Turkey and Syria

Bad blood bubbles

Relations between the two neighbours are getting worse than ever

See article

Readers' comments



seriously can Turkish commentators keep their comments succinct and short so that others can actually read them?


I am surprised with the political stance of 'some' power groups in Turkey about the issue of Syria. These groups who are fierce critics of Turkey's policy against authoritarian Esad regime were posing themselves 'modern' and 'enlightened'. The Syria case however set the lines clearer that they are indeed more aligned with the policies of Iran, Iraq, Syria and the terrorist organozation PKK at first hand and with Russia at the backside. It seems that 'democray' in European standards are not and will not be on their portfolio of thought. Rather, they pursue a Middle East more authoritarian as before the Arap spring began. A seriously wrong reading of history and a bizarre political investment for their future..



Although FM Davutoglu and PM Erdogan claim that their effort is to establish peace, stability in the region and support the Sunni Syrian Islamist brothers 'logistically'. The majority of Syrians complain about the Turkish government's policies about the conflict. After the recent attack, a war decision is made in 12 hours, faster than any empire in the world! They attack the media for doing their job and put pressure for not disclosing any information to continue to milk the public with the world's priciest petrol and recent gas taxes to support the war that the public does not want. Deputy PM Celik 'If we want peace, we need to be ready for a war'! CHP says that they are independent and favour the public and not the tool of the west when asked by AKP 'which side are you on?' PM Erdogan thinks the politics is about a football match as he is an ex-footballer and closely related to the Turkish football (like Fenerbahce-Besiktas, Turkey- Syria, Turk-Kurd, Sunni-Alevi, Right-Left, Nationalist-Democrat, Capitalist-Worker etc). There is state terror in Syria and Turkey as well who kill their own people. The opposition parties should do a referendum on war with Syria to save the reputation, instead of saying not favouring war but not far from it either. The problems are not national, regional. There is no need to be an ultra-nationalist.

EU urges Turkey to cool down on Syria


Turkey has called Assad not to support PKK. Assad's response was 'do not involve in Syria's internal policies, if not I would give heavy weapons to PKK'.

According to Abdullatif Sener, an ex-AKP member and co-founder, says that AKP's current Syrian policy is not humanitarian, not Islamic and not national.

Syria rebel chiefs still back, forth to Turkey's soil

According to reports coming from Idlib and Aleppo obtained by sources in the Syrian opposition, clashes between Islamist militant groups have become more frequent as they compete for power and influence, each one asserting that their religious interpretation is the only true path. There also appears to be a cultural clash between non-Arab Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Chechnya on the one hand, and Arabs from Syria, Libya, Tunisia and Jordan on the other, over the exploitation of sex slaves. Some Islamists consider these women to be spoils of war, especially the wives and daughters of regime supporters, but local fighters are more apprehensive about the issue. Dozens of women have reportedly been sexually assaulted in Syria.



Syrian FM says that 'no peace until all the countries abandon the opposition'.

UN Food Agency: 1.5 million Syrians need food aid

Hazmataz in reply to Hazmataz


Although there is political rivalry, AKP is not the target of the PKK. AKP is about 10 year old only while there is a 28 year insurgency/'terrorism'. It is the Turk state vs Kurdish rebels/'terrorists' as the word Kurd is outlawed/illegal in Turkey to Turkify the ethnic Kurds and the counter-terror laws are very general as the army/police use them for any purpose.

French student goes on trial in Turkey on terrorism charges

For decades, the Turkish state discriminated against the Kurds without any rights, Turkey's largest ethnic minority, which now makes up roughly 20% of the population. The Kurdish language was banned, and Kurds were long referred to as 'mountain Turks' and the state has rejected any negotiation with the 'terrorists'. Turkish authorities have arrested thousands of Kurdish activists, intellectuals and politicians in the past several years. Many of those targeted are members of the Peace and Democracy Party, or BDP, a legal Kurdish political party that elected 29 members to parliament on independent ballots in 2011. According to this month's International Crisis Group report, those arrested "include elected deputies, mayors (some from major cities and districts), provincial councillors, party officials and ordinary activists. Many have been accused of membership in a terrorist organization, but not of committing any violent act." Last week, 44 journalists and media workers from Kurdish news outlets appeared in an Istanbul courthouse on terrorism charges. Many of them have been awaiting trial in prison since their arrest last December.

Turkey; Diyarbakir's Kurds

In recent weeks, Turkey's fiery prime minister has publicly urged the Turkish media not to report on the growing number of Turkish casualties in the conflict, drawing criticism from media freedoms groups. The ethnic Kurds say enough to this conflict/state terrorism towards it's ethnic Kurdish citizens as the state does not have any ethnic, racial, cultural, regional laws and structures and still continues with the 'operations' for 'security' closing 15 areas until January 2013. This month, Turkish war planes repeatedly bombed suspected PKK camps in the mountains of northern Iraq. The 'terror experts' say that the increased recent attacks due to the PKK, but ignores the fact that the Turk state's support for the Sunni Arab rebels in Syria. All the parties should use 'armed group' as the laws have changed now. PM defends the soldiers. But he keeps ignoring the ethnic Kurdish rebels who are also the citizens of the same country. The martyr relatives will have double earnings now, but nothing for the ethnic Kurdish rebels/'terrorists' (who are mostly young children/youth) peace mothers who has lost everything during the conflict. The Turkish state opens arms for the Sunni Arabs and spends $150 million dollars on refugee camps. But it ignores it's own the ethnic Kurdish citizens in Maxmur camp in Iraq. The biased Turkish media has not even reported on the Kurdish parents’ tragedy, not even once;

The Story of Mothers for Peace

Hazmataz in reply to Hazmataz

The Interior Minister Sahin says that 'it is ok to be a martyr for the country' and makes fun of the PKK's Alevi/Zoroastrian/Christian religions. But he says nothing when he meets with the Christian Angelina Jolie last week. The state, not AKP, should take all the actors for a dialogue to negotiate about the conflict as it is an above politics matter. Deputy PM Arinc signals a MIT-PKK negotiation, PKK's Zubeyir Aydar wants Oslo negotiation as well claming that they have never left it anyway. But still nothing yet. If it is ignored, not communicated and labelled as terrorism, the conflict never ends. AKP wants to use my notes for the new constitution since 2009 (there will be a Kurdish dictionary, use of Kurdish in courts, recognition of it as a mother tongue, new definition of citizenship etc) and get all the credit for it by negotiating with CHP, PKK, Ocalan only. CHP has agreed to meet with AKP. Recently, an AKP minister has claimed that they have solved the Kurdish question! There is no Kurdish question, but a Turkish question/issue in Turkey! Chief of Staff Ozel 'We are after the Qandil's 'terror' leaders' and calls the operations as 'autumn cleaning'. This is not democratic, not even 'conservative democracy'! Silencing arms on both sides is a step towards disarmament. But PM says that their aim is not silencing them but disarmament! The recent reform efforts are being overshadowed by deadly, daily attacks in southeastern Turkey. PKK and TSK sources usually give conflicting numbers of casualties among their ranks and the opposite side. Defence Minister Yilmaz 'Terror would not even be stopped with an opening or democratisation, there are sectors that support terror, so it continues'. Imagine having a one man presidential model with PM Erdogan, who discriminates even between the media group when allowing who to attend for his conference, rather than being independent and unbiased! It is not a shop, but a state or conflict. According to Emre Uslu, a Taraf journalist, PKK is a very transparent armed group and they even inform/declare their attacks on media before any activity! Due to these comments, the state has began following him apparently.

PM says that there is no forcing in religion lessons now in 444 system (which was my idea), but Alevis and Christians' needs have not been taught about it when labelling/opening over 1800 imam hatib schools for Sunnis, claiming that this policy has relaxed the country (instead of meaning the Sunnis, and they may produce Turkish Jihadis and Al-Qa’ida members as well). In 6,7,8th classes the students are victims of the new system. The schools do not accept the students. CHP's court appeal about the way of implementation and interior of the lessons has been declined due to the biased laws. Education should not be biased. The separation of Religious Affairs should be not a crime. Whatever you do for Sunnis, do it for the Kurds, Alevis and Christians as well by asking them first so that they can flourish like a flower. Focus on science, not just religion. They are not listening the Alevi federations, but Sunni tarikat leaders who think Alevis are backward and not 'real' muslims! Not making one policy for all. An Alevi father went to European Human Rights Court about the 444 and won. But the government does not implement it. The lessons look optional, but practically compulsory. Kurdish language being optional has 22,000 students which is very low due to the fact that it is a regional language with special needs. Is the whole country seperated and divided now? It is the weak and the biased state, not Turks or Sunnis that the ethnic Kurds or Alevis have political problems with. AKP has learnt about the Islamophobia word from my notes and fights for Turks and muslims in Europe. But they ignore it against it's Alevis as they do not see them as muslims and have been discriminating against them for centuries. The PM should come to that 'freak' Jdem house that he said a few months ago to learn about honesty, equality and Islam which needs reforms as well to be more liberal including human rights, secularism, tolerance, peace and use of power in a sharing and respectful way. The state can not force assimilate Kurds and Alevis to become Turks and Sunnis. These negative attitude and policies force people to take arms. It is not enough just to say the tolerance and multiculturalism words, but by implementing them to supply the needs of the regional public if they want multicultural education/schools.

Turkey accused of using school system for campaign of islamisation

Mother tongue based Multilingual Education – A Key to Quality Education

Fahrettin Tahir in reply to Hazmataz


It is simply wrong when you write that Kurds have no rights in Turkey. That sounds as if they has slave status.

They have the same rights as everybody else.

What they do not have are ethnic group rights. Turkey follows France in denying her citizens ethnic group rights.

Hazmataz in reply to Fahrettin Tahir

FT, What rights do they have then? Why violent conflict? The minority languages, ethnic rights, human rights, equality, regional structure, semi-presidential governance are all written in the French constitution. Don't be surprised if the new constitution is based on Sharia Laws where there is no public discussion about it and secretive politics, stone throwing, rape, deyyus becomes the new norm of politics. What a mentality based on 7th century?!

In asymmetric conflict, the systems may be widely disparate or may perceive each other in different ways. A revolt or a revolution is an example of an asymmetric conflict. The system revolted against perceives itself as defending order and legitimacy; the insurgents perceive themselves as an instrument of social change or of bringing new systems into being. Asymmetric conflicts are those whose genesis is not issues to be settled but the very structure of a situation that cannot be eliminated or modified without conflict.

The general context for post-settlement peace-building is like the 'peacebuilding market-place' in which 'peace' (the cessation of violence) is traded for other commodities such as political opportunity (constitutional rights) and economic advantage (autonomy/governance): 'exchanging resources of violence against other resources is arguably the pivotal type of 'trade' in peacebuilding'.

The key bargain in qualitatively asymmetric conflicts, therefore, is between governments asked to surrender their claim to a permanent monopoly of political power and opposition groups asked to give up the threat or use of violence. Needless to say, these are highly precarious processes to deliver when there is an atmosphere of intense mistrust and leaders are not only negotiating with opponents but also struggling to satisfy disparate demands from factions within their own ranks or even beyond their control.

The patterns of political and military domination, terror and war have negative impact on regional and local populations. Whole civilian populations have become direct targets as well as involuntary victims of a brutalised political economy of abuse, exploitation and force. In addition to the unimaginable human cost of more than 30 years of fighting and political extremism, psycho-social effects of protracted violence meant that the warzone was not just the battlefield but extended into the most intimate lives of a shattered society in every region in Turkey. It has resulted an associated deprivation in the region and millions having been displaced, and millions having fled abroad. The poor peasants were the main victims of the armed conflict/war, as they had been of the decades and centuries of exclusion, contempt, and exploitation that preceded it.

The more ambitious challenge of building capacities for a 'self-sustaining peace' is more significant over the longer term. Without it, the cessation of overt violence is likely to prove little more than temporary. The task of preventing a relapse into war may demand uncomfortable trade-offs and compromises. Also, the measures adopted on the assumption that it is market democracy that best sustains peace long-term, may en route increase the risk of a reversion to war. On the political/constitutional front it is pointed out how conflictual electoral processes may exacerbate political differences and increase conflict in certain circumstances. On the economic/social front the competitive nature of free-market capitalism is also seen to engender instability and conflict. On the psycho/social front there are well-known tensions between the priorities of peace, reconciliation and justice.

The crime rate soars as the peacetime economy is unable to absorb large numbers of unemployed ex-soldiers and their families as well as hundreds of thousands of returning refugees, while a continuing wartime black economy, a ready availability of weaponry, and the destabilising effects of what has usually been abrupt introduction of free market conditionalities further destabilise the situation.

Hazmataz in reply to Hazmataz

FT, I know that it is not your fault. But your mind should focus on peace, justice, reconciliation, democracy, solution. Not war, military, arms, killings etc.


The relationship between peace and justice is a complicated one, inasmuch as without a cessation of violence there is usually no hope of bringing perpetrators of atrocities to justice. Without establishing a culture of law and order, and without satisfying the very deep need of victims for acknowledgement and retribution, there is little hope of escaping future cyclical outbreaks of violence. The passage from negative to positive peace runs through justice.

1) Negative Peace; Absence of violence

2) Justice; Truth or acknowledgement, Reparation or rehabilitation, Punishment or pardon

3) Positive Peace; Long term, reconciliation

There is only space to refer briefly here to the related enterprise of 'psycho-social healing'. The 'invisible effects' of war are often harder to treat than the physical effects. The first victims of war are often women and children. Even though they do not lose life or limbs, they are often deeply traumatised in ways not visible to the naked eye. Victims of violence and rape cannot just walk back into everyday life as if nothing happened. As we all know, in the former Yugoslavia, peace has yet to break out for many of the victims. That is why psycho-social work deserves to be a high priority in our emergency aid programmes.

The governments on practical ways can implement a policy of trust-building and reconciliation. Relevant programmes would include training in conflict management and problem-solving skills, and in the skills and approaches of healing inter-ethnic relations after violent conflict. These programmes could be offered through schools, higher education, and the media. It is recommended that an inter-ethnic council of national reconciliation and trust-building should be established. The educational objective of the whole programme should be to provide an opportunity for students all over the country ‘to experience what conflict resolution and reconciliation means. A winner mentality is incompatible with reconciliation’.

Peace building involves more than the physical separation of formerly fighting forces. It requires the nurturing of the institutions that are at the heart of a civil society.

Hazmataz in reply to Hazmataz

And about the Peace Agendas

In Peace Agenda Framework;

a) Military/security; The usual pattern here was for the cantonment, disarmament and demobilisation of rival regular and irregular forces, and the reconstitution of the remainder into a national army and civil police force. The aim should be the long-term prospect of demilitarising politics and transforming cultures of violence.

b) Political/constitutional; Regional power sharing arrangements and a new constitution underpinned by regular free and fair national and regional and local elections. A considerable use of military force where hard-line extremists or nationalists are major players should be considered. A considerable control of the media also implies a use of force. A hardened doctrine of peacekeeping should be applied in order to be able to enforce compliance with peace agreements by the ability to take action against ‘spoilers’, or those who try to wreck peace processes by the use of violence.

c) Economic/social; Local empowerment by regional decentralised governments as the structural inequalities are seen to lie at the root of the conflict.

d) Psycho/social; Healing the psycho/social scars of war has always been central to the work of those working in the conflict resolution. In community development work it may take a year or two to reestablish a sufficient level of trust among community members to enable collaborative projects to be implemented. The same applies in the military/security and political/constitutional fields. Legitimacy, acceptance and trust are integral to the functioning of any reasonably stable socio-political system, invisible and often taken for granted when differences are being settled relatively peacefully, but palpably lacking when they are not. Evidently, one of the main obstacles to social and psychological healing is the accumulated hurt and hatred suffered by hundreds of thousands if not millions of victims. People know if they are from a war-torn country how difficult it is to sit down across the table in the same room with an adversary. Just think about the Israelis negotiating with the PLO. It is likely that adversaries will say: 'we cannot negotiate because we despise the other side too much. They have killed our children, they have raped our women, they have devastated our villages'. Some may think the best long-term solution is permanent separation but what is required is an eventual redefinition of the 'self/other' identity constructs themselves so that 'a sense of "we" replaces the "us/them" split. Most of the problems of mutual accommodation lie this side of a final transformation in basic identities. Truth or parliament Commission should be set up to investigate human right violations and to some degree acknowledgement of responsibility, if not expression of regret, some measure of reparation for the victims (Commission for Reparations and Rehabilitation - would open up an emotional space sufficient for accommodation if not forgiveness and healing for peace – security, respect, harmony, well-being) during the conflict and a general amnesty should be granted.

The South African 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' has been criticised from opposite directions, by those arguing that the country should not look back and risk causing new wounds, and by others (for example, Steve Biko's family) arguing that human rights violations should be tried and punished in courts of law. To close the eyes and pretend none of this ever happened (like PM Erdogan is trying to do) would be to maintain at the core of the society a source of pain, division, hatred and violence. Only the disclosure of the truth and the search for justice can create the moral climate in which reconciliation and peace will flourish. The term 'reconciliation', therefore, has at least three meanings here, all of which are relevant: the harmonizing of divergent stories, acquiescence in a given situation (perhaps reluctantly), and the restoration of friendly relations.

Also in the agenda;

Demilitarization, the control of small arms, institutional reform, improved police and judicial systems, the monitoring of human rights, regional and local electoral reform, and social and economic development, strengthening of national institutions, the provision of reintegration and rehabilitation programmes, reforms in the military, non use of military personnel for non-military tasks in post-settlement peace-building, repeal of discriminatory laws, training of local civil police, initiation of education and training programmes, development work in villages with returnees, providing immediate food/health/housing needs, beginning of essential restoration work on infrastructure.


Turkey will pay a heavy price for the bloated ego of Erdogan.He is trying to ride two horses simultaneously-NATO and the Arab League-to repeat Libya in Syria.Libya has already blown up in the face of the U.S.

Garaboncias in reply to samarita

I do not know where you are from, but the last time I heard the expression "one cannot ride two horses with one behind" was years ago from my mother in California when I was still young enough not to know better. Thanks for the rush of memories that expression brought about. But, yes, your post is not incorrect.

MilovanDjilas in reply to samarita

No, Libya has not blown up, either in the face of the US or in the face of Italy, the country's primary trade and strategic partner. There is no evidence there was any significant local support for the murder of the American diplomat - the perpetrators were outsiders.

Nobody was particularly happy about the number of dead last year in Libya. But was Gheddafi going to leave any other way? He did not remain in power peacefully and he did not leave power peacefully. The same is true with Syria.

You sepak of "riding two horses" - NATO and the Arab League:
Italy is a NATO ally of Turkey and we have always sought close relations with the Arab League. Are you so sure Turkey is alone in this policy?

Erdogan may have a bloated ego - it is not up to me as a private citizen to make that judgement. But a bloated ego does not suffice to explain an overwhelming majority in parliament.

In the meantime, bloodshed in Syria has gone on for too long. I think most of Europe is coming to that conclusion. It is true that Syria is more strategic and more delicate than Libya - and therefore the human disaster threshold is higher for the EU in Syria than in Libya. But I think we are now arriving at that threshold. The EU and the US should intervene in Syria - together with our Turkish allies.
Obviously, none of us border Syria as Turkey does - so Ankara has an important role in deciding for all us what the treshold is actually.


I am shocked by newspaper headlines like "Turkey goes down a dangerous path" or "Relations between the two neighbours are getting worse than ever".

Aside from the continuous bloodbath in Syria that the Great Powers seem uninterested in stopping - despite Russian objections if need be - Turkey has been a steadfast NATO ally of ours for over 60 years. There is now a full-fledged civil war on its southern border and Turkey's borders are threatened by refugees and bullets. I fail to see any other analysis that is relevant.

Yes, we all have our budget difficulties and can ill afford another war. So we say to the Turks that what help Europe can send will be somewhat limited - but help must be sent. What would any of us do with this sort of bloodshed and civilian emergency on our borders?

Garaboncias in reply to MilovanDjilas

Really? I seem to recall a less-than-steadfast NATO ally in the decade plus years past. But, then again, I am not blessed with a short memory and a wishful mind so necessary for interpreting history the way you seem to present it. Oh, about NATO and Europe. If the Libyan affair of the last year or so is any indicator about the European contributions to NATO, then what I fail to see is where did you get the idea that Europe could, or would, for that matter, send any meaningful help/aid to that part of the world. In the event your comment was meant as a tongue-in-cheek post, I missed it. If your post was in earnest, you might want to read up on the history of that part of the world just a wee bit more. Those who live there, by and large, don't see the world as you seem to; irrespective of their religion or nationality. Turkey a steadfast ally of NATO... that's a good one... Sure, now, that they are in over their heads, they want to make nice when they need help. They were very cocky just last year when they wanted to block NATO's efforts in Libya. Now they need NATO's help. Oh, please...

