Tag: Russia
Odd duck
I livetweeted Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s appearance in Washington at SETA (a Turkish thinktank for political, economic social research) yesterday, but the performance merited more. Maybe my numerous Turkish readers will find it interesting, even if the Americans don’t. I rarely attend such high-level public events, as little new gets said.
But Erdogan did not disappoint. Speaking in Turkish (I was listening to the simultaneous translation), his main theme was this:
no justice means no humanity, no dignity, and no peace.
He went on to talk about the “bottom billion” living on less than $1 per day, most of whom are innocent children, as well as the suffering in Somalia and Darfur. Personally moved by starvation and circumcision done with a simple knife on several children, he underlined the injustice of racism and discrimination, referring in particular to violence against Muslims in Myanmar.
Lack of justice in one place is a threat to justice elsewhere. Palestine is not a territorial issue but a justice issue. Israeli settlements are making a two-state solution impossible. Israel should release Palestinian prisoners and end the blockade. Hamas will have to be at the negotiating table. It was elected and then denied the right to govern. Israel has apologized for its raid on the Turkish aid flotilla. Compensation is under discussion. Then Turkey will press for an end to the occupation.
The twentieth century was one of war and injustice. The twenty-first century should be one of peace and justice. Turkish policy is based on justice and humanity. This is why Turkey supported the people in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. But the UN Security Council is doing nothing. The system is blocked, and wrong. Humanity cannot be in the hands of one or two countries; the system has to be changed. Events like those of the 1990s in Bosnia and Rwanda are happening again, but the Security Council is doing nothing.
A world in which babies are slaughtered is not a religious world. This is not honorable and it makes me mad. When you witness things of this sort, you have a responsibility. Why is the media not covering the slaughter in Banias (Syria)? The babies dying are not only their parents, but also ours. You have to act. You have to stop these things. Society shares responsibility for this evil. There is a need for global conscience and justice. We have to see that the elements bringing us together are stronger than those that drive us apart. We have to help the poor and the weak. We cannot step on each other and remain connected to our ideals and faith.
Somewhere around this point, Erdogan took a diversion that I wasn’t able to capture tweeting but I’ll try to reproduce here. God’s justice, he said, is ever present but manifests itself at different times and places. He reminded the audience of the Koranic phrase
Bismillah al rahman al rahim
This is generally translated
In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate
But, Erdogan said, its real meaning is that God has two aspects. The first he shows to everyone on earth during their lifetimes. This is the same for everyone (most Gracious). The second is reserved for the faithful in the afterlife (most Compassionate). I’m no theologian, but this struck me as a millenarian concept rather similar to that of the raptured Christians or the Puritans’ “elect.” No ecumenism in this second aspect. Only true believers enter heaven.
I imagine some aide in the front row was figuratively urging him to move on at this point, which is what he did. Turkey will fulfill its obligations, Erdogan said. We want to see more countries concerned about Syria, where the regime does not control much of the territory but uses its weapons to fire on the population. Asad has fired hundreds of missiles and used sarin gas.
President Obama is trying to do the right thing, but what is needed is UN Security Council action, which would accelerate the process. Russia needs to step forward. Turkey will continue to cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
In the Q and A, Erdogan said he would go soon to Gaza and the West Bank (he did not mention Israel). He is against war, but sometimes justice requires it. The clergy should help us avoid getting to that point by reaching across borders. An EU/US trade agreement is a fine idea, but it will need to take into account Turkey’s interests, as Turkey has a customs union with the EU. Turkey will continue to press China on respecting the rights of the Uighurs.
The session ended without questions about Kurds inside Turkey, imprisonment of journalists or other human rights violations. As questions were submitted in writing, the moderator presumably tossed those.
This is an odd duck: a religious and social conservative who has instituted vigorous free market economic reforms but also holds liberal internationalist views on the world, while ignoring those views when it comes to internal politics and human rights.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ten things the president should be doing
Herewith my short list of ten international issues more worthy of presidential attention than the issues that are getting it this week:
- Drones: Apparently the President is preparing to address how and why he uses them soon.
- Syria: Secretary of State Kerry and the Russians are ginning up a peace conference next month, while Moscow strengthens Syrian defenses against Western intervention.
- Iraq: The Syrian war is spilling over and posing serious challenges to the country’s political cohesion.
- Egypt: President Morsi is taking the Arab world’s most populous country in economically and politically ruinous directions.
- Israel/Palestine: With the peace process moribund, the window is closing on the opportunity to reach a two-state outcome.
- Libya: The failure to establish the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force leaves open the possibility of further attacks on Americans (and on the Libyan state).
- Afghanistan: The American withdrawal is on schedule, but big questions remain about what will be left behind.
- Pakistan: Nawaz Sharif’s hat trick provides an opportunity for improved relations, if managed well.
- Iran: once its presidential election is over (first round is June 14, runoff if needed June 21), a last diplomatic effort on its nuclear ambitions will begin.
