On 7 of August, Turkey and the US declared their safe-zone deal. Since then many things have been discussed, but one of the most important topics was the declaration that the safe zone would become “a peace corridor”, and that “any additional measures” would be taken so that Syrian refugees can return home. While many were discussing the meaning of this, Turkish President Erdogan announced plans to resettle one million refugees in the safe-zone in northern Syria. Many have asked where this figure has come from, and if the return of one million refugees is realistic. In reality, the number of Syrians returning to Syria may be even higher, but only if the YPG does not prevent it.

Before determining where this number came from, it is clear that if 350,000 Syrian refugees returned back to the tiny areas of northern Aleppo and Afrin, the return of one million to the vast areas of the safe-zone along the Turkish-Syrian border isn’t unachievable. According to the UNHCR, Turkey is currently hosting 3,658,250 Syrian refugees. Over 300,000 are Syrian Kurds from east of the Euphrates, and close to 350,000 are Syrian Arabs from the eastern Euphrates governates of Hasakah, Deir al-Zor and Raqqa. In addition, the Syrian Stabilization Committee, an office of the Syrian Interim Government, reports nearly 350,000 IDPs from YPG-held areas are now living in northwestern Syria.

If the safe zone is established, these IDPs can return home. Such a movement would encourage more Syrian refugees in Turkey to return to the areas under Turkish-protection in northern Aleppo and Afrin. Furthermore, according to the UNHCR, the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq hosts over 250,000 Syrian refugees. 90,000 of them are living in camps. In total, 1,250,000 refugees might return to the safe zone, but the number of returnees might increase more if refugees who originated from elsewhere return back to the safe zone as well. Many have relatives, or would prefer acceptable living conditions somewhere in Syria to being a refugee.

In line with the suggestion of President Erdogan, if the safe zone is supported by a systematic housing project that includes other necessary services and infrastructure, the capacity of the region might increase. Such a step might bring fruitful progress for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Syria, and may accelerate the economy in other regions of the country as well, therefore, many other refugees might return to other areas of Syria.

However, the housing project of Erdogan faces two main obstacles. The first is the reluctance of the international community. Most countries are open to the idea of building housing and infrastructure in general, but are not willing to provide the necessary funds, despite it being in everyone’s best interests. The housing project would be a win-win situation for all involved, from the refugees to the construction firms. The second main obstacle for this housing project is the YPG and its continued support by CENTCOM. As long as the area isn’t liberated from the militants, the refugees will hesitate to return, especially Syrian Kurds who are seen as traitors and collaborators by the YPG. Furthermore, in a meeting between CENTCOM officials and the SDF/YPG both sides agreed that refugees can only return when preparations are complete, that refugees have to be screened, and only those who originated from the region without any connection to terror organizations and crimes against the Syrian people would be allowed to return. Despite the irony that such a condition is being formulated by a terror-affiliated entity, this condition of origin will restrict the return of refugees.

Since when is the freedom of movement legally restricted inside Syria for Syrians? According to UNHCR, there are 6.2 million people, including 2.5 million children, displaced within Syria, the biggest internally displaced population in the World. Living in another part of Syria has already become a reality for Syrians. Also the experience in Manbij showed the difficulties of using a registration process for so many people. Many who had lived in Manbij for years and even went to school were never registered. Also many, especially Syrian Kurds, don’t have any proper documents. In this regard, no one should underestimate the willingness of the Syrian people to return to their home country once obstacles are removed. The only thing the Syrians need is a framework on the ground which enables their return and to live in peace. After that, most Syrians are more than willing to rebuild their own country.

In the ninth year of the war in Syria, the number of Syrians living outside of Syria has reached 5.6 million. Since the beginning of the war, Turkey opened its doors and currently hosts 3.6 million Syrians. 64.2% of the total number living outside of Syria. Turkey has recently increased control over immigration as well as the irregular settlement of Syrians, due to increasing social disturbances, particularly in Istanbul. According to experts, although this new policy does not seem to find a decisive solution to the ongoing problem of settling and integrating Syrian refugees, it is a late but necessary decision to deal with the repercussions and reflections of one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21^st century in Turkey.

Turkey has been debating the recent government policy of increased control over refugees, particularly Syrians, living in Turkey. The government describes this new policy as an attempt to ‘prevent illegal migration’ and control the existing refugee situation. Minister of Interior Affairs, Suleyman Soylu highlighted that there will be no deportations of Syrians and other nationalities who are registered and have legal residence permits in Turkey. He added that almost 6,000 unregistered migrants in Istanbul, including 1,000 Syrians have been arrested since July 12, 2019. The government claims that Syrians who reside in any city other than their registered cities are being sent back to their registered cities. Those who are not registered in any city are being sent to refugee camps near the Syrian border, and denies the claims that Syrians are being deported back to Syria.

However, stories shared across social media and western media blame the Turkish government for a ‘crackdown’ on Syrians. Some of these stories even claim that Turkish authorities send Syrians with official permits back to war-zones, particularly the Idlib province in Syria. The problem here is twofold: the first is the ‘illegal’ residence of Syrians in Istanbul who are originally registered in another city; and second are those who have no legal registration in Turkey, i.e. who are undocumented.

In the first place, there are 547,479 Syrians in Istanbul who are registered by the Turkish government; however, the real number of Syrians in Istanbul is said to be more than one million. Similar to the reasons for internal Turkish migration from many other Turkish cities to Istanbul, a significant number of Syrians who moved to Istanbul left the cities they were originally registered in because they could not find satisfying living opportunities there, they have relatives or friends in Istanbul, or just simply because they prefer to live in Istanbul for its better living standards. This migration increased in the last three years.

As the number of Syrians increased and the slowdown of the Turkish economy became apparent after 2018, a certain discomfort emerged towards the Syrian population among locals of Istanbul. Indeed, both conventional and Turkish social media outlets together with some opposition political parties, provoked this discomfort with their rhetoric that Syrians in Istanbul were one of the reasons for this economic slowdown. Not only did the economic problems of Turkey trigger this rhetoric, but the rapid social change in Turkey during the past decade coupled with increasing nationalist right-wing sentiment, in line with global trends, added further ingredients to anti-Syrian sentiment in Turkey.

Although anyone who visits Istanbul districts with a sizeable Syrian population would find this ‘anti-Syrian’ sentiment exaggerated as the majority of the Turkish population in these districts live peacefully with their Syrian neighbors, still, one can observe certain problem between guests and hosts from time to time. It is difficult to claim that these incidents are extraordinary since the situation itself is extraordinary and indeed, there are cases of individual misconduct from both sides. The important point here is how these incidents are reported and twisted in the current age of post-truth. This does not mean that the issue of Syrian refugee settlement is not a sensitive topic. Indeed, Syrians living Turkey have become a reality and serious policies needs to be developed to accommodate this change; and if the anti-Syrian rhetoric continues to grow, the exaggerated claim of a crisis might become real. 

Speaking to The New Turkey Khalid Khoja, ex-president of the Syrian National Coalition, says that from the beginning of the crisis in Syria in 2011, no one expected that it would continue for nine years and that the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey would reach more than 3.5 million. At the end of 2011, there were only 100-150 thousand Syrians in Turkey. Due to the open-door policy of Turkey, when this number reached one million, problems started to emerge and Turkey asked for help from the European Union. However, because Turkey exempted itself from the refugee agreement with the EU, they did not define Syrians as refugees, but rather accepted them as ‘visitors under temporary protection’. This status is a very unique to Turkey and it does not have any equivalence in international law. Therefore, with the exception of those staying in refugee camps, Turkey undertook the responsibility of dealing with Syrian refugees with almost no help from international institutions and countries. Those Syrians who had settled in different cities of Turkey benefited from social services, health services, and education. Indeed, these services had brought an extra cost to the Turkish State.

The huge number of Syrian refugees in Turkey did not only bring extra cost to the government but also became a security issue as well. According to Khalid Khoja, some of those who entered Turkey as refugees were not refugees; there were many Syrians who had no problem going to Damascus or Aleppo from Turkey via Beirut and could return easily. Some of these people traveling were against revolutionary groups and worked for either the Assad regime or other intelligence services; Turkey overlooked these groups of people and indeed, they became a security concern for Turkey. In other words, at some point, Turkey was not able to differentiate between refugees and this group of Shabbihas (regime spies/supporters) and is now facing the results of not dealing strictly with this situation. On the other, he adds, among those who fled to Turkey, there were many who came from the Syrian countryside and who had no means of living because of the war; these people also fled to Turkey just to earn a living.

Therefore, Khoja says, this policy of strict control over Syrian refugees is necessary and is indeed a delayed one. He says, this policy had to be applied since the beginning of the crisis. When Syrians arrived Turkey, there had to be a security control during the registration process. This control, he argues, could had been done together with officially accepted opposition groups like the Syrian National Council or the Syrian National Coalition, in order to find out who were refugees, who belonged to opposition groups or worked for the Assad regime; but this was not preferred by the Turkish government. The new policy of strict control of the Turkish government arrived as a necessary outcome of this process according to Khoja.

Khoja further argues that the timing of this strict control is also related to the rhetoric of Turkey’s opposition parties as well as the general public view towards Syrians. According to a public survey done by Bilgi University in 2018, more than 80% of Turks, both the supporters of current administration and opposition parties, believes that Syrian refugees should return to Syria. In another survey done in 2019, couple of months ago, by Kadir Has University, Khoja adds, only 10% of the supporters of AK Party in the big cities think that Syrians should stay in Turkey, and almost 60% of the AK Party supporters think that Syrian refugees should go back to Syria. Khoja says that these surveys indicate that the Syrian issue has become a troubling issue for the Turkish society.

Khoja notes that some people explain this new policy as being a response to the results of recent local elections in which the current government lost both Istanbul and Ankara municipalities; however, he does not see this argument as accurate, because the issue became significant before the elections, and the government decided to apply this policy before the elections, only introducing it afterwards.

According to Khoja, Syrians who are registered to live and work in one city and moved to another city present a problem for the government, because it is difficult to track these people, but what is inconvenient here is to deport Syrians back to war zones. He confirms social media reports that among those who were sent back to the war zones in Syria, there are Syrians who are registered with identity cards, those who are not-registered and even those who have identity cards and legal permits to work. He argues that the reason for this illegal deportations is not that they are the orders of the government but rather the arbitrary decisions of the officials on the ground who did not follow the instructions of the ministry during the process.

Khoja says, officials of the border administration at Idlib told him that 1,000 Syrians were deported to Idlib by the end of July, and among them there are those who have identity-cards and registration in Turkey. However, he says, the minister of internal affairs recently stated that there will be no more deportations of Syrians to war-zones, therefore this is a positive step towards preventing arbitrary decisions and will lower tension among Syrians.

Khoja says he supports the idea that the government should work together with NGOs focusing on Syrian refugees in order to find the best solutions to the ongoing crisis. If the application of government orders is left only to officials on the ground, there might be similar arbitrary decisions in the future. He says, the important issue is the improper treatment towards Syrians, but one should not forget that the issue has been manipulated by some Syrians who are working for the regime in Syria. Therefore, it is quite important for the government to be in coordination with the NGOs. This point is also important, he adds, because both the Turkish government and society has sacrificed for the Syrians since the beginning of the crisis, and no other country in the world did what Turkey has done for the Syrians. These sacrifices should not be shadowed by the improper application of this new policy and the negative campaign developing around it.     

Speaking to The New Turkey, Müberra Nur Emin, researcher at SETA Foundation and the author of ‘The Education of Syrian Children in Turkey published in 2019, says that the Syrian issue is not a new one; the crisis has been going on for the past nine years and every year both the number of Syrians and the problems around this flow are increasing, making the issue more complex. She adds that the number of Syrians in Turkey is almost reaching four million and the intensity of Syrians in certain districts of Istanbul, or in the border cities like Hatay, Gaziantep, Kilis, Urfa, Maras, have affected both the dynamics of the society and complicated the administration in these areas. Therefore, it is very normal and necessary to see the intervention of the government at this point, which may even be considered a late decision, because each day brings a new dimension to the issue and results in changing demographics of certain areas.

According to Emin, the recent government policy should be analyzed in this perspective. She argues that if there will be an integration process this needs to be twofold: both for the hosts and visitors. Indeed, she adds, at the beginning of the Syrian crisis the government developed policies with the assumption of short term residency of Syrians in Turkey. However, the unexpected duration of the war as well as the military involvement of foreign actors have caused a deadlock in the war; and the government has faced big challenges that delayed the development of a long term strategy. At this point, she says, the government realized the necessity of a long-term strategy and this recent government policy is its initial steps.

Another aspect of the issue debated by some experts is related the manipulation of image of Syrians for political gains. Both major opposition political parties and certain media outlets have been using rhetoric which is politically incorrect and causing a negative image of Syrians to the broader society. With the global trend of increasing nationalist sentiment, certain Turks see the arrival of Syrians as a threat to Turkish society and the economy. Even though the number of these people are not a majority among the Turkish population, the voice of this group is heard louder within society and is getting more supporters each day. For example, distorted information  monthly stipends, their education is free, they do not pay taxes, among other claims is spread with conventional and social media and Turkish people have been developing negative opinions about Syrians as a result of this fake news.  

Some experts even argue that the sensitivity of the issue could be manipulated by foreign intelligence services to create an enmity between the hosts and visitors in order to put the government in a difficult situation which is involved politically in the Syrian crises. This is also one of the arguments of the anti-Syrian bloc in Turkey who argue that the placement of Syrians in Turkey aims to damage Turkish society and create a chaotic environment. 

Regarding the claims of the return of Syrians to the war zones in Syria, Emin argues that this is not legally possible with Syrians who are under the ‘temporary protection’ status; however, she adds, there might be individual cases where this has occurred with those who do not have this status. She also says that the authorities need to deal with ‘fake’ news quickly and prevent spread of misinformation s and conduct a strategic communication to  inform the  public.

Emin also agrees with Khoja and highlights the importance of getting the support of NGOs working in the field. She says, since the beginning of Syrian migration to Turkey, there have been serious NGOs working on the issue, providing education, employment, shelter, food, etc. In this regard, she adds, it is important to get the support of NGOs as the mediators between government and society, in order to have a healthy communication both with the locals and visitors, and to administer the relations between them.

According to Emin the deadline of the government for Syrians to move to the cities they are registered to (August 20, 2019), is short notice for those who have started a life in a different city, since finding a place to live and work in a new city would not be easy in this short period of time, and even harder for those with kids studying at schools. Therefore, this deadline needs to be modified, if not for all, then for those with special conditions. Another important aspect, she adds, is that those who are living in Istanbul mostly registered in cities in the south-east of Turkey which are highly populated with Syrians and there is almost no more space in these regions. Therefore, a serious long-term settlement policy for Syrians is needed urgently.

At the beginning of August, 2019, Istanbul governorate said in a public statement that 2,630 Syrians in Istanbul who are not registered in any city were dispatched to temporary protection centers to the cities determined by the ministry. In a press conference in Ankara, the next day, August 2, 2019, Sulayman Soylu said a total number of 92, 280 people (47 thousand adults, 42,280 under the age of 18) were given Turkish citizenship. 

Müberra Nur Emin confirming Khoja’s earlier comments highlights the fact that both Turkish society and the Turkish government have done much for Syrians in the last eight years since the beginning of the crisis and this new policy towards Syrian refugees should not overshadow this sacrifice.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released a new report about humanitarian developments in Idlib, stating that 576,000 people were displaced between 1 May and August 18 in 2019. The OCHA report gives a strong warning to the world and to Turkey in particular. Since Turkey stands alone in Idlib, European states have avoided taking strategic responsibility, the US has sidelined itself and Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates view Idlib as a zero-sum game to undermine Turkey. Turkey also failed to use any of its four options to prevent its observation posts in Morek being besieged by the Assad regime. I argued that Turkey needs a new approach for Idlib, but what if the worst case scenario happens? One where a humanitarian disaster in Idlib cannot be prevented and the UN warning that 2 million refugees may flee to Turkey occurs?

According to UNHCR, the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey has reached 3,650,000 making Turkey the biggest host country for refugees in the world. However, the situation has its burdens for Turkey. Ignoring the economical, humanitarian and political costs, social tensions within Turkish society and hate speech against Syrian refugees are increasing. As a step to manager the refugee population, authorities in Istanbul announced new regulations that required unregistered Syrian refugees to return to cities in which they were registered by 20 August. However, after demands by the Syrian community, the deadline was extended for two months. While tensions against Syrian refugees are on rise in Turkey, the prospect of a further two million refugees from Idlib would be a catastrophe.

Turkey may be forced to establish transfer routes to the Greek and Bulgarian borders, opening the way for Syrian refugees to pass into Europe.

One of the main reasons behind such a worst case scenario would indeed be that Turkey stands alone in Idlib. While Turkey has taken on the burden of preventing a humanitarian disaster in Idlib alone, the country should not also carry the burden of the costs and risks of hosting two more million refugees. Turkey needs to force the world to take responsibility. Closing the borders to Syrians who face death in Idlib is not an option for Turkey, and if the worst case scenario happens, Turkey must open its borders to Syrians. However, while Turkey has no other option but to let Syrians in, it also has no other option but to let Syrians out. In order to prevent unregistered movement of refugees inside the country, Turkey may be forced to establish transfer routes to the Greek and Bulgarian borders. In such a case, the refugee deal between the EU and Turkey would end, opening the way for refugees in Turkey to pass into Europe. The countries that rejected taking responsibility for Syrian refugees and let Turkey do so on its own would then be forced to carry some of the burden. Turkey cannot take full responsibility if such a worst case scenario were to occur even if they provided with financial support to do so.

However, a second option also remains. With the support of the EU states and the US, Turkey could convince Russia to establish a security belt in Idlib. Such a move would require Turkey to take control over a certain area in Idlib following the Euphrates Shield model. Until now, Russia and the Assad regime want a military solution for Idlib, but the pressure of European States and the US, and Turkey’s decisiveness may help to facilitate a security belt free from bombs, terrorists and Assad’s forces. A security belt would also require commitments from the EU and the US. While details like depth and timeline of such a safe zone have to be decided, the new Turkish base north of Khan Sheikhoun, where the Turkish convoy remained after raids, could be a good guide for a new line. In this context, the upcoming Erdogan-Putin meeting in Russia will determine the fate of Idlib, the fate of millions of civilians and whether this worst-case scenario will happen.

The recent hot topic of discussion in Turkey’s political agenda is social integration of the 3.6 million officially registered refugees living throughout the country. Recently, I pointed out the rise of hate speech against Syrian refugees in Turkey in this column. Nonetheless, latest news show that some vulnerabilities still persist and Turkey needs to adapt a new strategy to fight against the increasing xenophobia and attacks on refugees.

Last week, the Istanbul Governor’s Office’s announced that Syrian refugees registered in other Turkish provinces but currently living in Istanbul have to go back to those provinces until August 20.  As a result of this order, unregistered refugees along with those registered in other provinces started to be sent out of the city. The whole incident was manipulated in the media as if all refugees were being exposed to forceful deportation from Istanbul. Nevertheless, the Minister of Interior stated that the reason for this action is for the monitoring and controlling unregistered and irregular immigration in Turkey and to avoid possible future problems.

In the first place, 6,122 unregistered refugees—1,000 of them Syrians—have been sent to repatriation centers. It seems that these numbers will significantly increase in the near future. Indeed, even if the number of registered refugees in Istanbul is approximately 500,000, it is a well-known fact that the real number is likely to be far higher.

The recent developments proved again that the main problem of Syrian refugees in Turkey is related to the lack of social integration strategies in the long term. In the beginning of the Syrian war, it was thought that refugees would return to their countries after the war would end. Nonetheless, it has been nine years since the war started and it seems that it will be not possible for Syrian refugees to return their countries in the short run.

According to UN data, the likelihood of refugees to return their countries shows a sharp decrease after five years of immigration. In Turkey’s example, it is not an exaggeration to say that a proportion of refugees will stay in Turkey even if everything goes well in Syria. Thus, Turkey needs a well-prepared social integration strategy in the long run.

According to UN data, the likelihood of refugees to return their countries shows a sharp decrease after five years of immigration.

Indeed, Turkey has a well-established institutions focusing on integration of Syrian refugees. The Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), Directorate General of Migration Management, the Ministry of National Education (MEB), and the UN are working together in the integration process of refugees. Nonetheless, since the number of refugees is so high in order to provide a healthy integration there is a need for an umbrella organization to provide more effective monitoring and controlling mechanisms for the long-term.

When it comes to short-term solutions, establishing “integration teams” as in Germany may be an effective solution to quickly solve day-to-day problems. Integration teams may provide effective solutions for emerging problems especially at local levels. This mechanism may also increase the daily interaction between Syrian refugees and the rest of population. As a bottom-up solution mechanism, this two-sided integration may increase awareness and recognition among the rest of society.

Thus, Turkey needs to adapt both short and long term resolutions for the problems of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Since tension is rising day by day, it is better to focus on more pragmatic and short term strategies in the first place. However, it is clear that there is also an urgent need for a long-term strategy to provide effective integration of Syrian refugees in the near future.

In the last couple of weeks, Turkey has been witnessing an increase of hate speech against Syrian refugees. While the first traces had appeared on social media channels, refugees became exposed to physical and psychological attacks in daily life. Even though this issue is still being ignored among the public, it is crucial to discuss the reasons behind this phenomenon and possible ways to fight against it.

Although the exact number of Syrian refugees is unknown, the estimated number of refugees in Turkey is around 3.6 million. Since the migration flow that began in 2010, Turkey has illustrated great success in building refugee camps and providing access to first aid services. Nonetheless, due to the fact that the war in Syria has not ended, it is not possible to host all refugees in these camps. As a result, refugees migrated to cities in order to start better lives.

Today, 87% of Syrian refugees in Turkey are living in cities. While Istanbul hosts the highest Syrian population with around 500 thousand people, Gaziantep, Sanliurfa, Hatay, Adana, Mersin, and Bursa follow suit. Although authorized institutions and organizations such as the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), Directorate General of Migration Management, the Ministry of National Education (MEB), and the UN work for the integration of refugees in Turkey, there is still much work to be done.

Contrary to all struggles to integrate refugees into society, some circles have shown enormous reaction to this from the very beginning. Unfortunately, some high-level politicians and prominent public figures have also shown the same reaction against all integration efforts in Turkey.

 It is not acceptable to use hate speech against vulnerable groups, such as Syrian refugees, who do not have equal chance to defend themselves in public.

It is very well known that every society reacts against social integration and cohesion efforts to some extent. Nevertheless, it is not acceptable to use hate speech against vulnerable groups that do not have an equal chance to defend themselves in public.

I personally know a refugee who suffers discrimination on a daily basis. A couple of months ago, I met a 9-year-old Syrian refugee boy who is a primary school student. He told me that most of his classmates bully him at school but that he prefers not to respond. Indeed, there are loads of other refugees that experience the same kind of treatment in society. This definitely needs greater recognition.

As stated, increasing the awareness and recognition of this issue is crucial to fight against xenophobia and hate speech, which is on the rise in Turkey. The role of public figures is especially important in order to create awareness in all circles of society.

I met a 9-year-old Syrian refugee boy who is a primary school student. He told me that most of his classmates bully him at school but that he prefers not to respond.

Since most of the acts on dehumanizing Syrian refugees take place on social media, there is a need of a well-planned strategy to fight against it. Some right-wing extremist politicians blame refugees for the ongoing economic problems in the country and the level of unemployment. Since their ideas become very influential and spread all over society, there is a need of urgent actions on this issue.

The rise of hate speech in all circles of society shows that it is necessary to teach the importance of tolerance and respect for diversity at schools. The Ministry of National Education conducts comprehensive projects to teach these values at primary school. Nevertheless, all circles of society should show an effort to increase the awareness of the danger of rising xenophobia and hate speech against Syrian refugees before it is too late.

The refugee crisis that reached its peak in 2015 was recorded as a serious test for both Europe and the rest of the world. In this two-year period, millions of people have crossed borders to save their lives, and thousands have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea. Many international organizations, particularly the United Nations, are urging governments to take immediate action in order to secure a safe and sustainable life for these people.

The need for resettlement

Resettlement is a tool that offers protection for those most at risk and to ensure more efficient international responsibility sharing. It involves the relocation of refugees from a country of asylum to a country that has agreed to provide them with protection. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, approximately 1.4 million refugees will need resettlement in 2019. In this context, the UNHCR set its annual resettlement target at 170,000. This of course does not meet the real needs. Given that the target was 100,000 in 2015 and 143,000 in 2016, theoretically speaking, we can still talk about a positive development. However, it also needs to be stated that less than 5% of resettlement needs were met last year.

“Resettlement is now more important than ever as a solution, and we must grasp this opportunity to increase the number of refugees benefitting from it, as well as other avenues for admission.” These words of High Commissioner Filippo Grandi means that the international community is aiming to improve both resettlement and refugee acceptance processes by applying pressure on governments. However, the extent to which these goals can be achieved is of course a question that should be kept on the agenda.

The refugee crisis that reached its peak in 2015 was recorded as a serious test for both Europe and the rest of the world.

The European migration crisis and its effects

The number of countries with a resettlement program was 14 in 2005 and this figure rose to 37 in 2016. These countries included the U.S. and EU countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. Considering that most migration movements originating from Asia and Africa are directed towards Europe, it can be stated that the responsibility of EU institutions and member states has increased. The process that began in 2015 when the internal conflict in Syria reached its peak has been described as the “European Migration Crisis.”

The famous EU-Turkey deal, based on the Joint Action-Plan (JAP) pertaining to the re-admission of irregular migrants to Turkey, has sparked off debates around the new EU strategies on migration management. Its implementations and commitments, in a way, directly affects EU-Turkey relations that have followed a fragile line for a long time.

In 2014, it became known that 216 thousand people reached European shores through the Mediterranean and this number exceeded 1 million in the following year. Both with the EU-Turkey Deal and the closure of the “Western Balkan Route,” the eastern Mediterranean crossings have significantly decreased. So, in 2016, the number of people that reached Europe via the Mediterranean remained at 362 thousand. It is estimated that 140 thousand migrants crossed over to Europe with this route in 2017. Even though there is a significant decline in the number of annual arrivals, there is a fact that news is often trivial: human life. According to official figures, at least 15 thousand people have lost their lives since 2014. Considering undetected accidents, this number is considered to be much higher.

Seeking for “legal avenues”

“Over the past four years the EU has made significant progress with tangible results in addressing the challenge of migration. In very difficult circumstances, we acted together. Europe is no longer experiencing the migration crisis we lived in 2015, but structural problems remain. Member states have a duty to protect and care for those they shelter. Continuing to work together through a comprehensive approach, in solidarity, and with a fair sharing of responsibility, is the only way forward if the EU is to be equal to the migration challenge.”  These words belong to the Vice-President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans. Ahead of the European Council in March, the Commission is today taking stock of progress made over the past 4 years and setting out measures still required to address immediate and future migration challenges. The Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship,

Dimitris Avramopoulos, said: “The results of our common European approach on migration speak for themselves: Irregular arrivals are now lower than before the crisis, the European Border and Coast Guard has brought joint EU border protection to a new level and together with our partners we work on ensuring legal pathways while stepping up returns. Looking ahead, it is essential to pursue our common approach but also to complete the ongoing reform of the EU’s asylum system.”

In an environment where millions of people were displaced and left their countries with the fear of being killed, the EU resettlement program only managed to reach 50 thousand in three consecutive years. In this three year period, arrival figures have been falling and currently levels are a mere 10% of what they were in 2015. In 2018, around 150,000 irregular crossings were detected across EU external borders.

In an environment where millions of people were displaced and left their countries with the fear of being killed, the EU resettlement program only managed to reach 50 thousand in three consecutive years.

“Burden sharing” and Turkey’s efforts

Even though there has been a decrease in the number of arrivals, EU member states seem to be reckless about resettlement. Considering the fact that Turkey is currently home to over 3.5 million refugees, it is obvious that there has been no concrete progress in burden sharing. In February this year, President Erdogan stressed this matter once again and added that Turkey has spent over $37 billion of its own national resources in sheltering refugees.

The international community and European leaders should realize that the status quo is not sustainable. In this sense, in addition to increasing financial support to Turkey, concrete steps towards resettlement should also be on the agenda. With the increasing tension in Syria and other crisis areas, new waves of migration may occur. In such a case, leaving all responsibility to Turkey will not be fair and will lead to grave consequences for Europe.

In the run up to the local elections to be held on March 31, anti-refugee rhetoric targeting Syrian refugees have started to appear in campaign speeches – a pattern that has been repeating itself since 2015. Some political leaders and party representatives have once again brought up the “Syrian” rhetoric in a negative way. An aggressive atmosphere for election campaigns can be regarded as a political convention. In democratic countries, it is only natural to observe a certain degree of tension. This goes for all democratic countries. But insisting on similar arguments in every electoral period shows that some limits may have been overstepped.

The exclusionist discourse adopted by the representatives of the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Iyi Party, does not only overstep the limits of political ethics, but also demonstrates that these parties violate fundamental principles and humanitarian aspects such as charity, justice, human rights, and the right to live. Despite that, the effort to consolidate the electorate by making use of the issue of Syrian refugees has turned into a manipulative tool for the members of these two parties.

Social provocation and Syrian refugees

The Iyi Party and CHP have bad records with regard to spreading anti-refugee sentiment that has lately come into prominence ahead of the local elections. Politicians from both parties have been engaging in activities that contribute to the production and circulation of discourses that aim to manipulate society. There are numerous examples of this. But it would be more than enough to just remind a few of the most provocative incidents, which were generally fomented by those who are antagonistic to the Turkish President Erdogan. For instance, in January 2017, Ozturk Yilmaz, CHP deputy chair responsible for foreign policy, issued a statement to spur anti-refugee sentiments in public by stating that Syrian men were hanging out with Turkish girls while Turkish troops were fighting and dying in al-Bab. This mindset was subsequently spread in the political spectrum spearheaded by the CHP and Iyi Party. Similarly, Muharrem Ince, CHP’s presidential candidate for the elections that took place on 24 June, 2018, said that the Syrian refugees who went to their hometown to celebrate religious holidays should not be allowed to Turkey on their return.

The anti-refugee discourse adopted by the CHP and Iyi Party does not only overstep the limits of political ethics, but also demonstrates that these parties violate fundamental principles and humanitarian aspects such as charity, justice, human rights, and the right to live.

There are a series of baseless biases on Syrian refugees, which are incessantly repeated by certain groups as if they are true. Some of the most common biases are often phrased as: “Everything is free of charge for Syrians, since our citizens pay for everything,” “Syrian students are accepted into universities without taking any exams,” “TOKI (Turkey’s public housing body) gives Syrians houses free of charge,” “Their phone bills are paid by the state,” “The state puts Syrians on a payroll,” and “Syrians do not work or produce anything. They are only a burden for our economy.” Although relevant state institutions have issued many statements expressing the inaccuracy of these claims, such rumors are still widespread in public.

The approaches of the opposition party chairs also reflect the same rigidity, which indicates that the opposition has lost its common sense on the political ground. For instance, CHP Chair Kemal Kilicdaroglu issued many statements promising that he would send Syrians “back home.” In a speech he made in Gaziantep in April 2017, Kilicdaroglu argued that the state shows greater care to Syrians than its own citizens, he constructed a polarizing political language by using the refugee issue and claimed that refugees are loitering in Turkey while Turkish troops are being killed in al-Bab.

The same goes for Iyi Party Chair Meral Aksener. Prior to the June 24 elections, Aksener promised to send Syrians back to their country during her presidential campaign. This was most probably employed as a strategic tactic. Aksener touched on the subject in many of her speeches and repeatedly promised to send all Syrians back to their country before the month of Ramadan in 2019. Consequently, considering the present conditions of the Syrian Civil War, it is not hard to imagine how such a scenario would trigger a lurid carnage.

As Turkey is approaching the March 31 elections, the same discourse is re-appearing and being re-employed. Within this context, the statement made by Hatay Metropolitan Municipality Mayor and CHP member Lutfu Savas on January 17 that, “If a Syrian refugee was to come forward as a candidate in the local elections in the districts of Reyhanli, Yayladagi, Altinozu, they’d certainly win,” shows that this constitutes the continuation of previous approaches. These can be interpreted as obvious attempts by political actors to consolidate their public bases by fueling anti-refugee sentiment.

Upon examination of the mentioned examples, there are strong indications that the anti-refugee sentiment is turning into xenophobia and in some dimensions carries similarities with far-right movements of Europe. The ostracizing attitudes of racists in Europe towards Turks and other Muslims are trying to be implemented in Turkey. Another point that should be stressed here is that the attitudes of the two parties regarding the subject of refugees is not focused on developing solutions. Aside from the suggestions that “Syrians should leave” and that there should be a reconciliation with the Assad regime “immediately,” the CHP and Iyi Party do not have any healthy suggestions in such a wide field.

There are strong indications that the CHP and Iyi Party’s anti-refugee sentiment is turning into xenophobia and in some dimensions carries similarities with far-right movements of Europe.

The opposition’s contradiction regarding Syrian refugees 

When examining the discourse employed by Turkish political parties that are trying to use the matter of Syrian refugees living in Turkey as a propaganda tool for the upcoming elections, a great contradiction can be observed. In order to deal with this problem, which has its roots in Syria, the Turkish administration under the leadership of President Erdogan, is engaging in intense diplomatic efforts both with global powers such as the U.S. and Russia and with regional powers such as Iran. Within this context, the Astana peace process, initiated with Russia and Iran, has come to a significant point. They are also negotiating with the U.S. in regards to the territory held by the YPG-PYD in the west of the Euphrates, as well as the presence of the terrorist organization in the regions east of the Euphrates.

President Trump’s announcement of the withdrawal of the U.S. from Syria, as well as following announcements regarding the establishment of a “safe zone,” which is in accordance with Turkey’s intentions in the region, show that these negotiations have yielded, and are likely to continue to yield, positive results. Undoubtedly, there are many unknown variables in the process. Due to this reason, delicate diplomatic efforts are being made as part of a long and arduous process.

In addition to these political processes, Turkey has also displayed its hard power capabilities with its military operations. Firstly, in 2016, Operation Euphrates Shield was conducted against Daesh. Following, in 2018, Operation Olive Branch was conducted in Afrin against the terrorist organizations YPG/PYD and Daesh. These two military operations yielded important results in terms of ensuring the territorial integrity of Syria with the removal of terrorist organizations, the destruction of groups threatening Turkey’s national security, and the safe return of refugees to Syria. President Erdogan frequently expresses to the global public that in the following period, Turkey will continue to shape its Syria policy with similar intentions. The fact that over 300 thousand Syrian refugees have been able to return to their homes as a result of these operations is important in understanding the political codes awaiting us.

In this context, the contradiction revealed is as follows: Even though authorities from the CHP and Iyi Party have established their campaigns around Syrian refugees, they have always opposed such measures and processes that allow for the safe return of Syria refugees. While the AK Party is making efforts to both protect Turkey’s interests in the region and to ensure the safe return of refugees to their countries, the fact that political movements expressing discontent towards the heavy presence of Syrian refugees in Turkey oppose such efforts shows an important paradox in their attitudes. As a result, it can be concluded that the perspective of these two parties regarding the refugee matter is not focused on finding solutions, but rather focused on using the issue for their own interests in domestic politics.

Even though the CHP and Iyi Party argue for the return of Syrian refugees in their campaigns, they always oppose measures and processes that allow for the safe return of refugees to Syria.

Two main reasons lie behind this discourse. The first is the effort to corner the AK Party and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as they were in power during the period in which Syrians fled the war and sought refuge in Turkey. The second has to do with the electoral base of the political parties that are trying to keep this propaganda tool alive. The political spheres that produce, attempt to spread and employ this discourse are seeking to motivate their public bases. It should be emphasized that this discourse, which has been built on natural problems that exist in the societal foundation within the context of Syrian refugees, is brought in certain communities.

Shifting to the far right?

So, how many Syrian refugees are currently residing in Turkey and how many of them have the right to vote? These numbers are shared with the public. According to Turkey’s Interior Minister, Suleyman Soylu, the number of Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey is around 3 million 630 thousand. The total number of those that have been naturalized is 73,820. Subtracting this number from those that are below the voting age, 53,990 people remain. Meaning that only 53,990 Syrian refugees will be able to vote in the upcoming local elections. Considering that Syrians that are eligible to vote live in different cities across Turkey, they do not have the capability to heavily influence any region and do not have the ability to change the results of the vote. Due to this reason, campaign strategies that start by putting emphasis on “Syrians” lack any real basis.

Looking at the elections held in Turkey since 2015, all four of them resulted with the victory of the AK Party. While the AK Party failed to receive the majority in the general elections of June 7, 2015, it received 49% of the total votes in the elections held on November 1, 2015, and formed the government. Again, in the constitutional referendum held on April 16, 2017, the proposal brought forward by the AK Party and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) was accepted and in the following presidential elections held on June 24, 2018, Erdogan was elected as the President of Turkey. The People’s Alliance founded by the AK Party and the MHP also achieved an overwhelming victory against the Nation Alliance, which employed a similar discourse in the campaign trail.

Insistence on igniting anti-refugee sentiment for simply gaining more votes pushes society towards the political right. And this will not benefit anyone in the long-term.

The language of propaganda that aims to incite anti-refugee sentiment does not have the capability to change the voting habits of the public in Turkey. It can be foreseen that the decision of political actors to employ this discourse, despite having experienced the above stated fact in the previous four elections already, will not do them much good. The only result that will be produced by their insistence on this point is within the context of an ideological shift in their public bases, pushing them more towards the right. And it is obvious that this will not benefit anyone in the long-term.

Yesterday the Turkish Ministry of National Defence announced that the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the demilitarized zone of Idlib was completed. The announcement noted that the Syrian opposition and other anti-regime groups had withdrawn heavy weapons from the demilitarized zone and underscored that “operations were ceaselessly underway to establish sustainable and enduring peace in Idlib within the framework of the consensus reached in Sochi.”

The announcement from Turkish Defence Ministry came after Lavrov discussed the progress in demilitarization of Idlib at a news conference in Moscow. Underlining that Turkey plays a pivotal role in the creation of a demilitarized zone, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov voiced confidence of the Idlib demilitarization process, noting that it was progressing well.

These reciprocal remarks come as the October 15 deadline for the completion of the demilitarized zones is drawing closer.

Sergey Lavrov told reporters in a news conference that: “The deadline for demilitarized zones to be fully functional expires on October 15. A day or two do not play any role, in any case, the quality of these works is more important”.

Turkey and Russia had agreed to jointly establish a demilitarized zone in Idlib which is seen as the last remaining stronghold of Syria’s opposition. The leaders of the two countries, President Erdoğan and President Putin met at Sochi in September and reached a consensus on the demilitarization process of the Idlib region.

The memorandum of understanding signed between the two countries called for the stabilization of Idlib and aimed to eliminate the threat of terrorism by forbidding acts of violation. The agreement stipulated the establishment of a  disarmament zone spanning 15-20 km in Idlib.

The pact had maintained that the opposition groups in Idlib would remain where they were currently located, while Russia and Turkey would jointly conduct patrols in the area to prevent potential new conflicts.

Mutual voicing of this renewed confidence by the two countries provides a positive outlook for the region ahead of the 15 October demilitarization deadline. With Syria only just starting to emerge from the atrocious conflict that was launched in 2011, with increased concerns over the refugee crisis haunting European leaders, some of whom are discussing the potential of shutting down airports after having shut down sea ports and turned away many boats carrying refugees midway in the Mediterranean sea and with Turkey taking the real lead in responsibility of the refugee crisis with over 4 million refugees, maintaining stabilization in Syria is of utmost importance for all the parties concerned.

EU member states are at odds again and are competing to shun responsibilities of refugees and asylum seekers. Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, who also serves as Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister, recently announced that they would shut down airports to planes carrying migrants from Germany.

Italy and Germany had been working on an agreement that would enable Germany, currently the EU member state with the highest number of refugees, to send back the refugees who had initially applied for asylum in Italy. While the agreement is not signed as of yet, this move sparked outrage amongst Italian authorities and Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini asserted that there would be “no airport there” to land the flights carrying migrants.

Aside from the basic dignity that these EU member states are depriving the refugees of, with France’s public burning of refugee camps and Germany losing track of 9000 refugee children -who have been speculated to have their organs harvested by mafia- still fresh in memories, the gross publicization of this row and the disproportionate reactions by EU leaders is beyond logic.

After hearing about mails being sent to migrants informing them of a scheduled transfer back to Italy in a week, Italian authorities were enraged.  Matteo Salvini said: “If someone, in Berlin or Brussels, thinks of dumping dozens of immigrants in Italy via unauthorized charter flights, they should know that there is not and there will be no airport available.

“We will close the airports as we closed the ports.” This remark is a well substantiated one as Salvini came into office vowing to reduce immigration. He stayed true to his promise and under his iron rule Italy closed its sea ports and turned away rescue ships in the Mediterranean.

EU’s Dublin regulation dictates that the asylum seekers are to be handled by the member state that they initially arrive in. Italy challenges this article and states that this regulation doesn’t account for the fact that most of the migrants arrive initially by boat and sea which places a heavier burden on coastal states like Greece and Italy whereas central member states are much less exposed to this “problem”.

This row takes place in the backdrop of Turkey who is hosting over 4 million refugees, 80% of the 5 million externally displaced Syrian refugees worldwide, and who has spent over $33 billion from its own national resources for this cause. EU is yet to mobilize the €6 billion that it had promised and handle a mere 1 million refugees among 28 member states.

Out of its initial promise a mere installment of €1.7 billion has been made to date. When taking into consideration the disproportionate fear and chaos that the notion of refugees plays in EU politics and its capacity to steer EU local elections, it is becoming more evident that EU is taking Turkey’s responsibility and humanity for granted.

President Erdoğan, speaking at a Turkey-Hungary Business Forum meeting, noted that Turkey has footage of refugees being left for dead in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas: “I say it sadly, the international community failed to fulfill its responsibility to find a solution to the refugee issues,”

Prevention is surely better than cure, maybe next time a hot conflict in the Middle East is about to take place, European states can act with better foresight.

Turkey hosts the highest number of refugees worldwide with over 4 million refugees currently residing in Turkey, ranks first in humanitarian aid globally and while UN has barely managed to provide a measly $0.7 Bn, Turkey has spent over $32 Bn for Syrian refugees.

Turkey’s rich history of hospitality continues to date as the country supports words with action. The World has largely remained silent to many of the atrocities over the last decade, with world leaders being “concerned” and international organizations “condemning” war crimes, few have taken actually responsibility to foster to the needs of the victims of ruthless wars which were waged publicly and thus normally bound to stimulate the consciences. Turkey has challenged the status quo, stood against the global inclination to remain oblivious and has taken the most progressive measures to aid the victims of wars.

Some of its European neighbors caged refugees, while some others burned their camps, while some “inadvertently” lost over a thousand child refugees, while others deflated the boats of refugees trying to find recluse midway in international waters, while others beat down refugees, while yet others publicly humiliated refugees, Turkey took tangible steps to provide food, shelter, healthcare, job opportunities, business prospects and social inclusion with sincere steps taken for integration.

The discrepancy between the rhetoric and action of many countries in their stance towards the bloody wars waged in the Middle East is repugnant to say the least. Publicly legitimizing & justifying whilst secretly waging and aiding wars, the “concerns” and “condemnations” of some countries undermine the intellect of the global community.

The conscience of the Turkish community has stood firmly against this violence and ruthless aggression and has demonstrated to the world what it means to be genuinely concerned. The largest donations in humanitarian aid globally come from Turkey. The Turkish community has always publicly and proactively protested those responsible for wars, whether they were Turkey’s “ally” or foe, they have taken to the streets to protest for days in front of various embassies or formed a human convoy stretching out of its borders against the atrocities that no true “human” should be able to stand idly blind to.

“Turkey has been an example in terms of hosting refugee populations. Over 3 million people are still living in Turkey as refugees. And I think really from that perspective, Turkey has been a model of hospitality and providing services to a population who was really in need.” Alanna Armitage, United Nations Population Fund’s regional director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, said in an interview with Anadolu Agency.

Whilst refugees, or the threat thereof, has become a political leverage to win elections in many European countries left and right, the world needs no more false mannerisms, feinted “concerns”, parades of “sympathy” or mocking “condemnations”, but real action. Turkey has backed its words with actions, it is time for others to do the same.

On Wednesday 20 January, head of the Union of European Turkish Democrats (UETD) and former European Parliament member Zafer Sarikaya stated how Turkey’s military activity in Afrin is important for the security of Europe.

According to Ceyhun, “Europe’s safety, NATO’s prestige and border, and protection of EU values begins on Turkey’s border.”

More, similar to President Erdogan and presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin, Sarikaya criticized claims that Turkey’s operation in Afrin was against the Kurdish population.

