In an extensive interview with ANF, Cemil Bayik, Co-Chair of the KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) Executive Council, elaborates on nationalism as the greatest threat to the Kurdish people and the entire Middle East, and describes the concept of a democratic nation as the only realistic solution to the prevailing problems of society. Among other things, Bayık also talks about the tactical alliance between the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the USA, and the future of Syria.
We publish the second part of the in-depth interview, the first part of which can be found here.
Following the developments in Rojava and Syria, and particularly after the withdrawal of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from Raqqa and Tabqa, there have been some criticisms and accusations regarding the paradigm of democratic nation. There are assessments that the concept of democratic nation weakens Kurdish unity and that it does not correspond with the reality of Rojava. What is your response to these criticisms and approaches?
The concept of democratic nation is like a medicine; it is the only solution to the problems in the Middle East, which still remains unable to recover from all the ethnic and religious conflicts that have taken place in the region. What other approach could prevent a continuation of this, other than the concept of democratic nation? Europe is also a region that is heavily exhausted by ethnic and religious conflicts, but with an approach close to the concept of democratic nation presented by Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan, a common ground for ethnic and religious communities to live in coexistence and in peace has been prepared. One can criticize Europe and capitalist modernity in many ways. However, the coexistence of different ethnic and religious communities based on mutual respect is an important achievement of Europe.
In Rojava and in North and East Syria, the people have commonly organized their lives for 14 years based on the concept of democratic nation. Arabs from many areas of Syria fled the war and moved to the areas under the autonomous administration. This was a project to democratize Syria. The existence of the Kurdish identity in the countries that they live in can only be guaranteed by democratization. Undemocratic states are always a threat to the Kurds and their identity. Seeking a solution based on democratization rather than conflict is the necessary strategy for the Kurds.
If the Kurds, Arabs, Syriacs, and other peoples of Syria had not established a democratic system together, Arab nationalism would have been provoked early on, and a Kurdish-Arab war would have unfolded. The Ba’ath regime made similar attempts but failed. If international powers had not pursued a policy of allowing HTS to dominate Syria and Turkey had not pursued an inflammatory policy, Arabs and Kurds would have lived together and formed the basis of a democratic Syria. In an environment of external intervention and intense provocation, the withdrawal of the SDF from Raqqa and Tabqa was not wrong. As a force defending the brotherhood of peoples and the concept of democratic nation, it had to thwart the provocations aimed at starting an Arab-Kurdish conflict. The criticisms of the paradigm of democratic nation are truly reactionary. There can be no more correct approach for peoples living within the same state borders and as neighbors. Actually, there should be no need to respond to those who criticize the democratic nation concept; however, I’m compelled to say a few things because some try to play with the emotions of our people. The democratic nation is a project for living in peace and brotherhood in a multi-ethnic and multi-faith geography like the Middle East. It is based on mutual respect for everyone’s identity and beliefs. Everyone shall live together with their identity, culture, and self-administration. It is crucial to achieve this in the Middle East. Therefore, the concept of democratic nation is historic.
The claim that this concept would weaken Kurdish unity is ridiculous. Those who embrace the democratic nation defend Kurdish unity more strongly, as Kurdish unity requires a democratic understanding. The undemocratic approaches solely pit peoples against each other and do not ensure Kurdish unity; they create problems among Kurds. The concept of democratic nation does not cause conflict and strife among Kurds; on the contrary, the nationalist mindset, which seeks to control and make all Kurds submit to a single authority, prevents national unity. The PKK has always prioritized a solution based on brotherhood among peoples, but nationalist tendencies prioritize relations with regional states.
The reasons for the Kurds’ lack of unity should be researched historically and objectively. This will reveal that the true reasons lie both in the pursuit of authoritarian hegemonic interests and in the influence of external powers. In the course of the work regarding national unity, a representative of one of the international powers dealing with the Kurds clearly stated that the conditions for a national congress were not met and that this was not in their interest. This is something that person himself expressed. On the other hand, when conflict with Turkey came to the fore again, there were those who, out of political calculation, did not contribute to the formation of national unity work. The answer to the question of why the Kurds did not and cannot unite is a long one. Raising this issue at this stage would not be appropriate in a process where our people have achieved unity on the social level.
