Courcy's Intelligence Brief - 12 October 2011

Items

  • Turkey steps up anti-Israel rhetoric but upsets Iran

    LatinNews 21 October 2011 Hits: 351

    The past week has seen Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan step up his anti-Israel rhetoric.  Despite Turkey’s agreement to station Nato’s anti-missile system on Turkish soil (in return, it seems, for increased US assistance against Kurdish guerrillas), Erdogan is continuing to shift Turkey decisively away from its Ataturkist Western orientation.  His goal is to make Turkey the leading power in the Middle East.  Erdogan is doing this largely but not exclusively on the back of Turkish support for the Palestinians, and his remarks in Pretoria on 5 October were amongst his strongest so far.  He said that Israel imposes “state terrorism” in the region; that it has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians with “bombs that have rained down on them from Israel”, including phosphorus bombs; and that he saw “Israel as a threat for its region because it has the atomic bomb”.  He also said that the West applied double standards (by pursuing Iran over its nuclear programme and not Israel) and that the United Nations had failed to implement its resolutions against Israel (“89 from the UN Security Council and 247 resolutions of the General Assembly”).

    That Turkey since the re-election of Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) on 12 June has dramatically shifted its foreign policy in a neo-Ottoman direction is without question.  Erdogan’s victory speech made it clear this is what he wanted to happen, and it has happened.  In addition to championing the Palestinian cause and confronting Israel at every opportunity, Erdogan is challenging Cyprus (and the EU) over drilling rights in the Eastern Mediterranean, he is moving Turkey closer to post-Mubarak Egypt, and he is increasingly supporting the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

    None of this is helpful to securing a Mideast peace settlement (which depends upon Israel feeling safe and being prepared to compromise), but nor is any of it surprising given Erdogan’s personal views and his ambitions for Turkey.  What is interesting, however, is that Erdogan seems so prepared to upset Iran.  He has now made three moves that have been interpreted in Tehran as hostile.  The first was the decision to host the Nato anti-missile shield on Turkish soil.  The second was his insistence on his recent visit to Egypt that its post-Mubarak model for government should be secular, and the third has been his increasing support for the Syrian opposition.

    The first was probably unavoidable, given US pressure (and the incentive of additional help against the Kurdistan Workers Party – PKK - guerrillas).  The second could probably be overlooked by Tehran given that the sort of secular regime that Erdogan has in mind is Islam-based and very far from the militant secularism of Turkey’s military-backed governments.  The Syrian question, however, is a far more serious challenge to Tehran.

    All the information we have suggests that Iran has been keen to forge close ties with post-Mubarak Egypt and had been putting pressure on the Assad regime to welcome the increased influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  In other words, Tehran has been trying to play down the Shia-Sunni divide with regard to Egypt (if not Saudi Arabia).  Tehran’s hope was that Turkey would see the advantage in an Egypt-Iran-Turkey collaboration over the shape of the new Middle East - but Erdogan’s increasing opposition to Assad appears to be pushing Iran away.

    From a Turkish perspective, this makes good sense.  It makes it more difficult for the US to turn against Turkey, despite Erdogan’s strong shift against Israel.  He also knows that the removal of the Assad regime in Syria will have Saudi Arabian support and is unlikely to alienate Egypt.  The downside, though, is that it will stir up Iran, which in turn is likely to increase sectarian tensions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

    It is also possible that Iran, which has recently been collaborating with Turkey against Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq, could return to supporting the PKK against Turkey.  On 10 October, the head of Iran’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Brigadier-General Masoud Jazayeri, warned Turkey of “adverse consequences” if it continued with the plan to host the Nato anti-missile radar.  He said: “Turkey should rethink its long-term strategic interests and draw lessons from the bitter historical experiences of other countries.”  On 11 October, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc admitted: “Iran and the PKK might be having negotiations.”  It was also reported the same day that senior PKK guerrilla Murat Karayilan, who had been captured in August, had been released by Iran.

    Another pointer is a ceasefire that Iran has reached with the Iranian PKK offshoot, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), which intelligence sources believe could be linked to a new cooperation deal between Iran and the PKK in Turkey.

    The Iranian narrative is that Turkey under Erdogan is in reality serving pro-Israeli interests by calling for secular government in Egypt, working for the overthrow of Assad, and by stationing Nato’s anti-missile radar on its territory.  But that is certainly wrong.  Erdogan is being far more subtle.  He is continuing, indeed increasing, his hostility to Israel as the way to Arab Sunni hearts and to increased Turkish influence in the Middle East, but by supporting the Syrian opposition and eschewing an alliance with Iran he is making it far more difficult for the US to oppose his moves.  He is also endearing himself to Saudi Arabia, which itself is becoming increasingly vocal against Israel as it seeks to mollify its own restive public opinion.  The downside, in addition to making it more difficult for the US to modify Turkey’s anti-Israeli stance, is that it further incites Iran to exploit Shia and Kurdish frustrations – in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon.  JdeC.

    NOTE: The Kurds remain Turkey’s Achilles Heel.  Although Turkey has not collected ethnic data in censuses since 1965, it is estimated that there are between 11m and 15m Kurds in Turkey’s 74m population, half living in the south-east and half in western cities.  The Kurdish rebellion has resulted in at least 30,000 deaths since 1984, and there has been a resurgence in violence since Erdogan’s re-election in June when there was a clear hardening of Erdogan’s stance on the Kurdish question (he dropped two key pro-Kurdish candidates from his list and announced that he would have hanged Ocalan).  Since then, over 60 Turkish soldiers have been killed and around 170 Kurdish guerrillas.  There have been Turkish air attacks on PKK bases in northern Iraq, where it is thought there are 3,000-5,000 PKK guerrillas.  And it is thought that there are more than 3,000 Kurdish activists still in Turkish jails following a crackdown that began in April 2009.  Mostly these activists were arrested simply for expressing opinions considered to be pro-PKK.


  • Putin's China visit

    LatinNews 21 October 2011 Hits: 312

    Our main briefing last week looked at Russian vulnerabilities, including China’s lessening dependence on Russia for modern weaponry.  This week, Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been in Beijing trying to boost ties and talking about the “truly strategic nature” of their partnership.  However, the 11-12 October visit has not diminished the impression that Russia is increasingly the junior partner.  An interesting piece of news management concerning Russia-India collaboration on “hypersonic cruise missiles” may have been intended as a reminder that Russia is not to be taken for granted.

    There are many areas of agreement between Russia and China, not least over Nato’s actions in Libya and the need to prevent any repetition in Syria.  They cooperate with the framework of the Brics grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the G20.  And both sides are committed to expanding bilateral trade further, from $60bn in 2011 to $100bn within three years.
    China will also have been pleased with Putin’s attack on US economic policy at a time when China and the US are embroiled in an escalating dispute over the value of their respective currencies.  Putin told a pro-Kremlin youth rally on Monday: "They [the US] are living beyond their means and shifting a part of the weight of their problems to the world economy...They are living like parasites off the global economy and their monopoly of the dollar."

    Nevertheless, as we pointed out last week, China has not placed a significant weapons order with Russia since 2005, and in 2007 Russian arms exports to China fell to half the level of 2006.  They declined again slightly in 2008 and further in 2009 and 2010.  China’s share of Russian arms exports was just 10% in 2010, well below the average of 40% estimated for the 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    And as a recent report from the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (Sipri) noted, while in 2009 Russia became the world’s largest producer of oil and second largest of natural gas, and while China (which shares a 4,000km border with Russia) became the world’s largest energy consumer in 2010, Russian crude oil now constitutes a smaller share (6%) of China's overall oil imports than five years ago.  China has strategically diversified its suppliers, and its largest oil supplier is Saudi Arabia, followed by Angola, Iran and Oman.  In the gas sector, Russia’s negotiating position has been weakened by China’s success in finding other partners, especially in Central Asia.

    China’s gas deficit by 2020 is expected to be 200bn cubic metres a year, so it would be astonishing if Russia weren’t able to close a deal.  But when, on the last day of Putin’s visit to China, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin referred to current negotiations on gas supplies to China, it was hardly in effusive terms.  He said: “We are currently working on gas, we are sure contracts will be signed when the work is finished.”  He mentioned a likely level of supply to China of 30bn cubic metres of gas a year.

    As we argued last week, there is no sign at all of a rift between Russia and China.  But, equally, nothing in Putin’s visit to China this week alters the conclusion we reached last week, namely that the combination of China’s inexorable rise with its lessening dependency on Russia for weapons and energy can only feed Russia’s feelings of insecurity.  And no doubt it was exactly this feeling of insecurity that prompted the Kremlin, on the eve of Putin’s visit to Beijing, to send China a reminder about Russia’s close military and technology ties with India.

    On 10 October, the Russian military news agency Interfax-AVN carried a report highlighting the joint development with India of a hypersonic Mach-7 version of the BrahMos stealth cruise missile.  An agreement was signed in August between BrahMos Aerospace, the Moscow Aviation Institute, and the Indian Institute of Science to set up a centre for advanced technologies in high-speed aerodymanics.  The Moscow Aviation Institute and the Indian Institute of Science will design key elements of the missile, which was described in the report as “the world’s best supersonic missile”.

    Separately, on 7 October, Putin announced that the Russian army and navy was to be almost completely rearmed in the next 10 years.  He told a meeting dedicated to the development of Russia’s military-industrial complex: “It is necessary to prepare industry for large-scale serial production of advanced hardware and weapons”.  He said that over the next decade, Russia would need to invest nearly $100m in the defence industry.  This would entail the modernization of as many as 1,700 enterprises.  And, he added:?“We expect that the investment of these significant resources in the defence industry will facilitate the modernization of the entire Russian economy.”


  • Revival of speculation about Israeli strike against Iran

    LatinNews 21 October 2011 Hits: 307

    It will be recalled that in January former Mossad chief Meir Dagan caused a stir by saying, on the day of his retirement, that Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015.  Then in early May he told a conference in Israel that a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be “a stupid idea”.  At the beginning of last week, Dagan returned to the fray, saying: “The military option is still far from being the preferred one for Israel.  As of now, there are still tools and means available that are far more effective.”

    Dagan’s remarks coincided with a visit to Israel by US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, and the suspicion in some circles is that Dagan’s remarks and Panetta’s visit may have been prompted by concerns that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was edging closer to a move against Iran.  This suspicion has been further fuelled by this week’s news that Netanyahu has agreed a deal for the return of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in return for the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.  The thesis is that this could be a deck-clearing move.  We have no inside intelligence on Netanyahu’s deliberations, but it is clearly still a live debate within Israeli policymaking circles.  Our own assessment is that the more cautious view will prevail for now for two main reasons.

    The first is that the 2015 date probably is accurate, and so that does give more time for Dagan’s “other means” to succeed.  The second is that it is still possible, as Panetta is arguing, that the hardline regime in Iran will be weakened by the knock-on effects of the Arab Spring.  We have argued strongly since the start of the Arab Spring that it would be a mistake to assume that all its consequences would be positive.  In particular, we have argued that it is likely to make the Israel-Palestine dispute more difficult to resolve.

    On the other hand, the argument advanced by Iran, that the Arab Spring is an Islamist revolution, is equally untrue.  The Muslim Brotherhood will undoubtedly gain in influence and stature in Egypt, Jordan, and - if Assad falls - Syria.  But that is not the same as saying it is an Islamist revolution, and ordinary Iranians are not buying into the ayatollahs’ propaganda.  They are also fully aware that Iran is siding with the ancien regime in Syria, not with the revolutionaries.  And, as we have reported elsewhere in this issue, Turkey is strongly supporting the Arab revolutions but distancing itself from Iran.  So, while it is still possible that the Iranian regime will emerge from the regional turmoil unscathed, perhaps even strengthened if Assad hangs on and Shia influence is increased in the Gulf States, it is too early to make that judgement.  We believe those around Netanyahu arguing for a policy of ‘wait-and-see’ will prevail for now.


  • Risk pointers

    LatinNews 21 October 2011 Hits: 200

    *** Russia says US must leave Central Asia.  Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Borodavkin said on 7 October that once US forces withdraw from Afghanistan, the US should also withdraw its forces from Central Asia.  He said: “We insist on this”.  The US maintains a military base at Manas in Kyrgyzstan for the supply of its troops in Afghanistan.  On the same day, Russia’s permanent representative to Nato, Dmitriy Rogozin, said that Russia would not agree to a US military presence in Afghanistan after the expiry of the UN Security Council mandate.  He said: “This is what we shall never be able to agree to.  Afghanistan should be free from foreign interference in its internal affairs.”

    *** Pakistan rages at India-Afghan pact and US.  The former head of Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau, Imtiaz Ahmed, has described the Strategic Partnership Pact between India and Afghanistan as a “red alert for regional peace”.  He said: “Afghan President Hamed Karzai seems to have acted as a pawn for the execution of an Indo-American bipartite strategic offensive in South Asia”.  He warned that “America is hell bent on building a primary role for India in Afghanistan to neutralize Pakistan’s regional strength and prop up India as their watchdog in South Asia.”

    *** China democracy debate boosted by anniversary.  The 9 October 100th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution, which ended 2,000 years of imperial rule, has caused ideological difficulties for China’s ruling Communist Party (CCP).  The revolution led to the creation of the Republic of China (ROC) by Sun Yat-sen.  The ROC was subsequently overthrown by the communists in 1949 and the remnants of the ROC retreated to Taiwan where it lives on and is embodied in the ruling Kuomintang (KMT).

    We have been monitoring the coverage of the anniversary, and there has been something of an upsurge in Republican nostalgia and uncomfortable parallels have been widely drawn.  One prominent blogger, Fu Guoyong, wrote: “This land and its people are trapped in a historical predicament that bears surprising resemblance to the situation 100 years ago.  Except for the few who have vested interests, almost the whole nation is awaiting change.”

    A number of events marking the centenary were called off under pressure from the authorities, but this has been unable to hide the popular enthusiasm for the 1911 revolution, which has been in evidence in the press and on the internet.  Zhang Ming, a historian at Beijing’s Renmin University, speculated in the CCP’s own Global Times newspaper that if the KMT were allowed to run in a mainland election it would win.  In another sign of the confusion, a 1st October editorial in the CCP’s official People’s Daily, marking the 62nd anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, mentioned Sun Yat-sen but not Mao Zedong, the founder of the communist PRC.  This provoked outrage in conservative circles.