It has been reported recently that Turkey is firing artillery shells into northern Syria due to a mortar attack. The situation is quite tense and could potentially lead the way for a Turkish intervention into Syria.
On October 3rd, the BBC reported that “Turkey has renewed firing at targets inside
Syria after two women and three children were killed by shelling from across
the border on Wednesday.”[1]
This was quickly reported in the media with people immediately blaming the
Assad government. However, the New York
Times noted that “It was unknown
whether the mortar shells were fired by Syrian government forces or rebels
fighting to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The Turkish response seemed to assume that
the Syrian government was responsible.”[2]
(emphasis added) Thus, no one actually seems to know exactly who fired the mortars.
The situation is quite murky as Turkey has actively been aiding the rebels[3],
however, the Assad regime has been so busy battling the rebels that it is
doubtful if they would have time to go and attack Turkey much less the interest
to do such a thing.
This situation could potentially lead to a Turkish
intervention. On October 4th, Democracy
Now reported Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, stating
There is definitely a
response to [the attack] in international law. Turkey is a NATO member. Certain NATO treaty articles bring about
certain responsibilities when one of its members is attacked. We are not
blinded by rage, but we will protect our rights to the end in the face of such
an attack on our soil that killed our people.[4]
(emphasis added)
Without a doubt, the “certain NATO treaty article”
that Arinc is referring to is Article Five in which it states that an
attack on one member nation shall be treated as an attack on all member
nations.
The Turks seem to want intervention as the BBC reported that “The Turkish
parliament is discussing authorising troops to cross into Syria. But government
sources say Turkey is not planning to declare war on Syria”[5]
and in late September,
Turkey's
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called again for the establishment of safe
zones for refugees in northern Syria - which would take a considerable military
operation.
Mr
Davutoglu would not be drawn on the fact that inserting a military force into
Syria to establish a safe zone would be an act of war.[6]
(emphasis added)
However, this brings up question: Why would Turkey
even want to intervene into Syria? Taking out Assad would allow for Turkey to “establish
[its] credentials as the new power of the Middle East” and “allow it to reshape
to its satisfaction a neighbour whose rebellious Kurds are a source of constant
concern to its own security.”[7]
It must also be realized that if an intervention does occur and Turkey/NATO
wins, then it will pave the road for a war with Iran, as Iran’s main ally will
be out of the picture.
Yet, Turkey may not even have to consult with NATO-
or anyone for that matter- about intervening in Syria as a legal path for
intervention may already be available. According to the Adana Agreement, signed
between Turkey and Syria on October 20, 1998, “Turkey has the ability to
classify the violent crackdown on the opposition by the Bashar al-Assad
government and the ensuing refugee crisis as a threat to the ‘security and
stability of Turkey.’”[8] Thus, the Turkish government could use this provision of the Adana Agreement in
conjunction with the recent mortar attack and claim that ongoing situation is threatening
the “security and stability of Turkey” and begin sending military units into
Syria.
The clock is ticking and only time will tell whether
the intervention will take place.
Endnotes
[1] “Turkey
hits targets inside Syria after border deaths,” BBC, October 4, 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19822253)
[2] Tim Arango, Anne
Barnard, “Turkey Strikes Back After Syrian Shelling Kills 5 Civilians,” New York Times, October 3, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share&)
[3] “Turkey sets up
secret base to bring aid to Syria rebels, sources say,” Haaretz, July 27, 2012 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/turkey-sets-up-secret-base-to-bring-aid-to-syria-rebels-sources-say-1.454107)
[4] “Turkey
Launches Strikes in Syria After Deadly Bombing,” Democracy Now, October 4, 2012 (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/4/headlines#1042)
[6] Jeremy Bowen, “Turkey:
Risk worth taking for Syria safe zones,” BBC,
September 27, 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19753795)
[7] Richard Spencer,
“Analysis: could Turkey's decision to shell Syria mean intervention is on its
way?,” Telegraph, October 4, 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9586515/Analysis-could-Turkeys-decision-to-shell-Syria-mean-intervention-is-on-its-way.html)
[8] “Adana agreement
paves legal path for Turkish intervention in Syria,” Today’s Zaman, April 9, 2012 (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-276894-adana-agreement-paves-legal-path-for-turkish-intervention-in-syria.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment