Category: Syria

  • Video: Turkey’s ‘Syrian intervention’ scenario

    Video: Turkey’s ‘Syrian intervention’ scenario

    Turkey has been keenly watching events unfold in Syria, fearing its near-neighbor’s violence could spill over the border. However, there are fears that Turkish government may not be getting an accurate picture of what is really happening in Syria.

    ­As soon as Syria’s president promised to completely revamp the constitution in an attempt to resolve the crisis in the country, Turkey expressed support for a humanitarian intervention, saying it must do all it can to prevent a civil war.

    With the bloody status quo in the Syrian crisis having been maintained for months, there is a danger that violence may start spreading beyond the country’s borders.

    And its close neighbor Turkey – once a close friend too – is now a harsh critic of Damascus.

    “Syria’s first priority should be to listen to its people and meet their demands, not to denounce others; instead of massacring its people, it should listen to them,” says Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

    Faruk Logoglu, the deputy chairman of the Republican People’s Party in Turkey, is a harsh critic himself, but he is critical of the Turkish government.

    Ankara is on the side of the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council – a military and diplomatic force aimed at overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. It supports a “buffer zone” and a “humanitarian corridor” – which some fear could bring Turkish troops to Syrian soil.

    “What does that mean according to international law? It means aggression against a country, it means war,” Faruk Logoglu says.

    But any intervention would be different from the one in Libya – since Russia and China have made it clear: no more no-fly zone resolutions. It means the role of regional players like Turkey increases dramatically.

    But Faruk claims Ankara’s behavior is irresponsible and risky.

    “It is the larger implications beyond the bilateral context of Turkey and Syria as such. The situation in Syria must be handled with great care by all powers. And unfortunately I do not see that care, especially from the Turkish government,” he says.

    Oytun Orhan works for the Middle East Strategic Studies Center, based in Ankara.

    It is sponsored by the Turkish Foreign Ministry to help shape policy. And its opinion on Syria is clear.

    “The regime of Syria is killing its own people,” says Oytun Orhan, Middle East analyst the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies (ORSAM).

    Or not always that clear.

    “Nobody has objective information as to what is going on in Syria,” says Oytun Orhan.

    The center’s specialists have not been to Syria for over a year.

    It means the picture they paint for officials in Ankara is unlikely to be an accurate one.

    The sources of some videos are often questionable, so it is easy to be misled or get a false picture of what is really happening.

    Although that does not stop researchers from coming to firm conclusions.

    “The military option, this is the last option Turkey does not want to see. But this is an option,” says Oytun Orhan.

    Turkey may have declared it does not welcome a military solution to the Syrian crisis, but it has not ruled it out either, playing an “if” game: if there is massive migration from its troubled neighbor Turkey says it will have to protect its own people.

    And while officially Ankara insists it wants peace and stability in the region, its troops are ready just kilometers from the border with Syria.

    via Turkey’s ‘Syrian intervention’ scenario — RT.

  • Turkey again seizes Iranian weapons destined for Syria

    Turkey again seizes Iranian weapons destined for Syria

    Turkey again seizes Iranian weapons destined for Syria

    Special to WorldTribune.com

    ANKARA — Turkey has reported the first seizure of an Iranian weapons

    shipment to Syria in 2012.

    Officials said four trucks loaded with Iranian military equipment were

    stopped and impounded in the border province of Kilis on Jan. 10. They said

    the equipment, destined for neighboring Syria, was sent to Turkish

    authorities in Ankara for inspection.

    “The four trucks were confiscated by customs,” Kilis Gov. Yusef Odabas

    said. “They are alleged to be carrying military equipment.”

    This marked the first Turkish seizure of Iranian military equipment to

    Syria this year. At least three such seizures were reported last year amid the

    revolt against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

    Diplomats said the government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has been

    under strong pressure from the United States and NATO to halt Iranian

    weapons shipments to Syria. They said Washington has been working to

    intensify Turkish ground and naval operations as part of an embargo on the

    Assad regime.

    On Jan. 9, a U.S. delegation headed by Deputy Secretary of State William

    Burns urged Ankara to also intensify sanctions on Iran. Turkey has been one

    of the largest importers of Iranian crude oil and natural gas.

    Odabas said Turkish customs officers confiscated the Iranian weapons

    shipment at the Oncupinar crossing, located along the Syrian border. He said

    the officers were tipped off by police of the approaching convoy.

    via Turkey again seizes Iranian weapons destined for Syria | World Tribune.

  • Turkey Wants to Resume Talks on Iranian Nuclear Program

    Turkey Wants to Resume Talks on Iranian Nuclear Program

    Turkey Wants to Resume Talks on Iranian Nuclear Program

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 6
    January 10, 2012
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, paid a crucial visit to Tehran on January 6, amidst the increasing confrontation between Iran and the West. The visit mainly provided an opportunity to address bilateral issues, as it followed a heated debate in recent months which questions whether Turkey and Iran were involved in an undeclared rivalry in the Arab Spring. The two countries’ diverging positions on Syria, Turkey’s decision to host NATO’s early warning radar, as well as differences on the Palestinians’ quest for recognition, arguably pitted the two against each other. The confrontational mood was further worsened by harsh statements against Turkey by Iranian politicians and high-ranking officials (EDM, October 11, 2011).

