Monday, October 29, 2012

Individuals in International Relations


        Do individuals matter in international relations? I think the answer is clearly yes. We live in planet of over 7 billion people, and at first glance it is hard to imagine how one specific individual can make a difference and alter the course of history for the better or, sometimes, for the worse. But history is full of such people, some recent examples are Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Assad in the Middle East. It can be said that most of these individuals are political leaders, but it is not always the case as we can see with Osama bin Laden. I want to go back in history in a little bit, and focus on the aftermath of the First World War. Today marks the 89th anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish Republic (Oct. 29, 1923).  While the Turkish people as a whole won the war of independence, none of it would have been possible if not for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I want to focus on his incredible achievements in the aftermath of the Great War, and how he became, in my mind, one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century.

        The Ottoman Empire signed the treaty of Sevres following the end of WWI. The document effectively partitioned the empire. The British held the Bosphorus straits around Constantinople, Iraq and Palestine. The French seized parts of southern Anatolia, and Syria. Italy invaded southwestern Anatolia, and while western Anatolia was initially promised to the Italians, the Greeks were given Smyrna and the surrounding areas with the support of the British. The remaining lands in central Anatolia was all the empire had left. Mustafa Kemal, still a commander in the Ottoman army, was in Constantinople when the British navy sailed in and seized the imperial capital. While the Ottoman government was fully cooperating with the invading powers, Mustafa Kemal was fully aware that the Sultan was very out of touch with his people in Anatolia. He was looking for an opportunity to leave Constantinople and join forces with the Turkish people in Anatolia. He seized the chance when the British ordered the Ottoman government to investigate alleged mistreatments of the Greek people in Sinop. As inspector of the Ottoman army, he set sail to Sinop. Before long it was clear to the Ottoman government that he was not there to investigate. He was stripped of his titles, and he resigned as an army officer. He moved to Ankara, which was strategically the safest location in Anatolia. At perhaps his weakest moment, as he had no legal authority, he was backed up by other influential generals in the region such as Kazim Karabekir, whose forces vowed allegiance to Mustafa Kemal. 

         Meanwhile, the Greeks were on an ambitious military campaign, conquering eastwards from Smyrna, and getting dangerously close to Ankara. Mustafa Kemal quickly created the General Assembly, which granted him emergency powers in order to legitimize the creation of the Turkish army with Mustafa Kemal as the Commander in Chief. He improved relations with the newfound Russian state, which provided the broke Turkish rebels with weapons and supplies. The Italians were reluctant to fight, as they weren't granted the lands they were promised. They cooperated with the Turkish Assembly, along with the French. It was clear that, the Ankara government was the legitimate government in Turkey, not the Sultan in Constantinople. It was also clear that Mustafa Kemal was willing to fight the Greeks, and if necessary the British for independence.

         Initial fights proved catastrophic for the Turkish army, as it was outnumbered, outgunned, and it lacked military discipline. The Greek advance continued, as the Greek army crossed the Sakarya river and camped a few hours out of Ankara. Mustafa Kemal calmly ordered the army to retreat back, and lay low. He assumed full control of the army, while the previous battles were mainly fought by Ismet Inonu. Mustafa Kemal eventually led an offensive to drive the Greeks back. He routed the Greek army quickly as the retreat turned into chaos. As the two armies got closer to the shore, and Smyrna, the Greek army was in full panic, and the Turkish army's confidence was soaring. On September 9th, Smyrna (now called Izmir) was liberated, and Mustafa Kemal turned his attention to the straits. Initially it seemed as if a military confrontation between Mustafa Kemal and the British army was inevitable. However, by the end of the Greek defeat, popular support for the British occupation in Turkey had fallen dramatically, and the British people no longer believed in the cause. The British government did not risk another war, and decided to leave Constantinople (now called Istanbul) to the Ankara government. Treaty of Sevres was revoked, and with the treaty of Lousanne the current borders of Turkey ( with the exception of Hatay) was drawn and recognized by the international community. 

         On October 29th, Mustafa Kemal declared the newfound country a secular republic, returning back the emergency powers to the parliament. He then went on and introduced a series of drastic reforms in order to "westernize" Turkey, such as the introduction of the latin alphabet, the metric system, and the Gregorian calendar. He singe-handedly willed a nation to independence, and changed the course of a people. He did not stop there and made sure that the newfound country would be up par with other modern nations. In my opinion, he is the perfect example for why individuals matter in international relations.







Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Turkey strikes targets in Syria

This sounds like it could lead to some unchartered waters ( no pun intended with the water diary and all)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/world/europe/turkey-syria-tension/index.html?hpt=hp_t2





Let me know what you guys think.

Water Diary



On your chosen day, record your use of the following:

                Water for washing (self, clothes etc – how long in the shower etc) and miscellaneous tasks such as watering plants
                all food and drink consumed
                transportation of any kind
                any durable items purchased

Calculate your water footprint.


For this blog assignment, I calculated my water footprint after recording my daily usage of water using two different websites: the National Geographic Water Calculator, and the Water Footprint Network Water Footprint Calculator. According to the National Geographic calculator my total footprint was 1809 gallons per day, which is below the US average of 2088. My footprint consists of home (75/ 100 US average), diet (1009/ 1056 US average), energy ( 555/700 US average), and stuff (170/ 232 US average). According to the Water Footprint Network my footprint is 2035 meter-cube per capita, which is also below the US average of 2842. It is divided as food (1839), domestic (98), and industrial (98). 

Also focusing on the US average of 2842 meter-cube per capita, 20.2% of which falls outside of the country, is a lot higher than the global average, which is 1385 meter-cube per capita. This is not surprising, in my opinion, because quite frankly everything can be found in excess in the US, and a lot of everything goes to waste everyday, as opposed to certain countries in the Middle East, where water scarcity is a very big issue. In comparison to the US, Turkey has a footprint average of 1642 meter-cube per capita, 21.1% of which falls outside the country. Iraq has no statistics available. Syria has a footprint of 2107, which is surprisingly high  for a Middle Eastern country, that also reflects on the governments inefficient water policies. 15.9% is virtual water in Syria's case, as it falls outside of the country.

To be honest, I never really payed much attention to the amount of water that I've used. Even though I technically am from a Middle Eastern country, water is plenty in where I come from. I never had to think about water scarcity, at the same time I was not surprised that it was below the US average. One thing that stood out in my footprint was the overwhelming dominance of food (or diet), mainly meat. I had no idea that the water used to provide us with fresh and clean meat to eat was that much, and that it would make up for a large majority of my footprint. In the future, I will try to be more careful with my water footprint now that I am more aware of it.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Are all politics local?

The Arab Spring

        Are all politics local? I think ideally it should be. However, so much is dependent on international relations and foreign policy that it is hardly the case that all politics are local. In the United States, a strong case can be made that all politics are local. This is because of the political system the US was built on. There are local and state governments, besides the federal government, that give flexibility to politics in the United States, allowing locals to focus on issues and situations that affect them and them alone, and come up with solutions for it. This is a very elaborate and complicated system that can only work in a very orderly society. For example, it would never work in the MENA, which is anything but orderly. It can be said that it reflects the isolationist approach of the United States from the foundation of the republic until its emergence as a superpower at the end of the second world war. During that period, both the US government and people simply chose to ignore power politics and distanced themselves from Europe. The US government avoided any alliances with European countries, with the exceptions in the two world wars, and people were simply uninterested in the world around them, as they simply focused on local news. That changed, of course, with the US becoming the superpower in the world, and the US felt morally obliged to bring order and democracy to the world (and holding the USSR and communism off). However, even today in local communities people are often unaware of what is happening in the world, as they only care about local issues and politics.

        Taking a look at the MENA, the first thing that stands out is that the MENA consists of many countries with different regime types, whereas the US is a single country with one central government. The MENA has always been a magnet of chaos, and its impossible for an event that happens in one country to not affect another country in the region. One would think about the proximity of the countries at first, but indeed not all countries in the MENA are that close to one and another. It is hard to think that one event that happened in Morroco would affect people in Iraq or Syria. Yet this was the case with the Arab spring, when one revolution sparked another, and then another. This shows in reality that politics cannot be local, even though I feel like it would be much more efficient and beneficial if it were so.


photo: http://pol297thearabspring.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/arab-spring-map.jpg