Iraq’s continuing nightmare

S P SETH

The recently launched military offensive to retake Fallujah from IS has reportedly made considerable progress, though it is not clear if IS has made a tactical retreat to rethink their entire strategy. If it is the latter, they might concentrate more on guerilla operations, to include suicide bombings and an array of ‘lone wolf’ and other small operations targeting high impact public places in the US and Europe.  The operation to retake Fallujah was a multi-pronged offensive combining Iraqi forces and Iranian militias, with considerable help from US aerial attack on IS positions. The US has never officially approved Iranian militia involvement but unofficially it is tolerated as IS has come to be virtually regarded as a common enemy. While winning back territory from IS is important, what is even important is to create a sense of security and stability among the civilian population. And that is the big question because civilians have become the cannon fodder in some ways in this murderous civil war.

While the IS is excels in brutality, Iraq’s Shia government and its militia allies are prone to go on rampage against Sunni population and Fallujah is predominantly Sunni. The practice generally is to separate the young male Sunni population and send them to detention centres for interrogation, generally a euphemism for torture and even execution where considered necessary for ‘security’ reasons.    Iraq has a fundamental problem of a deep-rooted sectarian divide, with each side regarding the other as untrustworthy. Worst still, they are not the real Muslims as seen from either side’s prism. Now that the Shias hold power, the minority Sunni population of the country is at the receiving end as a pay back of sorts for the brutality of Saddam’s Hussein’s period when Shias were easy game for his regime.

The foundation for instability in the Middle East dates back to the collapse of the Ottoman rule when the British and French colonialists helped themselves to the spoils by dividing much of the Middle East between them. In the process, they created territorial entities and kingdoms of incompatible parts that laid the foundation for subsequent trouble that is still with us. And when they finally decided to withdraw—but still keen to pull the strings--- they left behind territorial and constitutional arrangements that would be unworkable even at the best of times. No wonder, Middle East is such a mess.

If this wasn’t chaotic enough, the US and its western allies further inflamed the situation by introducing the external phenomena of an Israeli state, which become a flamethrower in an already incendiary situation. And when the Shah of Iran, a US ally, was overthrown in 1979 and replaced by a clerical regime thus turning the US and Iran into bitter enemies, Washington encouraged Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Iran’s regional rival and enemy, to attack Iran thus starting a bloody 8-year war in the eighties that was fought to a stalemate, but with hundreds of thousands of Iranian casualties.

The Iraq-Iran war bankrupted Saddam Hussein’s treasury owing lots of money to some of the Gulf monarchies, which had bankrolled his operations. That led him to attack Kuwait, hoping that its oil riches would solve all his financial problems and also make him into a determining force in the Middle East. And because of his virtual alliance with the US during his war with Iran, he didn’t expect the US to get so worked up over his Kuwait adventure as to start the first Gulf War. But with their dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the US wasn’t going to tolerate a regional upstart, like Saddam Hussein, to upset their carefully laid down strategic plans over many years. The first Gulf War put Saddam Hussein back in his box, but President Bush senior wasn’t yet decided about overthrowing him and replacing him with some one more compliant. At the time, the US hadn’t thought through what might come after Saddam Hussein, as there were too many imponderables.

The US had encouraged the Shias to rise but when they did and Saddam turned on them with great ferocity, the US administration declared a no-fly zone to warn off Saddam. To punish him for his Kuwait adventure, an already vanquished Iraq was subjected to a severe international sanctions regime, which hit badly its vulnerable people, like children and the old folks. The estimates of children’s deaths from lack of essential medicines and the like went as high as half-a-million. The conservative cabal around George W. Bush when he became president, some of whom had been his father’s close advisers, weren’t happy that Bush senior had left half-finished the Iraq business by leaving Saddam in the saddle even though in a very weakened position. They had plans to finish that job, now that they were ruling the roost with President Bush dependent on them to run the administration.

And they got their opportunity when September 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred and Saddam Hussein was said to have al Qaeda connections. He was also accused of running a clandestine nuclear weapons program as well as working on missile launchers---his so-called weapons of mass destruction. Even though there was no confirmation by the relevant international nuclear regulatory agency of any such nuclear program, the Bush administration decided to go ahead with plans to invade Iraq and to get rid of Saddam. Which they did and Saddam was hanged, with his state administration demolished but with no alternative blueprint or structure to run the country. The result was total chaos and out of this chaos emerged the Iraqi version of al Qaeda.

