Recently, Facebook has been blamed for spreading “fake news” and contributing to the election of Donald Trump as the next US president. There have since been calls for Facebook to take action to address the issue and be treated as a media company in this regard. While tech giants hold considerable power over media and civic space, assigning them the mission of sorting out what constitutes “true” information is a dangerous route to take. What’s more, in the complex world we live in, even journalists and other contributors to the news should never be held liable for reporting “fake news” unless they have failed to dedicate reasonable efforts to verify information.
Reactions to the recent US presidential elections or the Brexit referendum are dominated by a sense that facts and rational debate have lost relevance in politics and public discourse. Lies seem to have become the decisive factor in today’s electoral contests. In an effort to preserve whatever is left from the democratic model of society, influential voices have called for a resolute battle to be fought against the viral spread of “fake” stories that infect populations with “dangerous” opinions. However, from the perspective of international law on freedom of expression, the issue of “fake news” must be approached with caution, mindful that prohibition of “fake” or “false” news has often served as an instrument to control the media and restrict editorial freedom.
The real problem with “fake news”
There’s no denying that misinformation exists. Unscrupulous businesses will publish deceitful reports to attract advertising income – to a lesser degree, this is also a preoccupation for certain media outlets that rely on sensationalist headlines. Others might publish lies to influence audiences in the pursuit of other political or economic objectives. In certain circumstances, however, the publication of deceitful information can cause serious harm. It could damage an individual’s reputation, violate their privacy or trigger disastrous collective reactions.
Nonetheless, restrictions on “fake news” are not the appropriate way to deal with these consequences. Existing laws on defamation, legal provisions that protect the right to privacy, and laws on public order that allow police forces to control the possible consequences of public outrage already provide some protection from negative impacts. All of these laws, of course, must respect the requirements of international standards on freedom of expression: in short, they need to be written with clarity to allow individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions, and they must be proportionate to the ill that they seek to counter. Even less restrictive of freedom of expression, the detailed prescriptions of professional ethics and mechanisms of self-regulation such as press councils also serve to encourage media and journalists to publish reliable and accurate information.
By contrast with finely-tailored legislation, any legal prohibition of “fake” news would inevitably create a chilling effect upon the media and anyone that contributes to public debate. Facts are by their nature complex and intricate, to the point that it is truly impossible to avoid slight inaccuracies in reporting. Demanding that journalists only publish reports that are absolutely true would simply be impractical. International case law has indeed recognised that journalists contributing to public debates on topics of general interest have the right to a certain degree of exaggeration or even provocation.
Enacting a legal duty of truth would provide public authorities with a powerful instrument to control journalistic activities: allowing public officials to decide what counts as truth is tantamount to accepting that the forces in power have a right to silence critical voices. Journalists or human rights defenders could be sent to prison on accusations of disseminating untrue statements about alleged wrongdoings by the government. Activists that use purposely misleading information to raise awareness through provocative stunts, such as the Yes Men, or satirical publications, such as The Onion or The New Yorker’s Borowitz Report, would be destined to a similar fate.
Like ‘hate speech’ or ‘terrorism’, the notion of “fake news” is too vague to prevent subjective and arbitrary interpretation. It would not be much reassurance to have private entities like Facebook making these assessments instead of public authorities – not to mention that these businesses may be subject to the influence of non-democratic governments in certain countries where they operate.
Social media and the news
Even if self-regulation and proportionate legislation might be sufficient to deal with cases of false information in the media, isn’t it true that social media platforms create echo chambers that can amplify the noise of fake news to unprecedented volumes? People who use online platforms as their main sources of news are surrounded by stories and rumours disseminated by others who share similar views to them. They lose contact with the vast diversity of opinions and ideas that exist in our complex societies, and they may even lose touch with good old-fashioned, factual reality.
One might first observe that the traditional media sphere has in itself always served as an echo chamber, as mainstream media companies routinely focus on the same few stories of the day. One might also note that the digital age has rendered the verification of facts easier than it ever was: manipulation of digital material can be investigated, and the Internet provides the infrastructure for checking sources and facts. Websites like Snopes or Hoaxbuster even specialise in debunking rumours. One must also acknowledge that social media platforms are incredibly efficient enablers of the individual right to freedom of expression.
But as J. Simon recently wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review: ‘Of course, there are many, many benefits to our current media environment. There is more news and information available more easily than at any time in human history. But there are downsides as well. Not only is it impossible to analyse and process the information, but trying to do so produces collective stress. Scientists studying human behaviour artificially create high-stress situations by bombarding their subjects with information. This environment is now replicated in our daily lives.’
