Month: November 2018

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and U.S. President Donald Trump are due to meet  on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Erdogan indicated U.S. support for a Syrian Kurdish militia would top their agenda.

Speaking before leaving for Buenos Aires, Erdogan said the planned talks would pick up on themes raised in Wednesday’s telephone call with Trump. Ongoing tensions between Ukraine and Russia initiated the call.

“They agreed to meet again at G20 to discuss this concern and other important issues in the bilateral relationship,” read the White House readout of the call.

Trump and Erdogan have again started to work together on the many crises in Turkey’s region after months of diplomatic tensions. October’s release by a Turkish court of American pastor Andrew Brunson was the trigger for renewed cooperation and talks.

“There are some very thorny issues that have been postponed rather than resolved,” said analyst Atilla Yesilada of Global Source Partners. “But the release of Brunson has ended a psychological barrier to dialogue.”

At the top of Erdogan’s list of issues to be resolved is Washington’s ongoing support for the YPG Syrian Kurdish militia in its war against the Islamic State.

Turkey considers the YPG terrorists linked to a decades-long insurgency inside Turkey and is pushing for a road map agreement with Washington to end YPG presence in the strategically important Syrian City of Manbij.

Under the deal, American and Turkish forces would replace the militia. “We will discuss the Manbij issue at the [G-20] meeting with U.S. President Trump,” Erdogan said Thursday.

Former senior Turkish diplomat Aydin Selcen, who served widely in the region, sees the Manbij deal as a blueprint for future efforts that would feature “joint Turkish-US patrols to push the YPG away from the border.”

Time is against the Kurds, he said. “We are at a new phase in U.S. Turkish relations with greater cooperation.”

Greater cooperation

A major stumbling block to greater cooperation between the U.S. and Turkey are the deepening Turkish-Iranian ties. Observers point out Washington increasingly sees curtailing Iran’s presence in Syria a priority, a role the YPG could play given it controls a fifth of Syrian territory.

“They [Washington] will ask Turkey to follow in line against Iran and hold the ground.” said Selcen, “Then, this will push Turkey to distance itself from the Astana process, from Iran and Russia altogether.”

The Astana process brought together Ankara, Moscow, and Tehran in efforts to end the Syrian civil war.

Leverage over Turkey

Trump does retain leverage over Erdogan. Turkish State-owned Halkbank is facing potential multi-billion dollars fines for violating U.S. Iranian sanctions.

“The fact that Halkbank is still on the hook with the American judiciary obliges Turkey to be nice to the U.S.,” said Yesilada.

Erdogan is expected to raise Halkbank with Trump at the G20 summit.

Turkey’s controversial purchase of S400 Russian missiles also is likely feature in the talks. The U.S. is calling for an end to the deal, claiming the missiles threaten to compromise NATO weapons systems, in particular, America’s latest fighter the F-35.

Tit-for-tat

A U.S. Congressional report cautions against the delivery of the F 35 to Turkey if the delivery of S400 goes ahead in mid-2019. Such a move could also jeopardize Turkey’s ongoing participation in the manufacture of the fighter.

“The F-35 is important to Erdogan as part of the development of Turkey’s defense industry, which is a priority for the president,” said Yesilada.

Erdogan insists the S-400 purchase will go ahead, although he has suggested readiness to consider buying an American missile system as well.

International relations professor Huseyin Bagci, of Ankara’s Middle East Technical University, says Turkey has “had enough with the economic and political crisis and now wants to repair relations. And Trump appears prepared to do this.”

Trump has received plaudits in Ankara for taking steps against Turkish Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen, who lives in self-imposed exile in the United States and denies Erdogan’s charges he was behind a 2016 coup attempt.

“Ankara is quite content with the state of a recent investigation by the FBI on Gulen’s approximately 180 charter schools in the U.S.” wrote columnist Cansu Camlibel for Hurriyet Daily News. “The FBI has been investigating tax and visa fraud, as well as money laundering, allegations against schools known for their ties to Gülen.”

The Erdogan-Trump meeting is not expected to result in any breakthroughs on critical issues that continue to plague bilateral ties. But analysts suggest both leaders share an interest in working to defuse tensions.
…

Until the Russian attack Sunday on Ukrainian vessels in the Black Sea, the White House and the Kremlin had at least been agreed on one thing: the agenda for Saturday’s scheduled face-to-face between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, their second summit meeting.

Arms control, security issues as well as the Middle East and North Korea were all set to figure prominently, senior U.S. and Russian aides told reporters in the run-up to the meeting.

Russian officials say the Kremlin had earmarked as their key issue Trump’s recent decision to abandon a landmark Cold War-era agreement prohibiting the U.S. and Russia from possessing ground-launched short-range nuclear missiles.

For the White House, securing a public commitment from the Russians to enforce United Nations sanctions on North Korea before next month’s planned summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was a key objective, according to U.S. officials.

But analysts say the Russian attack on three Ukrainian vessels risks shifting the dynamics of Saturday’s planned two-hour face-to-face between Trump and Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Argentina, with the U.S. leader being urged to take a tough line that might imperil his overall determination to improve U.S.-Russian relations.

Trump suggested Tuesday he might cancel the meeting after Russian ships opened fire on and seized the Ukrainian ships near Crimea. But on Thursday he indicated the meeting will go ahead.

“I probably will be meeting with President Putin. We haven’t terminated that meeting. I was thinking about it, but we haven’t. I think it’s a very good time to have the meeting,” he told reporters at the White House.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday in Moscow the White House hadn’t indicated to the Kremlin the meeting wouldn’t be held.

“We don’t have to agree on all issues, which is probably impossible, but we need to talk. It’s in the interests of not only our two countries, it’s in the interests of the whole World,” Peskov said.

Asked what would be discussed, he said, “First of all, questions related to bilateral relations, we need to think about how to start talking on matters of bilateral relations, on matters of strategic security and disarmament and on regional conflicts.”

Earlier this week John Bolton, the U.S. National Security Adviser, said Trump would discuss security, arms control and regional issues with Putin.

“I think it will be a continuation of their discussion in Helsinki,” he said, referring to the first summit meeting between the two leaders held in Finland in July, when they met for more than two hours with only their translators present.

The Helsinki sit-down prompted widespread criticism of Trump from across the U.S. political spectrum, with Republican and Democrat lawmakers expressing dismay at what they saw as the U.S. leader’s amplifying of Putin denials of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

Bolton did not confirm whether the naval clash in the Kerch Strait, a shared Russian-Ukrainian waterway linking the Black Sea with the Sea of Azov, would be on the table. But it is hard to see how it won’t be amid Western clamor about what U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has labelled a “dangerous escalation and a violation of international law.”

State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Washington wanted to see tougher enforcement of sanctions against Russia as a consequence of the Russian action, the first time the Kremlin has staged open aggression against Ukraine since Putin annexed Crimea four years ago and launched a destabilization campaign in Ukraine’s Donbas region.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to address the Kerch incident at the G20 meeting before the Trump-Putin sit-down.

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko piled pressure Thursday on the G20 by calling for a tough collective response to Russia, saying he fears Moscow intends broader military action against his country.

European Union hawks have called for more sanctions to be imposed on Russia, although diplomats say with the bloc already divided over policy towards Russia, it is unlikely that will happen swiftly without a strong lead from Washington.

Trump waited more than 24 hours after the maritime clash before he commented on the incident, prompting criticism, once again that he was going lightly on his Russian counterpart. But once he did address the clash, his irritation was clear.

“I don’t like that aggression. I don’t want that aggression at all,” he told the Washington Post.

Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and now an analyst at the Washington-based Brookings Institution said if Trump “does not raise the question of the Russian conflict against Ukraine … the Russian would calculate the President is weak on this issue.

