The Sochi ‘Summit’ was about More Things than Syria

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani pose for the media members in Sochi, Russia, November 22. 2017. (AP)
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani pose for the media members in Sochi, Russia, November 22. 2017. (AP)
TT
20

The Sochi ‘Summit’ was about More Things than Syria

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani pose for the media members in Sochi, Russia, November 22. 2017. (AP)
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani pose for the media members in Sochi, Russia, November 22. 2017. (AP)

With Russian-sponsored “summit” in Sochi on Syria over, attention is now turning to the forthcoming conference in Geneva, sponsored by the United Nations.

The shindig in Sochi, bringing together Russia, Turkey and Iran, has drawn mostly favorable comments, especially in the West with some analysts hailing it as “a major effort to end the Syrian crisis.”

But what was Sochi really about?

The answer is that it was about many different things and only tangentially related to “the Syrian crisis.” Not surprisingly, we have had conflicting views on what Sochi meant.

Syria’s beleaguered regime leader Bashar al-Assad has described Sochi as “a reassertion of Russian support” for his regime.

However, the Russian account of Sochi does not endorse such a view.

Russian President Vladimir Putin described the task of “the summit” to be “drawing up a framework for the future structure of the [Syrian] state, the adoption of a new constitution and, on that basis, the holding of elections.”

If you look to the future it means that you are not concerned about the here and now. And if you seek “future structures of state” and a new constitution, it means that the status quo, in which Assad is president, must end.

That Sochi was only marginally concerned with Syria and that Russia saw it as the trigger for a grander strategy is reflected in comments in the Kremlin-controlled media.

According to Sputnik, a state-controlled news site, Sochi was part of Russia’s aim of creating a bloc of “Euro-Asian powers under its own leadership” to challenge Western hegemony led by the United States.

“This week's Syrian Summit in Sochi between the Russian, Iranian, and Turkish leaders arguably represents a Mideast Concert of Great Powers modeled off of its 19th-century European predecessor,” Sputnik commented.

The reference to the 19th century “concert of great European powers” is to the notorious Berlin Conference which divided the world among European colonial powers.

Sputnik continues: “An exciting era of relations is veritably dawning as three of Eurasia's most powerful states strengthen their multilateral partnership and expand it to new horizons. Looking beyond the more immediate impetus that the Syrian situation has been in forming this Mideast Concert of Great Powers, the less visible trend has been the indispensable role that Russia has begun to play in promoting stability in the regions beyond its borders.

“To expand on this observation, Russia's 21st-century grand strategy is to become the supreme balance force in the Eurasian supercontinent, which explains why it's trying ‘balance’ the tri-continental pivot space of the Middle East through its Great Power diplomacy with Iran and Turkey in order to counteract the disruptive processes that the US has unleashed in this region ever since the beginning of the so-called ‘Global War on Terror’. Moscow's multi-polar mission has thus far been wildly successful, but there nevertheless remain certain obstacles that will have to be dealt with sooner than later.”

In other words, Russia is using the Syrian issue as part of a broader plan to create a Middle Eastern power bloc led from Moscow.

But, this is not how Turkey and Iran see things.

Ankara sees Sochi as an expression of support for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan by Russia and Iran.

Serap Balaman, a Turkish commentator reflecting Erdogan’s views, claims that Sochi provided a powerful boost following the failed US-backed coup attempt against Erdogan in summer 2016.”

In other words in Sochi, both Russia and Iran bought Erdogan’s narrative that the failed coup had been an “American plot”, a view not shared by many Turks.

However, Ankara hopes to get something else too: a military presence inside Syria to divide Kurdish-majority areas into an archipelago of separate chunks, thus preventing the creation of a powerful Kurdish bloc spanning northern Iraq, southeast Turkey and parts of Syria.

The Turkish move is labeled “Operation Euphrates Shield” and was at the center of talks by Turkish armed forces Chief of Staff General Kholusi Akar and his Russian and Iranian counterparts in Sochi.

“What was discussed by military leaders in Sochi directly concerned Turkey’s national security,” the conservative daily Zaman reported.

According to daily Sabah, close to Erdogan’s party, Turkey welcomes the division of Syria into four or five “de-escalation zones” under which Ankara will gain control of the Syrian province of Idlib.

“Idlib was one area where all three guarantor countries agreed,” he daily said.

“The 12 armed groups that control the city right now, with 15 other paramilitary groups linked to local tribes, will need orientation and guidance. Turkey currently has established a few military installations in the region to keep tabs on developments in Afrin, and asked for and received Russian and Iranian promises of help.”

The paper continues: “Turkey's biggest concern is the possibility of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) being seen as a representative of Syrian Kurds. Turkey insists that the PYD's People's Protection Units' (YPG) control over Afrin, right next to the Turkish border, is unacceptable and is considering a military operation to free the region. Afrin, an Arab-majority city, is currently under the control of YPG militants who pose a serious threat to Turkey. Turkey and Russia may undertake a joint operation to rid the Afrin region of terrorists.”

Again, we see that from the Turkish view at least, Sochi was only marginally concerned with the Syrian crisis as an overarching issue.

Iran, the third actor in Sochi, was in a peculiar situation because President Hassan Rouhani, who represented Tehran, is not the real decision-maker as are Putin and Erdogan.

Thus, Rouhani’s brief was to insist on only one thing: The possibility of Iranian troops and their auxiliaries, such as Lebanese “Hezbollah”, Afghan and Pakistani mercenaries in Syria to control a contiguous sliver of territory from Iraq to the Syrian frontier with Lebanon.

Tehran sources tell us that Putin and Erdogan did not grant Rouhani what he had been instructed to seek.

“What they offered in Sochi was a small patch of territory to the southwest of Damascus,” one highly placed source says. “That would make it hard for the Islamic Republic to pursue the policies of the Resistance Front.”

That Tehran, or at least the faction led by “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei is unhappy about Sochi was indicated in an editorial by the daily Kayhan on Sunday.

“The Syria that will raise its head from heaps of ruin, will definitely stay in line within the Resistance Front,” Kayhan, which echoes Khamenei’s views, asserted.

In a thinly veiled criticism of Russian “triumphalism”, Kayhan’s editorial said: “Even those who wear the clothes of friends cannot decide the political future of Syria through negotiations, plans and diplomatic moves.”

The paper then fired the decisive shot against Putin’s “historic initiative” by saying, “The fate of Syria will be decided by its people in the shadow of the power of the Resistance Front” led by Iran.

One thing is clear after Sochi: The three participants regard Assad’s fate as a minor issue to be sorted out once and if they have achieved their separate and conflicting aims.

Despite declarations of victory by Iran, Russia and Turkey, the Syrian war isn’t over. This is because a war is never over when one side declares victory; it ends only when one side admits defeat. In Syria, that hasn’t happened, yet.



10 Years after Europe's Migration Crisis, the Fallout Reverberates in Greece and Beyond

File photo: Migrants of African origin trying to flee to Europe are crammed on board of a small boat, as Tunisian coast guards prepare to transfer them onto their vessel, at sea between Tunisia and Italy, on August 10, 2023. (Photo by FETHI BELAID / AFP)
File photo: Migrants of African origin trying to flee to Europe are crammed on board of a small boat, as Tunisian coast guards prepare to transfer them onto their vessel, at sea between Tunisia and Italy, on August 10, 2023. (Photo by FETHI BELAID / AFP)
TT
20

10 Years after Europe's Migration Crisis, the Fallout Reverberates in Greece and Beyond

File photo: Migrants of African origin trying to flee to Europe are crammed on board of a small boat, as Tunisian coast guards prepare to transfer them onto their vessel, at sea between Tunisia and Italy, on August 10, 2023. (Photo by FETHI BELAID / AFP)
File photo: Migrants of African origin trying to flee to Europe are crammed on board of a small boat, as Tunisian coast guards prepare to transfer them onto their vessel, at sea between Tunisia and Italy, on August 10, 2023. (Photo by FETHI BELAID / AFP)

Fleeing Iran with her husband and toddler, Amena Namjoyan reached a rocky beach of this eastern Greek island along with hundreds of thousands of others. For months, their arrival overwhelmed Lesbos. Boats fell apart, fishermen dove to save people from drowning, and local grandmothers bottle-fed newly arrived babies.

Namjoyan spent months in an overcrowded camp. She learned Greek. She struggled with illness and depression as her marriage collapsed. She tried to make a fresh start in Germany but eventually returned to Lesbos, the island that first embraced her. Today, she works at a restaurant, preparing Iranian dishes that locals devour, even if they struggle to pronounce the names. Her second child tells her, “‘I’m Greek.’”

“Greece is close to my culture, and I feel good here,” Namjoyan said. “I am proud of myself.”

In 2015, more than 1 million migrants and refugees arrived in Europe — the majority by sea, landing in Lesbos, where the north shore is just 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Türkiye. The influx of men, women and children fleeing war and poverty sparked a humanitarian crisis that shook the European Union to its core. A decade later, the fallout still reverberates on the island and beyond.

For many, Greece was a place of transit. They continued on to northern and western Europe. Many who applied for asylum were granted international protection; thousands became European citizens. Countless more were rejected, languishing for years in migrant camps or living in the streets. Some returned to their home countries. Others were kicked out of the European Union.

For Namjoyan, Lesbos is a welcoming place — many islanders share a refugee ancestry, and it helps that she speaks their language. But migration policy in Greece, like much of Europe, has shifted toward deterrence in the decade since the crisis. Far fewer people are arriving illegally. Officials and politicians have maintained that strong borders are needed. Critics say enforcement has gone too far and violates fundamental EU rights and values.

“Migration is now at the top of the political agenda, which it didn’t use to be before 2015,” said Camille Le Coz Director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe, noting changing EU alliances. “We are seeing a shift toward the right of the political spectrum.”

