Government, Politics, Turkey, United States

Turkey’s failed military coup…

TURKEY

Intro: Turkey’s failed coup now gives Recep Tayyip Erdogan a chance to seize more power

IN just the space of four decades Turkey has seen four governments ousted by its military, the most recent was in the late 1990s. Until now, another coup had been considered extremely unlikely. Many senior army officers resent Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian and autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for his single-handed attempts to reshape society along Islamic lines and to rein in the military. Few would have reason to think that an attempt to depose him would ever have been successful. Mr Erdogan has won every election since 2002, and retains the support of roughly half the electorate. A decade of economic prosperity, Mr Erdogan is considered a lesser evil than army rule even by many of his committed opponents.

The attempted coup on July 15th, was dismantled in just a matter of hours amid a massive show of popular support for continued civilian rule. According to official sources, at least 265 people were killed. Mr Erdogan has emerged from the episode stronger than ever. His ultimate desire of changing the constitution to grant the presidency executive powers may now be within reach. Mr Erdogan wants power around himself and not shared through parliament.

The Turkish president plays a masterful game at being both victor and victim. This is the man who brought Turkey’s secularist old guard to heel and gave a voice to the country’s conservatives, but, at the same time, also claimed to be surrounded by enemies both at home and abroad. For Mr Erdogan, the world is divided into two groups: on the one hand, his voters; on the other, a coalition of foes that includes the political opposition, Western countries ostensibly envious of Turkey’s progress, the global financial elite, and a secretive Islamic movement, the Gulen community. In the eyes of his supporters, the coup attempt has proven Mr Erdogan right. He will now likely claim a mandate for amassing even more power and eliminating the remaining centres of opposition.

To the relief of most Turks, the military is no longer the credible and alternative power base it once was. It will be the first target for any purge under sweeping changes being considered by Mr Erdogan. While the coup had the support of only part of the officer corps, this was not a coup by the military as an institution but more of a mutiny. The plotters did, however, deploy large numbers of troops and heavy armour in both Istanbul and in Ankara, where their aircraft bombed the national parliament. Over 2,800 military personnel, including a number of generals, have been arrested.

Another target on Mr Erdogan’s radar will be the Gulen movement, a Muslim sect headed by a cleric, Fethullah Gulen, who was a close ally of the Turkish president before falling out with him in 2013. The government immediately charged the group with masterminding the violence. The government labelled the Gulenists a terror group this year, and it now has a green light to pursue anyone even remotely suspected of links to them. Some Turkish officials insist that the Gulenists have their finger prints all over this latest coup attempt. On July 16th, Binali Yildirim, Turkey’s prime minister, demanded that America extradite Mr Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania. “The country that stands behind this man is no friend to Turkey,” he warned.

Mr Erdogan has long sought to undermine his parliamentary political opposition. Last year he responded with massive force to a growing insurgency in the southeast by groups aligned to the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), fanning the flames of the violence and providing an excuse to link moderate Kurdish MPs to the terrorists. They have since been stripped of parliamentary immunity, and now face terrorism charges. Bomb attacks by the PKK and by Islamic State, which Turkey says it is battling in Syria, have legitimised a government crackdown on independent media and free expression. The main independent newspapers and television broadcasters have been taken over by government organisations aligned to the previously issued instructions of Mr Erdogan. Prosecutors have opened some 2000 cases against people suspected of insulting the president since 2014. Following the coup, such repression will probably intensify.

Perhaps most troubling, the coup will provide an opportunity for Mr Erdogan to eliminate what remains of Turkey’s independent judiciary. On July 16th, the government announced that 2,700 judges had been suspended from duty. Two members of the constitutional court have also been detained.

The irony is that the coup’s failure demonstrated just how weak a threat Mr Erdogan actually faces. Almost all people spoke out against the coup, including the entire political class, as well as the overwhelming majority of Turkey’s citizens. That is the good news. The bad is that today’s sense of unity risks being drowned out tomorrow by calls for vengeance. The day after the coup attempt a group of men clad in Turkish flags marched down Istanbul’s main street shouting “We want executions”. The death penalty was abolished in Turkey in the early 2000s. Media photographs and video footage online from the coup’s aftermath showed protesters on one of Istanbul’s bridges beating soldiers and whipping them with their belts.

The failed coup is a golden opportunity for Mr Erdogan to heal a deeply divided society. Past experience suggests that he will instead respond with a vicious crackdown. During the night of July 15th, Turks of all stripes managed to protect their country from a relapse into military rule. Yet, the fragile democracy that many of them died to defend is now in Mr Erdogan’s increasingly untrustworthy hands.

Standard
European Union, Iran, NATO, Russia, United Nations, United States

Moscow says the United States should drop its European Missile Shield…

EUROPEAN MISSILE SHIELD

Russia has urged the United States to scrap plans to station parts of its European missile shield system now that Iran has reached agreement with world powers to limit its nuclear program.

Moscow has long opposed the plan, which it sees as a threat to its nuclear deterrence, and has pledged to retaliate if the missile shield in Europe goes ahead. Washington has previously assured Moscow the shield was meant as a protection from ‘rogue’ states like Iran, and not directed against Russia.

Since the agreement in July was made, under which Tehran has agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of UN, US and EU sanctions, Moscow has stepped up its rhetoric against the missile shield.

The latest diplomatic spat threatens to further worsen relations between Moscow and Washington, now at their lowest point since the cold war because of the conflict in Ukraine.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said in the last few days that Barack Obama ‘was not telling the truth’ in comments he made in 2009 linking the need for a missile shield to what the president called the ‘real threat’ from Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity.

At the time of making those comments, Mr Obama said: ‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defence construction in Europe will be removed.’

Moscow insists those comments mean that with the resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, Washington should now walk away from the missile shield plan.

However, sceptics in America (and elsewhere) will argue that even if the agreement was fully implemented it did not annul the threat from Iranian ballistic missiles that Mr Obama referred to back in 2009. Under the July deal, UN sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missiles program will stay in place for eight years.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Government, said: ‘As long as Iran goes on developing and deploying ballistic missiles, the U.S. together with its allies and partners will be working to ensure protection from this threat, including through deploying the NATO missile shield system.’

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has ruled out the possibility of using mid-range ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads to target Europe. Mr Ryabkov said: ‘So I conclude that the U.S. administration is artificially stitching arguments together behind a decision to continue and increase the pace of creating the European missile shield that was in fact taken for different reasons.’

If the shield goes ahead, Russia has said it would retaliate, including by deploying short-range Iskander ballistic missiles in its enclave of Kaliningrad, on the border with NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

Mr Ryabkov also said Russia and Iran had agreed on two bilateral deals as part of implementing the wider nuclear agreement, and were now discussing the details.

He said Russia would take in some 8 tonnes of low-enriched uranium from Iran in exchange for supplies of natural uranium. Moscow and Tehran would also produce medical isotopes at Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility.

NATO is constructing a missile defence system in the Mediterranean Sea and in the territories of several European member states.

NATO is constructing a missile defence system in the Mediterranean Sea and in the territories of several European member states.

Standard
Iraq, Islamic State, Syria, Terrorism, United States

The U.S. believes Islamic State has used Chemical Weapons in Iraq…

ISLAMIC STATE/CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE

The White House has said it is likely that Islamic State militants have used mustard gas in an attack on Kurdish forces in Iraq earlier this week. America believes this is the first indication the militant group has obtained a banned chemical weapon.

Islamic State could have obtained the mustard agent in Syria, whose government of Bashar al-Assad admitted to having large quantities of the blistering agent in 2013. Then, Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons arsenal.

It is also possible Islamic State could have obtained the mustard agent in Iraq, as vast quantities of chemicals have been shunted around in a possible attempt to subterfuge the 2013 agreement. Pro-Assad forces have gathered throughout Syria and Iraq in attempt to defeat Islamic State. The United States has not specified where or when exactly the attack took place, or whether the mustard gas attack caused casualties. The White House’s National Security Council has said it is seeking more information.

Recently, U.S. intelligence agencies have said they believed Islamic State has used chlorine gas in attacks in Iraq. Chlorine is not a banned chemical agent and is normally dropped in barrel bombs from helicopters.

Standard