Category: Middle East

Syrian Official: Turkey Responsible for Adra Massacre

TEHRAN (FNA)- A Syrian information official blamed the US and its regional allies, especially Turkey, for the massacre of the people in Adra where militants have slaughtered tens of civilians.

Head of Syria’s Information Ministry’s Center for Studies and Research Maladh Maqdad told Al Alam on Tuesday that Turkey is responsible for killing of Syrian people in Adra at the hands of militants who entered Syria’s soil by support of Turkey and received weapons through Turkish borders.

Al-Nusra Front militants, Al-Qaeda’s main branch in Syria war, attacked Adra in the Reef Damascus governorate last week and started executing civilians, some of them family by family.

It is not clear how many people have been killed in the town since access has been limited but some media reports indicate more than 80 people have been killed while the number is feared to be much higher.

Terrified survivors of the attack have been describing horrible atrocities carried out by the extremist in Adra.

Since the start of the war in Syria, the United States has shown that it is the leader of a coalition which is fighting against Syria, by managing its allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey and by the diplomatic and media coverage it has been giving in support of the war, Maqdad said.

“It was the united states that established the ‘free Syrian army’ and provided logistic and military support for it, and prevented the rebels to cooperate with (Syrian President) Bashar al-Assad when he proposed them to put down their arms and get amnesty and sit for talks,” he added.

The Syrian official said, Turkish government is acting under US supervision and is trying to overthrow the Syrian government and destroy Syria through sending arms for the militants with the help of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

He further noted that Ankara is facing criticism for its policies toward the crisis in Syria from parliament and people.

A new UN report said Turkey transferred more than 47 tons of arsenals to Syria militants.

The crisis in Syria started in March 2011, when pro-reform protests turned into a massive insurgency following the intervention of western and regional states.

The unrest, which took in terrorist groups from across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, has transpired as one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent history.

According to the United Nations, more than 120,000 people have been killed and millions displaced due to the turmoil that has gripped Syria for over two years.

via Farsnews.

December 18, 2013
Turkey’s popularity dives in MENA region poll

Turkey’s popularity dives in MENA region poll

Country’s approval in the region decreases significantly, especially in Egypt and Syria, Turkish think-tank study shows.

Umut Uras Last updated: 04 Dec 2013 19:28

Turkish government has been critical of the military rule in Egypt and the Syrian regime [AP]

Turkey’s popularity in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has shrunk over last three years, with particular sharp drops among the Syrian and Egyptian public, a field study conducted by a Turkish think-tank says.While 78 percent of respondents in the 16 countries subject to the study had a positive view on Turkey in 2011, the percentage declined to 69 percent in 2012 and 59 percent in 2013.

Conducting the research for the fifth time, the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) made phone interviews with 2,800 people in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Yemen and Libya. Respondents were asked questions on their views on Turkey as well as issues related to the MENA region in general.

In Egypt, Turkey’s approval rate was registered as 38 percent in 2013, whereas the same data was 84 percent in 2012 and 86 percent in 2011. Syrians’ support for Turkey was 22 percent in 2013, dropping from an already low rate of 28 percent in 2012 and 44 percent in 2011.

Following the July coup that overthrew Mohamed Morsi, the former Egyptian president, Turkey’s conservative Justice and Development Party government has been an outspoken critic of the new regime, frequently bashing its crackdowns in public statements and expressing support for Muslim Brotherhood-backed Morsi. The countries recently expelled each other’s ambassadors.

Similarly, Ankara has stood against the regime in Damascus in the Syrian crisis, expressing support for the opposition, harbouring thousands of Syrian refugees and letting armed rebels using its territory in various ways.

Syrians think Turkey is ‘unfriendly’

Eighty-eight percent of those surveyed in Syria think that the Turkish government has been “unfriendly” towards their country, while the same rate is 68 percent in Egypt. In Iraq, 58 percent of the people polled gave answers in the same direction.

Iraq’s Shia dominated government and Ankara have had a thorny relationship for the last couple of years as a result of sectarian tensions and Ankara’s close ties with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq. Baghdad and the KRG have been in dispute over sharing of oil wealth, land and other issues.

