Against a backdrop of strained diplomatic ties and an increasingly fraught relationship both personal and country-wise, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to Washington to iron out a long list of disagreements with President Donald Trump and his administration. The controversial summit happened despite calls by many American politicians and activists advising President Trump to call off Erdogan’s visit. This comes after Ankara’s ongoing military operation against the Kurds in northeastern Syria was launched a few weeks ago, targeting YPJ/SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), Washington’s main Kurdish ally in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

Strained ties, breakthrough or breakdown?

Turkish-American military and security ties took a nosedive this year after Turkey took delivery of a Russian-made S-400 sophisticated air defence missile system in July. Ankara’s intransigent stance over the issue despite strong warnings from the US and other NATO nations not to go ahead with the deal, which breached NATO rules and ethics, instigated calls among some members of the Alliance to kick Turkey out of NATO altogether. Other controversial topics present at the table were Turkish unilateral oil and gas explorations in the Mediterranean off the coast of Cyprus, and Ankara’s threat to deport ISIS detainees – in Kurdish-controlled areas in Syria where the Turkish military operation “Peace Spring” is underway – to their EU countries of nationality.

Trump’s decision to pull out US troops from much of northeast Syria and leave his Kurdish allies in the open to fend off against an overwhelming Turkish onslaught has drawn sharp criticism from both Democrats and Republican politicians alike. Erdogan’s visit to Washington DC, comes fresh on the heels of yet another crisis phase in an increasingly fraught relationship. Trump’s all-too-familiar response was to throw a 100 billion US dollar worth of trade deal with Erdogan in an attempt to dampen mounting US pressure and criticism over the Turkish President’s visit. Trump himself has threatened to deport ISIS prisoners and land them at EU nations’ doorstep unless the Europeans pledged decent financial support to SDF who is guarding some 10,000 ISIS detainees in northern Syria, mainly at Al-Hole camp. He further struck a belligerent tone on Twitter, threatening to “obliterate” Turkey’s economy if Ankara did anything “off-limits” to the Kurdish fighters.

Trump’s harsh tweets vs generous treats

Trump seems to have softened up his harsh rhetoric as Erdogan and his wife Emine arrived at the White House, presenting his Turkish guest with a multi-billion trade deal to circumnavigate any potential punitive sanctions against Ankara. Such a move is bound to erode Trump’s popularity among American voters before the next presidential elections in the USA, particularly after Erdogan declared that he had handed back a ‘tough guy’ letter to Trump in response to the latter’s harshly-worded letter delivered by Vice President Mike Pence to Erdogan in Ankara 9 October before Turkey launched its military operation against allied Kurdish forces in Syria.

The two leaders appeared at odds, with Erdogan after his meeting with Trump Wednesday branding Kurdish forces allied with Washington as ‘terrorists’ and bringing up the extradition issue of Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen, who lives in the USA, blaming him for the failed 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. With Washington’s continued refusal to extradite Gulen, and Ankara’s criticism of Trump’s invitation to Washington of SDF Chief Mazloum Abdi, considered a “terrorist” by Turkey, the two sides appeared as at loggerheads as ever, despite what some call a “special relationship” between Erdogan and Trump that has seen the White House tread lightly with punitive measures urged by US lawmakers and allies.

What will Syrian Kurds gain now?

The Turkish army and its so-called Syrian National Army militia which appeared to include some former ISIS terrorists in recently released footage, have been accused of war crimes against Kurdish civilians and fighters alike, as they conducted sweeping violence across northern Syria, carried out kidnapping and summary executions and even ISIS-style beheading  and mutilation operations in brutal revenge against the Kurds who rushed to the Russians and the Assad government in Damascus for protection.

The vast majority of Syrian Kurds feel betrayed and abandoned by the US administration, and that following the withdrawal of US troops, Turkey was given the green light by Trump to advance across its southern border on October 9 to establish a safe zone, free of Kurdish YPG fighters- viewed by Turkey as an offshoot of the armed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), considered by Ankara and many Western countries as a “terrorist” organisation – whose campaign for autonomy has claimed the lives of  tens of thousands of people over the past four decades or so. It is not utterly clear what the Syrian Kurds will gain, if anything, from this US-Turkish summit at the White House, especially in light of the rapidly diminishing trust they once had in their supposedly main ally in Washington who left them in the open against a mercilessly advancing Turkish killing machine.

L'articolo Strained Ties for Close Allies: Erdogan vs. Trump proviene da InsideOver.

Decades ago Francis Fukuyama wrote his now (in)famous The End of History arguing that with the fall of Soviet Union, the world has become unipolar and the western liberal order has triumphed all else. 

Fast forward a few years and one realises that instead of the one pole Fukuyama envisioned, we are moving towards a multi-polar world order, thanks to the rapid rise of China and India, European Union’s clustering together, gradual self-isolation by the US and the reemergence of Russia. 

Ever since President Vladimir Putin came into power, he has actively tried to restore Russia’s lost prestige and regain what he believes is rightful place at the international stage

From the Georgian war to annexing Crimea, the Kremlin has increasingly looked beyond its post-Cold War borders. In the backdrop of an expansionist foreign policy, Russia is now making a comeback to another theatre. 

On October 23 and 24, Sochi hosted a summit of African leaders, featuring an impressive 43 heads of States, marking a symbolic return of Russia to a continent it had practically abandoned some three decades ago. It included business, cultural and trust-building programmes with discussions ranging from opportunities in housing and transport infrastructure of Africa to areas of humanitarian cooperation.  

The declaration signed at the end of the summit called for it to be convened every three years and the establishment of a Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. It also laid down areas of cooperation which spanned political, economic, humanitarian, scientific, security and environmental boundaries among other areas. The 47-point document touched on collaboration with regards to fighting terrorism, sharing, developing educational exchanges, expanding trade and transfer technology.  

For the new African generation, the Kremlin might be a nobody but decades ago, the Soviet Russia in its bid to expand communist ideology was often a preferred partner. That predisposition from local countries came from the fact that when colonised African states were fighting against western powers to gain independence, Moscow stepped up generously with military, economic and political support. Several African leaders had even trained in USSR and thus enjoyed a close relationship with Russia, which was free from the baggage of imperialism and even positioned itself to be the liberator. 

At the peak of the Cold War, the continent was a major hub for this ideological battle between the leftist USSR and the capitalist US. Both the powers tried to win over states through not only development aid but also weapons support and defence cooperation. But as the Soviet empire fell, delivering a severe blow to its economy, it wasn’t sustainable to keep pumping money elsewhere for a war that was already lost. 

Subsequently, the Kremlin hibernated the international stage, including Africa, and Washington became the sole player, before China emerged on the scene with its deep-pocketed investment projects. However, as Russia has tried to reestablish itself, most recently in the Syrian conflict and expanded role elsewhere, it was only natural to officially mark a return to Africa, where the polity of states and the need for development will have a few takers of Moscow’s role. 

Tools at disposal

Unlike the Cold War days, Russia has fewer tools available. Similar to other postcolonial states, the generation that oversaw the freedom movement is almost dead and is being replaced by an upcoming breed that has only known US as the world power or seen the spectacular rise of China. For them, Russia won’t hold the same degree of attraction as it did for the older leaders who were often even trained at Soviet universities or military academies. 

Where the US has established its cultural dominance through Hollywood, the appeal of its world-class universities, the American dream and China with its mega investment projects, Russia has lagged way behind with nothing of that sort to offer. 

Vis-a-vis western countries, the Kremlin has historically used the narrative of post-colonialism skilfully in partnering with African states but that trick won’t be particularly useful against China. The talk will have to match with actions and that requires money, which doesn’t seem to be Russia’s strongest suit. 

The competition is even more intense than the last time as Russia with its $1.66 trillion economy is up against China and the US, whose respective gross domestic products are estimated to be $14 trillion and $20 trillion. 

Despite all the hoo-ha of strong trade ties, data reveal the sheer lack of cooperation between African states and the Russian Federation. As of 2017, the former had exported goods worth $12.6 billion to the latter, accounting for a mere 3.68% of its total proceeds while its imports made up for only 1.12% at a meagre $2.53 billion. 

Bulk of that came from Egypt and Algeria, two North African countries often clustered with Middle East instead. Sub Saharan Africa’s statistics show its total imports and exports from and to Russia standing at a modest $2.49 billion and $608 million, respectively, giving an even bleaker picture of shared trade interests. In comparison, the region’s exports to India were $19.68 billion and China $17.33 billion in the same year. 

Not a zero-sum game

While most western experts and analysts tend to view any Russian moves vis-a-vis Africa as a zero-sum game, reflecting their Cold War-era thought process, it need not be the case for the states. For any developing country, investment and support is always welcome, no matter what source and the political ideology of the giver. 

The arrival of more players might create a healthy competition as major powers will invest from fear of missing out or one-upping each other, thus creating an influx of investments and opportunities for the local population. 

Beyond economic matters too, African states will find a lucrative partner in the Kremlin on which they can depend for building/upgrading their militaries, as Russian weapons are often cheaper than their western alternatives. With regards to fighting terrorism and other conflicts as well, Moscow would be a useful collaborator especially Washington seeks to turn inwards. 

Whatever partnerships do materialise in the end, we are however unlikely to see the partisan world of olden days where smaller countries would be mere pawns of the major world powers. With Chinese spending on mega projects, the other two players would also try to buy loyalties through investments rather than military.

L'articolo The Kremlin’s Return to a Tri-polar Africa proviene da InsideOver.

President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping concluded his two-day informal summit with Modi on Saturday, October 12, 2019. The duo held discussions on wide-ranging issues and exhumed confidence in strengthening bilateral ties between the two nations at Mamallapuram near Chennai. Now, the hotly debated point is will the summit result in any positive outcome for India? History stands testimonial to the fact that in spite of Indian efforts to improve relationships with China, the Chinese have always tried to belittle  India in the UN and preferred Pakistan over India. Against the backdrop of the USA-China trade war, the President Xi Jinping trip is being viewed as an attempt to explore opportunities for more significant concessions for Chinese products in India.

Why the doubt?

India and China, the two Asian giants, have nothing in common other than a population of over a billion. Just as two swords cannot be contained in one sheath, the same is the case with India and China. Both vie for supremacy in Asia and are engaged in a tug of war for being a global leader. Both view each other with suspicion and China, a close ally of India’s bête noire Pakistan, openly sides with Pakistan in the UN and other international forums and seldom misses an opportunity to belittle India. Ignoring international efforts to clamp down on cross-border terrorism, China’s repeated attempts to block Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar’s designation as a global terrorist is just a pointer in this direction.

Critics of the summit say one of the big disappointments of Wuhan Summit has been the reluctance of China to take tangible steps to ease non-tariff barriers for the entry of Indian IT and pharmaceuticals as well as Indian agriculture exports into the Chinese market to address the massive trade imbalance. Indian companies remain sceptical of the recent agreement on traditional medicine and expressed apprehensions over policy changes on the ground levels.

In such a scenario, political and economic observers in India are puzzled if Xi Jinping’s informal summit with Modi and discussions on broad-ranging issues will translate into any positive gain for India.

According to political observers, President Xi Jinping’s trip is an attempt to explore opportunities for more significant concessions to Chinese products in the Indian market, due to the USA-China trade war. On the conclusion of his two-day informal summit with Modi on Saturday October 12, 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to evolve a broad-based economic mechanism to bridge India’s swelling trade deficit with China and vowed to strengthen defence cooperation while negotiating disputative issues pragmatically with sensitivity to each other’s core concerns.

The critiques said that after two informal summits, both sides have not made progress in resolving their key outstanding differences, such as the boundary dispute on the Doklam plateau near the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction, the trade deficit, and China’s support for Pakistan at the UN over the Kashmir dispute. The only silver lining appears to be Xi’s suggestion to Modi that “differences should not weaken the overall situation of bilateral cooperation and differences that could not be resolved should be appropriately managed.”

According to political observers, summits should be followed by outcomes to instil confidence in the relationship. From Wuhan to Chennai, it appears they are moving in the right direction, but tangible results have not been experienced so far. 

Xi invited Modi to visit China in 2020 for a third summit to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. The two leaders agreed to make it memorable by holding 70 events in India and China, with several high-level visits in the works. In spite of the bonhomie shown by the two leaders, there are numerous pitfalls, and the road ahead for India and China is long and topsy turvy. Will all these exercises result in a great and fruitful relationship between the two nations, time can only tell.

L'articolo A New Relationship Era Between Two Asian Giants proviene da InsideOver.

As the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran met in the Turkish capital Ankara earlier this week, the critical situation of Idlib, the refugee crisis and the issue of a safe zone in northern Syria were top topics on the discussions’ agenda. The three major regional and international players/guarantors, however, do not necessarily endorse the same strategy and have some serious differences regarding these and other aspects of the Syria conflict.

There was limited common ground for the leaders of Turkey, Russia and Iran who met on Monday. This drove them to try to secure a lasting truce in northwestern Syria following recent major advances by the Syrian army that resulted in liberating 700 square kilometres in Hama and Idlib provinces, amid fears of a new wave of refugees heading mainly towards Turkey. Thousands of Syrian locals have recently marched and chanted slogans against Turkish president Erdogan and the Turkish army, storming the two main border gates in Idlib, Bab al Hawa and Atama, where they were confronted with tear gas and warning fires by Turkish border police.

