By Barçın Yinanç
One would expect the bromance between U.S. President Donald Trump and Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to reach new heights following the former’s recent disavowal of the PKK/YPG.
U.S.–Turkish relations can also be expected to improve as a major source of tension — Washington’s support for the YPG — is being removed.
Not so fast, warn diplomacy experts.
“I don’t find the question of why the U.S. has let down the YPG relevant,” retired Ambassador Ömer Önhon told a news program. Önhon, who was serving as Turkey’s envoy to Damascus when the civil war started, believes the U.S. can not easily discard an organization that it has trained, equipped and invested in for at least a decade.
“The U.S. is, for now, keeping the SDF as a backup,” said Önhon.
Warning about ongoing uncertainties in Syria, Önhon also cautioned against placing excessive reliance on the U.S., noting that “If Washington can abandon one organization, it can do the same to other actors.”
No doubt Trump’s statement expressing support for the Syrian president’s offensive against the YPG comes as music to the ears of the Turkish leadership. It comes after the U.S. envoy to Turkey and Syria Tom Barack said the YPG’s role as the 'primary anti-ISIS force on the ground' has 'largely expired.'
Barack’s lengthy social media posting will go down in history, most probably viewed by Kurdish armed groups as yet another betrayal.
But the U.S. had always said the cooperation with the YPG was temporary, tactical and transactional. From the Turkish perspective, the “temporary” nature of this cooperation has extended well beyond what was considered acceptable.
The U.S. decision to turn a blind eye to YPG losses might not immediately translate into a full-fledged improvement in Ankara’s ties with Washington.
The unpredictability of President Trump, as well as the uncertainty surrounding the approaches of his successors toward Turkey, necessitates a delicate balancing act between the U.S. and Europe, particularly at a time of serious strain in transatlantic relations.
BALANCING ACT BETWEEN THE U.S. AND EUROPE
This might explain Ankara’s position on Trump’s invitation to the signing ceremony for the Board of Peace.
Chaired by Trump, the board was originally conceived as a small group of world leaders overseeing the Gaza ceasefire plan. But the letter sent by Trump to nearly 60 leaders inviting them to join the board did not mention Gaza.
The original scheme has turned into a more sprawling concept, hinting that it will soon broker global conflicts.
It led to global divisions, even among European countries as some suspect the scheme might rival the UN Security Council's role. With the exception of one or two countries, overwhelming majority of the EU countries declined to participate.
Turkey, on the other hand, agreed to be part of the Board of Peace.
But the decision was made public via a joint statement by the foreign ministries of Arabic and Islamic countries which have Gaza high on their agenda.
STATEMENT: BOARD OF PEACE MISSION IS LIMITED TO GAZA
While Trump invited heads of state to take part in the Board of Peace and to the signing ceremony, the joint statement by Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE was made on behalf of foreign ministers.
“Ministers announce their countries’ shared decision to join the Board of Peace. Each country will sign the joining documents according to its respective relevant legal and other necessary procedures,” reads the statement.
The ministers do not neglect to praise Trump for his peace efforts. But the statement explains how these countries see the mission of the Board of Peace, limiting it to Gaza. In contrast to Trump’s ambitions that it can play a mediation role in other conflicts, the ministers “reaffirm their countries’ commitment to supporting the implementation of the mission of the Board of Peace as a transitional administration, as set out in the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict and endorsed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803.”
It will come as no surprise if taking a common stance against Trump’s initiative and limiting his ambitions without necessarily irritating him was a Turkish idea.
Meanwhile, President Erdoğan’s decision to send his minister Hakan Fidan to the signing ceremony can not simply be explained by his boycott of the event since he walked out from Davos in 2009.
It can also be interpreted as a sign of limited endorsement of Trump’s ambition, which certainly does not overlap with his “The world is bigger than five” vision. This half- hearted endorsement might also be used as a message to European countries that Turkey will not always follow in the footsteps of the U.S.