The decline recorded [in Turkey’s popularity] in the last three years is due to the turmoil in the region and Turkey’s related policiesDr. Sabiha Senyucel, TESEV director and writer of the report

Meanwhile, among the interviewees, 90 percent in Libya, 88 percent in Tunisia, 87 percent in Palestine, 80 percent in Gulf Cooperation Council countries (excluding Saudi Arabia), 79 percent in Saudi Arabia and 78 percent in Iran believe the Turkish government is “very friendly” to their country.

“The Perception of Turkey in the Middle East Survey has been conducted for the last five years. Popularity of Turkey was very high in 2009. The decline recorded in the last three years is due to the turmoil in the region and Turkey’s related policies,” Dr. Sabiha Senyucel, the director of the TESEV’s foreign policy programme and one of the writers of the report, told Al Jazeera.

While 64 percent of those polled think that Turkey’s influence on MENA politics is growing day after day, a decreasing number of people believe Ankara should play a larger role in the region – decreased from 71 percent in 2011 to 60 percent in 2011. Fewer believe Turkey can be a model for the region compared to the previous two years, the rate dropping from 61 in 2011 percent to 51 percent in 2013. The rate is particularly low in Syria, Egypt and Iran, with a significant drop in Egypt’s approval rating.

Respondents increasingly think that Turkey is pursuing sectarian policies, with data increasing compared to 2012 in all of the subject countries. Thirty-eight percent said Turkey had been following sectarian policies, an increase of 9 percent from last year. The rate is 54 percent in Syria and 45 percent in Egypt, both increasing significantly.

In comparison, 65 percent said Iraq, 62 percent said Syria and 61 percent said Iran had been involved in sectarian policies.

“Respondents generally think that regional politics have become increasingly sectarian. Turkey’s policies are also seen as more sectarian than last year. Although I personally do not think this is the case [Ankara pursuing more sectarian policies], Turkey being perceived this way does not help its image in terms of neutrality,” Senyucel said.

Graph for Turkey story [Al Jazeera]

Middle East issues

Across the MENA region, the UAE is rated first in terms of positive perceptions, followed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In 2011 and 2012, Turkey topped the ranking.

Among the respondents in 16 countries, 43 percent said the coup was good for Egypt, whereas 46 percent said it was a bad development for the country.

Meanwhile, positive views on the Arab Spring have decreased. Only 37 percent said that the process had been good for their country – the ratio was 52 percent in 2011 and 44 percent in 2012.

In 2012, economic problems had topped the list of the most important regional issues in all 16 countries except Iraq, while in 2013 political issues and security/terrorism issues were frontrunners in various countries such as Egypt, Lebanon and Tunisia. In Iraq and Libya, the Western presence or threat is seen as the number one issue of importance.

When respondents were asked about the most pressing issue in their home country – instead of the whole region – economic issues still far topped the list with 39 percent followed by security/terrorism issues at 16 percent.

Economic issues remained the far highest national concern for Iranians at 86 percent while 54 percent in Libya and 30 percent in Syria think security issues or terrorism is the most pressing national problem.

Regarding powers outside the region, positive perceptions on Russia and China have increased. The percentage of people thinking these country’s governments are friendly to their country stand at 80 and 71 percent respectively.

Source:

Al Jazeera

December 5, 2013
‘The near future of Iraq is dark’: Warning from Muqtada al-Sadr – the Shia cleric whose word is law to millions of his countrymen

In a rare interview at his headquarters in Najaf, he tells Patrick Cockburn of his fears for a nation growing ever more divided on sectarian lines

Patrick Cockburn

The future of Iraq as a united and independent country is endangered by sectarian Shia-Sunni hostility says Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia religious leader whose Mehdi Army militia fought the US and British armies and who remains a powerful figure in Iraqi politics. He warns of the danger that “the Iraqi people will disintegrate, its government will disintegrate, and it will be easy for external powers to control the country”.

