If such a stimulating silence is so persistent, why did Mr. Erdogan choose this particular moment to stage military adventures? The answer is simple: Elections are just around the corner and the government, which oversees the country’s worst economic crisis in two decades, is counting on chauvinism as a cure for national ills. The ruling party has therefore stepped up its actions against the Kurds, including detentions of politicians and journalists, military campaigns abroad and a ban on concerts and plays at home.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has apparently encouraged Mr Erdogan even more. It has allowed Turkey to pose as a friend of the West, earning credit for its early blockade of the Black Sea, while continuing to pursue its repressive agenda. Moreover, the war has given Turkey a golden opportunity by pushing Sweden and Finland – seen as long-standing innkeepers of Kurdish militants – towards NATO.
If the United States were to pressure the two countries to accept Turkey’s demands, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken has suggested, it would be more than a police victory. It would be a rare symbolic triumph. Bombings and cultural bans would be nothing compared to an international confession sealed by the world’s most powerful country that Kurdish rights can be set aside.
It is tempting to see Turkey as an exceptionally belligerent state. Labeled the ‘sick man of Europe’ in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, the country now appears to be the combative man of the continent. But it is wrong to view the country in isolation. Mr. Erdogan’s aggression is not his. It is enabled, encouraged and supported by Western countries, as well as Russia.
In Turkey, this is a provocative claim: the authorities want their citizens and the world to believe that “foreigners” and “outside powers” have always supported Kurdish separatism. This quite popular but very distorted perception of reality says nothing about the weapons, logistical support and permission that other countries have provided abundantly in the killing of Kurds.
The United States supplied weapons to Syrian Kurds during their fight against the Islamic State, it is true. But that is dwarfed by the sophistication and amount of military equipment that Turkey, home to NATO’s second-largest army, is gaining thanks to being part of the Western alliance.
The truth is that Turkey’s aggression has gone hand in hand with NATO acceptance, even complicity. It makes no sense for Western countries to lecture Turkey, or Turkey to complain about Western hypocrisy: they are in it together. Whatever happens with the expansion of the alliance – whether the Kurds are being sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical expediency or not – this should be a moment of clarity. In a world of war, no country has a monopoly on violence.