Can an Iron Fist Put Power in Bosnia’s Hands? – New York Times
“There is a growing consensus that Paddy Ashdown, Bosnia’s high representative, may be doing as much harm as good by holding back the development of democracy.”
This line of criticism has been put forward by some at least since Bildt was succeeded by the spaniard in 97, but naturally become more widespread and vocal over time. It hitting the NYT online frontpage may be a sign of some kind of turning point.
As for the the substance, the criticism souds sensible, but I don’t have any strong opinion. Curious what the Dougs and Brussels Gonzo think.
A bit of a hack job, if I may say so. The arguments for and against running Bosnia as an international protectorate have been flying for many years now. Lagumdzija, a discredited opposition leader whose political style is partly responsible for the opposition’s defeat a few years ago, and Nevenka (not Nevenko, as the article gives her name — a simple Googling would have done the job) Trifkovic, an utterly obscure local parliamentarian, are bizarre choices as the only interlocutors other than Ashdown.
I’m also not sure what Wood is trying to say here:
“[Ashdown] is widely credited with being the most effective official to have occupied his post. Yet there is a growing consensus among those same officials that Lord Ashdown’s office, and perhaps even his forceful character, may be doing as much harm as good by holding back the development of democracy here.”
How can the same officials claim that he’s the most effective high rep AND that OHR may be counterproductive in what it does? Doesn’t make much sense to me but maybe I’m missing something.
I think this whole debate about whether Ashdown has been a “good” or a “bad” high rep lacks one dimension — that of confounded expectations. Me, I had no views on Petritsch before he assumed office yet he turned out to be an excellent high rep. With Ashdown, many — especially in the Bosnian Muslim community — had sky-high expectations that not surprisingly were disappointed, which has led to his demonization in the local press. (Incidentally, I think his strategy for dealing with the local media has been an unmitigated disaster.)
To be perfectly honest, I didn’t actually read the thing. I’m a bad blogger.
‘The arguments for and against running Bosnia as an international protectorate have been flying for many years now.’
As I noted. And also that they haven’t reached daily newspapers before. I thought that the article in itself isn’t so intersting than the fact than fact that it was written. I have a feeling the CW is slowly changing, and here’s another data point. Am I right, do you think?
Almost everyhing the US dailies write about Europe is really appallingly bad and hackneyed, isn’t it?
You’re a good blogger because you drew my attention to a piece that I wouldn’t have found otherwise. (I’m no longer reading the Times very regularly — they’ve really dropped the ball on a whole bunch of stories — I’d rather buy the FT and read the Post on the web. Plus, the story was buried deep on their website when I accessed it.)
The reason I said these arguments had been going on for a long time wasn’t to question why the Times (and the Trib, which as usual did a better job editing it) ran the story, or indeed why you referred to it. It was to say that after all these years they could have made a better selection of interlocutors with very little research.
This is all in the context of the U.S. re-engagement with the region, with two visits earlier this year by Nick Burns, and with the wrangling behind the scenes over who’s going to be the next high rep. It very much looks like it will be Schwarz-Schilling.
“Almost everything the US dailies write about Europe is really appallingly bad and hackneyed, isn’t it?”
This may go too far, but you are somewhere in the right ballpark. What I think we ought to bear in mind is that this situation may be symmetrical: ie that what the European press offer on the Americas could possibly be found wanting when subjected to the same scrutiny.
The latest example which has just irritated me is that the Spanish dailies this weekend have been leading with photos of Bush, Chavez and Maradonna, as if the alternative meeting outside the conference was the most important issue discussed in Argentina.
Come to think of it, you wouldn’t want to exclusively read the UK press if you wanted to know about Germany, or vice versa (and here I would draw your attention to the Independent and accounts of the treatment of Kosovo gypsy refugees which I got into a bit of deep water over on Afoe, with Tobias understandably making a “recall to order”).