Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The first debate was questioning if growing Israeli-Azerbaijani ties is about countering Iran in a predominantly Shiite country awash with oil, gas and obviously, money. Joshua Kucera has written a fascinating and true story of the very nature of Israeli-Azerbaijani relations in the context of the latest, largest purchase of arms by Azerbaijan.
The deal came at a time when Iran’s relations with Azerbaijan reduced from worse to the worst. Their spat is about their domestic security; Azerbaijan mercilessly cracks down on radical Shiite groups aiming at exporting Iran’s ideology to Shiite Azerbaijan and Iran is concerned that Israeli Mossad agents are receiving free tickets to spy on Iran. Neither Iran nor Azerbaijan feels imminent danger to its national security – a major reason why none of them would feel necessary to balance against each other. Kucera explains in some details how Azerbaijan doesn't face security threat from Iran but Armenia.
Building strong army doesn’t necessarily mean that a neighboring country will balance against the supposedly hegemonic state. Perception of threats plays a key role for any state to decide whether or not to balance against the hegemonic state. It is beyond doubt that Azerbaijan’s army buildup is completely about getting stronger vis-a-vis Armenia, currently occupying some 20 percent of South Caucasus’ only Muslim country’s territories.
Walter Russel Mead proposes many reasons why this “odd couple” is enjoying its honeymoon. He is correct in suggesting that “mutual distrust” (and not the mutual security concerns) over Iran is at the core of this unlikely friendship between Israel and Azerbaijan. Israel's increasingly growing close ties with Azerbaijan is not about Iran but the Muslim country's animosity with its arch-foe Armenia. "Mutual distrust" over Iran is what makes Israel comfortable in selling arms to Azerbaijan.
While Turkey is still silent over growing cooperation between Israel and Azerbaijan, voices from Turkey have already started questioning Azerbaijan’s motives, some even go to the extent accusing Turkey’s strongest ally of remaining indifferent to Turkey's soured ties with the Jewish state.
The second debate is about Turkish criticisms of Azerbaijani foreign policy with respect to Israel which I think is disingenuous and immature. 20 percent of Azerbaijani territories are occupied by Armenia and it is hard for Azerbaijan to buy arms from Russia, Armenia’s chief patron, or the US due to the strong Armenian lobby. Not counting past six months, Turkey’s ties, including military, with Israel were deep and strong for more than sixty years.
I’m forced to reiterate realist teachings in almost each of my posts here because many keep forgetting that there is no room for morality in international affairs. What matters is national security of states. Stephen M. Walt claims in this Foreign Policy piece that it is not true that American power is “uniquely virtuous.” Why states keep working with the US despite its deeply immoral behavior all across the world is because it is a key guarantor of survival for many countries and maintains fragile balance of power in many regions around the globe.
It is hence largely flawed to argue that Azerbaijan is behaving irresponsibly by doing business with Israel despite Turkey’s strained ties with its old ally. States forget hostilities when a bigger, more dangerous threat is looming in the offing. Israel’s and Turkey’s cooperation was key and significant in countering communist threat during the Cold War. For Azerbaijan, retaking its lost territories from Armenia is what forces the Muslim state to form a vital alliance with the world’s one of the most human rights abusers. It is naive to expect Azerbaijan to abandon its close military relations with Israel just because Turkey has severed ties with Israel over 2010's deadly flotilla botch.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
World powers have made it clear in the past few weeks that military intervention in Syria seems distant and two U.S. congressmen said they are in favor of arming Syria rebels who have right to defend themselves. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham claimed that Syrian regime is being financed by Iran and that a byproduct of a more interventionist policy in Syria would be to weaken Iran. Arming Syrian rebels might seem the only way out of this current impasse, but it is problematic in many ways.
First, Syrian people have lived under senior and junior Assads for four decades and no matter how brutal regime it is, current spate of daily killings is no better alternative. For this reason, end of violence is more priority than nudging Assad to the door or weakening Iran strategically. Arming Syrian rebels surely wouldn't help advance this cause.
Second, it is hard to predict when the uprising will bring Assad’s end or when the country will edge toward a peaceful political transition. Arming Syrian rebels could mean pouring more fuel on a burning house and may spawn an era of perennial fight among different Syrian factions. The US or any other country must avoid arming Syrian rebels unless they clearly know what the consequences of such a move would be. Arms supplying countries must also know that the rebels will have a decisive victory instead of massacring the other side once they are given more arms.
Third, Syrian rebels have sufficient amount of weaponry to defend themselves and territories they captured. What they lack is manpower and ability to defend civilian population in areas where Assad tanks are constantly shelling. Assad forces are attacking with tanks and armored vehicles and it is basically hard to counter them by Kalashnikovs. Except anti-tank rocket launchers, what kind of weaponry disorganized Syrian rebels could use?
Fourth, instead of seeking ways how to give the uprising in Syria a military tone, the international community must find ways to persuade the Iranian regime to stop funding Assad. Military operation is an expensive business and Syria is currently under heavy economic burden. Linking Syrian uprising to Iran’s strategic position in the region will not help. The international community must make compromises to Iran in nuclear talks or through some other ways in exchange for the Islamic republic’s halt to funding Syria. This seems unrealistic at the moment but so does arming Syrian rebels when the outcome and trajectory of the uprising is unknown.