NEW YORK — The Biden administration has expressed an interest in reinvigorating U.S.-Canada relations following a virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau early February. The meeting, which was the first between the then newly-inaugurated president and a foreign head of state, focused on each country’s response to COVID-19, economic cooperation during the pandemic and moving forward, as well as other shared interests among the two close allies. As the White House begins forming its foreign policy objectives and global leadership, it is essential to consider the current state of U.S.-Canada relations and where the two countries may be headed moving forward.

“Generally in world politics, there are no permanent friends, but permanent interests. But, there is supposed to be a special exception for some countries,” said Brian Bow, director at the Center for the Study of Security and Development at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, in an exclusive interview with Glimpse from the Globe. “It is not unique to the U.S.-Canada relationship, but Canada has a special relationship with the U.S. and Canadians were happy with that in the first half of the Cold War.”

When former President Richard Nixon reformed the United States’ economic policy in 1971, which is often referred to as the “Nixon Shock,” along with leaving the Gold Standard, Nixon began putting tariffs on products leaving the United States.

“Most countries reacted with hostility, but no one was more surprised than the Canadians,” Bow said. “They assumed it was a mistake that they weren’t on the list of countries that wouldn’t need to pay these surcharges.”

Following the change invoked by Nixon in U.S. international economic foreign policy, Canada had to do some “soul-searching,” as Bow said. Canada began realizing that they needed to have other partners rather than just entirely relying on the United States. Canada tried to diversify its economic partners, but ultimately failed, as penetrating new markets, especially in Asia, can be pricey and full of uncertainty. As a result, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1989, signaling that economic relations would return to normal. This agreement; which eliminated all tariffs on trade, was a precursor to NAFTA, which was then enacted in 1994. 

“Even since then, there have been these recurring periods where Canada hasn’t liked the direction the U.S. has been going in,” Bow said. “The controversy with the Bush administration over the war in Iraq in 2003 was a big one, and the election of the Trump administration in 2016 was another one.”

Bow believes that the current administration in Ottawa is better aligned with President Biden than it was with Trump. That said, he believes there is a possibility of Trump-like rhetoric making its way into Canadian politics in the future. 

“When I was a teenager in Canada, stylish clothing would make its way about five years after it appeared in America,” Bow said. “The same thing can happen with policies and parties in Canada trying on Trump-style rhetoric.” 

The possibility of conservative politicians in Canada imitating the populist and often provocative language of Trump will certainly impact relations between the two neighbors. While this style of rhetoric is not prominent in Canada yet, Canadians, including Bow, are worried this could occur in the future. The next federal election in Canada could see a tight race between liberals and conservatives. Current polls show Prime Minister Trudeau with a narrow five-point lead, but Biden’s win may have an effect on Canadian elections. Many politically engaged Canadians are happy that the Biden administration will be holding office for the next four years; a recent poll showed that four in five Canadians hoped for a Biden win. 

Canadians are excited and hopeful about the Biden administration’s position on various issues, namely climate change. Undoubtedly, the Biden administration is taking the threat of climate change more seriously than the previous administration. Already, Biden has appointed former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, a new position within the cabinet. Additionally, the U.S., as of February 19, has rejoined the Paris Agreement with the international goal of keeping global warming below two degrees celsius, needed to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. Canada is also a signatory of this agreement and has fiercely advocated for its importance. Most recently, on February 25th, Biden and Treadau announced that they would be coming together to reach their goal of net zero emissions by 2050 with their “U.S.-Canada Partnership Roadmap.” 

The Partnership works to align the goals and climate policies of each country so that they can cooperate more efficiently. In addition to aligning policies, the plan hopes to create more policies and projects that will promote job growth, address inequality and combat the effects of climate change. Advocating for the creation of clean-energy infrastructure and ensuring that cross-border energy is renewable is at the core of this partnership. Biden and Trudeau also committed to having polluters take responsibility for their damages.

In addition to the announcement of the plan, Trudeau said that “U.S. leadership has been sorely missed over the past years… [it is]nice when the Americans are not pulling out all references to climate change and instead adding them.” 

While both countries must implement long-term goals for climate change to protect our planet, the issue of COVID-19 has taken precedent this past year as over 500,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. alone as of February 2021. 

