Obama and the U.S.-Turkey Foreign Policy Standoff

BROOKS FOREIGN POLICY REVIEW

December 24, 2009 

 by Webster Brooks

 

U.S.-Turkey relations have reached their nadir. At the December White House meeting called to repair the breach in U.S.-Turkish relations Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan refused to support sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program and rebuffed Obama’s request for Turkey’s 1,730 troops to undertake combat missions in Afghanistan. Erdogan’s split with Obama over Iranian sanctions, his support of HAMAS and Ankara’s growing ties with Syria and Iraq has fueled concerns in Washington that Turkey is drifting into Tehran and Moscow’s orbit. Whether Turkey is leaving the West to become an outpost of Iranian and Russian influence is debatable. What is clear is that Turkey is coming into its own. Prime Minister Erdogan is leading the predominantly Muslim Turkey down the path of a secular democracy and advancing its “Strategic Depth” foreign policy to secure Ankara’s national interests in a dangerous corner of the world. The new calculus informing Turkey’s foreign policy has unsettled U.S. policymakers accustomed to dictating the parameters of Ankara’s diplomatic horizons. Washington is also concerned that Erdogan’s “Islamic” leaning Justice and Development Party (AKP) is losing contact with the West and returning to its Middle Eastern Muslim roots. But unwarranted public criticism and reflexive short-term thinking by Washington could permanently damage U.S.-Turkish relations while strengthening Turkey’s military and ultra-nationalist forces seeking to derail Erdogan’s government. The Obama administration should hit the pause button and rethink its Turkey policy. Patience and thoughtful engagement could prevent a disastrous break between Washington and Ankara—one that could risk further destabilization of a region where American power is already on the decline.  

Under Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s leadership, Turkey’s three dimensional “Strategic Depth” foreign policy doctrine has emerged as the blueprint to reposition Turkey as a regional power. Sharing borders with Syria, Iraq, Armenia, Georgia and Iran the locus of the “Strategic Depth” policy has been realigning Ankara’s relationships with its neighbors to strengthen Turkey’s economy while enhancing its national security posture. “Strategic Depth” anticipated two global trends that are guiding Turkey’s grand strategy; America’s diminished capacity to shape regional events and Iran and Russia’s ambition to exploit the growing power vacuum. It has also provided a framework for Turkish rapprochement with Cypress and Armenia, and reconciliation to end the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) domestic insurgency; all critical components of Ankara’s drive to gain ascension to the European Union. The central dilemma confronting the Obama Administration is whether Turkey’s growing relations with Iran and Russia is “realpolitik” in action or if Turkey is inexorably moving towards a new strategic alliance with Moscow and Tehran. 

Turkey has the 17^th largest economy in the world. To continue its economic and democratic revolution Prime Minister Erdogan must insure Turkey’s national security, end the Kurdish PKK insurgency that is dividing the nation and dramatically expand trade. Therein lays the heart of the dispute with Washington. As one of the most energy dependent countries in the region, Turkey imports an astounding 90 percent of its energy needs. Ankara’s relationship with Iran and Russia is critical to secure its strategic long-term energy imperatives and leverage Turkey’s position as a regional energy transit hub. Russia is Turkey’s second largest trading partner and has opportunistically supported Turkey’s drive for E.U. membership and Turkey’s position in defense of Northern Cypress. In addition to Turkey’s extensive oil and gas ties to Iran, trade between the two countries now exceeds $10 billion a year and is growing. 

While the Obama administration has been highly critical of Turkey’s relationship with Iran and Russia, the United States is in no position to guarantee Ankara’s critical energy needs or replace its critical trade relationships with Tehran and Moscow. In 2007 Erdogan rejected a U.S. proposal to supply Ankara with oil from Iraq’s Anbar Province, pointing out that the pipelines would ultimately have to transit oil through Syria or Iraqi Kurdistan, both heavily influenced by Iran. Instead, Erdogan’s direct dealings with Iran yielded lucrative long-term energy agreements and assurances from Tehran and Russia that the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to Turkey’s southeastern port of Ceyhan will not be disrupted. Turkey signed a 25-year 10-billion-cubic meter natural gas deal with Iran and a parallel agreement with Turkmenistan that transits gas through Iran. In addition, Ankara inked a $3.5 billion deal to invest in Iran’s South Pars mega field. A realist, Erdogan recognizes the stubborn facts of life in the Middle East, the Caucuses and Central Asia; that Iran and Russia’s converging interest in controlling the region’s energy corridors is formidable. As the mecurial Prime Minister stated “U.S. and Israeli opposition to importing gas from Iran is not important because they cannot meet Turkey’s need for energy, and Turkey must fulfill its needs from Russia and Iran.” 

Against this backdrop, the calculations underlying Erdogan’s refusal to support sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program can be more clearly understood. Erdogan’s statement that sanctions have failed the past 30 years because Western states have shamelessly exploited legal loopholes, raised a valid question; why should Turkey jeopardize its strategic economic relationship with Tehran to support a failed and largely symbolic United Nations sanctions resolution? More importantly, the pragmatic Erdogan, like many other Middle Eastern leaders is convinced that Iran is “going nuclear,” despite U.S.–Israeli efforts to halt Tehran’s uranium enrichment program. Prime Minister Erdogan and Turkey’s “Anatolian Elite” are well aware that a nuclear Iran will dramatically alter power relationships in the Middle East. Thus Turkey is recalibrating its policies across the region. Ankara’s use of “soft power” engagement in Armenia, Syria, Iraq and the Levant has lead to substantive changes in its foreign policy portfolio.                          

In October 2009, Turkey signed an agreement to establish diplomatic ties and re-open its border with its longtime foe Armenia, a country that still charges Turkey with committing genocide against 1.5 million Armenians after World War 1. Erdogan signed the agreement after President Obama withdrew his commitment to recognize the events of 1915 as a genocidal act. By signing the accord Erdogan avoided a confrontation with the United States which wants to secure oil pipeline routes running from the Caspian Sea basin through Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey without having to transit oil through Iran. The Armenian agreement was a bitter pill for Erdogan to digest. He had promised not to reopen the border until Armenia withdraws its forces from the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. The accord also angered Turkey’s nationalist forces who took to the streets to denounce the agreement, calling Erdogan a traitor.    

In April Turkey ruffled more feathers in Washington by carrying out joint military exercises with Syria along the two countries’ border. The military exercises were the first ever between a NATO country and an Arab army. Turkey’s motivations in pursuing the highly symbolic maneuvers were fairly obvious. Ankara wants to expand bi-lateral trade with Damascus, put Tel Aviv on notice that it is building alliances with Israel’s adversaries and boost its credibility as a Middle East power broker. More importantly, Turkey needs to measure President Bashir Assad’s reliability in denying Kurdish PKK separatists a safe haven in neighboring Syria which has its own restive Kurdish minority. 

One of Turkey’s biggest short-term challenges has been recasting its relations with Iraq. Over the past year Turkey has opened consulates in Basra and Erbil the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan whose autonomous region functions as a virtual national sovereign. Erdogan has backtracked on its threats to militarily intervene in Iraqi Kurdistan if the oil rich Kirkuk province passes to Kurdistan Regional Government control–a likely development as the KRG is poised to win a majority in Kirkuk’s (Tamim) province in Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary elections. Turkey is the largest investor in Kurdistan today and has reached an agreement to participate in a free trade zone in Kurdistan. By establishing closer ties with the KRG, Turkey’s business mavens have become the beneficiary of millions in commercial contracts and are actively seeking negotiations on potential oil agreements. Ankara’s opening of a consulate in Basra, Iraq’s second largest city and the crown jewel of its oil exporting platform is highly significant. It signals Turkey’s acceptance of Iraq’s Shiia’s leaders as the dominant force in the country and the realization that if Turkey wants to participate in the development of Iraq’s energy resources they will need to repair their once strained relations with Iraq’s Shiaa leaders.     

Turkey’s strong condemnation of Israel’s 2008 Gaza invasion and support for HAMAS angered Washington but played well on the Arab street. Israel’s Gaza invasion in the middle of Turkey’s mediation efforts between the Palestinian Authority and Israel was an embarrassment that left Erdogan little choice but to withdraw from the talks. As for Erdogan’s support for bringing HAMAS into the peace negotiations, his position is shared by many countries across the Middle East and privately in European capitals. Having mediated Israeli-Palestinian talks Erdogan knows peace cannot be secured with by Obama’s short-sighted “One and One-Half State Solution” that seeks to isolates HAMAS and the Gaza Strip. The collapse of the Obama administration’s efforts to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority may well have killed any prospect of an agreement being reached in President Obama’s first term in office. 

