#political stability Turkey

[youthchronical]

Erdogan ally floats Turkey constitutional amendment to let him extend his tenure - Times of India

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), in Ankara, Turkey, October 29, 2024. (Reuters) ANKARA: The main political ally of longstanding Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday that a constitutional amendment should be considered to allow the president to run again in elections set for 2028. After his re-election last year, Erdogan…

[mariacallous]

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the only EU leader to openly back Donald Trump in his bid to reclaim the White House, was unsurprisingly among the first to congratulate the former president on Wednesday morning, even before the final results were in and rival Kamala Harris had conceded.

“The biggest comeback in US political history! Congratulations to President @realDonaldTrump on his enormous win. A much needed victory for the World!” Orban rejoiced on X (formerly Twitter).

Orban, who will be hosting European leaders in Budapest later this week, was swiftly joined by other illiberal leaders and fellow populists in Central and Southeast Europe, likewise unable to contain their glee at the return of Trump, who by midmorning Europe time had gained 266 electoral votes — just four shy from the 270 he needs to be elected the 47th US president.

Another close ally of Trump in Central Europe, Polish President Andrzej Duda, who met the former president in New York earlier this year, posted excitedly, complete with emojis: “Congratulations, Mr. President @realDonaldTrump! You made it happen! 👏👏👏🇵🇱🤝🇺🇸”.

In the Czech Republic, the former prime minister and Trump admirer Andrej Babis posted on X: “Sensational comeback @realDonaldTrump! He wasn’t stopped by an assassination attempt, nor by politically motivated lawsuits, nor by a systematic smear campaign in the media. American citizens have made it clear who they want as US President. I am confident that his victory will bring prosperity to the United States and peace to the world.”

More subdued comments came from Prime Minister Petr Fiala, who Babis is looking to oust in 2025, also on X: “Congratulations to Donald Trump on winning the presidential election. Our shared goal is to ensure that the relations between our countries remain at the highest level, despite changes in administration, and that we continue to develop them for the benefit of our citizens.”

Populist Slovak prime minister, Robert Fico, is currently on a state visit to China, though his ally, President Peter Pellegrini, offered his congratulations to Donald Trump on X. “I wish you and the American people all the success. Slovakia remains to be a strong and reliable Ally on NATO’s tested Eastern Flank living up to our shared commitments. I sincerely wish for a continuation of our good cooperation. Let’s make the transatlantic bond great again.”

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, who visited the White House during Trump’s first term in office that ended in 2020, welcomed Trump’s win on X. “Congratulations to Donald Trump on his victory. Together we face the serious challenges ahead. Serbia is committed to cooperation with the USA on stability, prosperity and peace,” Vucic wrote.

Turkey’s strongman leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said he wanted to congratulate his “great friend” Trump on his victory.

“In this new period that will begin with the election of the American people, I hope that Turkey-US relations will strengthen, that regional and global crises and wars, especially the Palestinian issue and the Russia-Ukraine war, will come to an end; I believe that more efforts will be made for a more just world,” Erdogan wrote on X.

The first to hail Trump’s win from Bosnia and Herzegovina was, unsurprisingly, the president of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska entity, Milorad Dodik. “One of [the] most important electoral wins in recent history of the USA but the World as well! Congratulations, Donald Trump, 47th President of the United States of America!” Dodik wrote on his official X profile.

Late last year Dodik said that a victory for Trump would mean a “better geopolitical situation for Republika Srpska”, claiming that he regretted not declaring his entity’s independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina during Trump’s 2016-2020 presidency.

North Macedonia’s conservative prime minister, Hristijan Mickoski, sent his “heartfelt congratulations” to Trump on Wednesday morning. “This victory is a confirmation of the deep faith of the American people in the principles of freedom and democracy,” Mickoski, whose conservative, right-wing government came to power earlier this year, wrote on Facebook.

Mickoski and his cabinet are not among European leaders who fear a second Trump term could wreak havoc with transatlantic and international relations. His ruling VMRO-DPMNE party nurtures close ties with one of the biggest Trump endorsers on the continent, Hungary’s Orban, and over the summer Mickoski’s series of meetings with close Trump associates made his preference even more obvious.

“We look forward to further deepening our strong partnership and cooperation,” Mickoski added.

Warm words from the Balkans

The president of Montenegro, Jakov Milatovic, congratulated Trump on his victory. “Montenegro and the USA are friends and steadfast partners, united by shared goals and values, focused on advancing democracy, security, stability, and freedom. As NATO allies, we look forward to working very closely with Your administration on strengthening our friendship and deepening cooperation,” Milatovic wrote on X.

Montenegro’s first congratulatory message came earlier from the president of the parliament and leader of the pro-Serbian NOVA party Andrija Mandic. “I am sure that together we will build bridges of cooperation and preserve peace and stability in the Western Balkans,” Mandic wrote on X.

From Kosovo, which has deep ties with the US since the 1998-99 war, President Vjosa Osmani also congratulated Trump on his White House comeback.

“The US remains Kosovo’s steadfast partner and indispensable ally. I look forward to working with the new administration to further deepen our unique bond and strategic alliance,” Osmani said on X.

A similar message came from Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic. “Congratulations on a convincing victory and a second presidential term,” Plenkovic wrote on X. “I look forward to our cooperation and further progress in Croatian-American relations.”

Plenkovic’s domestic political rival, President Zoran Milanovic, hailed “the will of the majority of voters” in choosing Trump. He wrote on Facebook: “Since Croatian independence, the USA has been a partner and friend, I am convinced that this will remain the choice of the new president”.

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama was also effusive in his congratulations: “I look forward to the great privilege of working with the 47th President to further enhance our partnership for peace, prosperity and further progress,” Rama wrote on X.

