Hard Road Ahead in Iraq

For U.S., a Hard Road Is Still Ahead in Iraq

Just arrived in New York. I’m here for a meeting of the International Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Affairs.

On this side of the Atlantic the foreign policy interest is almost exclusively focused on Iraq.

When there is talk about ”the war”, it is Iraq it is all about. One sees a war there, and it is the war that the United States is concerned with.

The referendum passed without major incidents, which must be seen as a real success. And it looks as if the constitution has been approved.

But the success must be qualified. It seems as if the constitution was roundly rejected in two provinces with solid Sunni Arab majorities. Rejection in a third would have killed it altogether.

Now it will be of great importance to see which conclusions the Sunni leaders draw of this.

Will they see it as a reason to become more involved in the political process and seek a greater role through the coming parliamentary election? Or will they feel defeated, and turn more to different forms of resistance instead?

It remains to be seen. The nerveousness on this side of the Atlantic is easy to detect.

Huntington and October 3rd

Selected Articles From Turkish Policy Quarterly – Turkey – ESI

There is no doubt that October 3rd ranks among the important dates in more modern European history.

It was on October 3rd 1990 that the old German Democratic Republic – a communist dictatorship – dissolved itself and joined the Federal Republic of Germany, thus bringing the division of the country to its end.

And it was on October 3rd 2005 that the European Union finally started its membership negotiations with Turkey, thus starting to bridge another of the great divides of the history of our part of the world.

One of the most discussed books of recent decades is undoubtedly that of Samuel Huntington on the possible coming ”clash of civilisations.” Although I certainly don’t belong to those that automatically dismisses what he has to say – very far from it – I belong to those that see it as a duty to prevent that clash by insteas building bridges and institutions of integration between different civilisations.

During a guest appearance last May at an Istanbul conference Sam Huntington was very clear in his prediction concerning the relationship between Turkey and the European Union:

”Since the European nations continue to believe that Turkish people are not culturally European, they won’t let Turkey enter the EU. Turkey’s possibility for admission into the EU is nil.”

But on October 3rd – although after some drama – the European Union gave a very different signal. After more than 40 years of waiting, Turkey’s decade-old dream of becoming a bona fide EU member state finally started to become a reality.

The importance of this step can hardly be exaggerated. As Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül remarked: ”A real step to bring together people with different cultures, religions and historical backgrounds has been made, bringing relief to the whole world.”

So what happened to Huntington’s claims?

Well, we haven’t seen the end of the story yet. There are significant forces primarily in Germany and France that want to bloc Turkey’s membership bid. And France has declared that the final decision will be taken by a referendum, and have been joined in this by Austria.

So we have every reason to continue the discussion on the alternatives ahead.

We could move towards a more close European Union that evolves more into some sort of Christian club, thus also increasing the dangers that we will be facing a ”clash of civilisations”.

Or we could listen to Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogans talk about an ”alliance of civilisations” by the bridging of the divides.

Turkey’s secular democracy is an exemplary model to fellow Islamic countries in the Middle East and around the world. Without Turkey’s inclusion into the European Union, there is always the risk that Turkey will look inward and eastward, resulting in greater nationalist sentiment and conflicts between and within different societies.

These were among the issues discussed here in Istanbul during the last few days. This year’s so called Bosphorous Conference has tried to look into the challenges that the coming years of negotiations, and the eventual decision on ratification of the resulting treaty of accession, will bring.

I believe it will be among the most difficult, and possible the most divisive, issues the European Union has ever faced. Well, with the possible exception of the turmoils as the original six states had to decide whether to let Britain join or not. That process took more than ten years.

It was a conference in the tradition of the very best, bringing together key thinkers and politicians from the Bosphorous to Brussels under the auspicies of the British Council.

I hope to have the time to write up my concuding remarks at the conference before continuing to New York and other issues there tomorrow.

In the meantime, the different reports of the European Stability Initiative, as well as the pieces published in the Turkish Policy Quarterly, makes for excellent reading.