In other words, in a country where there was no al Qaeda to start with as Saddam would never have tolerated another power centre or insurgency movement, this one grew up in the chaos of the aftermath of his overthrow. Which eventually was suppressed by the American forces with the collaboration of the Sunni tribal chiefs who had turned on the al Qaeda in Iraq, as they seemed to become a law unto themselves treading on the Sunni traditional power structures. But after the Americans withdrew from Iraq and handed over the country to the incoming Shia regime, the new regime fractured the fragile unity forged by the US forces with the Sunni tribal allies by starting an orgy of revenge against the country’s Sunnis, which created the conditions for the emergence of a more brutal and extreme version of al Qaeda in the rise of IS that went on to carve out the so-called caliphate out of a large chunk of captured Iraqi and Syrian territory.

Its depredations and brutality have brought the US and its allies back into Iraq, this time deploying more of their air power and less of their ground forces, mostly in advisory roles. And they are now engaged, with Iraqi army and its associated militias, to push back IS. Which seems to be making progress as seen in Fallujah and elsewhere with the overwhelming use of American air power.

But pushing back IS here and there, welcome as it is, won’t solve the problem unless Iraq has a nationally cohesive state with the joint stake of its people. Moreover, that state would need to provide basic security to its people to live and plan their lives without fear of persecution and torture. Without this, an al Qaeda or IS or some variant of it, will tend to emerge.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times.

Troubled times ahead for Turkey

S P SETH

It is a sign of troubled times ahead when the leader of a country starts seeing his country in his own image. And that is where Turkey is now with its President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on a course to subvert the country’s system and institutions because, he believes, that they are somehow constraining his power to act as he sees fit to govern the country. Erdogan wants to be the country’s executive president, which, in effect, he already is because he has unfettered control of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Lately, he was unhappy with his prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu as he, at times, seemed to have a different take on some policy issues, and was a bit more in the limelight to Erdogan’s liking, as in the case of Turkey’s deal with EU on the question of refugees. Davutoglu was also not keen on Erdogan usurping all power, thus reducing his prime minister and parliament to a titular role. Davutoglu, therefore, had to go which happened duly as he resigned as prime minister, thus making for a more docile and loyal candidate, Binali Yildirim, transport minister till recently, that Erdogan could tolerate and live with. The new prime minister will also work with greater enthusiasm for an executive presidency.

At the same time as he is seeking to enshrine himself as the country’s executive president, Erdogan has declared an all out war on the country’s Kurdish population in southeast of the country. Kurds are estimated to make up 15 to 20 per cent of the country’s population. In the name of fighting the militant and separatist PKK, almost all the country’s Kurds have become real or potential PKK allies. In other words, any political opening with its Kurdish population has been abandoned in favour of ruthless and relentless security operations against the country’s Kurdish population. As part of this process, the predominantly Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP), which has representation in the parliament, might have its MPs stripped of parliamentary immunity for their alleged association/involvement with PKK.

This will have two important consequences. First: it will be the end of an earlier  tentative experiment by the Erdogan government to work out political accommodation with the country’s sizeable Kurdish population. If and when these Kurdish members of parliament are stripped of immunity and virtually declared terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, the country’s Kurds will be deprived of any political outlet to peacefully vent their grievances and frustrations and tend to be cast as an extension of the PKK network. That might be Erdogan’s strategy to cast them all as anti-national and PKK sympathizers to make security operations against them look valid, at least in the eyes of the country’s majority population. Second: as Kurdish HDP members lose their parliamentary immunity and liable to lose their seats, this should help the ruling AKP to amend the constitution in favour of executive presidency for the country. In any case, if new parliamentary elections are held soon, the security scare in the country from Kurdish ‘insurgency’ should help the ruling AKP to gain the mandatory parliamentary majority to amend the constitution that will make Erdogan the country’s executive president.

