Republican President Donald Trump has seemed to manage leading the presidential race for the 2020 elections despite the fact that he is now the third president ever impeached in U.S. history. He was impeached in the Democrat-controlled House, yet it’s almost certain that he will be acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate. While Democrats would expect Trump to be hurt by the impeachment story ahead of the 2020 elections, Trump could convert it into a tool to unify Republicans. Only time will tell who will win this highly partisan political game in Washington, yet Trump seems to be one step ahead of his Democratic rivals.

Pelosi sought impeachment against Trump

The story began on September 24, 2019 with an announcement by Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealing an official impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Pelosi accused Trump of pressing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky into digging up damaging information on his likely Democratic rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden, in return for releasing $400m of military aid. Democrats claimed that this was a “quid pro quo”, and was enough to impeach the president since he allegedly used his presidential power to gain personal advantage against his likely rival.

The Democrat-controlled House quickly kicked off the impeachment inquiry in early October. The House Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee have all taken depositions from key people involved in the Ukraine affair. On October 31, the House approved a resolution formalizing the procedures of the impeachment inquiry. On November 13, public impeachment hearings in the Intelligence Committee were broadcasted on television. On December 4, the House Judiciary Committee took the stage, holding two different hearings on how to impeach President Trump. On December 12, the committee approved two articles of impeachment, accusing Trump of abusing of power and obstructing Congress.

The House impeached the president

It was on December 18, 2019 that President Trump became the third chief executive in U.S. history to be impeached after a vote in the House of Representatives that was closely divided by party lines. The two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, have been sealed in the House and were supposed to be sent to the Senate, where they would be tried. Yet, shortly after the House approved the measures House Speaker Pelosi indicated she would hold off on sending the articles to the Senate until the chamber clarified its rules. Pelosi’s holding off was yet more evidence proving the lack of confidence between the two parties. Finally, the House voted to transmit the two articles of impeachment to the Senate on January 15, 2020. Speaker Pelosi named the seven lawmakers (House prosecution managers) who will prosecute President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. The team led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, was formed of house representatives Jerry Nadler, Hakeem Jeffries, Jason Crow, Zoe Lofgren, Val Demings and Sylvia Garcia.

The Senate took the wheel

As the measures were transmitted to the Senate, the chamber immediately began the formal impeachment procedures. The official impeachment trial of Trump began on January 16 as Schiff read aloud the two charges in the Senate. On this day, the Senate was turned into a court as the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in as the “head of the court”, and the senators were sworn in as the “jury”.

Everything dramatically changed once the Republican-controlled Senate took charge of the impeachment trials. The Senate laid out the rules that will govern the impeachment trials on January 21. After 13 hours of deliberations, senators voted for the rules that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled a day earlier. According to the approved rules, House prosecution managers have 24 hours spread over three days to make their case before Trump’s defense team has its turn. As the prosecutors finish their opening arguments, Trump’s defense team would kick-start a new three-day cycle. After arguments are completed, senators will have up to 16 hours to ask questions of both teams, which must be submitted in writing to Roberts.

Afterwards, the Senate will be able to vote if it would seek to call witnesses in the trials, a key demand made by Democrats who want to see several top current and former officials take the stand, including former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Yet this scenario seems very unlikely since the Republicans have not supported calling new witnesses.

This whole proceeding will only be heading to one particular and inevitable destiny: voting on the two articles of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Senate. In the current Senate, the Republicans have a majority of 53 senators over the Democrats 47. Since convicting the president needs at least 67 senators, basic arithmetic makes it clear that the likelihood of the Democrats being able to convict the president and remove him from office is almost impossible. 

At the end, Trump wins

The complicated story of President Trump could be make for an interesting movie that would draw millions to the theaters. Yet the real story doesn’t get much attention since almost everybody knows how it ends—Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.  If everybody knows this, then the Democrats must have definitely known it from the beginning. Then the question arises: Why did they begin their efforts to impeach President Trump? The major factor in this whole impeachment “game” has always been about the 2020 presidential elections.

As the Democratic hopefuls struggle to gain momentum in the presidential race, President Trump still stands as the sole Republican candidate. His administration has been undertaking successful economic agenda, which has been the main driver of support amongst constituents, tracking a strict immigration policy, and a confusing foreign policy. After their defeat in 2016, the Democrats focused on investigating claims of Russian interference in the US elections, hoping to severely harm Trump, yet the outcome was not as they had hoped, and Trump’s position remained largely untarnished. Ahead of the 2020 presidential elections, the Democrats have been forced to take action against Trump, as they have not been able to find their best candidate yet. They felt they should roll the dice, otherwise they wouldn’t find stronger damning evidence: That’s why they preferred to play the “Ukraine game”. The trials in the Senate will end soon and Trump will be acquitted. Afterwards a new political game will begin in Washington as both Democrats and Republicans try to rally their own constituents.

The Impeachment case seems to have given President Trump an opportunity s to unify the Republicans who had voted for him in 2016. He knows how to play victim better than the Democrats and his rivals have not gained enough momentum to beat Trump at the ballot box. It might still be too early to call the election results, but it is certain that Trump won’t face any serious harm from the impeachment case, the opposite of what the Democrats had expected from the beginning. The real question was never “who is right?” in this political drama, it’s always been “who is going to close the ranks with their constituents better?” Trump did.

In the first eight months of 2019, at least 529 migrant deaths have been recorded in the Americas. Many of them drowned while seeking asylum. This reality was captured in the heart-breaking photograph, taken in June, of the bodies of Salvadorians Oscar Ramirez and his 23-month-old daughter Valeria Ramirez; their bodies washed up on the bank of the Rio Grande River at the US-Mexico border. The photograph was aired on TV, spreading quickly on social media. The image of Ramirez and his daughter provoked debate about immigration, but even this shocking picture could not change President Donald Trump’s intolerant anti-migrant attitudes and policies, but rather the power of his oppressive rhetoric has intensified and paved the way for mistreatment of refugees and migrants, including separating families and locking up migrant children at the border. He has also been criticized for inspiring the rise in white-supremacist violence.

In the lead up to the upcoming 2020 US presidential election, Democrats have blamed President Trump, claiming his migration clampdown made deaths more likely, Trump however, has offloaded the blame on the Democrats, who he said were hindering his government’s attempts at closing “loopholes” in US law that encourage migrants to apply for asylum in the country. The issue of immigration, has seemingly become a political football and the president is 1-0 ahead in shifting the social and political landscape of the United States. Ever since Trump first announced his candidacy for the president of the United States in 2015, he has been in the headlines regarding his offensive views towards migrants. On May 16, 2018, for example, Trump referred to undocumented migrants as “animals”. Sometime later, on January 11, 2019, Trump used the term “shithole” countries, referring to migrants from Haiti and other African countries. He denied having said this. While these words were met with some negative reactions, they did not cause a political crisis. Of course, an imbalance of power between Haiti and the US was a factor for this.

The president also promised the deportation of “millions” of undocumented migrants in early June. On July 12, Trump announced that potentially 2,000 undocumented migrants would be held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention over the weekend. He declared to reporters that “the ICE raids were very successful”. Later, on July 26, the president of the US was handed a victory on his major commitment — building a long wall on the US-Mexico border —  as the US Supreme Court approved the use of $2.5B in military funding for the purposes of wall construction. Despite the fact that Trump has taken concrete steps in recent days, he has already built a symbolic wall between Americans and migrants and attacked the multiracial, multicultural soul of America.

Since the beginning, the border crossings from Mexico to the US have always been on the top of Trump’s agenda. Prior to his candidacy Announcement Speech on June 16, 2015, he famously blamed Mexico and said: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… they’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” His words won him supporters and opponents in equal measure. On the one hand he is seen as a ‘straight talker’ on the other his opponents have accused him of being mad, reckless, racist and xenophobic.

In his Super Tuesday victory speech on March 1, 2016, Trump announced his “wall” project between the United States and Mexico in an attempt to prevent “illegal” migration: “We are going to have a wall. … I watched the ex-president of Mexico, the arrogance of this man. And I get along great with Hispanics. You saw in Nevada, I won in the poll, the Hispanic vote. I have thousands of people that work for me right now that are Hispanic. … These are great people.” From a social perspective of discourse, text reflects social and cultural biases against immigration, against migrants’ involvement in the economy, politics and daily life in the United States. Trump mentioned his electoral victories where Latin American people live. He has named his Latin American supporters as great people, but there is no mention of Mexican migrants. Hence, he has tried to legitimize his discrimination with an unclear example.

Othering migrants for politics: the symbolic power of language

President Trump has represented some ethnic and religious communities in a divisive and derogatory way. Muslims and Mexicans in the United States have been the main focus of his speeches. In response, while some people have stood with and praised him as a real American patriot, others including cultural icons such as George Clooney and Jimmy Kimmel, have spoken out against Trump’s racist and xenophobic rhetoric. With the “wall” rhetoric, Trump has already constructed a sharp “symbolic wall” between the United States and Mexico, Americans and Mexicans. Because, a wall between two countries generally reminds people of hostility. For instance, the wall between Israel and Palestine or the Berlin Wall.

The inflexibility of Trump’s discourse on migrants for almost five years is neither arbitrary nor a coincidence. Language has always been instrumental in politics. As Jean-Paul Sartre says ”words are loaded pistols”. From a political communication perspective, one of the easiest ways to gather people—even common enemies—under a single roof is by using divisive language. Sartre’s metaphor is apt with reference to the symbolic power of language at the basic level.

More comprehensively, as Pierre Bourdieu once said political power is closely related to the theme of language and symbolic power. Thus, politics achieves its ideological effects by exploiting the possibilities contained in language. In other words, holders of political power can legitimize their policies–even those that may be absurd to the public–by using the power of language. In this case, to create a group of unwelcome, wicked, troublemaker ‘others’. This way of describing migrants can even lead people to forget the fact that migrants are human beings.

Through the production of slogans and commentaries of various kinds, agents in the political field are continuously engaged in a labour of representation by which they seek to construct and impose a particular vision of the social world. From this point of view, words are vital for politicians. Every political speech may provide a field of study to examine the relationship between language, social position and symbolic values in the dynamics of power relations. However, a president’s message differs from others in terms of its openness to risk, assertiveness, construction of a political identity and re-positioning of social relations. In that sense, the US President Donald Trump has monopolized the media spotlight because of his political discourse on ethnic and religious communities since the beginning of his electoral campaign in 2015.

On the other hand, the political atmosphere of this era itself may be considered a protective agent to normalize Trump’s discourse. In other words, an unusual and irrational understanding of politics may legitimize his discourse and vice versa. This ‘post-truth’ politics may be defined as a new political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion rather than factual policies. There has to be an explanation as to why President Trump is willing to spend billions of dollars to build a wall in the age of globalization—because it works. Not the wall itself but the discourse against migrants.

Trump does not need a border to build a wall. Chants of “Send her back!” by Trump supporters against Ilhan Omar show that he has already put up walls in people’s minds and hearts. In the short term, the President’s anti-migrant discourse may make him have the edge for a while, but it may make the country lose in the long term. It is not difficult to see that how the anti-migrant discourse has easily turned into hate speech. The El Paso mass shooting on August 4, that left 22 people dead and 24 injured, may be a sign of what US soil will be facing in the upcoming days. Just minutes before the attack, a hate-filled message appeared on the Internet. The manifesto potentially linked to the El Paso killings states that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas”.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to condemn President Trump’s racist tweets against 4 Democratic congresswomen.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib have been critical of Trump’s harsh immigration policies. Trump tweeted on Sunday that the four congresswomen should “go back” to where they came from.

Before the vote, Representative John Lewis, a democrat and civil rights leader, who marched with Martin Luther King Jr in the 60s, called on members of Congress to do “the right thing” and condemn the president’s words.

“The world is watching. They are shocked and dismayed because it seems we have lost our way as a proud and dignified people,” 79-year-old Lewis said.

“I know racism when I see it. I know racism when I feel it. And it has no place in the highest levels of our government,” Lewis added.

The measure, the first House rebuke of a president in more than 100 years, passed by 240 to 187, after one of the most polarizing disputes the floor has witnessed in recent times.

Raucous crowds chanted “Send her back!” as Trump held his first campaign rally since announcing his 2020 re-election bid.

“I am where I belong, at the people’s house and you’re just gonna have to deal!” Ilhan Omar tweeted, alongside a photo of her presiding over the House chamber.

The US representative was welcomed by a crowd of people at the airport with cheers and support as she returns to Minnesota on Thursday.

“We’ve heard it before throughout our history, but it has no place in America in 2019,” former Vice-President Joe Biden tweeted. “It’s clear that Donald Trump is trying to divide us by race and gender. It’s immortal.”

He praised immigrants as an example of “what makes America great,” while adding: “Donald Trump thinks our nation’s great diversity makes us weak – because he has no idea what makes us great.”

In response to the increasing criticism, Trump tweeted, “Those tweets were NOT racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body! The so-called vote to be taken is a Democrat con game. Republicans should not show ‘weakness’ and fall into their trap.”

In response to this tweet, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “You’re right, Mr. President – you don’t have a racist bone in your body. You have a racist mind in your head and a racist heart in your chest.”

“Sadly, this is not first nor will it be the last time we hear disgusting, bigoted language from the president,” Tlaib said on Monday.

Both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar – who are both Muslims – have received death threats since they have been elected as congresswomen.

Increase of hate crime since Trump’s election

Hate crime in the U.S. has been on the rise since Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a prominent U.S. civil rights group said it has identified 900 incidents of harassment following Trump’s election to the presidency. SPLC outlines that Trump’s rhetoric and actions have affected U.S. society.

The number recorded hate crime incidents was around 6,200 in 2016 – a 5% jump from 2015. According to an FBI report on the issue, this figure increased by 17% in 2017.

According to the report, 59.6% of incidents were motivated by bias against race, ethnicity, or ancestry. Crimes motivated by a victim’s religion constituted 20.6% of attacks, and crimes against a person’s sexual orientation made up 15.8%

*Written by Fadıl Hancı

The Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who came to power in the aftermath of the military coup on July 3, 2013, met with U.S. President Donald Trump. Since 2017, this meeting has been the sixth occasion where both leaders conducted bilateral talks. Trump’s positive attitude towards Sisi has not changed and the U.S. President continues to praise Sisi’s disputed achievements despite international condemnation and criticism of Sisi’s human rights records. During the press conference when it was asked whether Sisi should remain as president until 2034, Trump confidently said: “Sisi is a great president and is doing a great job.” This statement alone proved the fact that the Trump administration will continue to ignore the human rights abuses and undemocratic practices in Egypt in exchange to Sisi’s loyalty to U.S. leadership in regional politics.

The visit drew both attention and reaction from both the U.S. and the international audience. While many observers, experts, academics, and journalists, have criticized Trump for hosting Sisi, human rights defenders have argued that it is unacceptable for the U.S. to support such an oppressive regime. A number of U.S. senators also expressed their discomfort with Sisi’s human rights abuses. In a letter directed to Sisi, U.S. senators criticized the regime’s crackdown on dissent and argued that the continuation of this attitude would threaten U.S. support for Cairo. Democrat senators Eliot Engel and Ted Deutch and republican senators Michael McCaul and Joe Wilson signed the letter. In addition to this, some U.S. senators have also expressed their discomfort over growing ties between Egypt and Russia, with a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The senators warn that Sisi’s close relations with Russia could damage relations with the United States.

In a letter directed to Sisi, U.S. senators criticized the regime’s crackdown on dissent and argued that the continuation of this attitude would threaten U.S. support for Cairo.

On the other hand, critics emphasize that the timing of Sisi’s visit is remarkable. It should be noted that Egypt is on the wake of a constitutional referendum that would change the nature of state from “democracy” to military authoritarianism. In February, Egyptian lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment bill, which will allow Sisi to occupy the presidential seat until 2034.

The amendment also brings the judiciary under the control of the executive body and gives wider privileges to the military. The amendments propose that the military courts are a higher judicial body than civilian courts. It is also suggested that the president should allow the heads of High Courts to be Attorney Generals as well. As can be seen clearly, the proposed amendments are in direct conflict with the principle of separation of powers – which is the most fundamental principle of a functioning democracy.

It is argued that the constitutional amendment would pave the way for the institutionalization of the repressive regime in Egypt. Despite concerns and criticism, the Egyptian regime will hold a referendum in order to legalize the amendments. This is most likely to occur in early May.

The constitutional amendments proposed by Sisi will pave the way for the institutionalization of the repressive regime in Egypt. 

Another significant amendment is the establishment of a new chamber of Parliament, which would be named as the “Senate.” The Senate will have the power to propose new draft laws, pass draft laws that were received from the President and approve the general budget and international agreements. It is suggested for the Senate to have 250 seats. The president will be able to appoint one third of senators for five-year terms. If such an amendment is approved and if the president will become able to appoint such a large number of senators, he will eventually have the ability to pass anything that he wants. Critics have argued for this amendment to be unfit for a democratic system.

Despite these shortcomings and criticism, Sisi aims to adopt the constitutional amendments proposed, particularly the article that would extend his presidential term limit. It can be argued that in order to find a legitimate ground for these changes, Sisi has been trying to obtain international support that would strengthen his arguments domestically. It was due to these efforts that the main agenda of the meeting between Trump and Sisi was the constitutional amendments in Egypt. As Trump has fervently supported Sisi’s presidency in his statements, it can be argued that the Egyptian premier must have received what he wanted from the visit.

Although there is a large number of opposition in Egypt, who has criticized the constitutional amendments proposed by Sisi, their ability to prevent such changes is limited. As the regime’s crackdown on the opposition intensified to secular and liberal groups, there is hardly any incentive to raise voices against these proposals.

As Trump fervently supported Sisi’s presidency in his statements, it can be argued that the Egyptian premier must have received what he wanted from his latest visit to the U.S. 

As hopes for a democratic transition has rapidly disappeared, the Egyptian regime is clearly opting in for more authoritarian rule. Critics argue that the political and social atmosphere in Egypt is experiencing one of its worst periods in the country’s history. While pressure on the opposition in Egypt have been more severe than ever, civil society, academia, and the media have been subject to intense oppression. All kinds of voices against the government are silenced, and the ongoing political and economic instability in Egypt is pushing the patience of the public against the Sisi administration. As this atmosphere intimidates opponents for an uproar, the possibility of a social uprising in the country remains a vivid reality.

The speeches delivered by world leaders on the 73rd anniversary of the United Nations in New York City proved once again that the UN is not capable of addressing the issues of international politics comprehensively. There was no common discourse regarding international terrorism, there was no common understanding of global security issues, and more importantly, there was no common agenda to reform the current UN structure.

We witnessed the fall of multilateral discourse and ignorance towards the fault lines of world politics. The problem here is not solely related to the organizational structure of the UN per se. Instead, the problems lie at the very nature of international politics, which have been under fundamental transformation particularly since the end of the Cold War.

International politics is becoming more fragmented, more competitive and more unpredictable. The Trumpian understanding of international politics deepens the ongoing crises around the world and causes uncertainty.

The UN was initially established to construct an international society mobilized around the idea of universal values to protect shared humanitarian norms and prevent conflicts. “The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell;” the former United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold once said. Since the Cold War, however, the UN has not been successful in delivering peace, stability, and security in the international system. More importantly, the UN as a universal supranational organization has been ineffective and unproductive in dealing with global security issues.

At the very end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama put forth the argument that the universalization of Western liberal democracy might be the final form of human government surpassing socialist views. He underlined that there was no other alternative socio-political system against the western countries that can console their superiority in the international order. Therefore, non-western societies were obliged to move toward the West and eventually embrace the western way of thinking.

However, Fukuyama’s the end of history thesis failed to predict the very nature of international politics, particularly its changing dynamics. The continuation of ethnic, religious, and sectarian conflicts across the world, the changing dynamics of international terrorism and the emergence of various global terrorist groups such as DAESH proved that the history did not end, and the west is not the only direction that the non-western societies have to look up to.

The Trump administration’s anti-globalist, nationalist, protectionist and well-established white supremacist rhetoric provokes us to rethink about the UN. The U.S. at the end of World War II created the UN, but today the U.S. itself is destroying it.

The problems are not only related to the U.S. perception of international politics and the UN’s role. The other powerful member-states are also responsible for the decreasing role of the UN in creating a more stable position in international politics. Russia, China, the U.K., and France are the same when it comes to building a shared sense regarding the role of the UN. More importantly, these states are responsible for creating instabilities. The Syrian Civil War is a textbook example to see the inefficiencies of the UN.

Even though the Assad regime has been disregarding principles of the UN Charter by using chemical weapons, barrel bombs and other internationally banned weapons against civilians since the beginning of the uprising in the country, the UN Security Council could not come up with any solution. The structure of the UNSC is influenced by the priorities of the five countries in regards to the Syrian Civil War in particular, the Middle East, and the rest of the world in general. As President Erdogan repeatedly underlines, the five permanent member states of the Security Council hold the will of the oppressed people in Syria.

The current organizational structure of the UN and the power-sharing mechanism do not represent an accurate geopolitical picture of international politics. The rise of new power centers and emerging regional actors should also be included in the decision making processes at the UN. There are no Muslim countries represented in the decision-making process.

The UN General Assembly recently condemned the U.S. decision on Al-Quds, but the veto power of the U.S. in the Security Council prevents the international society to rage against the pro-Israeli decision. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the existing UN structure will not only solve the crisis but also deepen the crisis towards a more radical line.

As can be seen in the case of the Syrian Civil War, the UN cannot even act timely to prevent a humanitarian disaster, and it is not effective in protecting human life from state violence. As President Erdogan underlined in his speech at the UNGA, the UN could only provide Turkey with 700 million USD to improve the conditions of refugees that Turkey is currently hosting.

In order to start a new initiative for UN reform, the UNGA should question President Trump’s speech as it reveals the main issues with the UN, and then, should refer to President Erdogan’s statements as a baseline to start thinking about its structure and possible reforms.

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi made his fifth appearance at the United Nations General Assembly. He has become the first Egyptian president to participate in the UN General Assembly for five consecutive years. In his speech he made during the General Assembly, Sisi focused on the changes in the Arab world and the human rights issues.

Despite Egypt’s well-known record on human rights infringements, Sisi absurdly stated, “Egypt has a solid constitutional foundation for the protection of human rights.” The fact that an individual who toppled a democratically elected President through a military coup and who has an extensive record on human rights abuses was lecturing about human rights at the UNGA was shocking for many. This was an additional insult for the many Egyptians who have and who still currently suffer from the Sisi state’s repression.

Despite his autocratic rule, Sisi has been regarded as a legitimate political leader. Western actors, who have supported Sisi without bringing any criticism to his human rights violations, can be blamed for the suffering of the Egyptian people at the hands of a brutal regime. Countries such as the U.K, U.S., Germany, France, and Italy have behaved as if a military coup never took place in Egypt, as if thousands of civilians were not taken into prison for years and as if opposition activists have not suddenly disappeared. This attitude has been a major factor that has encouraged Sisi to turning into a more authoritarian regime. In opposition to this, Turkey has been the only democratic government that has criticized the Sisi regime on every occasion.

The meetings Sisi conducted during the UNGA also attract attention. One of these meetings was with U.S. President Donald Trump. Since the start of Trump’s presidency in January 2017, this has been the fifth meeting between the two. The frequency of bilateral meetings also reflect the sign of strong cooperation between the two governments. This is also understood from the statements made by Trump during the meetings. While praising Sisi’s efforts in combating terrorism and instability in Egypt, Trump labelled his relations with Sisi as the “strongest” ever in the history of relations between the U.S. and Egypt. Trump also added that he would continue to work with Sisi on different fields such as military, trade, and fight against terrorism.

Trump has attributed special importance to Sisi for two main reasons. The first is that Egypt plays a major role in Israel’s security, and second, Egypt has a vital place in the Middle East policies of the U.S. These two issues are in essence closely related to each other. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that Washington’s main objective in the Middle East is to ensure the security of Israel. Trump’s close relations with Egypt can be considered in the light of this dynamic. With a regional alliance centered on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Trump aims to control the leading countries of the Arab world, thus preventing possible threats to Israel.

Sisi’s second note-worthy meeting was with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During this two-hour meeting, the two leaders exchanged views on recent developments in Palestine and exchanged views on Middle East politics. This was the third meeting held between the two leaders since September 2017. Sisi and Netanyahu held their first public meeting at the UN General Assembly last year.

In May 2018, Netanyahu organized a secret trip to Egypt, where he met with Sisi as part of the ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel. Netanyahu’s visit to Cairo took place after the U.S. moved its embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. During the days of the visit, Israeli police were busy attacking Palestinian protesters who opposed Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy. It is also important to note that Sisi was in total silence in the face of the Palestinians that were killed during the clashes with Israeli police forces.

Sisi’s frequent meetings with Trump and Netanyahu reveal that Egypt is under the full control of the U.S. and Israel, particularly with regards to their policies in the Middle East. It is fair to argue that the Egyptian regime does not represent the will and consent of the public but that it functions under the guidance of Washington and Tel-Aviv. This is not a new phenomenon. This began with the rule of Hosni Mubarak and continued for three decades until the revolution of 2011. The Morsi period was in contrast with this political landscape, as the Morsi government tried to follow an independent foreign policy in line with the direction of Egypt’s public opinion. However, this period was short-lived and the military coup on July 3, 2013, paved the way for Egypt to re-enter into U.S. and Israeli guidance.

President Trump was quoted as claiming: “They do not want me or us to win because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade,” while chairing a UN Security Council session. “We don’t want them to meddle or interfere in our upcoming election” he said.

After having waged several trade wars spanning the globe with several skirmishes including China, Canada, Iran, Mexico, the EU & Turkey several of which were devised to score points at home and play into his voter’s expectations -such as fulfilling the demands of his evangelist supporters who were influential in the tariffs imposed to Turkey over Pastor Brunson’s detainment in Turkey- Trump hasn’t been able to loot what he was expecting locally but instead his ill-advised decisions are taking a toll on US economy.

Trump had started a trade war with China in 2017 over a trade deficit with Beijing which was $375.6 Bn at the time where he blamed China with gearing its reciprocal tariffs to target a crucial artery of his voter base, farmers. The newest impact is expected to strike at the start of next week as the new 10 percent tariffs imposed on over $200 billion of imports from China are scheduled to go into effect.

Several surveys indicate that US consumers are becoming apprehensive regarding the hike in prices across all products which are expected to manifest more clearly this fall. Walmart and other leading retailers warn of price increases for manufactured goods in all categories. Many smaller businesses have started to voice their concerns over impending massive blows to their exports.

China has retaliated firmly rejecting the claim in remarks to the Security Council. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi said “We do not and will not interfere in any countries’ domestic affairs. We refuse to accept any unwarranted accusations against China, and we call upon other countries to also observe the purposes of the UN charter and not to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs.”

While the potential of China interfering in US midterms haunts Trump, it also sheds a different light, right from the source, to claims over Russian meddling of presidential elections in 2016. Will two close allies, Russia & China puppeteer the President of the country deemed as the de facto single superpower, into and out of office?

In Turkey, Christianity, Judaism and religions widely accepted in the Far East countries are rarely subject to any research or study. Maybe it is related to the fact that Turkey has the heritage of the Ottoman Empire or to the fact that the country adopted the secularism notion of the French Fourth Republic with the foundation of the modern Turkish Republic.

Of course, various studies are conducted in theology faculties and history of religions departments, but there are hardly any analyses drawing analogies between religions and contemporary world politics. The Western spies affecting the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire have always been discussed, but Christianity and its sects that might affect cultural and behavioral codes of the West have never been mentioned.

Israel is condemned, but no one talks about the religious rules and commands in Judaism that influence the Jewish people’s relations with others. It can be said that while innumerable studies, articles and discussions are produced on Islam and Muslim people in the West especially for the last 20 years, we hardly see such efforts towards Christianity or Judaism in Turkey. Also, there are not concepts like “Christophobia” or “Judaeophobia” as opposed to Islamophobia, which has turned into a political tool amid this atmosphere in the West. As much as Turkey is not the homeland of anti-Semitism, it is also not a land importing this concept. Besides, the occasional clamors of some lobbying organizations against Turkey do not reflect the truth.

In such a tradition, a faith other than Islam has become a popular agenda topic for the first time in Turkey: Evangelism. But viewing what is written and said on the subject, it can be said that Evangelism poses a serious threat not only against the Middle East but the entire world.

The threat is not because evangelicals believe in seven curses that will appear as signs of the apocalypse, that the apocalypse will begin in the Middle East and that they will one day rule the world thanks to Jesus Christ. The threat lies in the fact that they create policies to realize what they believe in and have secured a place for themselves in political power. They are unlike a terror group like Daesh, which emerged in 2014 as a self-proclaimed state and suddenly terrorized everywhere. It is rather a sect that is claimed to be very influential in the administration of the world’s only superpower, namely the United States. It seems like the groundworks of hell were laid with the influence of Evangelism by the father and son presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, who turned the Middle East into an inferno with post 9/11 slogans like “Crusades” or “the war between good and evil,” and former U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, who often mentioned the apocalypse and the sanctity of Israel. Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and his policies towards North Korea and Iran are regarded as expediting the path to the apocalypse. Also, some suggest that the Jerusalem move has been the leading incident revealing the Evangelist influence on the U.S. administration.

According to evangelicals, the Jewish people, who are chosen by God, must gather in Israel where Jerusalem will be the capital and Solomon’s Temple will be rebuilt during the Armageddon period. And Jesus Christ will appear only after the Temple is completed. Evangelicals believe in the seven signs that show the impending apocalypse; that pandemics will spread across the world, color of seas will turn into blood red color, all living creatures under the sea will die, the sun will burn the earth, a monster will appear in the region of Babylon and the region will perish. Moreover, it is claimed that they are aspiring to expedite the run up to the apocalypse and object to all kinds of measures that could prevent the process.

They believe that the monster that would appear in Babylon has already appeared in Iraq and Iran; and Iran, North Korea and China comprise the “three evil spirits” they believe to come off from the mouth of a dragon. The situation is grim in view of the U.S. policies towards these countries and that the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. According to evangelicals, it is a religious duty to help the Israeli, who will fight against the men of these three evil spirits during the Armageddon War, since they think that they are the people contributing to the fulfillment of God’s plan by fighting to eradicate the evil from the world before the return of Jesus Christ.

It is not known whether Trump believes in these, but Vice President Mike Pence is a strict evangelical. Also, the current Secretary of State and former CIA Chief Mike Pompeo is known to be an evangelical. Trump’s spiritual advisor is Robert Jeffress, who said in August last year that “God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.” Trump’s other spiritual advisor is Paula White Ministries, an evangelical who once stated, “send me your money so God will pay attention you.” Trump also has an evangelical advisory board that consists of 24 members, including former politicians, academics and writers aside from pastors.

God save the world!

Last week, sentimentalist remarks and tweets of some politicians from the U.S. and Turkey pervaded the agenda for some reason. Maybe it was the summer heat. I am mentioning the U.S. President Donald Trump, Turkish politician Meral Aksener who assumed that she would be the President of Turkey up until the June 24 elections, and Muharrem Ince, who believes that he will be the chairman of Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP).

According to the sources close to Washington, the tweet posted by Trump in address to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was an emotional reaction as Trump wanted normalization with Turkey as opposed to the Neo-evangelists who favor taking harsh measures. It was said that the U.S. President had a great disappointment and posted that tweet when pastor Andrew Brunson was put under house arrest in Turkey and that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also surprised by the tweet. In his tweet addressing Erdoğan for the release of Brunson, who is subject to trial in Turkey on the allegations of military and political espionage and abetting a terror group, Trump said: “The United States will impose large sanctions on Turkey for their long time detainment of Pastor Andrew Brunson, a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being.”

But the expressions in the tweet are utterly emotional, and can even be called romantic. A person who is tried for the allegations of espionage and abetting terrorism may also be “a great Christian, family man.” It is only natural that his family need him, well, a family is such a thing. Apparently, what seems totally normal for the U.S. President can be terribly wrong for Turkey as the U.S. insists that the Gulenist Terror Group (FETO) leader Fetullah Gulen, who orchestrated the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, did not do anything wrong. Gulen and his operatives can freely live in the U.S. without being subject to any criminal investigation. Given the present conjuncture of the world, almost the entire world will soon regard what the U.S. considers right as wrong, except for Israel. But this is not the topic of this article.

Sources from Washington stated that the U.S. President threatened North Korea Leader Kim Jong-un with a tweet after the latter announced that he will not halt the country’s nuclear missile programs, but they reconciled six months later. It seems that such sentimentalism can be seen in politicians of each scale. It has also affected the İyi Party Chair Meral Aksener, who received 7.26 percent of the vote in the presidential and parliamentary elections held in Turkey. In a party meeting in which the reasons for their defeat were discussed, Aksener allegedly said that she genuinely believed that she would make it to the second round in the presidential race.

Apparently, she made herself believe that she would be the next president of Turkey in a blindfolded way and also convinced those around her. But as the meeting continued, a party member allegedly told her that she left them in the lurch, saying in a tweet that “You have not only lost the election, Madam. You have lost people’s belief in you,” in response to which Aksener was incensed and left the room. She said to her staff: “Everyone in our culture knows who is called madam. Brothel mistresses are called madams. You left me alone, you did not bring that disrespectful person to line.”

The next day, Aksener posted a tweet saying that her party will convene, and that she will not run for the chairmanship of the party. Upon this, the party’s supporters incessantly asked her to turn back via twitter. Speaking to no one throughout the process, Aksener gave a responding tweet two days later: “I will not become a candidate in the convention, this is my final decision.” Then, the partisans tweeted that Aksener would like to draw interest so the proponents must not lose their interest in the subject. Everyone can get a bit sentimental sometimes. In the Iyi Party’s case, two people chained themselves to the entrance of Aksener’s house while a group of provincial party chairs attempted to stand on a vigil in front of her house. This emotional overload continued and culminated on Saturday last week: Upon the party’s call, the partisans coming from all across Turkey gathered in front of Aksener’s house, crying “face us” by altering the party slogan “face the sun.”

Meanwhile, the main opposition CHP and its presidential candidate Muharrem Ince have also been undergoing some emotional crises. It seems that Ince did not believe that he could be the next president of Turkey unlike Aksener but he apparently believed that he would be the chairman of the CHP while running for the presidency. As his vote share in the presidential election was 8 points higher than the vote share of the CHP in the parliamentary election, he has been posting emotionally charged tweets addressing his party’s base and Turkey for the last couple of weeks. While he is tweeting things such as: “The ones glued to their seats go all lengths to stay there,” to satirize the CHP Chairman Kemal Kilicdaroglu, he is also writing messages implying that he wants to see the support of Turkish people to compete against President Erdogan.

U.S. President Trump had another one of his Twitter moments on Thursday. This time, the target was Turkey. He tweeted as follows: “The United States will impose large sanctions on Turkey for their long time detainment of Pastor Andrew Brunson, a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being. He is suffering greatly. This innocent man of faith should be released immediately!” The tone and means of the message is far from diplomatic conventions but this is not something unusual for Trump. There are stranger things in this matter.

First, who is Andrew Brunson and why was he jailed (currently under house arrest)? Brunson is an American pastor who has lived in Turkey over two decades. He was arrested on December 9, 2016, about 4 months after the failed coup attempt in Turkey. He was arrested for terrorism and spying charges. It is no secret that countries send spies to other countries, even to the ones they ally with. Hence, whether or not Brunson is one of them, it would not surprise anybody if some people spy in Turkey for the U.S. When people are found spying, they might be exchanged, which is not uncommon between countries. But there is more to this story.

To open it up further, Brunson was claimed to be linked to FETO (Fethullahist Terror Organization) which plotted the June 15, 2016 coup attempt and is responsible for killing 250 Turkish nationals and injuring thousands on the night of the coup attempt. Speaking of FETO, the leader of the organization and the mastermind of the coup attempt, Fethullah Gulen lives in his mansion in the U.S. Gulen is not a U.S. citizen but Turkey’s calls for his extradition does not find ears in the States. U.S. politicians keep referring to the issue as a matter of judiciary and avoid taking initiative. Yet, when it comes to the Brunson case in Turkey, Trump can easily threaten Turkey with “large sanctions.”

Something is not right in this picture. Why would the U.S. not extradite a non-U.S. (Turkish) citizen to Turkey despite the bloodshed he spilt in Turkey? Why would the U.S. allow the remnants of Gulen’s network to organize in the country, while some other partners of Turkey extradite the members of the organization? What would any sensible person think about such a situation? Gulen is a Turkish citizen who plotted a coup attempt in Turkey but seeks and finds support from the U.S. As a result, many, if not all, Turkish nationals see the July 15 coup attempt as an American project.

In fact, it is easy for the U.S. to end these suspicions by simply extraditing Gulen. But for some reason it is not. Why not? When this is the case, naturally, many Turkish nationals think the U.S. will not extradite Gulen because he knows too much! And because his extradition would hurt the American credibility in the eyes of its future partners in crime. Yes, this is the overwhelming public opinion in Turkey on the U.S.-Gulen affair. And who can claim this line of thinking does not make sense?

At the end of the day, the U.S. has not extradited Gulen so far despite Turkey’s insistence on the matter. Yet, the very same U.S. asks Turkey to release Brunson, who is suspected of spying in Turkey and being linked to Gulen’s coup attempt. This is not fair. This is the stronger side imposing its will on the side that it sees weaker. This is like a quote from the famous Melian dialogue: “While the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Well, the story might have a different end this time if the U.S. keeps alienating Turkey and pushing it to seek alternatives to its long-lasting alliance with the U.S. Hence, the question is, will the U.S. try to keep a significant ally on its side or push it closer to its global rivals?

The U.S.-Turkey relationship has always been subject to ups and downs, including the Cold War years. This was one of the themes covered in a conference on the legacy of the July 15 coup attempt organized by SETA DC. The current state of U.S.-Turkey relations is certainly less than ideal, to say the least, but the good news is that both sides are talking to each other. The laundry list of disagreements includes their diverging views on the PYD and FETO, which continue to derail the relationship. After the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the Trump administration’s decision to impose sanctions on Iran with a November deadline, we can now add Iran to the list.

On the upside, the most recent Manbij agreement could help bridge the gap between the two sides on the PYD issue. The news of investigations launched against FETO may calm, albeit to a limited extent, the Turkish concerns that Gulenists continue to operate freely in the U.S. against Turkey. On Iran, the most recent U.S. officials’ visit to Turkey might help avoid yet another confrontation between the U.S. and Turkey, similar to the one back in 2010 when Turkey voted against imposing sanctions on Iran as one of the non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. However, the most recent Congressional proposal that threatens Turkey’s access to some global financial institutions has put extra strains on the relationship.

In the above-mentioned conference, one overarching approach was that the U.S. and Turkey will be able to work through their disagreements as they have in the past. I subscribed to this idea as well but it does not mean that it will be easy. Turkey, as many other countries, has always found it easier to deal with the Executive branch rather than Congress since certain anti-Turkey lobbying groups have a strong influence on the Hill. The absence of a sufficiently large politically active pro-Turkey Turkish constituency in the U.S. has often been a disadvantage for Turkey’s views to be heard on the Hill. In the current situation, Congressional action driven particularly by the Brunson case is creating risks for the health of the ongoing U.S.-Turkey conversations over a variety of problem areas.

President Erdogan and President Trump seem to get along well and that could be a plus for the relationship. However, we cannot overlook the longstanding disputes coupled with a continuing strategic divergence over the PYD issue, which Turkey considers a national security threat. The Manbij agreement certainly helped to come to a common understanding on the northern Syrian city but it remains uncertain if it can be extended to the areas east of the Euphrates. Furthermore, it is a concern for Turkey that the PYD is seeking to cut a deal with the Assad regime to hedge its bets if the U.S. pulls out eventually. The U.S. has not articulated a clear policy on the PYD or about what it seeks to accomplish in northern Syria in the post-Daesh period.

The Trump administration continues to deal with domestic political problems ahead of the November elections. Much of the administration’s foreign policy approach has been about disruption and policy reversals rather than comprehensive strategies. The most consequential policy change for Turkey’s regional strategy might be the Trump administration’s policy reversal toward Iran, which is currently focused on imposing sanctions and isolating the country.

The U.S.’ relationship with Turkey continues to lack a solid policy framework although it benefits from established institutional ties and more robust engagement recently. The new Iran strategy may spell trouble for the relationship if the U.S. ignores Turkey’s concerns. In the absence of a broad framework for the bilateral relationship, we may end up experiencing a rehash of the 2010 disagreement over Iran, which may undermine limited progress in other areas.

The U.S. and Turkey can and most likely will work through specific policy issues but the current uncertainties can certainly destabilize the relationship once again. Both sides have a strong interest in avoiding such a scenario and deepening the strategic conversation will be ever more important to overcome potential spoilers.

In his most recent visit to Washington, French President Emmanuel Macron appealed to President Trump to avoid leaving Syria too soon. Trump had already announced that the U.S. would withdraw from Syria “very soon” but U.S. military leaders immediately questioned the wisdom of pulling out. They warned against a premature pullout that would leave the ground to Russia and Iran as well as risk the return of Daesh. In a joint press conference with Macron, President Trump seemed to oscillate between bringing troops home and giving Iran an “open season to the Mediterranean.” In many ways, Trump’s statements summarize the inherent contradictions in U.S. policy in Syria. Ever since the U.S. has defined the defeat of Daesh as its main and increasingly exclusive goal in Syria, it has been unable to articulate a policy that reconciled its strategic goals and the domestic public opinion disfavoring a larger military commitment.

U.S. policy on Syria during the Obama administration suffered from the same contradiction between fighting terrorism and regional strategic goals. Obama emphasized working with local forces in fighting Daesh while prioritized the nuclear deal with Iran. Regularly invoking the danger of mission creep, Obama refused to articulate a comprehensive policy that would require American troop commitment to Syria. Using the PKK’s Syrian branch the YPG, the Obama administration brought great strains to the relationship with Turkey as well. Satisfying the domestic public opinion with a “light footprint” in Syria and striking a nuclear deal with Iran guided Obama’s refusal to commit the U.S. to a leadership role in ending the Syrian civil war.

President Trump benefited during the presidential campaign from a strong critique of the Iraq war and a harsh rhetoric on Daesh. He promised to use overwhelming firepower against Daesh and to avoid any new wars in the Middle East. This approach reflected the U.S. public opinion that agreed with the need to fight terrorism but disagreed with a larger involvement in the Middle East to address that same problem. In many ways, this fundamental contradiction that existed during the Obama administration remains under the Trump administration as well. While it seems straightforward to make the anti-terrorism argument, neither administration seems capable of making a convincing argument to the American public about the need for a comprehensive Middle East policy.

While President Obama sought a nuclear deal with Iran that would eventually lead to the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iran, Trump has been adamant about abandoning the deal and pushing back against Iran. Obama made the nuclear deal a centerpiece of his Middle East policy but failed to address the Syrian Civil War, hoping he could somehow compartmentalize it from relations with Iran. The Trump administration has been talking about the “malign influence” of Iran in the region but a comprehensive policy is still lacking. The media reports that President Trump received assurances from his new National Security Advisor Bolton that he would not start new wars. It shows that President Trump is willing to push back against Iran but he wants it to stop short of war, an approach in line with the domestic public opinion.

President Macron might have convinced Trump to reconsider pulling U.S. troops out of Syria “too soon” but the central disconnect between fighting terrorism and larger strategic goals in the U.S. approach seems beyond a single administration’s preferences. The legacy of the Iraq war has had a strong role in the election of both Presidents Obama and Trump. The need to address international terrorism has defined both administrations’ Middle East policies. When it comes to crafting a strategy toward Iran, however, neither has defined a comprehensive vision that has been bought by the American public. It is going to take a lot more creativity than Macron’s advice and warnings to come up with a strategic vision that reconciles the U.S. strategic goals and domestic public opinion.

The U.S. strikes on Syrian chemical weapons facilities have delivered the Assad regime a strong message but a very narrow one. Assad can continue to attack the Syrian people with conventional weapons without fear for the end of his rule. The U.S. military leaders have reaffirmed their long-standing focus on Daesh, thereby clarifying under what specific circumstances the regime would face punitive measures. It has been abundantly clear now that the U.S. would not apply military force to tilt the balance in the Syrian Civil War and these strikes just confirmed that policy once again. Strikes come at a time when the Trump administration has been giving mixed signals about its intentions in Syria.

The military attacks have come in the wake of President Trump’s remarks about getting out of Syria very soon. Many have questioned the wisdom of getting out too soon and leaving the playing field to Russia and Iran. The U.S. military leaders were some of the most immediate opponents of an “immature” military pullout of Syria. The military strikes on the Assad regime seem to ensure that the U.S. will stay in Syria for the foreseeable future. Yet, we need to remember that the precise message of the strikes is not about U.S. presence in Syria but about the use of chemical weapons. The U.S. does not have to be militarily present in Syria to punish the Assad regime thanks to its missile capabilities that we have seen in the attacks over the weekend.

U.S. military leaders have referred to Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution asserting the President’s, as the Commander in Chief, authority to use force for vital national interests. Defining the deterrence and proliferation of chemical weapons as a vital U.S. national interest has an implication that the U.S. will have to enforce this red line in all future violations. This justification steers clear of the war powers debate that has been taking place in some circles, although Congress does not seem to be interested in pushing the President to obtain a new resolution for war in Syria.

The assertion of inherent presidential authority to conduct strikes while relying on the 2001 AUMF in the fight against Daesh seems to emanate from multiple goals defined as national interests by the U.S. leadership. These goals are not always compatible and require different and at times conflicting strategies. While the President seems to think the fight against Daesh is largely completed and that it is time for a pullout, the U.S. response to the use of chemical weapons promises a long-term commitment to the enforcement of the red line. The debate ahead will likely revolve around the lack of an overarching Syria policy that reconciles these tendencies and clarifies the main goal.

The lack (some would argue ambiguity) of a coherent Syria policy has direct consequences for the course of the civil war. The narrow focus on Daesh is combined with a narrow focus on the use of chemical weapons (arguably sarin but not chlorine), which clarifies two priorities but do not add up to a broad policy. This sends the message to the regime that it can survive if it plays by the rules. The tough rhetoric against Iran and Russia does not add up to a broader message about the Syrian Civil War’s endgame. It only tells them that they can continue to support the regime as long as they do not interfere with specific U.S. priorities. President Trump has also given the message that he wants a U.S. pullout of Syria. Multiple priorities and conflicting rhetoric as such promise the continuation of an incoherent U.S. policy in the Middle East. The strikes were precise but they do not deliver a comprehensive Syria policy.

On Thursday last week, the Pentagon dismissed claims of a U.S. exit from Syria as being “rumours,” conveying instead that the fight against Daesh in Syria was not over.

According to senior U.S. officials, President Donald Trump had instructed military leaders to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, suggesting that U.S. strategic goals in Syria do not include longer-term stability or reconstruction efforts. Trump had also previously suggested that the Syrian war was a mistake during his campaign period, as well as more recently indicating that a U.S. military exit will happen “very soon.”

Nonetheless, while Trump maintains Syria as being a financial drain on the U.S. economy and burden on interests not in line with his ‘America First’ policy, mostly blaming the previous administration for not having crossed the stated “Red Line In The Sand,” Pentagon spokesperson Dana White, on Wednesday the following day described a U.S. plan to withdraw troops from Syria as “rumours,” with the fight against Daesh not yet over.

Contrary to Donald Trump’s statements of a rapid U.S. military exit within six months, sources have cited an increase in military presence in northern Syria, reporting that two more military outposts have been set up in the Manbij region. It is estimated the U.S. now has up to 11 military bases in northern Syria.

While President Trump’s remarks have been contradictory, it seems the military leaders with experience in the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan hope to stay with suggestions of their being a ‘robust post-conflict’ agenda. Some high ranking U.S. military leaders have insisted that “once the small [Daesh] footholds have been cleared out in eastern Syria, the U.S. will require a footprint after the fighting stops to deter further attacks against the United States.”

The U.S. financial and military aid towards the PYD/YPG in northern Syria has caused much friction between Turkish-American relations. Being a Syrian offshoot of the PKK, an outlawed terrorist organization recognized by Turkey, the European Union and the United States, the U.S. have used the YPG in their ‘fight’ against Daesh, but more importantly to decrease Russian and Iranian influence in the region, at the expense of supporting an organization also linked to terrorism.

With recent Turkish counter-terrorism operations in Afrin, north-western Syria, clearing what had become a strategic location for YPG cross-border attacks on the provinces of Hatay and Kilis, Turkey has made it clear they will now be directing their efforts towards other YPG/PYD controlled areas, most specifically the U.S. held region of Manbij. Causing apprehension towards a possible confrontation between Ankara and Washington, a Turkey-U.S. working group was set up to alleviate concerns and cooperate on a peaceful solution. The first meeting was held on March 8, 2018.

However, diplomatic sources recently signified that the next Turkey-U.S. working group meeting on Manbij will be put on hold until May. Waiting until Mike Pompeo replaces former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the impromptu shift in the White House has dampened Turkish-American cooperative progress and caused speculation on whether Pompeo will continue, or even adhere to Tillerson’s ‘constructive’ steps in finding a solution between the two NATO members in Manbij.

Where an immediate U.S. military exit has been no more than rhetoric to appease domestic concerns, as well as provide ground for Trump to demand payment from those that wish for the U.S. to maintain presence in Syria, signalling out Saudi Arabia, French President Macron has kept close contact with the White House. After having welcomed the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to the Elysee Palace two weeks ago it was proposed Macron looks to send an unspecified number of troops to the French bases in Manbij and assist the PYD who make up an overwhelming percentage of the SDF.

External intervention becoming ever more likely after the Douma chemical attack on civilians, with Trump and Macron calling for a “strong, joint response” towards the Assad regime, British cooperation and involvement has also come to light, with Trump securing a $500 million deal in relation to the drone development and maintenance project entitled the ‘Falcon Project.’

Although it may appear Trump’s rhetoric sympathizes with U.S. military personnel, striving for their ‘return home,’ the Pentagon, alongside the high ranking military leaders intent on countering Russia and limiting Iran in the region will maintain their presence in Syria for the time to come. Alienating Turkey, U.S. insistence to further build a military presence while assisting the PYD has paved the way for Turkey to nurture stronger bi-lateral relations with Russia and build collaborative relations with Iran based on mutual concerns of terrorism.

While Trump personally may want a Syria exit soon, it is evident that his personal opinions bare no weight within the interests of the Pentagon. It is also debatable whether elected individuals in the U.S. actually have a say with regards to foreign policy interests.

For many years, Saudi Arabia has followed a passive foreign policy under the security umbrella of the United States. The Arab revolutions, however, changed this traditional foreign policy attitude of the Saudi regime. This situation became more visible especially after Selman bin Abdelaziz’s rise to power in 2015. The latest sign of this transformation is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MbS) month-long tour to Egypt, the U.K., U.S., and France.

During the past year, MbS was busy with eliminating domestic actors that could potentially pose a threat to his power. Following his appointment on June 21, 2017, as Crown Prince, MbS became the most influential actor in Saudi politics. As part of this objective, in September 2017, MbS ordered the arrest of about 30 religious scholars who could become an obstacleto his planned reforms. A similar process was applied to the powerful political and business actors in the country. In November 2017, at least 500 princes, bureaucrats andbusinessmen were taken into custody at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh. Following these operations, MbS made it clear to all parties that he is the most powerful actor in the country.

In the following period, MbS began to focus on foreign policy, which is another instrument that he employs in order to strengthen his rule. His first visit as Crown Prince was scheduled to Egypt, the country that depended on Saudi cash flow in the post-2013 military coup. During the visit, MbS mainly gave symbolic messages. He visited the leader of the Coptic Church Pope Shenouda III and attended a theatre performance at Cairo Opera House. Another symbolic importance of the visit was the decision of Egypt’s High Court that had given the final approval to transfer the Tiran and Sanafir Islands to Saudi Arabia. Finally, MbSand Egyptian leader Abdalfattah Al-Sisi also agreed on a new $16 billion investment fund that would help boost bilateral trade and investment.

During his second trip, MbS visited Britain and sought to garner support from political actors in the U.K. MbS continued to expand his cooperation with British partners as both countries signed agreements worth billions of U.S. dollars. In one such agreement, Saudi Arabia ordered 48 Typhoon war jets worth about $10 billion from Great Britain. Bin Salman was also welcomed by Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.

MbS’s next visit was to the U.S., where he spent 3 weeks. During his stay, Bin Salman met with several senior officials, most notably U.S. President Donald Trump, and also met with leading actors in political circles, the business community, media and civil society.

The first objective of this visit can be stated as developing cooperation between Riyadh and Washington. This was especially observed during the press release that Trump made with Bin Salman. Trump shared pictures of 12.5 billion dollars worth aircraft and other defense industry products that were ordered by Saudi Arabia. He proudly emphasized that due to these orders, thousands of people in the U.S. will keep their jobs. This attitude of Trump was interpreted as his perception of Saudi Arabia as a “cash machine” rather than a strategic ally.

Another important reason for MbS’s visit can be stated as improving the negative image of his country, especially in the eyes of the U.S. public. During the past couple of years, the Saudi leadership has tried to change this perception, particularly on the international level. MbS initiated further reforms that would help to create a better image for the country throughout the world. MbS also hinted that the Saudi regime would distance itself from the Wahhabi ideology as the Crown Prince confessed that the U.S. initiated the idea of Wahhabism during the Cold War in order to block Socialist ideology from spreading across the region.

The final dimension of MbS’s visit to the U.S. is the economy. With its petroleum-based economy, Riyadh aimed at diversifying its economic landscape. For this reason, it is of great importance for the Saudi regime to welcome investors that can contribute to the economic well being of the Kingdom. In order to discuss business opportunities, bin Salman met with prominent business and media figures such as Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Masayoshi Son, Elon Musk, Thomas Friedman, Rupert Murdoch and Henry Kissinger. Another group which Mohammad bin Salman visited was the Israeli lobby in the U.S. MbS met with the representatives of the most powerful Israeli lobby organizations such as AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Committee. These meetings can be interpreted as Saudi Arabia’s commitment to establishing strong relations with Israel in both regional and global politics.

Mohammad bin Salman’s final visit was to France where he met with President Emmanuel Macron. Both politicians announced the strategic partnership between the two countries.

It is obvious that Mohammad bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia will continue to become an active and interventionist regional player with strong support from international actors. The country will also continue to employ hard power capabilities in partnership with its regional allies such as the UAE, Egypt and Israel. This process will further accelerate with the rise of Mohammad bin Salman to the top position in the country, a process that will most probably be completed in the near future.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will be “coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now.” However, Trump previously promised the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he will immediately stop arm deliveries to the YPG in Syria, which didn’t happen. As the Pentagon’s 2019 Budget projection illustrates, the Pentagon predicts that U.S. troops will not leave Syria at least until the end of 2019. Within the State Department there is an internal dispute about U.S. policy on Syria. However, it’s not the Trump administration who seek to leave Syria soon, but the military and Pentagon deciding on U.S. affairs in Syria. Pentagon, CENTCOM and SOCOM are prioritizing their partnership with the YPG-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces over U.S. long-term interests.

From fighting Daesh to becoming strategic partners

The Obama administration decided to work with the Syrian branch of the PKK in order to fight Daesh. The US-YPG cooperation to fight Daesh rapidly advanced to a strategic partnership in Syria. Pentagon and CENTCOM’s partnership with the YPG-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces expanded to more than just fighting Daesh as U.S. soldiers joined a demonstration against Turkey in Manbij where Abdullah Ocalan posters and pro-PKK banners were seen everywhere.

Over time, the U.S. Army established at least 18 military bases in Syria, except two in south Syria. All of them are located in areas controlled by the YPG. Two of the military bases in northern Syria are used as military airports where U.S. Apache helicopters are stationed.

In addition to the military bases in northern Syria, which indicates the U.S. projection to stay long, the Justification for Fiscal Year 2019 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Train and Equip Fund (CTEF) foresees the U.S.-YPG partnership in Syria at least until the end of 2019. The Pentagon’s budget projection for support to the YPG in 2019 doesn’t hint at big clashes and military operations against Daesh, but rather depicts a growing U.S.-YPG partnership.

300 million U.S.-dollars are planned as funds for the U.S.-YPG partnership in 2019. While half of the funds are reserved for weapons, ammunition and vehicles, 12% are planned to be invested in military bases costs and transportation costs. One third of the budget is expected to be spent in operational sustainability.

Weapons that are intended to be supplied to the YPG include AK-47 rifles, Machine Guns (PKM), Heavy Machine Guns (DShK), RPG-7 Launcher, Sniper Rifles, 60mm and 120mm Mortars.

The Pentagon’s budget projection also foresees around 30 thousand militants to be trained and to the frontlines in addition to another 35 thousand militants of the YPG as so-called Internal Security Forces. According to the budget projection, the Pentagon plans to pay each fighter a monthly stipend payment range from $200 to $400. As written in the budget projection, the Pentagon is currently paying 10 thousand militants a monthly stipend payment.

In contrast to Trump’s declaration to withdraw from Syria, policy makers in the U.S., the military and Pentagon reportedly have other plans.

While for now the requested budget for the “train & equip” program in Syria for 2019 has to be accepted, the budget program for 2018 is already ongoing. It is unclear if the budget projection for 2019 will be blocked by the Trump administration, but until the end of 2018 the program will continue.

The increase of directly paid militants to 65 thousand until the end of 2018, the maintenance of military bases and the continuing support for the YPG even long after the forecasted end of Daesh in Syria suggests that the U.S. will remain in Syria for a long time, with their new strategic partner: Marxist-Leninist YPG militants.

Inter U.S. state conflict about Syrian policy

President Donald Trump told his advisers he wants an early exit of U.S. troops from Syria and he publically announced, “We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon.”

A short period after Trump’s announcement, Brett McGurk, U.S. Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS said at the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington: “We are in Syria to defeat ISIS. That is our mission and our mission isn’t over and we are going to complete that mission.”

Brett McGurk’s statement that Turkey failed to advance along the Marea line, but that the SDF (YPG) have been very successful, especially in Manbij, shows how short-sighted and single-minded the perspective of U.S. cadres in charge of U.S. policies around Syria are. Much wrong his statement is in military terms, as Operation Olive Branch illustrated, both politically and logically it is not a smart idea to compare a NATO army with a militant organization.

Shortly after Trump declared his intention to leave Syria, the U.S. Army were busy in establishing new military bases around Manbij in order to protect a designated terrorist organization from its NATO ally Turkey and the Syrian Opposition factions who were supported by the U.S. as well. The establishment of two additional bases in the Manbij region should not only be seen as a message to Turkey and the Syrian Opposition, but also a message towards internal conflicts within the U.S. as the bases became public after the announcement of the President.

The U.S. military deciding on the country’s foreign policies and its relations with other allied states is a story we’ve seen before in Syria. Shortly before the visit of former U.S. Foreign Minister Rex Tillerson, Maj. Gen. Jamie Jarrard, the Special Operations commander said: “We’re very proud of our positions here, and we want to make sure everybody knows it.” Lt. Gen. Paul Funk who accompanied Jamie Jarrard on his visit to Manbij went further and said: “You hit us, we will respond aggressively. We will defend ourselves.”

The U.S. Foreign Department under Rex Tillerson tried to find another policy for the Syrian crisis, especially regarding NATO ally Turkey. His dismissal is also a de-facto end to his efforts to de-escalate tension between Turkey and the U.S. over U.S. support for YPG militants. As Anadolu Agency reports, the U.S.-Turkey working group meeting has been delayed until the new U.S. Secretary of State takes office.

U.S. SOCOM commanders are growingly frustrated at policymakers in Washington for a lack of strategic guidance to further the counter-Daesh mission according to a report by NBCNews. The limited military view of SOCOM commanders backs their partners in the Syrian Democratic Forces more than U.S. strategic long-term interests.

Trump agreed in a National Security Council meeting this week to keep U.S. troops in Syria a little longer in order to defeat Daesh but wants them out relatively soon, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

However, it seems that it is the Pentagon and CENTCOM who decide over when to finish Daesh entirely in Syria. As known for followers of the Syrian war, the International Coalition stopped fighting Daesh and months before the start of the Operation Olive Branch.

Later, Pentagon and CENTCOM blamed Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch for their pause in fighting Daesh, merely because YPG militants left the frontlines in order to fight against the Turkish military and Free Syrian Army. In reality, this development made clear that the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces are dominated by the YPG, disabling any military operation if the YPG militants refuse to fight.

While once the International Coalition conducted up to 1500 airstrikes per month in summer last year, the number of airstrikes against Daesh have been reduced to below 150 per month this year according to Press Releases by Centcom.

On the other side, according to Associated Press during the National Security council meeting, Trump insisted for a rapid withdrawal from Syria. As has been reported, the President was presented with several consequences that would occur if the U.S. were to remain in Syria, and only one if they were to withdraw – which was that with full withdrawal, Russia and Iran would take advantage.

The Trump administration has not the political vision and capacity for a genuine Syria policy. The weakened administration has effectively empowered the military over deciding on issues relating to foreign policy and issues that will have long-term impacts on U.S. relations with regional actors. The Pentagon’s agenda for Syria lacks strategic guidance and it is short-sighted and single-minded as it prioritizes the U.S. partnership with the YPG-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces over U.S. long-term interests in the Middle East. However, the internal U.S. wrangle over their policy will most likely continue.

Over the past years, the U.S. military involvement in the Syrian crisis has become a widely discussed topic across the globe. The recent announcement of President Trump to withdraw American troops from Syria has not only further complicated the situation for the international actors involved in the crisis but also enabled speculations about the future of the Turkish-American confrontation in Syria. In fact, such a decision can bear either dire consequences, or yield positive outcomes for Turkey. It is important to investigate the implications of Trump’s unsettled withdrawal decision for Turkey, and evaluate this new development in relation to the Ankara-Washington disagreement over the issue of American support for the YPG. Unfortunately, it is still unclear whether Trump’s unexpected decision will facilitate Ankara’s strategy in Northern Syria or not.

Despite the fact that Ankara has not made an explicit announcement on this issue, Turkey is likely to appreciate the American act of pulling out of Syria, if the timing and methodology simultaneously correspond with Turkey’s strategy against the PKK in the country. If so, one might question what the Turkish strategy towards the PKK-YPG in Syria is. Turkey’s strategy is first and foremost to minimize the territorial control of the PKK-YPG in the country and restore U.S.-Turkey relations. The acceptable end scenario for Ankara is to create a new “territorial space,” in which the PKK-YPG cannot obtain any sort of military force that can politically or militarily influence the northeastern part of the country. This ‘space’ can only be achieved if the U.S. stops backing the PKK-YPG. Otherwise, the Turkish-American relations may enter an irreversible direction since Turkey seems to be willing to carry out its military action against PKK’s region under U.S. protection. At this stage, the latter is not what Turkey wants to do in the near feature. In that case, the recent statement of President Trump to withdraw American troops from Syria is a crucial move that can influence Turkey’s short-term game plan in Northern Syria. There are two important but interrelated scenarios about Trump’s post-American Syrian strategy that can destabilize Turkey’s strategic concerns and more importantly create more chaos in Northern Syria. The irony here is that Trump himself is faithfully echoing Obama’s hands-off policy in Syria which is the main driving factor behind Turkish-American confrontation.

The first scenario is about timing. The preference to downgrade U.S. involvement in Syria in the fight against Daesh is problematic if the Trump administration really wants to restrain Iranian influence over Syria. The strategy of disengagement makes sense only if it is applied at the right time. The Obama administration made a similar mistake in Iraq in 2011, with a post-American Iraq easily slipping into Iran’s hands. The power vacuum that emerged after the U.S. retrenchment from Iraq was one of the driving factors behind the rise of Daesh. The timing of the U.S. withdrawal might also provide more space for the Assad regime to gain leverage, which is not an intention of the original U.S. strategy in Syria. It is needless to say that Russia will become a more significant actor in a post-American Syria. Overall, it is expected that an uncontrolled and untimely American withdrawal from Syria may bring extra costs for Turkey in Syria.

The second scenario relates to methodology. A critical assessment of such a striking development is essential for Turkey in assuring long-term military leverage against the PKK threat in the region. In this regard, the methodology that the U.S. pursues in pulling out its ground troops is really a matter of Turkey’s policy towards a post-American Syria. But, nobody thinks that the U.S. will completely remove itself from Syria, even Trump himself. Thus, many questions still remain regarding the direction of American military presence in the country.

If the U.S. maintains its military presence to protect the current structure of the SDF as it is now, for which the PKK-YPG is the primary military component, then Turkey’s ‘military deterrence’ oriented strategy vis-a-vis the PKK presence in Syria will remain. The main strategy for Turkey is only acceptable in the condition of the demobilization of the PKK. The latest attempt of the U.S. to transform the Syrian Democratic Forces into a political party to be named as Syria’s Future Party does not bring any solution to Turkey’s concerns for the future of Syria. Ankara sees the new party as an extension of the U.S. strategy to attribute another label to the PKK. Ankara, in fact, perceives this move as an attempt to cover up the PKK’s terrorist motivations. Turkey believes that a comprehensive strategy should consist of a broad communal consent, in which the PKK-centric political project cannot be sustainable.

The strategic value of the U.S. disengagement from Syria for Turkey is not apparent since Ankara did not expect that the U.S. would change its overall strategy. Ankara still thinks that Trump’s act is not realistic and applicable in the near future. It is also interesting to witness that President Trump’s military withdrawal incentive irrationally contradicts the claims put forth by CENTCOM in favor of furthering American military presence in Syria, especially in Manbij where Ankara and Washington are most likely to confront against each other in the near future.

Published by the SETA Foundation and written by Sadik Unay and Serif Dilek, “Neo-Protectionism and Trade Wars” seeks to address neo-protectionist measures that have emerged following the Global Financial Crisis. Taking into account the changing trend of protectionism practices, which find themselves on the agenda in the context of the political and economic crises that have emerged on the global level, the analysis provides an extensive evaluation of “neo-protectionism” trends. The steps taken by industrialized countries during their development process reveal that “protective trade policies” are critical thresholds of success stories. As illustrated by the recent decision made by U.S. President Donald Trump to increase the customs duty on imports of solar panels and washing machines up to 30 percent, conservative policies will take up much of the global economy agenda.

In the last quarter of the 20^th century, rather than approaches that require intense government intervention, free trade has increasingly been adopted for socio-economic development and growth. This also draws attention to the widespread adoption of murky protectionism. The analysis reflects on how the slowing down of the liberalization of trade caused countries not only to isolate themselves but also to adopt protectionist policies. It is emphasized that the discourse of liberal commercial integration in the enlargement periods of the world economy are transformed into cyclical demands of regulatory and protectionist demands in times of contraction and crisis.

The analysis underlines how there has been an increasing level of protectionist understanding within the G20 countries.

The analysis evaluates the rise of Neo-protectionism in the post-global financial crisis atmosphere, recent examples of its practices and trade and currency battles. Specifically, the analysis underlines how there has been an increasing level of protectionist understanding within the G20 countries. The on-going race between states in the fields of industry and new technology are inherently an extension of a multidimensional and global power struggle.

Hence, it can be observed that in the post-global economic crisis, where the discourse of free trade in the global economy has abated and where right-wing movements have been increasing their power, “economic nationalism” approaches and neo-protectionist policies have increasingly been occupying the international agenda. The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU (Brexit), Donald Trump’s adoption of a more fierce foreign policy and his appreciation of an economic competition discourse, and the increasing centralization of right-wing movements in European politics reflects the fact that the desire to race for liberal values on the international sphere has dissolved.

Turkey ought to utilize neo-protectionist strategies in order to adapt and to survive trade and currency wars in an era in which science, industry and technology policies and public activism are on the rise.

This study by Unay and Dilek concludes that approaches such as liberalism, mercantilism or protectionism should not be viewed from an ideological perspective but should be appreciated as policy instruments serving national interests. The analysis highlights how in the new era the international system will increasingly witness trade, science, industry and technology wars, rather than being occupied with conventional warfare. More, the analysis illustrates how states have diverged from solely resting on hard power to adopting soft and smart power in their race to project their power. The authors suggest that similar to emerging economies, Turkey ought to utilize neo-protectionist strategies in order to adapt and to survive trade and currency wars in an era in which science, industry and technology policies and public activism are on the rise.

The PDF of the analysis can be downloaded at: https://www.setav.org/analiz-yeni-korumacilik-ve-ticaret-savaslari/

Muslims across the world continue to protest against Donald Trump’s announcement on December 6, 2017 to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the first Qibla (the direction to which Muslims turn their faces while praying) as well as by Christians.

Protests have spread to a number of Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and East Asia.

Palestine has historically been a unifying point for Muslims, and most analysts consider Donald Trump’s announcement last week as a reckless move that can trigger more flames in the already burning Middle East.

