Category: Regions

  • Kerry’s quest: Who really wants peace?

    Kerry’s quest: Who really wants peace?

    What was John Kerry thinking when he asked Turkey’s anti-Jewish prime minister to be “a partner”?

    ShowImage
    US Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Netanyahu, March 20, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Larry Downing
    What was John Kerry thinking when he asked Turkey’s viscerally anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to be “a partner” in brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Does he honestly think Hamas’ loyal and enthusiastic supporter, a man who has called Zionism a crime against humanity, could be an honest broker? The State Department spokeswoman confirmed a Turkish newspaper report that Kerry wants Erdogan to play an active role in the peace process, and said Kerry asked Turkey to use its “significant influence with the Palestinians” to encourage Hamas to accept the demands of the International Quartet.

    That means persuading his friend Khaled Mashaal, Hamas’ leader, to do everything he and his organization have sworn they never would do: recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce armed struggle and abide by all Israeli- Palestinian agreements.

    Most NATO and European countries – except Turkey – consider Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza strip in a bloody 2007 coup, a terrorist organization.

    Erdogan’s inclusion is bad news for Egypt, Fatah and Israel. Egypt resents Turkey moving on to its turf. Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak felt he had a monopoly as the regional intermediary and told Erdogan to keep his hands off; his successor, Mohamed Morsi, apparently feels that way as well, plus now it’s an Islamist as well as national rivalry.

    Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas knows Erdogan is a close ally of arch-rival Hamas and hostile to the secular nationalist Fatah. If anything, Erdogan is more radical than Abbas, and that’s the last thing the PA leader needs. Relations between the two men are said to be cool at best. Abbas also knows Hamas wants to overthrow him and take over not only the PA but control of the PLO as well.

    There are few people who Israelis distrust more than Erdogan. Bringing him in is no way to win their confidence.

    Two senior cabinet ministers have already rejected any suggestion of a Turkish role, recalling Israel’s unhappy experience with Erdogan in 2008 when he tried to mediate with Syria, then his close ally, and acted more like Bashar Assad’s advocate.

    It has been suggested that a more appropriate mediator would be King Abdullah II of Jordan, who is on good terms with both the Israelis and Palestinians. He is scheduled to visit President Barack Obama later this month and is said to be eager to play a role in any peace process.

    One reason for Kerry’s unexpected stop in Ankara on his second trip to the region in two weeks was concern that Turkey was backtracking on its promise to normalize relations with Israel following Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s apology to Erdogan in connection with the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident that led to a rupture in relations between the two former allies.

    Kerry told Turkish leaders he’d like Ankara to make good on its promise to quickly reach agreement on compensation and return its ambassador to Israel, but new Turkish demands and Erdogan’s triumphalist boasting have raised doubts in Jerusalem and Washington about Turkish intentions.

    The latest setback is Turkish insistence that “all of the embargoes should be eliminated once and for all,” meaning Israel’s blockade of Gaza, before diplomats can be exchanged, although that was not part of the reconciliation brokered by President Obama. In his press conference with Kerry Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu repeatedly called for Israel “going back to 1967 borders.”

    Speaking of borders, Abbas has a new precondition for resuming negotiations with Israel. He is demanding Netanyahu announce acceptance of the 1967 lines as the basis for negotiations and present a map detailing Israel’s position on borders. Israel objects, saying that would give away its bargaining position and provide the Palestinian with a starting point for negotiations. Besides, Israel’s positions would depend on what kind of state is agreed to, the extent of demilitarization, security arrangements, the Arab uprisings in the region and other factors.

    The demand for the map came with a threat. “If Kerry fails” to get Israel to hand it over in approximately two months, “we will start moving toward the international organizations” and file complaints against Israel in the International Criminal Court, said Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister Riad al-Maliki.

    And if Israel does all Abbas demands, would he resume negotiations? Maybe, said his chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. Meeting those terms “could lead to an immediate resumption of talks.”

    Abbas told the Globe and Mail this week, “I think there was some opportunities [for peace] in the past, but unfortunately we missed these opportunities.”

