In an unprecedented move, UN special envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura has called on Turkey to open its borders to fighters willing to go to Syria to fight the Islamic State (IS), whose combatants are surrounding a strategic and predominantly Kurdish border town. The statements were remarkable in that they contravened international and diplomatic norms, dividing the Syrian opposition in its reaction and possibly having lasting implications for the country's future. Some members of the opposition to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad argued that de Mistura had committed two errors. The first was that in asking for fighters to be allowed to cross the border he had ignored the implications for Syria's sovereignty. The second was that it was this type of thinking that had led in the past to an influx of jihadists into the country. The Kurds of Syria, Iraq and Turkey are in favour of such a move, as the town of Kobani, or Ain Al-Arab in Arabic, is home to a significant Kurdish minority. If Kobani fell to IS forces, the separatist aspirations of the Kurds would be frustrated, and the dream of setting aside an independent Kurdish region in northern Syria shattered. As Syria and Iraq go on unravelling, the hopes of Kurdish separatists for a state of their own, one possibly combining parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, have soared. Kurdish separatists hope to control a slice of northern Syria, what they call the West Kurdistan Region running from northeast Syria to the Mediterranean. But their ideas are not only opposed by many Syrians, including a section of the Kurdish community, but also by Ankara as well. Most of the fighters waiting eagerly across the border to wage war on IS are not Syrian but Kurds associated with the Turkish Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its affiliate the Syria-based Democratic Union Party (PYD). They also come from the Mount Qandil region, which straddles Iraq, Turkey and Iran and is a PKK stronghold. The PKK fighters in Mount Qandil have close links with the Iranian and Syrian intelligence agencies and are quite hostile to Turkey. As a result, Turkey is reluctant to assist them. In Syria, the assumption is that the fighters are only interested in carving out a Kurdish homeland and care little for the consequences of their actions on Syria as a whole. For now, Turkey is standing its ground, saying that sending more men in to fight in Syria would be a mistake. However, Turkey's position is not based on legal or humanitarian grounds, but on its own interests. There is a cynical aspect to Turkey's policy, for a successful IS assault on Kobani would eliminate the Kurdish presence on its borders, without Ankara's having to lift a finger. Only recently Turkey called on the PYD to distance itself from Damascus, dismantle the self-rule administration it has created in northern Syria, and disassociate itself from the PKK. The Syrian Kurdish party refused to comply. The reaction of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF), an umbrella group of the Syrian opposition, has been muted. While it does not want to alienate Ankara, its main backer, it does not want to injure the feelings of the Syrian Kurds who are concerned over Kobani's fate either. However, some NCSROF officials were shocked by de Mistura's statement. Monzer Akbik, a NCSROF presidential affairs official, said that the course of action suggested by the UN envoy could have dire consequences. “Opening the borders in a random and chaotic fashion could lead to negative consequences. Who are the gunmen who would come into Syria as a result? What would be their agenda and who would be their backers,” he asked. Akbik advised the international coalition to arm and train the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that is fighting against the Al-Assad regime instead and give it proper air cover. “This would be enough to repulse the IS and eventually defeat it,” he stated. The National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC), another Syrian opposition group, was less opposed to de Mistura's proposal. NCCDC spokesman Monzer Khaddam said that the request was unconventional, but was meant to achieve a “noble goal.” “We would be satisfied if Turkey agreed to the request, and we urge it to agree,” Khaddam said. Other sections of the Syrian opposition felt that the best course of action would be to let Turkey send in its army against IS. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, prominent opposition figure Fawwaz Tallo said that the US Obama administration had already admitted that the IS could not be defeated without ground troops. “These ground troops could not possibly be Kurdish, because the Kurds are separatists. They don't care about Syria or IS. They only care about creating their own mini-states,” Tallo said. The ground troops needed in Syria could not be Iranian or Iraqi either, because this would stir up a Sunni backlash, he said. The FSA was also not an option, at least for now. “It is not possible for the FSA to provide ground troops at the moment, because it is still weak and fragmented,” he said. “Turkey is the nearest, most reasonable, and least risky solution.” Tallo said that he approved of the four conditions Turkey had set for intervening in Syria, namely the imposition of a no-fly zone, the establishment of safe havens for civilians, the arming and training of the Syrian opposition, and the targeting of the Syrian regime. However, if Turkey relents and admits militiamen across the border into Syria to fight IS forces, this will only add to the country's ordeal, prolonging the current conflict and making it harder to defuse in the future. De Mistura's proposal, unless carried out in a controlled and accountable fashion, could also increase secessionist pressures, inflame sectarianism, and give Iran further incentives to interfere in Syrian affairs.
