BEIRUT, Lebanon — A harrowing sectarian war has spread across the Syrian city of Homs this month, with supporters and opponents of the government blamed for beheadings, rival gangs carrying out tit-for-tat kidnappings, minorities fleeing for their native villages, and taxi drivers too fearful of drive-by shootings to ply the streets.
As it descends into sectarian hatred, Homs has emerged as a chilling window on what civil war in Syria could look like, just as some of Syria’s closest allies say the country appears to be heading in that direction. A spokesman for the Syrian opposition last week called the killings and kidnappings on both sides “a perilous threat to the revolution.” An American official called the strife in Homs “reminiscent of the former Yugoslavia,” where the very term “ethnic cleansing” originated in the 1990s.
“Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen sectarian attacks on the rise, and really ugly sectarian attacks,” the Obama administration official said in Washington. The longer President Bashar al-Assad “stays in power, what you see in Homs, you’ll see across Syria.”
Since the start of the uprising eight months ago, Homs has emerged as a pivot in the greatest challenge to the 11-year rule of Mr. Assad. Some of the earliest protests erupted there, and defectors soon sought refuge in rebellious neighborhoods. This month, government security forces tried to retake the city, in a bloody crackdown that continues.
Homs, Syria’s third-largest city, has a sectarian mix that mirrors the nation. The majority is Sunni Muslim, with sizable minorities of Christians and Alawites, a heterodox Muslim sect from which Mr. Assad draws much of his top leadership. Though some Alawites support the uprising, and some Sunnis still back the government, both communities have overwhelmingly gathered on opposite sides in the revolt.
Here it is not so much a fight between armed defectors and government security forces, or protesters defying a crackdown. Rather, the struggle in Homs has dragged the communities themselves into a battle that residents fear, even as they accuse the government of trying to incite it as a way to divide and rule the diverse country.
Fear has become so pronounced that, residents say, Alawites wear Christian crosses to avoid being abducted or killed when passing through the most restive Sunni neighborhoods, where garbage has piled up in a sign of the city’s dysfunction.
“It is so sad that we reached this point,” said a Syrian priest who lives in Lebanon but maintains close relations with people in Homs, in particular the Christian community.
In past weeks, Homs was buckling under a relentless crackdown as the government tried to reimpose control over the city. Dozens were killed, but the American official said the Obama administration believed the government withdrew some forces in accordance with an Arab League plan to end the violence. Residents offered a different version. Several said the government had repainted tanks and armored vehicles blue and redeployed them as a police force carrying out the same operations.
“The regime wants to say to the Arab observers that the police are confronting protesters, not the army or security men,” said Abu Hassan, a 40-year-old activist there.
On Friday, Syria tentatively agreed to an Arab League proposal to send more than 500 monitors to oversee the faltering plan, but had asked for changes to the plan, a request that Arab foreign ministers rejected on Sunday.
“They are trying to change what they already agreed,” said Nabil el-Araby, the league’s secretary-general, saying that was unacceptable to the Arab states. Damascus had tried to alter various conditions, such as defining who could come as an independent observer.
If there is no sign on Sunday of Syria enacting the agreement, which includes stopping the violence and withdrawing security forces from civilian areas, then Arab foreign ministers will meet Tuesday evening to decide the next step, the league’s secretary-general said. That is effectively the second extension of the original deadline of last Wednesday. The league had said previously that it would weigh other political and economic sanctions if there was no change in Syria.
Even as the death toll has dropped in Homs in recent days, the sectarian strife seems to have gathered a relentless momentum that has defied the attempts of both Sunni and Alawite residents to stanch it. One prominent Sunni activist, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, used the term shabeeha — an Arabic word that refers to government paramilitaries — to describe the situation evolving inside Homs.
“There are shabeeha on both sides now,” he said.
He blamed the government for fomenting the sectarian tension, but added, “I feel disgusted at what’s happening in Syria, and I am afraid of what might happen next.”
Mohammed Saleh is a 54-year-old Alawite in Homs. A communist, he was a political prisoner for 12 years and was released in 2000. In an interview, he said that insurgents stopped a minivan carrying factory employees last Sunday, asked the Christians and Sunnis to leave and then kidnapped 17 Alawites. Enraged, the families of the Alawites went into the streets, randomly kidnapping Sunnis after demanding their identification.
“They know your sect by your family name,” he said.
Families on both sides asked him to mediate, Mr. Saleh said, and after days of negotiations, sometimes through calls to Syrian expatriates, he secured the release of all 36 people kidnapped in the episode at 4 a.m. Friday. He said many were still missing in other kidnappings.
“I’m against the regime,” he said. But, he added: “Now I am being critical of some of the revolutionaries. We are against the regime and we want it to fall, but the revolutionaries need to present a better and more beautiful alternative. And if the opposition is going to be similar to the regime, it’s going to be dangerous.”
Mr. Saleh is not alone in trying to stop the tide. Others, Sunni and Alawite, have joined him in a group in Homs called the Popular Solidarity Committee, which has sought to defuse tension. Fadwa Suleiman, an Alawite actress from Aleppo, visited Homs on Nov. 11 in a gesture of solidarity with protesters in the besieged city.
The violence itself still pales before the government’s crackdown, which the United Nations says has killed more than 3,500 people. But in a dozen interviews with residents in Homs, people spoke of the city’s fabric being torn apart. Paramilitaries on both sides have burned houses and shops, they say. Alawite residents have been forced to flee to their native villages. Kidnappings, many of them random, have accelerated. Numbers are impossible to gauge, but scores have been abducted. Residents say some captives are used as bargaining chips, but not always.
“My cousin was kidnapped, and he was a civilian Alawite,” said a dissident activist from the Alawite neighborhood of Al Zahra in Homs, where locales are often largely segregated by sect. “He was found killed and his head was chopped off.”
The activist, who gave a pseudonym, Abu Ali, said his relatives text message each other with the license plate of the taxis they take. They call each other when they arrive. He said his brother, a taxi driver, no longer dares to take to the streets.
Another Sunni activist in Homs played down the strife, saying Alawites were kidnapped only in retaliation and denying that insurgents had beheaded anyone. Like others, he insisted that the violence was minimal compared with the ferocity of the government’s crackdown.
Christians in Homs seem to have tried to stay neutral, an admittedly difficult task.
“We’d rather emigrate than hold weapons and be part of a civil war,” said a Christian in a telephone interview who gave his name as Hisham and whose mother-in-law had already fled Homs.
He blamed the government for the greatest share of violence. But he accused Sunni insurgents of killing Alawites to drive them from the city’s three predominantly Alawite neighborhoods, where support for Mr. Assad runs strongest.
“There is no room for us, or for the educated Sunnis, in a civil war,” said his wife, who gave her name as Hiyam, also speaking by telephone. “A civil war means emigrating.”
Comments
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/26/2011 03:15
Neigbouring Turkey and the Arab League are worried.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/world/middleeast/syria-lets-arab-leagu...
November 25, 2011
Syria Lets Arab League Deadline on Observers Pass
By NADA BAKRI
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syria on Friday ignored an Arab League deadline to accept observers to oversee a peace deal to end more than eight months of bloodshed, with activists saying that several protesters and soldiers were killed during clashes across the country.
Arab League officials said Thursday that if the government of President Bashar al-Assad failed to agree by Friday to sign a protocol detailing the mission of the observers, Arab finance ministers would meet Saturday in Cairo to discuss imposing sanctions that could include halting flights to Syria, curbing trade and stopping transactions with the country’s central bank.
The new sanctions would deal a severe blow to an economy already suffering under sanctions from the European Union and the United States. Syria’s two most vital sectors, oil and tourism, which account for more than a third of the government’s revenues, have all but come to a halt.
Turkey announced Friday that its foreign minister would hold talks with foreign ministers from Arab nations in Cairo on Sunday to discuss Syria’s failure to admit several hundred military and civilian observers. The monitors’ mission was to examine the humanitarian situation in Syria and the execution of an Arab League peace proposal that Damascus agreed to on Nov. 2.
The Anatolia news agency quoted the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, as saying that Turkey already had some measures in hand against Damascus. “We are going to harmonize them with those prepared by the Arab League,” Mr. Davutoglu was quoted as saying.
Earlier on Friday, Mr. Davutoglu said that Syria’s silence as the deadline passed indicated that it was trying to conceal a worrisome humanitarian situation. “Syria was expected to say yes to the observers,” Mr. Davutoglu was quoted as saying. “Unless there is a reality it hides about the situation.”
Mr. Davutoglu’s comments came as the United Nations voiced concerns on Friday about reports of executions and torture of civilians, including children.
The United Nations Committee against Torture described “rife or systematic attacks” against civilians, “including the killing of peaceful demonstrators,” adding that it was particularly concerned about reports of children being tortured and mutilated during detention. It described Syria’s actions as “gross and pervasive” human rights violations.
The statement came ahead of a highly anticipated report to be released Monday by an independent commission of inquiry, sponsored by the United Nations, investigating accusations that Syrian armed forces committed crimes against humanity.
The United Nations says that at least 3,500 people have been killed since mid-March in the government’s crackdown.
On Friday, at least 16 more people were killed across the country when security forces opened fire at demonstrations, activists said. A majority were in Homs, a city in central Syria that has witnessed some of the largest protests against Mr. Assad.
“We will not give up,” said Abu Kinan, a shop owner and protester from the Midan neighborhood in Damascus. “When the Arab League imposes its sanctions, the Syrian economy will collapse, and then the business class and the middle class will join the protests to change the regime.”
The business class and the elite have so far remained largely on the sidelines of the uprising.
The Syrian military also said that 10 of its personnel were killed on Thursday, including six pilots, in an attack on their air force base southwest of Homs.
A military spokesman said, “This confirms the involvement of foreign elements and their support of these terrorist operations in an effort to weaken the fighting capabilities of our forces.”
graeme
Posted on: 11/26/2011 19:37
Turkey and the arab league aren't worried at all. The don't give a damn what Syrians do to each other. No country threatens war or sanctions for that reason. If we did, where are our sanctions on China for what itis doing to Tibet. Where were the sanctions on Saudi Arabia when it joined Bahrain in killiing Bahrain pro-democracy protesters? The Arab League is concerned about democracy? Get real.
Turkey is supplyinig the protesters. It is also provding them with training and refuge.
The purpose of the war is strategic, to solidify western control of the region.
Where were the sanctions on the US when it killed over a million Iraqis? Where were the concerns of Turkey and the Arab League?
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/26/2011 20:52
Why would Turkey and the Arab League want to solidify Western control?
graeme
Posted on: 11/26/2011 22:12
look, EO. Here we come to the error of you reliance on sources. A source does not prove anything except that somebody said something. That's it.
You also have to work from a base of developing some sense of how and why nations behave. No nation goes to war because it cares what somebody is doing to somebody. They go to war when it is in their interest to do so.
The US did not go to war in 1939. Of course not. It didn't care what Hitler did in Europe. The US went to war late in 1941 - because it was attacked itself - and because it wanted a war with Japan. That's a story that goes back to the Russo-Japanese war. The US wanted access to Asian markets. It feared, with good reason, that Japan would shut it out.
They didn't go to war with Afghanistan because men weren't being nice to women. Or because Afghanistan was connected to 9/11. (It wasn't). It didn't invade Iraq because of "weapons of mass destruction". There were none - and they knew it.
Now, I can find you piles of sources that say that everything I've said above in untrue. You have to use source AND a lively appreciation of why nations act as they do.
Why would Turkey and the Arab League give a damn what the president of syria does to Syrians? Both Turkey and the Arab League have their own history of pretty brutal behaviour. The members of the Arab League, in particular, have been happy to kill their own people.
