• Turkey
    The Vulgar Marxism of Middle East Punditry
    For political activists in the Muslim world, it's not just the economy, stupid.
  • Turkey
    Why I’m Sick of Turkey
    Washington continues to claim Ankara as “strategic partner.” Let’s stop pretending it is.
  • Turkey
    The Case for Reshaping U.S.-Turkey Relations
    When Andrew Brunson, the North Carolinian pastor, was released from Turkish custody in October, President Donald J. Trump tweeted that he was looking forward to “good, perhaps great, relations between the United States & Turkey.” The administration then subsequently lifted sanctions it had imposed on Turkey’s ministers of interior and justice over Brunson’s detention. The Turks responded by lifting sanctions Ankara had imposed on then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and—not understanding what his portfolio entails—the Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke. The change in tone between the two governments is a welcome development, but it does not change the alternate directions the two countries are moving. Put simply, the United States and Turkey do not share interests, priorities, or common values.  The divergence between these two NATO allies reflects the changes in international politics since the end of the Cold War nearly a generation ago. Absent the common threat posed by the Soviet Union, there is no strategic rationale for the U.S.-Turkey partnership.  The sooner American policymakers understand this fact, the greater likelihood that the Washington can pursue a more realistic approach to Ankara, which means working together when possible, working around Turkey when necessary, and publicly opposing the Turks where they seek to undermine American policies and interests. Ankara wants to be a regional power in its own right and as a result, opposes the U.S.-led regional political order that helps to advance American power and interests in Turkey’s neighborhood. Turkey’s foreign policy is complicated, but Ankara’s desire to be a leader in its region and beyond has compelled the Turkish leadership to improve ties with Russia, cooperate with Iran to evade UN sanctions, and oppose the United States in Syria.  It also happens to be good politics for President Erdogan to oppose the United States given the reservoir of anti-Americanism among Turks. Although it is clear that Turkey and the United States differ in important areas, American officials have sought to narrow the divide between the governments through intensive diplomacy.  These efforts have produced few tangible results.  Consequently, it is time for the United States to try a different approach. This includes: 1.    Recognizing that the strategic relationship is a relic of the past. Going forward U.S. officials should ask for and expect less from their Turkish counterparts. This includes expectations concerning Turkey’s involvement in the fight against the Islamic State as well as Turkey’s cooperation in adhering to recent U.S. sanctions on Iran. 2.     Developing alternatives to Incirlik Air Base without abandoning it. While Incirlik was important to the fight against the Islamic State and may be important in future crises, the base has also become useful to Turkey’s leaders in domestic politics. Turkish officials have threatened to rescind permission for the anti-ISIS coalition’s use of the facility over the U.S. relationship with the YPG—a warning that plays well with nationalists. Options in Greece, Cyprus, Romania, and possibly Jordan or Iraq would insulate the United States from periodic Turkish threats to revoke American access to the base. 3.     Continuing the relationship with the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). It is true that the YPG is linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been waging a terrorist campaign against Turkey for three decades, and it is also true that the YPG and its affiliated political party do not represent all Syrian Kurds.  Still, the YPG has been critical in the fight against the self-declared Islamic State in Syria, especially in contrast to the Turks, who have been ambivalent in their involvement. 4.      U.S. officials should take a strong public stand on Turkish policies that undermine U.S. policy. Private diplomacy and persuasion behind closed doors has little, if any, effect on the policies that Ankara pursues at home and abroad. Toward that end, the United States should end its cooperation with Turkey on the F-35 program, preventing Turkey from accessing the newest high-tech jet in the American military inventory. The Turkish government simply cannot purchase advanced weapons from Russia, undermine American efforts and threaten U.S. forces in Syria, aid Iran, arrest American citizens, detain Turkish employees of the U.S. embassy, and carry out repressive rule of its own citizens that violates the principles of Ankara’s NATO membership and expect to enjoy the benefits of America’s most advanced military aircraft. Turkey is and will continue to be a member of NATO, but it is not the partner it used to be. In the future, U.S. policy should be based on the fact that while Turkey is not an enemy of the United States, it is also not a friend. Washington can work with Ankara where it remains possible, work around the Turks where it is necessary, and work against them where it has to. I explore this argument in greater detail in a new Council Special Report, Neither Friend nor Foe: The Future of U.S.-Turkey Relations
  • Turkey
    Neither Friend nor Foe
    The strategic relationship between the United States and Turkey is over. While Turkey remains formally a NATO ally, it is not a partner of the United States. The United States should not be reluctant to oppose Turkey directly when Ankara undermines U.S. policy.
