This article was first published on The New Turkey on December 11, 2018.

The U.S. balancing act between supporting the PYD and providing reassurances to Turkey to be able to cooperate on the resolution of the Syrian conflict is not an easy one.

The U.S. wants to cooperate with Turkey on all issues related to the Syrian conflict and sees it as critical to end the civil war. The U.S. Syria envoy James Jeffrey points to the Manbij agreement as a good model for broader cooperation. He is reassuring Turkey that the PYD and YPG members are leaving Manbij and that they will not participate in local councils and the police force, as Turkish policymakers have demanded. Progress, however, in Manbij has been slow and Turkey has yet to declare that the YPG members have left to go east of the Euphrates. It is also not clear in what areas specifically this model can be replicated. Some progress is obviously better than none and the U.S.’ willingness to work with Turkey is an encouraging sign, both for stability of northern Syria and also for the end of the broader conflict. Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that Turkey continues to be concerned about and feel threatened by YPG control and presence east of the Euphrates as well.

The envoy’s remarks about “pulling the plug” on the Astana process was met with criticism both by Turkey and Russia, who believe they have been making progress contrary to outside views about the lack of tangible results. The failure to create a constitutional committee to draft a new constitution has suffered from the dynamics of the conflict at play since the beginning. The opposition remains fragmented and Assad’s supporters, Russia and Iran, remain invested in the continuation of the regime. Determining the composition of the committee has been extremely difficult not only because the guarantor states cannot agree on who will be participating in the constitution writing process but also because of the fundamental dynamics of the conflict.

In other words, if the balance of power is not significantly changed between numerous sides on the ground, there will be no party that is able to impose its will. By refusing to empower the Arab opposition in concert with Turkey, the U.S. has contributed to this fragmentation. It is not a matter simply of diplomatic negotiations over picking the constitution writers but it is also about creating a committee that reflects the power dynamics on the ground for drafting a constitution acceptable to all sides. In this process, the U.S. should actually support Turkey’s efforts and empower the opposition representatives at the negotiation table instead of calling for the replacement of the Astana process with that of the UN process. The Astana process has been effective in creating de-confliction zones and a forum for those with military presence on the ground to have sustained dialogue. It has not produced a political solution so far but it can contribute to it by engaging one of the most crucial actors on the ground, i.e. Iran.

The U.S. has already declared pushing Iran out of Syria as a major policy goal in Syria and Jeffery’s comments about the end of the Astana process appear to reflect that objective in mind. The Trump administration has been talking about confronting and rolling back Iran’s influence in the region, however it does not currently have a clear plan to achieve that. The only other alternative is for the U.S. to fundamentally shake up the dynamics on the ground and create a different game where other actors may be lured to a framework that excludes Iran. This, however, will be extremely difficult given Iran’s investments in Syria and willingness to commit its military and human resources on the ground. Absent a serious American investment to isolate Iran in Syria, Iran will continue to be part of the discussion as it can act as a spoiler militarily, politically, and diplomatically.

The U.S. balancing act between supporting the PYD and providing reassurances to Turkey to be able to cooperate on the resolution of the Syrian conflict is not an easy one. Moreover, the U.S. hopes to push Iran out of the equation in Syria while achieving a political solution to the civil war, as well as, an “enduring” defeat of Daesh. Granted that the complexity of the terrain has a lot to do with this complicated picture, but the lack of clarity and the mismatch of the U.S. goals with its investments on the ground is the enduring story from the Obama to the Trump administration. The good news is that the U.S. recognizes the crucial role of Turkey in all these goals, however the bad news is all these goals are unlikely to be achieved simultaneously.

This article was first published by New Turkey on December 4, 2018. 

Today, what we are seeing is the increasing irrelevance and greater provincialization of multilateral institutions that are supposed to provide comprehensive global solutions. This reality promises further uncertainty and instability around the world, which is already faced with challenges no single nation can solve on its own.

The G20 summit in Argentina ended with no major breakthrough or a breakdown but that is not good news for the pressing global challenges. From climate change to international terrorism and from civil wars to refugee crises, there are a host of issues that continue to spread instability throughout the planet. G20 was conceived of as an institution to bring together economically most capable nations to contribute to the resolution of international challenges outside the United Nations framework, which has long been hampered by the inaction of veto-wielding powers at the Security Council.

To be sure, the G20 was never meant to substitute the UN but it was nevertheless supposed to be more flexible and responsive to global problems hindering economic development and stability. The latest convening of the summit avoided any major political dramas but it has not produced much in the way of building a common framework on any of the major issues facing the community of nations.

All eyes were on President Trump as he finds himself being challenged at home by the Mueller investigation, which appears to be ending. He also has been the subject of heavy criticism for essentially siding with the Saudi administration in the Khashoggi affair in the name of protecting American interests. Further, Russia’s most recent aggressive actions in Ukraine have forced him to cancel a potential meeting with President Putin. His seemingly temporary truce with China was most likely motivated by the need to avoid yet another major political drama, which could have rattled the markets and cost him support domestically. Despite the fact that he appointed a hardliner to lead the trade negotiations going forward, this temporary halt to the trade wars provided him with some ammunition to sell it as a political victory to his constituency. Despite the multilateral nature of the G20 gathering, the biggest news the U.S. walked away with was still a bilateral one, very much fitting the President’s America First approach.

The U.S. was often the major force driving the big agenda items in these international gatherings but this time around nobody expected it in the first place due to the “America First” president in office. At the same time, here appeared to be no clear substitute for the U.S. leadership either. The major players seemed content with a reduced American role that is not interested in leading the conversation to resolve world’s big problems, economic or otherwise. The final communique could not go beyond reaffirming the importance of the multilateral global trading system and had to exclude any criticism of “protectionism” or “unfair trade practices” due to the American and Chinese sensitivities.

Many observers are just happy that a communique was even possible where the Trump administration has attacked multilateralist institutions established in the past under the U.S. leadership. The unwillingness of the U.S. to support the very principles of these very institutions undermines the effectiveness of G20, especially in the absence of another great power willing to underwrite these principles.

While the U.N. has been dysfunctional largely due to the veto powers held by the Security Council member states, the G20 is now becoming ineffective as a result of its “natural leader” to refuse a robust leadership role with a global agenda. That is why, many regional and bilateral issues seemed to be more at the forefront during the summit. The gathering provided yet another opportunity for countries like Turkey to bring the regional issues to the agenda.

Turkey was vocal about the Khashoggi affair, calling on the international community once again to treat it as an affront to international norms. President Erdogan met with President Trump on the sidelines to discuss the status of northern Syria, which has critical national security implications for Turkey. In this sense, Turkey had a successful summit. Nevertheless, the summit underperformed considering the urgency and the seriousness of the global issues facing the planet although some might be content that it ended with a common declaration at the end.

Today, what we are seeing is the increasing irrelevance and greater provincialization of multilateral institutions that are supposed to provide comprehensive global solutions. This reality promises further uncertainty and instability around the world, which is already faced with challenges no single nation can solve on its own. When the most powerful G20 nations cannot unite around a common global agenda, it is becoming increasingly clear that the monumental challenges of the world will remain unattended at least for the time being.