Mr. Biberaj and Mr. Kesic both examine the issue of Kosovan independence from different persepectives. Mr. Biberaj explains why he believes that supervised independence is the only way forward. Mr. Kesic, on the other hand, expresses concern at how this decision is being made.

Synopsis

Mr. Biberaj argues that if Kosovo is not to remain part of Serbia, then it has only two options. The first is a continuation of the status quo, which Mr. Biberaj feels is untenable. The second is supervised independence. Mr. Biberaj believes that this is a defining moment for the Balkans, and the region needs to move on from this issue. He argues that danger of renewed violence is exaggerated primarily because there is now a different situation and NATO peacekeeping forces are on the ground. Although a transition will not be easy, Mr. Biberaj feels that it will be manageable due to the widespread support this move has from the US and many European states. In addition, Mr. Biberaj argues that Russia and Serbia are powerless to do anything about the move.

What is crucial, however, is that Kosovo must rapidly look to the challenges ahead. Its government, which will be a coalition, must reach out to the Serb community, create a secure environment, and battle corruption and economic difficulties. Although Mr. Biberaj argues military confrontation must not be ruled out, to him, the general situation is relatively stable. Addressing religion, Mr. Biberaj explains that Serbian Islamists are self-assured and moderate and do not pose a serious threat in Serbia and Kosovo. Most importantly, Mr. Biberaj stresses that this is perhaps the last opportunity to peacefully solve this Albanian-Serb conflict without partitioning Serbia. He explains that the Serbs will eventually learn to live with Kosovo’s independence but also emphasizes the US must stay until “business is finished.”

Citing the withdrawal of troops in particular, Mr. Kesic argues, on the other hand , that Kosovo is an example of failed US diplomacy. It was taken for granted that Russia and Serbia would reluctantly accept the US and European states’ approach to the Kosovan problem, and the issue was dealt with too much as a vacuum, not taking into account neighboring players. Moreover, Mr. Kesic feels that the whole process has left Serbia no reason to trust the US and the European states involved. NATO has not fulfilled its promise of protecting minorities, the US is still not satisfied with Serbia even after it has gotten rid of Milosevic, and Kosovo is being treated as an exception to the territorial integrity principle employed for dividing up former Yugoslavia. Mr. Kesic argues that if the decision of Kosovan independence is made through continuing this same diplomatic process then instability will follow. Furthermore, supervised independence with protection by NATO is a selective interpretation of a UN resolution. Mr. Kesic believes such interpretations create chaos, make bypassing diplomacy the norm, and undermine UN peacekeeping efforts. In addition, what is the point of establishing democracy in Serbia if the international community treats it in the same humiliating way as it did Serbia’s previous regime? To Mr. Kesic, we must also continue to take seriously issues that could lead to war, such as tensions between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo itself. Finally, Mr. Kesic concludes by arguing that the EU’s common foreign policy is really what is being “put on the line.”

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

Elez Biberaj is a 27-year veteran of the Voice of America. As division director, he brings to bear considerable radio and television broadcasting experience and Eurasian market knowledge in planning, directing, and developing VOA's multimedia programming in Russian, Ukrainian, Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian, Greek, Macedonian, and Serbian. Dr. Biberaj joined VOA's Albanian Service as an international radio broadcaster in 1980. From 1982 to 1986, he worked in the Press Division of the former U.S. Information Agency as a senior writer/editor, specializing in Soviet and East European Affairs. Dr. Biberaj returned to VOA as Albanian Service Chief in 1986, and, for the next 18 years helped transform the service into one of VOA's most successful broadcasting units. For over a decade, he served in dual capacity as chief of the Albanian Service and director of European Division writers and researchers. In the latter capacity, he directed the work of division writers and researchers, developed broad strategies for providing program material and research, and assigned coverage of events and topics of importance to Eastern Europe, and edited program material for use by division services.

Dr. Biberaj was named the Eurasia Division's managing editor in 2004, became acting director the following year, and was appointed division director in December 2006. In his Eurasia Division managerial positions, Dr. Biberaj helped develop new programming strategies that enabled language services to take advantage of new technologies, improve existing programming formats, and better meet audience demands in a highly competitive media environment. His expertise and knowledge of Eurasian affairs and of U.S. foreign policy objectives have been recognized inside and outside of VOA. On many occasions, he has been invited by the State Department, the National Security Council, and other U.S. government agencies, academia, and non-governmental organizations to participate in policy planning exercises, conferences, and panel discussions. He has also appeared on television outlets such as CNN, ABC, Fox, NBC, and CBC to comment on Balkan affairs.

Dr. Biberaj has written widely on the horrors of communist rule in Albania, the long struggle of Albanians in former Yugoslavia for human and national rights, and the daunting challenges that Albania has faced in its transition from communism to democracy. Elez Biberaj has a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University. He has authored three books on Albanian affairs and contributed chapters to several others. He has also published articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, Conflict Studies, Problems of Communism, Survey, The World Today, East European Quarterly, The Wall Street Journal/Europe, etc.

Obrad Kesic is a Senior Partner with TSM Global Consultants, LLC. Mr. Kesic is also currently working with the Balkan countries on behalf of the Congressional National Prayer Breakfast. Over the last decade, Mr. Kesic has been working with the governments and with nongovernmental organizations in South Eastern Europe. Mr. Kesic also serves as a consultant on Balkan affairs for various US and international organizations and agencies. Mr. Kesic has provided analysis and briefings for US government agencies and officials, including The Department of State, The Department of Defense and the United States Information Agency. Mr. Kesic also provides frequent commentary and analysis for the US and international media, including for National Public Radio, CNN International, BBC, Voice of America, USA Today, and Monitor Radio. Mr. Kesic has authored dozens of articles and essays on Balkan affairs and on US policy toward the Balkan states. He is a frequent speaker to community, professional and scholarly groups. Mr. Kesic is a member of the Board of Directors of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the private company, SuperDrive, Inc.

In recent decades the Middle East's strategic architecture has changed significantly with the rise in the regional influence of the non-Arab states of the Middle East: Iran, Turkey and Israel and the considerably reduced influence of the key Arab states, that used to be the prime movers in the Arab world: Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Secular nationalism is in apparent retreat as free elections in Turkey and the Palestinian Authority seem to indicate. What does this all mean for the Arab-Israeli peace process, and especially for the arrival at a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians? What does this mean for the chances of success of greater US and European involvement?

Synopsis

To Prof. Susser, the Middle East is dealing with a variety of key issues. He explains that the fallout of Iraq has led to widespread anxiety that the Middle East could shatter into a chaos of sectarian violence, beginning with a breakdown in Iraq. In addition, Prof. Susser notes the social economic decline in the Middle East which has caused emigration and, most importantly, a changing power dynamic in the region. Citing Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as previous regional superpowers, he believes that the current major players are Iran, Turkey, and Israel, all of which are non-Arab. Prof. Susser argues this power shift was accelerated by the fall of the USSR, as well as the presence of the US. He focuses particularly on the role of Iran, a country he feels is trying to establish a “crescent of influence.” Prof. Susser believes the Israel-Hezbollah war was the start of a new era of conflicts between Israel and Iran as they battle over the regional architecture that will shape the future of the Middle East. He argues that Lebanon is therefore a key battleground in the conflict.

Prof. Susser feels this conflict is a struggle against Iran and Shiite influence. One can notice the shift in dynamic in the region through the fact that other Arab states are now on the same side as Israel, whereas before no Arab state would side with the Israelis. Prof. Susser believes this is partly because there is a shifting power balance from Sunnis to Shiites in the Middle East, a radical change that goes against the traditional order of the region.

