Turkish President Abdullah Gül said in an interview with the Washington Post’s Lally Weymouth that he does not see the U.S.-Russia framework agreement as a solution to the Syria crisis and that President Bashar al-Assad must go. Excerpts:
Lally Weymouth: What do you think of the U.S.-Russian agreement on chemical weapons?
Abdullah Gül: We appreciate it. But the discussion on Syria should not be reduced only to a discussion of chemical weapons. ... That is not to take away from the importance of the agreement. On the other hand, we are also aware of how technical the chemical weapons issue is and that it needs to be verified. The important thing is that it does not spread over too long a period of time and that there are mechanisms in place to check on progress. That is why the U.N. Security Council has to weigh in with a clear-cut mechanism with respect to this specific issue.
L.W.: You are talking about enforcement through Chapter 7 [of the U.N. Charter]?
A.G.: Yes, of course, I mean within the framework of Chapter 7. ... If these developments regarding chemical weapons are carried out and then it is as if everything is over with respect to Syria, that would be wrong and would lead to a loss of credibility on the part of the international community. We should not say the work is done once the chemical weapons are taken care of.
L.W.: It seems that President Bashar al-Assad is left in power by this agreement. Is that wrong?
A.G.: That's not something we can live with. We have to remember that when these events broke out, there was a lot of hope given to the Syrian people. The rhetoric was high, but the actions did not match the rhetoric. ... So far more than 100,000 people have been killed and almost half of the population is in a refugee status. ... If today we say this is not our job, it is people fighting in that country among themselves, then we have to question the rhetoric at the beginning. If we leave things on their own, there is a danger that what is happening in Afghanistan will happen on the shores of the Mediterranean, and no one can tolerate that.
L.W.: It seems that Assad will stay in power.
A.G.: There's been a breakthrough with the chemical weapons. But if there is no solution to the war that is going on in Syria—and if no new order emerges, then I'm telling you what will happen.
L.W.: People here [in the United States] are saying that the opposition is dominated by extremists. They're blaming Qatar, they're even blaming Turkey for allowing arms to go through Turkey to get to extremist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra. Is that fair?
A.G.: There were no extremists in Syria. If things are left on their own in Syria, people will become extremists first, then radicals, and then terrorists. We should have been much stronger in our reaction ... at the very beginning, but this was not done. If things go on the way they have been going, then in six months or a year from now, we will see the emergence of very well-established, well-structured groups with quite high numbers of people involved and it will be very difficult to disperse them. Those who allow this to happen will have a burden of responsibility in terms of what happens in Syria.
L.W.: Do you blame the United States for allowing this to happen?
A.G.: No, I think everybody has responsibility. Especially the P5 [permanent members of the U.N. Security Council]—all the allies. The determination had to be there from the very beginning. I don't mean to point the finger at one country alone. But there is no doubt, of course, that the most powerful country is the United States.
L.W.: Watching the United States in the last couple of weeks—threatening to use force, not using force—do you feel the United States let you down? Do you feel that President Obama abandoned Turkey?
A.G.: No, I wouldn't say that. Of course, military action is a last resort. It's good to let diplomacy take its course. I don't mean to single out the United States. From the very beginning, there was never a well-calculated political strategy in place with respect to Syria. Military intervention, which is not part of an overall political strategy, will not yield results. You need to have a comprehensive political strategy.
L.W.: I think one reason Congress has been reluctant to help the Syrian opposition is that there are reports that Turkey has been allowing aid to go to the radical groups, like [Jabhat] al-Nusra. Is that incorrect?
A.G.: People who say this are wrong and they lack foresight and they don't know us. I would not accept such an accusation and I would actually see it as a pretext—an excuse to move away from the events and to not do something.
TODAY IN SLATE
Don’t Worry, Obama Isn’t Sending U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS
But the next president might.
IOS 8 Comes Out Today. Do Not Put It on Your iPhone 4S.
Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You
How Much Should You Loathe NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?
Here are the facts.
Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows
The Human Need to Find Connections in Everything
It’s the source of creativity and delusions. It can harm us more than it helps us.
- German Fraud Investigator Says Anonymous Client Will Pay $30 Million for Info on MH17 Shootdown
- A Brief Reminder That Not Everything in the World is Terrible
- How Many Countries Were Created Through Secession Votes?
- Gun-Control Group Investigates 81 People Looking for Guns Online, Finds Eight Have Criminal Records
More Than Scottish Pride
Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself.