Dear Readers,
The summer months saw many heated
developments in the Middle East, and recently it has been Syria at the centre
of these developments. As part of the special topic of this month's
issue I wanted to evaluate these developments from the point of view of
international politics as well as from that of the AKP (Justice and Development
Party) government in Turkey.
To intervene or not to intervene? Is that the question?
Clashes in Syria between the rebels and
the Assad regime are growing in violence every day. While the country is burning in the
flames of civil war, neither Germany nor other European countries look
favourably upon military intervention. If we bear in mind that things did
not go to plan in Afghanistan and that intervention in Iraq not only had no
legitimate grounds from the beginning but also brought about a long and bloody
chaos, this reluctance is not hard to understand. The preference for non-military
alternatives becomes even more understandable when we look at the matter from
the perspective of domestic policy, and consider the upcoming federal elections
in Germany.
On the other hand, because of the absence
of sanctions due to the will, or more precisely the lack of will, of the West, for
months Syria has been displaying, with the utmost ruthlessness, exactly what a
cruel dictator is capable of.
In recent days, the civil war in
Syria has spread to the country’s capital, Damascus. Some experts claim that since the
rebels control a larger area than the Assad regime does, the situation has
reached a turning point. Even if this claim is true, there are concerns
that clashes, massacres and the exodus of Syrians will continue for months. According
to figures from the United Nations, the civil war has so far caused 15,000
deaths – the same as in the war in Libya, where intervention took place despite
the Russian and German veto. As Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, said in February, “Egypt
was not Tunisia; Bahrain was not Egypt; Yemen was not Bahrain; Libya was not
Yemen. And Syria is very definitely not Libya.”
Still, it must be stated that even
though the West has not taken any military action against events in Syria, it
has not remained completely silent. For over a year Western politicians
have been increasingly expressing their demands to Assad. But Assad, as
the saying goes, turns a blind eye. Faced with the situation in Syria, the
politics of the West seem to be radical in terms of discourse but ineffective
in terms of action. What’s more, the UN’s attempts at conciliation
go no further than ineffective war diplomacy.
All of this does not, of course,
prove that intervention in Syria would be more appropriate than
non-intervention and it is impossible to ignore the blood and
tears that international military intervention would bring. However,
when faced with the brutal realities of life, there is nothing to be gained
from excuses. Those who choose non-intervention must accept the fact that the events
that would take place following an illegitimate or unsuccessful military
invasion may well still occur without any intervention.
