Dr. Amy Austin Holmes (Wilson Center): Turkish claims about the SDF representing a threat were simply a lie. Turkish intervention was based on a lie

WASHINGTON / SODERTALJE – Following the 2019 arrest of three Syriac Military Council fighters in Syria by jihadist militias affiliated with the Turkish occupation forces of North and East Syria, Suroyo TV moderator Metin Rhawi interviewed Dr. Amy Austin Holmes, Public Policy Fellow at the American think tank Wilson Center, and Richard Ghazal, executive director of the Washington-based advocacy group In Defense of Christians. The three Syriac Military Council members were illegally transferred from Syria to Turkey and given life sentences in Turkish prison.

Below is a written transcript of the interview (edited only for readability) with Dr. Amy Austin Holmes. For the transcript of the interview with In Defense of Christians’ Richard Ghazal here

---

Suroyo TV moderator Metin Rhawi: You have traveled several times to North and East Syria. What was your strongest impression of North and East Syria?

Amy Austin Holmes: On one of my trips, in spring 2019, I was very concerned because only in March was the Islamic State Caliphate officially defeated. It was a historic turning point in the war. For me, this historic turning point felt, in a way, similar to the defeat of fascism or the Nazis after WWII.

However, already at that time I realized from the interviews and the survey I was conducting that the people on the ground, in particular the Syriac and Assyrian Christians, were very worried about threats from Turkey. This was already in February and March of 2019. So, this was well before the October 2019 intervention.

I remember distinctly that they would tell me over and over again that the main threat they saw was from Turkey. In fact, one of my open questions on the survey was what they perceive to be the greatest threat to Northeast Syria!? To my surprise, and this was already in 2019, the greatest threat they saw was no longer ISIS, it was no longer the Assad regime or Iranian-backed militias, but Turkey. They actually saw Turkey as the number 1 threat to northern Syria. And about a few months later in October 2019, Turkey then did intervene.

So, what I find so tragic is that the people on the ground already saw the next threat on the horizon as coming from Turkey.

And yet people in Washington DC were kind of oblivious to it and celebrating the defeat of ISIS. As if we could now shift away from the ISIS threat, as if now the war, threat, and problems facing this region were over, when in fact we were merely entering a new phase of the conflict which now of course is related to the Turkish interventions and occupations of Northern Syria.

That is what I find tragic. If American policymakers had been more aware of the perceptions of the people on the ground, in particular the Syriac and Assyrian Christians, perhaps the October 2019 intervention could have been prevented.

Metin Rhawi: Did they give you any background as to why they thought Turkey was the biggest or more dangerous threat to Syria?

Amy Austin Holmes: Because Turkey had already intervened prior to this in the Euphrates Shield area around Jarablus, Al-Bab and then in Afrin in 2018. And what I would hear over and over again was that “we don’t want Turkey to do to our areas what they did in Afrin.”

From the American perspective however, Afrin is out of the area where the United States operates. The US never operated in Afrin and there were never American forces present in Afrin. Afrin was in the Russian zone of influence. But from the perspective of the people on the ground, they saw the parallels between what was happening in the northwest of Syria and in the northeast. I think this is why they viewed this as a huge problem. And they turned out to be right.

Again, if American policymakers had simply been more aware of the reality on the ground and what the people on the ground were fearing, I think US policies could have been adapted to deal with that actual reality as opposed to the US or the Western view of the conflict, which was very narrowly focused on the defeat-ISIS mission.

Metin Rhawi: Did they mention anything about the Sayfo Genocide of 1915 repeating itself?

Amy Austin Holmes: Yes, this is what I also took away from my research. The people in the northeast in particular Syriac Assyrian Christians identify themselves as the descendants of the survivors of the Sayfo massacre, the genocidal acts that happened at the time of fall of the Ottoman Empire and the establishing of the Turkish Republic. 1915 is of course the date symbolically referred to [as the year of Sayfo]. But as historians have shown, the violent atrocities did not happen just in one year but actually extended over a quite long period of time. This led to essentially the expulsion of the vast majority of the Christian population of Turkey into Syria.

I think this is something that is not fully appreciated here in the United States; that these memories of 1915 and of Sayfo and the Armenian Genocide are still very alive, and it very much forms their identity as the Christian minority of Syria.

Also Read: In Defense of Christians’ Richard Ghazal: US administration should take Turkey’s human rights violations seriously and apply binding sanctions

Metin Rhawi: You have written a report for the Wilson Center in which you mention the case of the three captured MFS soldiers and describe the situation. You also address other wrongdoings by Turkey against Syrian citizens defending themselves against jihadist militias – whose members are often not Syrians – in Syria? Can you tell us about your report?

Amy Austin Holmes: The title of this new report is “Threats Perceived and Real: New Data and the Need for a New Approach to the Turkish-SDF Border Conflict.” The report does discuss these three MFS members Jamil Gerges, Muhassan al-Okla, and Emad al-Saud who were illegally captured inside Syria and illegally transferred across the border to Turkey [as Rich Ghazal mentioned].

On page 22, I include their photo and an image from the official Turkish court document. The reason why I included it, was because on the top of that page document it says in Turkish “Suç, tarih ve yeri” meaning the location and date of the crime – Şanliurfa. But on the same page of the Turkish court document below that, it says they were “captured in Ras al-Ayn,” inside Syria. So, the Turkish court documents themselves are contradictory. The Turkish court documents themselves refer to the capture in Ras-al-Ayn and also then claim the crime was committed in Şanliurfa. This is important. As Rich Ghazal said, the very fact that they were transferred illegally across the border means that the entire trial was also illegal.

That the Turkish court documents themselves are contradictory, is an important point to emphasize. I am not a legal scholar, but one possible interpretation of these Turkish court documents is that they are essentially claiming Turkish jurisdiction over Syrian territory. I mean, that is one possible interpretation of these Turkish court documents.

Metin Rhawi: What is the general reaction to this and these [Turkish] wrongdoings? From the United States? From officials? What do you know about their reaction?

Amy Austin Holmes: I think until now there is a lack of awareness about this case which is one of the reasons why I wrote about it in my report. Because I wanted to raise awareness about this. I want people to know what is happening.

Because it is not just an injustice for these three men who are in the Syriac Military Council, but it is potentially a dangerous legal precedent that Turkey could use to claim jurisdiction over Syrian territory. They could use this as a legal precedent to justify not just their occupation of Syria, but potentially annexation of Syrian territory into Turkey. This is one possible ramification of this court case which is why I think it is very important to highlight this. And to understand that it is not just unjust for these three men but that is has much larger potential ramifications for the Turkish occupation of Syria.

Metin Rhawi: Do you know more similar cases?

Amy Austin Holmes: Yes, Human Rights Watch has documented over 63 cases of Syrian citizens who have been illegally transferred to Turkey. HRW believes there might be as many as 200.

Metin Rhawi: What does the US government know about these cases?

Amy Austin Holmes: I believe the people who work specifically on Syria are aware of this. But when it comes to about informing Congress – something that needs to happen now – and that there needs to be an outreach to and briefing of Congress, and that Congress is very interested in a new approach to Turkey and pressuring the Biden administration to devise a new approach to new US relationship with Turkey. This should not only be about the S400 but also about Turkish human rights abuses and also these illegal transfers of Syriac Military Council and other SDF-members into Turkey.

The first part of my report provides, I believe, the first objective and quantifiable database of the conflict between Turkey and the SDF from January 2017 until [August] 2020. In order to create this database, I use the Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset (ACLED) – one of the most widely used armed conflict datasets in the world used by scholars and analysists – because I wanted to try to understand what exactly is the nature of this conflict between Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces.

Also Read: SDF Spokesperson Kino Gabriel about Turkish imprisonment of MFS fighters: International community must act against this violation of the Geneva Convention

Metin Rhawi: What did you find out? What is the actual nature of this conflict?

Amy Austin Holmes: As you know, Turkey was claiming that their annexations and occupation of Syria is because the SDF is posing a threat to Turkey. And because the SDF is a terror corridor, the words used by Erdogan to describe the presence of the SDF in northern Syria.

But what the ACLED data shows, and what I found is that during this January 2017 to August 2020 time period, is that there were over 3,300 attacks from Turkey or Turkish-backed militias within the Syrian National Army against the SDF or civilians, compared to 22 attacks from the SDF across the border into Turkey. 10 of those we could not independently verify because they were only reported for example, in Daily Sabah or by Anadolu Agency or other AKP agencies that only cited one single anonymous source that could not be verified. The 12 cross border attacks from Syria into Turkey that we could verify, happened after Turkey launched the intervention in October 2019. So, they were in response to the intervention in self-defense.

But in any case, the data is staggering: 3,300 attacks compared to 22 – and even possibly only 12. I think the only conclusion you can draw from this is that the Turkish claims about the SDF representing a threat were simply a lie. The Turkish intervention was based on a lie.

Metin Rhawi: How much do we need to take into account the historic perspective of Turkey seeing itself as the successor to the Ottoman Empire? That it seeks to revive this Empire and that it sees Syria part of its own?

Amy Austin Holmes: I think that part of this is the legacy of the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps a desire on the part of Erdogan to present himself in the upcoming 100-year anniversary of the Turkish Republic in 2023, as a new statesman for Turkey comparable to Ataturk. So, part of it is this Ottoman legacy.

It is also for Erdogan’s own desire to secure his own power and the AKP-MHP alliance.

He is thinking of the upcoming 100-year anniversary of the Turkish Republic. That is partly why you see this very aggressive foreign policy in Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Iraqi-Kurdistan. I think it is part of larger Turkish foreign policy ambitions.

My report focused on Syria however, and what is important for American policy makers and for other allies of ours in NATO and Europe, is that the Turkish talking points about the SDF representing a threat to Turkish simply can no longer be taken at face value. And that it was a mistake by American policy makers to repeat the Turkish talking points of Turkey’s legitimate security concerns. Those talking points by Ankara, if they are repeated by US officials, are extremely dangerous and they have led to these repeated Turkish interventions in Syria.

We have seen that they have been based essentially on a lie. The data has shown that the SDF has in fact not represented a real threat to Turkey. In reality, Turkey is threatening the inhabitants of northern Syria of all ethnic and religious backgrounds; Kurds, Arabs, Syriacs, Assyrian Christians, Yezidis. They are all threatened by this.

This is why I argue in my report that the US needs to rethink our approach to the conflict because too many American policy makers still think of this as a Turkish-Kurdish conflict. It is no longer that. It is a conflict between Turkey and all of the religious and ethnic groups across northern Syria. Those who are the most vulnerable are the religious minorities, the Syriac Assyrian Christians, the Yezidis, the Armenians. In order to allow these inhabitants of their ancestral homelands to continue to live there, there has to be a resolution to this conflict. I hope the Biden administration will take this seriously and reconsider US policy to the region.

Metin Rhawi: What could be done helping the three MFS members?

Amy Austin Holmes: In order to help the MFS soldiers, first there should be a campaign to raise awareness about this. I already wrote about them in my report in May 2021. Since the report was published, the general prosecutor has appealed the decision. Initially they were given 7,5-year prison sentence which is what I wrote in my report. Since my report was published, they have now appealed the sentence to life in prison.

First of all, there needs to be a campaign to raise awareness about this. There needs to be outreach to Congress, to brief members of Congress about this case. And my third suggestion would actually be for members of Congress or other advocates who are concerned about these issues to perhaps request permission to visit them in prison in Turkey. This should be possible but would require high-level coordination. But I think that visiting them in Turkey in prison would help draw attention to their case and to show support for these three men who are unjustly imprisoned in Turkey.

As Rich Ghazal mentioned, they were forced to sign documents in Turkish without a written Arabic translation. According to their lawyer who I have also spoken to, in Turkey they were initially interrogated without a lawyer. So, there are many violations of legal standards that need to be upheld. The very fact that they were transferred illegally across the border means that the subsequent trial was also illegal. There needs to be pressure brought to bear on this because the case can only be brought to the European Court for Human rights after all the possibilities within Turkey have been exhausted.

I believe that their lawyers will appeal the case, but this will take a long time. In the meanwhile, outreach and visiting them in prison would be a good way to raise awareness and put pressure on the Turkish government.

Metin Rhawi: Do you think there are still possibilities left for diplomatic talks for the three to be released?

Amy Austin Holmes: In my report I advocated the renegotiation of the ceasefire agreement with Turkey. The October 2019 ceasefire agreement which was negotiated by Vice President Pence, Pompeo, ambassador Jeffrey and ambassador David Satterfield was important in the sense that it stopped the immediate hostilities.

However, there are problems with the ceasefire agreement. One problem is that there are no geographic coordinates specified. There is no longitude and latitude specified to precisely identify the boundaries of the area Turkey was allowed to come in and occupy. This is one of the reasons why Turkey and the Turkish-backed militias claim that they can continue to expand the territory they control because there are no specific boundaries on the map. In the ceasefire agreement it is just referred to as the area between Tel Abyad and Ras al-Ayn.

In Ras al-Ayn there are many Syriac Christian, Yezidi, Kurdish, and Arab villages. It is basically impossible to assess some of these conflicts because the ceasefire agreement doesn’t include specific geographic coordinates.

This is one of the reasons I believe the Biden administration needs to renegotiate the ceasefire agreement to include these specific boundaries and demand that Turkey uphold the agreement. Because according to the agreement, civilians are supposed to be protected, and religious and ethnic minorities are supposed to be protected. All the religious and ethnic minorities who fled from the Turkish invasion should be able to go back to their homes and live there safely. Obviously, the agreement is not being enforced. There are some 70.000 people, possibly more, who fled the area around Ras al-Ayn and who have not gone back.

This is a problem much larger than just the case of the three MFS members. We are talking about tens of thousands of people who are not able to return to their homes because there are jihadist militias like Ahrar al-Sharqiyah, Sultan Murad, the al-Hamza Division that are occupying and enriching themselves with their homes, farmlands, and businesses.

According to the ceasefire agreement, everyone that fled should be able to go back home. This is not happening. And, that is why there needs to be pressure from the United States to resolve this problem.