A New U.S. Foreign Policy Narrative

---

Monday, April 30, 2018 - 12:00am

Time for a New U.S. Foreign Policy Narrative

A Better Alternative to Trump's "America First"

Ian Bremmer and Joe Kennedy III

JOE KENNEDY III is the U.S. Representative from Massachusetts’s Fourth Congressional District.
IAN BREMMER is President of Eurasia Group and author of Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism.

 

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump told a powerful story about the United States’ role in global affairs. It was a dramatic narrative full of free-riding allies, unchecked globalization, and nuclear brinkmanship. Refugees and immigrants were cast as villains, repressive regimes like Russia and China were regarded with admiration, and human rights and democratic freedoms were pushed to the sidelines. As a candidate, Trump painted a gloomy portrait of American weakness and decline, trends that he promised to reverse.

To the surprise of some and the fears of many, Trump’s dark vision resonated and continues to resonate over a year into his presidency. A quarter century as the world’s sole superpower has numbed much of the country to the role of global affairs in daily life. A July 2017 Pew survey [1] found that nearly half of Americans agreed with the statement that the United States needs to “pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home.”

It’s an understandable feeling. American families are strapped. They’re focused on their jobs, their homes, their kids, and their savings. They’re anxious about the health care bills they have to pay today, not the troubles of tomorrow happening thousands of miles away.

Add to that the perception that global engagement has left many Americans worse off, and the disdain for foreign policy compounds. For them, globalization represents a complex system of influence, wealth, and power that buoys the rich and well connected at the expense of everyone else. Working-class sons and daughters are sacrificed for wars with misguided motives and uncertain ends. Their jobs are sent overseas, their family businesses are surrendered to some greater good they can’t take part in, and their communities become economic afterthoughts. On top of that, Americans feel less safe. Terrorism has struck at home. The Islamic State (ISIS) [2] and other extremists seem too powerful. Victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere remains elusive despite years of sacrifice. It is easy to understand why many Americans wonder what foreign policy has done for them.

Fifteen months into his tenure, Trump is still trying to exploit these feelings of frustration. His improvised international agenda is based on telling America, time and again, that it has to choose: safety at home or peace abroad, human rights or a steady paycheck, compassion or strength, mercy or muscle.

These are ultimately false choices. In today’s interconnected world, the distinction between global and domestic challenges is artificial. The United States turning its back on the world will do nothing to keep U.S. citizens—or the country—secure and prosperous. Trump’s “America first” approach [3] to foreign affairs will lead instead to America alone, and allow others to write the rules that shape the future.

Trump's improvised international agenda is based on telling America, time and again, that it has to choose: safety at home or peace abroad, human rights or a steady paycheck, compassion or strength, mercy or muscle. These are ultimately false choices. In today's interconnected world, the distinction between global and domestic challenges is artificial.

Today, American families are paying for the United States’ failure to address climate change [4] with skyrocketing flood insurance bills and town budgets broken by the destruction that hurricanes, mudslides, nor’easters, and wildfires leave in their wake. They’re feeling the inadequacies of U.S. efforts to combat drug trafficking in an addiction epidemic that grows more horrific by the day. Their privacy and personal security is threatened by international cyberattacks, their social media platforms are infiltrated by malicious foreign actors, and their most precious democratic right, their vote, is in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s crosshairs. American men and women continue to don uniforms and leave their families behind to fight conflicts with no clear goal or exit strategy in place.

Foreign policy is not something that happens an ocean away. It affects not only the wars we fight but the bills we pay. Not just the weapons we use abroad but the computers we use at home. Not only crisis and disease on another continent but illness and injustice down the street.

Make no mistake: the global threats that Americans face today are serious. China’s rising power, Russia’s wide-ranging interference [5], Europe’s growing division, and the United States’ abdication of international leadership means that a new world order is on the horizon. We’ve already caught glimpses. Although the United States remains the world’s largest economy, it is China that is now the world’s most forceful economic actor, channeling its political and economic heft into its state-owned enterprises. Apple may be the world’s largest corporation by market value, but its CEO Tim Cook is responsible to Apple shareholders, not U.S. lawmakers; Chinese billionaire Jack Ma doesn’t have the same luxury. In China, the rise of state capitalism and its staying power pose a considerable challenge for the global free market. How the United States responds won’t only set the stage for the security of American families for generations to come; it will determine whether the country’s proudest democratic ideals sink or swim.

Getting this right requires something better than Trump’s short-sighted and selfish approach to foreign affairs. It requires an American electorate fully engaged in an active foreign policy that works in tandem with a domestic agenda to promote democracy, individual freedom, and human dignity. If we want the American people to be as engaged on foreign policy as they’ve been on health care or on gun control or for the #metoo movement, then we need to offer a more compelling story about American foreign policy and why it matters.

A NEW FOREIGN POLICY STORY

Roughly 3,500 miles separate Paris, France from Fall River, Massachusetts. For this working-class community in southeastern New England, climate change is a central part of daily life. For years, the United States’ inadequate response to global warming has wreaked havoc on local infrastructure, municipal budgets, and flood insurance rates across the region. The city is struggling to pay off $174 million in mandated sewage updates so that their aging infrastructure can handle the influx of extreme weather without putting public health and safety at risk. Average flood insurance premiums throughout the area have increased by 12 percent over the last six years. For communities like this one, the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States (the largest CO₂ emitter [6] in history) from the Paris agreement isn’t some talking point; it is a reality that will affect their bottom line every single day. 

Trump's "America first" approach to foreign affairs will lead instead to America alone, and allow others to write the rules that shape the future.

It would take you around 24 hours to get from Atlanta to Afghanistan. But in the state of Georgia, hundreds of thousands of families bear the burden of U.S. wars in the Middle East; the state has more military enlistees per civilian adults [7] than any other in the nation. South Carolina and Texas aren’t far behind. For these families and communities and countless others across the country, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t simply stories featured in The New York Times; they are hard realities, told through searing human loss and staggering economic costs. It’s estimated that since 9/11, American taxpayers have paid more than $5.6 trillion [8], money that could have gone to our struggling schools or crumbling bridges. As a presidential candidate, Trump railed against wars fought without a strategic vision, conflicts that will cost the American taxpayer for decades to come. But as president, his scattershot foreign policy risks plunging the United States into an unnecessary military confrontation, by choice or by accident, with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and even NATO-ally Turkey.

West Virginia isn’t exactly a border state. In fact, it’s almost 2,000 miles to Laredo, the nearest crossing into Mexico. But no state has been more ravaged by the United States’ drug addiction epidemic. This American tragedy is a confluence of government abdication, private sector profiteering, and foreign exploitation. Lax drug prescribing practices and loosely regulated pharmaceutical companies got America hooked on pain pills. A horrifically underfunded mental health system ensured that it stayed that way. The price of addiction rose and drug cartels in Mexico seized the opportunity to meet American demand; today 95 percent of U.S. heroin originates in Mexico [9]. As the crisis evolved, the drugs did too. Fentanyl, a deadly synthetic opioid, consists of chemicals made in rogue Chinese labs that are shipped directly into the United States or through Mexico, where it is largely smuggled into the United States through official ports of entry. In other words, Trump’s $70 billion border wall won’t stop this epidemic. Increased mental health funding, pharmaceutical accountability, and real engagement across the borders could.

There are over 6,500 miles between Nebraska and Syria.Still, the state has taken in more refugees per capita [10] (76 per 100,000 residents) than anywhere else in the country. For these communities and families, debates about refugee policy don’t play out in the halls of Washington or stages of international institutions, but in their community centers, churches, schools, service agencies, and other local institutions forced to provide for the refugees because the country is unable and unwilling to do so through sensible immigration policy.