- All that Asia stuff: North Korean nukes, maritime jostling with China, Trans-Pacific Partnership, transition in Myanmar (how about trying for one in Vietnam?), Japan’s economic and military revival…
In the good old days, presidents in domestic trouble headed out on international trips. Obama doesn’t seem inclined in that direction. He really does want to limit America’s commitments abroad and restore its economy at home. Bless him. But if things get much worse, I’ll bet on a road trip.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What me worry?
I have a skeptical reaction to the current Washington scandals. The editing of the Benghazi talking points strikes me as unworthy of a news story on an inside page. Why is the Internal Revenue Service’s close scrutiny of a flood of patriotic “tea party” registrations not viewed as a rigorous effort to carry out its mandate in the face of potentially fraudulent tax exemptions? How come politicians who called for vigorous prosecution of the AP leak of information about a foiled terrorist plot are now upset that the Justice Department is pursuing the investigation with vigor?
These are not Watergate-league affairs, yet. No one has connected the President to any of them. He referred to the Benghazi incident as a terrorist attack the next day. The inspector general at the IRS found no evidence of White House involvement, even if Washington-based political appointees did know about the matter. The AP investigation is a Justice Department responsibility, from which the Attorney General recused himself because the FBI had at one point questioned him as a possible source of the leak.
The IRS affair is potentially the most serious of these scandals. The inspector general’s report documents mismanagement in responding to a sharp increase in applications for tax exemptions from Tea Party and other right wing groups. What it does not show is whether this response was out of the ordinary. Would a sharp increase in environmental organization applications for tax exemption have triggered a similar response? No one should be unhappy to see the IRS closely scrutinizing organizations that ask for tax exemptions. I might even crack a smile to hear tea partiers suggesting that the IRS should have hired more employees if it had trouble reviewing all the applications for tax exemptions. It is is the implied political bias, still unproven, that is most disturbing.
Massaging of talking points is a bureaucratic art unworthy of serious attention. Susan Rice should have known better than to use them.
The AP leak is troubling mainly because a government investigation of this sort could have a chilling effect on confidential sources for journalists. But I confess to surprise that confidential informants are still using telephones to spill the beans, or even to make appointments to spill the beans. And it would be best if the culprit were found.
No one is (yet) blaming the Administration for the military’s various sexual abuse scandals, which seem somehow to involve disproportionately those responsible for preventing sexual abuse. Fixing the culture from which these incidents grow will not be easy.
Yesterday’s international embarrassment came in Moscow. The Russians appear to have caught a CIA agent red-handed in an attempt to recruit a Russian agent of their Federal Security Service. Rarely does Moscow go so far as to release video of an agent with his bozotic tradecraft tools: wigs, eyeglasses, a map of Moscow. He lacked only false moustaches. This does not bode well for budding cooperation with the Russians on Syria, though it likely won’t derail their help with the withdrawal from Afghanistan or their participation in the nuclear talks with Iran.
The news media are delighted that so much is happening to embarrass the Obama administration at a time when other news is lacking. The president was already on the ropes. Gun background checks have failed in Congress, immigration reform at best is moving slowly, and the budget won’t be ripe for serious negotiation until the Feds bump up against the budget ceiling again in the fall. This is weeks later than anticipated, as revenues are running ahead of projections and the deficit falling more rapidly than anticipated. I’ll let you know when someone decides to celebrate that.
The international significance of all this is that it puts the administration off balance in dealing with foreign policy issues. A president who had convinced Congress to pass gun background checks, could be confident Congress would pass immigration reform and could hope for a budget deal would be in a stronger position internationally as well as domestically. It would be even better if the president were not defending himself from charges of downplaying terrorism, using the IRS to discomfit his domestic opponents and infringing on freedom of the press.
There are serious international questions out there requiring American leadership. Will it be possible to move ahead on a Middle East peace process that stalled in Obama’s first term? Will Russia and the US find a way to manage a political process to end the Syrian civil war? Can the administration bring to conclusion big Atlantic and Pacific trade agreements? Will Afghanistan survive the withdrawal of the Americans and their international coalition partners from combat roles? Can the administration somehow end nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran without military action?
So yes, I do worry, even if Alfred E. Neuman would advise against it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe
This past Tuesday I moderated the Q and A for a Middle East Institute presentation by Baroness Valerie Amos, the UN’s Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, on “The International Response to Syria’s Humanitarian Catastrophe.” Here is the video, which is also up on the MEI website:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria: is there hope?
Salon.com asked me to review recent events in Syria and their significance. They published it today under the heading “Has the Syria threat cooled?”:
Watching Syria is like looking through a kaleidoscope. The picture seems to change dramatically in response to the slightest jolt, but the components remain the same. The past week has seen lots of jolts, but no real change in the elements that make up the sad picture.
Inside Syria, the regime’s forces have started an ethnic cleansing campaign in the west intended to clear Sunnis from areas its Alawite supporters want to secure for themselves. The regime has also successfully pushed south toward the Jordanian border. In much of the rest of the country, there is lots of fighting but only marginal changes in the confrontation lines, which run through many urban areas, or between the urban centers and the countryside. Almost 7 million Syrians are now thought to need humanitarian assistance. The number could rise dramatically during the rest of the year.