“That’s going to be bad for Ukraine, but also bad for American foreign policy,” he told VOA.
…

Until the Russian attack Sunday on Ukrainian vessels in the Black Sea, the White House and the Kremlin had at least been agreed on one thing: the agenda for Saturday’s scheduled face-to-face between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, their second summit meeting.

Arms control, security issues as well as the Middle East and North Korea were all set to figure prominently, senior U.S. and Russian aides told reporters in the run-up to the meeting.

Russian officials say the Kremlin had earmarked as their key issue Trump’s recent decision to abandon a landmark Cold War-era agreement prohibiting the U.S. and Russia from possessing ground-launched short-range nuclear missiles.

For the White House, securing a public commitment from the Russians to enforce United Nations sanctions on North Korea before next month’s planned summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was a key objective, according to U.S. officials.

But analysts say the Russian attack on three Ukrainian vessels risks shifting the dynamics of Saturday’s planned two-hour face-to-face between Trump and Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Argentina, with the U.S. leader being urged to take a tough line that might imperil his overall determination to improve U.S.-Russian relations.

Trump suggested Tuesday he might cancel the meeting after Russian ships opened fire on and seized the Ukrainian ships near Crimea. But on Thursday he indicated the meeting will go ahead.

“I probably will be meeting with President Putin. We haven’t terminated that meeting. I was thinking about it, but we haven’t. I think it’s a very good time to have the meeting,” he told reporters at the White House.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday in Moscow the White House hadn’t indicated to the Kremlin the meeting wouldn’t be held.

“We don’t have to agree on all issues, which is probably impossible, but we need to talk. It’s in the interests of not only our two countries, it’s in the interests of the whole World,” Peskov said.

Asked what would be discussed, he said, “First of all, questions related to bilateral relations, we need to think about how to start talking on matters of bilateral relations, on matters of strategic security and disarmament and on regional conflicts.”

Earlier this week John Bolton, the U.S. National Security Adviser, said Trump would discuss security, arms control and regional issues with Putin.

“I think it will be a continuation of their discussion in Helsinki,” he said, referring to the first summit meeting between the two leaders held in Finland in July, when they met for more than two hours with only their translators present.

The Helsinki sit-down prompted widespread criticism of Trump from across the U.S. political spectrum, with Republican and Democrat lawmakers expressing dismay at what they saw as the U.S. leader’s amplifying of Putin denials of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

Bolton did not confirm whether the naval clash in the Kerch Strait, a shared Russian-Ukrainian waterway linking the Black Sea with the Sea of Azov, would be on the table. But it is hard to see how it won’t be amid Western clamor about what U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has labelled a “dangerous escalation and a violation of international law.”

State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Washington wanted to see tougher enforcement of sanctions against Russia as a consequence of the Russian action, the first time the Kremlin has staged open aggression against Ukraine since Putin annexed Crimea four years ago and launched a destabilization campaign in Ukraine’s Donbas region.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to address the Kerch incident at the G20 meeting before the Trump-Putin sit-down.

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko piled pressure Thursday on the G20 by calling for a tough collective response to Russia, saying he fears Moscow intends broader military action against his country.

European Union hawks have called for more sanctions to be imposed on Russia, although diplomats say with the bloc already divided over policy towards Russia, it is unlikely that will happen swiftly without a strong lead from Washington.

Trump waited more than 24 hours after the maritime clash before he commented on the incident, prompting criticism, once again that he was going lightly on his Russian counterpart. But once he did address the clash, his irritation was clear.

“I don’t like that aggression. I don’t want that aggression at all,” he told the Washington Post.

Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and now an analyst at the Washington-based Brookings Institution said if Trump “does not raise the question of the Russian conflict against Ukraine … the Russian would calculate the President is weak on this issue.

“That’s going to be bad for Ukraine, but also bad for American foreign policy,” he told VOA.
…

Preliminary results from Georgia’s presidential runoff showed the ruling party-backed candidate, who favours balancing the ex-Soviet republic’s relations with Moscow and the West, leading her rival who advocates a stronger pro-Western line.

Figures from the Central Election Commission gave French-born Salome Zurabishvili 58.2 percent of the vote in the runoff, which was held on Wednesday. Opposition candidate Grigol Vashadze had 41.8 percent, based on results from 55 percent of the polling stations, the CEC said on its website.

Voting under close scrutiny

Earlier, two exit polls also showed Zurabishvili, a former French career diplomat who served as Georgia’s foreign minister from 2004-2005, with a clear lead.

The second round of voting was under close scrutiny by opposition and international observers for any sign that the ruling Georgian Dream party is using its control of state machinery to help Zurabishvili win.

The opposition said there have been attacks on its activists during campaigning and complained there were many irregularities during the vote, including attempts to pressure voters and manipulation of voter lists.

The ruling party has denied attempting to influence the outcome of the vote unfairly.

International observers said the first round of voting last month had been competitive, but had been held on “an unlevel playing field” with state resources misused, private media biased, and some phoney candidates taking part.

Balanced approach

Vashadze, who was foreign minister in 2008-2012, had been expected to use the presidency’s limited powers to send a vocal message of integration with the U.S.-led NATO alliance and the European Union — sensitive issues in the South Caucasus country that fought a war in 2008 with its neighbour Russia.

Georgian Dream and Zurabishvili take a more pragmatic line, balancing the country’s aspirations to move closer to the West with a desire to avoid antagonising the Kremlin.

Constitutional changes have reduced the authority of the president, and put most levers of power in the hands of the prime minister, a Georgian Dream loyalist.

Move to electoral college

The election was the last in which the president will be selected by popular vote. From 2024, presidents will be picked by an electoral college of 300 lawmakers and regional officials.

Zurabishvili won 38.6 percent of the vote in the first round on Oct. 28. That was just one percentage point ahead of Vashadze, who was a foreign minister in 2008-2012 in a resolutely pro-Western government that was in power when the conflict with Russia broke out over a Moscow-backed breakaway Georgian territory.

Georgian Dream was founded by billionaire banker Bidzina Ivanishvili, the country’s richest man, and critics say he rules the country from behind the scenes.

Zurabishvili’s supporters say she would bring international stature to the presidency. But her opponents have criticized her for statements that appeared to blame Georgia for the 2008 war and remarks about minorities that some see as xenophobic. 
…

Preliminary results from Georgia’s presidential runoff showed the ruling party-backed candidate, who favours balancing the ex-Soviet republic’s relations with Moscow and the West, leading her rival who advocates a stronger pro-Western line.

Figures from the Central Election Commission gave French-born Salome Zurabishvili 58.2 percent of the vote in the runoff, which was held on Wednesday. Opposition candidate Grigol Vashadze had 41.8 percent, based on results from 55 percent of the polling stations, the CEC said on its website.

Voting under close scrutiny

Earlier, two exit polls also showed Zurabishvili, a former French career diplomat who served as Georgia’s foreign minister from 2004-2005, with a clear lead.

The second round of voting was under close scrutiny by opposition and international observers for any sign that the ruling Georgian Dream party is using its control of state machinery to help Zurabishvili win.

The opposition said there have been attacks on its activists during campaigning and complained there were many irregularities during the vote, including attempts to pressure voters and manipulation of voter lists.

The ruling party has denied attempting to influence the outcome of the vote unfairly.

International observers said the first round of voting last month had been competitive, but had been held on “an unlevel playing field” with state resources misused, private media biased, and some phoney candidates taking part.

Balanced approach

Vashadze, who was foreign minister in 2008-2012, had been expected to use the presidency’s limited powers to send a vocal message of integration with the U.S.-led NATO alliance and the European Union — sensitive issues in the South Caucasus country that fought a war in 2008 with its neighbour Russia.

Georgian Dream and Zurabishvili take a more pragmatic line, balancing the country’s aspirations to move closer to the West with a desire to avoid antagonising the Kremlin.

Constitutional changes have reduced the authority of the president, and put most levers of power in the hands of the prime minister, a Georgian Dream loyalist.

Move to electoral college

The election was the last in which the president will be selected by popular vote. From 2024, presidents will be picked by an electoral college of 300 lawmakers and regional officials.

Zurabishvili won 38.6 percent of the vote in the first round on Oct. 28. That was just one percentage point ahead of Vashadze, who was a foreign minister in 2008-2012 in a resolutely pro-Western government that was in power when the conflict with Russia broke out over a Moscow-backed breakaway Georgian territory.

Georgian Dream was founded by billionaire banker Bidzina Ivanishvili, the country’s richest man, and critics say he rules the country from behind the scenes.

Zurabishvili’s supporters say she would bring international stature to the presidency. But her opponents have criticized her for statements that appeared to blame Georgia for the 2008 war and remarks about minorities that some see as xenophobic. 
…

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s bid to win approval for her Brexit deal will have to overcome attempts to block or change it by rival lawmakers on Dec. 11, a proposed format for the debate published on Wednesday showed. 

The government has set out the details of a debate on a motion to approve May’s plan to take the country out of the European Union, allowing for amendments to be discussed that could try to reshape the deal she brought back from Brussels. 

The format of the debate has been keenly awaited to see whether rivals would have a chance to test their alternative exit plans, such as remaining in the EU’s customs union or making the exit conditional upon a second referendum. 

Any such amendments would not be legally binding on the government but would prove politically hard to ignore. 

May already has an arduous task to get the motion approved. It is opposed by a large group of lawmakers from her own party, the Northern Irish party that props up her minority government and by all opposition parties who say they will vote against it. 

Defeat would most likely unleash huge political uncertainty and could roil financial markets. 

According to documents filed at Britain’s Parliament on Wednesday, debates will be held on Dec. 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11, with up to six amendments selected on the final day. The opposition Labor Party said on Twitter the debate would conclude at 1900 GMT on Dec. 11. 

The amendments could be put to several votes, meaning that as well as overcoming the huge opposition to her plan, May will have to defeat attempts to add extra conditions to it or to thwart the exit agreement altogether. 

The government has previously voiced concerns that any of these so-called amendments that win support in the House of Commons could prevent the government from ratifying the exit deal because the amended motion would not provide the necessary unequivocal approval required under previously passed legislation.  
…

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s bid to win approval for her Brexit deal will have to overcome attempts to block or change it by rival lawmakers on Dec. 11, a proposed format for the debate published on Wednesday showed. 

The government has set out the details of a debate on a motion to approve May’s plan to take the country out of the European Union, allowing for amendments to be discussed that could try to reshape the deal she brought back from Brussels. 

The format of the debate has been keenly awaited to see whether rivals would have a chance to test their alternative exit plans, such as remaining in the EU’s customs union or making the exit conditional upon a second referendum. 

Any such amendments would not be legally binding on the government but would prove politically hard to ignore. 

May already has an arduous task to get the motion approved. It is opposed by a large group of lawmakers from her own party, the Northern Irish party that props up her minority government and by all opposition parties who say they will vote against it. 

Defeat would most likely unleash huge political uncertainty and could roil financial markets. 

According to documents filed at Britain’s Parliament on Wednesday, debates will be held on Dec. 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11, with up to six amendments selected on the final day. The opposition Labor Party said on Twitter the debate would conclude at 1900 GMT on Dec. 11. 

The amendments could be put to several votes, meaning that as well as overcoming the huge opposition to her plan, May will have to defeat attempts to add extra conditions to it or to thwart the exit agreement altogether. 

The government has previously voiced concerns that any of these so-called amendments that win support in the House of Commons could prevent the government from ratifying the exit deal because the amended motion would not provide the necessary unequivocal approval required under previously passed legislation.  
…