THE CASE FOR UN-MAKING THE MIDDLE EAST

Next week there will be a vote on whether or not the UK bombs Daesh in Syria - the vote will probably give David Cameron more than a few sleepless nights. The PM’s real problem is not the real possibility of Daesh atrocities on the streets of Britain along the lines of the appalling atrocities that took place recently in Bamako, Paris and Beirut.

There are deeper or perhaps shallower unspoken motivations, after the Labour (a case of miscalculation rather than design) and Conservative parties failed to get a mandate to bomb Syria (the then Assad controlled bits of it at least) in Westminster last time - Cameron found himself dangerously adrift from US interests and cozy photo opportunities on the White House lawn. If Mr C makes of mess of the forthcoming vote and fails to secure a mandate then he will move from being a partially useful US ally to being a downright liability, at least as far as the White House is concerned. 

Short-term political gain aside the appalling carnage in Lebanon, France and Mali is one grim aspect of an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe has been building for the last two decades. Where we are just now in the Middle East is the result of the end of the Cold War, a whole series of largely failed 'Western' generational interventions, the result of the failure of the Arab Spring and the weakening of the grip of some grim dictators.

If twenty years plus of war and bombing ended up producing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, we should be entirely unsurprised that the chaos unleashed in Iraq since 1991 had ended up producing Daesh (IS).  Despite occasional weasel-like verbose rhetoric to the contrary - the Brit and American elite probably quietly prefer working with their chosen tyrant(s) they know or in the case of the Brit elite literally went to school with some of them (although these days the despots spawn probably go to school in and around Washington DC) rather than dangerously unpredictable democracies who may end up delivering unpalatable electoral results (at least as far as the West is concerned). 

In relation to the current crisis David Cameron's indecision (he is a natural follower than a leader) is as irrelevant to solving the refugee problem, as is the UK's input in the Middle East. Historically Britain was an imperial power in the region, but, now in reality is a bit player, having squandered any real influence through its self-interested support for despotic regimes. When it comes to intervention, humanitarian or otherwise it can be said that you get what you put in. The UK spent around £326 million pounds bombing Libya (to get rid of Gaddafi) and around £25 million pounds on reconstruction - the end result of which is that the Libyan state ceased to exist.

An arc of instability stretches from North West Africa, through the Middle East and on through Pakistan, Afghanistan to the western fringes of the People's Republic of China. Some of this instability has been fed by local wars, local repressive dictatorships (historically supported by various sides in the Cold War) and a whole series of unresolved on-going political problems - some of which, but certainly not all relates to the failure to peacefully resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

A significant measure of responsibility lies with the West and it's history of inept irresponsible intervention and self serving foreign policy, some of which dates back to self interested decisions made during the First World War as the Ottoman Empire was dismembered by interested parties up until the emergence of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Refuge wise we have been here before, at the end of the First World War, waves of refugees from Armenia, Greece and what was about to become the Soviet Union fled to find safety and security. At least in the 1920’s the League of Nations managed to create an internationally recognised system of identity / travel documents, known as Nansen certificates for refuges.

A measure of responsibility also lies with the Arab states themselves, initially largely creations of the Imperial powers (Britain and France) - the Arab governments have almost entirely failed to integrate refuges from 1948 into society and choose to leave them to rot in refugee camps on the fringes of society. Repressive Arab governments of various persuasions conveniently raised the issue of the Palestinians and Israel to periodically distract their own oppressed citizens. Quite understandably the current refugees from Syria have no desire to find themselves in the same situation as the Palestinians.

Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan have all taken in large numbers of refuges - but it’s time for the Gulf States to fork out some cash to pay for significant no strings attached humanitarian aid in Turkey and Lebanon each of whom have taken in over two million refuges. The Turks are playing their own game, largely allowing the two way transit of people and oil into Turkey and out of the Daesh controlled fragments of Syria and Iraq - something that NATO is probably well aware of – and trying to lump the Kurds in with Daesh. Trying to recreate a unified Syria and a unified Iraq will have to involve a serious commitment of aid and probably ground troops for many years - after the costly failures in Iraq and costly partial successes in Afghanistan - this is probably not an option that can easily be sold to most of the electorates in the West. 

The case for air strikes in Syria remains as yet un-made - there are still too many unanswered questions - as vile as Daesh is (these are the people who brought back enslavement, beheadings, and other appalling atrocities) the case for war has not been made. The PM's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian fighters on the ground ready to fight Daesh is dubious at best – a doubt shared by the Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee, amongst others. Simply dropping bombs from the air will not lead to the defeat of Daesh. Nor will it secure peace for the people of Syria and Iraq or bring stability to the wider region. What is needed is a UN agreed plan for a process of reconciliation and reconstruction something that can be quantified, measured and delivered.

All governments must redouble their efforts to secure a comprehensive peace deal for Syria and the wider region. World leaders cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of past Western military interventions in the Middle East and we need renewed commitments to support and aid civilians who are suffering as a result of the war, and real pressure on Saudi Arabia and others who are financing Daesh.

Above all there must be practical support for those currently defending themselves on the ground from Daesh such as the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and a commitment from Turkey to cease attacks upon the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Turkey. At present UK military action as currently proposed risks further escalation in Syria and runs the risk of making our own communities at home less secure and simply plays into the Daesh narrative.

WHAT PRICE REDEVELOPMENT?

