The state of crisis created by wars and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East continues to deepen with each passing day. The impact of these crises on societies is also being felt more intensely. Developments stretching from Gaza to Syria, from Iran to the Kurdish question, bring not only inter-state power struggles to the forefront, but also renew the search of peoples for freedom, equality and coexistence.
In this context, we spoke with theorist Nils Andersson, known for his work on anti-colonialism, international solidarity and freedom movements, about recent developments in the region, shifting global power balances and the place of the Kurdish question within this landscape. Andersson drew attention both to the historical transformation from the liberation struggles of the 20th century to the present and to the increasingly pronounced phenomenon of “isolation,” emphasizing the importance of Abdullah Öcalan’s thesis of coexistence and the democratic politics he seeks to develop.
We are in a period where international support is most needed
The wars and crisis environment in the region are deepening. At the same time, the regression of democratic politics and the increase in conflicts are striking. Considering Abdullah Öcalan’s emphasis on democratic politics and the search for a democratic solution to the Kurdish question, how should this picture be assessed?
The search for a democratic solution to the Kurdish question is not easy at all. Contradictions and wars in the region are multiplying, and the risk of these conflicts expanding is increasing. President Öcalan said in his statement that “Where democratic politics takes root, weapons lose their meaning.” We are now facing the exact opposite situation; instead of democratic politics taking root, it is receding, and therefore weapons are coming to the forefront, replacing politics and becoming dominant.
This is an extremely dangerous situation and, naturally, it is not favorable for the rights and liberation of the Kurdish people in Turkey or in other countries where Kurds live, such as Syria and Iran. For this reason, I consider the developments in the region to be highly destructive and dangerous. This is precisely where Kurdish people need support. In such periods, wisdom and leadership are required; President Öcalan has often emphasized this need. And in my view, imperialist policies today constitute a clear and harsh attack against all the rights of peoples. We see this in the Palestinian people, in the Iranian people and in the Lebanese people. What is lacking, therefore, is solidarity.
I believe that peoples today are experiencing profound isolation, because there are no effective mechanisms of international solidarity, nor any real indications that other forces are prepared to show genuine support. One of the most striking examples of this was when the Syrian Kurds, that is Rojava, were left alone when they sought to pursue their own policies.
In my opinion, the central problem is this sense of isolation felt by peoples, and it must be reversed. In the twentieth century, during the process of colonization, peoples rose up and struggled. There was the Bandung movement, there were alliances, there were two camps, the socialist camp and the United States camp, so peoples could at times rely on these forces and establish a balance between them. There were ways to find support and solidarity. Today, however, such forms of support are truly lacking and difficult to access, which makes the struggle of Kurds to find a path to freedom in Turkey, Syria or other political arenas even more difficult.
The West betrays all the values it claims to uphold
How do you assess the West’s approach toward the Kurds in the context of developments in Syria?
There is a betrayal by the West. I would even go further: there is an alienation of the West from its stance against colonialism and racism, meaning it has become dependent on them. In the West, there is fundamentally a form of racism that does not accept the ‘other.’
It does not accept Black people, it does not accept Arabs, it does not accept Muslims; in fact, it fears them. This is a weakened West. It is no longer the arrogant West of the 19th and 20th centuries that dominated lands and colonies. It is a weakened West, but also a fearful one. And it fears the other. This, in turn, strengthens the racism it carries within; this itself is a form of alienation.
As Frantz Fanon said, the colonized must free themselves from colonization; but the colonizer must also free themselves from being a colonizer. Today, however, we are far from that stage. On the contrary, the West is turning inward, and for this reason it betrays. It betrays peoples, it betrays the rights it claims to defend, it betrays democracy, it betrays integration; indeed, it betrays all the values it claims to uphold.
They try every means to preserve their hegemony
How do you see the difference between classical colonialism in the past and the neo-colonial policies of today? What kind of transformation have freedom movements undergone in response?
The twentieth century was the period in which Africa was conquered. Before that, of course, there had also been the conquest of South and North America. However, in the second half of the twentieth century, particularly after the Second World War and from the 1950s onward, we witnessed the rise of freedom movements. These movements used all methods, including armed struggle, but they operated within a relatively favorable context.
That context was indeed quite favorable; there was Bandung, there was the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and there was Tricontinental solidarity. This created a balance of power. However, this balance was altered and suppressed through pressure, there were coups, attacks and assassinations.
Che Guevara was killed, Amílcar Cabral was killed, Patrice Lumumba was killed, Ben Barka was killed, and many others. Coups took place in Indonesia and in many other places. Despite all this, at a certain point, peoples made progress. Algeria gained independence, Vietnam gained independence, and apartheid ended in South Africa.
At a certain stage, however, imperialism and neo-colonialism reasserted their dominance. There is the example of Vietnam; more broadly, former colonized countries now possess a much stronger balance of power. There is the example of China, but also India and other countries.
What we now call the ‘Global South’ holds a far stronger economic position compared to the twentieth century. At that time, while structures such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) existed, these countries demanded more equal economic relations but were denied. Today, their economic and trade weight has grown to a level incomparable with that of the twentieth century.
Yet this very situation is what shapes the policies of the United States and other imperialist powers today. They seek to preserve their hegemony and maintain their dominance. In doing so, they resort to methods that can even carry the risk of a world war. In this geopolitical landscape, Europe has become significantly weakened. If there is a European country currently displaying a clearer stance, in my view, it is Spain. Spain appears relatively more consistent in adhering to human rights and the democratic principles it claims to uphold.
Öcalan’s thesis is a Copernican revolution
How should Abdullah Öcalan’s approach and ideas be evaluated in the face of the deep crises in the region, particularly in relation to the process aimed at resolving the Kurdish question?
Chaotic situations like the one we are experiencing today never last forever. This is a state of absolute disorder and, by its nature, it cannot continue indefinitely. At a certain point, everything must be rebalanced. This is a law of nature. Nothing can exist in a constant state of disorder. Therefore, new balances will emerge. How long this will take is another matter; there is no definite prediction.
In my view, however, one of the most decisive factors here is the program of the great Kurdish leader, President Öcalan. For example, in one of his recent texts, I read the following: ‘The relationship of citizenship should not be based on belonging to a nation, but on the bond established with the state. We advocate free citizenship based on freedom of religion, freedom of identity and freedom of thought. Just as religion and language cannot be imposed, nationality cannot be imposed either.’
This is, in essence, a Copernican revolution; it means transforming the world into another world. The approach embodied in Öcalan’s movement is powerful, and this is of great importance. As he himself states, a solution must be found to the problem of coexistence.
The thesis of coexistence is fundamental
The question of coexistence is fundamental; it is the primary issue. Do white people, do Europeans, accept living together with those who are not like themselves? In the context of today’s disorder, the idea of coexistence is, in my view, the most powerful slogan one can uphold. It responds to the interests and needs of all peoples. The idea of coexistence, this approach expressed in Öcalan’s text, is truly essential.
The problem is not the Republic of Turkey itself; it lies in the rights within the republic; religion, origin, ethnicity and all other rights. Yes, exactly this. And I believe the issue emerges precisely here in today’s context. As we can see, the policies of the United States in Iran, Israel’s policies in Palestine, and practices elsewhere are policies that oppose the idea of coexistence. They reflect an understanding of the state rooted in the nineteenth century, not one belonging to the twenty-first century. That is the problem.
For many people, this represents a Copernican revolution; that is, a transformation of the world. In my view, it is necessary to work in this direction, to make an effort, to defend and disseminate these ideas. I fully believe in this.
Changing order is forcing armed struggle to transform
How do you assess the shift whereby freedom movements and armed struggles, which once found broader support, are now carried out under much more difficult conditions?
As we mentioned earlier, in the twentieth century, within the context shaped by the contradiction between socialism and capitalism and the presence of the Third World movement, there was a period in which struggles, including armed struggle, found support. It should be recalled that from the 1950s onward, armed liberation struggles were described as ‘just wars,’ because they were demanding legitimate rights. Today, however, the balance of power is different.
On the one hand, the Global South and southern countries are economically stronger and possess greater capacity. However, global military power balances, as we see in the case of the Palestinian people and also in Iran, remain highly unfavorable. In addition to this adverse military balance, there is also a lack of international solidarity with liberation movements.
In the past, there was solidarity. There was solidarity with Vietnam, there was solidarity with Algeria. Today, such solidarity no longer exists. There is both weakness in the face of military power and a lack of solidarity. Of course, I am not saying it is entirely absent; it exists, but it has no real effect in the face of the military force and violence being applied. This is where a sense of isolation emerges, again, this is the isolation of peoples. I do not believe this can be resolved in a day or a week. The idea of coexistence must be strongly defended in order to ensure that people accept one another.
We can clearly see this in Europe. I observe it in France, but not only in France, across Europe there is a rejection of the ‘other.’ Unless at least part of this rejection is overcome, it will be very difficult to develop policies of coexistence. On the contrary, racism and exclusion are strengthening.
Kurds receive significant support in Europe, but they also face increasing difficulties and racist attitudes. In my view, the central issue in Europe is to reverse the fears present in European public opinion and the rejection of the ‘other.’ This is not only a matter at the level of governments, but one that must also be addressed at the level of peoples and citizens.
Neither the mullah regime nor the US, the people are decisive
How do you evaluate the stance of Kurdish movements, which side neither with the United States nor Iran, in the context of the war and developments in Iran?
From the first days of the bombardments, when military leaders, intelligence chiefs, that is, the highest levels of the state, were targeted, one might have expected a collapse. There was a strategy aimed at fragmenting the country into regions, and in similar situations many states have collapsed rapidly. However, this did not happen here.
The issue is that it is not possible to choose between United States imperialism and the Iranian regime; what is decisive is the people. This is precisely what the Kurdish movement defends. In my view, the interest of Kurds in Iran lies in standing with the people, defending rights within the Iranian state regardless of ethnicity, religion or other distinctions.
The reality is that, although no one can say with certainty how the process will end, it can be said that Iran has shown a certain degree of resistance against Israel and the United States. The fact that it continues to exist is, in itself, a sign of failure for the opposing side.
This demonstrates that they are no longer a force capable of resolving such issues within twenty-four hours as they once did. In the past, there were examples such as the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran; that period has come to an end. Today, the legitimacy of peoples is emerging more strongly, and at the same time, despite all their military, economic and financial power, the limits of imperialist forces are becoming visible. They may win militarily, but they cannot prevail politically or ideologically. I believe this.
More than two thousand years ago, a great Chinese strategist said: ‘To wage war, you must know your enemy.’ In my view, the United States has shown in the case of Iran that it does not fully understand its opponent.
Who is Nils Andersson?
Nils Andersson, 91, is a Swedish-born Swiss–French theorist, writer, editor and political activist. Having worked for decades on anti-colonialism, peace, international solidarity and freedom movements, Andersson has been actively engaged in intellectual and political publishing since the 1950s. In 1958, he founded the La Cité Éditeur publishing house in Switzerland, where he published suppressed works. He was expelled from Switzerland in 1966 due to his support for anti-colonial movements such as the Algerian and Vietnamese struggles for independence, as well as for publishing works that included the ideas of Mao Zedong.
Now living in France, Andersson has taken part in activities linked to Attac, the Helsinki Committee and various human rights organizations, and has written or edited books on international justice, critiques of the United Nations and post-colonial policies. He is also known for writing the preface to the French edition of Abdullah Öcalan’s Manifesto of Democratic Civilization, and for his analyses of anti-colonialism and democratic politics.
Leave a Reply