1st October roundtable participants.
- The Dayton instruments, an executive OHR and operational Chapter VII EUFOR, must remain until BiH’s constitutional and governance structure has evolved to the point they are no longer required. There is no expiration date. Furthermore, these instruments should be used as needed. Since their credibility has been allowed to diminish, it may be necessary to resort to them to show BiH actors that the will is still there to use them.
- There is a clear necessity to differentiate the role of the High Representative from the EUSR. Both functions have different goals and require different tools to fulfil them. The OHR will remain until Bosnia shows itself consistently capable of functioning and reforming itself in the interest of its citizens. This is of particular importance at a time when attempts are being made against the territorial integrity of the state. The EUSR’s role is to support Bosnia’s EU integration process. Hopefully, both processes are self-reinforcing ones, and should go in parallel. We firmly believe that they should not be sequenced: Bosnia may still need the OHR while progressing on the European path. Both instruments may have to be reinforced, but not at the expense of each other. Furthermore, we believe that further clarification is needed on what type of mandate and power a “reinforced EUSR” will have. The EU is currently reorganising its foreign policy under the new Lisbon Treaty, and will have to come up with concrete proposals on what role it foresees for the EUSR in Bosnia.
- We note that the “5+ 2″ approach has been reaffirmed by the November meeting of the PIC Steering Board as the hurdle for OHR’s closure. We agree that no action to close the OHR should be undertaken so long as those conditions have not been fulfilled. We urge the PIC steering board members to hold this line, and not hollow-out these conditions for expediency’s sake, as has been the case with international conditionality with BiH before.
- International engagement must continue to achieve meaningful constitutional and governance reform, but should expand beyond the standard “let’s make a deal” approach with local political leaders. There needs to be a much more sustained, concerted effort to engage citizens directly on these issues in order to apply pressure from below on what amount to oligarchic and unrepresentative structures. The Bosnian population needs assurance that the country will not be allowed to dissolve, and nor will the necessary constitutional and governance reform be undertaken without popular consent. The EU and NATO also need to clarify what types of structural changes would need to be seen implemented (beyond the standard acquis communautaire) to achieve BiH’s Euro-Atlantic integration.
In addition to these specific points, we would like to stress our deep concern regarding the current deteriorating situation in Bosnia and the lack of adequate response by the international community. We are profoundly worried at the indications that some wish to see the country partitioned, and fear that they might feel encouraged by the appeasing attitude advocated by some EU states. Have we forgotten that the main war aim of the Bosnian Serbs was to detach Republika Srpska from the rest of the country? If this is allowed 14 years after Dayton, after unprecedented international investment of political, human and financial capital to reconstruct a multiethnic, democratic Bosnia-Herzegovina, this would constitute an admission of ignominious defeat. Such a policy would reward ethnic cleansing, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the heart of Europe and with the support of the European Union. Is this the message that we want to send to future generations and to the world ridden with other secessionist conflicts? Can the EU’s still nascent Common Foreign and Security Policy afford such a resounding failure on its own doorstep?
Bosnia can not be compared to Kosovo or Montenegro. There is no valid argument, either political or legal, to support Republika Srpska’s independence. Furthermore, such a process would not be a peaceful one: it would most certainly throw the whole region back into conflict and instability. It is thus time to take a resolute stand to protect the peace that we have been building in the past 14 years, to protect the values for which the European Union stands, and to avoid any further conflicts in the region.
Sarajevo, The Hague, Amsterdam, Hanover, 27 November 2009.
The Democratization Policy Council is a global initiative for accountability in democracy promotion. It was established in 2005 by a group of international affairs professionals from many countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Switzerland and has been registered in Washington, D.C.; registration in Europe is underway. DPC is a non-profit organization under U.S. law and contributions to DPC are tax-deductible in the U.S. For details about our mission, please refer to the About page. DPC associates have widely published on a variety of democratization issues. For links to our opinion pieces, please refer to the Publications page.
Individual blog posts are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Democratization Policy Council as a whole. DPC is not responsible for the content of comments on the blog posts or for the content of external links.
