Mustafa Karasu, member of the KCK Executive Council, spoke to Medya Haber TV on the implications of the new attacks on the ongoing peace process. Among other topics, Karasu gives his assessment of the resistance in Rojava and the particular importance of the role of women and (international) solidarity in it. He also talks about national unity based on democracy as a major factor of the strength within the resistance, while at the same time highlighting the dangers of primitive nationalism.
The necessary conditions have still not been created to enable Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan to live his life and pursue his work without restrictions. There has also been no progress with regard to the so-called ‘Right to Hope’ as a step towards his physical freedom. The parliamentary commission that was convened is keeping a low profile. How do you assess the current situation in this regard?
Eleven months have passed since the call for ‘Peace and Democratic Society’ by Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, on 27 February 2025. That is not a short time. Adding to this, there had already been developments in the weeks before. Before that, there was Bahçeli’s call. Leader Öcalan expressed that he had the will and the power to bring this era of conflict, this 50-year, 100-year era of conflict, to a legal and political footing. And indeed, he did take radical steps in this regard. Following the call by Leader Öcalan, we made decisive decisions and took crucial steps. The PKK decided to dissolve itself. We put an end to the armed struggle against the Turkish state. We made efforts to resolve issues with Turkey in a reasonable manner, on a democratic basis, and our people supported this call. There was continuous work to ensure the success of this call; Kurdish public opinion took shape, and there was a broad positive responding to our stance and approach. Then came the symbolic burning of weapons. Again, the friends pulled back from the areas of northern Kurdistan and declared their decision in a public statement. In this respect, we really did our part to a large extent.
We are a freedom movement. We are a movement that has been struggling for more than 50 years. It is difficult to imagine that any other movement could have achieved anything comparable. But Leader Öcalan demonstrated his determination, and took steps considering the situation in Turkey and the situation in the Middle East. Devlet Bahçeli also made his call in this way. He wanted such a step to be taken within the framework of the problems in the Middle East and Turkey. He said the organization should dissolve itself, and that Leader Öcalan should come to parliament and hold a speech there. The requirements for this were met from our side. For more than 11 months, Leader Öcalan has been patiently carrying out this process. He is pursuing the ‘Peace and Democratic Society Process.’ If every sentence and every line of the ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society’ of 27 February 2025 is carefully examined, it is clear that Leader Öcalan has put forward a call that will truly democratize Turkey, resolve the Kurdish issue and overcome all of Turkey’s problems. He has put forward such a program, based on a very reasonable approach.
This contrasts with the approach taken by the Turkish state, which, although it gave way to some talks being conducted (particularly by the delegations, but also by the family and one meeting with the lawyers), and that some of our messages reached Leader Öcalan, and that some of his messages reached us – thereby to a certain extent easing the isolation – however, these visits alone did not produce any significant results.
Eventually, the commission was established. We have been demanding this for years. Leader Öcalan has been asking the parliament to intervene and play its role for years. The main opposition party, the CHP, also wanted the parliament to intervene. So, eventually, a commission to this effect was established. The parliament’s involvement was positive and important in this regard. Because the only body that can address this issue is the parliament, which claims to represent the will of Turkish society, makes decisions on behalf of it, enacts laws, and amends the constitution. It was important for such a parliamentary commission to address the Kurdish issue. However, not much came of it. The commission did not take the approach of preparing public opinion, promoting democratization, or offering suggestions for resolving the Kurdish issue.
At the end, they went to a talk on Imrali Island. The minutes of this meeting were not fully reflected. First, there were four pages, then sixteen pages. They took excerpts from the minutes, but they took them from the whole meeting. They presented it to the public out of context. While the commission’s task was to propose legislation on democratization and the resolution of the Kurdish issue as a result of these meetings and discussions, they are mostly stalling.