A humanitarian crisis turned into a political one

In 2015, boat after boat crowded with refugees crashed onto the doorstep of Elpiniki Laoumi, who runs a fish tavern across from a Lesbos beach. She fed them, gave them water, made meals for aid organizations.

“You would look at them and think of them as your own children," said Laoumi, whose tavern walls today are decorated with thank-you notes.

From 2015 to 2016, the peak of the migration crisis, more than 1 million people entered Europe through Greece alone. The immediate humanitarian crisis — to feed, shelter and care for so many people at once — grew into a long-term political one.

Greece was reeling from a crippling economic crisis. The influx added to anger against established political parties, fueling the rise of once-fringe populist forces.

EU nations fought over sharing responsibility for asylum seekers. The bloc’s unity cracked as some member states flatly refused to take migrants. Anti-migration voices calling for closed borders became louder.

Today, illegal migration is down across Europe While illegal migration to Greece has fluctuated, numbers are nowhere near 2015-16 figures, according to the International Organization for Migration. Smugglers adapted to heightened surveillance, shifting to more dangerous routes.

Overall, irregular EU border crossings decreased by nearly 40% last year and continue to fall, according to EU border and coast guard agency Frontex.

That hasn’t stopped politicians from focusing on — and sometimes fearmongering over — migration. This month, the Dutch government collapsed after a populist far-right lawmaker withdrew his party’s ministers over migration policy.

In Greece, the new far-right migration minister has threatened rejected asylum seekers with jail time.

A few miles from where Namjoyan now lives, in a forest of pine and olive trees, is a new EU-funded migrant center. It's one of the largest in Greece and can house up to 5,000 people.

Greek officials denied an Associated Press request to visit. Its opening is blocked, for now, by court challenges.

Some locals say the remote location seems deliberate — to keep migrants out of sight and out of mind.

“We don’t believe such massive facilities are needed here. And the location is the worst possible – deep inside a forest,” said Panagiotis Christofas, mayor of Lesbos’ capital, Mytilene. “We’re against it, and I believe that’s the prevailing sentiment in our community.”

A focus on border security

For most of Europe, migration efforts focus on border security and surveillance.

The European Commission this year greenlighted the creation of “return” hubs — a euphemism for deportation centers — for rejected asylum seekers. Italy has sent unwanted migrants to its centers in Albania, even as that faces legal challenges.

Governments have resumed building walls and boosting surveillance in ways unseen since the Cold War.

In 2015, Frontex was a small administrative office in Warsaw. Now, it's the EU's biggest agency, with 10,000 armed border guards, helicopters, drones and an annual budget of over 1 billion euros.

On other issues of migration — reception, asylum and integration, for example — EU nations are largely divided.

The legacy of Lesbos

Last year, EU nations approved a migration and asylum pact laying out common rules for the bloc's 27 countries on screening, asylum, detention and deportation of people trying to enter without authorization, among other things.

“The Lesbos crisis of 2015 was, in a way, the birth certificate of the European migration and asylum policy,” Margaritis Schinas, a former European Commission vice president and a chief pact architect, told AP.

He said that after years of fruitless negotiations, he's proud of the landmark compromise.

“We didn’t have a system,” Schinas said. “Europe’s gates had been crashed."

The deal, endorsed by the United Nations refugee agency, takes effect next year. Critics say it made concessions to hardliners. Human rights organizations say it will increase detention and erode the right to seek asylum.

Some organizations also criticize the “externalization” of EU border management — agreements with countries across the Mediterranean to aggressively patrol their coasts and hold migrants back in exchange for financial assistance.

The deals have expanded, from Türkiye to the Middle East and across Africa. Human rights groups say autocratic governments are pocketing billions and often subject the displaced to appalling conditions.

Lesbos still sees some migrants arrive Lesbos' 80,000 residents look back at the 2015 crisis with mixed feelings.

Fisherman Stratos Valamios saved some children. Others drowned just beyond his reach, their bodies still warm as he carried them to shore.

“What’s changed from back then to now, 10 years on? Nothing,” he said. “What I feel is anger — that such things can happen, that babies can drown.”

Those who died crossing to Lesbos are buried in two cemeteries, their graves marked as “unknown.”

Tiny shoes and empty juice boxes with faded Turkish labels can still be found on the northern coast. So can black doughnut-shaped inner tubes, given by smugglers as crude life preservers for children. At Moria, a refugee camp destroyed by fire in 2020, children’s drawings remain on gutted building walls.

Migrants still arrive, and sometimes die, on these shores. Lesbos began to adapt to a quieter, more measured flow of newcomers.

Efi Latsoudi, who runs a network helping migrants learn Greek and find jobs, hopes Lesbos’ tradition of helping outsiders in need will outlast national policies.

“The way things are developing, it’s not friendly for newcomers to integrate into Greek society,” Latsoudi said. "We need to do something. ... I believe there is hope.”