Tag: Turkey
Towards Kurdistan independence
This piece comes to peacefare.net from Matthew Parish, identified in full at the end.
The Kurds are an atypical people. The geographical area they populate is essentially contiguous, but they have not enjoyed their own state in modern times. Since the early sixteenth century their territory and population has been divided between the Safavid (Persian) and Ottoman Empires. They stayed much that way until the Treaty of Sèvres, a European plan for dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire that anticipated a Kurdish nation amongst several new emergent states at the end of World War I. The existence of such a state was a corollary of Woodrow Wilson’s theme of self-determination for previously colonized peoples. Sèvres anticipated that a Kurdish state would emerge under joint Anglo-French suzerainty, but Ataturk buried the abortive treaty through success in the Turkish War of Independence.
The Kurds remained without autonomy, divided between Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, for some decades afterwards. In the 1950s and 1960, the Kurds took advantage of the chaos surrounding Sunni minority rule in Iraq, and in particular the military coup of And al-Karim Qasim against the Iraqi monarchy in 1958 and his subsequent execution in a Ba’ath party coup in 1963. The First Iraqi-Kurdish war reached a conclusion after nine years in 1970, with establishment of a federal Kurdish entity within Iraqi borders.
The Kurds’ luck ran out with the seizure of absolute power in Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1979.The humiliation of the Iraqi central authorities by the Kurds would not be forgotten during his totalitarian reign. De jure Kurdish autonomy would be progressively eroded until Iraqi Kurdistan fell entirely under the writ of Baghdad. This course culminated in the 1988-89 Al-Anfal military campaign to defeat the Kurdish Peshmerga (the region’s autonomous military), which involved the widespread massacre of civilians including use of poisonous gas attacks.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The troubles we see
This year’s Council on Foreign Relations Preventive Priorities Survey was published this morning. It annually surveys the globe for a total of 30 Tier 1, 2 and 3 priorities for the United States. Tier 1s have a high or moderate impact on US interests or a high or moderate likelihood (above 50-50). Tier 2s can have low likelihood but high impact on US interests, moderate (50-50) likelihood and moderate impact on US interests, or high likelihood and low impact on US interests. Tier 3s are all the rest. Data is crowdsourced from a gaggle of experts, including me.
We aren’t going to be telling you anything you don’t know this year, but the exercise is still instructive. The two new Tier 1 contingencies are Russian intervention in Ukraine and heightened tensions in Israel/Palestine. A new Tier 2 priority is Kurdish violence within Turkey. I don’t believe I voted for that one. Ebola made it only to Tier 3, as did political unrest in China and possible succession problems in Thailand. I had Ebola higher than that.
Not surprisingly, the top slot (high likelihood and high impact) goes to ISIS. Military confrontation in the South China Sea moved up to Tier 1. Internal instability in Pakistan moved down, as did political instability in Jordan. Six issues fell off the list: conflict in Somalia, a China/India clash, Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo Bangladesh and conflict between Sudan and South Sudan.
Remaining in Tier 1 are a mass casualty attack on the US homeland (hard to remove that one), a serious cyberattack (that’s likely to be perennial too), a North Korea crisis, and an Israeli attack on Iran. Syria and Afghanistan remain in Tier 2 (I think I had Syria higher than that).
The Greater Middle East looms large in this list. Tier 2 is all Greater Middle East, including Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey and Yemen (in addition to Tier 1 priorities Israel/Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Palestine). That makes 11 out of 30, all in the top two tiers. Saudi monarchy succession is not even mentioned. Nor is Bahrain.
Sub-Saharan Africa makes it only into Tier 3. Latin America and much of Southeast Asia escape mention.
There is a question in my mind whether the exclusively country-by-country approach of this survey makes sense. It is true of course that problems in the Middle East vary from country to country, but there are also some common threads: Islamic extremism, weak and fragile states, exclusionary governance, demographic challenges and economic failure. From a policy response perspective, it may make more sense to focus on those than to try to define “contingencies” country by country. If you really wanted to prevent some of these things from happening, you would surely have to broaden the focus beyond national borders. Russian expansionism into Russian-speaking territories on its periphery might be another more thematic way of defining contingencies.
One of the key factors in foreign policy is entirely missing from this list: domestic American politics and the difficulties it creates for a concerted posture in international affairs. Just to offer a couple of examples: failure to continue to pay Afghanistan’s security sector bills, Congressional passage of new Iran sanctions before the P5+1 negotiations are completed, or a decision by President Obama to abandon entirely support for the Syrian opposition. The survey ignores American “agency” in determining whether contingencies happen, or not. That isn’t the world I live in.
For my Balkans readers: no, you are not on the list, and you haven’t been for a long time so far as I can tell. In fact, it is hard to picture how any contingency today in the Balkans could make it even to Tier 3. That’s the good news. But it also means you should not be looking to Washington for solutions to your problems. Brussels and your own capitals are the places to start.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks December 15-19
- The Escalating Shi’a-Sunni Conflict: Assessing the Role of ISIS | Monday December 15 | 9:30 | The Stimson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Today, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) controls and effectively governs large parts of territory based on a sectarian agenda. By implementing an ideology of religious intolerance, ISIS plays a significant role in deepening the already existing sectarian divide in a region deeply embroiled in conflict. Its appeal namely lies in its ability to offer an alternative to many communities that have felt marginalized and threatened in the past, and more so since the Arab uprisings began. Given its anti-Shi’a agenda, did ISIS capitalize on the conditions in Iraq and the Levant or did it help create them? Does ISIS have the potential to spread to other countries in the region where there is a sectarian problem, such as Lebanon? What is the potential for the US to push back on the ISIS march? Is Washington throwing money at the problem or are US military efforts actually making a difference on the ground? The discussants will address these issues, with a particular focus on Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The panelists are Joseph Bahout, Visiting Scholar, Middle East Program, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Omar Al-Nidawi, Director for Iraq, Gryphon Partners LLC. The event is moderated by Geneive Abdo, Fellow, Middle East Program, The Stimson Center.
- International Diplomacy and the Ukraine Crisis | Monday December 15 | 9:30 – 10:30 | International Institute for Strategic Studies | To date, international diplomatic efforts to address the Ukraine crisis – the most severe threat to European security since the Cold War – have been episodic and largely unsuccessful. A discussion on the attempts thus far and how they might be improved going forward with three highly experienced negotiators from Russia, the US, and the EU. The discussants are Vladimir Lukin who was the special envoy of the Russian president for the February 21st talks in Kyiv between then-President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders, Richard Burt who serves as managing director at McLarty Associates, where he has led the firm’s work in Europe and Eurasia since 2007 and Michael Leigh who is a Transatlantic Academy Fellow, consultant and senior advisor to the German Marshall Fund.
- Congressional Options and Their Likely Consequences for a Nuclear Deal with Iran | Tuesday December 16 | 1:00 – 2:00 | Rand Corporation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | With nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 now extended beyond the original November 24 deadline, some members of Congress might now attempt to intervene legislatively. Congressional action could either help or hinder the implementation of whatever deal may be reached. What options are available to Congress, and what are the likely consequences of each for the United States? The talk is with analyst Larry Hanauer as he identifies and assesses eight potential courses of action that Congress could take that might either facilitate, hinder, or block implementation of a nuclear deal.
- The State and Future of Egypt’s Islamists | Thursday December 18 | 12:00 – 1:00 | Hudson Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Who are Egypt’s Islamists? What are the internal dynamics among Islamism’s various individual and collective constituents? How have the dramatic political developments in Egypt over the past four years affected the country’s Islamists, and what are their future prospects? Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Samuel Tadros’s two-year long study of Egyptian Islamism has resulted in two landmark reports. The first, Mapping Egyptian Islamism, profiles 128 currents, groups, and individuals that form the complex Egyptian Islamist scene. The second, Islamist vs. Islamist: The Theologico-Political Questions, examines the internal dynamics of Islamism in terms of the relationships among its leading figures and major tendencies, and their disagreements on key theological and political questions. The discussion will surround the future of Egypt’s Islamists and Tadros’s two new reports featuring Mokhtar Awad of the Center for American Progress, William McCants of the Brookings Institution, and Eric Trager of the Washington Institute. Samuel Tadros will moderate the discussion.
- Bordering on Terrorism: Turkey’s Syria Policy and the Rise of the Islamic State | Friday December 19 | 9:30 – 11:00 | Foundation for Defense of Democracies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Southeastern Turkey has become a hub for terror finance, arms smuggling, illegal oil sales, and the flow of fighters to extremist groups in Syria including the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra. Ankara has made explicit that it supports the arming of Syrian rebels, although whether Ankara is directly assisting jihadist groups remains unclear. Nevertheless, Turkey’s reluctance to cooperate with the international coalition acting against the Islamic State has undermined domestic stability, threatened the country’s economy and placed it on a collision course with the United States. Should Washington, therefore, seek to persuade Ankara to confront extremism at home and its neighborhood? And if Turkey refuses, should there be implications for its NATO membership? A conversation with Tony Badran, Jamie Dettmer, and Jonathan Schanzer.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Disaster looms
The Middle East Institute discussion today of building support for moderate Syrian rebel forces stirred both mind and blood.With Kate Seelye moderating, the panel offered a multilayered critique of US and coalition policy.
McClatchy’s Roy Gutman launched with a denunciation of US aid cuts to the 8-10,000 vetted fighters, who are losing ground and personnel to the Syrian regime and extremists. While White House favorites like David Ignatius are declaring the moderates don’t exist, in fact they did well fighting extremists for much of this year (after an initial debacle in the north, where their warehouses were raided by ISIS).
The rebels have suffered more recently from having no unified command, lack of coordination among donors, and the need to fight Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nusra as well as ISIS and the regime. The US, which a Syrian opined “walks like a turtle while events race like a rabbit,” punishes the opposition for failures that are due in fact to lack of US support. The situation bears all the hallmarks of impending disaster for the moderates. Somehow the opposition is holding its ground in the center of Aleppo, but it is losing manpower to the extremists.
The Syrian Opposition Coalition’s Oubai Shahbandar agreed the situation is difficult, but he thought not impossible. Despite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters operating on the regime side, Aleppo has held. The rebels are resilient. They are fighting Assad, a fight that is inextricably linked to the fight against ISIS. Defeating ISIS in Iraq and containing it in Syria, as the Obama administration would like to do, is not a viable option. Rebel forces in southern Syria are making real progress in surrounding Damascus. The moderates are not finished. There are still viable options if they get sufficient support.
Retired US Army General Paul Eaton said the US has no strategy, just an incoherent response. This is partly because there are no vital US interests at stake in Syria, only “conditional” ones. The war against ISIS is the main US effort, which we entered because ISIS threatened our Kurdish friends in Erbil (not because journalists were beheaded). But the war is existential for President Assad, who is therefore unrestrained even as the US pursues the art of the possible. The Administration has a choice of two out of three: good, fast and cheap. It has chosen good and cheap (and therefore also slow). One year will not be enough. In the meanwhile, the opposition is unable to hold and build.
Retired Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford underlined that this is a two-front war, east and west. The Administration has given priority to the east (Iraq). The west (Syria) is not going well. But there is no solution only in Iraq. Nor is there a solution unless we fight both the regime and ISIS. It may be too late, as we have failed to bomb ISIS forces that are challenging the Free Syrian Army (FSA) brigades. Assad and the jihadis are winning in the west. It is unrealistic to expect the FSA to fight only Assad. We need to change the balance on the ground in order to get a political solution in Syria.
Asked about the UN “freeze” proposal for Aleppo, Gutman underlined that past ceasefires have essentially amounted to surrenders of the opposition to the regime. The UN is on its third top-notch special envoy. But he won’t succeed either unless something is done to alter the balance on the ground. Ford noted that of three dozen ceasefires, only one has held up. Eaton said that the US could enforce a freeze, but it has to consider the Iranian and Russian responses if it were to do so.
If we move towards a “no fly” zone, Ford emphasized the need for strict conditions on our friends: we would want the Sunnis to pledge protection for Alawites and other minorities, the Turks to pledge not to push Syrian refugees out of Turkey, the donors to tighten coordination and to push for a political solution. Gutman underlined that it is vital for the opposition to set up shop inside Syria, but doing so will require ground forces (which Turkey does not want to provide) as well as protection from the air. Shahbandar thinks a “no fly” zone would help to change the balance on the ground and win hearts and minds, which are being lost now because of US failure to attack regime forces.
Russia and Iran, the panel agreed, are key international players. Russia has been reluctant to force the regime to fight ISIS or to push Assad out. The Administration has told the Iranians it will not bomb Assad’s forces. But Iran is a key factor in supporting ISIS, which it helped revive after its defeat in Iraq. Tehran is the “turboengine” of terrorism in the Levant, Shahbandar said. The US risks losing all Sunni support if it is seen as allied with Iran.
Bottom line: the US still lacks a coherent strategy against ISIS in Syria, which would require stronger support to the moderate opposition and the fight against Assad, a unified opposition military command and logistics, and more effort to undo Iranian and Russian support for the regime. Otherwise disaster looms.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks December 8-12
- The Crisis in Jerusalem | Monday, December 8th | 12:00 – 1:45 | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Even before the Gaza war and its related demonstrations in Jerusalem and the West Bank in summer 2014, tensions were building in Jerusalem. These tensions were a result of the Israeli policies that are gradually transforming the territorial, demographic, and religious character of the city, as well as its connection to the West Bank. Violent attacks and counterattacks have escalated as access to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount has changed, raising the profile of the religious aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alongside its nationalist and territorial dimensions. The panel will discuss the roots and implications of the crisis in Jerusalem. Renowned Palestinian expert Khalil Toufakji will review the changing map of Jerusalem, including Israeli policies and the implications for Palestinian life in the city. Israeli national security expert Shlomo Brom will discuss Israeli policies surrounding Muslim, Christian, and Jewish holy sites in the city, as well as how Israeli/Palestinian issues will affect upcoming Knesset elections. Carnegie’s Michele Dunne will moderate.
- Reflections on Ukraine’s Crisis | Monday, December 8th | 1:45 – 2:45 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | An event featuring United States Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt. Ambassador Pyatt, the eighth US ambassador to Ukraine, arrived in Kyiv on August 3, 2013. Three months after his arrival, the Ukrainian capital witnessed eruption of massive civil protests against Yanukovych government’s decision not to enact the Association Agreement with the European Union. A year and a half later, amidst Ukraine’s economic crisis, Russia’s violation of territorial integrity of Ukraine in the East and militarization of Crimea, the ambassador remains firm in supporting Ukrainian people’s pro-European and pro-democratic choice. Ambassador Pyatt will share his insights into the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and will delineate future prospects for US-Ukraine relations going forward.
- The Future of the Middle East: Regional Scenarios Beyond the Obama Years | Monday, December 8th | 12:30 – 2:00 | Hudson Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East is undergoing profound transformations. As borders shift, alliances form and dissolve, and Iran pursues its nuclear program, policymakers must look beyond the final two years of the Obama administration.What happens if the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State fails, and IS continues to spread its tentacles across the Levant? How long will the Syrian civil war last? What if the Jordanian regime, a longtime U.S. and Israeli ally, is toppled? When will Israel again find itself at war against Hezbollah, Hamas, or directly with Iran? Hudson Institute will host a panel featuring Hudson Institute’s fellows Shmuel Bar, Michael Doran, Hillel Fradkin, and Lee Smith to explore U.S. policy in the Middle East with respect to regional strategy for the next two, five, ten, and twenty-five years.
- At the Center of the Storm: Turkey between Europe & the Middle East | Tuesday, December 9th | 6:00 – 7:30 | German Marshall Fund | A Conversation with Ambassador Marc Grossman, Vice Chairman of The Cohen Group, and former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. After eleven years under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey finds itself at a major crossroads. With European Union membership negotiations ongoing and a bid for regional influence rejected by large swaths of the Middle East, Turkey is increasingly isolated. Its latest dispute with the United States over a proper response to the war in Syria has strained Turkey’s relations with NATO. In addition to regional concerns, the domestic situation in Turkey has also significantly deteriorated in the last year. What brought Turkish influence in Europe and the Middle East to its current low point? What is at stake for Turkey in the war in Syria and other parts of the Middle East? Where do we stand on potential Turkish membership in the European Union and what is the future of Turkish domestic politics?
- The U.S., Israel and the Regional Dimensions of an Iran Nuclear Deal | Wednesday, December 10th | 3:00 – 4:30 | New America Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program that ensures Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon has been a top priority on President Obama’s foreign policy agenda. Despite deep and regular consultations with the Israeli government on this ongoing diplomatic effort, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has consistently objected to any agreement that leaves any Iranian nuclear program in place. The panelists are Shlomo Brom, Suzanne DiMaggio, Matthew Duss, and Ilan Goldenberg and they will discuss regional security dimensions of a nuclear deal, the extent of U.S.-Israel cooperation on the Iran issue, Israel’s concerns with the current negotiations, and whether and how those concerns can be fully addressed in any comprehensive deal between Iran and the U.S. and its partners.
