The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 205, September 8, 2023

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s headlines: we examine the fighting between Arab tribesmen and the Kurdish-led SDF in Syria, analyze the negotiations surrounding the Ukrainian Grain Deal, investigate the protests in Kirkuk, Iraq, and look into the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine.

 

---

Fighting in Northeast Syria

Years of the U.S. Ignoring Warnings of the Kurdish SDF’s Behavior in Syria and the Battles with the Tribes

By Jacob Van Veldhuizen

The ongoing battle between the U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Defense Force (SDF) and local Arab militias in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria highlights a common shortcoming of American foreign policy. This is the failure to consider and plan for the potential future effects of policies. This is especially evident in this particular crisis.

There were many mistakes made by the United States in the lead-up to this conflict, but two particular choices stand out. The first is the choice of leadership for the local military council in the Deir ez-Zor Province. In 2017, Abu Khawla was chosen by the U.S. to lead the local military council. Khawla was chosen because he was the only one willing and positioned to lead the council. He is widely unpopular in the area due to his activities as a warlord before the Syrian uprising. According to local sources, the U.S. either had no better option or no desire to find an alternative. The clan Khawla belonged to had a relatively large number of members supporting the Islamic State. Other non-jihadist forces in the area preferred to work with Turkey rather than the Kurds.

The second mistake was the failure of the United States to take the grievances of the Arab tribesmen seriously and consider how they would respond to being governed by Kurdish forces. Grievances from the local population about the rampant corruption, poor governance, and daily misdeeds of the SDF were either ignored or downplayed. The allegations of the Kurdish administration misappropriating funds to support the PKK also seemed to have been ignored. According to locals, the Kurds have no real interest in governance. No effort was made to remedy these legitimate grievances. There also seemed to be no consideration given to the cultural differences between the Kurdish leadership and Arab tribesmen. The SDF is a secular entity with Marxist values that clash with the more traditional views of the local populace. There is also an ethnic dimension, but this is far overshadowed by the economic and ideological aspects of the conflict. Despite this policy’s many flaws, this approach proved very effective. By 2019, the Islamic State was effectively defeated. The focus shifted to countering potential sleeper cells.

Fighting broke out on August 27, when news emerged that the Kurdish forces had arrested Khawla during a meeting he had been invited to the SDF. His brother led an armed rebellion in response. The fighting between the two groups spiraled into a larger rebellion of tribesmen dissatisfied with Kurdish rule. There are varying reports, but at least 90 people have been killed in the fighting, including 9 civilians. Skirmishes between the SDF and the Arab clans in the Deir er-Zor Province continue to spread across Kurdish-held areas of Northeast Syria.

Originally, the SDF accused Khawla of drug trafficking, mismanaging security, and exploiting his position for personal interests. According to reports on the ground, the reason for Khawla’s arrest was the discovery of a plan by Khawla to expel the Kurds from the area in coordination with other actors in the area. It is of note that some of those involved in the scheme have connections to the regime in Damascus.

The involvement of Damascus indicates that this crisis will be exploited by the Assad regime. Though it does not appear that they had a hand in the initial outbreak of fighting, it is clear that they are inflaming the situation. Regime forces and groups loyal to Assad have also been active in the fighting, using artillery to harass both sides. Misinformation is also rampant, with misleading videos, statements, and blatant falsehoods being spread through social media. All of this creates the perfect opportunity for Assad to weaken his enemies by pitting them against each other to later sweep and mop up what is left. Now that the instability has gained momentum, Assad will do everything in his power to continue and escalate the conflict.

U.S. policymaking mirrors the decision-making of an old nursery rhyme. In the rhyme, an old woman swallows a fly. She then swallows a spider to catch the fly. She then swallows a bird to catch the spider, and so on. This chain continues until eventually, the woman dies. The U.S. is the woman. Policymakers continue to create new threats to counter old threats that were created to counter even older threats. One recent example includes U.S. support of the Mujahedeen to counter the Soviets. From the Mujahadeen sprouted the Taliban. Another is the current rise of China, which the United States helped industrialize after the USSR-China schism to counter the Soviet Union. Now the United States is supporting India to counter China. These cycles exist in many facets of American foreign policy. Though it can be argued that what is evident in hindsight may not have been evident at the time of policy implementation, it is also clear that the American policymakers failed to consider the potential fallout of these policies and create contingencies. The United States is capable of creating these. The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world with a $2 Trillion budget. This is only one of the departments involved in policy making.

