Al Qaida in Syria Provides Wake Up Call

James J. Coyle: Al-Qaida in Syria provides wake up call

By JAMES J. COYLE / For the Register

Published: Dec. 12, 2013 Updated: 5:28 p.m.

GETTY IMAGES

Dozens of Americans have tried to join Islamist rebel groups in Syria, according to U.S. officials. They sought to join the estimated 6,000 to 8,000 foreign fighters.

Approximately 2,000 of their number are European. It is easy for these foreign fighters to reach Syria: international flights bring them to Turkey, where there are training camps exclusively for European recruits. From there, they easily slip across the border. Such numbers are troubling, because they represent a serious threat to the West when they return from their jihad in the Middle East.

The threat is not only to the West; Russia faces a similar problem. An Uzbek Salafist in Turkey uses the Internet to recruit in Europe, North America, Russia and Central Asia, according to EurasiaNet. Radical Kyrgyz in Moscow were recruited for the struggle by North Caucasians. Members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan have left their fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan to go to Syria. While the number of Central Asians is still small, they have become more prominent in jihadist groups like al-Qaida affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. One press report says the “most dangerous and barbaric” of the al-Qaida fighters are 250 Chechens in the suburbs of Aleppo.

The group with the largest number of fighters is the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams, also known as ISIS. This group has achieved notoriety for fighting as much against other rebels as against government forces. They recently seized the northern Syrian town of Termanin from a rival rebel unit, by seizing the bakery, intimidating the police and beheading those who opposed them. “The executions are designed to make maximum impact,” said activist Firas Ahmad. Jihadists have also kidnapped Kurdish rebel fighters and Orthodox nuns. Most recently, the U.S. government announced on Thursday that they were suspending delivery of non-lethal aid to rebels in Northern Syria because of the reports of the Islamists' seizure of territory from the Free Syrian Army.

The ISIS now control many of the supply lines by which Western powers are trying to resupply other rebel groups. In areas along the border with Turkey in Aleppo and Idlib, the ISIS is also seizing territory held by other hard-line Islamist units, reports the Lebanese Daily Star. Their commander, who goes by the nickname al-Jazaeri, said they had learned their lesson in other conflicts. “Our mistake as mujahidin is that we were preoccupied with fighting [Moammar] Gadhafi and did not pay enough attention to how to hold onto territory,” he told Reuters.

The result is a large swath of territory in the heart of the Middle East under the control of al-Qaida affiliated groups. This area has come to resemble Afghanistan: Islamic schools, training camps and burka-clad women. The threat from these groups, many identified as terrorist organizations, is a common thread that unites Russia and America going into the Jan. 22 Geneva conference talks. The superpowers had appeared to be waging a proxy war in Syria, with Russia and Iran supporting President Bashar al-Assad against rebels backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Recent meetings, however, show that these alignments are no longer true.

The U.S. accepted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's suggestion of foregoing military action in favor of Syria's decommissioning of its chemical weapons stockpile. With indications that the Dec. 31 deadline for the removal of 30 tons of chemicals might not be met because the road to the coast might not be safe for transport, there are no renewed American threats. Instead, quiet diplomacy seems the order of the day.

Last week, British and American officials met in Ankara with non al-Qaida Islamist groups. While refusing to name which groups with which he had met, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said it was important to learn the long-term plans of the organizations. Other officials said the purpose of the meeting was to encourage them to join in the Geneva II peace talks. It would appear that the al-Qaida threat is uniting the international community in unanticipated ways.

James J. Coyle is a professor and the director of Global Education at Chapman University and Chair of the Eurasian Committee of� the Pacific Council on International Policy.� He has been involved with Middle� Eastern affairs for over 30 years.

Protesters put Ukraine on edge

Protesters put Ukraine on edge

By JAMES J. COYLE / For the Register

Published: Dec. 3, 2013 Updated: 2:28 p.m.

PARESH NATH / CAGLE CARTOONS

The largest crowds in Ukraine's history descended Sunday onto Independence Square, scene of the 2004 Orange Revolution. Demonstrators closed off the city center, using Christmas trees, city benches, metal fences and barricades. Protestors occupied City Hall and the trade union headquarters.

Kiev was not the only forum for unrest: demonstrations took place throughout the country, including in President Viktor Yanukovych's home town of Donetsk. Former interior minister Yuriy Lutsenko said what was happening was not a protest, but another revolution.

The government is in disarray: at least two parliamentarians from the ruling Party of Regions have resigned, as well as the chief of the presidential administration staff. The Kiev chief of police attempted to resign but was slapped with a suspension. The president is considering declaring a state of emergency, while the parliament is considering curtailing his powers.

It didn't have to be this way. On Thursday and Friday in Vilnius, Lithuania, the European Union welcomed Georgia and Moldova into the EU's Eastern Partnership.

Ukraine was supposed to be accepted as well, but the cabinet canceled the country's preparations to sign an association agreement after coming under heavy pressure from Moscow. The citizenry was outraged. Opposition parliamentarian Arseniy Yatsenyuk charged the ruling party with hindering Ukraine's movement towards the EU.

President Yanukovych had little room to maneuver. Even though he had been negotiating with the European Union for months, the odds have always favored his alignment with Moscow. Russia supplies Ukraine with 60 percent of its natural gas, and the two countries have been squabbling for months over price for the commodity. The EU has pledged to sell Ukraine natural gas through a reverse flow pipeline from Slovakia, but the quantities are insufficient to replace Russian gas. Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov offered a carrot: cheaper gas if Kiev halts free trade talks with Europe.

Russia is not afraid to also use a stick: it cut off natural gas flows in the winters of 2006 and 2009, and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev threatened tariffs on the importation of Ukrainian goods to Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, if the country aligned with the West. Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov subsequently told the parliament this would cost the country 400,000 jobs.

Yanukovych is trying to keep his options open, stating he has not abandoned the idea of joining the European Union someday. Equally telling, he has not agreed immediately to joining the rival, Moscow-backed Eurasian Customs Union.

These half measures have not appeased the crowds, however, who are demanding his resignation. Ukraine and Russia are supposed to set the natural gas price for 2014 in the next two weeks: a strong enough price cut might shore up Yanukovych's support – if the news doesn't arrive too late.

James J. Coyle is the director of Global Education at Chapman University and is the chair of the Eurasian committee of the Pacific Council on International Policy. He has also held various positions in the federal government, including director of Middle East studies at the U.S. Army War College.

Steps Toward Peace in the Caucasus

James J. Coyle: Steps toward peace in the Caucasus

By JAMES J. COYLE / For the Register

Published: Nov. 27, 2013 Updated: Dec. 2, 2013 9:27 a.m.

GETTY IMAGES FILE PHOTO

Last week, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Vienna for the first time in almost two years.

The summit was important, because these two countries have been involved in a “frozen conflict” for two decades, ever since signing a ceasefire in 1994.

The discussions were held under the auspices of the Minsk Group, created by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and co-chaired by the United States, Russia and France. At the conclusion, the co-chairs issued a statement that the presidents had:

• Agreed to advance negotiations toward a peaceful settlement;

• Instructed their foreign ministers to cooperate with the co-chairs to build on the work done to date, with the aim of intensifying the peace process; and,

• Agreed to meet again in the months ahead.

In addition, the co-chairs agreed to hold working sessions in Kiev on Dec. 5-6, on the margins of an OSCE Ministerial meeting.

For many Armenians in Southern California with families and friends in the affected area, progress in the talks should be welcome news. Armenia's borders with both Turkey and Azerbaijan remain closed because of this conflict.

Today, Armenia is the poorest country in the South Caucasus and its population has decreased 40 percent since the conflict began in 1988. A settlement to the conflict holds the promise of greater prosperity in that country.

Azerbaijan has also felt the effects. Armenia occupies approximately 20 percent of what is internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory, in defiance of four UN Security Council resolutions. This has resulted in the displacement of one million Azerbaijanis from their homes.

The United States also has interests in the area – domestically and internationally.

Domestically, Armenians have been immigrating to the United States since the 1890s; today, 1.4 million Americans can trace their heritage to Armenia. They have a great interest in what happens in their ancestral homeland.

Internationally, America's major ally in the Middle East, Israel, gets 60 percent of its oil imports from Azerbaijan. European allies, including Greece and Italy, are patiently awaiting the construction of the Trans Anatolian Pipeline that will bring desperately needed natural gas from Azerbaijan to their countries.

A renewal of the fighting could threaten these important economic lifelines. In addition, approximately 40 percent of all air freight for our troops in Afghanistan transit Azerbaijan.

This route, called the Northern Distribution Network, will be crucial in the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. Azerbaijani troops have fought side by side with Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Surrendering Egypt to Russia

James J. Coyle: Surrendering Egypt to Russia

By JAMES J. COYLE / For the Register

Published: Nov. 22, 2013 Updated: Dec. 2, 2013 9:28 a.m.

JEFF KOTERBA / KING FEATURES

NEW ALLIES?

Russia is negotiating its biggest arms deal with Egypt since the Cold War after the U.S. cut aid to Egypt.

Source: Bloomberg News

As the United States reduces its footprint in the Middle East, Russia is taking advantage of the power vacuum America's retreat is creating. Egypt, whose defection to the West in 1972 was essential to creating the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, may be transferring its loyalties to the Kremlin.

On July 3, Egyptian military leaders removed Muslim Brotherhood cadres from government positions. This included the removal of President Mohamed Morsi. Confusing liberal democracy with Alexis de Tocqueville's “tyranny of the majority,” the United States decided to punish the generals and canceled a joint military exercise with the Egyptian army. Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to an Egyptian newspaper, immediately offered to discuss Russian joint military exercises.

Egypt warned that they would not take American chastisement lightly, that they had other choices they could make. Not recognizing the warning signs, in October, the U.S. canceled $260 million in cash aid (out of a $1.5 billion annual total) and held up the delivery of military equipment, including F-16 fighter planes. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait promptly pledged at least $12 billion to make up for the shortfall in American aid, and Russia offered a major arms deal to the Egyptians.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu arrived in Cairo on Nov. 14 – the first Russian defense minister to visit the country since 1971. Shoigu offered to sell MIG-29 fighter jets, attack helicopters, anti-tank missiles and low-range air-defense missiles. The package is worth $2 billion; supposedly, Egypt is looking for loans from Saudi Arabia and Russia to pay for the purchase. Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy proclaimed, “We want to give a new impetus to our relations and return them to the same high level that used to exist with the Soviet Union.”

The new Russian defense relationship might never materialize. Egypt may not be able to afford the weapons package, Russian weaponry would not integrate smoothly with Egypt's American supplied forces and U.S. aid might always be resumed.

But the Russians are pulling out all the stops: the defense minister's arrival was preceded by a port call in Alexandria by the Russian warship Varyag. This could presage the offering of port facilities to the Russian navy as a part of any rapprochement. Israel National News is reporting that Putin himself is expected in Egypt later this month to announce a $15 billion arms deal.

While we no longer face the zero-sum game of the Cold War, it is bad policy to encourage an American ally of forty years into the arms of a country that opposes U.S. policies in the world and is a major ally of Syria's Bashar al-Assad. There is an old saying in the Middle East: you cannot make war without Egypt and you cannot make peace without Syria. Current American policy is allowing Russia to gain control over both countries – and the ability to make war or peace.

James J. Coyle is the director of Global Education at Chapman University and chair of the Eurasian committee of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

U.S. Losing Saudi Arabia as an ally

James J. Coyle: U.S. losing Saudi Arabia as an ally

 By JAMES J. COYLE / For the Register

Published: Nov. 18, 2013 Updated: Dec. 2, 2013 9:28 a.m.

GETTY IMAGES FILE PHOTO

CONCERN

"Saudi Arabia cannot afford to be encircled by Iran, from Iraq and Syria. That is out of the question," said Khalid al-Dakhil, a political sociology professor at King Saud University, who has called for Saudi Arabia to become less dependent on the United States, told the New York Times in October.

In 1988, I asked a member of the Reagan administration what was being done to regain America's position in Iran. “Nothing,” was the reply. “We don't need them as long as we have Saudi Arabia.” How things have changed.

As world powers prepared to move closer to Iran, the head of Saudi intelligence (and former ambassador to the United States), Prince Bandar bin Sultan, told European diplomats that he planned to scale back Saudi cooperation with the United States in Syria. He said this move was in protest over America's policies in the Middle East. The prince promised a “major shift” in relations with the U.S., taking official Washington by surprise. It shouldn't have.

The Saudis were shocked when the United States advised its longtime ally, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, to step down during the Arab uprisings. And when the military pushed aside the Muslim Brotherhood-supported President Mohamed Morsi, the American suspension of military aid was met in Riyadh with profound disbelief. The Kingdom immediately promised to make up any aid to Egypt that the Americans cut.

Saudi Arabia answered the call of Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa in 2011 to put down Shia protesters. Military action was in direct defiance of American advice. In Iraq, America's troop withdrawal in December 2011 left a Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, and Saudi Arabia's Sunni allies out in the cold. Meetings with Iran in Geneva involving the U.S., Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany have sent a shiver of fear through the kingdom – a fear of abandonment as America seeks rapprochement with its Persian nemesis.

The final step was President Barack Obama abandoning his own red-line in Syria. Former head of Saudi intelligence (and former ambassador to the United States and Great Britain) Prince Turki bin Faisal, called the American policy “lamentable.” According to Reuters, the Prince believed the deal between the United States and Russia to be a ruse. “The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his own people.”

The king was furious at America's actions. The Saudi foreign minister canceled his address to the United Nations General Assembly, and then refused to take a coveted seat on the UN Security Council. “This was a message for the U.S., not the UN,” said Prince Bandar.

The Obama administration is downplaying the crisis. Secretary of State Kerry emerged from a meeting with his Saudi counterpart to say the foreign minister had not raised Prince Bandar's concerns. A senior American defense official said the U.S. remains “fully committed to security cooperation” with the kingdom. A senior administration official said the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have a longstanding partnership. White House spokesman Jay Carney said any disagreements would be worked out in a “candid and forthright way as we maintain the basic foundation of a very important relationship.”

Indications are, however, that the breach is a serious one. Apparently, Saudi Arabia did not warn its American ally before it took the drastic step of rejecting the Security Council seat. Prince Bandar said the Saudis would begin to work in Syria with allies such as Jordan and France, rather than the United States. Military and commercial ties are in danger. According to a Reuters' source close to Saudi policy, “The shift away from the U.S. is a major one. Saudi doesn't want to find itself any longer in a situation where it is dependent.” The source promised an impact; echoing a phrase one usually associates with American decision makers, he said “All options are on the table now.”

James J. Coyle is the director of Global Education at Chapman University and the chair of the Eurasian committee of the Pacific Council for International Policy.

EU Reliance on Russian Gas Increasing

The European Union's dependency on Russian energy continues to increase.  Demand for natural gas has grown from 325 bcm (billion cubic meters) per year in 1990 to an estimated 550 bcm in 2015, according to the International Energy Agency.  Consumption is projected to increase to 669 bcm by 2035.    Some European countries, such as Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia depend on Russia for 100% of their natural gas, according to the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations.  Several others, such as Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Moldova and Turkey rely on Russia for over 60% of their gas needs.

European consumption of Russian gas had been expected to decrease in face of competition from coal, LNG, and shale fuels.  Alternative fuel sources, combined with the slowdown in European economies, was supposed to reduce the demand for Russian gas, which is priced at a premium to the market.

Faced with these forces, Gazprom has initiated a series of price cuts for its European customers.  In 2012 they reduced prices 7-10% on average, even returning money via "retroactive payments" to customers with long-term supply contracts.  These rebates totaled $3.22 billion.  In June 2013, Gazprom export chief Alexander Medvedev announced that prices would be further reduced, but "The price correction will be even less than in the previous round of talks."  Medvedev estimated the new reductions would total less than $800-$900 million.  Medvedev also said that the company would cut prices in new contracts in which the price of gas is tied to the price of oil.  As a result, the average gas price for Europe would decline to approximately $375 per 1,000 cubic meters, from the 2012 price of $402.  (Of course, not all European countries benefit from this action:  Ukraine is stuck with a long term contract with a price of $440 per tcm.)

As a result of these actions, in the first eight months of 2013 Gazprom shipments to Europe and Turkey increased 14%, to the highest level since 2010, according to Gazprom Export.  The reasons are price (the premium over the spot price dropped 66% over the previous 12 months) and the failure of LNG supplies to materialize.  "The European gas market is shifting again, to a certain extent, from a buyer's market to a seller's market because of a sharp decline in LNG supply," said Sberbank analyst Valery Nesterov.

The increase in demand is providing Gazprom a rationale to limit further price concessions.  Gazprom, and its owners (the Russian government) rely heavily on the European market for its revenues--and the Russian budget relies on the income.  50% of the Russian government's budget comes from energy export revenues; with the decline in price for Gazprom's product, the funds are coming more from Rosneft's sale of oil.  80% of energy export revenues today are due to oil, not natural gas. according to the Atlantic Council's senior fellow Dr. Frank Umbach.  This has led to a shakeup in the Kremlin's hierarchy, with Rosneft's Igor Sechin increasing in influence at the cost of Gazprom's Alexey Miller.

  

China--The New Balancer

In 1991, Zbigniew Brzezinski described Central Asia and the Caucasus as "The Grand Chessboard."  He concentrated on the competition between Russia and the West for control of Mackinder's World Island.  Brzezinski wrote in the belief the United States was the world's sole superpower.

Since then, America has been bloodied in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.  A country that Brzezinski considered to be on the periphery, China, is assuming a larger role on the world stage.  The chess match continues, but the Russian Federation has a new opponent:  the People's Republic of China.  "China is likely to overtake the United States (as an oil importer), and Russia has to stake its claim in China," said Raiffeisenbank analyst Andrey Polishchuck.  The head of Russian studies at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, Feng Yujun, concurred:  "It has become very important for Russia to expedite entering the Asia-Pacific, especially the Chinese market.  It risks losing more opportunities if it keeps dragging its feet."

The record is pretty clear that it is China, and not Russia, that is in the driver's seat on energy deals.  Rosneft is scrambling to fulfill crude oil contracts with China, while reducing forecasts for production from the Vankor field in East Siberia.  As a result, Russia might have to reduce it's delivery of crude to Europe. The company emailed Reuters that "Rosneft's production plans will without doubt ensure that oil supply commitments are met...In the event of possible deviations, existing agreements and the most profitable supply routes will be prioritized."

Rosneft is also granting the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) an equity stake over one of its oil fields.  Rosneft would maintain control of the project (51% ownership) but China will receive 49% in return for its willingness to help develop the field.  The deposit, the Srednebotuobinsk field, is close to the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline which delivers crude oil to Daqing, China.  Rosneft has a similar deal with the Chinese company Sinopec, to produce oil in the Republic of Udmurtia.

At the same time, Russia has been trying to negotiate for two years a contract to sell natural gas to China, and deliver it via pipeline.  These efforts have been in vain, despite numerous statements from the highest authorities that a deal was imminent.  Despite the Chinese need for energy to fuel its economic machine, it refuses to accept the Russian price for the gas.  According to the Brookings Institute's Erica Downs, "The Russians probably need this more desperately than the Chinese." Fyodor Lukyanov, head of the Moscow think tank, the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, believes that a gas deal would be a "major breakthrough" for Russia, but the economics of the proposal would scuttle it.  "China...won't agree to major concessions just to improve its strategic partnership with Russia."

This follows on the heals of Chinese president's Xi Jinping's recent visit to Central Asia. Xi signed an agreement in Turkmenistan to double gas exports to China, cut the ribbon on the Galkynysh gas field (the world's second largest), and pledged $8 billion to build a pipeline from the field to China.  In Kazakhstan, Xi signed $30 billion in deals that included the CNPC purchase of 8% of the Kashagan oil fields, agreed to double the size of the pipeline from Kazakhstan to China, and agreed to build a new refinery.  In Uzbekistan he signed $15 billion in purchases of oil, gas and gold; and in Kyrgyzstan he agreed to a $3 billion deal to construct another pipeline.  In Tajikistan, he signed another $3 billion pipeline deal, which resulted in Gazprom cancelling its own pipeline project to that country.

Alexander Rahr, the research director of the German-Russian Forum, believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin is allowing China to increase its Central Asian presence, so that Russia can concentrate on its Western flank.  ""I think this was a firm choice, a difficult choice, but it was made.  He cannot afford to have geopolitical battles with NATO and the West on the one hand and, parallel to that, battles with China for influence in Central Asia."  Rahr believes Russia is using energy to keep Belarus, Ukraine and Modova aligned with Moscow instead of Brussels.

As China moves deeper into Central Asia, it is forcing Russia out--as the Tajikistan pipeline incident demonstrates.  It is locking up energy supplies that Russia was previously selling to Europe, is obtaining equity interest in Russian energy fields, and forcing Russia to divert supplies from European buyers.  China is telling Russia what to do, and not the other way around.