We are only in the beginning on the great debate on the implications of Huntintgton’s thesis and the consequences of October 3rd.

Vaxholm Battle Escalating

News – Press service – Info – Opening of the Session

In a somewhat bizarre vote, the European Parliament in a vote has today asked Commission President Barroso as well as Commissioner McCreevy to appear before them and explain the ”compatibility of the Swedish social model with the European model.”‘

That the Socialist voted in favour of this is hardly surprising. They are in favour also of intra-European protectionism in order to protect old trade union priviligies.

But why on Earth the centre-right EPP-ED group voted in favour of this I really don’t know.

Have they turned semi-protectionist as well? Is there any explanation available?

Nobel Prize to RAND Scholars

RAND | Books & Publications | Classics | Thomas Schelling

The economic price in the honour of Alfred Nobel has been given to two most distinguished scholars, of which Thomas Schelling is the most famous, closely associated with the RAND Corporation.

I have to note this, since I’m on the Board of Trustees – as a matter of fact the so far only non-American – of RAND, and thus take a certain amount of pride in this excellent institution.

Thomas Schelling has been part of the RAND community – committeed to excellence in the application of science to different policy issues, not only in the realm of strategic issues – throughout most of his professional career.

Indeed, he was there when we recently inauguarated our new headquarters building in Santa Monica, along with numerous other well-known names from the history of strategic thought and the RAND Corporation.

Another recognition of the excellence that RAND attracts.

The Vaxholm Battle

EU news: An Independent View from European Voice

Vaxholm is a small town in the Stockholm archipelago. It is centered around the fortifications built there since half a millenium in order to prevent any hostile navy from ever entering Stockholm.

But in reality the fortifications there never had to fight much of a battle. Intruders kept away during the centuries.

Now, however, a much more serious battle of Vaxholm is being waged. It’s the battle between conservative trade union power in Sweden and the opening up of Europe to competition across the old borders.

Some of the facts around the dispute can be found in the editorial from the latest issue of European Voice that I have taken the liberty of copying below. The debate has been given new impetus by the visit to Sweden of the responsible European Commissioner. He made it plain on which side he stands in the dispute.

The Social Democrats are – understandably; they are the party of the past – up in arms over what he said, and it seems as if they have also scared some others into the same position.

”Charlie McCreevy, the Irish internal market commissioner, has struck at the heart of Sweden’s widely praised social model.

He has intruded on debates about the best way for Europe to reconcile social protection with competitiveness.

McCreevy said that the European Commission would side with a Latvian company, Laval, and against the Swedish trade union Byggnads, in a politically charged case involving accusations of protectionism on one side and social dumping on the other.

McCreevy’s blunt announcement infuriated the political establishment in a country where trade unions and collective agreements are the basis of a notoriously competitive social model. The Swedish government strongly supported Byggnads in its conflict with Laval last winter.

The Latvian building company did not strike a collective wage agreement with Byggnads when it started a school building in Vaxholm, near Stockholm. The Latvian builders were working under a Latvian collective agreement, but Byggnads demanded that they should be subject to the Swedish collective agreement. The conflict escalated when several Swedish trade unions blockaded the building site, sending Laval into bankruptcy.

Laval sued Byggnads in a Swedish labour court and complained to the Commission, arguing that while the union blockade may have been legal under Swedish law, it violated EU rules on the free circulation of labour and services.

In April, the Swedish court referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling on the application of EU law.

EU law says that companies from one member state that are performing services in another have the right to post their workers in the state where the work is being done, but must pay them at least the minimum wage of the country where the work is being done and must respect the working hours of that country.

Swedish unions say that posted workers must respect their collective agreements, too, which cover everything from working time to an industry-wide minimum wage.

The Swedish court considers EU legislation to be unclear about whether the blockade was compatible with the freedom to provide services and a ban on discrimination against foreigners, as well as the EU directive 96/71 on the posting of workers abroad.