    He complained that time is running out for a two-state solution yet he continues to refuse to resume negotiations.

    Instead he keeps upping the ante by adding new preconditions for talks. Now it is the map, before that it was the release of prisoners and before that a total construction freeze beyond the 1967 lines, including in east Jerusalem.

    The logical conclusion is that he simply isn’t interested.

    He may talk about peace but he keeps finding excuses not to talk.

    President Obama has told Abbas, and Kerry repeated the message this week, that Washington backs Netanyahu’s call for resuming talks without any preconditions.

    Critics say Netanyahu, who has failed to contradict key ministers who openly oppose the two-state solution and keeps expanding settlements, isn’t any more interested in returning to the peace table than Abbas, but Palestinians are clearly afraid to call his bluff.

    Kerry would reportedly like to revive and revise the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which Israel rejected at the time and the Arabs did nothing serious to convince them otherwise. Much has changed in the region over the past decade, and Kerry’s challenge will be to convince all sides they will need to show much greater flexibility if they are serious about doing more than missing opportunities.

    The big question is whether the United States is the only one that wants peace badly enough to devote more than empty rhetoric to the cause. Despite the flurry of diplomacy at Foggy Bottom, it’s far from clear whether the Israelis and Palestinians themselves are ready to work with the new secretary of state.

  • Amos Gilad: Turkey against a nuclear Iran

    Amos Gilad: Turkey against a nuclear Iran

    Amos Gilad: Turkey against a nuclear Iran

    Head of Defense Ministry’s diplomatic security bureau says reconciliation with Erodogan important; reveals that ‘additional crises’ were avoided

    Atilla Somfalvi

    Published:  04.09.13, 15:09 / Israel News

    The head of the diplomatic-security bureau at the Defense Ministry, Amos Gilad said Tuesday that the reconciliation agreement with Turkey was important for Israel due to the Iran nuclear situation. “Turkey has been enemies with Iran or Persia for 1,000 years; it (Turkey) cannot allow them to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Turkey is not ready for Iran to go nuclear,” he said in an interview with Ynet.

     

    Gilad also emphasized that even if Israel’s relations with Turkey did not return to their previous level, the importance of the reconciliation agreement was in that it stopped the deterioration of relations between the two countries.

     

    Related stories:

    Iran launches new uranium production facility

    Syrian guerrilla fighters being sent to Iran for training

    No deal in sight on final day of Iran nuclear talks

     

    He added that in addition to published reports, further crises unknown to the public, had been averted, “on the level of the air force and navy.” Regarding the decision to postpone the meeting between Turkish and Israeli representatives he called it a “technical issue,” devoid of strategic meaning.

     

    During the interview, Gilad talked about the visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to the region in an attempt to lay the groundwork for a return to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He emphasized that the difficulty in reaching an agreement with the Palestinians lay in the gap between the two sides view of the West Bank, and in whether Abbas would be in control of Gaza.

     

    Regarding Syria, Gilad said the regime’s chemical weapons were still under Assad’s control and that “accurate intelligence tracking” needed to be done following their situation. He added that the deterioration of Syria has allowed groups such as Al-Qaeda to establish itself in the country.

     

    Finally, Gilad said, Israel should not favor Assad, remembering that he is an “axis of extreme evil.”

     

    When asked about Assad’s eventual fall, Gilad replied, “We must not say that it will happen in the next week or next two weeks. There is no reason to make such estimations.”

    via Amos Gilad: Turkey against a nuclear Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

  • Ireland to give further €1m to help Syrian refugees

    Ireland to give further €1m to help Syrian refugees

    image

    Mr Gilmore visiting the Nazip camp near the city of Gaziantep, close to the Syrian border, yesterday

    Colm Keena

    Ireland has announced the donation of a further €1 million towards the work of the Turkish government in dealing with the refugee crisis caused by the war in Syria, bringing the total donated to date to €8.15 million.

    The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Eamon Gilmore, announced the move in Turkey where he has met with his counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, and yesterday visited a camp near the Syrian border.