In an interview with The Independent in the holy city of Najaf, 100 miles south-west of Baghdad – the first interview Mr Sadr has given face-to-face with a Western journalist for almost 10 years – he expressed pessimism about the immediate prospects for Iraq, saying: “The near future is dark.”

Mr Sadr said he is most worried about sectarianism affecting Iraqis at street level, believing that “if it spreads among the people it will be difficult to fight”. He says he believes that standing against sectarianism has made him lose support among his followers.

Mr Sadr’s moderate stance is key at a moment when sectarian strife has been increasing in Iraq – some 200 Shia were killed in the past week alone. For 40 years, Mr Sadr and religious leaders from his family have set the political trend within the Shia community in Iraq. Their long-term resistance to Saddam Hussein and, later, their opposition to the US-led occupation had a crucial impact.

Mr Sadr has remained a leading influence in Iraq after an extraordinary career in which he has often come close to being killed. Several times, it appeared that the political movement he leads, the Sadrist Movement, would be crushed.

He was 25 in 1999 when his father, Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, a revered Shia leader, and Mr Sadr’s two brothers were assassinated by Saddam Hussein’s gunmen in Najaf. He just survived sharing a similar fate, remaining under house arrest in Najaf until 2003 when Saddam was overthrown by the US invasion. He and his followers became the most powerful force in many Shia parts of Iraq as enemies of the old regime, but also opposing the occupation. In 2004, his Mehdi Army fought two savage battles against American troops in Najaf, and in Basra it engaged in a prolonged guerrilla war against the British Army which saw the Mehdi Army take control of the city.

The Mehdi Army was seen by the Sunni community as playing a central role in the sectarian murder campaign that reached its height in 2006-7. Mr Sadr says that “people infiltrated the Mehdi Army and carried out these killings”, adding that if his militiamen were involved in the murder of Sunnis he would be the first person to denounce them.

For much of this period, Mr Sadr did not appear to have had full control of forces acting in his name; ultimately he stood them down. At the same time, the Mehdi Army was being driven from its old strongholds in Basra and Sadr City by the US Army and resurgent Iraqi government armed forces. Asked about the status of the Mehdi Army today, Mr Sadr says: “It is still there but it is frozen because the occupation is apparently over. If it comes back, they [the Mehdi Army militiamen] will come back.”

In the past five years, Mr Sadr has rebuilt his movement as one of the main players in Iraqi politics with a programme that is a mixture of Shia religion, populism and Iraqi nationalism. After a strong showing in the general election in 2010, it became part of the present government, with six seats in the cabinet. But Mr Sadr is highly critical of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s performance during his two terms in office, accusing his administration of being sectarian, corrupt and incompetent.

Speaking of Mr Maliki, with whom his relations are increasingly sour, Mr Sadr said that “maybe he is not the only person responsible for what is happening in Iraq, but he is the person in charge”. Asked if he expected Mr Maliki to continue as Prime Minister, he said: “I expect he is going to run for a third term, but I don’t want him to.”

Mr Sadr said he and other Iraqi leaders had tried to replace him in the past, but Mr Maliki had survived in office because of his support from foreign powers, notably the US and Iran. “What is really surprising is that America and Iran should decide on one person,” he said. “Maliki is strong because he is supported by the United States, Britain and Iran.”

Mr Sadr is particularly critical of the government’s handling of the Sunni minority, which lost power in 2003, implying they had been marginalised and their demands ignored. He thinks that the Iraqi government lost its chance to conciliate Sunni protesters in Iraq who started demonstrating last December, asking for greater civil rights and an end to persecution.

“My personal opinion is that it is too late now to address these [Sunni] demands when the government, which is seen as a Shia government by the demonstrators, failed to meet their demands,” he said. Asked how ordinary Shia, who make up the great majority of the thousand people a month being killed by al-Qa’ida bombs, should react, Mr Sadr said: “They should understand that they are not being attacked by Sunnis. They are being attacked by extremists, they are being attacked by external powers.”

