Failed military coup only tip of the ice-berg for a highly polarised Turkey

Leave a reply

The dramatic failed military coup that sent shockwaves across Turkey and the world may have quickly subsided but the aftermath of the events will be felt for much longer.

Whether it was just a faction of the military or not, it was no small matter. The coup forces ranged from low-ranking soldiers to senior officers demonstrating the broad nature of the move. Furthermore, it was not a handful of troops but several hundred that were able to deploy tanks and helicopters and carry out their moves with a degree of confidence and clear planning.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan emerged triumphant by early Saturday morning but was clearly as shocked as any as the events initially unfolded with the government simply unable to comprehend the size and support of the coup. A president speaking by Skype on his mobile to address the nation speaks volumes.

Helicopters and fighter jets roaring above the sky, sound of heavy gunfire and explosions and tanks rumbling through the streets in Istanbul and Ankara hardly paint a picture of an isolated incident. However, the tide of the coup clearly turned as thousands of Erdogan supporters heeded his call and took to the streets.

The mass of supporters confronted the rebel soldiers and surrounded tanks. At time of reporting the government had stated that 104 coup plotters had been killed and over 2800 arrested whilst more than 90 people had died and over 1100 were injured.

Yet, it could have been a much worse bloodbath. Popular support against the rebel soldiers helped to quickly take the steam out of the coup attempt and any heavy handed retaliation against the supporters would have quickly turned into much wider scale of violence.

But the crisis is far from over and the post-mortem is likely to be painful and protracted. Erdogan was quick to blame the “parallel structure” in clear reference to influential exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen who denied any involvement but regardless of who takes the rap for the coup, the dramatic events shows the highly polarised nature of Turkey.

Erdogan may have strong support but he equally has many foes. Then there is battle of ideology, identity and nationalism seeing a deepening divide between Islamists and secularists, reformists and conservatists and not forgetting the great divide between Kurds and Turks with the PKK and government continuing to wage war.

A highly paranoid Erdogan has been swift to consolidate power and banish opposition voices. Now it seems that the failed coup justifies to Erdogan his instincts based on suspicion, distrust  and a sense of anxiety.

This means that Erdogan now holds even more ammunition to continue with policies against Gulen, dissident voices and those who he deems as terrorists. As Erdogan dramatically arrived in Istanbul on the morning of the coup he decried that “What is being perpetrated is a treason and a rebellion. They will pay a heavy price.”

The number of arrests in Turkey quickly accelerated and is likely to yield thousands more in the coming days.

The fact that Erdogan urged his followers to remain on the streets and in key public places in case of a second coup demonstrate the fragile nature of the state. Erdogan and the AKP clearly realise that the coup attempt goes much deeper than those soldiers and generals involved.

The post-mortem will be harsh and messy and may only lead to a deeper polarisation of opposing camps. Erdogan called the failed coup a divine gift so that certain conspiring forces can be weeded out. And ironically, the coup strengthens Erdogan’s hand than really weaken his grip, allowing him to move more confidently towards the strong presidential system he craves.

The coup against a democratically elected government, whatever the scale of the country’s polarisation, was always going to be denounced by European and global powers.

The West have always looked at Turkey as a model of democracy in a fiery region but Turkey is much of a powder-keg as any.

The polarisation of Turkey into many camps naturally weakens the fight against the Islamic State (IS) or attempts to ferment regional stability.

Many of the battles between the Islamic, secularists, nationalists and reformists span many decades and has never really subsided but only contained. One of these old battles is of course the Kurdish issue. For decades, Ankara has been cutting the branches and not dealing with the root of the problems that has led to vicious cycle of war.

Hundreds of people have been killed in south east of Turkey in recent months but this has received little coverage than any event in west of Turkey as it has simply become normal to accept bloodshed in Kurdish parts of Turkey and accept them as by-products of terrorism and not as one of the many imbalances in the setup or health of the state.

