Turkey and the Kurdish red lines

Contemporary Turkish state has passed since its inception in the year 1923, in many of the internal and external crises, and the Successive Turkish governments had been able in dealing with it in away to preserve the unity of the country and with the least possible losses. But this time the Turkish state is witnessing severe regional crisis that has negative reflections and effects on the Turkish interior , and this crisis is linked to the Syrian ongoing Revolution and what is happening in the northern Syria in which it is witnessing an advance of the units of Kurdish People’s Protection , the military wing of the Democratic Union Party , toward the Turkish border, as an attempt to establish a self-management that lead in the future to a Kurdish state in northern Syria, as this move is a violation of the red lines of the Turkish foreign policy.
In this context, the President of the Republic of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed of the position of his country of rejection to the establishment of a Kurdish entity in northern Syria, saying: “We will not accept the establishment of a Kurdish entity on our border with Syria,” and added that “Turkey will stand against any attempts by Kurdish militants to establish a corridor between the areas they control in northern Syria that his country will not allow the Democratic Union Party, the establishment of corridor in northern Syria. “he also said,” We said that we will not allow the establishment of such a corridor (cities and regions “Azaz , Manbij , Jarabulus and Mare`), and we will do what our duty dictates in this regard, the existence of such a corridor to the terrorist organizations is a problem and a threat for us. ”
The Turkish government considers these cities and regions a red line that will not allow them to fall under the control of the protection units of the Kurdish people, as they are worried that the control of these units to those areas will lead to link the Kurdish areas in the far east of Hasaka and Qamishli of Afrin district in the far north-west, which means the Turkish border will become fully with the Kurdish entity that will be in the future a support for the movement of the Kurds in Turkey and their demands to the establishment of self-rule in the Kurdish areas of Turkey, where Ankara believes that this project is the PKK project.
This is what it means? The Turkish government will not accept any change that will be introduced to the political boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot agreement before a century of time, because any change will be introduced , it may adversely affect , in the long run , on the Treaty of Lausanne which drew the limits of the current Turkish state and this is rejected by it, Turkey is feared in the event that Kurdish entity in northern Syria to revisit the terms of the Treaty of “Sefer” which approved the Kurdish entity before the colonial powers abandoned their promises to the Kurds , will the current regional and international conditions and the course of regional events announce for the end of the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Convention on the Lausanne, or is it not merely a regional crisis of its international dimensions that is already experienced by the international community without affect or change to what has been adopted under the conventions mentioned above, or the matter has been changed ?
Military Field gains of Forces of the units of Kurdish people’ protection, backed militarily by the United States and backed by Russian air cover in northern Syria , pushed the Turkish government to change its priorities towards the Syrian crisis noting that the first priorities of Turkish foreign policy was , especially after the overthrow of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and before the outbreak of the Syrian uprising and after its eruption for several months , that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to accept tackling it through a reformist approach and not rely on violent approach. As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to do so and he followed the violence as the best way to suppress the Syrian uprising, the Turkish priority was evolved to become to overthrow his rule the first of its priority . As the Turkish government supported the Syrian opposition, both military and diplomatic support, to tighten the screws on President Bashar al-Assad and to accelerate the overthrow his rule , the Turkish government demanded that the United Nations and its international allies , led by the United States to create a “safe zone” to accommodate Syrian refugees fleeing from the oppression of the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and also is as a protective step to cut the road to the Syrian Kurds in control of the border line between Turkey and Syria. But this Turkish demand was rejected by the USA, and certainly its refusal was not in vain, but it was a blackmail paper or pressure that may be used at any stage of the crisis in Syria against the Turkish government or the paper used against all nations and organizations involved in the Syrian crisis.
Because of the overlap of interests of the United States and Russia on the one hand and its contradiction with the Turkish government on the other hand, in the Syrian crisis, it has become one of the priorities of Turkish foreign policy is to prevent the establishment of Kurdish entity aligned with its borders to the north with Syria . The American ally and former Russian partner are not opposing the control of the units of Kurdish people ‘s protection -which is considered by the Turkish government a military wing for “terrorist organization.”
The United States of America is cooperating with the units of Kurdish people protection to fight al state in Iraq and the Levant “Daash” This cooperation is also interpreted in the context of American discontent with the Turkish position that stood , from a US point of view which is a negative attitude and not positive, from the control of state regulation “Daash” on the city Ein Al-Arab “Kobani,” which did not provide adequate support to rid the city of it.
And can be interpreted also within the framework of the visit by the “Brett Makovrk” envoy of US President Barack Obama to the Syrian Kurdish areas in early February 2016 , as this visit represented a new era of US openness to Syria’s Kurds, at a time when the Kurds are looking for regional and international recognition for them, and enable them to participate in international efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis, which sparked angry reactions by the President of the Republic of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, amounted to address the US administration on the air, and claim a choice between historic alliance with the country or the Kurds in Syria .
There is no doubt that the Syrian Kurds aspire to a kind of international protection in light of hidden fears because of what they have suffered from attacks by armed groups, especially by the state organization in Iraq and the Levant “Daash”, where their areas are rich of oil, gas and water in northern Syria and east..
Also they are looking to get sophisticated weapons in the context of the current conflicts and wars in the regional environment, as well as Old ambition to get international recognition of the national rights and the right of self-determination..
In contrast, the United States recognizes the importance of the Kurds as an important regional player, it is necessary to utilize their role in the war against “Daash.
“Consequently, the US openness to Syria Kurds carries with it the character of the security need for their role more than the position of the supporter of the rights of the Kurdish people and their aspirations . But , it is obvious that the goal of Kurds of the alliance with Washington is beyond than military coordination and cooperation against the “Daash” but to support their case politically ,noting that the draft of self-management, announced by the Democratic Union Party over a year ago , needs to be supported and recognition, as the party seeks from the openness to it to be recognized as a representative of the Kurdish movement in Syria in light of division and differences between it and the Kurdistan National Assembly parties affiliated to the Syrian National coalition.
The military support provided by the United States for protection units of the Kurdish people can be interpreted , in the context of US-Turkish disagreement over the fight “Daash” , to the conflicts in the general strategies towards the Syrian crisis. While the US administration asserts the primacy of the fight against state regulation in Iraq and the Levant “Daash” and move to the diplomat solution to the Syrian crisis, the Turkish government insists on linking of it to the overthrow the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and to this purpose, the Turkish government supports the Syrian armed opposition and working for the land intervention despite of the serious risks of such an intervention and the possibility of its transformation into a regional and international war that would have devastating consequences for the region.
In this variation, the American – Turkey variance on the status of Syria’s Kurds reached an advanced stage, especially to supply the United States for the Kurds with weapons to be rejected by the Turkish government, which always stress on the description of the Democratic Union Party, a terrorist, while the US administration rejects such a rating of the party . US Vice President Joe Biden during his recent visit to Turkey in December / January, avoided to mention the People’s Protection Units within the terrorist organizations, said: «The United States recognizes that Daash is not the only threat to the Turkish people, but the PKK is a threat to them equally. . There is no difference between Daash , PKK and Al-nusrat Front »while Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told US Vice President Joe Biden about Turkey’s concerns and that the Democratic Union Party is located within the organizations that pose a threat to national security of his country .
As for Russia, it cooperates with protection units of the Kurdish people to fight against Syrian opposition , ally of Turkey, and not as called for that intervention to combat terrorism in Syria and of state regulation, and that Russia is cooperating with these units as revenge tools to the Turkish government that it brought down one of the Russian fighter jets in November last year. But that Russia in its cooperation with the Democratic Union Party, went even further than the US to cooperate with it , as Russia has recently opened the door to direct political cooperation with the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, led by “the Salih Muslim.” After series of meetings between the two parties, Russia opened a representative office of the Kurdish self-management in Moscow, and has intensified its military cooperation with the Kurdish units of People’s Protection and democratic forces of Syria, and Russian warplanes have secured air protection for these forces in the advance to the west of the Euphrates after it took control on Tishreen dam in the province of Raqqa, and its determination to liberate border towns with Turkey, especially Azaz and Manbej and Jarablos and Mare` from the control of ISIS – “Daash” and al nusrat.” This Russian rapprochement with Syria’s Kurds, brings to the minds of the outstanding relationship between Russia and the PKK, noting that it has been to this party official offices in Russia , when it had tense relations with Turkey at the stage that preceded the advent of Vladimir Putin to rule Russia, and the arrival of the Justice and Development Party to the rule of Turkey, does this scene will be repeated again, in the sense , Does Russia will offer to close the Representation of the Democratic Union Party in the event of the Russian Turkish rapprochement again?
And it is included within the context of the Russian American cooperation with the Democratic Union Party the following question: Is this cooperation will lead to the achievement of the Kurdish dream of establishing their state, even in a phased manner starting from the north of Syria, and to be connected later on with the rest of the Kurdish presence in the regional neighboring countries ?, or this cooperation is not more than a phased cooperation that would disappear with the demise of its causes, and keep the Kurdish issue as a pressure paper to be used where is necessary by these countries as it has also been used by the colonial powers in the post-first World war.
Syrian crisis reveals that there is a divergence in positions that reached ,with the momentum of the current events on the Syrian territory , to contradictory positions between the United States and the Turkish government, with respect to the order of priority between them , as well as in their view for the Democratic Union Party, this contradiction may demonstrate that the US-Turkish relations are not relations based on coalition, when the Turkish state declares that the Democratic Union Party is a terrorist party that threatens its security and stability, while its ally, is cooperating with it noting that this matter constitutes a provocation to it, does the US will accept from Turkey to consider al-Qaeda organization is not a terrorist and acceptance of Turkey to deal with it ?! the requirements of any alliance between two or more States should take into account the security considerations with each other, and this is what is not happening in the case of the Democratic Union Party . Syrian crisis also reveals that the United States and Russia which are conflicting in Eastern Europe , can to cooperate in the station of the stations of the Syrian crisis to demonstrate that this conflict and cooperation in relations between states are based on interests and not just for the coalition, so the two allied states historically, such as Turkey and the United States are contracted regarding their interests in the Syrian crisis , while the latter’s interests converge with historical rival of it which is Russia in the same crisis.
According to the Turkish experience in dealing with Iraqi Kurdistan in the phase post-2003 , that it dropped “approach to the red lines” for the future of Iraqi Kurdistan, which was based on the need to strive to prevent a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, and to refrain from dialogue with the Iraqi Kurdish authorities and have rejected any contact with representatives of the Iraqi Kurds or the recognition of management of autonomy for the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. This approach was based on the premise that political developments in northern Iraq have direct vital reflections to the Turkish state because of the concentration of the PKK in northern Iraq’s Qandil mountains and the tendency of Iraqi Kurds to turn autonomy into an independent state which threatens to strengthen separatist tendencies among the Kurds of Anatolia.
And a new spirit of realism was adopted in the Turkish position on the Iraqi Kurdistan based on diplomacy and economic factors and the abandonment of the narrow security approach toward Iraqi Kurdistan, and by the virtue of this realism , the bilateral relations are made and progressed at all levels between the Turkish state and the Kurdistan region of Iraq, so it is sufficient here to note that Turkey has become with the passing of time the first economic partner of the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and the question that arises in this context Is the Turkish government will adopt the same new spirit in the case of the control of Syrian Kurds in northern Syria to establish a form of self-management which is evolving with the development of the Syrian crisis, and dealing with this new reality or is the Syrian Kurdish situation completely different and will not allow to go beyond the red lines and the Turkish government will use all the options available to them even if it cost them to enter into a regional war that its range may develop ?

Rawabet Research and Strategic Studies Center