Bosnia

In my last blog I condemned the US’s illegal attack on Venezuela and worried about what might follow given the apparent lack of a broadly considered and agreed plan. In this blog I will contrast it with the approach taken at the end of the vicious civil war between the Croat, Serb and Bosnian populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the Dayton accords. “Three decades ago, in November 1995, the U.S.-brokered Dayton accords ended the Bosnian war, a three-and-a-half-year ethnic conflict that killed roughly 100,000 people and displaced two million. The settlement imposed a complex power-sharing structure on a divided country, promising the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a new start.” This quote is from an excellent assessment of that agreement and the new constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina that it created by Elmira Bayrasli in Foreign Affairs: “Bosnia’s Unfinished Peace”

I drafted the monetary section of that constitution, which established a central bank bound by currency board rules (i.e. no monetary policy as the money supply is determined by the public’s demand for and willingness to purchase its currency). I also led the IMF teams that drafted the Central Bank Law that merged the existing three central banks (Croat, Serbian and Bosnian) into one national bank and currency. The negotiations with the three (obviously) future governors of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBBH) lasted for over a year of heated discussions of the CBBH’s powers and the details of its currency notes. For details see my account in “One Currency for Bosnia”  Surprisingly to many the CBBH’s currency board rules were accepted instantly by all three with no debate. The reason was that the three didn’t trust one another and currency board rules eliminate an monetary policy discresion.

The Dayton accord was the product of intense negotiations between the Presidents of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian provinces of B&H and diplomates from the US, UK, EU and Russia culminating with the agreement at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio—the Dayton Accord. To lay out the sharp contrast between these negations and the lack of them in the current “take over” of Venezuela, I will quote extensively from Wikipedia:

“During September and October 1995, world powers (especially the United States and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, pressured the leaders of the three sides to attend settlement negotiations; Dayton, Ohio was eventually chosen as the venue.

“Talks began with an outline of key points presented by the US in a team led by National Security Adviser Anthony Lake in visits to London, Bonn, Paris and other European stops 10 – 14 August 1995. These included Sochi, to consult Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev. Lake’s team handed off to a separate US inter-agency group led by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, who went on to negotiate with Balkan leaders in their capitals. The Holbrooke crew conducted five rounds of intense shuttle diplomacy from August to October, including short conferences in Geneva and New York that resulted in the parties’ adoption of principles for a settlement on 8 and 26 September respectively.

“The Dayton conference took place from 1–21 November 1995. The main participants from the region were the President of the Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milošević (whom the Bosnian Serbs had previously empowered to represent their interests), President of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, and President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović with his Foreign Minister Muhamed Šaćirbeg.

“The peace conference was led by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke with two co-chairmen in the form of EU Special Representative Carl Bildt and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark. The head of the UK’s team was Pauline Neville-Jones, political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK military representative was Col Arundell David LeakeyPaul Williams, through the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations.”

The history and situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was dramatically different than Venezuela. Ending its civil war required extensive negotiations and considerable international oversight of compliance to the agreed arrangements. As noted in the Foreign Affairs article sighted above, a serious mistake was holding national elections far too earlier. The intense hatreds of the three national groups were not given enough time to soften resulting in the election of hardliners and the continuation of the war by other means. The second mistake was the failure of international oversight (the UN High Representative) to fully exorcise its powers. None the less the three nation country has held together peaceably for three decades following its civil war.

While the political situation in Bosnia remains fragile (see the excellent article sited above in Foreign Affairs) the central bank itself has been a great success, widely trusted and respected by most citizens from the three provinces. I attribute this to its enlightened leadership and the central bank law with its currency board rules. Tragically the DOGE chain saw seems to have eliminated US capacity for effective diplomacy. “At the breaking point”

How to be Safe

Much can be said about how and why almost everyone on earth has risen from poverty to affluence. Two of the most important are free markets that allow entrepreneurs to invent and build, and peace and security that allow our work to build consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Taking the second of these, the safety of our persons and our property allows us to specialize and trade – an absolutely critical condition for flourishing. The more broadly we can trade the greater is the wealth producing potential of our efforts. So a key question and the focus of this blog is how we maximize our safety in order to maximize trade the production of consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Since 9/11 almost one million people have been killed in wars and when including indirect deaths from wars the number rises to around 4.5 million. The U.S. alone has spent over $21 trillion dollars on defense since 9/11.  This is 5.25% of the U.S.’s cumulative GDP over that period of $400 trillion.