In pursuing its “Strategic Depth” doctrine Turkey is clearly emerging as a rising political and economic force in the Middle East. Through “soft power” diplomacy, expanded trade and Turkey’s unique role mediating conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucuses and the Middle East, Ankara has emerged as an invaluable intermediary that could help the U.S. solve some of its trickier diplomatic missions. But it is Turkey’s ties with Tehran and Damascus that foreshadow the trace lines of a Syria-Turkey-Iran-Russia energy and military axis that represents a formidable threat to American supremacy in the Middle East.  

If Washington wants to balance Turkey’s “Eastern angle” President Obama should use his considerable powers of persuasion to convince German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s Nicholas Sarkozy to support Turkey’s application to the European Union. Europe’s dismissive attitude towards Turkey while approving Cypress’s membership to the E.U. has done more to turn Turkey to the East than the AKP’s “Islamic” inclinations; it has created a feeling in Ankara that Europe has a double standard. The Obama administration can also signal its strong support to Ankara and Kurdistan for Erdogan’s efforts to end the PKK’s insurgency including offers of economic incentives for development projects in Southeastern Turkey. Most of all Washington needs to understand that Turkey is passing through its most profound domestic and foreign policy transformation since the “Young Turk” revolution 100 years ago. In building a vibrant Muslim secular democracy that moves Turkey’s Kurdish minority from the margins to the mainstream Prime Minister Erdogan risk the possible loss of his office and AKP control of the machinery of governance.  Likewise, Erdogan’s decision to embark on a new forward-leaning foreign policy informed by the doctrine of “Strategic Depth” is challenging the assumptions of Turkey’s tradtional relationships with the East and the West. Ankara has a rendevous with destiny. With or without Washington’s support there will be no turning back in Ankara.*****    

Russia’s Strategy to Block Obama’s Bid for Nuke Free Iran

BROOKS FOREIGN POLICY REVIEW: ANALYSIS 

October 7, 2009

by Webster Brooks, Editor BFPR

 

 

Since assuming office, the nexus of President Obama’s diplomacy to halt Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon has focused on convincing Russia to endorse tougher sanctions against Tehran and scaling back its support of their nuclear program. Instead, Moscow has attempted to leverage the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran to improve its own geo-strategic position by undermining American power in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. The chances that President Obama will secure meaningful Russian support to halt Iran’s nuclear program are remote for two reasons. First, as Defense Secretary Gates recently stated, Iran’s uranium enrichment program has advanced too far to be stopped, even if the U.S. or Israel launches air strikes against its nuclear sites. Second, Moscow regards Iran as a strategic ally. Russia’s national security interests will not be threatened, but enhanced by a nuclear armed Iran. President Obama cannot be faulted for negotiating with Russia to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, the political assumptions underlying President Obama’s overtures to Moscow are troubling. It remains to be seen if President Obama’s desire to “reset” relations with Moscow means that he regards Russia as a potential ally, strategic competitor or strategic adversary. Clearly, the nature of Russia’s involvement with Iran’s nuclear program and its actions strongly conflict with America’s national security interests. Thus a valid question arises; what does the President Obama want from Russia and what is he prepared to concede to Moscow? 

Moscow’s position in Iran is formidable and multi-faceted. Over the past two years, Russia has actively strengthened its position in Iran and the Persian Gulf. In February 2009 Russian scientists completed Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor that can produce enough nuclear material for thirty atomic bombs a year (off the books). Russia and Iran signed a ten-year nuclear fuel contract to operate Bushehr after Moscow provided the technical expertise, nuclear fuel, equipment, parts, and other components for the reactor. Russia is also receiving spent fuel from Iran to reprocess into low-grade enriched uranium material. In March 2009, Moscow also began executing its contract to deliver advanced long-range S-300 air-defense systems to Iran. Combined with its purchase of the Russian made TOR-M1 surface-to-air system, Iran is racing to deploy its own missile defense shield in an effort to discourage if not complicate possible airstrikes against their nuclear sites. If Iran is able to field a credible defense missile shield system around its nuclear sites and platforms for medium and short range missiles, Tehran’s capacity to project power in the Persian Gulf will be greatly enhanced. 

Iran’s missile and nuclear program are exerting tremendous pressure on the U.S., NATO and its regional allies. When President Obama cancelled the missile defense shield plans for Poland and the Czech Republic on September 17, it was widely suggested that he caved in to Russia to win Putin’s support for stronger sanctions against Iran. Arguably, President Obama and NATO’s revised plan to more quickly deploy a comprehensive mobile land, sea and space- based missile interceptor system across Europe and the Caucuses could hardly be considered capitulation. Nevertheless, Russia is clearly angling for opportunities to sow confusion and discord in the U.S.-led NATO Alliance, which it regards as an adversarial block.  

