Turkey's brash behavior riles Iraq

Turkey has been officially uninvited — in no uncertain terms — to the liberation of Mosul, Iraq.

An Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighter looks through binoculars on the top of Mount Zardak, about 25 kilometers (15 miles) east of Mosul, Oct. 6, 2016.  (photo by GETTY/Safin Hamed)

When rumors began piling up recently that Turkey — after launching Operation Euphrates Shield in Syria — also has plans to intervene on the Iraqi front with Operation Tigris Shield, diplomatic channels between Ankara and Baghdad caught fire.

Baghdad was already unhappy with Turkey, believing Ankara is more interested in the post-Islamic State (IS) future of Mosul rather than helping to liberate it. Baghdad was also concerned about Turkey training Sunni-dominated Al-Hashd al-Watani forces at Bashiqa training camp 25 kilometers (15 miles) from Mosul.

So when Turkey's parliament decided Oct. 1 to extend for a year its military operations in Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi parliament responded with a blunt, unfriendly warning.

The warning called for summoning the Turkish ambassador, branding Turkish forces in Iraq as occupiers, prosecuting those responsible and denouncing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s pronouncements. It also called for reviewing trade and economic relations with Turkey and initiating immediate action with the United Nations to expel Turkish troops.

Turkey's Foreign Ministry responded in similarly harsh language: “We denounce the decision of the Iraqi parliament. We strongly condemn the ugly accusations directed to our president.”

Tension between Ankara and Baghdad escalated after Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi warned that the presence of Turkish soldiers in Iraq could lead to a regional war.

Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus contributed to the squabble. “Where was the Iraqi government when [IS] occupied Mosul in one day?” he asked, referring to the takeover in June 2014.

Many people wondered what had prompted the Iraqi parliament's bad-tempered action. A political adviser who was in the Iraqi parliament's lobby when the issue was being discussed told Al-Monitor, “The interview of Erdogan with Rotana TV was discussed a lot here. Shiite parties and minority representatives were upset. There were calls for expulsion of the Turkish ambassador. Erdogan’s words that Mosul should be left to Sunnis annoyed the Turkmens. There is concern here that after Syria, Turkey might [focus on] Iraq. Turkey seems to be determined — at least Iraqis think so."

The Turkish public heard a censored version of the statement Erdogan made on Dubai-based Rotana TV. Turkey’s state-controlled media Anadolu Agency quoted Erdogan as saying, “Mosul belongs to the people of Mosul, and Tal Afar belongs to the people of Tal Afar. Nobody else has the right to come and enter these places. After liberating Mosul from [IS], only Sunni Arabs, Turkmens and Sunni Kurds should stay there.”

But according to Arabic and English translations, interviewer Jamal Khashoggi asked, “Do you think Mosul can be liberated without the intervention of Turkey and Saudi Arabia?”

Erdogan replied, “I want to make it clear that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Western coalition will not allow sectarian domination. … But there is a major question: Who will then control the city? Of course, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Turkmens and Sunni Kurds. "

Iraq's Shiite-dominated Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), also called Hashid Shaabi, "must not be allowed to enter Mosul," Erdogan continued.

"Turkey and Saudi Arabia especially must cooperate to prevent them from entering. When we set up the camp at Bashiqa and our soldiers were training peshmerga, Baghdad's government was not uncomfortable with Turkey. We will not abandon our brethren who requested our support. We will not allow Mosul to be dominated by another terror group after [IS]. I believe Iran, too, will be careful about Mosul. Mosul belongs to people of Mosul and Tal Afar to the people of Tal Afar. Nobody else should enter these areas,” he said.

Naturally, that statement did not sit well with Shiite Turkmens, Shiite Arabs, Shabaks, Kakais, Yazidis and Christians who live in Mosul. Even the Sunnis in the PMU were upset. It was reported on all Iraqi channels. Erdogan’s stand on Mosul disappointed the Turkmens who saw Turkey as a guaranteeing power for them and embarrassed the Turkmens regarding other Iraqi sects.

A Turkmen representative who requested anonymity told Al-Monitor, “When Turkey makes a mistake, the bill is made out to Turkmens. This kind of utterance becomes a problem for us because here, people see Turkmens as one and the same with Turkey. It is best if Erdogan goes ahead and does what he says he will do instead of firing off such controversial statements."

He continued, "Look, nowadays there is a debate going on about allotting one [Iraqi] ministerial post to Turkmens. Now, because of the tension with Turkey, that seat will probably be given to someone who has no true connection with the Turkmens. For some time now, Turkey has been telling Turkmens to work together with Kurds. Because of this new policy, Turkey kept mum when the Kurdistan administration settled 600,000 Kurds in Kirkuk and revamped its demographic structure. When [IS] was expelling Shiite Turkmens from Mosul and Tal Afar, Turkey did not react. This is how Turkey is losing the Turkmens. Sure, the Turkmens still love Turkey, but they also see what the AKP [Justice and Development Party] rule is doing.”

In 2015, when Turkey sent 1,000 soldiers and 20 tanks to the Bashiqa base, Ankara said that was done with the knowledge of the Iraqi government. When Baghdad reacted by saying that the military force went beyond training needs and should be withdrawn, Ankara responded with the justification that they were there at the invitation Atheel al-Nujaifi, the former governor of Ninevah province. Then, Turkey said it will participate in the Mosul operation upon the invitation of Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani.

Al-Monitor spoke with Turhan Mufti, the chairman of the Nationalist Turkmen Peoples’ Party, about Turkey’s involvement. Mufti said the party doesn't want Turkey to intervene in Mosul and added, “What is important is for Iraq to solve its own problems. This is not something you can do with invitations sent by the former governor of Ninevah or Barzani, but [only] with the invitation of the Iraqi government. How can anyone else invite a foreign force to the country? … Some say, ‘If there are US soldiers, why not Turks?’ This means nothing. It is the Iraqi government that will decide which country can send its soldiers to Iraq.”

Mufti was also critical of Erdogan’s warning to Hashid Shaabi not to enter Mosul. He said, “Hashid Shaabi is not made up of exclusively Shiites. Mosul’s own Hashid Shaabi will of course take part. These are people who had fled from Mosul and Tal Afar. They are people of Mosul. Also, Iraq must be accepted as a whole. Why shouldn’t an Iraqi from Basra not fight at Mosul? We are in an all-out war against IS. Why can’t [Turkey] understand this? Nobody can impose conditions on who can fight or not.”

Mufti is among those who think the Iraqi parliament's decision was influenced by allegations that Turkey is supporting IS and that Ankara was responsible for the fall of Mosul. Ankara may dismiss the reaction of Shiite Arabs by saying they are influenced by Iran, but can Ankara ignore the reactions of Turkmens who love Turkey?

A Mosul Turkmen who was part of an unofficial diplomatic effort to improve relations between Turkey and Iraq in the first years of AKP rule in the early 2000s now feels devastated. He answered Al-Monitor’s questions with his own:

“Why did Turkey wait for two years doing nothing against [IS]? Now it says [the Shiite] Hashid Shaabi should not enter Mosul. Fine, then why didn’t you let [the Sunni] Hashd al-Watani, which you claimed to have trained, fight? What were you waiting for? Others marched from Baghdad to Mosul, fighting their way and paying the price for it. Now you are telling them, ‘Stop.’ Who is going to listen to you? You say only Sunni Arabs, Sunni Turkmens and Sunni Kurds will remain in Mosul. Why are you talking only of Sunnis? There are at least 12,000 Shiite Turkmens in the Iraqi army, police and Hashid [forces] fighting IS. Why didn’t you help Turkmens until today? You gripe about Iran, but Iran was on board to help from day one. Why weren't you? Even Ersad Salih, the chairman of the Iraqi Turkmen Front, openly said, ‘Turkey is not coming for us.’ This is what Turkmens feel.”

Many in Iraq believe Turkey intends to split the country, even though Erdogan keeps saying Turkey supports the territorial integrity of Iraq. Two days before calling for an end to Turkey’s military presence in Iraq, the Iraqi parliament rejected the request of some Sunni parties to create new federal zones and declared that Mosul’s administrative boundaries will not change. Of course, this example is just another omen of what is in store for Mosul after its liberation.

Kurdish group claims responsibility for Ankara attack

ANKARA, Turkey — A Kurdish militant group has claimed responsibility for a car bomb attack in the Turkish capital Ankara which killed 28 people.

In a statement posted on its website, the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, said Friday it carried out the attack to avenge Turkish military operations against Kurdish rebels in southeast Turkey. The Turkey-based group is an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.

Turkey had blamed a U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish militia group for the attack, saying they had acted in collaboration with the PKK

10 Conflicts to Watch in 2016

From Syria to the South China Sea, the conflicts and crises the world will face in the coming year.

Pulling together a list of the wars most in need of international attention and support in 2016 is challenging for all the wrong reasons. For 20 years after the end of the Cold War, deadly conflict was in decline. Fewer wars were killing fewer people the world over. Five years ago, however, that positive trend went into reverse, and each year since has seen more conflict, more victims, and more people displaced. 2016 is unlikely to bring an improvement from the woes of 2015: It is war — not peace — that has momentum.

That said, there are conflicts whose urgency and importance rise above. This year’s list of 10 is weighted toward wars with the worst humanitarian consequences: Syria and Iraq, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the Lake Chad basin. It includes those in influential and functioning states, like Turkey, as well as those that have collapsed, like Libya. It features conflicts that are already bad but are poised to get much worse without intelligent intervention, such as Burundi, as well as tensions, such as those in the South China Sea, that are simmering but have yet to boil over. The list also considers the hopeful example presented by Colombia, where considerable progress is being made toward ending a 51-year insurgency.

Half of the conflicts on this year’s list involve extremist groups whose goals and ideologies are difficult to accommodate through negotiated settlement, complicating efforts to plot a path to peace. Looking ahead to 2016, it’s time to dispense with the notion that fighting against violent extremism suffices as a plan for world order — or even the basis of a solution for a single country like Syria. To be sure, stopping the abominations of the Islamic State and other jihadis is vital, but it also exposes policy dilemmas: The fear of what follows the demise of authoritarians (Iraq and Libya being prime exhibits) creates a strong incentive to back repressive regimes, but order based solely on state coercion is not sustainable. The dramatic increase in the reach and influence of jihadis over the past few years is a symptom of deeper trends in the Middle East: mounting sectarianism, a crisis of legitimacy of existing states, and escalating geopolitical competition, particularly between Saudi Arabia and Iran. When the enemy comes from within a given region, military action directed from abroad is more likely to aggravate than assuage.

There is an alternative to this approach: States could work pragmatically at managing differences rather than overcoming them while leaving political space open for local actors to speak up. This will require courage, patience, and creative diplomacy, but the two most important diplomatic successes of 2015 — the Iran nuclear deal and the agreement on climate change — give reason to believe an international approach based on finding common interests could work. There are other glimmers of hope, too: major strides forward in Colombia’s peace talks, a cease-fire in Ukraine bolstered by the Minsk process, progress in Myanmar’s democratic transition, and a welcome, if long overdue, resolution from the U.N. Security Council on Syria.

Most of the conflicts listed here require action at several levels — between major powers, regionally and locally — and none are amenable to a quick fix. Given the challenges of ending conflicts amid the upheaval of a revolutionary era, it is all the more urgent to provide humanitarian aid and to mitigate the human toll of violence — evidenced starkly in the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled toward Europe in the past year. States must also redouble efforts to forge political agreements, taking advantage of even the narrowest openings to find opportunities for compromise. The fluidity of the present moment can and must be used to shape a new, better-balanced order.

Syria and Iraq

At the close of the year, the war in Syria is the world’s gravest, with its effects stretching across the region and sucking in major powers. More than a quarter of a million Syrians have been killed and almost 11 million — about half the country’s population — displaced in or outside the country. The rise of the Islamic State, which now controls a large swath of eastern Syria and northwest Iraq, has drawn in firepower from countries including the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia. As yet, however, none of these countries has articulated a coherent strategy to defeat the Islamic State.

Worse still, Moscow and Western powers have been working at cross-purposes, with Russian jets bombing anti-Islamic State rebels that Washington considers partners against the jihadi group. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime continues to use indiscriminate aerial bombardment and other methods of collective punishment, inflicting civilian casualties in Sunni-majority areas that dwarf the numbers of victims claimed by the Islamic State’s violence. Assad’s tactics fuel continued cycles of radicalization, in Syria in particular, but also across the region, by fanning sectarian flames and feeding the sense of Sunni victimization from which the Islamic State profits.

The pace of diplomatic action has quickened, spurred in part by Russia’s military intervention in Syria in September and the Islamic State-sponsored terrorist attacks in Paris in November. While the growing internationalization of the conflict presents many dangers, it may also open possibilities for diplomacy. In December, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a cease-fire and political solution in Syria. The resolution sets forth an ambitious timetable, with talks between the government and the opposition to start in January; a Syrian-led political process to establish “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance” within six months; and elections within a year-and-a-half. Questions about Assad’s future — which provoke the most vehement disagreement between major powers on the Security Council, rival regional powers, and Syrian factions — remain unaddressed.

Despite many reasons to be skeptical, it is worth hoping that this latest initiative marks the beginning of a meaningful effort to resolve the conflict. A conference in Riyadh in December exceeded expectations by bringing together an unprecedented range of the opposition’s armed and political factions to agree on a negotiating team. Participants pledged their commitment to a pluralistic Syrian future and conditional willingness to engage in the peace process. For a national cease-fire to work, however, there must be a strategy for dealing with spoilers — especially al Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front, which is geographically, and often operationally, integrated into the non-jihadi opposition in much of western Syria.

In Iraq, meanwhile, the Western strategy to defeat the Islamic State relies largely on military offensives by Iraqi Kurds, a mostly Shiite Iraqi army, and Iran-backed Shiite militias. This risks feeding the resentment of Sunni Arabs in areas currently under Islamic State control. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government is under pressure from rival Shiite factions for a host of reasons — including anger over corruption, the state’s failure to provide basic services and security, resistance to his reform agenda, and intramural jockeying for power. Shiite militias are not only fighting the Islamic State, but have organized to fill the security vacuum and defend Baghdad and Shiite holy sites. The militias’ partial success resonates with many unemployed youth, who have been at the forefront of street protests. The Islamic State rules partly through brutal coercion but also by exploiting fear of the Shiite-dominated government and by empowering formerly marginalized segments within the Sunni community. Iraqi forces have spent months trying to retake Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, after a humiliating withdrawal last May, and in the last week of the year managed to finally gain control of the city. The next priority will be to oust the Islamic State from Mosul, the northern city where it is perhaps best entrenched.

Turkey

Recent photographs from the southeastern city of Diyarbakir show young militants with assault rifles manning sandbagged roadblocks and engaging in bloody urban battles. Such images capture a dangerous escalation in Turkey’s long conflict with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a confrontation that has killed more than 30,000 people since 1984. Many factors have fueled the sharp upsurge in violence following the end of peace talks last spring and the collapse of the cease-fire in July. Turkey’s Kurdish movement backs the PKK’s Syrian affiliate, the PYD, which has made gains in fighting against the Islamic State. Ankara worries that cross-border Kurdish solidarity will further strengthen demands for a separate state. This perceived threat has weakened Turkey’s focus on the fight against the Islamic State, leading many Turkish Kurds to conclude that Ankara supports the terrorist group that is ostensibly their common enemy.