In Turkey, whose president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been at the forefront in condemning Trump’s move, calling the decision as “null and void” for Turkey, thousands of people took to the streets in Istanbul with Turkish and Palestinian flags, chanting pro-Palestinian slogans. Erdogan, meanwhile, called a summit of Islamic countries to discuss the Jerusalem issue on Wednesday.

In Indian-occupied Kashmir, the territory which has been fighting for its independence for as long as Palestinians, protesters maintained their traditional approach. As against Indian atrocities, they closed shops and other businesses in protest of the decision.

Bahraini delegation visits Israel

As if to rub salt on wounds, a civil society group comprising people from different religions and sects, on Monday visited Israel at a time when Muslims feel outraged because of the Jerusalem move. The 25-member delegation from the tiny Shiite majority Arab Gulf country defended its five-day long visit as a “gesture of tolerance.” The group includes Sunni and Shiite leaders, Christians, the leader of a Hindu temple, and a Sikh.

However, Palestinians promptly refused to allow the group to enter Gaza for its being as the agent of normalization at a time when Israel has crossed the “red line.”

EU refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli capital

On his trip to Brussels on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister was reminded by the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, that Jerusalem is the capital for both Palestine and Israel and that the EU’s stand on the holy city remains unchanged.

Mogherini said, “We believe that the only realistic solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is based on two states with Jerusalem as the capital of both.”

*Written by Waseem Ahad 

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has refrained from stepping back from the decision to hold a referendum on independence, where residents in KRG-controlled provinces are scheduled to vote on breaking from Baghdad on 25 September.

The oil rich province of Kirkuk is also among the contested areas where the vote is planned.

In spite of heightening tensions and calls from the US and Turkey to postpone the referendum, calls from Baghdad for further negotiations, the KRG President Masoud Barzani has not announced any cancellation of the referendum.

The statement provided by the Security Council added that the referendum risks detracting from the fight against Daesh, and that it could also disrupt efforts to ensure the safe return of over three million refugees and internally displaced persons to the country.

Council members “expressed their continuing respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Iraq,” urging all issues between the central Baghdad government and the Erbil administration to be resolved “through structured dialogue and compromise supported by the international community.”

International call for referendum to be cancelled

In addition to President Erdogan and the US President Trump who are both in agreement that the vote should not go ahead, French President Emmanuel Macron also stressed the importance of maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity.

During a phone call made with Barzani, Macron reportedly asked the KRG President to postpone the controversial referendum.

A statement issued by Barzani’s office stated that the two men discussed the “important role” played by the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in the ongoing fight against Daesh in Iraq.

Barzani nevertheless confirmed to Macron that the referendum would be held on schedule, while also stressing Erbil’s readiness to hold dialogue with Baghdad after the poll.

http://thenewturkey.org/the-kurdish-quest-for-independence-in-iraq-and-its-repercussions-for-turkey-and-the-region/

Turkey to debate military operation in Iraq and Syria

The ongoing developments in Iraq and Syria remain high on the political agenda.

In this regard, according to the Justice and Development (AK) Party’s parliamentary group deputy chairman, the parliament will hold an extraordinary session on Saturday to debate the extension of Turkish military operations in northern Iraq and Syria.

Mustafa Elitas stated that “the general assembly of the Turkish Parliament will hold an extraordinary session on Sept. 23 at 16.00 [4 p.m. local time] to debate the extension of the Prime Ministry’s motion that enables the government to conduct cross-border operations in northern Iraq and Syria.”

The motion had previously allowed the Turkish military to carry out cross-border operations from Oct. 2, 2016 until Oct. 31, 2017.

During her time at the UN General Assembly, British Prime Minister Theresa May urged for UN reform.

The Prime Minister threatened to hold back 30 percent of her country’s UN contributions unless the world body undertakes relevant reform.

“If this system that we have created is found to no longer be capable of meeting the challenges of our time, then there will be a crisis of faith in multilateralism and global cooperation that will damage the interests of our peoples,” May said before the General Assembly in New York.

The UK is the second largest UN funder and May stated that the withheld funds will be dispersed “only to those parts of the UN that achieve sufficient results.”

“Despite our best efforts, we are not succeeding. We must do more,” she said, urging for reform.

May praised the UN-centric international system, calling it “the amplifying force that allows countries to cooperate and live up to these standards in words, spirit and deed.”

However, in pointing out its shortcomings, May pointed her finger to Russia when she called out a Security Council member who she said has used its veto power as many times in the past five years as during the second half of the Cold War.

“In so doing, they have prevented action against a despicable regime that has murdered its people with chemical weapons,” she said. “As a result, in Syria, the United Nations has been blocked.”

No, Theresa

During her stay at New York, Theresa May also raised the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapon program with President Trump.

The US President refused to share with world leaders his final decision on whether to scrap an international agreement made with Iran on its nuclear program, Rex Tillerson told reporters on Wednesday.

When asked by British PM to share his decision on the deal with Tehran, the US President accordingly “said no.”

Secretary Tillerson looked surprised when a reporter informed him that the President had already told the press that he had arrived at a final decision, signaling the disconnect between the head of state and a top diplomat – a problem the Trump administration has faced since the beginning of the President’s tenure.

“I didn’t know he was going to say he made a decision,” Tillerson said. “I knew he had, but I didn’t known he was going to say he had.”

Tillerson held the press briefing following a meeting with the parties to the deal, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Secretary Tillerson further conceded that reports from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “continue to confirm that Iran is in technical compliance with the agreement.”

He added that however in the broader context, “the aspirations” of the deal had not been met.

During his first UN address as President, Trump unleashed a stern rebuke of Iran, calling it a “rogue regime” and that the nuclear deal was “an embarrassment to the United States.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani retaliated during his address at the General Assembly on Wednesday by calling Trump a “rogue newcomer to the world of politics,” without naming him.

Since August 2017, the crimes taking place against the Rohingya have once again gained an international dimension.

The Rohingya, which has been described by the United Nations as the world’s most persecuted peoples, have faced heightened fears of attack from the Myanmar military and Buddhist mobs since 2012.

In latest reports, the UN has documented mass gang rapes, killings – including infants and young children – brutal beatings and disappearances committed by the security personnel.

UN investigators have also labelled such violations as crimes against humanity.

Since the beginning of the outbreak of the crisis, the government of Turkey has led the way in providing humanitarian aid to the refugees that have crossed the border to Bangladesh. Latest reports state this figure to be around nearly 400,000, while approximately 3000 Rohingya have lost their lives on their struggle to escape the violence.

After the visit by TIKA, assisted by First Lady Emine Erdogan, where 1,000 tons of aid was delivered to the Rohingya Muslims who had fled violence, President Erdogan raised the issue at the UN General Assembly claiming that the international community has remained silent once again “just like it did in Syria.”

While the de facto leader of Myanmar, Aung Sang Suu Kyi, a former Nobel Peace recipient did not attend the UN General Assembly due to increasing criticism from the international community, she said on Tuesday that her government will grant access to international observers in the conflict-hit Rakhine state.

While official statements indicate an open investigation and freedom to provide aid, the Myanmar government have reported attempts of Buddhist mobs to destroy a ship carrying aid to the displaced people in western Rakhine.

According to a press release from Suu Kyi, the riot began on Wednesday when around 50 people forced staff of the International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) to unload the aid from a ship at a jetty in Rakhine state capital Sittway.

8 people have been detained for interrogation after police dispersed a crowd comprising around 300 people by firing warning shots and water cannons.

US to provide aid to those displaced

While British Prime Minister Theresa May announced earlier this week that the UK government will stop providing military assistance and training to the Myanmar army, the US announced on Wednesday that it would provide nearly $32 million in humanitarian aid in order to help address the ongoing Rohingya crisis.

“The rapid influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees has stained resources and overwhelmed humanitarian agencies and local authorities,” the US State Department said in announcing the new funds.

The aid will provide a range of needed services including emergency shelter, food, water and health assistance.

Further, the statement by the State Department added that “the United States calls upon all parties to allow for unfettered humanitarian access to people in Rakhine State, Burma [Myanmar], and we also encourage other donors to join us in providing additional humanitarian assistance for those affected by the crisis.”

Total US humanitarian funding for internally displaces people in Myanmar and refugees since last October now stands at $95 million.

The independence referendum for Kurds in northern Iraq is set to take place on September 25 despite international disapproval. Masoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Regional Government insists on pursuing the referendum knowing that neither Turkey nor the United States support the decision.

Ankara and Washington

There have been many arguments as to why the two countries do not support the proposed independence referendum. While the US has been a long advocate of Kurdish autonomy, President Trump has stated that the timing of the referendum is wrong and that it will negatively affect the fight against Daesh. Moreover, he has called for the KRG to maintain diplomatic dialogue with Baghdad, something the US is willing to lead and observe.

Being a neighbor, the independence referendum will have a highly significant impact on the domestic and foreign politics of Turkey. Not only due to regional stability depending on the territorial integrity of Iraq, the domestic fight against the PKK also has the ability to be shaped by the independence referendum in northern Iraq. While relations between the KRG and Turkish state have been maintained on stable levels, the potential fear of the PKK hijacking an independent Kurdish state has always remained salient. Continuous remarks and warnings have been issued against the KRG from both President Erdogan and Prime Minister Yildirim, urging the KRG to defect from their decision to hold the planned referendum.

United Nations

Other than Turkey and the US, the United Nations Secretary General has also warned against the Iraqi Kurdish referendum. Gutteres stated that the unilateral decision to hold the independence vote ‘would detract from the need to defeat Daesh,’ underlining the worries of Turkey and the US.

“The Secretary-General believes that any unilateral decision to hold a referendum at this time would detract from the need to defeat ISIL, as well as the much-needed reconstruction of the regained territories and the facilitation of a safe, voluntary and dignified return of the more than three million refugees and internally displaced people,” Stephane Dujarric said in a statement, referring to the Daesh militant group.

Iraq

With the unilateral territory and sovereignty of Iraq at stake, Vice President Nouri al-Maliki warned the KRG of creating a ‘second Israel’ in northern Iraq. Israel has been the most prominent country in support of the referendum, as it sees a Kurdish state as an end to its own isolation in the region.

With the latest developments, the Iraqi Supreme Court has ruled to suspend the Kurdish referendum on Monday 18 September until it makes a final ruling on the case at the request of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

The office of the Iraqi PM Abadi said that he filed the court case against Kurdish President Masoud Barzani and the Kurdish parliament speaker Yousif Mohammed.

The statement said Abadi called on the court to not allow “any region or province to separate from Iraq.”

On 15^th September, the Iraqi Kurdish parliament voted to hold an independence referendum planned by the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), which is currently opposed by Baghdad, Turkey and the United States.

The resolution passed by an absolute majority with 65 out of 68 deputies in the chamber, while three MPs rejected the resolution.

The referendum is due to take place on 25 September 2017.

Ankara and Washington call for the suspension of the referendum

Both Ankara and Washington have urged the KRG to call off the independence referendum, on the basis that it will increase the isolation of Kurds in the region and will affect the fight against terrorist organizations.

While the US has long been a supporter of Kurdish autonomy, it claims that the current referendum is not suitable due to its timing. It claims that the referendum will further de-stabilize the region and affect the fight against DAESH.

Moreover, President Donald Trump has called for the KRG to engage in serious dialogue with Baghdad, which Washington “has repeatedly indicated it is prepared to facilitate.”

In attempts to persuade the KRG, US envoy Brett McGurk visited Masoud Barzani, leader of the KRG, in order to call off the referendum and to engage in a new diplomatic initiative.

Likewise, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has claimed that the initiated referendum lacks reason and experience. In a statement made, he stressed that Turkey would not allow steps that would threaten Iraq’s territorial integrity.

In addition, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim called the Iraqi Kurdish region’s decision to hold an independence referendum a “false step.”

The independence referendum carries importance for Turkey not only due to potential territorial changes in the region, but also in concern of its fight against the PKK, which is recognized as a terrorist organization by both the US and Europe.

After recovering from the first shock caused by Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the U.S. presidential elections, the U.S.-based analysts began speculating on what kind of an inner circle Trump was going to form. During his election campaign, Trump promised that he would wage a war on the Washington establishment, highlighting it as one of the backbones of his campaign with the assertion that he was an alternative to the political elites in Washington. For weeks, various rumors and speculations over who would serve in the Trump administration followed one another.

When Trump overtly waged a war on political elites and the establishment during his campaign, dozens of foreign policy and security experts close to the Republican Party announced that they would not accept any position in Trump’s team despite the fact that he was a Republican candidate. Among the ones releasing such statements were names who were formerly in key positions especially during the term of a Republican leader. As Trump’s staff in charge of appointments put a distance to the names who once issued negative remarks on Trump, the repository of available experts became inevitably restricted to a serious extent.

This subject matter was frequently discussed during the appointment procedures that ran quite slowly in the transition period following the elections. The first appointments of Trump hinted that he was keeping his promise with regard to fighting the political elites. For instance, Steve Bannon, who was among Trump’s strategists during the campaign period, is known to be a name confronting elites for years on the radio shows he hosted. As Bannon, who represents the far-right, and names like Stephen Gorka were appointed to the White House, President Trump sought to smoothen the reactions by assigning the Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus as White House Chief of Staff, which is one of the most critical positions in the White House. This choice was interpreted as Trump’s effort to build a dialogue with the political elite since the RNC’s chair was assigned to the position that would primarily be in charge of relations with Congress. Soon after these two names were announced, comments suggesting that the two might contend each other comprised one of the top topics on the agenda. Bannon’s greatest advantage was his personal affinity to the President while Priebus had an upper hand since his position has direct access to the President.

While successively making unexpected appointments to the White House, in considering the confirmation process, President Trump chose not to take risks in regards to Cabinet positions and assigned names that would appeal to a majority of the Senate. For example, while Retired General James Mattis, who is respected by both parties, was appointed as the Secretary of Defense, Exxon company’s CEO Rex Tillerson was appointed as the Secretary of State. These names were welcomed by the Washington bureaucracy, who were closely following the appointment process. During the appointments procedure, what would happen to the positions of general John Kelly, who was appointed as the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Mike Flynn, who was appointed as the National Security Advisor, was another matter of question in the overall picture. Although Flynn was formerly Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the comments made about him during and in the aftermath of his term in office stressed his unusual profile. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, who is arguably less popular compared to the other names, was appointed as senior advisor to the President. This prompted a series of questions as to what kind of balance policy Trump would adopt amongst these names.

Endeavoring to accomplish domestic and foreign political objectives with a team comprising of names with such different backgrounds was one of the most significant challenges Trump was to confront. He faced the first challenge in this respect while trying to form the National Security Council (NSC). Bannon was included in the NSC while the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA Director were removed, which led to the speculations that Bannon became the second man all of a sudden. Subsequently, it was highly discussed that Bannon was the name behind the travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries, being among the first campaign promises implemented by the Trump administration. Within this process, Bannon was present at the Oval Office during the telephone conversations Trump made with world leaders, which consolidated this assumption. The rising influence of Bannon spurred the hearsay that Priebus was particularly uncomfortable with this situation and it led to tension between the two.

Successive Dismissals in the White House

The rise of Steve Bannon in the White House, which had previously been viewed as unavoidable, has been stopped personally by the President. The mention of Bannon as the chief strategist of the White House prompted Trump to declare abruptly on TV that he was the actual chief strategist of the administration and Bannon was ultimately an official under his command. Shortly after this, details surrounding the inner conflicts within the White House administration began to leak to the press. First, it was leaked that Trump was not sufficiently informed on the decision to include Bannon in the NSC. Shortly after the news surfaced, Bannon lost his place on the Council. Next, Bannon was portrayed as the mastermind behind the much-disputed travel ban concerning visitors from six Muslim-majority countries. The situation got complicated further by the allegations that Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner also opposed Bannon’s influence within the White House. These moves undoubtedly significantly damaged the public profile of Bannon.

While it was wondered when Bannon would be dismissed from the White House, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was unexpectedly forced out of his position. This decision made Priebus the shortest-serving Chief of Staff in White House history. The explicit reasons for the dismissal are unknown. Informed guesses include reasons such as Priebus not being effective enough in defending Trump, Trump holding Priebus responsible for the failure of his healthcare bill in the Senate and Trump never fully trusting Priebus. But the words of Anthony Scaramucci, the White House communications director at the time who was appointed days before Priebus’ dismissal, are thought to have been influential in this process. Scaramucci had previously signaled in an interview with a journalist that the dismissal would occur by using scathing remarks towards Priebus.

Shortly after the dismissal of Priebus, the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly was appointed as Chief of Staff. With this decision, the two most important positions within the White House administration, Secretary of Homeland Security and Chief of Staff, were both occupied by officials with a military background. The decision thus highlighted Trump’s preference in favour of individuals with military backgrounds in his appointments. The first move by Kelly, who was viewed as having the seniority and experience required to calm the storm within the administration, was to sack Scaramucci, making Scaramucci the shortest serving communications director in White House history. Following Priebus’ dismissal, groups close to Bannon began a campaign against the National Security Advisor McMaster. The information leaked to the press had been portraying McMaster as opposing Flynn and Bannon’s influence within the NSC by removing officials thought to be close to them. This process again ended with an announcement from Trump.

The previous week, in the aftermath of this process and as the waters of the White House administration seemed to calm, Bannon was ousted from his position. As with Priebus’, Bannon’s dismissal has many underlying reasons.  The events that occurred in Charlottesville and the rise of far-right extremism, plus the newly published book named “Devil’s Bargain” detailing the relationship between Bannon and Trump are thought to have been important factors in Trump’s decision. The emphasis Trump places in portraying his election victory as solely his own has been a source of tension in the relationship between him and Bannon from the very beginning. But the atmosphere that triggered Bannon’s dismissal was created by Kelly and his decision to take an initiative regarding Bannon. Thus, Bannon, the biggest link between far-right extremism and the White House, was dismissed from the administration. It seems that retired military officials such as Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and former businesspeople such as Kushner and Tillerson will play the most effective role in the administration.

Has the storm in the Trump administration calmed?

At this point, it seems that the turmoil within the Trump administration, or at least within the White House, has calmed down and even if another power struggle occurs it will not be as loud and obvious. Of course, Trump can influence this process with unexpected moves. It is unknown how two important figures such as Kelly and McMaster will influence Trump’s policies and how much they will be able to shield Trump from crises. How Kelly will influence the relationship between Trump and Congress is an especially curious point since Kelly does not have a background neither with Congress nor with the Republican party. McMaster, who was appointed after Flynn’s dismissal, will likely remain target of the far-right due to his removal of certain individuals from the NSC. However, his influence in matters of foreign policy and security is unlikely to wane due to his relationships with Mattis and Tillerson. Jared Kushner will continue to be one of the biggest game changers in any fractions and power struggles that might occur in the future. So far Kushner has preferred to work with more conventional figures.

All these names within the administration will also be tested by the problems that come with Trump’s unpredictable Twitter announcements. Trump will continue to pull the brakes on any figure that might begin to overshadow him, just like he did in the Bannon case. The situation within the White House is seemingly calm now, but the power struggles based on other concerns and topics will likely continue in the foreseeable future.

The administration’s problems outside the White House might possibly continue. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have not been seeing eye-to-eye recently. Trump has been criticizing Sessions due to his decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. elections. The investigation that influenced the dismissals of Comey and Flynn might also negatively impact Trump’s relations with his close associates.

During the NATO meeting held in Brussels on May 25 2017, several assessments were made on the issues occupying the most significant place in the organization’s agenda so far which are expected to mark real progress. Two of these issues had great importance.

The first was to determine required steps to increase the effectiveness of the NATO in the fight against international terrorism, primarily DAESH, and to solve central problems like intelligence sharing among the member states.

The second issue was fairer burden-sharing on NATO’s defense spending throughout the alliance which has been on the agenda for a considerable period of time and frequently emphasized by the United States, particularly after Trump came to power. In order to stop cuts in defense spending, at the Wales Summit in 2014, all NATO allies agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense within a decade. With its sharing of around 4% of its GDP on defense, the highest amount compared to the rest of the Alliance, the US has been imposing diplomatic pressure on its European allies in particular for the last four or five years to make them spend more on defense, and this topic also holds a great significance in Trump’s agenda and his discourse.

In the current situation, 22% of NATO’s budget is funded by the US, 15% is funded by Germany and 10% is funded by the United Kingdom. The effectiveness of the decision made at the Wales Summit can be seen both by evaluating the data of 2015, which reflects that the cuts on defense spending came to a stop, and having a look at the 3.8% increase in total in 2016 on defense spending across Europe and Canada.

It is a well-known fact that the NATO has been facing challenges with effective intelligence sharing in the fight against terrorism. The Alliance’s current policy of counter-terrorism has been shaped in NATO’s Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism declared in May 2012 and it was based on three main principles: 1) awareness (to promote a common understanding on counter-terrorism), 2) capabilities (meaning the ability that NATO could impose its own methods of countering terrorism on the international level, and 3) engagement, (strengthening the NATO allies’ capacity for countering terrorism at the local level by training local forces in operation areas instead of NATO to send troops to the conflict area).

Prior to the Brussels Summit, Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, made several statements on NATO’s Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism to express the steps and implementations taken with reference to this concept. Mr. Stoltenberg’s emphasis on the ongoing potential of NATO becoming a part of a 68-member anti-DAESH Global Coalition drew particular attention. In fact, even if 28 members of NATO have been individually participating the Coalition, the NATO has not involved itself directly and institutionally with the Coalition.

On the contrary, the NATO has participated in the Coalition with an observer status. Therefore, the Alliance’s wish to take an active role in the fight against terrorism was discussed at the Brussels meeting. Among these declarations, some other details about the NATO’s contribution to the Coalition with regard to technical and military aspects such as the effective use of AWACS surveillance aircraft were also mentioned. These details were to transform into an action plan in which the Alliance’s activities to counter international terrorism were discussed. The action plan will establish an ‘Intelligence Fusion Cell’ that will enable the NATO to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism within the Alliance and in addition, a senior NATO official would be designated as coordinator.

Above all, there are questions about the sincerity and seriousness of NATO allies. The US in the first place as a leading ally gave the impression that they will follow their own political-military strategies and the NATO its own. In an environment where self-interests and policies distinctively differ, making common policies and implementation of these have become much harder. Hence, the raison d’être of the Alliance comes into question.

Even a president who relied on discourses and statements against the NATO, prefers to shelter his country in the Alliance when it comes to Middle East policies within the context of countering terrorism. This indicates seeing the NATO more as a temporary political and psychological tool than an urgent need. As a matter of fact, the expectation of the Alliance’s institutional involvement in the US-led Global Coalition against DAESH proves its commitment to this situation. Moreover, it could be indicated that the Alliance’s contribution to the fight against DAESH holds political significance rather than being militarily operational, since the member militaries will not all directly enter combat.

The Alliance’s involvement will hold a much more supportive quality which prioritizes providing intelligence and training in the frame of its Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism. On the other hand, the NATO’s focus just on DAESH has been questioning by the allies in terms of sincerity and confidence. That is, the YPG can be counted as an ally in the fight against the DAESH even though Turkey, one of the most significant members of the NATO, has been struggling with its organically linked fraction, the PKK.