    He said he wanted to demonstrate Ireland’s support for Turkey’s humane response to the suffering of the people who have been displaced by the widespread violence inside Syria. Without the responsible and charitable actions of the countries neighbouring Syria, the plight of its people would be even greater, he said.

    Awaiting registration

    He praised Turkey for keeping its border open. The money will go to the Red Cross and the UNHCR. Approximately 1.25 million people who fled Syria have been registered or are awaiting registration as refugees in neighbouring countries, with more than 230,000 of these being in Turkey.

    The Ankara government estimates that up to 400,000 people have left Syria for Turkey. The effort to help the refugees has cost the Turkish government approximately $750 million to date and, with the numbers coming into the country having risen by 28 per cent since January, the government and aid agencies are struggling to cope.

    Almost 3,000 children have been born to refugees in Turkey since the crisis began two years ago.

    Turkey has 17 camps for refugees with another, in Midyat, being established for Orthodox Christian Syrians who are fleeing the fighting. Some of the oldest Christian monasteries in the world are located in southeastern Turkey.

    Mr Gilmore visited the Nazip camp near the city of Gaziantep, close to the Syrian border, yesterday.

    Temporary home

    The camp, which is on stony ground on the banks of the Euphrates alongside the large Birecik Baraji dam, opened late last year and is serving as a temporary home to thousands of Syrians who are living in tents and Portacabin-type homes.

    When the Tánaiste walked out of the school compound into the general camp area, he was immediately surrounded by camp residents showing him their identity cards and wanting to tell him of their plight.

    Camp resident Ayob Doghouz (26) said that he left Damascus two weeks ago because he did not want to do military service.

    “If you join, then your destiny is to kill someone or to be killed. I came here to escape that destiny.” He said he was glad to be in the camp because he was now safe but was unhappy that he was not allowed to go in and out of the camp as he pleased.

    “I would rather be in my homeland but here you can say I am secure. But it is like living in a big prison.”

    Fadi Al Hadike (16), who walked with the aid of a crutch, said he was injured in his left leg some weeks ago in Aleppo, just across the border in Syria, when a rocket blew up near him. His home was destroyed.

    Received treatment

    He was taken to Turkey and received treatment, and was now living in the camp with his mother and other members of his family. His mother’s sister was outside the camp and wanted to be allowed in, he said on behalf of his mother.

    “She is injured. She is at the gate and wants to get in. She has one dead son and another injured.”

    Mazen (47), who did not want his last name used, said he had come to Turkey from Damascus because of the fighting there. A welder who had spent 17 years in the United States, he fled Syria six months ago with his family, staying first in one camp and then being moved to Nazip. “It is better here but it is too crowded.”

    A married man with two children, who also has relatives in the camp, he said he did not know when he would be able to return home. “We don’t know how long the problems in Syria are going to last. It is getting worse every day.”

    via Ireland to give further €1m to help Syrian refugees – European News | Latest News from Across Europe | The Irish Times – Tue, Apr 09, 2013.

  • Why Turkey Won’t Attack Syria

    Why Turkey Won’t Attack Syria

    The government doesn’t want to boost the stature of the military, it has a big Alawite community, and plenty of other reasons.
    SONER CAGAPTAY
    assadturkey
    A supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad holds a portrait of him during a demostration outside the “Friends of Syria” conference in Istanbul on April 1, 2012. (Murad Sezer/Reuters)

    Here’s a scene that partly explains why Turkey hasn’t invaded Syria yet: In a recent parliamentary debate, Umit Ozgumus, a leader of the Turkish opposition party CHP, entered a raucous debate with Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, ranting, “the allegations that Assad is perpetrating massacres are lies!”

    Turkey has leveled threats of invasion into Syria as the conflict has deepened over the past two years. But it has not delivered on its threat, largely because of its complex Syria policy: various considerations, including the evolving relationship between the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Turkish army, as well as unrest among the country’s Alawite population and the approaching elections, are all pulling Ankara back from military action against the Assad regime.

    The AKP government has spent the last decade subjugating the once-autonomous and staunchly secular military to its power. The military has all but lost its standing with the Turkish public in the wake of ongoing court cases that accuse the army of involvement in a nefarious coup plot to overthrow the government.

    Whether or not these allegations are grounded, one thing is clear: the Turkish military is no longer the most respected actor in the country. In 2007, before the Ergenekon case, which alleged that there was a hidden coup plot against the AKP government, polls showed that the Turks trusted the military more than any other institution. Now, Turks trust the presidency, a position filled by former AKP member Abdullah Gul, who has proven himself as a statesman since assuming office in 2007. Abdullah Gul has actively grown his prestige with his successful use of social media and patronage of civic initiatives. Meanwhile, the military’s luster has faded.

    This also stems from the fact that the Turkish army, once feared and respected, has proven to be an empty shell. Over a quarter of the top brass of the Turkish military have ended up in jail in connection with coup plots, and arrests continue on a monthly basis. Today, the military is in no position to present itself as an institution to be feared, much less respected. In other words, the AKP has won, and the military has lost. One reason why the Ankara government is reluctant to send the military against Assad is that a victory on the battlefield would quickly allow the military to restore its image.

    Ironically, the army does not want to fight against Assad either; the Turkish military is silently aware of its own weaknesses. For many years, Turkey’s military doctrine was built on the assumption that Turkey must prepare for conventional war against its neighbors. Although the military built capacities for overseas deployment following the September 11 attacks and demonstrated impressive ability in Afghanistan, it is woefully ill equipped to successfully partake in a civil war in Syria.

    Analysts in Ankara estimate that the best the Turkish army can do against Assad would be to take control of a 10- to 20- mile wide cordon sanitaire in northern Syria, across the Turkish border. That would hardly be a resounding victory for the Turkish military.

    What’s more, without solid NATO backing the Turkish military, though a much more powerful force than the Syrian military, would not be able to maintain its comparative advantage against the Assad regime and likely anti-Turkish insurgency led by the regime supporters. Without White House support for a unilateral Turkish campaign against Assad, even the most hawkish Turkish generals will shy away from a campaign until they are sure Turkey will not be left to go it alone.

    And besides wanting to withhold a possible public relations boost to the military, the AKP has its plenty of reasons to shy away from outright war. For starters, Turkey is home to a 500,000 thousand strong Alawite community that lives mostly in the country’s southernmost Hatay province. Alawites in Turkey are ethnically related to Syrian Alawites, many of whom are steadfast in their support to the Assad regime. And many Turkish Alawites are related to Syrian Alawites through marriage and family ties. So for the Turkish Alawites, what happens in Syria does not stay in Syria. Recent demonstrations by Turkish Alawites in favor of the Assad regime have fueled these anxieties, further diminishing Ankara’s appetite for war in Syria.

    And if the AKP wasn’t already skittish about the military option in Syria, the main opposition party, the CHP, has taken a contrarian stance. Many in the CHP still harbor 1970’s style anti-Americanism, opposing U.S. policies and cooperation with the U.S., as well as any sort of military action on ideological grounds.

    There is also the fact that the CHP has a large Alevi base. (The Alevis, who comprise about 15 percent of the Turkish population, are not related to the similar-sounding Alawites.) But both groups take issue with the AKP’s Syria policy.

    The Alevis are staunchly secular and therefore categorically opposed to the AKP’s conservative and occasionally Islamist flavor. They stand against the AKP policies, and they will be another reason for the CHP to maintain its visceral opposition to the AKP’s Syria policy.

    The CHP, which has support from about a quarter of the Turkish population, now stands in the way of a more active Turkish policy against Assad. In a recent example, four CHP deputies visited Assad in Damascus in early March. In a public relations stunt, the deputies undermined Ankara with claims that the Turkish people “reject intervention in Syria and want nothing more than neighborly relations” with Assad. To which the Syrian dictator purportedly responded: “I appreciate the stance of the Turkish people and political parties, who unlike the Turkish government favor stability in Syria.” The CHP will oppose the AKP’s Syria policy, even if this means divorcing itself from reality.

