Category: Middle East & Africa

  • Syria Civil War: U.S. Troops in Turkey Could Be Start Of Intervention

    Syria Civil War: U.S. Troops in Turkey Could Be Start Of Intervention

    American soldiers are on their way to Turkey to precariously close locations to the Turkish-Syrian border. While the official explanation is that it is for the protection of Turkey (a fellow NATO member) amid Syria’s ongoing civil war, some are skeptical about the claim, and think something more may be occurring — for all the right reasons.

    photo

    Four hundred U.S. soldiers are being sent to man the anti-missile batteries along the Turkish-Syrian border. Whether it truly is for defensive purposes or for an impending conflict, there are a few issues that should be discussed beforehand.

    First and foremost, Turkey itself is an issue. Geopolitically, having Turkey in NATO provides the organization with a strategic foothold in the Middle East. Turkey is also a perennial EU hopeful that for the past 40 years consistently fails to meet EU requirements, and will probably never attain EU membership. Like a good NATO member, Turkey’s government, headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had some very harsh words for the Syrian government and accused President Bashar al-Assad of “attempted genocide.”

    The hypocrisy of such an accusation, however, is unknown to some. Turkey, and its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, had managed to go through with no less than three genocides in the past century. Pontic Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians were all but virtually wiped out, while the Turkish state adamantly refuses to admit they had any direct involvement. Twenty-one countries have recognized the Armenian massacres as genocide, while the U.S. Government has failed to do so as to not hamper relations with Turkey, despite 43 U.S. states recognizing the genocide. The Kurds also deserve an honorable mention as a group that have been persecuted on-and-off for the past century, while other ethnic and religious minorities such as the Alevis face occasional attacks.

    Something like that cannot be overlooked. Assuming there is a genocide occurring (and history shows these assumptions can be wrong, e.g. Kosovo), at what price do we intervene to put a halt to the human rights violations? If those troops in Turkey are just a build-up for something much bigger, then how can we ignore Turkey’s consistent gross human rights record, and use its convenient geographic location as a launchpad into Syria?

    Going back to the issue of whether it is to defend Turkey or launch an attack, it is probably the latter. Turkey, being a NATO member, is guaranteed by the NATO charter that any attack on them is an attack on NATO, and consequently all other member states. Whether Turkey would be able to handle it themselves (and they would be), is then irrelevant. However, would Syria even attack Turkey? Other than stray missiles, the chances of Syria attacking Turkey are very low. It would be very strange for a state that is on the brink of collapse, with the central government losing control, to attack a neighboring state.

    When looking at the picture as a whole, defending Turkey seems to appear more an excuse to begin an intervention in Syria. Turkey’s involvement in the compassionate “We need to champion human rights” discourse is a mockery to the very principle. The West must also take into account the Vietnam scenario, and the lesser discussed Lebanon civil war that NATO had to pull out of during Reagan’s administration. Let’s not forget, Iran is a player in the Syrian fiasco as well, and it seems that the U.S. is merely buying time until their intervention is a “secure” one.

    via Syria Civil War: U.S. Troops in Turkey Could Be Start Of Intervention.

  • NGO Letter to Obama: Concern over Turkey’s Actions

    NGO Letter to Obama: Concern over Turkey’s Actions

    In a letter released today to President Obama, Foreign Policy Initiative, the Project on Middle East Democracy, Freedom House, and Reporters Without Borders expressed their concern over apparent stalled progress and regression in “crucial areas.” The letter draws attention to the deteriorating situation for journalists and members of the press in Turkey, as well as concerns over Kurdish rights, freedom of expression, and the position of women in the government and labor force.

    “Hundreds of military officers, as well as various scholars and journalists, have been arrested and charged through trials dogged by allegations of fabricated evidence used by the prosecution,” the letter says. “Turkey, once a leader in the region on the role of women in society, has alarmingly few women in high level government positions and professions, and has seen a steady decline in women’s participation in the labor force,” it adds.

    The organizations urge President Obama “to express publicly and privately America’s concerns about Turkey’s backsliding, and to direct diplomatic efforts toward ensuring that Turkey resumes a course designed to consolidate democracy and the rule of law.” Given the tenuous situation in the region due primarily to events in Syria, the U.S.-Turkey relationship “needs to be based on our shared values, not just shared strategic interests,” and “rule of law and political freedoms [must be] a priority in your engagements with Prime Minister Erdogan.”

    via NGO Letter to Obama: Concern over Turkey’s Actions | Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED).

