Turkey

Something Shall Be Done: Why Turkey Is Set On Regime Change In Syria

Analysis: Don’t be fooled by the fact that Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan didn’t launch a military response to the downing of a Turkish jet. He has made it clear in other ways that Bashar Al-Assad's days are numbered.

A portrait of Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan behind a Syrian girl in a refugee camp on the Turkish-Syrian border (FreedomHouse2)
A portrait of Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan behind a Syrian girl in a refugee camp on the Turkish-Syrian border (FreedomHouse2)
Sedat Ergin

ISTANBUL - In last week's Parliamentary address, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan set out the framework for how to respond to the most recent Syrian crisis of the downed Turkish fighter jet.

Despite using strong language, Erdogan did not signal any immediate military retaliation. Instead, the short-term priority rests on the diplomatic front. Indeed, the most striking part of the address were his middle and long term view on Syria, which we can call Erdogan's "nip it in the bud " approach.

Erdogan has openly defined the Bashar al-Assad administration as a "clear and present threat," and he did not hide the fact that he is ultimately focused on toppling and destroying this regime.

The words: "All kinds of support the Syrian people need will be provided until they are saved from the dictator and his gang," are the most extreme words the Turkish Prime Minister has uttered against Assad to date.

The "support" mentioned could refer to arming the opposition, providing financial aid, and logistical support for foreign intelligence elements to infiltrate Syria.

Reports that Turkey was sending arms to aid the Syrian opposition were categorically denied in Ankara, but that denial has lost credence since Erdogan's parliamentary address last Tuesday.

In fact, Erdogan's words can be regarded as confirmation of reports published in The New York Times and the Guardian last week that Turkey was aiding CIA activities at the Syrian border, as well as helping to finance the delivery of arms to the opposition, alongside Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Rules of engagement

The Prime Minister clearly does not feel the need to hide the fact that he has taken sides in the Syrian civil war, and that he is an intervening party. His stance demonstrates an attitude similar to that of former President Turgut Ozal, when he dropped Saddam Hussein completely, all at once.

The tone adopted in Erdogan's speech also implies that when the time comes: "something will be done." This will likely come in the form of a military response in Syria.

In the meantime it seems Turkey will wait for Syria to make a mistake, or do something else to provoke such an attack. This is implied through his phrase, "The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) have changed their rules of engagement toward Syria."

The most problematic part of the speech was Erdogan's slamming of the Turkish press, including unacceptably severe and unjust statements referring to journalists as "sold pens' and "not sons of this country." If Turkey is a democracy, then the government's foreign policy should be open to criticism.

The Prime Minister himself admitted that Assad "did not live up to his promises," and, indeed, had misled him. Therefore, however good-willed he may be, the policy Erdogan followed did not bring any results. In this case, are those, who at the time criticized Erdogan for getting so close to Assad, now mistaken? Are they suddenly not sons of the country?

If Turkey has chosen democracy as its path, there is nothing more natural than to question the government's foreign policy and the crisis policies it follows. In democracies, leaders tolerate journalists who use their right to criticize; they don't go pointing fingers at them.

This should be one of the aspects that differentiate Turkey from other regimes in the region. Regims like Bashar al-Assad's.

Read the original article in Turkish.

Photo - FreedomHouse2

Support Worldcrunch
We are grateful for reader support to continue our unique mission of delivering in English the best international journalism, regardless of language or geography. Click here to contribute whatever you can. Merci!
Geopolitics

In Sudan, A Surprise About-Face Marks Death Of The Revolution

Ousted Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok was the face of the "stolen revolution". The fact that he accepted, out of the blue, to return at the same position, albeit on different footing, opens the door to the final legitimization of the coup.

Sudanese protesters demonstrating against the military regime in London on Nov. 20, 2021

Nesrine Malik

A little over a month ago, a military coup in Sudan ended a military-civilian partnership established after the 2019 revolution that removed President Omar al-Bashir after almost 30 years in power. The army arrested the Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and, along with several of his cabinet and other civil government officials, threw him in detention. In the weeks that followed, the Sudanese military and their partners in power, the Rapid Support Forces, moved quickly.

They reappointed a new government of “technocrats” (read “loyalists”), shut down internet services, and violently suppressed peaceful protests against the coup and its sabotaging of the 2019 revolution. During those weeks, Hamdok remained the symbol of the stolen revolution, betrayed by the military, detained illegally, unable to communicate with the people who demanded his return. In his figure, the moral authority of the counter-coup resided.

Keep reading... Show less
Support Worldcrunch
We are grateful for reader support to continue our unique mission of delivering in English the best international journalism, regardless of language or geography. Click here to contribute whatever you can. Merci!
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS
MOST READ