During a speech in Brussels on Thursday, President Donald Trump spoke to a cluster of European heads of state. He implored them to pay their fair share in defense spending for the NATO alliance, while simultaneously refusing to commit to support in case of an attack. The speech baffled America’s European allies, and potentially pleased Russia’s militarily-adventurous President Vladimir Putin.

“Members of the alliance must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump told the leaders of the 28-member defense bloc, including the newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron. “Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.”

Trump, it turns out, was correct: According to NATO figures, only five countries meet the benchmark for defense spending, which is set at two percent of each member nation’s respective GDP. The U.S., Britain, Estonia, Greece, and Poland are the only five NATO members that meet the mark. The rest, including Europe’s economic engines, France and Germany, do not.

Speaking at the opening of NATO’s new billion-dollar headquarters in Brussels, Trump barely mentioned Article 5, the treaty’s tenet of collective defense. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and fomented a pro-Russia separatist movement in eastern Ukraine that same year. So, Trump’s refusal to explicitly endorse Article 5 could worry NATO members, especially the Baltic States, which border Russia and were occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The last–and only–time the 68-year-old alliance triggered Article 50 was after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, when NATO forces joined the war in Afghanistan. While Trump–who called NATO “obsolete” as a candidate but nominally embraced it as president–did not reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did.

Asked on Wednesday about Trump’s commitment to Article 5, Tillerson said, “of course we support Article 5.” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said all the fuss about Trump’s failure to back Article 5 was “silly because by being here at such a ceremony, we all understand that by being part of NATO we treat the obligations and commitments.” He added: “By having to reaffirm something by the very nature of being here and speaking at a ceremony about it is almost laughable.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Speech at NATO HQ, Trump Implores Members to Pay More for Defense appeared first on Law Street.

It is not unusual for a politician to say one thing publicly, and believe another privately. It is also not unusual for a politician–even a president–to change his or her tune on a specific issue. Presidents’ thinking on certain issues evolve over time. But with President Donald Trump, a political novice who seems to favor a transactional style over an ideological one, his flip-flops have been seismic. Especially on foreign policy, Trump has gone from embracing marginal viewpoints antithetical to mainstream thinking to, you guessed it, mainstream thinking. Here are three of the president’s foreign policy shifts to date:

Russia

We all know the narrative for this one: throughout his campaign, Trump lavished Russian President Vladimir Putin with praise. He hinted that, if elected, he would lift the U.S.-imposed sanctions on Russia. But that barely scrapes the surface of Trump’s initial cozying up to the Kremlin. In hacking into Democratic operatives’ email accounts, Russia aimed to aid Trump in his quest for the White House, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded. And since July, the FBI has been investigating his and/or his aides’ communications with Russia. The House and Senate also have ongoing probes into potential collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

But that good will has all but dissipated. Trump has dropped the idea of lifting the sanctions, which were levied on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its incursion into Ukraine. And earlier this month, Trump authorized a retaliatory strike on a Syrian airbase for a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials concluded was carried out by the Syrian regime. Russia, a vital backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was not happy with the action, and Trump recently said relations with Russia may be at “an all-time low.”

China

On his first day as president, Trump used to say, he would label China a currency manipulator. A dubious, if not dangerous claim, not only has that not happened nearly four months into his presidency, Trump recently wrote the idea off completely. “They’re not currency manipulators,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, referring to China. While Trump has seemingly moved on from his tough rhetoric, his administration plans on signing an executive order targeting countries that dump steel in the U.S. market, a practice long-suspected to be undertaken by China and others.

Trump has evolved on other China-related policies as well. As president-elect, Trump suggested everything regarding China was “under negotiation,” including the decades-old One China policy. A post-election phone call with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen ran counter to that policy, which recognizes Taiwan as a piece of the larger Chinese puzzle. In a February phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump affirmed his commitment to the One China view.

NATO

Obsolete. That is the adjective Trump the candidate used to describe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Europe’s most effective bulwark against Russian aggression on the continent, and in the Baltic states in particular. He publicly pressed NATO members to pick up their slack in funding the bloc’s budget–a stance previous presidents privately shared. Since deeming the alliance “obsolete,” members of his administration–including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson–have traveled to Europe in the hopes of soothing NATO members’ concerns of a dwindling U.S. commitment.

