Opinions

Operation Şah-Fırat (Shah–Euphrates) and Turkey’s Middle East Policy

Last weekend Operation Şah-Fırat (Shah – Euphrates) created a great deal of repercussions around the world. With this operation, Turkey moved the Tomb of Süleyman Şah (Shah), the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, from a location where it had become more difficult to protect the site to a less risky and easier to protect new location in Syria, nearby the Turkish border.

Both Turkish and international media outlets have discussed the operation thoroughly; therefore, it is needless to go back to the details here. Yet if one analyze this operation carefully, one may draw some conclusions about the basic principles and orientation of Turkish foreign policy in recent times.

First of all, Operation Şah-Fırat demonstrates that Turkey follows a risk-free policy in the Middle East. For Ankara, it was too risky to leave the Süleyman Shah Garrison in its old location, which was far away from the Turkish-Syrian border, under siege by ISIS, and a most likely scene of serious clashes among all the actors of the Syrian civil war – ISIS and the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in particular. Any possible attack against this station would have pulled Turkey into the civil war in Syria and such a risk cannot be underestimated. If one considers provocative actions of ISIS in Iraq and Syria no one can deny that consequences would have been grave if ISIS had attacked the Tomb of Süleyman Shah, the symbolic meaning of which is quite important for Turkey. In such an attack, Turkey would have directly faced ISIS as ISIS would damage the tomb, capture or martyr the Turkish military guards. Previously, ISIShad attacked Turkish General Consulate in Mosul and taken hostage the Consul General and civilians along with many employees at the consulate. If one remembers the tension that had occurred in the aftermath of this attack and the relevant criticisms against the government, it was logical for Turkey to avoid any risks involving the Tomb of Süleyman Shah. Therefore, Ankara has demonstrated its unwillingness to follow an adventurous foreign policy in the Middle East.

A step for the future

The relocation of the Tomb and the Garrison by Turkey to an area closer to the border through this operation also shows that Ankara is well aware of the limits of its military and economic capacity and followed a policy accordingly. As it has been claimed by some critics of the evacuation, not changing the location of the Tomb and the Garrison, and a military retaliation in case of possible ISIS attacks would have caused Turkey to become part of a long military conflict.. Previously Turkey was criticized for too much involvement in Syria and that it was courting with this war unduly. This time, however, it is noted that, on one side, the government is criticized for not defending the Tomb of Süleyman Shah in the old location although described as "a piece of motherland," but on the other hand, the government again is accused of following interventionist policies towards Syria.

It is common in other countries that opposition parties and the mainstream media outlets in support of opposition criticize foreign policies of governments as much as domestic policies, and such criticisms may be in opposite directions. However, in countries, where the culture of democracy is well-settled, doses of similar criticisms are in sensible proportions and never reach a level to harm national interests. Conversely, it is often the case that criticisms of foreign policy in Turkey aim to harm and remove the government from power at all costs, because the tradition of power change through democratic means has not yet entirely settled in our country.

If the government had acted in accordance with the criticisms voiced by only one wing of the opposition, Turkey would have totally remained silent towards Syria and the massacres of the Bashar al Asad administration. On the other hand, if the government had followed a policy to please the other wing of the opposition, Turkey would have been directly involved in the Syrian civil war in case of a possible attack against the Tomb of Süleyman Shah. However, the policy Ankara followed was based on not remaining indifferent towards the developments in Syria which is already in a tremendous chaos, and preventing through indirect interventions Syria from harming the interests of Turkey without being a part of the Syrian conflict. While doing so, Turkey tries to ease the human drama that resulted from the civil war in this country, by reaching out to the Syrian refugees and opening refugee camps. Ankara is fully aware that opening the doors to about two million Syrian refugees would create economic, social and political issues of its own. This, however, demonstrates the humanitarian dimension of the Turkish foreign policy.

Operation capability

That is to say, Turkey follows a policy with which it open its doors to people who are in need , backs leaders who are toppled by militarycoups, protects her own historic and sacred values, and supports people who are attacked by their own states forces that use any kind of weapons against their own citizens. While doing so, however, Turkey carefully tries to remain outside of the developments that may drag her into a war with regional countries, and prevent economic relations from the negative effects of political tensions as much as possible.

As also proven by Operation Şah-Fırat, Turkey has the military capacity to launch a cross-border operation – if needed. Nonetheless, having military, economic and diplomatic capacity to carry out similar operations and engaging in long-term adventures of fighting are totally different. Turkeys recent policy in the Middle East has indicated that she, in general, is aware of the difference. During Operation Şah-Fırat, Turkey reached the Tomb by passing through the regions under the PYDs control, which means that all the necessary precautions to avoid any possible clashes were taken. Therefore, Turkey kept herself away from having a hostile encounter with the PYD in the Syrian territory, and calculated not to allow any developments to negatively affect the on-going Reconciliation Process in the country.

At the same time, no hot encounters with ISIS militia during the operation is indicative of the fact that Turkeys military deterrence against this organization was quite effective. Although, pro-active attacks of ISIS against Turkey are likely, it could not take the chance to engage in fights with Turkey during this operation which was performed under high level of security measures and its time was decided by Ankara. This is the kind of deterrence that was made possible thanks to Turkeys policy prioritizing stability; and it is known that other countries in the region such as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon do not have such a deterrence power against ISIS and the kind.

In fact, the timing of the operation may be interpreted as a sign of Turkeys diligence to more actively fight against ISIS. The organization poses more threat against Turkey as it increases pro-active actions in the region and the issue of foreign fighters becomes more annoying for Turkey. The "Train and Equip Agreement" signed between Turkey and the U.S. signals that Ankara should follow a more cautious ISIS policy. In this atmosphere, Operation Şah-Fırat, saving the soldiers on duty at the tomb in the middle of an ISIS and The Peoples Protection Units (YPG) cross-fire, and transferring the soldiers to a safer place (the village of Eşme /Eshme nearby the Turkish border) was a pre-emptive intervention. Consequently Turkey saved herself from a possible negative development that may negatively affect her ability to take action against these kind of organizations.