As Mr Sadr sees it, the problem in Iraq is that Iraqis as a whole are traumatised by almost half a century in which there has been a “constant cycle of violence: Saddam, occupation, war after war, first Gulf war, then second Gulf war, then the occupation war, then the resistance – this would lead to a change in the psychology of Iraqis”. He explained that Iraqis make the mistake of trying to solve one problem by creating a worse one, such as getting the Americans to topple Saddam Hussein but then having the problem of the US occupation. He compared Iraqis to “somebody who found a mouse in his house, then he kept a cat, then he wanted to get the cat out of the house so he kept a dog, then to get the dog out of his house he bought an elephant, so he bought a mouse again”.

Asked about the best way for Iraqis to deal with the mouse, Mr Sadr said: “By using neither the cat nor the dog, but instead national unity, rejection of sectarianism, open-mindedness, having open ideas, rejection of extremism.”

A main theme of Mr Sadr’s approach is to bolster Iraq as an independent nation state, able to make decisions in its own interests. Hence his abiding hostility to the American and British occupation, holding this responsible for many of Iraq’s present ills. To this day, neither he nor anybody from his movement will meet American or British officials. But he is equally hostile to intervention by Iran in Iraqi affairs saying: “We refuse all kinds of interventions from external forces, whether such an intervention was in the interests of Iraqis or against their interests. The destiny of Iraqis should be decided by Iraqis themselves.”

This is a change of stance for a man who was once demonised by the US and Britain as a pawn of Iran. The strength of the Sadrist movement under Mr Sadr and his father – and its ability to withstand powerful enemies and shattering defeats – owes much to the fact it that it blends Shia revivalism with social activism and Iraqi nationalism.

Why are Iraqi government members so ineffective and corrupt? Mr Sadr believes that “they compete to take a share of the cake, rather than competing to serve their people”

Asked why the Kurdistan Regional Government had been more successful in terms of security and economic development than the rest of Iraq, Mr Sadr thought there was less stealing and corruption among the Kurds and maybe because “they love their ethnicity and their region”. If the government tried to marginalise them, they might ask for independence: “Mr Massoud Barzani [the KRG President] told me that ‘if Maliki pushes on me harder, we are going to ask for independence’.”

At the end of the interview Mr Sadr asked me if I was not frightened of interviewing him and would not this make the British Government consider me a terrorist? Secondly, he wondered if the British Government still considered that it had liberated the Iraqi people, and wondered if he should sue the Government on behalf of the casualties caused by the British occupation.

independent.co.uk, 29 November 2013

November 29, 2013
Cooperation between Iran and Azerbaijan in the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh and Palestinian Conflicts

Gulnara İnanch, director of «Etnoqlobus» (ethnoglobus.az ) International Online information analyses center, editor Russian sector turkishnews.com

Political processes occurring in the Middle East gave a new stimulus to geopolitical events. Arabic Spring, although contrasting, opened a new phase for the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, it began to require new game conditions.

There have really been geopolitical times when partial or phase-by-phase solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict seemed to be possible. For example, in 2009 official Baku almost was able to get consent of world’s leading powers regarding liberation of 5 regions around Nagorno-Karabakh being under Armenian occupation. Armenian government also agreed for it instead hoping for softening of blockade from Azerbaijan side.

At that time, with the pressure of White House and European Union, Armenia-Turkey negotiations were underway. West wishing to exert influence on Russia through Armenia was insisting on opening of borders between Turkey-Armenia.

For implementation of this plan, military operations were to commence and Armenian military forces were to be driven out from the occupied territories. These operations would calm down Armenian nationalists thus persuading Armenian society about necessity of returning 5 regions. In that case, Armenian site would not loose their image while signing of treaty regarding solution of first phase of the conflict.(1)

That phase, much to our regret, was not completed. As the gas projects of Caspian Sea had not been defined accurately at that time, West and Russia postponed to use the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a tool for pressure.

Now there is new a chance, as we have already mentioned above, for phase-by-phase solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This time, along with West, East players also join the game. Azerbaijan, thanks to regulated and future intended policy, has become a new political and economic center not only in the region, but also in all over the world, including in the Islamic world.

