Sunday, December 13, 2015

Will the UN security Council and Russia put Turkey on the spot for a violation of Iraqi sovereignty ?

The Alliance Of Russia
America Gives Erdogan Carte Blanche

Will the UN security Council and Russia put Turkey on the spot?

Iraqi authorities appealed to the UN security Council demanding immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Turkish troops from the North of the country. "This is a coarse violation of the principles of the UN Charter and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state," said Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Ali al-Hakeem in a letter to the U.S. Ambassador and the President of the security Council in December to the UN Samantha Power.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a day earlier had stated that the right to appeal to the UN security Council in Baghdad is, but it "will not be an honest step." Ironically, similar position was expressed by the zealous defenders of international law United States. On the question of why the US will not affect NATO partners and the anti-terrorist coalition, the representative of U.S. state Department John Kirby said that the parties must deal with the problem yourself. When the RT channel reporter tried to clarify, but what about international law and obligations of the United States against Baghdad, Kirby called her stupid and said she should be ashamed to ask it.

The Russian side expressed diametrically opposite position on this issue. First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on defense and security Frants Klintsevich said that the security Council should formally demand that Turkey withdraw its troops from Iraqi territory. "If you do not stop Erdogan now, tomorrow we are waiting for new provocations", — said the Klintsevich, adding that "Erdogan is confident that he will get away with it."

It is not excluded that so it and is. The main allies of Ankara the U.S., we recall, had not even condemned the Turkish government for the downed Russian bomber. And when December 4 Turkish tank battalion went up to Mosul and camped near the city as it was announced first, in preparation of fighters of the Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga, did not react to the protests of the Iraqi authorities. When the Prime Minister of Iraq Haider al-Abadi appealed to NATO with a request to influence Ankara, the United States again advised Baghdad to resolve this issue bilaterally.

And this despite the fact that over the past two years in connection with the situation in Ukraine, us leaders have made numerous statements that Washington never and that will not tolerate violations of sovereignty of other countries. But it seems that the allies of the United States this rule does not apply. And maybe the situation got out of control, and Washington even when the desire can no longer povyalit on Ankara?

- Iraq after Syria becomes another point of the clash of interests in the middle East, says the Director of the Research center "the middle East — the Caucasus" of the International Institute of the newest States Stanislav Tarasov. Ankara made a provocation to our plane, trying to bump heads Russia and its allies with NATO countries. When that venture collapsed, Turkey has decided to take action of a different type in Iraq.

At the end of last century between Ankara and Baghdad signed an agreement on the possibility of strikes by Turkish aircraft or special forces on positions of the Kurdistan workers party in Iraq. But if you had Baghdad silently took down all Ankara's actions, including when it established separate relations with Iraqi Kurdistan for energy transportation, now the Iraqi leadership began to waver. Baghdad was not informed of the fact that Turkey throws its forces in Mosul, and the Iraqi leadership has demonstrated a strong position. For the Turks it was a surprise.

— Why has this happened?

Mainly because Baghdad felt the support of Tehran and Moscow. Earlier cooperation with Iran especially was not advertised, and now it is coming to the fore, and Iraq starts to behave as a subject of international law. On this Iraqi Piglet crossed the interests of the two coalitions.

— What is the U.S. position in this conflict between nominal allies?

Americans dissociated themselves from the Turks, saying their actions in Iraq should be considered out of the coalition and that the problem needs to be solved in the framework of bilateral relations. But it failed even after a visit to Baghdad, Deputy foreign Minister of Turkey and head of intelligence. Now Iraq has asked the UN security Council.

Turkey begins to acquire the image of an unpredictable partner, the source of destabilization in the middle East. This is a very serious sign that the situation in the region continues to deteriorate, and Turkey is increasingly drawn into these uncontrollable processes.

— Up to war with Iraq?

- The fact that Iraq has and Iran's armed forces. Ankara can not go to a serious invasion. Apparently, they want to establish control over the Mosul as a source of energy, forces of the Kurds and its forces. Complications with Russia and Iran threaten Turkey's potential energy problems. Therefore, Ankara is obliged to take pre-emptive action. But Turkey found itself in a situation where any decision is initially made wrong.

— Returning to the U.S., they have strongly condemned Russia in the Crimea. Why no reaction to the violation of Iraqi sovereignty?

The difference is that Turkey is an ally of the Americans. Washington is unhappy with Ankara's policy, but they don't want to give up your ally. Publicly, they make statements of support, but in reality started to constrain the actions of the Turks. For example, Americans demanded to block the Turkish-Syrian border. It is about 98 kilometers in area. To fully block it, you need about 30 thousand soldiers. The Turks have no such free forces, and the West is ready to introduce its own contingent to the area. This will be another failure for Ankara.

Washington is well aware that Ankara is trying to push off foreheads two coalitions. But nobody in the West for Turkey to fight is not going to. The US has leverage in its long-term ally of Erdogan. The economy and the military sphere. The Turkish army armed with American weapons. If desired, they may cease to provide new arms and components that will significantly weaken the Turkish armed forces.

— Why don't they use these levers?

- Apparently, Americans are waiting and when Turkey will reach the point of no return. That's then followed by some action. It is possible that they lead to the collapse of the country. No wonder so much attention is now being given to the Kurds. In the triangle Syria-Iraq-Turkey may receive Kurdish state that already exists in Iraq. Thus, Ankara will lose control over its Eastern provinces.

In addition, Turkey is a country of coups. If there is one, nobody will be surprised. But so far, the Turks do not feel the mental danger in which they find themselves. Propaganda, loud statements, almost daily speeches of the leaders lull. But gradually the Turks begin to understand that they are inches from the precipice. I will remind, on last elections Erdogan's party received slightly more than 50%, that is, the society is split. Among power groups do not all approve of the policy of Erdogan.

Now in Turkey, everything can happen, anything — a coup, a full-fledged civil war, which now goes to the East, splitting the country. Cannot be ruled out no scenario.

The Director of Fund of studying of the USA Franklin Roosevelt MSU Yuri Rogalev believes that the US does not want to lose an important ally in the region.

United States appreciate their relationship with Turkey, especially against the background of the situation in the middle East. Therefore, they allow Turkey to do things that in another situation would actively criticize. But this approach is practiced not only in relation to Turkey. There is Saudi Arabia and Qatar, on the role which the United States generally do not say anything. Although everyone knows that these countries provide Finance and arms to terrorist groups.

In this sense, the attitude of the USA to Turkey is the same as to other allies. It is clear that Washington does not want to quarrel neither with Saudi Arabia nor with Turkey. What will they do without their support? The States are also to some extent depend on its allies in the region, and these countries use it.

But do the Americans Turkey's actions in Iraq?

- Middle East is a bunch of contradictions, and every country has its interests there. In the case of a Turkish invasion of Iraq, we are talking about the Northern provinces where the Kurds are Pro-American. They claim that they invited the Turks, they helped with training. It is clear that this was done with the consent of the United States. They expect that the Kurds will seize the capital of the so-called "Islamic state" * Raqqa.

But Iraq is considered too Pro-American, why the parties can't agree?

American policy in Iraq has failed. Obama immediately after coming to power promised to withdraw the American troops from the country. But after it was done, there began the civil war. In Iraq there was "Islamic state" which consisted of former officers of Saddam Hussein, who promptly lopped off part of the country.

Americans a year ago formed a coalition largely because otherwise you could lose all of Iraq. Today, Iraq is not a fully independent state and depends on many external forces. It is not a completely Pro-American, because after what the U.S. did in Iraq, the Americans here are treated with great love. But Iraq is heavily dependent on America economically.

He is now in a dilemma, but not a hundred percent American puppet. A huge impact there is and Iran. Therefore, the current Iraqi authorities are trying to maneuver. On the one hand, they are afraid to lose the support of the USA, but, you know, that other powers have their own interests and trying to balance between them.

What if the Turkey starts to get out of control, can Washington intervene and organize, for example, a color revolution?

- United States use the situation to their advantage. They are trying to influence their unstable allies and turn them in the right direction. Policies of the United States to solve their problems someone else's hands. But it is clear that the American influence is spread to a certain limit, and beyond these limits, these countries are beginning to pursue an independent policy, and this face is very thin.

I don't think now the U.S. is interested in losing Turkey or to destabilize it. Turkey is a NATO member, and through the Alliance it can exert a sufficient effect. We see that when the Turks pressed the tail, they flee to Brussels. Of course, we cannot forget the Eastern intrigue, but the Americans have leverage over Ankara. If you strongly feel it, Washington can Bang his fist on the table, and Erdogan will subside for a while.

In addition, the current administration is not very long. And all steps of the White house shows that he seeks not finally get caught up in any conflict. Even in the fight against Islamic terrorism-Obama in his speech nodded to the Congress. Like, if America is at risk, it would be nice for Congress to take some steps. Because up until now all policies in this regard were based on only the decrees of the President of the United States. But Congress is unlikely to support the President. Obama does not want to aggravate external situation.

Leading researcher of the Center for partnership of civilizations MGIMO, the expert Yuriy Zinin believes that his passivity USA not sending the best signal to the rest of the partners.

- Iraq had a special agreement with the United States on political and military matters concluded before the withdrawal of American troops from the country. In this agreement the United States were given certain guarantees Baghdad, with whom they were allied relations. Now that Iraq has been in the same situation, Americans must meet their obligations. But they only shrug and say: "sort it Out amongst yourselves". What is the price agreements between the States and their partners? No wonder after a sluggish reaction of the USA in the Iraqi Parliament were distributed the proposal to denounce the Treaty, it has no effect.

Realizing that Washington is not fulfilling its obligations, Baghdad appealed directly to the security Council, and it is completely justified. They have the right to demand the world community to Express their attitude to the situation. In addition, this treatment will force the US and the West to show its true position. They can't hide behind double standards, when there is a violation of international law.

— Can the U.S. block the work of the security Council on this issue?

Americans are used to deal with such things. For example, they are more than 30 times blocked resolutions on Palestine, when there were clear violations by their allies. But now the case is posted for public comment, and we will be able to see the real position of Washington in this regard.

No comments:

Post a Comment