Various ideas are being put forward to address social media platforms’ power over the visibility of media content and their influence on public debates. Tech giants are looking into new ways to verify information: relying on third-party organisations to identify “fake news” and refusing to serve advertising revenue to sources of misinformation. Influential media scholars also encourage social media companies to hire editors, not to produce media content, but, in the words of Jeff Jarvis, ‘to bring a sense of public responsibility to their companies and products.’
These proposals are certainly worthy of consideration, but times of uncertainty require caution: any attempt to deal with the influence of social media on the distribution of information and on public debates should be approached as a learning process for all parties involved. As discussed in our previous blog, this learning process is essential for democratic societies. As a collective experience, these initiatives should be open, participatory and transparent. All stakeholders – media companies, journalists, civil society, academia, and social media giants – should collaborate on projects to build a better understanding of how to address the impact of social media giants on civic space, media pluralism and the diversity of content. Discussions must also focus on the development of appropriate remedies, including solutions to flawed algorithmic processes, to help audiences to spot possible misinformation and ensure users’ exposure to a real diversity of opinions and ideas.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Italian PM Matteo Renzi resigns after referendum defeat
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has formally resigned, three days after losing a key referendum on constitutional reform.
Mr Renzi had intended to stand down from office immediately after his defeat on Sunday, but agreed to delay his resignation after a personal plea from Italian President Sergio Mattarella.
In a statement, Mr Mattarella's office said that Mr Renzi has been asked to stay on as caretaker prime minister while consultations are held with political parties.
Following the consultations, which will begin on Thursday evening, Mr Mattarella is widely expected to ask a member of Mr Renzi's cabinet, or a politician from his Democratic Party, to try to form a new government.
Elections are due in 2018, but many politicians are calling for them to be held earlier.
Before formally tendering his resignation to the president, Mr Renzi chaired a meeting of the executive of his centre-left Democratic Party (PD).
Referencing the clamour for early elections, he said: "We are not afraid of anything or anybody, if other parties want to go to the polls ... the PD is not afraid of democracy or elections."
Mr Renzi had intended to stand down from office immediately after his defeat on Sunday, but agreed to delay his resignation after a personal plea from Italian President Sergio Mattarella.
In a statement, Mr Mattarella's office said that Mr Renzi has been asked to stay on as caretaker prime minister while consultations are held with political parties.
Following the consultations, which will begin on Thursday evening, Mr Mattarella is widely expected to ask a member of Mr Renzi's cabinet, or a politician from his Democratic Party, to try to form a new government.
Elections are due in 2018, but many politicians are calling for them to be held earlier.
Before formally tendering his resignation to the president, Mr Renzi chaired a meeting of the executive of his centre-left Democratic Party (PD).
Referencing the clamour for early elections, he said: "We are not afraid of anything or anybody, if other parties want to go to the polls ... the PD is not afraid of democracy or elections."
British hostage John Cantlie appears in new IS propaganda video
A British hostage has appeared in a new Islamic State propaganda video said to have been recorded in the Iraqi city of Mosul, which coalition forces are currently trying to retake from militants.
John Cantlie, a journalist who was captured in Syria in 2012, is pictured looking thin in the face in the footage released by the IS-linked Amaq news agency.
In the video, he talks about damage to the infrastructure in Mosul he says coalition attacks have caused.
Mr Cantlie begins by saying that Mosul, which used to have five bridges across the Tigris River, now has only one bridge linking east and west.
He claims coalition forces "took it upon themselves to systematically destroy" the other four, causing "pandemonium".
Mr Cantlie says the coalition's aim is to stop the "Mujahideen moving freely within Mosul".
But he claims the wrong target has been chosen.
"There are no Mujahideen here," he says. "Mujahideen are fighting on the frontlines, many kilometres (away)."
He says ordinary people are being badly affected and "stopped in their tracks by the bombs that have destroyed these bridges".
Later in the video, Mr Cantlie moves to another location. Behind him are people filling containers with water from a standpipe.
"Since the coalition began dropping bombs in earnest on this city, water is now a big problem," he says.
Mr Cantlie has fronted a series of videos for IS during his time in captivity.
As this latest one was released, the commander of the US-led coalition said its battle against IS in Mosul could take another two months.
The attempt to recapture Mosul from IS is the biggest battle in Iraq since the US-led invasion of 2003.
John Cantlie, a journalist who was captured in Syria in 2012, is pictured looking thin in the face in the footage released by the IS-linked Amaq news agency.
In the video, he talks about damage to the infrastructure in Mosul he says coalition attacks have caused.
Mr Cantlie begins by saying that Mosul, which used to have five bridges across the Tigris River, now has only one bridge linking east and west.
He claims coalition forces "took it upon themselves to systematically destroy" the other four, causing "pandemonium".
Mr Cantlie says the coalition's aim is to stop the "Mujahideen moving freely within Mosul".
But he claims the wrong target has been chosen.
"There are no Mujahideen here," he says. "Mujahideen are fighting on the frontlines, many kilometres (away)."
He says ordinary people are being badly affected and "stopped in their tracks by the bombs that have destroyed these bridges".
Later in the video, Mr Cantlie moves to another location. Behind him are people filling containers with water from a standpipe.
"Since the coalition began dropping bombs in earnest on this city, water is now a big problem," he says.
Mr Cantlie has fronted a series of videos for IS during his time in captivity.
As this latest one was released, the commander of the US-led coalition said its battle against IS in Mosul could take another two months.
The attempt to recapture Mosul from IS is the biggest battle in Iraq since the US-led invasion of 2003.
Bashar al-Assad: Aleppo victory will be a 'huge step'
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said a victory for his army in the second city of Aleppo would be a "huge step" towards ending the country's devastating five-year civil war.
Defeating rebels in Aleppo, however, would not put an end to Syria's conflict, Assad said in an interview with Syrian daily Al-Watan to be published on Thursday, an early copy of which was seen by AFP news agency.
"It's true that Aleppo will be a win for us, but let's be realistic - it won't mean the end of the war in Syria," Assad said. "But it will be a huge step towards this end."
Since it began in March 2011, the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people, made more than half of Syrians homeless, and created the world's worst refugee crisis.
Government forces scored an important victory on Wednesday when the rebels retreated from the Old City, the historic heart of Aleppo.
They extended their advances later in the day, seizing the Bab al-Nayrab, Al-Maadi and Salhin neighbourhoods, according to state media.
More neighbourhoods were expected to fall soon, but rebels were fighting ferociously.
The Syrian Civil Defence, a first responder group also known as the White Helmets, said air strikes and shelling on Wednesday killed 61 people in what's left of the rebel-held east of the city.
Syria state television reported late on Wednesday that rebel shelling killed 14 civilians and wounded 70 others, some critically, targeting government-held districts in west Aleppo.
Defeating rebels in Aleppo, however, would not put an end to Syria's conflict, Assad said in an interview with Syrian daily Al-Watan to be published on Thursday, an early copy of which was seen by AFP news agency.
"It's true that Aleppo will be a win for us, but let's be realistic - it won't mean the end of the war in Syria," Assad said. "But it will be a huge step towards this end."
Since it began in March 2011, the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people, made more than half of Syrians homeless, and created the world's worst refugee crisis.
Government forces scored an important victory on Wednesday when the rebels retreated from the Old City, the historic heart of Aleppo.
They extended their advances later in the day, seizing the Bab al-Nayrab, Al-Maadi and Salhin neighbourhoods, according to state media.
More neighbourhoods were expected to fall soon, but rebels were fighting ferociously.
The Syrian Civil Defence, a first responder group also known as the White Helmets, said air strikes and shelling on Wednesday killed 61 people in what's left of the rebel-held east of the city.
Syria state television reported late on Wednesday that rebel shelling killed 14 civilians and wounded 70 others, some critically, targeting government-held districts in west Aleppo.
MPs back Article 50 timetable as Brexit court case ends
MPs have voted in favour of the Government's timetable to trigger the formal process for leaving the European Union by March 2017, as long as the Prime Minister reveals her plan for Brexit.
The symbolic motion, which is not legally binding, was approved by 448 votes to 75 - a majority of 373.
Faced with a revolt by up to 40 Conservative MPs, Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday bowed to pressure and backed a Labour motion which said she should publish a plan before triggering Article 50.
In return, most of the rebels and Labour backed a compromise Government amendment to support Mrs May's pledge to invoke Article 50 to start Brexit before 31 March 2017.
MPs held two votes, with the first to add the Government amendment to the original Labour motion approved by 461 votes to 89, majority 372.
This was opposed by 23 Labour MPs and one Conservative in the form of Mr Clarke.
