UN Warns of Possible War Crimes in Turkish-Controlled Syria

Turkey-backed Syrian fighters in Saraqib, eastern Idlib province. (AFP)
Turkey-backed Syrian fighters in Saraqib, eastern Idlib province. (AFP)
TT

UN Warns of Possible War Crimes in Turkish-Controlled Syria

Turkey-backed Syrian fighters in Saraqib, eastern Idlib province. (AFP)
Turkey-backed Syrian fighters in Saraqib, eastern Idlib province. (AFP)

Armed groups in the area of northern Syria controlled by Turkey may have committed war crimes and other violations of international law, the UN rights chief said Friday.

Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the situation in those areas of Syria was grim, with violence and criminality rife.

In a statement, Bachelet's UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) said it had noted an "alarming pattern in recent months of grave violations", having documented increased killings, kidnappings, unlawful transfers of people, seizures of land and properties and forcible evictions.

The victims include people perceived to be allied with opposing parties or as being critical of the actions of the Turkish-affiliated armed groups, Bachelet's office said.

Those affiliated groups have also seized and looted houses, land and property without any apparent military necessity, said OHCHR.

Furthermore, increased infighting among the various Turkish-affiliated armed groups over power-sharing was causing civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure.

Turkey condemnation

The Turkish foreign ministry later Friday took umbrage at Bachelet's statement and "strongly condemned the failure to mention the Syrian regime and the PKK/YPG terrorist organization, which are the main cause of the violations in the report".

Ankara considers the US-backed Syrian Kurdish YPG group a terrorist organization linked to outlawed PKK Kurdish insurgents in Turkey.

"We totally reject the unfounded allegations against Syrian opposition groups" and the "baseless claims against our country in connection with these groups," it said.

The ministry in a statement also accused Bachelet of "undue criticism" and said Ankara would notify the UN of its "views and challenges" related to the report.

Turkey controls large stretches of northeastern Syria through various armed groups, and is conducting operations aimed at driving out Kurdish and extremist factions.

In October last year, Turkish forces and their Syrian proxies occupied a 120-kilometre (75-mile) stretch of land inside the Syrian border from Kurdish forces.

Ankara has also deployed forces in several military posts it established in northwestern Idlib as part of a 2018 deal with regime ally Moscow, while Turkey also controls a stretch of territory along its border in neighboring Aleppo province following a series of military offensives since 2016.

Call for investigation

Bachelet's office said it had documented the abduction and disappearance of civilians, including women and children.

It also said that from the start of the year until last Monday, it had verified the deaths of at least 116 civilians as a result of improvised explosive devices and explosive remnants of war, while a further 463 civilians were injured.

"I urge Turkey to immediately launch an impartial, transparent and independent investigation into the incidents we have verified, account for the fate of those detained and abducted by the affiliated armed groups and hold accountable those responsible for what may, in some instances, amount to crimes under international law, including war crimes," Bachelet said.

"This is all the more vital given that we have received disturbing reports that some detainees and abductees have allegedly been transferred to Turkey following their detention in Syria by affiliated armed groups."

Meanwhile Bachelet voiced concern that parties to the conflict in Syria were using essential services as a weapon.

"Impeding access to water, sanitation and electricity endangers the lives of large numbers of people, a danger rendered all the more acute amid fighting a global pandemic," she said.



Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Deal Compared to Swiss Cheese, Full of Gaps

Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)
Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)
TT

Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Deal Compared to Swiss Cheese, Full of Gaps

Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)
Israelis block road in Jerusalem, demanding agreement implementation and hostage release (AFP)

The ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal reached between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday evening is facing a crisis that could prevent it from going forward before it gets Israeli approval or is put into effect.
The agreement is full of gaps, much like Swiss cheese. Despite outlining three phases aimed at bringing the war to a close, it is accompanied by Israeli military actions that continue to claim dozens of lives in Gaza.
Asharq Al-Awsat reviewed the deal’s terms and the different interpretations from both sides.
The first issue comes from the opening of the agreement’s appendix: Practical procedures and mechanisms to implement the agreement for the exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners and the return to a sustainable calm which would achieve a permanent ceasefire between the two sides.
What does “sustainable calm” mean? In Israel, officials say it means Israel has the right to resume fighting after the first phase. Palestinians, however, claim US President-elect Donald Trump’s administration has promised the war won’t restart. Both sides interpret the term differently.
The goal of the agreement is clear: release all Israeli prisoners—alive or dead—captured by Palestinians. In return, Israel will release a “negotiated number” of Palestinian prisoners.
The exchange is set to begin on “Day One,” the day the ceasefire takes effect, but it's still unclear when that will be.
In the first phase (42 days), the agreement calls for “a temporary halt to military operations by both sides and the withdrawal of the Israeli army eastward” from “high-population areas along the Gaza border, including the Gaza Valley.”
Hamas claims the maps provided for this were incomplete.
Even though the agreement mentions “the return of displaced people to their homes and withdrawal from Gaza Valley,” people will have to walk several kilometers and vehicles will be inspected, which could lead to disagreements and clashes.
As for humanitarian aid, the agreement allows for its entry starting on “Day One” (600 trucks daily, including 50 fuel trucks, with 300 heading to northern Gaza).
This includes fuel for the power plant and equipment for debris removal, rehabilitation, and hospital operations.
But the agreement doesn’t clarify how the aid will be distributed or who will control it. Will Hamas continue to oversee it? Will Israel agree? If Hamas takes charge, what happens then? This could lead to further complications.
The criteria for the first phase of the prisoner exchange are clear, but the agreement states that “the prisoner exchange terms for the first phase will not apply to the second phase.”
Hamas wants more Palestinian prisoners released, but Israel rejects this. If disagreements have arisen over clear criteria in the first phase, what will happen when the criteria are more vague?
The agreement sets a deadline of “Day 16” for indirect talks to finalize the conditions for the second phase, particularly regarding the prisoner exchange.
One clause is seen by Israel as not requiring it to carry out the second phase, while Hamas views it as a guarantee to prevent the war from restarting. The clause states: “Qatar, the US, and Egypt will make every effort to ensure continued indirect negotiations until both sides agree on the terms for the second phase.”
However, the phrase “make every effort” does not create a binding legal obligation.
The agreement is full of gaps that could become major problems for both sides. While this doesn’t mean the deal should be dismissed, it shows that many parts of the agreement are fragile and depend on mutual trust and good intentions—both of which are lacking in this region.