On Wednesday, during a press conference with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump acknowledged his 180: “I said it was obsolete,” he said. “It’s no longer obsolete.” So what has led to Trump’s change in thinking, especially on foreign policy matters? Maybe it’s the fading voice of Steve Bannon, or the rising influence of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and economic adviser Gary Cohn. Or, just maybe, his more unorthodox positions have been tempered by the weight of the Oval Office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Changing Stances: Three Foreign Policies Issues POTUS Has Flipped On appeared first on Law Street.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State and former CEO of oil giant Exxon Mobil, will not attend a meeting with NATO representatives next month in Brussels, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Instead, Tillerson will travel to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Tillerson will then travel to the G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, followed by a jaunt to Moscow to meet with Russian officials.

In forgoing the NATO meeting in favor of a trip to meet with Kremlin officials, Tillerson is only compounding the dim view some have of his personal ties to Russia, and the Trump Administration’s connections as well. Tillerson steered Exxon through lucrative drilling contracts with Russia, and President Vladimir Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship in 2013.

And Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” though members of his cabinet–and Vice President Mike Pence–have since tried to walk back those remarks. Then of course, there are Trump’s murky relations with Russia: FBI Director James Comey said on Monday that Trump’s associates are currently under investigation for communications with Russia during the campaign.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting would do little to alleviate the defense alliance’s concerns about U.S. support. “Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration [is] simply too cozy with Vladimir Putin,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

The State Department spokeswoman said in lieu of Tillerson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affair Tom Shannon will represent the U.S. in Brussels. Tillerson will, however, be meeting with NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday in Washington. The meeting will focus on defeating Islamic State, or ISIS, the spokeswoman said.

A former U.S. official and former NATO diplomat told Reuters that the alliance offered to change the date of the Brussels meeting so that Tillerson could attend, but that the department declined the offer. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the former diplomat said engagement with NATO is vital given the growing Russian threat. “Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rex Tillerson to Skip NATO Meeting, Meet with Chinese and Russian Leaders Instead appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump met with the leader he once said was “ruining Germany” at the White House on Friday: German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In their first face-to-face visit, Trump and Merkel were expected to discuss a number of topics that concern Germany, the U.S., and the rest of the world: NATO, Russia, the European Union, refugees, and North Korea.

Merkel came to Washington with a business-centric agenda in mind. She was accompanied by top executives from BMW, Siemens, and other top German businesses that trade with the U.S. In a recent interview with a German newspaper, Merkel said she planned to stress to Trump the importance of the U.S. and Germany’s trade relationship. “I’ll make that clear,” she said.

But it wasn’t all business-as-usual, like this very awkward moment:

Photographers: Can we get a handshake?
Merkel (to Trump): Do you want to have a handshake?
Trump: *no response*
Merkel: *makes awkward face* pic.twitter.com/ehgpCnWPg7

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 17, 2017

During a press conference that followed their two-hour private conversation, Trump and Merkel largely focused on areas the U.S. and Germany cooperate on–trade and defense. Trump praised Germany for its work-training programs. But echoing a point he repeatedly made as a candidate and early on in his presidency, Trump said Germany and other NATO members must “pay their fair share.”

Merkel agreed that Germany must do more to meet its commitment to the defense alliance–each NATO member is expected to pay two percent of its GDP per year, a mark all but the U.S. fall short of–and promised that she would make sure it does. The press conference was tense at times, which is hardly surprising, given the history of animosity between the two leaders.

At a campaign event last March, Trump said “the German people are going to end up overthrowing this woman,” in reference to Merkel and her open-door refugee policy. “I don’t know what the hell she’s thinking.” Trump has called Merkel’s refugee policy, in which she welcomed roughly a million refugees to Germany, a “catastrophic mistake.”

Some other notable snippets from the press conference:

• Trump said he is “not an isolationist,” but a “free trader” and a “fair trader.”
• Trump said immigration is a privilege, not a right.
• Merkel said globalization “ought to be shaped in an open-minded way but also in a very fair way.”
• When asked by a German reporter if he ever regrets his tweets, Trump said: “very seldom.”

