Republican and Mitt's Geography Lesson of the Day

Since this is a foreign policy blog, I won’t deal with the misogynistic proclivities of the Republican Party and its slimy politicians. What is interesting is their complete lack of depth in international affairs (at least ever since their Christianista Misogynist in Chief, Richard Mourdock won the primary against Senator Lugar in Indiana).

Aside from the astoundingly cluelessness of Mitt Romney in general at the final debate with President Obama, there was a remarkable moment when he floated the notion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be indicted for his inflammatory statements against Israel. The Iranian President was once quoted saying that Israel “must be wiped off the map,” though the translation was later revealed to be just a tad wrong.

“I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation,” Romney said.

That was followed quickly by one of Romney’s advisors, Eric Fehrnstrom, suggesting that the World Court could arrest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First of all, can someone please supply the world with the address of the “World Court”?

No?

I didn’t think so. And for a political cult party that, along with its tea-bag followers, finds international agreements and institutions loathsome, appealing to one, even though it doesn’t exist, strikes me as a bit of a stretch, even for these buffoons.

In case these moth-brained neo-cons haven’t noticed, their cartoon compatriot Ahmadinejad is going to be out of a job pretty soon; so, unless they act quickly to get the "World Court" to issue an indictment and provide the "World Police" with a warrant to parachute into Iran, snatch their suspect and whisk him away to the "World Jail" where he can await trial by the "World Court" as soon as a "World Prosecutor" can be found they will miss the moment.

On more thing. Republicans, like a good number of their disciples, couldn't find Iran with a map and a flashlight. Hence, this statement by Mitt at the debate:

"Secondly, Syria’s an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea."

Uhm. Well. No.

According to the CIA fact book, Iran's coastline consists of pretty nice beachfront on the Persian Gulf leading out to the Gulf of Oman which is connected (get the map Republican boys and girls) to the Indian Ocean. That's 1,520 miles of sipping pina-coladas and sunbathing by the sea while watching its excuse for a navy go by. If that's not enough, then they can float some toy ships on the Caspian as well - anywhere along 460 miles of shoreline.

Oh, yeah. Iran doesn't border Syria, although thanks to the last American president they were gifted Iraq, so I guess that's something

Rocks and Hard Places - Turkish Edition

I’ve just returned from Turkey and unless you’ve been living on Pluto, the four days of shelling by Syrian forces of Turkish towns, killing civilians, and counter-fire by the Turkish army is big news.  Turkey has warned that it is very close to war and the al-Assad regime must cease its attacks – or else.   The “or else” should be of concern to everyone because it is very clear that the Syrian regime is engaging in desperate measures to stay alive and attempting to provoke a war with Turkey in the hopes of destabilizing Turkey with the help of the PKK in the southeastern part of the country.

Turkey should not take the bait.

The Syrian army, consisting of little more than small units in the region and having lost control of large swathes of territory and border crossings, is in no condition to resist a Turkish assault.  It could be swept from the border area and would likely end up in a burning heap along the roads leading to Damascus.  That is not in the interests of Turkey for several reasons.

The first is that the Turkish economy is growing at 7% and has been doing so for a good part of the last decade.  A war puts the economy at serious risk of losing momentum, if not stopping growth altogether.  The towns along the Syrian border and the southeast in general had been booming until the Assad regime’s struggle for survival brought trade crashing to the ground.

Second, the PKK is under extraordinary pressure both militarily and politically. Turkey maintains military bases inside Iraq (much to Baghdad’s ineffective vocal objections) to counter PKK activities while at the same time Ankara has pursued a policy of inclusion for the Kurds within its borders.  A war puts political stability inside Turkey at risk, would energize the PKK and cause turmoil in large parts of eastern Turkey.

Third, Ankara is clearly aware of the geo-political problems in the region.  The Assad regime is allied with Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran has invested considerable money and reputation into the fight – money it can ill afford to lose, not to mention losing the political advantages it has gained since the Iraq war.  Without Russian support, the Assad regime could not continue its policy of slaughter. Russia is a major trading partner of Turkey and furthermore, controls the politics of Armenia which impacts Turkey’s resource rich ally, Azerbaijan.

