Kobani and the Kurds

DW: What sort of strategic significance does the city of Kobani have?

Günter Seufert: For the "Islamic State" ("IS"), Kobani is of great strategic significance because it is the middle canton of the three autonomous Kurdish cantons in Syria. From there, "IS" could more or less choose whether it wants to expand westwards or eastwards. In addition, it has a secure hinterland on the border with Turkey, because Turkey seems unable to commit to getting involved.

In many photos, we can see that Turkey has driven tanks up to the border near Kobani. What kind of psychological significance does the city have?

Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Turkish Kurds, started a peace process with Turkey 18 months ago. At the same time, he promised a social model whereby members of different ethnic and religious groups in the Middle East could live together, a model which was very strongly rooted in direct democracy and participation. People have worked very hard to make this model a reality in Kobani. That means that for the Turkish Kurds, and especially for members of the Kurdish Workers' Party, the PKK, Kobani has a great deal of symbolic importance as the place where the social model of their political leader was first realized. In their eyes, Kobani is a symbol of the future of Kurdish people in the Middle East.

Kobani seems to be besieged from three sides at the moment. The fourth side is the border to Turkey. Can people from Kobani flee to Turkey?

A large number of people from Kobani have fled to Turkey in the past few weeks. But Turkey has repeatedly closed the border to Turkish Kurds who want to travel to Kobani to support those fighting against the "Islamic State."

But isn't the border to Syria supposed to be closed?

It had to be closed mainly because of pressure from Europe and the US, which have for a while now been accusing Turkey of allowing all manner of Salafist and jihadist fighters to enter Syria via Turkey largely unchecked. That was a policy of Turkey's that continued up to five or six months ago. The Kurds accuse Turkey of maintaining this policy even now. At the same time, Turkey also has to protect itself from attacks on Turkish soil, whether from Salafists, jihadists, or from the "Islamic State." And to do that it of course has to control its borders. However, the question remains whether it should have at least allowed for humanitarian aid to cross, for example to Kobani.

And that is not the case currently?

That is not currently the case. The Turkish government has made permits for the transport of humanitarian aid dependent on Kurds fighting not just "IS," but also the Assad regime [in Syria].

If "IS" were to take Kobani now, what consequences would that have?

For "Islamic State" it would mean that the blow they suffered at the hands of Kurdish fighters in the Sinjar mountains in northern Iraq would be partly avenged, and "IS" would once again emerge as a force that cannot be stopped. For Turkey, it would have very grave consequences, because the Kurdish population in Turkey would equate the fall of Kobani with the end of the peace process in Turkey, quite simply because Turkish Kurds don't differentiate between themselves and Syrian Kurds.

The Syrian Kurds are largely related to the Turkish Kurds; they are partly members of the same tribal federation. In the 1930s, many Syrian Kurds left Turkey to move to Syria, and they speak the same language. For 20 years now, the PKK has been recruiting young people from Syrian Kurdistan to join the fight in Turkey. That all boils down to significant common ground, and in the case that Kobani falls, in part because Turkey allows it to fall, Turkish Kurds would see this as an act of aggression by Turkey, and that would bring the peace process to a halt.

The Turkish government has secured permission from parliament for a military deployment in Syria. So why is Turkey holding back?

It got this permission in order to be able to act freely, without having to ask parliament. The text specifically mentions the PKK and the Assad regime as actual threats to Turkey, but not the "Islamic State." That means that for Turkey, "IS" is not the top priority; rather, firstly its fight against the PKK, and secondly, against the Assad regime. Ankara's priorities are very different to those of the US, Europe and their Arab allies.

And is that one of the reasons why the Kurds feel as though they've been abandoned? The Kurds have demanded that Turkey get involved.

Yes. They feel that they've been abandoned and are extremely upset about the fact that the president of Turkey recently rhetorically asked the world why it is standing up to "IS," but not the PKK. In doing so, he equated "IS" with the PKK, something that is beyond all reason.

Günter Seufert is an expert on Turkey with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin.