What was the EU’s role in Turkey’s Afrin operation
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
A European Union-Turkey summit took place six days after Turkey’s Afrin operation in Syria ended. Even as more than 150,000 mostly Kurdish people were reported displaced by fighting and looting was taking place, the EU sat down with Turkish leaders in Varna, Bulgaria. Although the EU participants ostensibly expressed concern about the Afrin intervention and “jailing of journalists,” they basically nodded and everyone walked away as they had come.
The EU “vowed to keep funds flowing for a refugee deal with Ankara.” In addition “EU leaders left the door open to Turkey’s stalled bid for membership to the bloc.” European Council President Donald Tusk said that he had “raised all our concerns, as you know it was a long list.” Although Tusk indicated that there had been no “solutions” or “compromises,” he didn’t critique Turkey.
This raises questions about the EU’s role in the Afrin operation. Was EU silence bought because of the need to keep Turkey complacent about the 2016 refugee deal. Were Kurds and others displaced in Afrin so that the EU does not receive a new wave of refugees? Did politicians not seek to work for a ceasefire or aid displaced from Afrin because of cynical choices?
The EU “vowed to keep funds flowing for a refugee deal with Ankara.”
The European Parliament waiting until Turkey’s operation had concluded to pass a non-binding motion that urged Turkey to remove its troops. It spoke of “the need to focus on defeating the U.N.-listed terrorist organizations.” Considering the images of looting when Turkish-backed Syrian rebels arrived in Afrin and the 150,000 IDPs, it was strange to see the EU countries not respond for two months. When Israel has conducted similar operations, the EU has been much faster to act.
Donald Tusk’s actual comments at the Varna meeting are intriguing. “On migration and support for refugees, the EU and Turkey remain very close partners. I would like to express our appreciation for the impressive work Turkey has been doing, and to sincerely thank Turkey and the Turkish people for hosting more than 3 million Syrian refugees these past years. The EU has lent substantial support to improve the livelihood of these refugees, and this evening we reaffirmed the European Union’s unwavering commitment to continue this support.”
On Afrin he said the EU had expressed “concern” and said “we recalled Turkey’s responsibility to ensure the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all those in need.” Nothing about the fact Turkey had sent its forces into another country? Basically what the EU was saying is that Turkey has a right to run Afrin. It was giving a stamp of approval and simply saying that Turkey should protect civilians and deliver aid.
This is an important development and it is clear that the EU’s response to the Afrin crises is determined by fears of more refugees leaving Turkey for Europe. Europe has outsourced its refugee problems to Turkey and, in a sense, encouraged Turkey’s operation in Afrin with the hope that the refugees might be re-settled in Afrin. Turkey has said it might relocate mostly Arab Syrian refugees to Afrin. “Turkey will try to enhance the infrastructure and resources in Afrin after it is secured for them to return,” said Yasin Aktay, a chief adviser to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in February.
Germany has been trying to increase relations with Turkey and part of that relates to arms sales. In January German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel hosted Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu in Goslar. “We both have made it our goal to do everything we can to overcome the difficulties of the past and remember what binds us,“ Gabriel told a reporter. “There is no other economic option for Erdoğan, so he really needs Europe,” Jan Techau, the Berlin-based director of the Europe program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, was quoted as saying. But the opposite is true. Germany needs Turkey. When the Afrin operation began Gabriel expressed “concern” which is the European term for “we won’t do anything.” He was worried about “pressure to reject arms sales.”
NATO: “A very impressive example of how we are cooperating on security in the region.”
European countries and NATO countries quietly supported Turkey’s operation through the visit of deputy NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller. At the National Defence University in Istanbul, she praised Turkey and NATO labelled her visit to a country that represents a “treasure of peace and security,” on January 23. She said “Our service men and women risk their lives to ensure that we can live ours in peace and security, for that, we must always be grateful to you.” She praised Turkey and said that NATO wanted to contribute to Turkish security. “A very impressive example of how we are cooperating on security in the region.” Turkey, which had launched a military operation days before, was considered an anchor of stability and democracy. The NATO visit was a stamp of approval for the Turkish operation. “Turkey has some legitimate security concerns. No NATO ally has suffered more terrorist attacks than Turkey, but we expect Turkey to respond in a propionate way,” said Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. Ironically, Ankara demanded NATO do more to support the operation in March.
The UK had no comments on the Afrin operation and through its silence supported it. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said the UK should “play a role in helping to resolve” conflicts in Turkey and Iraq. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson supported the Afrin operation. “Turkey is right to want to keep its borders secure,” he tweeted. France called for a ceasefire in all of Syria in late February. French President Emmanuel Macron’s office released a minor statement saying it had clarified that the UN ceasefire demand “applied to all of Syria, including Afrin, and should be implemented everywhere and by all without any delay.”
Some European parliament members called on Turkey to end its operation. In Sweden the parliament discussed the crises in early February. Margot Wallström, Sweden’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, suspended a visit to Turkey. Chairman of the Left party was particularly critical. Jonas Sjöstedt wrote “This has been completely unprovoked and without support in international law. The civilian population is suffering badly when Turkish fighter bombs villages, cities and refugee camps. Many of the death victims are civilians, and among them are many children. The humanitarian situation is exacerbating rapidly.”
There is ongoing discussion now about the EU-Turkey refugee deal. This deal is big money. The Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN), one of 58 programmes under the €3bn cash program that began in March 2016 means Turkey will stop migration to Europe. Refugee families can receive 120 TL $31 a month per person. Refugees are now “stranded” according to the Financial Times. “The tens of thousands of migrants now stranded in Greece are one legacy of a deal that has come to symbolise the EU’s emergency response to its migration disarray. The European Commission last week formally triggered a second €3bn phase of the deal with Ankara — although EU members are already wrangling over who will pay for it. European leaders gather for a summit in Brussels on Thursday and are due to meet Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday, in the shadow of a self-imposed deadline of June to reach a “comprehensive deal” to fix the creaking asylum system.”
The World Food Programme (WFP) warned on March 19, the same day Afrin was taken and looted, that “EU aid in Turkey is necessary to stop another influx of refugees coming to Europe. The current aid from Brussels, in the form of cash payments, has given many Syrians in Turkey a sense of autonomy over their financial situation.” Human Rights Watch urged the EU to give Turkey more aid on March 22. It didn’t mention any IDPs from Afrin, but claimed that “Civilians in Idlib have also been caught in the crossfire between Kurdish and Turkish forces.” Human Rights Watch does not mention any civilians in Afrin in the article. Instead it says “the European Union should press Turkey to allow Syrian civilians fleeing fighting to seek protection inside Turkey and pledge increased aid to Syrian refugees in Turkey and the region.”
“Europe’s establishment leaders are battling to hold back gains made by anti-immigration parties,”
What does this mean for Europe? “Europe’s establishment leaders are battling to hold back gains made by anti-immigration parties,” notes The Financial Times. Relief Web also notes that people are still dying to get to Europe. “people are still dying at the EU’s external borders. At least 446 deaths occurred in only the first two and a half months of 2018.”
So the real story behind European silence about Afrin is due to the refugee issue. European leaders fear the rise of populist right wing politics. They have been basically paying Turkey to keep the refugees out. If Turkey will resettle Syrians in Afrin and adjoining areas that will take pressure off of European states. So Afrin in many ways is a European Union operation. Civilians in Afrin paid the price so the EU states don’t have to be burdened by other refugees. Silence by EU states is a form of support. But it goes deeper than that. Because European politicians are afraid of the ramifications of any challenge to Turkey because they have huge vested interests in millions of refugees remaining in Turkey.
Nevertheless that does not mean that Turkey and EU have good relations. The nature of the bizarre financial deal, which is likely contrary to international law of refugees, is such that the EU and Turkey are not equals. The EU is paying Turkey to do the work it doesn’t want to do. It is using Turkey. A Dutch diplomat recently was packed up and sent home after Turkish media accused him of spying.
Turkey expects “constructive attitude” from the EU, according to The Daily Sabah. Erdogan has also said EU expansion without including Turkey would be a grave mistake. The Prime Minister has also said the EU is not acting fairly. So Turkey says it is also unhappy with the deal. This keeps the ball in the EU court and the EU feels it needs to satisfy Turkish grievances, rather than critique the Afrin operation and provoke Ankara.