MilovanDjilas in reply to Garaboncias

I am an Italian from Trieste. I can only speak about my country.
1) Libya - As regards European contribution to the Libyan intervention last year:
I would urge you to read carefully the details of the contribution of each European country to Libya - and the costs. You will notice that, while France and the United Kingdom hogged the headlines, the Italian contribution was no less - albeit being completely "under radio silence". As the ex colonial power in Libya, it would have done no good to the rebel cause if Italy's full involvement had been made public. These details come out later, including the statistic that of 15,000 combat missions flown over Libya, 2000 were flown by Italian warplanes.
Please notice also that Turkey, after expressing all its (legitimate) doubts, sent us assistance (unlike Germany or Poland).
2) Good relations with Turkey - I have no idea what you are referring to, as regards relations between Turkey and NATO. If you are referring to the US as "NATO", then yes, there has been friction, particularly over the War in Iraq. Frankly, German, French, Italian and Spanish public opinion also shared Turkish doubts regarding those events.
If you are referring to the Brazilian-Turkish initiative on Iran - I would say that reasonably intelligent persons may have different opinions on such matters.
3) Military precedents - During the Cold War, and more specifically in the late 70's/early 80's, an Italian Rapid Action Force was created, consisting mostly of our Folgore Airborne Brigade, the San Marco Marines and other specialised troops. This force was earmarked to assist in the defence of Turkey in case of war.
4) Turkey as part of Europe - Italy remains strongly committed to the necessity of European enlargement to Turkey. This position may not be particularly popular these days, but it is one we share with the United Kingdom and Poland in particular - and our three countries represent over 160 million Europeans.
5) Europe is already there - France has already sent the Charles De Gaulle, Europe's largest warship, to the region. The French should not be there alone.
6) Money - Yes, you are right, money is a big problem today. But it is unconscionable that my country should be spending €1.4 billion per year in Afghanistan, a country of no strategic importance to Italy, and be unable to send a few ships, planes and soldiers to Turkey, our long-time ally.
7) Fidelity - Fidelity in international affairs counts for something. Italy has no complaints with Turkey. They should have no reason for complaint from us.
8) Turkish lack of fault - Turkey did not create the situation in Syria and is not an aggressor. This is a major international crisis - and of course is part of the Arab Spring.
9) Theatre of War - During the Cold War, European NATO stubbornly insisted that the alliance regarded Europe only - and should not be called upon to defend American interests in other parts of the globe. Since then, and particularly after September 11, 2001, NATO has gone into areas that were once considered out-of-theatre.
There is nothing about the defence of Turkish borders that has ever been considered out-of-theatre for NATO. Right from 1949. This is NATO territory.
10) Holy Land - Ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey is no longer synonymous with the Holy Land. But Syria more or less is part of the Holy Land, or is immediately adjacent.
Europe cannot be absent from the Holy Land. Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Italy, Spain and southern France have been intimately involved in the Holy Land for centuries. Italy is (or was) Syria's biggest European trade partner. Rome has no doubt about its organic ties to the Holy Land. This area is of vital geostrategic importance to all of Europe.
I would not confuse German attitudes to NATO (they are hardly part of NATO any more) with the rest of Europe.
Also, Spanish and Italian economic difficulties cannot prevent our countries from sending at least a token presence to the area.
Not to mention the fact that, what? Nobody in our militaries ever thought to put aside a small amount of money to cover deployment abroad in case of emergencies? Italy spends €30 billion per year on the military and never put aside a few million to cover deployment costs? Unacceptable. Then what am I paying taxes for? Italy spent €1.3 billion over the last decade to build our aircraft carrier Cavour, the second largest warship in Europe. We have no money to actually deploy it? Then why was it built? We are spending €200 million apiece to buy F35's, after spending over 2 billion as our share of the R&D costs. We have no money to deploy warplanes to a NATO country? Then why are we spending this money?
Some hard questions need to be asked and answered as against strategic realities.

Garaboncias in reply to MilovanDjilas


You don't mean the token medical assistance, do you? Oh, Turkey was more than just merely expressing "legitimate" (in their opinion) doubts; Turkey was actively working against NATO efforts and made it quite clear that, Turkey would not participate in any action as a NATO partner.

"Some hard questions need to be asked and answered as against strategic realities."

Agreed. Except, Turkey's concept of what is strategic, not only in that area of activities, but in general, is far from what would be understood in the vernacular of serious world players - real ones, mind you, not putative/imagined world players - as strategic.

I am afraid the rest of your post, although earnest in its attempt at constructing a convincing argument in the seriousness and magnitude of Europe's engagement in, and commitment to, the are in question, it has no bearing on the realities on the ground. European efficacy in that part of the world consists of going along with policies initiated elsewhere; and producing propositions and resolutions on different world forums. Don't get me wrong. It is not unappreciated that sanctions are agreed to and not circumvented - at least not too blatantly - and not opposed; at least not actively, and openly. I certainly hope that you understand that, all contributions to any and all NATO activities are appreciated, but are within contractual agreements. Nothing out of the ordinary; or above and beyond what was/is expected by and from all members. I do not mean it as a belittlement of the contributions you mentioned. Far from it. But, really, Turkey has very few friends now, just when she seems to need those friends, and this is due to Turkey's actions of the last decade or so, and not to anything or anyone else. To put it bluntly: they pissed in their own soup... For the record, I have spent some time (months at a time) in Turkey on a few occasions; and still have very good friends in Turkey with whom I kept in touch from our student days more than three decades ago. My familiarity with Turkey and Turkish politics is more than merely casual. Yes, I even spent time in Diyarbakir and other Kurdish centers. My beef is with Erdogan and his fellow two-bit bazaaris, and not with the Turks, whom I found unfailingly friendly and helpful during every visit of mine.

MilovanDjilas in reply to Garaboncias

You are entitled to your opinion.

The Italian contribution to operations in Libya was superior to that of the United States in the end - although kept under wraps.
Also, we have had 4000 soldiers in Afghanistan on a mission that has gone on for years now. Monti also communicated to Obama in February that Italian Carabinieri troops will remain in Afghanistan AFTER NATO leaves in 2014. I fail to see how that policy can be labelled as "nothing out of the ordinary".

And, Italy is a friend of Turkey. Certainly we have no complaints with their policies. On many issues, Turkey has taken stances that were quite public, and although Italy did not always comment, both public opinion and that of our political elite was largely in agreement.

Also, I see that the parliament has given Erdogan permission to undertake military operations with an overwhelming majority. Syria is a pressing issue, for all of us.

Garaboncias in reply to MilovanDjilas

With all due respect, again, your quoting different figures intended to put both Turkey and some European countries in a more favorable light will not change the hard facts that - as I stated in my post above - European efficacy in that part of the world , in general, does not go beyond anything what you have been doing: giving some money and writing resolutions; but no ability to effect policy; or enforce policy in any meaningful way. You cannot have possibly missed that. The Europeans are a bunch of eunuchs, simple as that. I know it is not a pleasant fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. The never-ending conflicts in that part of the world, so very close to Europe, will testify to that empirical knowledge better than any self-congratulatory pseudo-intellectual noises made by countries who feel their already ebbing political relevance on the world stage decrease even further. Worrying about Syria is a genuine concern for all concerned players. But that is, sorry to say, merely a side-show to a much larger game afoot, in which Italy plays only a rather minor role; Turkey a bigger one - but neither country is a principal player, and they should glad for that, really.

MilovanDjilas in reply to Garaboncias

Once again, you are entitled to your own opinion - but you will note I refrained from calling your country a "eunuch".

Italy is not a "minor player" in the Mediterranean. What you choose to believe is your business.

The Syrian Foreign Minister launched an appeal to Italy this past summer to intervene in the crisis and attempt to mediate a deal between the government and rebel forces.

That appeal fell on deaf ears here. We have seen enough bloodshed in Syria. Since we are one of Syria's primary trading partners- and have been for centuries - sometimes doing nothing is also doing something.

MilovanDjilas in reply to Garaboncias

BTW, What problem do you have with Turkish foreign policy that you are attacking that country?

I sense that you are a Republican American - possibly military - who believes George Bush was correct to invade Iraq on the pretext of looking for weapons of mass destruction...

Garaboncias in reply to MilovanDjilas


You could not be more wrong. I would rather eat rocks than vote Republican; or Democratic, for that matter - and I have never missed an election since 1976. By the way, your assumption reveals more about your limited grasp of the complexities of contemporary American society than your putative expertise on contemporary world realities. The Turkish foreign policies I am having problems with are the derivatives of internal policies; not the other way around. I am having serious philosophical problems with the creeping Islamization of Turkish society; and with the apologists who engage in spurious arguments about the merits of the present government. Said attempts of the present government will result in very serious consequences for Turkey's future. I assure you that quite a few Turks share that concern. The willful blindness towards the present government's efforts to turn Turkey into a "mildly Islamic" country is as disturbing as the those efforts themselves on the government's part. If you have this insurmountable urge to fit me into some kind of taxonomy, I could be best described as a devout supporter of Orhan Pamuk; and Turks of that sort...


Syria backing terrorist groups against Turkey is not new. Turkey tried to cover these problems with its unreliable neighbour to develop a new code of conduct during the last decade aligned with its 'zero problems with neighbours' policy. Nonetheless, as many criticized, Syria with its authocratic regime could not become a part of the concept. Neither was it able to do so. Rather, it just kept the terrorist organisations at the back side. It seems that regimes like Syria, Iran are one of the ones most benefited from the political vacuum created by the US reatreat from the region.


Shelling your own people to trigger a war. Shameless.

I hope Erdogan chokes on his Wahhabi gold.

Maybe we can try the Ottoman Empire again, it went so well last time.

Burak M

Syria seems to be asking for trouble and I would place my bets that this is a "if I go down I'm gonna bring down as much of the rebel allies as I can" attitude. However Turkey brought this on itself. By turning on a former friend, and perusing an unbalanced support for the rebels, it has in the long run not only shown that it shouts more than it can act but has also declared to other middle eastern nations that just like the West if it changes its mind it may turn against one time allies.

Gugan Barra in reply to Burak M

One of the more troubling aspects of the AKP led Turkish involvement in Syria is its clear sectarian intent - I seriously doubt that were the Alawites rebelling against a Sunni origin Ba'athist that Erdogan and his cronies would give a damn.

Burak M in reply to Gugan Barra

Take a look at Bahrain. Shias rising against a Sunni monarchy. You hear AKP talking about that??? To be honest though although it may have a slight influence as no doubt Erdogan is a staunch Sunni, I believe the sect issue is not as big as people assume. I believe the sect issue and controlling middle eastern Arabs is on the mind more so on the Saudis, and Qataris which feel that Assad overthrown would kill two birds with one stone. Alawite rule in Syria ended and damage Iranian influence in the region. Hence I believe their piling the pressure on Turkey. Why is Turkey, a more powerful nation than all gulf nations combined being pressured? Because of the heavy investments of these gulf nations in Turkey. And as much as media can boast about AKP and its desire for increased freedom, democracy etc, its no secret in Turkey that Main reason AKP still leads the poles handsomely is due to its economic success much of which is foreign hot money ie Saudis and Qatar.

Fahrettin Tahir

This is exactly the situation which was previously avoided by the responsible and intelligent generals of the Turkish army telling politicians where to stop.

Now, they are saying nothing, and an elected government is using its democratic right to drive Turkey into the biggest disaster since the first World War.

The citizens dislike the prospect of dying at war but they cherish the sacks of free coal the AKP government distributes before the elections even more.

So they continue to support the AKP.


Just what the world needs: another shooting war in the Middle East. But, of course, if Turkey is involved, it will be only mildly bloody...

El Toro Es Guapo

Deeper into the abyss

After reading all of these comments,I felt the urge to laugh at the people who wrote all these, but, suddenly I felt sorry for them. They call themselves ''Kurds'' but they don't know their different origins,the languages they speak,the religions they believe in,the places they used to live,the so called ruling authorities they obeyed,regimes they were ruled by,etc..Let me give some numbers to understand what I am trying to say:Origins:India,east Iran,south and north caucasia,south Iraq...Languages:Arab,Roman,Slav alphabets,3 main,16 different dialects;religions:Islam,Christian,Jewish and 16 tariqats;the places they live 68 different countries;ruling authorities:mainly Arabs,Persians,Turks,Armenians,Russians and now, almost every country in the world;the regimes:auotocracy,communism,fachism,de- mocracy and lately Maoism.Those living in Turkey enjoy the blessings of democracy.What they really want is to have different tribes with different chieves.The ones living in the middle east prefer Maoism.I want to know one thing.Why do they hate Turkish people.Most of them were under Ottoman rule for 600 years.They still speak their languages,they believe in any religion they wish,most of them never pay taxes,they own their lands and houses,they don't pay for schools,roads,government facilities,they can travel or live any where they want.They earn their life as smugglers,they can always go to North Iraq where there is a free Kurdish state.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

