Courcy's Intelligence Brief - 21 September 2011

Items

  • Dangerous passions being stirred in Turkey

    LatinNews 20 October 2011 Hits: 379

    We issued a Special Alert last week (on 16 September) about instability in the Middle East and in particular about how Western policymakers have underestimated (or at least misinterpreted) the growing importance of Arab public opinion on developments in the region.  We argued that this development makes the Palestinian question more not less important, a point emphasized by the Saudi Arabian warning that its special relationship with the US would “increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims” if the US were to oppose the Palestinians’ bid for statehood and UN membership.  The view of many Western policymakers that the Arab Spring means that the Palestinian question has been superseded in importance by bread-and-butter issues such as jobs is misplaced.  But at least in the Arab Middle East, particularly in Egypt and Jordan, leaders are still trying to moderate and channel public opinion.  By contrast, in Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is stirring up Turkish nationalist sentiment with potentially dangerous consequences.

    We have paid a lot of attention in recent weeks to Turkey’s bid for increasing influence in post-revolutionary Middle East based on strong support for the Palestinian cause and alignment with post-Mubarak Egypt.  In order to garner maximum public support for Turkey’s new orientation (and to inoculate himself against military opposition to the break with Israel), Erdogan has sought to play up the dispute with Israel over the latter’s attack on the Mavi Marmara in May 2010 in which nine Turkish citizens were killed.

    Of equal importance is the escalating dispute over oil and gas exploration rights in the Eastern Mediterranean, which is putting Turkey at odds not just with Israel but also with Greece and the wider European Union.  And here, again, Erdogan has not been slow to play on Turkish nationalist sentiment.  It is never difficult to stir up  a Turk on the subject of Greece, but Erdogan seems to have eschewed the role of the responsible statesman and is making little attempt to keep nationalist passions under control.

    In New York this week, Erdogan said that by beginning oil and gas exploration, “the Greek Cypriot administration and Israel are doing a mad thing in the Mediterranean.  [The] Greek Cypriot administration’s drilling activity is nothing but sabotaging the negotiation process between the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots.”  He added: “Turkish Cypriot people also have rights in the Mediterranean.  As a guarantor country, we will support them in their efforts to protect their rights...Our assault boats and frigates are already in the region.”

    Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc issued an equally blunt warning from Ankara on 20 September, saying: “If the Greek Cypriot administration makes exploratory oil drilling, Turkey will respond to it.  Turkey will also begin oil drilling.  Naval forces and air forces will also support drilling.  It is not a bluff.  It is the right of Turkey.”

    That Turkish Cypriots have legitimate interests - and that Turkey is the only country that is willing and able to protect them – is undeniable.  However, our concern is over the tone with which the current Turkish administration is pursuing its policies, both with regard to Palestine and maritime exploration rights.

    The way in which Erdogan’s ‘foghorn diplomacy’ is playing with Turkish public opinion can be seen in a commentary published by the liberal-Islamic Yeni Safak on 20 September.  The commentary warned its readers that “Israel together with Greece, southern Cyprus, Germany, and France are engaged in a full blown Cold War against Turkey”.  It warned that Israel is “inciting the Balkan countries – Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and even Serbia – against Turkey”, and it added that Israel was also bringing Georgia into “a containment strategy...against Turkey”.

    In September, Turkey cancelled a planned joint military exercise with Israel and other military co-operation.  Joint exercises had been a feature of close military relations between Israel and Turkey up until the Mavi Marmara incident, as was close co-operation on weapons development.  Now, however, Turkey is representing similar joint military exercises held by Israel with Greece, Italy, Romania, and others as being part of a new ‘Mediterranean axis’ aimed at Turkey.

    This is paranoia of a high order, and paranoia is always and everywhere destabilizing.  One of the principal problems of the Eastern Mediterranean, for instance, is that fear of its neighbours is Israel’s permanent state.  Now it would seem that Turkey, under Erdogan, is developing its own persecution complex to add to the region’s volatile mix.

    The Yeni Safak commentary warned that “fingers are on the trigger in the Eastern Mediterranean and...just one spark is all it will take to create unending crises or even fighting”.  That may be so, but the Turkish government is contributing to this sense of instability.  At a time when the Eastern Mediterranean requires the coolest heads, Erdogan’s rhetoric is stirring dangerous Turkish nationalist passions and, naturally, reciprocal actions in the countries with which Turkey is at odds.  Apart from being destabilizing, it is an odd thing to do at a time when Turkey’s regional star has so clearly been in the ascendancy.  JdeC.

