Attack on Istanbul: the underside to the cards
author: Eléonore de Vulpillières
translation: doxa-louise source Le Figaro, Figarovox (here, free of charge)
FIGAROVOX/INTERVIEW - Alain Rodier decyphers for us the geopolitical context for Turkey after the attack on the Istanbul airport. To his mind, the Kurdish independence movement, well before the Islamic State, remains Ankara’s number one enemy. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Specialized in terrorism and organized crime, earlier officer with French Intelliegence, Alain Rodier is currently director with the Centre Français de Recherche et Renseignement. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
FIGAROVOX - The attacks on the Istanbul airport, a metropolis attacked for the third time this year, left 41 dead and 239 wounded. How do you read this?
Alain RODIER - They are part and parcel of the ‘war context’ in which Turkey actually finds itself mired. They bear witness to the failure of the foreign policy approach of Recep Tayyip Erdogan since the Arab Spring in general and the Syrian revolution in particular.
Are these the work of the Islamic State? If so, how to explain that they have not been acknowledged?
It is too soon to know for sure. According to Binali Yildirim, the new Turkish Prime Minister, consistent details point to Daech. Knowing how Turkish authorities easily blame Kurdish separatists for any disturbance, there is a strong probability that Turkish Intelligence possess some proof that would allow them to make this claim. It is true that the modus operandi resembles other actions claimed by Daech such as the attack on Brussels' airport.
Up until now, Daech has never admitted to operations attributed to it in Turkey (in particular the 2015 attacks in Suruç and at the Central Station Ankara). This is odd because everywhere else, Daech claims to all attacks it could have waged or others waged in its name. It is possible that this could be a way of not directly ‘humiliating’ the Turkish government in order to preserve a way out (and in) via Turkey. In point of fact, it is the only country through which volunteers and logistics can transit. That said, it appears to me that a limit has been reached and that Ankara will no longer be so magnanimous.
Turkey has of late come closer to Russia - giving financial compensation for having downed a Russian fighter aircraft in November 2015, declarations from the head of the Turkish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly for Economic Cooperation on the Black Sea on the necessity to cooperate with Russia in the antiterrorist struggle - and with Israel. Could this explain the attack on the airport?
It is true that President Erdogan seems to be making a 180° turn on his Foreign Affairs stance. The excuses made to Russia concerning its fighter plane brought down as it was quite momentarily over Turkish air space ( president Erdogan might be reviewing the compensations given by Ankara to Moscow) and the renewal of normal diplomatic relations with Israel are its standout moments. President Erdogan is a very intelligent man who knows how to be pragmatic. His approach to Foreign Policy has failed and he is attempting to change it. This will be easy to achieve with Israel but might take longer with Russia.
Are these attacks due to the ambiguity which Turkey entertains on the subject of fighting the Islamic State?
Back in 2011, Erdogan’s ruling idea, while he was yet Prime Minister, was to give back to Turkey a central role in the sunnite Muslim world, especially with respect to its old Iranian (shiite) enemy. He was encouraged in this by the Muslim Brotherhood - then a success story - with whom he was affiliated, if not more... Given this aim, he felt that the destitution of Bachar el-Assad repudiated by the entire sunnite world was a prerequisite and that Turkey should play a preponderant role in this. This was his first error as he underestimated the resilience of the Syrian regime and especially of its unwavering allies Iran and Russia. He was not alone in this misperception but he clung to this view the longest.
Everything was possible to get rid of Assad, in particular helping any salafists-jihadists group, many of whom were part of Al-Qaida, historically the al-Nusra Front. Daech only withdrew from this family in 2014. This Front was merely another islamist group with which to form an alliance, which explains the subsequent leniency in its favour. When Daech became the most powerful salafists-jihadists group, Turkey’s aid became proportional. Moreover, Erdogan nourished the machiavellian idea of unleashing Daech against the Syrian Kurds considered as cousins to the separatist Kurds of the PKK (which is far from false). For him, the creation of a Kurdish state in Northern Syria is unacceptable because it represents a long-term risk for the very unity of Turkey, wherein the PKK separatists could use such as a base of operations.
Are we seeing a change in attitude from Turkey toward the Islamic State. Is it becoming the number one enemy, in front of the independence seeking Kurds?
Kurdish separatists remain the number one enemy for Turkish nationalists who form the majority in public opinion and the various political parties including the ruling AKP. Indeed, they are considered a true menace to the stability and unity of the country. But the salafists-jihadists are also becoming menacing especially for the Turkish economy and tourism. Ideologically, it is a fight to the finish between the Muslim Brotherhood of Ankara and Daech salafists-jihadists.
One should also note that President Erdogan, by playing the police and justice against the army (Ergenekon trial) and then the reverse, has considerably weakened security within Turkey, experienced managers finding themselves at best retired, at worst in jail. This might explain the glaring security lapses much maligned by foreign observers. He is much obsessed with getting rid of the Gülen Mouvement (very powerful in political-judiciary circles) which initially helped him gain leadership of the country but has become too heavy for his personal ambition: a presidential regime appropriate to himself.
ISIS seems ready to strike anywhere and everywhere, Muslim countries included. Are we witnessing a planetary expansion to the asymmetrical war of the Islamic State against all comers?
The Islamic State is capable of striking anywhere in the world to the point where Brazil is starting to worry about the Olympic Games set for August.