If we could trust every country in the world, we could get rid of our military complex and add that amount to our incomes. Obviously that would be unrealistic thus some defense spending will always be necessary. However, with the deployment of skillful diplomacy it can be greatly reduced and the losses from actual wars could potentially be eliminated.

We must live among other people. If we are good neighbors, we will be safer from attacks (verbal or worse) by those around us. Being a good neighbor requires being trustworthy (honest) and behaving in ways that take into account and respect the interests of our neighbors. What is true on the block and village is true globally as well. The adoption of mutually agreed rules/norms for our interactions with others is an important aspect of our safety and productivity.

Within each country, at least, agreement has been reached on which side of the road to drive, what frequency we can broadcast on, and what voltage our electricity will be. Across boarders we have agreed on setting dates and time (the calendar), airline overflight rules, and the orbits our satellites will occupy. After WWII, in addition to the UN and its many agencies, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, and World Trade Organization, countries established the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Moreover, the US and most every other country have established embassies in each other’s countries in order to serve the needs of their own citizens abroad and to maintain dialog and informed relations with each other’s governments.

An important part of soft power diplomacy are the supportive relationships with “allies” who contribute to mutual defense, thus lowering its cost. But good (cooperative) relationships in general are an important contributor to our safety and commercial interaction with other countries. To a large extent formal rules of war and treatment of others have promoted peace in the world.

Violating these rules (e.g. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and U.S. invasion of Venezuela) raises the cost of our security. It makes us less safe and less wealthy. https://wcoats.blog/2026/01/03/war-2/

President Trump has angered our friends and allies with his tariff and other threats and a generally bullying approach to our relations with other countries. He has created enemies where we didn’t have them before. After bombing Venezuela and kidnaping its President, he is now threatening the same for Cuba, Panama, Columbia, Iran, and Greenland. Denmark’s government, which controls Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense, has told the White House to “stop the threats.”

Protests of US lawlessness is growing. As but one example:

JOINT DECLARATION BY THE GOVENMENTS OF

BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, MEXICO, SPAIN, AND URUGUAY

“The governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, and Uruguay, in light of the gravity of the events that have occurred in Venezuela and reaffirming their commitment to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, make the following joint declaration:

“We are deeply concerned and reject the military actions unilaterally carried out on Venezuelan territory, which infringe fundamental principles of international law, in particular the prohibition of the use and threat of force, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. These actions set an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and security in the region and endanger civilian populations.”

Trump has isolated the U.S. by breaking the rules and angering our friends and alias. We are much less secure than in the past.  WP: “Venezuela-Trump-Global Law and Order”

The Rule of Law

The U.S. bombed seven countries under President Trump’s orders. Congress has not authorized or approved any of them. “US bombed seven countries in 2025 as trump dramatically expanded airstrikes”  This is perhaps the most serious end of Trump’s disregard for law. At the almost trivial end I have received more than half a dozen emails from “Trump” daily for many months. I carefully unsubscribe from each of them (over a hundred times) but they keep coming.

Trump has removed the established guard rails against executive abuse (e.g. all Inspector Generals have been removed). He has put an incompetent sycophant in charge of the Defense Department (appropriately renamed the War Department) who has fired senior military generals and admirals and replaced them with his loyalists. “Trump pushes out top US general-nominates retired three star-2025-02-22”  And the Attorney General’s office regularly takes his orders etc. After illegally sending National Guard troops into LA, Portland OR, and Chicago he is finally removing them in response to the Supreme Courts confirmation of lower court rules of their illegality. “Trump national guard in Chicago Los Angeles Portland”

Trump’s disregard for the law in his effort to deport all illegal residents has become particularly ugly and damaging to the US economy https://wcoats.blog/2025/12/28/ice/

As each violation of law and norms becomes “normal,” Trump pushes further. Is anyone left to stop him? Is Congress slowly waking up to do its job?

The drums of war

The drums of war are beating for Venezuela.  Since the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon next door, we have bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Niger and Mali, and boats in the Caribbean and Pacific oceans. With the approach of each war, I suspect that most American’s never knew or have forgotten what war is really like. If they did they surely would oppose them and increase our reliance on and capacity for diplomacy. Last evening’s viewing of The Killing Fields provided a good reminder. War inflicts horrors beyond most of our imaginations. It should be ruled out other than for defense when we are actually attacked.

