Sign In / Up

Add contribution as a guest

Your email will not be displayed publicly
Benefit of signing in/signing up to personalize comment

Comment as a guest

Your email will not be displayed publicly
Benefit of signing in/signing up to personalize comment

Login

Not a member Register   Forgot Password
or connect using
 

Email

 

Rudaw

Analysis

How feasible is a no-fly zone for Rojava?

By Paul Iddon 15/12/2018
Residents of Afrin mourn relatives killed in Turkish airstrikes on the Syrian Kurdish canton, February 2, 2018. File photo: AFP
Residents of Afrin mourn relatives killed in Turkish airstrikes on the Syrian Kurdish canton, February 2, 2018. File photo: AFP
James Jeffrey, the US Special Representative for Syria Engagement, recently raised the possibility of a no-fly zone for the Syrian Kurdish regions (Rojava), invoking the precedent of the US defense of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 

Advocating such a no-fly zone is a lot easier said than done, however, especially in light of Syria’s complex and precarious state today. 

“Remember, we were present not in northern Iraq, but over northern Iraq in Operation Northern Watch for 13 years,” Jeffrey said earlier this month, indicating a similar arrangement could be made for northern Syria – but not necessarily a US mission. 

“That can be a UN force,” he said. “Under [resolution] 2254, there is language on a UN-managed and operated ceasefire. That can be partner forces. That can be other countries’ forces.”

His reference to the Kurdistan Region’s no-fly zone is a strong indication of which parts of Syria he has in mind: Rojava and other areas currently controlled by Kurdish forces. After all, he could have just as easily pointed to similar Southern Watch no-fly zone over Iraq’s Shiite south. 

Those no-fly zones had no mandate from the UN but were a purely a US, British and, until 1998, French endeavour. Ultimately they proved to be an essential moral undertaking since they doubtlessly saved thousands of innocent Kurds, as well as Shiites, from being butchered by Saddam Hussein’s helicopter gunships and helped incubate the autonomous Kurdistan Region we have today. 

It is important to remember these achievements were not the result of UN or international action since the UN Security Council did not authorize them. In fact, former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali later called their actions “illegal”. 

Arguably a better analogy Jeffrey could have used for advocating a UN initiative for a Syria no-fly zone would have been Bosnia in the early 1990s, particularly Security Council Resolution 816, which authorized the enforcement of previous bans on all flights over Bosnia. Given the Russian and Chinese power to veto on the Security Council, voting through anything resembling this resolution today would prove difficult. 

In reality, the US and France are likely the only countries with the initiative and capability of establishing any kind of a no-fly zone over Syria in the near future. 

US air power has effectively maintained a de-facto no-fly zone over northeast Syria in recent years, intercepting Syrian bombers targeting Kurdish forces in Hasaka in August 2016 and even shooting down a Syrian warplane targeting Kurdish-led forces in Tabqa in July 2017. 

Also, last February, several US warplanes decimated a force of pro-regime militiamen, who were launching an attack across the Euphrates River against a headquarters belonging to its Kurdish-led allies. 

The US, of course, did not intercept any Turkish aircraft during this time. Turkey bombed a Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) base in northeast Syria on April 25, 2017, which US forces working with the YPG say they weren’t given adequate forewarning about. 

That same month the YPG began calling on the US to establish a no-fly zone. It is obvious they meant one to prevent Turkish airstrikes. It later called for the same thing during the Afrin invasion early this year when the Turkish Air Force bombarded that tiny enclave. The US took no such action. 

Turkish shelling of northeast Syria, where the US and France work closely with YPG-led forces, in late October and early November prompted US troops to establish observation posts along the border, clearly in order to deter any Turkish ground incursion. While such a move will not prevent airstrikes, it will likely deter a major Turkish incursion – at least for now. 

Establishing a no-fly zone against Turkey in Rojava would be an enormously complicated endeavour. The no-fly zone over the Kurdistan Region was largely made possible by Turkey permitting the US-led coalition to use Incirlik Airbase, which today also serves as the primary hub for US-led air power participating in the war against the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria. 

It is unlikely Ankara would allow the coalition to continue using this airbase for long if it became the primary hub for aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone in neighbouring Rojava against the Turkish Air Force. 

Also, how readily would the US, or other coalition aircraft, shoot down a Turkish warplane if that is what it ultimately took to enforce any no-fly zone? And, even if the US did somehow manage to establish a successful no-fly zone over Rojava, Turkey could still devastate Kurdish positions with its long-range artillery deployed on its own side of the border with relative ease. 

Turkey recently declared it will not accept a fait accompli in Syria, claiming its actions are self-defensive. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, has said more than once that Turkey will come suddenly at night without warning to kill its enemies, meaning Turkey will undoubtedly seize any opportunity to pounce on the YPG whenever any arises. 