Over the past six months, the conflict has escalated to its most violent point in two decades. Both sides know that there is no military solution; however, each wants to weaken the other as much as possible while waiting for the Syria quagmire to settle. To prevent the Middle East’s ethno-sectarian violence from spilling further into Turkey, both sides should urgently end violence, agree on cease-fire conditions, and restart peace talks. Free from electoral pressures for four years, the new Justice and Development Party (AKP) government should formulate a concrete reform agenda to address demands for Kurdish rights — including decentralization and mother-tongue education — that can be advanced within a democratic framework.

Yemen

The Saudi-led war in Yemen — backed by the United States, Britain, and allies in the Gulf — has been grinding on since March 2015, with no end in sight. U.N.-sponsored peace talks in Switzerland in mid-December yielded only an agreement to resume negotiations on Jan. 14. Nearly 6,000 people have reportedly been killed, almost half of them civilians. More than 2 million people have been uprooted from their homes; an additional 120,000 have fled the country. The war has destroyed the country’s already weak infrastructure, deepened political divides, and introduced a narrative of sectarianism where previously there had been little or none. The conflict threatens the security of the Arabian Peninsula, particularly Saudi Arabia itself, by feeding the growth of terrorist networks like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The violence has its roots in a botched political transition following the departure of longtime President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was forced out amid protests in 2011. After years of indecision about the country’s political future, Houthi militias took matters into their own hands and captured the capital, Sanaa, in September 2014. The Houthis — a predominantly Zaydi Shiite movement rooted in the north — began moving south in alliance with forces loyal to Saleh. On March 25, 2015, they seized a strategic military base near Aden and held the defense minister hostage. The next day, Saudi Arabia launched a major military campaign — Operation Decisive Storm — to roll back the Houthi advance and restore the government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The Houthis bear much of the responsibility for triggering the war, but the Saudi-led campaign has only escalated the violence and thus far proved largely counterproductive.

Saudi Arabia sees the Houthis as proxies for Iran. While Iran’s role has been minimal, Tehran has not hesitated to make political hay of Houthi successes, thereby further raising the stakes in a volatile region. The perception that it is meddling has alarmed Saudi Arabia, which sees Iran as ascendant and having hegemonic ambitions. A peaceful solution to the Yemen war may well require a prior accommodation between these two regional superpowers, currently a remote possibility.

Libya

The Islamic State’s apparent consolidation of its base around Sirte, on Libya’s Mediterranean coast, has brought fresh urgency to international efforts to end a political crisis that has left the country in a shambles.

Following NATO’s military intervention and the ouster of longtime dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi in 2011, assorted political parties, tribes, and militias have been fighting for power and control over the nation’s vast oil and gas riches. Since mid-2014, the country has been governed by two rival factions — another way of saying that no one is really in charge. A U.N.-brokered deal to form a national unity government emerged in December, thanks to heavy lifting from the United States and Italy.

Members of both factions signed up, but many powerful constituents still oppose the deal. The unity government may not be able to govern much, especially if opponents prevent it from taking a seat in Tripoli.

Meanwhile, lawlessness continues to take a heavy toll. Thousands of detainees languish in prisons without proper judicial review while kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant. Libya is also a major transit hub for refugees and migrants trying to reach Europe from other parts of the Middle East and Africa. The unchecked flow of arms and fighters through Libya has fueled conflicts across the Sahel, including in Mali and the Lake Chad basin (see below). Western intelligence officials say that the impoverished Fezzan region in the south is swiftly becoming a haven for criminal networks and radical groups. On top of all this, economic collapse looms on the horizon unless oil production increases and officials act to maintain the integrity of Libya’s core financial institutions, which the two rival administrations have been squabbling over.

The first task for the new Libyan government, and its international partners, must be to bring aboard those Libyans who currently oppose it. At best, the recently signed agreement should be seen as a beginning, not an end, to the peace process.

Lake Chad basin

Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon face an evolving threat from the jihadi militant group Boko Haram. Over the past six years, the group has transformed itself from a small protest movement in northern Nigeria to a powerful force capable of mounting devastating attacks across the Lake Chad basin. Last March, it pledged allegiance to the Islamic State — an affiliation that appears to have had little impact beyond improving Boko Haram’s online presence.

This past summer, Cameroon experienced the greatest increase in attacks by Boko Haram, followed closely by Niger and Chad. Nigeria, however, remains the epicenter of the conflict. Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, who took office in May, ambitiously pledged to end the insurgency by December. While this remains a distant goal, Buhari — a former army major general — has shaken up his country’s security establishment and joined with regional forces to drive Boko Haram from the areas in northeastern Nigeria it had seized earlier in 2015.

Boko Haram is, however, resilient, adaptable, and mobile. Military efforts, to date, have had limited success in countering its use of suicide bombers, who are often young women and girls. Its terrorist attacks on remote and unprotected villages — and even on regional capitals, like N’Djamena — continue. Indiscriminate responses by state security forces and insufficient efforts to win over the affected communities only pour fuel on the fire. Regional governments are still failing to address the factors behind radicalization. Decades of political corruption, festering grievances, and poor access to basic social services have bred deep anger and alienation. These issues are compounded by rapid population growth and environmental degradation, which drive social tension and migration.

South Sudan

Yet again, the world’s newest country is at risk of descending into full-blown civil war. The peace agreement reached between the government and the largest armed opposition group in August after intensive African-led mediation is on the brink of collapse. Meanwhile, independent armed groups outside the deal are proliferating.

The roots of the conflict date back to internecine competition among various factions during South Sudan’s decades-long independence struggle. South Sudan won independence from Sudan, only to explode into civil war on Dec. 15, 2013, as divisions within the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement led to fighting and targeted ethnic killings in the capital of Juba. Only hours after the conflict erupted, tens of thousands of people sought refuge at U.N. bases to escape ethnic massacres and sexual violence. Today, nearly 200,000 people live under the direct protection of U.N. peacekeepers.

Over the past two years, more than 2.4 million people have been displaced, and tens of thousands have been killed. A report released by the African Union in October detailed atrocities by both sides, including mass killings and rapes. Now, with an increasing number of the country’s more than 24 armed groups aligned with neither the government nor the main opposition forces, the prospect of a multipolar war is real. Regional actors, especially members of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which mediated the peace agreement, and international powers, including IGAD partners China, Norway, the United States, and the United Kingdom, must take urgent, united action to push South Sudan’s leaders to respect their commitments to the peace deal and avert a catastrophic return to war.

Burundi

Almost daily, dead bodies appear on the streets of Bujumbura, with the circumstances surrounding their deaths often unknown. More than 300 people have been killed since last April, when President Pierre Nkurunziza announced plans to seek a third term in office despite widespread opposition. Nkurunziza’s re-election in July, following a failed coup attempt, sparked a season of confrontation between government forces and armed opposition fighters. Escalating violence raises fears of a return to conflict after a decade of relative peace. At least 300,000 people died during Burundi’s 12-year civil war, which ended in 2005 after dogged peace-building efforts led by former Presidents Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Nelson Mandela of South Africa.

In December, the African Union Peace and Security Council took the bold step of authorizing an African Prevention and Protection Mission in Burundi to halt the slide toward civil war and mass atrocities. Nkurunziza reacted angrily and said Burundians would “stand up and fight” against foreign troops. The African Union has reached out to the government and is calling on both sides to cooperate with peace talks, with the next round scheduled for Jan. 6. It is not clear if the African Union has sufficient member support to impose a mission against the will of the Burundian government.

