An Interview with Paul Michael Wihbey
5 February 2000, Copyright © Turkish Daily News :
Eurasian analysts worried by Russian assertiveness and ineffective US policy
Part Two
By YASEMIN DOBRA-MANCO
Washington/Istanbul- Turkish Daily NewsAs the world enters the 21st century the need for security arrangements is being debated in regions which have suffered from economic disturbances, warfare, territorial disputes, ethnic strife and political instabilities. It is not yet clear how successful the Balkans stability pact will be, but proposals for pacts in other regions, such as the Caucasus and Middle East, are being designed. Perhaps, if opportunities are seized, the burgeoning alliances taking place in Eurasia and the Middle East can have a positive impact on one another as security arrangements take shape.
Creating a new regional Mid-East architecture
Tensions over water have arisen in the Middle East due to the fact that water resources are plummeting. While representing 5 percent of the total world population, the Middle East and North Africa contain only 0.9 percent of global water resources (Adel Darwish, "Water Wars" 1994). Crises have already begun to emerge in the region: between Turkey and Syria over the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers; in the Jordan River Basin between Israel, the Palestine National Authority, and Jordan; among Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia over the Nile River; and within Saudi Arabia.
In a 1999 Strategic Review paper, Paul Michael Wihbey and his co-author Ilan Berman wrote, "Efforts to normalize regional tensions over water will hinge upon the equitable distribution of available resources and the creation of security frameworks to ensure their safety and stability." They point out that a skeleton framework, which needs international support is already in place, based on the alliances developing between Turkey, Israel and Jordan.
The development of a stable grouping is likely to depend on the progress of peace talks between Israel, Syria and the Palestinians, as well as on the resolution of other disputes.
Peace talks, Turkey, and water
Although Turkey and Syria signed a protocol in 1987 for Syria to receive 500 cubic meters of water per second from the Euphrates River (and Turkey has been allowing more than this amount to flow into Syria), there are concerns that a serious water dispute could erupt. Syria fears Turkey's multi-billion dollar Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) will threaten its access to upstream water resources.
Turkey's water policy maintains that any water in excess will be sold and that Turkey will not permit bargaining over its water resources. Turkey does not wish to be drawn into the peace talks between Israel and Syria, however, Ankara is no doubt wondering whether Israel, Syria or Washington have come to some assumptions on Turkey's behalf, as was the case during the 1996 negotiations.
Experienced peace process watchers speculate that water originating from Turkey might be needed to facilitate a Syrian- Israeli peace agreement. Wihbey, who is a Strategic Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in Washington D.C., stated during an interview that the Israelis believe that Washington may pressure Turkey into negotiations, adding that Washington may have miscalculated because for Turkey water is a strategic resource and an issue of national security and foreign policy.
The IASPS strategist says that the United States must take Turkey's security concerns seriously. Washington should fully recognize NATO-ally Turkey's sensitivities and interests, and consult Turkey to ensure that Turkey is satisfied, rather than draw it into a bargaining process. If Turkey were to become involved in the peace negotiations, Wihbey points out that it could not be expected for Turkey to offer water without compensation. Furthermore, he suggests that a study of Syria's water management should be conducted before water needs can be discussed. According to Wihbey, perhaps then the integration of water into current regional strategic cooperation initiatives "can be a method by which to reverse the tide of escalating water conflicts."
Israeli diplomats have told Ankara that Israel will not act in a manner which could harm Turkish interests. Turkey has just recently been warming its relations with Syria, after having suffered from Syrian-backed terrorism (Syria still remains on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism), but it is still very cautious in its relations. What could be of concern to Ankara is pressure from the United States, now that the U.S. has begun playing a more active role in peace talks. U.S. engagement as an active participant was made clear by the draft agreement U.S. officials drew-up in December at the end of the first Israel-Syrian negotiating round.
If the peace talks show positive results some observers question whether Israeli-Turkish ties will continue to grow. Though Israel may not want to make its Arab neighbors too uneasy due to its strategic partnership with Turkey, there is reason to believe that Israel will want to continue developing close ties with a strategically located predominantly Muslim secular state that is now a European Union candidate. Wihbey believes that there is a need to go beyond bilateral relations, and suggests, "The two countries should finalize a pact."
There are fears that a water dispute between Syria and Turkey could help forge a strategic alliance between Syria and Iraq, a country which has also been voicing its concerns over Turkey's GAP project. But whether the region could be destabilized and a regional conflict triggered is debatable. The construction of a "Peace pipeline," proposed by the late Turkish President Turgut Ozal, could add to regional stability by transporting water from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf and other Middle East states. Other means of transporting water, such as by sea, are also being studied before the region deteriorates into infighting over water resources.
Indicating that a new approach is needed, Wihbey said, "The integration of water into the emerging frameworks for strategic cooperation could facilitate the protection and preservation of water resources and pave the way for the long-term security of Middle East water." This could lead to regional coordination for the construction of transnational pipelines and energy grids, as well as the creation of a political/military structure that can ensure the safety and security of these systems.
The complicated triangle of Eurasia and the Middle East
The United States has recently been criticized by some Washington-based think tanks for de-emphasizing its relationship with Turkey and Israel. Critics say America should awaken to the importance of its natural allies in the region and be better prepared for future confrontations.
