FPC Senior Research Associate Firdevs Robinson gives a detailed and wide ranging account of the current challenges facing the long-running attempts to resolve the division and separation of Cyprus. She argues that unrecognised Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is loosing hope that meaningful progress will be made in the near future and that as the Republic of Cyprus (Greek Cyprus) moves towards holding the EU Presidency, Brussels is no longer seen by the TRNC as a positive actor. She also draws attention to the growing rifts between the TRNC and Turkey on cultural and political lines, while exploring the current phase of tensions between Greek Cyprus and Turkey.

Mr. Cameron described the war-torn Somalia as a “complex jigsaw puzzle.” It is indeed a difficult and unpredictable country with many parallels with Afghanistan.

Western intelligence experts now fear that Somalia is becoming a recruiting ground for radical militants in much the same way Afghanistan was. Somalia is now ranked by MI5 as one of the top three countries in the world, alongside Yemen and Pakistan, which pose a potential security threat to Britain.

In a report published in early February 2012, The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) said that Britons are thought to make up about 25 per cent of the 200 or so foreign fighters fielded by the al-Shabaab group in Somalia and they are said to be currently engaging in a war on neighbouring Kenya and its tourist trade. The Colorado-based One Earth Future Foundation put the cost of the piracy off the coast of Somalia to the world economy at almost $7bn in 2011.

So, the international community could no longer ignore this festering situation in Somalia. As David Cameron put it, “Pirates are disrupting vital trade routes and kidnapping tourists; young minds are being poisoned by radicalism, breeding terrorism that is threatening not just Somalia but the whole world.”

Prime Minister David Cameron hosted the one-day London Conference on Somalia, bringing together fifty-five delegations from the international community. It was attended by US. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon and the foreign ministers of the Middle East and Europe as well as Somali leaders.

They reached agreements in seven key areas – on security, piracy, terrorism, humanitarian assistance, local stability, a reinvigorated political process and on international coordination. It was decided that there will be a follow up conference in Istanbul in June to continue discussions on all these issues.One of the significant outcomes of the London conference was to propel Turkey onto the international stage as a key player in Somalia.

The international community may have a renewed interest in getting involved in Somalia but Turkey has been present and visible in the country for quite some time. It also has had a distinctively different approach to Somalia’s problems.
Turkish sources made it known that the British Prime Minister David Cameron had offered his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan the chance to co-host the International Conference on Somalia. Prime Minister Erdogan could not attend the meeting due to health problems.
Last August, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his wife visited the country together with a high-profile delegation of Turkish officials, businessmen and celebrities. Turkey opened an embassy in Mogadishu in November 2011. There are twelve Turkish humanitarian organisations functioning in the country and Turkish Airlines has announced the start of regular flights to capital Mogadishu from 6 March 2012. There are several Turkish schools in Somalia, run by the Gulen movement, an influential religious community with a vast network of international education programmes. Recently, Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs and the Turkish Religious Affairs Foundation (TDV) brought a group of 400 Somalis to Ankara, mostly for Islamic education but some for nursing and vocational training. Foreign Minister Davutoglu gave the total number of Somali students in Turkey as 800 and he announced that up to 2000 Somali students will be given an opportunity to be educated in Turkey. “Soon, there will be a new generation of Somalis trained in Turkey,” he said.
In his London conference speech, the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu called for sustainable development and economic growth. He made some specific suggestions such as developing a provincial reconstruction team (PRT) model for regional reconstruction as in Afghanistan. He also underlined the need for rebuilding the national transport infrastructure to support law enforcement, trade and communication. Mr Davutoglu confirmed that Turkey has already allocated $300 million aid to Somalia.

At the conference, Mr. Davutoglu highlighted Turkish efforts to provide medical assistance, educational programmes and diplomatic presence in the country. He called others to follow Turkey’s example by opening embassies in Mogadishu.

Briefing Turkish media after the London meeting, Ahmet Davutoglu, was reported as saying that Turkey’s presence has been ”on epic proportions” in Somalia during the past five months, because it had kept all its promises towards Somalia since last year’s Istanbul conference.
Turkey’s increasingly independent, ambitious, self-confident assertiveness on the world stage is welcome by some but viewed with suspicion by others.

Yet, almost every Somali I spoke to during the conference was full of praise for Turkey. Turkey’s emphasis on being on the ground and encouraging sustainable development and economic growth seems to be supported by many Somalis.