In Bulgaria, Boyko Borissov, leader of recent election-winners GERB and former prime minister, posted a photo of himself with Trump on social media, saying: “I’m ready for us to work together, again!”

Bulgarian President Rumen Radev also congratulated the Republican victor: “I am confident that our effective dialogue at the highest level will continue in the interest of the strategic partnership between Bulgaria and the USA,” Radev said.

Opposition party We Continue the Change’s Kiril Petkov described Trump’s comeback as US president as “a serious achievement”, while noting: “Of course, Bulgaria’s fate depends first and foremost on the will of the Bulgarians, but good cooperation with the US is crucial in the positioning of our country amid the changing geopolitical reality.”

In Greece, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis added his voice to the congratulatory messages from countries across the region. “Greece looks forward to further deepening the strategic partnership between our two countries and working together on important regional and global issues,” Mitsotakis wrote on X.

[mosabeldali]

The War on Gaza: 332 Days of Continuous Conflict ‼️

Since October 7, 2023, Gaza has been engulfed in a continuous state of war, with intense military operations now entering their 332nd day. This conflict, one of the longest and deadliest in the history of clashes between Israel and Palestinian factions, has brought immense human suffering and environmental and economic disasters, affecting all aspects of life in the besieged enclave.

Humanitarian Situation

As military operations persist, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has deteriorated sharply. The population of the enclave is living under a tight blockade, leading to severe shortages of food, medicine, and fuel. Health facilities are barely functioning amidst a rising number of injuries and casualties.

Children, women, and the elderly have been the most affected by this prolonged war, with poverty and unemployment rates reaching unprecedented levels. Additionally, the population suffers from acute shortages of clean drinking water and electricity, exacerbating their daily hardships.

International Stance

Despite widespread international condemnation and repeated offers of mediation to halt the fighting, diplomatic efforts have so far made no tangible progress. The parties continue to exchange accusations of thwarting peace efforts, while countries like Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey persist in attempts to broker a long-term ceasefire.

War’s Impact

Economically, Gaza is facing near-total collapse in its infrastructure. Thousands of homes and vital facilities, including schools and hospitals, have been destroyed, making reconstruction a massive challenge that requires extensive international efforts.

The environment in Gaza has not been spared from the war’s impact either, as agricultural lands have been polluted and destroyed, threatening the food security of the population.

Conclusion

After 332 days of relentless fighting, Gaza remains in a state of loss and uncertainty. The ongoing war casts a shadow over the entire region, foretelling long-term implications for peace and stability in the Middle East. What the Palestinian people urgently need now is an end to this war and the establishment of a lasting political solution that ends decades of conflict and suffering.

This article summarizes the current situation of the ongoing war in Gaza, highlighting the humanitarian, political, and economic aspects of this prolonged conflict.

[eretzyisrael]

by Robert Williams

To assess correctly the damage that Qatari influence in the US is causing, it is essential to understand what Qatar stands for and promotes. Qatar has for decades cultivated a close relationship with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, whose motto is: “‘Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” It aims to ensure that Islamic law, Sharia, governs all countries and all matters.

Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, has enjoyed Qatar as its main sponsor, to the tune of up to $360 million a year, and was until recently the home of Hamas’ leadership. In 2012, Ismail Haniyeh, head of the terrorist group’s political bureau, Mousa Abu Marzook, and Khaled Mashaal, among others, moved to Qatar for a life of luxury. This month, likely because of Israel’s announcement that it will hunt down and eliminate Hamas leaders in Qatar and Turkey, the Qatar-based Hamas officials reportedly fled to other countries.

Qatar was also home to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was exiled from Egypt until his death in September 2022. According to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center:

💬 “Qaradawi is mainly known as the key figure in shaping the concept of violent jihad and the one who allowed carrying out terror attacks, including suicide bombing attacks, against Israeli citizens, the US forces in Iraq, and some of the Arab regimes. Because of that, he was banned from entering Western countries and some Arab countries…. In 1999, he was banned from entering the USA. In 2009, he was banned from entering Britain…”

Qaradawi also founded many radical Islamist organizations which are funded by Qatar. These include the International Union of Muslim Scholars, which released a statement that called the October 7 massacre perpetrated by Hamas against communities in southern Israel an “effective” and “mandatory development of legitimate resistance” and said that Muslims have a religious duty to support their brothers and sisters “throughout all of Palestine, especially in Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem, and Gaza.”

Qatar is still home to the lavishly-funded television network Al Jazeera, founded in 1996 by Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Hamad ibn Khalifa Al Thani. Called the “mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Al Jazeera began the violent “Arab Spring,” which “brought the return of autocratic rulers.”

In 2017, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt made 13 demands of Qatar: “to cut off relations with Iran, shutter Al Jazeera, and stop granting Qatari citizenship to other countries’ exiled oppositionists.” They subsequently cut ties with Qatar over its failure to agree to any of the demands, including ending its support for terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Jazeera.

The Saudi state-run news agency SPA said at the time:

💬 “[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS [Islamic State] and al-Qaeda, and promotes the message and schemes of these groups through their media constantly,”

US universities and colleges are happy to see this kind of influence on their campuses in exchange for billions of dollars in Qatari donations. According to ISGAP:

💬 “[F]oreign donations from Qatar, especially, have had a substantial impact on fomenting growing levels of antisemitic discourse and campus politics at US universities, as well as growing support for anti-democratic values within these institutions of higher education.”

[daenerysoftarth]

Not to defend Rhaenyra again, but when people say that she was ‘stupid’ for having kids with Harwin, their misunderstanding of Westerosi politics really shines through for a couple of reasons

(1) Many people say ‘oh well she shouldn’t have had kids.’ This is pretty ridiculous considering the stability of the realm is considered to rest on the ability of the heir to have kids. If an heir doesn’t have kids to directly succeed them, it can launch succession crises. Even if the realm considers Aegon II as her heir, it still makes Rhaenyra’s political position much more vulnerable. If she has no direct heirs, she is much easier to eliminate in order to install their preferred monarch as heir. Considering book!Alicent is advocating for Aegon II to become Viserys’ direct heir—passing over Rhaenyra—and becomes cold with Rhaenyra when Viserys refuses, I imagine Rhaenyra knew full well that it was a distinct possibility that she might be deposed if she didn’t have heirs of her own. Even with show!Rhaenyra, it’s shown that Tyland Lannister, Otto Hightower, and Criston Cole have all been colluding for quite some time before Viserys’ death to install Aegon II as king. If Rhaenyra had no children of her own, it would’ve made it even easier for them to accomplish this. Not to mention, it would look bad for her on a personal level, as she may be thought of as barren (which would make future marriage pacts difficult) or cold to her husband.

2. To this many say, ‘Well she should’ve found someone who looks more like her husband.’ This is particularly ridiculous. In both the show and book, Laenor has the Valyrian look of white hair and purple eyes. The Targaryen’s roots of Valyria make them unique to the lords of Westeros, as only Houses Velaryon and Celtigar can also claim Valyrian heritage. And unlike the Velaryons, the Targaryens have dragons. In large part it is the dragons that set the Targaryens apart from Westeros, but their slightly alien look definitely adds to that air of exceptionalism that the Targaryens thrive on to maintain their power. This is all to say that finding individuals that have the same Old Valyria traits is extremely difficult. We know this because it’s specifically noted that when King Aerys II was searching for possible wives for Rhaegar Targaryen, he specifically sought suitors with the Targaryen look in Westeros. When that failed, he even went to Essos to search for a woman of noble birth to become Rhaegar’s wife, so as to ensure the inheritance of white haired, purple eyed offspring. Aerys failed to find a match in both Westeros and Essos. It was only after searching in these two continents that he agreed to marry Rhaegar to Elia Martell, because of her distant Targaryen ancestor, princess Daenerys Targaryen. Finding someone who ‘looks like Laenor’ would be no easy feat, much less someone who has access to Rhaenyra and whose presence would not attract immediate suspicion.

3. Which leads me to my last point. People sometimes say, ‘They should’ve tried for a baby anyways.’ In the books, at least, it’s said that Laenor is the one that spurns Rhaenyra. To this I say, should she have sexually assaulted him so as to procure an heir? Additionally, the Middle Ages understanding of sex and procreation was much more primitive compared to our own. Some royals didn’t even know that intercourse was required to have a child, such as King Louis and Marie Antoinette. Those who did understand weren’t sure what factors helped conceive a child and what did not. Something like ‘semen contains sperm which is used to fertilize the egg’ was not something that was known to people at the time. Therefore, the suggestion of using a turkey baster to artificially impregnate Rhaenyra are laughable. As for the couple themselves, it’s entirely possible that Laenor simply inserted himself into Rhaenyra, lay there for what he thought was an appropriate amount of time, and then withdrew without ejaculation. It may sound ridiculous, but I’ll also remind you that it was thought for a time that jumping backwards and sneezing after sex was thought to be a sufficient form of contraception in parts of medieval Europe.

All of this is to say that, in my opinion, Rhaenyra made the best of a difficult situation. It wasn’t ideal, but the alternatives were worse. And we shouldn’t shame a woman for what amounts to nothing more than having sex outside of marriage.

[argumate]

China congrats Erdogan on reelection win; 'Beijing-Ankara ties to continue being stable'

Erdogan's 20 consecutive years in power have freed Turkey from frequent government changes and brought more stability, order and predictability to the country's politics.

uh huh

[donewithcapitalistfrayers]

"Many expect and even hope that the explosion of the security situation in Sudan will delay the Saudi-Iranian reconciliation, with its repercussions on Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, as it will serve the calculations of the parties involved in this country, including America and France, which do not hide their concern and annoyance at the Russian and Chinese roles, not only in Sudan, but in the African continent in general. They also do not hide their concern about the emergence of the Chinese and Russian roles together in the Middle East, which prompted President Macron to suddenly visit Beijing in order to research the totality of these developments in order to ensure French interests in China and its neighbors.

The American intervention, along with the possible Israeli intervention in the developments of Sudan, directly or indirectly, will not be the only weapon used by them to prevent the path of detente, militarily, politically, economically and socially, in the region through the Iranian – Saudi reconciliation, supported by Sudan's neighbor Egypt, as is the case with Libya, which is witnessing a military and political conflict between Egypt, Supported by the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and between Turkey, supported by Qatar. US Secretary of state Blinken's surprise visit to Sudan, and his meeting with Daglo and Al-Burhan, proved to everyone how important Washington and its allies attach to this strategic country. It has become clear that it will remain in the regional and international winds with the absence of political stability, resulting from the direct and indirect military intervention in the course of events, since the independence of this country in 1956. This intervention, in light of the authoritarian atmosphere that clouded the country, was the most important reason for the civil wars and the division of Sudan into North and South in 2011, at the beginning of the so-called "Arab Spring", which devastated the region, and we are all still living its security, political, economic, social, cultural, religious, and even moral consequences.

...

In all cases, and whatever the possible consequences of the events in Sudan, everyone knows that the enemies of the region abroad and inside will not breathe a sigh of relief until after the destruction of its states and peoples in favor of the Zionist entity. Therefore, they were, and still are, and will remain against the peoples of the region, who hope that the Iranian - Saudi reconciliation will achieve its goals, the most important of which is to achieve security and stability in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon, and now in Sudan, because of the strategic importance of this country for everyone, especially the Zionist entity, which has given Africa special importance, since It has been held in the land of Palestine, which is the main address of all events in the region, for thousands of years, and it will remain so until it returns to its true owners."

[syriarefugeecrisis]

Blog #3

Alleviating Suffering for the Syrian Refugees

Humanitarian aid

Families that flee conflict in their countries in search of peace and better living conditions normally leave all their belongings behind. The Syrian refugees face numerous challenges in the host countries, including a lack of accessibility to adequate healthcare, education, housing, food and clean water (World Vision, 2022). Humanitarian organizations should increase their efforts to alleviate the suffering faced by these refugees. Foreign aid in terms of food, water, restoration of sanitation facilities, improved shelters, mattresses, clothing, and other household essential items can improve the quality of life for the refugees. Combined efforts by the humanitarians should also help children cope with stressful events by offering constructive exercises to nurture them into healthy development. The refugees and host populations should be encouraged to work together to reduce their tensions and have a working solution to the insufficient resources. Additionally, the refugees may benefit immensely when their livelihoods are supported through the provision of cash grants, business education, seeds, and other facilitative tools (UNHCR, 2022).

Opening up legal refugee routes: Resettlement

The European leaders have the ability to alleviate the suffering faced by the Syrian refugees through legislation. These refugees need to be welcomed and supported in countries that experience more political, economic and social stability (Amnesty International, 2015). The European Union leaders should open up legal routes that are safe for the refugees to seek asylum. Safe and legal passage will get rid of dangerous avenues like crossing the sea in overcrowded boats in search of peace and safety. Resettlement should be provided for vulnerable refugees like the survivors of torture and those with urgent health needs. This will allow the refugees to travel to other countries and settle there permanently. Additionally, restrictive policies and laws that limit the ability of refugees to enter employment should be abolished. For instance, work permits are required for refugee employees but are rarely issued. Inclusion of the refugees is beneficial to the economy of the host country as explained by the UNHCR.

Humanitarian Visas and Reunification

Most refugees lack the necessary documents to acquire a regular travel visa. Offering the refugees humanitarian visas can help them relocate to other countries, decongesting the current host countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq, whose resources have been overstretched. This visa allows refugees safe travel and allows them to apply for asylum upon arrival in the destination country. European leaders can also facilitate family reunification. This will bring back together the Syrian refugees with their relatives in Europe. Refugees should not be left to endure long and dangerous journeys when they have family members who can support them and provide dignified living conditions.

Refugees using dangerous illegal routes to escape into more stable nations.

References

Amnesty International. (2015). What can Europe do to welcome refugees? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/09/what-can-europe-do-to-welcome-refugees/

UNHCR. (2022). Syria Refugee Crisis Explained. https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/#What%20is%20the%20UN%20Refugee%20Agency%20doing%20to%20help%20Syrians?

WorldVision.org (2022). Syrian refugee crisis: Facts, FAQs, and how to help. https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories/syrian-refugee-crisis-facts#world-vision

[melikemordemjaponi]

✽Opinion:We’re America’s most loyal ally in Syria. Don’t forget us.‐Mazloum Abdi

Mazloum Abdi is the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces.

In 2014, the world learned about my hometown, Kobane, and my people, the Syrian Kurds, when we dealt the Islamic State its first major defeat in partnership with the United States and the Global Coalition. The alliances we forged there led to the end of the ISIS caliphate in 2019.

Today, Kobane is again under threat — and all the gains of those partnerships are also in danger.

Turkey is not threatening our people and the security and stability for which we have sacrificed so much because of anything we have done. As a pretext for war, Erdogan has accused our forces of involvement in a deadly bombing in Istanbul. Let me make it clear: We deplore and condemn this act of terror, reject all accusations of involvement and again offer our condolences to the victims. We reiterate our call for an investigation and are ready to assist if one takes place.

Had the international community stood firmly against a Turkish invasion and spoken up for peace, things may have gone very differently. Though no one can turn back time, we can learn from the tragedies of the past.

We declare that we are ready to play a helpful role in restarting these talks and reaching the peace that we seek. We call on the international community to immediately take concrete steps to prevent a Turkish invasion and to promote a political solution to the Kurdish conflict based on democracy, coexistence and equal rights. The existence of our people and the security of the region depend on it.

Via The Washington Post -Excerpts from the article+photo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/03/mazloum-abdi-kurds-syria-

turkey-threat/

✽Görüşü : Biz Amerika'nın Suriye'deki en sadık müttefikiyiz. Bizi unutmayın.-Mazlum Abdi

Mazlum Abdi Suriye Demokratik Güçleri'nin komutanıdır.

2014 yılında ABD ve Küresel Koalisyon ile birlikte İslam Devleti'ni ilk büyük yenilgiye uğrattığımızda dünya benim memleketim Kobani'yi ve halkım Suriyeli Kürtleri tanıdı. Orada kurduğumuz ittifaklar 2019 yılında IŞİD halifeliğinin sona ermesine yol açtı.

Bugün Kobane yine tehdit altında - ve bu ortaklıkların tüm kazanımları da tehlikede.

Türkiye, halkımızı ve uğruna büyük fedakârlıklar yaptığımız güvenlik ve istikrarı, yaptığımız herhangi bir şey nedeniyle tehdit etmemektedir. Erdoğan, savaş bahanesi olarak güçlerimizi İstanbul'daki ölümcül bombalı saldırıya karışmakla suçladı. Şunu açıkça ifade etmeme izin verin: Bu terör eylemini esefle kınıyor, olaya karıştığı yönündeki tüm suçlamaları reddediyor ve hayatını kaybedenlere bir kez daha başsağlığı diliyoruz. Soruşturma açılması çağrımızı yineliyor ve soruşturma açılması halinde destek vermeye hazır olduğumuzu ifade ediyoruz.