During the initial meeting between Biden and Trudeau, COVID-19 was the primary focus. Both leaders agreed that cooperation in combating the virus was essential. Canada has struggled to vaccinate its population due to supplies being bought up by larger economies like the United States and United Kingdom. As part of his statement, Trudeau raised the idea of buying vaccines produced in the United States. Canada is currently receiving vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna plants in Europe and Biden’s team reportedly said that it was the administration’s priority to “ensure every American is vaccinated.” 

It is unlikely, however, that the United States would sell vaccines produced domestically to Canada until late summer at the earliest. As of February 20th, 2021, only 2.43% of Canadians had received at least one dose of the vaccine compared to about 14% of the U.S. population. 

Despite the challenges associated with vaccine distribution, the United States and Canada have committed to keeping trade as open as possible. The Prime Minister’s office emphasized “the importance of avoiding measures that may constrain the critical trade and supply-chain security between our countries” in a public statement. Economically, it is in the best interest of both nations to keep borders open and encourage trade to avoid unemployment and increase GDP.   

Although Canadian and U.S. interests are more aligned than in previous years, on his first day in office, Biden signed an executive order to end the expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project supported by the Government of Alberta, a provincial government of Canada. The Keystone XL pipeline, which began planning and construction in 2008, travels from Canada through Texas. The pipeline, which began operating in 2010, was scheduled for an expansion to be able to carry even more oil. Despite the pipeline providing economic benefits to both countries, Biden canceled the project in order to protect the environment and indigenous communities. A January statement from the White House said that “the President acknowledged Prime Minister Trudeau’s disappointment regarding the decision to rescind the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.” 

Bow said that the pipeline will hurt domestic relations between the local governments and the federal government in Canada, rather than hurting diplomatic relations between Ottawa and Washington. Given that Trudeau is substantially worried about political support in his country, this may be why he showed disdain for the cancellation of the project. 

“The prairie provinces who are the major oil exporters in Canada are the ones who really desperately wanted Keystone to go through, and people in other parts of Canada don’t really care that much about it,” Bow said. “There are real differences between Canadians on those issues.” 

While the Trudeau administration did not express as much distress about the cancellation of the project, in a statement released by the Government of Alberta, Premier Jason Kenney expressed his disturbance with Biden’s actions to cancel the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. He highlighted the 2,000 jobs that would be lost due to the cancellation of the project. The statement also said, “That’s not how you treat a friend and ally.”

Even though some of the provincial governments may not support President Biden, there is no reason to believe that the Trudeau administration, which will be in office for at least the majority of Biden’s stay in the White House, will become hostile with the U.S. over this issue, especially as, since the cancellation of the project, Trudeau and Biden have already begun working on several projects together. 

The future of U.S.-Canada relations looks hopeful as the two countries are already working together to tackle global issues such as climate change and COVID-19. However, the  relationship between the two countries can change depending on the issues at hand and the administration holding office. 

With the popularity of Trumpism in the United States and growing support of populism in Canada, both countries could experience major political shifts once the two leaders are up for re-election. However, until then, the neighbors will most likely continue to work cooperatively together and advance the two countries’ unique historical, cultural and geographical relationship.

The post Restoring the U.S.-Canada Friendship appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

A quick skim through the numbers illustrates what China claims to have accomplished. According to a BBC report, China had nearly 90 million below the poverty line in 2012, but that number was reduced to 7.2 million in 2016. President Xi’s ambitious goal of lifting 100 million people out of poverty when he assumed office in 2012, though slightly exaggerated, is in line with this sharp decline. Since 1990, China alone is responsible for eliminating more than 700 million out of poverty in 30 years, which accounts for over 60% of the global poverty population. 

The numbers sound convincing. However, as China Global Television Network (CGTN), the Chinese Communist Party’s state-owned international media network, stated in the article: “China’s fighting poverty, so why are the media so skeptical?,” the online debate surrounding China’s poverty fight is just as heated as its award ceremony.

One major critique states that China intentionally set the poverty bar too low. Critics argue that China’s adoption of the $2.30 per day threshold, which the Chinese government argues to be a modified version of the 2011 United Nations poverty line of $1.90 per day tailored to its current economic growth, is vastly outdated. China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies and, according to the World Bank’s widely quoted phrase, is “the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history.” It should then adopt the $5.50 upper-middle-income poverty line for its data to be comparable. By intentionally adopting a poverty line that does not reflect the nation’s current status, according to international analysts, China is essentially politicizing poverty to use it as a propaganda mechanism.

The income gap, another point-of-attack by critics, complicates the situation further. This significant income gap, though slowly improving over the years, is partially because of China’s rapidly developing economy. While actors buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of luxury air villa mansions, farmers can be found living in leaking houses made of “rain-weakened mud-brick walls” and muddy roof timbers before governmental relocations. Many argue that this artificial eradication of extreme poverty only means barely lifting them over the line. In a way, however, this explains the $2.30 poverty line. While individuals by no means can live on that amount in large cities like Shanghai, Beijing, or Guangdong, people in rural areas can start their own businesses through piggybacking on increased income, government loans and improved infrastructure.

There are many other criticisms related to these claims, such as arguments on how Chinese bureaucrats lie about data just to fulfill their goals, on how the central government essentially tosses out loans and grants, and on China’s inefficiency and unsustainability in the allocation of resources. However, what is more important is not what China announced to the world, but how and when China did it. These intentional choices gradually reveal how China is working to improve its reputation in the international arena and its ambitions of standing its own ground as equals to the United States.

China framed poverty alleviation to be a group effort under Chinese Community Party (CCP) tactics. Although government strategies are comprehensive and encompassing, China would not have been able to achieve this goal if not for team work. It focuses on the marriage of individual efforts of rural villagers who are experiencing poverty and urban cadres who are sent on the mission to alleviate that poverty. This internal cooperation between coastal Eastern China and sandy Western China is highlighted by mainstream CCP rhetoric, which states that poverty reduction follows the ancient proverb of “teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” (授人以鱼不如授人以渔) Reports steer any attention on specific poverty alleviation tactics to the government’s focus on regionally-tailored business and the proliferation of e-commerce, and to selfless donations by major corporations to fund basic infrastructure and education. The spirit of collectivity and collaboration is bolded and underlined.

The time of announcement is also no coincidence as the government was particular in building up a major mass media presence. Min’Ning Town, a TV series from the new mandated genre of fupinjv (poverty alleviation dramas), finished on-set shooting on October 25, 2020. It tells the real-life story of villagers from Ningxia, Gansu, which is historically one of the poorest Chinese provinces, who migrated and built a prosperous Minning Town from scratch in the 1990s. As China declared victory on November 23, the series was forced to rush its post-production to meet the deadline. First aired on January 12, on major broadcasting channels in mainland China, the series concluded itself precisely a month before the national commencement meeting. The series proved an unlikely hit with viewers, domestic and international alike, as it did not sugar-coat challenges along the way of poverty alleviation. This rough timeline for just one TV series is evident for China’s efforts in trying to prequel its official announcement and awarding ceremony and to shape its poverty reduction methods through TV series and mass media.

The framing and timing of this announcement delivers a message beyond China’s success in alleviating poverty; it is trying to offer an alternative to the U.S. hegemony. This argument is delivered in two folds.

China seeks to frame itself as collective and united while the United States becomes increasingly polarized. China’s mainstream rhetoric is juxtaposed with U.S. domestic issues. Ranging from the surge in hate crimes against Asian Americans, to increasing political polarization, to civil uproars demanding justice for victims of police violence, recent news marks a nation that is deeply divided. Therefore, China is deliberately trying to strike a contrast between its internal cooperation and the United States’ domestic problems by framing this success in alleviating poverty as the people’s group effort.

China’s ability to hold massive in-person gatherings is also indirectly mocking the U.S. incompetency in managing the pandemic. When the rest of the world is still struggling through the pandemic, China, hit first and hard by COVID, is able to solve the poverty crisis that has troubled the world for decades.

The World Bank concludes that “[they’re] pretty sure China’s eradication of absolute poverty in rural areas has been successful,” and, even as a first step, China has shown the world how serious it is when dealing with collective welfare of the country. But, undeniably, the alleviation of poverty is politicized and turned into a major propaganda campaign aimed directly at the U.S. political hegemony. It should come as no surprise that it is then perceived as a threat by the U.S. government since its economy is barely, if at all, recovering from the COVID hit.

The post Did China Eradicate Poverty? Depends On Who You Ask appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Countries confident in each other’s COVID-19 coping capabilities have established bilateral corridors, or “travel bubbles” with each other, where the usual 14-day quarantine is often waived. The latest duo to attempt this is Singapore and Hong Kong, in what both regions claim is the “world’s first” reciprocal travel bubble to be launched on November 22. The implications are critical, not just for the travel industry, but for regional economics, politics and global recovery.

Despite their statements, Hong Kong and Singapore’s travel bubble is not the first to emerge from the pandemic. The term was first popularized back in May, when the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia opened their borders to each other. Citizens from the three countries could travel freely across borders, although those entering from countries other than the three neighboring Baltic states were required to enter into a 14-day quarantine. Other countries in the European Union soon followed by forming tentative bubbles of their own, though flare-ups of the virus later in the summer eventually led to the reversal of this decision. 

Similarly, Australia and New Zealand made a lot of noise in May when they announced that they would enact a travel bubble between the two countries in September. However, Australia’s spike in local cases in October has resulted in a one-way, unreciprocated relationship: New Zealanders are allowed into Australia without mandated quarantine, but not the other way around. Even in Asia, where the virus seems more tame, tourism-reliant countries have tried to negotiate bubbles — but many without success. Others have been forced to settle for essential business travel-only bubbles with tight restrictions. 

So how will the Singapore-Hong Kong bubble be any different? First, residents of both cities are exempt from any form of quarantine in the bilateral relationship. Leisure travel is welcomed; tourists can move freely in either city without providing an itinerary. Of course, travellers must pay out of their own pocket to test negative for the virus on both ends, though the relative latitude is the first of its kind in the Asia region, signalling nascent recovery.

A relationship between both areas was an obvious choice for one another. On a local level, the stringent COVID-19 measures in both have served each city well; community cases have consistently stayed in the single digits over the past month. Geographically, their small size means there is no need for differing rules across states, unlike in Australia. The small but robust economies of both are also highly dependent on trade, finance, and tourism. As an added bonus, both are former colonies of the British Empire with a Chinese majority population. Singapore’s Transport Minister noted that aside from logistics, governments also need to be aware of citizens’ sentiments — and this shared history between Hong Kong and Singapore may help to boost citizens’ perception of the other city. 

Digging deeper, establishing such a loose bubble would require the duo to have faith in each other’s health and administrative systems, ensuring that an outbreak in one city would be reported and contained before it spread into the other’s borders. With COVID-19, such mutual trust is essential as citizen’s lives and the well-being of both economies are on the line. Singapore and Hong Kong would find it easier to trust each other with so many similarities, on top of their “long-time close and cordial co-operation on many fronts” as emphasised by the Hong Kong government. 

Larger political considerations are involved as well. Hong Kong’s borders have been largely shut since February. Opening their borders to neighboring mainland China first would make sense, but may inflame Hong Kongers in the face of rising anti-mainland sentiments. China may also be unwilling to endanger their handle on the virus as Hong Kong still has a small number of cases. Overseas, Taiwan and Japan tops the list for Hong Kongers’ most beloved travel destinations. However, making a deal with either risks irritating Beijing due to China’s tense relationship with both East Asian territories. Thus, Singapore is a safe choice to begin with. 

On the other hand, Singapore has a number of green lanes with Asian countries that only permit business travel, including China. A bubble with Hong Kong would be a practical move to eventually break into the valuable tourism market of China. Opening up to each other would alleviate economic woes, as the travel industry affects numerous sectors. If the bubble remains successful, Singapore and Hong Kong might be able to woo the big fish that is China and kick-start their economies, which are both currently in a concerning recession. 

Aside from benefiting themselves, the pair’s travel bubble sets a model for recovery in the Asia Pacific. Though it’s a small bubble that involves small places and limited amounts of cross-border travel, other Asian countries ought to take note from this landmark experimental run, with the goal of eventually opening their own travel bubbles. When that happens, Singapore and Hong Kong’s statuses as major aviation hubs would help facilitate transit fights and ramp up travel in the area. As 80% of tourists to Asia Pacific come from within the region, the resurrection of Asia’s travel industry is vital to pulling countries out of COVID-19 induced recessions. However, much remains to be said about the efficacy of the bubble, as the relationship between Singapore and Hong Kong will commence later this month.

In a pre-vaccine COVID-19 world, reopening borders is an essential first step to recovery. Business travel has somewhat resumed in Asia, though it is infrequent and restricted. Singapore and Hong Kong’s deal for leisure travel is an unprecedented and bold move that indicates Asia’s head start in the race to normalcy. As these Asian countries navigate bubble negotiations, they would do well to learn from this case study of cross-border relations.

The post On the Road to Recovery: The Singapore and Hong Kong Travel Bubble appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In January 2014, North Korea announced that the annual Pyongyang Marathon would be open to amateur foreign runners. (In previous years, the event was only open to elite foreign runners.) Pyongyang seemed to be finally opening up to the rest of the world by hosting a public sporting event—a potentially fun and sportsmanlike way for foreigners to see North Korea. Even Americans, North Koreans’ greatest enemies, were allowed to register in a seemingly apolitical gesture. There were, of course, restrictions for all foreign runners, including a three-hour time limit for the full marathon and mandatory lodging at state-sanctioned hotels. To get into the marathon, runners had to register via a North Korean tour agency like the China-based Koryo Tours, a standard procedure for all tourists traveling to North Korea. The 2014 event was quite successful by North Korean standards: over 300 participants ran the 42-kilometer course through the nation’s capital. 

The anticipation for the 2015 marathon on April 12 was even higher. The North Korean government opened up several hundred spots in the race for foreigners and even disseminated a bizarre promotional video to a remixed version of A-Ha!’s Take On Me. Over 400 tourists registered for the race through Koryo Tours alone. That is, until the North Korean authorities banned foreigners from entering the country due to the Ebola scare. Beginning in October 2014, North Korea restricted its borders and quarantined all foreigners for 21 days. The race was not exempt from these constraints and all foreigners were banned from joining.

According to North Korean propaganda, Ebola is a deadly virus created by the US military to promote its interests abroad and undermine North Korea. With this mindset, it comes as no surprise that North Korea set up harsh restrictions against all foreigners, including those from countries with no exposure to the virus. In early March, the government finally lifted the travel ban and allowed foreigners to continue with their marathon tourism plans. However, the damage was already done. Although some runners had expected stumbling blocks during the registration process and adopted a “go with the flow” attitude, other runners canceled their reservations and race registrations. One tour group, Uri Tours, extended their registration deadline to March 20, but flights out of both Shanghai and Beijing were almost completely full. The only available flights were through Air Koryo, a poorly rated North Korean airline. Tour companies, marathon runners and spectators all got the short end of the stick because of North Korea’s politicized reaction to the Ebola virus. Ultimately, Pyongyang was able to recover from the drama; by April 12, the race had enough registered foreign runners (650) to set a record for its short history.

However, the North Korean government has bigger problems to worry about than the success of its marque marathon. The Pyongyang Marathon fell during a sensitive time; the DPRK’s relationship with the rest of the world has been particularly rocky since February 2013 when the country launched its third nuclear test. Since then, Kim Jong Un and his government have continually threatened their opponents with military force. The 2014 UN report on human rights abuses in the country added even more pressure; in October and November, the UN repeatedly recommended that the North Korean leadership be referred to the International Criminal Court. As expected, the government reacted negatively to these accusations against its supreme leader, calling the report “political fraud.” Furthermore, in March, the US and South Korean participated in joint military exercises, a practice that always elicits an angered response from the North Korean leadership. The military exercises are a display of the heavy military presence at the southern end of the DMZ and a reminder of exactly what North Korea is up against. Unfortunately, the military exercises sparked violent retribution. In March, a South Korean man attacked the US Ambassador to South Korea, Mark Lipper, claiming to be fighting for North-South reunification. The North Korean government called it “just punishment for US warmongers.” North Korea used similar language during the Sony hacks that involved the film “The Interview.”

The Pyongyang Marathon might have been a success for the country’s tourism industry, and even a sign of a thawing relationship; however, the race did not reveal any fundamental changes in the North Korean regime. It remains authoritarian and dependent on the propagation of a perceived conflict with the US and its allies to preserve domestic stability.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Mind Games at the Pyongyang Marathon appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

A former communications technician for the Islamic State (IS) has written an op-ed lamenting his participation in IS and, more importantly, claiming Turkey to be an ally to the terrorist organization. Sherko Omar (his pseudonym for Newsweek) said he became disillusioned, eager to abscond from the group after experiencing their unchecked brutality in the battlefield—a sharp contrast to the kindness they showed him when he arrived at their border camp on the way to fight the tyrannical Assad Regime.

“At the start, we thought that to leave would be a betrayal because the IS men at the camp gave us food, clothes and whatever else we needed. We also thought that if they were fighting against the regime of Syria then we should just join them to save the Syrians.”

He soon felt trapped and afraid to escape. It wasn’t until he surrendered himself to the National Army of Syrian Kurdistan and proved himself unaffiliated with the violence that he was freed from prison and disassociated with IS. Now, his testimony might prove useful for uncovering Turkish policy towards IS. Kobane, the territory of a decisive battle between IS and its international opposition, might just be a microcosm of a large strategy at play. Omar reflected on his experience accompanying members of the organization along the Turkish border:

“IS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks…while we tried to cross the Ceylanpinar border post, the Turkish soldiers’ watchtower light spotted us. The commander quickly told us to stay calm, stay in position and not to look at the light. He talked on the radio in Turkish again and we stayed in our positions. Watchtower light then moved about ten minutes later and the commander ordered us to move because the watchtower light moving away from us was the signal that we could safely cross the border into Serekaniye.”

If the account is true, then it adds to the increasing pile of evidence that suggests President Recep Tayyip Erdogan might just be a master of political chicanery. The US has publicly dubbed Turkey a friend and ally in the fight against IS. However, the recent evidence seems only to buttress allegations that Erdogan actively supports IS militants. This might seem far-reaching, as it would mean Erdogan is explicitly undermining the US, a great power whose friendship adds legitimacy to an administration that many claim to be corrupt. However, even without these new revelations, there remains probable cause for the collaboration’s validity, especially considering IS and Turkey share a common enemy: the Kurds.

Kurdistan’s Workers Party (PKK) has been a force of insurrection against the Turkish government for three decades. In fact, both the US and Turkey consider the PKK an official terrorist organization. Abdullah Ocalan, the group’s imprisoned founder, issued a letter back in March 2013 declaring an end to the insurgency war—a milestone for stability after decades of strife. It signaled the start of a cease-fire, peace talks and hope that their demands for cultural rights, release of political prisoners and representation in government might be met. After the 40,000 deaths that ensued from years of conflict between the PKK and Turkish security officials, many Turks actually see the PKK as a greater threat than IS—a clear indication that, despite the peace talks, political tensions still pervade in the country. With upcoming elections, Erdogan can’t afford to alienate the Turkish majority who don’t favor aiding a terrorist group. However, peace negotiations have been derailed by oppressive legislation targeting the Kurds, government scandal, subversive claims for autonomy and most recently, the power struggle in Kobane.

During the power vacuum of the Syrian Civil War, the Kurds seized the opportunity to establish three autonomous cantons. Erdogan sees them as a direct threat since these claims to autonomy could act as a beacon of light, igniting the inherent nationalism among Turkish Kurds, who constitute the country’s largest ethnic minority, and encourage them to emulate their brothers in officially breaking apart. If they, too, carve out territory and secede from Turkey, then it would create inevitable internal conflict and challenge Erdogan’s already questionable regime.

Kobane is one of those three “autonomous cantons” and the location of a decisive battle between IS and its international adversaries. While Kobane could have been used as leverage for compromise or a vehicle for unity between the Turkish government and the PKK, the military spent the first weeks securing the border and impeding the flow of any military support or supplies into Kobane. International pressure only escalated as Turkish policy in Kobane became increasingly suspect. In fact, the US called on Turkey to not only open its borders, but also send in ground support. Their position along the border puts them in a strategic position to push back opposition with tanks and ground troops. While missile strikes impede IS from making military advancements, Turkish ground troops will be essential for driving them out. However, Prime Minister Davutoğlu publicly declined: “We don’t want our citizens to fight in Syria and we are trying to stop those who illegally cross the border.”

The US turned to airdropping supplies in order to reach the Kurdish regional authorities since Erdogan remained obstinate. For the government, the PKK is a mere extension of the PYD (Democratic Unity Party), which governs Kobane. Erdogan sensationalized the issue claiming his role in the international coalition would directly aid and abet terrorist organizations. While this does hold a degree of truth – many radical groups have indeed joined the anti-IS coalition – Erdogan’s rhetoric conflates the PKK and PYD for political convenience. Although Turkey is officially a part of the coalition, it seems to have its own agenda.

In fact, Turkish bombing of PKK forces in the city of Hakkari diametrically contrasts with the US’s military support for the Kurds. And, despite parliament having authorized counter-terrorist military action in both Syria and Iraq, Turkey didn’t open its borders to allow the passage of Kurdish Peshmerga forces into Kobane. Erdogan didn’t concede until 34 people were killed in violent riots protesting inaction in Kobane that erupted across Istanbul. While this might signal a slight willingness to fight IS, Turkey used this political unrest to justify increasing police power against “protestors.” However, under the political rhetoric lie new policies that allow the authorities to oppress the Kurds and Western media. Erdogan thereby strengthens his domestic grip while showing the bear minimum cooperation with international demands. Despite increasing international outcry, Erdogan, in charge of NATO’s second largest military (after the US), has yet to send in ground troops.

The Turkish President argues that Kobane is just a small part of a far greater problem—
the Assad Regime with which the PKK is allied. Therefore, not only do the autonomous Kurdish enclaves challenge Turkish control, but their foreign alliances also threaten foreign interests. Conversely, IS’s continual brutality undermines the Kurdish power. After fierce confrontation, the Kurds are less disposed to fight for autonomy and support the Syrian government. That’s a win-win for Ankara.

The real question is why would Turkey send military support?

Aiding the PKK is politically an unpopular move that might compromise Erdogan’s chances in the next election cycle. His administration is already facing scrutiny as many fear it has tyrannical dispositions. Just this past September, Turkish parliament passed amendments that strengthened Internet censorship and surveillance. Several journalists, including many Kurds, have been arrested under charges of terrorism, signaling a push against government criticism in the media. Turks have also seen a proliferation in police brutality and anti-protest legislation. In fact, the conditions have become so oppressive that Human Rights Watch published an entire report condemning Erdogan’s administration.

Thanks to IS, the Kurds are less of a threat to Turkey. Kobane, if captured, would strengthen IS’s territorial gains, only further enabling them to fight the common enemy: the Assad Regime.

These benefits, in addition to Ankara’s lack of transparency, make a clandestine relationship with IS appear entirely plausible. In September, Ankara provided no explanation for IS’s release of 49 Turkish hostages taken from the Consulate in Mosul. The situation was merely described as “a diplomatic bargain.” Does that not elevate an international terrorist organization to a legitimate political entity and interlocutor? Has Turkey exchanged inaction in Kobane for the return of hostages? Recently, an inundation of claims that Turkey supplies weapons to IS have surfaced, which could either attest to the existence of an alliance, or indicate the price Turkey paid for the return of its diplomats.

Turkey’s motivations to support IS seem politically sound and strategically beneficial. Historically, the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” tactic has effectively preserved foreign interests while maintaining domestic stability. However, if these claims and testimonials are found true, then it would provoke unimaginable international backlash. Though diplomatic relations between Turkey and the US have weakened over Ankara’s inaction in Kobane, Turkey is still a part of the anti-IS coalition and an ally. One thing is certain: if Erdogan’s ambitions for Turkey, like growing its economy to the 10th largest in the world, remain, he shouldn’t undermine the strongest Western powers leading the charge on IS.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Turkey and IS Might Share More Than a Border appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.