A New Russian Institute, Interpreting Kosovo, Kostunica and Nikolic
Michael Averko
May 05, 2008
The recently announced (at the end of last year) formation of the "Institute of Democracy and Cooperation" (IDC) has been getting feedback from Kremlin critical and less critical advocates. To date, the number of well funded organizations dealing with former Communist bloc matters has a tilt favoring Western neo-conservative and neo-liberal opinions. With numerous Western Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) active in many countries, it is not out of line to have several Russian institutes of that kind. Specifically, a strong counterweight reflecting mainstream Russian views in key Western countries. Such activity will ideally monitor human rights, foreign policy and commerce issues.
Covering major markets in the United States and France, the announced New York and Paris locations of the IDC are well placed. In the United States, it is incorrect to focus exclusive attention on the very important Washington DC area. New York is home to Wall Street, the United Nations and several major media, collegiate and NGO venues. For greater effectiveness, the IDC might have to eventually expand elsewhere. Foreign policy academic Andranik Migranyan will be heading the IDC's New York office.
Being located in two major markets is part of an intricate process. Having the right people in place and interaction with high profile Western media, collegiate and think tank institutions will be required for the IDC to succeed. Those unsympathetic to the IDC's existence will be on alert to bash any perceived fault of it. A firm presentation and reasoned analysis are necessary factors for the IDC's success.
Natalia Narochnitskaya will be heading the IDC's Paris office. She is a feisty advocate, known for speaking her mind in a no nonsense kind of manner. Russian English language advocacy benefits from utilizing an aggressively intelligent tact. Respectfully frank give and take exchanges nurture a better understanding of issues where Russia and the West differ. An overly diplomatic playing down of differences is akin to sweeping dirt under a carpet.
As someone interested in former Yugoslav affairs, Narochnitskaya might be aware of this comment from an unnamed American State Department official, who said (as per Nicholas Kralev's May 3 Washington Times article "Russia Chides West's Role in Statehood Rights") that "the Russians are not capable of having a serious conversation about Kosovo." As is true with some other topics: in English language mass media, there continues to be a lack of insight about Russia's position on Kosovo. In its place, are broad statements which are often not authoritatively followed up on.
Western displeasure with Serb Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica is highlighted in Dan Bilefsky's May 3 New York Times article "No Milosevic He Says, but Serbia's 'Undertaker' Worries the West." An unnamed "Western diplomat" is quoted saying that "Kostunica is a 19th-century, anti-Western, romantic nationalist" and that "Mr. Nikolic is more pragmatic." In this day and age of repackaged Kosovo Liberation Army leaders, it is not off base to view Serb Radical Party leader Tomislav Nikolic with respect. It is unrealistic to blame Kostunica for the current state of relations between Serbia and the leading Western governments (America, Britain, Germany and France). Calling Kostunica "a 19th-centrury anti-Western romantic nationalist" is incoherent with his track record. Kostunica's accomplishments include his translation of the Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay authored "Federalist Papers" into Serbian. Shortly after Slobodan Milosevic's political downfall, Kostunica acknowledged (on CBS' 60 Minutes) Serb war crimes in Bosnia. This was balanced by his noting the war crimes of others during the Bosnian Civil War.
Rather than put the blame on Kostunica, the leading Western governments could reevaluate their own attitudes towards Serbia. It is trendy to say that the Serbs continue to live in the past. This actually applies to how some in the West continue to think and act. A number of important Western officials involved with the former Yugoslav matters of the last decade remain in positions of influence. Kostunica has been arguably the best Serbian political option for the West. In the long run, foreign powers are more likely to lose influence by propping politicians who become increasingly associated with sacrificing the legitimate interests of their country.
On this last point, are two detailed and related articles. Reference Srdja Trifkovic's April 25 Chronicles Magazine piece "The EU's Double Game in the Balkans" and Nebojsa Malic's May 1 Antiwar.com commentary "Much Ado About Nothing."
Covering major markets in the United States and France, the announced New York and Paris locations of the IDC are well placed. In the United States, it is incorrect to focus exclusive attention on the very important Washington DC area. New York is home to Wall Street, the United Nations and several major media, collegiate and NGO venues. For greater effectiveness, the IDC might have to eventually expand elsewhere. Foreign policy academic Andranik Migranyan will be heading the IDC's New York office.
Being located in two major markets is part of an intricate process. Having the right people in place and interaction with high profile Western media, collegiate and think tank institutions will be required for the IDC to succeed. Those unsympathetic to the IDC's existence will be on alert to bash any perceived fault of it. A firm presentation and reasoned analysis are necessary factors for the IDC's success.
Natalia Narochnitskaya will be heading the IDC's Paris office. She is a feisty advocate, known for speaking her mind in a no nonsense kind of manner. Russian English language advocacy benefits from utilizing an aggressively intelligent tact. Respectfully frank give and take exchanges nurture a better understanding of issues where Russia and the West differ. An overly diplomatic playing down of differences is akin to sweeping dirt under a carpet.
As someone interested in former Yugoslav affairs, Narochnitskaya might be aware of this comment from an unnamed American State Department official, who said (as per Nicholas Kralev's May 3 Washington Times article "Russia Chides West's Role in Statehood Rights") that "the Russians are not capable of having a serious conversation about Kosovo." As is true with some other topics: in English language mass media, there continues to be a lack of insight about Russia's position on Kosovo. In its place, are broad statements which are often not authoritatively followed up on.
Western displeasure with Serb Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica is highlighted in Dan Bilefsky's May 3 New York Times article "No Milosevic He Says, but Serbia's 'Undertaker' Worries the West." An unnamed "Western diplomat" is quoted saying that "Kostunica is a 19th-century, anti-Western, romantic nationalist" and that "Mr. Nikolic is more pragmatic." In this day and age of repackaged Kosovo Liberation Army leaders, it is not off base to view Serb Radical Party leader Tomislav Nikolic with respect. It is unrealistic to blame Kostunica for the current state of relations between Serbia and the leading Western governments (America, Britain, Germany and France). Calling Kostunica "a 19th-centrury anti-Western romantic nationalist" is incoherent with his track record. Kostunica's accomplishments include his translation of the Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay authored "Federalist Papers" into Serbian. Shortly after Slobodan Milosevic's political downfall, Kostunica acknowledged (on CBS' 60 Minutes) Serb war crimes in Bosnia. This was balanced by his noting the war crimes of others during the Bosnian Civil War.
Rather than put the blame on Kostunica, the leading Western governments could reevaluate their own attitudes towards Serbia. It is trendy to say that the Serbs continue to live in the past. This actually applies to how some in the West continue to think and act. A number of important Western officials involved with the former Yugoslav matters of the last decade remain in positions of influence. Kostunica has been arguably the best Serbian political option for the West. In the long run, foreign powers are more likely to lose influence by propping politicians who become increasingly associated with sacrificing the legitimate interests of their country.
On this last point, are two detailed and related articles. Reference Srdja Trifkovic's April 25 Chronicles Magazine piece "The EU's Double Game in the Balkans" and Nebojsa Malic's May 1 Antiwar.com commentary "Much Ado About Nothing."