While Kurds remain his primary targets, Erdogan is also going after his critics among the mainstream Turkish population. When his erstwhile allies in the Hizmet movement, a quasi-religious and educational movement founded by Fethhullah Gulen, an old and ailing cleric now living in the US, exposed corruption involving government ministers and going as far up as Erdogan’s family, he started a purge of the judiciary, police and bureaucracy said to be manned by Hizmet supporters. So much so that the Gulen-inspired movement  came to be regarded as a threat to national security. And the axe has also fallen on a large chunk of the media critical of President Erdogan by being banned or simply taken over, and the journalists put behind bars. Elsewhere, anyone found  criticizing Erdogan might find himself/herself in jail for insulting the President. There are already many people behind bars for this reason. In other words, Erdogan is Turkey and anyone found to be lacking in respect and loyalty to him is a traitor to the country and should not expect any mercy.

This dangerously ridiculous situation of silencing Erdogan’s critics now has even spread to other countries. Erdogan believes that Turkey’s agreement with the EU to stem the tide of Middle Eastern refugees into Europe has given him an important leverage. Turkey is receiving billions dollars for it, possibly even qualifying for EU membership at some point, as well as visa free travel for Turkish citizens into Europe. And Erdogan intends to use this leverage to stifle any attempt to caricature his image in European media. A satirical sexual imaging of him by a German comic, who might face court under some archaic German law, particularly incensed him. But the satirist in question now has the backing of an important German media conglomerate, which has reproduced the ‘offensive’ language thus making it also liable under the same archaic law. Interestingly though, Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London, has also satirized President Erdogan in a poem about his sexuality, but it might be difficult to charge him under British law.

Erdogan apparently thinks that his writ should also run outside Turkey. And with his new perceived leverage from the deal with EU over refugees, he is trying to enforce it. But he might be overrating his power, because Europe, or for that matter, rest of the world, doesn’t share his delusions of grandeur. In any case, the deal with the EU is facing problems as it goes through. Erdogan is in a hurry to get all that is promised under the deal within a short period, which Europe might not be able to deliver at his whim and within the stipulated time. And at home too, his absolutism will, at some point of time, create a counter force of popular reaction and protest that might throw Turkey into chaos. Which will further complicate and worsen an already explosive situation created by the multiple nature of conflict in Iraq and Syria, leading to even more refugees heading to Europe.

But Erdogan is determined to have his own way, as reported in a quote when he was serving as mayor of Istanbul in the 1990s. For him, democracy and its attendant institutions are not sacrosanct. As he said, “Democracy is like a tram—you ride it until you drive at your destination, then you step off.” He certainly is saying true to his old dictum.  

Note: This article first appeared in the Dily Times.  

Troubled times ahead for Turkey

S P SETH

It is a sign of troubled times ahead when the leader of a country starts seeing his country in his own image. And that is where Turkey is now with its President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on a course to subvert the country’s system and institutions because, he believes, that they are somehow constraining his power to act as he sees fit to govern the country. Erdogan wants to be the country’s executive president, which, in effect, he already is because he has unfettered control of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Lately, he was unhappy with his prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu as he, at times, seemed to have a different take on some policy issues, and was a bit more in the limelight to Erdogan’s liking, as in the case of Turkey’s deal with EU on the question of refugees. Davutoglu was also not keen on Erdogan usurping all power, thus reducing his prime minister and parliament to a titular role. Davutoglu, therefore, had to go which happened duly as he resigned as prime minister, thus making for a more docile and loyal candidate, Binali Yildirim, transport minister till recently, that Erdogan could tolerate and live with. The new prime minister will also work with greater enthusiasm for an executive presidency.

At the same time as he is seeking to enshrine himself as the country’s executive president, Erdogan has declared an all out war on the country’s Kurdish population in southeast of the country. Kurds are estimated to make up 15 to 20 per cent of the country’s population. In the name of fighting the militant and separatist PKK, almost all the country’s Kurds have become real or potential PKK allies. In other words, any political opening with its Kurdish population has been abandoned in favour of ruthless and relentless security operations against the country’s Kurdish population. As part of this process, the predominantly Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP), which has representation in the parliament, might have its MPs stripped of parliamentary immunity for their alleged association/involvement with PKK.

This will have two important consequences. First: it will be the end of an earlier  tentative experiment by the Erdogan government to work out political accommodation with the country’s sizeable Kurdish population. If and when these Kurdish members of parliament are stripped of immunity and virtually declared terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, the country’s Kurds will be deprived of any political outlet to peacefully vent their grievances and frustrations and tend to be cast as an extension of the PKK network. That might be Erdogan’s strategy to cast them all as anti-national and PKK sympathizers to make security operations against them look valid, at least in the eyes of the country’s majority population. Second: as Kurdish HDP members lose their parliamentary immunity and liable to lose their seats, this should help the ruling AKP to amend the constitution in favour of executive presidency for the country. In any case, if new parliamentary elections are held soon, the security scare in the country from Kurdish ‘insurgency’ should help the ruling AKP to gain the mandatory parliamentary majority to amend the constitution that will make Erdogan the country’s executive president.

While Kurds remain his primary targets, Erdogan is also going after his critics among the mainstream Turkish population. When his erstwhile allies in the Hizmet movement, a quasi-religious and educational movement founded by Fethhullah Gulen, an old and ailing cleric now living in the US, exposed corruption involving government ministers and going as far up as Erdogan’s family, he started a purge of the judiciary, police and bureaucracy said to be manned by Hizmet supporters. So much so that the Gulen-inspired movement  came to be regarded as a threat to national security. And the axe has also fallen on a large chunk of the media critical of President Erdogan by being banned or simply taken over, and the journalists put behind bars. Elsewhere, anyone found  criticizing Erdogan might find himself/herself in jail for insulting the President. There are already many people behind bars for this reason. In other words, Erdogan is Turkey and anyone found to be lacking in respect and loyalty to him is a traitor to the country and should not expect any mercy.

This dangerously ridiculous situation of silencing Erdogan’s critics now has even spread to other countries. Erdogan believes that Turkey’s agreement with the EU to stem the tide of Middle Eastern refugees into Europe has given him an important leverage. Turkey is receiving billions dollars for it, possibly even qualifying for EU membership at some point, as well as visa free travel for Turkish citizens into Europe. And Erdogan intends to use this leverage to stifle any attempt to caricature his image in European media. A satirical sexual imaging of him by a German comic, who might face court under some archaic German law, particularly incensed him. But the satirist in question now has the backing of an important German media conglomerate, which has reproduced the ‘offensive’ language thus making it also liable under the same archaic law. Interestingly though, Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London, has also satirized President Erdogan in a poem about his sexuality, but it might be difficult to charge him under British law.

Erdogan apparently thinks that his writ should also run outside Turkey. And with his new perceived leverage from the deal with EU over refugees, he is trying to enforce it. But he might be overrating his power, because Europe, or for that matter, rest of the world, doesn’t share his delusions of grandeur. In any case, the deal with the EU is facing problems as it goes through. Erdogan is in a hurry to get all that is promised under the deal within a short period, which Europe might not be able to deliver at his whim and within the stipulated time. And at home too, his absolutism will, at some point of time, create a counter force of popular reaction and protest that might throw Turkey into chaos. Which will further complicate and worsen an already explosive situation created by the multiple nature of conflict in Iraq and Syria, leading to even more refugees heading to Europe.

But Erdogan is determined to have his own way, as reported in a quote when he was serving as mayor of Istanbul in the 1990s. For him, democracy and its attendant institutions are not sacrosanct. As he said, “Democracy is like a tram—you ride it until you drive at your destination, then you step off.” He certainly is saying true to his old dictum.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.   

US and Saudi Arabia: A souring relationship

S P SETH

If President Obama’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia was an exercise in fence mending, it didn’t look like it achieved much. It is so because for some time now---indeed under Obama--- the US has been looking to broaden its policy in the Middle East. And Obama has been impressing on its crucial Middle Eastern ally, Saudi Arabia, to explore diplomatic avenues that might help stabilize the region. And as part of this process, an opening with Iran might not be a bad idea. Such advice from the US, directly or indirectly, is anathema to the Saudi kingdom. They consider Iran as their eternal enemy trying to destabilize the region.  Riyadh considers itself the centre around which everything should revolve.

