That fear of escalation between Syria and Turkey grew stronger today, as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Syria as “a clear and imminent threat,” promising to retaliate for a downed Turkish jet, and warning the Syrians about approaching the Turkish border.
In his most outspoken criticism of the Damascus regime, Erdogan vowed to retaliate against the “heinous act” and promised a change of military attitude to any Syrian officer approaching the common border.
“The rules of engagement of the Turkish Armed Forces have changed given this new development,” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told parliament following the shooting down of F-4 Phantom jet Friday. The two pilots are still missing.
Any risk posed by Syria on the Turkish border will be “considered a threat and treated as a military target,” he said in a jam-packed room of lawmakers who frequently interrupted the address with applause.
Erdogan said his government would retaliate “with determination” and take what he called the “necessary steps by determining the time, place and method by itself”.
Erdogan is known to have a hot temper, and this was a political speech. But coming several days after the event, it certainly sounds like a new policy for Turkey, and one that risks a regional conflict.
Moreover, NATO provided some backing to Turkey in the dispute, as secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the shooting down of the plane by Syrian forces as unacceptable.
Turkey now claims that the unarmed jet was shot down over international waters, and not Syrian airspace (though the jet was in Syrian airspace for a short time). In addition, Erdogan said that Syria had violated Turkish airspace on 5 separate occasions since the beginning of the year (out of 114 total violations from other countries), and that Turkey always delivered a warning to the planes; Syria delivered no warning, according to Erdogan, before shooting down the jet.
Meanwhile, this situation over the jet could be a proxy fight about Turkish support for the rebel opposition:
The onetime ragtag militias of the Syrian opposition are developing into a more effective fighting force with the help of an increasingly sophisticated network of activists here in southern Turkey that is smuggling crucial supplies across the border, including weapons, communications gear, field hospitals and even salaries for soldiers who defect.
The network is emerging at a time of heightened tensions with Turkey and amid reports of multiple defections of high-ranking officers from the Syrian Army, many of whom are now helping the opposition. Turkey will sit down on Tuesday with its NATO allies to discuss a response to the downing of one of its warplanes by Syrian gunners, while on Monday Turkey reported that a general and two colonels had defected from Syria on Sunday, bringing the total to more than a dozen.
The undertaking by the opposition here constitutes more than just ferrying much-needed supplies. The larger, more elusive goal is to create cohesion and cooperation between the scattered militias that constitute the Free Syrian Army, as well as whatever local civilian rule has emerged.
The border between Turkey and Syria is huge, across the entire northern slope of Syria. The possibility for further incidents is almost assured, as will be speculation from the Syrian government about Turkish support for the insurgency. Add into that the NATO directive and Turkey’s NATO membership, and you have a combustible mix.




36 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
So, Syria is in a civil war, nervous about losing military officers/pilots across the Turkish border. Apparently the Turkish government is feeding supplies to Syrian rebels across this border, against the Syrian government, and encouraging defectons. Then a Turkish warplane intrudes over Syrian air space and is shot down while returning to international waters. So far, predictable.
Meanwhile, Western powers are on the rebels’ side, whoever they are, and the CIA is working to make sure arms being supplied to the “rebels” don’t get into the hands of those we regard as hostile to the US. Are we looking for a pretext to more overtly side with and supply the rebel forces?
Perfect conditions for turning a civil war into an international war to distract attention from everything else you’ve rather not be blamed for. Whom do you trust?
What’s Turkey’s beef with Assad?
heard the plane was called Archduke Ferdinand.
never mind the facts the turks just bombed the kurds in iraq. seems some rebels are freedom fighters and some are well just rebels. to check status of your organization please ask the US and western powers
Oh, goody. Another war the U.S. can stick its nose into and create more terrorists who hate the U.S. and justify the never-ending war on terror.
mswinkle, you are absolutely getting it the nub of this biscuit. I’m sure the NATO powers would be more than happy to swing a lot of hardware behind Turkey, and integrate them further into the West, letting them sacrifice their young people and take care of the Syria problem, too. (In the planners’ eyes these things never take more than a few weeks–and the thrill as the boys head off!!!) As an added bonus we could have some Muslims fighting on OUR side in a war! Just to prove we’re not haterz. Blow up and have to replace enough shit we may just get this world economy firing (whoops, telling choice of word) again. . .
If war isn’t peace, it certainly is the economic health of neolibrul capitalism, and Turkey can prove it. (I hear that Damascus is VERY nice this time of year.)
Informative interview on Syria 19 min 30 seconds in. Earlier part of interview a lot of fun too.
These old-school fiefdoms, with their distasteful mix of state socialism, personal aggrandizement, and torture, stand in the way of modern corporate globalism. There might have to be something in it for Turkey from NATO where Israel is concerned, though, some agreement that Israel figures the annoying Palestinian thing out once and for all. The negotiations could see a lot of pieces moving on the big board–should a sprinkling of US solidiers take a visible role alongside the Turkish military, for ex., just to underscore the Muslim-US entente card? The lines are burning up.
Do you know all that or are you guessing.
My link puts the moving power on the U.S. & its wanton relentless itch for regime change without paying any attention to what comes after.
But Erdogan is in the region, and I would think no matter what U.S. promised him (and U.S. promises are not as good as toilet paper), it would not be in his self-interest to create complete chaos.
Plus Erdogan said NO to U.S. launching Iraq war from Incirlik.
Who would most benefit from NATO inserting itself into the Syrian civil war? Not Turkey. Not Syria.
Are those the drumbeats of impending armed intervention by NATO that I hear?
So now we’re using Turkey to promote the planned regime change in Syria to further isolate Iran. Guess we’ll be able to cross one more target off the kill list of the 7 nations that Wesley Clark alluded to. Why won’t Turkey stand up to the US now, when they denied use of their country as a launch pad for the Iraq invasion?
You owe me a drink.
That’s why I asked at 2 what’s Turkey’s beef with Syria.
Wiki page Turkey/Syria relations
The friction relates to Kurds and water, mostly.
I hear the drumbeat. Why is Turkey going along with it, though. I mean, seriously. An unstable Syria along with an unstable Iraq has to worry Ankara wrt the Kurds. So, I don’t get it.
I’m aware of both. Used to call them good Kurds (the ones who resisted Saddam Hussein)-bad Kurds (the ones who resisted Turkey) in the pre-Iraq invasion days.
But the Turkey-Kurd problem has died down dramatically in the last decade and it would seem bizarre that Turkey should now be eager to launch a regional conflagration on the basis of that.
WRT water, it’s Assad that has the beef with Turkey, not the other way around.
The Hatay bit was interesting, didn’t know about that, but it still doesn’t explain what’s going on between the Turkey and Syria.
My bias wrt Turkey is that everything relates to Kurds. I lived in Istanbul during the time that there was a lot of PKK/Turkish Army action in the southeast and there was certainly a lot of violence and anxiety related to the Kurds.
Thanks for the input. Timing still seems strange.
That’s why I’m thinking that it’s all about NATO getting involved in the Syrian civil war.
Free Syrian Army hangs out in Turkey but they are completely disorganized and it doesn’t seem likely that Erdogan would put his eggs in their basket.
More like Syria’s grand melee, not a civil war since rebels are dived into skeenteen groups.
U.S. is a prime mover. Hillary wants regime change. NATO looking for mission creep.
That all still does not satisfy me wrt why Erdogan is playing such an active role.
Thought I was making it plain that I was riffing, but war is often advantageous to big capital. Developments could be revealing in terms of Turkey’s emergence as a superpower–Erdogan has looked to me to be increasingly in the Western camp (where fundamentalism is, despite protestations to the contrary, always welcome).
I thought you might be, but I’m serious about figuring out what Erdogan’s role is, so I thought I’d ask you politely. :-)
Than we agree completely.
Here’s a wild speculation… *What if* Erdogan actually had some twisted desire to reestablish some “Empire” of influence in the ME so that Turkey reemerges as regional power?
Was Erdogan in charge of Turkey when you were there? I don’t know anything about him, but it isn’t how he comes across from casual observation.
And after U.S. disaster in Iraq, why would Erdogan think he, even with NATO’s support, hold Syria, much more fractionated than Iraq, together afterwards.
ysd, I think we’ve beaten this horse to death for today. Our back & forth has helped me clarify what my Q is, and I think we’ll just have to wait for more info. Thanks for indulging me.
I remember this long piece on Erdogan from the Times magazine being predictably neoliberal-leaning on economics (the West just can’t ever fathom that Third World leaders might be genuine in their continuing advocacy of the welfare needs of their electorates) but with some real meat concerning his desire to create a Muslim state. Yes, Turkey is a real emerging superpower. No, Erdogan will not be a mere puppet of US or European interests. The way Turkey has handled Europe’s racist rejection of the EC candidacy (likely profiting from being out) has made that clear.
I’d be more than happy to buy you one or more drinks. I thought I was offering a partial explanation with my comment, while reiterating your question.
Let’s meet in Cuenca, Ecuador for the drink, predicated on Correa giving asylum to Assange. Otherwise I’ll suggest a different venue.
Erdogan was elected Mayor of Istanbul when I was there. Tansu Ciller was PM. There was a *lot* of anxiety from secularists about the rise of Erdogan and the islamists in Turkey. Happily, much of the fear was unfounded.
Still, I am leery of Erdogan and any other Islamist in power. I recall the fear of sharia and the fear that Islamists would want to rebuild the caliphate.
Erdogan isn’t going to be a NATO puppet, that’s for sure. Again, why is Turkey going along with NATO inserting itself into Syria?
Sorry, here is the link to the Erodgan piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/magazine/the-erdogan-experiment.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Here’s a pretty telling bar from his wikipedia bio, possibly written by a Turkish progressive (sherlocking the syntax, between-lines politics, etc.). Strongly capitalist and devoutly Muslim which, as I said above, is a very common combination–we backed fundies against Soviets for a reason:
“At his second and third term in office, despite the first term, his government mostly gave up on the democratization process[22] which was backed by European Union and got increasingly authoritarian [23] on press,[24][25] on Kurds[26][27][28] and on former political dominant powers in Ankara. Democratic initiative led by Erdoğan on Kurdish rights stalled.[29] More than one hundred of journalists imprisoned.[30][31][32] Turkey kept losing ground on Press Freedom Index[33] after his first term and finally it ranked 148th among 178 countries in 2011.[34][35] Hundreds of university students imprisoned and been accused of being terrorists, because they carried banners say “We demand free education!”[36] and because they criticized and tried to weaken the government by protesting it. Eggs and stones were counted as deadly weapons by prosecutors in these trials.[37][38] Turkey classified as one of the enemies of the Internet or countries under surveillance about Internet censorship[39] and a nation-wide filter system proposed by the government went into effect.[40] Demands by the activists regarding LGBT rights were publicly rejected by government members[41] and Turkish LGBT community were insulted by cabinet members.[42]”
But Turkey is big, strong, heavily militarized, and not easily pushed around.
What started as an offshoot of the Arab Spring and after six months of repression by the Assad regime became a civil war. Now, approaching a year into what is a clear civil war, the conflict seems to be becoming a geopolitical proxy between the NATO countries and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization countries, with Russia calling in its SCO chips.
There is a definite conflict between Turkey and Syria now. I would not get too overwrought until it is clear what Turkey intends to do. Invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was a diplomatic shot across the bow in its approach to Syria.
Whether this situation gets escalated might be beside the point if it is coming down to a NATO-Shanghai Cooperation Organization conflict. It could serve the role that the immediate post-war crises in Greece and Turkey did in moving the US to establish NATO and create a bipolar geopolitical conflict called the Cold War. No doubt older officers in the US and Russian militaries and intelligence communities would like to go back to that old familiar bi-polar international politics. Only this time NATO is driven by a number of actors within the member countries.
No doubt, Erdogan is also letting France, the UK, and the US know that they aren’t the only ones who can play the Article 5 card.
It is a good time to be in the streets against involvement in Syria. But we should also start talking about what might be an effort to restore Cold War-style “stability” (know as mutually assured destruction) in which empires shelter their protectorates. It is also an obvious sign that the 23-year-long reign of the US as the “world’s sole superpower” is over.
Some analysis by the estimable Juan Cole on the potential for Nato involvement. “By its unwise aggression against Turkey, Syria may have internationalized its civil war, something it and its allies had desperately been trying to avoid,” Cole concludes:
http://www.juancole.com/2012/06/could-syria-turkey-conflict-pull-nato-in.html
In a summary of developments around the issue, a Guardian blog reported that NATO was not considering a military response:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/jun/26/syria-crisis-nato-meeting-live?intcmp=239
Now *that* sounds like a plausible theory. I hope it’s wrong, though.
International conflicts have a way of not being totally logical. I hope it is wrong too. Hope that Turkey has some creative ways of responding to the “Syrian attack”. It is clear that at this point the Baath establishment in Damascus, if not Assad himself, are not really clear about their situation. Had they been clearer, the logical approach would have been to co-opt the movement for the moment like Abdullah did in Jordan and Mohammed in Morocco, instituting enough reforms to de-escalate the situation. There were lots of promises of reform, but not actual reform.
But Russia has a base in Syria, and Russia is interested in counterbalancing the US base in Incirlik Turkey and a UK base on Cyprus, both of which have major intelligence gathering facilities. In addition, the Turkish base has an installation of the US missile shield that began operation after the NATO summit in May.
Well, then…