While investigating current phase of the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, we focus on two states having special relations with Azerbaijan – Iran and Palestine. In autumn 2012 UN General Assembly adopted a resolution regarding giving Palestine non-Member Observer State status as a result of which world community began to see Palestine as an independent state in the Middle East. It should be noted that the fact that Palestine, which had to be established as a state in 1947 along with Israel upon the Decision of United Nations, already is being recognized as a state amid “Arabic Spring”.

It should be noted that it is not accidental that Azerbaijan also voted for giving Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations. Official Baku has always supported establishment of Palestinian state and division of Quds.

After the visit of Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov to Ramallah in the spring of 2013, bilateral relations began to develop fast. Palestinian Foreign Minister has noted high reputation of Azerbaijan in several respected organizations such as UN Security Council, Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Non-Aligned Movement. (3) Thus, Ramallah has hinted its hopes for future support by Azerbaijan in the mentioned organizations.

Azerbaijan, for the purpose of helping Quds and Palestine, hosted the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Foreign Ministers‘ Conferences in June. In this conference Azerbaijan put forward initiative of providing aid in the amount of 5 million dollars to important facilities in Quds.

Relations between Azerbaijan and Palestine had never been so positive. Palestine-Azerbaijan relations give both sides mutual benefits from political, economic, trade and cultural point of view. Next year forum of Azerbaijani and Palestinian traders and businessmen will be held in Azerbaijan. (2)

Beginning from last year official Baku started to work for recognition and socialization of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the Islamic world aiming at recognition of status of Quds for Nagorno-Karabakh in the Islamic world. This issue was also on the agenda during Mammadyarov’s visit to Ramallah. In order to popularize this issue, Palestine may direct the attention of the Islamic world to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue thus achieving support of Islamic world in solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in favor of Azerbaijan.

On the other hand, by supporting Quds, it is possible to neutralize possible impact of world’s Armenian lobby living in Arabic countries on policy of these Arabian states.

Another factor in phase-by-phase solution of the conflict and achieving the status of the Islamic word’s problem for the Nagorno-Karabakh is Iran. During the visit of Ramiz Mehdiyev, head of Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan and Sheikh-ul-Islam Haji Allahshukur Pashazadeh, chairman of Caucasian Muslim Board (CMB) to Iran in April, focusing on Quds and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts in the Islamic world and international community in parallel was discussed. Promises of Iranian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Mohsen Pak Ayin to protect any state supporting Palestinian people, on which both Iran and Azerbaijan have the same views, reconfirm the position of official Tehran on the conflict (4).

Iranian ambassador in his interview gave explanation on his view: «Iran wants to use its resources in the solution of the conflict. Official Tehran has prepared a plan for parties about solution of the conflict. In case of necessity, we will submit it.» (5)

As the geography of tension in the Middle East expands, Iran, for the purpose of establishment of stability and peace in the region, tries to achieve solution of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Tehran thinks that any kind of disorder of security in the region will have negative impact on Iran.

Both Baku and Tehran have the same views on OSCE Minsk Group’s insufficient activity in the solution of the conflict. Tehran also highlights that only regional states can be helpful in the solution of the conflict.

Statement by Supreme leader of Iran Ali Khamenei on the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is important from the point of Tehran: “Karabakh is the Islamic land … Karabakh and the issue of its belonging to Azerbaijan will be supported.

… No matter how times passes we will not forget the fact that Karabakh is the Islamic lands. Karabakh will be freed by the muslim Azerbaijani nation”.

Researches show that Iran is seeking the ways how to be involved in the solution of the conflict.

There are opportunities for Azerbaijan, Palestine and Iran to take advantage of the situations occurred in the world. Iran, in order to demonstrate that it is not going to be satisfied just with promises, holds events in Tabriz dedicated to the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict thus aiming at popularizing the Karabakh problem among the Azerbaijanis living in Iran in the level of Quds problem.

Iran has a chance to be involved in the solution process of the problem since it is cooperating with both conflicting parties. However, Iran will have to demonstrate that it is not the country supporting Armenia as it is widely thought in Azerbaijan and prove that words of Iranian Supreme Leader “we have the same blood running in the veins” are not just the word.

According to Azeri experts, Azerbaijan will ask Iran to impose economic sanctions against Armenia and if Iran fulfils Azerbaijan’s wish, Iran will be considered as a friend country in the view of Azerbaijanis. (6)

In this regard, thoughts that R.Mehdiyev stated in Iran characterize the intention of official Baku: «Azerbaijan considers Iran its older friend. Azerbaijan attaches huge importance to Iran’s support. We consider that our countries should be next to and support each-other. We think that it is reasonable to have strong and stable Iran in the neighborhood ». (7)

With Iran’s newly elected president Hassan Rouhani there are hopes all over the world on elimination of long lasting tensions with official Tehran. Because all the regional countries, including Azerbaijan gets its share from the tensions around Iran. In bilateral relations of Azerbaijan Iran is considered as sensitive guest which prevents official Baku to play open game in its foreign policy as a result of which we occasionally witness tensions between our countries.

Latest meetings in Tehran and Baku between Iranian and Azerbaijani officials enable us to think that relations between these countries are in new flat. Establishment of mutual confidence between our countries may allow Iran and Azerbaijan to join efforts in the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh and Quds conflicts.

German chancellor Angela Merkel has cheered Iran’s proposal to be mediator in Syrian problem. France also would like to see Tehran among the mediators holding negotiations with Damascus. Telephone calls between the Iranian and US presidents after long year’s political stagnation, particularly, agreement achieved in Geneva on 23 November on Iran’s nuclear program allow us to believe in serious changes to occur in the region. In this case, in order to demonstrate that West is sincere to build amicable relations with Iran, it may involve Iran as a mediator in the solution of regional conflict, including in the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

1.

2.

3.

4.gumilev-center.az

5. https://interfax.az/view/581413

6. ethnoglobus.az

7. Azerbaijan in the world, ADA Biweekly Newsletter, vol 6,№ 14. jule 15, 2013

November 27, 2013
Sectarianism Brings Turkey, Iran Closer

Dorian Jones
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (L) shakes hands with his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu after a news conference in Ankara November 1, 2013.
ISTANBUL — Turkey’s foreign minister is due to visit Tehran on November 26, the latest step in rapprochement efforts between the former close allies. Relations soured over the Syrian civil war, but with rising sectarian tensions across the region, the two countries have committed to rebuild their relationship.

Turkey and Iran, on opposing sides of war in Syria, have been signaling a thaw in relations, saying they share concerns about the rising sectarianism in the conflict and could collaborate to bring peace to their neighbor.

Sinan Ulgen is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels. He says the election of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s president has also opened the door to warming relations.

“There was a rift. Now with the new presidency in Iran, Ankara sees the opportunity and tries to engage the new leadership. We can talk about a new period in terms of the Iranian-Turkish relationship, which, despite disagreements on a number of regional issues including Syria, seems to be going in the right direction,” says Ulgen.

During a meeting earlier this month in Istanbul, the Turkish and Iranian foreign ministers pledged to work together to ease regional sectarian tensions. Until recently, the two countries had accused one another of stoking tensions between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims.

As a Sunni power, Turkey and its government, led by the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party, have been accused of pushing a foreign policy that favors Sunni interests. Iran and its Shi’ite clerical hierarchy have been guardians of Shi’a Islam in the Middle East, supporting Iraq’s Shi’ite-dominated government and Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’ite militant group.

Murat Bilhan is a former Turkish ambassador and works for the Tasam think tank. He says despite the new dialogue, suspicions will linger.

“They still had a frank talk and these discussions have toned down the rhetoric between the two countries. They have difficulties to trust Turkey because they look from an angle of sectarianism to Turkey. That is how they perceive the Turkish foreign policy,” says Bilhan.