  In addition to Russia’s support for Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, Moscow is also preparing to come to Tehran’s aid should the U.S. impose sanctions targeting  gasoline imports to Iran. Currently, imported gasoline products make up one-third of the country’s consumption, most of which are shipped to Iran through the Persian Gulf. Sanctions on Iranian gas imports could devastate the Iranian regime and economy, thereby forcing Tehran to make real concessions on its nuclear program. Iran is importing more than 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) and has already started stockpiling gasoline in preparation for possible sanctions. Russia and other former Soviet states would be able to fill Iran’s basic import needs by ship and rail transport from the north and the Caspian Sea basin. Russia is one of the largest refiners of oil products in the world and could increase its capacity to supply Iran with refined gasoline for a considerable period of time. Moscow would also reap massive profits from a spike in energy prices if sanctions are imposed. Tehran’s dependency on Russia would also increase if sanctions on gas imports are enacted; something the U.S. wishes to avoid. Along with gas imports from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Malaysia, Iran could survive sanctions on imported gasoline which is considered the strongest weapon in President Obama’s arsenal to nudge Iran off the nuclear weapons path.   Russia’s strategic relationship with Iran on its nuclear program, weapons sales and energy issues is vital to Russian national security interests. Moscow is not only seeking a beachhead in the energy rich Persian Gulf that challenges U.S. supremacy, but Russia desperately wants to secure its southern perimeter in the Caucuses. Fearful of militant Muslim movements like Chechnya spreading among the 20 million Muslims within its borders, Moscow has reached an understanding with Iran not to fan the flames of Shiia Muslim extremism in Russia, the Southern Caucuses or bordering Central Asia states.   At the same time that Russia is buttressing Iran as a strategic ally in the Persian Gulf, Moscow has started building a counterweight to Iran by initiating arms sales to its chief regional rival; Saudi Arabia. In 2008, King Abdullah agreed to a $4 billion deal to purchase 150 Russian T-9 tanks, 100 MI-17 and MI-35 tanks hundreds of BMP Armored Infantry Combat Vehicles and 20 BVIC air defense systems. Putin also offered the Saudi’s nuclear reactors and cooperation on a space program to invest in launching Saudi satellites. Abdullah’s shift to allow the Russians arms sales shocked the United States and Western Europe who fear Moscow’s growing role in the Persian Gulf.  

For all these reasons, President Obama’s attempts to cut a deal with Russia to shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program are fraught with danger. The price Moscow is demanding to halt its support of Iran’s nuclear program is American acknowledgement that Central Asia is within Russia’s exclusive sphere of influence. It is not a price President Obama can afford to pay. Nor can Russia guarantee that Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be thwarted.

In the aftermath of the October 1 meetings in Geneva between the P-5+1 and Iran, President Obama said “Talk is no substitute for action. Our patience is not unlimited. If Iran fails to live up to its promises of cooperation, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely and we are prepared to move toward increased pressure.” Obama gave Iran two weeks to allow the newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom to be inspected by the I.A.E.A . Obama also urged Iranian to ship low-enriched uranium to a third country to further process the material for use in a research reactor in Tehran. Obama said “Taking the step of transferring its low-enriched uranium to a third country would be a step toward building confidence that Iran’s program is in fact peaceful.” According to reports Russia agreed to perform the further processing of low-enriched uranium from Iran. France would fabricate it into fuel assemblies for use at the Tehran research reactor, which is under international inspection. All the parties to the talks agreed to return to the negotiating table in late October to continue discussions.  Iran will likely concede to inspections of the Qom facility, as they were caught red-handed trying to conceal the existence of the facility. It is also possible that Iran may agree to ship “some” of its spent fuel to outside countries (principally Russia). But under no circumstances will Tehran agree to suspend their uranium enrichment activities. Thus the stage is set for yet another showdown in late October. As part of the P-5+1 group Russia will play a critical role in the outcome of the talks. That should give President Obama pause for concern.   ***

  Webster Brooks is a Senior at the Center for New Politics and Policy (CNPP) and Editor of Brooks Foreign Policy Review, the international affairs arm of CNPP. His articles on foreign policy have appeared in numerous newspapers and websites in the Middle East, Eurasia and in the United States. He may be contacted at editor@foreignpolicyreview.org  The Center for New Politics and Policy is based in Washington, D.C.   

