In an in-depth interview with Medya Haber TV, Mustafa Karasu, member of the KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) Executive Council, spoke about the development of the process in Syria and the recent international conference held in Istanbul.
The first part of the interview with Karasu can be read here and the second part here.
To implement the agreement concluded on March 10 between the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) and the transitional government in Damascus, there are many efforts by various political actors. But meanwhile, there are some Turkish officials threatening North and East Syria. Hakan Fidan, Yaşar Güler and Ibrahim Kalin went to Syria and held talks there. The other days, attacks were launched on the neighborhoods of Sheikh Maqsoud (Şêxmeqsûd) and Ashrafieh (Eşrefiyê) in Aleppo and still seem to continue. How should this be understood?
The March 10 Agreement is an agreement between Sharaa and Mazloum Abdi. As we know, the mediator was the US. However, there are differences in the interpretation of the March 10 Agreement. Damascus interprets it according to its own understanding, and the influence of the Turkish state also negatively affects it. That is what prevents the March 10 Agreement from being put into practice. Otherwise, Rojava and its leaders are also standing up for it. According to its essence and content, they say that its requirements must be fulfilled.
Turkey’s approach in recent days is incomprehensible. Aren’t the Kurds part of Turkey? Isn’t the largest Kurdish population in Turkey? Their relatives are also in Syria, in northern Syria, in North and East Syria. For example, Turkmen are being embraced by them; they are seen as part of Turkey, and their rights, language, culture, and identity are defended. Why, when it comes to North and East Syria, is it as if the Kurds there, the people there, are foreigners to Turkey? Such an approach is unacceptable. Turkey needs to embrace the Kurds. If the Kurds there are going to have self-government, if they want to live with their own language, identity, and culture, why isn’t Turkey embracing this? Isn’t the Kurdish population the most significant demographic in Turkey after the Turks? Aren’t they part of Turkey? Their relatives are here. Is this how you approach it? Does any state treat the relatives of its own citizens this way? There is no explanation for this. All Kurds are one, not just the Kurds in North and East Syria or the Kurds who vote for the DEM Party in Turkey, but all Kurds; even the Kurds who vote for the AKP are relatives. That is what they need to realize.
The Turkish state’s approach is wrong. Doesn’t Turkey say, “Why is there war in Gaza?” “Why is Israel attacking Lebanon?” and “Why is Israel attacking here and there?” They oppose the attacks. They oppose the war and say there should be peace. But opposing war on the one side and conducting it yourself on the other side – how does that work? What kind of logic is that? Is Turkey going to turn that place into a war zone? Wasn’t it supposed to be peaceful? It wants peace in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, but it wants war against the Kurds. The Kurds and the Damascus government can resolve their own issues there. They can discuss and resolve them. This is Syria’s internal problem. For the Kurds there, it isn’t about separation or the fragmentation of Syria. There is no such approach.
Many powers are involved. It’s not just Turkey; other powers are also interfering in Syria’s internal affairs. The only right thing to do is to ensure stability in Syria. Stability cannot be achieved that way. How can stability be achieved by provoking, fighting, and pitting Damascus against the DAANES? The Turkish state needs to change its policy. It is constantly trying to force action through pressure and threats. This is not the right approach. It is not right to always use this method against the Kurds. This is the case in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. There is a conflict-free situation, a process, especially in Turkey. At a time when there is talk about where this process will lead, approaches need to change in Syria, as well as in North and East Syria. Turkey needs to think more strategically. Turkey is not thinking strategically. It always sets out with old concerns and cannot really think strategically or long-term. It is doubtful how much these short-term approaches benefit Turkey.
The International Conference on Peace, Democratic Society took place in Istanbul. How do you assess the discussions that have taken place there?
Generally speaking, we viewed the conference positively. Many groups participated, including the democratic forces in Turkey. An attempt was made to establish a connection between democracy and peace. The idea that the solution to problems lies in democratization is significant in Turkey. Today, there is a great potential for problems in Turkey to be solved on a democratic basis. However, it is being suppressed, silenced, and slandered. The nationalists are furiously throwing around words like “beka” (survival) and “vatan-millet-Sakarya,” (country and nation) as if democratization will divide Turkey. As if Turkey would face some unknown danger when it becomes democratic and the Kurds gain their rights. Because of this, Turkey’s positive potential is not coming to light. This potential is actually Turkey’s strength. Turkey has this strength, but it is not using it. They talk about Turkey’s soft power and so on, but actually, Turkey has quite a lot of power potential in this regard. But when the choice is not this, when the choice is suppression and silencing, then, of course, this democratic potential that was seen at that conference, the clear development, cannot become very effective in Turkey. But there is such a foundation in Turkey. There is a decades-long, even century-long struggle for democracy in Turkey and the potential it has created. This potential will eventually find a way in Turkey. In this regard, I congratulate those who carried out the work of this conference.
Leader Öcalan has a socialist understanding. He spent his entire life in the struggle for socialism. The 1970s were a period when socialism was most discussed, the struggle for socialism developed the most, and socialist literature was most prominent. During this period, the Apocu Movement made great efforts in the development of social ideas within Kurdish society. We tried to represent socialism not only through our ideas but also through our lives and relationships. We were not a movement influenced by petite bourgeois life or capitalism. We are, after all, a Kurdish poor people’s movement. We defended socialism strongly based on that social ground. Leader Öcalan defended it; I am a witness to this. At that time, I still was a THKO sympathizer.
Leader Öcalan pioneered the development of the revolutionary youth in Ankara. There was no amnesty in ’74; the old revolutionaries had not been released. Leader Öcalan took the lead. This is well known. He gathered the revolutionary youth in ADYÖD (Ankara Democratic Higher Education Association). After the March 12 attack, against the opportunistic tendencies that emerged and distanced themselves from the struggle, a genuine revolutionary left, a revolutionary democratic left, a militant left, and a leadership defending socialism became a reality. Leader Öcalan has criticisms of Marxism and of real socialism. That is, there is a stance put forward by Marx and Engels 150 years ago. It is very important; it changed many things. It developed a new school of thought, a new sociology, and put forward a stance against capitalism. It has its advantages, its disadvantages, and its shortcomings. At the stage capitalism has reached, there is a greater need for socialism, for an anti-capitalist way of life, and for an anti-capitalist stance.
People are saying things against the democratic socialist understanding of our leader, our movement, and the understanding of socialism. That’s fine; let socialism be defended, and let Marx be defended. It can be discussed; we have no objection to that. But we are a revolutionary movement, a socialist movement; we have our criticisms. Are we dogmatic? Will we never change? By saying we will not change, we do not mean giving up socialism or retreating; we mean representing socialism more accurately, not dissolving into capitalism. State socialism?! The leadership, our movement, does not equate socialism with the state. As he says, “There can be no socialism with power. […] Socialism comes with democracy, with a democratic society.” That is the basic thesis. It comes with women’s freedom. It does not come by praising industrialism. That is what real socialism did. This industrialism is consuming and destroying nature – everything.
In this respect, socialism has to be truly embraced. We want socialism to be embraced more. There is an escape from socialism, there is a melting away within the capitalist system, and there are petite bourgeois ways of life; these must be abandoned. We need to be truly collective, socialist, and communal in our way of life. But we also need to understand the criticisms made by Leader Öcalan. They can be criticized. Our leader puts forward a theory; after a while, there may be shortcomings in this analysis. There will be criticism, and there will be self-criticism. We engage in self-criticism, but we also need to understand.
Another thing is that we need to be more conscientious; more ethical and moral consciousness is necessary. Leader Öcalan is being isolated in prison. He cannot conduct an open discussion. Under those conditions, he is barely able to convey some of his thoughts. We are ready for a deep discussion with all leftist groups, socialists, and socialist movements. We must discuss. Discussion is not a bad thing. We adapt to be able to fight more effectively, to avoid being absorbed by capitalism. The most important thesis of our leader is not to be absorbed by capitalism. To be the true representative of socialism.
People may not agree with all of our criticisms or with some of our leader’s criticisms. But that’s a separate issue. It’s not right to attack us just because our leader criticized some of Marx’s ideas. That’s not a socialist approach. Some approaches aren’t about defending Marx. That is, criticism, self-criticism, and discussion of ideas are not for the sake of criticism but only for the sake of denigration and vilification. A Kurd criticizes Marx! Can a Kurd, a Middle Easterner, criticize the ideas of a European, some of his ideas?!! There is such an approach. I think we need to abandon these kinds of superficial approaches. Of course, there can be criticism; criticism is necessary. Some may not be accepted; they may not be understood at the moment. That’s possible; we can discuss it. Through mutual discussions, we can also put forward our ideas. All socialist friends and everyone else can and should also put forward their ideas.