Turkish-American differences on the safe area

The talk about the “safe zone” Ankara is seeking to establish in Syria has caused a great deal of tension recently, especially in light of the Turkish threat of military intervention to impose the region after the failure of negotiations with America.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry declared its absolute rejection of any form of US-Turkish understandings on the safe area, saying that it constitutes a blatant attack on the sovereignty and unity of Syria.

The Turkish army has been working for weeks to strengthen its military forces along the border with Syria, and the Turkish Defense Minister and a number of senior generals of the army visits to inspect military sites in the region.

Turkey sent military equipment to the southern border of Sanliurfa with Syria.

According to the Anadolu news agency, a military convoy of 12 armored vehicles with special forces units and buses arrived to the border area with Syria at the city of Ras Al Ain.

At the end of July, Turkish Defense Minister Khulosi Akar announced the possibility of a new Turkish operation in northern Syria if the United States could not reach agreement on a security zone in the region.

Turkey plans to continue its efforts to establish a security zone along its border in northern Syria, the daily Sabah reported on Tuesday, quoting a statement after a meeting of the Turkish National Security Council.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said earlier that Ankara was ready to launch an operation in eastern Euphrates, as well as in Manbij against the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, if the United States does not withdraw from there.

Ismail Kaya, a Turkish political analyst, said that “there are new data related to Turkey’s efforts to establish a safe area in northern Syria, especially after the visit of US envoy to Syria James Jeffrey to Ankara”.

He added in statements to Sputnik that “the Turkish efforts come in light of Ankara’s official rejection of the American offers and communicated through more than a channel intended to move militarily in the eastern Euphrates River in the absence of agreement on the nature of the safe area”.

With regard to the possibility of reaching an agreement with America, Kaya stressed that “it’s not excluded, but the possibility remains very small”, attributed the reason to “significant differences in the standards of the parties on the nature of the region, depth and the party to be managed and many other details”.

He pointed out that “the Turkish military option is on the table with unprecedented strength”.

He continued: “The meeting of the Turkish National Security Council gave a very strong signal on the proximity of the operation, in light of the continuing large military buildup on the border with Syria”.

“It can be said that the NSC’s statement indirectly called the” Peace Corridor “on the next military operation east of the Euphrates River, and I expect a limited and gradual military operation to begin from Tal Abyad and Ras Al Ain areas in the near future”.

“Turkey, led by the Erdogan government, is striving to establish a safe area in Syria”, said Mohammad Khair Akam, a member of the Syrian People’s Assembly and professor of international relations at Damascus University.

He added in statements to “Sputnik”, that Ankara wants to take this step in accordance with the United States of America, “asserting that” despite the disagreement declared, there is almost a consensus between Washington and Ankara on the establishment of such areas”.

He stressed that “Syria does not agree to these areas, and if Turkey wants to seek the establishment of safe areas to be carried out within Turkish territory, not within Syrian territory as it seeks”.

“Any intervention, or any incursion by Turkish forces under any pretext within Syrian territory, we in Syria has already declared that we will consider this aggression”.

As for the Syrian response, he added: “Under this aggression, it is forbidden for us to prevent Turkey from carrying out such measures, by any means possible, including military means”.

In a telephone conversation with his US counterpart, Mark Esper, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar said on Monday that “his country will be forced to establish a safe area in northeastern Syria alone, in the absence of a common understanding with the United States”, according to an official statement.

Akar stressed two points Ankara considers to be at the forefront of its plan for the safe area: “confiscating all weapons in the hands of the Kurdish People’s Protection Forces and removing them from the buffer zone completely”.

The second is that the depth of the area within Syrian territory is not less than 30 km under Turkish control.

At a news conference in Ankara last week, Turkish Foreign Minister Mouloud Gawishoglu said: “The two countries haven’t agreed on how deep the region will be and who will control it and whether the units of protection of the people will be fully evacuated”.

On the other hand, despite Washington’s agreement on the principle of a buffer zone in the east of the Euphrates, it believes that the depth of this area should not exceed 5 kilometers and will not extend to the entire Syrian-Turkish border.

Washington also demands that Kurdish groups, notably Syria’s democratic forces, retain some of their weapons to ensure the security of the areas under their control.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry declared its absolute rejection of any form of US-Turkish understandings, saying it constitutes a blatant attack on the sovereignty and unity of Syria.

It stressed that such understandings constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, expressing its condemnation of “the continued American intervention in Syria, which aims to prolong the crisis and complicate it”.

“Damascus, which has been fighting terrorism for 8 years, reiterates its determination to continue to pursue the remnants of terrorism and to confront all separatist tendencies”, the source said.

The source pointed out that Syria confirms continued constructive engagement to reach an end to the crisis through a political process led by the Syrians themselves, without any external interference, and the return of security and stability to a single unified Syria.