The Arab League countries are tied to western policies. They make their money out of the West. The west, notably France, Britain and the US are now busily nailing down control of Africa and the middle east. Israel is eager to establish itself as the dominant power in the region. Turkey has decided its future lies in cooperation with western Europe and the US. (It really doesn't have much of a history of wars of compassion.)
Israel, Turkey, and the Arab League are all dependent on West European and American support. How long do you think some of those Arab league dictators would last without western support?
Similarly, Canada sent troops to Afghanistan purely to ingratiate itself to the American marketplace. There was no great demand in Canada for a war.
And do you seriously think Canada cared whether Ghadaffi was a bad man? Did you lay awake nights worrying about the Libyan people?
Don't get hung up on sources. I can find find sources to prove anything you like. But if you want the truth - you have to be willingly to look at nations in a realistic way.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/26/2011 22:28
Professional historians always use sources.
graeme
Posted on: 11/27/2011 09:37
please. I know what professional historians do. I h ave written as a professional historian. I have taught people who became professional historians.
Professional historians also use computers. That doesn't not mean computers are the key to understanding.
I have also taught students how to reason, how to judge sources.....
History and current events are not simply or even mainly about sources.
And - I have been studying news sources daily and closely, and discussing them, for over thirty years. Do you seriously think I can spend my days checking back on sources for everything I say?
And If I do give you a source, it doesn't matter. I have given you the source fo the new american cenutry. You have paid not the slightest attention.l I have you the source for the massacre of Guatemalans. You dismiess it as having happened a long time ago (thenty years) - and tell me the world is different now.
I gave you sources for the overthrow of democracy in Iran by the US, Britain and France. You accuse me of being anti-American.
No. I am not going to spend my days giving you sources. nor does you constant study of "sources" seem to have enlightened you to any morked degree. It's not just about sources.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/27/2011 12:29
Re: Project for New American Century--untrue accusation.
I looked it up, noted immediately that William Kristol was connected, that he was the editor of the Weekly Standard and reported this to you. I told you I largely agreed with you assessment of this Project but felt that it was on the decline since the Iraq adventure.
Your statement about the CIA and Mossadeq in Iran is certainly true, but I added the fact that it happened 58 years ago. Which you did not bother to mention.
My purpose is not to convince you of anything--you are beyond that, it appears to me. My purpose is to inform other readers of this site that you toss around statements very carelessly -- some of the things you say are perfectly true, others are half-truths, others are highly questionable.
My purpose is to attempt to show--especially to young readers--that they should might just reconsider accepting everything you say as gospel.
I am hardly alone in my views, ridiculous as they seem to you. There are large number of people--just as educated as you--who agree with me. There are historians who have read the same sources as you but have not come to your conclusions.
My purpose it to let others know this. I may fail with many, but if I make even a few people think twice, I will have succeeded.
graeme
Posted on: 11/27/2011 14:25
Of course there are historians who have read the same sources as me, and have come to different conclustion. That was part of my point. A source is not proof of anything. I can find copies of Mein Kampf that have sources added to them. If historians agree with each other, then you should start worrying.
And may I point out The Bible has no sources at all.
You think the urge for world domination has eased after Iraq? Oh? We are now fighting in Aghanistan, just did Libya, are bombing Somalia and Yemen, are close to war with Syria and Iran (possibly soon with Pakistan), are encircling Russia with rocket bases, and are sending troops to Australia as a step in confronting China. ALL of the republican leadership candidates have endorsed a war with Iran.
Do you need sources for all that? And by the logic of your finely-honed mind, this means the US, France and Britain have given up conquest? Do you have a source for that?
Mossadegh was fifty years ago? Oh, well. Then the western overthrow of democracy in Iran at that time obviously has no connection with what is happening now. And, anyway, the US doesn't overthrow governments any more. And if the slaughter of Maya happened twenty years ago, we can forget it. It's past.
Now I think of it, the holocaust was some seventy years ago. So we can forget it. There's noting to learn from what happened seventy uears ago - and no possible connection with today.
There's a reason why you have a brain. Don't waste 99% of it by sitting there an soacking up sources.
By the way, I AM a source. I have frequently been quoted as one, asked to speak as one, and have written articles that are now used as sources.
And, please - don't explain to me what a historian is. You are not a source on that.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/27/2011 16:11
The Arab League has imposed sanctions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020475340457706406374259071...
Since the Arab League are not exactly noted for humanitarian impulses, one must look elsewhere for a motive. Graeme believes it is all tied up with American dominance in the region. I find that debatable--the Arabs are no more interested in being dominating by the US than anyone else.
Another possible motive: a rebuke to the Shia--the overbearing government of Iran (Iranians are not Arabs and are of course not in the Arab League and little love is lost between the two groups) and its organization Hezbollah, with a branch office in Lebanon. And the fact that the Assad government is Alawite--regarded as heterodox, although in some circles regarded as semi-Shiite.
There is no secret of the Sunni-Shia tension--much of it stoked by the Iranian government--in the Middle East these days.
Just a speculation.
Another speculation: just keeping the violence down, lest it spread to the Gulf states. We know Bahrain is Shia majority with a Sunni King (uprising put down by Saudi tanks), while Saudi has a Shia minority. For Saudi, stability is everything. Do not rock the boat.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/27/2011 14:44
By the way, I AM a source. I have frequently been quoted as one, asked to speak as one, and have written articles that are now used as sources.
You have been quoted in areas of your expertise. Which is not the Middle East, as far as I know.
Historians differ. Can you not even acknowledge that? On the Middle East, there are very large differences indeed.
As to my supposed stupidity, which you like to bring up as often as possible: anyone can read a book of history. It is not exactly quantum physics. I have a read a lot of books of history.
