Turkish Business Club

Turkish Business Club

Posts 1-2 of 2
  • Dr. Nilgün Birgören
    Dr. Nilgün Birgören    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Letter to Mr Barack Obama
    20 January 2009

    The Honorable Barack H. Obama President of the United States
    The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington , DC 20500 USA


    Dear Mr. President:

    I write this letter to you, Mr. President, with my highest and warmest regards, best wishes, and my hope for a better, more just world. I have fond memories of this particular day, 20 January, your day of inauguration as president. Forty-eight years ago—six months before you were born—I, along with my fellow West Point cadets, marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to salute the newly sworn president, John F. Kennedy. Next to graduating from West Point , it was the highlight of my life. January 20, 1961—it had snowed heavily the night before and the day dawned windy with arctic temperatures. It was perfect, a memory crystal buried deep. How young we were, so enthusiastic about confronting a dangerous world with our young president. But while euphoria is grand, it is also dangerous, Mr. President. It didn't take long for reality to take hold. And so time goes. I have now lived in Istanbul , Turkey for nine years. Over these years a "reality" has set in regarding our beloved country, America . And so I write to you today, Mr. President, to warn you about conditions in Turkey . "The world," wrote Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, "is an arena of trials." And the Bush policy of making Turkey a "moderate Islamic republic" has been, and continues to be, an arena of disasters. Mr. President, time is of the essence to correct this.. And you need to know more about Turkey to do so.

    Accordingly, I have enclosed two books: one a biography, Ataturk, by Andrew Mango, the other, a copy of The Great Speech by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (Nutuk in Turkish). The latter epic work flowed from the pen of Ataturk, a 36-hour speech delivered over six days in October 1927. Therein, he recounts the Turkish War of Independence and the founding of the Turkish Republic . It is an astounding document.

    "I have tried to show, in these accounts, how a great people, whose national course was considered as finished, reconquered its independence; how it created a national and modern state founded on the latest results of science. The result we have today is the fruit of teachings which arose from centuries of suffering,and the price of streams of blood which have drenched every foot of the ground of our beloved homeland. This holy treasure I lay in the hands of the youth of Turkey . Turkish youth! Your primary duty is ever to preserve and defend the national independence of the Turkish Republic . "(Ataturk, The Great Speech, 715)

    By reading this book, Mr. President, you will immediately understand the enormous genius of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. You will see how the forces of religious fundamentalism didn't magically vanish after Ataturk ended the sultanate and abolished the caliphate. Instead, they continued to subvert his revolutionary reforms from the very beginning. This is the nature of religious fundamentalism here in Turkey . It never stops.. It is vital that you understand this, Mr.. President. Turkey has always been a target for these dark-minded forces. And now these ignorant minds run the country. Reading the words of Mustafa Kemal will also help you marshal your own significant resources and talents, for you seem to be blessed with a capacious mind much like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's. Decisive, informed leadership is needed today by the president of the United States .. These were defining characteristics of Ataturk, along with his great personal integrity. May you learn well from him, Mr. President, a man who fought a war against religious terrorists for his entire life.

    Now the democratic, secular, social state of the Republic of Turkey , governed under the rule of law, is under siege, both from without and within. I know this, Mr. President, I live here, and what I know is not sanitized by political niceties and outright propaganda. The undoing of this nation, created in Ataturk's mind as a young army officer, has been long underway. Bu t now the day is here. The black-minded ignorance of religious fundamentalism becomes more apparent every minute. Alcohol bans, women shoved under politically symbolic headscarves at the behest of duplicitous politicians, a compliant, subverted media. Here, so-called "liberals" work in compliance with outside forces (your CIA, for example, Mr. President). And the corruption of the religious ruling party is stunning and stinks to the high heavens from theft, rampant bribery, and election fraud. Currently, a scam called Ergenekon purges the left-wing opposition rivals (all adherents of the enlightened principles of Ataturk). To further contaminate his work, a smattering of outright criminals is added to the list of detainees. All this and more has brought democratic Turkey near its knees. And Mustafa Kemal Ataturk never knelt for anyone, ever. As a child he even refused to play leapfrog.