Brooks Foreign Policy Review: Memorial to Natalya Estemirova, Russian Human Rights Activist

Press Release: July 16, 2009

West Palm Beach, Florida — Today, Webster Brooks, Director of Brooks Foreign Policy Review expressed his profound sadness at the murder of Russian human rights activist Natalya Estemirova.  “This is yet another trajic murder of a brave and valliant woman who wanted nothing more than justice for the people of Chechnya. She will be remembered by millions of people in Russia and around the world” said Brooks. 

Ms. Estemirova’s was found dead in the Russian republic of  Ingushetia with bullet holes to the head after being abducted in Grozny, Chechnya. Ms. Estemirova worked for Memorial – a human rights organization in Russia and was deeply involved in chronicling human rights abuses in Chechya that included kidnappings and mass executions. Estemirova was killed on the same day as the release of a report she helped research with Human Rights Watch that concluded  Russian officials, including Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, should be held accountable for crimes committed on their watch. A single mother, Estemirova worked with two other top rights activists, rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and reporter Anna Politkovskaya, who also have been killed. 

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressing his condolences, and ordered the country’s top investigative official “to take all necessary measures” to find the killers. His press spokeswoman Natalya Timakova said Estemirova’s murder appeared to be related to her work. In 2007, Estemirova was the first recipient of an Anna Politkovskaya memorial award, given by the Reach All Women in War charity, and received other European awards for her work. She had collected evidence of rights abuses in Chechnya since 1999, when the second separatist war began in the province after the Soviet collapse of 1991.

 Ms. Estemirova’s funeral service was held on Thursday, July 16 in Grozny, the Chechen capital. She is survived by a 16 year-old daughter.

Leering Bear, Rising Dragon: Life Along the Sino-Russian Border

by Collin Spears, BFPR Chief Foreign Policy Correspondent Washington, D.C.

Background

The Chinese government declared 2006, The “Year of Russia”; and in turn, Russia celebrated 2007 as “The Year of China.” These mutual pronouncements were part of a decade long rapprochement between the two states. After many years of mutual acrimony and suspicion the barriers that divide the two nations have abated, replaced by a bridge of pragmatism. This new relationship, based on mutual resentment of global Western dominance and a shared interest in Central Asian security; has an unintended consequence: both nations are seeing increased economic interaction on their border. Conversely, this contact has fed lingering paranoia and insecurity in Russia, a former great power that is seeing itself eclipsed economically and politically by China, a state it once considered a “little brother.” Less then a decade ago, this was reflected in an ominous warning given by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, ”If we don’t make concrete efforts…the future local population will speak Japanese, Chinese or Korean” (Wines 2001). Currently, the Russian political elite are not publicly expressing fear of territorial encroachment and potential colonization, but these attitudes are increasing in the general population. This xenophobic sentiment is an outgrowth of reawakened Russian nationalism, which has served as a swathe for the disillusionment that came from loss of empire. However, to have a truly constructive engagement with China, Russia must move beyond its historic tendency to loath any nation along its periphery it cannot dominate.

Eastward Russian expansion at the expense of China began hundreds of years of suspicion and animosity between the two nations. In August of 1689, Imperial Russia and the Chinese Qing Dynasty signed their first treaty over land disputes in the modern Russian Far East, which was formerly part of China. Almost three-hundred years later, under the new political incarnations of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, conflict along the 4,300km (2,700 mile) border renewed due to ideological clashes between the two communist states. At the height of tensions, the Soviet Union had as many as 700,000 troops on the border, adjacent to a million Chinese soldiers (Blagov 2005). A few years before, during the reign of Joseph Stalin, the Soviets repatriated many Chinese still living in the border area or deported them to Central Asia Republics. Chinese leaders, including Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, openly bemoaned the amount of territory China had lost to Russia historically; land the Chinese believe was unfairly stolen. Nonetheless, in 1989 the Soviet Union and China normalized relations and reduced the militarization on the border by 1991.

Brooks Sunday Global Review With Russian Specialist Nicolai Petro

Dr. Nicolai Petro

FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND FIVE CENT CIGAR NEWSPAPER

Political science professor offers insight on foreign relations during online discussion

Kathleen McKiernanIssue date: 2/27/09:

As part of a new online public forum for foreign policy discussion, the University of Denver’s Center for New Politics and Policy sought out the insights of University of Rhode Island political science professor Nicolai Petro on U.S.-Russian relations.