This is explosive stuff. Fears of EU enlargement and of social dumping, the freedom to provide services in another member state and relations between EU law and traditions in member states blend into a politically charged cocktail.

MEPs worked themselves into a predictable lather with socialists demanding that McCreevy be summoned to explain himself. The president of the Party of European Socialists, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, said that in half an hour in Stockholm, McCreevy had destroyed Swedes’ understanding of Europe. Now there is talk of whether a referendum should be called on whether Sweden should withdraw from the EU, if its social fabric is under threat.

But this is not just about an indelicate commissioner stirring things up. The picture is much more complex – politically and legally. Sweden is a country where more than 80% of the population has union membership and is understandably protective of its social tradition. Swedish unions have become extremely powerful and increasingly protective.

The Latvian workers who were to build the school were to be paid salaries based on collective agreements between the Latvian company and their Latvian trade union. So was the Swedish trade union just not ready to accept an agreement which it was not party to? Here is a power-struggle which Swedish unions could not lose for fear that it might set a precedent.

The role of the ECJ is to rise above this politics, to ensure the application of the EU law. EU treaties provide for the freedom of movement of labour and freedom to provide services. EU law has primacy over national law.

If the Latvian building company complied with the provisions of the posting of workers directive, it seems logical that the court (and the Commission) should apply EU law.

Eighteen months after the EU’s expansion, a cloud still hovers over the question of who has the right to work where and under what conditions across the EU.

The EU clearly needs, the sooner the better, a services directive that fills in the current legal void, spelling out in what conditions cross-border services can be offered. Otherwise, it will be the courts across the Union and particularly the ECJ in Luxembourg, that make EU policy.”

So the battle of Vaxholm will continue. It’s the Northern European version of the French debate about the Polish plumbers.

Europe will win. And also Vaxholm will be better as a result.

Norway Turns Inwards

- Tre vinnere og ingen tapere – Aftenposten.no

So the three parties that will govern Norway have now produced the political results of their rather lengthy deliberations.

It’s hardly modern. More money in the public sector, but less modernisation of the same. A roll-back of the previous governments commitment to quality and freedom of choice in the education system.

On the controversial issue of oil and gas activities in the more arctic seas off Northern Norway, it seems as if they have just deferred the issue. It’s difficult to avoid the impression that the gap on that issue could not be bridged yet.

As expected, Norway will withdraw its rather limited military contribution in Iraq, and this is in spite of the fact that today it is a UN-mandated operation there. And in Afghanistan, Norway will no longer be part of the anti-terrorist Operation Enduring Freedom.

It’s easy to see the influence of the more leftist and anti-American strands in the coalition in these decisions.

On the issue of relations to the European Union, future PM Jens Stoltenberg could do little more than stating that this was a suicide issue for the government – if the issue was placed on the agenda, the government would not surivive.

Hardly impressive – although it has to be said that the outgoing centre-right government had the same policy.

Well, Norway turns somewhat more inward and somewhat less modern.

It’s all financed by the oil and gas prices…

Go East!

bildt.net

Before heading off to Helsinki, and from there tomorrow morning to Istanbul, I spoke in the opening panel of the 2005 Eastern European Business Summit in Stockholm.

Bringing together several hundred CEO’s and other chief executives, these meetings have become a rather important gathering discussing these issues.

My task was to try to set the overall scene for the discussions.

For those interested, my remarks as prepared for delivery – what is actually said is always somewhat different – are posted on my web page.

Now off to the airport to head East – to booming Helsinki.

The Schröder Saga

n-tv.de

So it’s official: Gerhard Schröder will not be part of the next German government.

The road from his extraordinary TV performance on election eve to him standing down is certain to rank among the classics of politics – beyond the borders of Germany.

There is no doubt that he was an excellent campaigner – whether he in retrospect will be seen as a good chancellor is a somewhat more open question.