  • Saudi Arabia
    Jamal Khashoggi’s Disappearance Is Even Stranger Than It Seems
    The full text of this article is available here on ForeignPolicy.com. What in the world? No seriously, what the…? When it comes to Saudi Arabia these days, things could not get weirder or uglier. Last November, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman forced Lebanon’s Prime Minister to resign—from Riyadh in a television appearance that had all the characteristics of a hostage video. At the same time, Saudi authorities detained almost 400 people in the Ritz-Carlton over corruption charges, only to release them after they handed over significant sums of cash and assets in what appeared to be little more than a shakedown. This past spring and summer, the government began arresting women activists, some of whom had been at the forefront of the decades long fight to drive that ended with a lift on the ban in June, and declared them traitors. Then, in August, Saudi leaders lashed out at Canada over a tweet criticizing their treatment of oppositionists—canceling flights, preventing Saudi students on government scholarship from studying at Canadian universities, and transferring sick Saudis from Canada’s hospitals. All of this was going on against the backdrop of the ill-conceived war in Yemen. And now, a Saudi journalist named Jamal Khashoggi—a onetime confidant of senior Saudi officials and princes—has vanished. He disappeared into Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate on Oct. 2 and has not been heard from since. The Turks say he is dead, killed in the consulate by a hit team, with his body removed in boxes. The Saudis have declared this grisly tale nonsense and insist Khashoggi left the consulate not long after he arrived.
  • Saudi Arabia
    Jamal Khashoggi’s Disappearance Is Even Stranger Than It Seems
    This article first appeared here on ForeignPolicy.com on October 9, 2018. What in the world? No seriously, what the…? When it comes to Saudi Arabia these days, things could not get weirder or uglier. Last November, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman forced Lebanon’s Prime Minister to resign—from Riyadh in a television appearance that had all the characteristics of a hostage video. At the same time, Saudi authorities detained almost 400 people in the Ritz-Carlton over corruption charges, only to release them after they handed over significant sums of cash and assets in what appeared to be little more than a shakedown. This past spring and summer, the government began arresting women activists, some of whom had been at the forefront of the decades long fight to drive that ended with a lift on the ban in June, and declared them traitors. Then, in August, Saudi leaders lashed out at Canada over a tweet criticizing their treatment of oppositionists—canceling flights, preventing Saudi students on government scholarship from studying at Canadian universities, and transferring sick Saudis from Canada’s hospitals. All of this was going on against the backdrop of the ill-conceived war in Yemen. And now, a Saudi journalist named Jamal Khashoggi—a onetime confidant of senior Saudi officials and princes—has vanished. He disappeared into Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate on Oct. 2 and has not been heard from since. The Turks say he is dead, killed in the consulate by a hit team, with his body removed in boxes. The Saudis have declared this grisly tale nonsense and insist Khashoggi left the consulate not long after he arrived. When the story broke on Saturday by way of a thinly sourced Reuters story followed by more substantial coverage from the Washington Post—where Khashoggi had become a columnist last year—a social media uproar ensued. Twitter was alight with frightened and outraged fellow journalists, analysts recounting a litany of alleged Saudi crimes, politicians demanding accountability, activists with maudlin paeans to a now apparently martyred critic, Saudis arguing that Khashoggi disappeared because he got cold feet over his impending marriage to a Turkish woman, and a few voices cautioning that the declarations of known Justice and Development Party (AKP) provocateurs and unnamed “Turkish security sources” should be taken with a grain of salt. It was a massive outpouring of bile and one-upmanship that was notable even by the notoriously low standards of Twitter. The most important question has been left unanswered, of course: What happened to Jamal Khashoggi? It seems abundantly clear that he never left the consulate, and the Saudi explanation that they cannot prove it because their security cameras weren’t working that day has a “dog ate my homework” quality to it.  