Tweet
RUBEN SAFRASTYAN: BASHAR ASSAD PLAYS KURDISH CARD AGAINST TURKEY
by David Stepanyan
arminfo
Tuesday, July 31, 16:56
ArmInfo's interview with Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D, Director of the
Institute of Oriental Studies, Armenian National Academy of Sciences.
What are the key internal and external factors that have the current
instability in Syria?
This instability certainly has internal reasons. Over the last
decades, a middle-class has emerged in Syria, which is, naturally,
discontented at concentration of economy in the hands of the family
of the Assads. There is also certain discontent at the level of
political freedoms in the country. All these are objective reasons
and the many thousand strong demonstrations in Syria since the spring
of the last year stemmed from those very reasons. At a certain stage
external forces joined those protest actions and began to manipulate
on inability of Assad's government to carry out economic and political
reforms to reduce the domestic discontent. Eventually, those external
forces began to openly seek to overthrow Assad's power. Therefore,
analyzing the reasons of the current chaos in Syria, one should not
neglect the objective reasons of that. Together with the desire of
external forces to overthrow Assad those objective reasons have led
to the present-day situation in Syria. Nevertheless, Assad's power
is still enlisting support of the population of Syria, while the
opposition is quite patchy.
If Assad is overthrown, who will replace him, can it be the Muslim
Brotherhood?
Speaking of Asad's replacement by Muslim Brotherhood is untimely in the
light of certain balance of forces of the opposition and authorities
in Syria, which implies rather a long fight.
You mean that the scale of the Syrian events is being exaggerated?
Yes. Bashar Assad is still controlling the situation. But should
it continue for a long time, the Syrian President may be overthrown
or even annihilated. I expect that there will be some intermediary
period when the key actors will be Assad and the opposition. If this
happens, the political system of the post-Assad Syria will embrace
all major forces: the Muslim Brotherhood, the Liberals, Ba'ath and
Al Qaeda-related forces.
Why is the United States willing to replace predictable Europe-oriented
Assad by unpredictable Islamists?
The key reason why the United States is so eager to replace predictable
Europe-oriented Assad by unpredictable Islamists is that Assad's Syria
is partner to Iran and Russia. Consequently, Assad's overthrow will
weaken those countries' positions in the Middle East.
The other reason is that the Americans are willing to improve their
relations with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Kurds living in the north of the country have faced no resistance
to their attempt to gain control over the region. Is Assad weak or
is he shrewd?
Assad made another tactical step withdrawing the Syrian army from the
northwestern regions of Syria and opening the Syrian border with Iraq
and Turkey. Hence, Assad plays the Kurdish card against Turkey. On
the other hand, the Kurdish organizations in the territory of Syria
have rather close ties with the Iraqi Kurdistan led by Barzani. By the
way, the Kurdish population is not very large - nearly 1.5 million,
which is less then 10% of the 20 million population of Syria.
Those organizations strive to create autonomy as part of Syria so
far and may seek independence in future.
Turkey was very much worried to know that the north-western part of
Syria had been seized by the Kurds. What consequences the appearance
of Syrian Kurdistan may have for Turkey?
It is a very serious threat to Turkey, which will find itself in a
nightmare if another Kurdish quasi-country appears on its border. In
the meanwhile, there are Kurdish PKK fighters operating against Turkey
from inside Syria. The example of the Iraqi Kurdistan where PKK camps
are located confirms that after withdrawal of Syrian troops from
the Turkish-Syrian border, PKK fighters will get an opportunity to
easily penetrate into the territory of Turkey from Syria and double
the capacity of PKK in the fight against Turks. PKK had camps in
Syria yet before that, but starting 90s president of Syria closed his
country for the Kurdish fighters thanks to cooperation of the Turkish
AKP and Assad's Baas Party. Now, due to the tough stance of Ankara,
Assad has again given the go-ahead for the PKK's fight against Turkey
from inside Syria. Thus, it was a very rash decision from the Turkish
government to oppose Assad. I am disposed to think that Ankara's
policy towards Syria is "adventurous". That policy is not based
on the current geopolitical and political situation. Consequently,
Ankara's attempt to gain weight in the region is adventurous. This
has not only intensified the Kurdish factor, but also began to arouse
discontent of the West and the USA, as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
other Arab states. All these actors believe that it does not behoove
Turkey to play too big role in the developments in the Arab world.
