Tweet
EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT INTENTIONS IN SYRIA
Cumhuriyet, Turkey
Sept 2 2013
by Erol Manisali
Some people want Syria "to break up" and their intention is for one
of these parts to be definitely under their control.
Some people want a "Kurdistan corridor" to be formed giving access to
the Mediterranean. Any Kurdistan without one foot in the Mediterranean
will find itself landlocked in the Middle East. It will not be able
to develop. It will be useless.
Some people are resorting to all manner of terrorism and horror in
the name of making "radical Islam" dominant in Syria.
Some people on the other hand want a military intervention so that
the United States and Israel will have to rely on them.
The Al-Asad administration is striving to prevent foreign intervention
and the partitioning of the country by securing support from Russia
and Iran. The organized terrorist groups that have been brought in
from the outside are forcing it to take radical action.
Syria today is reminiscent of a small, pre-Sevre Ottoman state. The
only difference is the China, Russia and Iran factor and its Shi'ite
makeup in today's Middle East.
These factors mean something within the Gulf-Iraq-Lebanon triangle.
Syria today is a classic mosaic: Christians occupy an important place
alongside moderate, secular and radical Islamic groups. There are
Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Armenians and others.
When the Middle East was being "redesigned" after 1990 Syria and
Iran were the countries left till last. Syria is the country that is
"most Western" and where secular elements are dominant.
Egypt became a "dervish lodge" [play on words Mursi and Murshit -a
dervish sheikh] mainly through the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) securing 24
per cent of the vote. Intervention by the United States via military
coup to stop the country turning radical two years later has affected
the Syria issue.
The West made a deal with Russia in Geneva and put everything on hold.
However, we can see that the issue is back on the agenda with Ankara
too calling for and even encouraging outside intervention.
The topic under debate is how to apply the Iraq (and Kosovo) model
to Syria using the chemical weapons scenario.
Turkey's Position
Turkey is divided.
The government is vociferously advocating outside military intervention
in Syria. It is staking its existence on this.
In contrast to this, the opposition and even some non-opposition
circles, are arguing that this would be a disaster and would only
push Turkey into another swamp. There is 80-per cent opposition.
It is clear now that the UN is not going to pass any resolution.
Geneva is still current. However, some people want the Kosovo model
to be applied. Ankara is leading the charge here.
If a coalition carries out a military intervention in Syria without
a UN resolution there will definitely be some who will profit from
this and some who stand to lose.
The losers:
1. The people of Syria will lose out the most. Mass deaths, millions
of maimed people; it will be just like Iraq.
2. The country will break up and long-term clashes that never end will
be the order of things. Sectarian clashes and religious fundamentalism
will come to the fore.
3. Turkey will be the neighbouring country that will see the worst
economic harm. The economic crises currently taking place in Cairo
and Baghdad will start up even worse with Syria.
4. Turkey will have fallen into the position of a country that has
invaded its neighbour.
5. Baghdad and Tehran "will see the greatest harm in terms of their
regional influence."
6. Unless a "bribe" is given Russia will also pay the price.
Now, for those who will profit:
1. Kurdistan's Iraq-Syria-Mediterranean corridor will be complete. A
major step on the way to a Greater Kurdistan will have been taken.
2. The Western global powers will take their share just as in Iraq
and Libya.
3. If this intervention stops radical Islam gaining a foothold in
Syria this will relieve Israel.
For the West, this situation is very different from the breakup
of Yugoslavia. With Yugoslavia they were able to round up all the
breakaway parts and keep them in the Western camp and in democracy
under the EU's umbrella. But this is definitely not the case in Syria.
Any intervention will only prepare new grounds for civil war and the
advance of radical Islam.
Do we not see examples of this in Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya,
and of course Iraq?
What will be created is a Syria in which infighting grows worse and
where there is no social prosperity and not even the "d" in democracy.
[Translated from Turkey]
Cumhuriyet, Turkey
Sept 2 2013
by Erol Manisali
Some people want Syria "to break up" and their intention is for one
of these parts to be definitely under their control.
Some people want a "Kurdistan corridor" to be formed giving access to
the Mediterranean. Any Kurdistan without one foot in the Mediterranean
will find itself landlocked in the Middle East. It will not be able
to develop. It will be useless.
Some people are resorting to all manner of terrorism and horror in
the name of making "radical Islam" dominant in Syria.
Some people on the other hand want a military intervention so that
the United States and Israel will have to rely on them.
The Al-Asad administration is striving to prevent foreign intervention
and the partitioning of the country by securing support from Russia
and Iran. The organized terrorist groups that have been brought in
from the outside are forcing it to take radical action.
Syria today is reminiscent of a small, pre-Sevre Ottoman state. The
only difference is the China, Russia and Iran factor and its Shi'ite
makeup in today's Middle East.
These factors mean something within the Gulf-Iraq-Lebanon triangle.
Syria today is a classic mosaic: Christians occupy an important place
alongside moderate, secular and radical Islamic groups. There are
Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Armenians and others.
When the Middle East was being "redesigned" after 1990 Syria and
Iran were the countries left till last. Syria is the country that is
"most Western" and where secular elements are dominant.
Egypt became a "dervish lodge" [play on words Mursi and Murshit -a
dervish sheikh] mainly through the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) securing 24
per cent of the vote. Intervention by the United States via military
coup to stop the country turning radical two years later has affected
the Syria issue.
The West made a deal with Russia in Geneva and put everything on hold.
However, we can see that the issue is back on the agenda with Ankara
too calling for and even encouraging outside intervention.
The topic under debate is how to apply the Iraq (and Kosovo) model
to Syria using the chemical weapons scenario.
Turkey's Position
Turkey is divided.
The government is vociferously advocating outside military intervention
in Syria. It is staking its existence on this.
In contrast to this, the opposition and even some non-opposition
circles, are arguing that this would be a disaster and would only
push Turkey into another swamp. There is 80-per cent opposition.
It is clear now that the UN is not going to pass any resolution.
Geneva is still current. However, some people want the Kosovo model
to be applied. Ankara is leading the charge here.
If a coalition carries out a military intervention in Syria without
a UN resolution there will definitely be some who will profit from
this and some who stand to lose.
The losers:
1. The people of Syria will lose out the most. Mass deaths, millions
of maimed people; it will be just like Iraq.
2. The country will break up and long-term clashes that never end will
be the order of things. Sectarian clashes and religious fundamentalism
will come to the fore.
3. Turkey will be the neighbouring country that will see the worst
economic harm. The economic crises currently taking place in Cairo
and Baghdad will start up even worse with Syria.
4. Turkey will have fallen into the position of a country that has
invaded its neighbour.
5. Baghdad and Tehran "will see the greatest harm in terms of their
regional influence."
6. Unless a "bribe" is given Russia will also pay the price.
Now, for those who will profit:
1. Kurdistan's Iraq-Syria-Mediterranean corridor will be complete. A
major step on the way to a Greater Kurdistan will have been taken.
2. The Western global powers will take their share just as in Iraq
and Libya.
3. If this intervention stops radical Islam gaining a foothold in
Syria this will relieve Israel.
For the West, this situation is very different from the breakup
of Yugoslavia. With Yugoslavia they were able to round up all the
breakaway parts and keep them in the Western camp and in democracy
under the EU's umbrella. But this is definitely not the case in Syria.
Any intervention will only prepare new grounds for civil war and the
advance of radical Islam.
Do we not see examples of this in Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya,
and of course Iraq?
What will be created is a Syria in which infighting grows worse and
where there is no social prosperity and not even the "d" in democracy.
[Translated from Turkey]