When it comes to capturing the world agenda, London never disappoints. After a few weeks absence, I am now backing in my home town again and London is where the most interesting debates about the crisis in the Middle East are taking place.
While the region’s attention is centred on Kobane, there is a growing concern about the worsening situation in other parts of the world where the threat of radical Islamism is every bit as real as in Syria. Apart from Iraq’s Anbar province, where ISIS forces are on the march advancing on Baghdad’s international airport, Libya seems to be on the verge of a civil war. Three years after the UK and France led intervention in the country, an alliance of Islamist militia groups have already forced Libya’s newly elected Parliament and its legitimate government to flee the capital Tripoli. The strongest of these militias is Ansar-al Sharia, a group affiliated with ISIS.
While the international coalition tries to shape up its coordinated response to the Islamist threat, the radical (not all of them Sunni) groups everywhere seem to have developed a common goal of grabbing territory. In addition to Iraq and Syria, radical Islamists already control large areas of territory in Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Seizing control of the predominantly tribal and conservative areas, radical movements such as ISIS are spreading their influence and ideology faster than their opponents are analysing them.
With the global nature of the threat in mind, various seminars, meetings and discussions that I have taken part this week in London have all been focusing on Syria and Iraq. There seems to be a near-consensus that violent Islamist movements will not be defeated by military means alone. A long-term multinational political and security strategy in the region is urgently needed to be agreed upon and implemented. There seems to be a similar consensus emerging on the subject of where Turkey fits into this wider picture.
The recent comments in the British media about Turkey have been strongly critical. The day after Turkey carried out air strikes against the PKK militants in the mountainous province of Hakkari, The Times newspaper referred to Recep Tayyip Erdogan as an increasingly erratic president and described Turkey’s reluctance to help Kurds a “callous indifference”.
In an article titled “Erdogan’s final chance to make peace with the Kurds”, David Gardner of The Financial Times wrote that Mr Erdogan was courting huge risks.
“He may have taken fright that his peace initiative could become a springboard to a pan-Kurdish state. But whatever his motives, he is dividing Turkey. Up to a fifth of its population is ethnic Kurdish, and about a fifth of Turks are (heterodox Shia) Alevis, alienated by the increasingly Sunni supremacist tone of Mr Erdogan and his neo-Islamist ruling party, as well as his authoritarian behavior. Unless he is very careful, this supremely confident leader could open Turkey’s gates to the whirlwind of sectarianism roaring across the Levant” he commented.
Over the years, I have attended many events at The Royal Institute of International Affairs, better known as Chatham House, some of them open to public, others held under Chatham House rule. Until now, I had never heard such strongly critical comments directed at Turkey’s leaders. Tuesday’s event marked the launch of a project focusing on the conflict’s long term impact on Syria’s immediate neighbours including Turkey. There were two different panels, with prominent regional experts. The keynote speaker was no other than Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria.
Speakers told the audience that Turkey repeatedly made false assumptions in Syria. From assuming that Assad regime could be reformed to the belief that it could be quickly toppled, it based all its policy decisions on those wrong assumptions. We were told that the same people who made these mistakes were still in charge, albeit in different posts and they were continuing to take decisions the same way. What was described as “Erdogan’s personal approach” saw the PKK as number one threat. The number two enemy was Assad. Worries over ISIS were lower down in the third place. Because of these continuous miscalculations, Syria’s strongest neighbour Turkey has now turned into a seriously weakened player, putting region’s as well as its own security at risk.
Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria was asked what advice if any he would give to Turkish president Erdogan. “I am sure he would not ask for my advice” he replied. Warning that destruction of Syria would be felt as a spill-over everywhere else in the region, Mr Brahimi said that Syria was not a priority for its neighbours and that had to change. Reminding the audience the UN Secretary General’s lonely and often ridiculed comments at the beginning of the conflict : “Don’t give weapons to Syria. Stop giving weapons to Syria. Have a peace plan, not a war plan” he said.
Lakhdar Brahimi called on the key players to bring Syria and its neighbours together, including Iran and Russia. According to Brahimi, Iran has more influence than the USA in Iraq and more influence than Russia in Syria, and for any meaningful discussion, President Assad has to be part of the negotiations, too.
Continuing the debate after the event, I put it to a few of the Middle East watchers that it was not just Turkey that made the miscalculation. Almost all of its present critics hade misread Turkey and its Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, too.
For too long, they refused to acknowledge strong signals of creeping Islamization, repressive authoritarianism and widespread corruption in the AKP-led Turkey.
A “beacon of moderate Islam”, a trustworthy ally and a lucrative business partner, Turkey has not turned into unpredictable, unreliable, unaccountable and erratic one-man regime overnight.
This post is also available in: Turkish
Christophe Leclercq says
Firdev, I do not have your level of expertise, but share a number of your concerns.
It is a pity that there is not more dialogue between Tureky and the (rest of) Europe.
EurActiv Turkey made steps in that direction, but does not get the level of support it deserves.
Best wishes,
Christophe