Now the term for the commission has been extended once again. This time until the end of February. This commission was ambitious in name. It spoke of brotherhood, solidarity, and democracy. But it did not live up to its name or meet expectations. If there are doubts in society about this process, it is because of both the government’s approach and the failure of this commission, which plays a decisive role, to fulfill its responsibilities as required. As if it were not a commission dealing with a very important issue, and as if the government’s and the state’s approach were not very important, a situation emerged where they dragged their feet, only made some statements, but took no action. Most importantly, the situation of Leader Öcalan has not changed. He is still on Imrali, in that environment of isolation, and apart from occasional meetings with delegations, there has been no reflection of his thoughts in the public sphere, no meetings with relevant circles, and no meetings with representatives of the Kurdish community. Because Leader Öcalan would have prepared the Kurdish community, the democratic forces, and everyone for such a process. He could have played the important role in preparing for such a process, and he would have done so. He was not given the opportunity.
This concludes that the necessary approach for the process, the ‘Peace and Democratic Society Process,’ to move forward has not been put forward. Now there is also the attack on Rojava. The attack on Sheikh Maqsoud was followed by the attack on north and east Syria. There are now attacks in all Kurdish regions. This, in itself, is an irresponsible approach to the process. It is sabotaging the process, blocking the process. How can there be peace internally when there is hostility towards the Kurds in Syria?
Now, in this respect, this approach to Rojava really raises concerns about what the future of the process will be. We are informed that Leader Öcalan has sent two messages to the administration in Rojava, urging them to enter into democratic integration. Just as he strives to achieve democratic integration in northern Kurdistan, in Turkey, he wants democratic integration in Syria too. But democratic integration is not an imposition. He follows a holistic approach to democratization. However, these calls from Leader Öcalan were immediately met with such an attack. The calls by Leader Öcalan were ignored. If Leader Öcalan had been able to intervene, he could have ensured that the problem was resolved reasonably, without conflict. In fact, he warned, ‘Do not engage in conflict.’ He told the administration in north and east Syria, ‘There should be no conflict.’ But the Turkish state did not take his approach into consideration.
The state knows what Leader Öcalan’s approach is, what kind of solution he proposes for Syria, and what kind of democratic integration he wants. And he wants this to be achieved through discussion, through dialogue. However, despite this, it was not taken into account. On the contrary, with the provocation of the Turkish state, there are other influences too; Rojava was attacked.
The attack on Rojava is, in a way, an attack on the process. It is a provocation against the process. As a movement, we are part of this. Within this process, we decided to dissolve the PKK, created a conflict-free environment, and stopped the armed struggle. We took all these steps, but the Turkish state did not show a positive approach on this issue. On the other hand, it attacked Rojava, and the attack on Rojava became a direct attack on us. They bring us to the agenda with every attack, and when evaluating every attack, they add us to their agenda. This sabotages both the efforts of Leader Öcalan and the process itself, as well as our facilitative approaches. In this regard, how will the process progress? We are also genuinely wondering how it will be. Will it be possible to proceed like this? Leader Öcalan has brought us this far with patience, and we have also brought it this far with patience. But if there is no different approach, if the current approaches are not corrected, how will this process progress? It is difficult. There is currently a deadlock. This assessment, this opinion, is shared by almost everyone. Because after this attack on Rojava, who could possibly think that the process would proceed so easily?
The whole world is currently turning its gaze to Rojava, spearheaded by the Kurdish people. The barbaric attack in collaboration of the Turkish state, Daesh, and HTS, which began with attacks on the neighborhoods of Sheikh Maqsoud and Eshrefiye in Aleppo, has now spread throughout all northern and eastern Syria. What can you tell us about this attack?
Before coming to your question, I respectfully and gratefully commemorate Ziyad Halep and Deniz Çiya, who fell as martyrs in Sheikh Maqsoud. Again, on the 11th anniversary of the resistance of Rojava, I respectfully and gratefully remember comrades Gelhat and Arin Mirkan. It is these martyrs that show us the way. They show us how we should fight and how we should approach the situation. Without looking at the stance of the martyrs, without evaluating the stance of the martyrs, we cannot take a step; we cannot pursue a policy. They determine our direction, our line of struggle. They fell as martyrs by embracing that cause. We will do whatever it takes to lead it to success.
