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.

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.  

The West needs Iran against IS

AMID the chaos of the Islamic State assault on the Middle East the meeting of Britain and Iranian leaders offers a moment of historic potential.

The meeting in New York between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and British Prime Minister David Cameron will be the first time that leaders of the two countries have held official meetings since 1979. 

For the millions of people under constant threat in Iraq and Syria the news of potential cooperation between the state, once considered one of the most dangerous in the world, and the rest of the allies opposing the threat of the IS the news cannot come soon enough.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are flooding into Turkey as the fighting in Syria heats up and the first time since the start of the conflict American airstrikes have been used against IS forces in Syria. It is clear that the battle against the group is entering a dangerous new phase, far beyond that of the murder of western hostages.

At the weekend former British Prime Minister, and current Middle East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair released a 6500 word article on his Faith Foundation website calling for a ground incursion against fighters in Iraq and Syria. 

Laying out a seven point plan to combat the threat of global extremism Mr Blair makes repeated attempts to link unrest in China with a common problem of extremist Islam in the Middle East. As such he argues that it is only through joining with China that the West can show they are not the only ones fighting rising fundamentalism. His plan hinges on demonstrating that it is a global battle against such groups.

Mr Blair missed talking about how much more successful this plan would have been if it involved Iran in operations. Instead he did call for arguments about human rights in Egypt to be quietened down as we link arms to fight against terrorists. 

Working with Iran is only contentious due to historically imbedded ideals. Relations are already thawing and while talks on nuclear programmes have not met desired results for either side they are still continuing.

Potential cooperation has become all the more important as Turkish involvement in the fight against the state remains understandably cool. Unlike the West Turkey must look at the terrible prospect of IS success in the region. 

For Turkey the fight against IS has long term consequences no matter the outcome. Clashes with Kurds at the weekend are yet more evidence of the tenuous position its government is in. 

For the West arming and supporting Kurdish fighters seems a way of avoiding placing its own ground troops in harms way. For Turkey, however, it poses long term security implications as Kurds demand more autonomy from Ankara.

By bringing Iran into the battle all out Turkish involvement may be avoided while still demonstrating that this is a war not against Islam but against evil. 

Danger if destabilisation as PKK armed

BRITISH involvement in Iraq is threatening long term stability in region according to some analysts.

British Defence Minister Michael Fallon has warned that military intervention to combat the threat from Islamic State extremists could last for months. 

The news, which broke on Sunday, comes in the wake of confirmation that the British government would aid the supply of arms to Kurdish fighters in the region, something which has led to fears about the long term implications for stability in the war torn area.

The defence secretary told service personnel at the South Cyprus RAF base in Akrotiri: "There may well now be in the next few weeks and months other ways that we may need to help save life [and] protect people and we are going to need all of you again and the surveillance you are able to give us,"

"We want to help the new government of Iraq and Kurdish forces. We want to help them stop the advance of IS and stop them from being terrorised.

"This is not simply a humanitarian mission. We and other countries in Europe are determined to do what we can to help the government of Iraq combat this new and very extreme form of terrorism that IS is promoting."

It is the arming of Kurdish fighters which is proving a controversial tactic, however, amid fears that once the current situation is resolved it could lead to long term conflict on the borders with Britain's NATO ally Turkey.

Richard Gowan, research director of the Centre on International Cooperation, at New York University, said: "There are moments in fast-moving crises when you simply have to stop events spiralling out of control, and worry about the consequences later. This is one of those moments. Arming the Kurds may be a step towards the final fragmentation of Iraq, with worrying consequences for Turkey and Iran. But if the alternative is losing more territory to Isis and allowing more atrocities, then this is still the best short-term option available."

Turkey has fought a long battle against the Kurdish terrorist group the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), which wants more autonomy for Kurds within Turkey. Despite a tenuous peace between the group and the government in Ankara an influx of weapons and munitions from the West could destabilise the current situation.

