Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The rhetoric of the western left assumes the cause of Kurdish fighters in Kobane taking little notice of historic events, Turkey’s current responsibilities and its positioning in the Middle East

As the situation intensifies between ISIS and Kurdish fighters in Kobane, on the Syrian border with Turkey, increasing attention has been given to how Turkey reacts. Fellow NATO member, the US, is now using airstrikes against purported ISIS targets, but Turkey’s lack of military action so far has prompted hostile reactions from both western media (in particular the left) and from Kurds themselves. Major protests have taken place in many of Turkey’s chief towns and cities, and clashes between police and Kurdish demonstrators have left at least 12 people dead. But where does the assumption that Turkey is somehow neglecting its duty by not providing military aid come from? And who does Turkey owe an obligation to? The idea that Turkey, as a nation state, would and should do anything other than, first and foremost, protect its own interests is a problematic one.

The picture that has been painted is one of Turkey willfully withholding support to those in need of it, right on their own border. That somehow, by not joining the US in taking military action, they are implicitly supporting ISIS. However, the reality is much more complicated. The first thing that must be considered is that the groups that Turkey is now being asked to arm and support with military aircraft are the very groups that have, for the past 40 years, been in an intense and bloody struggle with the Turkish state in trying to create an independent Kurdistan within Turkish borders.

It is also widely known that during this period of armed conflict, separatist groups like the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), received military training in the areas of Syria that are now embroiled in the struggle against ISIS forces. This creates the first dilemma for Turkey; the PKK, despite democratic progress under President Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), is still recognised as a terrorist group in Turkey. Therefore, the decision to arm them is not one that Turkey will take lightly. After all, by helping the Kurds against ISIS, Turkey would essentially be defending territory that the PKK and its armed Syrian sister group, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), are hoping to establish as modern-day Kurdistan within Turkey’s borders. In many ways, this could pose as much of a security threat to Turkey as having ISIS on its border would. Although Turkey has enjoyed a good diplomatic and commercial relationship with the Kurdish state of northern Iraq, the Kurdish groups that operate within Syria and south-eastern Turkey pose far different geopolitical and ideological challenges – including this threat of establishing an independent Kurdish state within Turkey.

Whilst the PKK have, in the past few years, abandoned the aim of attaining full independence in favour of more regional autonomy, the establishment of a Syrian Kurdistan could change this. The western left may consider autonomy for minorities in the Middle East as an ideal to strive for, but in the context of the Middle East, which, like Africa, was carved up by European colonial powers according to their own interests, there is a fine line between independence and division. Within the context of Turkey, where the trauma of the disbanding of the Ottoman empire is still embedded within the nation’s psyche, the need to hold together the relatively small territory that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk managed to salvage after the First World War, is great. Therefore, the prospect of supporting separatist groups like the PKK is not an appealing one.

Does then, Turkey owe it to its own considerable Kurdish population to protect Kurds across the border? Well the simple answer to this is no. While Turkey has a duty towards its own Kurdish citizens – one which it has not always fulfilled – it holds no such obligation to those outside of its borders. In fact, the anger directed towards the Turkish state by Kurds who believe it should be defending their “ethnic brothers” is simplistic in itself. Indeed, if Turkey should be revising its own ethno-nationalist narrative, which it should, then it should not support Kurdish ethno-nationalism by compromising its own interests.

Ironically, Turkey’s involvement in Kurdistan is what groups like the PKK have been campaigning against, and the expectation that Turkey should defend the Kurds stands in stark contradiction to the aspirations of Kurdish independence which entities like the PKK have effused. This contradiction was highlighted last night when Salih Muslim, leader of the PYD, called on Turkey to aid the Kurds in Kobane, but also declared that a ground operation by Turkish troops would be seen as an “occupation”. The idea that Turkey should somehow act as a neo-Ottoman patron, benevolently interfering on behalf of its regional subjects is not one that is accepted by the international media when Erdogan is peddling it, so why is it that type of behaviour is more acceptable when suggested by others with the vociferous support of much of the western world?

As the Turkish president recently declared, Turkish help is a possibility, but it comes at a price – Kurdish support in overthrowing Syrian President, Bashar-al Assad. Turkey had also made it explicitly clear that if the USA and UK helped to create a buffer zone on the Syrian border, the Turkish armed forces would have defended this area. While this would have worked in Turkey’s own interest, it would also have created a safe haven for Syrian refugees and provided an extra security measure against the ISIS advance. Even the French president has applauded the suggestion, while America and the UK are still considering it.

Let us also not underestimate the importance of humanitarian aid. Since the outbreak of the Syrian crisis, Turkey has absorbed more than one million refugees. This is roughly the same number of Syrians that have been permitted entry to Europe since 2011. Additionally, there are over 16,000 refugees from the Iraqi Kurdish Yazidi minority staying in Turkish shelters. Turkey, in line with NATO, and against considerable opposition from its own public, has provided logistical and financial support to the Syrian opposition, and out of that has arisen a serious Islamist threat. Now, unlike the USA and Europe, the biggest threat that ISIS and other militant Islamist groups pose to Turkey is through the spread of their ideologies – not their military. Therefore, the obvious answer for Turkey is not military intervention outside of its borders, but to stem any foothold that such groups may be seeking to promote within Turkey itself.

Finally, for all the criticisms of hesitancy when it comes to the call to arms, Turkey does not, unlike western countries, have the option to “withdraw” when the consequences of their intervention become apparent. Turkey must think carefully about its involvement in the region, as any actions and consequences will be felt immediately on its own doorstep.

While Turkey has much to work on in regards to the obligations it holds to its own Kurdish citizens, the idea that they are somehow duty-bound to aid Kurds outside their borders is simply unrealistic.

Photo Credits: AA Photo / Hurriyet Daily News