Stuck on an obsessive Syria policy

The agenda mill in this country grinds issues so quickly that no matter what we do, we just cannot keep up.

It was not emphasized enough, but the recent statements by Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler regarding Syria were very important.

While listing Turkey's conditions, he stated that they would not discuss the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the region before elections are held, saying, “Coordination for withdrawal can only be discussed after a new constitution is adopted in Syria, elections are held, and borders are secured,” and expressed that meetings at the ministerial level could be held between Turkey and Syria if the necessary conditions are met.

These are not words uttered off the cuff without thought.

Reuters had sent the questions in writing.

We can assume that the Ministry of National Defense provided its answers to Reuters after carefully working on these questions.

In other words, he did not just shoot from the hip.

From these two sentences by Yaşar Güler, it is understood that the government is not at a very different point on the Syria issue compared to 13 years ago.

Yet, a short while ago, he had said, “We were not enemies with Syria yesterday. We were meeting with Assad as families. We will extend our invitation. Hopefully, with this invitation, we want to bring Turkey-Syria relations to the same point as they were in the past. Our invitation could come at any moment,” and a few days later, he made the statement, “We want to end this estrangement and start a new process.”

Was Tayyip actually changing his Syria policy?

With a pragmatism that would make even Machiavelli look mild, was he going to say, “Let's leave the past behind and look at the upcoming matches” as if nothing had happened!

Because it is clear that, from whatever angle you look at it, there is no sustainable aspect to this policy left.

The bill for Turkey is getting heavier by the day.

Especially the refugee issue is at a point that threatens his government.

When the statement came from the Syrian Foreign Ministry saying, “We will start talks, but first the Turkish military must withdraw,” all eyes turned to Turkey.

While the matter needed to be handled with extreme sensitivity, we suddenly saw the government come out again with the same old tune about elections and a new constitution in Syria.

It seems that Tayyip cannot get rid of his obsession that he can bring about a regime change in Damascus and bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

Because, in their eyes, the issue of elections and a constitution is an opportunity that should not be wasted for the Muslim Brotherhood or Brotherhood-backed jihadists to become partners in the administration in Damascus.

He thinks that if Hamas disappears in Palestine, the only position the Muslim Brotherhood can hold onto is Syria.

That is why he is clinging to the issue of elections and a new constitution.

His justification is the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 dated 2015.

This resolution, which was referenced in the Astana Process, envisioned the creation of a “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance” within 6 months, the holding of “free and fair elections” under United Nations supervision within 18 months, and that the political transition be Syrian-led.

How realistic is it to expect Assad, who did not implement this resolution back then, to fall into this trap today just because someone wants him to!

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge.

The balances have changed; while Russia and America are arm-wrestling in Syria, the terrorist organization, with the support it receives from across the Atlantic, has established cantons on the border and has become a serious threat to Turkey.

For Tayyip, there is no longer any aspect of the issue that can be sold domestically.

It was understood on March 31 that the wind is now blowing in the opposite direction. The connection that the people of this country established between having to live at the hunger threshold and Tayyip's Syria policy brought about a serious loss of votes in the elections.

The stance that Russia will take from now on is of critical importance.

If Putin says, “Let the start of the talks and the withdrawal of Turkish troops be simultaneous,” we do not know if Tayyip will backtrack.

It is hard to say he won't.

Ultimately, since Yaşar Güler is an appointed official, the final word will still be with Tayyip.

We can evaluate what he said to Reuters as testing the waters. Let us end our article by saying that this issue seems to be heating up again with the arrival of September.

--------------------

In my Tuesday article, while mentioning Turkey's failure in the Olympics, I wrote, “I am not even talking about the bigoted crowd spewing hatred at Ebrar just because of her sexual preference.” A dear physician friend of mine, who is also a family counselor, said that it would be more accurate to use the term “sexual orientation” instead of Ebrar's “sexual preference.” Hüseyin Nafi İpek also raised an objection, saying, “Ebrar's sexual status is not her 'preference.' It is an innate condition that is not dependent on her own will or choice.” I leave these two views to the reader's judgment.