Uluslararası toplum Türkiye'nin işgaline karşı kararlı bir şekilde durmuş ve barış için sesini yükseltmiş olsaydı, her şey çok farklı olabilirdi. Kimse zamanı geri alamasa da geçmişte yaşanan trajedilerden ders çıkarabiliriz.

Bu görüşmelerin yeniden başlatılmasında ve aradığımız barışa ulaşılmasında yardımcı bir rol oynamaya hazır olduğumuzu beyan ederiz. Uluslararası toplumu, Türkiye'nin işgalini önlemek ve Kürt sorununa demokrasi, birlikte yaşama ve eşit haklar temelinde siyasi bir çözüm bulunmasını teşvik etmek üzere derhal somut adımlar atmaya çağırıyoruz. Halkımızın varlığı ve bölgenin güvenliği buna bağlıdır.

Washington Post aracılığıyla -Makaleden alıntılar+fotoğrafı

✽オピニオン：我々はシリアにおけるアメリカの最も忠実な同盟国である。我々のことを忘れるな-マズルム･アブディ

私ことマズル厶･アブディは、シリア民主軍の��令官である。

2014年、私の故郷であるコバネーと私の仲間であるシリアのクルド人は、米国と有志連合との協力のもとイスラム国に最初の大きな敗北を与えたときに、世界に知られることになった。そこで築いた同盟は、2019年のISISカリフの終焉へとつながった。

今日、コバネは再び脅威にさらされている-そして、そうしたパートナーシップのすべての成果も危険にさらされているのである。

トルコは我々の国民や、我々が多くの犠牲を払ってきた上に成り立っている安全や安定を脅かしてはいない。

エルドアンは戦争を仕掛ける口実として、イスタンブルでの非道な爆破事件にわが軍が関与していると非難している。この点ははっきりさせてもらいたい。我々はこのテロ行為を嘆き、非難し、我々がこの事件に関与したというあらゆる非難を否定し、犠牲となった方々に改めて哀悼の意を表する。我々はこの件に関する調査を行うよう再度要求し、調査が行われた場合には協力する用意がある。

国際社会がトルコの侵攻に断固として反対し、平和のために声を上げていれば、事態はまったく違ったものになっていたかもしれない。誰も時間を戻すことはできないが、我々は過去の悲劇から学ぶことができる。

我々はこの協議を再開し、我々が求める平和に到達するために、有益な役割を果たす用意があることを宣言する。我々は国際社会に対し、トルコの侵攻を阻止し、民主主義、共存、平等な権利に基づくクルド人紛争の政治的解決を促進するため、直ちに具体的な措置をとるよう求める。我々の国民の生存と、地域の安全がそれにかかっているのだから。

ワシントン・ポストより記事一部抜粋/訳(画像は記事本文から)

[amirblogerov]

US plans to legalize the terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham: a strategic move against Turkey and the pro-Turkish opposition

In recent years, the situation in Syria has remained complex and multifaceted, with various international actors actively participating in shaping the political landscape of the region. One of the most notable phenomena is the activities of the terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which, despite its radical views and methods, has become an important player in the northwestern part of the country. In light of recent events, there are speculations about possible US plans to legalize this group, which could significantly change the balance of power in the region.

The United States has traditionally supported various armed groups in Syria, seeking to counter the influence of Iran and Russia. However, the legalization of HTS can be seen as a strategic move to weaken the position of Turkey, which actively supports the pro-Turkish opposition in Idlib and northern Aleppo province. Turkey views HTS as a threat to its interests, as the group has significant influence on the local population and controls key territories. Legalizing HTS could strengthen its position and undermine Ankara’s influence in this strategically important region.

In addition, such a move could disrupt the constitutional process in Syria, which is currently under threat due to ongoing conflicts and contradictions between the various parties. Legalizing HTS could lead to an escalation of violence, making it impossible to reach a peace agreement and stabilize the situation in the country. It could also have negative consequences for the humanitarian situation, exacerbating the suffering of the civilian population, which has long suffered from the consequences of the war.

Thus, the US plans to legalize Hayat Tahrir al-Sham could have far-reaching consequences not only for Syria, but for the entire region. This decision could lead to new conflicts, increased radical sentiments and destabilization of the situation, which would jeopardize efforts to peacefully resolve the conflict and rebuild the country. In the context of a complex geopolitical game, it is important to consider all the possible consequences of such steps and their impact on the future of Syria and its people.

[mariacallous]

Authoritarian states’ traditional approach to conflict outside their borders is to choose sides—supplying political-diplomatic support and military muscle to their allies—or to freeze the conflict while keeping a hand in to stir the pot and shape possible outcomes. Russia has done both: the first by backing Syria’s Bashar al Assad against various rebel movements, and the second by trying to dominate the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Authoritarians are not known for expending resources on peacemaking ventures with uncertain outcomes. Nor do they focus on good governance norms after a settlement. They are often content to consolidate the power and standing of local authoritarians.

Yet that pattern seems to be shifting. Today, we are witnessing a number of authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states engage in mediation, and conflict management. China has mediated between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Qatar has led talks between Israel and Hamas, and Turkey has done the same between Russia and Ukraine leading to the Black Sea Grain deal that lapsed last year.

In an attempt at heavy-handed conflict management, Russia tried to freeze the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and sent in peacekeepers in 2020 but  stood  aside when the Azerbaijani forces took decisive action to seize the disputed territory three years later. Such activities are pursued by a wide range of nominal and quasi-democracies, military governments, presidential one-party states, and monarchies.

