Wikileaks: US DCM Ankara: "In the long run, Assad’s increasing trust of PM Erdogan offers the best hope of luring Syria out of Tehran’s orbit..."

Via FLC

"... An in-depth look at the WikiLeaks cables on Turkish-Syrian-American relations  tells a story of caution, suspicion, tiny hopes and preparedness for a backlash: the American side did not discourage the Turks from trying to get closer to the young Assad, but it always took it with a grain of salt. Overall, there was common ground between Ankara and Washington, D.C., with regard to Syria as both countries believed it was worth a try to pull Syria out of the iron fist of the Assad clan and its corrupt backers, in addition to ending its isolation and endorsing reforms in favor of democracy and the free market. “The Turks, led by PM Erdogan [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan], FonMin Gul [Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül], and chief foreign policy advisor Davutoglu [Ahmet Davutoğlu], are selling improved relations with Syria as a major foreign policy success. GOT [government of turkey] leaders cast Turkey as a channel of communication for the US and Israel with Syria and as a friend that can support economic reform. At the same time our GOT interlocutors view Assad’s control as too fragile to sustain anything but economic reform. In this context, Erdogan has promoted his Dec. 22-23 visit to Damascus and Aleppo as a huge step forward. Erdogan reportedly raised Iraq and Middle East peace issues, but apparently received nothing new from Assad. MFA contact spun the signing of a free trade agreement as ‘the highlight’ of the visit. We pushed back that this is the wrong approach to take with Syria,” wrote Robert Deutsch, a former charge d’affaires of the US Embassy in Ankara, in a “confidential” cable on Jan. 18, 2005, weeks after Prime Minister Erdoğan’s visit to Syria.
Deutsch wrote in another cable (April 15, 2005) that even (former) Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer “encouraged Assad to ‘continue’ with internal reforms. … With great satisfaction, (Turkish senior) diplomat Celikkol claimed that Sezer’s visit had strengthened the hand of Assad and other reformers against hard-liners who want to maintain the status quo.”

But the American skepticism persisted. The picture becomes quite clear in a cable written in July 22, 2005, by Nancy McEldowney, charge d’affaires of the embassy, when we learn that Turks also raise deep suspicions: “(Syrian Deputy FM) [Walid] al-Muallim met with FM Gul in Ankara July 22 to discuss Iraq, the Israel Palestine peace process and a possible upcoming ‘unofficial’ visit to Turkey by Bashar Assad. One MFA official told us privately that the discussions were difficult and inconclusive; another emphasized the strong message Gul and (undersecretary) Tuygan delivered on Iraq. After the meeting, Gul expressed anger at the way the Syrians are ‘using’ the Turks.”
But the absence of confidence did not halt the Turkish efforts. In the meantime, several cables emphasized that the core or “realism” in Ankara’s policies has a value, and the Turks correctly work hard to end Syria’s isolation, to stop any sectarian violence that may erupt and break the Iran-Syria axis. By October 2009, the American ambivalence seemed in line with the one in Ankara: Turkish policies on Syria encouraged Assad to hold on to his iron grip and resist change, but also seemed to be the only ray of hope to move Damascus away from its axis with Teheran.
In a “secret” cable sent by US Charge d’Affairs Charles Hunter in Damascus, Oct. 28, 2009, the conclusion reflects the persistent dilemma: “Turkey’s methodical deepening of relations with Damascus offers Syria a strategic buffer against international pressure and a ready mediator willing to help Syria mend strained relations with neighbors, such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and even Lebanon. In the long run, Assad’s increasing trust of PM Erdogan offers the best hope of luring Syria out of Tehran’s orbit.” As of now, Assad has been losing his friends in Ankara...

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 12:13 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Middle East and North Africa: Revolution and Counter-Revolution

by Johan Galtung

April 19, 2011

Transcend Media Service — Chandra Muzaffar, in his superb JUST Commentary for March 2011, argues for Gaddafi to step down, and adds that if he does, he may be remembered “for some of his outstanding accomplishments in the first decades of his rule – accomplishments such as the closure of the huge American air base in Libya in 1970; his nationalization of oil; the pivotal role he played in the reorganization of OPEC that enabled it to emerge as a powerful cartel challenging Western dominance over the oil industry; his massive man-made river project to irrigate desert land; his housing schemes for the low-income segment of society; and other infra-structure programmes.” All are absent from mainstream media today.

Add to the above Gaddafi’s role in shaping the Arab League, thwarted by the US-backed international military venture code-named Operation “Odysseus Dawn” (March 19–31, 2011) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973; thereafter, it became Operation “Unified Protector” under NATO command. Add also Gaddafi’s role in the African Union, which he chaired from 2009 to 2010. He turned his attention south rather than east (Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc). And you have an answer to why the West, not only the USA, hated him from the very beginning. But then he became a victim of his own success – a dictator seeing himself as indispensable.

The recent pan-Arab revolt, described as the Arab Spring, has five characteristics. It is anti-autocratic, anti-kleptocratic (against greedy, corrupt governments), anti-imperialist, for youth and for women. Gaddafi’s profile is mixed, but not like Mubarak of Egypt or Ben-Ali of Tunisia, the two recently fallen rulers. Nor like for the Saudi Royal House and the Bahraini and Yemeni leaderships. Macro history (characterizing big, long-term historical trends) moves slowly. Nasser and Gaddafi set the course, but few would expect them to succeed immediately. They will both be remembered when the present Western dwarfs are forgotten.

The counter-revolution was planned a long time ago. The CIA set up the “National Front for the Salvation of Libya” (NFSL) way back in 1981, followed by the “Libyan National Army” (LNA), now known as the Benghazi rebels. On November 2, 2010, the Anglo-French agreement to attack Libya no later than January 30, 2011 was signed – for the first time since the attack on Egypt in October 1956. In all likelihood, the attack on Libya is equally ill-fated. We sense already that Obama is distancing himself from the French-led attack, transferring some of the imperial role on a France that exacted a high price for rejoining NATO as a full member (French demands included America’s acceptance of an independent European defense and a leading French role in NATO’s command structure). Is Sarkozy, le petit Napoléon, hoping to take over as the USA gets increasingly bankrupt, already servicing debt with 41 cents of every federal dollar spent? Well, we shall soon find out, but NATO is still under US command and the EU is still unable to formulate a joint independent policy.

The West sacrificed dispensable figures like Ben-Ali and Mubarak, and then used Libya to create a humanitarian emergency of their own making. Who kills more civilians with cluster bombs or depleted uranium? But in cities re-conquered by Gaddafi, no massacre has taken place so far, as Stephen M. Walt points out in Foreign Policy (See “Is America Addicted to War? The Top 5 Reasons Why We Keep Getting Into Foolish Fights,” April 4, 2011).

The alliance mobilized by the deeply Christian-Zionist Hillary Clinton to fight Gaddafi got “Yes” from 10 out of 15 UN Security Council members, while half of humanity (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany) abstained. These member-states are neither against saving civilians nor for selective humanitarianism. In the Arab League, only 11 of 22 members voted – 9 in favor and Syria and Algeria against (Syria may be the next US target). Only Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participate militarily in the operation against Gaddafi. Qatar is displaying its usual ambiguity, and the UAE is totally unambiguous – pro-US.

This is NATO’s first African invasion (it has to be called as such) after several in Asia.

There was no attack on a NATO member-state. No common enemy, no real discussion, no vote, and no consensus within the Western alliance. Germany and Turkey are opposed and refuse any combat role. Turkey is involved in complex mediation, with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan focusing his efforts on Gaddafi, and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on the rebel-held Benghazi. Other factors in the background:Gaddafi seems to have wanted to switch from Western oil companies to Russian, Indian and Chinese companies, just as Saddam Hussein of Iraq had moved from dollars to euros; anti-Gaddafi forces in Benghazi say that when they have won, oil contracts will be awarded to those who helped them.



 President Nasser speeking at Al-Azhar
 mosque  during the tripartite aggression
11/09/1956



The key to this whole exercise is control of Africa, which in 1956 was still mainly owned by Britain and France.

Libya had become an Italian colony way back in 1911. Now, Africa’s union is posing a threat. African nations are asserting their independence, and developing ties with China. NATO wants to control Africa through the United States African Command (AFRICOM) and European Command (EUCOM) – all synonyms for the Pentagon. This is where Libya enters, in rejecting AFRICOM, with Sudan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast. These countries are to be subdued for not allowing US bases.

The Libyan action may put Africa on fire. Watch Turkey and Africans mediating, Libya eventually democratizing and Gaddafi stepping down to an honorary position, but staying in the country. Of course, Benghazi has rejected this, as has the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who wants Gaddafi in the International Criminal Court.

 Johan Galtung is a distinguished scholar, founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies and of TRANSCEND International (www.transcend.org), a conflict resolution network. Read more articles by Johan Galtung.

http://www.transcend.org