Law and Order

Every evening when we are not hosting or attending a dinner party, attending a play, concert, or conference, we lie down in bed and watch a movie or a few episodes of a TV series. Ito pushes a button and our large TV screen rises just beyond the end of our bed. Over the last few months, we have watched over 200 episodes for the original Law and Order show, starting for some reason with season 5 (1995). I want to explain why we have found this show so interesting.

The first half of each show follows the search by the police (two regulars) for the perpetrator of a crime (usually a murder). The second half presents the trial to convict the accused perpetrator conducted by two regular justice department characters. The stories themselves can be quite intriguing and the crimes and the issues around them explore every conceivable social issue in America today (e.g., affirmative action, gangs, capital punishment, same sex marriage, abortion, race and sexual discrimination, treatment of minors).

The regulars in the show—police and prosecutors –are “real” people, i.e. flawed but honestly trying to do their best. Aside from the acting being superb, what impresses me most is that for each controversial issue the arguments on both sides are strongly presented. To say the episodes are thought provoking would be an understatement. I don’t always understand the bases on which the judge allows or disallows evidence but we do learn a lot about what the law says and how it is applied. The show is still being produced and is now in its 25th season. To last that long, it must be good. We have many episodes to go and will eagerly watch them all.

Benjamin Netanyahu

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024, accusing him of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to Israel’s actions in Gaza, including the alleged use of starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally targeting civilians. 

Netanyahu is now considered a wanted suspect by the ICC, and member states are obligated to arrest him if he enters their jurisdiction. So why is he enjoying dinner with US President Trump? Sadly, the US too often ignores the rules of international relations that we helped establish. In doing so we are diminishing our status in the world community. Lossing friends and becoming more and more isolated is NOT in America’s self-interest.

As of now, Netanyahu has not been tried or found guilty by any international court for war crimes. The legal process would require his arrest, extradition, and a full trial before any conviction could occur. Not only has America failed its obligation to arrest him, we have supported his efforts to eliminate Palestinians (one way or another) from their homeland. America is complicit in these crimes. Our support of Israel’s wars is not compatible with our principles of the rights of each and every person and our generous and well-meaning hearts. Those of us who speak out against these crimes risk punishment by the Trump administration — even the deportation of legal residents who have committed no crimes. If we do not speak out against these horrors, we must accept some blame for them.

Atonement

I doubt that many armchair warriors have a clue what the wars they urge are really like. What the cost is to the tens of thousands of men, women and children who’s lives are upended or destroyed. The pain and suffering they endure.

Even without considering what war is really like, the prospects of a war leading to a better world are remote. A better world is one in which we live peacefully (even fruitfully) with our neighbors, whether next door, across town or across the world. Mutually respected rules of interaction are required and an understanding of the importance of abiding by them. Diplomacy is required to develop such rules.  Better to start with diplomacy than with war.

The wrenching and gripping movie “Atonement” dramatically presents the true horrors of war. Neocon war enthusiast would do well to watch it carefully.

Trump

President Reagan pointed to our beacon on the hill as the foundation of our relationship and leadership with the rest of the world. Soon to be President Trump’s approach is to threaten and bully the rest of the world.

US President-elect Donald Trump’s trade policy challenges the post-war global trading system. By rejecting the World Trade Organization’s principles of non-discrimination and reciprocity, Trump proposes a power-based approach that would fundamentally alter international economic relations, risking the predictability and fairness that have underpinned global trade for seven decades.”  “How Trump threatens the world trading system”

But he hasn’t stopped there.  Though promising to end our “forever wars” and restraint in our international relations, Trump is coming on as the most aggressive President in memory:

“Many people have been understandably astonished by Donald Trump’s recently proclaimed desires to “take back” the Panama Canal “in full, quickly and without question” and to take over the self-governing Danish territory of Greenland.

“While Trump has written that “For purposes of National Security and Freedom around the world, the United States feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” he would at least appear to be willing to pay Denmark for Greenland, as the U.S. paid Denmark for the Danish West Indies, renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands, in 1917.” “A thought on the Panama Canal and Greenland”

A bully, who forces rules on others that he disregards himself, will not serve America’s nor the worlds interests. We all want America to be safe, prosperous, and free. Thus, we must hope for and where possible promote a successful term for this and any other President. An important role can be, and hopefully will be played by the Republicans in Congress, starting with careful vetting of Trumps cabinet nominations. “Trump-bully-world-America-foreign-policy”

War movies

The Holocaust was such a shocking atrocity—effecting far more Jews than the 6 million murdered in Nazi ovens—that it is almost impossible to communicate it meaningfully to new generations. Many outstanding movies have done their best to do so. The pictures of thousands of rotting bodies do not have the same impact as the personal stories of individuals and holocaust films have done an outstanding job of telling them. The Diary of Ann Frank introduced most of us to the Holocaust’s horrors in 1959. But “Europa Europa,” “Schindler’s List,”  “Life is Beautiful,” “The Pianist,” “Son of Saul,” among others each present poignant and original examinations of the ugliness and heart wrenching harm of antisemitism. Just this last week I was moved again by yet another approach to the story in the recent film “White Bird.”

It is important to confront such ugliness in the hopes of reducing the prospect of repeating them. Hitler convinced his countrymen (to the extent that they even knew what he was doing) that the best way to get rid of the “Jewish problem” was to get rid of the Jews. Sadly, Israel itself is propagating yet another genocide this time in Gaza, and West Bank and possible beyond, by convincing many Israelis that the only way to get rid of the “Palestinian problem” (and to have a “democratic Jewish state”) is to get rid of the Palestinians.

War presents a tougher challenge because many believe they might find glory in war. But the reality of war is ugly and tragic. Every country must defend itself against attack, but the United State has not fought a war on its own territory for over one hundred and sixty years. None the less we have been at war somewhere most of the time. Most movies about war have faithfully reflected its ugliness—not only for those killed by them but for their surviving loved ones and the wounded survivors who live on without limbs or with other impairments. But we continue to wage them most of the time.

Movies like “The Bridge on the River Kwai” (the film site of which I visited in Sri Lanka), “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Dunkirk”, and “1917”, depict the heroism in war that might seem attractive but also its ugliness. “All Quiet on the Western Front,” Paths of Glory,” “The Deer Hunter,” and “Grave of the Fireflies,” explore in greater depth the horror of war. Last night I watched the heart wrenching story of a WWII Irish solder’s return to Dunkirk many years later, which wonderfully depicts the absurdity of most wars.

So why do we fight so many of them and in far away places? Much of my work has been in war zones such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, and Kosovo. While I have never been in the tranches, I have certainly heard gun fire. But more importantly, I have witnessed the aftermath of war and embarrassingly the bumbling incompetence of attempted American rule of conquered territories. “Warren’s travels to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo and beyond”

But why do we so readily go to war? Perhaps because they are “over there” it is too easy to send our youth off wherever and “thank them for their service.” Unfortunately, there are also too many people who think we must flatten our enemies, ala Adolf Hitler, rather than diplomatically cultivate peaceful, get along relations with them. If American’s understood more clearly the ugliness of war, and the futility of taming neighbors via suppression or even eradication, we could have a more peaceful and prosperous world.  

U.S. occupation of Iraq

The following blog is 100% true. I did meet with Erik Prince in his Tyson’s Corner office and the U.S. Army’s killing of an old Iraqi man in Baghdad and the related events are 100% true. Unfortunately, my confrontation of Prince with his security teams damaging behavior in Iraq only occurred in my dreams last night.

In the late 2000s (probably 07 or 08) I met with Erik Prince in his Blackwater headquarters at Tyson’s Corner Virginia to discuss a prospective project in Jordan. At the end of our meeting I confronting him with the bad reputation of his Blackwater team in Bagdad (sadly this was only in my dream but the events are 100% true).

Following the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, Blackwater provided security in Bagdad to US Embassy staff and foreign contractors such as me. While reporting to the U.S. Treasury, I was paid by USAID and housed and protected as part of the BearingPoint team under the USAID contract. Because of Blackwater’s reputation for a high profile, roughshod approach to security (driving their armored cars wherever—including sidewalks and wrong way streets), BearingPoint had hired a British security firm.

