A terrorist by any other name

IT HAS become apparent in recent weeks, if it wasn't already clear enough, that in the fight against international terrorism Turkey is caught between a rock and a hard place.
On one side there is the so called Islamic State (IS), known throughout the world as a terror group which has spread across Syria and Iraq with close ties to groups within Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia, where a terror attack on Sunday by one of its affiliates Al Shabaab destroyed one of the key hotels for journalists, diplomats and expats in the capital of Mogadishu.
On the other is Turkey's long running enemy the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). Since 1984 the campaign for an independent state launched by the PKK has left approximately 40,000 dead, most recently with two Turkish police officers last week.
Where Turkey faces a serious issue however is how these two terrorist groups are perceived beyond its boundaries. Kurdish fighters in Iraq are proving to be the front line of combat operations against IS, while Turkey has repeatedly refused to commit ground forces to the battle. Many believe that the Kurds importance in the battle, and the support for their semi-autonomous state in Iraq, have given a renewed credence among international players to demands for an independent state in Turkey.
In response to this dual threat Turkey called a meeting of NATO allies to discuss operations to protect itself from further attacks.
Ankara may find support limited among its allies though. Accusations have already been levelled at the government for allegedly using airstrikes in Iraq as a cover for also attacking Kurdish units. Recent reports from the area have suggested that Turkish tanks may have deliberately fired across the border into Iraq targeting Kurdish units.
For many Western nations the threat from IS is an overwhelming fear and they are prepared to forge the dirtiest of alliances to combat it, while also keeping their hands as clean as possible by allowing any else to carry out ground offensives on their behalf.
With a startling lack of understanding about the harm which the PKK has caused to Turkey, and the threat it poses to the country's long term security, it seems likely that many NATO countries will prefer to obfuscate and leave Turkey trapped between two evils rather than risking a fighting ally.
Turkey's resistance, not completely unreasonably, to see a difference between two terror groups threatening its sovereignty may place it add odds with the self interests of states looking for an easy end to the IS conflict.

The West must shoulder blame for Ukraine

IF the current crisis in Ukraine demonstrates anything it is that the Cold War far from thawing has entered a new phase.

Rather like some prehistoric monster from a bad B movie it appears that the Cold War has been in a state of deep freeze just waiting for the right climate to appear for it to make its grand resurgence.

Ukraine has provided just such a catalyst. The old rivalries between two dominant forces are reawakened. There is a misconception however that the growls from the aged Soviet bear are the cause of all today's ills. In international politics it still takes two to tango and the West must foot its fair share of the blame.

As the doyen of international relations John Mearsheimer stated: "The   United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West." (Mearsheimer, 2014)

The United States logically wants to maintain its position as the only hegemon in the global debate, China may be approaching this state but has not yet achieved the same level of cultural or political dominance. 

For Vladimir Putin this poses a direct threat to the sovereign interests of Russia. A Ukraine without Russian ties would pose a problem for him, by, as Mearsheimer points out, giving the West a strong staging point right on his border. 

Imagine for a second that Scotland had voted for independence and England refused to allow it. Would the West defend China if they interceded on Scotland's behalf? It may sound particularly far fetched yet in rational terms the situation is not that much different than the one currently facing Ukraine and its surrounding areas.

Of course with Ukraine however there are far deeper veins to plum for information on the cause and effect of the situation. In historical terms it would be more akin to France throwing its support behind an independent Scotland against the English.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Russia is arming rebels, a useful but not entirely fair term. So long as it doesn't become explicit however it must be seen as part of the great game. Suggestions that the West could overtly arm Ukrainian forces is a dangerous idea. While support is restrained to words and sanctions, with armed support kept to the shadows, there is a possibility for both sides to walk this back. 

If either side admits openly to supplying military assistance though it will force the situation into a whole new phase. The crisis in Ukraine may be devastating but an escalation would be catastrophic and the West would well and truly have the blood on its hands.

West prepared to sacrifice Turkey for security

ONCE thought of as a key ally of the West Turkey is becoming the scapegoat for all America and Britain's own fears.

While politicians in London and Washington wring their hands and promise increasingly sceptical and war weary electorates that they will not send in ground troops they have little compunction about demanding that Ankara does just that.

In a stunning display of arrogance and lack of foresight American lawmakers in particular have condemned Turkish government reluctance to provide support for Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists.

The lynchpin moment has become Kobani, a town on the border of Syria and Turkey which has been pushed to a position of prominence in global politics its inhabitants would once have considered impossible. 

The French author Bernard Henri Levy wrote a widely published piece questioning whether Turkey should be allowed to remain in NATO if it does not deploy ground forces to protect the embattled holdout. 

At the same time the United Nations Security council held back from issuing a place on the Security Council, something which may have demonstrated that it was prepared to acknowledge that there were long term strategies for combating ISIS, in favour of that well known bastion of stability Angola.

While liberal thinkers may be happy to condemn Turkey for not throwing its full military might behind the West and its institutions they seem oblivious to the the implications for long term Turkish security, or the hypocrisy of claiming that American airstrikes can only do so much without Turkish ground troops. Not British, American, French et al but Turkish soldiers on the ground risking their lives in a battle they are being bullied to take part in.

From a realist position Turkey must focus on maintaining its own security. While international institutions such as NATO and the UN may be seen as necessary it is the authority of the state which is the highest authority in the international system. 