First Published: Kurdistan 24

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Failed coup attempt provides Erdogan with new ammunition

Leave a reply

The failed military coup in Turkey was intended to usher a new order, however, in the end it was Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that emerged with a stronger hand and a great opportunity.

Dramatic footage as the coup unfolded of heavy gunfire, tanks and helicopters resembled a war zone. A weary looking Erdogan addressing the nation via FaceTime on his mobile summed up the uncertainty and desperation of the government as the coup unfolded.

Thousands of Erdogan supporters heeded his call and took to the streets effectively blunting the coup and eventually allowing the pro-government forces to wrestle back control.

As a sense of normality seemingly returned to Turkey, the aftermath of the dramatic events will echo much louder.

Erdogan has long tried to dampen dissident voices and stifle opposition circles. Erdogan can now clearly argue that his suspicion and distrust of the so called “parallel infrastructure” was not so far-fetched after all. He now has strong grounds to consolidate power, move towards his ambition of a presidential system and deal with long-time foe and influential exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen who he accused of perpetrating the coup.

Gulen was quick to deny any involvement but the AKP strongly pressured Washington to extradite him.

As the arrests quickly stacked up in the aftermath of the failed coup, thousands more can be expected in the coming days. There is even talk in Turkey of reinstating the death penalty. Either way, the government will come down hard and will point to the thousands of supporters on the streets as testimony to the endorsement of his policies.

However, do the thousands of supporters that ultimately helped the government emerge triumphant really paint the full picture?

The simple answer is that a highly polarised Turkey has been on the edge for some time. There are conflicting camps of Islamists, secularists, nationalists, reformists and not to mention inter-ethnic strife with the Kurds highlighted by a raging war against the PKK and unrest in the south east.

Erdogan may enjoy strong support but this should not mask his many opponents either. The fact that Erdogan and the AKP urged their supporter to remain vigilant in the face of any secondary coup attempt highlighted the vulnerabilities and uncertainties that remain.

Whilst the failed coup gives the government a strong card, it hardly means that the polarisation is about to disappear. For example, any arrest of Gulen or his extradition to Turkey will quickly expose loyalties.

Furthermore, to just point to the coup as a work of a small minority is short-sighted. The coup plotters involved hundreds of figures from senior generals to low ranking soldiers. They clearly must have enjoyed support and encouragement from non-military circles. A coup doesn’t just come about at a moment’s notice without careful planning.

The coup plot may leave Erdogan with a stronger hand but not necessarily a stronger Turkey. It has too often skimmed over the hostility of rival camps or stifled dissident voices. With so many conflicting sides having different interests in the makeup and future of the country, further turmoil is only a natural by-product.

First Published: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Aftermath of Chilcot Report – Iraqi invasion through narrow lens and overlooking inhumanity

Leave a reply

The obsession with the legitimacy, legality and value of the invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003 was renewed with the release of the Chilcot Report.

The much anticipated report by John Chilcot gave fresh fuel to sceptics of the invasion in the UK and the West with mass media focus on the anarchy and mass suffering unleashed by the decision to remove Saddam by George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

However, the war is been viewed with narrow lens and without any real perspective.

Can the numerous fires raging across Iraq and the Middle East really be ascribed to the downfall of Saddam and were Iraqis better off under Saddam’s rule?

It is often overlooked why Iraq enjoyed relative stability under Saddam. It was not due to charismatic and popular leadership but owed to his iron-fisted rule and zero tolerance to the various uprisings launched by the Kurds and Shiites.

This week, US presidential candidate, Donald Trump, even went as far as praising Saddam for his stance against terrorists. Yet, these same “terrorists” were Kurds who were battling decades of repression, campaigns of genocide and even chemical attacks.

Saddam was not in power for a year or two by the time he was toppled, he had ruled since 1979. Mass graves from Saddam’s tenure are still been unearthed. These graves did not discriminate between men, women or children – it was all the same to the Baathist regime.

Regardless of flawed Western intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) capability at time of invasion, Saddam had already expressed his ease in deploying such weapons in Halabja as well as on Iranian forces.

Moreover, anyone who can raze thousands of villages, murder thousands of civilians and repress and torture en-mass does more damage than any WMD could ever do. Dictators such as Saddam are no different to any WMD.

Then there is the notion that the overthrow of Saddam started the anarchy that is rife across the Middle East and even led to the rise of the Islamic State (IS). An invasion of a country cannot be attributed to centuries of sectarian animosity or ethnic strife. Western and regional foreign policy mistakes since 2003 such as those that led to IS, cannot be masked every time by the Iraq invasion.

The seeds of discontent were sown in the Middle East long before Saddam was even born. The Sykes-Picot agreement that selfishly carved the Middle East was the real precursor to the flames of today.

Just because the effects of such arbitrary borders were masked by successive dictators across the Middle East does not justify the methods for the so-called stability of those regimes.

Sooner or later dictators fall and the injustice of the Middle Eastern landscape was always going to bite with or without Saddam.

One of those nations chained by history were the Kurds who have flourished under post-Saddam rule. Does the iron-fisted “stability” provided by Saddam justify holding a nation hostage to their human rights and freedoms?

First Published: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

West overlooks that Saddam was the ultimate weapon of mass destruction

Leave a reply

13 years after the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, UK and Western media remain engrossed with the obsession that the actions of former U.S. President George W Bush and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair unearthed the raging bull that is visible across the Middle East today.

The much-anticipated Chilcot Report drew a damning assessment with the notion that the UK decision was based on “flawed” intelligence leading to an invasion that went “badly wrong”.

The report was met with hysteria in the media with frequent pointing to Iraq as the original sin that highlight why the Islamic State (IS) was able to rise and unleash terror and why the Middle East is engulfed in flames.

Such viewpoints since 2003 simply fail to assess and accept the bigger picture.

The Iraqi invasion has also become an excuse for the numerous Western foreign policy failings since 2003 that ultimately allowed groups such as IS to flourish.

Evidence clearly points to a misalignment of evidence around Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction capability in 2003 but why is Saddam, Iraq or the Middle East been viewed with such narrow lens and lack of real perspective?

Saddam came to power in 1979, 24 years before the invasion of Iraq. Saddam was not any ruler, he was a brutal dictator who knew how to placate and control a disparate nation.

The seeds of the wide discontent on show today in Iraq and Middle East go well beyond 2003, the aftermath of the Arab Spring or even the birth of Saddam. The ultimate root cause is that Iraq and much of the Middle East was arbitrarily thrown together to fulfil selfish imperial interests.

There may have been relative stability in southern Iraq under Saddam compared to mass violence and chaos of today, but this was due to the iron fist rule of Saddam than due to a charming and popular leader who represented or was admired by the whole country.

Then of course, is the baffling disregard by Western critics of the Iraq war on the campaigns of genocide against the Kurds. Was the pre-2003 era really that glorious or are these so called experts picking and choosing facts to serve their arguments rather than viewing the bigger picture?

How can anyone overlook the devastating chemical bombing of Halabja in 1988 where thousands perished symbolised by mothers and fathers died on the spot holding their infants? Where even today the population and surrounding lands pay a price.

Thousands of Kurdish villages were razed in broad daylight and thousands more Kurds were confined to mass graves under the infamous Anfal campaign. Many of these mass graves have only been discovered after the overthrow of Saddam.

To those who question Saddam’s capability to possess and use WMDs need to look no further than Halabja. However, the biggest WMD remains to be Saddam himself.

The Kurds have flourished remarkably under self-rule and in their dawn of freedom. Kurdistan forms a sizable portion of Iraq, so how can the successful Kurdistan model be ignored with focus on Baghdad and the Sunni triangle that has been the hotbed of violence?

The real question is why topple Saddam in 2003? Why not when he committed such grave acts against his own population or when he launched a devastating war on Iran or when then invaded Kuwait? The simple answer is that Saddam’s barbarous rule was masked as he served Western interests.

Is it really the fault of Blair and Bush that Sunnis and Shiites have held centuries of animosity? Is it really their fault that Iraq, even with the advent of democracy, has been ruled by corruption, controversy and policies that have widened the ethno-sectarian divide than really unite a country?

The notion that Iraq would have been a better place today if Saddam remained in power is seen through narrow and tainted lens. No dictator can survive forever!

Yes, Middle East was more stable under Saddam and prior to the Arab Spring but this was all due to a common factor – the unsustainable scenario of dictators who ruled with a strong hand.

The invasion of Iraq simply opened Pandora’s Box. With the artificial ethno-sectarian lines across the Middle East, sooner or later the locked-up devil would have been unleashed.

First Published: Kurdistan 24

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

UK exit is as much a question of the fabric of the EU as the future of the UK

Leave a reply

The UK referendum on EU membership was always going to be a tenuous and divisive affair whose impact would echo well beyond these shores.

European and world leaders woke up to a new reality on Friday as the exit camp won the day against polling projections. Fluctuations in the Pound were as wild as predictions ahead of the final vote. It was a tight race that threatens to intensify the deepening divisions within the UK.

51.9% may have voted for an exit but the 48.1% that wanted to remain can hardly be ignored. Nor can the stark regional variations to the vote. London, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted resoundingly to remain clouding the long-term future of the UK.

Scotland will almost certainly hold a new independence referendum and Northern Ireland may well face sociopolitical uncertainty with calls for a referendum to unite both parts of Ireland.

The exit vote is a test of the strength of the union. Will the allegiance to the union overpower the desire to be part of the EU?

UK exit means stepping in to the unknown and thus global markets were always braced for turmoil in case of an exit. It will take many years for the dust to settle and for the full economic and political effects to be known.

However, exit of the EU does not mean that the UK is no longer influential on the European or global stage. The UK had a prominent economic and strategic role long before the EU was established and in spite of scaremongering, the EU powers are not about to alienate the UK and sacrifice the trade links that are vital for each side.

At the same time, UK will continue to have a strong voice in geopolitical and security matters. In other words, the end of a formal union does not mean the end of long-standing alliances with many of these member states, even if the UK always had somewhat of a Eurosceptic view and a strong desire for sovereignty.

UK trade ties with US and other major economies will not suddenly evaporate even if the terms of such agreements will naturally have to be reviewed and renegotiated.

As questions are asked of the future of the UK, there is equal spotlight on the future of the EU. Is a UK exit a one-off fire that will quickly disappear, or does the exit mark intrinsic problems with the very fabric of the EU that must be addressed before it leads its wider unravelling?

A period of self-reflection is needed as much for the EU as the UK. Nationalist and disenchanted voices in France, Germany and beyond are already calling for referendums of their own. This is a test for the future of the EU as much as the UK.

First Published: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

The wide ramifications of UK exit from the EU as economic and political uncertainty ushers a new era

Leave a reply

The UK referendum on whether to remain or exit the European Union was always going to be a highly emotive, divisive and controversial affair, and it certainly did not disappoint.

The Brexit campaign divided the nation, political parties and businesses with claims and counter claims and campaigns of fear. Topics such as immigration, economic ramifications and national sovereignty played on the minds of many. It was projected to be a very tight contest but Remain camp lingered firmly in the driving seat on referendum day.

However, it was the Exit camp that won the day with 51.9% of the vote with Britons, Europeans and global powers waking up to a new reality that sent shockwaves across the continent.

The value of the Pound against the Dollar see-sawed wildly on the night before settling at lows not witnessed since 1985. The global markets were braced for turmoil and this was even before UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation in a teary speech.

Fluctuations and anxiety in markets are to be expected, after all, we are entering the unknown. The UK has two years to negotiate its exit once it invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Economic uncertainty is topped by a deepening national divide. London, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted strongly to remain. An exit from the EU, now threatens the very existence of the UK with Scotland very likely to press ahead with a second referendum on independence with view to rejoining the EU.

There is already much talk of a referendum on uniting both parts of Ireland after the Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU. Allegiance to the UK will be tested versus desire for EU membership.

This social, political and economic uncertainty will take time to settle. But once the dust eventually settles, it remains unclear exactly what UK is left behind. However, in spite of all the scaremongering, pulling out of the EU is one thing and pulling out of the European continent is another.

The UK has always had a firm and influential place in Europe and this will not change. UK’s long-standing strategic ties with major powers and key global economies is not about to dissipate either as a result of the vote.  Existing the EU does not mean that countries such as France or Germany will stop trading with the UK or will not work with UK in key geopolitical and security matters. Nor will it mean an end to the free movement of people.

Putting stringent borders between UK and EU will benefit no side. It just means that the terms of engagement will be different and no party is bound by any common law except mutual interests.

The web of years of EU legislation will naturally take time to untangle and the period of uncertainty is hard to quantify.

But the UK’s decision to leave the EU has as wide ramifications for the EU as it does for the UK. EU leaders have a battle on their hand to ensure that the UK leaving is a solitary fire that they can quickly extinguish. But anti-EU voices are already growing in France, Germany and Denmark. Discontented nationalists are already pushing for referendums of their own.

Now the arduous task of exit negotiations with the EU will begin. As much as the EU will still rely on trade and political ties with UK, they will hardly roll the red carpet for an easy exit either.

The EU will not want to alienate the UK as it will backfire and harm their own interests but it will equally want to make a show of the exit as a warning to all member states. Either way, the EU will never be the same again and is in desperate need to reform and face a tough period of self-reflection.

First Published: Kurdistan 24

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Mankind’s footprint of sin and atrocities can never be confined to any piece of land or racial grouping

Leave a reply

In a week of devastating terror in the West, British PM Jo Cox was tragically murdered outside her constituent surgery in Birstall, West Yorkshire. The killer was not a Muslim, contrary to many a first thought, but white British showing that cold blooded acts of terror are hardly confided to one religion alone.

Thomas Mair, who was reportedly a loner with a history of mental health issues, had suspected linked to far-right groups. When appearing in court on charges of murder, he announced his name as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”.

Cox, was a prominent campaigner for the ‘remain’ camp ahead of the UK referendum on leaving the EU. However, Cox was also exemplary in her humanitarian work, particularly with regards to the plight of Syrians where she campaigned for Western intervention and for the UK government to allow more child refugees into the country.

It was later revealed that Cox was the subject of a string of threats, although there is no link between the attack and the messages.

Either way, Cox was certainly not the only MP to receive threats for their views in recent weeks. Whilst UK and European security forces may be geared more towards Islamic State inspired terror attacks as witnessed in Paris and Brussels, they must not take for granted that violent rages or acts of terror can be committed by any human with strong enough motive.

We often look at Europe as a model of co-existence and justice, yet we forget that two World Wars were instigated on this stage. We overlook that in our modern history that 6 million Jews were chilling exterminated on these lands.

There is a history of violence and policies of racial or sectarian supremacy that spans many centuries.

Only recently has the UK become safe from threats of groups such as the IRA. Northern Ireland was a long-time magnet for acts of violence, terror and revenge killings based on sectarian affiliation. Spain suffered under the hands of Basque separatists for decades.

The mass violence between English and Russian fans at Euro 2016 also demonstrates how racial hatred and extremism can span well beyond religion. Ultra-nationalists and many active far-right groups have hubs across Europe and football was merely a platform to launch racially fueled violence.

Across the Atlantic Ocean in the U.S., Orlando was subject of the worst mass shooting in its history. However, as long as anyone can buy fire arms and possess extremist views and violent motives, such heinous crimes will never be limited to that of a certain faith.

Violence, suffering and terror attacks are such a norm in the Middle East that the West often views them as been in a distant land from their door step. However, as long as mankind exists, his footprint of sin and atrocities will never be confined to any piece of land or racial category.

