It seems that Turkey is serious about starting a two-front war. The Turkish Air Force flew strike missions on July 27 against positions held by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants in Syria and Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq. According to media reports, Turkish troops also shelled targets in Aleppo province early on the same day, wounding four Kurdish fighters. This action, along with air strikes on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)’s camps, has effectively put an end to the truce observed by the Turkish government and the Kurdish separatists over the past two years.
In response, the military wing of the PKK, which is banned in Turkey, has published on its website a statement maintaining that the government has “unilaterally terminated” the truce. Amid air strikes on Kurdish positions, “the truce has no meaning anymore,” the statement said.
According to the observers, Turkey resorted to military force in response to the terrorist attack in Suruc, which killed 32 people on July 20. The ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack.
An emergency meeting of NATO was to be held on July 28 at Turkey’s request, allowing the nation to inform its allies of the actions taken in response to the aforementioned act of terrorism committed by Islamic State extremists near the Syrian border and the Islamist attack on a Turkish military unit, resulting in the death of one soldier.
The Day turned to the executive director of the Center for Middle East Studies Ihor SEMYVOLOS for a comment on Turkey’s new two-front war and explanation of the meaning of the Turkish prime minister’s statement that air strikes targeting ISIS militants and Kurdish separatists can “change the regional game.”
“Regarding the Kurdish problem, Recep Erdogan and his party proclaimed a policy of dialog with the Kurds on coming to power a decade ago. To a large extent, this policy was intended to solve the Kurdish issue. It was a quite understandable step, seeing that Erdogan, as a moderate Islamist or conservative democrat, had as his starting point the idea that reconciliation was possible on a broad Islamic platform. After all, the Kurds and the Turks being Muslims makes the dialog between them viable and welcomed by both peoples.
“The only problem that spoiled the game plan was the fact that the Kurdish parties were nationalist first and foremost, not Muslim. Meanwhile, the legacy of Kemal Ataturk prevented the Turks from making a real effort to go beyond that framework. They tried to on some occasions, but they could not reconsider the basic concept stating that all residents of Turkey are Turks. In other words, two mutually isolated worldviews have been facing off in this case. Therefore, the PKK problem remains and will not go away, especially since the ISIS’s rise has seen the Kurds getting arms shipments, which makes dealing with the PKK militants much more difficult for the Turkish army.
“On the other hand, Erdogan was ambivalent on the ISIS for a long time. However, soon after he announced the policy of ‘zero problems’ with neighbors and launched an extensive effort to normalize relations with Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, it became clear that it was unsustainable in the long term, as the US began to put pressure on Turkey. The policy change was triggered by the events related to the explosion in a Turkish town, terrorists’ attempt to enter the territory of Turkey, and a firefight which killed a Turkish soldier.
“Of course, the general staff responded accordingly, and the Turkish government could not ignore its military’s response. This situation needs a broader assessment, in particular one taking into account the creation of an international coalition to combat ISIS. Turkey could not sit on the sidelines amid it. It may be compared with a pool table, where balls roll and strike each other, and one of them will make the game by getting into the pocket. Obviously, the ball which was the nuclear agreement with Iran started rolling and made the game, since it forced Turkey to make its choice. Another ball is Saudi Arabia, which recently conducted arrests as well. All this can also be seen in the context of yet another radical political realignment in this region.”
By the way, when commenting on his country’s air strikes against ISIS militants and Kurdish separatists, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said: “The presence of a Turkey that can use its force effectively can lead to consequences which can change the game in Syria, Iraq, and the entire region, and everyone should see that.” How should we interpret this statement by the Turkish head of government?
“In principle, these are just words so far. Everything will depend on how serious Turkey is about conducting military operations in the region, including in Syria. If it limits itself to border battles, this is old news. However, the very fact of Turkish troops crossing the border into Syria and fighting in that country will bring a momentous change of the situation, for Turkish troops were last seen in Syria at the time of the Ottoman Empire.”
SURUC, JULY 27, 2015. TURKEY HAS STEPPED UP SECURITY MEASURES ON THE BORDER WITH SYRIA AFTER ISLAMIC STATE MILITANTS CARRIED OUT A TERRORIST ATTACK ON JULY 20, WHICH KILLED 32 PEOPLE
Davutoglu said in an interview with editors of the Turkish media that his government had no plans to send ground troops into Syria, and air strikes were designed to support moderate insurgents who were fighting ISIS. On the other hand, the media have reported an agreement between the US and Turkey on the establishment of a security zone near the Turkish-Syrian border and the Turkish government’s permission for American aircraft to use Turkish bases, which was not given at the time of the American operation against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
“All this suggests that Turkey has made its choice regarding which side it is on and who its allies are. For the Americans, this is a very important signal. In particular, it involves the active employment of Turkish aircraft against ISIS militants and long-awaited permission for the US Air Force to use the country’s airfields. In addition, there was a constant stumbling block in US-Turkey relations. If this game is finally on, it just cannot be stopped at will, and Turkey cannot get out of it.”
Some publications, commenting on the recent air strikes on ISIS positions in Syria, were headlined with words “Beginning of the End for the Caliphate.” Can the active involvement of Turkey in combating ISIS be the death blow for the Islamist project?
“I think the caliphate project was nonsense from the very beginning, and it had no chance to succeed. However, this question is raised from time to time. I agree, though, that the caliphate’s expansion mostly came to an end last year after a rapid offensive that stunned everyone. Since then, we have not seen any serious successes of the caliphate. Turkey joining the fight against the ISIS now will seriously affect the situation inside this political organization.”
What do you think about NATO’s prompt response to Turkey’s July 26 request for a meeting of ambassadors of member countries, to be held on July 28 to discuss the situation created by the acts of terrorism and attacks committed by the ISIS on the Turkish border?
“It is clear that Turkey needs external support as it is joining the game it has not played for ages. After all, Turkey forgot about the Middle East lately, even though Erdogan’s idea was to return to the Middle East and make it a resource base for increasing the country’s leverage with the EU.
“It is clear now that Turkey cannot take major steps without consulting with NATO. This is a very serious game, and one should not plunge into it unprepared.”
What conclusions should Ukraine draw from these events? Can they distract the international community from the Russian aggression in the Donbas?
“I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I do not think that Western powers, and particularly the US, suffer from memory-debilitating sclerosis. The national policies are played in many fields at once. Accordingly, there are people who deal with the Ukrainian issue and are in charge of it. These events are a good option for us. If the US, which is our ally, favors this development, we are unlikely to lose anything from it.”
Some experts suggest the existence of a covert understanding between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, involving the US getting Russian assistance against ISIS, and agreeing to federalization of Ukraine in return.
“It is impossible, we are not talking a game of chess here. International politics is more complicated, for all parties have many different interests. When someone starts playing with interests, they do not know how the game will end. For example, did Putin himself, when he began his reckless adventure in Crimea and the Donbas, really look forward to this result? Therefore, all parties are usually playing the game to the best of their abilities.”