He defeated Helmut Kohl and the CDU in the 1998 election with the explicit promise that not much would be different, but that unemployment would definitely come down. He and Oskar Lafontaine launched their slogan of the ”Neue Mitte” – the new centre ground.

Well, it did not take long for the relationship between Schröder and Lafontaine to break down. The later resigned from his position as Minister of Finance. Schröder was left to sail on his own by the winds he could find.

Facing the 2002 election he was heading for defeat. Unemployment certainly had not come down. But suddenly he was saved by the combination of his campaigning skills and the war drums over Iraq in Washington. By the thinnest of margins, his ”peace” message saved his position at the helm of the redgreen coalition.

But by know it was obvious that the economic reform issues simply couldn’t be ignored any longer. Business as usual was the same as the business of decline.

That’s when Agenda 2010 of some economic reforms was born. Objectively speaking there is no doubt that it was too little and too late, but for an SPD electorate that had been fed a rather different message it was much too much and much too fast.

So the party rebelled, divided and disappeated under his feet, culminating in the electoral defeat in Nordrhein-Westfalen late spring.

Schröder could do little but saying that he could no longer govern. The electorate was deserting his party, and sections of his party was deserting him. It was all heading South…

The election campaign in September brough back a swinging Schröder forgetting most things about reforms, drifting decisively leftwards and placing himself in virulent opposition to most ideas about more profound and sensible reforms in Germany.

It was tactically as masterful as it was strategically disastrous.

On election eve, he saw that he had avoided the worst for the SPD, and that he had prevented the best for the CDU.

He was jubilant in the extreme, become intoxicated with himself, overplayed his hand and ended up with humiliating defeat.

I think the old Greeks had a word for it…

Maneuvering in Mesopotamia

Aljazeera.Net – Sunni party backs Iraq charter in deal

With three days to do before the referendum, there are last-minute deals on the question of the Iraq constitution in order to make it somewhat less unattractive for the Sunni section of the population.

The details of this latest deal is somewhat unclear from media reporting, but it evidently amounts to some sort of mechanism to review the possibility of changing key elements of the constitution, although these changes would also have to be approved by a referendum.

Whether this will have any significant effect on the Sunni position remains to be seen. Evidently, there has been strong US pressure to do something to get a more inclusive process.

There is distinct nerveousness in Washington and London over where the process is really heading.

And there are very sound reasons for that nerveousness.

Blogging in European Parliament

AlexStubb.com���P�iv�kirja

I guess it was just one of these usual days in the European Parliament yesterday.

I passed by for lunch since I was in Brussels for a series of other meetings both with the Kreab Group and with the different European institutions on different issues.

There were hearings on Bosnia a year after Dayton that I unfortunately did not have the possibility of attending. There were evidently some kind of hearing with the candidates for the OLAF internal oversight position. There was a discussion between Elmar Brok of the External Relations Committee and the new Russian ambassador Vladimir Chizhov. On a TV screen I saw that taxation commissioner Kovacs was giving a speech to an audience somewhere in the vast building.

But I was involed in nothing of this, but instead had lunch with some Nordic MEP’s discussing primarily the future of the so called service directive.

I strongly suspect that the same issue was among the topic of conversation at the next table where the chairman of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament Poul Nyrup Rasmussen was entertaining journalist. The chairman of the EPP centre-right group, however, was taking some young German students for lunch a couple of tables down.

Alexander Stubb is an able Member of the European Parliament from Finland. He also seems to be one of the very few MEP that have decided to start a blogg to inform of what he’s doing.

Certainly an initiative worth applauding, in particular if your repetoire of languages include Finnish.

I have however encouraged him to go over to English as well.

There is a big audience out there that would like to know more about life in that rather lively and not at all unimportant European institution.

Keep the Internet free

Keep the Internet free – Editorials & Commentary – International Herald Tribune

There is increasing attention given to the question of Internet governance that I have discussed earlier here.

An editorial in The Economist this week has important messages on the issue.

