To state the obvious, military/political occupations and international oversight of a country are never welcome to the people who are being occupied and/or overseen. For a while, they grin and bear it, sometimes recognizing the necessity of the loss of sovereignty that they are enduring. But their tolerance inevitably fades -- and fast.
In Bucharest recently, I was discussing the oversight role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in my country, Albania, with an expert from that body. He was surprised to learn that the number of OSCE employees in Albania is equal to that of the entire staff of the organization's Vienna headquarters. The sheer scale of the OSCE's operations in Albania is not what troubles me. What is troubling is the seeming permanence of its mission. Indeed, who is to decide when the OSCE's mission in Albania is over?
The question is, of course, broader than that of the OSCE in Albania. With UN administrators still holding sway in Kosovo and Bosnia years after their savage wars ended, and with talk of a UN mission to replace the US forces in Iraq, when should an international administration be terminated and oversight of a country returned to its citizens?
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Let there be no mistake: the OSCE played a positive role in stabilizing Albania. Its presence throughout the country in 1997 helped keep Albania united at a time of near civil war. But 1997 is a long time ago, and Albania has changed dramatically. Its democracy is secure, its economy improving.
Yet despite these far-reaching changes, the dynamics of the OSCE's presence have scarcely budged. Indeed, the organization still sticks its nose and fingers into pretty much every aspect of Albanian political life. The problem with such intrusive oversight is that political issues that incite the strongest passions -- such as determining electoral lists -- are suppressed when an international body offers and imposes its own solutions. But suppression won't make these issues go away; it only lets them fester. Albanian problems now demand homemade Albanian compromises.
For most issues, I suspect that Kosovo and Bosnia are experiencing similar side effects due to their occupations. A stultifying form of international oversight that offers only fiat or imposed conciliation paralyzes their domestic political development. Even more than in Albania, opportunities to develop the habits of compromise that make democratic politics workable are denied to the people.
In Albania, instead of developing and strengthening our infant democratic institutions, the OSCE, in its desire to see its policies implemented, often seeks to bypass or override them. This retards the country's political stabilization and democratic consolidation. Indeed, on some issues, shades of the old imperial strategy of "divide and rule" can be seen, with the OSCE pitting one Albanian institution or political party against another.
Of course, the OSCE's presence in Albania does have political backing from large portions of the country's electorate. Until 2000, the government tended more to rely on the organization's advice, but since 2001, it has tried to buttress its position by claiming that it gets along better than ever with the OSCE and its mission. When an Albanian minister tried last year to raise the question of the duration of the OSCE's mission, the opposition leapt to the organization's defense. Nonetheless, there is a creeping perception that the OSCE is becoming too deeply engaged in picking winners and losers in Albanian politics -- a perception underpinned by wider questions of sovereignty.
Is the OSCE's presence retarding the country's independence and economic vitality by creating an image of a protectorate, a country unable to forge international agreements or join powerful international bodies of its own volition? Is it the OSCE's presence, and not Albania's government, that is now keeping the country what it has long been, a hermit kingdom?
I do not attribute any malign or sinister purposes to the OSCE presence in Albania, unless one considers inertia malign. But saying that a body means well and saying that it is actually doing any good are two different things.
Worst of all, the OSCE's bureaucratic nature means that it will never have an incentive to leave because the first duty of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself. Of course, an effective OSCE mission, confined to Tirana and comprised of experts that the country still needs, would be useful. But Albania no longer needs the OSCE's staff to be scattered throughout the country to monitor every aspect of its political life.
The reality is that the OSCE has achieved its goals. It is time for it to take a bow and go home to Vienna. That's a lesson other occupying international agencies should keep in mind.
Sotiraq Hroni, a former Albanian diplomat, worked as an advisor to Albania's prime minister during the crisis of 1997 and was for two years an advisor to the nation's president. He founded the Institute for Democracy and Mediation, a non-governmental organization, in Tirana.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS