Courcy's Intelligence Brief - 1 May 2013

Items

• Iranian patience with Egypt begins to pay off

  LatinNews 01 May 2013 Hits: 632

  Consternation is rising in the Sunni Arab world about President Muhammad Mursi’s changing attitude towards the Syrian civil war.  These concerns are focused not just on growing Egyptian opposition to any Western military intervention in Syria but also on signs of a growing understanding between Cairo and Tehran.  They are concerned that the Egyptian commentator Ahmad Rajab may well be right when he wrote on 30 April (in the Lebanese daily al-Akhbar): “Egypt and Iran are preparing for the inauguration of historical transformations in the Middle East via the Syrian gateway.” 

  We reported on the Egyptian opposition to a military intervention in Syria in our 27 March issue, quoting President Mursi’s 26 March declaration that “Egypt rejects any foreign military intervention to resolve the Syrian crisis as the Syrian people are able to overcome this ordeal.”  In its 30 April report, al-Akhbar added that it had heard from “a senior Egyptian diplomatic source” about the rising concerns in Cairo that there was a serious US move to direct a military strike against Damascus, and that such a strike would open the door for other international interventions in the region “that will only bring greater disturbances and wider intervention in the region’s affairs”.

  The same Egyptian diplomatic source went on to say that Israel could be a partner to any military operation against Syria and that “this would be contrary to Egyptian national security, despite Cairo’s public position towards the Syrian regime and its support for the Syrian opposition at every level”.

  It is these fears that have pushed Egypt towards supporting Russian and Iranian efforts to secure a ceasefire between Damascus and the opposition.  According to the Egyptian diplomat quoted above: “Important understandings were reached during Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi’s recent meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin; in cooperation with Tehran these understandings may bring the opposition and the Syrian regime to sit at the same negotiating table.”

  On Sunday (28 April), an Egyptian delegation went to Tehran for further discussions on this initiative.  The delegation was headed by the Egyptian president’s Assistant for Foreign Relations and International Cooperation Issam Haddad and the Chief of the Egyptian Presidential Office Mohammad Rifat al-Tahtawi. 

  On his return to Cairo, Haddad said two things of importance.  First, he said: “Egypt is managing the Syrian crisis dossier with great precision and wisdom; the same goes for the dialogue with Iran over the situation in Syria…there is an agreement with Tehran regarding the need to develop a work plan that aims to create a peaceful political solution that helps put an end to the violence raging in Syria and achieve national reconciliation with the participation of the Syrian people.” 

  Secondly, Haddad said: “The decision to resume diplomatic relations between Egypt and Iran is a sovereign decision that will not be influenced by anyone outside Egypt.”

  One Kuwaiti politician complained this week that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was moving closer to Iran “whose hands are soiled with the Syrian people’s blood”.  The Saudi Arabian view is equally hostile to Egypt. 

  As we reported last week, the Gulf states are divided in their response to the Arab Spring.  Generally speaking, Qatar is backing the Muslim Brotherhood, the UAE is supporting the remnants of the old regimes, and Saudi Arabia favours the salafists. 

  The Saudi Arabian interpretation of Egypt’s latest moves is that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has never severed its links with the Islamist revolution in Iran, which backed it in its struggle against the Mubarak regime, and that this connection outranks the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.  Furthermore, the Saudis say, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood views the sectarian rift between Sunni and Shia as a salafi problem, not a Muslim Brotherhood one.

  In our 30 January issue, we argued that although Iran had so far been unable to secure a rapprochement with Mursi’s Egypt it had not yet given up.  We quoted Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi as saying: “Not much time has passed since the Egyptian revolution, and things will take time to settle.”  It would appear that Iran’s patience may be beginning to pay off.  JdeC.

• Too early to be certain of Turkey-Kurdish peace

  LatinNews 01 May 2013 Hits: 606

  Our sources in the region continue to worry that Turkey’s push for peace with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) will be unable to survive the myriad traps in its path.

  The most encouraging sign to date was the announcement of a PKK pullout from Turkey, made on 25 April by acting PKK leader Murat Karayilan, who is based in Iraq’s Kandil mountains.  The announcement came after seven months of efforts instigated by Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Erdogan’s peace moves crucially gained the support of the jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and the Kurdish-based Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), whose support Erdogan is courting in parliament in order to achieve his desired changes to the constitution – including a move towards an executive presidency, with Erdogan as the presumed first incumbent.