At present ISIS is unlikely to launch an attack directly against Turkey, although it undoubtedly has the ability. Alternatively Kurdish terrorists from the PKK have long made it clear that they are prepared to do just that. 

From a security position Turkey would at most risk individual acts from ISIS, which it could easily control with its experience of handling terrorists incidents, if it allowed its allies to use its airbases to launch airstrikes. If, however, it was to expand military forces and equipment in a ground war in Syria and Iraq it would spread itself across the region to protect the interests of its allies while weakening its ability to fight a longer term battle for its own internal security. By supporting Kurdish fighters against one threat officials in Ankara run a significant risk of giving them legitimacy which could lead to internal splits within Turkey further down the road.

Despite allowing Kurdish fighters to cross its borders to engage with ISIS this is no enough for Western powers who, in a stunning display of hubris, have yet again only seen the need to combat an immediate threat without any thought of the long term implications.  

Summit is adapt or die moment for NATO

ESCALATING chaos in Iraq and Syria and rising tensions in Ukraine will dominate discussions among world leaders at the NATO conference in Wales.

Not since the closing days of the Cold War have the stakes been so high for the NATO participants as they attempt to determine if the alliance is ready to face the challenges of the 21st century.

British Prime Minister David Cameron will join NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen in leading the talks taking place over the course of two days.

Speaking ahead of the summit Mr Cameron said: "It's hard to think of a Nato summit coming at a more important time for our alliance.

"We see the appalling actions of Russia in eastern Ukraine. We see the appalling scenes in Iraq and Syria and the rise of this so-called Islamic Caliphate and its dreadful brutality in executing the American hostage we saw overnight.

"And in this dangerous and difficult world NATO has an absolutely key role in providing our collective security, and that's what the next two days are going to be all about."

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave his views to journalists: "In today's world we are, so to speak, surrounded by an arc of crisis.

"To the east, to the southeast, to the south - and at this summit we will address the whole range of security challenges and improve Nato's ability to act swiftly if needed."

The dynamics of global powers have shifted since world leaders last met in the UK as part of a NATO summit. When last gathered on British shores in 1990 Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and the Cold War, against the alliances old sparring partner Russia, was drawing to a close. There was a need to rethink NATO's operational concept and evolve to face a changing world. 

With the crisis in Ukraine reaching new levels, amid reports of Russian interference, and the dangers of allowing terrorist groups such as Islamic State to take hold of large areas of territory NATO's role has become crucial once again for international 

 stability.

A 2013 brief from the Atlantic Council warned, “The world is changing rapidly, and if NATO does not adapt with foresight for this new era, then it will very likely disintegrate.”

This summit needs to answer the question of whether the group is prepared to adapt, or if as the brief warns it will disintegrate amid bickering and internal divisions.

In a jointly written article for the Times Mr Cameron and American President Barack Obama laid out their plans for the future: "With Russia trying to force a sovereign state to abandon its right to democracy at the barrel of a gun, we should support Ukraine's right to determine its own democratic future and continue our efforts to enhance Ukrainian capabilities," they wrote.

"We must use our military to ensure a persistent presence in eastern Europe, making clear to Russia that we will always uphold our... commitments to collective self-defence.

"And we must back this up with a multi-national rapid response force, composed of land, air, maritime and special forces, that could deploy anywhere in the world at very short notice."

The world will now be watching to see if old animosities and competing agendas can be set aside as they once were decades ago to fulfil the future promise of not just NATO but global peace and security.

Ukraine's tough road to peace

THE decision of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to sign a controversial European Union bill could see the crisis in the country enter a new stage.

The failure of former President Victor Yanukovych to ratify the deal was one of the primary instigators leading to his overthrow in February.

The bill is widely unpopular amongst pro-Russian supporters who want to see closer ties with their powerful neighbour, something they fear increased links with the EU would prevent.

President Poroshenko's decision comes along with his announcement of plans to bring the burgeoning civil war in Ukraine to a close.

Announcing a 14 point peace plan the new leader is stepping up attempts to bring the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk back under government control.  

Under his proposals a 'peace corridor' would be set up to allow those who had disarmed to leave the embattled regions, changes to the constitution to decentralise power, an amnesty for anyone "without blood on their hands" and, perhaps most controversially, the closure of the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Without support from Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, it seems unlikely that any moves would help calm the current situation.

World leaders have called on President Putin to help de-escalate tensions and support the path to peace. The pleas may fail to have much affect though as reports warn of an increased build up of Russian forces along the border and Russian tanks being used to support the pro-separatist movement.

NATO Chief Anders Ramussen has warned Russia that any attempt to intervene in the crisis could lead to tougher international sanctions against the country.

Elsewhere in the country a spokesman from the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe has confirmed that they have been in contact with two teams who were abducted in the Eastern region last month. Any chance of a peaceful solution to the situation which meets with international approval may well hinge on the safe return of the OSCE observers.

The United Nations currently estimates that 356 people, including 257 civilians, have been killed in fighting since the 7th May.

President Poroshenko may find that his attempts to bring stability to the country and prevent further bloodshed will be a hard fought battle. His signing of the EU bill on the 27th of June is a strong statement but may be meaningless if he cannot show that a peaceful resolution can be reached with his opponents.