Prof. Susser moves on to focus to another potential radical change, a two state solution between Israel and Palestine as set out by the Annapolis conference in November 2007. He argues that it is most unlikely that the US will actually get the two sides to sign a final agreement resolving the conflict in the near future. At the same time, Prof. Susser reveals his belief that it is imperative that negotiations do not shoot to high. This “courts failure” and leads to disaster. In fact, Prof. Susser argues for “courting success.” He explains that this must be achieved through realistic goals such as a secure ceasefire, and that the Palestinians may be less reluctant in agreeing to interim solutions. Finally, Prof. Susser emphasizes that if an interim approach is unsuccessful and a permanent solution is not agreed upon, then Israel must not ignore the unattractive but perhaps necessary option of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Prof. Susser argues that although this may seem like a failure, the status quo works better for Arabs such as Hamas who seek to delegitimize Israel.

About the speaker

Professor Asher Susser, Director for External Affairs of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at TAU. Professor Susser holds a PhD in Modern Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University and he taught for over twenty-five years in the University's Department of Middle Eastern History and is presently a visiting Professor at Brandeis University. He has been a Fulbright Fellow, a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Chicago and Brandeis University and a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In 2006 Professor Susser was selected as TAU's Faculty of Humanities Outstanding Lecturer. In 1994 Professor Susser was the only Israeli academic to accompany Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to his historic meeting with King Hussein of Jordan for the signing of the Washington Declaration.

Presented by the Forum on Contemporary Europe.

The President of the Basque Autonomous Community will discuss his "Road Map to bring an end to the Basque Conflict," including his offer of a political agreement already made to Madrid, based on a rejection of violence and an embrace of democratic principles and a Basque society plebiscite.

Synopsis

In a visit marked by controversy and protesting, President Ibarretxe clearly delivers his view on how the Basque country can establish sustainable human development. President Ibarretxe quickly stresses, however, that two challenges stand in the way of this goal. The first is securing peace from the violence of ETA, and the second is attaining political normalization through agreement with Spain. Citing dialogue as key, he explains that this conflict, lasting since the 19th century, must be resolved through political and democratic means based on the principle of self-determination. President Ibarretxe sets out the history of the Basque people, possibly the oldest in Europe, while revealing its openness to universal art and culture, as well as the Basque region’s top level social welfare. The Basque country, which has been ranked third in the UN’s Human Development Index, places emphasis on identity and innovation in striving forward. President Ibarretxe explains that 30 years after the 1979 Basque statute of autonomy, a clear majority demand a new framework for relations with Spain.

Therefore, President Ibarretxe reveals the “roadmap” he has formulated for the Basque country to achieve political normalization, as he puts it. His approach begins with four preliminary considerations. The first consideration is that the problems of the violence of ETA should not be confused with the political conflict between the Basque government and Spain. Secondly, President Ibarretxe argues that a key prerequisite to any solution is that the violence of ETA ceases immediately regardless of the state of the political conflict. Thirdly, stressing the importance of a necessary maxim to be used as a point of reference in the struggle for justice, President Ibarretxe emphasizes the defense of human rights without exception as fundamental to success. The fourth consideration that President Ibarretxe puts forward is that the right to self-determination is central to adopting a solution.

However, President Ibarretxe’s “roadmap” also offers concrete action through five specific steps. The five-step process begins with an offer of a political agreement based on ethics and democracy to Spain, something which President Ibarretxe has already extended to the Spanish government. Subsequently, President Ibarretxe offers a plenary session of the Basque parliament to either ratify any agreement reached with the Spanish government and call for a popular vote for Basque society to ratify the agreement as well or call for a popular vote to break a deadlock in the negotiation process. After the popular vote, President Ibarretxe reveals further negotiations will follow to end the violence of ETA and establish a new framework for Basque political parties to work under. Finally, President Ibarretxe offers a referendum in 2010 for the Basque people to vote on the result of this process. In concluding his talk, President Ibarretxe calls for any steps forward to be centered around “dialogue, democratic respect, and the liberty to decide.”