  • Turkey Aims to Buy More LNG

    Turkey Aims to Buy More LNG

    Turkey aims to buy extra 6 Bcm of liquefied natural gas, including some from Qatar, under long-term contracts to meet its growing energy needs, Reuters reported, citing Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz.

    Turkey-Aims-to-Buy-More-LNG

    He said that the country is already in negotiations with Qatar, but Qatar may not provide all of the additional LNG, therefore Turkey could also buy LNG from the United States if the latter is willing to sell.

    The Minister also recently said that his country will discuss building an LNG terminal with Qatar on its Aegean coast.

    via Turkey Aims to Buy More LNG>> LNG World News.

  • Turkey sets its sights on Africa

    Turkey sets its sights on Africa

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is visiting Gabon, Niger and Senegal as part of an African tour. China, India and Brazil have all increased their presence on the continent. Now Turkey is in the mix.

    0,,16473585_401,00

    First stop Gabon. This is where Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday (06.01.2012) began his official visit to Africa. His itinerary also includes stops in Niger and Senegal.

    Located on the Gulf of Guinea, Gabon is one of the resource-rich countries in Africa, and when measured by gross domestic product, it is one of the richest countries on the continent.

    In contrast, Niger is one of the world’s poorest countries, according to the 2011 United Nations Human Development Index (HDI).

    Somali President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, hospital. (Foto:AU-UN IST, Stuart Price/AP/dapd) Erdogan visited Somalia in August 2011to highlight the need for famine relief

    The Index is used to measure poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy and other development factors. However, the landlocked country plays an important role as an exporter of raw materials, especially uranium.

    Senegal is one of the most politically and economically stable countries in West Africa, with a relatively well-functioning administrative structure. Nonetheless, the country’s economic growth still lags behind other countries in the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS). According to the 2011 United Nations HDI, Senegal occupies position 155 out of 187countries. This is where Erdogan’s six-day African trip is set to end.

    Spreading tentacles

    Under the leadership of Erdogan’s AK Party, Turkey has been developing the African market. The first signal of this diplomatic offensive came in 1998 with the formulation of a new policy towards Africa.

    Turkey declared 2005 as the official “Year of Africa”. This was followed by the first state visit by a Turkish prime minister to South Africa and Ethiopia. Later the African Union honored Turkey by granting it observer status.

    Gero Erdmann, an expert on Africa from the Leibnitz Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), told DW that Ankara’s interest in Africa started even earlier. In his opinion, Turkey’s move was “made necessary by the reorientation of Turkish politics after the end of the Cold War.”

    Currently Turkey has 17 embassies in sub-Saharan Africa and is planning to open more diplomatic missions on the African continent.

    According to a study by Erdmann, the Turkish State Administration on Religious Affairs ( known as the Diyanet) has opened many private schools and vocational training opportunities for African imams with the aim of providing an enlightened form of Islam.

    A Turkish Airlines plane in the sky. Foto by dpa +++(c) dpa Turkish Airlines has increased flights to Africa

    Africa has become a top priority in Ankara.

    According to Dr. Gülistan Gürbey, lecturer at the Otto Suhr Institute in Berlin, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu takes a personal interest in developing the country’s policy towards Africa. It was Davutoglu who, while working at university in the 90s, developed a policy paper. The concept of “strategic depth”, according to Gürbey, is a return to the Ottoman past and a religious-cultural muslim identity.

    “Modern Turkey sees itself as a key country from multiple continents,” the lecturer said.

    The bigger picture

    Turkey’s new interest in Africa is reflected in trade statistics. Its economic interest in the continent is currently not based on the need for raw materials and energy resources, but rather in seeking a market for Turkish products.

    Trade between Ankara and Africa has increased five times since 2002 when Turkey steadily began to do business with Africa. Turkish investors are mainly keen on infrastructure and building projects such as in Ethiopia and Sudan, or textiles and food processing in South Africa.

    Unlike other competitors, who at first pursue a resource policy, Turkey has a strategic interest in Africa, says Gero Erdmann from the GIGA Institute in Leibnitz.

    Gero Erdmann and Gülistan Gürbey at a GIGA conference on Turkey in Africa Autor/Copyright: Yilma Hinz, DW, Gero Erdmann(left) and Gülistan Gürbey (right) at a GIGA conference on Turkey in Africa

    “Turkey wants to garner UN votes in Africa for itself because it would like to have a permanent seat on the Security Council,” Erdmann said.

    Ankara’s strategy is to win the support of African countries in international forums in a highly visible development policy. One example is the drought in Somalia.

    ‘The Ottoman syndrome’

    Turkey’s relationship with Africa, as in the Middle East has been met with criticism both at home and in parts of Europe.

    Liberal politicians and scholars have hinted at a supposedly pro-Arab, Islamist orientation and are wary of neo-Ottoman intentions. Other observers question how a country that is in the course of applying for EU membership, can be associated with human rights abuses, repression of religious freedom and disregard for the rule of law.

    In Africa, Turkey sees itself as a defender of human rights, as witnessed in the 2011 4th UN Conference on Least Developed Countries which was hosted by Istanbul.

    According to Erdmann, the lack of a colonial history link to Africa makes Turkey an attractive partner for African governments and not so much a player in the new scramble for African resources.

    via Turkey sets its sights on Africa | Africa | DW.DE | 08.01.2013.

  • U.S. troops arrive in Turkey to help protect border with Syria, prompting some skepticism

    U.S. troops arrive in Turkey to help protect border with Syria, prompting some skepticism

    Mideast_Syria_000161357499354

    By Jenna Johnson, Published: January 7

    ANTAKYA, Turkey — As U.S. troops arrive in Turkey and prepare to man Patriot antimissile batteries along the Syrian border, some of the people who will be under such protection say that the extra line of defense is not needed and that the presence of foreign forces could pull their country into the war next door.

    “We don’t need this thing between us and our neighbors,” said Ali Yilmaz, 49, who works in a cellphone shop in this town, whose population is heavily Alawite, members of the same religious sect as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “It’s wrong. It’s only going to cause problems.”

    Other Turks expect the missile-blasting defense system — organized and overseen by NATO after a request from the Turkish government last year — to protect them from projectiles that occasionally stray across the border or from a direct attack. But they question why the same level of protection isn’t being extended to those living inside Syria.

    “A lot of children and women are getting killed,” said Mehmet Kamil Dervisoglu, 37, who works at a hotel in Reyhanli, a heavily Sunni town that is closer to the border and has become a “Little Syria” in recent months. “If we got involved, it would be an army against an army. But an army against women and children? What did these women and children do wrong?”

    For now, about 400 U.S. troops are being airlifted from Oklahoma to Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey. The first wave of troops and supplies arrived Friday, with more scheduled to come in the following days, according to the U.S. European Command.

    Eventually, the troops will man two Patriot batteries in Gaziantep, a Turkish town about 30 miles from the border. Germany and the Netherlands also will supply two batteries each, to be stationed in other towns along the border.

    The batteries are designed to spot and intercept incoming missiles. Once in place this month, all six will operate under NATO command. The mission is “defensive only” and aims to deter threats to Turkey and de-escalate the fighting along the border, NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said last month. It is not known how long the batteries will remain.

    ‘It’s a strong shield’

    For Turks living close to the border, the sounds of war have become part of life. Those living in Hacipasa — a village of about 3,000 people that shares its olive-grove-dotted valley with Syria — frequently hear the heavy whirl of aircraft and whiz of mortar shells and missiles. Sometimes they feel the faint reverberations from the impacts. After heavy attacks, some residents venture to the river along the border to help wounded Syrians escaping to Turkey for medical treatment.

    One morning in October, a stray missile landed in a field where villagers had just finished picking cotton, said Abdulaziz Olmez, a grocery shop owner with a bushy mustache who has lived here his whole life.

    “We are afraid that they might come closer,” he said. “You might have a pilot who doesn’t know where he’s going or a strong wind.”

    Olmez, 46, said he has become more relaxed since hearing that the Patriot batteries were on their way. He said he hopes their presence will result in fewer attacks on Syrian towns just across the river.

    “It’s a strong shield,” he said.

    Business has dried up since the uprising began nearly 22 months ago, Olmez said, and hundreds of longtime residents were forced to move. They were replaced by hundreds of Syrian refugees in need of shelter, winter clothing and food.

    Two Syrian men who moved to Hacipasa two months ago stopped by Olmez’s shop on Saturday afternoon to buy flour and olive oil. The potential danger in Turkey is nothing compared with what Syrians face, they said.

    “The Americans, by doing this, they are protecting the Turkish villages,” said one of the men, who did not want to be identified. “But for the Syrian villages, they are doing nothing.”

    ‘I don’t see a need for it’

    Farther from the border, in Antakya, there is widespread criticism of the Patriot batteries. The town has a large Alawite population, and there are frequent rallies in support of the Syrian government. On Sunday afternoon, many residents said they wanted peace and stability in Syria, not a revolution. Some worry that planting foreign troops on the border is a step toward a broader war, and they question why the Turkish military needs help.

