Monday, September 05, 2011

Turkey’s foreign policy: from “zero problems” to “maximum problems”


The Arab uprisings completely shuffled Turkey’s cards and showed the limitations of its neo-Ottoman ambitions.

Israel’s decision not to abide by the Turkish ultimatum about the need to apologize for the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla incident brought the promised “Plan B” punishment: Turkey has decided to expel Israel’s ambassador to Ankara, downgrade its diplomatic ties to the lowest possible level, to hold on all military agreements and to halt trade between Turkey and Israel.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said his government would now provide full support to the families of those killed to pursue prosecution of any Israeli military or government members responsible for the deaths.

Moreover, President Abdullah Gul strongly condemned the United Nations Palmer Report, because it considered Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza “a legitimate security measure” and stated that Turkey could have done more to dissuade the Turkish flotilla participants from their actions. He deemed it “null and void” and sent a veiled threat to Israel: “Turkey, as the most powerful country in the region, will not only protect its own rights but also those of all the people in need.”

Davutoglu declared that “Turkey would take measures to ensure free maritime movement in the eastern Mediterranean.”

Until several months ago Turkey’s policy of “zero problems” with all its neighbors, a “bridge between East and West,” and Middle Eastern activism, devised by Davutoglu, seemed successful.

...The Mavi Marmara incident and the ensuing crisis with Israel mark also the beginning of the failure of this [
“zero problems” ] policy.

  • The attempt to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and Syria faded away; 
  • the excessive support to Hamas led to frosty relations with the then Mubarak regime in Egypt and even with the Palestinian Authority; 
  • Turkey appeared more and more as a potential Islamist threat rather than an asset to the West and NATO.

The Arab uprisings completely shuffled Turkey’s cards and showed the limitations of its neo-Ottoman ambitions.

During the past few years, the AKP government improved enormously the political and economic relations with Syria....In the first days of the uprising in Cairo, Erdogan coordinated with the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad “efforts regarding unrest in Egypt.”

Weeks later, the bloody repression of the Syrian people’s rebellion compelled Erdogan to slam Assad’s regime, to give shelter to the Syrian opposition and warn his old friend that “those who build happiness on despotism will drown in the blood they spill.”

According to the Turkish daily Today’s Zaman, Turkey’s National Security Council lately discussed the possibility of establishing a “buffer zone” along the Syrian border, first in the “no man’s land” between the Syrian and Turkish lines of demarcation and to be extended further into Syrian territory if needed.

Ankara’s ties with Iran have also improved under the AKP. Turkey has defended Iran’s nuclearization efforts and in May 2010 brokered (with Brazil) the controversial Iran nuclear fuel swap, which led to nothing in practice.

Turkey’s UN vote against Iran sanctions raised serious objections in the United States and Europe. Iran indirectly supported a secret military drill between the Turkish and Chinese air forces that took place in Turkey in September 2010, as Chinese SU-27 warplanes that took off from bases in China refueled in Iran.

But since the Turkish moves against the Assad regime, Teheran has been influential in disrupting Syria’s confidence in Turkey by disseminating anti-Turkish propaganda, has stopped intelligence cooperation with Turkey in the fight against the Kurdish PKK in Iraq, and has even threatened it not to intervene in Syrian affairs. Iran was also unhappy about Turkey’s support to the Bahraini regime’s repression of the Shia rebellion.

Turkey opposed the rebels in Libya at the beginning of the Benghazi uprising and the NATO intervention, but in the end it had to bandwagon the alliance and these days recognizes the NTC government.

When Cyprus decided to go ahead with gas drilling off its southern coast beginning in October 2011, after it concluded a maritime boundary agreement with Israel in 2010, Turkey unalterably opposed this course. Turkey claimed that having invaded Cyprus and established a Turkish entity there, which no one else recognizes, it is entitled to forestall all activity in the Cypriot economic exclusion zone (EEZ) until the status of Cyprus is worked out through negotiation.

