Courcy's Intelligence Brief - 15 June 2011

Items

  • Turkey seeking leadership role in the Muslim world

    LatinNews 06 September 2011 Hits: 478

    It is not often that a politician from Bosnia-Herzegovina (BH) provides the most thought-provoking comment of the week, but the reaction of Nebojsa Radmanovic, chairman of the BH presidency, to the post-election victory speech by Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a well-judged warning about growing Turkish ambitions.  One can imagine that the private thoughts of Israel’s policymakers were even more forthright.

    Erdogan’s Islam-based Justice and Development Party (AKP) won its third consecutive mandate by a higher margin than it achieved in 2007, taking 325 of the 550 seats on offer.  This resounding victory has been attributed primarily to the fact that the AKP has presided over an unprecedented period of economic growth, with per capita income rising from $3,392 in 2002 (the year it began its first mandate) to $10,079 in 2010.

    But there are two other factors that are equally important.  The first is that the AKP’s Islamic orientation appeals to Turkey’s pious and conservative poor, allowing the AKP to outflank the secular Kemalist elite (the business element of which has, in any case, become reconciled to the AKP because of the rapid economic growth).

    The second is foreign policy.  By moving Turkey away from its excessively pro-Western orientation, where it was constantly begging for membership of a European Union that demonstrably does not want it, Erdogan has restored Turkish pride.  As one example, from being an ally of Israel, Turkey has become a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights.  But now, it would appear from Erdogan’s victory speech, he has much grander pan-regional ambitions – and it is this that has upset the chairman of the BH presidency.

    Saluting the AKP’s victory, Erdogan proclaimed from the balcony of his party’s headquarters that “Sarajevo won today as much as Istanbul; Beirut won as much as Izmir; Damascus won as much as Ankara; Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, the West Bank, Jerusalem won as much as Diyarbakir.”

    It was the reference to Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina (where 48% of the population is estimated to be Muslim, 37% Serb, and 17% Croat), that upset the chairman of the BH presidency.  Radmanovic noted: “New great powers appear who from time to time want to influence matters.  Turkey is a great power [and] wants to demonstrate it...”  Then he warned: “If someone is a friend of any people in BH, let him not give statements which will further divide us in BH...”

    With Erdogan declaring that his victory will also be a victory for the people of Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, there will be even greater disquiet in Israel.  In recent times, Erdogan has done little to hide his anti-Israel sentiments, even to the extent that in the run-up to the election he blamed Israel for the concerns expressed about his likely re-election in some sections of the international media.  He said the foreign media were part of “mafia-like organizations” run by “international dark elites” and doing the bidding of Israel.  Now, with his victory statement, Erdogan has strongly reiterated his intention to espouse the cause of the West Bank Palestinians.

    There is, of course, nothing wrong with a sympathetic attitude towards the Palestinian cause, and the received opinion in the West is that Israel must respond to the Arab Spring by making a decisive gesture towards peace and reconciliation with the Palestinians.  The problem, however, is that seen from Jerusalem the strategic balance in the Middle East is looking increasingly dangerous, and Erodgan’s remarks have only heightened this feeling of insecurity.

    Israel sees Hamas spreading its influence from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank by way of a unity government with Fateh; it sees Egypt moving away from Camp David and facilitating the rapprochement between Hamas and Fateh; it sees Hezbollah consolidating its power in Lebanon; it sees chaos in Libya, Syria, and Yemen (along with the possible return of the Taleban to power in Afghanistan) providing space for post-bin Laden al-Qaeda to regroup; and it sees little prospect of the nuclear-weapon-seeking Iranian regime succumbing to the democratic waves sweeping the Middle East.

    Now, on top of all that, Turkey has re-elected the AKP for a third term, in part because of the AKP’s steering of Turkish foreign policy away from its pro-Western orientation towards a policy based on Muslim leadership.  And such a policy, as Erdogan has made clear, has to include opposition to Israel.

    We have been arguing since the start of the Arab Spring that these events would make Israel less not more likely to agree to the territorial compromises necessary for peace.  Erdogan’s re-election, and particularly the terms in which he has presented that re-election, can only reinforce that view.  If the Bosnian presidency is alarmed by Erdogan’s victory boasts, Israel’s alarm will be by an order of magnitude greater – and countries make peace when they feel safe, not when they feel threatened.  JdeC.