Despite bilateral tensions, trade between the countries has continued to flourish. Turkey is Iran’s biggest customer for natural gas and Ankara has indicated it may increase its consumption. Turkey has few natural energy reserves of its own.

The increase in trade comes despite international sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear energy program. Western countries claim the program is being used to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.

This week, world powers are meeting again in Geneva for talks on Iran’s nuclear program. The renewed diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute is also another factor behind Ankara’s rapprochement efforts, says analyst Ulgen.

“The nuclear negotiations have gathered momentum and there seems to be some quite substantial developments. And Turkey does not want to be totally alienated from this process. That’s also another reason why there has been a decision to reach out to Iran,” says Ulgen.

Those efforts are expected to accelerate in the coming months, with visits by the Iranian president to Turkey and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Iran. But observers say any efforts to expand ties between the two countries will be constrained by the Syrian conflict and the fact that Turkey and Iran have been – and will remain – regional rivals.

November 20, 2013
Turkey’s “promising” landmark meeting with Kurds’ Barzani receives mixed responses

Kurds’ Barzani and Turks’ Erdogan have previously met, but Saturday’s meeting represents the first time that the two leaders have met in the Kurdish region of Turkey (Courtesy of the Kurdistan Regional Government)

Turkey’s meeting with Kurdish leadership this weekend posed as a promising start to tentative peace talks between the two clashing groups, according to an Agence-France Press report.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Iraqi Kurdish leader Massud Barzani for the first time in Turkey’s Kurdish city center of Diyarbakir in the southeast part of the country Saturday.

The landmark meeting was designed to “kickstart” a peace process to end a decades-old conflict between the two groups, particularly in reference to Turkey’s tense relationship with the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Erdogan described his meeting with Barzani as a “historic” and “crowning moment” in overcoming the conflict.

Erdogan’s positive perspective of the meeting and Barzani’s role in encouraging peace talks between the two groups and bringing Turkish Kurds to the negotiating table as well was echoed by other leaders in Ankara, including Energy Minister Taner Yildiz who described Barzani’s “importance in the eyes of our citizens” as “making it contribution [to the potential peace talks].”

However, responses from the Kurdish community were mixed, with some prominent members of the community citing Barzani’s visit as “an opportunistic gesture” ahead of the March 2014 municipal elections, while others saying that his visit was motivated by “hope [for a different future].”

Reports indicate that the historical meeting was also set in order for Erdogan to discuss a tentative energy partnership with Barzani, considered by many to be a springboard for “aggravating tensions” in the region, particularly in reference to Ankara’s relationship with Baghdad.

Previous attempts at peacemaking between the two groups were stalled after jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan did not withdraw his fighters from Turkish soil as promised in September, accusing Ankara of “failing to keep to the terms [of the original] bargain in giving greater rights [to the Kurds].”

Ocalan’s accussation was largely in reference to Erdogan and his Law and Justice Party (AKP)’s recent reforms that supposedly give Kurds and other groups “extra rights.” However, as indicated by Ocalan’s comments, the reforms are largely seen as inadequate and failing to give the Kurds “any constitutional recognition.”

Kurds in Turkey have been calling for reforms from Ankara since the establishment of the country in 1923 due to the fact that the country’s constitution fails to recognize the Kurds as a distinct minority.

While the two leaders met in an unprecedented meeting in the country’s southeast region, Turkish army officials reported that one of its convoys was attacked, allegedly by PKK rebels near the Syrian border. PKK rebels have previously used northern Iraq, the region under Barzani’s control, to attack Turks as part of their “campaign for self-rule” in southeast Turkey, but also in the world order more generally.

Kurds have been struggling to secure their own homeland for decades with communities scattered throughout Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. As Barzani told AFP, “Having our own state is the natural right of the Kurdish people.”

Barzani’s historical visit also follows last week’s declaration of autonomy in Syria by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD). Kurdish regions in Syria have been administered by local Kurdish councils since regime forces withdrew from the region in mid-2012.

via Turkey’s “promising” landmark meeting with Kurds’ Barzani receives mixed responses | Al Bawaba.

November 19, 2013