  That there is a strong desire for peace in a conflict that has claimed 40,000 lives since 1984 is certain, and the BDP, which shares the same support base as the PKK, has been assiduous in helping Erdogan move the peace process forward.  The BDP has acted as a go between, delivering messages to PKK representatives in Iraq and Europe and liaising with Ocalan in his Imrali island prison.

  But there have been lost opportunities for peace before, in 1993, 1999, and 2009.  This time, one problem is that Turkish security sources remain deeply sceptical about Karayilan, partly because of his track record but also over his capture by Iranian security forces in August 2011 and subsequent release.  Turkish intelligence at the time was convinced that Iran had done a deal with Karayilan, and they have noted that after his release a halt to the activities of the Iranian branch of the PKK – the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) - was declared.

  Suspicions about Karayilan have flared up again in the past week with his allegations about US drone attacks against PKK targets, including the December 2011 ‘Uludere massacre’ in which 34 Kurdish smugglers were killed close to the Iraq-Turkey border.  The incident has hitherto been attributed to a mistake by the Turkish air force (acting on intelligence from US drones), and it is thought that Karayilan’s allegations about a more direct US involvement may have been intended to exacerbate anti-US sentiment in Turkey ahead of the meeting between Erdogan and President Barack Obama scheduled for 16 May.

  One Turkish commentator has drawn the following conclusions from this episode: “From the remarks he [Karayilan] made last week, we now understand the terms of the negotiations [with his Iranian captors in August 2011] included helping to make anti-US sentiment flare up in Turkey.  Karayilan…seems to have turned sharply against the US following his ordeal at the hands of the Iranians.”

  Some are also suggesting that an anti-US, pro-Iran faction within Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) maybe involved in an attempt to raise anti-US sentiment in Turkey.

  Then there are Turkey’s opposition parties, particularly the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), both of which are against the peace moves with the PKK.  CHP chairman Kemal Kilicdaroglu told a party meeting on 30 April: “Erdogan is the PKK’s captive.  Everyone should know this.”  On the same day, MHP chairman Devlet Bahceli warned that Erdogan was planning to release jailed PKK leader Ocalan in return for the PKK’s disarmament.  He said: “Mr Prime Minister, do you call this development peace?”

  We have also mentioned in the past the complication caused by the civil war in Syria, which has provided the Syrian Kurds with some autonomy of their own.  For the moment the Iraqi Kurds under Masoud Barzani have thrown in their lot with Ankara, but this could be tactical; and increasing autonomy, even independence, from Baghdad could eventually increase not dampen Kurdish ambitions, particularly if the same process were to be at work in Syria, which it now is.  The Syrian Kurds, for instance, are increasingly benefiting from control over oil resources in Syria’s northeast.  Oilfields around Al-Hasakah, now under the control of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, are thought to produce 250,000 barrels of crude per day.

  These are immensely complicated calculations for the Kurds, but one thing is certain: they will be seeking to make the maximum possible gains from the opportunities presented by the Arab Spring, and at some stage that is going to rub up against Turkish resistance.  Erdogan’s twin needs of wanting maximum access to oil from Iraqi Kurdistan and requiring Kurdish domestic support for his proposed constitutional changes have created propitious circumstances for a push towards a settlement between Turkey and the PKK, but it remains probable that other matters will intervene to change the calculations.

• China's India incursion explained

  LatinNews 01 May 2013 Hits: 704

  On 25 April, we sent out a Special Alert on the cross-border incursion by Chinese troops into Indian Ladakh.  We noted that India was seeking to downplay the incident in public, and that remains the case.  However, behind the scenes experts are highly perplexed by this development.

  It is now over two weeks since the initial Chinese incursion by 30 soldiers on 15 April into the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) area of Ladakh.  The Chinese troops are believed to have crossed 18km over the Line of Actual Control (LAC) into Indian territory, where they remain.

  What is so perplexing is that the incident has occurred just ahead of a planned visit to India by Premier Li Keqiang, and at a time when economic relations are burgeoning.  Bilateral trade amounted to only about $3bn as recently as 2000.  Now it is $80bn and heading towards $100bn by 2015.  Li’s visit to India will be his first overseas trip since becoming premier, which suggests how important relations with India are seen to be in Beijing.  China’s new president, Xi Jinping, has also indicated the importance of India, describing relations with India as “one of the most important for China”.

  On top of all that, China is engaged in serious confrontations with its neighbours in the East and South China Seas (particularly Japan and the Philippines); it is trying to counter the US’s pivot to Asia; and, only this week, it has seen renewed efforts by Japan to court Russia as a balance to China.  For all these reasons it is a strange moment to pick a fight with India.

  The most likely explanation is that the Chinese military is not entirely at one with the political echelon.  President Xi has emphasized the army’s need to defend China’s territorial integrity, but the army (or, at the very least, localized elements of it) may be taking up this challenge more enthusiastically than Xi contemplated.  It may also be responding to a recent reversal in Indian policy towards the border regions.  Until recently India has not built up the infrastructure along the border, but more recently it has been building roads and air bases in border regions.

  The question of the PLA’s hawkishness has come to the fore this week in another context, with the commander of the Chongqing garrison, General Zhu Heping, writing an article in the Guangming Daily on 29 April which warned about “Western cultural infiltration”.  Zhu is a former secretary to ex-chief of staff Zhong Wannian.  He warned, in the context of “cultural colonialism”, that “the young generation can easily lose its will to resist without knowing”.  He wrote: “Western hostile forces seize every opportunity to sneak attacks against us, and they are pressing harder and harder.”

  Zhu also warned against “depoliticisation of the armed forces”, and local sources have said the general’s article may well have been aimed more at heading off any attempt by Xi to rein in the military than at Western cultural imperialism.

  Meanwhile, back in India, the problem for China is that there are always elements in India willing to see the worst in Beijing.  Former defence minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, chief of the Samajwadi Party, told parliament that China is India’s “biggest enemy”.  Yadav said: “I have been raising this issue for the past eight years.  I had warned that that there will be a repeat of [the war of] 1962.  I even went and met the Prime Minister [Manmohan Singh] in his chamber, yet there was no response. Now, [External Affairs Minister] Salman Khursid is going to China.  To do what?  Beg before them?”  Yadav, whose party gives important external support to the government, accused the government of being “cowardly, incompetent, and good for nothing”.

  Despite Yadav’s urgings, however, the Indian government remains keen to play down the incident, with Defence Minister AK Antony saying that India “remains committed to a peaceful resolution of the situation through dialogue within the framework of agreements for maintaining peace and tranquillity.”

  NOTE: Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made the first official visit to Russia by a Japanese premier for 10 years.  He met with President Vladimir Putin on 29 April with the heavily trailed intention of “building personal trust with Putin” and pushing to restart talks for a peace treaty to formally end World War II hostilities and to resolve the dispute over the Russian-occupied Kurile Islands – taken from Japan at the end of the war.

• Risk pointers

  LatinNews 01 May 2013 Hits: 460

  *** Uighur rebels in Pakistan.  China’s Xinjiang province, home to the downtrodden Muslim Uighurs, has suffered periodically from attacks from the independence-seeking East Turkestan Islamic Movement (Etim).  Pakistani intelligence sources were quoted this week as admitting that there are between 300 and 400 Etim fighters in Pakistan’s Waziristan.  China made allegations about Etim connections in Pakistan after attacks in Kashgar in July 2011.  According to Chinese investigators, the Etim attackers had learnt their trade in Pakistan.  This amounted to unprecedented criticism of Pakistan from China, and the Pakistanis were quick to reassure Beijing of their seriousness in tackling the issue.  The latest revelations, along with the release of an Etim training video of Uighur rebels training in Waziristan, will raise difficulties once again between Islamabad and Beijing.

  *** Reaction against China in Africa.  There have been violent demonstrations in the Niger town of Diffa against a Chinese oil firm operating in the region.  The cause of the unrest by local youths is the employment practices of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).  The youths have been demanding the immediate employment of 5,000 workers from the Manga region, an increase in salaries, and the release of mining royalties and the allocation of 15% of the income from oil to 12 local communes.

  *** Desperate measures in North Korea.  South Korean government sources revealed on 26 April that Pyongyang has been destroying villages along the border with China on the Duman River to prevent defections.  A government source said: “North Korea has been forcibly relocating villagers along the Duman River to places further from the border.”  In one village, Omsong, around 100 houses are said to have been demolished.  Omsong is a popular crossing point because the Duman narrows in this section.

  *** Israeli warning on Syrian chemical weapons.  Former Israeli Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said on 29 April that Syria has begun to transfer chemical weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  He said: “The process of weapons transfer to Hezbollah has began.”

  *** China says Japan can’t split Russia from China.  Following the meeting between Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on 29 April, a number of Chinese media outlets carried commentaries on the “impossibility” of Japan recruiting Russia to any ’contain China’ policy.  As an example, Feng Yujun, director of the Institute of Russian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, was quoted as saying that it was “absolutely impossible” for Russia to cooperate with Japan due to its “balanced diplomatic strategy in the Asia-Pacific region”.