I did not choose the title to be particularly provocative. Following the developments in Syria in recent days, especially on social media, such a view has emerged that some socialists ‘Kurdish hater and racist’ and on the other side ‘Kurds have become pawns of imperialism’ There was a crude generalization.
Let me say at the beginning what I will say at the end. Neither socialists are racist and anti-Kurdish, nor Kurds are pawns of imperialism.
The US and Israel's preference for HTS and Colani in Syria has changed the balance on the ground.
Both Donald Trump and his representative in Syria, Tom Barrack, have made it clear that the SDF was originally supported for the ‘fight against Daesh’ concept and that there is no longer a need for it.
But does the SDF's defense of their territory against ISIS barbarism make them pawns of imperialism? This is exactly the question that needs to be asked.
Remember those days. First in Iraq and then in Syria, the barbarian horde called ISIS was committing massacres, kidnapping women and selling them on the slave market. The Kurds, under the leadership of the YPG, defended their region against this barbarism with an umbrella organization like the SDF. This defense was supported by the Arab tribes and other peoples in the region.
But at the end of the day, when the US and Israel assigned HTS, or in their own words, the Syrian government, to attack the Shiite line in order to redesign Iraq and then Iran, the temporary alliance with the Kurds came to an end.
In fact, if the SDF was a tool of the imperialist powers, it would have accepted the mission offered by the US and Syria against the Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq and would have continued on its way much stronger in the new Syria. On the contrary, Colani and the Syrian interim administration, who accepted the task given to them in the imperialist design, aspired to this task.
It is well known that some socialists in Turkey reacted against the Kurds for not siding with the Assad regime during the Syrian civil war. However, after the start of the civil war, the Kurds siding with Damascus and establishing a defense line in their own region meant different things for the Kurds, as it meant different things for the imperialist plan.
The recent massacres against Alevis have once again revealed how the peoples in the Middle East who do not have self-defense are subjected to massacres when state authority disappears.
‘Terrorist’ the test subject ‘head of state’ is, ‘head of state’ the one who is ‘terrorist’ In the Middle East, where diplomatic alliances lose their meaning, self-defense stands out as the only force that can disrupt the equation. As a matter of fact, the Druze in Syria protected themselves from a massacre not only by getting closer to Israel after Assad, but also by not surrendering their weapons.
The SDF ‘central administration’ to HTS not to surrender its weapons. ’They did not abide by the March 10 agreement’ "the people who criticize the state of affairs do not pay any attention to this situation for some reason.
As if the interim government in Damascus is responsible for the massacres in Latakia, Tartus, Hama and Homs. ‘It was done by groups beyond our control’ as if he had made no such statement, without giving any guarantees to the Kurds. ‘hand over your weapons’ analyzed as if making the call is not handing the lamb to the wolf.
***
But the tensions are not only related to the situation in Syria. It has been going on for about 1.5 years. ‘Turkey without terrorism’ The suspicion that the relations developed by the DEM Party and the Kurdish movement with the People's Alliance could turn into an electoral alliance has led to the accumulation of tension against Kurdish politics in the left politics on the domestic front.
Despite repeated statements from the DEM Party that this is not an electoral alliance or that they will not be part of a constitutional change plan in the direction the government wants, the emergence of a picture as if they are on the same side with the People's Alliance, ‘let this government go and then we'll see’ but does not propose solutions to the country's fundamental issues. ‘dissident’ has led to a build-up of anger on the front line.
Is it so incomprehensible that this goal is not sufficiently embraced by the Kurds?
“There is no Kurdish people” CHP gave a badge to a member of parliament who said that the Kurdish issue was not only a Kurdish issue, but also a Kurdish problem. ’imperialist trap’ and in an environment where the Kurds have no concrete proposals for the solution of the issue. ‘let this government go’ How fair is the accusation that he is not willing enough to act with an opposition front that has nothing else to offer?
Moreover, even though the Kurdish political movement has acted together with the opposition in almost all elections since 2015!
“We will not make you president” as if Selahattin Demirtaş has not been in prison for nearly 10 years. ‘don't you dare’ What is the political and moral equivalent of a finger-wagging attitude?
It is obvious that a grand consensus, which has been built on the destruction of left/socialist thought in the country since September 12, has gone a long way in preventing socialist movements from establishing relations with social segments. For this reason, socialists unfortunately do not have enough power to come up with holistic solutions to the country's problems and put them into practice.
In terms of Kurdish politics, even though ‘the real holders of power’ the practical method of solving the problem with the nationalist/conservative sector. ‘our brothers’ any Arab tribe in the Middle East or a jihadist organization instead of the Kurds. ‘true brother’ and that once again they see it as such.
It is not possible to find a solution in favor of the peoples in this geography or in any geography of the world with a realpolitik equation that is independent of ideology.
In the last few weeks, we have once again seen the alliance formed against the Kurdish political movement's implementation of a secular and semi-socialist model on the Syrian ground, as in the case of the SDF.
A country that sees its raison d'être as the end of socialism and that even democrats in its own country ‘Communist’ It is only natural that the US regime, which labels the SDF as a model that can serve as an example for other nations in the heart of the Middle East, does not want to give the SDF model a chance to survive.
Imperialism can ally with anyone, from autocratic regimes to jihadist organizations, but it can never tolerate a model of popular rule. It can only make temporary alliances. Just as it did with the Soviet Union in World War II.
In fact, it would be useful for socialists to evaluate the latest developments in Syria from this perspective. If the SDF is really an instrument of imperialism ‘pawn’ If there was a force that accepted to be a force, wouldn't the authority given to Colani have been given to Mazlum Abdi, and the area given to HTS to the SDF?
Shouldn't we ask why the imperialist powers that paved the way for HTS, which took over Damascus with pickup trucks when Assad left the country, abandoned the country to an ISIS remnant regime instead of a better equipped SDF that acted with them in the anti-ISIS coalition throughout the Syrian civil war?
In these difficult days, the Kurds are more likely to be hit by a bullet from the enemy ‘from the rose thrown by a friend’ But despite everything, pitting the Kurds and the left/socialist sections of the country against each other will not benefit any people in this geography.
If there is to be a lasting peace in Anatolia and the Middle East, it can only be achieved in an equation where the patriotic forces of the region also expel the imperialists and ‘brotherhood of peoples’ will be possible with the regimes they will establish with understanding.
This is a historic responsibility for both sides.