This summer, with the help of Russia, Iran and Iraq, relations between Syria and Turkey were restored. This event became the subject of current diplomacy to find a detente in the Middle East. Of course, the US did not approve of such an act by Turkey. However, Ankara’s new attitude does not satisfy Syria either. What is the reason for this?
The US and Turkish views on Syria are completely polarised
The US policy in the Middle East has caused irreparable damage to Syria. Its domination of the country’s territory was accompanied by such terrible events as the Arab Spring and the attempt to overthrow the legitimate power of Bashar al-Assad. In addition, the United States annexed part of Syrian territory with concentrated oil resources and important transit routes. The most tragic thing about this situation is that all these events have taken place under loud words and beautiful promises about international terrorism and the protection of ethnic minorities.
In order to achieve its goals, the USA is using the problems of the Kurdish population in the Syrian Arab Republic to form internal proxy forces and then using the Kurdish factor to break the territorial integrity of Syria and create three new entities: two Arab entities and Kurdistan. This kind of American diplomacy is a true manifestation of the political principle of divide and rule. As a result, Rojava has become the object of active US military and political initiatives. Here, too, the threat of a Kurdish referendum in the US-controlled areas similar to the Kurdistan region in 2017 remains.
Turkey, a US ally in the NATO bloc, has almost the same intentions towards a weakened Syria: to expand its sphere of influence in the area bordering Syria under the formula of “the threat of Kurdish separatism and terrorism”. If the Americans have used the Kurdish factor in Syria against the power of Bashar al-Assad, the Turks, by the same analogy, are using pro-Turkish extremist forces of local Turkomans against the alleged Kurdish threat in the northern provinces of Syria.
Accordingly, the US is supporting and arming Kurdish political and militant structures under the wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and Turkey is supporting and arming Turkmen and Sunni militias in opposition to the regime under the label of the Syrian National Army (SNA). The northern regions of Syria have thus come under US and Turkish occupation.
The only place where Washington’s and Ankara’s positions on Syria diverge is on the Kurdish issue. For the United States, the Syrian Kurds are allies, but for Turkey, they are adversaries. Ankara believes that if the Kurds near its borders achieve some form of independence or Western-controlled autonomy, this political process will become contagious for Turkish Kurds in Turkey’s southeastern provinces and lead to negative consequences.
In Syria, however, both the USA and Turkey agree not only on the issue of changing the political regime of Bashar al-Assad (at least that was the case until recently), but also on the annexation of oil-rich and transit areas of Syria, exploiting the interethnic (Kurdish and Turkmen) contradictions in this Arab republic.
What initiatives have been proposed by Russia, Iran and Iraq for the restoration of Turkish-Syrian relations?
Since autumn 2015, at the official request of the legitimate authorities in Damascus, Russia has been conducting peacekeeping operations in Syria and fighting international terrorism in the region. Thanks in large part to the establishment of a Russian-Turkish partnership following the crisis over Turkey’s destruction of the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 bomber, Ankara has been able to carry out a series of military operations in northwestern Syria under the slogan of fighting Kurdish separatism and PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) affiliated militant structures. The Turkish military and special forces rely heavily on the Syrian National Army (SNA). As a result, the Turks have established a 30-kilometre security zone.
Immediately after the situation changed, Turkey first joined the Astana negotiation process and then, together with Russia and Iran, became a participant in the discussion of the Syrian issue. However, the turbulent processes in the Middle East caused by the Arab-Israeli military conflict and the threat of military escalation in the region due to the position of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu with the support of the United States and Britain, in one way or another, indicate the task of reducing the level of tension in the Syrian crisis. The restoration of Turkish-Syrian relations remains one of these problematic issues.
President Recep Erdoğan was focused on his election campaign and could not be distracted by other issues until the summer of 2023. Both Erdoğan’s difficult victory and the acute socio-economic crisis in Turkey, caused by the mistakes of the Turkish authorities’ financial bloc, the devastating force of the earthquake in the south-east of the country and the huge flow of Syrian refugees, have put the issue of reducing tensions and restoring Turkish-Syrian relations back on the regional agenda.
Russia and Iran, and later Iraq, became the main mediators of the Turkish-Syrian reconciliation. Such an initiative and, above all, its positive dynamics do not satisfy the interests of the United States, which does not want to lose the initiative in Middle East diplomacy and is eager to strengthen Russia’s position in the region.
From the outset, President Erdoğan allowed for a positive outcome in the matter of restoring relations with Syria and the regime of Bashar al-Assad, publicly recalling the former friendly relations between the two leaders. Ankara seemed to agree with the roadmap for such a reconciliation initially proposed by Moscow. Turkey understands the economic and geopolitical importance of such a solution. It will save considerable financial resources and develop its own economy. And Turkish-Syrian reconciliation in the context of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict could enhance Turkey’s own regional importance.
It is worth noting that this positive reaction was not expressed by President Erdoğan himself, but by key ministers such as Hakan Fidan and Yaşar Güler. Turkey, through its ministers, has said that the main condition for restoring relations is that Ankara agrees to retain control of the occupied territories in northern Syria. Faced with the threat of Kurdish separatism, Assad must recognise the realities on the ground and the prevailing objective changes that guarantee Turkey’s border security for the time being.
What is the position of Syria in this situation?
In the current situation, it is clear that Damascus first agreed to the initiative to restore relations with Turkey at the request and recommendation of Russia and Iran. Assad apparently could not deny his personal friendship with Erdoğan in the past. The two sides agreed to begin talks in Baghdad. After a while, however, Syria assessed Turkey’s position not so much by agreeing to reconciliation, but by imitating the restoration of bilateral relations.
On 25 August, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said in a speech to the new session of parliament that there had been no progress in Syrian-Turkish reconciliation. The Syrian news agency SANA notes that Assad outlined Damascus’ position on reconciliation with Ankara as follows: “We did not occupy the territory of a neighbouring country in order to leave it, and we did not support terrorism in order to stop supporting it, and the solution is to confess everything and identify the problems. How can we solve a problem whose real causes we do not see, and restoring relations requires first removing the causes that led to their destruction, and we will not give up any of our rights”.
In other words, Assad reminds Erdoğan and the rest of the world that Syria has not violated international law, has not occupied the territory of a neighbouring country, has not supported terrorism, but demands the restoration of its sovereignty. Otherwise, any aggressor can enter and occupy part of another country’s territory on the pretext of fighting terrorism and then declare “accept it because the reality on the ground has changed”.
According to Bashar al-Assad, Syria has always spoken of the need for Turkey to withdraw from the territories it occupies and to end its support for terrorism. The current stage is about laying the foundations and principles because its success will determine the future success, and the statements of Turkish officials are baseless, our criterion is sovereignty.
Syria appreciates the sincerity of the diplomatic initiative by Russia, Iran and Iraq to reconcile with Turkey, but does not see any momentum. Obviously, such a reaction by Assad could have been coordinated with Moscow, which warned Ankara not in vain not to get carried away by Western initiatives.
In other words, if Turkey continues to support the US and Europe in the Ukrainian crisis by supplying arms to the Kiev regime and denying the reality of territorial changes on the ground, why should Russia take a different approach in the Syrian case, in violation of international law? After all, everything in this world is connected.
However, Bashar al-Assad’s statement does not mean that the Baghdad talks ended before they began. It simply means that the parties have defined the matrix of their approaches to these negotiations.
Alexander SVARANTS – PhD of Political Science, Professor, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