Now, the attack on Sheikh Maqsoud is not an attack on just any city. There really is an international conspiracy. On January 4, a meeting was held with Damascus, and an agreement was almost reached. It corresponded to the perspective of Leader Öcalan. An agreement had been reached regarding Rojava, and an announcement was to be made, but then the Syrian Foreign Minister came and intervened. He pushed to postpone the final statement. That happened on 4 January. On 5 January, there was the meeting in Paris. What was the meeting in Paris? Under the supervision of the US, under the supervision of France, Syria and Israel were holding talks. What the talks were about was also reflected in the press. Southern Syria and the Golan Heights – these areas were left to Israel. In return, they gave the Damascus regime and Turkey permission to attack north and east Syria, the Autonomous Administration. The attack on Sheikh Maqsoud marks the beginning of this conspiracy. It is not an isolated incident.
What happened in Sheikh Maqsoud is not an incident by itself. Immediately after Sheikh Maqsoud, they attacked the areas west of the Euphrates, and then they launched a full attack on all of north and east Syria. This reality points to an international conspiracy. And the international conspiracy gave Turkey and Damascus a role. Damascus and Turkey accepted certain demands in line with international interests, and on the basis of accepting these demands, they gave such approval to Turkey and the Damascus government. It is a dirty deal, a dirty relationship.
When evaluating these conflicts, one must naturally consider their international and regional dimensions. What interests necessitated such an attack? This needs to be well understood. Accordingly, one must adopt a political approach and take a stance based on this. If one does not understand this reality, one cannot wage an appropriate struggle. In this respect, the attack must be seen as an international conspiracy. Leader Öcalan has assessed this as a continuation of the conspiracy of February 15, 1999. Back then, it was the aim of the international conspiracy to eliminate Kurdishness and the Kurdish Freedom Struggle through the imprisonment of its leader. 15 February was carried out for this purpose. But we, as a movement and a people, fought against the conspiracy with great loyalty to our leader. And we foiled the conspiracy. Now this is a conspiracy reminiscent of 15 February. In fact, it is a conspiracy against Leader Öcalan.
It is known that the revolution of Rojava came into being as a result of the efforts of Leader Öcalan. Now they want to stifle the Rojava Revolution and, starting from there, stifle the entire freedom movement. Back then, they wanted to imprison our leader and, starting from there, liquidate the movement and the entire struggle. We face the same situation now. Just as we fought against it in the past and foiled it, we will fight against it again and foil it.
This is not just an attack on Sheikh Maqsoud or Rojava; it is an attack on the entire Kurdish people and all Kurdish gains. They want to prevent the Kurds from gaining status in the Middle East. This is the concept that Turkey is part of. In Turkey, it is still unclear where the process is headed. Turkey still does not want the Kurds to gain status with its policies and approach. It demonstrated this with its approach in Rojava. In this sense, this attack is comprehensive. It is a conspiracy against both the Kurdish freedom movement and the struggle of the entire Kurdish people in the four parts. If this cannot be stopped, if it cannot be prevented, the result will be an attack not only on the Kurdish freedom movement but also on the freedom struggle of our people in all parts. There is such a beginning. How this will develop now depends on our struggle. It depends on our struggle. Of course, it depends on the struggle of the people of Rojava. The struggle of the people of Rojava is very, very important, the struggle being waged right now. This will show where the upcoming process, the conspiracy being carried out, will settle.
The people of Rojava, young and old alike, have launched a comprehensive resistance against the genocidal attack. Kurds from all corners of the world are supporting Rojava. How important do you consider the continuation of this resistance and (international) solidarity?
Now there is resistance in Rojava, and not just the resistance of military forces, but the resistance of the people. Results cannot be achieved with the resistance of military forces alone. We are a popular movement. We are waging a struggle for freedom. We are waging a people’s struggle for freedom. A people’s struggle for freedom can only be successful through a struggle in which the people are involved. In this respect, it is important that the people in Kobanê and the other areas unite with the fighters and struggle alongside them. This applies to all freedom struggles. It applies not only to Rojava but to all parts of Kurdistan. Only a struggle in which the people are involved can be successful. It is, of course, difficult to achieve results only through the struggle and resistance of fighters and armed forces. Our people in Rojava are truly showing great sacrifice. They are resisting there despite all the difficulties.
It is crucial for the Kurdish people to rise up everywhere. What is currently being seen is an explosion of the accumulation created by 50, 100 years of struggle. It shows that there is a Kurdish determination. It shows that in the face of any attack, the Kurds will rise up everywhere in unity. This is very important. Such stances, such uprisings, such resistance always change societies. And the Kurdish society has changed. They staged dozens of uprisings. Particularly since the 1990s, uprisings have taken place in every city, every town, and every village. This changed society. Our 50-year struggle changed society in all parts of Kurdistan. This uprising, the people rising up everywhere, is not a spontaneous reaction. It is the result of the national accumulation created by decades of struggle raising the bar of patriotism and the Kurds developing their consciousness within this struggle for freedom.
Sure, there also is the spread of pessimism by some who say, “This happened here, this happened there.” Yes, there was an attack there. It was an attack by an international conspiracy. The Turkish State is involved in this. In this environment of attacks, naturally there will be retreats in some places. These are things that will happen in a fight. But the main thing right now is, of course, resistance.
There were drawbacks from Sheikh Maqsoud and the Arab areas. The withdrawal from the Arab areas is not wrong. By insisting there, the situation of international forces now exists. There is Turkey’s approach, and there are Damascus’ approaches. In this environment, waging a war there could have turned into something different. Their goal was to start a Kurdish-Arab war. It would not have been right to fall into that situation. Otherwise, they could have fought there; they could have clashed. But there was a withdrawal. It is not right to portray these things as a pessimistic, negative situation.
The uprising of the people that has emerged now is tremendous; it is a great power. It is a great energy. This situation shows that the Kurds will win big. It shows that if the Kurds fight, if they fight relying on this people, they will win. In this respect, these uprisings must continue; the struggles must continue. There is already a significant uprising in southern Kurdistan; the people are rising up. There is one in northern Kurdistan, and there is one in Europe. We salute them all. There is an important true spirit of uprising. This has boosted the morale of the entire Kurdish people. We need to remain convinced that we will achieve great victories with such a popular reality. We need to approach these uprisings in this way.
We have seen that a reality of a people who resist, a reality of a people who will fight for their freedom, has truly been created. Young people are coming from all over the world. If the doors were opened, a Kurdish military force of 100,000 or 500,000 people would emerge right now in Rojava. Let the doors be open; let there be no obstruction. All the young people will rush there. We must say that such a Kurdish reality is truly a source of hope and strength for us, for the future.
It was the deliberate aim of the gangs and mercenaries of Daesh and HTS to break the will and determination of the women. Against this, the women have even further deepened their struggle and formed a direct response. What can you tell us about the so decisive resistance of the women?
The resistance of women in Rojava is fundamental. Rojava has become a women’s revolution. There may be shortcomings and inadequacies, but if a women’s revolution has taken place in the world today, it has taken place in Rojava. Right now, women in Rojava are a force of will. They are asserting their will. They are organized everywhere. They reflect their own will in politics and in every aspect of life. In this sense, it is a women’s revolution. Women were at the forefront in the fight against ISIS. Because the ISIS mentality was the mentality of female slavery. With a deep awareness of this, women fought most actively against ISIS. They saw the fight against ISIS as a struggle for women’s freedom. Because the dominance of a mentality like ISIS’s means the enslavement of women.
The women’s freedom struggle in Rojava is exemplary for the world. It is an example for women around the world. They have added great strength to the freedom struggle of women around the world. With the women’s revolution in Rojava, the women’s freedom struggle around the world gained momentum. If this is researched and examined, historians, sociologists, and literary scholars can see that this women’s revolution in Rojava has had an impact not only in Kurdistan but also in the Middle East and throughout the world. And of course, these women are continuing their struggle. There is the global reaction to a woman’s hair being cut by an Islamist. This reaction from all over the world is an embrace of the Rojava revolution. The Rojava revolution is a women’s revolution; the world is standing up for women so that the women’s revolution there continues. It is clear that where HTS rules, women are slaves. They had established their own system in Idlib. Idlib was like a separate autonomous region. Everyone knows how women lived there. They were complete slaves. Particularly from this perspective, women’s resistance is very meaningful. And it needs to be supported more strongly. The women of the world need to support it more. It is also an attack on the struggle for women’s freedom. Just as it is an attack on the Kurdish people, it is an attack on all the gains of the Kurdish people.
The struggle for women’s freedom is also a struggle for democracy. Why was there so much attack on Rojava? In fact, what was attacked was the democratic autonomy, the democratic system, and the democratization as a whole. Turkey is an enemy of democratization. The democratization based on women’s freedom disrupts all of Turkey’s policies. Also, the international powers are enemies of democracy and enemies of women. What did Barrack say? He said, “There will be no democracy in the Middle East; there will be monarchy.” There is clear opposition to women’s freedom here.
That is why the struggle for women’s freedom in Rojava is so important. The reactions to the woman’s hair being cut were also very, very important. There is real sensitivity among women, and there is sensitivity around the world. There is respect, especially for the struggle of Kurdish women, and this is precious. In the general resistance in Rojava, women are playing a very effective role. Because they know that there can be no freedom in a place ruled by HTS. They are defending their country. They are also showing great resistance by defending their own freedom. I salute the resistance of women with respect.
How do you assess the approach of the political forces of the Kurdish people in regard to the ongoing attacks?
While Kurds are rising up everywhere, while Europe is rising up, while southern Kurdistan is rising up, while everyone is rising up, of course ,Kurdish politicians cannot remain indifferent to this. One needs to look at the relationship between the attitude of Kurdish politicians and the attitude of the people. It is positive. We have seen the way that the Kurdish political forces approach as positive, and in fact, they should be encouraged even more. Kurdish political forces need to come together and adopt a common stance. Kurdish political forces need to come together and determine a common policy. Kurdish political forces need to come together and establish a common stance. If any Kurdish political force takes a stance alone, it will not achieve results.
We particularly value the reaction of the people in southern Kurdistan. The people of Sulaymaniyah are constantly on their feet. With large demonstrations, they have become the vanguard of the people’s struggle in this period. Our people in Europe are also constantly on their feet. They are on their feet in northern Kurdistan too. That is what the political forces need to take into account. The Kurds need to create a democratic unity. When we say national unity, it must be democratic unity. Where there is democracy, unity is strong. Where there is democracy, there is support. Everyone supports it. Undemocratic unions are not strong unions.
Undemocratic countries, like Iran, are weak. They do not receive support from their people. For national unity to be strong, it must be based on the people by being democratic. Right now, the people are united in a way. In the social sphere, national unity has actually been achieved. Now, it is the responsibility of all political forces to politically realize this national unity that the people have achieved. The people’s struggle will force this. The people’s stance is truly one of unity. People with all kinds of different views took to the streets together. They took to the squares and supported Rojava. We value this. We consider the people’s stance valuable. We also consider the stance of the political forces valuable. They need to develop it further. They need to come together and determine what their common stance will be. If the Kurds and Kurdish organizations do not come together and do not adopt a common stance, would that be right? Would the people accept it? Also, these stances need to be timely. They need to be taken now. Because there is an attack going on right now. Kurdish cities and regions are being targeted for occupation. That means massacre, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. The, I think, foreign affairs assistant of Syria appeared on Rudaw the other day. They asked him questions about the Kurdish regions, and the man just said that “there is no such thing as a Kurdish region.” And he said they will take the areas. He said the same with regard to the Druze. Monolithic approach… They are trying to impose their nationalist, chauvinist mentality and their deviant, Islam-unrelated religious understanding on everyone else. This is the situation. Naturally, Kurdish political forces need to take a stance against this.
In the wake of the attacks on Rojava, nationalist circles have also gained popularity again, attacking in particular the concept of the ‘Democratic Nation’ developed by Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan.
This truly is an important issue. Attacking the concept of the Democratic Nation is reactionary. The Turkish State has a policy, and there are certain approaches to the policies of Damascus and HTS. Reacting to these approaches by attacking the Democratic Nation, which expresses the brotherhood of peoples and the common life of peoples, is a great danger, especially for the Kurds. All Kurds should defend the concept of the Democratic Nation with the utmost determination. If the concept of the Democratic Nation does not exist in the Middle East, if we do not struggle against this nation-state concept, this monolithic concept, the Kurds will always face genocide. They will always live under the threat of genocide. Attacking the concept of Democratic Nation actually means exposing the Kurds to genocide, separating the Kurds from the democratic forces, and distancing them from the democratic circles of other peoples. It is naturally a nationalist approach, a narrow nationalist approach. And nationalism is not such a good thing. Especially not today. The ideology of nationalism is the ideology of the nation-state. It is the ideology of dominant nations oppressing other nations.
At a time when Kurds have not gained their freedom, they have not built their own self-administration, and there are policies of Kurdish genocide in the Middle East, one cannot stand against this with a nationalist approach. With a nationalist approach, it is impossible for the Kurds to have a future. This is a reactionary approach in the 21st century. Where there is nationalism, there is inevitably hostility towards other peoples.
Why is there so much hostility towards the Kurds in Turkey? It is because of that nationalist ideology. Why is there such hostility in Syria today? It is because of that nationalist ideology. It is the same in Iran. It is truly wrong to view nationalism positively. If nationalism is good, what about what Turkey does to Arabs or what Iran does? Some say that the nationalism of the oppressed nation is good, but the other is bad. That is wrong. The patriotism of the oppressed nation is right; its struggle is right. The struggle for freedom is right. The struggle of the oppressed nation against whoever establishes hegemony over it is legitimate. It must be fought to the end. This is the duty of patriotism. This is the love of freedom, the desire for democracy. These are beautiful things, but nationalist approaches are wrong. It is wrong to lean towards nationalism.
Right now, the Kurds command respect around the world, and that is because they do not adhere to a nationalist ideology, because they embrace the concept of a Democratic Nation, and because they embrace the concept of women’s freedom. Because the paradigm of a women’s freedom-oriented, democratic ecological society, the concept of a Democratic Nation created by Leader Öcalan is correct, the Kurds are respected in the world today. This is where the Kurds’ respectability comes from. It is considered a democratic mindset. Nationalism and democracy cannot coexist.
Wherever there is nationalism in the world, there is an authoritarian system. All authoritarian systems develop through nationalism. They talk about external enemies, internal enemies, this enemy, and that enemy, and based on this, establish their authoritarian system. The source of all authoritarian systems is that nationalist mindset of creating an enemy if there isn’t one. That’s how authoritarianism arises, how dictatorship arises. Turks, Arabs, and Persians did so, so that they could commit genocide against the Kurds. Genocide is only made possible by nationalism. And there still is such a policy of genocide against the Kurds. In this environment, it is wrong to attack the concept of Democratic Nation of Leader Öcalan. It is not wrong for us to seek a solution with Turkey. It is not wrong to seek democratic integration in Syria. Turkey may not come to this; the other may not come to this. That is their problem. If they attack, the Kurdish people will fight.
Opposing the concept of Democratic Nation and adopting such a narrow nationalist approach is dangerous. Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, has initiated a process and is carrying it out. He has also declared ceasefires before. The nationalist forces want this process to be disrupted; they don’t want any progress to be made. They say that the brotherhood of peoples won’t work. Then what will work? They say that nationalism will work. For this, they want to wage war and create hostility. If they attack, there will be resistance. It is everyone’s right to resist attacks. Then the first question to ask is whether to resist. Those who have not made sacrifices, who have not fought, and who have not made a serious contribution to the Kurdish people’s struggle to reach this point are attacking the concept of Democratic Nation according to their own views. They try to say this and that about our movement. These are demagoguery. Leader Öcalan looks back at the experience of 52 years of struggle. We have our struggle that began under his initiative. This struggle has brought many achievements.
It is not right to be hostile to Arabs, to be hostile to these people, or to be opposed to them because of developments in Rojava. They wanted to start an Arab-Kurdish war; they wanted to create Arab-Kurdish antagonism. This does not benefit the Kurds. They want to start a war that at the end will lead to a Kurdish genocide. If it weren’t for the Democratic Nation concept, they would have started a Kurdish-Arab war five or six years ago. HTS came with the aim of starting a Kurdish-Arab war, but they failed. They are acting with international support, with the support of the Turkish Republic, and with the support of external powers.
But one shall not forget that there are thousands of Arab martyrs who gave their lives for the democratic struggle. HTS destroyed the graves of many of those Arab martyrs. We are truly enraged as we hear about it. It is a reactionary mentality. Those minds prepare the ground for a Kurdish genocide. They pave the way for a Kurdish genocide. In the struggle, the fundamental principle is always to reduce the enemy and increase the friends. The Democratic Nation is about increasing friends and reducing enemies for the Kurds. In this sense, we see these as malicious; if this process is disrupted, it won’t work, there will be no brotherhood among peoples, and there will be no democratic nation.
Patriotism, deep patriotism, is rooted in Leader Öcalan and the struggle of the PKK has created patriotic awareness in the Kurdish people. If it is about embracing the Kurds, embracing Kurdishness, it is clear how we have carried out this struggle for 50 years, with what sacrifice. In this sense, no one can achieve anything by engaging in demagoguery and confusing people.
Of course, there are emotional approaches, and there are reactions from our people. There are policies of the Turkish state, there are massacres, and there are reactions to them. Reacting with anger leads to hostility toward the Arab people and nationalist tendencies. These are emotional reactions, and I am not saying anything about them. They are emotional reactions, reactions that will always arise from within the people, but what is necessary is the democratic understanding of nation. Nationalism must be abandoned. There is no place for it within the Kurdish people.
What purpose does it serve the Turkish state to launch such attacks on northern and eastern Syria right now, when discussions are underway about renewing and refreshing the brotherhood between the Kurds and Turks?
The Turkish State is involved in this war, both in its planning beforehand and in its guidance now. It is an undeniable fact. One has to simply turn on Turkish television, and one will see that the Turkish state is involved and guiding it. All AKP officials are making statements showing that they are involved. The Minister of National Defense says they will provide support if requested. In fact, that is not true – they are already providing support. In this respect, the Turkish state is involved in this matter.
While Kurds are being killed in Rojava, while Kurds are being besieged, left hungry and thirsty, while Kurdish regions are under attack and the attackers are being supported, what kind of Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood are they talking about? Is this what Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood looks like? Are the Kurds in northern Kurdistan, in Turkey, brothers, and the other Kurds enemies? Can such a thing be possible? Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood has truly become demagoguery. In practice, respect for the Kurds is necessary. Their rights and laws must be guaranteed. When there is an attack on Kurds, Turkey must take responsibility for it in a brotherly manner. In this respect, no one takes this issue seriously anymore. How can Kurds take Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood seriously? Is this how you treat a brother?
The Turkish State is actively involved in the conflict. It is operating both UAVs and UCAVs, and it is launching attacks alongside them. It is engaged in open warfare. This is not just the war of HTS. HTS could not fight alone anyway. HTS does not have the military strength for this. The Syrian army? What Syrian army? The Turkish state immediately deploys its UAVs and UCAVs when HTS is under pressure.
This policy will cost Turkey dearly in the future. It will remain a black mark on Turkey’s history. Because it will live side by side with the Kurds. Turks and Kurds will live side by side. There are now 6-7 million Kurds in the metropolitan areas. This is a social reality. Turkey will regret what it has done in the future.
The statements made by Hakan Fidan, Yaşar Güler, and Ömer Çelik regarding the attacks on northern and eastern Syria openly reflect their opposition to the ongoing process. How do you assess this?
There is no need to evaluate their role and statements regarding the attacks on Aleppo and north and east Syria and regarding the process. The practice is clear. There is a constant attack on Rojava, on the Kurds, and there is a clear stance against this.
Would someone who wants to bring the process to a conclusion, who proposes and thinks of a solution based on Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood, carry out these attacks? In this sense, it has gone beyond evaluation; in practice, there is their opposition to the process. The process has been sabotaged. The government openly supports Damascus, supports Damascus’ policy in Sheikh Maqsoud, and supports its attacks now. They say “all terrorism will be eradicated there.” What terrorism will be eradicated? They want to erase the Kurds. In this sense, there is no need to evaluate their statements. They are opposed to the process, and this stems from their opposition to the Kurds.
The opposition in Turkey and its press, which claims to be against dogmatic religiosity and backwardness, completely changes its narrative when it comes to northern and eastern Syria. They downplay the gangs and mercenaries that represent the continuation of Daesh by referring to them as the Syrian army. Where does this come from?
Not all the opposition is applauding the attacks. This probably refers to media outlets such as Sözcü and Cumhuriyet. They are modernists. They never had an appropriate approach to religion. Now those who approach religion like them embrace the ISIS mentality like HTS. They see the policy there as Turkey’s success. They see it as the success of the AKP. But they also vilify a community that is pro-women’s freedom, pro-democracy, pro-brotherhood of peoples, pro-democratic nation, and those who fight for these things. This stems from anti-Kurdish sentiment. Anti-Kurdish sentiment pushes all their other thoughts aside. It makes them go as far as becoming defenders of ISIS.
But of course, we do not evaluate all opposition this way. Not all opposition is like this, but those who call themselves opposition and have been saying this and that about Erdoğan and the government until now, consider the government successful there now. Why? They have supported HTS, which is oppressing the Kurds there. That is no opposition; that is fascism. It is a certain segment that is acting in the name of some nationalism. Of course, it is not right to lump all nationalist segments, including the CHP, into the same category, but there is such a fascist nationalist mindset. Theirs is not actually nationalism or anything. It is nothing. These are attitudes brought about by anti-Kurdish sentiment. It is more accurate to assess it this way, to assess it clearly.
The international powers should have been a guarantor of the agreements of March 10 and May 1 between the SDF and Damascus. They are a force that has been working alongside the SDF for years in operations against Daesh. Despite this, they have paved the way for HTS, with its Daesh mentality, to attack Rojava. How can this be explained?
In the fight against Daesh, Kurds, Arabs, and Syriacs stood together in Rojava. They were united in repelling and defeating ISIS. It was a tactical alliance. Today, HTS is supported, which has the same mentality as Daesh. What is HTS? What was al-Nusra? Al-Nusra was the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. What was al-Qaeda? It is the organization that attacked the Twin Towers. Five thousand people died. People threw themselves to their deaths from the 10th and 20th floors. Now the Trump administration and the UK are supporting such an organization.
The now turned against the Kurds, the Syriacs, and the Arabs who share a democratic ideology. The Autonomous Administration has sacrificed over 10,000 martyrs in the forefront of the fight against ISIS. How can this be explained? Such an approach, which disregards all values, even setting aside its own national interests, cannot be taken on behalf of any nation. It cannot be taken on behalf of any nation or any state. Because every state seeks legitimacy in every policy. There is a moral value. But now they are taking this approach. Of course, their own societies are also evaluating this. The US administration is being criticized, the British administration is being criticized, and the French administration is being criticized. The female leaders that were once hosted at France’s Élysée Palace are now fighting and may give their lives tomorrow. They were praising the fight against ISIS. Now this situation truly reveals the state of these forces. It reveals their lack of moral values. This is a very dangerous situation for them in the future. Yes, one can’t expect much from capitalists and imperialists in a nation-state agreement, but even their own citizens wouldn’t accept this.
Sure, the Kurds had entered into a tactical relationship, not a strategic one. It was a tactical relationship against ISIS. But what they have done is disrespectful to that relationship. A tactical relationship can be abandoned after a period, but that tactical relationship also has a basis. It created something; it left something behind. That’s why McGurk angrily rejected and refused to support HTS. He was responsible for the US in Syria for many years and was even responsible for US affairs in the whole Middle East. Now he rejects the current US policy. What can we say about their policy in this regard? The whole society sees it; the people see it.
From our perspective, this is important. We can say this from the perspective of the Kurdish people: They must trust their own strength. Everyone should trust their own strength. Tactical relationships are separate. But essentially, one must trust their own strength. No one can achieve results based solely on tactical relationships. A tactical relationship is about gaining a little strength in a struggle. It is about gaining strength for an organization. But it is not possible to achieve results based solely on tactical relationships. In this sense, it is also important to trust one’s own strength.