  • Consolidating the post-Soviet space, opposing Nato

    LatinNews 06 September 2011 Hits: 528

    In our 11 May issue we reported on the importance that Moscow is attaching to the development of a Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan and the creation of a single economic space (SEC).  Russia is giving equal attention, on the military side, to the continuing development of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).  At a time when Russia remains at odds with Nato over missile defence, the Kremlin seems determined to increase the importance of the CSTO within the post-Soviet space, and to enhance how it is viewed beyond that space.

    The scale of the Kremlin’s ambitions for the SEC were revealed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in early May, when he said that he saw the SEC as providing a new dynamic for the reintegration of the former Soviet republics – and, eventually, as providing a strategic counterweight to the European Union.  He said: “I am sure that a strong integration-oriented union can radically change the geopolitical configuration of the entire Eurasian space and stimulate integration processes in the CIS.”

    The CSTO is a more extensive organization than the SEC, grouping Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.  A coordination conference of the chairmen of defence and security committees of the parliaments of the CSTO member states was held in Russia’s State Duma on 9 June.

    At this meeting, CSTO Secretary-General Nikolay Bordyuzha argued that international security and stability was “developing inconsistently and not always predictably”, and he argued that in view of this there was a need to develop and improve the CSTO as a means of collective security.  He added, according to the CSTO press secretary, that “the military factor is gaining rather than losing importance”.

    As of now, the CSTO’s military capability is built around a series of bilateral and sub-regional initiatives, including a Russia-Belarus force for Eastern Europe and a Russia-Armenia force for the Caucasus.  In addition, there is the 20,000-strong Collective Rapid Reaction Force (KSOR) and the Collective Rapid Deployment Force (KSBAR) in Central Asia. The latter comprises 10 battalions, three each from Russia and Tajikistan and two each from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.  Finally there is the 3,500-strong CSTO Peacekeeping Force.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin is continuing to grumble furiously about the US’s missile-defence plans for Europe, and the 9 June meeting of the Nato-Russia Council failed to close the gap between the two sides.  Russia’s fear is that Nato’s anti-missile systems will eventually have the potential to neutralize Russia’s second-strike capability.  In particular, Russia fears that interceptors planned for deployment in 2018 and 2020 will be fast enough to intercept Russian ICBMs.

    Others, including well-placed Russians, say that these fears are exaggerated as there will not be enough interceptors to undermine the deterrent value of 1,500 Russian warheads deployed on 500 strategic delivery vehicles.  Furthermore, the Commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, Lt General Sergei Karakayev, has said that Russia’s Topol-M and RS-24 ICBMs would be invulnerable to any defence currently envisaged.
    But for Moscow the issue is as much political as military.  On 12 June, the Russian foreign ministry responded to a visit to the Black Sea by the US Navy cruiser Monterey (which is armed with the Aegis anti-missile system) by saying: “The Russian side has repeatedly stressed that we will not leave unnoticed the appearance of elements of the USA’s strategic infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of our borders and will regard such steps as a threat to our security.”  It added that move seemed to be intended “to show Russia that no-one is going to take our opinion into account”.

    It is possible that Russia also senses Nato vulnerability, particularly the inability of the European powers to shoulder their share of the Nato burden.  The Europeans have allowed their share of Nato’s spending to drop from 50% at the time of the Cold War to 25%, a fact highlighted by Anglo-French fears over their abilty to sustain operations in Libya for very much longer.  But with the United States also facing huge pressure for defence cuts, the pressure on the Europeans can only increase.  As Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen put it earlier this week: “The obvious solution...would be for Europe to spend more on defence.  But given the economic environment, it is highly unlikely that European governments will make any significant changes.”

  • The China challenge

    LatinNews 06 September 2011 Hits: 459

    In the first of two briefings last week on China, we reported on how, at the previous week’s Shangri-La security summit, there had been a strong sense of China’s neighbours no longer trusting Beijing’s protestations of “peaceful rise”.  This feeling of mistrust and confrontation has been reinforced in the past week, with Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines all showing a determination to resist Chinese pressure.

    The tone was set for the week by China’s Liu Cigui, director of the State Oceanic Administration.  In a front-page article on 8 June in China Ocean News to mark the UN’s World Oceans Day, Liu said that China intended to step up regular maritime surveillance near the country’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.  He said: “It is an arduous task to safeguard our nation’s maritime interests as the international fight for resource and strategic interests grows increasingly intense and complex.”  The tone of Li’s article was particularly noteworthy given that the rest of the world sees World Oceans Day as an opportunity to focus on marine conservation.

    His article also coincided with the passage, on 8-9 June, of 11 Chinese naval ships into the Pacific by way of the sea lane between Japan’s Okinawa and Miyako Islands.  The passage of the ships was not an infringement of international law, and China said that the deployment was for the purpose of “routine” drills at the end of the month in international waters in the western Pacific.  But Japan still took the deployment as a threat, with Chief of Staff General Ryoichi Oriki saying: “We are greatly concerned about the fact that the Chinese navy has activated operations.  We will implement warning and surveillance activities as necessary.”

    A day later, Japan’s Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa added: “Our country’s policy is to keep monitoring Chinese naval vessels with serious concern and gather information on it.”

    Also on 9 June, Vietnam complained that again Chinese ships had harassed a Vietnamese vessel conducting a seismic survey in the South China Sea (or East Sea as the Vietnamese call it).  A similar incident had occurred on 26 May, but this time Vietnam responded by conducting a live-fire naval exercise off Quang Nam Province on 13 June.

    China, in turn, responded by accusing Vietnam of misrepresenting the 9 June incident and “gravely violating” its sovereignty.  Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei complained: “It must be pointed out that by conducting unlawful oil and gas surveys in seas around the Wanan Bank of the Spratly archipelago and by driving out a Chinese fishing vessel, Vietnam has gravely violated China’s sovereignty and maritime rights.”

    Meanwhile, during the past week the Philippines, which has complained of six Chinese intrusions since January, started referring to the “West Philippine Sea” instead of the South China Sea. Likewise, it has started calling Reed Bank “Recto Bank” after Filipino nationalist Claro M Recto.

    China, in turn, has accused the Philippines of harming its sovereignty.  On 9 June China’s foreign ministry said: “China asks the Philippine side to stop harming China’s sovereignty and maritime rights and interests...The Philippine side should stop publishing irresponsible statements that do not match the facts.”  China also demanded that the Philippines should seek China’s permission before conducting oil exploration activities in areas that China claims.

    A warning to the US

    Finally, China warned the US to keep out of the dispute, saying that using the need to maintain freedom of navigation as an excuse for becoming involved was not convincing “because the maritime route has always been peaceful, stable, and free”.

    Not surprisingly the US has shown no sign of backing off, and it is currently holding a joint 10-day naval exercise with the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.  A further joint US-Philippines naval exercise will be held from 28 June to 8 July in the Sulu Sea, and the US is due to hold joint naval drills with Vietnam next month.

  • Risk pointers

    LatinNews 06 September 2011 Hits: 335

    *** Indian fears over China water plans.  The possibility of China diverting the waters of the Brahmaputra to the detriment of India has been raised again.  The river enters India from Tibet and is vital to the Indian state of Assam.  Following reports of new Chinese plans to divert waters to Xinjiang, India’s External Affairs Minister SM Krishna said on 13 June that he was seeking clarification from Beijing.

    Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi is to meet with Krishna on 16 June to ask him to pursue the question with vigour,  He has said that he is "very concerned" about the reported Chinese plan as any diversion in the course of the river would affect Assam’s agricultural economy.

    The issue has also been taken up with some enthusiasm by the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose spokesman said: “These reports are of real concern to India.  Since the last two years there are reports that China wants to divert the Brahmaputra waters from the Himalayas.  If it is diverted, we will have terrible environmental, ecological, and real problems which will affect the economy of the whole region.”

    *** Clinton warns Africa about China.  On 11 June, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provided further evidence that US-China relations are going through a rocky patch with remarks recorded for a television programme in Zambia.  Clinton described China’s policies in Africa as a “new colonialism”.

    She said: “We saw that during colonial times it is easy to come in, take out natural resources, pay off leaders, and leave...And when you leave, you don’t leave much behind for the people who are there.  We don’t want to see a new colonialism in Africa.”  China’s foreign ministry responded by saying: “We hope the parties concerned will view Sino-African cooperation in an objective and just manner.”

    Interestingly, as we reported in our 25 May issue, India has also been critical of Western attitudes to Chinese as well as Indian engagement in Africa.  A senior Indian official accompanying Prime Minister Singh during his recent visit to Africa complained on 24 May that the West was trying to portray the engagement in Africa of both China and India in a negative light to protect its own vested interests.  He said: “The West is setting up Africa as a zone of contention.  They want to play India against China.  They want us to be at each other’s throat.”

    *** Egypt delays resuming ties with Iran.  Egypt has been under huge US pressure not to resume diplomatic relations with Iran.  On 12 June, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Abdallah al-Araby confirmed that “Iran is not an enemy of Egypt”, but he added that the decision to resume diplomatic relations will be left to the new Egyptian parliament to decide in about three months’ time.  Leaving it to parliament will neatly sidestep US objections.