Can Turkey come out of the deadlock it has put itself in by starting
the military expansion of the north-western Syria?
That issue has been discussed in Turkey for long. There were
suggestions to create a buffer zone on the border with Syria, or
humanitarian corridors in the territory of Syria. In both cases, they
were suggesting to use the Turkish army in the territory of Syria
against the government troops. However, over the last few months,
Turkey has been displaying rather a restrained policy in the given
issue due to the discontent of the USA and Arab states at Ankara's
agility. In addition, there are forces opposing Turkey's military
intervention in Syria also inside Turkey e.g. Turkish Armed Forces
General Staff. But situation is changing very rapidly and the position
of Turkey as well. Now, that country bursts to Syria under pretext of
neutralizing Syrian chemical weapons. So far, one cannot fully rule
out Turkey's attempts to take preventive measures against Syria under
pretence of striking the PKK camps in the territory of Syria. Thus,
Turkey has at least two pretexts for military intervention in Syria
Will Russia, China and Iran be consistent in defending Assad?
The role of Russia and China in all this is also significant. These
countries are the key factor preventing military intervention in Syria
in case of relevant voting at the UN Security Council. Obviously,
the West and some Arab countries will receive no right to interfere
with the situation in Syria on some pretext of other.
If the Syrian regime falls, Iran will find itself surrounded by
unfriendly regimes. Can this mean an end to the rule of ayatollahs
in Iran?
The U.S. contributes to exacerbating the situation in Syria mainly
to overthrow the power of Ayatollahs. Therefore, I think, possible
overthrow of Syria will greatly help isolating Iran. For that purpose,
other tactical and strategic mechanisms will be used as well. The
major goal of the current information war against Iran is to create
relevant conditions for a change of power in Iran through weakening
it. Washington will hardly dare to intervene in Iran unless there is
a direct threat of accretion of nuclear weapons by Iran.
The key pretext for the American invasion of Iraq was also the search
for a nuclear weapon. But they did not find anything, did they?
Iran is not Iraq and plays a tangible geopolitical role as a regional
superpower. Tehran makes independent foreign political decisions,
and the USA is not happy about that, indeed.
by David Stepanyan
arminfo
Tuesday, July 31, 16:56
ArmInfo's interview with Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D, Director of the
Institute of Oriental Studies, Armenian National Academy of Sciences.
What are the key internal and external factors that have the current
instability in Syria?
This instability certainly has internal reasons. Over the last
decades, a middle-class has emerged in Syria, which is, naturally,
discontented at concentration of economy in the hands of the family
of the Assads. There is also certain discontent at the level of
political freedoms in the country. All these are objective reasons
and the many thousand strong demonstrations in Syria since the spring
of the last year stemmed from those very reasons. At a certain stage
external forces joined those protest actions and began to manipulate
on inability of Assad's government to carry out economic and political
reforms to reduce the domestic discontent. Eventually, those external
forces began to openly seek to overthrow Assad's power. Therefore,
analyzing the reasons of the current chaos in Syria, one should not
neglect the objective reasons of that. Together with the desire of
external forces to overthrow Assad those objective reasons have led
to the present-day situation in Syria. Nevertheless, Assad's power
is still enlisting support of the population of Syria, while the
opposition is quite patchy.
If Assad is overthrown, who will replace him, can it be the Muslim
Brotherhood?
Speaking of Asad's replacement by Muslim Brotherhood is untimely in the
light of certain balance of forces of the opposition and authorities
in Syria, which implies rather a long fight.
You mean that the scale of the Syrian events is being exaggerated?
Yes. Bashar Assad is still controlling the situation. But should
it continue for a long time, the Syrian President may be overthrown
or even annihilated. I expect that there will be some intermediary
period when the key actors will be Assad and the opposition. If this
happens, the political system of the post-Assad Syria will embrace
all major forces: the Muslim Brotherhood, the Liberals, Ba'ath and
Al Qaeda-related forces.
Why is the United States willing to replace predictable Europe-oriented
Assad by unpredictable Islamists?
The key reason why the United States is so eager to replace predictable
Europe-oriented Assad by unpredictable Islamists is that Assad's Syria
is partner to Iran and Russia. Consequently, Assad's overthrow will
weaken those countries' positions in the Middle East.