The impact of this surge in authoritarian peacemaking gets less attention than it deserves. Authoritarian states are buffeting the peacemaking diplomacy of Western states, blocking or undercutting Western initiatives and challenging Western leadership of the global peacemaking agenda. The most obvious impact has been the global polarization that creates gridlock in the U.N. Security Council, undercuts support for U.N. peace operations and saps coherence around critical norms such as human rights and individual freedoms.

This pattern constrains what the U.N. can do in conflict management, mediation and peacebuilding. It also directly challenges the ability of NGOs to work for dialogue and reconciliation in fragile and war-torn places such as Georgia where pro-Russian parties are imposing Russian-style controls on the activity of NGOs that receive external support. Such action undermines the unofficial playbook for peacemaking and good governance.

By pushing back against Western conceptions about managing conflict, authoritarian peacemaking is part-and-parcel of a more general global backlash against intrusive and interventionist western policies that may undercut the perceived authority and legitimacy of incumbent regimes.

This backlash privileges state sovereignty against notions about “global” norms relating to rights and governance. Sadly, the U.S. government has made the undermining of international norms easier by adopting double standards on civilian protection and human rights law in Ukraine and Gaza. Such conduct actually helps China attack American soft power in Africa and undercuts U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.

But the authoritarian surge is not necessarily either effective or coherent. Consider, for example, the difficulty experienced by Egypt’s military regime and Qatar’s monarchy in bringing Hamas and Israel to a deal, even with strong backing from the U.S. and other Western and Arab states. Regional authoritarians have not been notably successful in bringing about peace and stability in Libya and have aggravated rather than alleviated its internal clan and tribal factionalism.

They have failed to cohere effectively for peace in Yemen. Regional authoritarians made Syria’s tragic civil war divisions worse before ceding the field to the Russians. In all these cases, the authoritarians ran into the hard realities of intractable conflicts where the local parties have plenty of weapons and have not yet exhausted their unilateral options. In some cases, they made the problem worse.

At first glance, it might appear that authoritarian states bring certain advantages to the table. One attribute is internal unity of command and policy coherence at the level of the individual state. Unlike liberal states, they can potentially bring not only a whole of government approach but also a whole of society focus in their strategy for dealing with conflicts. Messy internal policy debates do not bother them. Authoritarians generally place top priority on achieving stability and creating a favorable context for advancing regime interests, and their policies are best understood as transactional.

In practice the record of their approaches is quite mixed. In one model, for the transactions to succeed, it is necessary for the existing regime or the “winner” in a civil war to be capable of being a reliable partner to the external authoritarian conflict manager. In a second model, the authoritarian goal is to back a factional side—either to exploit natural resources or block an adversary or rival state, or perhaps both.

The idea of a negotiated settlement may not be a priority or be viewed as less desirable than some degree of continued instability. This scenario can slide into a third model in which rival authoritarians seek to impose a favorable outcome on the country and compete with rival external powers through the provision of military and political support. While authoritarian states may have internal coherence, they are often in conflict with other states.

It is not clear that any of these models is good for peace or for the lives of ordinary civilians. In the case of Syria, Russia prevailed by applying the first model, carpet-bombing cities to help the local authoritarian prevail, imposing a very cold peace. But it is not clear that authoritarian states will be successful in imposing outright victories in many other situations.

The case of Libya provides a vivid illustration of what can happen with the second model when outsiders pile in to pursue their varied agendas: In this case Egypt, Russia, the UAE, and the Saudis (to say nothing of the French) decided to support Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s designs against the U.N.-recognized unity government in Tripoli, backed by Turkey, Qatar, Italy, and the United States.

Commercial, strategic, and ideological agendas coursed across the strife-torn land, leading a succession of U.N. special envoys to resign in frustration, blaming the Libyan factions (rather than their backers) for a lack of political will to work for reconciliation and create conditions for holding elections. Libya’s disorder does not remain in Libya, as the neighboring Sudanese can attest.

In the case of the Ethiopia-Tigray civil war in 2020 to 2022, the Ethiopians enjoyed military support from the authoritarian regime of Eritrea as well as Turkey, Iran, and the UAE. But it was the African Union-based mediation of former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo supported by former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and senior envoys of the U.S. and South African governments negotiated an end to the fighting. This followed the Ethiopian government’s ability to impose itself militarily on Tigray at a key moment in 2022 thanks to Turkish drones—though the country is still facing insurgents in other regions.

But it is clear that Sudan is not endowed with such resources for conflict management, despite the high hopes generated by the internationally celebrated Juba Accord of October 2020 between its transitional government and a range of rebel movements. Two and a half years later, the current civil war erupted, causing the gravest humanitarian crisis in the world, affecting some 6.6 million internally displaced persons and 2 million refugees fleeing into neighboring countries.

Rival military factions are tearing the country apart while attracting external authoritarians like flies to flypaper. The Saudis and the United States continue to host peace efforts, but Sudan’s military leaders enjoy widespread backing from authoritarian states: The regime’s forces are aided by Egypt, the Saudis, and Iran while the rival Rapid Support Forces are allied with Libya’s Haftar, the Chad regime of Mahamat Deby, plus the Russians, the UAE, and an assortment of allies in neighboring states. This is the second model with a vengeance, and it looks increasingly like it is sliding into the third model of authoritarian rivals pushing their proxies to the finish.

Spectacles like these do not seem to augur well for the peacemaking business. They undercut the potential for international organizations to play their traditional role. The Security Council regularly takes up the Sudan file but is prevented by gridlock from naming names and using serious pressure to stop the fighting. The UAE strenuously denies its role in fueling the fighting in an unholy alliance including Haftar and Deby, and the western permanent members of the Security Council are well aware they cannot ignore likely vetoes from China and Russia.

At the regional level, African Union members are divided, and the Gulf Cooperation Council is hampered by the intense feuding between the Saudis and the UAE. Sudan is a laboratory case of how warring factions export their divisions to external sponsors who return the favor by exporting their own divisions back into the conflict.

At first glance, all of this may look bad for the United States and, more generally, the West because it points to the erosion of the West’s hard and soft power. High-minded efforts at conflict management and good governance contend face-to-face with the most cynical practitioners of transactional statecraft. However, U.S. diplomats need a closer look at peacemaking cases to understand how U.S. statecraft can sometimes be effective in corralling recalcitrant antagonists, operating behind the scenes or employing more of an invisible hand.

When necessary, the United States is capable of standing back and advancing its interests by empowering others, sharing credit, and borrowing leverage and even credibility from other players, including the transactional authoritarians, however unprincipled they are.

During the Balkan wars of the 1990s, it fell to the U.S. government to knock mostly authoritarian heads and impose a stop to the fighting. Representatives of the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the European Union attended the Dayton peace conference. In the case of Colombia’s long civil conflicts, Washington first deployed diplomatic leadership via Plan Colombia and helped shape the balance of power between the government and the Marxist rebels of the FARC.

In the next phase, the U.S. government operated more indirectly via a special envoy who participated discreetly in a process led by Cuba and Norway with facilitator countries Venezuela and Chile, all loosely coordinating with major European and neighboring states, the U.N., and the E.U., leading to the 2016 Colombian peace accords. Washington played its hand decisively but less visibly in the Northern Ireland process leading to the 1998 Good Friday agreement.

This less direct public face of peacemaking has a history. In 1905, Theodore Roosevelt indirectly maneuvered Tsarist Russia and imperial Japan to terminate a hugely costly war, leaving the visible negotiation to the direct parties. He never personally visited the conference table in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, but actively communicated with relevant governments and, in effect, borrowed leverage from authoritarian and democratic states alike, while blocking alternative approaches. The process required Roosevelt to navigate the politics of two authoritarian regimes which could not admit their need for his help.

Fast forward to the 1980s and 1990s when U.S. negotiators borrowed leverage from allies and erstwhile adversaries in bringing authoritarian regimes to make peace in Southern Africa (working with the British, Portuguese, and other Western allies as well as the Soviets, Cubans, Zambians, Congolese, Cape Verdeans, Mozambicans and the U.N. Secretariat), and to avert civil war in Ethiopia (working with Sweden, Britain, the Soviets, Israel, Sudan, and the Marxist-oriented rebel Eritrean and Tigrayan movements).

This is not a brand-new way of operating but one that could become more common in an age of multiple overlapping alignments where other states are partners on some issues and troublesome obstacles on others. It could also be less of a drain on the political capital available to presidents and secretaries of state. To work, it requires top level officials to delegate and a willingness to work closely with friends, partners, and other parties they wouldn’t want to bring home for dinner.

[thephilosopheroffeelings]

Erdogan celebrated his 'friend' Trump's victory yesterday; like all other world leaders. Nothing is wrong with that but the word 'friend' rubbed me the wrong way. Friends, enemies and politics. Who comes to your mind? The Crown Jurist of the Third Reich Mr Schmitt.

Carl Schmitt is an interesting guy. He is a political realist and his ideas are influenced by Thomas Hobbes. His focus is on power, conflict, the necessity of decision-making in crisis. He views politics as a matter of survival and the need for a decisive sovereign to ensure the state's stability. According to him, politics is fundamentally about the friend-enemy distinction: us vs y'all. Isn't he romantic? I would not be in a relationship with him but a date would be fun. Sorry, back to the topic. The political sphere is defined by conflict and the existential necessity of distinguishing those who are threats (enemies) from those who are allies (friends). He does not sound ridiculous, right? As what he says currently is in practice in the world: World wars and then allies felt the need to be grouped as NATO, EU. etc. When you know your capacity of how nasty you can get if there is need, you might have the same perspective as he has. We read the room with our own lenses.

He sees democracy as secondary to authority and stresses the importance of order and security over individual freedoms. Was he authoritarian then? Not really. He loves the idea but practically he is not so sure. He is okay with democracy as long as it serves the sovereign. But ideologically, he is critical of liberal democracy, particularly parliamentary systems, which he sees as indecisive and incapable of addressing existential crises. He thinks that authority should be able determine when normal laws and rights can be suspended to protect the state. So we can conclude that he is not really a fan of legal liberalism as it can hinder the sovereign's ability to act decisively. Complex guy, eh? Do not be harsh on him. He has a point. Also, you have been warned; he is interesting. He favours authoritarian democracy, where a leader acts with strong popular support, sometimes bypassing parliamentary processes. He wants democracy if and until it brings him to power as it will make his sovereignty legitimate but once he holds the power, he does not care about it. Carl, you cheeky bastard.

When I was working as a teaching assistant, each week for an hour I was doing a course hour for the political thought course with UG students. While discussing political realism; I told the students that political realists do not sound nice but maybe they are honest? Regardless whether they are or not, I concluded that honesty in politics and in life are so overrated. What kind of politician would you like to see in power? Honest, has integrity, blah blah. You know the drill. As in, what do you expect from a romantic partner? Honesty. No darling; you do not. The idea of it is so nice but practically it would be awful to live with someone with no filter. The dose makes the poison.

This does not mean that I think Trump, Erdogan or Schmitt are at least honest people. Definitely not. I know that they are not. I have proof that they are not. However, what we do not get why they are (or were) in power might be all about how their careless relationship with liberal democracy portrays them as 'genuine.' Maybe the public sees these characteristics as something they would have if they were in power themselves. Something makes the person in power 'human.' Or maybe, on the darker side, this is what the public expects from a political leader: Authority. They would like to see the person they put in charge is actually using their power, even at the expense of their own freedom.

I am writing these on a train on my way to work as someone who cannot legitimately vote anywhere in the world as of now. Not a permanent resident in the UK, not a resident anymore in Turkey. I miss actively participating (voting) in elections. Democracy is a nice thing. Especially the majoritarian one: It fools you for a second that you are in power and then sobers you up the next day. Regardless, it is the best thing we have so far.

Off to my excel sheets.

[thebekaatimes]

Escalation Between Iran and Israel: Potential Iranian Responses and Regional Implications

As tensions escalate in the Middle East, the conflict between Iran and Israel appears to be entering a new phase. With continued Israeli operations targeting Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon, Tehran faces a crossroads: Will it take escalatory steps in response? And what impact might that have on the stability of the broader region?

This article delves into the potential motivations behind an Iranian response, the options available to Tehran, and the possible impact of escalation on regional and international players.

Background of the Conflict:

Tensions between Iran and Israel have been rising for several years. Israel sees Iranian influence in the region as a direct threat to its national security. On the other hand, Iran views its regional expansion as a strategic necessity to protect its interests and counter alliances against it.

Recent Israeli attacks on Iranian sites and their allies, especially in Syria and Lebanon, have heightened the likelihood of an Iranian response, putting the region at risk of open confrontation with potential spillover into neighboring countries.

Motivations for Iran to Respond:

The primary motivation for Iran to respond is to maintain its regional standing and deterrence balance. Key motivations include:

Demonstrating Power to Regional Rivals: Iran seeks to send a clear message, not only to Israel but also to other regional powers, asserting that it still has control over the situation.

Strengthening Domestic Support: Escalation with Israel serves as a unifying factor domestically, potentially bolstering the Iranian government's position amid economic and political challenges.

Protecting Regional Interests: Iran feels that any retreat in the face of Israeli attacks could weaken its positions in Syria and Lebanon, pushing it to act to defend its interests.

Options Available to Iran:

Iran has several options for response, ranging from military action to diplomatic moves:

1. Limited Military Response: Iran could target Israeli sites or forces, either directly or through regional allies like Hezbollah in Lebanon or Palestinian factions.

2. Escalation in Regional Influence Zones: Iran might attack Israeli or allied interests in places like Iraq or the Gulf, where it has strong influence through allied factions.

3. Strengthening Regional Alliances: Iran may aim to deepen ties with allies like Syria, Lebanon, and perhaps Turkey to counterbalance Israeli and allied influence.

4. Diplomatic Escalation: Iran might leverage international forums to challenge Israeli actions or press major powers like Russia and China to take a more assertive stance in protecting its interests.

Regional Impact of Escalation:

Any escalation between Iran and Israel could have significant consequences for countries in the region, especially Lebanon and Syria:

Lebanon: Lebanon is likely to be highly impacted, as Lebanese factions, particularly Hezbollah, may be drawn into open conflict with Israel if Iran launches attacks from Lebanon or supports Hezbollah’s response to any Israeli strikes. This could further strain Lebanon's security and economy.

Syria: Iran’s strong presence in Syria means escalation there could draw in new parties and increase the chances of direct confrontations between Iranian and Israeli forces.

Iraq and Yemen: Armed factions in these countries may seize on the escalation to launch attacks against U.S. or allied regional interests, increasing the chances of a broader conflict.

International Reactions:

Major powers, especially the United States, are likely to watch the situation closely, with potential involvement to contain or support their allies in case of broader escalation.

United States: Washington may seek to prevent full-scale conflict, as it could threaten its interests in the Middle East. Nevertheless, it will continue to support Israel politically and potentially logistically in the event of a larger confrontation with Iran.

European Union: The EU may advocate for diplomatic solutions and pressure both sides to avoid escalation, though it could impose sanctions on Iran if it takes significant destabilizing steps.

Russia and China: Both countries aim to maintain good relations with Iran and may act as mediators if the situation intensifies, with Russia possibly leading indirect negotiations to contain the crisis.

Given these diverse possibilities, the future of the conflict between Iran and Israel remains uncertain. As pressures mount on Iran to respond to Israeli moves, the entire Middle East risks being pulled into a new crisis

[agesinmotion]

OCTOBER 26TH

October 26 is a day of revolutionary ideas, tension, and reform throughout history.

In 1774, America's fight for freedom intensified when the First Continental Congress adjourned, leaving colonial leaders determined to confront British rule.

In 1795, the French Revolution hit a turning point with the creation of the five-man Directoire, aimed to stabilize the chaotic revolution.

In 1863, a global humanitarian movement was born as leaders met in Geneva to discuss battlefield medical aid. It sparked the birth of the Red Cross.

On this day in 1962, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev offered to withdraw Soviet missiles from Cuba, if the U.S. shut down bases in Turkey. JFK’s hard-line response brought the world on the brink.

And in 1973, President Nixon under pressure, released the first Watergate tapes, a move that cracked open one of America’s biggest political scandals.

[ebelal56-blog]

Why Turkey Joining BRICS is a Game Changer

Turkey's eagerness to join the BRICS coalition is a fascinating blend of ambition and strategy. Picture this: Turkey sits at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, a bridge between cultures and economies. By aligning with BRICS, Turkey aims to diversify its economic partnerships away from the West, especially amidst ongoing tensions with traditional allies. The coalition represents emerging markets with growing influence, and for Turkey, this means access to new markets and investment opportunities. But it's not just about economics; it's also about political leverage. Joining BRICS could give Turkey a stronger voice on the global stage, allowing it to assert its interests more effectively. Plus, with the world shifting towards multipolarity, Turkey wants to be part of that conversation. It's a smart move, really-seeking stability and growth in a constantly changing geopolitical landscape. So, as Turkey navigates these waters, we're witnessing a strategic pivot that could reshape its future.