The humanitarian situation is dire. More than 200,000 people have fled the country, and U.N. officials have warned that without immediate action there is a risk of “catastrophic violence.” So far, the crisis is more political than ethnic. However, some leaders appear to be exploiting ethnic divisions, and there is a risk of mass atrocities if violence continues unchecked. It also threatens to further destabilize the fragile Great Lakes region, with increasing numbers of refugees fleeing to Rwanda, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Afghanistan

U.S. President Barack Obama’s endgame in Afghanistan seems ever more remote, as the country remains mired in conflict more than 14 years after the United States intervened to oust the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda. Today, the Taliban, despite internal splits, are still a formidable force; al Qaeda maintains a presence, and the Islamic State has established a foothold. A short-lived breakthrough in Pakistan-brokered peace talks last July was scuttled after opponents of the talks disclosed that the Taliban’s reclusive leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, had died in 2013. The Taliban eventually confirmed these reports and announced that longtime deputy Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour had taken over. Mullah Mansour, who reportedly has close ties to Pakistan’s intelligence services, consolidated his leadership position with a string of military victories, including the temporary capture of Kunduz in late September. Yet factionalism continues to bedevil the Taliban movement. Unconfirmed reports surfaced in early December indicating that Mullah Mansour may have been injured or killed in a firefight with rivals in Pakistan. A handful of field commanders throughout the year declared allegiance to the Islamic State.

Fighting across multiple provinces continues to inflict heavy civilian casualties — one reason that Afghanistan is second only to Syria as a leading source of refugees. Rampant corruption and abuse of power by local authorities continue to be the chief drivers of support for the insurgency. The United States now says that it will maintain troop levels at 9,800 for most of 2016, and NATO’s Resolute Support Mission is committed to providing financial support for Afghan security forces until 2020. But given the potency of the insurgency, there is clearly no military solution to the conflict. And the splintering and proliferation of militant groups threaten future efforts to broker peace. President Ashraf Ghani’s attempts to resume negotiations with the Taliban are controversial and strain the cohesion of his national unity government. For talks to succeed, they must be broadly Afghan-led and owned, and driven more by the interests of the Afghan people than by those of powerful external players like Pakistan and the United States.

South China Sea

The South China Sea risks becoming a theater of big-power competition, as the United States challenges China’s large-scale land reclamation and construction on several disputed reefs. China’s aggressive assertion of its territorial claims sets it on a collision course with several Southeast Asian nations with competing sovereignty claims in one of the world’s busiest waterways, an area rich with fisheries and possible oil and gas reserves. Tensions flared in May, when a U.S. spy plane flew near Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly archipelago, where China is building an airfield. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter called for an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation in the disputed area and announced that the United States “will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.” In October, a U.S. Navy warship approached another disputed reef in the Spratlys, prompting a sharp rebuke from Beijing that the action was illegal and posed a threat to its national security. In November, Obama announced an aid package worth $259 million over two years to boost the maritime security of Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia, all rival claimants to China.

In what could prove a landmark case, a tribunal in The Hague is considering an arbitration request filed by the Philippines accusing China of violating international law in the South China Sea. Beijing refuses to participate or accept the court’s jurisdiction, but the case could still help unite international opinion and nudge China toward greater cooperation. A decision is expected in 2016.

Beijing should realize that its use of sharp elbows diminishes confidence in regional self-governance and encourages its neighbors to turn to the United States for protection. In turn, Washington must use its words and actions to defend the global commons and support multilateral diplomacy, rather than merely asserting its military supremacy. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations should drive negotiations with China to commit all parties to a code of conduct to manage maritime disputes before small ripples grow into big waves.

Colombia

Peace talks in Havana between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) achieved a series of breakthroughs in recent months, raising hopes that the country may finally see an end to its 51-year-old armed conflict in 2016. The conflict has claimed the lives of an estimated 220,000 people; 50,000 have been “disappeared,” and a staggering 7.6 million people have registered as victims of the conflict.

In December, the two sides announced a milestone agreement on transitional justice, one of the toughest issues on the agenda. They had previously reached agreements — with some matters left open for discussion — on rural development, political participation, and drug policy.

President Juan Manuel Santos has declared an ambitious March 23 deadline for reaching a final agreement, but he has pushed back the date for a bilateral cease-fire. Sensitive questions continue to dog the disarmament and reintegration of rebel forces, as well as monitoring mechanisms to ensure implementation. Other complex issues include how to confirm the peace agreement: The government has committed to a popular vote, while the FARC has long called for a constituent assembly. A smaller rebel group, the National Liberation Army (ELN), must also join the peace process. And the huge challenge of healing the scars left by decades of war in a country still plagued by illegal armed groups remains. All that said, there are positive signs that the continent’s longest-running, and last-remaining, armed conflict will soon come to a conclusion.

Turkey Hopes To Export GENESIS System for G-class Frigates

Turkey’s procurement office, in connection with state-controlled military software company Havelsan, has launched efforts to export an indigenous naval combat management system.

 

Havelsan developed the GENESIS advanced combat management system for the US-built Oliver Hazard Perry (G)-class frigates used by the US Navy and a number of allied countries worldwide.

 

The company has upgraded Turkish frigates with the GENESIS system. One company official said further upgrades on the system, including a ship data link system and 3-D search radar integration, are underway, scheduled for completion later this year.

 

“We think that there is a potential [need] for GENESIS from navies across the world that have in their inventories G-class frigates, most notably the US,” one official from Turkish procurement agency SSM said.

 

Turkey earlier spent efforts to secure deals with Bahrain and Pakistan to outfit their G-class frigates with the GENESIS system but no deal has been formalized. Another potential deal with Egypt failed due to political disputes between Ankara and Cairo.

 

“We are particularly hopeful about a contract to upgrade the US frigates,” the official said.

The Havelsan official said other potential buyers include Taiwan and Spain.

Turkey courts France in $3.4 bln missile project

Though China has been the front runner, Turkey has now turned toward France regarding the tender for a multi-billion dollar air defense system, according to unnamed sources close to the Undersecretariat for the Defense Industry (SSM) who spoke to Today's Zaman on Monday.

 

The sources said that SSM Undersecretary İsmail Demir held a secret meeting in France with the firm Eurosam regarding interest in the tender, which is expected to be one of the largest military projects in the history of the Turkish Republic.

 

Last year, Turkey chose a Chinese company for the tender, however the deadline for the tender has since been extended several times, allowing Turkey to pursue offers from other bidders.

 

If negotiations with the Chinese do not continue, Eurosam is second in line, while an American company has third priority, according to sources.

 

Ankara said last year that the $3.4 billion high technology offer from China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC) would enable Turkey to co-produce the missiles and thus build a strong national defense industry, a factor that played a critical role in the initial selection of the Chinese firm.

 

CPMIEC is under US sanctions for selling items to Iran, Syria and North Korea that are banned under US law to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

THIRD AWACS TO BE DELIVERED IN SEPTEMBER

The airborne early warning and control aircraft (AWACS) project initiated in order to ensure complete and uninterrupted surveillance of Turkey's surroundings and to manage air traffic when necessary is drawing to an end. According to Turkish Daily Dünya, the third aircraft will be delivered to Turkey in September.

The project named as "Eagle of Peace," which consisted of the purchase of four aircraft had been delayed for seven years and the first aircraft was delivered in February and the other one in May. The last aircraft is scheduled to be delivered in the first half of 2015. The aircraft can track and identify more than one thousand aircraft and sea vehicles. Along with exploration and surveillance functions, the aircraft can also transfer voice and data files required for communication during air traffic control. Turkish companies have a TL 576 million share in the Eagle of Peace Project.

The Eagle of Peace airborne early warning aircraft are capable of performing the duties of more than 100 radars without being affected by geographical restrains. They can also perform the backup task in case of a failure with ground radars. Dünya further noted that the total liability of Turkey in this project is around $1.5 billion (TL 3.23 billion).

US clears air missiles sales to Turkish army

The United States has cleared a potential $320 million advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) missiles sale to Turkey after the country demanded arms from its NATO ally amid increasing security risks in the region. 

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has announced that the State Department has approved a possible sale to Turkey for AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM missiles from Raytheon and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $320 million, a statement released by the agency on its website said.

Turkey has requested 145 AMRAAMs, 10 missile guidance sections, and 40 LAU-129 launchers, containers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, integration activities, publications and technical documentation, test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor logistics, engineering and technical support and other related elements or logistical and program support.

The statement said the sale was consistent with the “U.S. national interests of assisting its NATO ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense.”

“The Turkish Air Force (THK) intends to obtain these missiles to modernize its inventory, which will support its own air defense needs and improve its interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO allies,” the statement said.

Under U.S. law, this kind of military equipment sale to an allied country is carried out automatically unless at least one senator formally requests a hold on the sale within two weeks following the DSCA’s notification. No such opposition is expected in this case.

NATO security

According to the announcement, the missiles will be used on the F-16 aircraft – and eventually F-35 aircraft – in the Turkish army’s inventory and will maintain the THK’s air-to-air capability to defend its extensive coastline and borders against future threats.

“The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region,” it said.

“The implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Turkey involving U.S. government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management and training. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Turkey for integration, testing, and training.
The number and duration are unknown and will be determined during contract negotiations,” it said.

Turkey grants US warship permission to enter Black Sea

 

PLEASE NOTE - THIS ARTICE IS PUBLISHED BY PUTIN MOUTHPIECE RT.COM

Turkey has given a US Navy Warship the green light to pass through the Bosphorus within the next two days as tensions in Ukraine’s Crimea region continue to divide world powers.
 

Turkish sources, speaking with the Hurriyet Daily News on Wednesday, declined to elaborate on the name of the US warship. The same officials told the daily on condition of anonymity that the ship in question was not the USS George H.W. Bush nuclear aircraft carrier as suggested in some news reports, as it did not meet the standards specified by the 1936 Montreux Convention in terms of weight.
 

The US vessel to pass through the straits will meet the convention’s standards, the sources said.
 

On Wednesday, the Russian Black Sea Fleet Staff confirmed to the Itar-Tass news agency that a US destroyer was expected to enter the Black Sea later this week.
 

On Sunday, Tass reported that the guided-missile frigate USS Taylor, one of two Navy ships assigned to the Black Sea during the Sochi Winter Olympics was still in the Turkish Black Sea port of Samsun. The frigate was deployed on February 5 along with the amphibious command ship, USS Mount Whitney. According to the Montreux Convention, warships of countries which do not border the Black Sea cannot remain in the waters for longer than 21 days. While the USS Mount Whitney left on February 25, the USS Taylor remained at the Turkish port, ostensibly for repairs after running aground on February 12.
 

Meanwhile, it was reported on Tuesday that two Russian warships entered the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. The 150 'Saratov' landing ship and the 156 'Yamal' assault ship crossed the strait around 05:30 GMT, en route to the Black Sea, the Anadolu Agency (AA) reported.
 

No coastguard boats were seen escorting the ships. The Ukrainian Hetman Sahaydachny followed shortly thereafter, crossing the Dardanelles Strait off Turkey's west coast. Two coastguard vessels were reported by AA to be escorting the ship.
 

The vessel, which had participated in NATO-led Ocean Shield and Atalanta counter-piracy operations, reportedly docked near Odessa port on Wednesday, says the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

 

The traffic through the Turkish straits comes as tensions between the West and Russia over recent events in Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula located on the northern coast of the Black Sea, continue to simmer.
 

Russia currently leases a military wharf and shore installations in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. The Ukrainian government agreed to extend Russia’s lease on the territory in 2010, allowing the Russian Black Sea Fleet to effectively stay in Crimea until 2047.
 

Five Russian naval units are currently stationed in the port city of Sevastopol, including the 30th Surface Ship Division, the 41st Missile Boat Brigade, the 247th Separate Submarine Division, the 68th Harbor Defense Ship, and the 422nd Separate Hydrographic Ship Division.
 

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the military personnel of the Black Sea Fleet are “in their deployment sites" and “additional vigilance measures were taken to safeguard the sites.”
 

“We will do everything to prevent bloodshed," he said, speaking ahead of his first face-to-face meeting with his US counterpart, John Kerry, since the crisis erupted.

 

Over a week after the government of Viktor Yanukovich was toppled by violent street protests, fears of deepening political and social strife have been particularly acute in Ukraine’s pro-Russian east and south.
 

One day after voting to oust Yanukovich, a newly reconfigured parliament did away with a 2012 law on minority languages, which permitted the use of two official languages in regions where the size of an ethnic minority exceeds 10 percent.
 

Apart from the Russian-majority regions affected by this law, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian also lost their status as official languages in several towns in Western Ukraine.
 

Authorities in the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea – where over half the population is ethnically Russian – requested Moscow’s assistance following the legal downgrade of the Russian language.
 

Western states have accused Russia of militarily intervening in Crimea and called on Russian troops to return to their Black Sea bases. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) recently dispatched military observers to Kiev. The observers from the pan-European security body are en route to Crimea, where they will monitor the situation on the ground.
 

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated President Putin’s previous words that Russian troops had not actually been deployed from their bases in Crimea. Lavrov said that forces with unmarked uniforms which had taken de-facto control over Crimea are self-defense units that are not under Russia’s auspices.
 

"If they are the self-defense forces created by the inhabitants of Crimea, we have no authority over them," Lavrov told a news conference in Madrid after a meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo.
 

"They do not receive orders [from us]," he said.
 

On Saturday, the Russian Federation Council – the upper house of the Federal Assembly of Russia – approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to send the country’s military forces to Ukraine to ensure peace and order in the region “until the socio-political situation in the country is stabilized.”

According to the bilateral agreement concerning Russia's Black Sea Fleet military bases in Crimea, Moscow is allowed to have up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine.

Warships En Route to Ukraine and Russia test-Launches 'Advanced' Ballistic Missile

Two Russian warships crossed Turkey's Bosphorus Strait early Tuesday headed towards the Black Sea, Turkish media reported.

 

The reported ship movements came with Russia and the West locked in a standoff over Ukraine's Crimean peninsula on the Black Sea.

 

Turkey's state run Anatolia news agency, carrying a picture of one of the warships, said Russia had "summoned" the vessels back to its Black Sea fleet to strengthen its military presence in Crimea.

A Ukranian vessel was also seen crossing the Dardanelles Strait off Turkey's west coast and was expected to cross into the Black Sea, the agency said.

 

The Turkish military also said that it scrambled eight F-16 jets on Monday after a Russian spy plane was detected flying parallel to its Black Sea coast.

 

Turkey, a NATO ally, has repeatedly voiced fears about the fate of the Turkish-speaking Tatar minority in Crimea, which was part of the Ottoman Empire until it was conquered by Russia in the late 18th century.

 

Also on Tuesday, Russia carried out a successful test launch of an "advanced" intercontinental ballistic missile, state news agencies reported amid a fierce standoff between Moscow and the West over Ukraine.

 

"The purpose of the launch is to test the advanced payload of the intercontinental ballistic missile," Russia's three main news agencies quoted a top defense official as saying.

 

But the official said Russia informed the United States earlier this week that it would carry out the test launch.

 

"We have been notified of this test earlier this week. It's not unexpected," the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Agence France Presse.

 

He said the launch involved the RS-12M Topol -- a road-mobile missile last reportedly tested by Russia on December 28.

 

The missile was first put into service in the 1980s and then repeatedly modified. It is referred to as the SS-25 Sickle by NATO and has a reported maximum range of 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles).

 

The defense official provided no details of the missile's advanced features, saying only that it was launched from Russia's Kapustin Yar rocket launch site near the southern city of Volgograd.

 

The missile successfully hit its target in the Sary Shagan ballistic missile test range that Russia leases in Kazakhstan.

 

Russia has been testing warheads that could evade a missile defense shield the United States is deploying together with NATO in Europe over Russia's strong objections.

 

The Russian defense official said the test was designed to check the warhead's ability to "penetrate missile defense systems".

 

Meanwhile, Russian forces fired warning shots on Ukrainian soldiers at a base near Sevastopol as tensions flared in the standoff over Crimea.

 

Pro-Russian troops guarding an airfield in Belbek, near Sevastopol, fired the shots in the air as a column of about 300 Ukrainian troops approached around 9:00 am local time (0700 GMT), Oleksey Khramov, an officer at the base, told AFP.

 

"They fired several shots into the air and said they would open fire if they continued to approach," he said.

 

The Ukrainian soldiers, who were unarmed, then stopped to avoid a confrontation, he said.

In footage of the incident shown on Britain's Sky Television, a pro-Russian soldier told the approaching Ukrainians: "Hold back. I want your officer here! We'll be shooting your legs."

A Ukrainian soldier replied: "You will pay for this, you'll be held responsible."

 

The Russian soldier told the Ukrainian soldiers to "calm down" and accused them of "deliberately provoking us".

 

An AFP reporter at the base said the column of troops had since returned inside the administrative base of the Sevastopol tactical aviation brigade in Belbek, where dozens of Ukrainian soldiers are holed up refusing to abandon their posts.

 

Russian forces have surrounded Ukrainian military bases across Crimea as the Russian-speaking autonomous region has been thrown into turmoil following the ouster last month of Moscow-backed president Viktor Yanukovych.

 

Tensions are high, but fears of an imminent assault by Russian forces did not materialize overnight.

"The night was quiet," Vladyslav Seleznyov, the defense ministry spokesman for Crimea, told AFP in the regional capital Simferopol.

 

Ukrainian officials said Monday that Russia had given Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea an ultimatum to surrender or face an all-out assault, although Russia denounced the claim as "complete nonsense".

"No more declarations have been made by the Russian side," Seleznyov said.

 

In Sevastopol, a bastion of pro-Kremlin sentiment, pro-Russian activists had surrounded the headquarters of the Ukrainian navy in Crimea.

 

An AFP reporter said about 100 pro-Russia activists were gathered outside the offices and formed a human chain, as Russian forces with automatic rifles stood nearby.

 

Seleznyov said Russian vessels were also blocking Ukrainian warships from trying to leave the port, which has been the home of the Russian navy's Black Sea fleet for some 250 years.

 

The Ukrainian defense ministry says several thousand Russian troops have been sent by the Kremlin to Crimea.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday denied that Russian forces were operating in Crimea, saying that only "local forces of self-defense" were surrounding Ukrainian military bases.

 

Armed men believed to be under Moscow's orders last week seized key government buildings in Crimea and airports on the peninsula.

 

Regional lawmakers deposed the Kiev-supporting prime minister and have called for a referendum on March 30 on proclaiming greater autonomy for Crimea.

Airbus CEO Says Turkish Delay in Taking A400M Threatens Ramp-Up

Airbus Group NV (AIR) Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders said he’s frustrated by Turkey’s failure to accept delivery of the third production A400M airlifter, even though two planes are flying successfully with French forces.

 

Enders said today that his company is “still bargaining” over the delivery process with Turkey, which has 10 A400Ms on order and is one of seven so-called core customers that signed up for the military transport plane almost 11 years ago.

 

“The aircraft is ready to go,” the CEO said at a press conference. “It’s the same aircraft that we delivered to the French Air Force that has been instantly operational and fit for flight. I find the situation increasingly unacceptable.”

 

Airbus is ramping up A400M production following years of delays and cost increases that mean the program won’t make a profit unless additional orders are won beyond the 174 already secured. The company’s travails with the model underscore shortcomings in military activities that last month prompted it to adopt the name of its jetliner unit and drop the European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. identity after 13 1/2 years.

 

Airbus should deliver 10 or 11 A400Ms this year while working on upgrading the turboprop to its full capabilities, according to Enders, who said the first planes have performed well in ferrying French troops to Mali to combat insurgents.

 

Support Sought

 

Enders declined to go into detail about the spat with Turkey, saying: “I constrain myself to one word. Bargaining.”

 

He added: “In a multinational program that’s really a problem. How can you efficiently ramp up production if you have no certainty that your customers are taking those aircraft?”

 

Airbus will seek “support from other nations very soon” in pressing its case, Enders said. The other core buyers for the A400M, which fits between Boeing Co.’s C-17 and Lockheed Martin Corp.’s C130J, are Germany, France, Spain, the U.K., Belgium and Luxembourg, with Malaysia as the only export client.

 

Turkey is a 5.5 percent shareholder in the A400M program, with Turkish Aerospace Industries supplying fuselage and wing parts for the plane to Bremen in Germany and Filton, England, for integration before final assembly in Seville, Spain.

 

Murad Bayar, head of Turkey’s Defense Industry Undersecretariat in Ankara, wasn’t available when calls were placed to his office.

 

Eurofighter Concern

 

Enders said he’s also “not very optimistic” about securing further deals for the Eurofighter combat jet needed to sustain production once outstanding orders have been fulfilled.

 

“We do hope we can still score one or two other successes in exports,” he said. “But we also have to prepare for a scenario -- due to lack of export orders plus cancellations from others -- that we’ll have to ramp down production of this otherwise very impressive aircraft sooner rather than later.”

 

The Eurofighter, a venture between Airbus, BAE Systems Plc (BA/) and Finmeccanica SpA (FNC), suffered a blow last week when Germany indicated it would halt deliveries at 143. The country has canceled the last tranche of 37 planes, Social Democrat defense spokesman Rainer Arnold said, citing the Defense Ministry.

 

Airbus’s defense-side woes contrast with its success in building a bulging airliner orderbook which helped boost earnings before interest, tax and one-times items 21 percent last year and should result in further gains in 2014, according to an earnings statement today. The Toulouse, France-based company will accelerate production of A320 narrow-bodies to 46 a month in 2016 to meet demand, four more than current output.

USS Taylor runs aground in Turkey

The Mayport-based frigate USS Taylor (FFG 50) is being inspected for damage after running aground on February 12th. 

The incident occurred as Taylor was preparing to moor in Samsun, Turkey. Taylor was able to moor without further incident. There were no reported injuries, and the incident is currently under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available.

Taylor is currently supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the Black Sea to establish and enhance cooperation, mutual training and interoperability with regional partner nations and allies.

Taylor is currently on a scheduled deployment in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations. This is Taylor's final deployment as the ship is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2015.

