Türkiye-Syria Earthquake: The Impact on the Turkish-Kurdish Relationship
The devastating earthquakes that hit the Northwestern region of Syria and the Southeastern region of Türkiye on Monday the 6th of February have brought several internal tensions to light for both countries. For the latter, the most salient issue lies in the Erdogan regime’s relationship with the Kurdish: constituting around 19% of the local population, it is the largest minority group in Türkiye. With the estimated death toll surpassing 20,000, this group has been distinctively affected by the earthquakes, given that the vast majority of the Turkish Kurds reside either in the Eastern Anatolia or Southeastern Anatolia regions, by far the closest to the epicenter of the disaster.
Considering the longstanding quandaries on Syrian territory and the several denouncements from Kurdish leaders of constitutional breaches and political oppression from President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, expectations for delayed or even restricted disaster aid for this group have mounted. Until now, both civilians and reporters have criticized the precarious or even non-existent assistance by the Turkish State, blaming the Erdogan-led government for the lack of responsiveness. In general terms, this appears to be stemming from the deficient disaster response capacities and an inadequate operative structure that hampers coordination at the local and national level, rather than a deliberate strategy to harm the Kurdish by inaction.
However, there have been reports that indicate that the Erdogan regime might be bombing Kurdish-majority areas in the North of Syria. These also relate to previous claims that the Assad regime had done the same, targeting rebel-held grounds near Aleppo only hours after the earthquakes occurred.
Despite this critical juncture bringing about an opportunity for gradual reconciliation with the Kurdish people, as suggested by David L. Phillips’s references to the 1999 “earthquake diplomacy” that took place between Greece and Türkiye fostered by U.S. policy officials, no signs of willingness to move forward down this path are shown by either party. The poor management of disaster relief efforts and the rhetoric surrounding them have highlighted the disputes among them, rather than bringing them closer to a joint undertaking of such a demanding challenge as assisting affected civilians in moments like this. For the time being, priorities are likely to remain short-termed, and closely related to humanitarian aid.