Mr Clarke was the sole Conservative to vote against the motion.
Labour rebels included Ben Bradshaw, David Lammy and former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie.
The Government's amendment was backed by some 150 Labour MPs.
Iain Duncan Smith, who campaigned extensively for Brexit, told Sky News that Labour's motion has created a "historic moment" in Parliament.
After the first vote, the former Tory leader said: "This is the first time ever that a majority of parliamentarians have actually voted to leave the European Union."
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer told Sky News that the Brexit plan needs to include answers to key questions such as whether the Government is aiming to be in the customs union, and what its position on the single market is.
"We need Parliament to be able to do its job in terms of scrutiny," the Labour MP said.
Sir Keir denied that Labour is out to frustrate the process of leaving the European Union - and said such allegations were "unhelpful".
The vote followed a day of debate in which Brexit Secretary David Davis promised MPs that the Government will set out its "strategic plans" before triggering the formal process to withdraw the UK from the EU, but said it will not reveal anything which might "jeopardise our negotiating position".
Mr Davis faced calls from Opposition MPs and some Conservative backbenchers for the plan to be detailed enough to be subject to rigorous scrutiny in the Commons before the planned launch of negotiations under Article 50.
During the debate, Mr Clarke said Mrs May's promise to reveal her plan was "extremely vague", and called for it to be set out in detail in a white paper for publication before Article 50 is invoked.
But Mr Davis insisted the Government must retain "room for manoeuvre" to respond with "a high degree of agility and speed" to developments in extremely complex negotiations expected to last up to two years.
The debate came as the Government was embroiled in day three of its Brexit battle at the Supreme Court.
The symbolic motion, which is not legally binding, was approved by 448 votes to 75 - a majority of 373.
Faced with a revolt by up to 40 Conservative MPs, Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday bowed to pressure and backed a Labour motion which said she should publish a plan before triggering Article 50.
In return, most of the rebels and Labour backed a compromise Government amendment to support Mrs May's pledge to invoke Article 50 to start Brexit before 31 March 2017.
MPs held two votes, with the first to add the Government amendment to the original Labour motion approved by 461 votes to 89, majority 372.
This was opposed by 23 Labour MPs and one Conservative in the form of Mr Clarke.
Mr Clarke was the sole Conservative to vote against the motion.
Labour rebels included Ben Bradshaw, David Lammy and former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie.
The Government's amendment was backed by some 150 Labour MPs.
Iain Duncan Smith, who campaigned extensively for Brexit, told Sky News that Labour's motion has created a "historic moment" in Parliament.
After the first vote, the former Tory leader said: "This is the first time ever that a majority of parliamentarians have actually voted to leave the European Union."
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer told Sky News that the Brexit plan needs to include answers to key questions such as whether the Government is aiming to be in the customs union, and what its position on the single market is.
"We need Parliament to be able to do its job in terms of scrutiny," the Labour MP said.
Sir Keir denied that Labour is out to frustrate the process of leaving the European Union - and said such allegations were "unhelpful".
The vote followed a day of debate in which Brexit Secretary David Davis promised MPs that the Government will set out its "strategic plans" before triggering the formal process to withdraw the UK from the EU, but said it will not reveal anything which might "jeopardise our negotiating position".
Mr Davis faced calls from Opposition MPs and some Conservative backbenchers for the plan to be detailed enough to be subject to rigorous scrutiny in the Commons before the planned launch of negotiations under Article 50.
During the debate, Mr Clarke said Mrs May's promise to reveal her plan was "extremely vague", and called for it to be set out in detail in a white paper for publication before Article 50 is invoked.
But Mr Davis insisted the Government must retain "room for manoeuvre" to respond with "a high degree of agility and speed" to developments in extremely complex negotiations expected to last up to two years.
The debate came as the Government was embroiled in day three of its Brexit battle at the Supreme Court.
Iraqi army mistakenly bombs civilians in ISIL-held city
At least 52 people have been killed when air strikes by Iraqi forces mistakenly targeted civilians gathering in the ISIL-held western city of al-Qaim, military officials told Al Jazeera.
Dozens of other people reportedly waiting for their salaries outside an exchange facility and a livestock market were also wounded in Wednesday's air raid.
Mohammed al-Karbouli, an Iraqi member of parliament in Anbar province, said in an official statement on his Facebook page it was not the first time civilians have been bombed by the Iraqi air force.
"We demand the government to establish an investigation commission to find out who is behind these repeated accidents of killing civilians, lately in al-Qaim city," Karbouli said.
"To repeat the mistakes of bombing civilians is to distort the reputation of our troops."
He also said the incidents raised questions on the validity of the intelligence the army is using in targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.
"This gives an opportunity to the terrorist organisation of promoting information through their media that harms our forces," Karbouli said.
Amaq, the media arm of ISIL, reported on the raid saying at least 60 civilians were killed by Iraqi warplanes.
Dozens of other people reportedly waiting for their salaries outside an exchange facility and a livestock market were also wounded in Wednesday's air raid.
Mohammed al-Karbouli, an Iraqi member of parliament in Anbar province, said in an official statement on his Facebook page it was not the first time civilians have been bombed by the Iraqi air force.
"We demand the government to establish an investigation commission to find out who is behind these repeated accidents of killing civilians, lately in al-Qaim city," Karbouli said.
"To repeat the mistakes of bombing civilians is to distort the reputation of our troops."
He also said the incidents raised questions on the validity of the intelligence the army is using in targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.
"This gives an opportunity to the terrorist organisation of promoting information through their media that harms our forces," Karbouli said.
Amaq, the media arm of ISIL, reported on the raid saying at least 60 civilians were killed by Iraqi warplanes.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
When a rogue faction of Turkey’s military moved to seize control of the country on the night of July 15, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was on vacation in the Mediterranean city of Marmaris. Alerted to the coup attempt, he escaped his hotel just ahead of commandos sent to capture or possibly kill him, clinging to power by a thread. Yet in response he flew not to the capital, Ankara, where warplanes were bombing the parliament building, but to Istanbul, where he had come of age and begun his career in politics, and is still remembered as the mayor who brought running water to the city’s slums. The capital was slightly closer and contained the levers of power that the putschists scrambled to control. But Erdogan placed his bet on the people who had known him longest—and who he knew would fight for him.
For much of that night, doubt clouded the one thing that had been clear for close to 14 years in Turkey: who was in charge. A turning point came when Erdogan—unable to address the public on TV stations commandeered by coup plotters—connected to a private Turkish newscaster over the iPhone app FaceTime. As the anchor held her phone up to the camera, the President urged his supporters to take to the streets. It was after midnight. In the hours that followed, more than 265 people would be killed, but by dawn, troops participating in the coup were fleeing. Later that day, a triumphant Erdogan appeared before throngs in Istanbul, calling for prosecution of the plotters. “We want execution!” the crowd chanted back. The President had emerged from his near-death experience stronger than ever—and ever more determined to tighten his grip on power.
Watershed moments have not been scarce in the Middle East lately, but in recent decades it has been rare for one to take place in Istanbul, the city that reigned over the entire region for 400 years. The sultans of the Ottoman Empire ruled from palaces overlooking the Bosporus Strait, but when their empire collapsed after World War I, what followed was not royal drama but process—the methodical construction of what would replace empires in organizing the world: a nation-state. The new
Republic of Turkey, founded by the indomitable Kemal Ataturk, was democratic and oriented to the West, which in the early years of the Cold War made it the easternmost member of NATO. And the hope ardently voiced by visiting U.S. diplomats—and by the Turkish generals who repeatedly succeeded in deposing elected governments deemed too religious or unpredictable—was that it would inspire secular, democratic imitators in nearby lands.
It never did. Not even, as it turned out, in Turkey. Erdogan, 62, had survived, and with him, his grip on power. In the neighborhood around Erdogan’s house, one group pushed through the crowd, carrying the Turkish flag—the banner of what surveys count as one of the most nationalistic nations on earth—and chanting “Allahu akbar!” or “God is great!” “We believe,” said Ayse Kol, 20, on a corner two blocks from the President’s home, “that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a world leader.”
He is that, if only by dint of how much of the world gathers around him, awaiting his decisions. The strands of crises from both Europe and Asia now collide in Turkey. The European Union has all but outsourced its refugee crisis to Erdogan and, with it, the future of Europe’s own elected leaders, if not the E.U. itself. The democratic leaders of Western Europe now implore and bargain with the Turkish autocrat to cease the flow of Syrian refugees and other migrants into a continent whose politics is increasingly defined by backlash to outsiders. At the same time, Erdogan has inserted Turkey directly into the wars raging on its borders—sending troops into Iraq, whether they are welcome or not, in the assault on ISIS-held Mosul, and crossing the border into Syria’s inferno. In both countries, Turkey’s goal is both to suppress the radical extremists of ISIS—the jihadists who have repeatedly drawn blood on Turkish soil—and also to check the military might of Kurdish guerrillas who are fighting ISIS within Syria even as their brothers battle the state inside Turkey.
And just as authoritarianism surges back onto the world stage, Erdogan shows all the signs of a strongman in full. He has company. To the north lies Russia, the massive threat that Turkey has mistrusted since the days of competing empire, through the Cold War to the chilly equilibrium Erdogan now maintains with Vladimir Putin. The Turkish leader clashed with President Obama, but now Erdogan has welcomed the election of a fellow populist in Donald Trump. The President-elect’s first conversation with the Turkish leader, however, made news for Trump’s raising his own business interests in Turkey, quoting his business partner to Erdogan as “your great admirer.” In a speech in Ankara on Nov. 9, Erdogan said Trump’s election would bring “a new era” in U.S.-Turkey relations.
For much of that night, doubt clouded the one thing that had been clear for close to 14 years in Turkey: who was in charge. A turning point came when Erdogan—unable to address the public on TV stations commandeered by coup plotters—connected to a private Turkish newscaster over the iPhone app FaceTime. As the anchor held her phone up to the camera, the President urged his supporters to take to the streets. It was after midnight. In the hours that followed, more than 265 people would be killed, but by dawn, troops participating in the coup were fleeing. Later that day, a triumphant Erdogan appeared before throngs in Istanbul, calling for prosecution of the plotters. “We want execution!” the crowd chanted back. The President had emerged from his near-death experience stronger than ever—and ever more determined to tighten his grip on power.
Watershed moments have not been scarce in the Middle East lately, but in recent decades it has been rare for one to take place in Istanbul, the city that reigned over the entire region for 400 years. The sultans of the Ottoman Empire ruled from palaces overlooking the Bosporus Strait, but when their empire collapsed after World War I, what followed was not royal drama but process—the methodical construction of what would replace empires in organizing the world: a nation-state. The new
Republic of Turkey, founded by the indomitable Kemal Ataturk, was democratic and oriented to the West, which in the early years of the Cold War made it the easternmost member of NATO. And the hope ardently voiced by visiting U.S. diplomats—and by the Turkish generals who repeatedly succeeded in deposing elected governments deemed too religious or unpredictable—was that it would inspire secular, democratic imitators in nearby lands.
It never did. Not even, as it turned out, in Turkey. Erdogan, 62, had survived, and with him, his grip on power. In the neighborhood around Erdogan’s house, one group pushed through the crowd, carrying the Turkish flag—the banner of what surveys count as one of the most nationalistic nations on earth—and chanting “Allahu akbar!” or “God is great!” “We believe,” said Ayse Kol, 20, on a corner two blocks from the President’s home, “that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a world leader.”
He is that, if only by dint of how much of the world gathers around him, awaiting his decisions. The strands of crises from both Europe and Asia now collide in Turkey. The European Union has all but outsourced its refugee crisis to Erdogan and, with it, the future of Europe’s own elected leaders, if not the E.U. itself. The democratic leaders of Western Europe now implore and bargain with the Turkish autocrat to cease the flow of Syrian refugees and other migrants into a continent whose politics is increasingly defined by backlash to outsiders. At the same time, Erdogan has inserted Turkey directly into the wars raging on its borders—sending troops into Iraq, whether they are welcome or not, in the assault on ISIS-held Mosul, and crossing the border into Syria’s inferno. In both countries, Turkey’s goal is both to suppress the radical extremists of ISIS—the jihadists who have repeatedly drawn blood on Turkish soil—and also to check the military might of Kurdish guerrillas who are fighting ISIS within Syria even as their brothers battle the state inside Turkey.
And just as authoritarianism surges back onto the world stage, Erdogan shows all the signs of a strongman in full. He has company. To the north lies Russia, the massive threat that Turkey has mistrusted since the days of competing empire, through the Cold War to the chilly equilibrium Erdogan now maintains with Vladimir Putin. The Turkish leader clashed with President Obama, but now Erdogan has welcomed the election of a fellow populist in Donald Trump. The President-elect’s first conversation with the Turkish leader, however, made news for Trump’s raising his own business interests in Turkey, quoting his business partner to Erdogan as “your great admirer.” In a speech in Ankara on Nov. 9, Erdogan said Trump’s election would bring “a new era” in U.S.-Turkey relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)