Senior policy fellow at the CNPP, Webster Brooks III, comments regularly on international affairs, and produces the “Brooks Sunday Global Review,” which is broadcast nationwide every Sunday at 8 p.m. through XM Sirius satellite radio.

Originally organized as the University of Denver’s African-American studies center, the center is now expanding its agenda to focus on new opportunities that arise in American politics from the election of the country’s first African-American president, Barack Obama.

An expert on Russian politics, and a former attaché to the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Petro discussed political development in Russia, and how the U.S. should respond to Russia’s foreign policy during his interview with Brooks on Sunday.

He offered counterarguments to Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., who had spoken on the same topic the previous week, as part of Brooks’ two-part series on Russia. While Cohen argued that Russia views America as a Cold War adversary, Petro sees a chance to improve relations between America and Russia.

“There are interesting new opportunities for improving US-Russian relations, but it would have to begin with a reassessment of Russian initiatives by the U.S. because, if the current administration uses the same assessment as the Bush, there will be no improvement. The [U.S.] can’t keep lecturing at Russia. We need to start treating each other as equals,” Petro said.

Petro refers to the air base in Manas which NATO used as a key supply facility for troops in Afghanistan, and which Kyrgyzstan decided to close Feb. 20.

Petro says it may be harder to change relations between America and Russia because of the media’s influence on American attitudes and assumptions toward Russia.

“The mainstream media does a bad job of explaining what’s happening in Russia, so people think of it as an abnormal country,” Petro said. “It’s harder to just be friends with Russia because of the negative tone taken by the mainstream media. That’s where I come in. Through education we can show where the media is missing the story. That’s what I try to do when I teach about Russia.”

Since many media correspondents come from a similar background and education, they think alike and that “makes it hard to recognize things that are not expected,” Petro said.

“Our assumptions about what’s possible leads to omission of a great deal of information. Because it’s missing, people can’t go back and say the story is incomplete, because to them it’s the full story. It’s a big problem, the assumptions we have going into discussions with [Russia] have fed a persistent ‘intelligence gap.,’” says Petro, that may take more than a generation to overcome.

Brooks Sunday Global Review: Inside Putin’s Russia House With Dr. Nicolai Petro

Dr. Nicholai Petro

PRESS RELEASE
BROOKS SUNDAY GLOBAL REVIEW
FEBRUARY 26, 2009

INSIDE PUTIN’S RUSSIA HOUSE — INTERVIEW WITH DR. NICOLAI PETRO ON US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT – On Sunday, February 22, 2009, former U.S. Attache to Russia, Dr. Nicolai Petro joined Sunday Global Review host Webster Brooks for an hour-long discussion on U.S-Russia strategic relations with the new Obama administration. The in-depth discussion covered areas of nuclear weapons, global energy policy, Afghanistan and the Central Asian region. In addition Dr. Petro discussed the political turmoil in Ukraine, its relations with Russia and upcoming national elections in 2010.

BROOKS SUNDAY GLOBAL REVIEW, 2.15.09

Dr. Ariel Cohen

Brooks Sunday Global Review, 2.15.09 – Dr. Ariel Cohen, a Russia and Central Asian expert with the Heritage Foundation, discusses President Obama’s foreign policy options for a resurgent Russia.

Brooks Sunday Global Review Kicks Off With a Look Inside Putin’s Russia House

Center for New Politics and Policy Senior Fellow Webster Brooks in Moscow

Brooks Foreign Policy Review
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 15, 2009

Hartford, Connecticut –On Sunday, February 15, 2009, Brooks Sunday Global Review–a new weekly foreign policy talk show will debut with an inside look at Russian foreign policy. Dr. Ariel Cohen, a Russia and Central Asian expert with the Heritage Foundation will discuss President Obama’s foreign policy options for a resurgent Russia. Webster Brooks will host the Sunday Review.

The special two-part series on Russian foreign policy continues with a look at Russia-Ukrainian relations with Nicolai Petro, former U.S. attache to Russia (Moscow), and Professor of Politics at the University of Rhode Island. On March 8, Brooks Sunday Global review shifts gears and focuses on Iran with Dr. Hooshang Amirahmahdi, President of the American-Iranian Council.

The new weekly Sunday Review broadcast will be available on the Brooks Foreign Policy Review webpage and the Center for New Politics and Policy website. Brooks said “We hope to provide the public with an in-depth and behind the scenes look at critical foriegn policy developments each week.” Mr. Brooks can be contacted at wbrooks@newpolicycenter.org or publicrelations@newpolicycenter.org and by phone at 866.290.6032.