If he is not dead and really is a runaway groom, then surely someone must have seen him somewhere—there must be a trail of credit card charges, ATM transactions, or grainy footage from the departure gates at the airport in Istanbul before he made his getaway. For their part, Turkish police sources claim it was premeditated murder, but thus far they have not offered any proof. The Turkish state’s Anadolu news agency, which has often had a problem with the truth, added to the story with ominous reports that 15 Saudis flew into Istanbul aboard two different private jets, that this apparent hit team was in the consulate at the time of Khashoggi’s disappearance, and they all left on Oct. 2. Still, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seemed to back away from these claims on Sunday, before taking a tougher stand the following day. Either he is being atypically diplomatic—the Saudis and Turks are wary of each other but have worked to remain cordial despite significant differences—or the Turks have suspicions, but little evidence of Saudi misdeeds. It also seems odd that Khashoggi, who was fearful enough for his well-being to leave Saudi Arabia and live in self-imposed exile in the United States, believed that visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul—twice—was safe. The press reports that Khashoggi went there to obtain paperwork attesting to the fact that he is not married—he is divorced—before tying the knot with a 36-year old Turkish woman named Hatice Cengiz. To make things weirder, the Saudi press claims that Khashoggi’s son, who is still in Saudi Arabia, knows nothing of Cengiz and his father’s engagement to her. Of course, given the response to Khashoggi’s disappearance, the son is almost certainly under significant pressure to stick with Riyadh’s version of events. One can imagine that the Saudi authorities, already paranoid about the Qataris and their allies, were suspicious of Khashoggi’s fiancee given her alleged connections to Qatar and someone in Erdogan’s inner circle named Yasin Aktay. He has been identified as a friend of Khashoggi’s and an “AKP advisor” in the press, but he is much more than that. Aktay is more like a troubleshooter and troublemaker on behalf of the Turkish president. Indeed, Cengiz’s Twitter feed reveals that she does follow people who are critics of Saudi Arabia, organizations known to enjoy Qatari funding, Muslim Brothers—to whom Khashoggi was sympathetic—and Turkey’s ruling party, but so do a lot of people, including myself. Everything that everyone has said about Jamal Khashoggi to date remains speculation. The only thing that has been confirmed is that no one has seen the man in over a week. He is presumed dead. Are there any lessons to be learned from this episode? A few. It is surprising that there are so many who seem all too willing to accept the version of events that are attributed to Turkish security sources. These claims were uncorroborated—and remain so—but were quickly accepted as fact. This does not mean that they are untrue, but Turkey is a country with a poor record of press freedom, and its leaders and their supporters have embraced disinformation as a political strategy and a tool of foreign policy. Even if the Turks have no incentive to lie, commentators should be cautious before engaging in public melodrama over Khashoggi’s fate based on Turkish leaks. Second, the Saudis need to ask themselves why they have even less credibility than the Turks. It is likely that they will blame everyone but themselves for this state of affairs, but the disappearance of Khashoggi is just the latest in a list of bizarre series of events for which the Saudis have offered a variety of explanations that have more often than not been met with collective disbelief. No doubt there are dedicated Saudi critics out there who would assail the Saudis no matter what they do, but even to fair-minded observers, they seem guilty because their stories rarely add up, leading one to conclude that they must be guilty. To many, the Saudis are now cold-blooded killers, and Mohammed bin Salman is not a benevolent despot—an image that he and his advisors have cultivated—but a despot in the mold of Saddam Hussein. Finally, and most poignantly, journalists, academics, dissidents, and oppositionists should fear for their lives. Governments have long targeted these groups, but now seems to be a particularly dangerous moment, especially for journalists. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been ordering the killing people he does not like at will—on St. Petersburg streets, at Washington hotels, in small British cities, and elsewhere. Turkey, the leading jailer of journalists in the world, has kidnapped followers of the exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen in Asia and Europe—and just before the Khashoggi disappearance, one of Erdogan’s closest advisors warned that Turkey’s dragnet would extend across the globe. Egypt is also a notorious jailer of reporters, holds countless other who oppose the regime, is responsible for the brutal death of an Italian graduate student, and killed at least 800 people in a Cairo neighborhood in a single morning in August 2013. China recently disappeared the Chinese head of Interpol and has interned a million people in concentration camps. Now, the Saudis stand accused of murder. If they did it, they will likely get away with it—not on Twitter or the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, but where it counts: in the White House. Ours is an era of international thuggishness combined with a total absence of norms. That makes everyone a target.  
  • Turkey
    Could A Coalition of the “Friends of Turkey” Ride to Turkey’s Financial Rescue?
    Turkey is in a bit of financial trouble. It isn’t clear that today's rate hike on its own will be enough. The rate hike will make the lira a bit more attractive to foreign investors (and will raise the return on domestic residents holding lira deposits too).  But it will squeeze the banks—who run a funding mismatch in lira. And higher rates on lira won’t change the fact that Turkey, its banks, and its firms, have more dollar and euro debt coming due than they have liquid external reserves. Turkey is also a NATO ally of the United States, and, at least in theory, possibly a future member of the European Union. Though in both cases, Turkey’s actual position is, let’s say, rather complicated.  The United States and Turkey disagree more than they agree, despite being treaty allies. And there is no realistic possibility Turkey will be admitted to the European Union anytime in the foreseeable future. In the past, though, Turkey’s geopolitical significance would have added to the pressure on the United States to support an IMF package to bolster Turkey’s reserves.   And Turkey fits into the IMF’s current policy template for the kind of countries that deserve large scale financial support relatively well (e.g. it fits into the Fund’s exceptional access policy framework*), at least in some ways. It has a solid underlying fiscal position, even if it needs a bit of long-term fiscal adjustment and likely faces a significant bank recapitalization bill. Its government doesn’t have that much debt, and most of Turkey’s treasury debt is denominated in lira rather than dollars and euros. It’s just a bit short of external reserves, and its banks have an awful lot of short-term external debt.    Erdogan, of course, doesn’t want to go to the IMF—so the question of whether the United States would support a Turkish rescue is a bit theoretical for now. The more interesting question for the moment is whether Turkey might find a geo-strategic coalition of the willing that would be able to mobilize sufficient financial support to make a real economic difference without requiring that Turkey go to the IMF. The answer, I think, hinges on how much money Turkey needs—and of course just how much risk a coalition of the “friends of Turkey” might be willing to take. And to make it interesting, in a financial sense, I think you have to leave China and Europe out.   China has—in my view—about a trillion more reserves than it needs. And it has substantial lending capacity outside of its central bank as well: the annual increase in the external lending of China’s state banks recently has been about $100 billion a year. For all intents and purposes, China can mobilize financing if it wants to on a scale comparable to the IMF. But there is no sign for now that China has any interest in doing so. The institutional and political barriers to any European rescue are much higher. The EU doesn’t have a big existing facility that is well-suited for Turkey (see Claeys and Wolff of Bruegel), and it almost certainly would never lend without the IMF’s participation. But if it had the will to create a special Turkish Loan Facility, the underlying financial capacity is there—especially if lending were combined with pressure on European banks to maintain their existing exposure to their Turkish subsidiaries and other Turkish borrowers.  What of Russia and Qatar? Russia has about $450 billion in total reserves—$370 billion in foreign exchange reserves, and around $75 billion in gold. That’s about $75 billion more foreign exchange than the post-sanction, post-oil shock low of around $300 billion. And Russia’s reserves have been growing—they are up over $25 billion in the last year, thanks to funds set aside in Russia’s oil stabilization fund—though this inflow has temporarily been suspended to support the ruble. Finally, Russia runs a sizeable current account surplus too, one that should easily top $75 billion in 2018. For all that, lending Turkey $100 billion (well over 5 percent of Russia’s GDP) would be a financial stretch—foreign exchange reserves would dip below $350 billion if a large part was made available upfront. But in my view, Russia probably could join together with others to cover a $50 billion package while maintaining a decent reserve buffer of its own.   And if Russia wanted to structure a portion of its aid a bit more creatively, it also could help Turkey over time by convincing Gazprom to provide Turkey with gas at below market prices… Qatar is really, really rich. It has a huge amount of gas (and some oil too) relative to its population, and has accumulated one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds. It is again running a current account surplus too thanks to higher gas prices, even with some rather large domestic spending commitments. Plus Qatar historically hasn’t been afraid of leverage—its state backed banks could chip in. The only question is whether Qatar has enough spare foreign exchange lying around that it could lend a large chunk to Turkey while remaining in a financial standoff with its neighbors. Qatar has already promised $15 billion to Turkey—though it isn’t clear over what time frame. And in a bad scenario, Turkey needs foreign exchange today, not a promise of loans to fund new buildings and the like over time. The form Qatar’s support takes matters as well as the size.   Between them, though, I suspect Russia and Qatar likely could match the $50 billion the IMF provided Argentina over three years—the comparison works because Argentina is an economy that is (broadly) comparable in size to Turkey. But would that be enough? Well, it depends. Turkey’s current account deficit was running at a roughly $50 billion annual pace before the latest fall in the lira. It has been attracting about $10 billion in FDI, leaving a gap of $40 billion that the market currently isn’t willing to fill in. However, the current account deficit is clearly now falling sharply. Auto sales were down by 50 percent in August. The lira has already fallen significantly, Turkey’s government has promised a bit of fiscal consolidation, Turkey’s banks seem to have more or less stopped lending and Turkey is heading for a potentially sharp recession. Robin Brooks of the IIF thinks Turkey’s underlying current account is now heading toward a surplus—I want to see confirmation, but it seems safe to assume that the Turkey no longer needs to worry about financing a current account deficit. What then is Turkey’s financing need? Well, it depends. Turkey has about $180 billion external debt coming due, according to the latest central bank data. And most of that is denominated in foreign currency. The Central Bank of Turkey’s foreign exchange reserves are now just over $75 billion, and the banks may have about $25 billion (or a bit less now) in foreign exchange of their own. I left out Turkey's gold reserves, in part because they are in large part borrowed from the banks and unlikely to be usable.   Turkey’s banks also have about $160 billion in domestic foreign currency deposits. To be absolutely safe with that funding structure, Turkey would need to hold about $300 billion in reserves, or maybe $250 billion if the rule would be a year’s external rollovers and all domestic sight deposits in foreign currency. It obviously falls far short.   Let’s assume that Turkey’s foreign currency deposits stick around. Historically they have. And well, if they don’t, Turkey is clearly in big trouble. The potential drain from the $180 billion in external debt coming due depends on the rollover rate—if everyone renews their lending and Turkey’s current account goes away, Turkey would be able to survive on its current reserves. And it depends a bit on how carefully Turkey guards its reserves. All Turkey owes non-residents holding a lira denominated government bond is the lira that has been promised—if the foreign investors want dollars instead, they have to go and buy those in the market. Turkey’s government is under no obligation to provide the dollars. Similarly, Turkey’s government is under no obligation to provide dollars to firms that have maturing external debts.   Obviously if non-resident investors with maturing lira bonds are buying dollars and firms are buying dollars, the lira could fall significantly—and that has other consequences. But it’s also worth differentiating a bit between the external debt of the banks (the financial sector has over $100 billion coming due according to the central bank's data, with at least $70 billion and probably more in foreign currency—that counts the short-term debt of the state banks together with all claims on the private financial sector) and the government ($5 billion and other financing need). And it is of course possible to do an even finer grained scenario. The banks’ foreign currency debt is composed of a mix of deposits, syndicated loans from international banks, other loans, and a few bonds. The rollover rate in each category will vary. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that one third of all maturing external claims rolls off. That would burn through $60 billion in reserves—that could come directly from the roll off of bank claims, or from a decision now to allow a surge in foreign exchange demand from firms (or holds of lira bonds) to feed through entirely into the exchange rate. Turkey and its banks start with $100 billion in foreign exchange—perhaps enough to survive for the year if firms with external debt are left to fend for themselves. But it is close at best. Remember, the lower reserves go, the more likely a broader run becomes. In a run you want to get out and get paid in foreign exchange even if the underlying bank may be solvent because, well, you know the bank will run out of foreign exchange, and it is better to have a dollar in hand than a dollar at a bank that lacks dollars.   So at some point domestic residents would start to run too. A hypothetical $50 billion loan from Russia and Qatar (with $30 billion or so provided up front — Argentina was a $50 billion IMF program with $15 billion upfront, so this is a bit more generous than the IMF's initial Argentine program) would immediately raise foreign exchange reserves at the central bank to around $100 billion (with another $25 billion in the banks). That still leave reserves below maturing short-term external debt, but it would cover the maturing foreign exchange denominated debt of the government and the banks (around $20 billion of total short-term claims on Turkey are clearly denominated in lira).**  It thus provides enough to perhaps manage in a relatively benign state of the world, but falls short of the overwhelming display of financial force that would more or less guarantee success (provided, of course, that Turkey carries out the needed policies—which is no sure thing).  And, well, it isn’t clear that a Russian and Qatari bailout would be all that reassuring to many of Turkey’s current foreign creditors. After all it would signal that Turkey is determined to go at it on its own, and not tap into the biggest potential sources of funds around. And neither Qatar nor Russia have experience providing conditional financing All that means it also would be enormously risky for both Qatar and Russia, financially speaking—   The $50 billion they might provide wouldn’t go through a multilateral institution, so their bilateral rescue would lack the protections that by custom are afforded to the multilateral lenders.  And if it is tried and fails and Erdogan ends up relenting and going to the IMF, the IMF would at a minimum face pressure not to allow its lending to be used to pay Russia and Qatar back. Normal financial logic suggests it isn’t worth it. The financial risks are too high. Russia might face tighter sanctions. And squandering your reserves on a poorly designed financial rescue while cutting pensions has some obvious domestic political risks.    Turkey—an $850 billion economy before the lira’s depreciation, more like a $600 billion economy now—is large relative to the $1.25 to $1.5 trillion GDP of Russia and the $150 billion GDP of Qatar. But it also isn’t clear that today’s world is ruled by normal financial logic.    To be clear: I seriously doubt Russia would try to lead a rescue package on its own. But I wouldn’t be totally surprised if Putin had at least asked his bankers for an assessment of what Turkey might need, and pondered the question. Turkey is a big geopolitical prize. More importantly, it should be fairly obvious that the basic logic for estimating how much Turkey needs also applies should Turkey turn to a combination of the IMF and Europe for support…   * I personally think the IMF’s exceptional access policy decision puts too much weight on fiscal debt and too little on external debt, but, well, that fight was lost several years ago (it wasn't a fair fight, the Fund had all the high cards). ** Here is a chart looking at Turkey's external foreign currency financing need. The central bank's data shows $20 billion or so of short-term claims (on an orginal maturity basis) are in lira. I didn't infer that any of the additional claims in the residual maturity numbers are in lira, so technically this could be a slight over-estimate.
  • Economic Crises
    The Meltdown in the Emerging Markets with Sebastian Mallaby
    Podcast
    Sebastian Mallaby, the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at CFR and a contributing columnist for the Washington Post, joins James M. Lindsay to discuss the collapsing currency valuations in places like Turkey, Argentina, and South Africa.
  • Turkey
    See How Much You Know About Turkey
    Take this quiz to test your knowledge of Turkey's politics, economy, history, and more.