After London, Where Do We Go From Here?: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 March 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
25 March 2017
• After London, Where Do We Go From Here?
By Mamdouh Almuhaini
• Will More Repression Scare Away Terrorism?
By Mohammed Nosseir
• Syria: Six Years Of An Orphaned Revolt
By Eyad Abu Shakra
• Arabs and the Threat of Polarization
By Radwan Al-Sayed
• The Middle East’s Role In Turkey-EU Relations
By Sinem Cengiz
• Turkish Diplomacy Full Of Surprises
By Serkan Demirtas
• US Expects Allies to Pick up the Pieces after ISIL
By Joe Macaron
• Trump Team's Bid To Reverse Mistake of Withdrawing From Iraq
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• The Complications in Yemen
By Maria Dubovikova
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
After London, Where Do We Go From Here?
By Mamdouh Almuhaini
24 March 2017
The recent terrorist attack in London is an addition to the tragic list of violent acts that have claimed lives of innocent people who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Despite the tight security measures – latest being ban on electronic devices – criminal minds of terrorists continue to turn kitchen knives and cars into mass murder tools.
Terrorists live in an illusionary world that differs from ours. Juhayman al-Otaybi occupied the Grand Mosque in Makkah and tried to wreak havoc chaos all around. Osama bin Laden attacked the twin towers thinking that he would undermine the US.
Bin Laden’s men thought that terror attacks in Riyadh and Jeddah would spread chaos and devastation in Saudi Arabia. Al-Baghdadi believed that his so-called “Caliphate” would bring back the time of the slaves. None of this will happen and terrorists will certainly not win over the civilized world. However, they will cause a lot of bloodshed.
The question that the world is asking today is who is responsible for all this and how can we stop this nightmare? Many prefer to say that Western countries are responsible for the rise of terrorism. This may be true but in just one aspect of it. Authorities in the West may have been tolerating extremist groups in their countries and are protecting them in the name of human rights and freedom of expression.
This is a major misconception because even act of incitement in western culture could come under the premise of freedom of expression. However, in the context of Muslim and Arabs, it may amount to an explicit permission to kill. In other words, what is seen permissible in London and Paris could be construed as motivation for terrorism in the Islamic and Arab countries.
The Western world has realized the extent of threat terror poses only after experiencing it in recent years. Protecting fanatics in the name of freedom of expression is developing a culture of hatred and turning those who got affected over the time into human bombs not only in the East but also in the West.
Protecting fanatics in the name of freedom of expression is developing a culture of hatred and turning those who get affected into human bombs not only in the East but also in the West
Tight Leash
Therefore, steps taken by some governments in the West to keep extremists on a tight leash is correct and serves the cause of Muslims more than any other. These steps are not against Muslims as they are made out to be. Muslims are most negatively affected by these acts and ideas. They either get influenced by them or get their reputation smeared.
Moreover, victims of terrorism are primarily Muslims themselves. That is why crushing extremists will protect their children from this menace and will serve them before serving western societies whose citizens are not vulnerable to ISIS recruitment.
This spirit of tolerance goes back to the western mentality that has overcome intolerance for centuries. It has undergone different stages of religious reform and a comprehensive intellectual and industrial renaissance until Christian extremists became a misfit in societies that had progressed. These clergymen lost popular influence and only became subjects of historical studies. Even if they call for murder dozens of times, no one would listen to them.
Western universities became secular long time ago and religious studies come only in a historical or comparative context. They do not seek to sow extremist ideologies that would imbue students with hatred.
Medieval Mentality
When extremist Christian Pat Robertson said that the devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010 was because of their ancestors’ deal with the devil writers and commentators ridiculed him for having superstitions, and not a modern, mentality.
This is the only area in which West can probably be blamed. However, this is not what some writers say when they place the entire responsibility on their shoulders. They make endless arguments that begin with marginalization and persecution of Muslim minorities to provoking them.
One of the strangest arguments is that progress in the West has made them feel alienated in this new industrial world and they have tried to wage a revolution against it. This is a strange excuse that seems to be asking humanity to stop progress so as not to frighten those who are already scared. The simplest solution is to ask them to change their ideas and keep up with the new reality.
It is indeed not easy to end this nightmare that has caused the death of innocent people. A terrorist is automatically an extremist. No child, raised with values of tolerance and co-existence, can blow himself up even if he has been tutored by the worst of instigators.
Since extremism has become pervasive and its foot soldiers are spreading everywhere we are confronted with a frustrating question as soon as we knew of the latest attack. Now London is hit, which city is it going to be next?
Mamdouh AlMuhaini is the Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya News Channel’s digital platforms.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/03/24/After-London-which-city-next-.html
----
Will More Repression Scare Away Terrorism?
By Mohammed Nosseir
24 March 2017
The belief that a repressive policy is the only way to get rid of terrorism has taken root among many Egyptians, who are calling for broadening such a policy and imposing crueler measures against citizens suspected of terrorism. If this premise were true, Egypt would have been free of terrorism long ago.
The large segment of the population that sanctions repression is trying to live in peace at the expense of other citizens who share their desire but have a different outlook on life. Ordinary crimes and terrorist activity cannot be conflated.
In the case of the former, perpetrators know the risks are limited while the probable rewards are high. Very often they engage in illegal activities to improve their living standard, while always doing their utmost to hide their misconduct.
In contrast, terrorists know they risk losing their lives when carrying out terrorist acts, or eventually facing prosecution. Perpetrating terrorism necessitates a certain state of mind, so it cannot be defined simply as a law-breaking incident. Terrorism may be a reflection of some deficiency in a society that enabled terrorists to emerge.
Dealing with people who are willing to kill innocent citizens, and to give up their lives doing so, requires a proper understanding of the motive for their behavior, which in turn could help society pre-empt engagement in terrorist acts in the first place. Society must work to limit the likelihood of people committing terrorist activities by depriving them of motives, not by threatening them with more severe penalties.
It is essential to differentiate between citizens who may be tempted to briefly engage in an ordinary criminal act, and those who completely disregard the rules that govern society.
The Egyptian state must strive to reduce the number of angry and disgruntled people who harbor hatred for everyone. We may think we are protecting society against potential crimes by detaining suspects in prison for years, based on police investigation. But sooner or later, those suspects will be released, and will have developed strong feelings of hatred toward the state and the entire community, and a desire to take revenge on both.
It may very well be that the repressive policy initially applied by the state will have contributed to any terrorist behaviour adopted by those discharged from prison. The Egyptian media, endorsed by like-minded citizens, regularly call for the application of a more repressive policy. They may be motivated by a genuine desire to ensure a secure life, but their approach is misguided.
Since terrorists typically do not watch such media programs, they will not be aware that the state is expanding its repressive measures. Even if they did watch them, such programs would only harden their resolve. Virtue and sin have existed in all societies for centuries. Individuals can find reasons that impose either trait.
Still, it is essential to differentiate between citizens who may be tempted to briefly engage in an ordinary criminal act, and those who completely disregard the rules that govern society. Egypt needs to expand its system of ethical values, because strengthening virtuous principles might prevent citizens from committing terrorist acts. Reinforcing virtue in society should go hand in hand with proper and durable security measures; both actions are equally needed.
Many Egyptians today are extremely frustrated for a variety of reasons, including the current economic crisis and the inability to foresee the future. Even though citizens may be in complete agreement with the ruling regime, they are still affected by challenges. Administering a stronger dose of repression will not scare or deter terrorists; it will intensify the frustrating environment in which many Egyptians are living.
The Egyptian state needs to work on improving people’s daily lives, thus lessening the possibility of seeing them recruited by terrorist groups. Sending a clear message of fairness, promoting freedom of expression, the proper application of the rule of law, and creating more employment opportunities are key to reducing potential terrorist activity.
Threatening terrorists with higher levels of repression is more liable to trigger and accelerate violent extremism and active terrorism among the more frustrated segments of society. Full-fledged democracy may take a while to take root, but before that happens something can be done to stem terrorists’ advance: Justice and better living conditions.
• Mohammed Nosseir, a liberal politician from Egypt, is a strong advocate of political participation and economic freedom.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1073436/opinion
-----
Syria: Six Years of an Orphaned Revolt
By Eyad Abu Shakra
24 March 2017
Marine Le Pen, the French extreme right’s presidential candidate, clearly summed up how the West regards the Syrian Revolt, which erupted six years ago.
In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV channel, she replied to a question about her view of Bashar al-Assad by saying: “If I were to choose between al-Assad and ISIS I shall choose al-Assad”. This is a fact well-known to the sponsors and defenders of the Syrian regime. Thus, in order to save the regime it was necessary to derail the popular uprising, destroy its moderate armed and unarmed elements, and deprive the true ‘revolutionaries’ of all kinds of support and protection.
This is how we have reached the current ‘ideal’ scenario. The Syrian people are now out of the equation. What has been unfolding for the last six years is being depicted before the world as a straight ‘choice’ between a regime that is willing to concede to all but its own people and a dubious extremist terror most of which is foreign.
It was necessary to defend the regime that since its founding, in 1970, has been providing valuable ‘services’ to several powers. Letting this regime fall has never been an option. Even after resorting to excessive violence in confronting the children of Daraa and Hama’s massive peaceful demonstration during the summer of 2011, it became obvious that the international community was intent on trivializing its crimes while undermining the credibility of its opponents.
In a chat I had four years ago with Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, the British Politician – who was a diligent campaigner on behalf of the victims of former Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein – she suggested Syrian refugees should return home; adding “Assad is not another Saddam Hussein… they will be fine under his regime!”.
In the same vein, one cannot forget former US president Barack Obama and his advisors, such as Philip Gordon, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Denis McDonough and Jake Sullivan. Obama played the major role in ‘redefining’ Washington’s practical priorities in Syria.
Committed to a nuclear and strategic deal with Iran, Obama, like Le Pen, believed that the top priority in Syria was to confront ISIS; despite the fact that the terrorist group, in its current form, appeared on the scene no less two years after the peaceful popular uprising and the regime’s bloody attempts to crush it. Indeed, Obama made fun of the moderate opposition, and dismissed its constituents while repeatedly refusing to protect Syrian civilians through imposing ‘no-fly zones’ and “safe havens”.
The regime has always looked for the ‘content’ rather than the ‘form’ in setting the priorities of maintaining power. All loud slogans of Arabism, Secularism and Socialism have been proven meaningless
‘Haemorrhage’ continues
Israel too has chosen – at least on face value – to look ‘neutral’ between Assad and the Revolt. However, in reality, as one could deduce from the comments of its senior intelligence and security figures, it has been happy that Syrian ‘haemorrhage’ continues; and on the other hand, regards Assad as ‘the lesser of two evils’ compared with ISIS and fellow extremist ‘Jabhat Al-Nusra’.
In fact, it is understandable and quite logical that Israel should actively – albeit tacitly – strive to keep an Arab regime which has since 1973 proven to be most capable to defend its borders and eliminate it enemies while claiming on every occasion to be its ‘steadfast’ adversary.
As for Assad regime, it has understood from the very beginning that, regardless of the individual position towards its policies and actions, it would continue to be accepted by many major regional and global powers. It would be preferred by these powers to any democratic alternative representing the lively forces in Syria.
The Assad regime has realized, first, that it is a much needed tool in maintaining the state of weakness and division in the Middle East; hence, it would be impossible that those who have ‘used’ it for decades would let it fall. Secondly, the regime has always looked for the ‘content’ rather than the ‘form’ in setting the priorities of maintaining power. All loud slogans of Arabism, Secularism and Socialism have been proven meaningless.
Arabism means nothing when intersecting regional calculations of Iran, Israel, Turkey and Russia are based on and benefit from ethnic and sectarian fault lines. Secularism too means nothing when sectarian identity defines the scale of influence, and when religious, sectarian and ethnic cleansing becomes a strategy for survival.
And last but not least, Socialism, too, means nothing in a country controlled by monopolistic clan-based ‘mafias’ serving local and regional interests; and where trade unions and peasant federations metamorphose into mercenary gangs and cheering ‘crowds’.
Psychological Damage
Having said this, however, Syria’s opposition groups have not been blameless. Some of their mistakes may be understandable keeping in mind the huge psychological damage a lengthy dictatorship has caused to the Syrian psyche, but other mistakes deserve blame if not condemnation.
In the first case several opposition groups paid a heavy price for being ‘penetrated’ by regime agents posing as opposition activists. The latter carried out exactly what they had been instructed to do politically and militarily. Some of the regime’s agents actually even appeared in pictures as fighters with extremist militias. Others took part as opposition figures in political conferences where they caused confusion and wreaked havoc, then returned to the bosom of the regime in Damascus, after carrying out their ‘dirty job’.
However, in the second case, individualism, opportunism and spite have plagued genuine opposition groups and weakened their credibility. Thus, regional as well as international powers have managed to impose their own agendas on these groups; and even create their own groups that reflect the interest of the foreign powers rather than that of the Syrian people. This dangerous development has led many armed opposition groups to the trap of extreme sectarian fragmentation; consequently serving the interests of Russia and Iran.
Furthermore it had provided dubious elements which had claimed to be ‘non-sectarian’ to tour Western countries inciting against the Revolt. On the other hand, well-meaning opposition elements naively trusted and defended extremist groups that later began fratricidal ‘gang wars’; thus, allowing extremism and bigotry to alienate and dishearten many people.
It is not too late to save Syria’s Revolt, nor is it too late to uncover those conspiring against it. But it is now the right time to begin a candid and serious review before the situation deteriorates further, and the Revolt loses all those who are qualified to rebuild the country the moment destruction stops.
Eyad Abu Shakra (also written as Ayad Abou-Chakra) began his media career in 1973 with Annahar newspaper in Lebanon. He joined Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in the UK in 1979, occupying several positions including: Senior Editor, Managing Editor, and Head of Research Unit, as well as being a regular columnist. He has several published works, including books, chapters in edited books, and specialized articles, in addition to frequent regular TV and radio appearances.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/03/24/Syria-Six-years-of-an-orphaned-revolt.html
----
Arabs and the Threat of Polarization
By Radwan al-Sayed
24 March 2017
The Astana meeting which the Syrian political and military opposition boycotted because of the inclusion of Iran, in addition to Russia and Turkey, to guarantee the ceasefire has concluded its work. The opposition had stated that by including Iran, this meeting had come to an end.
Parties which can guarantee a ceasefire must be capable of influencing the regime or the opposition and this influence must be manifested via forces on the ground. Iran is of course biased in favor of the Syrian regime, and it has lost thousands while defending it in the past three years.
Russia is also fighting alongside the Assad regime and despite that it is also one of the countries guaranteeing a ceasefire. If they say Iran is not concerned over a ceasefire, then the same applies to Russia.
The Astana negotiations, and before that the Geneva 4 conference, aims to eliminate the opposition or armed opposition groups operating under ISIS and al-Nusra banners and political opposition under the excuse of the Cairo and Moscow platforms.
There is no hope of achieving any political results from the regime in Syria – unless Saudi Arabia succeeds in forming an Islamic military alliance to intervene against ISIS in Raqqah and Deir az-Zour. This depends on the ability to assemble this and also on the willingness of the US and Russia to curb the Kurds’ rebellion and restrain Tehran.
Iraqi realities
Meanwhile in Iraq, emerging victorious against ISIS has become possible, though the losses may be great. However, a political settlement does not seem near. Saudi Arabia has improved its relations with Iraq following the Saudi foreign minister’s recent visit to Baghdad.
However, the realities on the ground are still the same. Iran’s supporters seem to dominate in terms of politics and military power. Just like Syria, Iraq has two problems: Iran’s domination and the Kurdish problem. Iran and Turkey have their involvements in both, Iraq and Syria. The sweeping Sunni majority in Syria has not woken up to the fact that it is great in number or benefited from taking up arms.
Saudi Arabia has improved its relations with Iraq following the Saudi foreign minister’s recent visit to Baghdad. However, realities on the ground continue to be the same
In Iraq, the strong Sunni minority which took up arms did not benefit from its power or arms. Therefore, it is probable that the situation will not stabilize in both Iraq and Syria. Domination neither achieves satisfaction nor stability! I am about to say that developments in Lebanon are heading in the same direction as Syria and Iraq. Michel Aoun publicly declared his loyalty to Hezbollah after he was elected president. He even alleged that Lebanon still needs the Hezbollah militia in South Litani where the Lebanese army and UN international troops are stationed.
Lebanon was thus punished for violating UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the international community will decrease the number of international peace troops and its expenditure on them. This alienation regarding international resolutions is about to repeat during the upcoming Amman Summit. Aoun will not be able to support any decision that condemns Iranian intervention in Arab countries and he will not be able to support any decision that views Hezbollah as a terrorist organization or that considers its weapons as illegitimate.
What is happening in Libya is not that different from what I have described. There are three governments, two official armies, dozens of militias which control certain areas, in addition to ISIS and Ansar al-Sharia. Al-Sarraj government, which was formed following the Skhirat agreement in Morocco, enjoys international support.
It is confronted by a government in East Libya – a government that has its parliament, army and strongman Khalifa Haftar. The third government is headed by Khalifa al-Ghawil and it hangs on to the vestiges of its power which had ended with the emergence of the Sarraj government.
Decisiveness Needed
And last but not least, there is Yemen. Gulf countries and mainly Saudi Arabia intervened to defend itself and its borders and to defend the legitimate government in Yemen and the Arab naval security. Many, mainly Iran, tampered with this to weaken the Gulf countries. The US and Britain have not been far from this. For more than two years now, they have been seeking political solutions and America and Britain have adjusted their stances.
I have been saying this since 2012: Unless there is military decisiveness somewhere, Iran will not accept to engage in political negotiations in terms of relations. I still hope something of the sort will happen in Yemen. By polarization, I mean that the weakness of some Arab parties has led them to either intentionally or unintentionally work against their own people and in favour of regional and international powers. They think that by working for others, they will save their money and their weak authority. Such mentality and interests cannot be sustained unless wars rage on.
Radwan al Sayed is a Lebanese thinker and writer who attained a bachelor degree from the Faculty of Theology at al-Azhar University and a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Tübingen in Germany. He has been a scholar of Islamic studies for decades and is the former editor-in-chief of the quarterly al-Ijtihad magazine. Radwan is also the author of many books and has written for Arab dailies such as al-Ittihad, al-Hayat and ash-Sharq al-Awsat.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/03/24/Arabs-and-the-threat-of-polarization.html
-----
The Middle East’s Role in Turkey-EU Relations
By Sinem Cengiz
24 March 2017
Is Turkey part of Europe or the Middle East? This question has become something of a cliché, with the answer usually solely about geography and lacking a clear explanation.
Geographically, Turkey stands in between the two regions, forming a line that clearly divides Europe from the Middle East. Turkey’s geostrategic position, in addition to its historical and cultural ties with both sides leads the country to serve as a bridge between the East and the West.
Turkey is, indeed, part of both Europe and the Middle East, and therefore is affected by developments taking place in both regions. Since the establishment of the republic in 1923, Turkey’s traditional foreign policy has had two main dimensions: Forming strong ties with the West, particularly the EU, and having peaceful relations with the Middle Eastern countries, without engaging in the region’s problematic issues.