- Can We Ultimately Defeat ISIL? | Thursday, December 11th | 10:00 – 11:00 | Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars | REGISTER TO ATTEND | General Allen’s first public discussion of the threat posed by the Islamic State. General John Allen, recently appointed Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, was selected by President Obama to coordinate the international effort against the Islamic State militant group. Allen, who had been serving as a security adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry, and was the former top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is working with the nearly 60 nations around the world who have agreed to join the fight and respond to the ISIL threat. Moderated by Jane Harman, Director, President and CEO, of The Wilson Center.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks November 24-28
- The Future of the Kurds in the Middle East | Monday November 24th | 12:00 – 2:00 | Rethink Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The threat of ISIS and the Kobane crisis have led to interesting developments in the region. Turkish government declared that it gives Peshmerga forces a passage to Kobane as a response to Washington’s approval of arms transfers to PYD. For the first time, White House publicly stated that PYD is different from PKK, and thus, not considered as a terrorist group by the United States. Recently, PYD and Syrian Kurdish parties reached a settlement in Dohuk in the presence of KRG President Massoud Barzani, reminiscent of the Erbil agreement two years ago. Will the United States support an autonomous Kurdish region in Syria? Is Dohuk agreement going to be effective under the pressure of ISIS threat? What is the stance of Turkish government toward PYD’s future? The speakers are Michael Gunter, a professor of political science at Tennessee Technological University and has authored 11 books on Kurds in the Middle East, Vera Eccarius-Kelly, a professor of Comparative Politics and Associate Dean at Siena College and is the author of The Militant Kurds: A Dual Strategy for Freedom, and Sezin Oney, a columnist for Taraf daily in Turkey. The moderator is Mustafa Gurbuz, a fellow at Rethink Institute and a policy fellow at Center for Global Policy at George Mason University.
- Jihadist Movements in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq: Inevitable Rise or Policy Failure? | Monday November 24th | 3:30 – 5:00 | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The growth of jihadist movements in the Middle East has fueled regional instability and captured global attention. Adam Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, and Arthur Quesnay will address their emergence in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. Based on extensive fieldwork, they will assess the failure of U.S. policy to anticipate current developments and suggest new orientations. They will analyze the similarities and differences between the Taliban and the Islamic State regarding military strategy, governance, and engagement with Western countries, as well as compare the respective levels of sectarian violence in Iraq and Syria with Afghanistan. Frederic Wehrey will serve as a discussant, and Frederic Grare will moderate.
- Iran-P5+1 Nuclear Negotiations: the Road Ahead | Tuesday November 25th | 10:30 – 12:00 | Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | A year of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 partners based on the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), adopted in Geneva in November 2013, has produced significant progress, but a comprehensive deal has so far proved elusive. With important differences reportedly remaining but with the parties actively engaged in the run-up to the JPOA’s current deadline of November 24, the outcome of the current phase of negotiations is uncertain—although the parties may well be headed for another extension. Brookings will host a panel discussion to evaluate where the negotiations stand, to consider prospects for the period ahead and to discuss how the U.S. Congress, key Iranian audiences and other interested parties may react in the current situation. The speakers are Gary Samore, Executive Director of Research at The Belfer Center, Harvard University, David Albright, Founder and President of the Institute for Science and International Security and Edward Levine, National Advisory Board Member at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The moderator is Robert Einhorn, Senior Fellow at Brookings.
- Corruption, Constitutionalism & Control: Implications of the 4th Plenum for China and U.S.-China Relations | Tuesday November 25th | 3:00 – 4:30 | Woodrow Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The recently concluded 4th Plenum of China’s 18th Communist Party Congress focused on “governing the nation in accordance with law.” Reforms described in plenum documents seek to strengthen the institutional bases for economic and social reforms laid out at the 2013 plenum, and to build trust in the Communist Party’s ability to behave righteously and govern justly. Standards of righteousness and justice, however, like the meaning of “in accordance with law” and the status of the constitution, remain vague. The pace and direction of legal reform and the scope and methods of anti-corruption efforts, moreover, remain the sole province of the CCP, within which General Secretary Xi Jinping now exercises a singular influence. How will China’s attempts to rectify the Party and strengthen the legal foundations of its governance shape the nation during Xi’s tenure, and how should American leaders, corporations, and other institutions analyze and respond to Xi’s reform program? The speakers are Donald C. Clarke, Research Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School and Andrew Wedeman, Professor in the Department of Political Science at Georgia State University.
RSS - Posts
