Why can't the US call PYD a terror organization? - MERVE ŞEBNEM ORUÇ

Why can't the US call PYD a terror organization?

When the Syrian Democratic Union Party's (PYD) armed wing People's Protection Units (YPG) persisted on pushing Turkey's red lines in Azaz, Turkey took action from the border with limited intervention to prevent the new design planned in North Syria. As the severe clashes around Azaz continue, when Western countries like the US started to make statements on the intervention, Turkey's "While the US recognizes the PKK as a terrorist organization, why does it not recognize the PYD/ YPG as such?" debate was reignited. At the stage where the PYD and Syrian leader Bashar Assad's cooperation on the ground is nothing but obvious, it is now as clear as day that Russian war planes are working together with the PYD, which is attacking opposition and Arab villages having no Daesh presence, and the Assad regime, as it was reflected in the media as well yesterday, no longer seeing any harm in announcing they support the PYD, US President Barack Obama's administration is continuing to make "we don't see it that way" statements.

If we remember that at a time when Russia came and settled in at Khemeimim Air Base in Latakia, when it is any moment now before war planes begin hovering in Syrian skies, when Quds Force commander Mjr. Gen. Qasem Suleimani visited Moscow, and it is noted in CIA reports that thousands of Iran-backed Shiite militias together with Hezbollah have started to settle in around Aleppo, the US made the statement that “Syria no longer poses a threat to Turkey” and then withdrew its Patriots in Turkey within the scope of NATO, it of course does not surprise us that the Obama administration, despite calling the PKK a terror organization, sees the PYD as its ally on the ground. We can still try and discuss the US strategy behind this irrationality and objectify its ultimate policy.

The US classifying al-Qaida, the Haqqani organization and even Pakistan's Taliban as terror organizations, while it does not refer to the Taliban itself as a terror organization, may shed light for us in this sense. Under normal circumstances it might "absurd" for them to call "terrorist" the Afghan mujahids they hosted at the White House and armed for years against the Soviets, but as you know, the US frequently applies these and similar absurd policies in an appropriate diplomatic guise using the media, with the inclusion of certain games played by the CIA.

Why is it that despite listing the PKK, IRA, ETA and the FARC, which pose no direct threat to it as terror organizations, and even though it announced two years ago that it will award $10 million to anyone who gave information on the whereabouts of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, whose death was verified a couple of months ago, the US has yet to recognize the Taliban, which it has been fighting for the last 15 years, as a terror organization?

Due to the prisoner swap deal made last year between the US and the Taliban with the mediation of Qatar, this subject had resonated for a long time around the world. While the group led by Republican Senator John McCain was harshly criticizing the US's "negotiation with terrorists," the Obama administration was claiming that the Taliban is a group of "armed insurgents." Yet on the other hand, it harshly condemned Jordan for negotiating with Daesh to swap prisoners for its pilot who was abducted during the same period saying, "Ours is different, we are not negotiating with terrorists."

The swap in question included the release of the five top-level Taliban managers who were held prisoners in Guantanamo Bay by the US in exchange for Bowe Berghdal, the only US soldier held captive by the Taliban since 2009. If the Taliban is not a terror organization, why were the Taliban managers in question held at the US's gulag, Guantanamo Bay? Furthermore, it was the US that claimed the Taliban members in question were closely affiliated with Mullah Omar as well as Osama bin Laden and hence al-Qaida. What's more is that the US believed and was saying that Berghdal was abducted by the Haqqani organization, which is listed as a terrorist organization.

In fact, the Obama administration had not removed the Taliban from the terrorist organization list. The Bush administration had never included the Taliban on the terror organization list either. Although the Taliban had said, "If the US presents any proof that Bin Laden is guilty, we will surrender him," George W. Bush, who neither heeded this statement, nor said "it is a terrorist harboring a terrorist like Bin Laden" and included the Taliban on the terror organization list, did not refrain from bombing Afghanistan.

Even though these US policies full of inconsistencies have no rationality, it has logic in terms of its diseased foreign policy. It is likely that Washington is not designating the Taliban as a terror organization, because the Taliban has a five-year history of authority in Afghanistan's administration, and this may happen again, and if it does, they know that they know that they cannot stop it. This is like Hamas being on the list of terror organizations due to Gaza's status, despite winning elections, but Fatah no longer being associated with terror… In other words, the US has a plan for every country in this region, a governing design suitable to this and a terrorist list it has formed in parallel with all this.

Based on this, it can be concluded that the matter for the US is not only to seek and find an effective group on the ground and we can confirm that it foresees the PYD will exist in Syria's future, the YPG will be part of the Syrian army and the PYD will govern north Syria. Washington is brooding on who it will replace Assad with in Syria's future, this is why it is still unable to let go of Assad and in the meantime while telling the millions who have become miserable to “wait a little,” it is desperately holding onto a single “secular” piece of the huge jigsaw puzzle it thinks it has found. But that piece, unfortunately, is not a part of this jigsaw puzzle – it does not yet understand this.

+

Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.