The USAID website explains that the organization “carries out U.S. foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States, and fosters good will abroad.”
|
By: Mohammad Noureddine Translated from As-Safir (Lebanon)
|
Demonstrators shout slogans during a protest against the government of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, in Istanbul, March 15, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Osman Orsal )
The Syrian crisis, since its outbreak two years ago, has formed a testbed for Turkey’s foreign policy, in light of all the headlines and theories concerning the relationship between the two countries brought forth during the few years that preceded the crisis.
|
Summary : Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, Turkey has sought to topple a regime standing in the way of its own regional hegemony, writes Mohammad Noureddine.
Publisher: As-Safir (Lebanon) |
While initial indications pointed to a change in Ankara’s relationship with Damascus early on in the crisis, the last two years have clearly demonstrated the nature of this transformation. They have revealed the new direction chosen by the Turks, as well as their biases and goals.
One can postulate the following, without any systematic order to the information given:
1. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu reiterated that his country adopted its stance against the Syrian regime only after dozens of visits and many consultations, the last of which occurred in August of 2011. However, Ankara was, in parallel and less than a month after the crisis erupted, working to provide the Syrian political opposition with support, which was transformed later on into military support, as reflected in the formation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
2. Regardless of any distances and deadlines, Turkey chose to become a spearhead in the attempt to overthrow the Syrian regime, and served as headquarters for the FSA’s command. The first opposition council, the Syrian National Council (SNC), was also formed in Istanbul. Turkish territory was transformed into a corridor for all types of extremist militants, and a military supply and logistics base to those headed for Syria, according to all documented western reports and press articles.
3. Turkey also became the mastermind behind regional and international efforts to overthrow the Syrian regime; an example of which is Ankara’s brainchild, the Friends of Syria Conference. Furthermore, Turkey fully coordinated with the Arab League in order to isolate Syria and suspend its membership in the group. Turkish diplomacy also expanded great effort in international forums to obtain a Security Council resolution imposing a buffer zone, allowing foreign military intervention, and pressuring Russia and China to change their stance.
4. Turkey put its full weight behind efforts to remove the Syrian regime from both Syrian and regional maps. It raised the slogan of “all or nothing,” and wagered on the Syrian regime quickly falling, as was the case in Egypt, Tunisia and later on Libya. Ankara thus became the timekeeper, setting deadlines for the toppling of the regime, in a psychological attempt to bolster the chances of it actually falling. This one way bet, which did not take into account the possibility of failure, led Turkish diplomacy into an impasse, which drove it to espouse even more extremist views instead of reassessing its calculations.
5. It has become clear that one of the biggest mistakes in Ankara’s policy failure toward Syria was due to a lack of foresight by Turkish foreign policy theorists, and their inability to correctly read the state of Syrian internal affairs and the country’s balance of power. Ankara also failed to properly take into consideration Syria’s regional position and role, as well as Russia and China’s foreign policy leanings, the battle to shape the balance of the new world order, and Syria’s importance in that battle. The strength of the regime’s position both internally and abroad thus slipped Turkish leaders’ minds.
6. As a result, risks materialized that Turkey did not expect; first among them being the rise of sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Alawites inside Turkey, the increase in military confrontations with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), in addition to the emergence of a new Kurdish dynamic in the north of Syria, which formed the basis for Turkish threats to militarily enter Syrian territory in order to neutralize the Kurdish menace.
7. One of the most earth-shattering results was the rapid disintegration of Davutoglu’s “Zero Problems” policy, which was adopted by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and barely lasted a few years. Turkey’s stance vis-à-vis Syria led to a deterioration of its relations with all neighboring countries, starting with Syria, Iraq, Iran, some Lebanese factions, and all the way to Russia.
8. The Syrian crisis revealed the presence of double standards within Turkey. Ankara subsequently explained its Zero Problems slogan as having to do with peoples and not regimes; yet this slogan was never raised in support of the Bahraini people’s revolt.
9. It has become evident that Turkey’s foreign policy aimed, through its desire to topple the Syrian regime, to kill several birds with one stone. The first aim was to transform Turkey into the preeminent player on the regional scene. Ankara believed that overthrowing the Syrian regime would pave the way toward weakening the Iraqi regime in preparation for it also being toppled, which would be followed by a strike against Hezbollah in Lebanon, after which the Iranian Islamic revolution would be more easily contained and the Iranian regional role greatly reduced. Davutoglu’s speech in front of the Turkish Parliament on Apr. 27, 2012, was very important to understanding Ankara’s desire to monopolize power in the region at the expense of all Arab partners.
The second aim behind toppling the Syrian regime was to pave the way toward the reestablishment of the Ottoman-Seljuk empire that Erdogan never stops talking about, and cannot deny because his speeches were documented in sight and sound on a large number of occasions.
10. Ankara committed an unforgivable sin when it painted itself as part of the Sunni axis in the region, thus negating all the slogans characterizing the Turkish political model as being secular and democratic. The ideological, ethnic and sectarian motives behind the Turkish role also came to light in its differentiation between factions of the Syrian opposition. It embraced the Islamic movements affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, while shunning secular and Kurdish factions inside and outside Syria.
11. The Syrian crisis also drove Turkey closer to NATO, giving the latter an opportunity to deploy its missile defense system and then the Patriot system on Turkish soil. Turkish officials began considering their country’s border to be an extension of the borders of other NATO countries. Turkey unprecedentedly began favoring its affiliation with NATO over any other consideration, including the fact that it is an Eastern, Muslim country. This, in itself, was an important and dangerous transformation that no other Turkish regime in history ever attained.
12. Turkey sacrificed all previous relationships with its neighbors and destroyed the trust upon which these neighboring countries relied to accept past Turkish policies of openness towards the Syrian crisis. Turkey thus took on the guise of a country that interfered in the internal affairs of others, by demanding the resignation of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and effectively participating in efforts to overthrow the Syrian regime.
The Zero Problems policy was therefore transformed into the policy of overthrowing any regime with which Turkey did not agree. This too was a dangerous development in the Turkish role, which, in the past, drove it to be contented with allying itself with the West and Israel, only to now become a party to the internal conflicts of all nations.
13. The Syrian regime’s survival will be deemed an abject failure of the policies espoused by the ruling Turkish Justice and Development Party. This is the reason for the latter’s unprecedented intensity in trying to prevent any compromise being reached with the regime and inciting against dialogue and for the continuation and intensification of military confrontations.
Despite that, the regime’s overthrow, if it did occur, would not be viewed as a victory for Turkey. For the matter goes beyond the survival of this or that regime to encompass the relationship and future of Turkey vis-à-vis the social, religious, sectarian, and ethnic components of society in the region. This relationship cannot be restored when one takes into account the events that transpired and the continued rule of the Justice and Development Party. The loss of confidence and the return of suspicion between Turkey and its immediate environs (as a result of the Syrian crisis), and between it and the outlying Arab world (Saudi, Emirati and other nations’ resentment for Turkey’s support to the Muslim Brotherhood regimes in Egypt and Tunisia) will form the biggest obstacle to Turkey recovering its natural place in the Orient.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/03/turkey-loss-syria.html#ixzz2NgJNxyRs
Why no US sanctions against France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UK for supporting FSA terrorism?
Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker
Modern Tokyo Times
The United States after the barbaric attack by mainly Saudi citizens on September 11 stated that they would adopt a policy aimed at crushing terrorism. If so, will France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UK face American sanctions for supporting the brutal terrorist policies of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)? This is a fair question because the FSA is behind countless terrorist attacks including killing politicians, targeting journalists, using car bombs to slaughter innocents and other vile deeds.
Individuals may or may not support the government of Syria; however, this isn’t the point. At no time in recent history was a terrorist organization like the FSA supported openly by so many governments. The United States is clearly involved in CIA covert acts against Syria and this is notable in Turkey because of the geopolitical reality. However, despite this the Obama administration is at pains to distance itself from al-Qaeda and other Islamist networks which are also causing carnage in Syria. This doesn’t mean that members in the Obama administration don’t welcome the Islamist angle at the moment but given the sensitivity over September 11, then actions must be based on being cunning and manipulating the media.
VIDEO EVIDENCE AGAINST THE FSA AND ISLAMIST NETWORKS – (WARNING – VERY GRAPHIC)
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are clearly supporting sedition and the knock on effect of this is sectarianism and terrorism. Likewise, the former leader of France and the new leader have openly sided with the FSA against the government of Syria. This is despite the vile acts of the patchwork of terrorists and mercenaries within the FSA. After all, the FSA have killed religious minorities, done car bombs, killed journalists, assassinated political ministers, beheaded individuals, killed Iraqi refugees in Damascus – and a whole array of evil deeds.
The United Kingdom appears to be following the path chosen by the Obama administration. This applies to condemning the Syria government and armed forces while remaining muted when the FSA is blamed for killing people. Also, just like America, it is clear that British covert operatives are utilizing the many links with regional nations. However, political leaders in London and Paris appear to want to intervene militarily on the side of terrorism but both nations want the full support of America before stepping over the direct interventionist line.
Media outlets continue to shame themselves by adopting a constant policy of incitement against Syria. Likewise, Human Rights Watch (HRW) appears to be the “political wing” of the FSA by constantly condemning the Syrian government while remaining muted about the vile deeds of the FSA. Indeed, by mentioning massacres from time to time by the FSA some media outlets and HRW are trying to cover their tracks but clearly media corporations and many human rights organizations are playing their part in inciting hatred.
Tony Cartalucci (Land Destroyer Report) comments that “It was recently pointed out that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) currently arming, funding, and commanding entire brigades of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) is designated an Al Qaeda affiliate by the United Nations pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011), in addition to being listed by both the US State Department and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf) as a foreign terrorist organization and a proscribed terrorist organization respectively.”
“This means that the United States, the UK, NATO, and the Gulf State despots of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are knowingly and willfully funding designated affiliates of Al Qaeda contrary not only to US and British anti-terror legislation, but contrary to UN resolutions as well. Western and Gulf State support of the FSA constitutes state sponsorship of terrorism. Should the UN fail to enforce its own resolutions, while playing host to further sanctions and considerations for military intervention against the Syrian government, it will have entirely resigned its legitimacy and authority as nothing more than a tool of Western corporate-financier interests.”
The above comment raises the already known fact that American ratlines to FSA terrorism is in “a very dark and deep danger zone.” It is difficult to image after September 11 that any American administration would side openly with international terrorism. However, the role of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and many others in covering up the crimes of the FSA while bridging international support for this vile terrorist organization, is not only sickening but it raises deeply disturbing issues.
After all, what is the point in offering “American soldiers to Islamists” in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively, if the same evil forces are then supported to topple a secular government in Syria? Are the deaths of thousands of American soldiers so cheap? It should be raising serious questions in America because now the same Islamists who were fighting American troops in Iraq are now being allowed to enter Syria courtesy of the friends of America in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Clearly the recent terrorist attack which killed many people during a funeral procession means little to political circles in Ankara, Doha, London, Paris, Riyadh and Washington. Therefore, the FSA is showing the world that democratic nations are openly siding with feudal monarchies in Qatar and Saudi Arabia in funding and supporting this brutal terrorist organization. It means that to the above political elites that killing minorities, beheading people who support the Syrian government, hanging individuals, car bombs, destroying Christian areas, inciting massacres against the Alawites, political assassination, killing journalists who support the Syrian government and a whole array of barbaric acts is not only being tolerated but it is being supported.
If the United States is serious about defeating the forces of terrorism then firstly this nation should be putting sanctions on France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. After this, then political elites in Washington involved in ratlines should be charged with spreading terrorism in Syria. Of course, this isn’t going to happen and clearly September 11 this year is an event which is going to be politicized by the same forces supporting terrorism, sectarianism and sedition against Syria.
The mainly Christian Karen forces in Myanmar have been fighting for decades against various governments of this nation. However, this organization isn’t supported openly because the “wrong religion” to elites in Riyadh and Washington. Also, they don’t go around beheading people and video-taping their crimes. This rebel movement isn’t brutal enough to be supported despite their cause being based on ethnic and religious persecution.
The madness of the FSA is that political elites in Washington, Paris, London, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha have all sunk to new lows and this says a lot given the past history of these respective nations. Therefore, it is currently open season against secular Syria and the various minorities of this nation whereby a rich civilization faces Talibanization and utter brutality. Media agencies and HRW have all jumped on the bandwagon and now they resemble the “FSA party machinery.” Moscow is disgusted that nations are supporting sectarianism, terrorism and sedition but while their words of rebuke can be heard the same terrorist ratlines keep on increasing.
In a world based on international law and “the genuine fight against terrorism” then America would firstly put its allies in the “political dock” and then enter elites within America in “the same dock.” However, in the world of reality it is clear that the FSA can behead people, hang loyalists, do car bombs, kill government politicians, invade major cities to spread more carnage, attack people at funerals, kill refugees, kill journalist, torture people, cleanse Christians and target anyone deemed to be an enemy. If this is the new world order then God help the next country which will be targeted by evil forces in Washington, London, Paris, Ankara, Doha and Riyadh.
By Al Arabiya
The Free Syrian Army (FSA) claimed Thursday that it had downed a Syrian military fighter jet in the northwestern province of Idlib.
In the video, which was exclusively obtained by Al Arabiya, a crowd of Syrian rebels shout “Allah Akbar” — “God is great” — as the airplane falls from the sky, billowing smoke.
Smoke swirls as the fighter jet, downed by the Free Syrian Army, descends in the northwestern city of Idlib. (Al Arabiya)
Two pilots can be seen in the video, descending in parachutes after ejecting from the jet.
The FSA also claimed on Thursday that it had destroyed 11 helicopters and a number of tanks around Tiftiaz military airport, in the northern city of Aleppo, where there has been heavy fighting between the resistance and troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.
The rebel forces on Wednesday started targeting the airport, which is considered to be one of the largest bases in the country for military helicopters.
The Syrian army has been bombarding the less heavily armed rebels with helicopters and jets as they fight for control of the country, inflicting large casualties.
On Monday, Syrian opposition fighters made headlines when they downed a helicopter in Damascus.
via Free Syrian Army claims downed fighter jet in Idlib.
Dr DeAnne Julius, Chairman, Chatham House, and former MPC memberAn unseemly turf battle broke out at the Mansion House last week over who should be in charge of spotting and squelching future threats to financial stability: the Bank of England or the Financial Services Authority. Neither the Bank nor the FSA covered itself with glory in the early stages of the current crisis. Both are secretive organizations with hierarchical decision-making. Such a culture works well for handling confidential information but it does not foster open debate or the early recognition of external change.
I propose that the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee be given the task of promoting medium-term financial stability. In addition to its current remit of targeting inflation by setting interest rates, it would need an additional instrument, outlined below. It would also need an adjusted membership and monthly process. But fundamentally it has the expertise and governance structures to take on this new role – and would have significant advantages over either the FSA or the Bank’s internal bureaucracy. Putting a re-shaped MPC at the centre of the tripartite arrangement for preventing future financial crises would also add cohesion and coherence to crisis resolution – led by the Treasury – should that need arise.
The MPC, with its independent external membership, its published minutes, its transparent votes and its good track record in controlling inflation is well suited to make judgments about the build-up of systemic risks in the economy. It already monitors household debt, asset price changes, financial market spreads and money and credit aggregates. These are important indicators of financial stability. In addition, the FSA could provide the MPC with aggregate data on financial institutions such as borrowing ratios and liquidity mismatch.
The membership of the MPC should be adjusted for the new task. The governor of the Bank should remain chairman but two of the four internal Bank members should be replaced with two FSA members, including either the FSA chairman or chief executive. And at least one of the four external MPC members should have financial market experience. External members might also need to be full time, rather than working three days a week, to handle the extra workload.
At every third monthly meeting, the MPC would give special attention to financial stability concerns – with pre-meeting briefings from FSA staff – and it would decide if a change were warranted in the target capital adequacy ratio of UK-regulated banks and other financial institutions. The lower bound of this ratio, the amount of capital that must be held, is set internationally by the Basel II agreement, but subject to that minimum the MPC would decide if it should be adjusted for UK institutions in accordance with our economic cycle. A change in the capital adequacy target announced by the MPC would become a regulatory requirement three months later, giving banks time to adjust. The aim would be for gradual movements in bank capital to provide a cushion that would be built up in good times and available in downturns, similar to the Spanish system.
During the adjustment period, the FSA staff would work with individual institutions to determine whether other changes in their leverage or funding profiles were also warranted. The FSA would continue to have sole responsibility for the regulation of financial institutions and products, such as mortgages and insurance. So, for example, the FSA could decide to impose maximum loan-to-value ratios on mortgages to complement a decision by the MPC to raise the aggregate capital adequacy ratio.
The Treasury is the third leg of the stool of financial stability. It would continue to send a non-voting representative to MPC meetings, thereby ensuring frequent and substantive tripartite communication. If, despite this new system of regular monitoring and action on capital requirements, a banking crisis should arise, then the Treasury would take the lead as crisis manager to convene meetings and decide what risk the taxpayer should bear. But for crisis prevention, a non-political MPC, with clear lines of responsibility, transparent procedures, and the best internal and external expertise available would be a major improvement over the current arrangements, where responsibility is muddled and false demarcation lines between monetary and financial stability have created dangerous gaps.
The Chatham House
Sir James Crosby
has dramatically quit as deputy chairman of the Financial Services Authority following revelations that he fired a whistleblower who warned of dangerous lending practices at HBOS.
Crosby, an ally of Gordon Brown, said today he was stepping down because he felt it was “the right course of action for the FSA”.
The resignation sparked a furious row in parliament, where David Cameron accused the prime minister of a “serious error of judgment” in appointing Crosby to the FSA and knighting him for services to the financial services industry.
Crosby’s shock departure came just a day after MPs heard damaging accusations that he had dismissed HBOS’s head of regulatory risk, Paul Moore, for raising concerns about the bank’s rapid growth.
Crosby said there was “no merit” in the accusations made by Moore. In a statement, Crosby insisted he was “genuinely independent of government”, and that he had no political connection or affiliation to the prime minister.
The allegations from Moore emerged yesterday as the Treasury select committee grilled four former bankers over their role in the financial crisis, including Crosby’s successor Andy Hornby.
Moore supplied a dossier to the committee in which he said he had been dismissed in 2005 after trying to warn HBOS’s board that its “over-eager sales team” were putting the company’s financial stability in jeopardy.
Moore welcomed Crosby’s decision to step down from the City watchdog.
“People who finally accept their responsibilities should be given credit. Once they have accepted their responsibilities they should be allowed to move on,” Moore told guardian.co.uk.
Brown said today it was right that Crosby stepped down from the FSA so that he could contest Moore’s allegations.
The prime minister defended his decision to appoint the former head of HBOS as an adviser, insisting that claims had been looked into in 2005 and were found “not to be substantiated”.
Brown added: “However, it is right that when serious allegations are made they are properly investigated.”
David Cameron attacked Brown over his links to Crosby, who recently conducted a major review of UK mortgage lending. “[He was] knighted by the prime minister for his services, he relied on him for advice, he was going to sort out the mortgage market …”
Cameron said the 2005 investigation into Moore’s claims was carried out before HBOS “went bust”, and asked whether Crosby had now been dropped as a government adviser.
Brown said the former bank chief had completed the two reports he had been asked to undertake and so was no longer an economic adviser. He accused Cameron of focusing on trivial issues rather than wider economic problems.
The Conservative leader retorted: “Why can’t the prime minister admit for once he made an error of judgment? James Crosby had the decency to resign, even the bankers have apologised, why can’t the prime minister admit he was wrong to appoint him in the first place?”
Crosby led the merger of Halifax with Bank of Scotland, transforming the building society into a major player on the high street.
MPs heard yesterday that HBOS’s reliance on wholesale borrowing to underpin its loans was its undoing, when the credit crunch left it unable to access the finance it needed.
Guardian