Abdirashid Duale, an influential businessman told the Reuters news agency that Turkey was ahead of the pack in exploring ways to engage economically.”I think the Turks have changed the development environment, they’ve changed the landscape. They want to invest,” he said.

The Somali Relief and Development Forum representing Somali NGOs involved in humanitarian activities in Somalia and neighboring countries complained after the conference that their problems are not only political, they’re humanitarian and social. The international community had to prioritize the humanitarian situation in Somalia over the war on counter terrorism, piracy and governmental strategies.

In its report published on the eve of the conference, The International Crisis Group called for enhancing the role of Turkey and other Muslim nations in the stabilisation effort, in order to build Somali confidence in the process.

At the press conference following the meeting I asked Prime Minister Cameron what kind of role Turkey would be playing in these international efforts? Mr. Cameron was generous in his praise. He said the Turks had played a vitally important role in Somalia in the delivery of humanitarian aid, in supporting the refugee camps. He thought Prime Minister Erdogan had personally played a very important role.

Whilst Turkey’s bold steps in Somalia are praised publicly, there are reservations voiced in private. Until recently, Turkey had chosen to act unilaterally in Somalia. Its close relations with the partially representative Transitional Federal Government have raised eyebrows. Some of the Turkish aid organisations most active in Somalia, such as the Foundation for Human Rights, Freedoms and Humanitarian relief (IHH) have a controversial reputation. The Turkish charity IHH was one of the key organisers of the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship that was raided by Israeli troops while en-route to Gaza in May 2010.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made it clear that they will not negotiate with the Islamist militant group Al Shabab. Others are more open-minded about possible engagement. But Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told journalists in London that; “all the conflicting parties in Somalia respect Turkey- that is the reason they give importance to Turkey’s presence in the mediation process.”

However, militant Islamist group Al -Shabab was just as hostile to Turkey as they were to the rest of the international community. They called the London conference an attempt to re- colonise Somalia and claimed that Turkish aid was sent to poison the people.

Al Shabab objects to Turkey’s high- profile presence in Somalia based on radical Islamists arguments. According to Somalia Report, a privately funded, non-partisan website, Turkey’s efforts in Somalia are greatly appreciated but what Somalis need in their hour of need are not mosques and imams, but doctors and engineers.

The opposition, despite having received several “gifts” from the government, such as the ministerial scandals, continues as in 2011, without speech or messages, with nothing concrete to say and deeply disorganized. In the midst of disaster, good news: the PSDB already has a candidate. Both FHC and Sergio Guerra, president of the party, announced support for Aecio Neves (MG) as a candidate for presidential succession in 2014.

From this fact, some doubts emerge, as, for example, if José Serra accepts the choice, and if Aécio will be a competitive candidate. Another doubt is if he can unite the opposition. Finally, if he really wants to be a candidate. To be a candidate with a realistic chance of victory, Aécio depends more of others than himself.

To be a strong competitor, Aécio will have to obtain the support not only of all opposition parties. He will to explore very well the split in the government coalition, attracting, for example, the PSB and/or PDT for his side.

Aecio Neves, despite the strong last name and good transit between politicians, has not yet shown skills to play the big game of the presidential race. His profile would be perfect for the 1980s, as a kind of Collor from Minas Gerais. However, Brazil today is more complex and the government is much more powerful than it used to be in the past.

The other issue relates to the second trend: the unity of the political base. Until now, after more than 15 months of Dilma’s government, is evident that the governing base is greater than the ministerial reach.

To complicate matters, there is an irresistible vocation for friendly fire. First, between the parties. Then within the parties. Moreover, no tools are available to deal with this situation. The strategy used it to procrastinate rather than establishing a “judgment” that demarcates and pacify relations.

The government relies on its economic power to satisfy everyone and to promote growth without (much) inflation.The formula is good on the one hand, for the people – that, ultimately, is who decides – is satisfied and trust the president.

On the other hand, the lack of a consistent plan of pacification of the governing coalition will charge a price in terms of efficiency, range and modernity in our public policies. Therein lies the faint hope of the opposition, and also the still uncertain and likely impact of social networks in the dispute.

In today’s age of global austerity and insecurity, UK development policy is arguably more critical than ever in reasserting Britain’s confidence at home and abroad. The Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown successfully created an internationally-respected development agency in the Department for International Development which, in spite of pre-election fears, continues to enjoy independence from the UK’s Foreign Office and maintains strong ministerial representation in the coalition government’s cabinet.

Yet, the world has changed since the days when New Labour evangelised about the moral and ethical imperatives of making poverty in Africa history, and promoted responsible stewardship in the international community on issues such as securing debt cancellation for low income economies, UN and World Bank reform or lectured on the merits of good governance.

An unprecedented financial and economic global slowdown – which as yet shows no sign of abating – has translated into high levels of government spending cuts, unemployment and inflationary pressures domestically. Furthermore, in the face of the UK’s relative decline as a global power, this is coupled with the growing political and economic influence of emerging power centres such as Brazil, China and India. All of this makes the domestic case for supporting development in other countries increasingly challenging.

The coalition government, which has now been in office for more than 18 months, rigorously defends an unwavering notion of liberal pragmatism where UK national interest and national security are paramount. Thus, as a result of a recent review of UK aid, spending will now focus on fewer countries – 27 in total – with a particular emphasis on states affected by conflict and a greater focus on maternal mortality. Aid to Burundi is to be phased out, while the newest member of the group of Brics, South Africa, remains a UK aid recipient.

UK development spending will also concentrate more on achieving value for money. As a consequence, aid effectiveness is to be measured by outputs and outcomes, not inputs. On the one hand, an assessment of the multilateral agencies has resulted in Unicef qualifying as a ‘good performer’ and on track to receive increases in UK aid. On the other however, the International Labour Organisation’s funding is to be completely withdrawn, while the Food and Agriculture Organisation has been given a final warning.

In spite of these attempts to reshape UK development policy, a recent survey published by the Institute of Development Studies on public opinion about aid and development suggests that support is waning. In the context of tackling the UK budget deficit, 71 percent of respondents felt that aid spending should be cut and only 20 percent of those surveyed felt they had a sufficient level of awareness and understanding regarding the country’s development strategy. At a time when the UK Government has – for now at least – made a steadfast commitment to protecting and increasing development spending – up to 0.7 percent of UK gross national income – Dfid needs to become more than just an agency dedicated to dispensing money. It must transform into a development ministry ensuring greater public communication, co-operation and leadership across government in the UK on issues affecting global development, ranging from trade and investment to tax policies, to migration policy, energy and the environment, though not limited to climate change.

In essence, to coin a phrase from a report published by the UK peace-building NGO, International Alert, development is less about ‘how much’ and more about ‘how’.

Josephine Osikena is director of the London-based think tank, the Foreign Policy Centre

This article was first published in ‘This is Africa’, the FT quarterly at: http://www.thisisafricaonline.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/345/UK__Development_Policy_in_an_age_of_austerity.html

FPC Senior Research Associate gives her analysis of Turkey’s role on the international stage and as a leading player in the evolving map of the Middle East. She notes Turkey’s enhanced prestige but assesses the on going problems with Syria, France, Cyprus and the challenges it faces at home.

Read on February 2, the 2012 Message was one of the largest ever sent. With 467 pages, it positively evaluated the government’s achievements adopted so far for the various areas proposed and the developments intended for public policies for this and next years of the mandate.

It presented an extensive set of measures, new or already underway, in the economic and social areas, and also in the improvement of public management, which are to be sufficient to maintain the country’s growth, despite the drawbacks of the global economy still in crisis since 2008. The document goes through the promise of a better 2012 – even with all the challenges faced, 2011 was regarded as “good despite the difficulties.”

The government assesses the external environment adversely. Landmark for the present crisis, the United States grew slightly in 2011 (1.8% projected by the IMF) and should maintain the pace this year. Europe is considered a bigger difficulty to solve its current problems. For all advanced economies, it is expected low levels of growth and high unemployment. The set of economic and monetary measures adopted does not generate the certainty of overcoming the current crisis.

The world will coexist with a differentiated evolution of the economy. And even so, developing countries, less affected by the current crisis, will not be immune to it. The decline in demand in the developed countries decreases the industrial production and prices of commodities exported by them.

The document states measures taken in response to the crisis since 2008, how they were being mitigated from 2010, with the positive responses of the national economy, government action to tackle the inflationary process, from the end of 2010, and the steps again to remove the effects of the crisis in the last quarter of 2011, when production virtually stagnated.

Since December, measures adopted included the loosening of monetary policy, tax relief measures, such as white goods, construction, IOF for individuals, foreign debentures of infrastructure, trucks, commercial vehicles and agricultural machinery.

It is always emphasized that this set of measures did not negatively affect the stringency of fiscal policy. On the contrary, it led to the elevation of primary surplus targets to R$ 10 billion.

The strategy was to ally the strengthening of economic fundamentals with initiatives to increase productivity, qualification of manpower, impulse on technological innovation and investments in infrastructure.

The year of 2012 begins with increases in expenses related to the minimum wage offset by a relative decrease in personnel expenses. The president also shares this positive scenario with the attitude of Congress to postpone the wage adjustment for servers and members of the judiciary power.

The Message concludes that the Brazilian economy has strong fundamentals, better than in 2008, and, unlike other countries, can maintain a sustainable growth path, with fiscal responsibility, without inflation and external imbalances.

The presidential statement is an interesting read, both for the evaluation of the various government programs, and to show short-term courses.

In this sense, there is more space devoted to the presentation and evaluation of ongoing programs than to trace long-term goals. A more adequate and appropriate message for a year in which there is less certainty on the horizon.

The government did not commit to major reforms. After all, reality has shown, including in 2011, that ad hoc adjustments are more feasible than achieving major constitutional amendments.

The government points to the importance of increasing investments. It is noteworthy to mention that they were lower in 2011 than in 2010, even with the announcements of new stages of the Growth Acceleration Program, My House, My Life and Greater Brazil Plan. The government claims problems in the beginning of the administration, but investment also fell as a function of fiscal restraint. The Message did not anticipate how the government will be able to expand these investments in 2012 and keep the promise to meet the fiscal targets. But it will certainly be a good exercise of political articulation and management of economic results.

The measures proposed for 2012 and the targets for the various public policies seek the path of continuity (and not in alternation) in order to assert that necessary measures to increase growth, solve the problems of the productive sector, protect the national economy, expand social programs, reduce poverty and misery will be taken, without jeopardizing fiscal and macroeconomic balance.

After all the government needs to convince economic agents that the country will grow and invite them to a “big deal”, involving companies in a new cycle of productive investments.

The messages of the Parliament

During the reopening ceremony of the work of the Legislative, the chairmen of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Electoral Court (representing the Judiciary) gave important signals about what to expect in 2012.

The chairman of the House, Marco Maia, acknowledged that Congress will have less time to vote on measures, due to the fact that in electoral years the work is drastically affected from June on, when the caucuses begin to define candidates and coalitions.

Marco Maia highlighted some priority issues in the legislative agenda: 1) Supplementary Pension Fund for civil servants, 2) distribution of royalties for oil, 3) the General Law of the World Cup in 2014, and 4) change in “Zero Alcohol Law “, in order to make it more severe the act of drinking and driving.

The chairman of the Senate, Jose Sarney (PMDB-AP), took the opportunity to criticize the executive branch regarding the issue of Provisional Measures. To Sarney, excessive measures hinders the Congress and reduces the quality of laws in the country, since there is little time for Parliament to discuss such proposals.

In 2011 the Senate approved constitutional amendment proposal changing rite of process of provisional measures in the Congress. The proposal is in the House, but the odds of voting this year are small. His pronouncement on the subject will not have any practical effect on this issue.

Sarney also defended electoral and party reforms. In 2011 the matter was discussed in the House and Senate, however, very little progress was made. The outlook for this year is not good and even occasional advances are unexpected.

A highlight in Sarney’s speech was the suggestion to create a committee of experts to discuss federal relations. For him, the relationship between the Union, the states and the municipalities is very worn out and should be examined.

Besides the General Law of the World Cup and the issue of royalties, Sarney mentioned the change in the State Participation Fund (FPE). The Congress will have approve this year a new division for the Fund. In February of 2010 the Supreme Court concluded that the apportionment provided in Complementary Law 62/89 – in effect, therefore almost two decades old – was unconstitutional. This is because, under the Constitution, the FPE should “promote social and economic equilibrium” of the states and Federal District – which is not possible with fixed coefficients of participation, since the revision of percentages, which should have occurred in 1991, was never made . The Supreme remained, however, the application of the criteria of the law until the end of this year.

