A Turkish intervention in Syria? Why now?
Turkish media is awash with reports that the Turkish military has been instructed to take measures against possible advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Kurdish forces along a 90-kilometer stretch of Turkey’s border with Syria.
According to the Hürriyet daily, the government gave the order after a series of talks hosted by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the wake of the seizure of the town of Tel Abyad by Syrian Kurdish forces earlier this month. It has also been reported that the Turkish General Staff, concerned about risks, refused to accept verbal orders, insisting on written instructions.
It is no secret from those following Turkish-American military and political negotiations over the fight against ISIL that Ankara has been lobbying for the formation of a safe haven protected as a no-fly zone in northern Syria for the past few months. The Obama administration has so far refused to take such a step on the grounds that it would carry serious risks. For starters, the formation of a no-fly zone within Syrian borders as a safe-haven for the Syrian opposition would amount to a military operation against the Syrian regime. Damascus would naturally see such a step as military aggression within its sovereign territory, going against international law, and it would contest it at the United Nations. One may argue that the Syrian regime has lost its international legitimacy and that it is in no position to challenge the military measures of the “international community.”
This may sound morally true, but it is legally ambiguous on multiple grounds. In other words, one may argue that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has indeed lost its legitimacy. Yet, in the eyes of international law, the country of Syria is still a sovereign state. Therefore, any military intervention against the Syrian regime — conducted with the goal of establishing a no-fly zone or a safe haven there — requires the support of the United Nations.
We are now well into the fourth year of the civil war in Syria, and by now everyone knows that one reason why the so-called “international community” has been so ineffective at stoping the conflict is because there is no consensus at the United Nations. Russia and China are two veto-yielding members on the UN Security Council, and they protect the territorial sovereignty of Syria against all kinds of external intervention. Similarly, there are regional powers like Iran that are strictly opposed to any kind of “Western” intervention in Syria.
As a result, the Obama administration has been reluctant to engage in a diplomatic war with Russia, China and Iran in order to pursue a military intervention in Syria. This partly explains why Washington has resisted pressure from Ankara to form a safe haven and a no-fly zone in Syria. In addition, the risk of military escalation of potential confrontations with Syrian air forces or other pro-regime military elements on the ground have also factored in America’s reluctance to get unilaterally involved in Syria.
Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the Turkish General Staff has expressed serious reservations about taking unilateral action in Syria. According to press reports: “The military warned that the plan to establish a safe haven inside Syria carries risks, including situations where troop deployment to Syria, bombing ISIL positions or confrontation with the Syrian air forces that support ISIL advances would be inevitable. The Turkish military might also come under attack from ISIL, Syrian Kurds or Syrian government forces.”
Not surprisingly, the Turkish General Staff is also worried that military action in Syria could pit Turkey against the US, Russia and Iran if it is done without prior consultations.
Finally, the question of timing is the elephant in the room. Why would the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, which has just lost its parliamentary majority, take such a risky military step in the middle of coalition talks? The logical explanation brings credibility to widespread concerns that Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) would use a military incursion in Syria to consolidate support ahead of a potential early election.
TODAY’S ZAMAN