As it is known, Syria has some internal conflicts in its own management. While Bassar al-Assad is trying to control his land, many divided groups also tries the same. One of them is PYD that is (Democratic Union Party) in Syria. PYD is a political side of Kurdish people. On the other side we have also YPG (Populist Protection Units) in Syria which is armed wing of PYD. There are also DAESH terror group in that region which tries to control also Iraq and Syria territories by triggering different kind of actions. Among those terrorist groups we could say Olive Branch Operation aims to eliminate those terror groups primarily.

Some states are in that region by act and also try to protect Syria’s territorial integrity. Russia and China mostly would like to protect its integrity, since an internal conflict has been occurred. And USA aims to fight with DAESH in that region. In this case, United Nations allies organized a few air attacks against that terrorist group on those territories but none of them implement a land operation. Because to make something, it could cost more than finance such as loss of own citizens in operations with prestige and etc. Finally, USA made some statements that it would help and train YPG against DAESH. However, they defend their ideaİ; they claimed that it is very innocent idea to use YPG against DAESH on land operations.

Beyond the Border

As far as we know, YPG is also wing of PKK indirectly. Because PYD is a deployed wing of PKK in Syria which makes YPG also a wing of PKK directly. Turkey, expressed its concerns on that issue many times to USA and that situation makes each state such a polar. In this case, we have to determine that there are many different news about what kind of war crimes PYD/YPG did or what kind of unlawful interventions occurred by them to the region’s people. There have been many news about USA’s aid to PYD/YPG units in international media outlets, although USA refused them all each time. So, Turkey warned its ally USA many times about that subject.

Map Image is taken from: https://www.trtworld.com/mea/turkey-s-afrin-operation-the-latest-updates-14443

How did the operation begin?

The region beyond the border of Turkey is dangerous even it is Syria’s territory, as Syria can not control it and govern it. Each time Turkey blamed USA by making aid to its enemies PKK, it refused all accusations and advocated that it just help other ingredients except for PKK and defend also its weapons are not gonna use against Turkey. However, USA is sure with that idea and believe, nobody can be sure especially for a group even it has some directly connections with PKK.

Finally, USA decide to create a border power to protect borders against DAESH militants and terrorist activities; but it forgot something that you can not destroy your enemy by another enemy. Probably USA confused, because as we all the simpliest discipline that “enemy of enemy is mine friend” is not available in that scenario. By right, Turkey warned one more time that it does not want any terror groups in or beyond its borders, furthermore there are many attacks came from other side of the border in history. That is how Operation Olive Branch started. Turkey said it a few times as a warning but nothing changed, but all states respect its actions on that issue. So, in the night of 20th of January, Turkish jets flew beyond the border and started to bomb YPG targets, Operation Olive Branch has started.

How has the operation been progressed?

Operation Olive Branch has started by Turkish jets’ bombings in first night. After bombing all the targets for a while they let Free Syrian Army forward through Afrin. Then, Turkish Army Force entered the region and started to take region’s villages one by one. We could see Turkey has a few point to forward march according to map above, so there will be probably a few hallway to enter the region and take control. As understood, Turkey has taken control of villages where they pass through and left FSA (Free Syrian Army) members as guards in the village.

International Reactions

Some states decided to stay neutral against Turkey’s operation at the beginning while some’s not. France call NATO for United Nations Security Council immediately in the frame of Operation Olive Branch. Turkish diplomats are also doing their best to explain the real and transparent ways of operation. They contact with everybody and try to use every diplomatic channel to be honest. On the other hand, NATO made a statement by remindering that every NATO member has a right to protect its borders. Turkey, informed all of its allies and seems like know how to play the game by obeying all the rules.

One of major actors in the region, Russia, claimed that the USA tested Turkey’s passion and limits. Therefore, Turkey chose that option olive branch as last but without any hesitation in international arena. At the beginning; the USA was not so soft agains the operation but after a while they have made soften their ideas by expressing that they have also respect agains Turkey’s concerns in the region. Syria sees that action as intervention to its internal issues and tries to show dissatisfaction. But, we know it also can not govern its some regions where operation is occurred. Turkey also made some statements about their concern and targets; as we understand, they are not planning to stay in those lands. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that they are not interested in stay in those lands. Their main target is just to clean region from terrorist activities.

What is expected at the end of the operation?

In the short term, we could not make clear assumptions in that scenario. But, in the long term, if everything goes well and without any contrariety, Turkey will probably clear the area it would like to. After cleaning it will probably provide safety and security in that region and after all would turn back to its borders. To prevent the second time like that scenario, sides may make an agreement on that issue by a resolution like cleared zone, safe-secure hallway or other options.

We know some states were colonial or aimed different gainings in foreigner landings, but Turkey has a cleared history for that. Furthermore, it may sound ironical but with its name, operation olive branch reflects its focus. Olive Branch is a symbol to show everybody they are doing something for peace, that is really an important point.

Cover image is taken from: http://trthaberstatic.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/resimler/828000/829164.jpg

The post Operation Olive Branch of Turkey appeared first on Risk Revise.

When states act, they generally focus on their interests for their existence in political area. They have some goals and different actors are effective in their deciding processes. Deciding process of states change but generally remains in the same patterns in spite of different actors and places. Those deciding patterns contain states’ aims and interests. Russia is one of major country among the states. In this article, Russia’s goals and gains from the Georgian War in 2008 will be analyzed. Those analyzes cover the period from beginning of the war to its consequences.

Beginning of the War

War needs to be analyzed deeper according to both sides’ views. Of course there is much more in the background and it is more than a war. In that point, we could point that conflict between Georgia and Ossetia relations getting worse in 90’s. With falling of USSR, Georgia couldn’t profit by USSR’s economic and political union anymore. After 1991, Georgia was affected negatively from that situation as economic and political. The situation was getting intensified by the time. So, Ossetians lose their belief about improving Georgia’s situation. And also Ossetians, believed that politics were not enough in Georgia and they could solve the problems with their local politicians. Their belief got strengthened with nationalist and separatist feelings by the time. In 91’s last days those conflicts turned into hot clashes. In 1992 those clashes continued and then both sides Ossetians and Georgian administration decide to ceasefire and after ceasefire agreement signed a peace force which contains Russians, Ossetians and Georgians were located at the area.[1]

After Rose Revolution in 2003, Mikheil Saakashvili became Georgia President. As a president, he immediately started to unite Georgia and take control of Abkhazia to keep the state as unitary. It was look like he needed to solve that problem in its internal affairs but he avoided Russia’s pressure and he also needed help to overcome that issue. So help means that the issue would not be internal anymore. And he tried to get help from NATO by applying, that action realized as threatening pace force contains Russian soldiers, and Tbilisi’s new approach to Ossetia didn’t get so good.

Russia changed its looking to Ossetia after Saakashvili’s move. Saakashvili’s western politics took Russia’s attraction more to Ossetia. Another hot clashes developed in 2004 summer and in Russia’s belief it was the time to decide whether to against Georgia or vice versa, because of Georgia’s western politics Russia chose to be against that politics and Russian National Parliament signed some treaties support Ossetian and Abkhazian freedom movements. Of course we could look from another point to that issue for Russia, we know Ossetians live in the Caucasus, speak Osetian and Russian as secondary language and their population is about 700.000; they are an ethnic group. South Ossetia is in Georgian borders, covered by Georgia from three sides and it has just one connection with Russia directly from its North. In this case, we need to point that area has natural resources like oil and gas. Those resources may be noted by Russia. Areas like that has natural resources always would be conflict material for the state has right to governance it and the others which is neighbor of that state and have transfer ways. That natural resources issue may contribute Russia’s attraction to that area.

7^th of August in 2008, Georgia attacked Ossetia from ground and air. Georgia made that move because of Russia’s soldier forwarding to that area just before the August. So, Russia claimed that its citizens lived that region and its soldiers as peace force there were endangered because of Georgia and acted against Georgia strongly and immediately. Abkhazia joined that clash which is one of major among the others between the 7^th-16^th of August near Russia. In that situation Georgia withdrew its army from Ossetia lands but Russia was going on its forward in spite of Georgia’s withdraw till Sarkozy Plan of France signed on the 16^th of August. In Sarkozy Plan frame, Russia also withdrew its army and recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia as freedom states but Russia is still going on its military workings in those countries.[2]

Consequences: Goals versus Gains

Russia’s movement and aggression on that war could be explained with “Kill the chicken to scare the monkey” [3] as the simplest way, because that aggression also sends signals to Ukraine and other states. Russia has imposed its hegemony in each opportunity and influence the zone. Sarkozy Plan aimed to return both sides before their clashes, but there were no any articles about Russia’s peace force; so Russia army is still existed in Abkhazia and Ossetia. That means Russia is going on its affecting policies. Russia would open a debate to Kosovo’s situation by recognize Ossetia and Abkhazia as symbolic.[4] In that way, Russia shows how to make annexation or independence with using IPC (International Penalty Court) by pointing Kosovo sample.[5]

Bibliography

Cornell, Svante E. – Starr, S. Frederick, The Guns of August 2008 Russia’s War in Georgia, USA 2009, Ch. 2.- Ch.4.

