Turkish state-backed armed groups affiliated with the Syrian interim government, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and ISIS, continue their attacks on Rojava, while solidarity actions in support of Rojava persist uninterrupted not only across Kurdistan but also in Istanbul. Protests by the Kurdish people and their supporters are being held every day in a different district of Istanbul.
Çınar Altan, Co-Chair of the Istanbul Provincial Organization of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), spoke to ANF about the ongoing actions in Istanbul and the public response to the developments in Rojava.
The aim of the attacks was to remove Kurds from the area
Altan said Istanbul is a city where people of many different backgrounds live together, while also being home to one of the largest Kurdish populations. Altan said: “Although Istanbul is often described as a place of coexistence, it is in many ways no different from Northern Kurdistan (Bakur). When the attacks began on 6 January, the Kurdish people’s sensitivity to the issue immediately became visible. These areas are ancient Kurdish neighborhoods. The system of governance introduced by the Rojava Revolution and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria had been implemented there, and all of this was directly targeted. But the real objective was to remove the Kurdish people from the region. In response, Kurds, particularly those living in Istanbul, reacted immediately and very strongly.”
Altan also said: “The issue went far beyond the attempted de-Kurdification of two neighborhoods. This was an attack directed at the substance and spirit of the Rojava Revolution as a whole. For this reason, not only Kurds but also other groups who had previously taken part in the Rojava Revolution, defended it, or embraced its values reacted swiftly.
Istanbul differs from Kurdistan or Northern Kurdistan. It is not a place where Kurds and these social groups live collectively in the same areas. People are spread across large districts. For that reason, the pace of building a collective response in Istanbul is different from that in Northern Kurdistan.
At the outset, we issued central statements to express our political position. But this issue could not be limited to statements alone. Istanbul has 39 districts, and from that point until last week we organized statements and marches in 30 districts to bring our grassroots together. Many of these may have appeared to be simple press statements, but as the Istanbul Provincial Organization, we carried out fieldwork aimed at raising political awareness on this issue.
Each of these actions helped shape a collective stance against the attacks and eventually led to a process of centralization. That was always part of our plan. Last Saturday, despite the continuation of the war even amid a ceasefire, we organized an action to bring together everyone who wanted to say ‘stop’ to what is happening.”
Kurdish people have a strong awareness and memory when it comes to defending Rojava
Altan said the Kurdish people possess a strong collective awareness and memory when it comes to defending Rojava, adding that the thousands who gathered in Aksaray on Saturday, 24 January, were a clear indication of this. He continued as follows: “What became clear there was this: the Kurdish people have a very strong awareness and memory when it comes to defending Rojava. Other revolutionary and socialist groups living in Istanbul also have a memory and awareness regarding this issue. We witnessed this during the 6–8 October Serhildan as well. At that time, we made a call with a similar sense of responsibility. The crowd that came to the square on Saturday went beyond an approach that sought to confine the political position we have taken so far to a limited number of presses statements and instead embraced Rojava in a strong and visible way.”
Altan said the Kurdish people are taking to the streets both out of an emotional response to say “stop” to the war and with the awareness that what is happening in Rojava constitutes a struggle for existence. He said: “The relationship established with this issue is initially shaped by the impact created by the war and the attacks, and by the powerful emotions directly triggered by images of torture and executions. Through this emotional response, the masses establish a connection with political struggle. Of course, this gives rise to a tendency to stop the attacks. But one point is crucial. In all the work we have carried out since 6 January, we have emphasized this very clearly:
These attacks are not only directed at Rojava, at a piece of land there, nor are they limited to establishing HTS rule. In terms of the broader design of the Middle East, there is an intention to determine how HTS will be used and, in the long term, to create a Sunni axis similar to the so-called ‘green belt’ of the past. This Sunni axis poses a serious danger, not only as an instrument to be used against Hashd al-Shaabi or Iran, but also as a project aimed at transforming the cultural and political structure of the region.”
Altan said that defending Rojava goes far beyond protecting the gains achieved in North and East Syria and added: “It also means stopping a trajectory that is clearly visible for Turkey’s future and that will have repercussions across the entire region. Indeed, we see that many of those who came to the square on Saturday embraced the issue with exactly this awareness.
This is important. We believe it will help create a founding will that goes beyond support and solidarity alone, one that can also bring about change in these lands. We think this will continue to grow. Even if the attacks come to a halt, we will further expand and strengthen our actions and our determination to counter them, to deepen this defense and this sense of ownership.”
The Kurdish people have not turned against the freedom movement or its allies
Altan said that the Kurdish grassroots are not taking a negative stance toward the Kurdish Freedom Movement or its allies, contrary to claims made by some circles. He said: “Presenting the situation as if there is a divide within the Kurdish base against socialists or the Kurdish Freedom Movement serves a broader aim of sidelining both the Kurdish Freedom Movement and the forces that have historically stood alongside it and built strategic partnerships with it.
It is very clear that following its paradigm shift, the line established by the Kurdish Freedom Movement does not envision a future reduced solely to Kurds or Kurdistan. Creating such a division does not only operate on a theoretical level; it also functions as a way of confining the Movement to a narrow space. This is being implemented directly or indirectly.
In this sense, the attacks on Rojava must also be viewed through this lens. In North and East Syria, a process had begun in which territorial and political hegemony was expanding in a way that spread to the peoples there and enabled them to take ownership. However, this was seen as a serious threat by imperialist powers and reactionary states in the region. From the perspective of the ruling powers, it therefore became necessary to prevent the Kurdish people from standing alongside other forces of struggle on this basis. I see the attack as part of this policy.”
He also said: “Secondly, from the perspective of non-Kurdish leftist and socialist structures, we can say that the risk of social chauvinism is at the door. This goes beyond a purely theoretical debate. Criticism directed at the Kurdish Freedom Movement, the alliances it has built, and the path it has taken so far also carries the risk of reactivating social chauvinism.
On the other hand, for the Kurdish people themselves, there is also a risk expressed through the discourse of ‘returning to our essence,’ not articulated by the political leadership, but manifesting as inward closure and confinement to narrow national reflexes. We can see this clearly among young people in the west as well. Wherever such a shared struggle is not realized, there emerge tendencies to define the issue through limited national reflexes that do not align with the political and theoretical spirit of the movement.
Each of these risks is being used, both in Rojava and here, as a means to fragment and weaken the movement. But as the DEM Party, as the Kurdish political movement, and together with our socialist allies who have taken part in this struggle, we are aware of this. We are, of course, trying to shape our political discourse in a way that consciously moves beyond these traps.”
The core issue is the failure to build a revolutionary camp that embraces the Rojava Revolution
Çınar Altan said the developments are long-term and carry serious risks, adding that they are fully aware the attacks are not directed at Rojava alone. He said this is why they are preparing for large-scale actions in Istanbul. He also responded to criticism directed at the tactical relationship established with the United States (US) in relation to Rojava, saying: “As before, an internationalist task stands before us today. We read the situation from this perspective, and we believe this is important. There are those who criticize the tactical relationship established with imperialist powers, primarily the United States, on the grounds that it has led to the suffocation of the Rojava Revolution. This stems from the following reality: in a struggle to secure existence and the right to exist, a revolutionary subject can make use of contradictions among the ruling powers. The legitimacy of this has historical grounding as well. The real issue is whether a counter-camp has been created, a revolutionary camp, and a regional camp equipped with these values.
As a Turkish socialist, I also read the attacks we have faced so far as a form of self-criticism. If we had been able to build a counter-camp capable of putting the values of Rojava into practice and guaranteeing its right to exist; if the Kurdish people had been able to achieve national unity; if, in the South and other parts, subjects of such a camp had emerged; if socialists in Turkey had been able to bring about a political transformation, above all a change of power, that would stand in solidarity with Rojava, then the Rojava Revolution might not have been forced into the alliances that are now criticized and seen as problematic.
Of course, nothing has been defeated. Our fundamental goal is to stop the attacks on the Rojava Revolution and to ensure that these same values spread throughout the region. From this standpoint, we assign responsibilities to ourselves, and we will do everything in our power to expand and strengthen this effort.”