    European Union members, who never read him, wonder why so much fuss is made about Ataturk. Of similar traitorous stripe as the "entente liberals" of Ataturk's day who conspired with the British occupiers for a mandate over Turkey , today's "liberal" Turks (libos) fall over themselves subverting secular Turkey and the principles of Ataturk, in the name of democracy. The ruling party works its religious agenda demeaning the integrity of women at every turn, debasing the liberation of women by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. And the United States of America , our country Mr. President, directly aids and abets these subversive forces. This is shameful.

    Mr. President, most Americans remain ignorant about Turkey and, amazingly, even more so about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Without knowing this man one knows nothing about this country. The e nclosed books are my attempt to prevent you learning about Turkey solely by reading sterile briefing books, self-serving CIA studies, State Department policy papers, memoranda from your national security advisors, and, most particularly, reports from the western press.. Most of the Turkish press, and, in particular, the current Turkish government are similarly ever-willing purveyors of self-interested propaganda. Beware, Mr. President, for you will receive regurgitations of superficial, stale, and even incorrect information, like the Bushian nonsense that Turkey is a "moderate Islamic nation." Via the headscarf issue—the "ocular proof" of piety for western consumption—this ill-conceived initiative, without any Koranic justification, has created a gigantic, violent, societal schism in Turkey . Mr. President, is America a moderate Christian nation? I mean, should Americans wear visible crucifixes? Please reconsider this nonsensical policy, Mr. President. (Again, read The Great Speech to see how religious subversions beset Ataturk at every turn.)

    "One will be able to imagine how necessary the carrying through of these measures was, in order to prove that our nation as a whole was no primitive nation, filled with superstitions and prejudices. Could a civilized nation tolerate a mass of people who let themselves be led by the nose by a herd of seyhs, Dedes,Seyyits, celebis, Babas, and Emirs, who entrusted their destiny and their lives to palm readers, magicians, dice-throwers and amulet sellers? Ought one to preserve in the Turkish State , in the Turkis h Republic , elements and institutions such as those which had for centuries given the nation the appearance of being other than it really was?" (Ataturk, The Great Speech, 714)

    Mr. President, even worse than misinformation, you will be regaled with assertions and protestations that the current religious-rooted government is representative and similar to the majority of Turkish people. Mr. President, it is extremely dangerous for you, and for the United States, to be deceived in this manner. Indeed this must sound strange to you, Mr. President, but it is true. There is a great muffling happening in Turkey today. So I caution you, to become truly aware of the situation in Turkey , you must first meet Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in depth. You must come to enlightenment about Turkey on your own recognizance, Mr. President, and not rely on the misinformed, the flatterers, and the deceivers, of whom there are legion.

    While you may think you are different, Mr. President, be forewarned that, despite your access to the bright minds of the CIA, the State Department, and your White House staff, you will not get a true idea of the essence of Turkey, the nation. You may learn about this Turkish government, but that's not learning about the Turkish nation. And you will certainly not learn anything from members of the present Turkish government about the nation's soul.
    The essence of the modern Turkish soul reposes in the materials I have sent, in a word, Ataturk. His accomplishments—military, political, social, educational, creative—represent a quest for justice for the collective life of his people, and in no small regard, for the world. "Peace at home, peace in the world," he famously said. He possessed, as I suspect you do as well, Mr.. President, what Reinhold Niebuhr called the "sublime madness in the soul," saved from excessiveness by unusually astute powers of reason. So armed, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk battled against the powers of darkness and spiritual corruption in high places. So armed, he rescued his people from the debris of the Ottoman Empire . Today, his thoughts and deeds define the existential principles of the Turkish nation. But, Mr. President, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is now under attack from outside Turkey and within.

    Nevertheless, his principles still inspire tens of millions of proudly secular Turks who long for the truly democratic nation he established. Believe me Mr. President, the "secular elite" described by the disgracefully biased and ill-informed writings of Sabrina Tavernise of The New York Times as "an immensely powerful coterie of generals and judges" is nonsense. Millions of us—yes, Mr. President, I too am a citizen of Turkey —took to the streets in the spring of 2007 against the policies of the U.S.-backed Erdogan government. And matters have become even more dire since. Mr. President, perhaps you don't know what's going on with this government.

    In the name of democracy, the ruling party, the AKP (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, Justice and Development Party) has made a shambles of Turkey 's founding principles. In the name of democracy there is vast bribing of the AKP electorate, predominantly poor and uneducated, with coal and appliances. Higher court deliberations on suits against the ruling party are regularly attacked by the ruling party, particularly by the prime minister, and literal targets (complete with crosshairs) are made of individual judges in the religious press.
    In the name of democracy and social justice and legal egalitarianism, an enormous purge of hundreds of alleged opponents of the ruling party is taking place in a "fishing expedition" called Ergenekon. A literal witch hunt, so-called suspect members of a military-coup conspiracy ring are held without benefit of writs of habeas corpus; they have been held in jail—some for over 18 months—without being charged and later prejudicially tried in jail. Writers, journalists, university presidents, labor union leaders, lawyers, retired army officers, leftists all, are caught up in this disgrace of a dragnet. (As mentioned earlier, some ordinary criminals are mixed in for pollution purposes.) Mr. President, I write to you on their behalf, the educated, western-thinking intelligentia, now imprisoned in a Turkish gulag called Silivri, the largest prison in Turkey , and in Europe . And that's where they are tried! In the prison! So you, Mr. President, as an attorney, undoubtedly instantly understand the extremely prejudicial nature of this trumped-up case.

    Mass arrests typically happen immediately after the ruling party suffers a legal or corruption setback. For example, consider its trial in early 2008 where the AKP was found guilty of being the center of anti-secular activity in Turkey . A second roundup occurred as a result of a German charitable foundation called Deniz Feneri, "lighthouse" in English. Organized by Turks in both Germany and Turkey , Deniz Feneri stole 41 million euros from pious Turks in Germany and transferred 17 million of it to Turkey , some to media companies friendly to the ruling party. The AKP manag er, Zahid Akman, of the Turkish government's televison and radio system (RTuK), was identified by the court as the bagman. He remains in his position, dutifully protecting the nation's morals by blurring televised images of smoking and the consumption of alcohol. The German prosecutor stated that links of the Deniz Feneri embezzlement were traced to the office of the prime ministery.

    The movement of Turkey toward sharia continues. Vast areas of the nation have been made alcohol-free. Swimsuit advertisements are banned in Istanbul . The Ataturk Cultural Center , located in prime space in downtown Istanbul , has been closed. No details are given regarding its status. Consequently, the Istanbul symphony, opera, and ballet, all state sponsored, have been sent packing. They are rumored to perform occasionally, somewhere. So much for cultural enlightenment. Oddly enough, Istanbul has been selected to be the European Capital of Culture in 2010; this is known as political lip service.

    Mr. President, for too long a time America has attempted to efface the Turkish soul, to reshape this country, to include it in the American hegemony. All this subversion has been to, in effect, lobotomize the Turkish brain, ridding it of the noble thoughts of Ataturk, making it a congenial dolt, bowing and scraping to America 's wishes. Internally, this has been the primary responsibility of the ruling party. And it has done its job very well, almost bringing the once proud nation of Ataturk t o its knees. Once, after a waiter dropped a heavily laden tray at a state dinner, Mustafa Kemal turned to his foreign guests and said, "As you can see I have taught my people to do everything but serve." How ironic, how angering to the followers of Ataturk is the current servile, US-installed government. Consider this, Mr. President. Banned from running from office, without any legal credentials whatsoever, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was welcomed to the White House by George W. Bush as de facto head of the Turkish government. How outrageous! No wonder Erdogan, habitually a dour, scowling man, beamed broadly whenever he visited Bush. Do not be deceived Mr. President, this government neither serves you, nor the Turkish people. In the name of so-called democracy, it serves itself. It has long been at its destructive work, this imperialism. You know this personally, Mr. President. Why your very roots—one foot in Hawaii , the other in Kenya , your days of youth in Indonesia —all these highly personal experiences have surely informed your persona. Surely they speak to you of the same issue that so afflicts Turkey . Imperialism. Internal subversion. Corruption.