Wihbey states that Turkey is the most important country in Eurasia. As described in Part I, Turkey is pressing its leadership role in the Caucasus and seeking support as it tries to be a unifying force between East and West. The Mid-East specialist believes that every dollar spent defending and increasing Turkish power in the region is worth it in the long-term. He asserts that by virtue of its location, history and ethnicity Turkey can counterbalance Russia in ways that America can never do.
In the "Southern Eurasian Great Game," written last year, Wihbey feels that the United States is not particularly concerned about the Caucasus region because it regards Russian security calculations in southern Eurasia as disjointed, ad hoc and self-defeating. U.S. officials see the Russian leadership as preoccupied with internal and economic turmoil, and believe the Russian policy in the Caucasus reflects cultural traits and imperial nostalgia rather than a geopolitical campaign. The United States also maintains that if it were to actively oppose Russia in the Middle East and southern Eurasia, it would spur the rise of more anti-Western and authoritarian leaders. Certain analysts criticize this position and accuse the United States of following a policy of neglect.
Future signs of Russian assertiveness
What type of foreign policy will Russian Prime Minister and acting President Vladimir Putin pursue if he wins the upcoming presidential election? It is hoped that an anti-Western and authoritarian climate will not arise, reminiscent of the Cold-War era, but that a Russia which aspires to be part of the West will emerge.
Putin is seen by analysts as a tough figure who could head a new administration which poses a challenge to the EU, the U.S., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and surrounding regions. He has already stated that Western-style democracy is not suitable for Russia and that Russian society wants a restoration of a guiding and regulatory state. It is not certain whether he will be eager to pursue political, social and economic reforms but it is clear that he has given importance to a strong military at the center of his vision for Russia.
Observers and states of the "near abroad" worry that if he maintains power he may resort to old-style KGB era tactics. There are also concerns that the Russian military and security establishments can destabilize states which have been striving to build new economies and political systems.
And thus the ultimate question: Will old Russian methods, allies, legacies and a modernized military cause destabilization in the Caucasus and Middle East and help Russia to reclaim the status of great power as it seeks to rival the United States with a new alliance?
Need for Western policy reassessments
The shame of the civilized West was once again apparent as leaders continued to sweep their moral obligations and international agreements under the carpet. While Russian collective punishment and racism continue to fuel the indiscriminate use of force unleashed by the Russian military in Chechnya, a nation is being cruelly wiped out and a homeland transformed into a torched wasteland.
Russia asserts it is focusing on fighting terrorism in Chechnya and is protecting the borders of the EU. However, experts on Russian and international affairs see this as a pretext for regaining control of a region Russia is destroying and "ethnically cleansing."
A disappointing observation in the free world is that Putin's rise to power and popularity is a result of the extreme position he has taken in Chechnya. Despite a propaganda war and limited access to the region, reports indicate that the war in Chechnya is being waged not against a small number of bandits and terrorists, but against an entire people. In the process a message is being sent with Chechen blood to the "near abroad" and to the world.
While Russian troops continue what many believe is a self- defeating war that will cause further terrorism and violence, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (the continent's highest human rights body) turned a blind eye to disclosed Russian war crimes and atrocities and recently voted to wait another three months to see if progress could be made towards ending the war. This vote came soon after Russia, a member of the Council of Europe, issued and then semi-withdrew an unprecedented ultimatum: that all citizens should leave Grozny or be killed.
The OSCE (whose chairman visited the region after the ineffectual 54-nation summit on European Security in Istanbul), also has not come up with an adequate response to the Russian attacks on civilians. After the recent U.N. secretary-general's visit to Russia, it has become even clearer that there is not much the U.N. can do. The United States' response has been extremely disappointing.
The fear of provoking nuclear Russia has been felt from Russia's "near abroad" to the comfortable assembly halls of the West. Alienating Russia may not be a good move, but the Russian people and those who truly uphold human rights and freedom deserve more from the free world than ambiguous policies and failed international agreements. The West should admit that it needs to confront realities before they get grimmer and before Western allies, such as Georgia, are lost due to instability. Policies should be reviewed and cooperation encouraged for security arrangements which can bring stability and prosperity to Eurasia and the Middle East.
If Russia can be made to uphold its responsibilities as a partner of the West it can become party to stabilizing the region. Russia should be made to feel less unwelcome and threatened, but it must show signs that it is capable of being a Western partner who seeks to build relationships that will benefit everyone. The West must assist the states of Eurasia and the Middle East to explore the prospects for cooperation and integration.
Lastly both the United States and the EU need to defend their values and principles. On Monday, when 14 EU members threatened Austria with isolation if the Austrian far-right party entered a coalition government, the EU stood up to protect democratic institutions (as the Freedom Party is viewed as racist, anti-semitic and against foreign immigrants, views which are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU).
Rather than conducting business as usual, democratic nations should take a firm and clear stand regarding the cruel war in Chechnya and show resolve and political will before being overwhelmed by similar bloody challenges. If hostilities increase in Eurasia instability and tension will not stop at the EU's borders, but will be felt from its periphery throughout the globe.
