Category: Middle East

  • President’s dilemma

    President’s dilemma

    Oct 23rd 2008
    From Economist.com

    Deciding between Nabucco and South Stream

    WHICH will it be? The next American president will have to decide.
    Either Europe gets natural gas from Iran, or Russia stitches up the
    continent’s energy supplies for a generation.

    In one sense, it is hard to compare the two problems. Iranian nuclear
    missiles would be an existential threat to Israel. If Russia sells it
    rocket systems and warhead technology, or advanced air-defence systems
    (or vetoes sanctions) it matters. By contrast, Russia’s threat to
    European security is a slow, boring business. At worst, Europe ends up
    a bit more beholden to Russian pipeline monopolists than is healthy
    politically. But life will go on.

    Europe’s energy hopes lie in a much discussed but so far unrealised
    independent pipeline. Nabucco, as it is optimistically titled (as in
    Verdi, and freeing the slaves) would take gas from Central Asia and
    the Caspian region via Turkey to the Balkans and Central Europe. That
    would replicate the success of two existing oil pipelines across
    Georgia, which have helped dent Russia’s grip on east-west export routes.

    Russia is trying hard to block this. It is reviving the idea of an
    international gas cartel with Qatar and Iran. It also wants to kybosh
    Nabucco through its own rival project, the hugely expensive ($12.8
    billion) South Stream. Backed by Gazprom (the gas division of Kremlin,
    Inc) and Italy’s ENI, it has already got support from Austria,
    Bulgaria and Serbia. The project has now been delayed two years to 2015.

    But politicking around it is lively. This week the Kremlin managed to
    get Romania—until now a determined holdout on the Nabucco side—to
    start talks on joining South Stream. As Vladimir Socor, a veteran
    analyst at the Jamestown Foundation, notes, that creates just the kind
    of contest that the Kremlin likes, in which European countries jostle
    each other to get the best deal from Russia. Previously, that played
    out in a central European battle between Austria and Hungary to be
    Russia’s most-favoured energy partner in the region. Now the Kremlin
    has brought in Slovenia to further increase its leverage.

    All this works only because the European Union (EU) is asleep on the
    job. Bizarrely, Europe’s leaders publicly maintain that the two
    pipelines are not competitors. They have given the task of promoting
    Nabucco to a retired Dutch politician who has not visited the most
    important countries in the project recently (or in some cases even at
    all).

    The main reason for the lack of private-sector interest is lack of
    gas. The big reserves are in Turkmenistan, but Russia wants them too.
    Securing them for Nabucco would mean a huge, concerted diplomatic push
    from the EU and from America. It would also require the building of a
    Transcaspian gas pipeline.

    That is not technically difficult (unlike, incidentally, South Stream,
    which goes through the deep, toxic and rocky depths of the Black Sea).
    But it faces legal obstacles, and could be vetoed by both Russia and
    Iran. As Zeyno Baran of the Hudson Institute argues in a new paper,
    “the fortunes of the two pipelines are inversely related”.

    That is America’s dilemma. Befriending Iran would create huge problems
    for Russia. An Iranian bypass round the Caspian allows Turkmen gas
    (and Iran’s own plentiful reserves) to flow to Turkey and then on to
    Europe. But the same American officials, politicians and analysts who
    are most hawkish about Russia tend also to be arch-sceptics about
    starting talks with the mullahs (or even turning a blind eye to
    Iranian gas flowing through an American-backed pipeline).

    If Iran can make it clear that does not want to destroy Israel and
    promote terrorism (and stops issuing rhetorical flourishes on the
    subject) it stands to benefit hugely. The “grand bargain” has never
    looked more tempting—or more urgent.

  • Barzani: Recent meeting brings down walls with Turkey

    Barzani: Recent meeting brings down walls with Turkey

    Tuesday, 21 October 2008

    In his first public comments after a meeting with Turkish officials last week, Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani said the contact removed obstacles standing in the way of dialogue with Ankara and that the sides have turned a new page in ties.”The walls between us have been brought down. The channels are open for dialogue,” Barzani told reporters in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil. “Before, Turkey refused to have any kind of contact with us. Now, Ankara has taken a step to improve relations with us and the Baghdad government.”

    Turkey’s special envoy to Iraq Murat Özçelik and Foreign Ministry bureaucrats met with Barzani in Baghdad last week, the first public contact with the Kurdish leader since the US-led war on Iraq. No detail concerning the content of talks has been revealed but both sides said the meeting was positive. Barzani said neither the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) presence in northern Iraq nor any other issue were specifically on the agenda, adding that problems will be discussed in more detail in future talks.

    “The meeting was a beginning. This is a beginning to find positive solutions to problems between us,” he said. Barzani also said the talks will continue but did not elaborate on the timing or level of the new talks. “These will be announced later. But talks will take place both here and in Turkey,” he said.

    The PKK presence in Kurdish-run northern Iraq has been a major irritant in Turkey’s ties with the semi-autonomous Kurdish administration that runs the mountainous region. Ankara has long accused Barzani of supporting the PKK and had refused to have dialogue unless he proved his commitment to help Turkey in its fight with the terrorist group.

    But the no-talk policy is apparently changing. In May, Özçelik and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s foreign policy advisor Ahmet Davutoğlu met with Nechirvan Barzani, the prime minister of the Kurdish administration. Turkey has been launching cross-border raids on PKK targets in northern Iraq since last December. The United States is sharing intelligence with Turkey on the terrorist group.

    “We don’t want our relations to be confined to the PKK issue only. We want extensive ties in all areas,” said Nechirvan Barzani on Sunday in Arbil. He said more contacts between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds were possible in the near future but did not elaborate. He also revealed that he had a meeting with Özçelik in London in July, discussing his planned meeting with Massoud Barzani.

    Barzani to discuss PJAK in Iran

    Massoud Barzani is expected to visit neighboring Iran this week and the presence of a PKK offshoot in northern Iraq will be on the agenda of his talks, which will focus on border security, Iranian news reports said yesterday. The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), which has organic links with the PKK, uses northern Iraqi bases to attack Iran. Turkey and Iran coordinate cross-border attacks on PKK and PJAK targets. Four PJAK members were killed in clashes with the Iranian security forces over the past two weeks. Three Iranian soldiers also died in the clashes.

  • Kurdistan region president to visit Iran on Wednesday

    Kurdistan region president to visit Iran on Wednesday

    PUKmedia    2008-10-21   19:55:49

    Kurdistan region president Massud Barzani heading a senior political delegation will visit Iran on Wednesday, a close source from the delegation told PUKmedia correspondent.
    The several-day visit is upon an Iranian formal invitation. Reinforcing bilateral relations between both sides and discussing conditions in Iraq and the area would be discussed during the visit.

    Barzani would meet with top Iranian officials including the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, and  Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Saeed Jalili.

    The accompanying delegation would include representatives of the Kurdistan region political parties namely: Fadhil Mirani, representative of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), Arsalan Baez, representative of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Salaheddin Mohamed Bahadin, representative and general secretary of the Kurdistan Islamic Union(KIU), Kadir Aziz, representative and secretary general of the Kurdistan Toilers Party (KTP), and Fouad Husain, head of Kurdistan region presidency office.

  • U.S. diplomat in Ankara on Turkish-Kurdish talks

    U.S. diplomat in Ankara on Turkish-Kurdish talks

    PUKmedia       21-10-2008    19:12:55

    A top U.S. diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, has arrived at Turkish capital to hold talks with the country’s officials over the PKK problem and the developments of recent Turkish- Kurdish meetings, Turkish news agencies reported on Tuesday.

    Fried met the undersecretary of the foreign ministry, Ertugrul Apakan, CNNTurk reported.

    Bilateral U.S.- Turkish relations, the fight against PKK, as well as the new process in relations between Turkey and the “Kurdish regional administration in northern Iraq” are expected to be among the issues topping the agenda in the contacts, Turkish officials was quoted by the Media sources as saying.

    U.S provides Turkish military intelligence information on the whereabouts of PKK guerrillas in the mountainous Qandil on the border between Kurdistan region and Turkey, where PKK is believed to operate against the Turkish forces.

    Also, U.S has urged Ankara in the past to hold direct talks with KRG and Baghdad to discuss the problem of PKK, a call refused by Turkish government until the recent meeting of Kurdistan region president Masoud Barzani with Turkish special representative to Baghdad Murat Ozcelik.

    The visit comes hours after the Turkish foreign minister announced his country would start holding dialogue with U.S and Iraq to draw plans for ending PKK issue in “northern Iraq”

    Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Monday Turkey is considering three-way consultations with Iraq and the United States for fresh measures to purge PKK bases in neighboring Iraq.

    He added this trilateral mechanism is not a format that can substitute bilateral mechanisms Turkey is separately carrying out with the United States and Iraq.

    Fried is expected to depart Turkey later in the day.

    Relevant to the newly building relations between Erbil and Ankara, PUK representative to Turkey on Monday revealed that a high level Turkish delegation would visit Erbil in a near future to hold talks with the Kurdish officials, as a completion to the previous meetings took place in Baghdad.

    Bahroz Gelali, PUK representative told Kurdistani Nwe newspaper the delegation may be headed by Turkish government representative Murat Ozcelik, but did not elaborate.

    -kurdsat.tv-

  • Sen. Byrd and Rep. Wexler on Turkey and Iraq war

    Sen. Byrd and Rep. Wexler on Turkey and Iraq war

    Emil Sanamyan’s articles on Armenian-Americans, Armenia and its neighborhood.
    Saturday, October 11, 2008
    Sen. Byrd and Rep. Wexler on Turkey and Iraq war
    First published in September 13, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

    Turkey’s friends on the Hill: U.S. was wrong, Turkey right on Iraq
    In recent books, two Democrats offer whitewash of Turkey’s position
    review by Emil Sanamyan

     

    WASHINGTON – Senator Robert Byrd (D.-W.V.), a veteran politician referred to in the past as the “senator from Istanbul,” and Rep. Robert Wexler (D.-Fla.), a young member of Congress who just may be popular enough in Turkey to one day become its prime minister, published their books over the summer.

    Timed for release in a presidential election year, both books focus on criticisms of the Bush administration and particularly its decision to invade and occupy Iraq. In the process Mr. Byrd and Mr. Wexler also share their admiration for Turkey, highlighting in particular its opposition to the Iraq war – without listing, however, many of the reasons for that opposition.

    Both authors also avoid any mention of their efforts, on behalf of Turkish government, to kill resolutions affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide.

    Commenting on that subject during a July 14 book presentation organized by the Turkish lobby in Washington (see the Washington Briefing in the July 19 Armenian Reporter), Mr. Wexler noted that he represents a Florida district with probably the largest number of Holocaust survivors nationwide.

    “Issues relating to genocide of any type, alleged or not, have great sensitivity,” Mr. Wexler admitted, adding that one of his opponents this year is a son of a Holocaust survivor and used Mr. Wexler’s position on the Armenian Genocide resolution against him.

    Although West Virginia may have the smallest number of Holocaust survivors nationwide and there is hardly another member of Congress with a safer seat, Mr. Byrd also decided not to parade his record as an opponent of Genocide affirmation.

    The “Senator from Istanbul”

    Mr. Byrd is the longest-serving member of Congress; next year he will mark 50 years in elected office.

    As the Bush administration readied for the 2003 invasion, Mr. Byrd made an impassioned speech in the Senate arguing that the administration was going to war without a clear mandate from Congress and without Congress clearly informed as to threats Iraq posed to U.S. interests.

    In his book titled Letter to a New President: Commonsense Lessons for Our Next Leader (Thomas Dunne Books, 2008), Mr. Byrd also suggested that the “Bush Administration made the mistake of taking Turkish cooperation in the [Iraq war] for granted.”

    He writes: “The bitter and intemperate U.S. reaction to [the Turkish parliament’s decision not to allow the United States to open a northern front,] put more strain on U.S.-Turkey relations, as did U.S. backing of Iraqi Kurds in Kurdistan.”

    As a result, Mr. Byrd writes, the United States was left with “a foreign policy disaster,” whereas Turkish public’s approval for the United States fell from 52 percent in 1999 to 9 percent in 2007.

    In the book, Mr. Byrd also recalls the start of his relationship with Turkey in the early days of the Cold War. Shortly after his election to the House of Representatives and appointment to its Foreign Affairs Committee, the 38-year-old Rep. Byrd made his first-ever trip abroad with a delegation led by committee chair Rep. Clement Zablocki (D.-Wis.)

    The 1955 trip included a number of Western European countries and Turkey, which impressed the young member of Congress as a “key U.S. ally . . . with a largest standing army in Europe.”

    Turkey’s would-be prime minister

    “My wife jokes I could run for Prime Minister of Turkey,” Rep. Wexler writes in his Fire-breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress (Thomas Dunne Books, 2008).

    The representative is proud of his popularity in Turkey and that, having been to the country seven times, he gets the same level of access in Ankara as does Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

    In Congress since 1996, Mr. Wexler “as co-founder of the Turkey caucus, worked hard to improve relations between the United States and that democratic, secular Muslim nation, a critical ally in the fight against terrorism.”

    As Mr. Byrd, Mr. Wexler writes that Turkey was right and the United States wrong on Iraq. “Had Bush listened to the advice of experts in the Turkish Foreign Ministry before launching the Iraq war, it is quite possible we wouldn’t be facing the chaos we’ve created now,” he writes.

    The representative recalled that shortly before the U.S. invasion, he met the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s undersecretary Ugur Ziyal, who “smoked many cigarettes with the most knowledgeable and powerful diplomats in the region.”

    Mr. Ziyal told Mr. Wexler that as bad as Saddam Hussein was, he was successfully containing various conflicting groups within Iraq and that without Hussein “chaos would replace despotism.”

    But instead of listening to these arguments, the United States’ message to Turkey, as delivered by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was “either you are with us or against us.”

    Mr. Wexler writes, “you will never successfully persuade a Turkish political entity, whether it’s individual or the Turkish Parliament, by first demeaning them.”

    He added: “Even if your logic is correct, and they should take certain steps, if you belittle them, they are not going to give you what you want.”

    Why Turkey opposed the war in Iraq

    While discussing U.S.-Turkish differences over Iraq, both authors leave the impression that Turkey’s opposition to the U.S. invasion was either born out of Ankara’s penchant for nonviolence or based on some deep knowledge of regional realities rather than selfish calculations.

    In fact, for more than 30 years Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus and repeatedly invaded northern Iraq both before and after the 2003 war. Maintaining one of the largest militaries in the world, Turkey remains a big believer in hard power.

    At the same time, it is no secret that Saddam Hussein’s rule over Iraq – and particularly his persecution of Kurds – was seen as beneficial to Turkey’s own security interests, focused as they have been since World War I on the Kurdish rebellion within Turkey that has gone on, with some significant interruptions, for more than 80 years.

    As both U.S. and Turkish sources make clear, Turkey’s eventual decision to stay out of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was more likely a product of an exaggerated sense of self-importance which led Ankara to demand a steep price for its cooperation.

    In the Turkish Milliyet newspaper, Fikret Bila wrote on December 5, 2002: “The USA has demanded military support from Turkey [in Iraq]. Turkey has put forth four conditions that must be fulfilled if Turkey is to meet the American demands. Here are Turkey’s conditions:

    “1. The war would entail, for Turkey, an estimated cost of $20-25 billion. America should meet that cost. Furthermore, that money must come directly from the USA’s War Budget.

    “2. Establishment of a Kurdish state in the North must not be permitted. If a federation is to be established in Iraq, Turcomans must be given the same status as the Kurds.

    “3. In the operation to be staged against Saddam, the Peshmergas [Kurdish militia groups in Northern Iraq] must not be used so as not to compromise the security of the Turcomans and Arabs in the region. The Peshmergas must not be armed.

    “4. If the war is going to be waged from the North, the region’s coming under British control would be unacceptable to Turkey. Security and control in Northern Iraq must be a job for Turkey.”

    Writing in his book Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (Pantheon, 2006), Michael Gordon recalls that months before the war “Turks… demanded $25 billion in outright grants from Colin Powell at an 11 PM meeting at the home of the Secretary of State.”

    The United States could not afford that price tag for Turkish cooperation and instead scraped up a package that included “$3 billion in aid, $3 billion in financing, and a promise to make a concentrated effort to persuade Persian Gulf states to provide $1 billion in free oil to help Turkish companies secure reconstruction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    But this $10 billion package was not deemed as sufficient baksheesh. The Turkish government and military did not lobby their national parliament to approve U.S. use of Turkish territory for the invasion, and the proposal failed by just a few votes.

    Days later, the United States invaded without the Turkish front.

  • Cultural Influences on Politics in Caspian

    Cultural Influences on Politics in Caspian

    Brenda Shaffer who is an American thinker works to define cultural domination on foreign or domestic affairs of states in the “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?”article. Shaffer is explaining this event via some sharp examples. Firstly, Shaffer begin the article with Huntigton’s thesis: “The Clash of Civilizations”. Samuel Huntigton’s thesis follows an idea that culture has a main role in defining of policy. Also Brenda Shaffer agrees thesis of Huntington and creates new approaches about conducts of civilizations and state actions. Shaffer says that culture was a main mechanism to diplomatic relations. Also she interprets culture as specific subject of country’s within religion, history and civilization.

    Western scholars researched about strong Islamic effection in Muslim countries after 11 September terrorist act and looked at Muslim scholars, historians, diplomats and generals who have an extraordinary situation over the people. As a result they understood Islamic effection as strong as nuclear weapons against to the world. But this is not a physical danger, this is an ideological spread. Their speeches to newspapers and political journals which had a title as “Do Muslim countries have a different outlook against Non-Muslim States?”

    On the other hand Shaffer interests about this subject under the psychological perspective. Human beings are often driven by culture according to Shaffer. Also human behavior effects on to state affairs. But state acts partly different from human behaviors. We can give example from philosophical history: Some philosophers think that the state is a thing like human. But it is systematically human as a big organism. State actions have similarities with people actions. State is a big form of human and human is a small form of the state. As behavioral psychological meaning has different dimensions.[1]

    Shaffer gives an example about different state decision-making; some Muslim countries have an anti-American approach as behavioral. But these are making alliance with the USA like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Commonly we can see inharmonious dimensions between state policies and people behaviors. Caspian perspective of Shaffer has a common beliefs. According to Shaffer, all Caspian countries have been influenced by Islamic effection after from the Soviet Union. Shaffer judges all Caspian and Middle Asian people as Islamic effected nations but it is not totally true if we looked at historical and contemporary situations. Also today these countries are secular except Iran.

    Iran – Politics with Islamic Style

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is an important country in this area as ideological mechanism according to idea of western scholars. After the collapse of the USSR, Iran wanted to export their Islamic regime for other neighbor states via some absolute ways. In Central Asia and Caucasus territory Iran plays to export their Persian Islamic mind as a regime under the title as “Islamic Solidarity” with economic and security events. Western idea is true about activities of this country. But common outlook to Islamic countries of American or Western scholars is different. They agree Islam as a common political tool among all Muslims. Example, Iran works to create an Islamic governing system for all Muslim countries. But Islamic mind of Iran is very different from normal Islamic idea. Persian Islamic system bases on fundamentalist movement. If we look at Turkey, Egypt or Tunis, we could see normal or laic Islamic behavior. Also Shaffer says their false point in next sentence. “Poor Muslim countries have an effective circumstance about this issue but secular Muslim countries challenges to Iran like Turkmenistan.” But Tehran has faced three regional disputes :