No, there is no area in which I could call myself an expert, but you do not restrict your comments to your own area of expertise either.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/27/2011 16:14
Mossadegh was fifty years ago? Oh, well. Then the western overthrow of democracy in Iran at that time obviously has no connection with what is happening now. And, anyway, the US doesn't overthrow governments any more. And if the slaughter of Maya happened twenty years ago, we can forget it. It's past.
Now I think of it, the holocaust was some seventy years ago. So we can forget it. There's noting to learn from what happened seventy uears ago - and no possible connection with today.
We should forget neither Mossadeq nor the the Holocaust. But the fact that the Holocaust happened 70 years ago does matter very much. It means, among other things, that the we would not blame the current German government for the Holocaust.
graeme
Posted on: 11/27/2011 20:46
Well, I have never said that historians do not differ. Indeed, just a few posts back, I said they do differ. They're supposed to.
Okay. I'm a professional historian with thousands of radio, TV and Print items behind me. But you know more about history and current events than I do.
Well, we could blame the holocaust on Lutheranism. Or on Germanic tribal instincts. After all, that's what we do with Islam.
By the way, what's the cut off point when the past doesn't matter any more? I take it that it's less than 70 years ago. Is 20 years ago? Less? Must be, because you've already dismissed the genocide of the Maya. When does 9/11 become just something from the past?
Oh, another by the way, I never said Saudi Arabia (or Israel) like American domination. I said it is in their interest to court American power, particularly in the case of Syria. Liking or disliking domination has nothing to do with it.
To read a history book - AND UNDERSTAND IT - is not like reading a detective story. It does require some skill. In fact, when teaching history, I spent a good deal of time on how to read and understand.
By the way, did you know that the Isael secret service is working with Kenyans, French and Americans in their attack on Somalia? But I'm sure there's a good reason for it.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 00:46
Writers who have (apparently) corrupted me
I will also link to a post of Oliver Kamm, formerly a blogger now writing editorials for The Times. He is a good writer and calls himself a classic liberal. He signed the Euston Manifesto.
http://eustonmanifesto.org/
Click on Manifesto to see it.
I have read a lot of writing by many of the signatories. Christopher Hitchens, etc.
Here is Kamm criticizing Howard Zinn
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/truth_seekers.html
Tell me what you think.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 00:34
Several Commentators Express Opinions about Turkey & Syria (New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/15/why-turkey-turned-away-f...
This first commentator thinks it because Turkey wished to preserved its reputation as a democracy and not support a regime like Assad, which is killing protesters. It considers itself a role model and a regional leader, and wants to maintain that. Assad is a sinking ship, time to get off.
The Problem With ‘Zero Problems’
by Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist, is the author of “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty.”
NOVEMBER 15, 2011
Soon after the Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power in 2002, Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East began to change dramatically. The A.K.P. foreign policy elite — and most notably the foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the architect of the new strategy — believed that Ankara had made a mistake for decades by detaching itself from the Arab world, and it was time to revitalize Turkey’s “strategic depth.”
Davutoglu’s foreign policy motto, “zero problem with neighbors,” was the key idea in this new approach. Accordingly, Ankara improved its relations with Syria, Iran, Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan and even tried a rapprochement with Armenia, which regrettably failed.
However, some of the regimes with which Ankara was seeking to have “zero problems” were authoritarian ones — a picture that conflicted with the A.K.P.’s self-defined role to be a beacon of democratization in Turkey. This problem surfaced most notably in summer 2009, when the Iranian regime cracked down on the opposition Green Movement, and Ankara remained silent.
The Arab Spring of 2011 further stressed this problem, especially in Libya, and soon Ankara’s policy makers realized that insisting on the “zero problems” policy could put them into the cynical position of having zero problems with dictators.
That is why in Syria — which used to be the A.K.P.’s Exhibit A for “zero problems” — Erdogan and his government did not hesitate to condemn the Assad regime’s brutality and give support to the Syrian opposition. (The religious and cultural affinity between the A.K.P. and the Sunni majority in Syria, which creates the backbone of the Syrian opposition, probably also helped.)
The bottom line is that the A.K.P. presents itself as a democratic force that was able to break Turkey’s decade-old military guardianship. It also takes pride in being admired by other democratic forces in the region, and especially by Islamic-minded yet democratic-leaning parties, like the Ennahda in Tunisia.
That’s why Turkey will continue to be an enthusiastic supporter of the Arab Spring. With its 150-year-old synthesis of Islam and democracy, it will even be, as Ayatollah Shahroudi of Iran put it scornfully, the promoter of “liberal Islam.”
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 00:45
This writer is saying more or less the same thing, but notes also how the Iran-Turkey relationship has suffered. She also notes the problems Turkey has had with the Kurds. The Kurds are split between Turkey, Iraq and Iran, with a smaller group in Syria. Thus, they are convenient tool to be used to harass Turkey.
Ankara Is Trying to Have It Both Ways
by Gonul Tol is the director of the Center for Turkish Studies at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
November 18, 2011
The foreign policy vision that opened Turkey to the Middle East was created for an old status quo. Under that vision, Turkey cultivated close relations with autocratic regimes — economically, diplomatically, culturally and politically. The Arab Spring, however, has transformed the regional dynamics, reshuffled the strategic cards of regional and international actors, and altered regional balance of power. Despite initial delays, Turkey has recalibrated its foreign policy course to support the democratic demands of the popular uprisings in the region. By presenting itself as a key supporter of democratic aspirations of the Arab people and allowing the opposition to assemble in Turkey, Turkey wants to maintain its role as a regional leader while avoiding hard-power interventions.
The Arab Spring has exposed the diverging interests of Turkey’s once-close allies, Iran and Syria. Syria has been the success story of the ruling party’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy, which led to high-level strategic cooperation against the P.K.K. (the terrorist Kurdish group in Turkey), lifting of visa requirements and flourishing trade ties. The close partnership ended in mid-August when Turkey shifted its Syria policy and joined the anti-Assad camp. Turkey began hosting Syrian opposition, and in September, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that he had cut off all dialogue with the Syrian regime.
Turkey’s approach toward Syria has strained the Turkish-Iranian relationship. Iran, a strong supporter of the Assad regime, harshly criticized Turkey’s stance on Syria and asked Turkey to cooperate with Iran to stabilize Syria. Erdogan’s “Arab Spring tour,” in which he urged Egypt and Tunisia to adopt secularism in their new constitutions, was not received well in Iran, which aspires to dictate its own model of Islamism on the “revolutionary” countries of North Africa.
The already-tense relationship with Iran and Syria might face another complication because of Turkey’s increasing suspicion that Iran and Syria might pull “the P.K.K. card” — supporting the separatists in an effort to destabilize Turkey, as they did in the 1990s. In an effort to balance its tension with Iran and Syria, Turkey has been trying to secure Iraqi alliance. Intensifying P.K.K. attacks in Turkey, and a lack of Syrian and Iranian support, might bring back Turkey’s security-oriented foreign policy of the 1990s. This may escalate the tension with Iran and Syria further and strengthen the Turkish-Iraqi alliance.
The Arab Spring has also revealed opportunities for Turkish foreign policy. The Obama administration’s high-level contacts with Turkish officials since the start of the popular uprisings reflect a clear understanding that Turkey will have a large stake in the future of the Middle East and that the United States needs to incorporate rapidly altering Turkish interests into its broader Eastern Mediterranean strategy. In the emerging post-American order in the Middle East, Turkey will provide an effective U.S. ally — an ally that adopts a coherent and nuanced policy approach, in light of rapid changes in the region.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 00:44
This writer says much the same, noting that Turkey can expect outright hostility from Iran, its age-old competitor for influence in the area.
Ties to Neighbors, Not Their Dictators
by Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the co-author of "Turkey's New Political Landscape: Implications of the 2011 Elections."
November 16, 2011
The Middle East is not Benelux, unfortunately — not yet. In 2002, when Turkey’s newly elected Justice and Development Party began a policy of rapprochement with the country’s Middle Eastern neighbors including Syria, the hope was that this would jump-start integration between Turkey and its neighbors, creating something like the 1950s “Benelux” bloc of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Ankara also hoped to benefit from this process by building soft power across the Muslim Middle East, in hope of rising up as a regional leader.
Until the Arab Spring, this policy seemed to be inconclusive largely because of the hard reality on the ground: Turkey’s counterparts in rapprochement were not its neighboring peoples, but rather their undemocratic regimes.
Syria is a case in point: whereas Ankara hoped to reach out to the Syrian people, the Assad regime took advantage of its close ties with Turkey, a member of NATO, to gain legitimacy while oppressing its people.
The Arab Spring has ended the mirage. Even though Ankara repeatedly asked President Bashar al-Assad to stop killing civilians, he chose to ignore these calls — demonstrating that there was never true rapprochement between Turkey and Syria, and that Ankara had been unsuccessful in establishing effective soft power over Damascus.
Subsequently, Ankara has dropped Assad, emerging instead as the chief regional opponent of his policies. This is Ankara’s new policy toward the Arab Middle East: leading the world in dropping dictators in favor of the pro-democracy movements, from Egypt to Libya to Syria.
Accordingly, Turkey now has a chance to promote democracy in the Middle East, build ties with its neighboring peoples, and rise to leadership in the region, all at the same time.
Turkey’s time to become a Middle East power seems to have arrived. Challenges remain, of course, including the future of Turkish-Israeli ties and Iran’s hostile attitude to Ankara’s rising influence in the region. If Turkey and Israel can come to some accord, this would help Ankara’s ambitions to become a regional leader, respected and liked by the peoples of the region. Iran is a more tricky case: Tehran envisions itself as the Middle East hegemon and will do all it can to undermine Turkey’s ambitions to be the leader of a democratic Middle East.
Turkey is already rising to the challenge to lead the region by example. For instance, its prime minister recently called for secular democracy during his trip to Egypt, upsetting that country's Islamists. Not since the heyday of the Ottoman Empire have the Turks had this much clout in the Middle East. The sultans must be green with envy.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 00:55
This writer discusses the Kurdish problem. In fact, there has been an uptick in violence in the eastern Kurdish regions of Turkey. Instigated by Iran and Syria?
The writer notes below, however, that Turkey still has some way to go to in improving conditions for the Kurds (who were not treated very well at all generally in the past) and suggests that Turkey needs to address this.
She thinks Iran is quite determined to maintain Assad: that "Iran cannot afford to allow the Assad regime to fail." Strong words.
Addressing ‘the Kurdish Question’
by Lenore G. Martin is the Louise Doherty Wyant Professor at Emmanuel College and an Associate of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, both at Harvard University.
Novermber 18, 2011
It is obvious that the Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s “zero problems with the neighbors” policy no longer works, in the face of Turkey’s support for the Syrian defectors who oppose the Assad regime. The foreign minister must now deal with potentially hostile reactions by Syria and its closest ally, Iran, that could have destabilizing regional implications. Iran, for one, cannot afford to allow the Assad regime to fail. It provides Iran with a foothold in the Levant from which to support Hezbollah and threaten Israel on its Lebanese border.
Syrian and Iranian retaliation against Turkey can readily take the form of support for the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, or P.K.K. This group once again has become increasingly violent in its promotion of Kurdish separatism in the Turkish southeast. Syria, Iran and Turkey share a common cause in resisting demands by Kurdish opposition movements in their countries. Only months ago, all three were cooperating in suppressing the P.K.K. For Turkey, this was a welcome change from the 1990s, when Syria and Iran supported the P.K.K. in order to pressure Ankara for foreign policy concessions. Now Damascus and Tehran could again play the P.K.K. card.
To counteract potential Syrian and Iranian subversion and the separatist appeals of the P.K.K., Turkey needs to adapt its zero problems policy to its own southeast. In 2009, the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced a “Kurdish opening” — a bid at reconciliation with Turkey’s Kurds. However, he quickly closed it, leaving many Kurdish demands for economic development, political rights and cultural recognition unanswered. The Turkish foreign minister’s recent veiled threat to send troops across the Syrian border may be insufficient to deter Syria and Iran from subversively supporting the P.K.K. For a comprehensive resolution of the “Kurdish question,” Ankara also needs to implement effective policies that will over the long term improve the economic, political and cultural life of Turkey’s Kurds.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 01:02
On the whole, these assessments are somewhat encouraging, in that Turkey seems genuinely committed to democracy. However, there are plenty of problems.
Syria is a complex case because of its large mix of ethnicities and sects. This is likely to greatly increase the violence in any scenario, other than a total clampdown by Assad.
The Iranian government's interest simply do not mesh with increased democracy in the Middle East. It is likely to interfere in any way it can.
graeme
Posted on: 11/28/2011 09:29
Whereas the US, Britain, and France are enthusiastically engaged in bringing democracy to the region.
That's why they appointed so many kings and emirs to point the way. That's why most of the Arab League is not democratic - it's to get people ready for democracy.'
Iran had democracy. The US, Britain and France destroyed it.
Did your "sources" mention that?
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 11:38
My sources indicate that, at the time Europe appointed those kings -- post WW I period, Turkey was not a democracy either, by any means.
Times change. I admit, only the neo-conservative wing of the US ever showed interest in democracy in the Middle East, and they have been discredited. Britain--Blair genuinely hoped for democracy in Iraq but that was very recent. France, probably never.
graeme
Posted on: 11/28/2011 17:49
You must have some quite wonderful sources. US neo-conservatives have shown interest in democracy????????? Anywhere????
Blair genuinely hoped for democracy in Iraq? Is this the same Tony Blair who became a rich man while in public office? And who lied about the need to go to war in Iraq? And who is now a muli-multi millionaire thanks to his close ties to oil kings and emirates?
Neo conservatives in the US have been discredited? Hey. They own congress. They have the support of most of the US media.
You're kidding. Right?
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/28/2011 23:49
Neocons have been discredited. The Republicans now are even worse, IMO. I don't know that they have any name, except perhaps this Tea Party business, which seems to consist only of opposition to any type of tax increase.
Meanwhile, the US Congress is dead-locked, unable to come up with a budget, for their huge multi-trillion dollar deficit (have you not read about this?) I hardly see how they could afford much in the way of foreign adventures, whatever the candidates might be saying, the country is going broke. (It helps to follow the financial news to some extent).
The Republicans of any stripe don't have the support of all the media. The New York Times is certainly not impressed with them, it is one the premier newspapers in the US.
Meanwhile, Europe is an a total mess. The Euro zone is on the point of collapse. They are in state of panic over it. What to do: everyone go back to their own currencies, transfer money from the rich north (mostly Germany) to the bankrupt south? Print money? (=Inflation). Huge arguments between the Euro zone countries. They want Germany to pick up the tab (it could afford Greece, but certainly not Italy or Spain).
Check my last story under Financial crisis. The British prime minister is telling the public they have about six years of public spending cuts ahead of them, grim austerity indeed. Under those conditions, it would be very hard to sell another war. (note: Britain is not in the Euro zone).
Perhaps you have not grasped the magnitude of the financial crisis. How can they possibly finance any expansions to what they are already doing overseas?
More and more people are just saying, "why are we still in Afghanistan?" No matter what you might have thought right after 9/11, fewer and fewer people can figure out this on-going presence there. Not to mention all this trouble with Pakistan. Get out of there!
As for Canada, it has enjoyed a mild financial crisis, SO FAR. From what I am seeing, we are definitely headed into another recession, probably to go one for years--if for no other reason than the huge financial problems of our trading partners.
graeme
Posted on: 11/29/2011 18:50
the US isn't broke. The trillions are still there. The problem is that so few people have so much of the money there isn't enough left for the rest to live on. And the rich won't let that change because their incomes are actually rising.
At this point, the US has to go to war. It's foreign trade depends on the use of military force - to control markets, to force the poor to porduce ever cheaper labour, to steal natural resources....
And, the reliance on control over markets means a need for strategic countries, too. That's part of the interest in Syria - and in Africa as a whole. The US is desperately trying ot build a world empire before China and India become too powerful.
I don't think they can do it. But I know they can do themselves and the rest of the world enormous damage in trying to do it.
As for the neo-cons being discredited in the news, the most popular news source in the United States is not The New York Times. It's Fox TV. It loves the neo-cons. Newt Gingrich is now the great hope of he neo cons.And if Gingrich loses, it looks as though it will be to Mitt Romney who is indistinguishable from a new-con, exccept for his inside track with whatever God is thinking.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/29/2011 22:57
I think they are broke, unless they raise taxes to cover their very large federal deficit! But the country is too divided to agree on what to do--it has already occurred in California, where things like the state university system are suffering due to the tax problem.
It is Tea Partiers that are in style now, not neo-cons. Gingrich was never a neo-con--at least not part of the Bush crowd. I don't care much for him.
Your statement:
At this point, the US has to go to war. It's foreign trade depends on the use of military force - to control markets, to force the poor to porduce ever cheaper labour, to steal natural resources....
Do you believe this also true of prosperous European countries like Germany? If not, why not? If so, why do you never mention it? The EU is China's largest trading partner, according to a story I read in The Economist the other day.
I don't have a TV, so I don't watch Fox News. I do read WSJ, whose editorials are conservative, at least as it affects business. I factor that in and do not necessarily agree with them all the time by any means.
jlin
Posted on: 11/29/2011 23:53
EO
Why is everyone underestimating Russia/China? It is like they are forgetting the future - it kind of sounds like fantasy writing to me - as far as history is concerned, it is very provincial and not at all understanding of the markets, only of war.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 11/30/2011 00:13
Russia has severe internal problems, I am not happy to report, since I have a soft spot for the country and have met many Russians (and closely related Belarussians and Ukrainians). It is more or less run by organized crime. The standard of living is low. The future looks bleak. They have lots of natural resources, but little else.
China is a rising economic power, and it has done amazingly well in a short time. Still, they have along way to go. It is such a large country with many people still quite poor, and the government is still a dictatorship. (Russia is sliding back that way).
And China will only continue to make economic progress if it can sell its goods. Thus, it is to its advantage that the West can continue to buy. That is the beauty of trade. When it works (when one side is not exploiting the other), it can be win - win.
So China has little motive to get war-like, if that is what you mean. It gets uppity in its local territory, being very possessive of Taiwan and having squabbles with Japan. But I don't expect world war, though Graeme apparently does (although not started by China). Some people are worried about China, but I am not one of them, at least not at the moment.
He will say there is already fighting going on, and that is true, but it is hardly world war on the scale of WW II.
jlin
Posted on: 11/30/2011 00:32
EO
As all people surrounded by western politics, you forget that even in its corruption, the Russians have learned to respect education in a way that transcends money and power. Perhaps, it is this that you and Graeme are quarreling about.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/18/2011 16:23
Things continue to deteriorate in Syria.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Middle_East/article8...
‘Kill or be killed’ as anarchy takes hold in Syria
Salam Hafez, Damascus Published: 18 December 2011
Nine months into the Syrian uprising, the country is descending into anarchy as civilians take up arms to defend themselves against President Bashar Al-Assad’s troops, and central authority appears to be on the brink of collapse.
Armed with Russian weapons smuggled in from Lebanon and Turkey, civilians in restive cities in northern Syria have become determined to hit back at troops loyal to Assad and are policing their own areas in the absence of law and order.
A well-organised campaign of civil disobedience is under way in cities such as Hama and Jabal Al Zawiya, which I visited last week. Some government institutions have collapsed, their buildings boarded up.
Residents complain of a lack of policing in parts of the country, where it is either kill or be killed.
“You don’t know where the bullets are coming from,” said one protester from the city of Homs, adding: “We don’t know who is shooting at whom and the security services don’t show mercy — they fire randomly at homes and people in the street.”
Criminals are flourishing, with murder, robbery and kidnapping on the increase, say lawyers, former government officials sympathetic to the protest movement and activists.
Protesters are attacking the premises of businessmen regarded as loyal to Assad. One of the country’s biggest textile factories, owned by a prominent government backer, was set ablaze. Its burnt-out shell acts as a warning to the business elite to drop their support for Assad.
In a gym in Aleppo, a note posted on the noticeboard bore the logo of the “Syrian Revolution General Commission”. It listed men in the local shabiha, or state-backed militia, threatening them with death if they continued attacking protesters. Nobody dared to take the notice down. Many militia or security men caught by protesters are filmed confessing before they are executed, often by a firing squad.
Government forces are still present, although they seem increasingly nervous of coming on to the streets except in huge shows of force.
Nevertheless, they are still capable of violent retribution. A fortnight ago security forces barricaded students at Aleppo University’s faculty of engineering, firing at it before storming in with knives and machetes. Three were killed with hundreds more injured and arrested.
The rebels’ strategy of civil disobedience includes a general strike that is spreading fast across the country, street barricades and the boycott of state mobile phone companies.
The first thing you see when you cross the border into Syria from Lebanon is a billboard that reads “Welcome to Al-Assad’s Syria”. The reality, at least in the northern cities, is that the country is now anything but Assad’s.
graeme
Posted on: 12/18/2011 16:47
Also note that the rebels are supplied by Turkey the west, are trained in Turkey - and there's some considerable evidence that some have been hired from Libya.
Also notable that the arab league which allows Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to put down dissent (and now Egypt) are suddenly virtuous when it comes to Syria.
Can you spell setup?
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/18/2011 20:04
Turkey clearly wants to get rid of Assad. Saudi is more sectarian, the Assads are heretics (Alawites). In Bahrain, Saudi was also supporting Sunni Muslims.
graeme
Posted on: 12/18/2011 20:28
And in Egypt?
And why do the US, Britain and France care? There is no record in any of those countries of a reluctance to kill. Religion is a factor. It's also used as an excuse. But it is not credible that religion is what this is all about.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/18/2011 21:38
Just sticking to Syria for a moment: Saudi is totally convinced that Iran wants to take over the Middle East. I am no fan of the Iranian govt as you know, but the Saudi's are very paranoid. They see the hand of Iran everywhere.
Hence the need to keep their own Shiites down, and their frantic concern over Bahrain, whose population is largely Shia. And Syria remains a client of Iran. Apparently, there is even some type of deal where the Alawites will be semi-recognized as Shia Muslims (they are closer to the Shia branch than the Sunni branch so I hear).
The US, France and Britain don't really seem to worried about Syria all that much. They talk about killing protesters, but not much else.
Egypt: Saudi is happy to see the Islamist factions doing well, especially the al-Nour (funded by them). Do not to confuse al-Nour with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is much more pragmatic. I think there are no Shia in Egypt. Not sure what the US, Britain and France think, I have not followed it that closely.
I confess to being a little confused about what exactly is going on now in Egypt, why there are these continued protests, what is military planning to do?
I have been busy at work and following the Euro crisis.
graeme
Posted on: 12/19/2011 13:02
No - the US, britain and France aren't saying much. They didn't say much before bombing Libya, either.
Beware of writing this all off to religious wars. Political dischord commonly finds its expression through reilgion. That doesn't mean religion is the cause. Opposition to communism in Poland found its expression tthrough the Catholic church.
The countries looked for dominance of the Middle East are the ones who have always been looking for - Britain, France and the US. The new form of war is rebellion (financed and organized by the major powers). If more is needed, then the major power bomb "for humanitarian reasons."
Thousands are being killed in Syria? So how come no condemnations were issued when hundreds of thousands were killed in Iraq?
We;re dealing with human behaviour. There's a human reason for it.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/19/2011 14:51
I am not saying it is religious wars. It is the Arab countries fearing Iran, which by chance happens to be Shia. It is the fear of Iran that is behind Saudi actions.
--------------------------
Tip, good blog on Syria, by an expat Syrian
http://syrianrevolutiondigest.blogspot.com/
----------------------------
Also commenting on Syria is Tony Badran (Lebanese) at Now Lebanon
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=342895
Still pussyfooting
Tony Badran, December 15, 2011
n Wednesday, Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs Frederic Hof appeared before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs to update Congress on where US policy on Syria currently stands and how the Obama administration’s plans are moving forward. The result was rather disappointing. Indeed, it became obvious that four months after President Barack Obama called for Bashar al-Assad’s departure, his administration has yet to develop a policy to achieve that objective.
Prior to the hearing, there was some speculation that the administration might reveal a more hardened position, but that was not to be. Instead, Hof repeated much of what we’ve been hearing over the last month from other administration officials, such as the need to have monitors on the ground in Syria.
We heard these talking points earlier this month in Amman during Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman’s trip to the region. Feltman pointed to the Arab League’s call for sending monitors into Syria as a way forward. “By allowing the monitors in, by allowing the media in, that's a peaceful way of trying to stop this sustained cycle of violence that Assad seems committed to turning Syria into.”
This is apparently as far as the administration is willing to go at this juncture. In fact, Hof reiterated the same point in his testimony. “What we are hoping may still happen … is that somehow the Arab League will be able to persuade the Syrian regime to accept monitors … Our view is that it is much less likely that this regime will do its worst if there are witnesses present.” Tellingly, Hof added that the Arab League’s initiative was “the main game in town right now.”
Curiously, Hof expressed deep skepticism as to the prospects of Assad accepting the initiative at all, noting that he “will not likely do so.”
There is obvious dissonance here. If the administration considers the Arab League’s initiative “the main game in town,” and yet expects Assad not to abide by it, this then begs the question: what is the administration’s plan B? Hof provided no answer.
Not surprisingly, the Committee was clearly not satisfied with the administration’s answer. A sticking point throughout the hearing was the administration’s position on the use of force against Assad.
The problem of course is that without the threat of force, the Arab League’s position – regardless what one thinks of this initiative – becomes inconsequential. It is for this reason that the Arab leaders have tried to frame their initiative as the last resort before “internationalization” of the Syrian crisis. In other words, the Arabs are seeking to use as leverage the prospect of some sort of international intervention in order to frighten Assad into accepting their terms.
However, when the world, led by the US, is preemptively dismissing any such scenario, then it is effectively undercutting the Arab League’s warning and helping Assad call its bluff, especially when action by the UN Security Council remains unlikely given Russia’s seemingly permanent objection to pressuring the Assad regime.
Hof also repeated the administration’s position discouraging the militarization of the Syrian uprising, even as he very clearly expressed understanding for the Syrian people picking up weapons to defend themselves against Assad’s killing machine.
The administration’s position wasn’t convincing to the Committee’s chairman, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), and to several of the members, such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Robert Turner (R-NY), who expressed doubt as to whether toppling Assad will even be possible without the use of force, and they voiced their disappointment at the “apprehension about armed resistance to tyranny,” as Rep. Rohrabacher put it.
These Committee members identified a glaring gap in the administration’s approach. On the one hand, it believes that the longer Assad remains in power the likelier civil war becomes in Syria. However, it has no answers on how it would deal with, let alone prevent, such a scenario, in light of its exclusive emphasis on peaceful and bloodless solutions to what is already a bloody conflict. The administration wants to hasten Assad’s demise but believes the “main game” is an Arab initiative that has been fruitlessly negotiated ad nauseam since its announcement.
To be sure, Hof had unambiguous words on where the US stood regarding the Syrian regime and its assessment of its fate, dubbing it a “dead man walking.” But with the administration focused on the post-Assad phase and the fate of minorities, it has failed to put forth a convincing policy on the more urgent task of how to remove Assad before he does more damage.
In the end, however, as the Committee’s chairman, Rep. Chabot, told Hof, “ultimately [physical force] probably is going to be necessary.” The administration simply must come to terms with that and prepare accordingly.
Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.
To read more: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=342895#ixzz1h0Z4jWd2
Only 25% of a given NOW Lebanon article can be republished. For information on republishing rights from NOW Lebanon: http://www.nowlebanon.com/Sub.aspx?ID=125478
graeme
Posted on: 12/19/2011 22:01
Iraq is arab. It isn't afraid of Iran. In fact, there are strong indications it will become an ally of Iran.
Besides its religious bent, Saudi Arabia is also closely tied to the US. Turkey is increasingly in the western orbit. Their attitutde to Syria more likely has something to do with that.
Even the crusades had almost nothing to do with religion.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/20/2011 01:44
I agree there less to the religious angle than one would think.
Iraq is an odd case, being Arab but heavily Shiite, thus making other Arabs think they must be Iranian allies. And some Iraqi's are -- Moqtada Sadr definitely -- but not all.
It is more like there are factions, and the factions have different allies. The factions are not necessarily different in religious beliefs per se.
There are also factions in the Iranian clerical establishment, not all of them thinking that clerics should be in the business of running governments.
I would say Turkey is if anything LESS in the Western orbit than it was when the generals rules there. But it still has a Western bent, simply because it was in Europe so long that it picked up some European ideas. Did you see my recent post under Global, Good stories about Islam? I have a picture of a Turkish mosque--the architecture strongly influenced by the Christian churches in the area, especially Hagia Sophia.
graeme
Posted on: 12/20/2011 09:27
Agreed. Islam, like Christianity, if being used tor some purposes that have nothing to do with the faith.