First Published: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Lifting of MPs immunity from prosecution fuel for new social earthquake in Turkey

Leave a reply

This week, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ratified a bill lifting MPs’ immunity from prosecution. Although, it is a move that affects all opposition parties, it no doubt bites the Kurdish-focused Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) the hardest with 55 out of 59 of their elected parliamentarians facing a summary of proceedings.

The billed was signed on June 7th, exactly a year to the date of the first Turkish general election of 2015 that saw HDP shatter the 10% threshold and make history by becoming the first Kurdish party to enter parliament. HDP and its leader Selahattin Demirtas become a thorn in the side of Erdogan. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) failed to attain the majority it craved in parliament thus undermining their open quest to implement a presidential system.

However, the cease-fire with the PKK was soon shattered and a level of deadly violence and bloodshed returned akin to the dark days of the 90’s.

Erdogan has always tried to label the HDP as the political front of the PKK and such indictment along with the resumption of violence saw the HDP lose votes in the subsequent snap election.

It is conveniently forgotten that the HDP did not just decide to turn up in parliament. It was through the support of the hundreds of thousands of voters. To claim that 59 members of HDP have links to terrorism is tantamount to claiming that all their voters are also terrorists.

And this is where the vicious cycle of violence continues in the Kurdish southeast. Is the Kurdish issue merely a terrorism problem and therefore about wiping out the militants from the mountains as Ankara officials claim or is it about a much deeper issue of Kurdish rights?

If the root of the issue is not addressed, then no matter how many more decades the war against the PKK continues or how many more Kurdish MPs are imprisoned, then we would merely see history repeating itself over and over again.

If any of the HDP PM’s are imprisoned or if the HDP is disbanded under the terrorism banner, as the case with many other Kurdish parties beforehand, then there is little doubt that violence will only intensify.

A strong Kurdish party in parliament for the first time in history should have been the platform for long-term peace. The Kurds finally had a voice in parliament and the HDP were the natural interlocutors in the peace process.

With this voice gone and with the Kurds witnessing the little rewards of a political platform, youth will turn increasingly to violent means with the polarization of the country hitting new heights.

Officials in the European Union and the United States may have condemned the move to lift parliamentary immunity but still the voices are relatively muted. The US needs Turkey in the fight against the Islamic State and the EU continues to rely heavily on Turkey to stem the flow of migrants, even if all the conditions of the recent migrant deal have not been met by Turkey.

One of those contentious issues was Turkey’s failure to comply with EU demands to narrow anti-terror laws. And it is such laws that have crippled the Kurdish issue beyond the narrow-angled fight against the PKK.

It has long been said that Turkey’s road to the EU membership runs through Diyarbakir. At the moment, with a lack of institutional stability not to mention the right constitutional and democratic order, that road firmly remains to be paved.

First Published: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Separating the right of Kurdish independence from the right regional, political or economic climate

Leave a reply

If an ethnic group ever deserved an award for patience and perseverance then it is the Kurds. Still the largest nation without a state, the Kurds are told to bide their time for independence or worse are threatened by its consequences.

One hundred years have passed since the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement and it is approaching the centenial of the respective Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne.  The truth is, Kurdistan may be embroiled in a valiant battle against the Islamic State (IS) today and in many ways carry the global fight against the group, but their struggle for existence and freedom is nothing new.

Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani announced plans to hold a referendum as far back as July 2014 when Iraqi forces rapidly collapsed under IS attacks. This intention was renewed with repeated plans to hold a referendum by end of 2016.

Skeptics point to the difficult fight against IS, Kurdistan’s economic crisis, retaliation from neighboring powers, the instability engulfing the rest of Iraq and so on.

However, if Kurdistan ties its independence to a perfect moment in Iraq and the Middle East then independence will remain a distant dream. The Kurds must not equate their right of independence with a perfect regional, political or economic climate.