Turkey hosts some 3.5 million Syrian migrants, the largest number of refugees who fled main battlegrounds, destruction and violence throughout the nearly nine years of war in Syria. Another approximately 2 million refugees have resettled in neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan, with the poorest having to endure the harsh conditions present in refugee camps.

Discrepancies in Summit Agendas

The summit in Ankara was a continuation of similar trilateral meetings in Tehran and Sochi bringing together countries whose Syrian allies are combatants in a ruinous Syrian conflict. Despite mutual agreement on some measures regarding easing up tension in Syrian territories still prone to military action, and averting any escalation that could lead to mass displacement of civilian population, a number of serious disagreements remain between the the three leaders, mainly regarding the rule of Assad and the issue of a new constitution in Syria.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani have backed president Assad against various terrorist and rebel groups. Whereas Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, along with the United States, European and Arab allies, has supported different rebel factions in the war that have devastated large sectors of the Syrian economy, claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands, and displaced over 6 million Syrians both internally and externally.

Aided by Russian airpower, the Syrian army has regained control of most lands lost in the war. In recent months, Assad’s forces have attacked rogue areas held by terror groups in Hama and Idlib, where Turkey, under a deal set up 2 years ago with Moscow and Tehran set up 12 military observation posts in northwest Syria aimed at reducing tension and averting a major operation by Assad’s forces and rebels. The Turkish military posts have recently been caught in the crossfire due to the Syrian offensive in the region.

Recent Syrian army advances Turkish-backed rebel groups in the region close to the Turkish borders have strained ties between presidents Putin and Erdogan who had agreed at talks in Moscow in August to “normalise” the situation in the region, after Syrian troops encircled rebels and a Turkish post in Hama, a move Ankara said threatened its national security.

Risk of New Migrant Waves

Fears over an almost inevitable new major wave of refugees in the direction of Turkey have increased following the fierce battles fought in northwestern Syria. Over 2 million civilians inhabit the Idlib province along with an estimated 70000 hardline terror and rebel fighters, making the crucial battle for Idlib even more complicated and costly by any criteria.

The rebel bastion of Idlib has been prone to even extra pressure of migrant influx since last April, as over 400.000 have taken refuge there and next to the Syrian-Turkish borderline, running away from the latest spate of fighting according to the United Nations. Turkey, which was worst hit by migrant waves in the past, claims it can handle no more refugees unless Ankara receives more international support. Erdogan has frequently played the refugee card with the west, threatening to “open the gates” for migrants to Europe.

Erdogan Acknowledges ‘Terrorists’ in Idlib Exist

Acknowledging the existence of ‘terrorist’ groups in Idlib, Erdogan explained his expectations before last Monday’s trilateral summit: “The expectation here is not a momentary ceasefire. First, it is to put a stop to the migration here,”. “Second, to ensure a ceasefire here. Third, to seriously get terrorist organisations under control.” “Turkey, which is hosting 3.6 million refugees in its home at the moment, cannot take the millions of people that will arrive from there,” Erdogan said. “We cannot carry that weight,” he told Reuters.

Two days later, the Syrian army shelled rebel targets south of Idlib as terrorists breached the current ceasefire which was announced around two weeks ago to give talks yet another chance. The Syrian government maintains that its army is ready to wage the major Idlib battle should talks fail to oust all terrorists and rebel groups from the area. Military plans are in place to liberate the last inch of Syrian territory which Syrian President Assad has reiterated on numerous occasions. The vast majority of pro-Assad population have been critical of truces and ceasefires, particularly when the Syrian army makes some major advances.

Safe Zone, Or No Safe Future!

Erdogan and Trump have recently announced the establishment of the controversial “safe zone” in Kurdish-controlled northeast Syria, jointly patrolled by American and Turkish troops. Erdogan plans to resettle up to 1 million refugees in the zone along the Turkish borders. Previously he threatened a unilateral Turkish military operation against US-backed Kurdish YPG in the area. Trump responded by a threat of his own to ” devastate Turkish economy” should Turkey attack Kurdish areas in northeast Syria.

In the wake of a politically-embarrassing year for Erdogan’s ruling AK Party (AKP) which has seen him suffer some stunning local election losses, partly due to impatience among Turks over the issue of Syrian refugees. amidst a series of hostilities against migrants in Istanbul and elsewhere in Turkey, the refugee card might prove detrimental, in addition to growing economic decline, in the demise of the overwhelming dictatorship-like grip Erdogan has enjoyed for years, as well as in deciding the political future of Turkey’s most powerful man since Ataturk, the father of the Turkish republic.

L'articolo Syrian Refugees, Erdogan’s Last Card in Syria? proviene da InsideOver.