Its recent airstrikes against alleged Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) targets in both Makhmour and Shingal are a case in point, as was its unprecedented aerial assassination of senior PKK member Zaki Shingali in Shingal on August 15. 

Comparisons with the Kurdistan Region no-fly zone can only go so far. Neither the PKK nor any of its affiliates were ever the predominant group in the Kurdistan Region. This is one reason, despite its bluster, opposition, and threats toward the nascent Kurdistan Region, that Turkey ultimately never invaded and later even forged good relations with Erbil. 

Since Rojava attained de-facto self-rule back in 2012, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the political wing of the YPG, which Turkey sees as indistinguishable from the PKK, has been in charge. 

“Those who might think that the Iraqi experience could be emulated and that in time Turkey will come to accept a Kurdish ‘enclave’, ‘self-rule’, ‘entity’, and autonomous region (whatever you call it) in Syria as well might be committing a grave mistake,” wrote Hurriyet news columnist Barçın Yinanç earlier this month.

“As long as Syrian Kurds do not separate themselves from the PKK and the PKK is poised as an ‘ally’ to the US, it would be naïve to expect Turkey to stand by and watch,” she concluded.

Earlier this month the US reportedly advised its Syrian Kurdish allies to sever any links it may still retain with the PKK’s headquarters in Qandil Mountain. It may also need to convince the ruling PYD to permit the Kurdish National Council (KNC) to operate unmolested in Rojava, along with its armed wing the Rojava Peshmerga, ideally as part of a larger joint paramilitary force which also incorporates the YPG.

Such steps will prove essential for the establishment of something resembling the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Rojava. Anything less is unlikely to prevent Turkish attacks or a major invasion in the long-term. 

Establishing a no-fly zone purely to defend Rojava against any Syrian strikes would also prove difficult in the long-term. While Turkey vocally supported the US bombing of Syrian regime targets last March, in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack, it stressed that none of the bombers participating used Incirlik. 

Turkey would also hardly approve of Incirlik being used purely for the establishment of an aerial umbrella to defend its Kurdish enemy against Damascus, especially after any defeat of ISIS, which Ankara is already arguing no longer poses any threat to northern Syria. 

Ultimately, Turkey would rather see the Syrian regime reconquer the northeast and a return to something resembling the Adana Protocol. Under that agreement, signed in October 1998, Damascus agreed to crack down on the PKK in Syria, and expel its leader Abdullah Ocalan, in order to stave off the threat of Turkish military action. 

Damascus cooperated under the Adana Protocol so satisfactorily that when Ankara wanted to extradite a PKK suspect, “Al-Assad would extradite not only that person but all his cousins, as well,” quipped one Turkish intelligence analyst. 

Furthermore, Russia would likely oppose an explicit US-led no-fly zone over Rojava, especially after ISIS is largely defeated, and may actively work to undermine it. Just this month, in a very telling statement, the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov accused the US of trying to create a Kurdish quasi-state in Rojava independent of the Syrian regime. 

“They [the Americans] are also forming a government for the so-called Democratic Federation of Northern Syria,” he told a press conference, according to Tass News. “The Americans, that support the Kurds’ separatist sentiments by delivering arms and military equipment, allow[ing] them to oppress Arab tribes.” 

While the no-fly zone over the Kurdistan Region is certainly a desirable precedent for today’s Rojava, its feasibility is not nearly as simple or straightforward.

Comments

 
Data pager
Previous
123
Page size:
PageSizeComboBox
select
Hama | 15/12/2018
Main obstacle to no-fly-zone is not technical or geopolitical. Of course it could be difficult but the west and America could do anything with the push of a button if they REALLY wanted to. Rather it comes down to a COMPLETE lack of motivation. Western populist leaders and the general public, both far right and left, are completely opposed to any form of involvement yet alone intervention whether it's Ukraine, Kurdistan or Syria or anywhere else. For the left it's an extreme and irrational reaction to the mistakes of the Iraq war. For the right it's a natural consequence of their selfish and immoral isolationist mentality. America will not protect Kurds once done with using us against ISIS. Europe even worse. Russia is too close to Turkey and will not do anything. Assad would prefer PKK over Turkey/Syrian opposition but can't do anything because Russia won't allow. Who else is there? I see only TWO options for PKK: 1) Share power with other Kurdish parties, specifically KDP who are very experienced in diplomacy with Turkey. This would likely be enough to prevent all-out assault. 2) Completely stop all attacks on Turkey regardless of who started it first. Turkey will naturally ease down as well then. This renewed war between PKK/Turkey is leading nowhere and only greatly deteriorating conditions for Kurds. Both solutions requite that PKK put aside their ego. But this is easier said than done!
Hansi Oemerian | 15/12/2018
When they annex Crimea under the pretence of Russians living there it is fine but when the Kurds try to build their own nation is NOT. Russia is really becoming the joke of the world.
FAUthman | 15/12/2018
All kinds of US vs Turkey predictions are floating around, this one I would give most credence to :"(Turkey's) Clashing with the U.S. troops would be inevitable," argued Haldun Solmazturk, a former army general. He maintained that the U.S. would neither withdraw its troops nor remain silent even on a limited operation, as Washington is now bounded by its previous statements indicating opposition to a military operation against the YPG." The only part I would disagree with is that I believe Turkey clashing with the US will not result since Erdogan will find a way not to confront the US including avoiding violating the airspace above Rojava. But the above prediction will result eventually ( much sooner than one in Iraq ) in an independent Kurdish state though it may be called for sometime the " Democratic Federation of North Syria" (DFNS)
Renas | 15/12/2018
Depends on, no-fly zone for all, or is THE enemy allowed to bomd there? A no-fly zone should forbid all ountries to fly there, that would have a major effect and would be very good.
Guest | 16/12/2018
I disagree. A no fly zone is exactly that, a zone that prohibits certain aircraft from flying in that zone. In Iraq, its purpose was to prevent Iraqi military aircraft from flying in those areas and attacking its own citizens. A no fly zone over the part of Syria currently controlled by the SDF, that would prohibit any aircraft from attacking people in that area, would be easy to implement. If the forces enforcing that no fly zone are prohibited from using the Incirlik Air Base, facilities could be rapidly created within eastern Syria just for the purpose of that. Those facilities, if utilized for an extended time period, could also contribute to economic growth in that part of Syria. As far Turkish military using its own territory to "decimate" areas of Syria with artillery fire, if that occurred, I am sure the SDF would be forced to further arm itself with similar capabilities and retaliate in return, causing much more significant economic damage for Turkey than would occur in Syria. Turkey is playing a high risk game, with the odds against it, by venturing outside its sovereign territory into Syria and Iraq, carrying out attacks against citizens of those countries. If things go wrong, Turkey has a lot more to lose at this point. And things are getting very close to going wrong.
Post a New Comment
Comment as a guest or Login for more enhanced interactive experience

Be Part of Your Rudaw!

Share your stories, photos and videos with Rudaw, and quite possibly the world.

What You Say

Gulen Turk | 1/21/2019 7:46:46 AM
Turkey sooner or later must go out of Kurdish lands , the sooner the better .....you can not kill 30 million Kurds ...
yanxit | 1/21/2019 2:23:15 PM
how many american peshmergas have fallen in rojava? MORE THAN A DOZEN mcgurks bank group CITI wellsfargo cashing in with his iranian buddies, thats...
Erodgan and Trump call as McGurk lambasts US pullout from Syria
| 23 hours ago | (2)
Mohamedzzz | 1/21/2019 12:07:23 PM
US only can trust the Kurds, it's been long due that he dumps Turkey and supports Kurds unconditionally.
Hishyar Zaxoy | 1/21/2019 1:49:01 PM
6 or so Kurdish fighters killed yet the topic is strangely about US no casualties. This is called ars--licking
Anti-ISIS coalition convoy attacked in Syria
| 18 hours ago | (3)
Kurdish boy | 1/21/2019 7:53:41 AM
God bless Israel ...
kurd | 1/21/2019 1:11:38 PM
where are those big mouth ayatolahs? ghasem solymani is hiding loooooool
Israel says strikes Iranian targets in Syria
| yesterday at 08:04 | (2)
Dang | 1/20/2019 10:31:45 AM
This regime is the great ally according to senator Graham and the Trumpet
Mohamedzzz | 1/21/2019 12:11:56 PM
This starts looking like Pol Pot of Cambodia.
Man detained by Turkey for ‘liking’ anti-Erdogan Facebook post
| yesterday at 08:58 | (4)

Elsewhere on Rudaw

Genel signs oil agreement with Chevron for fields in Duhok, Sulaimani 15 hours ago |

Genel signs oil agreement with Chevron for fields in Duhok, Sulaimani

"The additions to our portfolio are an important more
Germany bans Iranian Mahan Air's flights for ties to IRGC 17 hours ago |

Germany bans Iranian Mahan Air's flights for ties to IRGC

Mahan Air has four weekly flights to-and-from more
Anti-ISIS coalition convoy attacked in Syria 18 hours ago | (3)

Anti-ISIS coalition convoy attacked in Syria

There were no casualties among US forces more
0.422 seconds