Yüksel Genç, Coordinator of the Center for Political and Social Research (SAMER), assessed the impact of the Kurdish National Unity that emerged in the wake of the attacks on Rojava on the ongoing process in Turkey. Genç said this unity has both tested the process in Turkey with deep mistrust and drawn a clear boundary that only a process producing concrete and genuine responses can move forward. He also stressed that the people no longer read the process solely within the borders of Turkey but position themselves directly as active subjects of the process in the context of the recognition of the rights and statuses of Kurds across all four parts of Kurdistan.
The Kurdish people have emerged as a national political force
Genç said the occupation of Kurdish neighborhoods in Aleppo on 6 January marked a turning point for Kurds, adding that from that date onward, society became a more visible political actor based on national consciousness.
Genç said: “In my view, 6 January marked a turning point for Kurds. A very significant threshold was crossed. Society, in a highly politicized manner and with a national consciousness, became an actor in everything that concerns the Kurds. It demonstrated its readiness to act as a grassroots actor. This state of acting as an actor, as the very political agency of society within the formation of national unity, also declared that wherever and whatever happens in the name of Kurdishness, it will be present and will be able to shape events through its influence.
We saw the first example of this in Rojava. Faced with the risk of massacres and the threat of the liquidation of gains that emerged around Rojava, the Kurdish people themselves intervened as a significant actor. As a nation, they declared that they would not allow what was planned there. As a political force, they built a line of resistance against what was being imposed. It was this people who halted the attempt to annihilate the envisioned presence in Rojava and the risk of the total liquidation of the gains. The national political resistance and stance of the people stopped this process and emerged as a force. This force and this form of resistance have had an impact on the way the negotiating table has taken shape and on the fact that the trajectory toward a worse outcome has, for now, been halted.”
National unity is taking shape as a deterrent force
Genç said that, not limited to Rojava, a political reflex based on national unity will be activated in response to all forms of adversity directed at Kurds. He said: “This should not be understood only in relation to Rojava. From now on, in the face of any form of adversity or attempts at liquidation that may arise concerning Kurds or in the geographies where Kurds live, it is possible to foresee that a national stance as a political and political force, and a shared national sentiment, will be mobilized.”
He said the very stance of national unity within this society has the capacity to provide a solid footing and a genuine character to the resolution process in Turkey. He added that in the new regional sovereignty and hegemonic power-sharing process unfolding through Southern Kurdistan (Başur), this stance also constitutes an important focal point for the protection of Southern Kurdistan.
Genç said that in the process of transforming the regime in Iran, the Kurds along the Eastern Kurdistan (Rojhilat) line also appear poised to position themselves as a political actor in safeguarding their gains and unity. He added that this dynamic can be described in the following way: “If the stance of Kurdish national unity can sustain its political character, it will stand out as a deterrent force, a barrier, and a center of gravity against all forms of risk and liquidation directed at Kurds. Ultimately, this also tells us that the motivation behind the formation of this unity is driven largely by risk factors. Even if reactionary, as it becomes institutionalized or sustained over time, it becomes a line that is increasingly visible and cannot be ignored.”
Kurdish national unity did not develop through a state-centered model
Genç said Kurdish National Unity has historically taken shape on a different basis from state-centered models of nation-building. He said: “Kurdish National Unity has, in fact, taken a very distinctive form. Forms of nation-building across the world have largely developed in relation to the state. Since the French Revolution, and throughout the past two centuries of nation-state formation, nationhood and statehood have been intertwined, completing their existence in this way. However, Kurdish nation-building and the question of national unity have not developed through the auspices of a state, nor through the imposition and centralization of a state. On the contrary, they have taken shape through the need to move existence out of the realm of risk, taking into account both the risks to existence and the outcomes of years of struggle.
This reflects two key positions: the need to form a unity of force triggered by a sense of risk, and a state of unity that emerges from the desire to protect the gains of years of struggle. This is not something encountered very often.”
Kurdish nation-building has taken shape within a global social rupture
Genç said the Kurdish process of nation-building has developed by spreading into a global context in a way that differs from classical state-centered models, adding that this constitutes a distinctive case in terms of political science and theories of nationhood.
Genç said: “Another dimension is that while nations have historically formed within a defined territory and state structures, Kurds have undergone nation-building in a way that is dispersed across a global context. In this respect, I think it represents a different and intriguing case for political science and theorists of the nation, and at the same time points to the social formations of the twenty-first century.”
Genç said the anxiety created by authoritarianism and centralization on a global scale is pushing societies toward new forms of sociality, and that this trend is creating a ground for mobilization worldwide.
Genç also said: “Today, in a world where authoritarianism, centralization, and hegemonic power determine everything, peoples who are harmed by this and who feel unease and threat are developing possibilities for different forms of sociality. From the United States to Russia, from Turkey to the Middle East, and from Africa to China, these power relations create a sense of global dystopia within societies, and this feeling moves societies into action.”
Yüksel Genç said that within this rupture, strong social movements independent of states are accumulating, and that Kurds are among the early examples of this process. He added: “In this century, the drive by those governing states to push power, hegemony, and relations of force to their highest point has created a rupture with societies. Within this rupture, a strong accumulation of social mobilization is forming against this trajectory of states. Kurds were one manifestation of this, perhaps a testing ground. This process is not planned; it is a reactionary position produced by relations of power. It is possible to see the paradigm defined by Abdullah Öcalan as the ‘democratic nation’ taking concrete form in the practice of national unity displayed by Kurds throughout January.”
The risk in Rojava is perceived as a threat spreading across all fronts
Genç said that the course of developments along the Rojava line initially created a sense of shock among Kurds, shaped by the feeling of being targeted within a global plan, the sense of isolation that this risk produced, the resulting disappointment, and the awareness that the risk was generated not by a single actor but by multiple forces. He added that this experience, combined with a dimension they know well, gave rise to a form of resistance and, in certain respects, safeguarded Rojava. More precisely, it opened space for the continuation of Rojava’s process of political subjectification.
Genç said that this risk has not yet been eliminated and that everyone is aware of this. He noted that the sense that “if Rojava falls, other places will follow” is increasingly spreading within society, and that for this reason, every existential risk in Rojava, whether overcome or not, comes to mean that gains in other arenas are also being targeted.
Genç said that all the lines of connection extending from Iraq to the Kurdistan Region, the peripheral fronts, and Eastern Kurdistan (Rojhilat) are being recognized as potential targets of this global process of violence and tension, and that the unease created by this awareness is being felt across society.
Kurds have discovered the power of national unity, but distrust persists
Genç said the process is moving along a more internal line for Kurds, and that within this process the power of national unity has been experienced in practice, yet a reactive stance toward risks emerging outside national unity is still being maintained.
Genç also said: “When we come to the more internal positions that have produced this process, Kurds, on the one hand, have practically discovered the power of national unity; on the other hand, they still maintain a reactive stance toward the risk areas that emerge outside this national unity. Some of these risks are attributed to regional powers, while others are seen as coming from lines extending from the United States to Israel, from the interim administration in Syria to Turkey, and there is a sense of rupture in trust that nothing coming from these lines will bring anything good.
Although a significant part of the people attribute responsibility for what has happened in Rojava to regional and global powers, they place the main responsibility on Turkey and think that Turkey stands at the center of the orientation directed against Kurds. This perception is leading to a rapid decline in trust in the resolution process. This line, which has shifted from cautious optimism to guarded distrust, is strengthening an approach that reads the process not as a process of resolution but as a dubious process. This picture confronts both state actors and Kurdish movement actors with the need to strengthen the process and make it genuine.”
The process in Turkey is being read at a new threshold after Rojava
Genç said the Kurdish National Unity that emerged in the Rojava process has an impact on the process underway in Turkey that both tests it and redefines it at the same time. He said: “In fact, the Kurdish National Unity that emerged after Rojava and the power of this unity deepen distrust toward the process underway in Turkey, while at the same time drawing a clear threshold that, if a process is to move forward, it can only be one that is genuine, with clearly defined limits and producing concrete outcomes. For this reason, if the emerging process is to be genuine, if its requirements are fulfilled and its practical outcomes are seen, it becomes possible, even if limited, to test the re-emergence of an area of trust among the people.”
Genç added that the process underway in Turkey is no longer being evaluated by Kurds within a framework limited solely to Turkey. He said: “A very significant part of the people no longer read the process underway in Turkey within the borders of Turkey alone; they see this process as a stage within a broader historical and political trajectory in which Kurds define their own political positions across all four parts. For this reason, while the process advances on a highly sensitive, fragile, distrustful, and contested ground, it is at the same time turning into a negotiating arena in which the people position themselves as active subjects of the process for the recognition of Kurdish rights and statuses in the twenty-first century.”
Leave a Reply