Even when countries are “liberated” their citizens never like the invading army to hang around long. Iraq was no exception. And the U.S. has proved no better (to say the least) than other colonial powers at administering the lands they conquered. The following story from early 2004 of an illustrative incident in Bagdad was told to me by a US Embassy friend, Michael Cole, who was in the middle of it:

“On a residential street between the Green Zone and our destination in Kadhimiya – possibly Mansour, Karkh, or Hurriyah – I heard the young soldier in the gun turret above me yell extremely loudly at someone in the street. I often spent rides like this reading notes or emails I’d printed to prepare for meetings, glancing up frequently to become familiar with routes and landmarks in case I needed to return to the Green Zone alone. I saw the old man the soldier was yelling at as he walked directly into the road. The Humvee was going extremely fast, driving in formation with 2 or 3 others, swerving across the road in formation to prevent civilian vehicles from riding alongside us where they could block our route or gain a clear line of fire to assassinate me. The driver never could have stopped once the man walked into the road. Just as I saw him and realized why the soldier was yelling, I heard and felt each tire on the passenger side where I sat roll over him. I’ve never run over a deer, but I expect the sound is similar. The vehicle was too fast, loud, and heavy for me to hear a scream or bones break, but I heard a crowd behind us scream, and cars honk. I looked around for landmarks so I could file a report and return to the site someday to make amends. The man appeared to have left a small yellow house with a date palm beside a four-lane road.

“I remember the soldiers cussed loudly when we hit the man. Most had Southern accents and sunburned faces. They started the mornings clean except for their gloves, but ended every day covered in dust, with black outlines left by tinted blast goggles. We talked about the incident when we arrived in Kadhimiya and were safe in a walled parking lot. Most of the soldiers were as distressed as I was. We all knew the man was dead, and we believed it was too dangerous to stop and try to help.

“One of the soldiers, possibly a young lieutenant who was my liaison with the security details, explained that the local Forward Operating Base had a process to compensate families of civilians killed by Coalition Forces. He explained that Iraqi tradition permitted compensation in lieu of prosecution even among local persons, and that this was an accepted form of justice. My later study of Arab tribal culture led me to believe Baghdadis could follow the same practice. I submitted my own brief statement to a local colonel or lieutenant colonel, who knew the case and assured me the family was well-compensated for the man’s death. I remember doubting anyone could be satisfied by this, but I was pleased I was not the only person who had submitted a statement. The soldiers did so before me. I tried to estimate what the man’s life could be worth between a Shiite Baghdadi family and the US military, but the normal actuarial items never equaled what I imagined anyone could call justice. 

“I asked Iraqi colleagues what to do. They shared my grief. Some shared my anger. Others were dismissive – possibly because I described the man as poor. Most advised me not to go back because there was nothing I could do to help. One lady said I could help in a small way by visiting the family, and that was the advice I decided to accept. 

“My interpreter thought it was a terrible, dangerous idea to visit the old man’s family. He said they would kill me. However, he drove me to the site I described to him. He parked a block away, and I walked to the yellow house. One of the man’s relatives spoke English and translated for me. They knew why I was there, and they invited me to sit at a table in their front yard where they drank tea and watched the traffic pass. I told them I did not drive the humvee, but I was a passenger, and that I saw their grandfather, and that I was sorry. One man yelled at me in Arabic about his anger about the conditions in the city during the occupation, of which his relative’s death was just one event among many injustices. I listened, and I agreed. I asked for the man’s name, and they told me. Maybe I wrote it in a notebook that’s now in a box somewhere. I apologized again and held the hands of two men for a moment. The lady who translated told me the man was old, and his death was quick, and it was good of me to come. She said “the officer” had already visited, and her gesture suggested everything was resolved. I was glad they didn’t kill me, but I didn’t believe everything was resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. However, I thanked them for talking to me, and I walked back to my interpreter’s car. I walked up a block and he followed me until we were out of the family’s eyesight from their yard.

“That was that. It was another week in Baghdad, and I didn’t think much of it until I returned home that summer. Sometimes I remember that day when I see a thin, old Arab man, or a man in a grey dishdash, or a deer eyeing the road, or a sandbag beside the road, or plaid cotton with yellow in it, or olive-colored hands, or the shade of a palm over a blacktop, or smell hot tar or dust caked in sweat, which is to say, I think of it often and at unexpected moments. I’m no longer consumed by rage and sadness like I was in 2005, the year following my return home, which I barely remember. Now I remember it as an example of what happens in war, which should be avoided at almost all costs, and with an exhalation of sadness few who I’ve ever met might understand. We all have instances and threads of sadness woven through our memories and consciousnesses, and this is one of mine.”

You can read more of my own experiences there in “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”