    When Mustafa Kemal Ataturk rescued Turkey from the ruins of the Ottoman five hundred year reign, he established a new way for the Turkish people to live their lives. It was the way of enlightenment, the western way. I hope that you can now begin to see how the west, for its own ill-reasoned self-interest, has encouraged the sabotaging of the enlightened principles of Ataturk. Most importantly, I hope that this whets your reading appetite to learn more about this incomparable man.

    Mr. President, I am confident that you will a dopt your policies, both within America, and without, in the spirit of those stirring words you wrote in Dreams from My Father about a different kind of politics:
    "That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived."

    The majority of Turkish people want the very same thing. And if the United States can get out of their way, they can have it.

    Sincerely yours,

    James (Cem) Ryan

    Enclosures:
    Ataturk. Andrew Mango. John Murray Publishers, London , 2004.
    The Great Speech (Nutuk). Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Ataturk Research Center , Ankara , 2005.
    Posted by Cem Ryan, Ph.D.. Istanbul , Turkey godotawaits@ gmail.com
    • 07 Mar 2009, 8:56 pm
  • Dr. Nilgün Birgören
    Dr. Nilgün Birgören    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    The Reality of Geopolitics
    Dear friends,

    The Obama administration is only one and a half months into the job, but between pressing “reset buttons” with the Russians, reaching out to the Europeans, talking about reconciling with the Taliban, extending invitations to the Iranians and rubbing elbows with the Syrians, this is already one of the most diplomatically active U.S. administrations in quite some time.

    During the campaign, now-President Barack Obama made the controversial statement that he was prepared to speak to adversaries, including countries like Iran. This position was part of a general critique by Obama of the Bush administration, which Obama said enclosed itself diplomatically, refusing to engage either adversaries or allies critical of the United States. Now, Obama is sending emissaries across the globe to restart dialogue everywhere from Europe to the Middle East to South Asia to Russia. For Obama, these conversations are the prelude to significant movement in the international arena.

    From a geopolitical perspective, that people are talking is far less important than what they are saying, which in turn matters far less than what each side is demanding and willing to concede. Engagement can be a prelude to accommodation, or an alternative to serious bargaining. At the moment, it is far too early to tell which the present U.S. diplomatic flurry will turn out to be. And of course, some of the diplomatic initiatives might succeed while others fail.

    Nevertheless, as the global diplomatic offensive takes place, we must consider whether Obama is prepared to make substantive shifts in U.S. policy or whether he will expect concessions in exchange for a different diplomatic atmosphere alone. Since Obama and his foreign policy team are too sophisticated to expect the latter, we must examine the details of the various conversations. In this case more than others, the devil is very much in the details.

    Russia
    The Obama administration has made clear to Russia its desire to reset its relations with Russia, with Clinton even presenting a red “reset button” as a gift to her counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, on March 6 at a NATO summit in Geneva. But the Russians want to clarify how far the Americans really intend to rewind the tape. The 2004 Orange Revolution and NATO’s reach to the Baltics crystallized Moscow’s fears that the United States intends to encircle and destabilize Russia in its former Soviet periphery through NATO expansion and support for the color revolutions. Since then, Russia has been resurgent. Moscow has worked aggressively to reclaim and consolidate its influence in the Russian near abroad for its long-term security while the United States remains preoccupied in its war with the jihadists.

    The Russians are pushing for a grand deal that guarantees a rollback of NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine, scraps plans for U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD), maintains some semblance of Russian nuclear parity in post-Cold War treaties, and ensures Western noninterference in a region that runs from the Baltics down through Eastern Europe and across the Caucasus and Central Asia - what Russia views as its rightful sphere of influence. Only then can Russia feel secure from the West, and confident it will remain a major player in Eurasia in the long run. In return, the Russians theoretically could make life easier for the Americans by cooperating with Washington against Iran and increasing support for U.S. operations in Afghanistan through the expansion of an alternate supply route - two key issues that address the most pressing threats to U.S. national security interests in the near term, but which may not be entirely worth the strategic concessions Moscow is demanding of Washington.

    So far, the Obama administration has responded to Russia’s demands by restarting talks on the START I nuclear armaments treaty in exchange for Moscow allowing U.S. nonmilitary goods bound for Afghanistan to transit Russia and Central Asia. The Russians responded by permitting some supplies bound for Afghanistan to pass through the former Soviet Union as an opening toward broader talks. The United States then privately offered to roll back its plans for BMD in Central Europe if Russia would pressure Iran into making concessions on Tehran’s nuclear program. But the Russians have signaled already that such piecemeal diplomacy will not cut it, and that the United States will need to make broader concessions that more adequately address Moscow’s core national security interests before the Russians can be expected to sacrifice a relationship with a strategic Middle East ally.

    At the Geneva NATO summit, Clinton upped the offer to the Russians when she signaled that the United States might even be willing to throw in a halt to NATO expansion, thereby putting at risk a number of U.S. allies in the former Soviet Union that rely on the United States to protect them from a resurgent Russia. This gesture will set the stage for Obama’s upcoming trip to Russia to meet with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, but the Russians will be watching closely to see if such gestures are being made for the sake of public diplomacy or if the United States really intends to get down to business.

    Europe
    In Europe, Obama is dealing with allies rather than adversaries, but even here his administration’s work does not get any easier. The willingness of Obama to talk with the Europeans far more than his predecessor is less important than what Obama intends to demand of NATO, and what those NATO members are capable of delivering.

    A prime example is how Washington is requesting the Europeans to commit more NATO forces to the war in Afghanistan now that the United States feels ready to shift gears from Iraq. Despite their enthusiasm for Obama, the Europeans are not on the same page as the Americans on NATO, especially when it comes to Afghanistan. The U.S. argument for strengthening NATO’s commitment to Afghanistan is that failure to do so would recreate the conditions necessary for al Qaeda to rebuild its ability to carry out transcontinental attacks against the West, putting both European and American cities at risk. But the Europeans (for the most part) view a long-term war effort in Afghanistan without a clear strategy or realistic objectives as a futile drain on resources. After all, the British - who currently have the largest European contingent in Afghanistan - remember well their own ugly and drawn-out efforts to pacify the region in three brutal wars in the 19th and early 20th centuries, each won by Afghan tribesmen.

    This disagreement goes beyond the question of Afghanistan to a long-standing debate over NATO’s intended security mission. NATO was formed during the Cold War as a U.S.-dominated security alliance designed to protect the European continent from internal and external Soviet aggression. Since the end of the Cold War, however, NATO’s scope has widened, with only limited agreement among members over whether the alliance should even be dealing with the broader 21st century challenges of counterterrorism, cyberattacks, climate change and energy security. More important, NATO has pushed up against Russia’s borders with its expansion to the Baltics and talk of integrating Georgia and Ukraine, worrying some states that they may need to bear the burden of Washington’s hardball tactics against the Russians. Germany, which is dependent on Russians for energy, has no interest in restarting another Cold War. The French have more room to maneuver than the Germans in dealing with a powerful player like Russia. But the French can only work effectively with the Russians as long as Paris avoids getting (permanently) on Moscow’s bad side, something U.S.-dominated policy of trying to resurrect NATO as a major military force could bring about.

    Before taking any further steps in Afghanistan, the Europeans, including those Central and Eastern Europeans who mostly take a hard-line stance against Moscow, first want to know how Obama intends to deal with the Russians. Even with the Poles going one way in trying to boost NATO security and the Germans going the other in trying to bargain with Russia, none of the European states can really move until U.S. policy toward Russia comes into focus. The last thing the Poles would want to do is to take an unflinching stance against Moscow only to have the United States cancel BMD plans, for example. Conversely, the United States is unable to formulate a firm policy on Afghanistan or Russia until it knows where the Europeans will end up standing on NATO, their commitment to Afghanistan and their relationship with Russia. Add to this classic chicken-and-egg dilemma a financial crisis that has left Europe much worse off than the United States, and the gap between U.S. and European interests starts to look as wide as the Atlantic itself.

    Iran
    Talking to Iran was a major theme of Obama’s campaign, and the first big step in following through with this pledge was made March 5 when Clinton extended an invitation to Iran to participate in a multilateral conference on Afghanistan, thereby recognizing Iran’s influential role in the region. There is also an expectation that after Iran gets through elections in June, the United States could move beyond the multilateral setting to engage the Iranians bilaterally.