Russia is some 5,000 miles away from Wisconsin. But that didn’t keep Midwestern voters safe from the efforts of our Russian adversary to tamper with and influence their votes in 2016. Wisconsin was one of seven states (along with Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas) that had their state websites or voter registration databases compromised ahead of the 2016 elections, according to U.S. intelligence officials. It’s since been discovered that foreign actors also successfully hacked into the U.S. power grid and other critical infrastructure. Without even leaving their homes, U.S. enemies seized on the echo chambers created by social media to further fracture our society. This new cyber front knows no boundaries or borders.

Nearly 7,000 miles separate Scranton, Pennsylvania and Beijing, China. But when it comes to the debate about U.S. trade policy, no two cities better illustrate the interconnection of our domestic and foreign policy choices. Globalization has undoubtedly benefited American consumers, businesses, and the country’s overall prosperity in countless ways; the average American enjoys a standard of living [11] that citizens in developing countries can only dream of. We must admit, however, that free trade has not always been fair trade. Industrial communities and American manufacturing workers have been hit disproportionately by global trade patterns. There’s a valid reason why protectionist proposals (on both sides of the aisle) have resonated with voters. But the answer isn’t nationalist half-measures like the tariffs recently announced by the president, which benefit targeted communities while opening other key industries to the impacts of a trade war. Races to the bottom can be just as ferocious within countries as between them. 

Democracy is messy. It moves more slowly than we might like and frustrates those who seek quick fixes. But 250 years ago, America made a choice: free will is worth the fight. Americans foresaw that the greatest return on their investment would not come in the form of battle victories or even GDP. It would come from the power of a people whose freedom has not been bargained away.

HOW WE GOT HERE 

No story exists in a vacuum, particularly when it comes to global affairs. Any attempt to get the American public invested in an active foreign policy demands a clear picture of the world that we are navigating today. Only then can we understand the urgency: China is waiting in the wings. That is not just a threat to our economic clout or global reputation. It is a threat to the democratic values and individual freedoms that the United States has spent generations defending at home and abroad.

When the United States devised the current global governance architecture in the wake of World War II, U.S. leaders understood that America’s self-interest would be furthered by arrangements that other states understood would treat them fairly, too. Instead of trying to create a world where some states were “winners” and others were “losers,” U.S. leaders had the confidence to create a world where the United States and many other nations could benefit together. This system was not perfect, but it provided the basis for decades of economic growth and played no small part in the United States’ Cold War victory.

Today, however, non-Western powers are gaining political and economic influence, and no longer feel that the global architecture created in the late 1940s fits their purposes and their ambitions. They’re right. But in response, the Trump administration seems content to let the old order collapse—and even help accelerate that process—while seeming unwilling to use American power to create a new and better one.  

That’s a mistake. The United States should find reasonable ways to give emerging powers greater say in the current international system. If institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Security Council don’t end up better reflecting the de facto power ordering of today’s world, alternative institutions like China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will emerge to aggressively challenge them. And we must accept that some new, alternative institutions, backed by emerging powers, will arise regardless; they don’t see it in terms of either/or the way that Americans do.

Does that mean the United States just hands over the keys to alternative architecture upstarts like China and Russia? Absolutely not. But it does mean that the United States needs to stop viewing the world through a zero-sum lens when it comes to foreign demands for a greater say in global institutions. Instead, we should be confident that we can negotiate new arrangements that will safeguard our interests while acknowledging the interests of others. Once we’ve established that we’re open to changing the rules of the game, we’re free to stake out and defend our own positions. That means setting clear red lines for what we will or won’t accept. We should also draw a distinction between the at times constructive “revisionism” of China or India, compared to the far more destructive “revisionism” of Russia, and insist that we be leaders in the conversation and fairly represented in whatever new institutions or standards that these emerging powers propose.

THE MORAL TO OUR STORY

Trump is offering the American public a slate of false choices when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. But the truth is that there is a real choice to be made, and it matters. Does the United States reaffirm itself to the cause of freedom, human dignity, and democracy at home and abroad—or allow it to be chipped away? Does it compromise the values, promises, and foundational liberties etched in the U.S. Constitution because of the latest insult or opportunity that arises?

The era of Pax Americana is over, but the next chapter of America’s role in the world is still being written. We are headed toward a new world order, and the United States should take a leadership role in shaping what that order will be. If it doesn’t, the outcome will be decided without it, its interests, and its values.

Put another way: China has an alternative model for global leadership and it’s ready to go. It is a model centered on government, rather than the individual, a model defined by conformity rather than freedom. It is a transactional model based on state capitalism, one that benefits those who pay fealty to Beijing; it is not one that is based on mutual benefit and growth, that values and respects the rights of individuals (and countries) to seek their own success in the free market, or that in so doing benefits the world at large.

Democracy is messy. It moves more slowly than we might like and frustrates those who seek quick fixes. But 250 years ago, America made a choice: free will is worth the fight. Americans foresaw that the greatest return on their investment would not come in the form of battle victories or even GDP. It would come from the power of a people whose freedom has not been bargained away.

Tarih Bölümü öğrencisi Ayşe Kandemir'le "Büyük Yalan" kitabı hkkında röportaj

_{Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Târih Bölümü dördüncü sınıf öğrencisi AYŞE KANDEMİR ile sohbet Oğuz ÇETİNOĞLU ocetinoglu1@gmail.com 21 Nisan 2018, 00:01 159 kez okundu.}

_{Edebiyat Fakültesi Târih Bölümü dördüncü sınıf öğrencisi AYŞE KANDEMİR’in, ERMENİ MESELESİ HAKKINDAKİ DİKKAT ÇEKİCİ YORUMLARI…}

 

_{Oğuz Çetinoğlu: Asıl mesleği dış ticâret olan Şükrü Server Aya’nın, Ermeni yalanlarının çirkin iç yüzünü deliller ve bütün dünyaya meydan okurcasına mantıkla sorularla ortaya koyduğu BÜYÜK YALAN isimli kitabı hakkında inceleme yazısı yazdınız ve Târih Kritik Dergisi’nde yayımladınız.  Ermeni meselesine ilginizin nasıl doğup geliştiğini anlatır mısınız?}

_{Ayşe Kandemir: Bendeniz, asıl ilgi alanı Osmanlı sosyal târihi olan bir târih öğrencisiyim. Öncelikle her ne kadar sosyal târih desek de siyâsî ve soysal olayları bütünüyle birbirinden ayıramayacağımızı belirtmeliyim ki biri olmadan diğerinin olamayacağı aşikârdır. Ermeniler çok milletli bir İslam devleti olan Osmanlı’nın hem siyâsî hem de sosyal hayatında var olmuş, hatta yüksek kademelere kadar çıkabilmiş bir millettir. Yüzlerce yıl süren ortak hayatın savaş döneminde sona ermesini, bağımsızlık düşüncesinin yayılması gibi sebeplerle açıklayabiliyoruz. Fakat ardından yaşandığı iddia ettikleri olayları -sözde Ermeni soykırımını- anlamak ve açıklamak ise oldukça güç.  Bu noktada aklımda birçok soru işâreti ile baş başa kaldığımı itiraf etmeliyim. Bir dönem ‘Tebaa-i Sâdıka’ olarak anılan Ermenilerin tamamı, isyancı kabul edilerek ortadan kaldırılmak mı istenmişti! Oysa ki Enver Paşa, isyancı Ermenilerin idamından vazgeçmiş ve Ermenilerin savaş dışındaki bölgelere nakil ve iskân edilmesini emretmişti. Bunun üzerine bir etnik temizliğe girişilmiş olması oldukça çelişkili duruyordu. En önemlisi, bu iddialara referans gösterilecek deliller ve kaynaklar neredeydi? Sorular arttıkça konuya merakım da arttı ve okumaya başladım. Çalışma alanlarımız ne olursa olsun, millî meselelerimize kayıtsız kalmamamız gerektiğini düşünüyorum.}

_{Çetinoğlu: Şükrü Server Aya’nın kitabının varlığından nasıl haberdar oldunuz?}

_{Kandemir: Büyük Yalan kitabıyla tanışmam, Saygıdeğer Hocam Hasip Saygılı’nın yönlendirmesi üzerine oldu. Bahsettiğim sorularıma cevap bulmam konusunda bu kitabın çok faydasını gördüm. Burada belirtmeliyim ki benim yapmış olduğum, bahsi geçen konuyu araştırarak kitabı okumak ve yalnızca bir inceleme yazısı yazmak oldu. Asıl başarı şüphesiz ki Sayın Şükrü Server Aya’ya aittir. Sorunuz vesilesiyle Şükrü Server Aya Beyefendi’ye ve değerli hocam Hasip Saygılı’ya teşekkürlerimi sunuyorum.}

_{Çetinoğlu: ‘Târih şuuru’ kavramını kullanıyorsunuz. Sizce târih şuuru nedir?}

_{Kandemir: Târih, geçmişe dayanan bir ilim olsa da asıl maksadı geleceğe hizmet etmektir. Yalanlarla dolu düzmece bir târih, sâdece geçmişimiz değil, bugün ve yarın için de oldukça tehlikelidir. Benim için târih şuuru, bunun bilincinde olmak, târihimize sâhip çıkmak ve gerçeklerden şaşmamak demektir. Zaten Ermeniler ‘soykırım’ propagandası yaparken Türkler geçmişte bu meseleye gerekli önemi vermediğinden, bugün kamuoyunda problem yaşamıyor muyuz? Bugün, târihi yalnızca siyâsetçilere ve senaristlere bırakmamamız ve gerçeklerin peşinden gitmemiz gerektiğine inanıyorum.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: Bu girişten sonra, makalenize ve Sayın Aya’nın kitabı hakkında yazdıklarınızı konuşalım. Hakkında makale yazdığınız kitabın alaka çeken yönleri nelerdir?}

_{Kandemir: Şükrü Server Aya, kendisini -1985’ten bu yana- Ermeni soykırımı iddiaları üzerinde çalışmaya adamış değerli bir araştırmacıdır. Bu alana nasıl yöneldiğini anlatırken hayatı boyunca çok sayıda Ermeni arkadaşının olduğunu ve yaptığı çalışmaların hiçbir milleti, inancı veya kuruluşu hedef almadığını ehemmiyetle belirtmektedir. O’nun asıl gayesi; saptırılmış belgelere dayanan Ermeni soykırımı iddiasını aydınlatmak ve tüm gerçekleriyle halka sunmaktır.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: İddiasını kabul ettirme hususunda başarılı mı?}

 

_{Kandemir: Son derece başarılı olduğu kanaatindeyim. Ermeni soykırım yalanını resmî belgeler ışığında incelediği ‘Büyük Yalan” adlı eseri, Şükrü Server Aya’nın diğer kitaplarının devamı niteliğindedir ve yalnızca Türkçe değil, Almanca, Fransızca ve İngilizce dillerde de yayınlanmakta olan bir araştırmadır. Şükrü Server Aya, ‘Büyük Yalan’ adlı eserini ‘rivayetlerle Yaşatılan Ermeni Soykırım İddialarını İnkârı Mümkün Olmayan Resmî Belgelerle, Yasalara Dayalı Bir İnceleme’ olarak tanıtır. Eser bir miktar incelendiğinde dahi bu isimlendirmenin ne kadar yerinde olduğunu görmek mümkündür. Çünkü kitabın en belirgin özelliği, Ermeni soykırımı iddialarının reddedilmesi ve bu konunun belgelere dayalı olarak ele alınmış olmasıdır. Okuyucuların internet üzerinden ulaşılabilecekleri belge, araştırma ve tezlerin erişim adreslerine kitapta yer verilmiş ve böylece eserde çeşitlilik ve fotoğraflarla da ön plana çıkmıştır.}

 

 _{Çetinoğlu: Kitabın kapak resmini yorumlar mısınız?}

_{Kandemir: Son derece etkileyici, esprili ve düşündürücü... Kitabın içeriğini, karikatür anlayışı ile yansıtıyor.  Kapak resminin tesadüfen seçilmemiş olduğu muhakkaktır. Resimde görülen uzun bir insan burnunun ucundaki havuç, ona ulaşmaya çalışan insanların uçurumdan aşağıya düşmesine sebep olmaktadır. Yâni bir yalancının elinde gösterdiği hedef, insanları yanıltmaktan ve onlara zarar vermekten başka bir şeye sebebiyet vermemektedir. Gösterilen hedef Ermeni soykırımı yalanıdır ve bu insanlar da Ermenilerden başkası değildir. Çünkü araştırmacımızın da görüşüne göre; sözde soykırım iddiaları, Ermeni milletinin bizzat kendisine de zarar vermektedir.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: Osmanlı yönetiminin ‘Sâdık millet’ dediği Ermenilerin, ‘hâin millet’ hâline dönüşmesinin de yalan ile sağlandığını mutlaka biliyorsunuzdur}

_{Kandemir: Evet! Rus Çarlığının en büyük hedefi, sıcak denizlere açılmaktı. Bu hedefe Karadeniz ve Adalar Denizi üzerinden ulaşamayacaklarını anlayınca, Osmanlı topraklarında yaşayanlarla dünyanın dört bir tarafındaki Ermenilere bağımsız bir Ermenistan devleti vaadinde bulundular. Bu yalana kanan Ermeniler, bulundukları yerlerdeki huzurlu ve güvenli hayatı terk ederek, günümüzde ‘Ermenistan’ olarak anılan topraklara geldiler. Çarlık yönetimi devrilip Lenin yönetiminde Komünist Rusya kurulunca, bir müddet de ‘Halklara hürriyet / milletlere bağımsızlık’ yalanı ile avutuldular. Ve sonunda Komünizmin demir pençesi altında perişan oldular. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ile de dostluk ilişkilerini kuramadılar.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: Teşekkür ederim. Sayın Aya’nın kitabına dönüp ileri sürdüğü hakîkatlere baktığımızda dikkatinizi çeken birkaç hususu özetler misiniz?}

_{Kandemir: Şükrü Server Aya, kitabının birinci bölümünde sunduğu deliller ve alıntılar ile Ermenilerin para aşkını ve ABD Hükümetinin yardım bağışları ile milyonlarla oynadığını inandırıcı bir şekilde ortaya koyuyor.  Yardım ve bağışları alabilmek için düzenlenen kampanyalarda, birçok propaganda afişi ve posterleri kullanılmış ve yazarımız bunların çoğuna eserinde yer vermiştir. Haç üstünde Hilal posterinde; Müslüman’ın palasından damlayan kan, Hıristiyan insanlık haçını kirletmektedir. Aya, ABD nüfusunun beşte birinin bu yardımlara katıldığını ve bu yardımlar ile Ermenilere silah ve cephâne temin edildiğini vurgulamaktadır. Propagandalar yalnızca yardım kampanyaları afişleri ile sınırlı kalmamış, çarpıtmaları yaymak adına resmî ABD Devlet Posterlerinde, Türk milletinin tamamı katil sıfatıyla itibardan düşürülmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu resimlerden birinde Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, ayağının dibinde, Ermeni olduğu ve Türkler tarafından öldürüldüğü iddia edilen bir kız çocuk cesedi ile poz vermiş olarak gösterilmiştir. Oysa fotoğrafın aslında, ayak dibinde duranlar Latife Hanım’a gönderilecek olan kedi ve köpek yavrularıdır. Büyük Yalan eserinin on ikinci bölümünde karşılaştığımız bu çarpıcı fotoğraf, saptırmaların en belirgin örneklerinden birini teşkil etmektedir. Öyleyse gerçeklerin saptırılmasının altında bir takım büyük menfaatler aramak yerinde olacaktır. Büyük Yalan isimli eserde sözü edilen büyük menfaatlerden en önemlisinin para aşkı olduğu anlaşılıyor. Araştırmacımız, Ermeni soykırımı iddialarının arkasında planlı bir örgütlenme yattığını, kilise ve ruhban sınıfının silah ticareti yaparak bu örgütlenmenin başlıca destekçisi olduklarını belirtir. Ona göre silah ticareti papazlar için çok kârlı bir vatanseverliktir ve papazların, silahları kilisede saklayarak oradan dağıtmaları mümkündür. Aya’nın bu iddiasını destekler nitelikte ortaya koyduğu delillerde; Ermeni halka daha az yemek yiyerek silah almalarını vaaz eden din adamlarının varlığı ve gerek Fransızların, gerekse İngiltere ve ABD’nin Ermenilere yardım ettiği ortaya konmaktadır. Eserin sonraki bölümlerinde ise örgütlenmenin Ermeni okullarında da var olduğu ele alınır. Hiçbir eğitim kurumunda sevgi yerine nefretin öğretilmemesi gerektiğini şiddetle savunan Aya, Ermeni okullarındaki kasıtlı eğitim sistemini tenkit eder. Kitabında sunduğu delillere göre; Ermeni okullarının ders programlarında, soykırımın intikamı ve nefreti çocuklara öğretilmekte, Türk nefreti aşılanmakta ve ‘Aptal Türk’ başlıklı bir şiir sıklıkla okutulmaktaydı. Bu şekilde soykırım iddialarını gelecek kuşaklara aktarmaları mümkün olur iken henüz iddialar ispatlanabilmiş değildi. Dünya ‘barbar Türkler’ sözü ile korkutulmaktaydı fakat delil göstermeleri söz konusu bile olmamıştı. Bu husus, Şükrü Server Aya’nın kitabının ikinci bölümünde ‘1.500.000 Ermeni’nin katline ait delil var mı?’ sorusu üzerinden şu şekilde ele alınmıştır: ‘Bu güne kadar, Türklerin Ermeni’yi katlettiklerine dair milletlerarası komiteler veya tarafsız göz şâhitlerine ait otantik hiçbir belge görebilmiş değiliz. Türklerin bilmem ne kadar sayıda Ermeni’yi keyif için öldürdüklerine dair (…yer-…târih) veya cesetlerin nereye gömüldüğüne ait bir belge veya ‘güvenilir tarafsız göz şahidi’ ifâdesine rastlanmamıştır. Bu konuda Ermeni arşivlerinde belgeler varsa, bunlar masaya konmalıdır.’ Şükrü Server Aya’nın; ‘ne çiğnenebilir ne yutulabilir’ özelliklere sâhip demir leblebi gibi sorularına Ermeniler, sâdece: ‘İspat etmeye ne gerek var. Türkler 1.500.000 Ermeni’yi kesti. Bütün dünya bunu kabul ediyor…’ diyorlar. Oysa ki soykırım kavramının târifi yapılmıştır. 1915 olaylarının, târifi yapılan soykırım hareketiyle örtüşen hiçbir tarafı yoktur.  ‘Büyük Yalan’ isimli kitapta bu husus, hiçbir tereddüde yer bırakmayacak şekilde ispat ediliyor.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: Sayın Aya, 1.500.000 Ermeni’nin katledildiği yalanı hakkında ne diyor? Kandemir: Şöyle bir hesap yapıyor ve mızrağın çuvala sığdırılamadığını ispat ediyor: 1.500.000 kişiyi, nakil ve iskân uygulamasının devam ettiği 150 günde öldürmek için her gün 10.000 kişiyi öldürmek gerekir. Öldürme silahı nedir? Eğer tüfek kurşunu ise 100 ton kurşun gereklidir. Bu kadar kurşun, üç cephede birden savaşan ve vatanını kurtarmak isteyen, hayatta kalma mücâdelesi veren halkının can ve mal güvenliği için en lüzumlu ihtiyaçtır. Bu kadar önemli olan malzemeyi neden ‘sâdık millet’ dediği Ermenileri öldürmek için kullansın?   Dahası var… Her gün 10.000 cesedi gömmek için kazma kürekli 6.000 ameleye ve stadyum boyutunda mezarlıklara ihtiyaç vardır. Bu şekilde herhangi bir Ermeni toplu mezarı bulunmuş mudur? Kesinlikle hayır… Bulunan mezarlar Müslümanlara aittir ve tarafsız şâhitlerin huzurunda açılmıştır. Özetle ‘Büyük Yalan’, bütün dünyaya soykırım olarak sunulan Ermeni meselesinin arkasında, büyük örgütlenmeler ve menfaatler varken henüz kamuoyuna sunulabilmiş resmî belgeler olmadığını ortaya koyan bir eserdir. İçerisinde hem yazılı hem de fotoğraflarla desteklenmiş deliller, farklı kaynaklardan alıntılar, örnek gösterilebilecek belgeler sunar ve yer verilen çeşitli gazete kupürleri ile söz konusu mevzuların dünya basınında nasıl ele alındığını gözler önüne serer.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: Denilebilir ki Türkiye, Ermeni iddiaları karşısında haklı olmanın rahatlığı içerisinde. Belgeler, hesaplamalar, göz şâhitlerinin ifâde ve beyanları… sahte ve tahrif edilmiş belgeler ve fotoğraflar… Her şey Türklerin lehine… Fakat göz ardı edilen bir gerçek var: Türklerin tezlerini savunmak maksadıyla yazdığı kitapların sayısı son derece azdır. Ermeniler ise her yıl binlerce kitap ve broşür yayınlayıp bütün dünyaya dağıtıyorlar. Bilindiği gibi, musluktan damlayan suyun mermeri aşındırması ve delmesi, suyun gücünden kaynaklanan bir netice değildir. Israrlı denilecek şekildeki devamlılığının tabîi sonucudur. Dünya parlamentolarında ‘Soykırım yapılmamıştır diyenleri mahkûm edecek kararlar alınırken, biz Türkler beynini Ermenilere kiraya vermiş ve hatta satmış kendi içimizdeki bizden görünen sözde aydınları, hatâlarından alıkoyacak tedbirleri almayı bile düşünmüyoruz. Hep haklı olduğumuza inanmış olmamızdan dolayı… Bilindiği gibi vahşi batı, hak kavramını haklı olana değil, güçlü olana vermekten yanadır. Hatta güçlü gibi görünmek, güçlü olmaktan daha fazla işe yarıyor. Yaygara koparmak yeterli oluyor. Çığırtkan azınlık, sessiz çoğunluktan daha fazla itibar görüyor.  Ermenilerin Ruslara yardımlarını engellemek suretiyle başka bir bölgeye nakledilmeleri sırasındaki olayları nasıl yorumluyorsunuz?}

 

