A better way through the policy minefield
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Mayıs 25, 2009 00:00
Our knowledge of the technologies and techniques of mine-clearing is limited to that gleaned from the odd war movie: an American GI strips off his bayonet and begins gently probing the crawl space ahead or an Indian "sapper" tests the field with wire-tipped bamboo.
This is hardly useful information to advise us on the proper choices to be made by Turkey to clear a roughly 200-square kilometer area on the Syrian border of mines by 2014. The date is when the mines must be cleared in accord with international treaty.
But there are better motivations: a return of the land to agricultural cultivation and local economic opportunity.
Despite our lack of expertise, however, common sense suggests that systematic and methodical approaches will work best. And we would like to see more evidence of such in the policy approach to the issue in Ankara.
OK, if NATO can step in and lend a hand, that sounds like a great choice. NATO is asking a great deal of Turkey these days and has a checkered history of fair dealing with Turkey. So this would no doubt make us and others feel more warm in general about our relationship in the alliance. But we also realize that NATO is a pretty busy organization right now, that there are bound to be plenty of demands on mine-sweeping expertise in places like Afghanistan and there might well be other reasonable constraints.
So barring the possibility of such a convenient and, we would expect, cost-efficient solution, what might be the options to pick Turkey’s way through this policy version of a minefield. Missteps can trigger backlash from locals eyeing the parceling out of cleared land or nationalist reaction of a privatization model that envisions a foreign firm gaining a 44-year lease on the land in question. Engaging an Israeli firm (they arguably have the most expertise) risks emotional debate and just paying up something near $1 billion is distasteful at a time of great economic woe. Clearly this minefield-clearing is a minefield in and of itself. And clearly, the mines must be cleared. So what to do?
How about an A Plan, a B Plan and a C Plan? How about a list of alternatives to a privatization-lease option? How about an evaluation of the potential land value? Returned to use, is the market value more or less than the cost of the mine sweep? How about seeing the specifics on how a foreign lease-holder might develop the property over 44 years?
Or here is an idea with "strategic depth." How about consolidating this challenge into a comprehensive mine clearing agenda involving southern Lebanon and Gaza where lack of international funding for such operations is killing dozens of civilians on an almost weekly basis?
We think this is what the smart American GI or the savvy Indian sapper would advise. But maybe we’ve been watching too many movies.
But there are better motivations: a return of the land to agricultural cultivation and local economic opportunity.
Despite our lack of expertise, however, common sense suggests that systematic and methodical approaches will work best. And we would like to see more evidence of such in the policy approach to the issue in Ankara.
OK, if NATO can step in and lend a hand, that sounds like a great choice. NATO is asking a great deal of Turkey these days and has a checkered history of fair dealing with Turkey. So this would no doubt make us and others feel more warm in general about our relationship in the alliance. But we also realize that NATO is a pretty busy organization right now, that there are bound to be plenty of demands on mine-sweeping expertise in places like Afghanistan and there might well be other reasonable constraints.
So barring the possibility of such a convenient and, we would expect, cost-efficient solution, what might be the options to pick Turkey’s way through this policy version of a minefield. Missteps can trigger backlash from locals eyeing the parceling out of cleared land or nationalist reaction of a privatization model that envisions a foreign firm gaining a 44-year lease on the land in question. Engaging an Israeli firm (they arguably have the most expertise) risks emotional debate and just paying up something near $1 billion is distasteful at a time of great economic woe. Clearly this minefield-clearing is a minefield in and of itself. And clearly, the mines must be cleared. So what to do?
How about an A Plan, a B Plan and a C Plan? How about a list of alternatives to a privatization-lease option? How about an evaluation of the potential land value? Returned to use, is the market value more or less than the cost of the mine sweep? How about seeing the specifics on how a foreign lease-holder might develop the property over 44 years?
Or here is an idea with "strategic depth." How about consolidating this challenge into a comprehensive mine clearing agenda involving southern Lebanon and Gaza where lack of international funding for such operations is killing dozens of civilians on an almost weekly basis?
We think this is what the smart American GI or the savvy Indian sapper would advise. But maybe we’ve been watching too many movies.