Has the Turkish Parliament's motion really scared the US?!

Exactly one week ago, 9 of our sons were martyred. Afterward, the same scenes were witnessed, the same speeches were made. Our martyrs were once again used as material for domestic politics. The only difference this time was the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) issuing a “motion” against terrorism.

Before touching upon the meaning and importance of the TBMM motion, there are points we wish to underline.

While the discussions on terrorism were ongoing in Parliament, the Presidential cabinet convened. Speaking after the meeting, Erdoğan touched upon “Treaty of Sèvres impositions” and “imperialist plans to establish a terrorist state in Iraq and Syria,” and while signaling operations for the coming months, he did not use the phrase “We may come suddenly one night,” perhaps because it has lost its authority. He also issued this challenge:

“When it comes to the fight against terrorism, which concerns the survival of our country and the peace and security of our nation, everyone, regardless of their identity, will either stand with us or against us. There is no middle ground, no appeasement, no gray area, and no side to be ignored or turned a deaf ear to in this matter. We are very clear, very determined, and very resolute on this issue. We believe it is our duty to completely eradicate the terrorist organization along with its supporters abroad and its extensions within.”

WHO IS ON WHOSE SIDE?

Those who make Sèvres impositions and have plans to establish a “terrorist state” are clear. So, let us recall who is on whose side with a few examples.

The US shot down our UAV in Syria in the first week of October. One month later, Secretary of State Blinken was hosted in Ankara, supposedly to be “scolded and belittled in diplomatic language.” The greatest punishment given was Erdoğan going to Rize and not meeting with Blinken!..

Approximately 1.5 months after this visit, on December 22-23, we lost 12 martyrs. It turned out that the coordinates of the location where our soldiers were stationed were provided by the CIA-Mossad, and that a US private military company even participated in the attack.

But we learned that on December 21, a Ministry of National Defense delegation was in Washington for the “Turkey-US High-Level Defense Meeting,” and during the talks, the Americans once again separated the PKK from the YPG and gave the message that “they stand with Turkey in its fight against the PKK.” Our side, meanwhile, once again put the evidence on the table that the PKK/YPG are the same and are managed from the same center!..

Following that meeting, the Ministry of National Defense announced—at the very hours the first attack on December 22 was taking place—that the meeting in Washington was “held in a positive and constructive atmosphere,” can you believe it?!

Before even 40 days had passed since our 12 martyrs, what happened 15 days later? US Secretary of State Blinken was hosted in Istanbul this time, and on top of that, he was received by Erdoğan!..

The result of that visit by Blinken? Five days later, in the same place, we lost 9 martyrs in a similar attack.

Meanwhile, we saw that Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler, in an interview for the government's magazine Kriter's January issue, still touched upon “the Turkey-US strategic partnership and our sharing of NATO's values and responsibilities,” saying, “However, the recent cooperation of the US with the PKK/PYD/YPG and its unilateral sanctions are not compatible with the spirit of alliance.”

These are the most concrete proofs of how “clear, determined, and resolute” the government is in the fight against terrorism!..

WAS THE US NOT SUPPORTING THE PKK EVEN BEFORE DAESH?

Let us move on to the parliamentary discussions presented by the pro-government media as “Critical warnings from Yaşar Güler and Hakan Fidan.”

Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler did not say anything different from his previous statements. As for Hakan Fidan, who has been Minister of Foreign Affairs for 8 months following his 13-year tenure as head of the MIT; it is necessary to examine what he said under main headings.

Referring to the YPG/PYD in Syria, he said, “We are neutralizing their efforts for international recognition with documents revealing the organization's terrorist connections.”

The answer: Aside from the fact that even Russia does not consider the PKK a terrorist organization; did the YPG/PYD not open representative offices in Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, and France, in addition to Russia?!

Fidan complained about the KDP in Sulaymaniyah creating space for the PKK/YPG and warned that further measures would be taken if this stance did not change. He said the Iraqi government was showing a more constructive attitude in the fight against the PKK.

The question: When it was determined last April that KDP leader Bafel Talabani and Americans met with YPG leader Mazloum Kobani at Sulaymaniyah airport and an operation was carried out there, how did that terrorist leader narrowly escape/get rescued? When it was understood that forces affiliated with the KDP were training PKK/YPG terrorists, did the US and the Iraqi administration not react first to the operation carried out on Sulaymaniyah Arbat airport on September 18? And furthermore, does the Iraqi administration consider the PKK and YPG a terrorist organization?

Fidan, not in Parliament but at his press conference for the new year, said, “We have full cooperation with Erbil in the fight against terrorism. They share our sensitivities, especially regarding the PKK,” and since he complained about the KDP again and expressed his surprise at the KDP increasing its votes in the Kirkuk elections, let us add the following:

Did Ankara's friend Nechirvan Barzani not attend the congress where Bafel Talabani was re-elected as KDP leader? Was it not announced that the KDP and PUK would act together in Kirkuk?

Another part of Fidan's speech in Parliament: He repeated that the US provides technology and military equipment support to the organization in Syria “under the pretext of fighting DAESH,” that “some European countries” also participate in these activities, and that Russia turns a blind eye to the PKK presence.

The question: Were the US, European countries, and Russia not supporting the PKK even before DAESH was created? Most painfully, is Turkey not still one of the partners of the Global Coalition to Defeat DAESH, which the US—the creator of DAESH—supposedly formed to fight it?

While Fidan stated that they would never allow the establishment of a terrorist state in northern Syria, he also expressed that the organization has come to control one-third of Syria.

The answer: Aside from the glaring contradiction in these statements; let us suffice by reminding that the so-called “Rojava” or “Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria” has been established and recognized by many countries, primarily the US, that a “Rojava constitution” was prepared very recently under the name of a “social contract,” and that the US and France are working to unite Barzanistan with the terrorist state in Syria.

In short; it is clear that the government has no strength to take a definitive stance against the true owners of separatist terrorism to root out the source of the problem.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE MOTION?

Well, at the point where Erdoğan himself speaks of “Sèvres impositions,” was there nothing that the Veteran Parliament, which waged the War of Independence, could do?

A solid motion was passed with the support of all parties except the DEM. It was also published in the Official Gazette under the title “Decision regarding the Turkish Grand National Assembly's unwavering support in the fight against terrorism”; if you ask, “Is that not enough?”

Yes, it is not enough.

What is in the motion? Mercy for our martyrs, condolences to our nation, urgent healing for our wounded soldiers... A declaration to the whole world that we possess the power and strength in the fight against terrorism... Questioning the “sincerity” of those who support terrorist organizations and importantly reminding them to “end their double-standard approaches”... The expectation of a clear and uncompromising stance against terrorist acts directed at Turkey... That our Veteran Parliament will be a close follower of the process...

The primary reason for the US-NATO pressuring us and even threatening our country with these terrorist attacks is clearly Sweden's NATO membership.

Since the key to this is in the hands of the TBMM; was it not essential and necessary to add the sentence, “Approval will not be given to Sweden's NATO membership unless support for terrorist organizations is cut off,” to this motion?!