Ankara’s Syrian policy has reached the very lowest level. We need to think of the reasons behind this deeply. A wrong action plan, the government’s lack of success in its Syrian policy or the intentionally false information attempts by certain groups that play under the affect of the Syrian and Iranian regimes?
So whatever the reason, the truth is you are able to catch this negative view in all survey. In one of the last opinion surveys, the percent of those who back up the government’s Syrian policy has fallen to 17 percent.
What does this negative figure signify for those carrying out the Syrian policy? Do they engage in self-recrimination by admitting their faults? Or do they take a firm stand that they’re performing the right thing and the public will finally see it? A short view the state of mind of the politicians who repair Ankara’s Syrian policy brings out that the second alternative is considered to be heavier.
Clearly, everybody is distressed with the endurance of the Assad regime over so much a long time and with the timid backup from the West. In such a case, it’s quite normal that unfavorable judgment bolts down both from inside and outside. Seemingly, administrators need to engage in some kind of self-criticism. But, it’s natural that they, too, anticipate critics to give them a word. In this context, established on a authentic high-level source, I’ll adjudicate to explain Ankara’s view on Syria as well as on Iran and Iraq to the extent they relate to Syria, without much interference.
Turkey views the developing in the Middle East not with a sectarian position, but in conditions of people’s requirements and their controversy with undemocratic regimes. It wasn’t Turkey that sparked a crisis in Syria out of the blue, and it wasn’t a sectarian standpoint that made it turn people against the Baath regime.
In the circumstance of current change in Arab countries, a problem came about between the Syrian people and their government. Turkey decided to go with people as it trusts in the policy of zero problems with neighbors: This is because people predominate while regimes disappear. If Turkey had preferred to back up the Syrian regime, it would have saved the day, merely would miss the future. What is more, it would feel dishonored in the future. If Turkey had chased after a sectarian policy or a value-oriented policy in Syria, Ankara wouldn’t have acquired close relations with Assad till very recently.
Turkey hasn’t any trouble with Iran, which backs up the regime in Syria. Nonetheless it’s distressed with Iran’s strategies. Turkey ascertains a sectarian foreign policy as a threat to itself, the region and the world and it objects to its proliferation.
For Ankara, it is untrue and unsafe to stay neutral to Syria citing such pretexts as “The post-Assad era is uncertain,” “A revolution can’t be built without a leader” or “The confrontation isn’t united.” The same problems applied to Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. In all these countries, representative governments came to major power. In all of them were radical groups; we must wait them in Syria, also. But the terror is everyplace around the world.
