Efforts to strip Rojava of any political status and annihilation attacks against the Kurdish people continue, alongside the emergence of a wide range of debates. These debates, particularly through digital media, have generated widespread confusion, ambiguity, and deliberate distortions of public consciousness through perception operations. It has become clear that the attacks taking place are not limited to military and political assaults; they are, to an equal and even more dangerous extent, ideological attacks. It is evident that these ideological assaults are being directed from specific centers and spread through methods of special warfare.
Lessons must be drawn from what has happened, and critical assessments as well as comprehensive self-criticism are, of course, necessary and inevitable. However, turning this situation into an opportunity to create ideological and intellectual distortions, attempting to discredit and demean our intellectual and paradigmatic foundations, or seeking to appropriate roles under the pretext of criticism constitutes a different matter altogether. The greatest harm that can be inflicted upon people is to undermine their philosophical and intellectual foundations, distort their political consciousness, and reduce them to apolitical subjects. Societies that are subjected to intellectual and mental destruction cannot free themselves from becoming mere objects of the political aims of dominant powers.
The most significant achievement of the process that began in Rojava alongside the attacks on Aleppo is that our people rose up as a whole and embraced the resistance in Rojava. A powerful sense of national consciousness and national spirit among the Kurdish people has emerged around acts of solidarity with Rojava. This represents a major gain and a historic accumulation for the Kurdish people. What is unfolding today is developing on the basis of past experiences, while at the same time passing on a profound and meaningful legacy to the future. The meaning and value of this must be fully understood. This shared spirit and consciousness have converged in the slogan, “Yek e, yek e, yek e, gelê Kurd yek e (The Kurdish people are one, one, one),” which our people have chanted in the streets and at protest sites. The support and solidarity of our friends from other peoples, and of those who stand for freedom and democracy, must also not be forgotten. Thousands of women and young people from many nations, grounded in internationalist solidarity, have taken to the streets and public squares, refusing to leave the Kurdish people alone.
Safeguarding this national awakening, along with the spirit and consciousness of unity, constitutes not only a national but also a democratic responsibility. Recent developments, particularly the shift of certain Arab tribes in Northern and Eastern Syria toward the Damascus government, have given rise to diverse reactions and interpretations. The collaborationist and betrayalist stance of these tribes, their unprincipled alignment with power and their predatory character, must not shape or redefine our approach toward peoples as a whole. The failure to generate sufficient transformation within sections of the Arab population during the revolutionary process, however, remains a shortcoming that requires serious self-criticism. Interpreting these developments as proof that the paradigm of the democratic nation and the fraternity of peoples is flawed amounts either to deliberate distortion or to falling prey to manipulation.
International conspiratorial forces and their local collaborators are adept at creating the conditions themselves and then shaping public perception around them. By setting Kurds and Arabs against one another, they seek to discredit and undermine the paradigm of the democratic nation. The Turkish state, above all, has for years sought to manufacture Arab–Kurdish antagonism and conflict, and continues to do so. Dominant powers have consistently worked to entrench their systems of rule by fostering internal contradictions within society, dividing communities, and fragmenting social bonds. The hegemonic powers of the world and the colonial states of the region have likewise made it a policy to keep religious fundamentalism, sectarianism, and nationalism constantly alive, thereby pitting societies against one another, weakening them, and rendering them dependent. Abdullah Öcalan described this approach as a policy of “setting one force against another,” often expressed through the metaphors of “pitting dog against dog” or “sending the hare to flee while setting the hound to chase.”
Upholding the paradigm of the democratic nation and, on that basis, defending equality and fraternity among peoples represents for us a matter of principle and a moral measure. Equality and freedom are defended across every segment of society. Equality between women and men, equality among religions and beliefs, equality among languages and cultures, and, as the continuation and completion of this value system, equality among peoples constitute the foundations we seek to uphold. Can a more just, more meaningful, and more socially ethical perspective be envisioned? The betrayal and defection of certain Arab tribes cannot compel us to abandon these principles. Abandoning these principles would amount to self-denial. It would mean drifting into the current of nationalism. It would mean resembling those who have produced and perpetuated massacres and suffering. It would mean setting aside human values and entering into a contest of nationalism and power with those very forces.
Even if a century were to pass, no solution other than the paradigm of the democratic nation can offer a way forward for the Middle East, a region long described as a garden of peoples. Insisting on religious fundamentalism, sectarianism, and nationalism leads only to further massacres, deeper destruction, and prolonged deadlock. The most evident example of this reality is the protracted Israel–Palestine war, waged on the basis of religious fundamentalism and nationalism, and Gaza as one of its most devastating outcomes. Abdullah Öcalan has warned that dozens of Gazas could unfold across the Middle East.
Europe witnessed centuries of wars rooted in sectarianism and nationalism. The most recent of these, the First World War and the Second World War, claimed the lives of millions of people. Even those who emerged victorious were left exhausted, bearing what can only be described as Pyrrhic victories. The idea of the European Union emerged from these historical experiences. Even within the framework of a system of states, a shared understanding based on mutual recognition gradually took shape. In the Middle East, no realistic solution model exists other than one grounded in the equal recognition of peoples and cultures and their ability to live together in fraternity. The concept of the democratic nation is built upon this very model of solution. There is no need to repeat Europe’s bloody experience.
Religious fundamentalism, sectarianism, and nationalism all generate antagonisms. These antagonisms pit opposing subjects against one another on the basis of power and domination, turning differences into open conflict in which the outcome is determined by whoever wields greater force. The democratic nation concept taking root among peoples and being genuinely embraced is not an easy process and requires time. Dominant powers have long poisoned societies with religious fundamentalism, sectarianism, and nationalism, inciting communities against one another and cultivating deep-seated prejudices. Overcoming these mindsets and prejudices demands sustained effort, labor, and struggle.
Another reality that is deliberately distorted is the attempt to present the democratic nation and national unity as opposing concepts, as if one must be chosen at the expense of the other. The democratic nation concept never excludes national unity. On the contrary, the stronger national unity and consciousness become, the more equal and healthy relations can be built with other peoples. No actor has invested as much intellectual and political effort in advancing national unity as Abdullah Öcalan and the Freedom Movement. Expanding and deepening this effort today must be understood as the responsibility of each of us. Advancing Kurdish national unity is a requirement of the democratic nation concept and an inseparable part of it.
Standing against and resisting anyone who acts in a power-driven, collaborationist, betrayalist manner and in violation of the values of freedom and equality constitutes a duty of self-defense. No one speaks of fraternity with gangs, with ISIS, with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), or with betrayer tribes. However, reducing entire peoples to these actors and placing whole communities in the same category is equally wrong. It must not be forgotten that thousands of Arab martyrs have fallen; comrades, friends, and neighbors stand among us. The fraternity being defended is that of good, ethical, freedom-loving, and democratic people from every people.
In conclusion, at a moment when national unity, national consciousness, and national spirit have become so visibly embodied among our people, mere rhetoric is not sufficient. Transforming national unity into an organized system and an institutionalized collective will constitutes the responsibility of all Kurdish forces. The people have articulated their demand for unity with the strongest voice and through collective action. The place the Kurdish people will occupy in the emerging new system, or whether they will be granted any place at all, remains uncertain as the Middle East is being reshaped. The danger of new Sykes–Picot arrangements and new Lausanne-type settlements persists.
Threats and dangers are immense. Yet opportunities also exist to secure a place in the new system through significant gains. The earlier and more firmly Kurdish national unity is built, the more possible it becomes to neutralize these dangers and to make use of the opportunities that lie ahead.
Leave a Reply