Scenarios implying that Syria will lose its political unity, even its territorial integrity, will render the whole southern neighborhood of Turkey destabilized and open to threats in the short and medium terms. As a matter of fact, some Western strategists’ handling of such scenarios as if they are somehow desirable arouses suspicion. Turkish-American relations have gained acceleration lately, within the context of Syria. The dynamism generated due to the inauguration of John Kerry as the Secretary of State have acquired a new dimension with Obama convincing Netanyahu to normalize relations with Turkey during his visit to Israel. Indeed, it was the realities brought forward by the increasing possibility of conflict and instability throughout the region that motivated Washington’s insistance before Tel-Aviv. The protracted conflict in Syria which is the hottest topic on Washington’s agenda regarding the region, and the situation in Iraq not evolving in accordance with what was expected before despite the US wasting trillions of dollars in addition to considerable political capital; both served to prioritizing the need to overhaul the tensions between Turkey and Israel, two regional allies which always had good bilateral relations, on Washington’s part. Grabbing a slice of diplomatic history, President Obama accomplished a favorable result by making necessary suggestions to the newly formed government in Tel-Aviv.
Concerns regarding Syria behind Israeli apology
Uncertainties shadowing the future of Syrian crisis constitute a major motivation behind the normalization of relations. Israel has been irritated since the beginning of the “Arab Awakening” and fears the possibility of radical/extremist factions taking the lead in Syria. Therefore Israel needs to maintain coordination with Turkey throughout following months. As a matter of fact, the necessity of convergence of projections between Turkey and Israel regarding the rules of the game in a renewed Syria, in case of an interference or the chaos inside Syria running rampant, became more obvious in recent months. Therefore fixing the damaged relations betwen two regional and significant allies of the United States was a strategic priority for Washington.
The course of the struggle that has been protractedly continuing for the last two years in Syria is diminishing hopes toward the future of the country. On one side we have many fluctuations within the opposition movement, and on the other side firm resistance is being demonstrated by the Assad regime. An “interregnum” which allows neither side to dominate the other is indicated by these factors in question. Developments leading to the resignation of Moaz Al-Khatib, the sympathetic face of Syrian opposition, considerably damaged the integrity and image of the opposition. While the White House is pursuing a relatively more active policy line toward the Syrian crisis in comparison with its distant attitude during the presidential elections, it still did not demonstrate a strong will to avert Assad regime to suffice Turkey’s expectations. This situation gives way to a serious dissappointment in Ankara, and it also lays the groundwork for radical/extremist factions fighting in Syrian fronts to gain ground upon.
According to studies conducted by the United Nations, nearly half of Syria’s gross national product will be lost if the civil war continues for another year. And a “failed state” will emerge no matter which side takes the lead ultimately. In some scenarios depicted by several think-tanks as well, Syria is expected to dissolve into smaller entities and will not be able to preserve its unitary structure. There is no doubt that these are scenarios which are thought-provoking, challenging, and of utmost concern for Turkey. A scenario in which the civil war in the country continues for a couple of years more with neither side able to attain dominance over the other is truly dismal. In case the scenario in question becomes a reality, the number of refugees within our borderlands will probably approach to one million. The sustainability of such a situation on the part of Turkey bears significant risks in terms of social and political dynamics during a period through which we are getting prepared for three consecutive and country-wide elections. Most particularly, scenarios which imply that Syria may be deprived of its political unity and even its territorial integrity may be obliterated altogether, will render the whole southern neighborhood of Turkey destabilized and open to threats in the short and medium terms. The creation of seperate Alawite, Sunni, Druze or Kurdish states south of Turkey has the potential to bring together risks that will consume Turkey’s energy for long years. However, some Western strategists’ handling of such scenarios as if they correspond to somehow desirable ends arouses suspicion.
The shifting of the region to a more dispersed, atomized and frictious context may sound attractive to several actors, though for us it is truly undesirable. The dissolvation of Syria will have heavy repercussions on the region with Turkey at the outset, and it will pull Iraq and Lebanon into a spiral of chaos. This will eventually create a power vacuum which will pull the whole region into a bloody and turbulent nightmare for decades. Turkey should struggle against the possibility of such a scenario with all means it can make use of. Ankara needs to use its political weight before Washington as a leverage in order to make sure that the latter does not stumble in, the way it did in Iraq, this time in Syria. It must be explained clearly that the sectarian and ethnicly discriminatory attitudes adopted by certain circles in the United States will never benefit the region, and Syria maintaining its territorial integrity will be more auspicious for all.
Syria’s future
The kind of a constitutional umbrella which will cover a “new Syria” to be formed after Assad is toppled down, and how the new state will organize itself administratively thereafter; are matters over which Syrians will make the final decision. Probably, such a newly formed system after Assad will provide with more autonomous administrative designs for several regions in the country. Turkey should not be involved in this process of designing directly. Nevertheless, it is obvious that Turkey can never turn a blind eye to threats originating in Syria that may be directed towards its own borderlands. In such a context, Turkey is expected to observe developments in Syria closely in order to protect peace and prosperity within its borderlands and make friendly suggestions to the new administration in Syria accordingly.
Ankara-Washington-Damascus line
Divergence of opinions regarding Syria between Turkey and the US can be considered as a mischance. US policies over the last two years have unfortunately failed to suffice our expectations. If the cancer in Syria is to be healed immediately no matter what with the help of the relative dynamism and increase in coordination with the US starting by 2013, this would definately reflect on bilateral relations positively. In this sense, reaching a consensus between the Obama administration and Turkey, particularly at the visit to Washington by Prime Minister Erdogan arranged for May 2013, will be more than beneficial with regard to enhancing bilateral relations. Even though an air of lethargy and ignorance due to a degree of introversion dominates American public opinion regarding subjects concerning the Middle East, developments in the region require the US to take a bear a more active role. President Obama prioritizes his aim to render the United States more powerful and rebuild the American nation again. However, regional developments do not pursue a path parallel to Obama’s agenda despite his priorities in question. From this point forth, it will be pertinent for President Obama to reevaluate the context around Syria and put forth his will to overcome a problem which keeps two prominent allies of the US, Israel and Turkey, seriously preoccupied.
Developments along the triangle formed by Ankara, Washington and Damascus are naturally interrelated with the deliberations between Moscow and Washington. Ankara endeavors not to lose Moscow and to keep channels of dialogue open with it at every stage. In this sense, we should not expect Turkish-Russian relations to deteriorate significantly, no matter what happens in Syria. On the other hand, while Turkish-American relations are nowadays making substantial progress in overall; divergences of opinion over Syria lead to unnecessary tensions. Turkey has been refreshing its traditional identity regarding its security ties and political belonging, while its bilateral relations with the US and its key role within the alliance formed by NATO have been continuously consolidated. Syria is an important foreign policy priority which should be dealt with swiftly in the eyes of Ankara. In this respect, the United States is expected to extend its constructive support in renormalizing Turkish-Israeli relations to the Syrian front for a swift change to occur. Ultimately, it must be kept in mind that Syria is a very important subject to be abondoned to its own fate alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment