Friday, October 18, 2019

Charting a Policy Response to Trump over Turkey and Syria


Turkey is now several days into its incursion into Syria. It has been planning this military foray for years, essentially since the outset of Syria’s civil war. The newsworthy item of course is that President Trump essentially gave President Erdogan a green light to proceed with those plans. Now, the media and politicians of various colors and ideologies are shouting condemnation of Trump for his decision. As one opposed to continuing military intervention, as well as a political foe of Trump, I see an obvious need to provide a clear analysis and a rational policy response to this crisis. Moreover, we need to dull the cacaphony of voices screaming foul and cheering for a policy reversal with little or no explanation to back up their calls for fresh intervention.

Point One: The US military bases in Syria were never authorized. They were established illegally under international law and are illegal still today. The evacuation of all US military personnel from Syria is absolutely an appropriate decision.
Point Two: The President of the US has no authority whatsoever to authorize a green light to any nation, whether an ally or not, to initiate an offensive incursion into another nation’s territory. Such decisions can only rightfully be taken within the UN.
Point Three: The Kurdish civilians living along the Syrian border with Turkey are evidently at risk as a result of Turkey’s military advance. Again, this is a matter for the UN. And, post haste the members of the Security Council should pass a unanimous decision calling on Turkey to cease its military action and repatriate its troops. US meddling via VP Pence’s visit to Turkey is not the appropriate response.

The civil war in Syria has continued for far too long. It began with demonstrations against the Assad regime. However, it quickly developed into an armed conflict and civil war. The US, Turkey and the Gulf States all supported the armed conflict. Weaponry and jihadist fighters were funneled into Syria largely across the Turkish border, although also through Iraq. The US government openly called for the overthrow of the Assad regime. Turkey supported jihadist / anti-Assad groups itself. Again, all of this activity was then and remains illegal. The activity worsened a civil conflict and led to an extended human tragedy and millions of refugees. Most of those refugees remain stranded in Turkey and Erdogan says he wishes to resettle the refugees within a 20 mile strip, ‘security zone,’ within Syria along the border.

During the worst phase of Syria’s civil war the jihadist offensive that had been unleashed by the US, Turkish and Gulf States took a disastrous turn. The most radical elements coalesced around ISIS and founded the Islamic State across Northeastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. The Islamic State went on the offensive in both regions and began attacking Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq and along the Syrian border with Turkey. One of the worst attacks was on the city of Kobani, which Kurdish fighters defended at huge cost. During the fighting there Turkey sealed its borders to the Kurdish fighters because of its own ongoing political conflict with Kurdish separatists. The US entered the conflict directly at that point, establishing its illegal bases and providing arms to Kurdish fighters. Then, the Kurds in Syria and Iraq took the fight to IS. The Iraqi army also attacked the IS stronghold from the South. The result was a military upgrade of Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq.

The crucial take away from the events surrounding Syria’s civil war and the rise and fall of the Islamic State is that the events were fueled by US interventionist policies. Many of the politicians calling today for the US to not abandon its Kurdish allies were the same ones who bear responsibility for inflaming the conflict from the outset. Turkey is also guilty on this score. Throughout Syria’s civil war Turkey supported paramilitary groups and jihadists. It appears that they are now giving such groups free rein to attack Kurdish villages and to create yet one more human tragedy.

Those calling for US troops to remain in Syria are promoting the same old policy of US intervention across the world and especially in the Middle East. This permanently prevailing policy whereby the US intervenes at every opportunity, whether to undermine unfriendly governments or to ‘protect’ human rights must cease. The US was never elected as the world’s police force. It’s motives are never neutral. Rather we must transition to a world where such actions are decided by a consensus within the UN. That has historically been impossible due to the structure of the Security Council and the veto rights of its permanent members. The most guilty party with regard to the exercise of such vetos has been the US.

Those calling for the US not to abandon the Kurds, our ally in the fight against the Islamic State, need to resolve a sequential policy problem. Continuing to support and arm the Kurdish YPG fighters is tantamount to providing support for Kurdish independence. That raises a major international policy issue. An independent Kurdistan would require the redrawing of borders and would strip away land not only from Syria, but also from Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Yes, the state borders in the Middle East were artificially established. Yes, the Kurdish question has been ignored and postponed for decades. And, the Kurds have been oppressed by all of the countries mentioned since the end of WWI. However, a call to support the formation of Kurdistan cannot be taken lightly and is not a decision for the US to take unilaterally. There are alternative scenarios. Support for the respect of Kurdish minority rights and a process of devolution of political process is one such alternative. Again, such a process does not fall within the sole purview of the US. Such matters should be pursued peacefully and through the building of international consensus through the UN. Arming and protecting Kurdish rebels is inconsistent with a proper diplomatic policy.