This opposition must be taken seriously. It is not a fluke that will simply disappear with time. Now that the situation has escalated finding solutions will be difficult. One option is to simply create a governing system that better represents the local Arab population. Unfortunately, it may be too late to implement this option as fighting has already started. So far, the U.S. has continued to voice support for the SDF and will likely continue to do so. The United States is in a difficult situation and must consider its next steps carefully. This situation has the potential to lead to the complete disintegration of the Kurdish regime in Northeast Syria. A sudden power vacuum like this would open the door for all kinds of nefarious groups to seize power in the region, including the Assad regime.

Protests in Kirkuk

Protests in Kirkuk Show the Increasing Risk of a Larger Conflict in Iraq

By Loretta Wolchko

The city of Kirkuk, the proclaimed capital of the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region, has been home to a series of violent protests as of late. The most recent outburst took place on Saturday, September 2, born out of a clash between the different ethnic groups residing in the city. Ownership of a building in the capital that has been used as the Iraqi Security Forces Provincial Headquarters was to be turned over to the Kurdistan Democratic Party (henceforth the KDP) so that they may resume political affairs. This decision was intended to serve as a gesture of goodwill towards the Kurds amidst a history of hostility between the two parties. This hostility can be traced back to the twentieth century when Iraqi Kurds struggled for autonomy even preceding Iraqi independence from Britain.

Friction between Kurds, Turkmen, and Arabs has been steadily rising over the last month since the announcement from the Iraqi government regarding the shift in ownership of the headquarters. For decades, the city and its inhabitants have faced strife at the hands of the shifting governments as well as growing tensions between the differing ethnic groups. When the region was under the control of the KDP, Turks and Arabs faced discrimination and various human rights violations; families would routinely have documents confiscated, resulting in them losing properties and preventing them from voting or traveling. Torture at the hands of Kurdish forces against ethnic minorities has been reported, as well as the demolition of their homes. In recent years, Turkmen and Arabs have persisted in their opposition to the KDP, both in physical protests and in anti-Kurdish sentiment.

The suffering experienced by Arabs and Turks, however, is not dissimilar to the treatment that the Kurds experienced during Saddam Hussein’s reign and his policy of “Arabization.”  Upwards of one hundred thousand Kurds were forcibly moved from the city throughout this period as a means of demographic engineering and ensuring that Arabs would be both the national and regional majority.

During this weekend’s protest, Arabs and Turkmen set up protest camps in front of the building.  In concurrence with the protests that occurred over the weekend in opposition, Kurds held their counter-protests. When Kurds approached, warning shots were fired to force them to disperse. In addition, stones and metal pipes were used as weapons between the groups, resulting in more injury. Four people were killed, all of whom were Kurdish as reported by police and medical responders at the scene. The city was placed under curfew following the outburst. Prime Minister Shia al-Sudani spoke with both the KDP President and the President of the Iraqi Kurdistan region to discuss developments within the city regarding the protests. Sudani also made a public announcement that political parties, activist groups, and other community members must play a role in maintaining stability and order in the region now and moving forward.

To say that the change in ownership of the building is the sole driving force of the protests would be a drastic understatement. In 2014, Kurdish forces took full control of the oil-rich city and remained in power until 2017 when Iraqi forces took the city back. The aforementioned ethnic groups suffered under the rule of the KDP as ethnic minorities and currently actively oppose any action or sentiment by the KDP to exert supremacy over the region. It is possible to see that Turkmen and Arabs saw this move by the Iraqi government as a postponement of any problems that may arise with the city still under the control of the Iraqi government; with the KDP getting their headquarters back, perhaps this will be enough to stall tensions for a while. These actions taken are also postponing any subsequent resolution that could come about from addressing the root problems.

The attempted gesture of the Iraqi government could signify that steps can be taken to move forward in finding commonality in the vision for the future of the region. Another independence referendum (that isn’t annulled) seems a bit too far-fetched at this point, considering how quickly the 2017 referendum was rejected. It is possible, though, that the return of the headquarters is the beginning of the offering of an olive branch of sorts. Sudani has vocalized his intent to improve relations between his government and the KDP. With Sudani’s hopes in mind, it is certainly feasible that this attempted offer by his government is a stepping stone towards concession.