    “They’re claiming it’s for defense reasons, but I don’t see a need for it,” said Cemil Yuce, 60, at his restaurant. “I don’t think anything will happen, that any missiles will come over from Syria. Nothing will happen.”

    Ihsan Birim, who owns a shop that sells CDs, said the economic consequences of the Syrian uprising have hurt Turkey more than stray missiles. His business is half what it was before the revolt began in 2011, he said. Money is tight, especially with two sons in college, and the family eats chicken instead of red meat. Birim, 53, said he wants this to be over.

    As for the Patriot batteries, he said: “If it’s for defense purposes, that’s okay. But if it is to attack Syria, we don’t want it. We don’t want war. People are very afraid of war.”

  • Turkey-Israel-Cyprus Triangle And Mediterranean Gas

    Turkey-Israel-Cyprus Triangle And Mediterranean Gas

    By: Tulin Daloglu for Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse. posted on Mon, Jan 7.

    Ktorides, chairman of DEH Quantum Energy, and IEC Chairman Ron-Tal sign a memorandum in Jerusalem

    Israel’s Energy Minister Uzi Landau (rear C) watches as Nasos Ktorides (front C), chairman of DEH Quantum Energy, and Israel Electric Corp (IEC) Chairman Yiftach Ron-Tal (front R) sign a memorandum of understanding in Jerusalem March 4, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun)

    In November 2007, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas jointly addressed the Turkish parliament, an event that buttressed Turkey’s role in the region as an honest broker for peace. The Peres address was the first ever by an Israeli president before a Muslim parliament.

    About This Article

    Summary :

    Tulin Daloglu writes that Israel’s strategic partnership with the Republic of Cyprus, including over Mediterranean gas fields, is yet another complication in Israeli-Turkish relations.

    Author: Tulin Daloglu
    posted on: Mon, Jan 7, 2013

    Turkey and Israel at that time were weighing the construction of an “infrastructure corridor” between the port cities of Ceyhan and Haifa, which would have included five separate underwater pipelines for oil, natural gas, electricity, water and communications. There was also speculation that these pipelines could go through Northern Cyprus.

    That, however, was a red line for Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kazakou-Marcoullis, who feared that Israel would thereby legitimize the Turkish side of the island when Nicosia had overwhelmingly rejected a United Nations proposal for a referendum in May 2004 on reuniting Cyprus, and despite that it had been accepted by the European Union as a full member.

    In order to get reassurance from the Israeli side that their strengthening of ties with Ankara would not come at the cost of damaging their stiff position toward the Turkish Cypriot side, Marcoullis visited the Jewish state in December, only a month after Peres and Abbas made their historic appearance before the Turkish Parliament. No action she took scuttled proposals for a Turkish-Israeli “infrastructure corridor,” but developments in the region conspired against it.

    The discovery of hydrocarbon fields in the eastern Mediterranean made things even more complicated for the Turkish side. Turkey’s European Union accession talks received mixed blessings. “The Greek Cypriots completely disconnected themselves from the Cyprus issue, but made Turkey’s EU accession directly dependent on this conflict,” Ergin Olgun, an advisor to the President of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), told Al-Monitor. “This has to be recognized as a serious diplomatic victory.”

    Moreover, in January 2009, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan strongly reacted at the World Economic Forum in Davos to an Israeli air raid on the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip, and stormed offstage after a heated debate with Peres. Tensions between Ankara and Jerusalem peaked following the Mavi Marmara crisis in May 2010, when Israeli soldiers killed nine Turks on a flotilla off the shores of Gaza.

    As the Turkish-Israeli relationship deteriorated, Greek Cyprus and Israel started to build a strategic partnership. In February 2012, Benjamin Netanyahu became the first Israeli prime minister to visit Nicosia, where he agreed with President Demetris Christofias to launch a joint natural gas and oil exploration venture in their adjoining territorial waters. Speaking to Al-Monitor, Mehmet Ali Talat, former president of the TRNC, summed up this new close friendship in the region as, “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

    “Why did Israel not even attempt to have any close ties with the Greek Cypriot side when it was at a good standing with Turkey?” he asked. “Christofias and I joined demonstrations before we both became presidents to condemn Israel for its aggression to the Palestinians, and joined the crowds together marching to the Israeli embassy. When we both became presidents, we released a joint condemnation of Israel’s attack to Lebanon in 2008. To my knowledge, Christofias was a die-hard Israel enemy.”