 

Kurdish War - The Bumpy Road to Peace

The Turkish government recently noted that the national fertility rate is a near-stable 2.08 off-spring per woman (2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement rate.)  The replacement rate in the pre-dominantly ethnic Kurd (and rural) southeast, however, is much higher –almost four children per woman.  In other words, Turkish Kurds in southeastern Turkey are having more children per family than any other major ethnic group or region in the country. Over the long term this means there will be more ethnic Kurd voters in Turkey –or, should the peace process collapse, more Kurd rebels. The driving reasons for the peace process between the government and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) are (1) the grinding war is expensive and (2) the Kurds and the Turks are both tired of fighting a no-win war. The PKK’s senior commander, Abdullah “Apo” Ocalan may have seen the Arab Spring revolutions and the mess in Syria as an optimal moment to strike a bargain. The Kurd fertility rate, however, is not a totally irrelevant factor. (Austin Bay)

June 28, 2013: Turkey acknowledged that the PKK withdrawal is going slower than expected. The government now believes the withdrawal will be completed in mid-autumn.  The withdrawal began in early May 2013.

 

June 27, 2013:  Turkish police and pro-PKK protestors once again battled in the city of Cizre (Sirnak province).  A senior Turkish police commander was injured when a protestor struck him with a home-made fire bomb. Police and demonstrators have clashed in Cizre several times this month. The latest clashes are more serious. The Turkish government said that PKK militants in the city have organized their own police unit (a public order unit). The unit is manned by members of the Movement of Patriotic and Revolutionary Youth (also called the Patriotic Revolutionist Youth Movement, YDG-H). The YDG-H has allegedly set up traffic control checkpoints in Cizre.  A member of the YDG-H called on everyone who is for Kurdish rights in Turkey should join what he called the Gezi Park resistance movement. This clearly an attempt by PKK extremists to join their issue with the nation-wide demonstrations against prime minister Erdogan. The demonstrations began in late May when citizens of Istanbul objected to the government decision to cut down trees in Gezi Park (on Taksim Square, in Istanbul) as part of an urban renewal project.

 

Turkish security officials reported that a group of armed attackers raided a chromium mine in Tunceli province. The attackers did not injure anyone but they burned six vehicles and several buildings.  The attackers took an unknown number of hostages.  The regional Gendarme Command is pursuing the attackers. Security officers have yet to determine if the raiders are members of the PKK. Armed raiders, using similar tactics (property destruction), also attacked a village in Tunceli province earlier in the day.

 

Syrian rebel accused Syrian Kurd Democratic Union Party (PYD) gunmen of killing three people and wounding several more in the town of Amuda (Syria’s Hasakeh district).  The PYD fighters fired on demonstrators who were demanding that the PYD free several anti-Assad regime activists that the PYD militia had arrested. Syrian rebel groups accused the PYD of collaborating with the Assad dictatorship.

 

Provincial officials in Turkey’s Bitlis province reported that two construction engineers the PKK kidnapped on June 21 have been released. The two men were freed near the town of Caglayan.

The Iraqi government continues to oppose the PKK withdrawal from Turkey into Iraq and will permit Iraqi citizens to withdraw to Iraqi territory but regards the withdrawal of non-Iraqi PKK fighters as an infringement of Iraqi sovereignty. 

 

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has decided to let the Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party (PCDK) participate in future elections. The PCDK is basically the PKK’s actor in Iraqi politics. The PCDK has been banned in Iraq since 2006. Iraqi Kurdistan’s two major parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK),  tend to regard the PCDK as either a nuisance (it does not have very many supporters) or a source of unnecessary political trouble with Turkey. However, the KRG decided to let the PCDK participate since the Turkish government is engaged in a peace process with the PKK.

 

June 26, 2013: Turkey’s prime minister Erdogan said that only 15 percent of the PKK fighters inside Turkey have withdrawn to Iraq.  Since there were an estimated 2,000 PKK fighters in Turkey before the withdrawal began, this means around 1,700 fighters are still in Turkish territory. Erdogan made the figure public at a meeting of the Wise People Commission (WPC), which is tasked with working out a detailed peace agreement between the government and the PKK.

 

An Iraqi Kurdish political coalition won the most seats in an election in Iraq’s Nineveh province.  The Taakhi and Taayish List won 11 of 39 seats in the provincial legislature. The Sunni Arab Mutahidoon List won eight seats. Nineveh is a predominantly Sunni Arab region of Iraq, though many ethnic Kurds live in the province.

June 25, 2013: Abdullah Ocalan released a statement which said the peace process has entered a second phase.  He implied that the process is in a political phase where participation in democratic politics is essential.  In an interview conducted in Iraq (presumably earlier this month) but released on June 25, PKK field commander Murat Karayilan stated that when the peace process is completed PKK commander Abdullah Ocalan will be released from prison. Karayilan said that Ocalan’s release will occur when the third phase of the peace process is completed.

 

June 24, 2013: The Turkish military released casualty figures for the Kurdish War. Since 1984 6,205 servicemen have died fighting PKK rebels. The heaviest casualties have occurred in five provinces: Hakkari, Van, Sirnak, Bingol and Elazig.

 

June 22, 2013: Senior Turkish officials claim that political extremists in the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and members of PKK are trying to use the Taksim Square/Gezi Park protests occurring in Turkey to pressure the government into making concessions regarding the peace process. It’s been noted that many of the demonstrators in Istanbul and Ankara say they distrust the PKK and are against making peace with PKK terrorists. 

 

June 21, 2013: On June 20 a PKK rebel group in Hakkari province (southeastern Turkey) fired on a military helicopter that was carrying a Gendarme Security Corps commander, a division commander and senior members of their staffs. Military investigators indicated that the helicopter, identified as a command-control helicopter, was definitely targeted. The helicopter was fired four times while passing through the Ikiyaka Mountains near the town of Yuksekova (Hakari province). The helicopter suffered structural damage but landed safely and no one was hurt in the incident.

 

June 16, 2013: Turkey announced that the PKK withdrawal is going well, even though the peace process is proceeding without a written peace agreement.  The Turkish government and the PKK leadership are proceeding on the basis of trust. The Turkish government’s decision to let Turkish Kurds have Kurdish language education in schools was an important first step in ending the insurgency. Turkish Kurds now have Kurdish radio and television programming.

 

Senior PKK commander Abdullah Ocalan’s brother said that Ocalan had told him on June 12 that the peace process was stagnating and that could produce a dangerous situation. Ocalan encouraged the Turkish government to take the initiative and speed up the peace process

 

June 10, 2013: Iraqi Kurds are breathing a sigh of relief that the June 3 shooting incident did not escalate.  Turkish security personnel in Turkey had exchanged fire with PKK fighters near the Iraq border. When it became clear in late April that the PKK might actually withdraw from Turkey, many Iraqi Kurds living in northern Iraq said that they were worried that an inevitable glitch would lead to a major battle on the Iraq-Turkey border. Then Turkey might launch another incursion. So far that has not occurred, though the June 3 incident is a warning that the peace process remains fragile.

 

June 8, 2013: The Iraqi government announced that they are working to reach a workable oil production and revenue agreement. The government said that it is talking with the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The Iraqi government is very aware that for a brief time in 1946, Kurdish separatists formed their own statelet in Iran, the Mahabad Republic.  

 

June 7, 2013: Turkish police fought with demonstrators in the city of Cizre (Sirnak province). The protests began after a public funeral for a PKK fighter. Police claimed the demonstrators threw fire bombs. Protestors accused the police of over-reaction. The police fired tear gas and used water cannon.  

 

June 4, 2013: Senior leaders in the Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) have given the Iraqi central government in Baghdad a not-too-subtle warning. The KRG has told Baghdad that it may consider developing "new form of relations" with the rest of Iraq if the central government cannot Iraq’s various land disputes and reach a new oil production and revenue distribution agreement.

