The West has spent significant amounts of money for the reconstruction of the Balkans. Overall assistance to southeastern Europe was significant, ranging between €6-6.5 billion per annum from 1995-2006. Aid peaked twice, as a response to post-conflict reconstruction: first in 1995-1997 due to the significant assistance given to Bosnia and Herzegovina (following the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords) and secondly in 2001-2002 due to the considerable amounts of aid given to Kosovo after the NATO bombings. Bosnia received massive amounts of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. On average the country received about $730 million per year from 1996-2002. At $1,400 per head, assistance in the first two post-war years in Bosnia was higher than any other international state-building project since the Second World War. Kosovo also received massive amounts of financial aid in the 1999-2004 period: about $3.1 billion of international aid targeted mostly humanitarian priorities and helped rebuild most of the 120,000 houses destroyed in the violence. Significant assistance was also provided to Serbia after the end of the Milosevic era: from 2000-2005, Serbia received more the $3.5 billion. In total, throughout the last twenty years the European Union (European Commission and the member-states) provided about 66% of the assistance for the reconstruction of western Balkans and the United States about 15%. With regard to the relevant burden of the European Community and its member states, and with few exceptions (like Yugoslavia and Romania from 1991-1999), Community contributions were higher to much higher than all EU member states bilateral efforts taken together.

Read the rest of this entry »

An agreement was tentatively reached on 21 October in Vienna between Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), France, Russia and the US. Details of the deal are still not public and the deal is not sealed yet (the Iranian delegation needs clearance from Tehran). Still, the general elements of the deal are known and they raise important questions and leave some critical matters of Iran’s nuclear dossier essentially unresolved. Iran has agreed to ship a significant share of its Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) stockpile to Russia for further enrichment. The fuel will then be processed into fuel rods and returned to Iran for use in its Tehran Research Reactor, under IAEA safeguards. Pending clarification of what additional elements the deal addresses and includes, here are five questions that presumably remain unanswered.

Read the rest of this entry »

The release of a much anticipated EU-commissioned  report  into the causes of the Russian-Georgian war of August 2008 predictably spread the blame for the conflict around. Georgia got its share of the blame, but the text of the report is devastating to Russia’s narrative of the conflict. The Report faulted Georgia for its attack on Tskhinvali; but summarily and bluntly dismisses the entire Russian justification for its subsequent invasion, as well as its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Importantly, the report also warns against the dangers of the accepting rhetoric of ‘spheres of influence’. Whether this will result in any tangible implications remains more doubtful.

BACKGROUND: Assisted by a small army of experts, Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini has spent close to a year investigating the origins and course of the Russian-Georgian war.  Tagliavini’s report itself is moderate in size, consisting of 40 pages, but it is supplemented by a 450-page addendum of historical, humanitarian, legal and political analyses by members of her group, as well as a further 600 pages of appendices (mainly documents provided by the conflicting parties). Given its size and the subject matter, the report will undoubtedly be the subject of great debate and controversy.

  Read the rest of this entry »

Everybody knows it: the EU is a secular institution, which doesn’t have legal competence in religious matters. Moreover, its cooperation with non-state actors is based on the principle of non-discrimination, meaning that the EU should not discriminate any actor on the basis of its secular or religious nature. I was reminded of these two EU fundaments several times during interviews with EU officials last and this year.

In reality, is the separation between the EU and religion that clear? My experience is that while separation seems to be the case on paper and in many policy areas, there are also indications of emerging patterns of timid cooperation between EU institutions and religious actors, both religious leaders and grassroots representatives, in internal and external EU policies. However, this knowledge doesn’t seem to be fully acknowledged, internalised, nor reflected upon in current EU policy-making. Read the rest of this entry »

The importance of the religious factor today from the lives of millions of individuals up to global dynamics does not need to be pointed out any longer. Neither does it need to be argued that our world is affected by many kinds of violence from the domestic to the global level. The link between religion and violence, conflict, extremism and terrorism gets a lot of attention, is extensively reported, researched and increasingly taken into account in policymaking and international relations. However, the other side of the coin, namely the link between religion and peace, gets far less attention. Given the obvious presence of religion on the world scene today and its role in stimulating, supporting or legitimizing conflicts and violence, it is rather surprising that within the international community and the academic world attention is rising so lately and sporadically to the role of religion in peacebuilding.

  Read the rest of this entry »