At the same time, Erdogan has announced to the United Nations and leaders of Cyprus that his country is no longer prepared to accept the concessions it has agreed to in order to help with the reunification of Cyprus in line with a UN plan back in 2004.

The Turkish side will accept nothing short of recognition of a two-state solution on the island.

As a consolation prize, “to showcase Ankara’s ambition to become a major political and economic player in Africa,” and “raise Turkey's profile even further,” Erdogan lately visited Somalia, the country that has been worst affected by a prolonged drought in the Horn of Africa.

He announced that Turkey had raised $137 million for Somalia, and pledged it would open an embassy, build roads and open more schools and hospitals.

Erdogan also promised to help facilitate a settlement to Somalia’s internal conflict, with the Islamist Shabab militia to be part of the peace process.

The Turkish foreign minister has threatened to become more active in pushing the Palestinian Authority’s request for the recognition of a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly.

It seems the Erdogan government is amnesic regarding its own main internal problem, the Kurdish issue. The most immediate impact of the UN recognition of the Palestinian state could be on the Kurds, in Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The AKP government has not solved, as promised, the Kurdish problem and since it won the June 2011 elections is facing a growing terrorism and guerrilla offensive inside Turkey and from Iraq, an active political opposition by Kurdish parliamentarians and the declaration of a “democratic autonomy” by Kurdish NGOs in the in southeastern province of Diyarbakir (Turkish Kurdistan).

The Turkish air force lately bombed “60 pre-determined targets belonging to the separatist [PKK] organization” in Iraq and its artillery struck at 168 additional targets with “intense” fire from the Turkish side. The Turkish military stated that an estimated 145 to 160 PKK members were killed and scores injured.

The pro-government Turkish daily Zaman reported that Turkey was setting up “operational front garrisons” inside northern Iraq where hitherto it used to maintain a low-key intelligence presence to monitor Kurdish activities.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari denounced Turkish bombardments of Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. Human Rights Watch said in a statement that many of the targeted areas were purely civilian and most of the victims were civilians.

By threatening Israel, Turkey’s government seems to have passed from the “zero problems” policy in the Middle East to an “all azimuth hostility” strategy.

*The writer is Senior Research Scholar at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and Senior fellow at the The Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) at The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel.

Saturday, September 03, 2011

How Anti-Semitism Prevents Peace

From the Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2011, pp. 73-83 (view PDF version) by David Patterson*:

Where are the moral leaders of our time?

From Fox News, 2 Sept 2011, by Anne Bayefsky:
Today, Germany became the latest country to pull-out of a UN “anti-racism” conference scheduled for New York on September 22, 2011.

Dubbed “Durban III” after the global hatefest which took place in South Africa in 2001 and ended three days before 9/11, the U.N. gambit is headed for a showdown.

While the U.N. deliberately planned their meeting to “commemorate” the Durban fiasco for September, hoping it would attract the hundreds of world leaders already in New York for the annual opening of the General Assembly, nine states have now cried foul and bowed out, including the U.S. and Israel.

...Organizers are planning to coral participating countries into signing a declaration that would celebrate the Durban Declaration and turn it into the centerpiece of UN “anti-racism” efforts.

The Durban Declaration charges only Israel among 192 nations with racism and declares that the Palestinians are “victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” In effect, Durban and its progeny are part of a decades-long campaign by Israel’s enemies to cast the Jewish state as akin to racist South Africa, paint Zionism as racism, and isolate and defeat Israel on the political battlefield.

Thursday, negotiators discussed the latest U.N. draft which begins “We, heads of State and Government…reaffirm that the aim of this commemoration is to mobilize political will…for the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration...”

Leading the charge in the negotiations was Benin who spoke for the approximately 130 states belonging to the “Group of 77,” the developing bloc of nations that include 56 Islamic states. From the western side, playing ball by UN rules favoring the non-democratic majority, are Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, and Ireland. Two states objected to the idea of “reaffirming” the Durban Declaration – France and New Zealand. But it remains to be seen if they were merely posturing or they really intend to pull out of a summit specifically designed to “commemorate” an event unworthy of anything but the dustbin of history. No negotiations at this point are going to avoid that inevitable conclusion.

Furthermore, the text is littered with poison pills, neutral only on the surface – such as emphasizing four times in a page and a half the “victims of racism” – which the Durban Declaration describes as Palestinians “suffering” from Israeli racism. There are also numerous attempts to sideline the 1965 racism treaty, which emphasizes the voluntary assumption of duties by states.

The stakes are especially high because, as Argentina said in defense of this “celebration,” the final declaration will be a presidential statement that will be made by heads of state and government. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – the prime movers behind Durban III – may succeed in building a majority of states prepared to celebrate modern anti-semitism and dress it up as human rights.

But thanks to Canada, Israel, United States, Czech Republic, Italy, The Netherlands, Australia, Austria, and now Germany, it will be a pyrrhic victory. There is no fence-sitting on this one.

Where are the rest of the moral leaders of our time?

In the midst of the Arab Spring, the PA mocks democracy - Baroness Ashton is speechless

From an article published 2 Sept 2011, by Emanuele Ottolenghi*:

Baroness Catherine Ashton, the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, is not afraid to speak out. In August alone, she issued no fewer than 36 statements and speeches on a wide range of foreign policy issues; in July it was 56. 

 Ashton

...But on August 22, the Palestinian Authority postponed local elections indefinitely, and Ashton had nothing to say. 
 
The last time Palestinians voted freely was in January 2006. Given that their president is supposed to serve a four-year mandate, which expired in January 2009 without new elections; that the Palestinian parliament is similarly supposed to serve a four-year mandate, which expired in January 2010, again, without new elections; and that local councils were similarly elected for a four-year term between January and December 2005 - no Palestinian institution currently enjoys any democratic legitimacy.

Ashton was in Ramallah this week and had a wonderful opportunity to remind the PA that democratic legitimacy requires holding, not postponing, elections. After all, it is hard to fathom how expired terms and electoral delays square well with the Europeans' declared commitment to a democratic Palestinian state. 

Yet, she uttered not a word about the fact that the [Palestinian] authority, a tireless recipient of Europe's financial largesse, is yet again shunning its duty to build and sustain democratic institutions. 

Middle East peace remains Europe's top priority, and it is a European axiom that Israeli settlements stand in the way of that vision. Ashton thus expressed "profound disappointment" at the Israeli government's announcement last month that it would permit the building of 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem. In the following weeks, she expressed deep regret over the same state of affairs, noting that "This is the third time since the beginning of August that the Israeli government has approved settlement expansion in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem." 

The Israeli government made three announcements beforehand - and Ashton, her eye on the ball, responded with three pointed and timely statements to publicly register the EU's public disapproval of Israel's conduct. 

Her timely loquaciousness, then, has one exception: when it requires Europe to criticize the Palestinians. 
Baroness Ashton began her journey as EU high representative when she spoke at the headquarters of the Arab League in Cairo, on March 15, 2010 - barely nine months before the Arab Spring began. 

 Ashton playing nice with her friends in the Arab League
(Associated Press)

Addressing an audience of autocrats, Ashton never spoke of democracy in the Arab world. She only mentioned the word "freedom" once - with regard to Palestinian freedom from Israeli occupation, not human freedom from repression, a topic that, no doubt, would have resonated with ordinary Arabs, but might have infuriated her hosts. 

Eighteen months and several Arab revolutions later, Europe's top diplomat is waxing lyrical about democracy in the Arab world, as if she, or Europe, had always championed it. Yet, the basic tenets of her first flawed speech, designed to ingratiate Europe to Arab dictators, did not change. Israel building a few hundred more houses in the West Bank is a threat to peace, which solicits disappointment, concern and regret. But this is not the case when, in the midst of the Arab Spring, the PA makes once more a mockery of democracy. Ashton might have expressed disappointment, concern or regret at this development. 

Instead, the consolidation of another corrupt and autocratic Arab regime in the West Bank does not even merit a gentle nudge. 


*Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of "The Pasdaran: Inside Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards' Corps," to be published by FDD Press this month.