Lobbying for North and Eastern Syria: The PYD-PKK's Strategic Framing of the Syrian Civil War in the US and the UK

Several studies on ethnic lobbying within the US/UK seek to explain what makes an ethnic lobbying campaign successful (Herner-Kovács, 2013; Kirk, 2008; Reese and Ramirez, 2002) and understand reasons/strategies for the mobilisation of ethnic lobbies (Koinova, 2014; 2013; 2011). They approach framing either as a facilitator in a successful lobbying campaign process or a strategy to explain the mobilisation of ethnic lobbies, however, they tend to ignore the role of framing itself as a dynamic process, and particularly the role of frames. This thesis develops a new perspective regarding the role of frames and framing in ethnic lobbying through a dynamic framing process, which includes the creation and presentation of frames/counter-frames (Kaufman et al., 2013) by considering the developments and the interaction between frames and counter-frames within the concentrated period. The thesis conceptualises three key political opportunities, the outbreak of the 2011 Syrian civil war, the withdrawal of the Syrian government forces from northern Syria in July 2012 with the start of the Aleppo battle, and the rise of ISIS in 2014 within the ongoing process of Aleppo battle for the Syrian Kurds’ lobbying efforts through framing. Through content analysis and interviews, it analyses the framing efforts of the Kurdish PYD, and as a significant component of the dynamic framing process, the counter-framing efforts of the Turkish government against the PYD framing in the US/UK through the Syrian civil war from March 2011 to 20th January 2017. The thesis argues that framing success is explained through the responsiveness of the targeted countries towards frames. Findings demonstrate that the US/UK’s responsiveness may not be merely addressed through the characteristics of frames, which can play an important role in framing success. These countries’ policy stances and policy objectives in Syria, which can also be understood through the dynamic framing process, must be considered while explaining these countries’ responsiveness towards the PYD frames. The US/UK’s policy stances and policy objectives in Syria are also essential factors to understand to what extent the Turkish counter-frames managed to challenge these countries’ responsiveness towards the PYD frames