_{Kandemir: Nakil sırasında Ermenilerden ölenler olmuştur. Buradaki ölümleri, yönetimin hatâsı olarak değerlendirmek gerçekçi olmaz diye düşünüyorum. Osmanlı devleti savaş hâlindedir. Ülkede kıtlık vardır. Beslenme imkânları sıfıra yakındır. İlaç yoktur. Nakil vasıtalarının hepsi cephededir. Bu şartlar içerisinde yapılan nakillerde çok sayıda ölümlerin olması gayet tabîidir. Aynı olumsuz şartlardan Müslümanlar da etkilenmişlerdir. Müslümanlarda da çok sayıda can kaybı vardır.  Meselenin başka bir yönünü de göz önünde bulundurmamız gerekiyor. Bilinmektedir ki Ermeniler, Osmanlı’nın aslî unsuru olan Türklere nazaran mal-mülk ve para bakımından çok iyi durumdadırlar. Onların malına parasına hatta altın dişine tamah eden Kürtler çok sayıdaki Ermeni’yi katletmişlerdir. Nakledilen kafilenin koruması için cepheden az sayıda asker çekilerek vazifelendirilebilmiştir.  Güvenlik tedbirlerinin yetersiz oluşu sebebiyle Osmanlı yönetimini suçlamak doğru değildir. Yönetim, savaş şartları içerisinde yapılabilecek her şeyi yapmıştır. Fazlasına ihtiyaç var idiyse de olumsuz şartlar ancak bu kadarına imkân vermiştir.  Bir de şu husus var: Dünyanın neresinde olursa olsun, savaş sırasında düşmanla işbirliği yapan hainlere verilecek ceza mutlaka idamdır. Osmanlının merhameti öylesine yüksektir ki, düşmanla iş birliği yapmış, hainliği ayan beyan bilinen Ermenilerin, devlet eliyle burnu bile kanatılmamıştır.   Osmanlı Devleti, kurulduğu târihten itibâren nakil ve iskân işlemlerini sıkça uygulamıştır. Bu bir devlet politikasıdır. Devlete isyan eden aşiretler, çevre ile uyum sağlamayan, huzursuzluk çıkaran aileler başka bölgelere nakil ve iskân edilmiş, kendilerine geçimlerini sağlayacak miktarda toprak verilmiştir. Bunun dışında, fethedilen bölgelerdeki insanlara, Türklük ve Müslümanlığı sevdirecek, bölgedeki yeni vatandaşların Osmanlı yönetimine ısındırılmasını sağlayacak yardımsever, çalışkan ve teşkilatçı insanlar gönderilmiş ve kendilerine arazi tahsis edilmiştir. Bu sistem Osmanlı’nın bir yönetim politikasıdır. 1915 yılında yapılan nakil ve iskân da Osmanlı’nın târih boyunca uygulayageldiği klasik bir işlemdir. ‘Soykırım’ niyeti kesinlikle söz konusu değildir. Aksi iddiada bulunanların, iddialarını ispat etmeleri de söz konusu olamaz.    Bu nakil ve iskân işleminin altında bir soykırım planının olup olmadığı tartışmaları günümüzde gerek târihçiler gerekse hukukçular tarafından hâlâ devam etmektedir. Tartışmaları netleştirmenin en sağlıklı yolu ise târihî geçmişi ve belgeleri incelemek olacaktır. O zaman târih bize gösterecektir ki Osmanlı Devleti’nin Ermenileri imha etmeye yönelik bir hükümet politikası yoktur ve Ermenilere yönelik ırkî bir nefretin izlerini bulmak da mümkün değildir. Zira Ermeniler, 1910’lardaki Balkan savaşlarına kadar Osmanlı bürokrasisinde istihdam edilmiştir. Gerek Türkler gerekse Ermeniler tarafındaki can kayıpları şüphesiz bir insanlık trajedisidir. Fakat bunun bir soykırım olduğunu söylemek büyük bir yanılgıdır. Çünkü soykırım yapmak için organize bir planın varlığı gerekir.  Şükrü Server Aya, geniş kapsamlı çalışmasının sonucunda, soykırım iddiasında bulunanlardan açıklama talep etmiş ve bu kişilere, hesaplamaların nasıl yapıldığı sorusunu yöneltmiştir. Fakat iddia sâhiplerinin bu yükümlülüklerini yerine getiremeyeceği anlaşılmıştır. Çünkü iddiaların varsayımlardan öteye götürülemediği, eser incelememiz sonucunda tarafımızdan düşünülmektedir. Büyük Yalan’da gözlemlediğimiz üzere; Osmanlıların Ermeni iddialarının tarafsız olarak araştırılması için gayretleri olmuşsa da bu nafile gayretler gerçekleştirilememiştir. Dolayısıyla bu tarafsız araştırmaları yapmak, araştırma gayreti içinde bulunmak, okumak ve sorgulamak bizlere vazife olarak intikal etmiştir. Şükrü Server Aya, Ermeni meselesinin iç yüzünü ortaya koymak adına değerli çalışmalar yapmış bir araştırmacıdır ve eserinin içeriği bahsettiğimiz görevi yerine getirir niteliktedir.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: Sizce eserin tenkit edilebilecek noksanları var mıdır?}

_{Kandemir: Vardır. Fakat bunları ‘kusur’ olarak isimlendirmek haksızlık olur. Eserin eleştirilebilecek tek yanı şekil özellikleri olabilir. İçerisinde kaynakça ve dizin barındırması araştırmacıların işini kolaylaştırıyor olsa da eserin şekille ilgili özellikleri ve gösterilen delillerin yer yer açıklamalardan fazla olması onu, herkes tarafından kolay okunabilecek bir eser olmaktan uzaklaştırmaktadır. Ayrıca bir başka örneği bulunmayan bu eşsiz çalışmanın daha kolay ulaşılabilir olması adına, tekrar basımının gerçekleştirilmesi ve bütün kitapçılarda satılması gerekmektedir. Her şeye rağmen incelediğimiz bu kitabın yalnızca Türkler tarafından değil, târih bilincine sâhip olan bütün dünya vatandaşları tarafından objektif bakış açısı ile okunması ve okutulması tarafımızca tavsiye olunur. Ancak bu şekilde, ecdadımızdan bize intikal eden millî bir vazifeyi yapmış olmanın vicdanî rahatlığını hissetmek mümkündür.}

 

_{Çetinoğlu: Teşekkür ederim Ayşe Hanım.} 

<sub>AYŞE KANDEMİR Aslen Yozgatlıdır. 1996 yılında İstanbul’da doğdu.  Lise eğitimini İstanbul’da tamamladı. Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, Târih Bölümü dördüncü sınıf öğrencisidir. 

Kaynak: http://www.oncevatan.com.tr/edebiyat-fakultesi-trih-bolumu-dorduncu-sinif-ogrencisiayse-kandemir-ile-sohbet-makale,41570.html

Önce Vatan Gazetesi</sub>

 

 

Article by Stephen M. Walt

America Can’t Be Trusted Anymore

It's hard to be powerful when nobody believes a word you say.

By Stephen M. Walt

April 20, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -  One of the most overused cliches in contemporary U.S. diplomacy is Ronald Reagan’s invocation of a Russian proverb: “Trust but Verify.” Originally used in the context of the Cold War, it conveyed that Washington should be willing to reach agreements with its adversaries but only if it could be sure the other side would live up to its commitments. It was a nice way to indicate both flexibility and toughness, which is of course why people refer to it whenever the United States is contemplating new negotiations with one of its adversaries.