Öztürk Ahmet, The Russian-Georgian Crisis: A local conflict and Its Global Repercussions, USAK (International Strategic Research Organization), 2009

Cohen, Ariel – Hamilton, Robert E., The Russian Military and the Georgia War: Lessons and Implications, SSI (Strategic Studies Instutes), June 2011, p.6.

Yapıcı, Utku, Gürcistan Savaşı: Öncesi ve Sonrası, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 63-3

Cilt:1, Sayı:1, Güz 2009, Bilge Strateji,  Çakmak, Cenap, South Ossetia Policy of Russia, Neo Self-Determination, and the Role of ICC

[1] For further information: Svante E. Cornell – S. Frederick Starr, The Guns of August 2008 Russia’s War in Georgia, Ch. 2.- Ch.4.

[2] Ahmet Öztürk, The Russian-Georgian Crisis: A local conflict and Its Global Repercussions, USAK (International Strategic Research Organization), 2009

[3] Ariel Cohen – Robert E. Hamilton, The Russian Military and the Georgia War: Lessons and Implications, SSI (Strategic Studies Instutes), June 2011, p.6.

[4] Utku Yapıcı, Gürcistan Savaşı: Öncesi ve Sonrası, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 63-3

[5]Cilt:1, Sayı:1, Güz 2009, Bilge Strateji, Cenap Çakmak, South Ossetia Policy of Russia, Neo Self-Determination, and the Role of ICC

Image is taken from http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2008/08/28/the-russo-georgian-war-and-its-implications-for-other-russian-neighbors-and-european-security/ address on January 8th, 2018

The post Russia’s Goals and Gains From the Georgian War in 2008 appeared first on Risk Revise.

America has a large impact on the world today with its foreign policy. Its foreign policy changes from term to term like other democratic countries, but some basic points stay same. Since its foundation till today, America has been an example for the rest of the world in politics, science and military fields. It’s not just a state but also today’s “major power” by their own words and they try to make the world better than now by their own vision. Especially, USA’s civil war, has a large impact in their history. If we have a deep look to their policy we may see that their 21st century’s dynamics actually based on their history which covers a long term. Their presidents change but their main frame stays same with their own interests by actions and decisions in their foreign policy. In this case USA’s civil war has an important place in the history.

That may sound so strange that we have an idea about the USA’s foreign policy by just analyzing presidents, but the USA’s constitution gives authority to the president in a large area including foreign policy. Neither USA’s presidents nor USA’s civil war could help us to understand its density on their own. In that case we can understand the USA’s foreign policy by analyzing its presidents and collecting datas about them. Of course presidents work with their own team but the center of the team is theirselves. And that work, covers more the last examples to make it easy to understand. We’ll analyze some presidents with their actions and decisions, then we’ll analyze some events happened in American history and as the last, we’ll analyze the USA’s Civil War. In that case, we’ll try to reach a conclusion by researching and trying have an idea with all these resources in international relations.

2. Foreign Policy’s Evolution with Presidents

America is well-known as land of freedoms since their declaration of freedom. Their first democracy movement happened by their first President George Washington’s action in their revolutionary war. He had been president two times, but he wouldn’t be the third. By that action, a custom occured among the American Presidents. George Washington maked a sacrifice for his nation. This custom continued till the Franklin D. Roosevelt, then that was placed into the constitution as a law.

As the last generation we may remember George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as featured Presidents. If we have a look each other’s decisions and actions we see the some dynamics which are important in their foreign policy stay same. As first, father Bush’s foreign policy decisions seemed to be aggressive and religious in many ways but formed by democracy by his own thought. When we analyze the Clinton term, we see America’s soft power more, not just Clinton’s words but also his decisions and actions at the same time. We may say that he served peace or even he tried to served peace than the Bush family by acting carefully.

3. Clear, Big Step in Iraq by President Bush

We can take George W. Bush in hand as different than others because we know him as “The man who bring democracy in Iraq”. When we look at the frame as foreigner that’s not just about democracy, that’s a serious action, a strategy, a diplomacy and more than a war. That has been discussed for a long time. Of course America went into that war for its own interests.

Besides there are many countries need democracy in their own lands, America chose Iraq for what ? President Bush explained it by 9/11 attacks and he claimed that the attacks based on Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein’s supports to Al-Queda which is a terrorist group. By the time President Bush also claimed that there were mass destruction weapons in Iraq and Iraq needed democracy for their interests. With all his claims, and his lead, America went into Iraq to fight against Al-Queda, to arrest Saddam Hussein, to bring democracy Iraq, to make Iraqian People free  and the most important is to get oil.

Finally, when America arrived and destroyed Saddam’s regime, there were not Al-Queda’s leader (Usame Bin Ladin was killed in another region of Afghanistan in another operation of the USA), there were no any mass destruction weapons but we cannot ignore that people of Iraq took their democracy.  People took their democracy, but that’s arguable democracy is what they need. They have better regime now, they have a real government now, they have right to decide freely even it’s not entirely democratic (because still there is a government America supports it) but they lost their peace as all of those’s price.

4. Rest and Peace with President Obama

If we look at to America’s new President Barack Hussein Obama we see that he tries to serve peace like Clinton even may be better than him. Like all other presidents his actions and decisions also include the USA’s interests but closer to the logic. When he first elected he was given to the nobel peace prize even he had just begun his duty. And the next year he elected again by the American people. He decided to bring American troops back to homeland from Iraq and that’s more related with peace.

With these all American Presidents we see how the actions change but democracy stay same even as just a word. Till here, we analyzed some presidents. Now, we’ll analyze the civil war and its results to conclude its effects on the USA’s foreign policy. We know that all nation’s foreign policy based on their history.

5. Beginning of Civil War

In Civil War years, America’s economy was based on agriculture. There were many farms and they grew cotton, tobacco and sugarcane.  There were also slaves which had kidnapped from Africa were worked in production and processing of those products. America was preparing an election in that year, and Abraham Lincoln was the candidate of the Republican Party and had promised to abolish slavery. Southern states were anxious about abolishing slavery then, because they lived on by these slaves’ work on farms. When Lincoln won the elections, 7 Southern States (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana) declared their independence from the United States of America because they think Lincoln would abolish slavery exactly. These states found another state under Jefferson Davis’ command, its name was Confederate States of America (CSA). After a short period of time, 4 states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee) also joined the confederation. While those states were calling themselves as “confederation”, the rest of the country was calling itself as “union”.

6. Civil War

After a short term, a war broke out between these two sides. By the way, giving some information about their situation for that time may be useful to understand better. There were 432,586 slaves in border states and union has two times more army than the confederation. 4,500,000 bales of cotton was producing in the confederation countries in 1860. In that case, we can see that war is  about a nation’s interest and human rights. America was called as country of democracy but the point is democracy for who ? Lincoln thought the black people also deserve democracy at least as much as the whites.

The first years, neither union nor the confederation got the whip hand of each other. Both sides suffered with enormous losses. But the real event was battle of Gettysburg which is war’s turning point. Finally, the North won the battle and the southern soldiers surrendered after the Gettysburgh War. The southern slaves had their freedom right. Till here, the northern land owners had expected to occupy the south but Lincoln thought vice versa. He helped the northern people to develop their land and improve their economy after the war by offered them to lend money unreturned.

7. End of Civil War

By ending civil war, the north was exhausted because of sieges, battles, losses and money it had wasted on the war. While everybody expected vice versa, its economy was getting worse. Some problems occured there like reintegrate of the southern states called reconstruction. Some Radical Republicans thought Presidential conditions were too lenient for the southern states.

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln dedicated a new national cemetery with perhaps the most famous address in U.S. history. He concluded his brief remarks with these words: “… we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Black people had their freedom rights but that couldn’t be executed properly in that years, one of its example is Ku Klux Klan which was formed in that year. In other hand, war had seen as first modern war in that year. Telgraph and the railway system used as large first in that war. That war placed into history as the most studied periods in American history. It placed into cinema field as “The Birth of a Nation”, “Gods and Generals” and perhaps more famously  “Gone With the Wind”.

8. USA’s Gains From Diffucult Times

When we look at the frame from outside, we may conclude some results. The Republicans revealed by that war and would be dominant in the industrial Northeast until the 1930s. That war helped Republicans to come on the scene with their own ideologies. I think that’s one of the important effects of Civil War in American foreign policy. And I think America had resolved its basic problem in itself with a great experience. Their fight was not just a simple war, it was also war between money and rights.

Union was trying to protect its own black citizens’ rights while the confederation was trying to protect its interests including economic activites. That may help to explain an average American citizen’s actions to a foreigner like seeing theirselves as the protector of democracy. In other hand even they protected their black citizen, that’s also about trying to keep the states united. So I can explain Iraq war in that case. Although there are many countries need democracy, America chose Iraq that may be called “two birds with one stone”. Not just bringing democracy to Iraq, trying to destroy its enemy and gain more at the same time for its own interest like Civil War.

9. Comparison with other Civilizations

When we analyze the other nations like European countries, they are more respectable to human rights, basic values and world peace than others. When we have a look their history we can see some violent clashes easily. I think that helps the nations to exceed some basic points and improve their understanding. That’s also a value which is reflected as a behaviour on their foreign policy. One of these examples is France, as we know a revolution in its history and nobody can ignore its contribution to today’s foreign policy indirectly.

Civil War may be seen as what makes America itself in many ways. In military way, its first modern war and would be the example for the future. As a vision, they see theirselves as the symbol of the truth, justice, and power because of their past because they fighted with each other as brothers to freedom as a honorable behaviour. And they had had no feodalism in their lands even for at once. In that case they had large lands instead of divided, reduced lands like in European countries. They had chosen to live freely as eagles in their lands.

10. Conclusion

Today, if we look at to America as an American we may say that they live under their great protector eagle’s shadow. Their country had been found by a revolution against colonialism, so they had some values in their genetics. I don’t think that they are so democratic, but they know how to seem to be. The Americans might be really thoughtful in some cases like democracy or any humanitarian issues, but we can say that happens rarely and they generally think their own interests first. Civil War may not have so much impact on their todays foreign policy, but we can not say that it doesn’t impress any.

I think that  Civil War forms the basis of their democratic standing especially today’s foreign policy. President Obama’s standing on their foreign policy as a president who cares peace resembles President Abraham Lincoln. Both of them has democratic behaviours, actions and decisiosn even they are coming from different parties. Both of them care peace, try to make America better and help to develop. Abraham Lincoln was the first representative who moved Republican Party on political scene and Barack Hussein Obama is the last who represents Democratic Party. They come from different parties, they are different persons but they have similar dynamics in their foreign policy.

References

Sander, O. (2003), “Siyasi Tarih İlk Çağlardan 1918’e”,  12, “4. İç Savaş ve Sonrası”, 158-161.

Blake, J. (2011), “4 ways we’re still fighting the Civil War”, CNN, April 11, 2011.

Yoshitani, G., Mears, D., (2012) “Civil War Overview” slide presentation, available at the Department History, United States Military Academy West Point website at http://www.westpoint.edu/history/SitePages/American%20Civil%20War.aspx

“Outline of US History”, (2005), Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of States, “Chapter 7: The Civil War and Reconstruction”, 140-153, http://usinfo.state.gov

“President Barack Obama”, available via the internet at White House Website http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama

American History (RA) Class Notes / “Effects of the Civil War”, available via the internet at http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/USRA_Civ_War_Effects.htm

Harris, D. (2011), “The legacy of the Civil War” available via the internet at http://www.independentcollegian.com/the-legacy-of-the-civil-war-1.2545416#.UM4fh2-N4SA

“American Civil War”, available via the internet at http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history.htm

“American Civil War”, available via the internet at http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

Hassler, W. W. (2011), ” The cost and significance of the Civil War” available the internet Britannica website at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/19407/American-Civil-War/229879/The-cost-and-significance-of-the-Civil-War

Image is taken from http://thefineartdiner.blogspot.com.tr/2012/06/radical-socialism-abraham-lincoln.html on Jan 4,2018

All the links controlled day by day during the research process, but they controlled Jan 4, 2012 as the last.

The post Civil War’s Effects on the USA’s Foreign Policy appeared first on Risk Revise.