If independence was based on buy-in from all sides, a flourishing economy and a perfect democratic and social system, then dozens of sovereign countries would not exist today. On the contrary, independence will give the Kurds a strong hand to dictate fiscal matters such as devaluing their currency, printing money and borrowing from international markets.

Moreover, the independence of Kurdistan should not be a piecemeal measure.  Even Saddam Hussein was willing to give the Kurds substantial autonomy with the exception of Kirkuk.

Kurdistan should declare independence and a referendum is the right and legal platform. As governed by United Nations charters, the voice of the people in deciding their fate is vital. Many nations have declared their independence in such a manner and the fate of many disputed cities has been resolved via plebiscites.

Abandoning the legal notion of self-determination and asking permission from Western powers, Ankara, Baghdad, and Tehran is a sure path to failure.

The Kurds have suffered under the hands of such governments and struggled for even basic rights, why should the fate of millions of Kurds and a legal right be placed in their hands once more?

Kurdistan has a rich array of ethnicities and religions. Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen, Shabaks, Yezidis and Christians have enjoyed a historical foothold in these lands. This very coexistence should be heralded across the West and serve as a model of co-existence across the Middle East.

First Published: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

 

U.S. and Syrian Kurds – Hand-in-hand on the road to Raqqa

Leave a reply

Normally any march towards the de facto Islamic State (IS) capital of Raqqa would be met with jubilation and relief but such is the sensitive political picture in Syria that even the long hoped for liberation of Raqqa is shrouded in controversy.

The U.S. spent millions on training so-called moderate Arab opposition forces only to see a handful of forces emerge. All the while, the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) forces were proving themselves as the most capable force on the ground and ticked all the boxes the U.S. spent huge amounts of effort to find.

The alliance between the U.S. and the Syrian Kurds was logical in many ways even if it has resulted in constant outcries from Ankara who accuse the YPG of been an extension of the PKK.

This has placed the U.S. into a difficult corner placating anxieties from its traditional regional ally in Turkey whilst at the same time growing closer to the YPG who it views as their number one ticket to drive out IS in a way that thousands of coalition air raids have failed to achieve.

YPG advances against IS have been met more with threats and unease by Turkey than any sense of relief. The establishment of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) was in many ways an answer to the heavy Kurdish identity of forces battling IS, increasing Kurdish control and the growing ties between the U.S. and Syrian Kurds.

Although there are thousands of Arab and Christian forces in the SDF, the vast majority are still Kurdish.

Images of US Special Forces not only coordinating with Kurdish forces on the ground but even wearing the YPG insignia was bound to cause uproar in Turkey. Washington has been quick to downplay the gesture and even ordered the removal of such insignias but nevertheless the situation is not any less complicated.

The U.S. has a heavy reliance on Kurdish forces that it sees as its best ticket to rid Raqqa of IS before the end of Barack Obama’s presidential term but it’s stuck in a dangerous game.

Kurdish forces will not merely sacrifice or coordinate closely with the coalition without firm preconditions regardless of whether they are at the peace table in Geneva. They are continuously looking to enshrine their autonomy and expand their territory.

The U.S. cannot afford to abandon the YPG just to appease Turkey and on the other hand the Syrian Kurds cannot rely long-term on Washington to achieveitslong-term goals.

All the while, the Turkish hand is weakened in spite of all the harsh rhetoric over the YPG. At some point, the SDF is likely to move west towards Jarablus and break more Turkish redlines. Turkey has threatened to retaliate but an all-out invasion would not only be met with dismay by the US-led coalition but will ultimately deepen the Syrian civil war and Turkey’s own war against the Kurds.

Regardless of any role in peace talks, the Syrian Kurds are not about to reverse their hard-earned autonomy or new found prominence. In the past Turkey felt it was easier to deal with a neighbor such as IS than a strong Kurdish force with growing autonomy.

Syria will never be the same again and the new regional outlook will have a profound influence on the future of the region regardless of the resistance of any country.

 

First Published: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc