Syria is aiding Kurdish rebels who are fighting Turkish forces by allowing them to establish bases in Syrian territory, a Turkish minister said Wednesday, in an apparent tit for tat response to Turkish conduct to do the same.
Interior Minister Idris Naim Sahin said Turkish intelligence indicates that Syria is allowing rebels to establish themselves in areas close to the Turkish border, just as Turkey has been allowing Syrian rebels to establish bases in areas close to the Syrian border.
“Terrorist groupings that were not there a year ago have been spotted,” Sahin said. “Syria is turning a blind eye to terrorist groupings in areas close to the border to put Turkey in difficulty and perhaps as a way to take revenge on Turkey.”
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been fighting for autonomy in southeast Turkey for decades, has been condemned as a terrorist group by Turkey, the European Union and the United States. During the 1990s, Washington supported Turkey major atrocities in the southeast Kurdish region, leaving the countryside devastated with tens of thousands killed and millions displaced.
When Syria began to descend into extreme violence, Turkey gave shelter to the Syrian rebel fighters and eventually provided them with lethal and non-lethal aid, despite their having ties to terrorist groups and having committed serious crimes themselves. That Turkey would complain about Syria committing to the mirror image of its own policies is embarrassing.
There’s nothing wrong with “Tit for Tat Policy” ; so, assuming it is true, why the hell Turkey is complaining?
Syria did this before. That is why Turkey made peace with them, to stop it. Turkey goes to war with Assad, and Assad does what he did last time they were at war. Surprise?
This might teach Turkey a lesson and maybe they will stop being a lackey of the west.
This tit for tat policy is a perfect example of the wisdom of an older generation. It used to be if two nations went to war all other nations not involved in that war would make declarations of strict nuetrality and demand a peaceful negotiated settlement of the conflict. In reference to civil wars, it was unthinkable to become involved in another country's civll war. The extent of involvement again would be to demand a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Of course, these norms were not strictly adhered to, but they were the norms and were very helpful in containing conflicts.
In modern times nations have rejected the concept of nuetrality for the myth of collective security. These collective security arrangements or alliances act as a conveyer belt for war as happened in WWI. A major policy item of the peace movement should include a rejection of the idea of collective security and the elimination of all alliances among nations. They have also rejected the policy of nonintervention in the internal affairs of other countries. Rejecting the idea of nonintervention in the internal affairs of other countries also has the potential to spread war as the tit for tat policy of Syria proves.
First one to strike a blow is guilty for all the harm that ensues.
NO FACTS
Ira Epstein
“It used to be if two nations went to war, all other nations not involved in that war would make declarations of strict neutrality and demand a peaceful negotiated settlement of the conflict.”
FACTS
Since the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, most all of the major wars were instigated by people of European ancestry. And if nations supported each other before the war, they most often remained allies during the war.