“Wars are always a very important catalyst for change . . . In a year’s time the position of the PKK is going to be much stronger than it is now,” said Henri Barkey, a former US State Department official.

Officials in Ankara have been quick to play down the perceived influx of PKK fighters into Iraq, with one spokesmen stating: “I don’t think their involvement is real,” a senior Turkish official said. “It looks more like a media campaign than a real military campaign.”

As Britain becomes more active in the crisis and its reliance on Kurdish fighters increases the military campaign may become more apparent. Calls are already growing for the PKK to be removed from British and US lists of terrorist organisations as their fighters become crucial in the battle for Iraq. With possible legitimacy, training and British supplied weapons Mr Fallon may be creating a long term issue for which he is unprepared to deal with.

The West should be relieved Erdogan won

AS FORMER Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan relinquishes his post in order to become the first directly elected President of Turkey it signals a new era for Britain's NATO ally.

Mr Erdogan's election has not been without controversy but now that he has won the presidency he is preparing to reconcile with those who have opposed him during the campaign.

In his victory announcement to supporters Mr Erdogan promised that the changes he planned would benefit everyone.

 "I will not be the president of only those who voted for me, I will be the president of 77 million.

"Today the national will won once again, today democracy won once again. Those who didn't vote for me won as much as those who did, those who don't like me won as much as those who do."

Offering an olive branch to his two former rivals the President elect continued by saying:

"I want to build a new future, with an understanding of a societal reconciliation, by regarding our differences as richness, and by pointing out not our differences but our common values."

With Turkey already playing a key role in regional conflicts Western politicians have been watching the election closely. Mr Erdogan's victory has not come as a great shock and neither will his proposed constitutional changes to the previously predominantly ceremonial role of President.

Mr Erdogan has made no secret during the election of his plans to imbue the role with more powers. While some critics have voiced concern that this could be an attempt to garner more authoritarian rule in the country other more moderate voices have highlighted the key benefits to the move.

As Prime Minister Mr Erdogan has overseen a period of sustained economic growth in Turkey, while the rest of the world was still struggling to overcome the ramifications of the 2008 economic crisis. He has also manoeuvred Turkey into a position to be a key player on global affairs at a time when strength and experience are needed. 

Already taking a leading role in conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Gaza and Ukraine Turkey has proven itself to be an important ally to the West under Mr Erdogan's leadership. Having been barred from running again for the role of Prime Minister, a position which he has held since 2003, the post of President should give Mr Erdogan the opportunity to further strengthen the ties he has already created and utilise his experience to promote stability in the region.

As Britain, America and other nations start the air offensive against militants from the self proclaimed Islamic Caliphate in Iraq, along with aid drops for the besieged inhabitants, Turkey's assistance will prove invaluable. Likewise as fears grow over an escalation in Ukraine and NATO being drawn into the struggle Turkish support will prove essential. Previously Presidents have not had the necessary power to provide much say in such affairs. If Mr Erdogan's amendments succeed then the West may find that they have a powerful ally in the new Turkish leader at a time when they most certainly need one.

Turkey may force action in Iraq

AS ISLAMIST insurgents gain ground in Iraq America may find its hand forced if Turkey takes action.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has taken control of Iraq's second largest city Mosul and the home city of former dictator Saddam Hussein, Tikrit. The group, led by former Al Qaeda hardliner Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi, has also announced intentions to push on to Baghdad and beyond.

During the taking of Mosul insurgents kidnapped 49 members of the Turkish consulate, including three children. The attack follows the taking of 31 Turkish lorry drivers on Tuesday in the region.

 Turkish officials have threatened severe consequences if any of the hostages are harmed. 

"All those involved should know that if our citizens are harmed in any way, they will be the subject of harsh reprisals," Turkish media quoted Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu as saying at the United Nations in New York.

As a member of the United Nations Security Council Turkey's actions may have wider implications for the growing conflict.