Our movement organized and became effective in the four parts of Kurdistan. It overcame the borders between the parts and strengthened the national spirit. Undoubtedly, there has been a century-long struggle and quest for freedom, but it is commonly known how this has unfolded its effect in the four parts of Kurdistan over the last fifty years. The slogan ‘Başûr, Bakur, Rojava, Rojhilat e, Kurdistan yek welat e’ (The South, the North, the West, and the East, Kurdistan is one country) developed. Today, slogans expressing that the ‘Kurds are one’ are being chanted. The claims that the concept of democratic nation that we have developed as a project over the last twenty years weakens unity are empty words. On the contrary, the sense of unity among Kurds has grown stronger over the last twenty years. Looking at the reality of society, that is a simple fact. Our society also knows the sources of the problems between political forces. The truth cannot be distorted with demagogic rhetoric. Such rhetoric weakens unity among Kurds. Those who say such things have no concern for national unity. They are merely part of the attacks against our freedom movement and our leadership. But they cannot distort the facts; you cannot darken the sun!
Again, to say that the democratic nation does not fit the reality of Rojava is pure ignorance. Neither in Başûr (southern Kurdistan, in the borders of today’s Iraq), nor in Bakur (northern Kurdistan, in the borders of today’s Turkey), nor in Rojhilat (eastern Kurdistan, in the borders of today’s Iran) do different peoples live as intertwined as they do in Rojava. In Dêrik, Qamişlo, Hesekê, Serêkaniyê, and around Kobanê, peoples live alongside others. Establishing a democratic system based on the concept of democratic nation is a project that best meets the needs of Rojava.
Kurdistan is divided into four parts. The Middle East is consuming itself with ethnic and sectarian conflicts. Looking at this, the concept of democratic nation is most necessary for the Kurds and the Middle East. In fact, all these ravings and demagoguery are the current expression of the opposition that has been going on for years against the anti-power and anti-state mentality and paradigm of Leader Öcalan.
Alongside the wave of attacks that began with assaults on the Kurdish neighborhoods of Aleppo and extended to Rojava, there are claims that the separation of some Arab tribes in regions such as Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa from the Autonomous Administration and the SDF has caused distrust between the Arabic and Kurdish people. At the same time, the Turkish state media created a scenario of provocation by staging an incident with a flag. It seems Kurdish hostility has been revived. Polarization and nationalism are gaining momentum. How do you assess this development?
The revolutionaries of Rojava fought alongside Arab youth in the struggle against ISIS. There are thousands of Arab martyrs and veterans. Currently, there are Arab youths fighting within the military forces and in the social struggle in Rojava. We have always acted according to an ideological-political line that separates the ruling classes from the people. Our approach will continue to be this way. We do not fall for the approach that ‘the Turk has no friend but the Turk,’ as is said in Turkey. Currently, the Kurds have friends among the Turks, Arabs, Persians, and other peoples. Internationalist revolutionaries from all over the world have fallen as martyrs in Rojava, and so have Turkish revolutionaries. Their effort is part of the ideological-political line and achievements of the Rojava Revolution.
The Kurdish people have a democratic mindset. There is no hostility towards other peoples. There is no blanket distrustful approach of this or that people, and the political views of peoples are not a single bloc either. The discussions currently taking place on digital media in this direction are both the result of emotionality and of deliberate provocation and are primarily unconscious statements that will harm the Kurds.
The SDF withdrew from Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, and Tabqa to prevent provocation. While withdrawing, there were no attacks against the SDF in areas that were entirely Arab villages. Only in Raqqa, some HTS supporters carried out attacks after the military forces of HTS arrived. The SDF had been conducting operations against Daesh cells for years in the area. The character of the Arab tribes is known. As long as the coalition forces did not support HTS, they did not have a negative attitude towards the SDF and the Autonomous Administration. When the SDF decided to withdraw, it was clear that the tribes would associate with the HTS entering the area. The Arab tribes were particularly mindful of the stance of the US and coalition forces. They have always tended to maintain their existence and livelihoods by acting according to the balance of power.
The revolutionaries of Rojava wanted to set into effect a democratization in Syria together with the Arab people. However, when the coalition forces showed their irresponsible attitude, the SDF withdrew from Arab areas and established a resistance line in the geography of Rojava. Political balances and the stage the war had reached necessitated this. One cannot conclude from this situation that the Arabs should not have been trusted. Moreover, the issue is not one of trust or distrust. The realities created by the balances of organized power, military power, and political power determine the direction. The political representatives and democratic institutions of the Kurdish people have a responsibility to increase their friends and supporters among the peoples of the region. This is made even more necessary by the denialist and genocidal policies of the countries in the region. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that ‘Arabs are like this, and Turks are like that.’ States impose nationalist and chauvinist conditioning on their own societies. This has been seen most clearly in the case of Turkey. Seeing and knowing these realities is one thing; policies and efforts to win over the peoples of the region and remove them from their anti-Kurdish positions are another.
Our discourse of Kurdish-Arab and Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood, that is, the brotherhood of peoples, and the approach we have shown to these peoples so far will continue. Not doing so would be irresponsible, first and foremost, towards the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom.
We are very well aware that there is a revival of Kurdish hostility in Turkey that is being initiated by their special warfare. This is a century-old policy. Especially in our 52-year struggle, this has been continued in a planned and organized manner. The special warfare in Turkey has made the development of nationalism its fundamental policy in order to wage war against the Kurdish freedom movement more comfortably, with the support of western Turkey. So much so that they have been disturbed by the HDP being a political party that speaks to Turkey. What they fear most is that the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom will find supporters and friends in western Turkey. Policies and attitudes that will feed nationalism and hostility towards Kurds in Turkey must be avoided. Their special warfare must not be provided with material that will fuel nationalism. Nationalism on the one side breeds nationalism on the other side; it does not benefit the people. It does not benefit the Kurds in particular. Spreading full distrust against Turkey and the Turks is also a sweeping generalization. These cannot be the approach of those who are political, who engage in political struggle.
We have waged the harshest and longest struggle against the Turkish state. We know the Turkish state, the Turkish social reality, and the policies pursued against the Kurds better than anyone else. To fight means to know the power you are fighting. Leader Öcalan said, “I am neither deceived nor deceiving.” Because he knows the reality of Turkey, the reality of the Middle East, and the regional and Kurdish policies of international powers best. Our people must know that the revolutionaries Kemal Pir and Haki Karer were the first friends with Leader Öcalan from the Turkish people. These two friends played a decisive role in shaping the spirit and character of our freedom movement. And Leader Öcalan said of these two friends, that they were his “secret soul”. Kemal was the pioneer of the prison resistance and a martyr of the great hunger strike of July 14. We have hundreds of Turkish martyrs, and hundreds more are today part of our movement and this struggle. There is an important part of society, revolutionary organizations, and personalities in Turkey that support our freedom struggle. Instead of spreading general distrust against Turks it should be the aim to make more friends and allies. This is what is right and necessary for the Kurds.
We have had dozens of ceasefires and negotiations with Turkey. Political struggle is not one-dimensional. Ceasefires and negotiations are one important dimension of it. All forces fighting for national, democratic, and freedom struggles have undergone such struggle processes. These processes do not proceed within a dilemma of trust or distrust. That would be the most apolitical approach. Policies based on trust are as wrong as policies based on distrust. There are no such measures in political struggle, nor is political struggle conducted with this approach. Trust and distrust are situations that arise from attitudes within the process. It is wrong to think of political struggles as straightforward and single-method; it is even tantamount to remaining without struggle.
There is an ongoing process with Turkey. An environment for democratic political struggle is being attempted to be created. There is a direct link between democratization and the Kurdish issue. Indeed, without a proper approach to the Kurdish issue, genuine democratization and the freedom to engage in democratic politics cannot be achieved. If the Kurdish presence and the Kurds are not incorporated into the law with guarantees of existence and freedom, this political process will not advance; it may stall. However, utilizing the subtleties and pioneering characteristics of politics is also a political responsibility for the process to move forward. Leader Öcalan acts with this sensitivity, as required by his responsibility to the Kurdish people and the peoples of Turkey.
In short, it is wrong to create a perspective through the lens of trust and distrust. In particular, the general statement that a specific people cannot be trusted is both wrong and apolitical. It is very important to act with political responsibility in the struggle for freedom and democracy. Nothing can be achieved by calling neighboring peoples “untrustworthy.” Such statements have no political value. We will continue, we must continue, our approach of living in brotherhood with neighboring peoples. Neighbors are not a choice. We have a responsibility to eliminate the negative attitudes of neighboring peoples towards each other. Neighboring peoples and democratic forces also have this responsibility. Nationalism and hostility or negative attitudes towards neighboring peoples are not a healthy way of thinking or stance. As human beings, as forces fighting for freedom and democracy, we distance ourselves from such wrong thinking and tendencies, and we strive to eliminate the basis of such tendencies within society. Undoubtedly, we will also keep our people in the struggle against all forms of oppression and tyranny, as we have the duty to create a people who fight for freedom and to ensure that this becomes a reality. For us, unacceptable situations include bowing to forces opposed to freedom and democracy, collaborating with them, and being in a position where one does not think or live for one’s country and people; the escalation of nationalism means strangulation.
In addition to the emotional approaches and criticisms arising from the massacres that have taken place, we also see provocative and malicious accusations. Recently, there appears to be a deliberate campaign to discredit and slander Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan. In particular, the timing is noteworthy: the publication of parliamentary transcripts coinciding with attacks on Rojava and their manipulation, followed by the controversy surrounding the rug presented to Devlet Bahçeli. Again, the ruling circles are saying that what Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan says is not taken into consideration by the relevant circles. What do you think is the purpose of these discussions?
There have always been smear campaigns and statements aimed at discrediting Leader Öcalan and our movement. When fighting for freedom and democracy, a difficult struggle for a people, one will encounter such things. For decades, the Turkish special war system and the press under its direction have been the most active in this regard. It is well known what they have been saying about our leader over the past years. The essence of the attacks currently primarily being carried out on digital media is also directed by these special warfare centers. People affiliated with this special warfare are conducting a smear campaign against Leader Öcalan in the name of Kurdishness. One should know that a significant portion of the posts attributed to Kurds are made by this special warfare center. They consider what kind of black propaganda may find an audience, select topics accordingly, and try to spread them on digital media. On the other hand, some Kurds whose political interests have been blocked as a result of the struggle waged by Leader Öcalan and the PKK always express their hostility when the opportunity arises. They are decades-old sworn enemies of our leader and the PKK. It is their practice to play with the sensitivities of society. But no matter how hard they try, it is impossible for them to shake the position of Leader Öcalan, who has pioneered a 52-year struggle, fought in prison for 27 years, created an ideological and theoretical development that is a source of honor and pride for the Kurds, and brought Kurdish intellect to the fore. The smears made by those who lack ideological, philosophical, and political power may have a temporary effect on some people, but they will not achieve any results. Such attitudes towards the greatest Kurdish politician, fighter, revolutionary, thinker, and philosopher in history are essentially Kurdish hostility. They do not think about Kurdishness. They have a complex about Leader Öcalan and the freedom movement.
It is said that the parliamentary report exceeds fifty pages. Leader Öcalan is showing a political approach to advance the process. He has taken the parliamentary commission seriously and wanted to get it to take action. At this stage, it has become clear that this commission will not play a serious role in democratization and the resolution of the Kurdish issue. It is already clear that the report and recommendations they intend to prepare will be along these lines. Leader Öcalan wants all political leaders to come together and reach a decision on his role. Because although this issue is one that will be resolved in parliament, it is the political parties that will determine parliament’s stance.
Speculating on the statements of Leader Öcalan in the parliament report, taken out of context, and using them to attack him is the work of those with malicious intent. Devlet Bahçeli sent a gift to Leader Öcalan, and he requested that a gift with Kurdish characteristics be sent in return. The DEM Party Imrali delegation has fulfilled its obligations in this regard. Trying to create negative perceptions based on these gifts is ridiculous. Every event can be evaluated differently if taken out of context.
Also, those who say that Leader Öcalan is not being listened to are expressing the opposite of reality. Leader Öcalan is the guiding leadership who will lead our struggle to victory. Our people see him as their leader and chief negotiator. The Peace Mothers are the conscience of the Kurdish people. They are the pillar and foundation of the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom. If the Peace Mothers accept Leader Öcalan as their leader, no one can say anything against it. Leader Öcalan is a leader whose words are listened to and taken seriously by everyone among the Kurds. Not only the Kurds, but also regional and international powers are aware of this reality. Rojava, for example, has always been at the forefront in terms of loyalty to Leader Öcalan. Thousands of martyrs have given their lives on the basis of loyalty to Leader Öcalan. The administration of Rojava is also fully loyal to Leader Öcalan; they take his words into consideration. Anything can be done, but the administration in Rojava cannot be brought into conflict with Leader Öcalan. The women in Rojava have risen up and liberated themselves according to the paradigm of freedom by Leader Öcalan. The women have changed the entire society of Rojava.
Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan showed a clear approach when he said that the hegemonic forces want to create a hundred Gazas in Kurdistan and that this needs to be prevented. And despite his statement that Rojava is his red line, the claims spread by some ill-intentioned circles, especially on digital platforms, are noteworthy. There are also accusations and smear campaigns claiming that the process with the Turkish state led to attacks on Rojava and that Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan would be aligned with the Turkish state. Do you want to comment on this?
The extent to which such rhetoric is a malicious smear campaign is evident from its contradiction with the existing facts. Before Leader Öcalan took the initiative to pursue this process, Turkish state drones were bombing cities in Rojava on a daily basis, killing many revolutionaries and patriots. With Leader Öcalan taking the initiative, these attacks ceased, and a de facto ceasefire was in effect until the attack on the neighborhoods Sheikh Maqsoud and Eshrefiye on January 6. One reason Leader Öcalan initiated this process was to give Rojava breathing space. And indeed, the first positive reflection of this process has been on Rojava. While the administration of Rojava and its people assess the situation in this way, the discourse that the process being carried out with Turkey has led to attacks on Rojava is emerging as a special war against Kurdish people’s leader and our freedom movement. Some circles calling themselves Kurdish have also adopted this rhetoric.
Leader Öcalan and our movement have been waging a great struggle against the Turkish state’s policies of denial and annihilation for 52 years. Those who are currently continuing this smear campaign have supported the Turkish state and its special war system with such approaches for decades. Our people know very well who has been intertwined with the Turkish state and who has positioned themselves against our freedom movement. The process currently underway with the Turkish state in Imrali aims to guarantee and secure the existence of the Kurdish people and their free and democratic life. How the Turkish state approaches this process and how appropriately it responds is the state’s problem. Leader Öcalan’s entire effort in Imrali is directed towards protecting the gains in Rojava. We, as well as the administration of Rojava Kurdistan and its people, are very well aware of this.
What does it mean when similar opportunists, who have never even flicked a finger at the enemy, sit in their virtual spaces and attack Leader Öcalan, his line, the Freedom Movement, and its components by fabricating war, resistance, and enemy strategies?
How should we understand their use of the attacks on Rojava as a tool for their approach and turning them into ammunition? How should we fight against these circles, who, to put it bluntly, have found an empty field and have no connection to reality; how should people approach such approaches, and to what extent should they be taken into consideration?
Opportunists who are not themselves struggling against hostility towards the Kurds are using digital media to weaken the resistance and attack Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan, his paradigm, the freedom movement, and its components. How should this be addressed?
These are in fact marginal individuals that should not be taken seriously. Digital media gives them a platform to speak. The whole world knows how and by whom the Rojava Revolution was carried out. It is known how and by whom the people of Şengal [Sinjar] were saved from genocide. Our people and the democratic forces know best how our leader and our movement have struggled for 52 years and what values have been created.
If this 52-year struggle had not been waged, what would have remained of the Kurds and Kurdistan? Every patriotic person with a sound mind and conscience appreciates this. The Kurdish climate and political environment created by this struggle is the protector, guarantor, and future source of power for all gains. Nothing is achieved by sitting around and throwing around empty words. Even the smallest value is only achieved through great effort and sacrifice. The people should ask these individuals where they had been when all the achievements had been created, when so much had to be sacrificed to protect them, and where they will position themselves in the future. What they do is sit in a comfortable chair and play the role of the constant nagger.
Looking at the past and present attacks on Rojava, one must always assess which forces are involved, and one must also assess who is leading the struggle against them. The first calls against the attacks on Rojava came from us, and the people were mobilized everywhere in an organized manner. Our movement has been at the heart of the struggle for 52 years. Those who speak loudly, if they have eyes for the struggle, establish their organizations, form their armed forces, and take to the streets.
What are the intentions of those who are taking advantage of the attacks on Rojava? What concrete actions have those who attack the women’s freedom struggle, social progress, and the ideology and philosophy of the Freedom Movement actually taken?
The character of those who speak ill of Leader Öcalan and our freedom movement is evident in their approach to the line of women’s freedom. While Leader Öcalan’s paradigm of women’s freedom is appreciated by all women and democratic humanity, the fact that those who call themselves Kurds attack the philosophy and paradigm of our leader based on the paradigm of women’s freedom shows what they are really like. The geography on which the paradigm of women’s freedom is based is the geography of Kurdistan. Just as Kurdish culture is the root culture of humanity, women’s freedom is also found in the social genes of this geography and the Kurds. Those who attack Leader Öcalan’s paradigm based on women’s freedom, social ecology, and the democratic society are those who remain behind in history and under the influence of reactionary forces.
Leader Öcalan’s philosophy, thought, ideology, theory, and paradigm are the honor and pride of all Kurds. He has examined history like an archaeologist from the perspective of the Kurds, synthesized all of humanity’s positive values within himself, and brought forth a Kurdish intellect. The Kurds’ view of history, society, and politics has become clear. This is a major achievement for the Kurds. Their attacks on Leader Öcalan, whom they should be proud of, are the result of their superficial view of the world, society, and Kurdish reality. Opposition to Leader Öcalan and the PKK has blinded these groups and disrupted their compass. It would not be right to give them too much credit. In fact, we do not have a culture or tradition of responding to such things; however, their malicious interpretation of the attacks on Rojava requires us to say a few things.
Along with the developments in Rojava, there are intense discussions about the stance of the US and Western states in general. While this stance is interpreted as a betrayal of the Kurds on the one hand, on the other hand, there are criticisms that the process in Rojava is a result of placing too much trust in the US presence. How do you assess this?
Rojava’s tactical alliance with the US and coalition forces emerged in the course of the fight against ISIS. ISIS attacked the Êzidî Kurds in Şengal, and it was the guerrilla fighters of HPG and YJA-Star, together with the fighters of YPG and YPJ, that saved the Êzidî Kurds from genocide. It was due to this that ISIS then turned towards Kobanê instead of Damascus and Aleppo, targeting the Kurds. ISIS attacked people all around the world and carried out massacres. It was in this context that a tactical alliance was formed. The US and the other coalition forces saw the Kurds’ self-sacrificing resistance against ISIS as beneficial to their own interests.
This tactical relationship resembles the tactical relationship formed between the Soviets, democratic forces, and the capitalist modernist forces of the West against Hitler’s fascism during the Second World War. Strategic relationships are formed with ideologically and politically similar forces that share similar goals. Tactical alliances emerge during periods when the struggle against a common enemy intersects. Indeed, the fight against ISIS has brought this to light. Rojava and North and East Syria have also benefited from this tactical alliance.
Political struggles are not only waged through strategic alliances; tactical alliances are also formed when necessary. Every struggle is, in a sense, conducted through alliances. A struggle without alliances is unthinkable. Those who do not know how to form alliances lack political intelligence and creativity and are condemned to fail. The tactical alliance with the US and coalition forces was within the framework of the fight against ISIS. The relations of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria also continued within this framework until January 6.
As a matter of fact, the US and the other coalition forces never provided political support to Rojava and North and East Syria. They openly stated this to the people of Rojava. The US’s relations with Rojava ended when they found an apparatus they could use in the form of HTS. From this perspective, the end of a tactical relationship cannot be explained by the concept of betrayal. However, the relationship established by the US with an organization that attacked the Twin Towers in New York, killing three thousand Americans, and which was used as a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan, is, first and foremost, a betrayal of its own people. This is also an approach contrary to the essence of a tactical relationship. The relationship the US established with Rojava was not a strategic relationship or alliance that could be called betrayal. But giving HTS so much support and paving the way for it is a dirty policy in terms of political ethics and human values. It is a policy that should be exposed from this perspective. Society, pioneered by its intellectuals and politicians in the US and France, has opposed their own governments. Even the press has exposed this policy.
Undoubtedly, the administration of Rojava was aware of the US administration and US policy and approach. But in the public opinion there was a lack of understanding of the matter of the tactical relationship and too much meaning was attributed to it, which has caused disappointment for them. Criticism can be directed at the administration of Rojava for not sufficiently informing the public in this regard. When a struggle is waged based on self-reliance and strategic relationships, it brings real success. Tactical relationships can only have an impact on success if they are approached within the framework of self-reliance and strategic relationships and on a basis that strengthens them. Establishing tactical relationships is not wrong. On the contrary, tactical relationships are also relationships that should be established when appropriate and necessary for the success of the struggle.
The approach of the West and the US towards Rojava is related to their general policies and interests in the Middle East. They do not conduct policy based solely on local relations. They have a general Middle East policy and address Rojava within this framework. They prefer powers that are collaborative and serve their hegemony in the region, rather than administrations based on democracy and the will of the people for the Middle East. Tom Barrack has stated that monarchies, not democracies, are more suited to the reality of the Middle East. In saying this, he did not take into account the different historical developments, social and political structures of each Middle Eastern country; he made this judgment based on certain countries with which he has relations. In fact, he made this speech in a country with a monarchy.
In connection with this question, the public is debating whether a structure like HTS, which stems from ISIS and al-Qaeda, should be given such a role in Syria. What is the plan of the hegemonic powers, and what role is HTS being assigned in it?
The role given to HTS in Syria should be debated extensively. While claiming to oppose Daesh, an organization with a similar mindset is being made the ruler of Syria. Above all, the American people, who experienced the Twin Towers tragedy, the democratic forces, and political structures, should oppose this support given to HTS. HTS has been deployed to attack the SDF and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, which are in a tactical alliance with coalition forces in the fight against Daesh. There is no aspect of this that can be defended in the name of humanity, democracy, morality, or conscience. It is a policy that must be strongly condemned and rejected.
It has become clear that HTS is a useful tool for international powers in their Syria policy and Middle East hegemony. They have also seen that removing Syria as a threat to Israel can be achieved with such a force. The Golan Heights and Southern Syria have effectively been handed over to Israel.
The developments in Syria also influenced Lebanese policies. HTS has been persuaded not to interfere in Lebanon and to view it as an area of influence for Israel and the West. HTS will be used as a compliant tool of hegemonic powers in the regional design. Undoubtedly, Turkey will also try to use HTS to be influential in Syria and the Middle East. Essentially, it is understood that it will be the executor of international powers and Saudi Arabia’s policies. However, such a force will not be one that international powers and Israel will trust and accept in the medium and long term. Once its assigned task is completed, it will be sidelined in some way. Perhaps Jolani is also pursuing this policy with full awareness. There are probably those who advise Jolani in this direction and encourage him. The existence of such a regime in Syria will also be used as a means of pressure on Iraq. Indeed, Iraq has entered into such a state of concern.