Implicit in Reagan’s dictum is the idea that Americans are honest, plain-speaking truth-tellers who can be counted upon to keep their word and fulfill their promises. America’s opponents, by contrast, are a slippery bunch of deceptive charlatans who will exploit any loophole and seize any opportunity to hoodwink the country. Accordingly, U.S. negotiators must insist on all sorts of intrusive measures — such as the extraordinarily stringent inspection regime incorporated into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran — to make sure they can verify what others are really up to. Reagan’s proverb notwithstanding, the importance the United States attaches to verification is really a reminder that there is damn little trust involved.

Lately, however, I’ve been wondering whether this wariness has things backward. Is the real problem that Washington can’t trust others, or rather that other states can’t trust it? Even before Deceitful Donald showed up, the United States had amassed a pretty good record of reneging on promises and commitments. At a minimum, Washington cannot claim any particular virtue or trustworthiness in its dealings with others. In the unipolar era, in fact, the United States repeatedly did things it had promised not to do.

To be sure, this is how one expects great powers to behave, especially when important matters are at stake. The Athenians famously told the Melians that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” and that logic did not escape U.S. leaders throughout the country’s history. Think about all the treaties U.S. officials signed with various Native American tribes and subsequently broke, modified, or reneged upon as the nation expanded steadily across North America. Or consider the Nixon shocks of 1971, when the United States unilaterally ended convertibility of the dollar into gold, in effect dismantling the Bretton Woods economic order it had helped create. President Richard Nixon also slapped a 10 percent surcharge on imports to make sure the U.S. economy didn’t suffer as the dollar rose in value.

Or consider some more recent events. As more and more documents come to light, it has become clear that U.S. officials convinced their Soviet counterparts to permit German reunification by promising that NATO would not expand further. Secretary of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not go “1 inch eastward” and Gorbachev received similar assurances from a host of other Western officials as well. President Bill Clinton’s administration blithely ignored these assurances, however, in its overzealous rush to create what it thought would be a “zone of peace” well to the east. As a number of observers warned at the time, this decision poisoned relations with Moscow and was the first step leading back to the level of confrontation we are dealing with today. That blunder was compounded by the George W. Bush administration’s decision to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. While technically not a breach of trust (i.e., the treaty permitted either party to leave if it wished, provided it gave adequate notice), it was still a clear signal that the United States didn’t care about preserving good relations with Moscow and was not going to take Russian sensitivities into account.

Similarly, America’s handling of the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea does not inspire confidence in its trustworthiness either. There is no question that North Korea violated the agreement by secretly working on an alternative enrichment path, but the United States never lived up to its commitments either. In particular, it failed to lift economic sanctions as promised, and the light-water power reactors it had pledged to provide were delayed for years and ultimately never arrived. As Stephen Bosworth, the veteran U.S. diplomat who headed the multinational effort to implement the agreement, later put it, “The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature.”

And then there’s the checkered history of U.S. policy toward Libya. Building on a successful multilateral sanctions program, the Bush administration successfully convinced Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi to let American inspectors enter the country, dismantle his entire weapons of mass destruction program, and cart it away. To get the agreement, however, Bush promised Qaddafi that the United States would not attempt to overthrow his regime. It was a clear quid pro quo: Qaddafi gave up his weapons programs, and the United States promised not to do to him what it did to Saddam Hussein. But then a few years later, President Barack Obama’s administration ignored that earlier pledge and collaborated in Qaddafi’s overthrow.

But wait, there’s more! The multinational operation against Qaddafi was authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, and Russia agreed to abstain on the resolution because its stated purpose was preventing Qaddafi from attacking civilians in Benghazi, not toppling the regime. However, as Stephen R. Weissman has shown in an important article, regime change was on U.S. officials’ minds from the get-go, and they soon blew right past the terms of the resolution. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates later recalled, “The Russians felt they had been played for suckers on Libya. They felt there had been a bait and switch.” And they were right. So, if you’re ever wondering why Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly blocked Security Council action over the disaster in Syria, there’s at least part of your answer.

Needless to say, the lessons of Libya have not been lost on other countries. North Korean media have repeatedly invoked this example to justify the country’s nuclear weapons program and to warn against ever trusting assurances from the United States. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why. If you were Kim Jong Un, would you rather pin your survival on a nuclear deterrent of your own or promises from the United States?

Which brings us to Donald Trump. The world is now dealing with a U.S. president who appears to have no firm convictions or beliefs, the attention span of a hummingbird, and who apparently makes important national security decisions on the basis of whatever fairytale he just saw on Fox & Friends. As near as one can tell, he never saw a treaty or agreement signed by his predecessor that he liked, even though he has trouble explaining what’s wrong with any of them. He just likes to talk about “tearing them up” no matter what the consequences may be.

Trump is also a serial fabulist who lies with facility and frequency yet has yet to pay any political penalty for his disinterest in truth. Determined to outdo his predecessor in every way, Trump uttered six times as many falsehoods in his first 10 months as president as Obama did in his entire two terms. Add to that the frenetic pace of turnover within the White House and the cabinet, and you have an environment where no policy utterance can be expected to have a shelf life greater than a week or two.

Under these conditions, why would any sensible government take America’s word for anything? Why would any halfway smart adversary make substantial concessions to the United States in exchange for U.S. promises, assurances, or pledges? Why offer up a quid in exchange for its pro quo? Based on its recent track record, and the character of the current U.S. president, no adversary would concede a thing unless it were 100 percent certain the United States would deliver as promised. “Trust but Verify” indeed.

Given this situation, how long will it be before those with whom the United States is negotiating start demanding intrusive verification procedures or other guarantees designed to ensure that America doesn’t sign a deal and then tear it up a year later or demand that it be renegotiated? How long before other important states decide they cannot base their foreign-policy decisions on expectations or assurances from the United States because Washington simply cannot be trusted to do what it says it will?

There are already worrisome signs of precisely this sort of trend. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of people who trust U.S. leadership has dropped from an average of 64 percent at the end of the Obama administration to roughly 22 percent during Trump’s first year in office. Even more remarkably, a larger percent of people around the world have confidence that Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin will “do the right thing in world affairs” than the current U.S. president. When you’re trailing those two ruthless operators, it’s time to start asking why nobody trusts you.

To be sure, this is not to say that nobody trusts anyone from the United States anymore. U.S. business leaders continue to strike mutually beneficial deals with foreign counterparts; the beleaguered and understaffed diplomatic service continues to forge cooperative arrangements all over the world; U.S. intelligence agencies continue to collaborate with foreign countries under the protective umbrella of mutual confidence; and countless military-to-military engagements take place every day on a basis of mutual respect and regard. Indeed, given the time, money, attention, and lives that the United States has expended to reassure others about its credibility, it would be odd if other states had no confidence in Washington at all. It would be a vast overstatement, therefore, to conclude that past U.S. opportunism or the unreliable character of Trump had led others to conclude that the United States as a whole was totally unreliable.

Nonetheless, acquiring a reputation for being untrustworthy is costly. When trust disappears, reaching cooperative agreements inevitably requires more intrusive and formal stipulations and arrangements (like the JCPOA or most multilateral trade agreements) in an effort to cover every possible contingency and to make it easier to detect violations (and thus to deter cheating). A lack of trust also encourages states to make worst-case assumptions about what others will do and to prepare for those contingencies. The United States has troops in South Korea because it doesn’t trust the North, and North Korea went to enormous lengths to build a nuclear bomb because it doesn’t trust the United States.

