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.  

Blair fiddles as Gaza burns

UNITED Nations Peace Envoy Tony Blair has come under fire for hosting a lavish birthday party for his wife while Israeli forces continue their offensive in Gaza.

At the time that Mr Blair was partying with 150 guests ceasefire agreements were stalling in Gaza and the death toll continuing to rise. Already more than 1000 Palestinians have died in the fighting, the majority of whom are civilians. Two Israeli civilians and more than 40 soldiers have also died as the embattled region burns.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said: “Tony has been in touch on the crisis and will return to the region this week.

"He cares passionately about what is happening and will do anything he can to help.”

For all his concerns, however, the former Prime Minister was snapped partying with celebs and politicians, including current Labour Leader Ed Milliband, while UN officials struggled to hammer out a solution to the conflict.

In a statement UN leaders called for a ceasefire to be held during the Islamic festival of Eid and condemned the loss of civilian life.

 “The Security Council expresses grave concern regarding the deterioration in the situation as a result of the crisis related to Gaza and the loss of civilian lives and casualties.

“The Security Council calls for full respect of international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and their protection.

“The Security Council expresses strong support for the call by international partners and the Secretary-General of the United Nations for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, allowing for the delivery of urgently needed assistance, and they urged all parties to accept and fully implement the humanitarian ceasefire into the Eid period and beyond."

As a peace envoy Mr Blair is not required in Security Council meetings, however his absence from the region is likely to be seen by some observers as a sign that the UN is not taking the situation as seriously as many would like.

"Israel’s continuing bombardment of civilian homes in several areas of the Gaza Strip, as well as the shelling of a hospital, add to the list of possible war crimes that demand an urgent independent international investigation, said Amnesty International spokesman said last week.

In his role in the region Mr Blair would have seemed a likely candidate to take part in such an investigation.

Mr Blair's position as Peace Envoy has been a contentious issue since his appointment. Several observers in the region have expressed views that following his actions in Iraq he is the wrong person to promote stability on the region. This was further exasperated earlier this month after he called for more intervention in Syria, and for potential action against ISIS forces in Iraq.

For now, however, Mr Blair seems more interested in celebrating his wife's 60th birthday, which is actually in September, than fulfilling such an important role at this critical time. 

World Press Freedom

Last Saturday (May 3rd 2014) World Press Freedom Day, defined by the United Nations as “celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom; assess the state of press freedom throughout the world; defend the media from attacks on their independence; pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty.” (http://www.un.org/en/events/pressfreedomday).

It has seemed from following the news over the last year that freedom of the press has become an ever diminishing commodity. This has perhaps been shown in stark reality by the United Kingdom dropping four places in the Press Freedom Index to 33^rd out of 180 countries (http://www.un.org/en/events/pressfreedomday).

It is all too easy for proponents of press freedom to condemn countries such as Egypt, where three Aljazeera journalists have just had their appeal rejected for a second time today. The fight for press freedom can be lost in the battle against countries and governments. For the average man in the street it is only the figures which count, if that. Sixteen journalists killed this year alone, a further 168 imprisoned.

The fight for press freedom is not a battleground against countries though. Nor is it a crusade against governments. Press Freedom is something which lies in our hearts and our minds. The greatest threat to Press Freedom is through our own media.

We live in a world where the news which is published is the news which will sell. Media is a business after all, there is no profit in running stories which will not entice readers. It is readers which pay the bills at the end of the day.

In recent weeks more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped, little is known about their fate. This story and countless others have been buried at best, ignored at worst. They make readers feel uncomfortable over their breakfasts. It is far easier to run front pages of the faces of evil, of those we know and can feel superior to. I speak of course of Max Clifford and his ilk.

It is this process of censorship through economics which is killing press freedom. It is a slow decline as we seek the news which will sell the papers as opposed to the news which matters which is the greatest threat.

Freedom of the press must mean the freedom to be the voice which tells those who do not know the thinks which they should know. Instead it has become a timid whisper, fearful of disturbing advertisers and consumers.

Where once journalists where inviolable lest the wrath of the press reign down upon those who had harmed them, a romantic but not entirely forgotten ideal, now they are treated as targets and hostages. The world has changed but not so much that this has happened without the input of the media itself.

The presses self-censorship and scandal has weakened it. It is now looking only to survive through funding, where once people trusted the media now they look on it with scorn. This is the heart of our loss of freedom, our failure to stand for the lost ideals of journalism and freedom.