    Last but not least, there is the issue of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political goals. Erdogan has won three successive elections, recently breaking the record for longest-serving Turkish prime minister. Now, he has set his sights on becoming Turkey’s next president in the forthcoming 2014 elections.

    Throughout his decade in power, his greatest political asset has been Turkey’s phenomenal economic growth, averaging over 5 percent annually. Erdogan wins because Turkey grows, and Turkey is growing because it is the only stable country among its European and Middle Eastern neighbors. If this virtuous cycle continues, Erdogan will win the next elections. If, however, Turkey enters a war in Syria, it could slide into the ranks of the “problem states” in its neighborhood. This would break Erdogan’s recipe for political and economic success by putting in jeopardy the more than $40 billion that comes into the Istanbul stock market annually, driving the country’s growth.

    The odds are against unilateral Turkish action against Assad. Yet, at the same time, Ankara cannot tolerate Assad in power, or live with a sectarian civil war next door. Turkey’s leaders are acutely aware that war will spill over into Turkey, stoking violence between the country’s Alawites and Sunnis and tarnishing Turkey’s coveted reputation as a “stable country in an unstable region.” This would also end Erdogan’s presidential dream.

  • Turkish ship raid victims to go to court despite Israeli apology

    Turkish ship raid victims to go to court despite Israeli apology

    By Ayla Jean Yackley

    ISTANBUL | Mon Apr 8, 2013 10:19am EDT

    (Reuters) – Israel’s apology to Turkey over the 2010 killing of nine Turks aboard a Gaza-bound aid ship did not go far enough and Israeli soldiers will be pursued in court, survivors of the incident said on Monday.

    In a rapprochement brokered by U.S. President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to his Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan on March 22 for the killings, pledged compensation to the bereaved or hurt and agreed to ease a six-year blockade on Gaza. Erdogan said these gestures met his conditions for normalizing relations with its erstwhile ally.

    Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, carrying pro-Palestinian activists to take part of a humanitarian convoy, leaves from Sarayburnu port in Istanbul

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said while visiting Istanbul on Sunday that restoring full ties between Turkey and Israel was vital to regional stability.

    With the apology, Israel aimed to end a three-year diplomatic crisis with Turkey, once its closest regional ally, that erupted when Israeli soldiers stormed an international flotilla carrying relief aid to challenge the Gaza blockade.

    As part of the agreement on compensation, Israel wants lawsuits against its soldiers to be dropped.

    “We will continue with the criminal lawsuits we have opened against the Israeli soldiers and commanders, and we won’t accept dropping this suit if compensation is paid,” said Musa Cogas, who was wounded by Israeli gunfire on board the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara, part of a flotilla carrying aid to Palestinians.

    An Istanbul court is hearing charges that have been filed against four of Israel’s most senior retired commanders, including the ex-army chief, in absentia and could carry life sentences. Israel has called this a politically motivated “show trial”.

    Ahmet Varol, a journalist who was on the Mavi Marmara, said one “formula for a resolution” would be for Israel to provide a timetable for ending the blockade of Gaza, ruled by the Islamist Hamas movement, and make Turkey a monitor of that process.

    “Our efforts are for the full lifting of the blockade. Nobody wants compensation, and while an apology may have diplomatic meaning, it means nothing to the victims,” he said.

    The apology nonetheless showed Israel had accepted its wrongdoing in the incident, Varol added.

    The United States has urged the two sides to mend fences to ease Israel’s diplomatic isolation in the Middle East and to improve coordination to contain spillover from the Syrian civil war and face the challenge of Iran’s nuclear program.

    A senior Israeli official told Reuters last month Israel did not commit to ending its Gaza blockade as part of reconciliation with Turkey and could clamp down even harder on the Palestinian enclave if security is threatened.

    “It’s not possible to heal my wounds with just an apology,” said Cogas, who was shot in the shoulder by Israeli marines. His friend of 30 years, Cengiz Songur, was killed in the raid. “Unless these soldiers are punished and the blockade is lifted…, we won’t accept compensation.”