President Ibarretxe kindly takes the time to answer numerous questions on a variety of challenging issues. This question-and-answer session, where the questions are asked in English and President Ibarretxe replies in Spanish, is included in the recording. Unfortunately however, the translation of President Ibarretxe's responses cannot really be heard.

Selma Leydesdorff will speak on the results of her interviews with the women who survived the worst massacre in Europe since World War II. She will discuss these women as individuals and as a group, explain why they are today labelled 'difficult' and what such a label means, and will take a closer look at the memory of the trauma of the genocide and the years of the violent siege of Srebrenica.

Professor Leydesdorff received a MA (1972) and Ph.D. (1987) in modern history from the University of Amsterdam. She has served as a member of the Women’s Studies Research Council at the University of Amsterdam (1985-88), a member of the National Science Committee (1985-91), Chair of the National Oral History Association (1986-96), Secretary of the International Oral History Association (1990-96), Secretary of l’Association de Development de l’Approche Biographique (1990-97), and she currently chairs the Commission on the History of Culture of Jews of the Dutch Royal Academy. She is also the principle editor of Memory and Narrative (Transaction Publishers Inc, 2005). She has been a visiting scholar at European University in Florence and at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and has held visiting professorships at Dickinson College, Anton de Kom University in Suriname, Sabanci University in Istanbul, Xiamen University in China, and most recently at New York University. Professor Leydesdorff is currently a fellow at the Remarque Institute at NYU.

Event Synopsis:

Dr. Leydesdorff recounts the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica in which 7,749 Muslims were killed by Bosnian Serb troops as Dutch peacekeeping forces stood by. Leydesdorff asserts that official inquiries ignored voices of the survivors - many of them women who had lost sons and husbands. Today, the survivors continue their campaign to have their stories heard, to find out what happened and why, to uncover information on victims yet to be identified, and to improve their economic conditions. They also believe the Dutch should apologize for failing to prevent the genocide.

Dr. Leydesdorff describes her own research project in which she interviewed women survivors. She conveys the chaos and despair resulting not just from the genocide of men and boys but of the simultaneous rape of women and girls by the Serbian soldiers. She explains why so many survivors have remained silent, and discusses the complexity of relationships between neighbors who once lived in peaceful coexistence but who now live with memories of betrayal and grief. 

Finally, Leydesdorff described ongoing efforts of the group, including monthly marches on Sarajevo and a funeral for hundreds of newly identified victims that was attended by 60,000 people.

Secondly, the presentation uses multidisciplinary approach, relying not only on contemporary history, but also on social psychology and political science.  

Based on the seminal distinction between massacre and genocide, this study identifies the main steps of a general process of destruction, both rational and irrational, made of a "delusional rationality". It describes a dynamic structural model with, at its core, the matrix of an imaginary construct which, according to its fears, resentments and utopias, shapes the social body, razing and eliminating “the enemy”. The presentation argues for a model with multiple variables, the act of massacre being determined both by local parameters and the international context, identifying the main stages that can lead to a genocidal process, without presupposing any historical fatality, and explaining how ordinary people can become perpetrators.

Professor Rathkolb is the co-founder of a scientific quarterly, "Medien und Zeit" (Media and Time), focusing on interdisciplinary questions of contemporary history and communications/media history, and is managing editor of "Zeitgeschichte" (Contemporary History). Since 1980, Professor Rathkolb has regularly presented papers at conferences and universities in the U.S. and Europe, including the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, American Political Science Association, German Studies Association, UC Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford University, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Chicago. He has published more than 100 articles on Austrian, European contemporary political, and cultural history, as well as international affairs and business history.

This presentation will analyze the most important changes in historical political terms that have taken place in the Austrian debate on the causes and consequences of the National Socialist takeover of power in 1938. At the same time, the results, which take into account recent research on communicative and cultural memory, will be enriched and widened in scope through a consideration of how the Anschluss is perceived by the international community of historians.