 

June 3, 2013: Turkish military helicopters fired back at PKK rebels who fired at a Turkish border security post.  The Turkish Army reported that PKK fighters fired at a post near the city of Sirnak (southeastern Turkey).  The fire wounded one Turkish Army soldier. Apparently the PKK fighters were inside Turkey but very near the Iraq-Turkey border. This was the first reported armed clash between the PKK and Turkish security forces since the peace process began in late March.

 

May 29, 2013: From January through April 2013, arrests, detentions and incidents involving Kurdish separatists have declined to the lowest level in three decades.

 

May 21, 2013: The U.S. government noted that it has been three months since March 21, 2013, when imprisoned PKK senior commander Abdullah “Apo” Ocalan publicly asked his supporters to end the war, put down their weapons and with to PKK bases in northern Iraq. 

Kurdish Wars - The Threat From Syria And Iran

Turkish Kurds and the Turkish business community have both praised the ceasefire and peace process between the Turkish government and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) as a chance to end the bloodshed and pursue economic development.  For Turkish Kurds ending the war opens the predominantly Kurdish areas in southeastern Turkey to more investment and development. The business community saw the peace process as a boon for the entire country. This month a major credit rating agency upgraded its rating for Turkish bonds, from Ba1 to Baa3.  The upgrade came because international lenders said the peace process is reducing political uncertainty in Turkey.  The upgrade was expected. Shortly after PKK senior commander Abdullah Ocalan announced on March 21 that the PKK would implement a ceasefire with the Turkish government the Turkish business community speculated that Turkey’s credit rating would go up because ending the war would reduce worries about Turkish stability.

 

The economics of peace make sense. However, the war began in August 1984. Long wars leave many political, diplomatic, economic and security problems in their wake, and the Kurdish War is no exception. The comprehensive settlement must address a tangled thicket of problems.  Here are a couple of the diplomatic and security pretzels. When U.S. President Barack Obama met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Obama commended the Turkish government for seeking a peaceful end to the PKK insurgency.  Well and good. The U.S., however, regards the PKK as a terrorist organization –because Turkey, a U.S. ally, insisted that the U.S. declare the PKK a terrorist organization. The PKK has not yet disarmed. It is in the process of retreating into its base area in Iraq. Iraq regards the retreat of PKK fighters into Iraq as a breach of its national sovereignty, especially for non-Iraqi PKK fighters. Iraq is right. Iraq is also a U.S. ally.

 

Several Middle Eastern sources have quoted PKK commanders who say they intend to keep their units together.  That could threaten a peace agreement with Turkey but several senior PKK leaders have said Turkish PKK fighters will disarm once the peace agreement is reached and affirmed. The emerging peace deal will likely include programs for reintegrating them into civilian life (training, education, etc.) for Turkish and possibly Iraqi Kurds who fought for the PKK.  The outlook for Syrian and Iranian PKK fighters, however, is anything but clear. Syria is embroiled in a huge civil war. Iran is a dictatorship. In a statement issued in early May, PKK field commander Murat Karanliyan said that he hoped the peace deal would ultimately include members of the Iranian Kurd Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) and the Syrian Kurd Democratic Union Party (PYD). The PKK has confirmed that both Iranian and Syrian Kurd fighters have been operating inside Turkey. The Iranian government is reportedly concerned that PKK militants who have been fighting in Turkey will now join PJAK units and launch attacks in Iran. At the moment PJAK and the Iranian government are observing a ceasefire. (Austin Bay)

 

May 14, 2013: The PKK reported that its first group of fighters has withdrawn from Turkey. Nine men and six women entered Iraq through the border town of Harur (Dohuk province, Iraq). 

 

May 8, 2013: Kurdish members of parliament in the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) announced that the PKK withdrawal from southeastern Turkey has begun. From 200 to 500 PKK fighters have begun moving toward the Turkey-Iraq border. The fighters will cross the border in the Semdinli and Sirnak  areas. Turkish media reported that PKK fighters have told them they have seen an increase in Turkish aerial surveillance flights and that Turkish security units have been reinforced along the border. The PKK rebels appear to be worried that they will be ambushed.

 

May 7, 2013: Iraq’s national government reiterated its support for the peace process between the PKK and Turkey. However, the Iraqi government also stated that the withdrawal of PKK militants into Iraq from Turkey is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.  The Iraqi government has made this objection several times since details of the ceasefire agreement were made public in late March. Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government immediately said that only Iraqi Kurds fighting with the PKK should withdraw into Iraq.

 

April 25, 2013: PKK field commander Murat Karayilan announced (from a base camp in Iraq’s Qandil Mountains) that PKK fighters will begin withdrawing from Turkey sometime in early May. The withdrawal will be conducted in phases. 

 

April 17, 2013: The Iraqi national government is objecting to an oil and gas deal signed by the government of Turkey and Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) that arranged for the KRG to sell oil and gas directly to Turkey. The Iraqi national government said that the deal is illegal because only the national government can approve oil and gas contracts. It’s believed that KRG could export one million barrels a day by 2015 or 2016. The region currently exports about 250,000 barrels a day.

 

April 16, 2013:  PKK senior commander Abdullah Ocalan has released a document which outlines his priorities for gaining support for the peace process and organizing a PKK withdrawal from Turkey.  It amounts to a political field order.  Oclana is calling for four political conferences which will be held to solidify support for the ceasefire and peace process. The conferences will be held in Dykarbakir and Ankara, Turkey, Irbil, Iraqi Kurdistan and one somewhere in Western Europe (possibly Brussels). Ocalan wants all Turkish ethnic minorities to participate in the Ankara conference. The Diyarbakir conference will be held primarily for Turkish Kurds. The meeting in Iraq will be for Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi Kurds. According to a Kurdish politician who is familiar with Ocalan’s order, the Iranian Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) and the Syrian Kurd Democratic Union Party (PYD) will also participate in the Iraqi conference.

 

April 13, 2013: The Turkish business community throughout the country is reportedly delighted with the PKK ceasefire. Turkish businesses think a peace agreement improves the political prospects for establishing new trade partnerships in the Middle East. Ending the war will demonstrate that Turkey is politically stable. The investment community expects a peace agreement will lead to a upgrade in Turkey’s credit rating. 

 

April 2, 2013:  Turkish Kurds living in predominantly Kurdish regions of Turkey are hopeful that the PKK ceasefire will continue and lead to a comprehensive peace settlement. Turkish media report that Turkish Kurds hope the end of the war will lead to economic development in their region. Over 40,000 people have been killed in the long war. Kurdish members of parliament in pro-Kurd Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) claim that they are positioned to help reach a durable peace settlement.  

 

March 26, 2013: The Turkish military said that it has not suspended operations against PKK militants. The military will defend Turkey and Turkish citizens against PKK attacks and threats from PKK militants. The military is prepared to observe the ceasefire as the peace process advances.

 

Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) said that it supported the peace process between the PKK and the Turkish government.  However, it would prefer that members of the PKK who withdraw from Turkey withdraw to their own home country. Syrian and Iraqi Kurds fighting with the PKK should withdraw to their respective countries. The KRG indicated that Turkish militants fighting with the PKK should remain in Turkey. The KRG said that it knows that there are Iranian Kurds who are members of the PKK and some of the Iranians are in the PKK base camps in the Qandil Mountains.

 

March 25, 2013: Turkish F-16 fighter bombers overflew several PKK base camps in northern Iraq.  

The Turkish military said the over flights are for reconnaissance only. The jets will only attack PKK camps if PKK militants attack Turkish forces or targets in Turkey.

 

March 23, 2013:  PKK field commander Murat Karayilan declared a ceasefire with the Turkish government. The ceasefire is to be observed by all PKK members. On March 21 PKK senior commander Abdullah Ocalan told his organization that it was time to observe a permanent ceasefire and reach a peace agreement with the Turkish government. Ocalan is imprisoned in Turkey.