With populist movements gaining traction in the U.S. and Europe–many with isolationist, anti-globalization, and anti-establishment elements–Germany is a valuable democratic partner for America, as it has been for decades. But Trump’s apparent embrace of anti-EU forces, and of Britain’s exit from the EU, has many U.S. allies questioning his commitment to the traditional western order.

One thing is clear: Trump still believes Trump Tower was wiretapped by President Barack Obama during the 2016 campaign. When asked about his claim, which has been struck down by U.S. intelligence officials and high-ranking Republicans, Trump said he and Merkel, who the NSA has reportedly spied on, “have something in common, perhaps.” Visibly taken aback, Merkel said nothing.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Merkel Meet to Discuss NATO, Trade, and Russia appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump met privately with British Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, in his first meeting with a foreign leader since taking office. After the closed-door meeting, Trump and May held a joint press conference. During the 20-minute Q&A, Trump and May tackled a variety of topics that are in the interests of both countries, including defense alliances and Russian sanctions.

Trump began the conference by praising Britain for choosing to leave the European Union last summer. “I think Brexit is going to be a wonderful thing for your country,” Trump said. May congratulated her American counterpart for his “stunning election victory.” She also passed along an invitation from Queen Elizabeth II for Trump to visit the United Kingdom later this year for an official state visit. Trump accepted.

.@theresa_may w @realDonaldTrump during White House visit. pic.twitter.com/jCE4zlycpD

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) January 27, 2017

May quickly delved into more substantive issues. “On defense and security, we are united in our recognition of NATO as the bulwark of our collective defense,” she said, referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the primary defensive mechanism against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.

In the weeks and months before taking office, Trump suggested that the U.S. rethink its membership in NATO, and said other members should pick up more of the tab. He has also said the alliance, which formed after World War II as a deterrent against Soviet aggression, is “obsolete.” But on Friday, May implied that during their private meeting, Trump said he was “100 percent” behind NATO.

Not everything went so smoothly though, as there were a few awkward exchanges:

“There goes that relationship.”

Trump smirks and scoffs when a BBC reporter takes him to task about torture, abortion and banning Muslims: pic.twitter.com/bl42L3Luoy

— Fusion (@Fusion) January 27, 2017

Trump and May also addressed sanctions the U.S. has levied on Russian officials and companies, in response to Russia’s incursion in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Obama also expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. in December in response to the CIA and FBI conclusion that the Kremlin interfered in the U.S. election. Trump said it is “too early” to lift the sanctions during the press conference. May also reiterated the importance of pressuring and containing Russia with sanctions.

In an interview on “Fox and Friends” on Friday, Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway suggested that lifting the sanctions is “under consideration.” The topic will likely be discussed when Trump speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call on Saturday. In a statement on Friday, Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), an outspoken Putin detractor, warned Trump of the dangers in dealing with the Russian leader.

“He should remember that the man on the other end of the line is a murderer and a thug who seeks to undermine American national security interests at every turn,” McCain said. “For our commander in chief to think otherwise would be naïve and dangerous.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Discusses NATO, Russian Sanctions with British PM Theresa May appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, Turkish tanks and special forces units supported by American airstrikes stormed across Turkey’s southern border with Syria, into the town of Jarablus. Within hours, ISIS and Kurdish militants–who control most of the surrounding territory–were thwarted, and the town was under the control of Syrian rebel groups. ISIS troops fled south to the town of al-Bab.

The incursion, while successful from Turkey’s perspective, underscores the interconnected and at times contradictory relationships of the Syrian civil war, which is in its sixth year. Turkey is a NATO member, and therefore an important ally in the region for the U.S., especially as a bulwark against ISIS. But Syrian Kurds, who control much of the border with Turkey, are considered terrorists by Turkey, yet are also one of the U.S.’s most potent surrogates in the fight against ISIS.

But ISIS is the one common denominator in Syria, the one foe that all parties share–Turkey, the U.S., Syrian rebel factions, the Syrian government and its allies (which includes Russia and Iran), and Syrian Kurds. With Wednesday’s “Euphrates Shield” mission–Jarablus sits on the western bank of the Euphrates– Turkey made clear its goal of ridding the border of ISIS and the Kurds, a longtime adversary who it fears aims to create a border-length autonomous zone.