Electoral Supreme Court Minister Ricardo Lewandowski made a point of highlighting the collaboration between the three branches. Unlike the perception of some, who see the Supreme Court “legislating,” Lewandowski chose to classify this as a coordinated effort between the two powers.

Government, opposition and future

Governmental problems continue emerging from the allied base, and not from oppositional movements. This scenario can signal two trends. The first is that the opposition, as it stands, will not be a match for the government in 2014. The other is that the union of the governing coalition in 2014 will depend on a major commitment of Lula and Dilma. Let’s examine the two trends.

The opposition, despite having received several “gifts” from the government, such as the ministerial scandals, continues as in 2011, without speech or messages, with nothing concrete to say and deeply disorganized. In the midst of disaster, good news: the PSDB already has a candidate. Both FHC and Sergio Guerra, president of the party, announced support for Aecio Neves (MG) as a candidate for presidential succession in 2014.

From this fact, some doubts emerge, as, for example, if José Serra accepts the choice, and if Aécio will be a competitive candidate. Another doubt is if he can unite the opposition. Finally, if he really wants to be a candidate. To be a candidate with a realistic chance of victory, Aécio depends more of others than himself.

To be a strong competitor, Aécio will have to obtain the support not only of all opposition parties. He will to explore very well the split in the government coalition, attracting, for example, the PSB and/or PDT for his side.

Aecio Neves, despite the strong last name and good transit between politicians, has not yet shown skills to play the big game of the presidential race. His profile would be perfect for the 1980s, as a kind of Collor from Minas Gerais. However, Brazil today is more complex and the government is much more powerful than it used to be in the past.

The other issue relates to the second trend: the unity of the political base. Until now, after more than 15 months of Dilma’s government, is evident that the governing base is greater than the ministerial reach.

To complicate matters, there is an irresistible vocation for friendly fire. First, between the parties. Then within the parties. Moreover, no tools are available to deal with this situation. The strategy used it to procrastinate rather than establishing a “judgment” that demarcates and pacify relations.

The government relies on its economic power to satisfy everyone and to promote growth without (much) inflation.The formula is good on the one hand, for the people – that, ultimately, is who decides – is satisfied and trust the president.

On the other hand, the lack of a consistent plan of pacification of the governing coalition will charge a price in terms of efficiency, range and modernity in our public policies. Therein lies the faint hope of the opposition, and also the still uncertain and likely impact of social networks in the dispute.

As part of the FPC’s new Israel and Palestine after the Arab Spring essay series Dr Toby Green and Prof Alan Johnson from BICOM (Alan is also a longstanding FPC Senior Research Associate) give us their take on the current state of the conflict. They argue that attempts to reach a two state solution are at a crisis and Palestinian refusal to enter negotiations without pre-conditions was a key problem. They argue that the US had made a policy error in insisting on a full-settlement freeze from which it later climbed down and that the Palestinian decision to go unilaterally to the UN was an error. They argue regional change put pressure on the Fatah and Hamas to form a unity deal and the regime changes in neighbours have removed important alliances. They argue that the international community needs to work with the political reality on the ground, focus on bottom-up not top-down initiatives, set realistic expectations and look for incremental steps forward.

As part of the FPC’s new Israel and Palestine after the Arab Spring essay series John Lyndon, Executive director of OneVoice Europe (a peace building NGO operating with communities in both Israel and Palestine) gives us his take on the state of the conflict. He argues that the Arab Spring risks the rise of new governments more hostile to Israel but that shifts to the right in Israeli policy have been ‘insular’ and ‘troubling’. He argues that the last year has seen Israel and the international community disempower the moderate Palestinian leadership, through continued settlement building and the rejection of the statehood option, while the prisoner transfer agreement following the Shalit release strengthened Hamas. He believes support for the two state solution and hope for negotiations are at an all-time low but calls for an active response from civil-society.

Dr David Grigorian, Senior Economist at the International Monetary Fund’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department and a co-founder of Policy Forum Armenia, gives an in-depth analysis of Armenia’s economic development from independence and to the present day. He argues that better governance is crucial to efforts to reform the economy, tackle public debt and improve long-term growth prospects.

FPC Research Associate Marc Herzog explores the development of Turkey’s Foreign Policy and its response to the Arab Spring, setting out the challenges faced and those still to come.