Turkish-Syrian rapprochement is a key to Mideast peace

By Mustafa Kibaroglu

As Henry Kissinger once put it, it is not possible to make peace in the Middle East without Syria. This, among other things, requires engaging Syria and not only by its arch-enemy, Israel. Other countries in the region have to make the Syrian leadership feel more confident of taking bold steps when necessary in highly complicated and multifaceted issues such as the return of the Golan Heights.

In recent history, Syria’s primary allies were the Soviet Union during the Cold War and Iran since the Islamic Revolution. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, only Iran remains. Lebanon formed the backdrop for Iran and Syria’s rivalry with Israel and the United States, but in the aftermath of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Syria was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and, by extension, diminish its influence on Lebanese domestic and foreign policy.

Since then, the Syrian leadership has seemed more willing to break out of its isolation from the rest of the world. Improved relations with its northern neighbor Turkey, a longstanding member of the Western world with close ties to the Middle East, came right at that point. Constructive approaches by the political leaderships on both sides of the Turkish-Syrian border – which could have been the scene of a bloody war in October 1998 because of Syria’s sustained support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the PKK, and its terrorism against Turkey – have been one reason for the much improved bilateral relations ever since.

Based on the confidence built with the Syrian leadership, and thanks to Turkey’s already credible standing in Israeli political circles, Turkey was asked to mediate between Israel and Syria in order to reach a stable peace. Turkey’s engagement with Syria on bilateral as well as trilateral platforms helped Syria break its isolation until the recent crisis between Turkey and Israel due to the abrupt cancellation of the participation of Israeli aircraft in military exercises planned for October 2009.

Following a bitter exchange between Israeli and Turkish officials, Israel’s prime minister and foreign minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, declared that Turkey would no longer be considered a mediator with Syria. This may be bad news for those who still care about the strategic value of Turkish-Israeli cooperation and who yearn for the “good old 1990s” when Turkey and Israel were jointly strategizing. But, is this really the case? Is Turkey’s mediation between Syria and Israel even still needed to overcome the bottlenecks in the negotiations? The short and simple answer is “no.” The unprecedented rapprochement between Turkey and Syria, which has gained enormous momentum during the last few months, is likely to provide Israel with what was indeed expected from Turkey’s mediation anyway.

The Golan Heights constitute the major bottleneck in negotiations between Israel and Syria, not because of their military-strategic value, but rather because of the existence of significant water resources in the area, which neither side can neglect. Israel’s proposed solution to this problem since the mid-1990s has been to convince Turkey to release more water from the Euphrates River to Syria so as to compensate for what Syria would lose by agreeing to the return of the Golan without the right to use the water resources in the area. Turkey has long resisted the idea on the grounds that a binding agreement with Syria would jeopardize Turkey’s future rights to the waters in the Euphrates-Tigris River Basin for its own economic development, especially when during extended dry seasons.

But much water passed under the bridge. Turkey and Syria signed over 50 protocols on issues extending from economic to scientific and technological cooperation and trade during the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Syria in the last days of 2009, where he was accompanied by half-a-dozen ministers. The water issue constituted one of the major topics of these protocols. There were some difficulties in reaching a full-fledged agreement on the definitional and technical dimensions of the issue in the area of cooperative uses of the waters in the region, including the Orontes River. However, the parties seem confident that these are not insurmountable problems, given the existence of political will on both sides of the border, now open to the transit of goods and services as well as of citizens of both countries.

Against this background, it wouldn’t be wrong to argue that, if Turkey provides enough assurances to Syria that it will release more water when needed by its southern neighbor, Ankara will have played the mediating role that was essentially expected from her by Israel. In other words, if Turkey can be effective in relieving Syria’s water stress, Syria and Israel can move closer to a resolution of the problems over the Golan Heights, which in turn will bring peace between them much nearer.

Whether Netanyahu and Lieberman acknowledge it or not, in some respects the key to a sustainable peace between Israel and Syria lies in Turkey’s policy toward Syria. Paradoxically though, one reason why the Israeli leaders make unfortunate statements that reflect their anger with their Turkish counterparts’ attitude toward Israel may be because Turkey is delivering anyway what Israel needs the most in this puzzle, but this time without Israel asking for it.

Source: The Daily Star.
Link: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=110534.