    Nevertheless, the Greek Cypriot side claims it has no desire to act against the interests of the Turkish side. “This should not be perceived as a threat to Turkey,” Nikos Christodoulides, spokesman of the Greek Cyprus Presidency of the EU, told Al-Monitor. “Cyprus is exercising its sovereign rights. We consider this as our legitimate right. We don’t have talks with Turkey because it does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus.”

    And that’s the crux of the issue. It really doesn’t matter whether the world only recognizes the Greek side of the island as the legitimate representative of the whole of Cyprus, and that it’s only Turkey that recognizes the TRNC. The United Nations is still attempting negotiations to resolve this conflict.

    In fact, there were high hopes when Talat become president following the late Rauf Denktash, who was known as uncompromising and an advocate of dividing the island. Talat dedicated his personal and political life to the reunification of the island and had been boldly outspoken about the mistakes of the Turkish side.

    “It’s difficult to comprehend as to how the United States, and the EU could allow the Greek Cypriots claim that this is their sovereign right when we clearly did our share for the unification of the island, but the Greek Cypriots did not want it,” Talat told Al-Monitor. “What I know, if and when the Greek Cypriots start profiting from this natural wealth of the island, I don’t believe they will even allow the Turkish side to get a smell of it. Even the thought of the development of the Turkish side’s economy is against their policies.”

    Surely, the Greek Cypriot side believes it has an advantage as the only internationally recognized representative of the island. “The Turks approached many governments, and asked to open diplomatic missions in the north,” said Marcoullis during a visit to Israel in 2007. “But the international community is committed to the resolutions of the UN Security Council and thus no country in the world maintains relations with an illegal entity.”

    Dervis Eroglu, president of TRNC, told Al-Monitor that the Greek side heavily benefits from this status quo and desires to assimilate the Turks of the island by way of osmosis. He says there is no incentive out there that would really push the Greek side to even consider a fair solution to this conflict. “However, if the international community opens the UN Security Council resolutions 541 and 550 into a debate, that prevents the countries to recognize the Turkish side as a legitimate country; and if the UN Security Council ends the mandate of the peace force on the island, only then the Greek side can seriously consider getting to the table for reaching a solution,” he said. Seriously though, no one should really expect the UN body to take such a bold step.

    “We won’t immediately start profiting from this finding,” said Christodoulides. “It has been agreed that the natural wealth of Cyprus will be shared through the budgets of the constituency when there is a solution.”

    Yet Eroglu told Al-Monitor that this issue has to be addressed now to secure the rights of his people. “I proposed to the Greek side through directly engaging the UN secretary general and offered them to establish a committee that would be composed by equal number of Turkish and Greek Cypriots, where they would assess the profit made from these hydrocarbon fields, and put our share to a bank account accordingly,” he said. “I suggested that we use that money to sort out the economic challenges once we decide on the terms of the unification of the island. But the Greek Cypriot president turned it down without a second glance.”

    In short, Cyprus still remains as a conflict zone until the parties to this issue reach an agreement as to whether to continue as a united or divided entity, and they need to sort out in a civilized manner how they’re going to share the island’s wealth. The international community should be a facilitator in this direction. Yet Eroglu argues, “I’m not convinced a hundred percent that the US, Great Britain and Israel really want to see a resolution to this issue. Their interests openly clash with the Russians.”

    For Russian interests, as Olgun explains, the continuation of the Cyprus issue is a desirable outcome. “As long as this issue remains unresolved, because of Turkey’s standing on Cyprus, it will not be possible to see NATO fully embrace the European security and defense policies.”

    Still, Israel shouldn’t get engaged with yet another long communal conflict — as if dealing with the Palestinian issue isn’t enough — until the Turkish side’s share in the natural wealth of the island is assured. Greek Cyprus isn’t like any other sovereign state, and any attempt to violate the rights of the Turkish side is considered a direct rebuke to Turkish sovereignty. While the current political atmosphere between Ankara and Tel-Aviv is at a stalemate, a sealed agreement under today’s conditions between Greek Cyprus and Israel would kill all the possibilities for healing the rift between Israel and Turkey. And if that’s what the Jewish state calculates as in its best interest in the long term, it shouldn’t hesitate to go ahead in its joint venture with the Greek Cypriot side. But common sense might suggest otherwise.

    Tulin Daloglu is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Turkey Pulse. She has written extensively for various Turkish and American publications, including The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, The Middle East Times, Foreign Policy, The Daily Star (Lebanon) and the SAIS Turkey Analyst Report. She also had a regular column at The Washington Times for almost four years.

    Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/01/turkey-cyrpus-israel-natural-gas.html#ixzz2HNCfcs8e