    The idea of the United States talking to Iran is not a new concept. In fact, the United States and Iran were talking a great deal behind the scenes in 2001 in the lead-up to the war in Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban and in 2003 during the precursor to the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. In both of these cases, core mutual interests brought the two rivals to the negotiating table. Iran, facing hostile Sunni powers to its west and east, had a golden opportunity to address its historical security dilemma in one fell swoop and then use the emerging political structures in Iraq and Afghanistan to spread Persian power in the wider region. The United States, knocked off balance by 9/11, needed Iranian cooperation to facilitate the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions to uproot al Qaeda and intimidate al Qaeda state-sponsors into working with Washington.

    U.S.-Iranian relations have been rocky (to say the least), but have reached a point where it is now politically acceptable for both openly to discuss U.S.-Iranian cooperation on issues related to Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Iranians hold influence and where the United States is still engaged militarily.

    Iran knows that even with the United States drawing down from Iraq, Washington will still maintain a strategic agreement with Baghdad that could be used as a launchpad for U.S. designs in the region as it works to protect Sunni Arabs from Iranian expansionist goals. At the same time, Washington has come to realize that its influence in Baghdad will have to be shared with the Iranians given their geographic proximity and clout among large segments of the Iraqi Shia.

    Though U.S. and Iranian interests overlap enough to the point that the two cannot avoid working with each other, negotiating a power-sharing agreement has not come easily. In Iraq, Tehran needs to consolidate Shiite influence, contain Sunni power and prevent the country from posing a future security threat to Iran’s western frontier. In addition, the Iranians are looking for the United States to recognize its regional sphere of influence and accept the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. The United States, on the other hand, needs to defend the interests of Israel and its Sunni allies and wants Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions (or at least place real curbs on its nuclear program) and end its support for militant proxies. Though Washington and Tehran have made some progress in their diplomatic dialogue, the demands of each remain just as intractable. As a result, the U.S.-Iranian negotiations start and stop in spurts without any real willingness on either side to follow through in addressing the other’s respective core demands.

    In reaching out to Iran over Afghanistan, the Obama administration is now trying to inject more confidence into the larger negotiations by recognizing Iran as a player in Kabul in return for intelligence sharing and potential logistical cooperation in supporting the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. But as much as Iran enjoys the recognition and shares an interest in preventing jihadist spillover into its territory, the Iranian regime is not about to offer its full cooperation on an issue as big as Afghanistan as long as the United States avoids addressing issues that the Iranians deem more central to their national security interests (e.g., Iraq.) Complicating matters further at this juncture is Iranian displeasure over U.S. talk of speaking to the Taliban, a long-time enemy of Tehran that the Iranians will fight to keep contained, but with which the United States needs to engage if it has any hope of settling Afghanistan.

    The Taliban
    Obama told the New York Times in a March 6 interview that the United States is not winning the war in Afghanistan, and that in addition to sending more troops, his strategy for the war might include approaching elements of the Afghan Taliban. While he acknowledged that the situation in Afghanistan is more complex, he related the idea to the successful U.S. strategy of reaching out to Iraqi Sunni nationalists to undercut the al Qaeda presence in Iraq.

    The idea of negotiating with the Taliban to split the insurgency has been thrown around for some time now, but just talking about talking to the Taliban raises a number of issues. First, the United States is fighting a war of perception as much as it is fighting battles against die-hard jihadists. So far, Obama has approved 17,000 additional U.S. troops to be deployed to Afghanistan, but even double that number is unlikely to convince Taliban insurgents that the United States is willing or even capable of fighting this war in the long run. The Taliban and their allies in al Qaeda and various other radical Islamist groups are pursuing a strategy of exhaustion where success is not measured in the number of battles won, but rather the ability to outlast the occupier. Considering that Afghanistan’s mountainous, barren terrain, sparse population centers and lack of governance have historically denied every outside occupier success in pacifying the country, the prospects for the United States are not good in this war.