Conversely, such strong opposition from Turks and Arabs joining forces could result in more violent protests and an ardent opponent of the KDP, composed of the ethnic minorities of the region. Those affected will want to ensure that the suffering their communities endured with Kurds in power will not happen again. If the Iraqi government is not going to commit to suppressing the KDP, then the people of the autonomous region will have to continue with their methods of protesting.

Overall, the sociopolitical backdrop of the Iraqi Kurdistan region and Iraq as a whole has been particularly fragile over the last decade. There are several different avenues that the relations between Kurds, other ethnic groups such as Arabs and Turks, and the Iraqi government can take. If ethnic tensions and laxation on the KDP continue, then the region is going to see more violence and opposition in response to the Kurds.

Ukraine Grain Deal

The Future of the Ukrainian Grain Deal is Up in the Air

By Brenna Haggerty

Just two months after Russia left the Black Sea Grain Deal, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan believes the deal can be revived. This week, a friendly meeting between Erdogan and Russia’s Vladimir Putin took place in Sochi, Russia. Turkey’s main goal was to secure Russia’s return to the grain deal. In preparation, Turkey and the United Nations worked on a new package to ease Russian concerns. While Erdogan stated that he believes a solution is imminent, Putin made it clear that Russia will only return to the deal if the West complies with its demands. Putin insists upon the removal of restrictions on the exportation of Russian fertilizer and food despite the West clearly stating that sanctions have never applied to agricultural exports.

The purpose of the grain deal was to allow Ukraine to safely use its ports on the Black Sea to export wheat and agricultural products to other countries. After leaving the grain deal in July, Russia increased the number of drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian ports and exporting infrastructure. Through these attacks, Russia destroyed over 220,000 tons of grain that could have gone to countries in the region, many of which are suffering from food shortages. These attacks add to the already dire issue of food scarcity. The United Nations asserted that originally the grain deal helped ease a food crisis, but Putin claims this crisis never existed. He states that there was never a physical shortage of food and prices did not rise after Russia’s exit from the deal. Even so, experts say that failure to revive the deal would have “drastic impacts” on many African countries. In an effort to improve his reputation with the Global South, Putin said Russia is weeks away from a deal that will provide free grain to six African countries. He also plans to ship 1.1 million tons of cheap grain to Turkey for processing and distribution to countries in the region. It still remains to be seen if these plans will come to fruition. Many times, in the past, Putin’s bold promises were often followed by lackluster results.

This meeting sparked negativity and cynicism in Ukraine. Erdogan said Ukraine should soften its position in negotiations with Russia in the future, but Ukraine said it will not change its stance. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister insisted that Russia had no legal or political reason to abandon the deal. Now, after suffering multiple attacks on vital infrastructure, it is unlikely that Ukraine will “soften” its stance against Russia. In these negotiations, Putin claimed that the Black Sea should not be used for military purposes. Ukraine argued that Putin’s invasion of the country is what caused the military presence in the Black Sea. Despite this deal being beneficial for their economy, Ukraine is not backing down even as Putin tries to shift blame. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba made their position very clear when he said they will no longer be “hostages to Russian blackmail.”

It is possible that Putin is using the grain deal negotiations as a way to escape the Western sanctions that were placed on Russia after their invasion. Putin knows how important the grain deal is, not just for Ukraine, but for the Middle East and Africa as well. Now, he is using the deal as leverage to get rid of the sanctions hurting the Russian economy.  Putin can also use these negotiations to fuel the Russian propaganda machine. Knowing that the West has no sanctions on agricultural imports, Putin can claim that he bested NATO and ended their trade sanctions on some Russian exports. This could boost war support among the Russian citizens. If the demands are not met, Russia will still enjoy a monopoly of sorts on grain in the Black Sea. Record-breaking wheat harvests will help continue to prop up Russia’s economy as sanctions take their toll.

