TURKEY
HAS NO PLAN TO SEND GROUND TROOPS IN SYRIA: TURKISH FM
Turkish
Foreign Minister said that any ground operation inside Syria would
need to involve all countries of US-led coalition against ISIS
terrorists.
22
February, 2016
On
Monday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said to a press
conference that Turkey and Saudi Arabia currently have no plan for a
ground operation into Syria.
Cavusoglu
said that any ground operation inside Syria would need to involve all
countries of US-led coalition against ISIS terrorists.
“A
land operation of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in Syria has never been on
the agenda, and it is not on the agenda.” Turkish Foreign
Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.
A
Turkish official said last week that Turkey views ground operations
as necessary and would be a willing partner if the notion got
approval from a broader coalition. He also claimed that Turkey
would protect their interests in Northern Syria by any means, as well
as support of Turkoman and Syrian opposition. Now Turkey changed its
position on sending troops in Syria.
It
is reported by a western media citing a Turkish official that Turkey
raised the issue in recent talks with the U.S. and other Western
nations.
On
Sunday Saudi prince said that the US-led airstrikes in Syria had been
ineffective and a ground intervention was needed in Syria.
Earlier
this month Saudi announced that the country was ready to send Special
Forces to Syria if the US-led coalition decides to send ground
troops.
It
is widely believed that Saudi Arabia and Turkey had been supporting
terrorist groups against the government of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad.
Some
analyst suggested that Turkish approach changed rapidly. They
considered it a result of the US pressure on Turkey after the
agreement between Russia and the US is reached in Munich.
The
Syrian Center for Policy Research published a report that said, the
conflict in Syria has claimed the lives of over 470,000 people since
March 2011.
Turkey Backs Down From Invasion Rhetoric
Турция сделала заявление по наземной операции в Сирии
All
the countries of the (NATO) coalition should participate in ground
operations in Syria. This statement was made by Foreign Minister of
Turkey Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu.
The
Turkish Minister added that the issue of conducting such operations
is not on the agenda and is not worth it, RIA Novosti reported.
As
a reminder, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support the adoption of ground
military operations in Syria. Since February 14th, the Turkish
military has shelled the positions of the Kurdish militia in Northern
Syria. Reports of the presence of Turkish soldiers in Syria has not
been confirmed.
Turkey is screwed. And it’s all US fault
by
Arras
22
February, 2015
Amid
rising tensions between Turkey and Russia over the situation in
Syria, one important fact got lost. It’s not Russia that caused the
current Turkish problems. It was the USA.
The
most fundamental problem modern Turkey is facing is the Kurdish
question. It’s a chronic problem, which threatens the integrity of
Turkey and the Turkish elite perceives it as the largest security
treat the country is facing. Turkish policies in Syria are determined
by the Kurdish issue more than anything else. The change from the so
called policy of zero problems with neighbors, which Erdogan and his
government used to promote, came as a surprise to many and is
directly related to the Kurdish issue and the events in Iraq after
the disastrous US invasion.
Here,
a little historical excursion is needed. When the modern Turkish
state was created on the ashes of the Ottoman empire following defeat
in WWI, it was seeking a new identity on which it could successfully
establish itself. The new young Turkish elite chose the model of
nationalism, at that time a progressive concept so popular in
contemporary Europe.
Turkey,
just like some of its European counterparts, was however faced with
the imperial heritage of diverse ethnic groups living on its newly
established territory. There were large and ancient communities of
Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and many other people living in Anatolia and
the European part of Turkey. Ethnic Turks themselves were relative
newcomers to these parts of the world, having arrived only in the
11th century. Greeks and other ethnic groups, on the other hand, can
trace their presence in what is now Turkey well into the Bronze Age
and beyond (3300-1200 BC).
The
Turks managed to solve the Greek question after the Graeco-Turkish
war of 1919-1922 and the large exchange of population which followed
it. Most Greeks left Turkey and Turkey received an influx of ethnic
Turks from Greece in return. The Armenian question got solved already
during WWI in what many call the Armenian genocide. Term which Turkey
fiercely opposes. It was a forceful deportation of Armenians into the
Syrian desert. It is estimated that about 1.5 million of them died.
Turkey acknowledges the fact of the deportation, but claims that loss
of life was an unintended consequence rather than a deliberate act.
One
ethnic question which Turkey however did not manage to solve is the
Kurdish question. The Kurds are an ancient community of Iranian
people who accepted Islam. They were skilled soldiers and played an
important role in Islamic armies, including the Seljuk and the
Ottoman. Indeed, the most famous historical Kurdish figure is Saladin
(name under which he is known in the West), a Muslim general who
reconquered Jerusalem during the Crusades and a sultan of Egypt and
Syria.
The
Turks tried to solve the Kurdish issue by straightforward
assimilation. They announced that from now on, Kurds are simply
„Eastern Turks“ and banned the Kurdish language. The Kurds
resisted and the Turks answered with repression, forced relocation,
discrimination and heavy handed military crackdown. Kurds in Turkey
are since then in de facto constant rebellion and a, sometimes less
sometimes more intense, war with the Turkish government, which
claimed thousands of lives on both sides.
Despite
having an advantage in numbers and equipment, Turkey seems to be
slowly losing this war. It is estimated that Kurds make up to about
20% of the Turkish population and Kurdish families have about double
the birthrate of Turkish ones. In a few decades, this will eventually
lead to a situation when there will be more Kurdish than Turkish men
of military age in Turkey.
To
make matters worse for Turkey, Kurds do not live only in Turkey.
Thanks to the post colonial legacy and arbitrariness of borders,
which France and Britain drew in the sands, plains and hills of the
Middle East, similarly sized Kurdish communities live in the
neighboring countries of Syria, Iraq and Iran. Together they inhabit
one large, almost continuous area called Kurdistan. Fortunately for
the Turks, the Kurds in these countries until recently faced similar
persecution as in Turkey. All these countries perceive their Kurds as
a threat to their territorial integrity. The most well know episode
of this repression came when Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Kurds
in Northern Iraq. That was by no means an exclusive example, but one
which at the time suited Western interests in the Middle East and
thus received widespread publicity in Western media. After decades of
silent complicity. Which brings us back to the cause of the recent
change in Turkish policies and the rising tension on Turkish-Syrian
border.
When
the USA decided to invade Iraq in 2003, Turkey correctly concluded
that the operation is pure hazard with an unpredictable outcome. In a
hope of minimizing the negative impact on Turkey itself, they decided
to keep strict neutrality and to not intervene, and went so far as to
refuse to allow their US and British NATO allies to use Turkish
territory and bases for an attack.
The
US attack on Iraq and the occupation led to an all out civil war
inside the country and eventually broke Iraq into de facto Shia,
Sunni and Kurdish parts. All of a sudden Turkey was faced not just
with Kurdish insurgency inside Turkey, but, for the first time. also
with (de facto) an independent Kurdish state right on its borders
which could provide a safe haven (regroup and supply) area for Kurds
from inside Turkey. That was a disaster. The Turks tried to deal with
the situation with limited military incursions into Iraqi Kurdistan,
attempts to buy Kurdish leaders and reliance on the ability of their
US partners to keep the Kurds in check and prevent damage. Something
the Americans turned out not to be very capable at. Perhaps even not
willing.
The
lesson Erdogan and the Turkish leadership sees to have learned from
the events in Iraq was likely that abstaining from conflicts in the
region will not shield Turkey from negative consequences and, if
Turkey can not prevent these conflicts, it’s better that Turkey
participates in them and thus is at last able to protect its
interests by influencing the outcome.
When
the USA and their NATO allies decided to change regimes in Northern
Africa and engaged in yet another imperial adventure in Libya,
following initial reluctance, Turkey agreed to join. And when the USA
then decided to start a war in Syria, Turkey jumped on the wagon,
probably on the promise of a quick victory and the instalment of a
new government of the Muslim Brotherhood, friendly to Turkey and its
ruling party. Ankara might have even expected such a government to be
a Turkish client. That certainly was the expectation of Riyadh,
another unfortunate victim of US Middle Eastern policies.
As
is the rule with similar US foreign policies, they seldom work as
advertised. When Assad proved to be resilient, Ankara and Riyadh were
expecting Washington to do what it did in Libya and intervene under
the pretext of a no fly zone and an alleged protection of civilians,
a pretext well tested already in Yugoslavia. No man however steps
into the same river twice, wisdom already ancient Greeks understood.
After the disaster in Libya, opposition to intervention, led
prominently by Russia and China, proved to be stronger, and support
inside the USA and their British and French allies weaker than might
have been anticipated. A no fly zone did not materialize. Of note is,
that Turks and Saudis were its most outspoken proponents and they
insist on establishing a no fly zone in Syria (euphemism for a US led
intervention) till today. Meanwhile, Obama’s administration walked
away, quietly thankful to the Russians for the face saving pretext in
form of the chemical weapons deal.
Regime
change in Syria thus had to be accomplished solely through proxies in
the form of a colorful collection of various more or less disgusting
Sunny Islamic groups, both local and foreign. Turkey and Saudi Arabia
engaged in an enthusiastic support of these groups; openly supporting
those under the moderate name, and less openly others, while publicly
pretending to fight them as radicals and terrorists. In reality. the
only group Turkey ever really fought in Syria were Kurds. Which is
ironically probably the only significant opposition group in Syria
which really deserves name moderate. Despite the catastrophic
heterogeneity of these opposition groups, which are willing to fight
each other as much as they are willing to fight Syrian government, it
seemed that the government will be eventually worn down in a war of
attrition.
But
then came the unexpected Russian intervention and, against all
assurances from Washington about the Russians having another
Afghanistan, it managed to turn the tables and forced the rebels to
what is increasingly looking like an all-out retreat. This is a
disaster of epic proportions for Turkey. Instead of a friendly regime
of the Muslim Brotherhood type in Damascus, which Ankara would be
able to control, they are faced with the creation of a second Kurdish
independent state on their borders. That’s what has sent the
Turkish leadership into panic mode and that’s why the Turks are
seemingly irrationally rising tensions on the border with Syria. In
my opinion, the downing of the Russian plane, the shelling of Kurds
and the concentration of military forces on the border, accompanied
with aggressive rhetoric, are not so much meant to threaten Russia or
Assad, they are first of all desperate attempts to force Washington
to lead an invasion in Syria at last. Which is probably something
Washington itself made Ankara and Riyadh expect in the first place.
Now Washington is being seen dragging their feet and backing out.
Neither Turkey, nor Saudi Arabia are likely to invade alone.
To
conclude, the US policies of destabilizing countries and whole
regions to suit their geopolitical and economic interests in the last
decade or two proved to be often as damaging to US allies as they are
to US opponents. If not more. Another case in point of course is the
European migration crisis. What effect is that going to have on
relations between the USA and their allies on one side, and US
opponents on the other, remains to be seen. But it is reasonable to
expect that dissatisfaction with US leadership will be on the rise.
February/22/2016
Turkey’s difficult times
Nuray Mert
23
February, 2016
Turkey
is in a de facto war-like situation, even if it is not de jure yet.
The warmonger supporters of the government have already started to
celebrate “the new war of independence” in the name of “revenge
for the suppression of Turks as leaders of Muslims” and the end of
the “cursed 20th century” to go “back to future glorious
times.”
In
fact, Turkey’s proxy war started with its Syrian affair and only
recently turned into a de facto war-like situation. From the
beginning, Turkey has been so involved in the Syrian war that the
so-called opposition Syrians have long been accommodated, organized
and allowed to travel freely to and from Syria. Nevertheless, it is
only recently that some Turkish citizens have begun to openly travel
to Syria to fight alongside Turkmens or whomever they like. Some
Turkish journalists started to feel free to interview those who are
fighting in Syria in the name of their country or God, with some of
these volunteers calling the land of Syria “part of the land of
their Ottoman ancestors.” Finally, it has become an official policy
to fight against Kurdish fighters of the Democratic Union
Party/People’s Protection Units (PYD/YPG) as the Turkish army has
been shelling Kurdish positions from the border, and increasing
numbers of volunteers are crossing the border to join the fight
against the PYD/YPG. Therefore, it seems that we are almost at war.
Nevertheless,
Turkey’s undeclared war-like situation is becoming increasingly
controversial since Turkey is fighting against an ally (the YPG) of
Turkey’s Western allies. That is why Turkey has recently been
trying hard to convince its Western friends that YPG is another
terrorist organization that is no different from ISIL and that it is
legitimate to fight against it.
Then,
at a critical moment last week, a bomb blast hit Ankara, killing 28
and injuring many. Shortly after the terrible event, the security
services determined the PYD/YPG to be responsible for the attack,
according to the Turkish government. We, the citizens of Turkey, are
not supposed to inquire more and to be skeptical about what the prime
minister declares, especially if the country is at war. Nonetheless,
we as citizens do not know if the country is at war or not, and, if
so, who is the friend and who is the foe? As far as we know, our
government is a part of the coalition against ISIL along with its
Western allies, but how is it that the Kurdish friends of our allies
are our enemies? In short, we are merely living in limbo.
Worst
of all, our allies do not seem to be “convinced” by our
government’s “findings” concerning responsibility for the
Ankara attack. Indeed, nobody other than Turkey’s citizens who are
obliged to believe in whatever their government says would feel
convinced that the PYD/YPG would do such a thing that would endanger
its relations with the Western powers and will tarnish its legitimacy
as a strong partner on the ground in the fight against ISIL in Syria.
In fact, the PYD and YPG denied any involvement in the attack.
Moreover, a violent Kurdish group, the Kurdistan Freedom Hawks (TAK),
recently declared responsibility.
Perhaps
the Turkish government is “mistaken” or is “too focused” on
the threat from the PYD/YPG that it has emerged to be a usual
suspect; or perhaps the PYD/YPG has turned out to be totally
irrational? No matter what, Turkey’s quick inquiry and rapid fact
finding was doomed to raise skepticism, and it seems not to have
worked politically in favor of Turkey.
On
the contrary, the latest event will further portray Turkey as a
trouble maker that is doing everything to complicate matters for its
allies and hinder the fight against ISIL. Under the circumstances,
Turkey’s constant refusal to be a cooperative ally seems to be
working against it, further discrediting Turkey as an ally and
further diminishing its role as a serious actor in regional politics.
Finally, the word of “ally” has become an empty signifier since
Turkey accuses even its best allies of plotting against it.
Last
but not the least, the president and his party is acting as if we are
also involved in a domestic war against “internal enemies” –
namely anybody who does not offer unconditional support to the
governing party and its leader, be it political Kurds, leftists,
liberals, democrats, secularists or simply environmentalists.
In
short, Turkey’s rulers seem to have too many wars to fight against
too many enemies. It seems that we who live in this country will
lose, regardless of who wins these wars. We already have humanitarian
crises in the Kurdish-populated region, and hundreds of people have
already died in the conflicts, if not more. Besides, more than 200
have died in bombings that have not really been illuminated in less
than a year. God knows what’s going to happen next.
February/22/2016
Turkey: We have the right to conduct operations in Syria, says Erdogan
Expert:
NATO Will Not Like Greece's Offer to Let Russian Ships Bypass Turkey
Doctor
of Economics and Professor of MGIMO, Valentin Katasonov, believes
that such a proposal can be approved at the highest level, because
avoiding shipping through the Bosporus and Dardanelles will be able
to significantly reduce dependence on Turkey, with whom relations
have deteriorated during the operation of the Russian Federation in
Syria.
"I
think the cooperation is not limited to interaction at the level of
the chamber of Commerce, it will be connected later to a higher level
of inter-state relations. The question, of course, is on a national
scale. We really need to exit the Mediterranean sea bypassing the
Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Another alternative is the channel on
the inside of Iran, such a project existed about a hundred years ago.
This option is also being quite seriously discussed," said
Katasonov to RT.
Despite
the fact that the Greek mayor's proposal to help Russia in ensuring
security and continuity of international transportation, due to the
exclusion of Turkey certain risks will be retained, said the expert.
"There
are certain risks to Greece who still need to drop off the goods. Not
all transit countries are friendly to Russia, so it is necessary to
analyze the existence of risks in relation to the inland
transportation of cargo. Special investment in land transport is not
necessary, so this option is possible", said Katasonov.
Valentin
Katasonov noted that such a move would not be welcomed by NATO, and
Greece would be made to pay for their decision, as the country is in
a very difficult financial situation.
"It
will be painfully received by Western countries and NATO, Greece has
nowhere to go — last summer they signed an agreement with the IMF
and the EU for three years, but already by the summer of 2016, the
situation will heat up, and the hot issues that were discussed in
2015, including the country's withdrawal from the EU, will probably
return. So the Greeks are counting on alternative options,"
concluded the expert.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.