Is Turkey Really Fighting The ISIS? -By Uket Ofem

The credibility and commitment of the Turkish government in the fight against the dreaded Islamic State has come under the light, considering the role of that country’s government in combating terrorism over the years.

Critics and credible Islamic scholars all over the world have begun to question the specific roles and support the government of Turkey is offering to the Islamic State.

The Islamic State has only one point agenda globally, in which every country, state or community they are situated or find themselves in, they promote extremism. That said, the Turkish government cannot claim ignorance or to be oblivious of the fact that the activities of Islamic State are anti-democratic.

Is Turkey actually fighting the Islamic State or is the accusation that Turkey supports the Islamic State valid? If you ask President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, no other state combats the IS as much as Turkey does.

After the deadly suicide bombing in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet area on January 21, an irate Erdogan was quoed to have said: “Turkey is the primary target of all terror organisations operating in the region, because we are combating all of them without discrimination. Is there any other country in the world apart from Turkey that combats the [IS] terror organisation as we do and pays so much doing so?”

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also said Turkey is determined in its battle against the Islamic State.

There are several reasons why such statements by Erdogan don’t have much of an impact and are often taken with a pinch of salt. The first is Turkey’s support of organisations fighting against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Sometimes, those groups include IS jihadis.

For years, Turkey has been criticised for its porous borders that allow fighters and weapons to pass unhindered. When it is pointed out that jihadis control border terrain and Turkey is becoming another Pakistan, Turkish officials merely respond that such allegations are exaggerated. When Jabhat al-Nusra and then IS became well-established and prominent, Turkey’s argument was, “Assad has sponsored these organizations. Their source is the regime. If the regime goes, then this question will go away too.” But when the United States added Jabhat al-Nusra to its terrorist list in 2012, Turkey covertly continued to support that group.

Another question arose when Turkey basically handed over its Mosul Consulate to IS in June 2014, believing IS wouldn’t touch the Turks. The consulate staff was taken hostage and had to be rescued through bargaining.

Turkey also allegedly has financed IS. Despite constant warnings from the United States, Turkey did not try to block the transfer of IS oil through its border until March 2014. Although some measures were taken to cut the pipelines across the Assi River at Hatay, oil trade continued via traditional smuggling routes.

Another point that raised questions about Turkey’s truthfulness in combating IS was how Ankara took a position against IS only under US pressure. While Ankara continued bargaining with the United States on the concept of combating terror, Ankara declared Incirlik Air Base available for US and coalition air operations in Syria — but then suddenly switched its focus from IS to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Despite two artillery salvos against IS after Turkish soldiers came under fire twice in July, Turkey mobilized its military might against the PKK instead. Politically, Ankara launched a propaganda campaign equating the US-supported Kurdish nationalist Democratic Union Party and its military wing with IS.

Turkish security agencies said they had been aware of the suspected bombers before attacks in Suruc, Diyarbakir and Ankara, but were not actively monitoring them. The government, instead of focusing on the IS role, diluted the case by saying those responsible could have been from the PKK, IS, the Syrian regime or the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front. The government also imposed news blackouts on all attacks as yet another attempt to make people forget.

Turkey’s ambiguities in the legal struggle against IS also raise questions. News of IS militants apprehended and then released, or the potential suicide bombers who were known but not apprehended, gave rise to suspicions that Turkey plays a double-sided game. Davutoglu’s statement, “There is a list of people who can launch suicide attacks in Turkey. … If you take any action before they actually attack, then you are protested.” Most commentators viewed that as an admission of a security flaw.

Immediately after the Sultanahmet bombing, dozens of people accused of IS membership were rounded up across the country.

This naturally justified the question, if Turkey had the security intelligence to detain so many people in one night, why didn’t it take action before the bombing? Then came reports that the national intelligence service MIT had warned security agencies on Dec. 17 and Jan. 4 that tourist sites and foreigners could be targeted.

Also, Turkey has delayed blocking the 98-kilometer (61-mile) border strip that serves as IS’ window to the world. Many parties, and certainly the Iraqi government, are asking why, if Turkey is sincere in the struggle against IS, doesn’t it cleanse its border of those terrorists?

—Eket is a public affairs analyst sent in this piece from Abuja