I dream sometimes of going back to my journalism school in the University of Oregon, to discuss, in a pure academic environment, Mideast issues from afar, as I often did during my student years there. Then, I would be called upon to explain current events to researchers and journalists trying to make sense of our complicated world. Last night, I "imagined" helping a researcher understand the latest Russian-Turkish dispute. Since his questions are many, and the space of this article is limited, I'll save the answers for my next article. Here's his dilemma: "I am doing a report on the Russian-Turkish relations, after the downing of a Russian Sukhoi Su 24 bomber by a Turkish F 16 fighter. In the beginning, it seemed an easy task, but what has started as a typical aerial face-off, has turned out to be a complicated political problem. Here's why: 1. Turkey has maintained that its air force didn't know the identity of the jet. This is hard to believe. Since it was a close encounter, the Turkish pilots should have been able to see it was Russian not Syrian jet. Moreover, it wasn't the first incident. Many times before, as Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, made clear, Russian aircraft had violated the Turkish airspace. So it was safe to expect that they were Russian intruders, this time, too. 2. Turkey also says that the Russian jets were warned 10 times in 5 minutes. According to military rules of engagement approved by the NATO, they needed less warnings and time to engage. The Russian denied that warnings were issued and insisted they heard nothing. Since the Turks were using open frequency, couldn't there be a third party confirmation of either story? Lets' not forget that the sky has been full of civil and military jet activities for over a year. It was more so after Canada, France and US intensified their bombing campaign in alliance with dozens of other participants against Daesh (so-called IS) in northern Syria. Why no one has come forward with a recording of the Turkish warnings? 3. The Turks say they shot the Russian bomber after it entered their airspace, (even though it could have legally shot it, at the entrance if it didn't identify itself or followed calls to turn around). Russia (according to President Vladimir Putin) insists the bomber was inside Syria, one kilometer away from the border. Again, isn't there enough witnesses and satellite imagery to show were exactly was the Russian jet before it was shot? We are talking more than 60 nations, including superpowers and regional powers, with sophisticated intelligence on the ground and in the sky. How come no one could bring this feud to an end with bulletproof evidence? Also, some of the debris, according to Turkey, fell on Turkish grounds. Couldn't they be submitted as evidence that the downing happened on Turkey airspace? 4. NATO is supporting its member, Turkey, and confirming its story. President Barack Obama is standing alongside the Turks in this dispute, and finding their action legal and right. Still, if America has seen enough proof, why not bring it to the public opinion court, if not to the UN or Security Council, in order to silence the Russian propaganda machine? 5. Turkey started with low tone, then raised it in line with the Russian angry tonality, now it seems they have slipped to the "sad and sorry" tone. What is causing this? Less than anticipated NATO and regional support? More than expected Russian sanctions and reactions? Fear of political ramification on the Syrian political negotiations? Or the possibility of Russian revelation of possible Turkish links to Daesh? 6. Turkey is a senior member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and has strong regional allies, why no one has voiced any support? Why no OIC or Arab League emergency session was called to discuss the issue? Only the Islamic and Arab media are discussing the matter, but no official statement has been issued, except from the foreign minister of Iran who called for calm and de-escalation of tension. 7. If the reason for this "radio-silence" is to help in calming nerves, why no ally or friend of either disputing country has tried to mediate? I thought the UN would be interested in such a task. They are mediating in every Middle East issue, from Yemen to Syria, why not in this dispute as well? I could imagine UN Secretary General expressing his concerns and calling for calm, then visiting both parties, and assigning an envoy to follow up. Yet, he and his organization seem to regard the issue as non-relevant or less important." Dear readers, lets' discuss these valid questions here, next Tuesday. I need your help, so, please, lets' share thoughts and comments. Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi is a Saudi writer based in Jeddah. He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him at Twitter:@kbatarfi