In a statement UN officials said that they "strongly denounced the taking of hostages at the Turkish Consulate and insist on the immediate and safe return of all personnel.  They condemned acts of violence against diplomatic and consular representatives, which endanger or take innocent lives and seriously impede the normal work of such representatives and officials."

Meanwhile United States Ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers said that she "strongly condemned attacks in Mosul by the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant and its efforts to turn back clock on Iraq's progress."

Turkish influence may put pressure on American President Barack Obama to take a firm stance against the terrorist campaign being waged in Iraq. 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has informally called on the United States to provide air and drone support as ground forces attempt to repel the rebels. Battle weary America has not made any signs it will seek to become engaged in another conflict in the country, from which it withdrew troops in December 2011, preferring to provide aid to Iraqi forces to maintain its own security. 

Some American officials have already expressed concerns about becoming too involved. Instead they blame Prime Minister Maliki failure to include the Sunni population in politics for the current crisis. 

"He's obviously not been a good prime minister," the Associated Press reported Senator Bob Corker, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as saying. "He has not done a good job of reaching out to the Sunni population, which has caused them to be more receptive to al-Qaida efforts."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been hesitant to become embroiled in the situation, releasing a statement in which FCO Minister Hugh Robertson said: "We fully support the Iraqi government in its fight against terrorism, and call for the safety of all civilians to be ensured. It is vital that all Iraqi authorities co-operate to tackle the challenges Iraq faces, and we call for a new Iraqi government to be formed quickly to allow political leaders to work together to tackle the causes of insecurity in Iraq."

With the situation looking only to escalate and Turkish involvement plausible Britain and America may find that they are forced to do more than condemn and instead take action.

Mine disaster highlights unrest in Turkey

AS RESCUE crews race to find survivors of the an explosion in a Turkish coal mine, which has already killed at least 245 workers, recriminations and analysis has already started.

Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz has confirmed that 787 people were inside the mine in Soma, located approximately 155 miles south of Istanbul, as workers were in the process of changing shifts at the time of the explosion. So far more than 360 have been rescued.

With rescuers attempting to locate further survivors buried in excess of 400 metres below the surface protestors have already started calling for the government to resign over the incident.

According to reports from Turkey’s Labour and Social Security Ministry the mine was given a clean safety inspection in March, having already been inspected four previous times since 2012, despite calls by opposition parties for further investigation following a number of smaller scale incidents sites around the coal mining region of Soma.

Several unions have already announced planned strike action if the government does not take immediate action, while demonstrators have gathered outside the headquarters of the mine.

Union organiser Ercan Akkaya was reported by NBC news as saying: “This was not an accident, it happened because not enough is ever done to protect workers.”

Protesters have broken out across Turkey after it was revealed that the mine had passed its safety tests despite a number of incidents involving loss of life already taking place. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was pelted with rocks while speaking to the press, while protesters should “murdered” and called for his resignation.

Police fired tear gas and used water cannons against protestors outside the headquarters of the ruling AKP party. While another group in Istanbul’s Kadikoy district lit candles and shouted: “We will burn the murderers with the same coals that swallowed the miners.”

The explosion is just the latest in a string of safety concerns facing the country, despite revised workplace safety regulations being announced two years ago. Statistics have demonstrated that Turkey is the most dangerous country in the world for miners per ton of coal production. More than 3,000 people have been killed in Turkish mine accidents since 1941 with a report by Economy Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV) in 2010 stating: “While the number of deaths per million ton of coal production is 7.22 in Turkey, it stood at 1.27 in China and 0.02 in the United States in the same year.”

The latest incident is likely to increase pressure on Prime Minister Erdogan’s embattled AKP party, which is already facing allegations of abuse of power and censorship of freedom speech, ahead of Turkey’s Presidential elections in August. What seems certain, though, is that while the search for survivors continues calls for the Prime Minister’s resignation will increase.