    Talk of reconciliation with the Taliban from a U.S. position of weakness raises the question of how the United States can actually parse out those Taliban members who can be reconciled. It also raises the question of whether those members will be willing to put their personal security on the line by accepting an offer to start talks when the United States itself is admitting it is on the losing side of the war. Most important, it is unclear to us what the United States can actually offer these Taliban elements, especially as Washington simultaneously attempts to negotiate with the Iranians and the Russians, neither of which want to live next door to a revived Taliban and both of which must cooperate with the United States if Washington is to be able to fight the war in the first place.

    Syria
    After exchanging a few words with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem in Egypt on March 2, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dispatched two emissaries in what was the highest-level U.S. delegation to Syria in four years. The March 7 visit came on the heels of a British announcement that London will be resuming talks with Hezbollah’s political wing - a move likely made in close coordination with the Americans.

    The Americans want Syria to end its support for militant proxies like Hezbollah and stop interfering in Lebanese affairs. But Syrian dominance over Lebanon is non-negotiable from the Syrian point of view. Lebanon historically has been Syria’s economic, political and military outlet to the Mediterranean basin, allowing Syria to play a prominent role in the region. If Damascus is not in control of Lebanon, then Syria is poor and isolated. Even though the Americans and the Syrians are holding talks again, it is still unclear that Washington is willing to accept Syrian demands regarding Lebanon. And unless the United States is, these talks are guaranteed to remain in limbo.

    That said, there may be more to these talks then meets the eye. Instead of rushing to cater to Syrian demands over Lebanon, the United States is probably more interested in using the Syrian talks (largely a Turkish-backed initiative) to send a positive signal to *Turkiye - a resurgent regional power with the ability to influence matters in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans. *Turkiye is beginning to throw its weight in the region around again, and will have a major say in how the United States interacts with states that Ankara perceives are in the Turkish sphere of influence (Syria and Iraq, for example). The United States will need Turkish cooperation in the months and years ahead, particularly as it reduces its military presence in Iraq and attempts to deal with another resurgent power, Russia. It comes as little surprise, then, that one of Obama’s first major trips abroad will be to Ankara. Rather than revealing any true U.S. interest to accommodate the Syrians, the U.S. diplomatic opening to Syria is more likely a gesture to the Turks, whose agenda for the Middle East includes reshaping Damascus’s behavior through negotiations with the United States and Israel and containing Iran’s regional ambitions.

    Back to Reality
    Obama has put into motion a global diplomatic offensive fueled by a dizzying array of special envoys designed to change the dynamic of its relations with key allies like the Europeans and adversaries like the Russians, the Taliban, the Iranians and the Syrians. This diplomatic blitzkrieg may spin the press into a frenzy. But once we look beyond the handshakes, press conferences and newspaper headlines and drill down into the core, unadulterated demands of each player in question, it becomes clear that such a diplomatic offensive actually could end up yielding very little of substance if it fails to address the real issues.

    This is not a fault of the administration, but the reality of geopolitics. The ability of any political leader to effect change is not principally determined by his or her own desires, but by external factors. In dealing with any one of these adversaries individually, the administration is bound to hit walls. In trying to balance the interests between adversaries and allies, the walls only become reinforced. Add to that additional constraints in dealing with Congress and the need to maintain approval ratings - not to mention trying to manage a global recession - and the space to maneuver becomes much tighter. We must also remember that this is an administration that has not even been in power for two months. Formulating policy on issues of this scale takes several months at the least, and more likely years before the United States actually figures out what it wants and what it can actually do. No amount of power delegation to special envoys will change that. In fact, it could even confuse matters when bureaucratic rivalries kick in and the chain of command begins to blur.

    Whether the policymakers are sitting in an Afghan cave or in the Kremlin, they will not find this surprising. As is widely known, presidential transitions take time, and diplomatic engagements to feel out various positions are a natural part of the process. Tacit offers can be made, bits of negotiations will be leaked, but as long as each player questions the ability of Washington to follow through in any sort of “grand bargain,” these talks are unlikely to result in any major breakthroughs. So far, Obama has demonstrated that he can talk the diplomatic talk. The real question is whether he can walk the geopolitical walk.


    Regards,
    Nilgun Birgoren


    Source: http://www.stratfor.com
    • 12 Mar 2009, 10:19 pm