#UPDATE Syria rebels backed by Turkey tanks ‘seize’ IS-held town Jarabulus https://t.co/DyB9GEyXD8 pic.twitter.com/JMOCNU5ZPA

— AFP news agency (@AFP) August 24, 2016

Vice President Joe Biden, who flew to Turkey’s capital, Ankara, on Wednesday to discuss combating ISIS, stood by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Though the U.S. backs Syrian Kurds, Biden said they “must move back across the Euphrates River. They cannot, will not, under any circumstance get American support if they do not keep that commitment.” He added: “We believe very strongly that the Turkish border should be controlled by Turkey.”

Roughly 1,500 soldiers from Syrian rebel groups backed Turkey’s assault, according to an activist embedded with the rebels. It is unclear if Turkey expects the rebels to hand over control of the town, or if its accomplishment of wiping it clean of ISIS militants and Kurds is enough.

Syria, which effectively holds no governance over the territory near its border with Turkey, nevertheless called Turkey’s incursion a “blatant violation” of its sovereignty. Turkey’s aggressive incursion is a response to a string of attacks on its soil by ISIS, most recent of which was a suicide bombing at a wedding in Gaziantep on Saturday. That attack killed 54 people.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey Brings Fight Against ISIS Across the Syrian Border appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Poland’s capital city, Warsaw, will host 28 heads of state from Europe and North America at the 2016 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit. Ironically, the two-day conference will address some modern realities that parallel the obstacles the trans-Atlantic coalition hoped to eradicate with its founding premise over a half century ago: Soviet (now Russian) deterrence, European nationalism, and political integration.

In a few ways, the world today mirrors that of 1949. Then, the Soviet Union was absorbing states into its Communist sphere and nationalist fervor engulfed a post-World War II Europe. Today, Russia, while recently pledging to cut its military spending, is putting its military might behind Western foes like Syria and continues to foment rebellion in Ukraine. And in the face of terrorist attacks and the disrupting effects of globalization, nationalist, tribal attitudes are gripping all corners of the Western world, as Britain’s exit from the European Union and the rise of Donald Trump in America and far-right movements in Europe demonstrate.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg outlined the bloc’s current threats to The Associated Press: “We live in a more dangerous world, with terrorism, with turmoil, especially to the south of the alliance, in Iraq, Syria, North Africa,” he said. “But also with a Russia which is more assertive, a Russia which has tripled its defense spending since 2000, and which has used force against an independent nation in Europe, Ukraine.” He added that NATO must adapt to a changing world.

NATO was born in 1949 out of a document called the Washington Treaty. Signed by 12 founding nations, the pact promised collective security for all of its members, present and future: “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” reads Article 5 of the treaty. The group was founded in the hope of “deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.”

Of utmost importance to Stoltenberg, President Obama, and especially NATO’s Baltic members, is deterring a resurgent Kremlin. At Friday’s conference, member-nations will hammer out the details and give the official go-ahead to four multinational military brigades to be stationed in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the Baltic states who face the most pressing threat from Moscow. The nearly 4,000 troop-strong brigades will be led by the U.S., Britain, Canada, and Germany. At a pre-summit media briefing in Brussels, Polish NATO Ambassador Jacek Najder called the multinational effort “the most significant accomplishment of alliance deterrence and defense in decades.”

In a joint press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Stoltenberg ticked off the issues that will be addressed at the upcoming summit meeting. NATO will “step up our response to threats from the south. Boost our support for partners. Increase our resilience against hybrid and cyber threats. And take our cooperation with the European Union to an ambitious new level,” he said. 

America’s stance on NATO is far from unanimous. For decades, it has been the alliance’s deepest well of funding, since the amount a member pays is based on its GDP. But if Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, gets elected in November, that could change. In April, he called NATO “obsolete,” claiming that European members were ripping America off, saying, “we are protecting them and they are getting all sorts of military protection and other things.” But Obama–who traveled to Warsaw on Thursday for his final summit–and Hillary Clinton, Trump’s counterpart on the Democratic side, are in sync on NATO.

