Is there a silver lining to the EU-Turkey deal?

Is there a silver lining to the EU-Turkey deal?
Comment: The notion of a 'safe zone' may likely be exploited for military and political advantage, but, with the proper conditions, may instead provide a lifeline, writes Sophia Akram.
6 min read
10 May, 2016
Turkey might adopt the term ‘safe zone’ without meeting the necessary criteria [Getty]

While managing to circumvent many asylum obligations, both in terms of EU policy and international law, the EU-Turkey refugee deal is stunningly shocking, leading the humanitarian community to object and even protest on the ground.

MSF only last week announced that it would withdraw from the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul this month and has previously withdrawn from the Moria Camp in Greece.

The "refugee crisis" in Europe, which represents a fraction of what Middle East regional states are experiencing, and its management, is an omnishambles. Efforts to create a Common European Asylum System never really solidified, despite work to develop a blueprint for asylum seeking registration.

In practice, each of the 28 states have their own way of dealing with refugees, which have ranged from open pathways to riot tactics and blockades.

The agreement between Brussels and Ankara was an attempt to be innovative, perhaps resorting to realpolitik or short-termism, depending on your perspective. However, many will agree that from a victim or rights-based approach, it's a blow for protection, with predictions of false returns, discrimination against refugees and potential refoulment. Evidence so far has vindicated some of these predictions.

One of the points Turkey managed to get Merkel's sign off on was the eventual creation of a "safe zone" - in somewhat wishy-washy language - something Turkey has been wanting for the past four years.

"The EU and its Member States will work with Turkey in any joint endeavor to improve humanitarian conditions inside Syria, in particular in certain areas near the Turkish border, which would allow for the local population and refugees to live in areas, which will be more safe," reads the deal's text.

If there is a safe zone in the country itself, then this limits the number of refugees



A safe zone is a humanitarian measure, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law. Legislation does not mandate their establishment, but allows an official safe zone to be declared if certain criteria are met.

Obviously what happens in conflict is many civilians become displaced and, with little sanctuary internally, they flee for the nearest safe country. If there is a safe zone in the country itself, then this limits the number of refugees: something that Europe, and Turkey, are eager to see.

The worry is that Turkey will simply adopt the term "safe zone" without it meeting the necessary criteria. The scepticism stems from Turkey's track record of treating Syrians at the border, pushing them back into Syria and shooting at them, demonstrating that they are willing to close their borders - despite the threat to civilians.

So why does Turkey desperately want a "safe zone"? As well as keeping refugees out, some analysts believe the intention is political - particularly with the increasing threat from the PKK and what Ankara sees as an expanding autonomous Kurdistan - it allows them military control to counter such a possibility and increase influence in the region.

Why have they not yet established a proper safe zone? There is no appetite. A safe zone requires a no fly zone and considerable ground support, as well as agreement from all parties to the conflict. The agreement isn't there, and neither is the willingness to dedicate air support - let alone ground troops - among allies. The US has shut down calls for implementing a safe zone since 2012.

Read more: MSF pulls out of 'fig-leaf' humanitarian summit



Many look at previous attempts where international forces have been present, such as Bosnia, Iraq and Libya. In Bosnia, a most tragic consequence occurred after declaring the town of Srebrenica safe - the genocide of its inhabitants, civilians.

The primary purpose of a safe zone must be the protection of civilians: not to prevent refugees or prevent the other side's military advantage



What has made safe zones successful in securing civilian protection has been the ongoing commitment of resources, particularly air support and clear UN Security Council resolutions signed up to by all parties - where each party was sure it was not to be at a disadvantage from establishing the safe zone.

The primary purpose of a safe zone must be the protection of civilians: not to prevent refugees or prevent the other side's military advantage. It has to be done with impartiality and preferably with the assistance of the International Red Cross.

However, the lack of impartiality of all parties to the conflict has made humanitarian space difficult to come by in Syria and agreement for humanitarian aid to be distributed does not always happen. Hospitals - meant to be safe zones in themselves - have been bombed, so it is hard to see how or why parties would respect any such safe zone unless it is laid down in law.

Commentators have long said that a safe zone was not going to be sold - it was too hard to secure the support or military resources.

Now, however, safe zone proponents have a commitment from the EU to try and establish viable humanitarian spaces along the border - and the US is starting to provide military support; a "safe zone of sorts" without fully committing to it - its aim not for civilian protection, but to drive IS away and keep it out.

This can go two ways. Ground troops secure the area - "the Manbij Gap" - from IS; they make the area "safer" and drive out refugees from Turkey to place them in this new zone, allowing them to sit in a canton of vulnerability.

If Turkey attempts this option, the international community - particularly the EU - must come down hard to prevent the area being called a "safe zone" without fulfilling the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and a dedicated Security Council resolution.

If this is not done, the EU is a proxy to the suffering by agreeing to something with the foreknowledge that it cannot be achieved and would itself need to share responsibility for the consequences. If a real "safe zone" can be achieved, then what you have is some desperately needed humanitarian space inside the deadliest conflict of now.

The future of the EU-Turkey agreement is not clear, since Davutoğlu’s departure, but if Turkey is going to tread this road, even if not with humanitarian intent, then it must do so with an EU that has at least this amount of responsibility for protection: placing pressure to secure the criteria it needs for a truly safe area, which may save the legacy of this rotten re-admission deal.



Sophia Akram is a researcher and communications professional with a special interest in human rights particularly across the Middle East. Follow her on Twitter: @mssophiaakram

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.