Month: June 2018
Turkey. NATO. Out.
Key Points:
- Erdogan has won the snap election and will continue to consolidate power
- Turkey is becoming less secular and is aligning with Russia
- Turkey as a NATO ally is no longer given
Background:
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was just re‐elected Sunday to a five‐year term. Turkey is still in the “state of emergency” imposed following the failed coup in the summer of 2016. The Turkish lira is struggling. Turkish debt is an anchor to growth. The media has been shut down. Political opposition to Erdogan has been neutered. This election eliminated the office of the Prime Minister and consolidated the duties of the Head of Government with those of the Head of State. This Presidential election was accelerated by a year due to this exigent crisis and sets the conditions for Erdogan’s unchallenged rule with anticipated cascading constitutional changes to ensure his longevity. Of course, he’s learned from his new best buddy, Putin, how to stay in power. Do rules limit you? Change them.
What Has Happened:
Turkey has been an important but complicated partner for the United States. The U.S. and Turkey established diplomatic relations in 1927 after World War I, following the founding of the Turkish Republic. When the British government ceased aid to Turkey after World War II, President Truman proposed a $400 million economic and military aid package to Turkey and Greece to counter Soviet expansion. Turkey has been a historically reliable partner, an ally in the Korean War, a willing counterbalance to Soviet adventurism in the Middle‐East, and a host to U.S. Air Force influence in the region. Despite the rebuff during the invasion of Iraq (Turkey banned U.S. staging for the invasion), presently, Turkey plays an important role combating the Islamic State and facilitates the resettlement of refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria. The Muslim democracy joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1952 and remains a critical eastern member. Turkey serves as a buffer between Asia and Europe, allowing the U.S. to optimize its presence and necessary authority in the region. In return, the U.S. provides Turkey with protection in a region defined by instability. In recent years, however, Turkey continues to strengthen its relationship with Russia, raising red flags of NATO’s relevance in the region. In December 2017, Turkey struck a deal with Russia to purchase approximately $2.5 billion worth of Russian‐made S‐400 surface‐to‐air missiles. After Vladimir Putin visited Ankara in April, he announced his “decision to speed up the delivery of the missile systems.” Russia is also building Turkey’s first nuclear power facility that Putin describes as “laying the foundation for Turkey to have an atomic industry.” Not surprisingly, Russian military systems don’t meet interoperability standards. Turkish President Erdogan deemed the deal with Russia final and recently offered to co‐produce S‐500 missile systems with Putin. Though Russia and Turkey are traditional foes, Turkey’s recent business with Russia is startling and contributes to the deterioration of its relationship with the U.S.
Why it Matters:
It is crucial to understand what is at stake as Turkey becomes more independent and aligned with Russia and Iran. Putin’s campaign to undermine Western‐style democracies has been increasingly effective, especially as the U.S. seemingly takes a wrecking ball to the existing world order. In addition to subversive and overt actions by Russia to exert influence in the Middle East, the U.S. and Turkey have clashed over the U.S.’s support of Kurdish fighters in Iraq and Syria. On a January phone call with President Erdogan, President Trump expressed sharp concern about the possibility of conflict between Turkish and U.S. forces in Syria. He urged Turkey to “de‐escalate, limit its military actions, and avoid anything that might risk both forces coming into conflict.” It’s not inconceivable that NATO allies, Turkey and the U.S., may bump into each other in combat and start a shooting war. The U.S. partnership with Kurdish fighters has antagonized Turkey to the point that Erdogan threatened its NATO ally with an “Ottoman slap.” Kurdish militias, the YPG, (People’s Protection Units) and PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), have been integral to the counter‐ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria. Arguably, the YPG are the most effective regional fighters. However, Ankara recognizes both the YPG and the PKK as terrorist organizations and considers them national security threats. The US officially began to arm and train YPG fighters in 2014. Despite the impact made by Kurdish fighters, Turkey and the U.S. have agreed to remove YPG forces from current engagement areas, a significant concession in U.S.‐Turkey relations. Turkey’s strengthening relationship with Iran is also deeply troubling to the U.S. Iran clearly exercises increasing influence in Syria and can be considered a winner of the Syrian Civil War…if that’s possible. Iran’s officers are embedded throughout the Syrian military and Iranian‐backed forces play a critical role in the regime’s efforts to fight the opposition. The National Defense Forces (NDF), a pro‐government militia in Syria heavily influenced by Iran, will likely form a political movement to enhance Tehran’s influence in the region. Turkey, Russia, and Iran are all jostling for influence in Syria leading to unprecedented and unpredictable cooperation among the three nations. The chaos in Syria serves as an opportunity for destabilizing actors (like Russia and Iran), to exert influence and experiment with methods to impact shifting global power dynamics outside of the region. Syria is a mess and Erdogan is positioned to continue to exploit it to his great advantage. He is aggressively changing the rules and concomitantly the face of Turkey. No longer a secular Muslim democracy, Turkey is an increasingly religious and dangerously authoritarian regime, leaning east, cutting its own deals. NATO is worried.
What we know:
For the last six months, Academy has surveyed its Geopolitical Intelligence Group (GIG), comprised of ten retired admirals and generals, on the rising tensions with Turkey. Consistently, our GIG has identified this deteriorating relationship as a significant foreign policy concern. Additionally, the GIG sees the potential for Turkey to leave NATO by years end as likely. Erdogan’s reelection this past weekend reinforces his tight grasp over Turkey’s new direction. This is the devil we know; it now appears we’ll continue to know him well into the future.
Original Post 06/25/2018
Outcomes of the Summit
Key Points:
• The success of the summit is an important first step in a long and detailed process
• The ultimate outcome of this summit will be determined in the months and years that follow Background:
• Following a year of tumultuous exchanges, President Trump and Kim Jong-Un agreed to meet on neutral ground in pursuit of a diplomatic resolution on the Korean Peninsula.
What Has Happened:
• A deal was made; Trump and Kim signed a statement with the following conditions:
- The United States and North Korea commit to new joint relations in accordance with the desire of its peoples for peace and prosperity’
- The United States and North Korea will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula o Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, North Korea commits to work towards complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
- The United States and North Korea commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified
Why it Matters:
• The concessions made by the U.S. and North Korea are significant:
- For the U.S. to announce the suspension of military exercises on the Korean Peninsula, a major compromise would have come from North Korea
• This is the first step in a long process:
- The terms of the summit are dramatic and will need to be regularly verified and enforced o The plan for verification will need to be defined by the two countries
• This is a positive step, but we arrived at the summit because tensions reached nearly unprecedented heights:
- The Trump administration has negotiated from a position of strength, and while the outcome of the summit is positive we are not out of the woods
- North Korea has proven an untrustworthy partner in the past, and the ultimate success of the summit will be determined by the administration’s next steps
“The summit is historic because it happened and didn’t, obviously, fly off the rails. A Presidential pat on the back does not connote trust; however, it can start trust building and we all should hope that that is the intended outcome. Let’s not roll the Kim regime’s egregious and undeniable human rights violations into our evaluation of the summit. This is about reducing the clear and present danger of global nuclear annihilation, not human rights. This summit was breathtakingly unique; it was a meeting of nuclear equals…kind of. However, in the game of nukes, a definition of equality is a distinction without a difference. A nuke is a nuke.”
Major General (Ret.) James A. “Spider” Marks
Original Post 06/12/2018