In response to Trump’s comments, Obama called the alliance “the lynchpin, the cornerstone, of our collective defense and U.S. security policy.” The former secretary of state gave her two cents as well: “If Mr. Trump gets his way, it will be like Christmas in the Kremlin,” she said. “It will make America less safe and the world more dangerous.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NATO Summit to Address Russian Aggression, Cyber Threats, and ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

The nation of Turkey sits at a crossroads. Stretching from Europe to Asia, the country serves as the major path between the two continents and has done so through one form or another for centuries. The nation is also proverbially stuck between two competing forces as well. While it has advanced economically, politically, and through foreign policy much further than many of its Middle East neighbors, recent setbacks have shown just how far this process has yet to go. On top of this is the continued threat of ISIS and homegrown groups that recently reached such a fevered pitch that Turkey has called on its NATO allies for assistance. Read on for a look at this critical junction for Turkey, examining its past, politics, economy, and security situation.

History

Present day Turkey was formerly known as Anatolia in ancient times and was part of many of the world’s strongest and longest-lasting empires such as the Romans and Byzantines. Beginning in the 11^th century however, it was invaded by a number of Turkic tribes from the Asian Steppe. These groups spent the next 200 years warring with each other, as well as with the Byzantines. Through this fighting the region gradually came to have an overwhelmingly Turkic population, leading to the origins of the nation’s present name, Turkey.

Out of that chaos rose the Ottomans, who slowly expanded the borders of the burgeoning Anatolian state and moved to finally crush the Byzantium Empire to the west. Finally in 1453, after nearly 100 years, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine capital Constantinople. The city was renamed Istanbul and rechristened the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Following this rapid rise, the Ottomans then spent the next 300 years building and consolidating their empire.

The tide of history began to work against them though, in the 18^th century, as the empire was pinned in under threat from all sides; the Austrians to the west, the Russians to the north, and Persians to the east and south. This led a gradual decline of the Ottoman Empire, which was soon dubbed “the sick man of Europe.” Ironically, the empire survived only through efforts of European nations, which were anxious to maintain it as part of the balance of power.

This weakness was exacerbated by defeat in the Crimean War and the independence of a number of the regions under Turkish rule in the late 1800s. This also led to a reform movement, which culminated with Ataturk and the Young Turks who took control over the country in a bloodless coup in 1909 and ushered in a modern European-style democracy.

Aside from imitating European democracy, Ataturk also modernized Turkey in other ways including through farming, education, and even the Turkish language. His most lasting objective though and the most divisive to the present day, was to make Turkey a secular nation. While its inhabitants are still overwhelmingly Muslim, the country is modeled more after others in which the church and state are separate.  The video below provides an in-depth look at Turkey’s history.

Turkey and the EU

When Ataturk imitated European life he dreamed of one day ingratiating Turkey into the continent or at least being strong enough to challenge it. This has translated through the years into a desire by Turks to join the European Union. In fact, it has been a candidate for membership since 1999. The partnership would be a natural one for a number of reasons including Turkey’s growing economy, as well as its existing partnerships within NATO and the G20.

Nevertheless, after more than 15 years, Turkey remains on the outside looking in. Despite its strong economy and its capital, which is technically in Europe, the Turks have not been able to convince the EU it is worthy of membership. This is due to a number of reasons that extend beyond Turkey’s Muslim population, which it alleges is the main problem.

To start, while Turkey is wealthy, that wealth is unequally concentrated at the top. Thus while Turkey’s economy overall is growing and there are extremely wealthy people, the majority live in poverty. This could be problematic for the EU because it would bring a population even larger than Germany’s into the fold, which might need extensive government help. This is even more of a concern in the wake of the repeated bailouts of Greece, a much smaller country than Turkey both economically and population-wise. Additionally, Turkey brings further baggage through its problems with the Kurds, the contentious issue of who rules Cyprus, and its democracy, which looks increasingly less representative and more like a dictatorship.

Perhaps most importantly though, in light of Greece’s recent issues, is the slowing Turkish economy. Since its rise from the ashes of the IMF bailout it received in 2001, the economy of Turkey boomed averaging between five and ten percent annually. However, this growth has stalled and plummeted the last few years, averaging closer to three percent.

This is a result of less innovation and deregulation of the economy, regulations which helped it climb out of its earlier hole. At the center of much of this, is former Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. Erdogan has been criticized for intervening too much in the nation’s economy, particularly concerning its central bank. Erdogan claims that the central bank acting as if it is under a foreign authority has reduced confidence in the economy and the government.

The Turkish Government

Speaking of its government, since the founding of the modern state by Ataturk, Turkey has made a concerted effort, unlike its neighbors, to be secularist and not become dominated by Islamists. This attempt has been carried out, historically, by the military, which has initiated a number of coups to preserve the country as is.  The following video depicts the military’s role in the government.

However, these efforts are under threat of being rendered moot, thanks to Turkey’s most powerful politician since Ataturk, Recep Erdogan. Erdogan built his political career piece by piece, rising from professional soccer all the way to the position of Prime Minister. After serving the maximum allowable 12 years, he became the first ever directly elected president in the country’s position.

While Erdogan has been immensely popular during his rule, many view him as a threat to Turkey’s secular identity. This is due to many factors, including his religious upbringing, laws he has attempted to pass that prohibit certain freedoms with regard to Islamic doctrine, and his political leanings. The fear is growing because Erdogan is now attempting to alter the constitution in a way that grants the president far-reaching powers, which would be a massive shift for a position that until now has been mostly ceremonial. Erdogan has also had a combative foreign affairs history, including alienating a once-close ally in Israel and in failing to live up to promises offered to Kurds living in the south.  The accompanying video details Erdogan’s political career.

Security

The Kurds represent just one of the two major threats to Turkey emanating from its south. The other is ISIS whose power base in Syria and Iraq touches the nation’s southern border and threatens to spill over it.

The Kurds

Turkey’s longest term enemy is within its own borders. The Kurds are led by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Since the party was outlawed by Turkey in 1984, 40,000 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Erdogan negotiated a tentative peace with the group, however when the Kurds asked for assistance in fighting ISIS they were met with indifference.

The issue came to a head again recently when Kurdish members of the PKK ambushed and killed two Turkish police officers. This has led Turkish officials to state that they see no difference between groups such as the PKK and ISIS, in that both are viewed as terrorists. This explains recent air strikes then, against Kurdish positions in Iraq and Syria by Turkey, which effectively ends the ceasefire.  The video below discusses the issues between the Kurds and Turkey.

ISIS

For the most part Turkey has tried and been successful in avoiding conflict with the barbaric terrorist group, but recent signs suggest this may be ending. Following a recent attack by militants and in light of the nearly two million refugees flooding into Turkey from Iraq and Syria, the country is no longer able to sit on the sidelines.

On July 26,  Turkey, as a member of NATO, called for a meeting under Article 4 of the treaty organization’s charter. It was only the fifth such time since the organization’s inception that such a meeting has been called. The Turks proposed a buffer where no militants will be allowed to operate within 68 miles of their border. In return for the assistance, the Turks will also give greater access to U.S. troops and aircraft fighting ISIS.

While the coalition fighting ISIS has long desired a foothold in Turkey for targeting the group, any agreement would come with strings attached. Not only would it mean condoning attacks by the Turks on the PKK, it would also condone many of the other undemocratic actions taking place within the country.

Conclusion

Turkey is literally a land at a crossroads between Europe and Asia, Christianity and Islam. For nearly a century, the country has maintained this tenuous position by adhering to the principles of the founder of the modern Turkish state, Ataturk. He called for a secularist nation and when the country strayed from this path, it was and has been repeatedly corrected through military intervention.

Secularism was made easier following the turn of the millennium as Turkey’s economy hummed, its relations with the Kurds improved, and a path to joining the E.U. looked open. However, life has a way of presenting obstacles and Turkey has begun to encounter several, ranging from its flat-lining growth and its power-hungry leader to its continued assault on minorities within its borders and beyond. It is this intersection that now presents Turkey with its most difficult decisions in the future to come. The choices it makes could very well change its direction.

Resources

BBC News: IS Conflict NATO to discuss Turkey-Syria border crisis

History World: History of Turkey

All About Istanbul: Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey

European Union: EU Relations With Turkey

Debating Europe: Arguments For and Against Turkey’s EU Membership

Telegraph: How Turkey’s Economy Went From Flying to Flagging and Could Get Worse

Reuters: Turkey’s Erdogan Says New Constituion a Priority After Elections

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey: A Country Perpetually at a Crossroads appeared first on Law Street.

Muammar Qaddafi, longtime leader of Libya, was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring–the wave of uprisings that swept the Middle East demanding the end of autocratic ruling. The United States and NATO military forces executed a military intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi as leader. After its immediate action, the event became the primary example for what a successful intervention looks like. But now, four years have passed, and there’s an essential question often posed: did the intervention really make things better?

While it’s difficult to answer that question, Libya’s path post-intervention demonstrates that just because you give people the opportunity for change, does not mean they have the tools or infrastructure to do so. In many ways, the situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, and continues to raise concerns about the efficacy of the intervention.

 Who was Muammar Qaddafi?

Just two days after the overthrow of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, Libyan demonstrators were throwing stones at a government building and set fire to its offices. The protesters were demanding “decent housing and dignified life.” Libyan opposition websites flourished, and social media was optimized to revolt against Qaddafi. But who exactly was the maligned leader?

Muammar Qaddafi governed Libya as its primary leader for 42 years, from 1969 to 2011. Through his tenure, he was known for supporting public works projects, such as the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water to the arid north of Libya. He was known to redistribute wealth, and provided loans at a zero percent interest rate.

He was also branded an abuser of human rights. He was accused of administering the murder of more than 1,000 prisoners–mainly political opponents–at the Abu Salim prison. Qaddafi was also linked to both the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that resulted in the loss of 270 lives, and the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher in central London in 1984.

Qaddafi did fit the bill as an authoritarian ruler. As a result, the possibility of toppling the government, just as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ali had been toppled, was too strong for the Libyan population to resist.

United Nations Involvement

Libya was in uproar during the Arab Spring. Opposition rebel forces were mobilizing quickly, and the Qaddafi regime fought back. Among the international community, the question was raised–should someone intervene?

Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community debated how to effectively react when a nation systemically violates its citizens’ human rights. Essentially, do states have unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs–no matter how inhumanely events may occur–or can the international community legally intervene for humanitarian purposes?

In 2001, the expression “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was first presented in response to this debate over the ethics of international intervention. The R2P report outlines that the state is responsible first for the protection of its own citizens within its borders; if the state fails, either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness, the responsibility to protect will shift to the international community through humanitarian intervention or effort.

The United Nations Security Council, a group of 15 countries including five permanent members–the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, and Russia–demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya. This included an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity.”

The Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.

NATO-U.S. Actions

Two days after the UN authorization under R2P, NATO-U.S. forces imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone. Sanctions were tightened on the Qaddafi regime, and the bombing on Qaddafi forces began. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Libyan Opposition forces conquered the country.

Qaddafi was trying to flee the city in a convoy of cars when he came under attack from NATO jets. A mob captured him on the ground, led him through the streets and shot him twice. The French claimed responsibility for the airstrike.

Afterwards, the United States continued bombing Libyan tanks and personnel, allowing rebels to re-establish control in Benghazi.

Why did NATO-U.S. Forces Intervene?

There were three fundamental choices. The first was to do nothing and witness a possible humanitarian nightmare. The second was to intervene with a limited approach–essentially assist in the takedown of current government, but not the building of a new government. The third option was to intervene with a complete approach, including staying to help stabilize and build the new government.

The United Nations Security Council decided the U.S. should not allow a humanitarian nightmare to happen if it could be prevented with a relatively simple military intervention. Any presence on the ground to stabilize the conflict probably would not have been welcomed, and it may not have worked any better than it did it in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So, the second option was chosen–remove Qaddafi as leader in order to allow the Libyan people time to bring in a new authority.

Additionally, it was a multilateral effort. NATO forces actually led the attacks, not the United States. Additionally, Libyan rebel forces were well organized and located near port cities, which made communication and importing goods easier.

Why was it deemed successful?

There were three targets outlined as a part of the NATO-U.S. strategy: ensure there was an arms embargo enforced on Qaddafi; protect the people being attacked by Qaddafi’s forces; and buy some time and space for Libyan people to decide their own future. These goals were fulfilled in a timely manner, with no American lives lost. Automatically, NATO-U.S. forces declared success.

How is Libya Now?

Unfortunately, by many measures, Libya is now in worse shape. There’s activity from militias affiliated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The U.S. may have mitigated the event of a mass killing, but now the region is destabilized–affecting education and literacy, employment, gender equality, and the possibility of institution building, among other things. The following video outlines the difficulties that the Libyan people are facing currently.

So why didn’t we stay in Libya?

Given the political environment in 2011, animosity toward American foreign forces were a concern. This fear led American and European leaders to set a limit the extent of intervention. In addition, the U.S. could have been accused of forcing Western and democratic ideals in a vulnerable country. Security and foreign policy decision makers are constantly riddled with what to do. There is a huge dilemma when it comes to legal and moral humanitarian intervention. In 20/20 hindsight, any decision can be found faulty.

Conclusion

Libya’s case is far from perfect, but not necessarily wrong. It’s very easy to criticize the actions taken, because, yes, Libya may very well be worse off. On a global level, there are steps that could be taken to prevail the challenges to humanitarian intervention. The Security Council permanent members are faced with a difficult conundrum. It becomes increasingly difficulty to determine how to intervene–in what capacity does the international community take over another nation? It’s a question that had to be considered in Libya’s case, and will continue to come up time and time again.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Background on Responsibility to Protect

United Nations: Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone

Additional

Council on Foreign Relations: The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda

Council on Foreign Relations: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

Huffington Post: Was the 2011 Libya Intervention a Mistake?

First Look: Hailed as a Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to Be the Exact Opposite

The New York Times: President Obama on Libya

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi, the ‘King Of Kings,’ Dies in His Hometown

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Back: Lessons From the Intervention in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, in Kabul, Afghanistan, there was a quiet ceremony to declare the war in Afghanistan finished. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military operation, is officially done after over 13 years. But what exactly does that mean? Will we no longer see American troops sent to Afghanistan? Not exactly–while the war may be officially over, there’s still a lot of work to be done, and we should expect to see continued involvement from the U.S. and some of its allies.

In response to the horrifying terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan. The official name for the international forces deployed in Afghanistan was the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), authorized by the United Nations Security Council in 2001.That mission has lasted almost exactly 13 years, and approximately 3,500 international soldiers have been killed in the war. The United States makes up a big part of that death toll, with over 2200 American soldiers killed. Obviously, however, the highest cost has been to Afghanistan’s people–over 4,000 Afghan soldiers and police officers were killed this year alone. It has cost–and will continue to cost–American taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion dollars.

In those 13 years, we’ve seen the Taliban fall, but remain present. A government has been built, and restructured. Osama Bin Ladin was captured and killed. There have been resurgences, different attacks, and a seemingly constant conversation about what exactly the United States is doing in Afghanistan.

ISAF will now be replaced by a new mission: Resolute Support. Still NATO-led, and still U.S. dominated, Resolute Support will attempt to train and build up the military forces in Afghanistan. That new mission will begin its work in January, 2015. That force will be made up of approximately 13,500 international troops; Americans will count for around 11,000 of those.

President Obama wasn’t present at the ceremony in Kabul, but released a statement on the “official” end of the war in Afghanistan. As Obama explained the continued involvement in his written statement:

Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country. At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States — along with our allies and partners — will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist Afghan forces and to conduct counter-terrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda.

Obama also called Sunday’s cessation of ISAF a “responsible conclusion.” That seems a possibly apt, although exceedingly careful, description. It may not even be a conclusion, at least not in a classic sense. After all, the United States will continue to be involved in Afghanistan, in many of the same ways that it was involved prior to Sunday’s ceremony. Afghanistan isn’t really in great shape, and there are concerns that it will collapse. Afghanistan’s military and police forces will still be fighting a war, and our American soldiers stationed there will probably be involved–regardless of what we want to call it. Honestly, measuring whether or not the entire war was a success or a failure really isn’t even possible right now–it’s essential to see what will happen in Afghanistan in the years moving forward to make any judgments of that magnitude.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United States Officially Ends War in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.