Fourth, Turkey cannot count on NATO for support.  Although it has the right under international law to defend itself, invoking Article 5 to bring in all of NATO is likely to go nowhere.  The US and Europe, with the probable exception of France, have no stomach for war in the region.  Syria is not Libya and military intervention by NATO – which is the default military organization – would trigger large asymmetrical responses by Iran and its surrogate Hezbollah that would affect Israel and the Gulf.  Turkey would be on its own.

A full scale border crossing, no doubt inflicting what would be crushing losses on the Syrian military, would have economic, social and political repercussions that cannot be predicted, but all of which can be described charitably as not good for Turkey.

The Turkish Parliament has voted in favour of a motion permitting the government to engage in cross-border raids on Syria and in the past few days, the Turkish military has moved additional tanks and mechanized units to the region hoping to send a message.  Prime Minister Erdoğan said yesterday “I am calling once more on the al-Assad regime and its supporters: Don’t dare to test Turkey’s patience,” adding that testing Turkey’s capacity for deterrence would be “a fatal mistake.”  The motion authorizing raids is not a blank check, however; more importantly, It was on the agenda in any event to renew the authorization for the Iraq bases targeting the PKK.  The timing is coincidental. Hopefully, Damascus will get the message.

Russian and Iranian support will not save al-Assad or his regime as rebels continue to seize territory and have failed to be dislodged from Homs, Aleppo or villages along the border with Turkey.  I don’t doubt that Turkey will launch cross-border missions to clear out Syrian military positions  if necessary – but they can be pushed back out of range without doing so and provide leverage so that  the rebel units in the area could take control. 

At the end of the day Turkey needs to show restraint – difficult under the type of provocation pursued by Damascus.  They are trapped between national interest and national honour.  But, Turkey has more to lose than gain if it unleashes its army.   

The Syrian civil war, now a sectarian one as well, will be a swamp which, once sucked into, will be difficult to escape.  Unfortunately, NATO and the West are tired of nation building and the UN is paralyzed by Russian pretensions of being a major power and Chinese fundamental principle of non-interference. Turkey is left with little choice but to deal with the situation that involves a civil war along hundreds of miles of its border and more than 100,000 refugees.  The rest of world will let Turkey sort this out and it does not have a lot of choices for maneuver.  One choice however – massive military intervention – should be avoided.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

Iran, hosting the non-aligned conference this week in Tehran, launched a strenuous effort to get Mohamed Mursi, the new Egyptian president, to attend.  They were successful and really, really happy. 

Mursi, on the other hand, revealed a level of independence that no one – NO ONE – anticipated as he condemned the Syrian government and urged the Syrian rebels to unify and turn out President Assad.  No doubt somewhat shocked, the Syrian delegation walked out.  More importantly, the Iranian government likely had a collective heart attack as Mursi, a conservative from the Muslim Brotherhood (feared and loathed by the Americans and Israelis) basically told Iran that he supported the rebels whom the West want to see take down Assad, putting him on the same side as Turkey, Western Europe and the US and against Russia, Iran and the current Syrian government. I leave China out because their veto of the UN resolutions, where they joined Russia, were  based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country (not liking the idea that it could be applied to them) rather than the vaporization of an ally and major arms purchaser.  

As if to rub salt into the wound, Mursi then went on to compare the rebel cause in Syria to the plight of the Palestinians.  Just to be clear – the Palestinian cause is sacred to Egypt and a frequent, convenient rallying point for Iranian propaganda.  Mursi has effectively put Iran in the shoes of Israel vis a vis the Syrian rebels. Sting much? 

This speech is clearly not what Iran wanted and ups their cost as they will now have to deal with an increasingly annoyed Turkish government, the vast wealth of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and now a moral opponent in the leading Arab state of Egypt supposedly being run by one of their own. This is clearly not the optimum outcome from the point of view of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs nor will Hezbollah be celebrating in the streets of Beirut.  Hezbollah leadership is likely re-calibrating everything at this point.

Multiple  factors seem to be in play. Aside from the fact that President Mursi is a creation of the Egyptian revolution and likely feels a good deal of sympathy for the similar revolt in Syria which began peacefully and was met by violent responses from the Assad family,  Mursi is Sunni in a largely Sunni country.  Turkey is Sunni as well.  The Sunni minority in Iraq has been sidelined from power, with the Sunni Vice President forced to flee to Istanbul.  Iran has the upper hand in Iraq (thanks Bush Jr.) and Egypt wants Western, Qatari and Saudi money and investment.  Qatar and Saudi Arabia are, like Egypt and Syria, Arab.  Iran is decidedly not Arab or Sunni and, to make matters worse is flexing its muscle in the direction of the Gulf Arab states.

So, now the game becomes more complex.  Moscow is sweating and Iran is probably not in the best of moods.  An interesting sidelight to this is the American displeasure that the non-aligned movement held its conference in Tehran.  They actively tried to convince the UN Secretary General not to attend (any place, except Iran).  The Republican Party railed against the meeting and the UN – largely because they prefer killing to peace - and thought a dictator like Hosni Mubarak was their kinda guy.  Who’s laughing now?

Assad said the army was “cleansing” society and needed some time to finish the job.  Not the best choice of words.  Once ground-to-air missiles and some anti-armour weapons begin to make their impact through the largess of Qatar and the Saudi’s, Moscow should start to fixture a nice dacha for him.

For Assange - What now? What now?

Now that the Ecuadorian government has granted political asylum to Julian Assange (for those living on Pluto, the Wikileaks founder) to escape extradition to Sweden on sexual abuse allegations resulting in - ultimately - a snatch to the US, what now?  He is confined within the walls of the Ecuadorian London embassy.  For his purposes, not very optimal.

Leaving aside the arguments of whether publishing communications of limited value, aside from some amusing and embarrassing anecdotes and to which literally millions had access anyway, is some sort of crime - the granting of asylum could hardly have been a surprise to anyone with half a brain.  The current government in Ecuador is not especially supportive of the US and its foreign policy, for one thing.  It also sees the UK as in the pocket of the US.

However, even if there was a chance that Ecuador would reject the plea for asylum, the UK foreign office certainly slammed the door on that possibility by announcing that, under UK law, it could legally strip the embassy of its status, storm in and arrest poor Julian and ship him off to Stockholm.  Simply pointing our the law was a threat.  Have the people in the UK government been standing too long in the hot sun?  Were they running a high fever?  What ever made them think that floating the idea was a good plan?  If anything was going to guarantee a decision to grant asylum, that certainly was going to do it, while simultaneously enraging the government of Ecuador.  Furthermore, such an action would create a precedent of unaccountable proportions.  It doesn't need to be spelt out.

Why not have the Swedish government fly over a bunch of their crack prosecution team with the witness making the claims (who, apparently has not even been questioned) and conduct an interview inside the Ecuadorian embassy to determine if a case really exists?  If it is shown that the allegations are for real and that enough evidence exists to support an arrest (he has not been arrested) and criminal trial, it is likely that the Ecuadorian government will be placed in an awkward position and request his departure. 

Mitt's European Adventure

Forever trying to solidify the Republican base, composed of red-neck conservative know (and don't want to) nothing bigots, Mitt decided to show his foreign policy credentials by taking a sojourn to that place he and his knuckle dragging followers couldn't find on a map with a flashlight - Europe. 

Not any old Europe (and certainly not France with its leftish new president) but Poland and England. Between the two, he sandwiched in Israel so he could show solidarity with the increasingly marginalized government by vowing to do something about Iranian nuclear ambitions. 

Fortunately for Mitt, most Americans - and certainly not his followers - don't much care about foreign affairs these days (not realizing that Europe's economic problems deeply affect the US).  Otherwise, they might find it astonishing that he questioned London's ability to host the Olympic games, drawing the ridicule of its outspoken mayor who is not known for his liberal tendencies and then went to Israel where he said of Palestinians (probably one of the most highly educated peoples in the Middle East) that they were intellectually and culturally inferior to Israelis.  Being treated as third class citizens and being suppressed while having their land stolen obviously points to Israeli intellectual superiority.  Oh. Yeah. Note to drooling troll Mittster supporters: he praised the Israeli health care system (single payer, price controls).

Then, to get closer to Russia (his number one geopolitical enemy) he landed in Warsaw.  There, he proceeded to glorify Poland's economy.  Great. Poland's economy has been remarkably resilient for a number of reasons.  Good for him.  Note to the knuckle-dragging Mittster supporters (I think those are the ones who can read): Poland has a larger government spending program than the US and - wait for it --------------
universal health care and a strong labour union system.

There is nothing more pathetic than pandering made worse with stupidity coupled with arrogance.

End of the Beginning in Syria

Unraveling is the word that pops to mind as events progress in Syria.  The civil war may take a sudden turn toward an end game.

Confirmed dead from the rebel assault on the security offices in Damascus are Assef Shawkat, Assad's brother-in-law and the deputy head of the armed forces and Assad’s his closest security adviser, Dawoud Rajha, the Minister of Defence and the government’s senior Christian official and Hassan Turkmani, the crisis management chief.  Other senior officials were wounded and now rumours are out and about that Assad also was wounded and is in Latakia – a convenient spot if Russia wants to pick him up by boat.  His wife, Asma al-Assad, is rumoured to be in Russia already.

If Assad’s wife has indeed fled to Russia, the Kremlin is going to need to re-calibrate its foreign policy fast for once.  The Kremlin is notorious for its reactive foreign affairs - which does not function well in situations like this.  Thinking ahead and incorporating possible black swans in its plans has never been a strong point in Moscow.

Of course, all the reports may well be wrong. Assad may hold on. But the vehemence with which the Syrian Information Minister Umran al-Zuabi, vowed that those behind the attack would be held accountable even if they were outside the country tends to support the rumours.  Of course, by adding that the bombing was orchestrated by combined Turkish, Qatari, Saudi Arabian and Israeli intelligence, removes a good deal of credibility from his remarks if only because this would be the strangest cast of conspirators in the long, bloody history of the Middle East.

One interesting question is what did the Hamas leadership see months ago when they hastily vacated Damascus and Syria? This is, of course, the region where historically “writing on the wall” originated. Then there is Hezbollah in Lebanon who will be in a difficult position, to say the least, as they lose both their arms depot in Syria and the arms route to Iran if Assad heads for a village in Russia with the added annoyance now of having to deal with Salafists within Lebanon who are fiercely (an understatement) conservative, destructive and dangerous.

Finally, will Russia go to Plan C soon (see previous post).

Syria, Russia and Slow Train Wrecks

English: President Bashar al-Assad, Aleppo, Abbarah square (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To steal from Churchill, the now almost daily fighting inside Damascus, including the destruction of a major barracks and the attack on the State Security building, is not the beginning of the end, it is simply the end of the beginning.  The downfall of the Assad regime won’t come from the streets, however; it will only come when his own people determine that the status quo has changed and turn on him as they did on Qadaffi’s regime.  Stay tuned though because the military can still field thousands of tanks and artillery– all of whom are Alawite led and loyal so far.  This is not Egypt, Tunisia or Libya (where the military was essentially incinerated by NATO).  And if you think it can’t get much worse than it already is, consider that the government has begun to shift some of its chemical weapons.  If they are sent to fire units of any type, this could be very ominous, to say the least.  One hopes they are simply  being moved to more secure locations – itself an indication that the Syrian government is nervous.

Meanwhile, it is likely that the Kremlin is moving rapidly to a Plan C.  Plan A which amounted to unqualified support for the Assad regime, was modified a few weeks ago to Plan B when they announced that their purpose was not to sustain Assad in power but to bring about a negotiated settlement with no external intervention.  Like the Egyptian military who simply took advantage of the massive unrest to remove a threat to the regime itself (Mubarak and more to the point his son),  Russia is now saying that Assad is not the point.  But the optics are bad for them as they are seeming to support a regime because 1) they want to keep their wharf on the Med; 2) they want to be able to keep all the arms contracts; and, 3) they want to prevent an alternative route for oil to Europe that would open up with a change in government in Syria.  None of this has played well in the rest of the Arab world. And they, not to mention many Syrian’s who are likely to come to power, will not forget.

Nor should they.