Secretary Kerry’s visit to Moscow this week revived, once again, hopes for a negotiated settlement. He and the Russians agreed to try to convene a conference, even before the end of the month, that would include both the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime. The prospect of this conference will relieve President Obama of any need for a quick decision on unilateral action in Syria, since it would hardly be appropriate to preempt the conference. That is likely what both the Russians and the Americans wanted: more time.
Pressure had been building for action, including possible direct American shipment of arms to the opposition, safe areas for displaced people, a no-fly zone, or an attack on Syria’s air force and missiles, which are being used against civilians. Evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons put President Obama on the spot, as he has several times said that crossing this red line would change his calculus. American credibility, some thought, was at stake.
The ink was barely dry on the allegation of chemical weapons use when Carla Del Ponte, a Swiss member of a U.N. human rights inquiry for Libya, suggested that she knew of evidence that chemical weapons were used by the opposition rather than the regime. This allegation has little credibility, not only because of the technical difficulties involved but also because Del Ponte has a record of sensational allegations that are difficult to prove (or disprove).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria: conference time
Secretary Kerry’s visit to Moscow has yielded a proposal for a Syria “peace conference,” to be held as early as the end of this month. This is significant in at least two ways:
- the Russians and Americans both still prefer a negotiated transition (often misleadingly referred to in the press as a “peaceful” one);
- any dramatic increase in US assistance to the Syrian opposition will likely have to wait until the conference is held, or proves to be a mirage.
What are the prospects for success of this initiative? Not good unless Moscow and Washington are prepared not only to convene the event but also strongarm their respective friends (the regime and the opposition) into attending and settling. I am reminded of the interminable series of conferences on Yugoslavia that the European Community, as it was then known, convened in the early 1990s. The warring parties all showed up, if I remember correctly. But little was accomplished on the main issues until the Americans twisted President Izetbegovic’s arm at Dayton, compelling him to accept a peace agreement he thought unjust.
The main issue in the Syria conflict is power: who will control the government in Damascus? Russia and the United States a year ago agreed to a transition in which power would be delegated to a government with representation of both the Asad regime and the opposition. The American view is that this means Bashar al Asad would give up all power (and presumably opt to leave the country). The Russian view is that Bashar can stay and maybe even run in an election.
Sharp as this contrast is, the Americans and Russians have some common interests. Neither wants to see a victory for Sunni extremists. Both would want any opposition representation in a transition government to be predominantly moderate. Moscow and Washington will be particularly keen to emarginate Jabhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate that has established itself as a leader in the opposition fight against the Asad regime. Neither the Americans nor the Russians will want to see a post-Asad massacre of Syria’s Alawites and Christians, some of whom have been mainstays of the Asad regime. The Russians will want to maintain their port access in Syria. The Americans should be able to live with that. The Americans will want a more or less democratic outcome. The Russians will be able to live with that, so long as it does not open the door to haven for extremists who mount insurgencies in Russia’s Muslim-populated territories.
What would cause the regime and the opposition to agree to a negotiated settlement?
The opposition is having serious difficulties on the battlefield. Its fragmented forces are able to “clear” some countryside areas and parts of towns, but they are unable to “hold” and “build.” With 6.8 million Syrians now in need of humanitarian relief according to the UN, the opposition is simply overwhelmed. Air and artillery attacks on “liberated” areas make it impossible to meet the needs of non-fighting citizens. The regime intentionally targets hospitals, schools and bakeries, in an effort to demoralize people and get them to expel the rebel fighters. All the (necessarily non-extremist) opposition Syrians I’ve met from inside Syria support the idea of negotiating with the regime. In the parlance of conflict management, the secularists and moderate Islamists perceive the situation as “a mutually hurting stalemate” in which neither side can gain from continued fighting. The situation is therefore “ripe.”
The regime is less inclined to see things that way. It still has ample Russian and Iranian support. It is able to deliver humanitarian assistance to much of the territory it still controls. Valerie Amos, the UN’s humanitarian chief, noted yesterday at a Middle East Institute event that some opposition family members move to government-controlled areas when their (mostly) men go off to fight against the regime, because they are safer and food is more available. The Syrian army is exhausted, but the elite forces that do most of the fighting are not flagging, as they are mostly Alawite and view this struggle as an existential one.
So we do not have here a “mutually hurting stalemate,” even if some on one side perceive the situation as ripe (and likely many citizens sitting on the fence would too). Nor do we have a sense on both sides of a “way out.” Much of the opposition may be willing to talk, but they don’t want a negotiated solution that leaves Bashar al Assad in place. The regime stalwarts see no negotiated solution without him.
If you want a negotiated solution, which Moscow and Washington both prefer because it will give them more control over who gains power, what you’ve got to do is get the regime to perceive it cannot gain from continuing the fighting while not giving the opposition so much encouragement that it decides to continue. There are many ways Washington and Moscow can do this. But we’ll save the options for another day. We’ll also need to discuss who speaks for the opposition and for the regime, which is a non-trivial issue that will need to be resolved before any conference has a chance of success.
RSS - Posts