The Middle East was, by and large, a predictable region until rocked by the Arab Spring early in the decade. And the US did nothing to save Egypt’s dictator, Hosni Mubarak, despite all his years of loyal service to the US to maintain and perpetuate an oppressive regional status quo to underpin US’ strategic interests. This was a chilling warning to the Saudi monarchy which, meant in effect, that what happened to Hosni Mubarak could as well happen to them if the Arab Spring got out of control as it looked like at one time. Fortunately for the Saudis, the Arab Spring got derailed and a new military coup in Egypt, under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, virtually brought back the old order reminiscent of the ‘good’ old days based largely on maintaining status quo. Under Sisi, relations between Saudi Arabia and Egypt are probably even closer, considering that Sisi has made a gift of two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia, which created some commotion in Egypt. Not surprising considering that Saudi Arabia is financially underpinning Sisi’s political order, and Sisi’s gesture might be his way of repaying the debt.

But the US, Saudi Arabia’s trusted ally, doesn’t appear as mindful of its strategic centrality in the Middle East as it once was. Indeed, sometimes, it would seem to the Saudis that the US was indeed courting Iran at their expense. Knowing that how much Riyadh was opposed to any nuclear deal with Iran, the US nevertheless went ahead and lifted wide-ranging sanctions on Iran to virtually make it into a normal state from its long-standing pariah status. The Saudis weren’t amused but they had to gulp it in the absence of any viable security alternatives.

And in the case of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime, considered an Iranian proxy, Riyadh was quite confident that Washington would get rid of it as they had, at one time, crossed Obama’s ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons on their people. But Obama still didn’t want to commit necessary military force to do this job. Riyadh is not interested in knowing Obama’s reasoning, however rational it might be from the US viewpoint. The point was that the Obama administration was not prepared to do what suited the Saudis. That has created a wedge, and the Saudis are finding it hard to adjust to the new realities of the situation, and tend to blame it on Obama.

Worse still, there is even serious talk of making Saudi Arabia accountable for its real/alleged links with the 9/11 terrorists, with 15 of 19 hijackers reportedly  being Saudi citizens. Though the 9/11 Commission report exonerated the Saudis of any link, a 28-page excerpt of the voluminous 858-page report was suppressed allegedly to save Riyadh from embarrassment. However, Obama has indicated that he would veto any such legislation if passed by the Congress. But the possibility of court action in the US is quite worrying from the Saudi viewpoint.  On a broader level, the US and Saudi Arabia are still close strategic partners. Under the Obama administration, for instance, the US reportedly sold close to  $100 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, which is more than any of his predecessors.

But it is a changing relationship, and increasingly lacking conviction, based only on lack of viable options, especially on the Saudi side. Riyadh is rattled at all the revived talk and prospective legislation to hold it accountable for its acts of omission and commission, at whatever level, leading to the 9/11 terror attacks. So much so that they have expressed their severe displeasure by threatening to pull out hundreds of billions of dollars from the US economy. All this talk is indicative of suppressed rage and a sense of desperation. Otherwise, such action will probably hurt Saudi Arabia more than the US by seriously devaluing Saudi assets. Another recent thought bubble is this talk of diversifying Saudi economy by reducing its addiction to oil revenue.

Saudis are so annoyed with President Barack Obama that their displeasure was visibly on display when King Salman didn’t turn up to receive him at the airport during his recent visit, even though he did receive his fellow monarchs attending the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting. It must be galling for the Saudi and other Gulf monarchies to be described by Obama reportedly, as “free riders” with no “skin in the game.”

The US President is said to complain that Saudi policies fuel anti-US terror and contribute to chaos in the region. The brutal bombing of Yemen by the Saudis is an example of growing chaos in the region, though the Obama administration cannot wash its hands of this as it is American intelligence and weapons that are doing the job for the Saudis. But the Saudi contribution to spreading the extremist ideology is noticeable from the vast sums they have spent (estimated to be at least 70 billion dollars), and continue to spend, on spreading the Wahhabi brand of Islam, which largely forms the ideological foundation of all the terror groups, including IS. And when these terrorist groups start creating chaos and mayhem, the Saudis start playing favourites. And Riyadh expects the US to bet on their favourites and use its massive military power, including ground troops, to produce the desired results even though the same strategy hasn’t worked in the Afghan and Iraq wars. That would explain Obama’s reference to the Saudis as “free riders” with no “skin in the game”, as they have avoided putting troops on the ground.

The Saudis would hope that this hiccup in their relationship with the US is an Obama phenomenon and they will simply wait him out for six months or so of his remaining term. But I suspect it is not as simple as that.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.