EU Negotiations
In accordance with this foreign policy line, Ankara applied for membership of the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, in 1987. The EU accession talks began in 2005 during the first term of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the office. However, negotiations reached a stalemate in 2007 during the second term. It was at these times that Turkey started to engage more in Middle Eastern issues. However, this also coincided with the turmoil in the region.
Turkey’s relations with the EU have gone through major ups and downs during the decades-old relationship. Beside Turkey’s own internal issues, the Middle East has played a considerable, sometimes adverse, role in Turkish-EU relations.
Throughout the 1990s, Europe’s lack of support of Turkey’s fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Western countries’ turning blind eye to the sheltering of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan in Greece, Italy and Syria caused troubles in Turkish-EU relations at times. Europe’s double standards and its failure to take Turkey’s concerns seriously have created mistrust on the Turkish side.
The conflicts of the Arab world should not be a matter of tension between Ankara and the European bloc, but rather a significant reason to cooperate.
Arab Uprisings
The Arab Spring of 2011, which resulted in unprecedented developments in the Middle East, dealt a further blow to Turkish-EU relations. Europe’s slow and contradictory response and lack of strategy toward the countries affected by the Arab uprisings was highly criticized by Turkey, which took an active stance toward developments in the region.
Thus, the rhetorical differences between Turkey and the EU toward the developments in Egypt, Libya and Syria drove a wedge between the two sides.
Further developments in the Middle East — particularly the “migration crisis” — have led to the opening of a new period in Turkey-EU relations.
The troubled realities of the Middle East — such as terrorism, political tensions, regional disputes and particularly illegal immigration — caused a great concern to the EU, and pushed it to cooperate with Turkey.
In 2015, the EU, which aims to keep refugees fleeing from war-torn Syria from migrating to Europe, signed a deal on migration management with Turkey, which had pursued an open-door policy to the refugees since the beginning of the crisis.
According to this deal, Turkey would take back all migrants from Greece, in exchange for a €6 billion aid package to help Turkey in hosting refugees in the country, and the promise to lift visa requirements for Turks travelling to the Schengen area. However, Turkey has so far received only €677 million and no progress has been made regarding the visa obligations, despite Turkey’s efforts to stop refugee flow.
Escalating Diplomatic Feud
In addition to the EU’s dubious policies, Turkey-EU relations took a turn for the worse in recent days after several European countries canceled rallies planned by Turkish officials campaigning to gain support from Turks living in Europe for a constitutional referendum scheduled to take place on April 16.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that Turkey will review its relationship with the EU after the referendum.
In light of this escalating diplomatic feud the migration deal came onto the agenda again. Frustrated with the EU not keeping its promises regarding the migrant deal, Turkey said it will “re-evaluate” the refugee deal, hinting that it would scrap it. Turkey’s foreign minister cited delays in visa liberalization as one of the reasons behind Ankara’s decision.
Needless to say, the deal is of great importance to the EU in the light of growing instability in the Middle East; there have however been few benefits for Turkey so far.
The migration crisis, which emerged from Middle Eastern conflicts, became key to a rapprochement between Turkey and the EU. Now it could hamper Turkey-EU relations, as Ankara feels that the cooperation only serves the interests of Europe, in shifting the Middle East burden instead of sharing it.
The European countries — which demand more, with no rewards for Ankara — should approach Turkey with a sincere attitude and consider the country as a partner amid the growing uncertainties in the Middle East.
The conflicts of the region should not be a matter of tension in Turkish-EU relations; but a significant reason to cooperate, taking into consideration the concerns of both sides.
The growing mutual distrust will not serve the interests of Ankara nor the EU — and may harm the work done toward Turkey’s membership process over the years.
• Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes mainly in issues regarding Turkey’s relations with the Middle East.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1073426/opinion
----
Turkish Diplomacy Full Of Surprises
By Serkan Demirtas
March/25/2017
As usual, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was as blunt as possible in his statements on the prospect of Turkey’s relationship with the European Union, vowing some “surprises” after the April 16 referendum.
In televised remarks late March 23, he hinted that the political and administrative aspects of the relationship would be reconsidered while economic ties would not be affected. He also said the current migrant deal would also be reviewed amid hints that Turkey could ignore the potential flow of refugees into Europe via Turkey.
He did not further elaborate whether Turkey could suspend full membership negotiations on the grounds the EU has not fulfilled its promises toward the candidate country and in light of recent tension with a number of prominent European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands.
President Erdogan, however, needs to clarify whether these surprises in Turkey-EU ties are linked to the result of the referendum. In other words, will Turkey trigger its own Brexit-like split from the EU in the event that the “yes” votes prevail or even in the event that naysayers claim victory on April 16? Or have Turkey’s prospective actions against the EU already been decided and the government is just waiting for the referendum in a bid not to avoid distracting attention from the campaign?
We are yet to hear what these surprises might be even as Turkish diplomacy faces new surprises every day from its traditional allies, regional allies and others. Non-EU but NATO ally Norway granted asylum to four former Turkish troops and a military attaché in recent days at the expense of angering the Turkish government.
Turkey’s two main allies, the United States and the United Kingdom, included Turkey’s airports and Turkish Airlines on a list of terminals from which passengers will not be able to bring laptops or tablets into the cabin if they are flying direct to either of the countries. This is seen as a major blow to Turkish Airlines, one of the fastest growing airline companies in Europe and the world.
There are other surprises as well. A Russian general has been seen wearing the symbol of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), an organization Turkey considers a terror organization linked with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Syria. Russia, which has long been active in the Afrin canton under YPG control, is no longer hesitating to hide its military activities in the region at a time when Turkey has increased its threats against Syrian Kurdish groups in Manbij and elsewhere.
Despite Turkey’s well-known concerns, Russia is now pressing for the inclusion of the Syrian Democratic Union Party (PYD) at the Geneva Conference where Syria’s future will be discussed.
Another surprising move came again from Russia which said it wouldn’t lift sanctions on agricultural products from Turkey, especially on tomato products, sparking fresh tension as Ankara has seemingly stopped buying Russian wheat in retaliation. However, surprisingly, Turkey and Russia made progress in the former’s attempt to purchase Russian-made S-400 anti-ballistic missiles, even though it won’t be able to integrate them with NATO’s system.
The new administration in the United States is also expending efforts to surprise Ankara. Ankara’s hopes that Donald Trump’s leadership would demonstrate drastic changes in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are fading. The U.S.-led coalition dropped Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), consisting mainly of YPG forces, near the town of Tabqa in northern Syria, marking another first in Washington’s support for the groups.
Just to recall, diplomacy is the art of conducting negotiations with other nations in order to avoid crisis, surprises and unwanted developments in a bid to gain advantage for the sake of the country. Tactful diplomacy flowing from the collective mind of a state is, therefore, needed not only for Turkey but for all nations in the world.
Foreign ministries, experts and university academics should be considered as essential elements by governments in making and conducting a sound foreign policy with no surprises. The Foreign Ministry and its diplomats should not only be advised when their policies collapse or are derailed but also during decision-making processes as well. Otherwise, we’ll continue to be astonished by the surprising moves of both our partners and rivals.
Source: hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-diplomacy-full-of-surprises-.aspx?pageID=449&nID=111216&NewsCatID=429
-----
US Expects Allies To Pick Up The Pieces After ISIL
ByJoe Macaron
24 March 2017
The only good reason to have a meeting is to deliberate and decide on a shared objective. From that business angle, the March 22 meeting in Washington of the Global Coalition to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) did not serve any purpose. The US message to its allies was clear: let us alone deal a military blow to ISIL, you deal with the day after.
Nothing is ordinary about the tumultuous nature of Donald Trump's presidency, even during what was supposed to be a mundane bureaucratic gathering. As the invited Arab ministers were settling into their hotels, US authorities surprised them by banning electronic devices onboard of flights coming from their national airports. While the meeting was underway at the State Department, US forces airlifted members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) behind enemy lines in Raqqa and an ISIL-inspired attack was terrorising London.
All that matters to the battle against ISIL was not heard in the hallways of the first expanded anti-ISIL coalition meeting in more than two years. The US State Department Secretary Rex Tillerson's remarks did not even mention the three elephants in the room: Russia, Iran and the Kurdish-led SDF forces (he called the latter "our Syrian partners"). Despite the looming budget cuts his department could face, Tillerson stood high and proud expecting that ISIL fighters are tuned "into their TVs and their computer monitors" to watch the global coalition's show of "strength".
Continuing Obama's strategy
US calls for help in fight against ISIL (2:08)
It is true ISIL's territorial control and leadership were degraded during the final stretch of the previous US administration and the campaign has intensified in the past three months. We are now in a transitional period where ISIL will metamorphose into decentralised and uncontrolled individuals who launch attacks sporadically with basic, unsophisticated tools.
Engaging global partners is crucial to enlist their efforts, the US can no longer go alone. Drones can win battles but are not enough to protect the US from possible attacks in the long term.
US allies left Washington more confused than when they arrived. The confusion is due to the perception that the Trump administration had created about having an awesome secret plan no one will see coming. The mere gathering of the Global Coalition is a subtle continuation of President Barack Obama's strategy to defeat ISIL: launching systematic air strikes; increasing US support for local forces; deploying non-combat US special forces; cooperating on global counterterrorism efforts; and providing humanitarian assistance to displaced civilians.
What the Trump administration is doing "differently" is more of the same: intensify already existing strikes, deploy additional forces and increase support to SDF forces.
Tillerson made three issues blatantly clear: He told Arab allies, anxious to deter Iran that, "defeating ISIL is the United States' No 1 goal in the region". For those betting on a long-term US involvement, the message was also plain: "We are not in the business of nation-building or reconstruction." The Trump administration is satisfied with the current formula of providing in Iraq and Syria 75 percent of the military resources and 25 percent of humanitarian and stabilisation support.
Defeating ISIL alone cannot be a stand-alone strategy and the Trump Administration should first be forthcoming about the fact that there is no significant change in US policy.
The third American message delivered to allies via Tillerson was simple: We alone will take care of business in Iraq and Syria, and all we want from you is to prepare for post-Raqqa and Mosul operations by investing resources, increasing pressure on ISIL networks in your home countries, exchanging intelligence information and combating ISIL online.
No Vision For Conflict Resolution
Defeating ISIL alone cannot be a stand-alone strategy and the Trump administration should first be forthcoming about the fact that there is no significant change in US policy. The two-year tacit understanding between Washington and Tehran still holds: US-trained Iraqi special forces lead the fight in sensitive demographic areas and Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) mostly stay put. Endorsing SDF forces continues to grow without promising Kurdish forces to back their autonomy and without pushing the buttons of Ankara.
While safe zones increasingly disappear from the White House narrative, Tillerson lowered the expectation further and spoke about "interim zones of stability through ceasefires to allow refugees to go home". While that statement alone is desperately vague, the "safe zones" idea was not included in the ministerial meeting's concluding statement.
US Defence Secretary James Mattis told the Senate on March 22 that it is in the US national interest to keep a residual force in Iraq even after the defeat of ISIL. In the case of Syria, however, the Pentagon knew when to go in but struggles with the question of how soon to get out.
For that specific reason, the timing of the anti-ISIL global coalition was premature without a clear path to victory for both Mosul and Raqqa operations. While the US is leading on the military level, chaos along the contested areas on the Iraqi-Syrian border is expected the day after victory. With no vision for conflict-resolution or power-sharing in place, there are no guarantees that regional infighting will not happen or radical elements will not fill the vacuum once again. Protecting the peace is often far more important than defeating the enemy.
Joe Macaron is a policy analyst at the Arab Center Washington, DC.
Source: .aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/03/expects-allies-pick-pieces-isil-170324093927490.html
----
Trump Team's Bid To Reverse Mistake of Withdrawing From Iraq
By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
24 March 2017
US President Donald Trump reiterated his point of view regarding the crisis in Iraq. “We should not have entered Iraq, but since we entered, we should not have left”, he had already said during his election campaign.
The Trump administration includes ministers and military personnel with wide experience having already dealt directly with Iraq. They are the ones apparently managing the current Washington administration with regard to what should be done in Iraq.
Trump believes that Iran has taken over Iraq due to the negligence of the Obama administration and withdrawing from there without taking into consideration the negative results. This corresponds to the point of view of General Michael Flynn, former national security adviser, and also matches the opinion of James Mattis, the US secretary of Defense. They all believe that Iran is the main problem in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
The administration of former President Barack Obama had seen that Iran is the key to resolve the crises of the region, choosing to cooperate with it in Iraq. The theory stating that Iran is the solution was proven wrong in the end, because it has exacerbated the conflicts and harmed the interests of major powers. Today, Iran is threatening the security in the region.
Iran has put most of its power in Iraq, taking advantage of Obama’s withdrawal of all remaining US troops at the beginning of his presidency. This is a controversial view that considers that the survival of some forces in certain areas of Iraq would have been important as a deterrent message to Iran and strong support for the central Iraqi authority.
The Trump administration regards Iraq as a strategically important country, and that despite the losses of the United States, the latter should not have easily given up on it as the previous US administration had done.
I have followed the debate in the United States regarding this particular issue, between the theorists and former politicians, and have followed as well as its effects on Twitter; those who were linked to the Obama administration at the time, are now saying that Trump is committing a mistake by making Iran an enemy again because it is a threat to the security and interests of the United States, especially in Iraq, by virtue of its infiltration and invasion.
Others believe that empowering Iran against a rich and strategic country like Iraq, would threaten Washington’s interests more in the future, and of course the security of the region.
It is not difficult for us to understand the danger of Iran’s control over Iraq; we have been witnessing the results for the past two years, as Iranians have been using the territory, airspace, militias and forces of Iraq for their own purposes. The same applies to the Iraqi financial revenues from which Iranian are funding their regional military and political activities.
It is not difficult for us to understand the danger of Iran’s control over Iraq; we have been witnessing the results for the past two years, as Iranians have been using the territory, airspace, militias and forces of Iraq for their own purposes. The same applies to the Iraqi financial revenues from which Iranian are funding their regional military and political activities.
Iranian parliamentarians have already praised the external wars of the Quds Forces, saying that the Iranian treasury has paid nothing for these wars, in response to Tehran’s presidential criticism. The Revolutionary Guards are using Iraqi funds to finance their military operations in the region, starting with Iraq itself.
Although it is not easy to get the Iranian apparatus out of Iraq, the US cannot leave Iraq as an easy prey.
Iraq is not a country that can be easily invaded on the pretext that it is a natural geographic extension and is close to Iran on the sectarian level.
All the countries of the region are adjacent and ethnically alike, but this does not make them open countries for those who want to seize them in the name of neighbours, religion and common history.
Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the former General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/03/24/Trump-the-mistake-of-withdrawing-from-Iraq.html
----
The Complications in Yemen
By Maria Dubovikova
24 March 2017
The Yemeni conflict is frequently called a forgotten war, because in terms of media coverage it is always overshadowed by Syria and Iraq. But its tragedy is no less serious, and has no justification; this is the only simple thing about the conflict. Politically and historically it is a complete mess, more so than the public imagines.
The roots of the bloodshed go deep; we must take this into account when analyzing the situation. The current crisis started not in 2014 but in June 2004, and its direct roots are in the 1962 revolution in North Yemen that ended more than 1,000 years of Zaidi rule.
In 2004, the conflict flared when dissident Zaidi cleric Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi launched an uprising against the Yemeni government, following an attempt by the authorities to arrest him. The government accused the Zaidis and other Islamist groups of trying to overthrow it and the republican system. Iran was accused of managing and fueling the uprising with financial support.
The rebels said they were defending themselves, and accused the government of committing an act of aggression. The conflict has since killed thousands of people and caused severe economic losses for the country.
In 2011, the Houthis tried to ride the wave of the 2011 revolution, expressing their full support for democracy. They overthrew the local government in Saada and established their own rule, independent from Sanaa. Following the revolution, Ali Abdullah Saleh stepped down after 33 years as president, and was succeeded by Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.
Yemenis had many reasons to be discontent with the government, including enormous corruption, high levels of unemployment, economic decline and the absence of prospects for youths. These formed the core of the uprising, which was part of the Arab Spring. A change of leader could hardly bring significant change to the country; it needed in-depth reforms and a full restructuring of the governmental system.
Since 2011, Ansar Allah, the official name of the Houthi movement, had been sustainably undermining the authorities in Sanaa. It overthrew them in January 2015 after months of clashes and protests, again seizing on popular grievances such as the rising price of oil to gain support from ordinary Yemenis. Pro-Saleh forces joined Ansar Allah, even though the Houthis supported the 2011 revolution against him.
Attempts at constructive dialogue have failed as the Houthis and pro-Saleh forces have violated agreements and cease-fires.
Hadi was forced to leave Sanaa, and the Houthis seized key provinces, though they have been expelled from southern Yemen due to Operation Decisive Storm. The campaign is carried out by a broad international coalition led by Saudi Arabia and supported by many major global and regional players, including the US. It is accompanied by Operation Restoring Hope, whose aim is to reach a political solution, but so far without concrete results.
Seven million people are on the brink of starvation due to the conflict. The health care system has collapsed. The conflict is worsening and becoming sectarian. The Houthis can no longer deny receiving backing from Iran, which they have been trying to conceal since 2004.
It is difficult to deliver humanitarian aid, especially in areas under Houthi control, not only due to airstrikes, but because of Houthi denial of access to aid convoys, and provocations by local community leaders. A Russian humanitarian convoy recently faced such a provocation while distributing aid in the Darawan camp for internally displaced Yemenis, forcing it to stop its work. Such cases are common and lead to the continuation of people’s suffering.
Attempts at constructive dialogue have failed as the Houthis and pro-Saleh forces have violated agreements and cease-fires. But a cease-fire is urgently needed, at least to allow humanitarian convoys to reach those in need, and at best to launch a political process and implement a UN roadmap.
The insurgents are becoming global troublemakers, recently planting underwater mines in Bab Al-Mandab, thus threatening the security of navigation in one of the most important waterways.
The situation is aggravated by Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Yemen is bombed not only by coalition forces but also by the US, which has been striking terrorist positions in Yemen since the mid-2000s, inflicting civilian casualties. Coalition airstrikes are undoubtedly causing severe civilian losses, as in any similar situation.
Peace must prevail soon, not in the name of politics but for civilians. The coalition and its international supporters, as well as the legitimate President Hadi and forces loyal to him, are eager to work on a political solution and an inclusive government. But the international community does not have sufficient influence over the Houthis, whose actions belie the innocent image they are trying to portray. They are first to be blamed for civilian suffering.
Their slogan “death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews and victory to Islam” hardly correlates with the image of an oppressed people fighting for democracy and equal rights. The slogan is reminiscent of something heard all too often in Iran.
Continuing violence and sectarianism are creating regional instability and a breeding ground for extremist groups and terrorism. A roadmap to settle the conflict exists. The hardest question remains how to make all sides speak with each other. They have to demonstrate a high level of responsibility for the fate of their own compatriots, who have become hostages, and put aside politics to work on building a common fate.
The work of government institutes that are trying to function despite the conflict shows the high potential of Yemenis to overcome the crisis. The international community should take an active part in the peace process.
• Maria Dubovikova is a prominent political commentator, researcher and expert on Middle East affairs. She is president of the Moscow-based International Middle Eastern Studies Club (IMESClub).
Source: arabnews.com/node/1073521/opinion
----
URL:https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/after-london-where-go-here/d/110523