The shifting sands of fresh conflict
Why has the US deserted an ally that led the fight against ISIS? As usual in the Middle East, the answer lies in history, explains Peter D. Jones
ANYONE trying to follow events in the Middle East, specifically along the Turkish-Syrian border, is probably very puzzled over what exactly is going on.
Why would Turkey be attacking the very forces that led much of the fighting against ISIS in Syria and why has the US suddenly deserted its ally as a key NATO power launches a savage attack on them?
As usual in the Middle East the answer is complex and we need to look back into history.
When the Ottoman Empire was dismantled after 1918, British and French diplomats allocated the Arab provinces of the
Empire to suit their own interests. Vague promises were made to the Kurds who hoped for their own state but the new Turkey, led by Kemal Ataturk, refused to accept its new boundaries drawn up at the Treaty of Sevres (1920). The current borders were finally agreed on at the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) but the dreams of the Kurds were shattered.
Today, they remain the world’s largest minority denied their own country (30 to 40 million), and scattered through six nations, including Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. In Turkey, they make up 15-20 per cent of the population, concentrated in the east, but have been heavily discriminated against by the government. The PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) has been declared a terrorist group and leader Abdullah Ocalan jailed for life. Although the PKK once led an armed insurgency, he declared a ceasefire in 2013 and now calls for a peaceful solution. Turkey has been led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan since 2014 and has the second largest army in NATO. A conservative authoritarian leader, his popularity is slipping. Since declaration of emergency rule in 2016, more than 50,000 people have been arrested, including journalists. Media censorship is harshly enforced.
For the US and NATO, Turkey has played a key role since 1949, because of its geographical location next to what was the Soviet Union. It also hosts a large USAF base at Incirlik, which played a major role in the war against ISIS.
In neighbouring Iraq, the Kurds dominated in the northern province, suffering heavy persecution in the rule of Saddam Hussein. After the US intervention in 2003, they were given autonomy and their fighters led the war against ISIS.
In Syria, the Kurds inhabit the north and north-east of the country, constituting about 9 per cent of the population. They opposed the Assad regime as well as ISIS. Allied with US forces, they helped to rescue the Yazidi people enslaved by ISIS in 2014 while on the Syrian side of the border, they created a Kurdish zone known as Rojava.
The area is protected by the Syrian Democratic Forces, which rely on the YPG (Kurdish Peoples Protection Units). Kurdish units are responsible for guarding the al-Hawl camp that contains about 70,000 captured ISIS wives and children though unable to exert effective control through lack of numbers and support.
This is the area under attack from Turkey, which has three main reasons for launching the onslaught. The first is to make sure an autonomous Kurdish state on its southern border will not inspire Kurds in Turkey.
Turkish authorities argue the YPG is another terrorist front, like the PKK. Secondly, Turkey is tired of hosting 3.5 million Syrian refugees and wants them to return to Syria.
Their trump card is that if Europe moves to enforce sanctions on Turkey, Turkey will send the refugees to Europe. The third reason is to boost support for the governing party.
Turkey’s aim is to create a 30km wide zone along its southern border, which it will control, and drive out the Kurds, many of them having moved there during the civil war since 2011. The refugees are now fleeing eastwards into the Kurdish part of Iraq. Turkey plans to replace them with the Syrian refugees now in Turkey.
What Turkey disregards is the likelihood that its military action will help ISIS forces to regroup in the chaos as Kurdish forces now have to fight back against the powerful Turkish military forces. Already they cannot adequately guard their ISIS prisoners and some have escaped.
So why has the US chosen to abandon its Kurdish allies?
President Trump’s announcement of withdrawing US forces came out of the blue and has been opposed by many horrified Americans. The US President’s response to criticism was that while admitting the Kurds help the US to defeat ISIS, they were paid “massive amounts of money and equipment to do so” and that he was elected to get the US out of “these ridiculous endless wars”.
While the UN is powerless to act, Russia is moving in as the US moves out, marking a significant shift in global politics.
Women and children are the main victims while the greatest beneficiaries are the weapons suppliers, principally US corporations.
Australia, while deploring the conflict, is equally over the barrel as a loyal supporter of both President Trump and the Turkish government, and continues unwilling to accept more than a handful of the unfortunate Syrian refugees caught up in the continuing hostilities.