    (Editing by Nick Tattersall and Mark Heinrich)

    via Turkish ship raid victims to go to court despite Israeli apology | Reuters.

  • Turkey-Israel: the new Great Game

    There is a new Great Game afoot and it is taking place beneath the sea floor of the eastern Mediterranean.

    Turkey and Israel’s tentative reconciliation is a process so fraught that US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared in Istanbul at the weekend to chivvy the two sides towards restoring full diplomatic ties. But if the steps he set out can be taken — agreeing compensation for nine Turks killed by Israeli forces in 2010, avoiding inflammatory talk, exchange of ambassadors — then a whole series of changes could be unleashed from Damascus to Brussels.

    In particular, there is the question of a pipeline that could ferry newly discovered Israeli natural gas to energy-hungry Turkey — a move that would knit the two US allies closer together, despite enduring suspicions.

    “It is possible that cooperation in energy between Turkey and Israel could follow an anticipated rapprochement,” said Taner Yilidz, Turkey’s energy minister, on Monday.

    Turkish officials caution that bilateral talks on such cooperation can only really get going after ambassadors are exchanged — but add that business contacts on the topic are already burgeoning.

    Ozgur Altug at BGC partners in Istanbul contends that rapprochement means that “relatively weak Israel-Turkey economic relations will pick up again”. He observes that although Turkish exports to Israel have risen over the last decade (falling back slightly in 2012) to their current level of $2.5bn, they have declined as a proportion of Ankara’s total exports (of which they now account for about 1.5 per cent rather than more than 2 per cent previously).

    While noting that the two countries have relatively tiny levels of direct investment in each other, he highlights the potential for tourism. Israelis represented more than 2 per cent of tourists coming to Turkey in the early 2000s, a level that fell to just 0.3 per cent as of the end of last year.

    But the biggest economic issue is probably gas. Altug calculates that Turkey could save $1bn a year in energy costs if it entered into a gas joint venture with Israel, a figure that could dramatically escalate if other initiatives, such as a possible Turkish energy deal with Northern Iraq, were factored in. Because of such developments, he reckons that Turkey’s current account deficit, the country’s economic Achilles heel, which reached 10 per cent of GDP in 2011 and was still above 6 per cent in 2012, could be kept below 5 per cent from 2016.

    Such an economically significant relationship would have other consequences as well. Though diplomats from both sides warn the Israeli-Turkish relationship is unlikely soon to return to 1990s-era warmth, cooperation on Syria, which both sides hope will avoid becoming a failed state and which Israel wants to keep out of the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, is a distinct possibility.

    Turkish-Israeli energy cooperation could also have an impact on Cyprus, which has gas finds of its own that are adjoining but smaller than Israel’s discoveries. If Cyprus finds itself bereft of Israeli cooperation it may lack economies of scale to proceed with a multi-billion dollar LNG plant or a pipeline to Greece.

    Although Turkey, which invaded the island in 1974, has no diplomatic relations with the internationally recognised Cypriot government, Yildiz pointedly remarked on Monday that if energy cooperation with Israel went ahead Turkey might “also like to see Greek Cyprus involved”.

    If, somehow, Turkey and Cyprus managed to establish a relationship, this in turn would unblock one of Ankara’s biggest problems with the EU, since not a single negotiating chapter of Turkey’s membership talks can be closed as long as a standoff continues in which Ankara bans Cypriot vessels from its ports.

    The stakes are high, therefore, in the Turkey-Israeli reconciliation. But two questions hang over the whole scenario of mutual economic benefit, closer cooperation in a region in chaos and a roadblock removed from the highway to Brussels.

    First, can the Turkey-Israeli rapprochement prosper without a change of Israeli policy on the Palestinians, whose cause is a rallying cry for prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan? And second, do Erdogan and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, see the healing of their own frayed ties in strategic terms, or simply as a tactical measure, taken in part just to keep the Americans quiet and not worth investing much more political capital in?

    The future of the region — and the geopolitical map of the Eastern Mediterranean — depends on the answers.

    via Turkey-Israel: the new Great Game | beyondbrics.