In the International Herald Tribune today, I add my voice also in the print media to those that call for the European Union to look far more carefully at its position on these issues than it seems to have done so far.

We’ll see what effect this will have. It might not be the main preoccupation of Brussels – where I happen to be at the moment – but it could well emerge as a major issue of things go wrong.

Merkel Government Emerging

Gro�e Koalition: Merkel spricht von fairer Ressortaufteilung – Politik – SPIEGEL ONLINE – Nachrichten

Everything bow points to a Merkel Grand Coalition taking power in Berlin. Formal negotiations are to start on Monday after there has been a broad agreement on the principles.

There is no denying that everyone will have to pay a price, and highly likely that there will be significant dissent, perhaps slightly more in the SPD than in CDU and CSU.

It looks as if SPD will have eight ministries, while CDU/CSU will have six.

And among those eight are the foreign affairs and finance portofolios as well as justice. CDU/CSU will have economic affairs as well as interior and defence.

That SPD will have foreign affairs is not necessarily bad. It would put some brakes on some of the worst excesses of primarily CSU on the issue of Turkish membership of the European Union.

But of great importance will be how the economic reform program shapes up.

And that will have to await the more detailed coalition talks next week.

Eide Report & Ahtisaari Talks

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Kosovo set for ‘breakaway’ talks

Soon we will see the released version of Kai Eide’s report on the status of the implementation of decent standards in Kosovo.

It is likely to be rather depressing reading. On one of the core aims of the international efforts in the region ever since Kosovo started to appear on the international agenda – the building of a multi-ethnic society – the reports allegedly says that ”the situation is grim”.

It’s difficult to see how a harsher judgment on that critical issue can be formulated.

And on the economic side, there is no avoiding the conclusions that prospects are distinctly bleak.

Nevertheless, there is no reason whatsoever to postpone even further talks on the province’s future status. That can has been kicked down the road for far too long already.

There is the belief in Kosovo that independence will sort out all of their problems. Regrettably, I believe this to be rather naive, and the thruth might well be the opposite.

After the Eide report there is likely to be the Ahtisaari talks to see how one can bring the status issue forward. And in all probability these will conclude during the Finnish presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2005.

It might look easy. But the easier it is made to be, the more likely is it that there will be graver problems further on.

A Chance – Perhaps?

Returning to the important issue of the future of Iraq, it is worth reading Peter Galbraiths description of the work leading up to the draft constitution as well as his views on its prospects.

Peter was once US Ambassador to Croatia – we worked rather closely together in 1995 on some of the issues of that region – but has since worked extensively primarily with the Kurds in northern Iraq, acting as a key advisor to the leaders there.

So, he writes with considerable insight although with that perspective.

His conclusions are mildly – very mildly, one might say – optimistic:

”The constitution might bring stability to Iraq, a country now on the edge of full-scale civil war. Underneath an Islamic veneer, Iraq’s new constitution ratifies the division of Iraq into three disparate entities: Kurdistan in the north, an Iranian-influenced Islamic state in the south, and, in the center, a Sunni region that has no clear political identity, but that with luck and concerted diplomacy could be governed by a new generation of Sunni Arab leaders. The constitution provides a basis for resolving Iraq’s most contentious issues: oil, territory, and the competition to be the dominant power in Baghdad. If these issues are not addressed, they could set off a widespread civil war.”

He sees a chance that the constitution might bridge the divides of the country, but if this does not happen, he sees it as a vehicle that would facilitate some sort of divorce.

Whether such a divorce would be peaceful or not is another question which he does not addess. I would guess that Peter – with his Balkan background – would share my assessment that a divorce would be very bloody indeed.

A Very Good Choice

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has a reputation for sometimes somewhat odd choices when it comes to the Nobel Peace Price.

But this year their choice is spot on: the International Atomic Energy Authority and its Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei.

IAEA has been in the spotlight recently in the discussions concerning Iran. But it has played a key role for decades in working the details of nuclear non-proliferation, and has made it possible to further also the peaceful and safe use of nuclear power.

This year, Oslo has made the right choice.

The Challenge of Terror and Iraq

President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy

There might be numereous reasons why President Bush has chosen this time for a major speech on the issue of terrorism.

But that’s a separate issue. It is still interesting to see what he has to say.

It is now very clearly Iraq that is the centre of the struggle.

I think President Bush is entirely correct when he says, that ”the terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence.”

One can discuss how it come to this. But again, that’s a somewhat separate debate. We are were we are.

And then we have to take note of the ambitions of our adversaries and act accordingly.

The Washington approach on these issues might not always be the ultimate in wisdom, although it’s normally wise to let history judge these matters.

But on this it’s very difficult to see that they are not right.

New Europe versus Old Monopolies

EUobserver.com

The visit by the European Commissioner for Internal Market Charlie McCreevy to Sweden yesterday must have been a jolly affair. Judging by the media reports, it looks as if McCreevy tackled head-on some of the more sacred of all the sacred cows in the old Swedish approach to things.

He challenged the state monopoly on gambling, and by implication also on the retail sale of wine and liquor. Both are often seen as sacred components in some sort of social model.

But of even greater importance was his robust defence of a far more open European labour market than at the least the Swedish trade unions are prepared to accept.

It’s a sign of the time that the buses in Stockholm these days are carrying big ads for the system of collective agreement favoured by the unions. The fact that one feels it necessary to invest massive amounts in a massive PR campaign is of course a sure sign of a rather weak position.

Over time, there is no doubt that a more open Europe will erode the old monopolies. That the entrenched interests of the past will do whatever they can to stop or slow down this process is equally obvious.

But the McCreevy visit to Stockholm clearly indicated the direction in which things are moving.

Not necessarily very fast – but necessarily very certain.

Iraq Slips Away

Iraq Slips Away

Next Saturday is the critical day when the voters in Iraq will vote in a referendum on the proposed new constitution. It is – by all reasonable standards – a major event.

On the positive side is of course the fact that the referendum takes place at all. That’s a sign of progress and hope.

But that’s really the end of the good story. The constitution clearly divides more than it unites, and that truly presents a great danger for the future.

A rather ugly attempt to manipulate the referendum process was just defeated by the UN experts on the ground. The majority tried to twist the rules so as to very considerably reduce the possibility of the minority to oppose the constitution.

It was hardly a sign of democratic maturity. And it demonstrated the importance of the role – however limited – that the United Nations play in the country.

Europe’s World

EUROPE’S WORLD – THE ONLY EUROPE-WIDE POLICY JOURNAL

An ambitious attempt to stimulate the European as well as global debate on European issues has just seen the light of the day.

It’s the first issue of the journal Europe´s World that has just appeared.

I haven’t got it in my hand as of yet, but I am a member of the Editorial Board as well as a contributor to the first issue. You can find some of my reflections on the situation in the Balkans there as well as one the website.

We certainly need a journal of this type. There are other prominent European-based journals in international affairs – notably Survival of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London – but none with the European focus of this one.

In that sense, it complements Foreign Affairs in New York – the model that everyone seeks to follow – as well as Russia in Global Affairs in Moscow.

It should be a European voice in the global dialogue between think-thanks and thinkers.

It’s certainly needed. Welcome!

Remembering October 5 in Belgrade

B92 – Galerija – Peti oktobar – Internet, Radio i TV stanica; najnovije vesti iz Srbije i Crne Gore

This is a day I should really have been in Belgrade together with other friends to celebrate that it is five years ago since the regime of Slobodan Milosevic was toppled and the democratic revolution in Serbia truly began.

It was truly dramatic days.

Milosevic had midjusdged the mood of the country and the determination of the opposition – previously often hopelessly split – and called a presidential election that he counted on winning. Th NATO bombing the previous year had been a traumatic experience for the country, and Milosevic had skillfully used it to strengthen his position.

But then the opposition suddenly united around the hitherto little known Vojislav Kostunica the scene suddenly changed. He had been as much against the NATO bombing as anyone, so that card could not be used against him. And he argued against corruption and in favour of democracy in a way that was seen as honest and promising.

So Milosevic suddenly lost the election he had called in his certainty of winning. But he then tried to falsify the election result in order to remain in power.

It did not work. Even in his days Serbia wasn’t a total dictatorship. There was an element of transparency and media freedom. The bluff was called, and the people of Belgrade took to the street.

It was touch and go for a while. But at the end key sectors of the security apparatus refused the orders to act against the demonstrations, Milosevic de facto lost control of the capital, and when even high-level Russian representatives flew in to say that the game was up he did not have much of an alternative.

He resigned, and a new era in the history of Serbia opened up. And a new model for democratic transformation saw light. Since then, the model of Belgrade has been played out in the streets also of Tibilisi and Kiev.

I vividly remember that Thursday. It was a sunny day in Vienna, and I was standing at the Ballhausplatz when my mobile rang. It was a friend in Belgrade who dramatically said that the Parliament building there was on fire. I rushed up to the office of Chancellor Schuessel – we had agreed to meet – and on his TV we followed the live transmissions from the drama in Belgrade.

Only a few days later – the 12th – I was there myself. At the time, I was the Special Envoy for the UN Secretary General of the Balkans, which meant that I was heavily involved in most things going on in the region.

I rushed to Belgrade to see Zoran Djindjic – we knew each after well after the struggles of the preceding years – in order to coordinate things. We met in the Democratic Party headquarters with people running up and down the stairs to the second floor where we were sitting all the time. It was a question of consolidating the gains, and of taking the quick steps necessary to get Yugoslavia back into the international community.

And in the rather drab building of the Federal Presidency on the other side of the river Sava I saw President Kostunica. We had met years before when I came to Belgrade as the war in Bosnia was still going on. He remained the rather strict but honest person I remember him as, although hardly comfortable with the instruments of power that the voters had suddenly placed in his hand.

Somewhat joklingly I remember remarkning that in one way Serbia had gone from one extreme to the other. From a man who knew everything about power but had no principles to a man of firm principles but hardly a clue about how to use power. The difference was big in every sort of way.

It’s been five years since those days.

Zoran Djindjic was brutally murdered. He was caught between the escalating demands of the outside world and the escalating resistance of the inside forces of reaction. Perhaps we could have done it differently and still have him with us. It’s one of those questions that keeps coming back to me.

Voijslav Kostunica is still President of what today is called Serbia and Montenegro. He remains the man of principles, but not the man that is ready and able to use the powers that are there to really pursue the modernisation of the country as I believe he could have done. But he remains the man that made the peaceful defeat of Slobodan Milosevic possible.

Much can be said concerning these years. I’m waiting for an English translation of the column by Bill Montgomery – he was the US Ambassador close involved all of these events – to appear on a website so that I can link to it. He sums it up.

It’s a story with both positive and negative sides.

Slobodan Milosevic is spending his time in the ICTY detention unit in Schveningen in Holland, and is busy trying to defend himself in a trial that seems nearly endless. He’s still on Kosovo, and there are the wars in Bosnia and Croatia yet to come.

At some point in time, I’ll be there to tell the parts of my story that the trial chamber and the two sides want to hear.

In Belgrade, an international conference brings together many of those that were active in trying to help the change of October 5th.

I should have been there – but one can’t be everywhere. I suspect my friends are all sitting around in th smokefilled rooms of the Writer’s Club sharing memories of those truly memorable days over a number of bottles of heavy Montenegrian Vranac vine.

And the country is looking forward towards the opening of negotiations for a Stability and Association Agreement with the European Union on Tuesday of next week.

It’s been five much too slow years. But it’s still been five years far better in every respect than the ten years of wars, sanction, isolation and repression that preceded historic October 5 in Belgrade.