In regards to this, he stated: “Turkey is a country which embraced around 200,000 Kurdish-origin brothers from Ayn al-Arab [Kobani] in a day.”

The operation in Afrin has been held in high regard due to the fear of another migrant crisis. Already there are approximately 3.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey – had Turkey not intervened in Afrin, where the YPG terrorist group have been in control since 2012 – a new wave of migration could have occurred in Europe.

The YPG militants in Afrin have deserted the population in Afrin and have forcefully removed people (especially from Arab origin) from their homes.

Echoing this, Sarikaya underlined that “if terrorism in Syria is not cleared, a new wave of migration will occur.”

In addition to Sarikaya, another prominent European politician – former member of the European Parliament Ozan Ceyhun – emphasized how Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens that live in Afrin have suffered from the YPG’s terror.

“If Turkey had not intervened in Afrin, most of the civilians in Afrin would have to escape. This would cause a new wave of refugees.”

Ceyhun dismissed the criticisms made towards the Turkish government in regards to its activities in Afrin, calling the western portrayal of the situation as a “disgrace.”

Highlighting the importance of the Afrin operation for the security of Europe, Ceyhun stated that “If Europe and the EU want to protect their own values, then they should support Turkey’s operation.”

The International Organization for Migration (IOM), has urged all parties to meet their commitments on the European refugee crisis, stating that the EU-Turkey deal achieved significant success.

Speaking in Geneva, on Tuesday, IOM spokesperson Joel Millman said that the number of asylum seekers crossing into Greece had fallen sharply due to measures adopted by Turkey last year after the deal.

In March 2016, Turkey and the EU signed a refugee deal which aimed at discouraging irregular migration through the Aegean Sea by taking stricter measures against human traffickers and improving the conditions of the nearly three million Syrian refugees in Turkey.

According to latest IOM figures, nearly 23,000 people passed to Greece from Turkey in the first 10 months of this year while the number was about 170,000 last year, and 780,000 in 2015.

The deal also included a €6 billion ($6.8 billion) aid package to help Turkey care for the approximately 3.5 million refugees hosted in the country.

The EU promised to initially allocate €3 billion ($3.5 billion) in its first tranche for projects to support Syrian refugees. However, only €800 million ($930 million) has been transferred so far.

Ankara says it has spent more than €20 billion ($24.1 billion) from its own national resources on helping and sheltering refugees since the beginning of the Syrian civil war.

Rohingya crisis on the table in the UK

In parallel, an event attended by the Union of Turkish Democrats (UETD) and Burma Campaign UK held in the UK Parliament, was concerned about the intensifying atrocities against Rohingya Muslims.

Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, emphasized that thousands of children had lost their lives due to the restrictions on aid to Rakhine State.

Hosted by Lord Nazir Ahmed, the event “A Silent Ethnic Cleansing: the Rohingya Muslims” was and also attended by Turkey’s ruling AK Party MP Ziya Altunyaldiz.

During his speech, Farmaner describing the living standards of the Rohingya, stating that thousands of people live in squalid camps with almost no access to health care.

Giving examples of some horrific incidents that took place during the genocide against the Muslim minority in the region since August 25, Farmaner underlined that the Buddhist majority oppressed other minorities for decades.

“The current situation in Burma is the systematic failure by the international community to protect the Rohingya Muslims,” he said.

He called for the international community to reach a consensus in order to end the violence as soon as possible.

Until this day, the UN have reported 607,000 Rohingya Muslims that have crossed from Myanmar to Bangladesh since August 25, with arrivals still continuing.

The UN has documented mass gang rapes, killings – including those of infants and young children — brutal beatings and disappearances committed by security personnel.

If the referendum on the presidential system in Turkey was a close call for “no,” for instance with 50.1% of the total votes, no one in this world would question its legitimacy. It would have been deemed as a tremendous victory of the anti-Erdoğan wing. It didn’t come to pass and the bill passed the referendum with 51.4%. Then, it must be Erdoğan’s triumph! President Erdoğan received the public support by acquiring 1,300,000 more votes than “no” in a referendum which was attended by 86.4% of the eligible voters. Kurdish votes showing 10-20% increase in certain cities played an important role in Erdoğan’s victory,  who has been at the helm of the government for 15 years, first as the prime minister and then as the president.

A Turkey which is surrounded by wars, hosts 2,500,000 Syrian refugees, has been targeted by both Daesh and the PKK, recently overcame a coup attempt on July 15 Gülenist infiltrators instructed by Fetullah Gülen who tried to move the country into an unprecedented chaos. Considering the reactions of especially the US universities and think-tanks, along with some Europeans ones, there is a president who is being condemned for “surviving the coup attempt.”

A president who has been more eager than his predecessors in making Turkey a full member of the EU, who has recognized the Kurdish problem and commenced the reconciliation process, who has realized education reforms for thousands of women that were forcibly thrown out by the police and forced to leave their schools just because they were wearing headscarves, and who extended his condolences to Armenians on April 24 and asked for an international commission to research what has transpired during 1915 incidents… A president who embraced the doorkeeper of the hotel he was staying in Brussels, along with the German Chancellor Schröder, who calls and talks with his childhood friends, who has earned the love and interest of the people… The most significant political leader since Atatürk.

It has become ambiguous when it did happen; however, the said president started to be compared to the cruelest man of the last century, Hitler, deemed as a dictator and alleged for massacring Kurds with an elaborate perception management that was devised by the West. In a short time the anti-Erdoğan club became quite cosmopolitan: even Daesh leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, PKK, Gülen and his henchmen became the members of it. A fabulous cosmopolitan coalition of opposition! It should be mentioned that this coalition inevitably brought quite a support to Erdoğan and affected the result of referendum in a positive way.

Talking about Turkey, there are a few members of the opposition who voted “no” and constantly criticize as they want the system to become more democratic and have a robust judicial system. Nevertheless, whatever be the discussion, the “no” movement has always been spearheaded by the main opposition party CHP which comes from a Kemalist tradition. Justice and Development Party (AK Party) which has been governing Turkey for 15 years, has proposed numerous proposals about changing the 1982 constitution that was implemented by the junta.

The main opposition party opposed all of these proposals. This wasn’t surprising, as this is the nature of the Kemalist opposition parties. However, what is surprising is that the opposition party has never proposed a change or an alternative to the 1982 constitution, the same constitution that the all people in Turkey unanimously want to change. Let alone preparing a proposal that could worry AK Party, they haven’t even scribbled a draft of a constitution. Indeed, for 15 years AK Party and its leader Tayyip Erdoğan have been always challenging their own records in elections and broke them with unprecedented figures.

Erdoğan and his party that don’t have to worry about a legitimate opposition have overcome numerous illegitimate attempts aiming to depose them. The referendum was held under the conditions of the state of emergency that was declared right after the July 15 coup attempt. The subject matter was a change in the system of government; however, this wasn’t being voted in the referendum. It was between those who are against Erdoğan, both in Turkey and the world, and those who stood with Erdoğan.

Despite the campaigning since February, almost none of the voters regardless of their point of view are aware of either the so-called parliamentary system that grants excessive authority to the president or the presidential system which is different than the existing system. Among those who are aware, the objections of the main opposition party’s voters were not taken much into consideration as they refrained from criticizing the existing odd system and, moreover, as they were the ones that made it stranger. On the other hand, even though the AK Party voters were concerned about certain things, the “yes” won because of the trust in Erdoğan.

Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) which allied with AK Party for the referendum failed to garner the expected support. However, the Kurdish votes played a decisive role in the referendum by increasing support for “yes” in 14 cities located in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. Considering the vote AK Party garnered in November 1 elections in 2015, there is a varying increase between 10% and 20% in cities in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. The concerns for security, believing Erdoğan will resolve issues of the region and the reaction against PKK’s trench and urban warfare contributed to the victory. Moreover, there were those who voted “yes” as they believed that 1982 constitution is indefensible and it is impossible to resolve the Kurdish problem with the existing parliamentary system. For this reason, Erdoğan was able to increase its votes in Diyarbakır from 22.2% to 32.43%, in Batman from 30% to 36.48%, in Mardin from 30% to 40.96%, in Siirt from 40% to 48.1%, in Şırnak from 13% to 28.41%, and in Şanlıurfa from 67.8% to 70.82%.

As a result, it could be said that Erdoğan who is the indubitably the most prominent political figure of Turkey for 15 years has received less votes than his potential. However, the precedents of Turkish political history and sociology, along with the experience, show that Erdoğan will be able to maintain his government. Even if the transition to presidential system wasn’t realized, he still would be a powerful president due to the provisions of the constitution, along with being elected president in the first round with 51.8% of the votes. He himself was powerful before; now, his seat is also powerful.

A small portion of the AK Party voters abstained from voting “yes” not because of a concern about Erdoğan, but because they weren’t sure of the answer to the following question: “what will happen after Erdoğan?” Erdoğan, who will become the leader of his party due to the constitutional change, will probably take some steps that will answers the expectations and concerns of his voters, while also taking the Kurdish voters’ support into consideration. It is also highly probable that the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) which is perceived as the only representative of Kurdish politics by the international community will face new rivaling competitors in the region, beside their only rival AK Party.

In the meantime, the EU is trying to make its members accept around 20 thousand refugees in an equal manner. But all this is happening while thousands of people keep coming into Europe on a daily basis. It is hard to know for sure have many people are risking their lives to get to the European shores, but as an example, only in July 2015, 180 thousand people were recorded as refugees trying to leave Turkey and reach Europe.

Refugee crisis is putting the EU into a difficult position for two main reasonsز

That’s why Europe is not only trying to give its decisions about how many refugees to accept and especially what kind of refugees to accept, but they also look for ways to curb illegal migration.

Refugee crisis is putting the EU into a difficult position for two main reasons: first, the number of the refugees keeps growing and there are now many member states who consider “building walls” as the only way of protection. Second, because of the refugee flows, xenophobic and Islamophobic political parties grow stronger in every election. It is true that terrorist attacks committed by people from the Middle East is increasing as well, and that only exacerbates fears toward immigrants.

When they have elaborated these decisions, European leaders didn’t really ask themselves why Turkey would accept to keep the immigrants in its country. Besides, Russia’s actions in Syria has made it difficult for the Europeans to develop security, trade and energy cooperation with this country as if nothing has happened. That’s why the EU countries have begun thinking more seriously about Turkey.

The EU has urged Turkey to do anything possible to stop those people who keep coming from the East, and to make sure they won’t try to leave Turkey. In order to help Turkey to fulfill this task, European leaders have agreed to give financial and technical assistance. The problem is, whatever one may do, nobody can really stop these people determined to leave Turkey and reach the European shores.

So the EU had soon realized that Turkey can’t stop all the people who want to come to Europe even if it wanted to, that the migration flows will continue and besides, that Europe was no longer able to give more money to Turkey.

This is when the EU has understood that it is time to give “the” strategic decision: it was obvious that it is better to treat Turkey as a candidate country who can one day join in the European Union, rather than as a random neighbor country.

Partnership Conditions

Turkey and the EU have begun once again to treat each other as partners who discuss about ways to deepen their relationship, mainly because of the refugee crisis, but also because of Russia’s aggressive policies.

The new partnership has two main basis: first, stopping together the refugees and fight against illegal migration. Turkey has asked for more financial assistance in order to improve the living conditions of those refugees who will have to stay in Turkey. The EU has proposed to provide 3 billion Euros annually, but the existing European funds at the European Commission’s disposal were not enough to gather this sum. So the EU has first to find the money. It has been agreed that this money will not be taken from the accession funds reserved to Turkey and that the EU will have to find fresh funding.

Turkey has also reminded Europe about another important topic, which is the second base of this new partnership: the visa regime Turkey is being subjected to.

Only the IPA (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance) funds that haven’t been used and sent back to Europe by Turkey may be used in this context. Besides, the funding aims to help exclusively the Syrian refugees, but the EU hasn’t decided yet to whom exactly give the money in Turkey and under what mechanisms.

Turkey has also reminded Europe about another important topic, which is the second base of this new partnership: the visa regime Turkey is being subjected to. This is something the two sides should have discussed anyway, in the context of accession negotiations. In other words, this is not directly related to the refugee crisis. Let’s recall that the EU insists the visa regime’s liberalization will be linked to “readmission agreements”.

Visa regime has been liberalized for other candidate countries in the past without this link; but who knows why, the readmission agreement has suddenly become a pre-requisite in regard to Turkey: according to that, Turkey has first to implement the readmission agreement, and if the EU is satisfied with the implementation, the EU Commission will launch the complicated process of visa liberalization for Turkish citizens, in order to allow them to travel freely in Schengen Area.

The two sides have even given a deadline for the liberalization: end of 2016. If Europe doesn’t keep its promise despite the deadline, Turkey may very well suspend the readmission agreement.

The readmission agreements facilitate the expulsion of third-country nationals. So when irregular migrants use Turkish territory to go to Europe, European officials will be able to send them back to Turkey, and not exclusively to their country of origin.

The practical problem being how to prove those irregular migrants have reached Europe through Turkey, so the two sides must agree on the ways to prove it. By definition, an illegal migrant doesn’t carry a passport with official border gate stamps; so the only way may be to make the immigrants in question recognize that they came from Turkey. Will this be enough proof?

Visa liberalization is not without problems, either. As you may recall, France has recently decided to suspend the Schengen Agreement because of security reasons. So if countries start suspending the Schengen Agreement, we’ll not be able to talk about free movement, anyway. The European Commission has no solution on that, because they can’t impose anything to member states when this is about “national security”.

Accession Negotiations

Turkey and the EU didn’t only discuss what to do with the Syrian refugees recently, they have also discussed what to do with Turkey’s accession process. In other words, Turkey and the EU are not talking on the refugee crisis as two random partner sides, but Turkey is rightfully treated as a country which is supposed to become one day a full member of the EU.

Turkey is officially a candidate country for quite some time, but no new chapter had been opened to negotiation since five years. Turkey is especially insisting the EU to deal with the chapters that have been blocked by the Greek Cypriot Government; besides Ankara has asked the opening of the chapter on Economic and Monetary Policy. Moreover, Turkey has reminded that it is not being invited since many years to the EU summits, and told its European counterparts that it wants to figure in the family photos from now on.

The EU has accepted to organize every year two summits with Turkey and to open the Economic and Monetary Policy chapter. So, as of today, 15 chapters out of 32 are temporarily open, while negotiations in one chapter has been accomplished already.

By the way, the two sides have agreed to discuss about the Customs Union as well, and perhaps to turn it into the “Customs Union +” agreement by expanding its content.

Involved parties have the impression that the Cyprus reunification talks will come to a positive end around next April, so it is expected that the Greek Cypriot Government may lift its veto to the opening of several chapters: energy policy; foreign, security and defense policy; judiciary and fundamental rights; justice, freedom and security; education and culture.

From now on

Despite the “positive agenda” and the new roadmap, one cannot say that the EU and Turkey fully trust each other. As long as the EU doesn’t demonstrate its solid determination about Turkey’s membership, the distrust will remain. However, the fact that we have at least reached a point where we can open new negotiation chapters allows us to have some hopes for the future.