And that’s why I’m not expecting a major breakthrough when Trump and Kim get together (assuming they do). Neither side is going to make significant concessions for the simple reason that they don’t want to be played for a sucker. We might get some sort of symbolic agreement (such as a temporary suspension of missile tests while broader talks on denuclearization continue ad infinitum), but I can’t imagine Kim will do anything that might put his own survival at risk should “perfidious America” change its mind.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

This article was originally published by "FP

 

How the U.S. Occupied the 30% of Syria

,

How The US Occupied The 30% Of Syria Containing Most Of Its Oil, Water And Gas

While gaining control of key resources for partitioning Syria and destabilizing the government in Damascus, the U.S.’ main goal in occupying the oil and water rich northeastern Syria is aimed not at Syria but at Iran.

by Whitney Webb18 hours ago (April 17.2018)

 

After the U.S. launched “limited” airstrikes on Friday against Syria, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced that the U.S. will maintain its illegal presence in Syria until U.S. goals in the area are fulfilled, opening the door for the U.S. occupation to continue indefinitely.

While the U.S. military presence in Syria has been ongoing since 2015 – justified as a means of countering Daesh (ISIS) — U.S. troops have since turned into an occupying force with their failure to pull out following Daesh’s defeat in northeastern Syria. Currently, the U.S. occupies nearly a third of Syrian territory — around 30 percent — including much of the area east of the Euphrates River, encompassing large swaths of the Deir Ezzor, Al-Hasakah and Raqqa regions.
Though the U.S. currently has between 2,000 to 4,000 troops stationed in Syria, it announced the training of a 30,000-person-strong “border force” composed of U.S.-allied Kurds and Arabs in the area, which would be used to prevent northeastern Syria from coming under the control of Syria’s legitimate government. Though it backtracked somewhat after backlash from Turkey, the U.S. has continued to train “local forces” in the area. Russian military sources have asserted that former members of Daesh — who were allowed to leave cities attacked by the U.S. and their proxies, as was the case in battle for Raqqa — are to be included among the force’s ranks.

This, along with the U.S. government’s insistence on maintaining the occupation until Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is removed from power, shows that the U.S. government has no intention of permitting the reunification of Syria and will continue to occupy the region over the long term.

A U.S. soldier walks on a newly installed position in Manbij, north Syria, April 4, 2018. (AP/Hussein Malla)

The illegal U.S. occupation of Syria has been widely noted in independent and corporate media, but little media attention has focused on identifying the wider implications of this occupation and the U.S.’ main objectives in keeping northeastern Syria from coming under the control of the legitimate, democratically elected Syrian government. As is often the case in U.S. occupations, both historical and present, it is an effort born out of two goals: resource acquisition for U.S. corporations and the destabilization of a government targeted for U.S.-backed regime change.
Control of fossil fuel deposits and flow
Northeastern Syria is an important region owing to its rich natural resources, particularly fossil fuels in the form of natural gas and oil. Indeed, this area contains 95 percent of all Syrian oil and gas potential — including al-Omar, the country’s largest oil field. Prior to the war, these resources produced some 387,000 barrels of oil per day and 7.8 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, and were of great economic importance to the Syrian government. However, more significantly, nearly all the existing Syrian oil reserves – estimated at around 2.5 billion barrels – are located in the area currently occupied by the U.S. government.
In addition to Syria’s largest oil field, the U.S. and its proxies in northeast Syria also control the Conoco gas plant, the country’s largest. The plant, which can produce nearly 50 million cubic feet of gas per day, was originally built by U.S. oil and gas giant ConocoPhillips, which operated the plant until 2005, after which Bush-era sanctions made it difficult to operate in Syria. Other foreign oil companies, like Shell, also left Syria as a result of the sanctions.

 

With the U.S. now occupying the area, the oil and gas produced in this region are already benefiting U.S. energy corporations to which Trump and his administration have numerous ties. According to Yeni Şafak, the U.S. along with the Saudis, Egypt, and Kurdish officials held meetings where decisions were made to extract, process and market the fossil fuels harvested in the region, with the Kurds being given a handsome share of the profits. As of 2015, the Kurds were said to be earning in excess of $10 million every month.
Syria’s Kurdistan exports its oil to Iraq’s Kurdistan, with which it conveniently shares a border, and it is then refined and sold to Turkey. Though no corporations are publicly involved, the deal between Syrian and Iraqi Kurds was brokered by unnamed “oil experts” and “oil investors.” The Kurds in Syria and Iraq did not even sign the agreement in person. They were subsequently “informed” of the agreement by the United States and instructed to supervise the operation.

Russian top military officials speak to the media in front of aerial images of oil trucks near Turkey’s border with Syria at a briefing in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 2, 2015. (Vadim Savitsky/ Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)

A source in Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) told NOW News that “with regard to southern Kurdistan, it was a company and not the KRG that signed the deal, and it is [the company] that directly hands over the sums in cash every month.” Given that over 80 foreign companies are involved in the KRG’s oil trade, most of them U.S.-based, we can safely assume that many of the same players have also been involved in developing the oil trade of Syria’s Kurdistan.
Major corporate interests
The Trump administration’s numerous connections to the U.S. oil industry make this alliance clear. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was fired in March, was previously the top executive at ExxonMobil, an oil company that unilaterally brokered an oil deal with Iraqi Kurds behind the back of the Iraqi government and has expressed interest in developing Syrian oil interests in the portion of the country currently occupied by the U.S.
ExxonMobil also had a major stake in the proposed Qatari pipeline, whose rejection by Assad was a likely factor in jumpstarting the Syrian conflict. Trump himself, prior to assuming the presidency, also had sizable investments in ExxonMobil — as well as in 11 other major oil and gas companies, including Total, ConocoPhillips, BHP and Chevron.
In addition, even though Tillerson has now gone, his replacement, Mike Pompeo, is equally a friend to the U.S. oil and gas industry. Pompeo is the “#1 all time recipient” of money from Koch Industries, which has numerous interests in oil and gas exploration, drilling, pipelines, and fossil-fuel refining.
While the U.S. occupation of Syria is no doubt motivated by a desire to exploit the region’s oil and gas resources for itself, the U.S.’ refusal to leave the area is also born out of a concern that, were the U.S. to leave, its chief rival, Russia, would claim the oil and gas riches of Syria’s northeast. Indeed, according to an energy cooperation framework signed in January, Russia will have exclusive rights to produce oil and gas in areas of Syria controlled by the Syrian government.
Since 2014, the U.S. has been aggressively trying to limit Russia’s fossil-fuel sector, particularly its exports to Europe, and replace them with U.S.-produced fossil fuels. As former Speaker of the House John Boehner wrote in 2014, “The ability to turn the tables and put the Russian leader in check lies right beneath our feet, in the form of vast supplies of natural energy.” Allowing the Russian fossil fuel sector to strengthen, whether in Syria or elsewhere, would harm U.S. strategic objectives, U.S. corporate bottom lines and the U.S.’ vision of maintaining a unipolar world at all costs.
Location, location: pipeline maps and a zero-sum game with Russia
In addition to its fossil fuel resources, Syria’s strategic location makes it crucial to the regional flow of hydrocarbons. Having the northeastern section of Syria under the control of the U.S. and its proxies could have a profound effect on future and existing pipelines. As The New York Timesnoted in 2013, “Syria’s prime location and muscle make it the strategic center of the Middle East.”
For that very reason, much of the U.S.’ Middle East policy has been aimed at seizing control of territory and pushing for the partition of countries to secure safe transit routes for oil and gas. In Syria such plans to partition the country for this purpose date back to as early as the 1940s, when European oil interests in the country’s northeast began to grow. Since then, several countries have tried to occupy parts of northern Syria to secure control of the region for these strategic purposes, including Turkey and Iraq in addition to Western powers.
A crucial pipeline already exists in northeastern Syria that connects Syria’s oil fields to the Ceyhan-Kirkuk pipeline. Though that pipeline sustained heavy damage in 2014, there are plans to rebuild it or build a new pipeline alongside it. Thus, northeastern Syria also boasts oil export infrastructure that could help Syrian oil travel easily to Turkey and thus to the European market.
In addition, the conflict in Syria – now in its seventh year – was, in part, initiated as a result of clashes over two pipeline proposals that needed to secure passage through Syria. Syria, not long before the foreign-funded proxy war besieged the country, had turned down a U.S.-backed proposal that would take to Europe natural gas from Qatar in favor of a Russia-backed proposal that would take natural gas originating in Iran.
Though those pipeline proposals are no longer as powerful in shaping motives as they once were – largely due to Qatar’s rift with other Gulf monarchies and improved relations with Iran – the northeastern part of Syria remains key to U.S. objectives. According to the German publication Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, the U.S. has developed plans to build a new pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Northern Iraq and into Turkey through northeastern Syria, with the ultimate goal of supplying oil to Europe. Russia, for its part, opposes this plan, as it seeks to maintain its own lucrative exports of fossil fuels to Europe.
Water and land
Beyond fossil fuels and pipelines, northeast Syria boasts several other key advantages in terms of resources. Chief among those is water – a resource of prime importance in the Middle East. The U.S.-controlled portion of Syria is home to the country’s three largest freshwater reservoirs, which are fed by the Euphrates river.
One of those reservoirs now controlled by the U.S. and its proxies, Lake Assad, is the country’s largest freshwater reservoir and supplies government-held Aleppo with most of its drinking water. It also provides the city with much of its electrical power, which is generated by Tabqa Dam, also located in the occupied territory. Another key hydroelectric power plant is located at Tishrin Dam and is also controlled by U.S.-backed proxy forces.

Kurdish Fighters take positions at the top of Mount Annan overlooking the Tishrin dam, after they captured it from ISIS militants, south of Kobani, Syria December 27, 2015. (Photo: Rodi Said)

In addition to its abundant water resources, northeastern Syria is also home to nearly 60 percent of Syria’s cropland, a key resource in terms of Syria’s sustainability and food independence. Prior to the conflict, Syria invested heavily in bringing irrigation infrastructure into the area in order to allow agriculture there to continue despite a massive regional drought. Much of that irrigation infrastructure is fed by the occupied Tabqa Dam, which controls the irrigation water for 640,000 hectares (2,500 square miles) of farmland.
Game plan for occupation, partition
Unlike the northeast’s fossil fuel resources, the U.S. is not hoping to gain financially from the region’s water and agricultural resources. Instead, the interest there is strategic and serves two main purposes.
First, control over those resources – particularly water and the flow of the Euphrates – gives the U.S. a key advantage it could use to destabilize Syria. For example, the U.S. could easily cut off water and electricity to government-held parts of Syria by shutting down or diverting power and water from dams in order to place pressure on the Syrian government and Syrian civilians.
Though such actions target civilians and constitute a war crime, the U.S. has used such tactics in Syria before, such as in the battle for Raqqa whenit cut off water supplies to the city as its proxies took control of the city from Daesh (ISIS). Other countries, like Turkey, have also cut off the flow of the Euphrates on two occasions over the course of the Syrian conflict in order to gain a strategic advantage.
By controlling much of the country’s water and agricultural land – not to mention its fossil fuel resources — the U.S. occupation will not only accomplish its goal of destabilizing Syria’s government by depriving it of revenue; it also invites a broader conflict from Syria and its allies, who are eager to prevent another long-term U.S. occupation in the Middle East and to reclaim the territory for Syria.
Another way the U.S. has the ability to destabilize Syria through its occupation of the northeast is its plan to have the Saudis rebuild much of the area. Though the U.S. initially allied itself with the Kurds in northeastern Syria, opposition from Turkey has led Washington to focus more on working with Arabs in the area, particularly those allied with or formerly part of Saudi-allied Wahhabi groups, in order to create a Saudi-controlled enclave that could be used to destabilize government-controlled areas of Syria for years to come. The area is set to become much like the Idlib province, which is also essentially an enclave for Wahhabi terrorists.
The U.S. plan to create a Wahhabi enclave in northeast Syria was directly referenced in a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report from 2012. That report stated:
“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…” [capitalization original]
Despite Daesh’s defeat, their presence in Northeastern Syria, as the DIA reveals, was cultivated to provide a pretext for the foreign control of the region.
Partition chess: thinking two moves ahead
Whether the Saudis or the Kurds ultimately end up dominating the portion of Syria currently occupied by the United States is besides the point. The main U.S. purpose in occupying the northeast portion of Syria is its long-standing goal of partitioning Syria, thereby permanently separating the country’s northeast from the rest of the country.
Throughout the Syrian conflict, the U.S. government has repeatedly tried to sell partition to the public, arguing that partition is the “only” solutionto Syria’s ongoing “sectarian” conflict. However, this sectarianism was cynically engineered and stoked by foreign powers precisely to bring about the current conflict in Syria and ultimately justify partition.

A U.S.-backed anti-government fighter mans a heavy automatic machine gun, left, next to an American soldier as they take their positions at Tanf, a border crossing between Syria and Iraq. (Hammurabi’s Justice News/AP)

WikiLeaks revealed that the CIA was involved in instigating anti-Assad and “sectarian” demonstrations as early as March 2011. Declassified CIA documents show that the plan to push partition by directly engineering sectarianism in order to weaken the Syrian state dates back to at least the 1980s. The partition idea was also repeatedly touted by the Obama administration, which stated on several occasions that it “may be too late” to keep Syria whole.
Though the Obama administration has come and gone, the Trump administration is also set to push for partition, thanks to the recent appointment of John Bolton to the position of National Security Adviser. As MintPress recently reported, Bolton has long advocated for combining northeastern Syria with northwestern Iraq in order to create a new country, which Bolton called “Sunnistan,” that would dominate the two countries’ fossil fuel resources and would count on the key water and agricultural resources of the region to sustain the population. Bolton called for the Gulf Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, to finance the creation of that state – hence the Trump administration’s recent attempts to negotiate a “deal” with the Saudis by which they take over control of the U.S.-occupied portion in Syria if they agree to pay $4 billion for reconstruction.
Aiming at Iran
While gaining control of key resources for partitioning Syria and destabilizing the government in Damascus, the U.S.’ main goal in occupying the oil and water rich northeastern Syria is aimed not at Syria but at Iran.
As U.S.-based intelligence firm Stratfor noted in 2002, taking control of Syria’s northeast would greatly complicate the land route between Syria and Iran as well as the land route between Iran and Lebanon. In January, Tillerson made this objective clear. Speaking at Stanford University,Tillerson noted that “diminishing” Iran’s influence in Syria was a key goal for the U.S. and a major reason for its occupation of the northeast.
By cutting off the route between Tehran and Damascus, the U.S. would greatly destabilize and weaken the region’s “resistance axis” and the U.S. — along with its regional allies – would be able to greatly increase its regional influence and control. Given the alliance between Syria and Iran, as well as their mutual defense accord, the occupation is necessary in order to weaken both nations and a key precursor to Trump administration plans to isolate and wage war against Iran.
With internal reports warning of the U.S.’ waning position as the “world’s only superpower,” the U.S. has no intention of leaving Syria, as it is becoming increasingly desperate to maintain its influence in the region and to maintain as well the influence of the corporations that benefit the most from U.S. empire.
Acknowledgment: Investigative journalist Rick Sterling, who specializes in the Syria war, provided MintPress with some images and pertinent information that was used in this story.
Featured photo: American troops look out toward the border with Turkey from a small outpost near the town of Manbij, Syria, Feb. 7, 2018. (AP/Susannah George)
Via MintPress News