The peaceful good humoured protests in Taksim Square (in Istanbul) ended amid violent scenes as riot police cleared the square with a combination of tear gas, water cannon and brute force. What began as initially a demonstration by environmentalists in protest at the development (a planned shopping mall) of Gezi Park has turned into something far larger and more significant a fight by a coalition of pretty disparate groups for greater freedom in Turkey and a preservation of the country's secular order.

The protestors see an authoritarian a government with neo-Islamist agenda with the highest number of journalists in the world in prison, restrictions on alcohol sales, and massive construction projects which have prioritised over human rights and environmental concerns. The protests show no sign of fading away yet, as demonstrators have regrouped in nearby Gezi Park, the proposed redevelopment of which sparked peaceful protests which have widened into nationwide anti-government unrest.

Taskin Square and Gezi Park

The unrest began back on May 28th as a protest about the plan to demolish of one of Istanbul's few remaining green spaces took place. Gezi Park is part of Taksim Square, which sits in the heart of the modern city. It has long been  a place of hugely symbolic value to many Istanbul residents and those Turks with more secular leanings. The proposed development aims to build a replica Ottoman-era barracks and a mosque on the square, in a city which critics say is pretty well-served by Islamic houses of prayer.

The Ottoman-era military barracks will be rebuilt near the site, and the historic Ataturk Cultural Centre will be demolished. Turkish critics say the decision to go ahead with the redevelopment was made too fast and without proper public and media debate. They also have questions relating to the choice of developer, in this case the Kalyon Group, a company who have close ties with the governing Justice and Development (AK) Party.

The proposed reconstruction of the barracks may have some other symbolic significance as some suggest that it was at these barracks that a failed mutiny by Islamic-minded soldiers with the intention of bringing in Sharia law took place in 1909. The barracks were demolished back in 1940, and the attempt to rebuild them are seen by opponents to have the ring of Islamism. Tempers were already high after police stopped leftist marchers holding a May Day rally on the square this year.

So for the best part of two weeks, the central square in Turkey's biggest city was under the authority of a growing protest movement. The Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told parliament (on Tuesday) that the protest movement was an international conspiracy against Turkey to destabilise its economy. He has lashed out at the foreign press for launching attacks on the country and warned protesters that they were pawns in a wider game – something that will go down well with his supporters rather than being remotely close to the truth.

Turkey is a democracy and while the protest movement has grabbed the headlines around the world, Mr Erdogan's support base is conservative, more religious and better organised than the democratic opposition which is deeply divided. The Turkish PM has won three general elections, he has hugely increased Turkey's international prestige, opened the country's EU accession talks and launched a peace process with the Kurdish minority.

The demonstrators accuse (and not necessarily inaccurately) the Prime Minister of becoming increasingly authoritarian and trying to impose conservative Islamic values on a secular state. Whatever happens from here on in there is a sizeable percentage of the population who feel deeply alienated from the current Turkish  government (something that won’t be helped by the volatile threats being made by the Turkish PM) and they won’t be put off from protesting by clouds of tear gas and baton rounds.

In Turkey and elsewhere in the world the questioned of democracy, planning and balanced development remains a contested issue. Whether we are talking building on a park, increasing the size of proposed housing developments, on shore wind farm development or building on agricultural land (Wales effectively has no green belt) the question remains just exactly who is it for? who will benefit? And how does the local community in Caernarfon, Cardiff, Carmarthen or Cwmbran or Istanbul actually benefit?

A NUMBERS GAME

News that the Turkish Republic has (too put it mildly) “reacted with anger” to news that the French Senate has (finally) approved a bill making it a crime to deny that genocide was committed by Ottoman Turks against the Armenian's during World War I should not come as much of a shock. So it would not be much of a surprise that the Turkish foreign ministry has loudly branded the decision "irresponsible" and threatened swift retaliatory measures.

Most historians and the Armenian's recognise that up to 1.5 million people died in 1915-16 under Ottoman rule during the First World War deported en masse from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian Desert and elsewhere in 1915-16. They were killed or died from starvation or disease during a brutal deportation ordered by the Ottoman Government.

The total number of Armenian dead is disputed, but, historians and the Armenian Government says approximately one and half million people died in pretty grim circumstances. Turkey (a republic since 1920) has repeatedly rejected the term genocide and argued that the number of Armenian's who died was around estimates the total to be 300,000. According to the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), the death toll was "more than a million".

Now this may all sound somewhat semantic, a bit like the Brits saving that they only developed the concept of the concentration camp during the Boer war and that those Africans and Afrikaners who died, died of neglect and incompetence rather than from malice aforethought. Or perhaps its a bit like saying that the six million who died in the Bengal famine (1943/1944) did so because the Brits were busy at the time, but, generally they did a good job in India.

The French bill will now be sent to President Nicolas Sarkozy to be signed into law, which he is expected to do before the end of February. The Turkish government argues that judging what happened in eastern Turkey in 1915-16 should be left to historians, and that the new French law will restrict freedom of speech.

The current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to outline possible retaliatory measures against Paris in parliament on Tuesday. France has already recognised the killing of the Armenian's as genocide but the new law will mean that anyone denying it faces a year in jail and a fine of 45,000 euro's ($57,000).

The Turks have already frozen diplomatic ties with France after the lower house passed the bill last month. The proposed law had been watered down and made more general - outlawing the denial of any genocide - but naturally this failed to appease the Turkish authorities in Ankara.

The current disagreement between France and Turkey may have much to with modern French politics and the current President than historical events. This, while recognising a historical genocide and an injustice, may have more to do with finding an easy way to delay Turkish entry into the EU and also be something that plays well with sympathetic French voters.