A Front-Row Seat to Momentous Events. The Oil and Glory Interview: Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha

Albania has had a prime view of some of the most dramatic events in Europe of the last decade and more. Most recently, they have included the West's showdown with Russia over Kosovo's independence, which led directly to Moscow's effective absorption of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In addition, while Russia has opposed further expansion of NATO, Albania along with Croatia became the alliance's newest members three weeks ago.

When I was last in Albania – during NATO’s 1999 bombing of Serbian troops in Kosovo – I had a great time, but the country was overrun with criminal gangs. There were Mercedeses everywhere – all of them absent license plates since Albania served as the way-station for stolen vehicles traversing Europe. It also was a smuggling route for people of all sorts seeking to migrate illegally to Europe; I watched a couple of boatloads of these migrants traveling fast late one evening on to Italy. Today, with the country a NATO member and seeking to join the EU, those old days seem largely gone.

Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha has traversed this entire period. A 65-year-old trained cardiologist, he was Albanian president for five years during the 1990s, before losing the post in a huge investment scandal. After ten years in the opposition, he returned to power in 2005. I called Berisha in his Tirana office. The edited interview:

O&G – The International Monetary Fund calls Albania “highly vulnerable.” Yet it is one of the few economies in the world expected not to shrink this year. How is the country withstanding the financial crisis? How are remittances from Albanians abroad holding up?

Berisha – I have high esteem for the IMF. But it should not [encourage] a panic. It’s not helpful, in my view. I told them, ‘Look, you’re a very, very crucial institution. I’m glad that the G20 provided you with a new role.’ But many governments are hesitant to work with them because their scheme at a time of social unrest could create more problems than it solves. I don’t consider the [Albanian] economy as highly vulnerable. It’s a real economy. Remittances are not coming [to the same degree] because of the loss of jobs in Greece and Italy. But we are encouraging tourism.

Q – Is NATO membership a right? Russia, while opposing Kosovo independence, for instance, has vigorously opposed NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and made that a benchmark for good relations with the West.

A – For my country, NATO membership was the most important achievement since independence day. Albania suffered more than any country from security problems. It suffered from isolation and self-isolation. It was an orphan nation. Now it’s part of an alliance. We have all the potential to build freedom. It means high credibility for Albania in the world. It is high credibility for investors. Albania will never walk alone.

Q – Is NATO membership a right?

A – For a free nation, yes. NATO proved to be a shield of nations. NATO has faced no difficulty adapting to the new situation. It has brought freedom everywhere.

Q – Is it valid for Russia to make good relations with it contingent on opposing NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine?

A – I know no country that is afraid of Russia. I know only countries that are willing to work with Russia. Based on some imperial heritage, if you go into their history, expansion is in their psychology. What effect would Georgia or Ukraine have on Russia? What effect would NATO expansion have on Russia? [The assertion of a NATO threat to Russia] is nonsense. It will take time, but with realism [Georgian and Ukrainian membership] will happen.

Q – The decisive factor in deciding who should be a member of NATO is whether it would send troops to defend that country, Article V of the NATO charter. Would NATO defend Ukraine or Georgia if need be?

A – Is Russia intending to attack Ukraine or Georgia? If Russia intends to partake an aggression, NATO must firmly stand, because that would mean the new Russification of Europe.

Q – What is your view of the August war between Russia and Georgia?

A – Who attacked first is unclear. But a [Russian] scenario was there to invade Georgia. The Russians moved not only into Ossetia. They moved into Abkhazia, and toward Tbilisi. Russia probably wanted to occupy Georgia. The stand of the international community worked.

Q – How will Albania respond to President Obama’s call for more NATO troops in Afghanistan?

A – Albania is sending a new company, doubling our current number of troops. We also sent 20 nurses and doctors.

Q – Is Afghanistan a threat for NATO countries?

A – Afghanistan and Pakistan must both be helped. It is difficult terrain. Politics at home aren’t easy. But I think the strategy will be effective. The U.S. sent a man over there who is highly skilled in negotiations.

Q – [Richard] Holbrooke?

A – Yes. Holbrooke. It’s very important to promote peace there.

Q – Unlike elsewhere in Europe, President Bush seemed highly popular when he visited Albania in 2007. Can you explain why?

A – First, he was the first U.S. president to visit my country. Second, we suffered more than any country from dictatorship. So we definitely support toppling dictators, including Saddam Hussain and [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar. Third, he came with great messages here – support for Kosovo independence, and NATO membership for us.

Georgia: (Not Yet) All the Facts

Last week, Russia got a big p.r. boost when Chris Chivers and Ellen Barry wrote a detailed page-one piece in The New York Times backing up its version of how the five-day August war in Georgia began. In a nutshell, the piece concluded that the Georgians started it.

The war was momentous in a number of ways -- it all-but shut off the possibility that Georgia will get into NATO; it put a cloud of doubt over U.S. influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia; it may have accelerated the flight of western capital from Russia; and it turned the heaviest dose of western invective on Russia since the 2006 polonium murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

But now RFE-RL says it's more complicated than that. The Georgians may have fired before Russian troops arrived, according to a report today by Eka Tsamalashvili and Brian Whitmore, but their assault came days after South Ossetians began to shell local Georgian villages. The report says it's based on dozens of eye-witness accounts by RFE-RL reporters.

Both reports are worth reading. Together, they mean that, not surprisingly, there's much in the way of indignant showmanship to the claims by both sides. I haven't seen a definitive report as yet.

What To Do About Russia?

The West's biggest problem in the fallout from last month's fighting in Georgia is that it doesn't know what it wants (apart from that all parties should behave as though the events never happened at all). The U.S. and Europe seem only to know what they don't want (which is Russia breathing down their necks).

In this vein, the Economist has spent the last few days running a debate. My friend Lane Greene is moderating replies to the proposition: The West must be bolder in its response to a more assertive Russia.

As one might suspect, many of the replies revolve around indecision on whether Russia should be vilified or praised, and who hit whom first in South Ossetia. Yet it's worth taking a look.

Dima's Moment

Dmitri Medvedev is trying desperately to recover from failing his first test as Russia's president: After suffering a severe case of deer-in-the-headlights 11 days ago, and leaving it to Vladimir Putin to blow the trumpet of war against Georgia from the Olympics in Beijing, Medvedev now is practicing a swagger, a sneer, and presidential gutter talk.

When Medvedev was with French President Nicolas Sarkozy a few days ago, he managed to form his lawyerly mouth into the words "bastards" and "hoodlums." In another setting, he threatened a "crushing response" to any future uprising such as the Georgians displayed. After all, the Georgians were people who got "idiotic ideas in their heads."

I have been predicting that Medvedev's performance will lead to his replacement on the 2012 presidential ticket. Putin surely won't tolerate a leader indecisive at the moment of truth, and will find someone else to run (I'm among those who believe that Putin wants to rule from the prime minister's seat so as not to have to keep leaving the seat of power every eight years, which under the constitution he would have to do as president).

But Medvedev has clearly seen the error of his ways. Perhaps he's still working himself into the role, and will yet emerge as the type of naturally tough leader that Russians have come to expect.

If his heart fails again, however, he clearly will be one-term Dima, another loser from the 2008 war in Georgia.