Search

Begin New Search Topic Conflict Resolution Political Geography Turkey Content Type Policy Brief Publishing Institution The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

1. Making the Most of the Berlin Conference on Libya

Author:
Ben Fishman and Charles Thépaut
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
If the latest conference is to succeed, the principal actors stoking the civil war must endorse a genuine ceasefire and a return to Libyan internal dialogue. On January 19, international leaders will convene in Berlin to discuss a way out of the nine-month civil war between the so-called “Libyan National Army” led by Gen. Khalifa Haftar and the internationally recognized Government of National Accord led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. The Germans led several months of preparatory efforts at the request of UN envoy Ghassan Salame, but had been reluctant to choose a specific date until they were assured that the event stood a reasonable chance of producing practical steps to improve the situation on the ground and jumpstart the UN’s stalled negotiation efforts between the LNA and GNA. Chancellor Angela Merkel finally took that step after several key developments unfolded earlier this month, including a January 8 ceasefire proposal by Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Putin’s subsequent failed attempt to have each side sign a more permanent ceasefire agreement in Moscow on January 13 (the GNA signed but Haftar balked, though most of the fighting has paused for the moment). Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been averse to engage on Libya during his tenure, but he is expected to attend the Berlin conference alongside National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. Accordingly, the event gives the United States a chance to play a much-needed role on several fronts: namely, pressuring the foreign actors who have perpetuated the war and violated the arms embargo; working with Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia to codify a ceasefire at the UN Security Council; and backing Salame’s efforts to reinvigorate the Libyan national dialogue, which Haftar preempted by attacking Tripoli last April despite European support to Salame. Since 2011, Libya has struggled to establish a legitimate transitional government despite three national elections and the creation of at least four legislative bodies. Challenges to the 2014 election results eventually led to rival governments in the east and west, and the division solidified when Haftar started the first civil war with support from his allies Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. That war halted in 2015, but several years’ worth of domestic and international efforts failed to bring Sarraj and Haftar to an enduring resolution.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Civil War, United Nations, Conflict, Negotiation, and Conference
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, Middle East, Libya, Germany, North Africa, United Arab Emirates, Berlin, and United States of America

2. Special Policy Forum Report: Combating Terror Financing In America

Author:
Dennis Lormel
Publication Date:
04-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
While individual terrorist attacks can be carried out at a relatively low cost, the need to recruit operatives and provide them with safe houses, training, and support requires significant funding. The United States has proven to be a good venue for fundraising by terrorist groups, particularly Hamas and Hizballah. Although such activities could indicate the presence of operational sleeper cells, these organizations are unlikely to risk losing their funding sources by carrying out an attack on U.S. soil, at least under the current circumstances. After all, the revenue sources of certain terrorist organizations have become increasingly restricted following attacks in other parts of the world (e.g., Turkey, Saudi Arabia), largely due to policy changes, more proactive law enforcement, and fear of prosecution on the part of front organizations.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, America, Turkey, Middle East, and Arabia

3. UN Plan Fails In Cyprus: Implications For Turkey, The European Union, And The United States

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
04-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On April 24, Greek and Turkish citizens of Cyprus voted on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's plan to resolve the long-standing dispute on the island. The elusive Cyprus issue once again evaded solution: although 65 percent of the Turkish Cypriots voted to accept the Annan plan, 76 percent of Greek Cypriots said no. The plan — born out of recent UN-sponsored negotiations between Turkey and Greece, as well as Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaderships — envisaged the unification of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), recognized only by Turkey, and the internationally recognized Government of Cyprus (GOC) in the ethnically Greek south into a federal state ahead of the May 1 deadline when the GOC is scheduled to enter the European Union (EU) representing the whole island. Why was the Annan plan accepted by the Turkish Cypriots, yet rejected by the Greek Cypriots? What are the implications of the new situation for Turkey, the EU, and the United States?
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Turkey, and Middle East

4. Special Policy Forum Report: Local Elections in Turkey -- A Landslide Victory for the Incumbent AKP

Author:
Soner Cagaptay and Yasemin Congar
Publication Date:
04-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On March 28, 2004, Turks voted in nationwide municipal elections for the mayors of more than 3,000 cities and towns, as well as administrative council members for all eighty-one Turkish provinces. Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) won an overwhelming victory, increasing its national standing. With 41.8 percent of the vote -- almost 8 percent more than in the November 2002 general elections that catapulted the party to power -- the AKP emerged, by a wide margin, as the most popular party in Turkey. The opposition was weak; together, the three main opposition parties -- the social-democrat Republican Peoples Party (CHP), the nationalist/center-right True Path Party (DYP), and the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) -- received fewer votes (38.6 percent) than the AKP alone (41.8 percent). What are the implications of Turkey's new political landscape for Turkish domestic and foreign policy?
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, Turkey, and Middle East

5. Local Elections in Turkey: A Justice and Development Party Landslide?

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
03-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On March 28, Turks will go to the polls in nationwide local elections to vote for mayors and more than 90,000 council seats in 3,184 towns and cities. The outcome of these elections will not change the composition of Turkey's current Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, which came to power in a political landslide in November 2002, receiving 34 percent of the popular vote and two-thirds of the seats in the legislature. Nevertheless, according to surveys, AKP may win as much as 50 percent of the votes on March 28, securing the mayorships of most Turkish cities, including Istanbul and Ankara. Such a sweeping victory would be unusual in Turkey, where more than a dozen parties usually run in local elections and where a given party is deemed successful if it receives more than 20 percent of the vote. These developments raise two crucial questions: Why is AKP receiving such immense electoral support? And would an overwhelming victory in the upcoming elections politically embolden the party to revive its seemingly dormant Islamist roots?
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, Turkey, Middle East, and Arabia

6. A Turkish Rapprochement with Middle East Rogue States?

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
01-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul will make an official visit to Tehran on January 10. This visit comes on the heels of a January 6-8 trip to Turkey by Syrian president Bashar al-Asad -- the first ever by a Syrian head of state -- during which Asad was showered with praise by the Turkish media. Why is Ankara suddenly at ease with Damascus and Tehran, both of whom have given Turkey headaches by supporting the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and harboring Turkish Hizballah and other Islamist terror groups?
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, Turkey, Middle East, Arab Countries, and Syria

7. Special Policy Forum Report: The Turkish-Israeli-Syrian Triangle

Author:
Alan Makovsky, Cengiz Candar, and Efraim Inbar
Publication Date:
03-2000
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The emergence of close Israeli-Turkish relations is one of the significant strategic developments in the post-Cold War Middle East. These ties are likely to flourish as long as Israel and Turkey remain pro-Western, anti-Islamic fundamentalist, and compatible in military inventory. Turkish-Israeli ties should be described as a "strategic relationship," not as an alliance. Turkey and Israel are not obligated or likely to go to war if the other is attacked. They also have somewhat differing threat perceptions regarding Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Arabia, Arab Countries, and Syria