  • Pakistan's anti-US drift reinforced by premier's visit to Iran

    LatinNews 20 October 2011 Hits: 354

    US-Pakistan relations seemed to be improving slightly following the arrest on 5 September of senior al-Qaeda operative Sheikh Younis al-Mauritani in a joint Pakistani intelligence/CIA operation.  However, in the days following the 13 September attacks on the US embassy and Nato buildings in Kabul, which the US has blamed on the Pakistan-based Haqqani network, a series of US officials have made clear their continuing disenchantment with Islamabad.  Most publicly (and bluntly), the US ambassador to Pakistan Cameron  Munter told Radio Pakistan on 16 September “There is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government.  This is something that must stop.”  Pakistani officials have responded by warning the US about the level of anti-US sentiment in Pakistan, while the Pakistani press’s praise for Prime Minister Yusuf Raza  Gillani’s recent trip to Iran reinforces the point about where public sentiment lies.

    he breach of Pakistani sovereignty by US forces is what is causing the biggest difficulty for Pakistan, yet US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta raised this spectre again when he said after the 13 September attacks that the US will do everything necessary to defend allied forces in Afghanistan against attacks by the Haqqani group, including launching attacks on the militants’ bases in Pakistan.  This prompted a Pakistani foreign office spokesman to warn: “Any unilateral action on Pakistan’s soil will have disastrous ramifications for ties between Islamabad and Washington.”

    One retired general, Abdul Qayyum, wrote on 19 September: “If the United States believes that it can conduct an operation against the Haqqani network in Pakistan it should know that any such step would be declared as a violation of the Geneva Convention and will be counted as an attack on a sovereign country.  I hope the Americans will not initiate any such war.”

    The legality of such attacks is being taken up by Pakistan’s Human Rights Ministry (HRM), which has decided to raise the issue of drone attacks with the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.  At a media briefing on 19 September, the prime minister’s adviser Mustafa Nawaz Khokar said that the US was showing “a blatant disregard for international law, customary law, treaties, and conventions”.

    The alternative is for Pakistan itself to deal with the Haqqani network, but on 16 September Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ishfaq Parvez Kayani told a Nato defence chiefs meeting in Spain that Pakistan would “formulate policy in accordance with its national interests” and (he emphasized) “the wishes of the Pakistani people”.

    Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar also emphasized the issue of Pakistani public opinion in discussions in New York with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 19 September, saying that anti-American sentiment was running very strongly and that officials needed to work on improving the US’s image in Pakistan.

    This is a serious problem.  In a briefing in our 20 July issue we looked at anti-Americanism in Pakistan.  We noted that during the past six months, the growing estrangement between Pakistan and the US had been reflected in every Pakistani newspaper and media outlet of note, particularly in their commentaries on the Raymond Davies affair in March, the killing of Osama bin Laden in early May, Hillary Clinton’s visit in late May, the ongoing US drone attacks on terrorist targets within Pakistan, and the US calls for a military offensive in North Waziristan.

    In the past week, the way in which the Pakistani media has dealt with Prime Minister Yusuf Gillani’s 13-14 September visit to Iran makes the same point in a different way.  They are all positive about Pakistan-Iran relations, and some specifically see close ties with Iran as a balance to an historic over-reliance on the United States – and as a necessary precaution ahead of the US’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Here are some representative examples:

    - Daily Times (Lahore-based anti-jihadist moderate English-language daily):

    "Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani's visit to Iran signals...a paradigm shift in Pakistan's foreign policy...The 'shift' referred to may be seen as disillusionment with excessive reliance on the US or the West, traditionally Islamabad's preferred partners, and a 'return' to seeking regional cooperation...The new energy in Pakistan-Iran relations is of a piece with the tectonic power shifts taking place in the region as the Afghan endgame approaches."

    - The Nation (Islamabad-based conservative nationalist English-language daily):

    "The nation, fed up with the pro-US policies of the PPP [Pakistan People's Party]-led government that have badly undermined our national interests, would feel delighted to learn that Pakistan has finally revamped its foreign policy and decided to develop 'very close' relations with its neighbours...The changing global scenario and the role the US has been playing in creating turmoil in the region should make the neighbouring countries think in terms of moving away from the US; and, in our context, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Turkey should join hands and as a single unit to address these issues."

    - Pakistan Observer (Islamabad-based pro-military English-language daily):

    "Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani's two-day visit to Iran has proved to be a highly productive one as it has brought the two brotherly countries still closer in different fields...Islamabad wants a very close relationship with Tehran and to give fresh impetus to the existing bilateral ties...It appeared that the two sides are determined to move swiftly towards this direction."

    - Daily Express (Islamabad edition of Karachi-based widely-sold moderate Urdu daily):

    "Iran and Pakistan are extending cooperation with each other.  They can make good progress in all the sectors by establishing mutual trade markets... It is necessary that traders are provided with facilities to enhance trade with Iran."

    - Jinnah (Islamabad-based Urdu daily):

    "Pakistan is facing a serious energy crisis these days.  Huge investment is needed for this purpose.  Cooperation with Iran in the energy sector should be enhanced.  In this regard, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani has reached Iran on an official visit...It is the need of the hour that the energy projects with Iran are completed at the earliest."

    - Nawa-i-Waqt (Rawalpindi-based conservative nationalist Urdu daily):

    "[An] alliance of Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan is the most important need of the hour.  These countries should demonstrate unity to become such a power which can foil designs of the enemies of Islam."

    Policy implications

    There are two aspects to all this.  There is the undeniable anti-Americanism of Pakistani public opinion, which plays an important role, but this is also complemented by the growing feeling within Pakistan policymaking circles that the US can and should be prevented from remaining in Afghanistan after 2014 by the combined diplomatic efforts of Pakistan, China, Russia, and Iran.

    Pakistani sources say that Islamabad is involved in intensive diplomatic efforts to this end, and in particular it is trying to persuade Tehran that a return of the Taleban to influence in Kabul is a lesser evil than a permanent American presence.  Tehran seems to have accepted this provided the Taleban’s primary area of influence is confined to the southeast of the country.

    A Pakistani foreign ministry official was quoted late last week as saying: “Discussions in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Islamabad right now are focusing on how these regional players should take a lead role in the transition in Afghanistan.”  Against this, in testimony to Congress in March, US Deputy Undersecretary of Defence Michele Flournoy said that the US will continue to carry out counter-terrorism operations from bases in Afghanistan “well beyond 2014”.

    On 19 September, discussing the foreign minister’s talks with Clinton in New York, a Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman said: “We attach importance to US relations and wish to work towards a friction-free relationship”.  That would seem to be an unlikely outcome given the present alignment between popular anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the similar views of influential sections of the policymaking establishment in Islamabad.

  • Risk pointers

    LatinNews 20 October 2011 Hits: 166

    *** For Washington, concerns to the south as well.  The 15 September release of the US State Department’s annual blacklist of countries ranked as major producers or transit routes for illegal narcotics re-emphasizes the level to which the countries of Latin America are riddled with criminality.  In particular, the inclusion of Belize and El Salvador for the first time on the blacklist, which means that all Central American countries are now blacklisted, highlights the increasing presence of Mexican gangs in the region through which 90% of US-bound cocaine transits.

    The crisis in Mexico hardly needs rehearsing.  The country is not a failed state, but it does have the potential to become one.  In 2010, nearly 12,000 people were killed by gangsters, which isn’t far short of the 15,000 soldiers that the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan over 10 years from 1979-89.  And, as the 100% blacklisting of Central America shows, the problem of Mexican gangsterism is spreading.  Out of 22 countries on the US blacklist, 17 come from Latin America.  And out of the list of three countries deemed to have “failed demonstrably” to have met its counter-narcotics obligations, two are Latin American: Bolivia and Venezuela (the third is Myanmar).

    None of the Southern Cone countries is included on the blacklist, but Brazil is causing other concerns.  It is half way through a 2-year stint as a rotating member of the United Nations Security Council, and it has not impressed the US with its performance, particularly over Libya, prompting the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, to note that Brazil’s performance on the UNSC has allowed the US to “learn a lot and, frankly, not all of it encouraging”.

    *** India to review Chinese interest in northeast insurgent groups.  On 15 September, Nechal Sandhu, the director of the Indian Intelligence Bureau, told a three-day conference of senior police officers that there is “fresh evidence of intrusive interest of China in the affairs of Indian insurgent groups [in the northeast] which need to be reviewed at the earliest”.

    *** Militarization of Nigeria.  According to military sources in Nigeria, the country is experiencing its biggest deployment of soldiers in peacetime.  A senior military officer says: “There is an unprecedented deployment of troops in not less than 10 states to contain sectarian violence in the north, militancy in the Niger Delta, and kidnappings in the southeast.”

    Separately, General Carter Ham the head of the US’s Africa Command, has warned about growing linkages between three African Islamist groups, including Nigeria’s Boko Haram.  The other two are Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and al-Shahaab in Somalia.  Ham said: “Each of those three independently presents a significant threat not only in the nations in which they principally operate but regionally...”  He said increased collaboration was being “voiced most clearly” between AQIM and Boko Haram.