|
From a diplomatic perspective, Ankara has led
the charge in
demonizing the Assad regime, saying that it
“stands against the will of the Syrian people” and is “killing its own
people.” However, the reality is that Turkey, along with its collaborators
in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon and elsewhere, have done more to fan the
flames of violence and instability than the Assad regime ever could.
As Reuters and other news outlets reported last week, Turkey has been operating a terrorist base in Adana, in the vicinity of US-NATO’s base at Incirlik. It is from this base (and others, to be sure) that many of the terrorists have been funneled into Syria. Moreover, these terrorists are not strictly Syrians trying to destabilize their own country.
In fact, the majority of those operating from the Turkish base are from,
...and elsewhere.
Essentially then, it is clear that, at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, under the command and control of the Turkish military and intelligence apparatus, the destabilization of Syria has been led.
So, it would be fair to say that Turkey has been
at the forefront of the attack on its neighbor, acting as a willing
partner of NATO, complicit in countless horrendous war crimes perpetrated
against the people of Syria.
In an article entitled “War at Any Cost - Another Manufactured Pretext for War with Syria”, I analyzed the way in which the Erdogan government attempted to use the downing of one of its jets as a legitimization of war against its neighbor.
In the ensuing weeks, and after careful investigation, it has become clear that, at the very least, the Turkish jet had violated Syrian airspace and that the military acted within the confines of international law in their response. It was the rhetoric of Erdogan, Davotoglu and others that was more instructive however.
In the aftermath of this event, Erdogan threatened military action against Syria, claiming that the military might pose a threat.
Of course, this should be taken to mean that
Turkey would have taken upon itself the right to interpret the military of a
sovereign state acting within its own borders as a threat, a clear violation
of the principles of international relations and law. Essentially, the
entire episode with the downing of the jet demonstrated the fact that
Erdogan and Co. were willing to allow themselves to be used as NATO’s dagger
against Assad.
The SNC, led by foundation-funded Western proxies such as Bassma Kodmani, advocates regime change in Syria and supports the loose collection of terror groups and death squads operating under the moniker of the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA). The Council has been hosted by Turkey, receiving financial and diplomatic support from Ankara.
This dubious entity has failed to unite the opposition, its one US-NATO delegated task, and has instead become a lightning rod for criticism from much of the international community. It has become clear in recent months that the SNC is, in fact, composed of a number of factions including the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been implicated in weapons smuggling along the Syria-Turkey border in tandem with the CIA.
In addition, the SNC and their Turkish hosts have attempted to foment chaos in Syria using discontented Kurdish elements, many of whom view the SNC and the dismantling of the Syrian state as a prelude to Kurdish independence.
Essentially, the Syrian National Council (and,
to a lesser degree, the Free Syrian Army) could not exist were it not for
overt support, both financial and diplomatic, of the Turkish government.
It is now public knowledge that Al Qaeda is operating on Turkish soil near the Syrian border, using Turkey as a safe haven and command center from which to launch incursions into Syria.
As Tony Cartalucci points out however, this trend is nothing new.
Cartalucci points to the famous New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh entitled “The Redirection”, in which Hersh states:
Here we see the complicity of the United States and its proxies in the region in organizing and unleashing Al Qaeda as a weapon against its enemies.
Turkey has merely allowed itself to be made into a staging ground for this type of destabilization, precisely what the Assad regime has argued since the beginning of the conflict.
Aside from Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror networks have been mobilized in Turkey in order to smash the Syrian state.
The attempt was to topple the Assad regime and put, in its place, a government more amenable to US designs for a new Arab World, one that would be subservient to Western imperialism for another half century. What has taken place however, has been quite the opposite.
Instead of destroying Syria and the regime in
Damascus, it is the terrorists and their handlers in Ankara, Riyadh, and
Washington who have had to backpedal as Damascus has executed a successful
counter-terrorism strategy and maintained control of the country.
In addressing this perplexing question, one begins to gain insight into more than Turkey’s reasons for doing so; one begins to explore the Turkish mindset. For years, Turkey has maintained a “Zero Problems” policy with its neighbors, essentially preferring to have relations with all regional players, from Israel to Syria and Iran.
However, as the NY Times points out, this strategy has changed in recent years, particularly under the leadership of Erdogan and current Foreign Minister Davutoglu. With them at the helm, Turkey has instead chosen to allow itself to become NATO’s enforcer, doing the dirty work of imperialism including diplomatic attacks, terrorism, and countless other equally horrendous forms of subversion.
In doing so, the ruling establishment in Ankara has bought into NATO’s insidious tenets of hegemony and domination. The Turkish government seems to have succumbed to a form of hubris or, as some might argue, the hysteria of power.
Erdogan, Davutoglu and others have chosen to try to make Turkey into a regional hegemon capable of dominating its neighbors economically, politically, and militarily.
However, what they seem to have failed to realize is that Turkey itself is a fragile state, created less than a century ago and comprised of a number of ethnic groups at odds with each other.
As author and historian Webster Tarpley has pointed out,
Indeed, it would seem that the ruling
establishment in Ankara has made the proverbial “deal with the devil”,
eschewing the rational and sound “zero problems” policy in favor of an
“endless problems” policy espoused by NATO and its masters on Wall St. and
in London.
First and foremost is the immediate blowback from the destruction of its neighbor. Undoubtedly, the Kurdish minority in Turkey, which makes up more than a quarter of the total population, will then become more difficult to manage, uniting with their Syrian cousins and beginning to cause unrest inside Turkey which has, for decades, been fighting a perpetual separatist movement in the Kurdish areas.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has been engaged in terrorist activities in Turkey for years and, with the destruction of Syria, would likely emerge as a much more immediate threat to the safety and security of Turkey.
Essentially then, Turkey’s destabilization of
Syria would, quite predictably, grow to destabilize Turkey itself.
With regard to Russia, Turkey has important development deals that must be understood. Most prominent among these is the proposed Mersin Akkuyu nuclear power deal signed by Moscow and Ankara worth upwards of $20 billion. This represents the largest single Russian investment anywhere outside of the Russian Federation.
Moreover, this deal would move Turkey forward in the fields of energy production and high technology, both of which are crucial for the maintenance and building of an advanced economy in the 21st Century.
Likewise, the South Stream Pipeline, long seen as integral to the economic futures of both Russia and Turkey, could be in jeopardy. Additionally, the establishment of the High Level Cooperation Council (UDIK) under Medvedev sought to bring together the diplomatic and political leadership of the two countries to jointly work toward building a common economic destiny.
This could be the beginning of tremendous
economic and geopolitical progress for Russia and Turkey, progress which is
likely to be stymied by Ankara’s incomprehensible folly in Syria.
Just this week, Erdogan explained that his
country is looking more and more to integration into the SCO instead of the
EU. Naturally, Moscow and Beijing will not allow a NATO attack dog state
into the SCO and so, as with many other issues, Turkey risks their
opportunity to integrate themselves into the “developing world” of the BRICS
and SCO solely because they’ve allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by
US-NATO.
Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey once said,
The truth and meaning of this statement must not be underestimated.
In fact, Turkey had to learn the hard way that the path to progress is fraught with challenges; that notions of empire and hegemony must be shed in order to better the lives of the people.
In this case, we must think not only of the lives of Turkish people, but of Syrians as well and, for that matter, all people of the world. In so doing, it is important to remember that no good can come to Turkey or the region if they continue down the path of subversion, terrorism, and destruction in Syria.
As Ataturk famously said,
Hopefully, these words are not entirely forgotten in Turkey today.
|
