Saturday, June 29, 2013


Crisis in Turkey
S P SETH
When Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan went on a foreign trip to visit three North African countries in the midst of serious anti-government protests, it conjured an image of Nero fiddling when Rome was burning. Erdogan, of course, is nowhere like Nero. He prides himself as being a democratically elected leader with strong grassroots support. And until the protests in Istanbul erupted, starting late May, over turning the city’s major public park, Gezi Park, into a replica of Ottoman-era military barracks and a mall, he probably himself was not aware that he was so disliked by many urban residents in Istanbul and many other cities for his authoritarian style. The popular protests in Taksim Park, resonant of Tahrir Square in Cairo, spread to over 60 Turkish cities. In other words, what started as a small protest in Istanbul over a local matter became the trigger for a much large movement with a smorgasbord of grievances against a government that tended to believe that it didn’t need to explain its decisions and actions to the people; with Erdogan behaving like a modern Sultan working to recreate architecturally (and sometimes regionally) the old glory of the Ottoman empire.
And that image seemed reinforced on his return when he rebuked his “children” for their wayward and irresponsible behaviour. Erdogan told them that he had no plan to change his plans for converting the park into a historical-cultural-commercial project. As one protester reportedly said, with tongue-in-cheek, “Papa’s coming home and when he sees what we have been up to he’s going to be really angry.” And that he was, blaming the countrywide protests on terrorists, vandals, looters and foreigners. There have been many arrests; with even high school students detained being naughty spreading malicious rumors on social media sites. There have been some fatalities and many injured from the indiscriminate use of tears gas and water cannons by the police.
Undoubtedly, Turkey has become an economic success story, with Erdogen as the country’s Prime Minister in the last decade. And he has done it by opening up the economy. Ironically, this success story has created a plethora of problems. For instance, the rapid expansion of Turkey’s middle class has created a class of citizens critical of Erdogan’s patriarchical style of doing things. They are educated and they have their opinions and preferences and they want to be consulted and heard. And when Erdogan decided that the Gezi Park will be replaced with a replica of the Ottoman era, it was news to them and an unpleasant one about a landmark of their Istanbul city which, in some ways, was a reference point for many of them growing up and living there. Gezi Park and Taksim Square are part of the city’s personality and hence part of the environment in more than one sense.
From a local issue relating to Istanbul, the protest has gone national and the regime is still refusing to come to terms with the fact that they have a serious problem confronting them. Which, in essence, is that many people are not happy with the way Prime Minister Erdogan and his government are steering the country.  And again and again, on issue after issue, there is a sense that Erdogan is arrogant with a big ego, with almost zero tolerance for opinions at variance with him. Even where he has no expertise, he behaves like he knows best without any reference to the people whose lives will be affected, whether it is the future of the park in Istanbul or even people’s intimate lives. For instance, he has called on Turkish families to have at least three children. His creeping program of Islamization in a society with a strong streak of secularism is not liked by many people. His government is increasingly putting curbs on drinking as it is against Islam. Indeed, there is a concerted effort to reengineer society to conform to Islamic precepts and traditions. Of course, there is nothing wrong with it as long as this is what people want. But Turkey is not a traditional Islamic society. It is culturally pluralistic with a strong secular streak on which modern Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, sought to model the country after the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WW1.
In the last over ten years, with three election wins behind him, Erdogan and his AKP party fundamentally changed Turkey in some positive ways. Its economic success is one such change.  Another is the civilian control of the Turkish army, with its generals given to staging coups in the past to maintain Ataturk’s secularism. Under the generals, secularism become a rigid belief system of sorts to proscribe any kind of external symbol of Islamic faith, like wearing veil by women. Under Erdogan, Islamic symbols and practices are encouraged and propagated.
But he seems to be making the same mistakes that the country’s generals did, with secularism, by propagating and promoting Islam virtually as state ideology. And many of his opponents of all hues and convictions include a fair proportion of those who do not like the country’s reversion to officially approved Islam. At the same time, his rule has also “nurtured a pious capitalist class” as Tim Arango wrote in the New York Times, reporting from Istanbul, “whose members have moved in large numbers from rural Anatolia to cities like Istanbul, deepening class divisions.” Therefore, the secular/religious divide has been further reinforced with class divisions as well as the widening urban-rural chasm.
There is no sign as yet that the political hold of Prime Minister Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) is in danger. And this is for two reasons. First, his rural constituency of conservative and faith-based voters, are still solidly behind him. Second, the country has made impressive economic strides in the last decade under AKP’s rule and many people would be loathe to let that be jeopardized with no real political alternative to Erdogan’s rule. The present movement against the government is a spontaneous protest ignited by a wide variety of grievances with virtually no organized political organization seeking to replace it. Many protesters are angry that the government is seeking to erase the historical memory of the Ataturk’s secular republic by creating Ottoman period replicas, as in Gezi Park, and to create an illusion of continuity between the Ottoman period and the present regime.
And to pursue its conservative agenda, the regime is prepared to crush dissent and throw journalists and other critics of the government into jail. Under the Erdogan regime, Turkey is said to have more journalists in prisons than any other country in the world. It is this intolerance and refusal to listen to people that has spawned the protests against the government. In other words, Prime Minister Erdogan is not ready to be a consensus leader for the whole country.  It is his way or the highway. And therein lies the danger.

Friday, June 14, 2013


US and Middle East
S P SETH
Since his re-election, the Obama administration has sought to reactivate its Middle East diplomacy to help create some measure of stability and progress in this highly volatile region. And the focus is on three aspects. The first is to create momentum for an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue that might eventually lead to a two-state solution. The second US initiative is intended to restore Turkish-Israeli amity, so badly sundered with the killing in 2010 of nine Turkish peace activists in an Israeli commando raid on a Turkish vessel, carrying relief supplies for the beleaguered Gaza strip under Israeli blockade. And the third, the most important and crucial at the present time, is the worsening Syrian crisis.
Regarding the first, President Obama’s recent Israeli visit, his first official trip to that country, was intended more to sooth relations with the Netanyahu government. The personal chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu didn’t work at all through the former’s first term, and Obama was keen to rekindle the traditional coziness between the two countries. During his visit, he re-emphasized US commitment to Israel’s security, and the two leaders were shown to be pretty much at ease with each other.  Since then, John Kerry, Obama’s new Secretary of State, has been engaged in shuttle diplomacy to push talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
It is important to note that this new push incorporates Israeli demand for talks without preconditions. Which means that Israel wouldn’t be required to halt settlement activities in the occupied territory, that has been and still is Palestinian Authority’s demand for resumption of peace talks with Israel. The US has also prevailed on Arab States to modify an earlier initiative requiring Israel to commit to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine in return for its recognition by all Arab League states. Under the reported new modified formula, the Arab League might agree to mutual land swaps between Israel and Palestine to facilitate an eventual two-state solution. It would mean that Israel might get to retain much of its settlements, with token transfer of some land to Palestine. It would be hard to imagine the PA falling for this, considering the likely popular backlash from its people.
In the case of Turkey, ever since Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister, the government has become supportive of the Palestinian cause. This is particularly noted in its opposition of the inhumane Israeli policy of blockading Gaza and reducing the territory’s about 1.7 million people to a bare existence. Which has created some criticism of Israeli policy internationally, leading in 2009 to the dispatch of a peace flotilla headed towards Gaza carrying supplies for its beleaguered residents. This also included a Turkish vessel. Israel regarded this as a provocative act designed to break its blockade of Gaza, leading its commandos to raid the Turkish vessel killing 9 Turkish peace activists.
Turkey demanded an apology, which Israel refused. During his recent visit to Israel, President Obama persuaded Netanyahu to apologize, which he did in a phone call to the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan. Though this has broken the ice between the two countries, the sticky issue of compensation for the 9 Turks killed, as well as the question of Israeli blockade of Gaza, remains to be sorted out. The US is keen on resolving the strained Turkish-Israeli relations, both being its close allies. Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and Israel reckons itself as US’ advanced guard in the Middle East. And both are currently involved directly or indirectly in the Syrian crisis, with Turkey helping the Syrian rebels to overthrow the Bashar regime.
That brings us to Syria, where the situation is getting ever more complicated and dangerous by the day. The Lebanese Shia group has openly joined the battle on behalf of the Assad regime.  According its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, “ It is our battle and we are up to it.”  With the Hezbollah fighting for Bashar’s cause, the Syrian regime has been able to evict the rebels from the strategically important town of Quasayr on the Syrian-Lebanese border. That brings the Syrian conflict right into Lebanon. Its northern city of Tripoli was already experiencing sectarian Sunni-Shia tit-for-tat, which now is further heightened.  A few rockets have also hit the Hezbollah-dominated areas in Lebanon.
In the meantime, the US-Russian initiative to convene an international conference in Geneva this month to find a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis is in trouble. The conference might be postponed for next month, if it were to eventuate at all in the near future. The European Union’s lifting of the arms embargo on weapons supplies to the rebels created another complication, drawing criticism from Russia. At the same time, Russia’s decision to fulfill, what it calls, contractual obligations to continue supplying arms to the Assad regime, has been condemned by the US and its allies, particularly the supply of sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems. And has brought a strong response from Israel, threatening to target any such weapon systems. Which, in turn, has drawn a strong counter-response from Bashar al-Assad in an interview with Hezbollah TV, threatening to take the battle into Israel. In other words, the situation in Syria is taking a much more sinister form of a regional conflagration.
Lately, the regime has gained an upper hand on the battlefield, with the help of the Hezbollah, having evicted the rebels from Qusayr, where they had been entrenched for nearly one year. Which has raised its morale, raising hopes of regaining more territory, under rebel control, and re-establishing the Assad regime’s writ all over the country.
Things might change, though, if the US were to step in directly on the rebels’ behalf, as President Obama is under great pressure internally and externally. This will, of course, further widen the Syrian crisis with international ramifications. So far, President Obama has resisted, being reluctant to enter another Middle Eastern war when its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so disastrous. He told a press conference last year, “The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military--- that hasn’t been true in the past, and it won’t be true now.”
And he revealed his political and moral dilemma in an interview this year with The New Republic when he said, “How do I weigh tens of thousands who‘ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo.” At a more practical level, though, there is such a thing as limits on US power that is already overstretched. In any case, we will soon find out if Obama is able to resolve his dilemma.
Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.
Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au