    – The Nagorno-Karabagh conflict (Christian Armenia versus Muslim Azerbaijan)

    – The Chechen conflict (Chechen Muslims versus Moscow)

    – The Tajik civil war (The Islamic Renaissance Party versus Moscow)

    In these mix circumstances Iranian fundamentalist approach transformed to self-interest system. An interesting point about is that Iran supports Armenia instead of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.[2] With these events, Iran state security was challenged in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia since Iran was a multiethnic state. We give information about Iran’s population: Half of Iran’s population is comprised of non Persian ethnic minorities; Turkmens, Kurds and Azerbaijani groups. Largest minority Azerbaijanis live in northwestern provinces of Iran which bordered with Azerbaijan. Relations of Iran bogged down with Baku because of Iranian self interests.

    Shaffer shows her ideas that Iranian diversity of opinion is a good example to explain Iranian foreign policy. There are some different points as historical legacies and religious differences in policies.

    “On the other hand Turkey attempted to conduct a balanced policy toward both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also Turkey helped for Karabagh conflict to Baku.”

    Turkey changed its policy when Karabagh became a conflict. It can be an example for cultural combines if western scholars wanted to define their issue. But it cannot be an absolute example about regional cultural alliences subject.

    According to many observers, religious differences have played a central role in the Caspian region. With these circumstances Azerbaijan supported Chechenya. Also some analysts have assumed that religious differences serve as a basis for conflict between Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia. Over these events, common culture serves as a basic role for alliances and coalitions and different cultures act as an obstacle to cooperation.

    Shaffer’s opinion is that there are cultural alliances are created follow by from collapsing of the USSR.

    Tehran’s main argument is Shiite background in their support system. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan shares ethnic Turkic and Muslim backgrounds. Also Russian and Armenian background is Orthodox Christian form. But Georgian-Russian conflict is different from this event. Shaffer and other western scholars can not define this reality.

    Final

    Culture may be a certain material of regime survivability. Islam can be an effective reason to influence state system and people behavior like speeches of western scholars. Some governments explain and justify their policies in cultural terms. We must analyze a country’s foreign policy on the basis of actions. We have anticipated the New Testament to Germany and Russia or Torah to Israel like Islamic system. Shaffer asks question : “What does the Koran has to say a foreign policy question?” If Islam influences them, they should act with Islamic interaction.

    The USA wants an enemy to rebuild their father emotion on the world. They forced as goodness of the world during the Cold War. They defended the world countries from dangerous communist system. Their interest was communism in that time. But they wanted a new enemy to regulate the world with themselves. After the Cold War, their White House scholars worked for a new enemy establishment. There was a “Red Dangerous” line. But today there should be “Green Dangerous” line. And its name is Islamic effection on politics.[3]

    Fans of the USA defense western style always. There shouldn’t be a religious system like Islam around the world according to them. But they don’t look at Israeli system or American Christiantic base. Main question should be about Western classification about cultural conflicts. There are too many problems about this thesis.

    Today there is a Muslim conflict. And the USA isa  patron of the world. So they are working for peace, democracy and other good things. But the world’s people will know works of the USA. All terror acts, all problems, all ethnic clashes…

     


    [1] Arnold Wolfers, Behavior of States, Dogu Bati Journal – 26, Istanbul 2003

    [2] Karabagh conflict borned in the late 1980. Armenia attacked to the legal boundaries of Azerbaijan.

    [3] Political Declaration Fikret Baskaya – Ideologies, Dogu Bati Journal 2003

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU

    Baku Qafqaz University

    International Research Club (INTERESCLUB)