The geography of Kurdistan has for many years become a focal point of ecological destruction because of war policies. Policies of eco-destruction have been operated as an instrument of war. Güner Yanlıç, an ecologist and Co-Spokesperson of the European–Kurdistan Ecology Movement (TEV-EKO) Germany, spoke to ANF about the place of ecological struggle within the “Peace and Democratic Society” process.
How do you define the concept of “eco-destruction,” particularly in the context of Mesopotamia? When considering its social and political dimensions as well as its environmental impact, what kind of consequences does it produce?
First, it would be right to begin by defining eco-destruction from the perspective of social ecology. Although ecology is often translated literally as ‘the knowledge of the place we live, we define it as the knowledge of living in harmony and solidarity with one’s surroundings, together with humans as a part of nature. Destruction, on the other hand, refers to the loss of natural and social integrity, its exposure to plunder, devastation, and ruin on an irreversible scale.
Eco-destruction describes the devastation created on a global scale by the capitalist modernist system through the commodification of natural and social life, the implementation of industrialist policies, and the activation of a monolithic nation-state mentality alongside limitless exploitation and endless profit-seeking.
In my forthcoming book, Bleeding Valleys, I try to explain precisely the eco-destruction taking place in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is one of the clearest examples of this phenomenon. Here, it is possible to see clearly the assaults carried out jointly by the triad of nation-state, industrialism, and excessive profit. As a result of these combined attacks, eco-destruction is unfolding, and unfortunately Mesopotamia is turning into a crime scene of ecological destruction.
From the last Ice Age to the present day, Mesopotamia has been a region suitable for settled life, and it is being targeted with this very awareness. For the existence of nation-states, this region constituted the first wave of assault. The second wave stems from the fact that Mesopotamia contains historical evidence exposing the so-called ‘truths’ presented by those in power as nothing more than falsehoods.
Mesopotamia is being subjected to global-scale attacks by the capitalist modernist, male-dominated system, the Leviathan, aimed at erasing historical and social memory. These attacks, which result in destruction, continue uninterrupted.
In your book The Third Nature, you address the relationship between nature and society from a new perspective. What does this approach tell us about the role of ecological struggle in the “Peace and Democratic Society” process?
The Third Nature is a book I wrote inspired by Abdullah Öcalan’s approach that ‘ecological consciousness is the most fundamental ideological consciousness.’ I believe that Third Nature helps ecology and ecological consciousness to be understood on a correct foundation. With this awareness, I hope the book contributes to establishing the problem–solution equation properly and supports a healthy construction of peace and a democratic society by nurturing this process.
In The Third Nature, I begin with the question ‘What is ecology?’ and try to describe the model of ecological life that we aim to carry into the future. It is a book in which I discuss the problem definitions and solution approaches of social ecology, deep ecology, and environmentalist movements. I also seek to shed light on the disruptive effects of the teachings of habitus mechanics on knowledge production in the field of ecology.
War, security policies, and development projects often appear as tools that legitimize ecological destruction. In your view, how is the construction of lasting peace related to halting ecological devastation?
We must recognize that wars are projects of destruction resorted to by the capitalist modernist system to realize itself.
When the philosophy of ‘every demand creates its own supply’ became exhausted and could no longer respond to the resurgent need for exploitation, there was a shift toward the idea that ‘every supply creates its own demand.’ In this transition, wars were launched to turn supply into demand by destroying what already exists. Cities, historical structures, agricultural lands, water, soil, and all forms of life are being targeted. Through destruction-based war policies, not only have those responsible turned themselves into perpetrators of the crime of eco-destruction, but they have also transformed the entire world into a crime scene of ecological devastation.
The sole responsibility for all forms of eco-destruction lies with the modernity imposed by the male-dominated system and the policies that sustain it.
Ecology, as the field that most clearly articulates that wars are the greatest source of ecological destruction, has also been the one that has produced and expanded the discourse of peace the most. The language and practices of ecology have become the language of peace. The foundation of peace and a democratic society will rise from the field of ecology.
You argue that the ecological struggle cannot be separated from the struggle for peace and a democratic society. What concrete examples show how these two fields of struggle strengthen one another?
Social ecology, together with the peace and democratic society perspective that has internalized it, is fundamentally grounded in the commune and communalism. Democratic, ecological, and women’s liberation consciousness form an inseparable whole. The communes to be established must be shaped by this outlook. They should be free from separate labels such as ‘democratic,’ ‘ecological,’ or ‘women’s liberation.’ The mere presence of names, when the content remains hollow, leads to serious shortcomings. For this reason, communes must be built upon these three fundamental pillars.
The commune is a new model of life through which citizen-communalists, guided by social ethics and conscience, and acting with an awareness of freedom and equality, carry an ethical and political society into the future from the perspective of peace and a democratic society. Everyone should have a commune in which they can realize themselves.
To date, hundreds of communes have been put into practice on a communal basis. Even if the word ‘commune’ does not appear on their signs or in their names, all initiatives carried out with this consciousness, led by communalists and grounded in a democratic, ecological, and women’s liberationist understanding, constitute the commune; they are communal in nature and point toward communalism.
Today, local communities, especially women and youth, are standing against ecological destruction. What forms of organization and struggle are needed for the ecological movement to actively engage in the peace process in the period ahead?
For decades, women have been at the forefront of resistance against ongoing ecological destruction. Approaching life from a place that directly touches it, and able to build a genuine relationship with nature, women’s knowledge, sensitivity, and perspective, as a nature that has realized itself, stand on solid ground. With this awareness, women are becoming decisive actors in the construction of a new life grounded in ecology. From the Black Sea region to Hasankeyf, from Hevsel to Akbelen, women who have forged strong bonds with nature have emerged as pioneers of ecological life.
The imperial system carries out comprehensive assaults against local communities. These attacks are intensifying recklessly; everything related to air, soil, water, and living spaces is being plundered with a colonial mindset, and people are being dispossessed of their life spaces. In such conditions, local communities are forced into a struggle for existence. Wherever there are destruction, plunder, and devastation, resistance takes shape, and efforts are made to defend living spaces.
Young people now see very clearly that their futures are being taken away. For this reason, ecological awareness among youth is rapidly growing. It is deeply encouraging that the generation that will build the future possesses this consciousness. As in all fields, their leadership in ecology will strengthen communes that function in a correct and robust manner.
We must rid ourselves of the dominant teachings of the male-dominated system conceptualized by Abdullah Öcalan as ‘habitus mechanics.’ Such purification is possible through a communal life grounded in belief in the unity of nature and society and built from the perspective of peace and a democratic society. I believe that decisions reached through discussions aimed at correctly identifying the problem and its solutions will be the right ones. This process can only succeed by constructing a new life through communes established based on locally and contextually determined needs and demands.