Furthermore, even though Turkey’s objections, warnings and all diplomatic efforts, the US has been supplying this terrorist organization with weapons; therefore, this also challenges for NATO’s struggle for a common strategy in the fight against international terrorism. For this reason, the Alliance’s assertions and efforts to create a common understanding of terror reflect a vain perspective. As a result, a NATO with policies and functions intended to be determined in accordance with several members’ interest and varied threat and threat perceptions bodes ill for the future of the alliance.

Another policy that needs clarification is that in NATO’s efforts to display a great idealism, the Alliance will be confronting many challenges due to intelligence sharing which held a considerable importance in the Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism meeting as well as the Brussels Summit 2017. Yet, prior to the NATO Summit, the leaking of some details and photographs of a terrorist attack in one of the key members of the Alliance, the UK’s city Manchester, provoked a crisis between the security agencies of the UK and the US. UK Prime Minister Theresa May brought up this issue and clearly reminded attendees of the importance of safeguarding shared intelligence between security agencies. These explanations pointed out that the UK considers the US intelligence and security officials as responsible for the leak and also shows a lack of confidence between them.

President Trump, assessing this leak as a ‘serious problem’ through a written statement, is accused of lacking an understanding of intelligence gathering because he has shared top-secret classified information, including the threat of terror attacks on airlines forwarded by the Israeli intelligence agency, with the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov during a meeting in the Oval Office on May 10. Therefore, this situation causes a lack of confidence in intelligence sharing between two allies with different understandings of how secrets should be disclosed. Following this event, during his visit to the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that the intelligence coordination between these countries is “terrific.”

Despite its good intentions and development as an institution, the NATO will likely continue struggling with its traditional problems. At the root of these problems are the alliance’s dominant members, who seek to lead the organization according to their own understanding and policies. Therefore, in an environment comprised of different threat perceptions by the member states, the problem of a NATO led and shaped by dominant members and their political preferences emerges.

Since the end of the Cold War, the expectations from the NATO’s missions have changed. That is, in the context of regional conflicts and the fight against international terrorism, the NATO has been challenged to undertake new responsibilities and this leads to serious problems among the Allies due to different interests and political understandings. Challenges on intelligence sharing constitute just one of the main examples of challenges in the context of cooperation.

Although the latest NATO Summit held in Brussels on May 25, 2017 was a symbolic meeting meant to open the organization’s new headquarters and unveil some new memorials, it was significant since the new U.S. President Donald Trump, who has described the military alliance as “obsolete,” met the other leaders for the first time. As the leaders of all the member countries were present, several important subjects were also discussed in the summit alongside the openings.

Increasing military expenditures to favor US-based weapon companies

Still shocked by Trump’s election victory, European leaders were concerned about the possibility of the U.S. President’s pressing upon them with new demands during the summit. During a period in which Russia particularly came into prominence with its aggressive policies, they did not wish the impairment of their security partnership with the U.S. although they abstained from shouldering the burden necessitated by this partnership. While the U.S. military expenditure reached 3.3% of the country’s GDP, Trump urged the European members of NATO to increase their military expenditures up to 2% of their GDP, asserting that the countries falling behind this would owe a debt to the alliance. For countries whose military expenditures are around 1.2% of their GDP, such as Germany, this demand is quite a challenge. To meet this demand by the U.S., Germany will have to increase its military expenditure up to $70 billion and allocate far more funds to compensate for insufficient spending in the past. Several European NATO members including Spain, Italy and the Netherlands do also have the same concern in the face of the U.S. pressure due to their low military spending.

Planning to boost U.S. military expenditure to more than 4% of GDP, the Trump administration’s push for European NATO members to increase their military expenditures signals Washington’s reluctance to provide for the safety of Europe and the expectation that European countries will allocate more funds for their own security. Trump’s insistence on this matter is understandable given that U.S.-based weapons manufacturers will earn considerable profits from the increased defense budgets. Not wishing to return from Europe empty-handed following his Middle East tour, during which he made multi-billion dollar arms deals with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, Trump is highly aware of the fact that the European continental countries offer a market on par with the oil-rich Gulf Arab region.

It is not surprising that the first country Trump targets in this respect is Germany, which had a $295 billion foreign trade surplus last year. Being a businessman, it is unsettling for Trump to see Germany as the trade surplus champion of the world in a period when the U.S. had a $734 billion trade deficit. Having previously accused Berlin of pursuing an aggressive trade policy, Trump regards Germany’s excessive trade surplus as one of the causes of the excessive trade deficit in the U.S. A more balanced picture can be expected provided that Germany increases its military expenditure and the quantity of the weapons it buys from American companies.

The European countries are even more in need of the U.S. security umbrella given the aggressive policies Russia has adopted in the past years, which increased its military expenditure to 4.9% of its GDP. Therefore, although they are disturbed by Trump’s negative views on NATO and the speculations regarding Trump-Putin relations, it can be argued that the European allies will acquiesce to the pressure of the U.S. and increase their military expenditures.

http://thenewturkey.org/us-failed-to-stick-up-for-democracy-in-the-night-of-july-15-coup-attempt/

One of other most prominent subjects at the NATO Summit was cooperation in the campaign against terrorism. During his Middle East tour, Trump called the leaders of the Islamic countries to joint action against terrorism in his address in Riyadh. He also addressed the NATO allies in Brussels to take joint action with regard to preventing terrorism. Despite that, the U.S. has been providing indirect support to the outlawed PKK, one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the region, through the medium of the PKK’s Syrian offshoot, the People’s Protection Units (YPG).

The summit took place only a few days after the terrorist attack in Manchester, England; consequently, cooperation against terrorism under the umbrella of NATO was particularly highlighted during the summit. The joint fight against terror has been one of the main reasons for NATO’s existence since the end of the Cold War. However, it is not possible to say that the alliance’s members are in full solidarity with each other regarding terrorism, which has been posing a severe threat to most NATO countries.

Turkey does not rely on NATO

It is obvious that Turkey is the leading country in NATO effected by terror. Being subjected to simultaneous assaults by a number of terrorist groups, including the PKK, the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ) and Daesh, Turkey has not received the support it expected from NATO allies. It turned out that some allied countries adopted certain policies that sided with the terrorist groups in question. Having invoked Article 5 of its founding treaty after 9/11, NATO has not exerted any efforts to aid Turkey, which has been rocked by devastating terror attacks. Ankara’s outlook towards NATO has changed negatively as the U.S. and some European NATO allies protected or condoned the activities of the PKK and FETÖ militants who have been the perpetrators of the attacks against Turkey.

Various factors have brought NATO into discredit in the eyes of Turkey. Although listed as a terrorist organization, the PKK has easily found militants and financial resources in Europe. Washington openly provided weapons to the PKK’s Syrian offshoots, namely the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its armed wing the YPG. Germany and several other NATO members are reluctant to recognize FETÖ as a terrorist group by dismissing FETÖ’s link to the July 15 coup attempt and giving asylum to FETÖ leaders, including military officers directly involved in the attempted overthrow. Besides, Turkey did not receive any support from NATO when it was targeted economically and politically by Russia at the end of 2015 because of the situation in Syria. This also played an important role in Turkey’s declining trust in the alliance.

In addition, Turkey was confronted with several problems while buying the weapons it needed from NATO allies to fight against terror and other threats in the Middle East, which constituted another component of the security-related crises between Ankara and Brussels. Following the July 15 coup attempt, the Western allies turned their backs on Ankara while Ankara was expecting their support. To add insult to injury, the allies issued some statements suggesting that Turkey’s NATO membership might be canceled due to Turkey’s measures against coup plotters during the critical period following the failed coup attempt. These developments fomented a profound unrest among the Turkish public and led masses to believe that some of the NATO allies might have been behind the coup attempt.

After having trust issues with its Western allies, Turkey sought rapprochement with Russia and leaned towards military cooperation with the country, which was sealed with the deal to purchase S-400 air defense missiles. Russia also gave overt support to Turkey after the coup attempt, which posed a major problem for NATO. While NATO has been unremittingly making mistakes that might result in losing their 65-years-long ally to Russia, some European members of the alliance intervened in the domestic affairs of Turkey by endorsing the “no” campaign ahead of the April 16 constitutional referendum in Turkey. Such factors tested Ankara’s limits.

After it was decided NATO’s would join the fight against Daesh at the summit, Germany reportedly considering withdrawing its troops stationed in İncirlik Air Base as part of the anti-Daesh fight, upon which Turkey remained indifferent. This also manifests the severity of the problems within the alliance. It will be a good start to resolve at least some of those problems if the European members of NATO and the U.S. realize that they have adopted certain policies against Turkey that are incompatible with the alliance, especially over the past few years, and start supporting Ankara in its fight against terrorist groups including the PKK and FETÖ.

 

 

President Erdoğan’s meeting with US President Trump was overshadowed by the Pentagon’s decision to provide heavy weaponry to the YPG. Meanwhile, Trump’s mind was preoccupied with rumors of impeachment over allegations his administration shared state secrets with Russian officials. Some circles in Washington, on the other hand, tried to prevent the one-on-one meeting of Erdoğan and Trump.

The Pentagon’s hasty decision to equip the PKK/PYD with heavy weaponry was due to a possible revision in the planning of the Raqqa offensive after the two leaders’ meeting. There were no substantial changes in the planned Raqqa offensive, which is being coordinated by the Pentagon, but Turkey was able to relay its concerns about the PYD/YPG and the demographic engineering in the region at the highest official level. Turkey was also able to secure certain guarantees about the fight against the PKK, and made clear the fact it would actively continue its fight against the terrorist organization. Moreover, Turkey emphasized that it wouldn’t stand idle as the PKK/PYD, Daesh, and Iran-backed Shiite militias carried out ethnic and sectarian cleansing in the region.

Trump’s statement underscoring the strategic and military partnership between Turkey and the US was crucial. Even though the Turkish delegation returned to the country with a cautious optimism, this statement was perceived as the herald of a new era in Turkey-US relations, which had been on the decline since May, 2013. No one was expecting all the issues between the two countries to be resolved in an instant, but the image of the two leaders standing side by side was interpreted as the beginning of a more promising period for bilateral relations.

This was not the only indication that the level of understanding and cooperation between the US and Turkey could be on the mend.

Factors prompting the normalization of Turkey-US relations

The normalization in relations between Turkey and Israel, which had been in a crisis since the Mavi Marmara incident, will cause a gradual change in how Turkey is perceived both by the Trump administration, which has been especially sensitive on the issue, and circles that are associated with the Israeli lobby in Washington, which have advocated anti-Turkey sentiments for some time now. While Turkey will continue to advocate for the basic rights of the people of Jerusalem and Palestine, it will be more careful to avoid tensions with Israel. There are concrete efforts to increase the common interests of the two countries, especially in energy, tourism and trade.

Another issue that both Turkey and the US converge on in this new era is Iran’s expansionist policies in the Middle East. In particular, Iran-backed militia forces which are trying to gain ground using a sectarian discourse and ideology are posing a threat to the interests of many countries and local elements in the region. Checking these militias, whose presence is rationalized as a necessary counter to Daesh, brings Turkey, the US and many other countries in the region on common ground.

http://thenewturkey.org/will-the-trump-administration%E2%80%99s-syria-policy-change-after-the-chemical-attack/

Enclosing Sunni countries with a “Shiite crescent” – a policy that was covertly endorsed by the Obama administration to limit the Sunni governments in the region much to the chagrin of traditional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries and Israel – is no longer sustainable. The Trump administration, which is yet to take over the control of security and foreign policy from the Obama administration’s military and civil bureaucrats, will realize that cooperation with Turkey could yield more effective results than surrounding the country with terrorist organizations like the PKK/PYD and Shiite militia forces.

Turkey’s success in Operation Euphrates Shield already debunked the myth that the PKK/PYD is the most effective force in the fight against Daesh. If Brett McGurk, the US envoy to the coalition against Daesh, and an Obama administration appointee who has built his own career on the an alliance with the PKK/PYD, and certain CENTCOM officials take a step back, the permanent and constructive possibilities of coordination with Turkey will become more apparent.  Turkey can provide a solution that is sustainable given the region’s sectarian and ethnic patterns, unlike the PKK/PYD, which has only sought to exploit these dangerous fault-lines.

The US’s persistent support to the PKK/PYD is antagonizing moderate Syrian Kurds who are being dominated by the terrorist organization, along with Arabs in Northern Syria who have been forced from their own lands, not to mention Washington’s own ally, Turkey. If the Trump administration is to adopt a controlled chaos strategy in the Middle East, just like the Obama administration, instead of an orderly one, they can continue their alliance with PKK/PYD; however, if the US wants to stabilize the region and win over the allies it has offended, they have to widen their narrow perspective. In this respect, Erdoğan and his team went to Washington with a comprehensive plan.

Another development which may cause the Trump administration to revise its relations with Turkey is the level of popular support President Erdoğan has demonstrated through the constitutional amendment referendum. Certain circles in Washington have been trying to prove that Erdoğan has little support and will not remain in office long, a campaign that began with the Gezi Park Protests in May, 2013. Having emerged with the clear support of the people both in the July 15 coup attempt and the April 16 constitutional referendum, Erdoğan has shown that he is has the backing of Turkey, and he is not going anywhere. Decision makers in Washington, along with leaders of other countries will have to acknowledge this sooner or later.

Erdoğan, at his meeting with Trump, expressed a sincere hope for more cooperation between the two countries, while also highlighting Turkey’s concerns on the road to normalization. Ankara is eagerly waiting to see how Trump will respond to its call. It is still not clear whether the relationship between the two countries is to become strategic in terms of regional politics. Another question that the whole world anxiously awaits the answer to is whether Trump will be left standing after his ongoing power struggle with the Washington establishment.

Chemical weapons have been used 45 times in Syria since last year, according to the Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which monitors the elimination of the toxic arms in order to ensure international security. The most recent chemical attack to draw world attention took place on April 4, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun district, which is located in southern Idlib. The Khan Sheikhoun attack also prompted the fledgling Trump administration to carry out a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase allegedly used for the chemical attack, which targeted innocent civilians and children.

The Red Line in US Syria Policy

In response to the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, the root causes of the Trump authorization of a missile attack in Syria have been widely discussed at the international level. Trump’s missile strike could be interpreted as taking a stand against the use chemical weapons, which had been clearly marked as a ‘red line’ in Washington’s Syria policy by the previous administration. Back in 2013, President Obama had said any violation of the red line could lead to a possible change of US policy towards the Syrian civil war.

Apparently, Trump and his predecessor Obama are on the same page about what a red line in the Syrian civil war is. According to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the top leadership of the Assad regime ordered the Khan Sheikhoun attack and decided to employ deadly chemicals including sarin gas to hit innocent people. Nevertheless, Syria and Russia are adamant that the recent sarin gas attack is a ‘false flag’ operation that Al-Qaeda or one of the Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups that controls the Idlib province set off in order to elicit an American intervention which put 20% of Assad’s air force out of action. However, if we take a look at the recent history of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, despite international condemnation, significant non-overlapping arguments were laid out by the Syrian government and even by the OPCW.

Even though Syria signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in October 2013 and OPCW reported Syria had removed all of its chemical arsenal in June 2014, the Syrian government went on to carry out chlorine gas attacks several times in Idlib. It is possible that Syria has used the Chemical Weapons Convention as a screen, so it can attribute future deadly chemical attacks on opposition groups fighting in Idlib.

Most probably, the Syrian government did not expect a sudden US attack that  would destroy one of their significant airfields. From now on, there is a possibility that Trump’s retaliatory attacks might stop Assad from using chemical weapons. Apparently Russia can quickly replace the lost aircraft at the destroyed airbase, so it is difficult to anticipate the future of Syria and how the recent US attacks might change the balance of power on the battlefield, specifically in Idlib province where the next “mother of all battles” is yet to come.

Trump’s Policy in the Middle East Will Not Be a Huge Departure from That of Obama’s

Following the chemical attack, the international community has renewed calls for supporting regime change and removing Assad from Syria, arguing that if this does not happen, Syria will stay vulnerable to further gross human rights violations. Even though the US has followed a pro-active policy in the region over the last 15 years, this time it seems that Trump’s policy in the Middle East would be “reactive.” So far, Trump’s policy has not offered any concrete solution to stop the humanitarian crisis except offering condemnation and carrying out some warning attacks. Most probably, Trump’s policy in the Middle East will not be a huge departure from that of Obama’s.

Trump’s reaction to the deadly chemical attack is rather symbolic and discursive, and does not change his stated aim that his top priority in Syria is to defeat DAESH. Syria urgently needs two rational solutions for two rising concerns which threaten the collective security of the region. One of them is to curtail the presence of terror organizations such as DAESH and PYD in the region. The other is to stop chemical attacks targeting civilian-inhabited areas and causing mass casualties. In this regard, Turkey could possibly get a leading role and step up for a pro-active policy in the region, especially after its Euphrates Shield Operation in Syria has been shown to be so successful.

Turkey Was Right to Consistently Call for Assad’s Ouster

After wide-spread chemical attacks in Syrian territory, the international community has been able to find the lowest common denominator and chanted “Assad must go” with one voice, however Turkey has known of the urgency of Assad’s ouster since the beginning of the war. After the chemical attack Turkey has renewed this call one more time.

The state apparatus in Syria has completely been destroyed and the legitimacy of the regime is highly questionable. More than 11 million people have been displaced (almost half of Syria’s population) and the economy has shrunk 65% since the start of the war. This is in addition to the situation even before the conflict began, when many Syrians were complaining about high unemployment rates, widespread and normalized corruption, and a lack of political freedoms.

Who Will Take the Lead in the Syrian Battleground?

The current situation in Syria is pathetic, as another deadly chemical attack was launched against innocent civilians, but no single institution or government seems sure of what the next step will be, and who is going to take the leading role. Moreover, there are communication problems between Moscow and the US, whose priorities are clashing against each other, with one side working for the “survival of the regime” and another for “fighting DAESH.” No one knows how Russia will take the facts of the recent chemical attack in discussions with their US counterparts, so the level of dialogue is very critical between the two powers and will determine the future of Syria under the Trump administration.

After a meeting with Putin on May 3, Erdoğan will meet with Trump on May 16. That meeting will turn out to be critical, as it will be the first “face to face” encounter between the two leaders. Additionally, two key NATO allies will have the chance to mend a relationship that was wounded by persistent US cooperation with PYD, the Syrian branch of the PKK.

Turkey should be neither too pessimist nor too optimist especially after Rex Tillerson’s statements on Syria, which were recently laid out after a joint press conference with Russian counter-part Lavrov. Tillerson underlined the urgency of Assad’s departure, however he added that the US is not going to lead it. His statement is a good summary of the American position, in that it is standing up for Syria.  The next step should be to realize that Turkey has a clear strategic advantage and can become that leading figure on the Syrian battleground needed to remove Assad.

This must be the post-truth world. It seems to have started with Trump… He became the President of the US with a discourse against the global system, the same system Trump himself owes his wealth and power. Even the UK, the founding father of the liberal-capitalist system that is currently dominating the globe, is an opponent of the system! They have left a certain system with Brexit, after all. From now on, it seems that the politicians of the Western democracies addressing the public will try to prove that they are the opponents of the system and establishment.

This is indeed the buzzword of the French presidential elections. There isn’t even one candidate who is a proponent of the system! While all of the candidates claim that they are against it, each and every one of them accuses the others of being a proponent of the system. Looking at what each of them said, you can understand what they mean while talking about the system and what they are against. Otherwise, being just an opponent of the system is nothing but ambiguous. The discourses of Trump and the presidential candidates in France reveal that being against the system in Western democracies primarily means being against immigration with a hint of critique of globalization. A hollow and magical word which was created against the masses that shouldered the burden of 2008 financial crises and were desperate in the face of global capitalist system and technology! Moreover, the French have been governed by two contrasting figures, Hollande and Sarkozy, in the last 10 years and there were no differences, no changes. As change has lost its meaning, the experts of  political marketing provided a new product: being against the system.

Look at the left; firstly to Emmanuel Macron who seems to be leading the polls. ENA graduate, former employee of Rothschild Bank, never elected before, became the Minister of Economy of the Socialist Government by the will of President Hollande and garnered the support of the capitalists; yet, he is against the system. Isn’t that a bit odd? A student at Colombia University asked the “centrist” Emmanuel Macron whether he was anti-system. “It’s not enough to just claim that; we should observe how the system reacted to my candidacy. The establishment wanted to destroy me when I became a candidate,” he replied. Establishment, for Macron, is the Socialist Party, which didn’t support his candidacy and conducted a pre-selection process.

On the other hand, Socialist Party candidate Benoit Hamon, who is a proponent of the welfare state and has a pluralist rhetoric, says that he doesn’t want to maintain the system. Still, like Macron, he also served as a minister for more than two years in the current government. The third candidate on the left, former Trotskyist and senator, member of the Socialist Party since 1970, and a member of the European Parliament Jean-Luc Mélenchon is also against the system. He said “people are rejecting those who advocate the system that condemned them to death” and, turning towards the members of the press, added: “For instance, you are the system!”

The right-wing candidate François Fillon is also against the system! “My project will disrupt the order of those who benefit from the system,” he said. Fillon was the prime minister of the former French president Sarkozy. At first, it was revealed that Fillon made one of his businessman friends “gift” him three suits, each of them costing €13,000, while making another friend gift him two luxury watches. Then, it was found out that he had invented an imaginary job for his wife in the parliament, costing the taxpayers €800,000 over 30 years, and similarly “employing” his daughter and son for some years. He is now furious at the media, saying that it’s not the media that is to determine the next president.

What the system means for the far-right’s candidate and a member of the European Parliament Marine Le Pen is everything that stands against her party Front National, of course! Her promises offer more radical and structural reforms when compared to other candidates, that’s for sure. However, at this point, certain discourses which would be deemed scandalous a couple of years ago are now being uttered by politicians and intellectuals of both the classical right and left. It has become commonplace. Indeed, the Islamophobic approaches that were commenced over the burkini and headscarf, along with the anti-immigrant discourse, increased the power of Le Pen.

When her father Jean Marie Le Pen eliminated Socialist Party candidate Lionel Jospin in the first round and got to the runoff together with Chirac in 2002, this was a catastrophe for France. The father Le Pen had garnered 16.8% and 17.19% of the votes in the first and second rounds, respectively. According to the famous IFOP polls, today Marine Le Pen is expected to garner 22.5% of the total votes in the first round. Moreover, according to the same poll, this figure is only one point lower than Macron who seems to be leading the first round. Le Pen is ahead of Fillon (19.5%), Mélenchon (18.5%) and Hamon (7.5%), nevertheless. In a possible runoff, she may acquire twice the votes her father could in 2002. In a climate where the views of the far-right crept into both sides of the political spectrum and became normalized, Marine Le Pen who is deemed to be more moderate than her father is now a part of the system, not an outsider. Or, at least, it could be said that she has drawn the others into her system.

Le Pen’s most significant competitor Emmanuel Macron made a U-turn from his initial position at the very beginning of the election and, referring to Angela Merkel’s (in)famous statement, said “France is not a multicultural country.” When the Canadian prime minister was shown as an example on immigration, he said “I don’t agree with him. I would be much more authoritative in this issue.” Previously, these kinds of approaches would be perceived as something negative; now, it is not like that, not even a bit. Seeing that her rivals are using her discourses, Marine Le Pen felt the need to kick it up a notch and make the most assertive statement in the world: “During my presidency, there will never be a terrorist attack like those happened in Bataclan and Stade de France.” Considering all, the only candidate who seems to be an outsider to the system is the Socalist Party candidate Hamon. He was able to outmaneuver former Prime Minister Manuelle Valls who is known for Islamophobic remarks with votes from the suburbs in the pre-selection; however, he could not garner the same success in the campaign process.

While Jean Marie Le Pen wasn’t even allowed on TV, her daughter demanded the removal of the EU flag at the studio set as a precondition to her appearance on France’s most known TV channel TF1. Anti-EU sentiments were once an original discourse of her father; now, they are not. Both Le Pen and Mélenchon are promising to have a Frexit, making France, one of the two original founders of the EU, leave the international organization. It’s an interesting sight to behold; a politician of the far-right and a leftist are promising the same about the EU and we have precedence with Brexit. While they don’t want to exit the EU, Fillon is talking about the renegotiation of Schengen and Hamon is discussing that treaties should be revised. Therefore, it’s not easy to claim to be against the system and showing your difference.

If the predictions of the research companies are true and Le Pen is able to get to the runoff in France where a fourth of the voters are indecisive, Le Pen’s opponent will be elected president! For now, her most vigorous adversary is Macron; if this comes to pass, for the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic the largest political formations of the country, the Socialist Party and the Republicans, will be eliminated. He may become the president without being backed by a party, almost like Trump, and only by the support of the capitalists and political marketing. The vote he is to receive in the first round will be only a memory for him in the Elysée Palace.

The various discussions that have commenced with the election of US President Donald Trump have continued on a global scale as well as within the United States. Two main reasons exist for these debates. The first is xenophobia and Islamophobic rhetoric that is prevalent in his discourse. The second is the current order who cannot accept Trump as President and the attitude of the media establishments regarding this stance. Generally speaking, it is possible to narrow this down to two focal points, with one side being in favor of Trump and the other firmly opposing his election. Media conglomerates had also been at the center of this debate during the election campaign, taking their positions with either party.

As per tradition for Presidential elections, a number of the pioneering media establishments in US media made statements supporting either the Democratic or the Republican Party. But many of the endorsements came from outlets that traditionally remain silent, and this time there was an unprecedented across the board sentiment against one candidate, Trump. For example, USA Today had announced that for the first time in its 34 year history it would weight in on an election, saying that it would stand against Trump. Foreign Policy magazine, breaking tradition for the first time in almost 50 years, said it would endorse Hillary Clinton. Another magazine, The Atlantic, published an editorial piece throwing their unwavering support behind Clinton and opposed Trump’s presidency. In its 159-year history, the only other time this had taken place was when the magazine endorsed Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. In addition, leading broadcasting services CNN and NBC were also firmly against Donald Trump. The Washington Post, one of the most widely circulated newspapers in the United States instead preferred to use the phrase “Trump is not suitable for the US Presidency” whilst The New York Times made known their position for Hillary Clinton by stating that their support for her was a result of her intellect, experience, toughness and courage spanning over a career of almost 40 years of continuous public service.

As the November 8 2016 Presidential election drew near, such statements that indicated the position of many media establishments increased substantially with virtually the entire US media showing support for Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. The mainstream media firmly believed that the Democratic Party would win. Similarly, many of the public polls and surveys conducted throughout the election campaign predicted and in fact, confirmed, that Clinton would be victorious. The result was contrary to all expectations. Despite the propaganda campaign, Trump won the election and like the first signals that he had given during the beginning of the election campaign, his tirade of vilification and condemnation against the media multiplied substantially.

Trumps’ fury at US media

Launching a barrage of attacks on the American media, Trump’s expressions have surpassed the line of criticism with his stinging, voracious attacks that have bordered on dragging names through the mud as well as going so far as threatening to litigate legal cases aimed at shutting down some outlets. Trump has repeatedly said that the “media are the biggest liars on earth” and his repetitive use of this statement clearly is a reflection of his attitude. In his first official White House press conference, the dialogue between himself and reporters from CNN and the BBC in front of the world was a striking example of this attitude. During the press conference, Donald Trump refused to answer a question from a CNN reporter and turned to the CNN camera saying that “Not you. Your organization is terrible.”

During a press conference held at Trump Tower, Donald Trump turned to CNN executive Jeff Zucker and derided the network saying, “CNN news network is completely false. I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed….” Referring to the NBC News network and Time magazine, Trump also condemned the establishments saying “the media is trying to marginalize me by lying.”

During the Obama presidency, tradition called for the Associated Press to ask the first question at White House briefings. Trump did not allow for this to happen.

Without a doubt, photographs clearly showed the Trump inauguration had a far lower turnout than the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama. A Time magazine correspondent incorrectly reported that Trump had removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval office, adding more fuel to Trump’s media fury. Regardless, despite the passing of these events, Trump’s battle with the media over Twitter has not diminished. During the most intensive Twitter rants, he continued to name names and on more than one occasion, has made many generalisations concerning the “false” reporting of the American media. On February 6^th 2017, Trump made outright attacks on the American media. Launching a Twitter tongue-lashing against the New York Times who had revealed embarrassing White House revelations, he said in one message that “The failing NY Times writes total fiction concerning me. They have gotten it wrong for two years, and now are making up stories & sources!” His vendetta against the media continued with attacks on CNN, ABC, and NBC, claiming these news organisations were making a deliberate attempt to bring people into the streets and that they wanted to replace him with a President of their choice.

Undoubtedly, media establishments outside of the US are also receiving their fair share of criticism.

When looking at Trump’s vitriol towards the media and the media’s approach to Trump, it goes without saying that it is a battle that has only just begun.

Media remembers “ethics” after Trump experience

The constant humiliation of news establishments by Trump and his treatment of reporters during the press conference have opened a new front line regarding freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the position of media within a democratic society. Gary Gutting wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, where, after painting a picture of the current climate, he concluded, “recent events, here and elsewhere, revive the worry, expressed by Plato, that populist democracy can readily pave the way to dictatorship. Resisting this threat (and this temptation) is the first duty of today’s patriots.” In his piece, Gutting essentially built a wall against the Trump administration, tying it up with the founding principles of the US and the principles of democracy.

A more direct response to Trump’s media attack came from Reuters in the form of an editorial from its editor-in-chief Steve Adler, entitled “Covering Trump the Reuters Way.” In his piece, Adler noted that the worldwide news agency operated in more than 100 countries around the world and stressed principles of neutrality and independence in the face of challenges such as censorship, legal prosecution, visa denials, and even physical threats to journalists. Adler stressed Reuters would continue to pursue critical reporting on the Trump administration because it’s part of their own journalistic principles.

In a news commentary headline, the BBC asked whether Trump’s accusation of media “not reporting terrorist attacks” was true, by running a long assessment of the terrorist attacks around the world one by one and whether they were covered by the BBC. One can ascertain that the BBC had in fact relayed news regarding terrorists attacks to its readership and that it had related this information on the basis of its professionalism of its journalistic integrity, and that Trump, whether deliberately or ignorantly, was trying to blame the media.

Evidently, media organisations around the world took issue with Trump’s accusations and found themselves defending their journalistic integrity. It is clear that these accusations against the media will increase in the future. At this point, it is necessary to examine the journalistic ethics and the universal principles of journalism. Quite frankly, leaving Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric to the side, the moral position of the language used by the US and UK media can also be debated. Have those same media organisations who have taken a stance against Trump’s humiliating and insulting discourse been able to uphold their “journalism ethic” of fairness and impartiality when it comes to different countries and peoples? What kind of general publication policy did these outlets have when Turkey, Iraq and Palestine were the subject concerned? Did they apologise for inaccuracies and false news reports then?

Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction; the BBC’s reporting of Turkey

When looking into American history, it can be claimed that it has a relatively free and neutral media. The basis of this is the principle of liberty that was relayed to the press by the first amendment of the US constitution in 1791. However an observation of this picture shows us that this understanding of freedom is limited largely to the benefit of the US. During the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and in addition to this, the illegal occupation of Palestine and the massacre of thousands of people resulting from continuous attacks by Israel, the media has either played the role of the three monkeys or have been the congratulatory fifth arm of imperialism, or has either supported or provoked attempts through propaganda like journalistic practices. When it came to covering Israeli assaults on Gaza, for instance, outlets went out of their way to give coverage to rockets being fired into nearby Israeli settlements, with almost no casualties being caused, while thousands were being killed in Gaza.

In 2003, the global public opinion on the existence of nuclear weapons and the subsequent invasion of Iraq was largely swayed by US/UK media outlets, including NYT, CNN, the BBC, and Reuters. Prior to the 1990 war on Iraq, images of badly oiled birds from the Gulf were regularly shown by CNN, convincing the world of the evilness of Saddam Hussein. The same media establishments continued this ethic throughout the occupation. In this regard, the US media could be considered an echo chamber for the White House or the Pentagon.

In this context, we can also give the example of the double standard of the Western media who used patronising language towards Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and their support for illegal attempts to topple the Turkish President, a President voted in by the Turkish people.

The publications produced by the BBC and CNN against the Turkish government are not that particularly difficult to pinpoint either. In June 2013, during the Gezi Park protests, CNN broadcast live from Gezi Park for hours, and used language that incited protests and street violence. In fact, they presented the news as if there was a civil war. If that wasn’t enough, CNN then used a public meeting attended by more than a million people at the Kazlicesme suburb of Istanbul in support of Erdogan and portrayed it as if it was something that was held in opposition to him.

In addition to this, Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s foreign news presenter cut shortthen Prime Minister Erdogan’s adviser on live television, which was seen by many as extremely offensive. Many of BBC’s broadcasts on Turkey were shaped in a similar fashion.

The personal views of many of these journalists, despite pledges to follow ethical practices of objectivity, have often come out in their writing as well as other communication.

A tweet by a BBC journalist on January 28 2017 during Theresa May’s visit to Turkey saying that there was “a lot of gold” at the Turkish presidential palace has turned into a source of mockery by many Twitter users.

In 2013, a Turkish news journalist with the BBC was similarly ridiculed for choosing to provide a platform to a small group of government opponents. The protesters, the reporter tweeted, were saying “Let’s not be the standing man, but the man that stops. Let’s stop the economy.”

When it came time to choose headlines, these media outlets have usually given space to opposition voices whose rhetoric is far from objective, again a break with what should be journalistic ethics. A December 2014 meeting between Turkish President Erdogan and Russian President Putin, for instance, was headlined with a quote from a critic who described it as the “summit of the honourable lonely ones”.

On July 15 2016, virtually the entire Western media targeted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a language that clearly indicated that it had chosen to ignore public sentiment in the country, instead taking sides with Fetullah Gulen’s army faction during the coup attempt. On July 16, Reuters described Fetullah Gulen as a Muslim preacher, and gave Gulen space in the headline, to describe the coup attempt as having been “staged.”

By way of reporting the failed coup attempt in this malicious manner, the Reuters news agency lost its impartiality and signed off the broadcast from the FETO perspective. The Reuters news agency shared these clear statements and content throughout the night of the coup attempt in its broadcast despite the clear national will of the Turkish people, and its legitimate government represented by the elected President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

It is possible to expand these examples, not just in the context of Turkey but in the context of other countries as well. Therefore, the media in the US and the global media oligarchs that have put up a front in their battle against Donald Trump claiming journalistic ethics and integrity by no means absolves them of their own sins.

On the contrary, their malicious reporting and behaviour has confirmed the existence of a structure that is used unashamedly in the pursuit of their own agenda. This attitude will not surpass a double-faced standard. A coin has two faces. Trump has shown that he is on one side of this coin, taking a hard stance against the global media empires, in particular the ones in the US. This stance, in fact has been scorned and belittled by elitist circles for quite some time. On the other side of the coin are the media organisations.

Since the very beginning of the election campaign, the US media channels, by taking a position against Donald Trump, in their pursuit of their agenda have been defeated in two ways. Firstly, if to take into consideration French sociologist Jean Beaudrillard’s words, “the silence of the masses do not speak to the screens, but have turned their backs,” then without a doubt, it is clear that much of the American public has little connection with the American media, and that the media is playing its own tune with its audience being only itself.

Secondly, the widespread assumption of the American media, inspired by classical media theories, have thrown out the window the idea that they can inspire and distort the thinking of the masses. Many people in America did not vote as the media thought they would, handing Trump enough votes to win office. In the presidential election, the party supported by the US media establishment lost the election and the cold reality that emerged was that there was little relationship between the media and the people of America, and that very few cared for what was being said on television or at the very least, ignored what was being said. Without a doubt, the fury of the American media establishment is caused by this cold reality. The American media establishment should take an equitable and broadminded approach for all and that it should raise the flag of tolerance for those who are devoid of a powerful voice. Otherwise, once Trump raises his own anger and fury, it can be seen that the curtain of the American media conglomerates will fall furthermore with terrifying consequences.

Donald J. Trump took office as the 45^th president of the United States on January 20, 2017. He attracted much public attention with statements on the economy, foreign policy, security and energy, even in the election period. The Trump administration has aimed to start “a new energy revolution” especially in terms of energy policies. The Trump administration has promised to revitalize the oil and natural gas sectors by repealing some of the Obama administration’s restrictions, like the White House Climate Action Plan. In parallel with this, Trump has stated that the production of fossil fuels should be increased by reducing legal restrictions.

President Trump has appointed former Texas Governor Rick Perry as the Secretary of Energy. It is thought that Mr. Perry will follow policies on climate change and global warming that may cause harm to the environment.

Immediately after the inauguration of Donald Trump, some statements were released on the White House’s official website regarding energy, foreign policy, economic growth, employment, and defense. These statements are a kind of confirmation that some legislation from the Obama presidency would be repealed by the new administration. One of the first subjects which the Trump administration has put on the agenda is energy. The announcement, called “An America First Energy Plan,” states that “harmful and unnecessary” policies like the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the US Rule have burned the American economy and they should be repealed. In addition, Trump has signaled that untapped energy resources on federal lands, like oil, shale and natural gas, should be utilized and their revenues should be spent on infrastructure projects. Moreover, the removal of the climate change page from the White House’s website proves that Trump will deal with this issue as soon as possible. Trump has regularly stated that climate change is not a scientific fact, even saying that it “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

On the other hand, the desire of the US to control energy resources, especially in the Middle East, Caspian Sea and Eastern Mediterranean regions, will most probably spark a rivalry between Russia and the US. In the forthcoming period, the US, Russia and Turkey have been expected to confer, particularly about natural gas resources and pipeline routes. The Trump administration is expected to exert effort on transmitting natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean region to Turkey, and then to the European Union via the Southern Gas Corridor. The feasibility studies on this project are still proceeding and when this project is implemented, Turkey will take another step to become an energy trade center. In this sense, the intimate relations between Turkey and the new US administration are extremely important.

Today, it is very difficult to forecast the dynamics of the global energy game with certainty, however, some signals have been given by the new US administration that it intends to change its policies on energy in the near future. These policy changes will not only affect the US energy system but also the global energy equation would be reconfigured. In this respect, especially in the Middle East, the US, Russia and Turkey should act in unison and bring peace to this region. By doing so, the energy reserves of this region can be utilized more effectively and Turkey can derive benefit from this situation. Therefore, in the process of bringing stability to the region, Turkey should do a very careful cost-benefit analysis and act in parallel with its national interests.

What Turkey and the Region Can Expect Going Forward

In the new period, it seems that energy will be at the center of developments in Turkey and the region. The foreign policy of the US was slammed frequently by Trump in the electoral period. In this regard, the new administration’s thoughts about bilateral relations with Russia, NATO expenses and the military presence of the US in the Middle East have indicated that the balances in the region can be reshaped.

The critical role played by Turkey in the region is expected to increasingly continue. Along with the positive developments between Turkey and Russia in the recent period, Turkey, Russia and the US can together direct energy policy in the region. From this point of view, especially the developments in the Middle East, Syria and Iraq will greatly influence the variables of the energy equation.

There are many projects in the region waiting to be implemented. Specifically, the US is expected to be an important player in terms of drilling in the rich oil and gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean region and transmitting these resources via Turkey to global markets. In the new term, it is foreseen that the operations on security and energy coordination in the region will also continue. The main objectives are both gaining economic benefit and ending political tension. Thanks to these projects, Turkey will achieve its goal of being an energy trading center. In addition, it is expected that Turkey will play a crucial role in building new international partnerships in the region. Turkey aims to become a center of attraction in terms of energy. By doing so, Turkey wants to improve its economic and commercial relations with the US. In this way, not only Turkey but also the region will derive benefit.

Although it is quite difficult to predict the future energy policies of the new US administration, there are some important signals that have been given by President Trump. Accordingly, it is possible to say that the production of fossil fuels will be increased, oil pipeline projects cancelled by the Obama administration will be reactivated, and some policies related with environment and climate change will be radically changed in the new period. In light of this information, it appears that the US will try to be a fully independent country in terms of energy. On the other hand, it is clear that the new energy policies of the US will affect Turkey and the region. Owing to this reason, especially in accordance with its targets of becoming an energy trade center, Turkey should act in compliance with its national interests and contribute to bringing economic and political stability to the region once again.

However, this slump was a surprise to many in the sense that the TL has been one of the worst performers among the currencies of the emerging countries, though the economic and financial outlook of Turkey by no means warranted such a grim outcome. This was not the end of the story, though. After having decreased by around 4 percent against the USD, the TL has plunged by around 10 percent less than two weeks into 2017, reaching around 3.90. This plunge was so sharp in the sense that it eclipsed the “considerable” depreciation that happened just two months earlier with its pace. Such a sharp depreciation requires a very good explanation, yet there was none. It seems that the reason behind the bulk of the depreciation of the TL lies not in the economic but in the political sphere, which amounts to some sort of a speculative attack with “political strings” attached.At what level will the TL/USD parity stabilize? This question is hard to answer since financial movements are extremely unpredictable given the speculative nature of financial markets, particularly as there is a rather weak link between the recent depreciation waves and underlying economic causes to it, if any, though some useful and informed remarks can be made.It is interesting to have a look at the historical course of the TL against the USD (Figure 1). For the period stretching from 1982 to 2002, the TL was extremely undervalued against the USD with a parity of 4.04 on average. However, in the second period of 2003-2015, the opposite was the case: the TL was extremely overvalued against the USD with an average parity of 2.57 due to a positive global economic outlook until the 2008 financial crisis and global liquidity abundance in the 2000s. According to my calculations; given the inflation rates, policy interest rates and other important factors of both countries and from the perspective gained from the course of the TL/USD parity in the last four decades, the TL/USD parity should be around 3.30 as of January 2017.

After an average parity of 2.54 in 2014, which was well in line with the broader pattern experienced in the period of 2003-2015, the USD gained value against the TL considerably in 2015, ending up with a parity of 2.96, though this rate was still low according to historical standards.

In the first ten months of 2016, the parity hovered around this level with an average of 3.00, which was followed by a sharp depreciation for the TL in November 2016, allegedly due to Donald Trump’s election and growing interest rate hike expectations, as mentioned before.

However, the TL lost value in considerable excess of most of the currencies of emerging countries, raising doubts regarding the reasonability of so-called economic causes for such depreciation. The TL closed 2016 with a 14 percent loss in the last two months against the USD. However, this was not the end of the story.

Even though many had expected a bouncing back of the TL, it has further lost value against the USD in the first few days of 2017, this time with a vengeance, causing great surprise. In just a few days, the TL has lost its value against the USD by 9 percent with no apparent “economic” reason. So, in these days Turkish people, while trying to understand what has been going on, wonder what will come next.

From an historical standpoint, it is clear that the TL is now rather undervalued against the USD, with no good reason at least economically. In the 1980s and 1990s the TL was extremely undervalued against the USD, but there were good economic reasons behind it, for example a tight monetary policy and concomitant high policy interest rate of the Fed particularly in the first half of the 1980s, but also occasionally in the 1990s, not to mention very high average inflation rates in Turkey for the whole period.

Actually, for example, the US 10-year Treasury rate was much higher in the 1980s and 1990s, than in the 2000s and particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis. This rate was above 8 percent at large for the 1980s, above 6 percent generally for the 1990s, and above 4 percent prior to the 2008 global financial crisis. Now, it stands at around 2.4 percent. It means that while for almost 4 years the Fed has been discussing an increase in the policy interest rate, it has still been in historically low levels.

On the other hand, the Turkish economy is now much stronger than in the 1980s and 1990s. Inflation has been stabilized in the first half of the 2000s after four decades of turbulence. The public debt to GDP ratio has been in its historically low levels for more than a decade. The fiscal discipline of Turkey is enviable for most of the countries in the world. The Turkish banking sector is in a very good shape and rather strong. There is no problem of currency mismatch at large for Turkish corporations, as they have been sitting on a considerable amount of US dollars to hedge themselves for their operations.

With no strong economic reason for the depreciation of the TL, it is rather apparent that this rather swift loss of value is mostly speculative, to say the least. Therefore, under these economic and financial circumstances, one can reasonably expect that the possibility that the TL will gain considerable value is much higher than the other way around.

In fact, it is very hard for the currency to stay where it is now. (Indeed, it decreased sharply from over 3.90 to about 3.70 in just two days.) So, once the speculative wave fades away, then can we see a sharp decline in the TL/US parity. Until where? Well, one can expect first around 3.60s and then 3.30s.

One final word of caution: speculative attacks against the TL could go on until the presidential system referendum, which is expected to be held in April 2017. However, this does not mean that the TL will further lose value against the USD, since it is very hard to keep a currency artificially depreciated for a long time. One can expect that the TL will gain value moderately in the months to come and find its economically viable place after the presidential election.

American Grand Strategy since the end of the Cold War

Presidents Bill Clinton (1993-2000) and George W. Bush (2001-2008) followed the anti-Russian and pro-Chinese outlines of their predecessors’ grand strategy, which was actually designed according to the military economic distribution of power during the Cold War. For example, Clinton committed to expanding NATO, despite the warnings of many leading realist scholars to the contrary, and at the expense of antagonizing Russia. Bush continued this policy to its furthest extent, by inviting even Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, although key European members of NATO blocked the extension of the NATO Membership Action Plan to these two post-Soviet republics. This was soon followed by the Russian-Georgian Five Day War in August 2008, which resulted in the (most likely permanent) dismemberment of Georgia, by reinforcing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two breakaway republics from Georgia.

Even more importantly, the United States focused most of its attention on the Middle East since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Indeed, Afghanistan and Iraq constitute by far the most comprehensive, costly, and consequential foreign interventions of the U.S. government since the end of the Cold War. Neither one of those interventions was directly related to balancing against or containing Russian or Chinese power and influence, and especially the Second Iraq War was heavily criticized based on strategic considerations as “an unnecessary war.”

The Taliban regime was certainly not a client state of Russia or China; on the contrary, it was arguably the outgrowth of the American effort to contain the Soviet Union. Iraq once had good relations with the United States, for example during the Iran-Iraq war, and although relations later soured, it would be far fetched to claim that Iraq was a client or a satellite state of Russia (or of China). Even worse, U.S. intervention in Iraq pushed erstwhile American allies in the region, such as Turkey and some other European members of NATO, into closer cooperation and collaboration with Russia against U.S. military interventions in the Middle East.

The United States interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq did not help but arguably harmed any effort to contain Russian or Chinese influence in the region. In contrast, the United States did not intervene in Syria, arguably the country that comes closest to being a Russian client state in the Middle East, which is very ironic from the point of containing Russian influence in the Middle East.

President Barack Obama’s attempt to “reset” relations with Russia and “pivot to Asia” can be interpreted as an earlier attempt, however unsuccessful, to refocus American grand strategy on China while seeking a Russian American alignment. It may or may not be coincidental that Obama’s attempts were paralleled by his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and from the broader Middle East, which ironically resulted in Iran, an ally of Russia, becoming the dominant foreign influence over the Iraqi government. However, if one considers Obama’s insistence on the Iran deal, then one might even argue that U.S. withdrawal deliberately strengthened Iran at the expense of other regional actors in the Middle East. In any case, this deal brought Iran and the United States much closer than any time since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, and the American-Iranian rapprochement was persistently pursued at the expense of antagonizing traditional allies of the United States in the Middle East such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Trump’s views on Russia and China

The expressed views of President-elect Donald Trump, both before and after his election, indicate an unmistakably positive attitude vis-à-vis Russia, and also an unmistakably negative attitude vis-à-vis China. Put together, Trump’s Russophilia and Sinophobia predispose him to make the grand strategic shift that would prescribe the United States to encircle China with the help of Russia.

First, Trump’s Russophilia is well known and often emphasized. Even before Trump secured the candidacy of the Republican Party, Reuters reported that, “Trump (is) being advised by ex-U.S. Lieutenant General who favours closer Russia ties”, referring to Michael Flynn whom Trump chose as his National Security Advisor upon being elected president. More specifically, in a lengthy interview he gave to the New York Times, Trump also declared that, “NATO is obsolete”, which is a policy position likely to endear Russia. Russian policy makers mostly see NATO as an anti-Russian organization, and they likewise perceived NATO expansion as a hostile move by the West against Russia. Moreover, Trump even speculated about fighting together with Russia against Daesh in Syria. Likewise, Trump often voiced his admiration for the leadership of Russian president Vladimir Putin, and this admiration appears to be reciprocal.

Some, including U.S. intelligence agencies, even alleged that “Russia ordered [an] ‘influence campaign’ to aid Donald Trump in election.” Trump congratulated Putin for not expelling American diplomats in retaliation for the expelling of Russian diplomats from the United States. He also criticized those who oppose good ties with Russia as being “‘stupid’ people, or fools.” Thus, there is sufficient evidence to claim that Trump expressed pro-Russian views consistently throughout his campaign, and continued to do so after his election.

Second, Trump’s opposition to the rise of China at the expense of the United States is also very explicit and well known. For example, he “accused China of dumping exports and of devaluing its currency, the yuan.” While most of Trump’s criticisms of China are related to issues of trade, his decision to directly talk to the president of Taiwan was a major geopolitical signal, which sent shockwaves across the Asia Pacific. While Henry Kissinger, the nonagenarian foreign policy guru and the architect of the Chinese-American rapprochement in the early 1970s, called Trump’s decision to talk to the Taiwanese president as “unwise,” some others such as Marc Thiessen saw it as a “brilliant” geopolitical move. At the other end of the spectrum, James Fallows went as far as decrying Trump’s surprising step as “bottomless pig-ignorance & recklessness.” In any case, Trump already broke with more than three decades of precedent, since the United States switched its recognition from the Republic of China (Taipei government) to the People’s Republic of China (Beijing government) in 1979. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to claim that Trump was very critical of Chinese policies consistently throughout his campaign, and continued to do so after his election.

There is reason to suspect that we are on the verge of the most significant change in U.S. grand strategy in many decades. Admittedly, the first election of president Obama also promised significant changes in U.S. grand strategy, such as the gradual withdrawal of the U.S. military from the Middle East, and a more evenhanded official position in approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By the end of Obama’s two terms in office, it is possible to say that very limited and somewhat belated versions of those promises were eventually delivered. In conclusion, if Trump is able and willing to follow up on his criticisms of China and overtures to Russia, for better or worse, we might witness the most significant shift in world politics since the 1970s.

The most curious subject for the global economy for 2017 is the future of the American economy under a Trump presidency. Donald Trump is going to take charge of an economy with strong growth, rising inflation and a low unemployment rate. In the electoral period he promised to cut tax rates, increase spending on infrastructure and defense, and ease economic regulations. Considering his statements after the election and his newly established cabinet, it seems that he will strive to be a man of his word. But, of course, the actions of President Trump will be different from the promises of presidential candidate Trump. Even if Trump can do some of what he promised, his economic policies will increase both growth and inflation further.

The most curious subject for the global economy for 2017 is the future of the American economy under a Trump presidency.

In the final meeting of 2016, the Fed raised interest rates by a quarter percentage point to between 0.50% and 0.75%. The Fed forecasts three interest rate rises in 2017. The Fed will implement a tighter monetary policy to fight increasing inflation caused by Trump’s expansionary fiscal policy. But, it is not so clear whether a policy mix of expansionary fiscal policy and contractionary monetary policy will strengthen the U.S economy. This policy mix will cause the dollar to appreciate and the public debt to increase. A strong dollar will inevitably harm the export performance of the U.S. Therefore, this policy mix might increase both the trade and public deficit, exacerbating the twin-deficit problem of the U.S. So at the end of the day, it would not be so easy for the Fed to increase interest rate three times in 2017.

EU countries have not breathed a sigh of relief since the global financial crisis spread to the EU in 2010. Growth remains sluggish; unemployment is still high and some big banks cannot restore their balance sheets. To shore up growth, the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to continue its quantitative easing (QE) program until December 2017, but at a slower rate. The Fed and the ECB are using exactly the opposite policies. Therefore, the value of the dollar against the euro will continue to increase in 2017. This can give the EU a competitive edge in exports, which will bring higher growth.

EU countries have not breathed a sigh of relief since the global financial crisis spread to the EU in 2010.

It must be underlined that the effectiveness of the expansionary monetary policy of the ECB depends on the fiscal policy and the health of the banking sector. As Mario Draghi, the president of the ECB, underlined, expansionary monetary policy is not enough to revive economic growth, and thus expansionary fiscal policy should be used. So far EU countries, many of which have been using austerity policies since the global financial crisis began, are far away from using fiscal policy tools to boost growth. If expansionary monetary policy is complemented by expansionary fiscal policy, EU countries will grow faster in 2017. If not, this anaemic economic performance of the EU will continue this year.

The economic performance of EU countries also depends on the banking sector. The ECB’s negative interest rate policy is hurting Eurozone banks through profit margins. The Italian government set a 5 billion euro rescue package to bail out Monte dei Paschi Siena (MPS), which is the oldest surviving bank in the world. Although this package was adequate to rescue MPS, there is a concern that it will not be enough to stabilize the entire Italian banking system. There are some serious concerns about two big German banks as well, Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank. So, the European banking sector will be monitored carefully in 2017.

In 2017, Britain will grow faster than forecasters predicted during the referendum process.

In 2017, Britain will grow faster than forecasters predicted during the referendum process. Before the referendum many politicians, economists and analysts claimed that Brexit would cause a recession. But, so far economic indicators have shown that this is not the case. The way Britain will exit from the EU (whether it will be a soft exit or hard one) is critical for the future of the British economy. Brexit will cause headaches in some areas (e.g. the financial sector and labor market) in the short-run. But, in the long-run, Brexit can make the British economy stronger.

We should not skip China when talking about the global economy. China is still suffering from a transition from an export-led growth model to a consumption-led one. This is not an easy process. It seems that the Chinese economy will be on a more stable path this year. Parallel to 2016, it is expected that China will grow between 6-7% this year. But, it must be noted that growing debt and the shadow banking system are still two important challenges that the Chinese government should deal with.

After analyzing the global economy, let’s talk about the Turkish economy. The Turkish economy shrank in the third quarter of 2016 for the first time since 2009. This contraction occurred mostly due to the failed coup attempt and working day losses due to religious holidays. Economic growth is expected to pick up gradually in 2017. Leading indicators are showing that consumption and production recovered in the fourth quarter and the Turkish economy ended 2016 with a modest growth rate.

Monetary policy might not support economic growth in 2017. If the Fed increases interest rates aggressively, the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) will have no option but to tighten monetary policy by raising interest rates. This situation is not unique to Turkey. The Fed’s interest hike and the rise in the US bond market rates are reducing the demand for emerging market assets. For this reason, emerging market central banks will increase their policy interest rates in 2017. This trend already began in November 2016.

Economists and businessmen are more optimistic about the export performance of Turkey in 2017.

In a situation where expansionary monetary policy is not on the table, expansionary fiscal policy should step in to bolster economic growth. Thanks to restructuring of the public sector, Turkey has ample space to implement expansionary fiscal policy. A low public deficit and debt strengthen the government’s grip on this issue. The government should use demand-stimulating fiscal policies and put new structural reforms into practice to restore consumer and business confidence. Increasing domestic consumption and private investments is vital to nurture economic growth.

Economists and businessmen are more optimistic about the export performance of Turkey in 2017. But, export cannot be the main driver of economic growth this year. Restoring relations with Russia, depreciation of the TL and moderate oil prices are positive signs for the current account balance. Restoring relations with Russia since the second half of 2016 will continue to increase export and tourism revenues in 2017. Although the depreciation of the TL has not caused a high increase in exports so far due to weak global trade and high dependence of Turkish export goods on imported inputs, a weak TL is suppressing import demand. OPEC agreed to cut oil production for the first time since 2008. Although this will cause an increase in oil prices, under the assumption that all members of OPEC keep their promises, market analysts do not expect a sharp increase. It is expected that oil prices will fluctuate between 55 and 65 dollars per barrel in 2017. This may cause a slight increase in the current deficit, but this effect will not be so salient.

After a tough year everyone wants to be optimistic about this year. Although there are still some uncertainties (e.g. Trump’s actions as president, the future of the EU, geopolitical risk related to the Middle East), it is expected that the global economy and the Turkish economy could fare better in 2017.

Now that the American people have made their decision, the protectionist approach employed by Trump in the election campaign matters not only for the U.S. but also for the global economy. In this sense, what the world wonders now is to what extent he will deliver on those harsh pledges. Will he continue to be the furious Trump of the campaign or become an even-tempered President when he assumes office? Or will a balance be found in between? To be honest, nobody knows the answer. However, the arguments of interest can be analyzed based on the ongoing situation and the potential risks thereby.The free trade agreements (FTA) that the President-to-be obviously despised during his election campaign would be a good starting point for this purpose. This is because Trump frequently yelled at former U.S. governments for having signed such horrible deals and causing substantial losses for the domestic economy. By the way, whenever he referred to the harms of the FTAs, he actually – consciously or not – pointed to a total of 14 agreements, which constituted 41 percent of the total bilateral trade of the U.S. in 2015. This is not a trivial dynamic, at all!

So, Trump is expected to come down on Mexico in particular, as he has been blaming the southern neighbor in a visibly bad way.

On the other hand, the FTA that Trump levied the toughest war on during the campaign period was admittedly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was defined by him as “the most horrible trade deal ever.” So, Trump is expected to come down on Mexico in particular, as he has been blaming the southern neighbor in a visibly bad way. From an economic perspective, this can be thought to mainly stem from the relatively competitive advantages of Mexico. It is a well-known fact that there are lucrative incentives for American companies to operate in the neighboring country.

In this sense, the Mexican economy has fair concerns nowadays due to its rather concentrated market structure that is highly dependent on the demand flowing from the U.S. And beyond the bilateral trade relations, the loss of confidence and the uncertainties that have emerged after November 8 pose indirect risks for the country’s economy. However, the fact that the two economies are highly integrated in various sectors complicates the case. This is likewise the situation for Canada, the top destination for U.S. merchandise exports and a critical part of the U.S. supply chain.

At this point, it should be emphasized that based on 2015 data NAFTA accounts for approximately 75 percent of the total bilateral trade of the U.S. within its FTA portfolio. Therefore, it is evident that the U.S. has considerably strong ties with its NAFTA markets. As Canada and Mexico rank within the top three trade partners of the U.S., it will not be an easy job to put a lock on the NAFTA door from a realistic point of view. Yet it is likely that Trump will take an initiative and attempt to fix the disadvantageous terms of the deal for his country. In such a scenario, potential energy collaborations as well as the older-than-NAFTA free trade relationship between the U.S. and Canada might be a factor for tipping the balance.

Moreover, Canada and Mexico are also prospective partners for another trade deal frequently attacked by Trump: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  As an integral part of Obama’s Asia Pivot strategy, the TPP attempts to bring 12 economies together and create a strong cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. For the U.S., it was supposed to serve as a tool against China’s increasing dominance in the region. However, Trump claims that the deal is a complicated piece of garbage that would cause losses to the U.S. economy in case it is ratified. Thus, considering also the escalated disapproval regarding the deal, it would not be irrational to expect the new President to scrap it or put it in cold storage at least. Likewise, it is also believed that the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is Obama’s economic project on the Atlantic front and an admittedly less mature initiative than the TPP, will probably be slowed down by the President-elect.

On the other hand, a blow to the TPP by Trump will not only deprive the associated parties of the Trans-Pacific collaboration but also will offer an opportunity for China. An American administration that turns its back on the TPP would encourage the Chinese project called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that aims to gather the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) group and six other big economies in the region under one umbrella.

Nevertheless, China also has concerns related to the new U.S. president, as it is a country frequently disparaged by him in the election period.

Nevertheless, China also has concerns related to the new U.S. president, as it is a country frequently disparaged by him in the election period. In 2015, China was the third largest single-country destination for U.S. merchandise exports while it ranked the first source for U.S. imports. While the bilateral trade between the two partners is quite robust, the merchandise trade deficit with China is known to infuriate Donald Trump. In that regard, he has vowed to declare China a currency manipulator and slap punitive duties on Chinese imports. The two countries are also known to have long-standing problems including the failure of China to respect U.S. intellectual and property rights.

Yet it is uncertain if Trump would overstep the mark and provoke China into a tit-for-tat retaliation. While the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress will play a critical role at that point, an aggressive scenario could end up with the violation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for both parties and endanger the order of the global economy as well.

To be sure, Trump is not the first U.S. presidential candidate who fed his campaign with a nationalist trade agenda.

To be sure, Trump is not the first U.S. presidential candidate who fed his campaign with a nationalist trade agenda. Yet even the uncertainties he has created so far have been enough to scare the global markets. The trade liberalization process started after World War II with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and reinforced with the creation of the WTO, now seems to face the risk of losing support from its pioneering country. So, in an era where trade faces stubborn challenges, the new U.S. President’s isolationist pledges draw a grey picture for the world economy and shake economic confidence.

This addresses certain implications for emerging economies, in particular. Beyond countries such as Mexico and China, which are directly associated with Trump’s promises, those who look forward to a recovering world trade encounter some indirect risks. Turkey is one of those countries, as well. Moreover, projections on the future outlook of the U.S. economy inarguably augment the relevant risks. The sharp moves in the Turkish markets observed after November 8 indicate the significance of the matter. On the other hand, apart from the aforementioned global uncertainties caused by the U.S. election results, Trump’s relationships with the EU, Russia and Iran are also likely to produce complicated economic effects for Turkey in positive or negative ways. Everything depends on the extent to which he will deliver on his unconventionally sharp pledges. That is why the first half of 2017 will be a critical period for the actors of the world economy to figure out how the new U.S. administration will lead the way.

Several factors, including the quality of education, living conditions, language of instruction, and employment opportunities before and after the graduation, influence the country choice for an international student. Perhaps the most important of these factors is the visa requirements and immigrant policies, which in many ways reflect the perception of foreigners in a country. Recent developments in the UK and the US, the two most preferred destinations for international students, indicate that there would be a decrease in the flow of students and scholars to these countries. It also implies that there would be fluctuations in the distribution of the ever-growing number of international students on the global scale. This essay will first briefly discuss the recent developments in the UK and the US and will address rising opportunities for Turkey in the higher education sector.In addition to the problems that emerged with the EU on student exchange programs and related projects in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, several new decisions of the UK government to reduce net migration to the country have already made international students and scholars there, or planning to go there, uncomfortable. Theresa May, the new Prime Minister, argues that UK universities should develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students. A tightened visa regime, tougher employment conditions for international students after graduating, and the inclination of the government to include these students in net migration figures – which it is desperately trying to reduce – have already begun to reveal some of its initial results. According to a report by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas), the number of undergraduate students accepted from outside the EU fell by 2.3% in 2016, the first fall since 2011. This statistic reflects the decrease in both applicants and the acceptance rate. It appears that the decrease in the number of applicants seems not only limited to the non-EU countries. Although all the figures are not yet available, the number of applicants from the EU countries to Cambridge University, which has an earlier application deadline, has already seen a 17% drop.

Considering that international students are contributing £7 billion a year to UK universities and the country’s economy, several leading names from the academic and economic sectors called for urgent action to remove the international students from official immigration statistics. They also urged the authorities to change their rhetoric and policies and claimed that if this was not done, the existing policy would cause great damage to higher educational institutions and to the UK economy. According to the experts, when there is low funding from international students it will not only have negative effects on research funds but will also effect the possibility of entering higher education institutions for English students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. These students will face difficulties in finding scholarships.

Trump’s US presidential election win sparked a hot debate among political analysts to estimate its effects on local and international politics. Some others have already started discussing how it would influence the higher education sector in the US. Trump’s xenophobic views and call for a ban on Muslims entering the US have pushed experts into pessimism since they realized the negative impact of this rhetoric on the internationalization of the higher educational institutions in the country. While the experts warned authorities about the undesirable effects of this rhetoric, it is reported that some of the international scholars who are teaching at US universities have already begun to revise their careers plans.

In a report in University World News dated November 11, 2016, Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Witt, two renowned experts in the field of higher education, pointed to three potential risks to the internationalization of the US higher education system under Trump. These risks are: a fall in the flow of international students to the US, the US becoming less attractive for international scholars due to the political climate, and a fall in donations from international graduates, an important revenue income for the higher institutions in the country. It will not be surprising to see that when international students and scholars face more stringent visa policies and Muslims are increasingly scrutinized by security services, it will result in potential students looking to other destinations where they can feel more comfortable and welcomed.

While it is still early to predict to what extent these risks will materialize, it is certain that many other countries will update their higher education policies and expectations for internationalization. The flow of international students and scholars, often defined based on push and pull models and pull-in factors, is still prevalent in the US and UK. The two countries still host the largest number of international students in the world. Recent political developments, however, point to an increased potential for push factors both in the US and the UK. Given the large body of international students, this may lead, although slowly, to a new break in terms of the international network of higher education and the emergence of new centers of attraction in the world. It is not difficult to claim that the countries, which are in an advantageous position in terms of internationalization of their higher education institutions, will implement proactive policies to attract more international students and scholars.

Turkey, a regional and global actor with its strong economy and great transformation in the higher education system, has the potential to take a strong place in this new formation. The Council of Higher Education (YÖK) in Turkey is working hard to develop joint projects with higher education institutions all around the world. Support programs of the Ministry of Economy for overseas education fairs, the priority given by the Ministry of Development to internationalization in higher education in state planning, Turkish scholarships and other grants provided by the Prime Ministry for Turks Abroad and Related Communities (YTB), and the Yunus Emre Institute’s branch offices in different regions of the world, have already made great contributions to the internationalization of higher education in the country. Turkey, which has no xenophobic record in its culture and historical trajectory when one compares it with the West, needs to develop a new stand that will turn the recent political developments in world politics to its favor. Turkey has the potential to become a safe and secure place for all international students and scholars, especially from Muslim countries. The current distribution of international students in Turkey, which varies greatly, reflects its potential and advantageous position in this regard.

Amidst perpetual perception boosting operations, Turkey should prepare itself for aggressive promotion campaigns that will explain to international students and scholars how Turkey is a safe destination for study, teaching, and research. Both public institutions and the Turkish academia have a greater responsibility than ever. The Office of Public Diplomacy should take a more active role in this process. To take the best advantage of this historic opportunity, it is more important now than ever that Turkish authorities urgently and systematically improve their policies to make the country a more attractive destination for international students and scholars.

During the election, the CEO of Goldman Sachs called Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, ‘dangerous’. This led Donald Trump, President-elect, to describe Sanders’ backing of Hillary Clinton after his defeat as equivalent to “Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs”. On the other hand, a real estate tycoon who inherited a business empire was campaigning to be the president of America’s “forgotten men and women”. This paradox was the real face of the latest US elections, which on the one hand challenged the political status quo, and on the other, re-conceptualized political communication in the context of the silent majority.As many important technological developments in electioneering have their origin in the United States, the term ‘Americanization’ is a crucial concept within political communication. Opinion polls, telephone canvassing, direct mailing, faxing, campaign consultants, market research and television saturation are all Americanisms. Ostensibly, the purpose of these tools of political communication is to gain the support of voters who can be summarized as either: 1) uncommitted voters who are there to be won, 2) hostile voters who must be converted, 3) loyal voters whose loyalty must be reinforced, or 4) all potential supporters who must be motivated to go to the polls.However, during the 2016 US Election this interaction had a different dimension. When analyzing how political communication was re-designed, the messages and language used during the campaigns must be considered. It is important to highlight that both candidates were less popular than previous presidential nominees. It was a race in which Trump’s abuse and harassment of women and former Secretary of State Clinton’s email scandal were at the forefront of media coverage. Despite this, the popularity of Clinton was unquestionable.

When Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Žižek emphasized that “Hillary Clinton built an impossible all-inclusive coalition”, he focused in particular on the media, think tanks and election polls. However, this could be seen in all three presidential debates too: after each debate, most mainstream media outlets announced Clinton as the winner, which was endorsed by the polls. Trump claimed this was proof his opponent was “Crooked Hillary”, a term he coined for emphasizing her ties to the so-called “establishment” as negative, referencing traditional politics, moneyed interests and mainstream media.

Whereas Clinton’s “deep state relations” undoubtedly affected public opinion, Trump’s inappropriate comments against women, immigrants, Muslims and disabled people had a crucial impact, which further increased the polarization of society in the US. In addition, his attacks on journalists and media outlets were important factors never before witnessed in any presidential race in the US. This populism had an encouraging impact on the “silent majority”: the “white working class”. Americans felt able to raise their voices after a long period under the Obama administration. People who were not happy for the last eight years knew that electing Clinton would mean the continuation of the previous terms. Therefore, the success of the Republicans was not only due to their political proposals, but also the failed policies of the Obama administration, such as ObamaCare, drone wars, weapon exports to controversial regimes, and a string of unfulfilled vows to defeat DAESH.

Clinton’s popularity began to shift two weeks prior to the election, when details of the email scandal was released to the press. She was depicted in the headlines alongside words such as: Wikileaks, email, FBI, investigation, scandal. However, it was more difficult for Trump, who appeared in the press alongside the words: women, immigration, tax, sexual assault and rigged, and suffered a far longer period of attack than his rival. Despite the mainstream media’s anti-Trump coverage, his use of direct communication through social media was hugely successful. He utilized Twitter and Facebook effectively, bypassing the traditional media by releasing immediate video responses that reached his sympathizers directly, making him appear more accessible than any other candidate. He rarely organized press conferences and press releases. Instead, he tweeted at 3am, for example, which increased the impact of his messages when mainstream media took his tweets and covered them in the news. Thus emerged a new mode of political communication, which was crucial to the campaign agenda.

In particular, after his infamous bus conversation about women, Trump immediately apologized via social media, without losing any time, and admitted that he had mis-spoken. This incident marked the beginning of more intensive women-focused campaigning for Trump. Part of the strategy was his daughter, Ivanka. She and her family appeared more at the forefront of the campaign, as a way of focusing on her successful career as an “independent American woman.” As a result, Trump received the support of 53% of white female voters.

Symbols and messages are the key tools of political communication. With regard to Bernie Sanders’ political communication, his political ideology should also be considered within the context of the silent majority. He challenged the status quo by criticizing the liberal capitalist order, proposing a strengthening of the education system instead of funding the military, and advocating free education. His absence from the AIPAC conference was equally important. Although he expressed his support for Israel, he also criticized Israeli settlements, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel’s actions in Gaza. Considering this approach alongside polls conducted by Pew Research showing that support for Palestine had increased among the younger generation; Sanders’ strategy was another way of raising the voice of the silent majority within the context of the oppressed and voiceless.

Yet Trumps success story must be analyzed within the context of the decline of the elite. Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, Brexit in the United Kingdom, the anti-migration policies of the Alternative für Deutschland can all be perceived as a new wave of mobilization of the silent majority. Of course, all these examples have different dimensions and cannot be confused; nevertheless, the common trend seems to be about challenging the establishment, and a greater focus on domestic problems. Consequently, in these circumstances, the meaning of polling, marketing, image management and spin-doctors, as in the usual “Americanization” of elections, received no response. Whether the realization of politics is possible or not, the latest US election and the far-right’s discourse in Europe make clear that especially during the election period, populist discourse is the most effective way of political communication, which is the cornerstone of the success story.

The rise of the far right has grown on the back of highly divisive, identity-based rhetoric. It emphasizes the growth of fear, anger, Islamophobic discourse and anti-migration policies. How this new wave will impact realpolitik going forward will be watched by many with great concern and unease. Yet it is clear that this new paradigm is a revolt against the postmodern period, which has been increasingly candidate-centered at the expense of any party or social movement.

Kobach’s proposal has confirmed fears among many Americans – from Hispanics, to African-Americans, to Muslims and a host of Christian and Jewish groups – that the bellicose talk that characterized Trump’s campaign might be more than just political pandering for votes, that the man may intend to do exactly what he promised to do, as soon as he is sworn in as President.Except for a vocal minority, a slew of world leaders have said they would like to give Trump a chance, that perhaps when confronted with the reality of his new job, he would sober up and review his ideas.  Yet there is little indication this is going to happen, and foreign leaders dealing with Trump may need to be more vocal of what a Trump presidency could mean for the rest of the world.

Trump himself has given little indication of what his policies would be, but the people – all white, and almost all men at this point – he has indicated for his cabinet are troubling enough. Journalists, trying to get a grasp on what a Trump presidency would look like, have questioned the potential cabinet members over the last two weeks on the most controversial proposals, and have been repeatedly told Trump will “not rule out” anything.

Trump’s handpicked Chief of Staff: a registry for all Muslims? No, but maybe a registry for “radical” Muslims. The head of the largest pro-Trump campaign fund: Japanese-style internment camps for Muslims? Maybe: “We’ve done it based on race, we’ve done it based on religion, we’ve done it based on region…There is precedent for it.” The man Trump has hired to be his chief strategist: the head of a news website that is a reincarnation of Nazi propaganda in all but name, with the addition of Muslims to the list of those who must be exterminated. Among Trump’s advisors are the most Islamophobic personalities in America, including Frank Gaffney, who helped coin the term “creeping Sharia,” and advocates Congressional hearings to summon all Muslim leaders to prove they do not have a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which, in Gaffney’s view, is behind every ill that seems to plague the world today.

Muslims are especially worried. The last two weeks have seen hundreds of incidents of public violence and attacks on Muslims being reported – Muslim women having headscarves pulled off on college campuses, worshippers finding graffiti at entrances to their mosques – many of them cases where the perpetrators took time to mention they felt they could commit these crimes because Trump had been elected president.

Trump’s half-baked foreign policy is just as worrying.

While campaigning, Trump said he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS.” His choice for National Security Advisor is General Michael Flynn, a man who has called Islam a “vicious cancer,” and repeatedly says Muslims are not following a religion, but an ideology, and should not enjoy the benefits of freedom of religion given to others. Flynn would oversee President’s Obama’s vast intelligence and military powers, including a drone program that has killed thousands of civilians in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

Flynn apparently sees little distinction between say, the ideas of Syed Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, Osama bin Laden, or Ayatollah Khomeini.

As Muslim nations who have the resources and clout to combat Islamophobia take stock of Trump, there are indications many no longer expect anything promising from any American president, and would prefer a straight-talking Islamophobe to the neo-liberal whitewashing they say Hillary Clinton would have continued.

Yet there is little reason to believe, beyond a hunch, that Trump will play in their favor, or that the kind of bargaining Trump has indicated he would engage in on the world stage will end up with other nations being able to walk away with any positive conclusions.

Flynn, for instance, has written he believes the July 15th coup attempt in Turkey was perpetrated by Fetullah Gulen, and that Gulen must be extradited to face trial. It would undoubtedly be a change Ankara should be happy about – extradition was perhaps always a political decision, even if President Obama’s administration has insisted it is a legal process.

But a closer look at Flynn’s argument for extradition should trouble Turkish leaders, who have been the world’s most active advocates for a pragmatic, careful, effort at combating extremist groups like Daesh. Flynn, in explaining how Gulen’s followers are part of a “sleeper terror network” does not just advocate for rooting out the Gulenists, he also puts forth troublingly ambiguous assertions that can be applied to every Islamic movement in the world today. And Flynn has repeatedly praised Egypt’s military ruler, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, for his work to combat “extremists” in that country.

Trump has done the same, and while he has not given his blessing to the 2013 Rabia massacre, the President-elect has praised what he calls “strong leaders” in the past. When confronted this March about comments he made in 1990 about the Chinese regime’s killing of hundreds of civilians at Tiananmen Square, Trump did not exactly back down from previous statements. “That [statement in 1990] doesn’t mean I was endorsing that,” he said. “I said that was a strong, powerful government. They kept down the riot, it was a horrible thing.”

Trump may not be as Islamophobic or hawkish as his campaign statements, or his future cabinet members, make him out to be. Most likely, Trump in fact has little knowledge of the world he will soon be dealing with as the head of the sole superpower.

But it is precisely that ignorance that should worry world leaders, in a world were facts seem to matter little, and leaders change positions as often as their socks.

Trump, for instance, has advocated for partnering with Turkey to create a “safe zone” in northern Syria, something that the Syrian rebels, human rights groups and Ankara have long called for. And on at least one occasion, Trump has hinted he would work harder than the Obama administration to meet Turkey’s concerns about groups like the YPG, which Washington currently relies on to fight Daesh.

Yet there are reasons to believe Trump has no idea what he is talking about, and when he finally sits down with his advisors to chart a course in the Middle East, he is as likely to be wooed by his Islamophobic cabinet as by a phone call from a Muslim world leader.

In September 2015, a radio host asked Trump about Iran’s al-Quds force, which Washington has accused of being behind a number of international attacks on Western interests. Trump responded by saying “the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated… I’m a big fan of the Kurds.” When the host asked about Iran’s Hezbollah, Trump responded by talking about Hamas.

To explain his confusion, Trump then made a telling remark: “You know, those are like history questions. Do you know this one, do you know that one … But as far as the individual players, of course I don’t know them. I’ve never met them. I haven’t been, you know, in a position to meet them. If, if they’re still there, which is unlikely in many cases, but if they’re still there, I will know them better than I know you.”

“I will hopefully find General Douglas MacArthur,” Trump said, explaining that among his future advisors there would be a military expert like the acclaimed World War II General.

Fourteen months after that interview, Trump seems to have found his MacArthur, in Gen. Michael Flynn. Yet Flynn seems to be as ignorant and noncommittal as Trump himself. Flynn has lately praised the Turkish public’s victory over a mutinous faction of the military on the night of July 15th, but the night of the actual coup attempt, he had quite a different view.

As civilians died confronting tanks and jets in Turkey, Flynn was giving a speech at a meeting of an organization that lobbies for tougher measures against what it calls “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Flynn began by telling the audience he had just spoken with a Turkish military officer that he worked with as a member of NATO, then said Erdogan was “actually very close to President Obama.”

“If the military succeeds,” he continued, “one of the things that the military immediately said is, ‘We recognize our responsibilities with NATO, we recognize our responsibilities with the United Nations, we want to make sure that the world knows, we are, we want to be seen as a secular nation’.” The audience then broke out in applause, with Flynn raising a finger, saying “This is worth clapping for.

That’s why the people voted for Trump in the first place: to see the unraveling of the Washington establishment, which would’ve perpetuated itself if Hillary had been elected. They wanted everything that is related to or represented by the establishment to burn. It didn’t matter even if the establishment represented different notions internally and externally. The external support was also aiming to destroy this very establishment. Regardless of their different and contradictory motives, there are millions of people who are united in the belief that the current world order, particularly the Washington establishment, should fall.Right or wrong, there are masses concerned about globalization, technological development and robotization, including the “White Americans” that voted for Trump. There are two different realities: international conglomerates which have record high profits, and a middle class which believes they are being undermined. Moreover, there are disgruntled Americans, as the crisis caused by the volatile bond market was remedied with their taxes. There are masses on the other side of the world who believe everything is being done without their consent, just at the push of a button: millions concluding that the very real people behind the statistics are forgotten. In addition, there is a condition which originated in the US and spread across the globe with America’s lead: “the indulgent society”. It’s no longer easy to meet the demands of this society.

These are not the only people living outside the US who wanted Trump elected president instead of Clinton. Many cheered for Trump because the Washington establishment –which is referred to as a “swamp” by Trump supporters – was responsible for creating many “swamps” outside the US.

Millions of Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians and others in the Middle East are struggling to survive in their respective countries or elsewhere and they believe the Washington establishment is responsible for their impoverished condition. While the domestic Trump supporters believed that he would build, foreign supporters hoped for destruction. Even though some believed that their poor conditions would stay the same, regardless of who wins the election, they still relied upon a man who is deemed as the herald of catastrophe for the established order in the US.

Many cheered for Trump because the Washington establishment –which is referred to as a “swamp” by Trump supporters – was responsible for creating many “swamps” outside the US.

Yes, the expression of “animosity and rebellion” is true also for the ones who live outside the New World.

Trump became the conduit for angry masses who were exasperated by what the Washington establishment stood for, its features hidden under a blanket of rhetoric. And he didn’t do this with his ideas or any kind of ideological approach, as he doesn’t possess either. Opposing the superficial presentableness of the order represented by Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump’s campaign was overtly vulgar, coarse and abusive. Looking from Trump’s point of view, “the reality” was simpler and clearer than Clinton’s.

Perhaps the result of this election will cause “Democrats and Republicans to review themselves intellectually and politically” and “allow the formation of new ideas” as the Slovene philosopher Zizek claims, or nothing will change, or it will become worse and worse. However, the subject is surely one worthy of discussion for people inside and outside the US.

In France, where Gerard Araud, was terrified by Trump being elected president, there will be an election in 4 months. If Trump was elected president in one of the oldest democracies of the world, think about who could be elected in France. All politicians, regardless of their position in L’hexagone, including the extremists of both the right and the left, said the same thing, that everything is possible now. Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen were exhilarated by this situation, “this is also true for us” they are likely saying to themselves.

http://thenewturkey.org/french-elections-outsider-post-truth-world/

On the other hand, for Socialists and the socialist President Hollande, who has the lowest approval rate in the history of the Fifth Republic, at 4%, this situation is “perilous”. However, if the discontent about Washington establishment is the case, there is an existing dissatisfaction in France towards the bureaucrats of Brussels. If fascist and racist discourse is problematic, France has a worse kind of it. If it is about Muslims, there are intellectuals in France that would make Trump look innocent. Similarly, if the fear of immigration is the case, France already has issues with the ones within the country, let alone the possible immigrants. Everything is also possible in France; however, not because of Trump’s victory. They don’t need his lead. Moreover, the notion existent among the international public – that if the worst has happened, something good might come out of it – is not applicable for France.

While Trump constantly bashes Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Hispanics and Blacks, French politicians of all sides are clobbering Muslim Arabs.

Trump-supporting White Americans’ concerns about globalization are also true for the right-wing, left-wing and extremist voters of France. Moreover, even in 1990s, the heyday of globalization, there was significant opposition to the idea on the European side of the Atlantic. These people are thinking that they were right from the beginning. For instance, while French automaker Renault’s domestic production has been increasing abroad, it has been steadily decreasing domestically for the last four years, and is now around 18%. The software used at banks and hospitals is coded in India and then sent to France. Similarly, when someone calls customer service, their questions are being answered by a person on the other side of the world. There are benefits of the information age, however, there are also downsides. Once 30-40 people worked at the banks in the most populous districts in Paris in 1990s, today there are only one or two employees. The cashiers of large bookstores and supermarkets are now being replaced by automats. Furthermore, while people had to wait hours for taxis at Place Saint Michel on Saturday nights 10-15 years ago, now taxis are waiting all night for customers.

Besides globalization, the results of a portion of France’s sovereignty being given to Brussels are not only criticized by extreme right-wing movements. The French who were afraid that France would be dominated by Polish plumbers years ago are now blaming the bureaucrats of Brussels for the majority of the issues, rightfully or not. It should be remembered that the French had rejected the European Constitution in 2005, even though they were one of the co-founders of the EU. On the other hand, Brexit happened. The departure of the once unwanted United Kingdom didn’t make anyone happier. 300,000 French who work on the other side of La Manche are very concerned right now. Moreover, Brexit was yet another kick in the groins of the fading idea of a European Union.

The “everything is possible” attitude is not all there is to this issue

While Trump constantly bashes Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Hispanics and Blacks, French politicians of all sides are clobbering Muslim Arabs. Things which are taken for granted in the New World, as a result of the individual freedoms provided by the US, are constantly being discussed and criticized in France. With the never-ending hijab and burkini discussion they are pointing the finger at Muslims. Even not eating pork is made a part of political propaganda. The former president Sarkozy recently said if a student does not eat pork when it’s on the school menu, “he skips the ham and eats a double helping of chips. In a republic, it’s the same rule and the same menu for everyone.” On the other hand, the issue has surpassed laicite, a notion that the French are almost religious about, and it evolved into a matter of Frenchness. How to become French; that’s all that matters!

Can Marine Le Pen become le president de la republique? It will definitely be a surprise and it might identify the “terrifying situation” which has existed for a long time.

This is applicable for about 6 million Muslims living in France, who originated from old French colonies. For instance, the French president heralded the fabulous news that Muslim women will throw their hijabs away once they free themselves and at last will become French. On the other hand, the much-criticized vulgar views of Trump have an ideological basis in France. No need to name the names behind fascist and racist opinions of French elites, philosophers, intellectuals and politicians that have become more prominent lately. Furthermore, while Trump talks about building a wall between the US and Mexico, the socialist mayor of Paris already built walls around subways, just so Syrians immigrants shouldn’t even try to come into France.

Is “everything possible” in next year’s presidential elections on the European shore of the Atlantic? Can Marine Le Pen become le president de la republique? It will definitely be a surprise and it might identify the “terrifying situation” which has existed for a long time. Even though their frequencies are different and not directly expressed, many of the extremist right-wing notions are being pronounced by both the right and the left. If not one, it will definitely be the other. Either way, a Trump with ideas and an ideological basis will emerge victorious for sure, even though he or she cannot express himself or herself as well as Trump.

We see, however, from the 2016 election rallies that the situation is not exactly what it looks like, as politicians resort to a strategy of blaming Muslims for the problems of the country, and this strategy gains acceptance from a large portion of the society.To give an example, Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States, has become known for his xenophobic, racist and anti-Islamic statements. His campaign slogan “Make America Great Again,” which might seem promising and alluring at first, bears deep and terrifying meanings when examined closely. He aims to “make America great again” by not allowing Muslims to enter the US, building a 1,000-mile wall along the US-Mexico border, and deporting the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

While defending his isolationist closed-border policy, Trump uses hate-filled language in his campaign speeches and presidential debates. He blames all Muslims and Islam itself for the attacks made by some radical people; he uses debunked examples to support his ideas, and thus, his anti-Muslim rhetoric fuels Islamophobia. Unfortunately, political rhetoric has long-term effects on the society regardless of who wins the election.

A more disturbing and alarming part of the story, in fact, is that Islamophobia in the US didn’t start with Trump. Having realized that it has been one of the biggest racist issues in the US for years, Trump, with the purpose of coming to power, uses bigoted statements against Muslims on purpose to tap into a nationalist fear among Americans, which has been perpetuated by media coverage, Hollywood movies, and popular culture for the last few decades.

Media coverage in particular has played a huge role in profiling Muslims negatively in the minds of American people. According to a study by 416Labs, a Toronto-based consulting company that provides analysis and data on challenges faced by the international community, The New York Times has portrayed Islam and Muslims more negatively than cancer, alcohol and cocaine in the last 25 years. The same study also showed that there is no single positive word in the top 25 associations with Islam.

The New York Times has portrayed Islam and Muslims more negatively than cancer, alcohol and cocaine in the last 25 years. The same study also showed that there is no single positive word in the top 25 associations with Islam.

It is not only the media which contribute to hatred against Muslims. There are numerous Hollywood movies and popular culture elements which depict Muslims as savages bereft of humanity and civilization. People who have been exposed to this news, TV shows, movies and books develop a negative profile about Islam and Muslims that lasts for a long time, and start to believe what they see and read, which causes an avalanche of hate and threats against Muslims.

While the media has always fed this fear, politicians have mischievously attempted to exploit it to gain power among nationalist Americans. That is why the profile of the Muslims that is drawn in public today is triggering a surge of Islamophobia.

The number of Muslims who have recently immigrated to the US increased rapidly because of social and political issues in Middle East. Media coverage, meanwhile, has infiltrated into the subconscious of the American people and helped normalize Islamophobic attitudes. Like other politicians in their own times, Trump, who favors personality over policy, aims to get the attention of the American public by addressing their fears and scapegoating Muslims for the problems in the country.

Here are some of his anti-Muslim statements that he has used deliberately and methodically during his election campaign.

In December 2015, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Upon severe criticism, he attempted to step back from his statement, but Trump made another misstep. As he put it, this policy would “not apply to people living in the country, except we have to be vigilant.” In other words, he suggests the US has to be “vigilant” about all Muslims entering the country and living in the country. This kind of policy brings all Muslims under suspicion solely based on their religious belief.

As another example, shortly after the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump said that the US government should close mosques where “some bad things are happening.” Moreover, he said that he would implement a database that requires Muslim-Americans to register and mandate that they carry special identification cards which note their faith.

Everyone wants to live in a secure and safe world, but trying to win the elections by scapegoating one group of people in the country and resorting to scare-mongering and deception is a slippery slope and a dangerous game.

Recent research has shown that Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric is causing a drastic rise in the rate of hate crimes against Muslims, because people who take courage from him as a nominee for President of the US are now feel brave enough to be offensive in what they say and how they behave.

According to the report “When Islamophobia Turns Violent: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections,” released by Georgetown University, the first rise in anti-Muslim political rhetoric was observed in September 2015, when the Syrian refugee crisis hit the news media headlines in the US. The same report shows that after Trump made Islamophobic statements on mainstream news media outlets that November, anti-Muslim attacks picked up dramatically, and in December 2015 occurred almost daily and often multiple times a day. Surprisingly – but not surprisingly – at least three separate anti-Muslim attacks involved public supporters of Trump.

Blaming Muslim people and using anti-Muslim rhetoric deliberately and methodically will not solve any problem. On the contrary, it will increase hate crimes against Muslims and divide the country.

Muslim countries and Muslims suffer the most, by far, from attacks by radical Islamists. And in fact, anyone with common sense knows that blaming all Muslims for the acts and attacks of a group of radical people is not rational and acceptable, but still it is a game manipulated by politicians looking for an electoral victory.

Trump is factually wrong, clearly xenophobic and dysfunctional policy-wise. These facts, on the other hand, should not suggest that Hillary Clinton, the Democrat Party’s nominee for President, is as pure as the driven snow in terms of Islamophobia.

So here are the options for Muslims who will vote on November 8: Donald Trump, who uses Islamophobic rhetoric that spurs an increasingly higher rate of crimes against Muslims in the country, and Hillary Clinton who is known for her hawkish foreign policies towards Muslim majority countries.

Maybe she is denouncing Trump for his xenophobic speeches and not resorting to an anti-Muslim rhetoric during her campaign rallies, but as a politician who has served for various high-profile political offices for a long time, Hillary has a bad reputation with Muslim countries.

She was one of the leading figures who advocated for catastrophic military decisions by the US in Muslim majority countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Moreover, she has an “unbreakable bond” with Israel, as she wrote in a November 2015 op-ed titled “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu.” In addition, on her official website she has a special section dedicated to Israel with the header of “Hillary Clinton and Israel: a 30-Year Record of Friendship, Leadership and Strength.” She openly criticizes the United Nations for its votes against Israel, which has been committing crimes and carrying out apartheid policies towards the Palestinians, and says that she will increase the military budget for Israel if she becomes President. Last but not least, while she is blaming Trump for being racist and Islamophobic, she retains General Wesley Clark as one of her campaign surrogates, a man who has called to “segregate” “radical” Muslims from society.

So here are the options for Muslims who will vote on November 8: Donald Trump, who uses Islamophobic rhetoric that spurs an increasingly higher rate of crimes against Muslims in the country, and Hillary Clinton who is known for her hawkish foreign policies towards Muslim majority countries.

There is two urgent questions to be asked here.

No matter who wins this election, how difficult will it be to live safely and peacefully in the US for Muslims considering anti-Islam rhetoric has been propagated so widely public? And how can this fertile ground for threats and acts of anti-Muslim violence, which was laid before elections and heavily nurtured during the campaign, be countered and eradicated from the minds of people?

While looking for answers to these questions, it should be kept in mind that even if (and hopefully when) Muslims gain acceptance in the American culture someday, this dirty game that politicians and media played in a hand-in-glove relationship will take its place in history among other unjust and repugnant stories of the treatment of immigrants.