The other reason is that the Americans are willing to improve their
relations with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Kurds living in the north of the country have faced no resistance
to their attempt to gain control over the region. Is Assad weak or
is he shrewd?
Assad made another tactical step withdrawing the Syrian army from the
northwestern regions of Syria and opening the Syrian border with Iraq
and Turkey. Hence, Assad plays the Kurdish card against Turkey. On
the other hand, the Kurdish organizations in the territory of Syria
have rather close ties with the Iraqi Kurdistan led by Barzani. By the
way, the Kurdish population is not very large - nearly 1.5 million,
which is less then 10% of the 20 million population of Syria.
Those organizations strive to create autonomy as part of Syria so
far and may seek independence in future.
Turkey was very much worried to know that the north-western part of
Syria had been seized by the Kurds. What consequences the appearance
of Syrian Kurdistan may have for Turkey?
It is a very serious threat to Turkey, which will find itself in a
nightmare if another Kurdish quasi-country appears on its border. In
the meanwhile, there are Kurdish PKK fighters operating against Turkey
from inside Syria. The example of the Iraqi Kurdistan where PKK camps
are located confirms that after withdrawal of Syrian troops from
the Turkish-Syrian border, PKK fighters will get an opportunity to
easily penetrate into the territory of Turkey from Syria and double
the capacity of PKK in the fight against Turks. PKK had camps in
Syria yet before that, but starting 90s president of Syria closed his
country for the Kurdish fighters thanks to cooperation of the Turkish
AKP and Assad's Baas Party. Now, due to the tough stance of Ankara,
Assad has again given the go-ahead for the PKK's fight against Turkey
from inside Syria. Thus, it was a very rash decision from the Turkish
government to oppose Assad. I am disposed to think that Ankara's
policy towards Syria is "adventurous". That policy is not based
on the current geopolitical and political situation. Consequently,
Ankara's attempt to gain weight in the region is adventurous. This
has not only intensified the Kurdish factor, but also began to arouse
discontent of the West and the USA, as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
other Arab states. All these actors believe that it does not behoove
Turkey to play too big role in the developments in the Arab world.
Can Turkey come out of the deadlock it has put itself in by starting
the military expansion of the north-western Syria?
That issue has been discussed in Turkey for long. There were
suggestions to create a buffer zone on the border with Syria, or
humanitarian corridors in the territory of Syria. In both cases, they
were suggesting to use the Turkish army in the territory of Syria
against the government troops. However, over the last few months,
Turkey has been displaying rather a restrained policy in the given
issue due to the discontent of the USA and Arab states at Ankara's
agility. In addition, there are forces opposing Turkey's military
intervention in Syria also inside Turkey e.g. Turkish Armed Forces
General Staff. But situation is changing very rapidly and the position
of Turkey as well. Now, that country bursts to Syria under pretext of
neutralizing Syrian chemical weapons. So far, one cannot fully rule
out Turkey's attempts to take preventive measures against Syria under
pretence of striking the PKK camps in the territory of Syria. Thus,
Turkey has at least two pretexts for military intervention in Syria
Will Russia, China and Iran be consistent in defending Assad?
The role of Russia and China in all this is also significant. These
countries are the key factor preventing military intervention in Syria
in case of relevant voting at the UN Security Council. Obviously,
the West and some Arab countries will receive no right to interfere
with the situation in Syria on some pretext of other.
If the Syrian regime falls, Iran will find itself surrounded by
unfriendly regimes. Can this mean an end to the rule of ayatollahs
in Iran?
The U.S. contributes to exacerbating the situation in Syria mainly
to overthrow the power of Ayatollahs. Therefore, I think, possible
overthrow of Syria will greatly help isolating Iran. For that purpose,
other tactical and strategic mechanisms will be used as well. The
major goal of the current information war against Iran is to create
relevant conditions for a change of power in Iran through weakening
it. Washington will hardly dare to intervene in Iran unless there is
a direct threat of accretion of nuclear weapons by Iran.
The key pretext for the American invasion of Iraq was also the search
for a nuclear weapon. But they did not find anything, did they?
Iran is not Iraq and plays a tangible geopolitical role as a regional
superpower. Tehran makes independent foreign political decisions,
and the USA is not happy about that, indeed.