    As such statements even led to direct threats voiced by some Iranian lawmakers and military officers, indicating that Iran might take military action against NATO facilities in Turkey, Davutoglu was prompted to convey his uneasiness and demand an explanation. Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, visited Ankara in an effort to allay Ankara’s growing concerns. Reiterating the two countries’ friendship, Salehi sought to assure his Turkish counterpart that such remarks reflected personal opinions and did not represent official Iranian policy on Turkey (Anadolu Ajansi, December 14, 2011).

    Ankara also downplayed such threatening remarks as personal opinions, in an effort to maintain channels for dialogue with Tehran. Though not hiding the differences of opinion on regional issues, Davutoglu and other Turkish officials prefer to focus on issues of converging views and continue to view Tehran as a major stakeholder in the region whose cooperation is essential. More importantly, Davutoglu is keen to reassure his Iranian counterparts that Turkey will not take part in any direct military action against Iran, which seems as a calculated move to comfort Tehran and convince it to steer away from the path of escalation.

    With such considerations in mind, Davutoglu paid a working visit to Iran on January 6, to meet Salehi and other Iranian officials. Davutoglu worked hard to stress the defensive nature of the ballistic missile shield and reiterated that Turkey would not let its territory be used in any attack against Iran. The two ministers also agreed to continue to discuss regional issues, and meet at least twice each year (Anadolu Ajansi, January 5).

    Beyond the immediate Turkish-Iranian frictions, Davutoglu addressed a number of regional issues with Iran. Foregoing the speculations of rivalry, Davutoglu invited his Iranian counterparts to work together in order to address the escalating tensions in the region, which some claim could lead to Sunni-Shiite sectarian divisions. In the last two days, because the uprising in Syria, the ongoing political crisis in Iraq, and the situation in Bahrain involve some sectarian elements, Davutoglu increasingly refers to an imminent danger of sectarian conflict and warns against a new Cold War in the Middle East (Dogan, January 8).

    Moreover, the uncertain future of the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program, especially in view of US sanctions policy and the Iranian brinkmanship in the Strait of Hormuz is a growing concern for Turkey. Ankara recognizes Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear technology, but also invites the country to be more transparent about its ongoing program and allay concerns on the part of Western powers.

    Since the talks held between Iran and the P5+1 in Istanbul one year ago, diplomatic channels were largely closed. In order to push things forward on that front, Davutoglu seems to have attempted shuttle diplomacy. In the wake of his Tehran trip, he announced that he was in touch with Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, on this issue. Davutoglu raised expectations by maintaining that both parties were ready to resume nuclear talks in Turkey. Earlier, Salehi also expressed his readiness to return to nuclear talks in a suitable time and venue agreed upon by the parties, adding that Turkey would be the best option (Anadolu Ajansi, January 8). Commenting on this development, US State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, said that the US remained in consultation with Turkey over Davutoglu’s trip and agrees with Turkey’s goal of bringing Iran back to the negotiating table and complying with its international obligations, though they might differ on tactics. She also emphasized Washington’s readiness to resume discussions, though adding that Iran has yet to formally convey its decision to start the talks (Today’s Zaman, January 7).

    Adding urgency to the matter, the United States and its European allies are initiating a new wave of sanctions to pressure Iran on the economic front. The sanctions recently approved by President Barack Obama involve penalizing the financial institutions doing business with Iran as well as halting oil imports from Iran, by targeting its Central Bank. Turkey abides by the sanctions regime introduced by the UN Security Council in the summer of 2010, but refuses to implement the unilateral Western sanctions on the grounds that they are non-binding. However, there has been growing US expectation for Turkey to join the new sanctions, while Ankara seeks an exemption, given its oil and gas imports from Iran, requiring it to work with Iranian financial institutions.

    A visit by a US delegation led by Deputy Secretary of State, William Burns, to Ankara on January 9, offered an opportunity to discuss these issues. During his talks with Turkish officials, the US delegation, among others, solicited Turkey’s support for unilateral sanctions. Prior to the meeting, some senior US Congressmen and diplomats visited Turkish government officials and bureaucrats, underscoring the importance attached to this issue (Haberturk, January 9).

    Commenting on the visit, Nuland dismissed the argument that Turkey opposes US policy on Iran. She emphasized that the US acknowledges Turkey’s sensitivities given Ankara’s trade ties, but the two sides will continue their dialogue on how to maximize the pressures on Iran to force it to comply with its international obligations (Haberturk, January 10). Turkish sources also reported that Ankara does not want to see a further escalation of the already heightened tensions in the region (Sabah, January 10).

    Uneasy at the growing escalation, Ankara seeks to dampen tensions through a reassertion of its facilitator role and engaging the parties, without taking any side. Once again, Turkey is walking a diplomatic tightrope due to its difficult neighbor’s relations with the West.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-wants-to-resume-talks-on-iranian-nuclear-program/
  • Assad: No one can harm ties between Syria and Turkey

    Assad: No one can harm ties between Syria and Turkey

    BasharAlAssadSyrian President Bashar Assad, who has met in Damascus with members of the Turkish political party Saadet, said that “no one can influence” the ties between the two nations, the official Syrian Arab News Agency reported.

    The head of the Turkish delegation, Mustafa Kamalak, stressed during the meeting that the “Turkish people stand by Syria” in its crisis. He expressed opposition to any foreign intervention in Syria’s internal affairs, and said he hoped the relations between Turkey and Syria are to be repaired. (Roi Kais)

    via Assad: No one can harm ties between Syria and Turkey – Israel News, Ynetnews.

  • Live Chat | Faces of Revolution: Syrians in Exile

    Live Chat | Faces of Revolution: Syrians in Exile

    mi mckenna istanbulThe Arab Spring began in Tunisia, then swept through Egypt and Libya, among other countries.

    In March, the winds of change began to blow in Syria, as pro-democracy demonstrators took to the streets in opposition to President Bashar al-Assad.

    Thousands of Syrians have fled their homeland amid violence for neighbouring Turkey.

    The CBC’s Terence McKenna travelled to the Syria-Turkey border to visit those refugees. Their stories will air Monday night in a special feature on The National at 10 p.m. ET (10:30 NT) on CBC-TV; 9 and 11 p.m. ET/PT on CBC News Network.

    Before then, he’ll take your questions about the situation in Syria and the plight of its refugees in a live chat on Mon., Jan. 9 at 1 p.m. ET.

    via Live Chat | Faces of Revolution: Syrians in Exile – World – CBC News.

  • A Turkish Assad?

    A Turkish Assad?

    By GRAEME WOOD

    ISTANBUL — Which is scarier: a government that hunts down and kills dozens in cold blood, or a government that hunts down and kills dozens by accident?

    Left, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey; President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.Left, Reuters; Jamal Nasrallah/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLeft, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey; President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
    Left, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey; President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.Left, Reuters; Jamal Nasrallah/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLeft, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey; President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

    On Thursday, Turkey admitted to being the second type of government, just as over the last few months Syria has demonstrated itself conclusively to be the first. Turkey’s mistake, which it acknowledged sheepishly, was to launch air-strikes on Wednesday against about 35 men hiking along unmarked trails between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. The Turkish military says it thought the men were terrorist members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.). But evidence found near the corpses suggested a more benign activity: the men were smugglers evading onerous Turkish and Iraqi customs duties on diesel and tobacco at the official crossing point of Habur. They carried Kools, not Kalashnikovs.

    In the past, Turkey’s Kurds have responded to incidents like this one by protesting in the streets and public squares, with a little bit of armed struggle from actual terrorists on the side. Last night in Istanbul, Kurds and their allies went to the streets. On Istliklal Avenue, in Beyoglu district in central Istanbul, at street corners normally reserved for upper-class shoppers in winter chic, riot police stood huffing into their hands to chase away the cold, waiting for violence that never came. But news agencies reported that in the country’s predominantly Kurdish southeast, crowds threw stones and Molotov cocktails, and stores were shuttered for the day.

    After violence in the southeast, recriminations and confrontations like these are common. But there’s a notable change of vocabulary this time. Whereas Kurds once looked to the West and patiently tried to master the human rights language of the European Union, now at least some of them are looking south, to the more urgent and concrete language of protest movements in the Arab world. And in adopting that rhetoric, the Kurdish leaders are making missteps.

    “A leader who kills his own people has lost his legitimacy,” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in September. Now Selahattin Demirtas, the Kurdish member of parliament who heads the Peace and Democracy Party, finds Erdogan’s words delicious. “Now I say the same thing back to him,” Demirtas said. “This was no accident: it was a massacre.” Demirtas, whose party is the sole legal political voice of the Kurds in Turkey these days, said he considered the killing caused by Wednesday’s air strike to be an Assad-level crime.

    It’s a preposterous and self-discrediting comparison: Erdogan and Assad resemble each other in little more than their mustaches. The first people to acknowledge the differences between the two should be the Kurds themselves: Erdogan’s government has in many ways improved upon the nationalist Turkish governments of yesteryear, and the Kurds of Syria have always suffered far more grievously than the Kurds of Turkey. In the P.K.K. camps of northern Iraq, Syrian Kurds are overrepresented — the result of especially zealous oppression by the Assad regime.

    It’s hard to begrudge a movement as aggrieved as the Kurds’ this moment of hyperbole. But let’s hope that the Kurds will reconsider their annexation of Arab Spring analogies. A movement that has spent the last couple of decades mastering the art of patience shouldn’t now sideline its own cause with a faulty comparison to a more desperate one.

    Graeme Wood is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. He has lived and traveled in the Middle East for most of the last 10 years.

    via A Turkish Assad? – NYTimes.com.