Author: Media Watch

  • What U.S. troops are actually doing on the Mexican border,

    What U.S. troops are actually doing on the Mexican border,

    Pentagon Chief Weighs Broader Approach to Border Security

    The military considers how best to use the 6,000 troops sent to the U.S.-Mexico border, who cannot legally stand in for CBP.

    Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, center, fires a modified paintball gun that shoots pepper balls during a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border at Santa Teresa Station in Sunland Park, New Mexico, on Feb. 23. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

    The U.S. military is sending an additional 1,000 troops to the border with Mexico, bringing the number of U.S. military personnel there—both active-duty and National Guard—to about 6,000, a senior defense official told reporters at the Pentagon on Feb. 22.

    That’s a significant chunk of military resources going toward a mission that can only legally be performed by domestic law enforcement such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers: border security. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S. military is prohibited from taking any direct role in law enforcement—including search, seizure, apprehension, or arrest.

    So what, then, are those 6,000 troops actually doing there? So far, the U.S. military has functioned primarily in a supporting role—installing concertina wire, transporting law enforcement officers by air, providing medical services to migrants, hardening points of entry, and helping with surveillance. In addition to stringing another 140 miles of concertina wire, the troops will be supporting the CBP officers between the points of entry, as well as installing ground-based detection systems, the senior defense official said.

    The goal is “freeing up agents and putting them in a law enforcement role instead of administrative duties,” according to the official.

    Despite their restricted role, it now seems like the troops on the border are there for the long term. As the Trump administration trumpets the so-called national security crisis of border security—and seeks to divert billions of dollars in military funding to building his long-promised border wall—the Pentagon is reassessing the role of the U.S. military in securing the border.

    Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan indicated on Feb. 23 during a surprise trip to the border—which, as is more common for trips to combat zones, was kept secret until his arrival—that the U.S. government needs a broader, more holistic approach to border security instead of a short-term solution.

    “Let’s not do triage. Let’s really solve the fundamental problem,” Shanahan told reporters during the trip. “I think of it as: This is an opportunity, as we’re addressing this issue, to recommend solutions that are systemic and major and not a triage solution.”

    “I don’t want to just add resources and not fix the problem long term,” Shanahan stressed.

    As part of that holistic strategy, a U.S. military presence at the border could become the new normal. Shanahan said he and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed a two- or three-year support role. For example, the troops could potentially take on more of the monitoring and detection mission in order to free up the CBP officers for other aspects of their mission.

    Arguably, as long as the troops stick to the support mission, the deployment does not run afoul of the law, said Andrew Boyle, who works as counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. However, an increased military presence in the border communities does raise concern about the possibility of violent cross-border incidents, he said.

    “It does raise alarm bells in regards to the militarization of the domestic sphere,” he said.

    But William Banks, an emeritus professor at Syracuse University’s College of Law and Maxwell School, believes there is no “clear, positive legal authority” for active-duty U.S. troops to be at the U.S.-Mexico border. The surveillance and detection role could pose a particular problem, he added.

    The laws allowing U.S. military forces to conduct surveillance in support of CBP officers dates back to the “war on drugs” in the 1980s and were specifically designed for counter-drug activities, Banks explained.

    That means that any surveillance the U.S. military is conducting that is not directly related to drug trafficking—for example, monitoring the border for illegal crossings—could be challenged in a court of law.

    “If a federal lawsuit is brought challenging the scope of the military’s activities at the border, it remains unclear how a court would rule on such a challenge when drug trafficking is not remotely the issue,” Mark Nevitt, a Sharshwood fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote in November 2018.

    Either way, it doesn’t look like these troops will be heading home anytime soon.

    “What’s the core issue that has to get addressed?” Shanahan said. “How do we get out of treating the symptoms and get at the root of the issues?”

    meksika sapka

    Lara Seligman is a staff writer at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @laraseligman

  • Will an Economic Reckoning Follow Turkey’s Local Elections?

    Will an Economic Reckoning Follow Turkey’s Local Elections?

    Will an Economic Reckoning Follow Turkey’s Local Elections?

    By Sinan Ciddi
    Board of Contributors
    Sinan Ciddi
    Sinan Ciddi
    Board of Contributors
    People line up to buy discounted vegetables sold by municipal authorities in Ankara, Turkey, on Feb. 13, 2019.
    (ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images)
    Contributor Perspectives offer insight, analysis and commentary from Stratfor’s Board of Contributors and guest contributors who are distinguished leaders in their fields of expertise.
    Highlights
    • Consumer prices, a deteriorating economy and relations with the United States, Russia and Iran are key developments to watch as Turkey prepares to hold local elections next month.
    • President Recep Tayyip Erdogan insists his country will never ask for another bailout from the International Monetary Fund, but Turkey is fast running out of economic options.
    • Russia essentially has put Turkey on notice in Syria, while Erdogan’s behavior toward the United States risks serious consequences.

    As Turkey’s March 31 local elections draw closer, three key developments bear watching. All three are likely to significantly affect Turkey’s political and economic trajectory as well as its international standing.

    Consumer Discontent

    Local elections don’t usually attract the same level of domestic and international attention that Turkey’s elections have received this year. But the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) has branded the March 31 vote as one that will determine Turkey’s fate and well-being. In addition, deteriorating economic conditions, including a depreciating currency and inflation, have heightened tensions in the country. Prices for some food items have increased by more than 300-400 percent, prompting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government to mandate that state wholesalers in Ankara and Istanbul sell produce directly to consumers. Long lines of residents buying food at heavily discounted prices is reminiscent of the late 1970s, when Turks had to line up to buy staples such as butter, sugar and cooking oil. The government says the state will continue to sell produce wholesale until the local elections are held.

    To further combat Turkey’s inflationary headwind, Erdogan has ordered state authorities to track prices and punish retailers who allegedly arbitrarily increase prices. To say that these issues have tarnished the reputation of the AKP and Erdogan would be an understatement. The AKP has consistently campaigned on the premise that it is the party of capable governance. The question remains as to whether food prices can be controlled, or even lowered, so that wider public discontent does not translate into votes for the opposition. The loss of large metropolitan municipalities such as Istanbul and Ankara would irreparably harm Erdogan’s image and weaken his power base.

    Is a Bailout on the Horizon?

    Turkey’s macroeconomic indicators are the second significant development to watch. The lira’s depreciation has placed an undue burden on the country’s private sector industries, many of which rely on imports to run their business. By July 2019, roughly $180 billion worth of foreign debt will come due, which equates to about one-quarter of Turkey’s entire economic output. Not only has this resulted in record numbers of Turkish companies filing for insolvency protection, it has required the government to take unprecedented measures to ensure liquidity and assure investors that Turkey can honor its debts. The prevailing economic opinion in Washington and European investment capitals is that these aims can no longer be met without direct international intervention.

    If the IMF is asked to bail out Turkey, what government accountability, transparency, anti-corruption and belt-tightening measures will it demand in return?

    Though Erdogan insists at public rallies that Turkey will never ask for another bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), his tune is likely to change after the March elections, when Turkey may have to reach a standby agreement of about $150 billion just to keep the lights on. If this were to happen, the IMF would loan Turkey nearly double what it gave Argentina to shore up its economy. It is in the material interests of European banks and the United States to provide Turkey with the necessary funding to allay concerns of a recessionary contagion, as Turkey’s creditors have loaned generously and will have to satisfy their investor’s concerns that existing debts will be honored. There is also the question of conditionality. If the IMF is asked to bail out Turkey, what government accountability, transparency, anti-corruption and belt-tightening measures will it demand in return? It is hard to envision Erdogan satisfying some or any such conditions given the opaque, unaccountable and corruption-ridden government he perpetuates.

    Relations With the U.S., Russia and Iran

    Finally, Turkey’s interaction with the United States, Russia and Iran isn’t independent of its domestic economic concerns. Ever since the United States announced it would leave Syria, Erdogan has been keen to convince Russia and Iran of the need to establish a safe zone in Syria — one designed to undermine and prevent a Syrian-Kurdish entity that Turkey will have to reckon with. In Sochi, Russia, last week where he, Erdogan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani met to talk about Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin essentially put Turkey on notice that any Turkish demand for a safe zone in Syria would require the approval of the Syrian government. At this point, Russia and Iran are mainly concerned with eliminating challenges to the Syrian government’s ability to impose its sovereignty throughout the country. There is little reason to believe that Turkey will be granted any latitude to pursue Kurdish elements in Syria. If Erdogan is to participate in the reconstruction of Syria and be able to conduct border trade, he will soon have to resolve his differences with Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

    Erdogan continues to tread on thin ice when it comes to the United States, and the Trump administration could impose significant measures that could compound Turkey’s economic degradation. Erdogan’s support of the ailing government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela is demonstrated by the large volume of Venezuelan gold Turkey is purchasing. Turkey watchers are concerned that this gold could once again be used to buy Iranian oil and breach U.S. sanctions. Were this to occur, there is good reason to believe the United States could make life very difficult for Erdogan by withholding IMF funding or imposing crippling sanctions, among other possible measures. Turkey is fast running out of options as the March 31 elections approach, despite appearances otherwise in Erdogan’s public speeches. Even in a limited and transactional manner, it is incumbent upon the Erdogan government to collaborate with the United States on a number of issues: to renounce its S-400 missile defense deal with Russia; put a visible distance between itself and the Maduro government; and release Americans it currently detains. Each of these issues will have to be confronted eventually. It makes sense for Turkey to resolve them now before they are dangled in front of Erdogan as conditions that must be met before Turkey can secure an international bailout.

    globe color

  • China, Turkey: Ankara Takes an Economic Risk by Standing Up for Chinese Uighurs

    China, Turkey: Ankara Takes an Economic Risk by Standing Up for Chinese Uighurs

    The Big Picture
    Turkey considers itself a leader in the broader Muslim world, a part of its identity that has compelled it to speak out against China’s ongoing detention of Turkic Chinese Muslims. The current AKP-led government in Ankara is defending its cultural and religious credentials in upcoming local elections, and defending the Uighurs helps in that regard. But this is also a position that could threaten Turkey’s economic ties to China, which is intent on defending its security crackdowns against Uighurs in the name of national security.

    See Turkey’s Resurgence
    What Happened
    The Turkish Foreign Ministry released a statement Feb. 9, calling on Beijing to respect fundamental human rights and close its internment camps for China’s Uighurs, calling them a “great shame for humanity.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hami Aksoy added that “it is no longer a secret that more than 1 million Uighur Turks incurring arbitrary arrests are subjected to torture and political brainwashing in internment camps and prisons.” The Chinese Embassy in Ankara responded Feb. 10, calling the Turkish allegations inaccurate and demanding that Turkey retract them.

    Why It Matters
    Turkey is the first major Muslim country to speak out against the ongoing internment of Chinese Uighurs, who share Turkic roots with most of Turkey’s population. The statement’s timing makes domestic political sense in light of the upcoming March 31 municipal elections in Turkey, in which the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is defending its turf in the Anatolian heartland against other nationalist and Islamist parties. The AKP has come under increasing criticism from other parties, including the nationalist Good Party, over the Turkish government’s silence in the face of fellow Muslims’ suffering.

    Even though the statement appears measured, it could damage Turkey’s economic ties with China just as the Turkish government has said it wants to increase them. Turkey has explored purchasing Chinese missile systems in the past, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has invited his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, for a state visit to Turkey in 2019, and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China recently extended Turkey a multimillion-dollar loan.

    The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has come under increasing criticism from other parties over the Turkish government’s silence in the face of fellow Muslims’ suffering.

    The Uighur issue is particularly sensitive to China given that the Uighur homeland, China’s westernmost region of Xinjiang, is a vital part of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. It affords the Chinese initiative with direct links to Central Asia and Pakistan that continue onward as far as Europe. Chinese fears of separatism, supply chain disruptions and the risk that Western countries could exploit the issue to China’s disadvantage will, in fact, compel Beijing to consolidate its security hold over Xinjiang. In pursuit of this objective, which has accelerated over the past three years, the Chinese government has engaged in a broad security crackdown in Xinjiang, detaining as many as 1 million ethnic Uighurs, Hui and Kazakhs and subjecting them to re-education.

    Background
    As part of its political identity under the AKP, Turkey has championed popular Islamism and political Islam. And, even if it were to face Chinese economic retaliation for its outspokenness on the Uighurs, Turkey isn’t as vulnerable as other leading Muslim states. The Arab Gulf states have deeper economic ties with China, while Iran needs its relationship with China — especially as Western sanctions pressure builds up on it. Each has received some heat regarding its relative silence on the issue, increasing the significance of the Turkish statement.

    In the broader Muslim world, Indonesia is another country to watch. With national elections approaching April 17, the campaign of candidate Prabowo Subianto has criticized incumbent President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo for neglecting the Uighur issue, alleging that he is beholden to China. But while Jokowi’s foreign minister has reportedly expressed concerns to China in private about the Uighur crackdown, the president is focused on pursuing billions of dollars in Chinese support to remedy Indonesia’s deep infrastructure deficits. At the same time, he is likely trying to avoid inflaming sentiment against his country’s ethnic Chinese minority.

    globe color

  • Counting the Cost of Potential U.S. Action Against Turkey

    Counting the Cost of Potential U.S. Action Against Turkey

    Highlights
    • In response to any Turkish attack on the Syrian Kurds, the United States has the power to indirectly sway investor confidence in Turkey largely because of the lira’s inherent volatility and the structural weaknesses of its economy.
    • Turkey can’t do as much economic damage to the United States, but it can create problems for Washington in the Middle East.
    • Ultimately, the United States will limit the economic and diplomatic damage it can inflict on Turkey, in part because both wish to maintain the security and economic benefits their relationship provides.

    U.S.-Turkey relations have rarely been anything but combustible. In the middle of January, however, U.S. President Donald Trump poured fuel on the fire when he took to Twitter to vow that his country would “devastate Turkey economically” if it attacked the Syrian Kurds after the United States withdraws from northern Syria. Trump’s threat prompted harsh but measured responses from Ankara; President Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed sadness at the comment. The next day his sentiment switched to encouragement after a phone call between the leaders. The back-and-forth was nothing new, reflecting instead the two countries’ volatile but multilayered relationship. The pair might frequently frustrate each other, yet both value and need the other to pursue their respective goals at home and in the wider Middle East.

    The Big Picture

    Turkey endured a difficult year economically in 2018, as the lira fell precipitously against the U.S. dollar — in part because of the White House’s tariffs against Ankara. Washington’s actions demonstrated that it could hurt Turkey economically merely by influencing investor and consumer sentiment in the country. And it might consider doing it again if Ankara follows through on its threats to attack the Syrian Kurds after the United States withdraws from northern Syria.

    At the heart of the current tug of war between the United States and Turkey is their conflicting, long-term plans to stabilize Syria and counter militancy in the country. As Washington’s withdrawal from Syria increasingly becomes a question of when and not if, the White House has pressed for a safe zone for its major ally on the ground, the Syrian Kurds. On a larger level, however, the United States wants its regional allies to shoulder more of the burden in stabilizing the Middle East’s conflict zones, and Turkey is a necessary ally in northern Syria — especially when Russia (a major U.S. competitor) and Iran (an outright U.S. enemy) are the other external powers lurking in the neighborhood.

    Of course, the long-standing hurdle between Turkey and the United States in Syria is Washington’s choice of local affiliate in the battle against the Islamic State: the mostly Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) — a group that Turkey claims is the same as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — within the larger Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Indeed, throughout Syria’s war, Ankara has made no secret of its desire to crush the YPG presence on its southern border — something the United States will be powerless to prevent militarily after its withdrawal. Nevertheless, the United States could still inflict serious economic damage on Turkey if it chose to. The question is, how much?

    Lessons From a Plummeting Lira

    The United States is in a position to hurt Turkey’s economy in part because of the latter’s economic fragility. Turkish corporations are saddled with a high amount of debt, totaling about $200 billion that they must pay back in 2019. What’s more, most of this debt is denominated in dollars and euros, meaning companies will struggle to pay it back if the lira remains weak. But debt isn’t the only specter haunting Turkey: The country is also suffering from high inflation, decreased consumption and a lack of investor confidence stemming in part from perceptions that the country lacks the rule of law.

    A chart shows inflation in Turkey since 2010.

    It was these factors that came to a head last summer during the last diplomatic downturn between the United States and Turkey, in which Trump criticized the Turkish government and imposed limited tariffs and sanctions over its detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson, thereby accelerating the swift depreciation of the lira. In the end, the episode demonstrated that the United States’ ultimate economic weapon against Turkey is sentiment. Such a tool may be indirect, but Trump proved that caustic rhetoric and the imposition of even limited sanctions can depreciate the lira, rapidly damaging investor confidence and inciting consumer panic that the currency would tumble again, thereby compounding the existing consumption slowdown. Indeed, when the lira plunged last summer, Turks began to lose confidence in the economy, causing them to spend less and convert their liras into dollars or other currencies — in spite of official calls to the contrary — causing the lira to plummet even further.

    A chart shows the drop in value of the Turkish lira.

    The damage to the lira hurts Turkey’s efforts to bolster its financial sector during a critical time for the economy. Ratings institutions downgraded some of its major banks after the summer 2018 crisis, with Moody’s alone slashing its outlook for 18 lenders. Few Turkish banks operate branches in the United States, but most of the country’s lenders do facilitate dollar transactions, which would expose them to possible action in the unlikely event that the United States moved to sanction them. Moreover, Ankara is determined to protect the financial sector, which contributes significantly to the economy and has a value that totals 87 percent of the gross domestic product. In his efforts to protect the sector and reduce the country’s exposure to precipitous slides in the lira’s value against the U.S. dollar, Erdogan has repeatedly exhorted businesses to increase non-dollar transactions in Turkey. Turkey has indeed made some progress to this end, establishing currency swaps with the likes of Iran over the last year.

    A chart shows the amount of foreign direct investment in Turkey since 2010.

    Turkey’s Weak Points

    But Washington possesses other economic weapons that it could deploy against Ankara — albeit ones that could have negative repercussions for the United States as well. These tools include economic (including more punishing trade tariffs) and strategic measures (including pressure on Turkey over its ties with countries such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran and China).

    The United States is Turkey’s fourth largest source of imports and fifth largest destination for exports. Turkey, however, does not even crack the top 20 in terms of U.S. import or export partners, highlighting just how unequal their economic relationship is. Turkish construction companies provide a major source of income for Turkey, but few are active in the United States, meaning Washington cannot use them as a tool against Ankara. But it’s a different story for airlines; the United States could cost Turkish Airlines 10.6 percent of its annual revenue if it barred the major carrier from flying to U.S. destinations.

    In terms of trade barriers, the United States has proved its willingness to impose restrictions on Turkey, slapping steel and aluminum tariffs on Ankara in retaliation for the continued detention of Brunson. Although the United States did not damage Turkey economically with the tariffs (and indeed lifted them after Brunson’s release), the uncertainty hurt the lira’s value.

    Rather than steel or aluminum, Turkey’s main defensive trade interest is agriculture, which accounts for only 6 percent of the country’s GDP but remains strategically important, because it employs 20 percent of its citizens. More than that, many of the main agricultural regions also happen to be the heartland for Erdogan’s party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Of particular concern for Turkey is its labor-intensive tobacco industry, which accounts for 8 percent of U.S. tobacco imports. On the flipside is cotton. Although Turkey is a major producer, it imports 25 percent of its requirements from the United States. Given this dependence, Trump could hurt Ankara by halting shipments, especially since he has previously demonstrated his willingness to hurt the U.S. agricultural sector in pursuit of other goals. Indeed, stanching a major source of Turkey’s cotton imports would hinder the country’s ability to produce manufactured textiles — one of Ankara’s biggest exports not just to Europe (its main export market) but also to the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Agriculture, accordingly, could come into play if the United States and Turkey’s relations deteriorated to the degree that Washington would consider any and all tools to alter Ankara’s behavior.

    The ultimate U.S. economic weapon against Turkey is sentiment. Such a tool may be indirect, but Trump has proved that caustic rhetoric and the imposition of even limited sanctions can depreciate the lira.

    A Fight Over Politics

    And then there is the political dimension. Turkey is already skirting the boundaries on U.S. sanctions on Iran, and it risks running afoul of future sanctions related to Russia or Venezuela due to the depth of its economic and strategic ties to those countries. Nevertheless, any U.S. push on this front could backfire, because the move could simply convince Ankara to shift its orientation away from the West in favor of China and, especially, Russia.

    The United States also doesn’t want Turkey to stir up issues in Washington’s other important Middle Eastern relationships, such as its close ties with Saudi Arabia, which remains a point of contention because Turkey holds leverage over Riyadh after its killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the country’s Istanbul consulate.

    A bar graph shows the percentage of arms Turkey buys from major dealers.

    At the same time, the United States recognizes the importance of Turkey’s economy to the region, emerging markets, Europe and others, meaning it has little interest in stoking an economic conflagration that would also burn other U.S. allies. Furthermore, Turkey is a major purchaser of U.S. arms, acquiring 28 percent of its foreign weaponry from the United States.

    The threat of sanctions will be ever present during Washington and Ankara’s talks on northern Syria, although the United States will be keenly aware of the consequences of acting too forcefully against its longtime ally.

    Beyond the current debate over Syria, the United States and Turkey cooperate on any number of issues, including military, intelligence and security coordination. At the same time, however, their difference of opinion on some of the Middle East’s most pertinent issues will ensure their relationship is always mercurial. Be that as it may, a complete rupture is never a likely possibility: Both countries simply need each other too much.

    globe color

    Connected Content

    Regions & Countries
    United States
    Turkey
    Topics
    Economics
    Turkey’s Resurgence
    Companies
    Turkish Airlines
    Twitter

     

  • Israel, Palestinian Territories: Are the Pieces Falling Into Place for a Big Blowup in Gaza?

    Israel, Palestinian Territories: Are the Pieces Falling Into Place for a Big Blowup in Gaza?

    The Big Picture

    Israeli and Palestinian factions, long trapped in conflict, have routinely fallen into patterns of violence. A stalemated peace process, a fragmented Palestinian political system and an Israeli government often rewarded by voters for hard-edge approaches have kept these cycles going. But since 2014, Israel and its primary Palestinian antagonist, Hamas, have had a tentative understanding over Gaza. That understanding’s shelf life, however, may be expiring.

    See Israel’s Survival Strategy
    What Happened

    Political developments within both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are exacerbating instability in the region and increasing the risk of violence between Israel and Hamas. In late December, a new party led by a former chief of the Israel Defense Forces joined the political fray in Israel, forcing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to find new ways to shore up his national security credentials and to defuse criticism calling his Gaza policy weak. And on Jan. 29, Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah of the Palestinian Authority resigned, marking the formal collapse of the long-moribund Hamas-Fatah unity government. The disintegration untethers Hamas from the Palestinian national government and formalizes Gaza’s de facto long-standing isolation.

    Why It Matters

    Two sets of forces are in play here. In Israel, various parties are jockeying for position ahead of elections in April. A new party led by retired Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and called Israel Resilience is the most serious challenge to Netanyahu. Gantz had been sanguine about his policy positions until Jan. 29. In his first political address on that day, he revealed that his attacks on Netanyahu would focus on accusations of corruption and would allude to weaknesses on national security. Political attacks on these two topics are particularly significant because Israel faces exceptionally tense security situations in the north and the south.

    In Gaza, the environment is moving increasingly away from compromise and conciliation, even though its Hamas rulers well understand how disastrous another war with Israel would be. The collapse of the Hamas-Fatah 2014 unity agreement came about largely because Hamas wasn’t willing to surrender control of key aspects of Gaza, especially security, to its Fatah rival — despite months of intense mediation by Egypt to bring about an accord. But the collapse also became fait accompli because the economic rewards of the unity deal never came through. Hamas has had to rely on trickles of aid from Qatar via Israel to maintain public services, and the U.S. aid cutoff has worsened the economy. The end of the unity agreement also blocks any future economic support from the Palestinian Authority, leaving Gazans with just the meager flow of Qatari aid. Ordinary Gazans are growing angrier at the situation, creating a boiling social cauldron pushing for more action to restore aid. But Hamas has few tools besides rockets and missiles to influence Israel and its allies — and as the streets in Gaza roil with anger, it will be increasingly disposed to use them.

    Hamas has few tools besides rockets and missiles to influence Israel and its allies — and as the streets in Gaza roil with anger, it will be increasingly disposed to use them.

    Further Background

    Netanyahu’s ostensible right-wing allies dislike his approach to Gaza. A cease-fire in November quite nearly brought down his government after the nationalist Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman bolted from Netanyahu’s coalition in protest. That move forced the prime minister to pump up his national security credentials to stem a potentially fatal leakage of security-minded voters from the Likud Party and his allies. He has publicized military strikes in Syria and may do the same with Gaza. But those strikes may not be enough. Netanyahu may be tempted to hit high-profile targets, and that action could kick off a cycle of retaliation and violence between Israel and Syria or Gaza. Or he could take the risk of going farther afield and striking the Iraqi militias that Iran is arming with ballistic missiles.

    Moreover, an escalation by Hamas ahead of Israel’s elections could play into Netanyahu’s hands. The prime minister might be pushed toward a wide-ranging operation in Gaza to stave off criticism from his right-wing allies and from Gantz’s supporters. In addition, if facing imminent indictment for corruption, Netanyahu could find political value in such a distraction ahead of polling.

     

  • As Turkey Enters 2019, Its Economic Woes Are Never Far Away STRATFOR

    Highlights
    • Since many of Turkey’s woes are driven by external factors, the government will struggle to manage the country’s economic fragility in 2019.
    • Because of the economic headwinds, Turkey will seek to minimize some tensions with Western governments such as the United States and the European Union, but it won’t abandon its national security goals, including military activities in Iraq and Syria.
    • Because of the effect that the flagging economy could have in the lead-up to elections in March 2019, the ruling party will likely pursue more flexibility in its political alliances.

    Editor’s Note: This assessment is part of a series of analyses supporting Stratfor’s upcoming 2019 Annual Forecast. These assessments are designed to provide more context and in-depth analysis on key developments in the coming year.

    Turkey has endured more than its fair share of economic hardships in 2018, but its annus horribilis might portend even greater trials and tribulations in the year to come. Inflation reached record levels, going as high as 25 percent in September, a month after the value of its currency dropped to the unprecedented level of almost 7 liras to the dollar, striking investors with fear. Watching on wearily, consumers could only express their despair as the prices for staples soared. And far from shoring up confidence in the economy, the government and its plans to tackle the crisis simply invited derision.

    The Big Picture

    Turkey has one of the Middle East’s largest and most dynamic economies — which gives it considerable clout in terms of regional influence. But its growth in recent years has been built on debt, a sizable chunk of which is coming due in 2019. The fragility of the economy in the coming year could mean stagnation and recession, which will challenge the government’s ability to maintain its dominance at the local polls in the spring.

    See Turkey’s Resurgence

    But thanks to a raft of price and currency controls, as well as some judicious interest rate hikes from the central bank, Turkey emerged from its summer of crisis without suffering a total economic meltdown. The problem for its economy, however, is that all the ingredients that led to the summer of volatility are still present, meaning they could again combine — and grow much worse — in 2019. Mindful of everything that could go poorly in the economy, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is considering how he might broaden his campaign strategy to maximize the gains of his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the March local elections and again come out on top.

    The External Drivers Shaping Turkey’s Economy

    Just as in 2018, the prospects for growth in 2019 appear poor due to a combination of problems, including a high level of corporate debt, a weak currency, a dearth of foreign investment, a widening current account deficit, sky-high inflation, a struggling export sector and diminishing consumer confidence. In fact, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Corp. quickly downgraded their growth forecasts for Turkey after its summer of pain. Fitch had originally forecast a growth rate of 4.1 percent for 2019 but revised its expectations to 3.6 percent after the lira took a tumble. Analysts at Bloomberg, however, are even more pessimistic, predicting that growth will drop from 3.5 percent this year to 0.8 percent next year.

    A chart showing the bonds that Turkey must repay in 2019.

    The AKP government has succeeded in taming government debt since it came to power in 2002, but Turkey’s corporate sector has acquired a remarkable amount of debt over the past 15 years. And all these debts are coming to a head; the country’s corporations will have to pay a bill estimated at $200 billion, or a quarter of Turkey’s gross domestic product, next year. Most of the bill is denominated in dollars, making it more and more difficult for companies to continue paying back their debt the more the lira drops. And although Turkey boasted a GDP growth rate of 7 percent as recently as 2017, debt propped up much of that expansion.

    Some of the power to manage its stagnant economy, however, is out of the government’s hands, because external factors are behind many of the problems with debt, inflation and currency value. One external factor — which the government has had a hand in making — that has harmed the country in recent years is the precipitous drop in foreign direct investment (FDI). Some investors have steered clear of the country since the 2016 coup attempt, which led to the imposition of a harsh state of emergency. For example, FDI levels dropped from $18.7 billion in 2015 to $10.8 billion in 2017. Portfolio inflows (the amount of capital flowing into Turkey’s financial markets) might have improved in its financial markets in recent years, but that’s largely because the country epitomizes an emerging market, offering high risks and a weak currency — two things that make it a bargain.

    A chart showing Turkish economic indicators on foreign currency reserves, the consumer price index, the current account balance and foreign-denominated debt.

    Turkey’s current account deficit, which totals $46 billion, is also a major issue reflecting the vulnerability of the economy to currency fluctuations. In September, the lira depreciated so steeply that Turkey briefly enjoyed a current account surplus for the month, but only because imports temporarily became so expensive that Ankara couldn’t import what it needed.

    But it is inflation — which has been spurred by the lira’s drop, as well as external factors that have sapped interest in emerging market currencies — that will be the biggest task on Ankara’s economic to-do list for 2019. Erdogan, however, has made no secret of his aversion to hiking interest rates and has frequently brought his weight to bear on economic officials, thereby casting doubt on the central bank’s independence. But the government will also have difficulty in pursuing other typical inflation management strategies, such as lowering fiscal spending and spurring competition, when negative consumer sentiment is clouding Turkish markets. Ultimately, the inflation rate, and its impact on purchasing power, will be foremost in consumers’ minds as they head to the polls in March 2019 to vote in municipal elections.

    Another major external factor is the country’s exports to Western countries, which have frequently sparred with Turkey over human rights, creeping authoritarianism and its close ties with Russia in spite of Ankara’s membership in NATO, as well as its actions in the Middle East. Turkey and Western entities like the United States and the European Union have papered over the worst of their disagreements for now, but there is little guarantee that the rift won’t re-emerge in the near future, thereby complicating Ankara’s efforts to export to Europe and, more important in the near term, to court investment and better trade links. Likewise, the United States could one day reimpose some of the sanctions and tariffs that helped spur panic over the lira during the summer.

    Political Tinkering

    No matter how intense the economic headwinds become, Turkey’s government will refuse to budge on certain issues, which will detract from its ability to deftly manage the fragile economy. With Erdogan now wielding enormous control over all aspects of governance — including issues such as the economy that are not necessarily his area of expertise — the country’s economic management strategy has failed to inspire much confidence in external investors. Ankara has outlined a three-year, medium-term economic plan to trim spending, tackle inflation and shore up the lira and consumer sentiment, but its economic team has yet to delve into the onerous task of implementing the promised structural changes. What’s more, pledges to cut down on spending contradict Erdogan’s preferred strategy of spending to spur growth, to say nothing of the challenge the central bank faces in trying to combat inflation given his past interference. And the economic team is led by Erdogan’s son-in-law, the finance and economy minister, underlining the close and opaque ties that bind the president to his financial management squad.

    But regardless of how fragile its economy becomes, Ankara will continue to pursue certain political aims. In pursuing its primary national security goal — namely, to prevent the development of a Kurdish state in the broader Middle East, since Turkey believes that would fuel demands for Kurdish autonomy at home and threaten the country’s territorial integrity — Turkey will retain its forces in northern Iraq and northwestern Syria, even if that is likely to tax the country’s coffers or irk its regional and Western allies.

    Regardless of how fragile Turkey’s economy becomes, Ankara will continue to pursue certain political aims.

    But because of its economic challenges, the Turkish government could make some shifts in the political sector ahead of the local elections, which will determine who wins the mayoral posts in 30 metropolitan areas, as well as thousands of other local positions. Although local polls don’t have the same effect on the country’s direction as general and presidential elections, they do offer a reliable gauge of popular sentiment toward political parties at the local level.

    In recent elections, Erdogan has allied with the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), landing him a victory in a 2017 constitutional referendum that greatly enhanced his powers, as well as a win in this year’s general elections. Erdogan championed national security in his campaigns — a topic that appeals greatly to AKP and MHP voters alike — while effectively channeling anxiety over the country’s future into support for his message.

    But one group — apart from the country’s Kurds — was not so convinced: urban Turks. A majority of voters in the country’s largest cities, Istanbul and Ankara, actually rejected the constitutional referendum in 2017, while the AKP margin of victory in major centers in 2018 was not as comfortable as in past elections. According to recent polls conducted by Mediar, 18 percent of AKP voters from previous elections have said they will not vote for the party in the upcoming local elections. On top of that, 78 percent of Turks believe the country is experiencing an economic crisis, and 58 percent believe the government is to blame for mismanaging the economy. For the AKP and Erdogan, who has previously painted himself as the man who led Turkey out of an economic crisis in the early 2000s, the polling results suggest that he could be losing some of his grip on national sentiment.

    Ever the pragmatic politician, Erdogan is likely to follow a political strategy that goes beyond his usual political coalitions. The president could choose to reduce tensions with Kurds after three years of warfare, reorient himself somewhat toward the political center after years of courting the ultranationalist vote or go in another direction altogether. Without question, however, the AKP will again prove its historic nimbleness. Facing another alliance between the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Good Party, Erdogan no doubt knows he must be deft and flexible in managing whichever political current can provide him the support he needs. But even with more economic woes looming and opponents aligning in an effort to bring him down, few would bet against Erdogan’s winning once again.