Throughout the war, Turkey has thus far managed to maintain strong relations with NATO, Ukraine, and Russia. Turkey has maintained this impressive balancing act through a series of calculated policy decisions. It refused to enact sanctions against Russia while also supplying Ukraine with weapons. Turkey even supported Ukraine’s bid to join NATO. With the added bonus of its geographical location in relation to the war, this unique position makes Turkey an excellent mediator for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Turkey would also personally benefit as an end to the war would improve regional stability. Turkey has received much criticism from its NATO allies for its engagement with Russia, but this relationship could prove beneficial. The option of allowing Turkey more room to try and create an environment for negotiations must be explored. The reinstitution of the grain deal would allow Turkey to jumpstart broader peace negotiations. This being said, Turkey’s ability to mediate negotiations between the two warring parties does not hinge entirely on the success of grain deal negotiations.

This war has become one of attrition, with little significant front-line movement. Though it seems unlikely that negotiations will bring an immediate end to the war, a ceasefire agreement would at least stop some of the bloodshed and resume the shipping of grain to countries that desperately need it. This would just be a temporary fix. A comprehensive peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is the only way to ensure a permanent solution.

Cluster Munitions Use in Ukraine 

The U.S. Must Stop Supplying Ukraine with Cluster Munitions

By Colin Bailey

Last year has gone on record as being labeled the worst year in cluster-bomb-related deaths thus far, primarily due to the war in Ukraine. 2023 is expected to surpass this record by the end of the year as the use of cluster bombs has been implemented by United States-supplied Ukrainian forces. A single bombing on Kramatorsk, a railway station, has resulted in the deaths of 53 people and left another 135 wounded, many of them civilians. Last year, over 300 people died in Ukraine alone due to cluster bombs, and twice as many were injured as a result. A significant portion of cluster bomb deaths and injuries are that of civilians hit due to the inaccuracy of cluster bombs

Cluster munitions, or ‘Cluster Bombs’ as they are more commonly known as, are a form of explosive weaponry that disperse into several smaller bombs designed to cover a larger area of effect. These weapons are both highly destructive and immensely hard to control, particularly in containing their damage to isolated locations. Due to the large area of effect, these weapons are extremely deadly and often put civilians in danger due to inaccuracy and unexploded ‘bomblets’ commonly left behind.

In the majority of instances where a cluster bomb is used, several of the bomblets will not detonate on impact and will lie dormant on the battlefield until something triggers it. What is too often the case is these bomblets will not be triggered during the war and will remain situated in the countryside for years, even decades, before coming into contact with a civilian or animal who will unknowingly detonate it. It is this reason alone that makes cluster bombs so controversial. Cluster bombs do not just pose a danger to civilians and soldiers at the time of use, they risk the lives of thousands for decades in the aftermath of conflicts.

Nations such as Cambodia, Laos, and Bosnia & Herzegovina, which have not seen the use of cluster bombs for several decades, continue to report annual deaths and injuries due to cluster munition. Children are the most vulnerable because these bombs often are mistaken for toys.

Because of the devastation brought by such weapons and the risks they pose to civilians, cluster munitions were banned internationally in 2008 under the United Nations Convention of Cluster Munitions. This convention prohibits the use, manufacturing, and dispersal of any form of cluster munitions. Thus far, 126 nations have joined the ban against cluster bombs. Out of the handful of nations that have not banned the use of cluster bombs are the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. This is unsurprising as the United States and Russia have a long history of not signing international peace agreements due to their strong power on the global stage. Such treaties that these countries have not signed include OPCAT banning torture, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (1996), and the Ottawa Treaty (1997) banning the use of landmines.

The use of cluster munitions in the Ukrainian war has doomed future generations to the risk of sudden and unexpected death long after the war subsides as hundreds of thousands of unexploded bombs will now lay dormant across the countryside. The situation in Ukraine is only going to get worse as the United States continues to arm Ukrainian forces with cluster bombs. International human rights organizations have since gone on to denounce the United States for the use of cluster bombs and called for the immediate cessation of use. Despite overwhelming evidence, the Russian government continues to deny that they are using cluster bombs in Ukraine.

The use of cluster bombs near civilian populations marks these attacks as indiscriminate and a violation of international humanitarian law. Such indiscriminate use of any weaponry constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949.

The rise in cluster munitions makes it more critical than ever before for all countries to denounce their use and agree to abolish their use in the military. Cluster munitions pose a significant risk to the safety of civilian populations both during the active use of said weaponry and in the decades following as bombs lay dormant and people grow less cautious of their presence. It is in the interest of morality that the United States cease supplying Ukraine with cluster bombs. It will only lead to more destruction for decades to come.