In the Middle East, particularly in Syria, the war for redivision by the imperialist states and their regional collaborators is continuing. The war in Syria is a multi-faceted and multi-player war, a combination of civil war and direct and indirect military interventions of reactionary regional states and imperialist states. The geography known as the Middle East is of utmost importance in the struggle to establish imperialist hegemony on a global scale, especially due to its abundance of energy (oil and natural gas) resources, its control of energy transport routes and its geostrategic position. The possession of political and military power in the Mediterranean is crucial in the wars to control energy resources and energy transport routes. Essentially, it's a war between two reactionary-imperialist blocs.
Under the leadership of the imperialism of the United States of America (USA), various imperialist states of the European Union (EU) and regional reactionary states such as the Republic of Turkey (Republic of Turkey), Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as some political Islamist groups in Syria and reactionary fighters from other countries form a bloc. (2) Opposing this bloc is the reactionary Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the Syrian Baathist (Assad) regime, the Iraqi central government and the Lebanese Hezbollah, in which Russian imperialism is the leading player. For convenience, we can call these blocs the US-bloc and the Russia-bloc. (3) The Partiya Yekîtiya Demokratik (PYD, Democratic Union Party) (4) is one of the leading forces with varying degrees of involvement with both blocs. While the forces of the second bloc are directly participating in the land war with their armed forces, the forces of the first bloc are waging the land war mainly through their local and international collaborators in Syria through the so-called ‘proxy war’. US imperialism is trying to implement the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) (5) under the guise of a war against the reactionary Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). (6) The Russian bloc, on the other hand, is trying to reshape the region according to the interests of each state in this bloc. (7)
One of the characteristics of this war is that US imperialism is collaborating with the Russian state and its allies and the Syrian Democratic Forces (Hêzên Sûriya Demokratîk), in which the PYD is the main force, rather than the Turkish Republic.
On 24 November 2015, the downing of the Russian warplane (8) and the Russian state's economic and political reprisals, threats of revenge, bombing of towns and villages held by the collaborators of the Turkish Republic in Syria, et cetera. It must be determined that taking into account the mutual provocations, the main instigators of a possible land war are the Russian imperialist state and the reactionary Turkish state.
Contrary to some assertions, the given situation in the Middle East does not indicate that the third imperialist war of redistribution has started or has been started. Although this assertion lacks basis in the given situation, it must be recognised that there is such a risk. A spark can cause a war in a region full of explosive materials. Arguments that such a war would not break out, especially because of the possibility of nuclear weapons being used in such a war, are bourgeois-liberal pacifist arguments.
Turkish Republic's Aggressive-Expansionist Policy
The Turkish state played the role of the leading player, the main instigator of the war for the partition of Syria. The policy of the political Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, which controls the central state organs, on the Middle East, specifically the policy of R.T. Erdoğan, the number one political representative of the Republic of Turkey, can be summarised as being the 'leading' power in the Middle East and North Africa through the 'Muslim Brotherhood' (9) movement, taking advantage of the North-African social movements called 'Arab Spring'. This policy, which was a tool to establish a sectarian, Sunni political-Islamist regional hegemony in the Middle East through war, played an important role in the transformation of 'friendly' relations with the Assad regime into 'hostile' relations in a short time. This policy has failed. The possibility for the Republic of Turkey to realise this policy is no longer possible due to the relatively rapid development of international and regional events, the phases of the war of redistribution, and especially the Russian state's tactic of switching from 'proxy war' to direct war.
In addition to strengthening the ‘internal’ front by suppressing the Kurdish national movement in Northern Kurdistan, the Republic of Turkey also wants to prevent, as much as possible, solidarity with the Kurdish national forces led by the PYD in Western Kurdistan. Because the ‘Syrian war’ is also partially ongoing in Northern Kurdistan. Northern Kurdistan is also the subject of the re-division war. The ongoing war in some cities of Northern Kurdistan is also a part of this war. The declarations of ‘self-government’ and the urban wars that started in some cities of Northern Kurdistan in the last months of 2015 cannot be considered separately from the developments in Western Kurdistan. (10) The geography within the borders of the Republic of Turkey, where the urban wars continue in Northern Kurdistan, is adjacent to Western Kurdistan, called Rojava. The autonomous political structure (proto-state) established in Western Kurdistan, which also means the actual use of the Kurds’ right to determine their political destiny, means supporting the struggle of the Kurdish national movement in Northern Kurdistan to determine their political destiny. The Republic of Turkey considers the existence of a political structure (autonomous Western Kurdistan) in which an organization (PYD) advocating an ideological-political line similar to the organization that wages war within its borders on the Syrian border as a threat to its existence for both internal and external reasons. It considers such a circumvention as a cause for war. Although it currently has allied relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government in Southern Kurdistan, where the Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party, led by Barzani, is the dominant force, the establishment of an autonomous government in Western Kurdistan as well as in Southern Kurdistan strengthens the spirit of being surrounded by its ‘enemies’.
The Turkish Republic's reactionary policy of consolidating the ‘internal’ front is not limited to Northern Kurdistan. This aggressive policy is also intensifying in Turkey as a geographical region. This situation shows once again that the existence of the Kurdish national question is one of the most important obstacles to the social and political democratisation of Turkey and Northern Kurdistan. (11)
Attitude towards the policies of the patriotic Kurdish parties
One of the most important results of the ongoing war in Syria was the Kurds of Western Kurdistan exercising their right to determine their political future. The ‘Middle East order’ that was created after the first imperialist war of redistribution is currently undergoing significant changes. It is understandable that the PKK in Northern Kurdistan and the PYD in Western Kurdistan take advantage of these evolving power relations to determine the political future of the Kurdish nation in both parts of Kurdistan, even with the support of US imperialism. (12) Just as the Kurdish national forces and tribes in Southern Kurdistan took advantage of the situation created during the imperialist intervention in Iraq.
One key point that deserves special attention is the need for communist revolutionaries to maintain a principled policy in relation to the ongoing war. This means refraining from pursuing the potentially opportunistic policy of unconditionally supporting the policies of the patriotic Kurdish national organisations. When determining their stance towards these organisations, their relationships with US imperialism and the Russian imperialist state must be taken into account. (13) Despite not having the political and military influence to influence the course of the war, the communist revolutionaries maintain a policy based on communist principles. They do not offer unconditional support to the patriotic Kurdish national movement solely due to its political mass influence and military strength, as such a stance would be an unnecessary concession to colonial nationalism.
The PYD's policy of expanding its geographical sphere of influence in Syria is a policy that must be opposed if it leads the Republic of Turkey to continue the war in Syria through the direct use of its armed forces (a military operation). It is unacceptable for the PYD's policy of expanding the territory under its control to be a factor for the Turkish Republic to enter the war directly. The potential consequences of such a war, including the deaths of thousands of workers and other labourers from many nations and national minorities, soldiers and non-soldiers, as well as the suffering of the relatives of the dead workers and labourers and the increase in mistrust between peoples, are dire and must be considered.
From the communist political point of view, which takes the interests of the struggle to build a socialist society as the basis of politics, the right of nations to political self-determination is not absolute. Communist revolutionaries distinguish between the defence of this right in principle and the exercise of this right (the actual situation). This distinction is not just a matter of semantics but a crucial aspect of political discourse that requires clarity and precision. It must be emphasised that those who do not make this distinction make an unnecessary concession to oppressed/colonised nationalism. Communist revolutionaries cannot accept the outbreak of a war in which the workers, the poor masses of the city and countryside, in uniform or out of uniform, kill each other because one nation wants to determine its political destiny. They cannot be direct or indirect supporters of a policy that can lead to a war that will harm the struggle for freedom and socialism. It is also unacceptable that because of such a policy and war, the political conditions in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan deteriorate to the detriment of the interests of the struggle for freedom and socialism.
Attitudes and tasks against war and the danger of reactionary civil war (14)
The data indicate that without a decisive ground war, the war in Syria is unlikely to end soon. Communist revolutionaries who militantly oppose the regional imperialist war of redistribution pursue a policy of preventing the outbreak of a possible land war in which the Republic of Turkey would be a direct party. It is also among the tasks of the communist organisations, circles and individuals of the communist movement to try to give a revolutionary character to the existing anti-war actions. To this end, they endeavour to strengthen the international character of the anti-war struggle by establishing and strengthening relations with communist revolutionaries and all progressive anti-war forces on a world scale and in the region's states, especially in the states waging war.
Suppose a land war in which the Turkish Republic would be a direct party cannot be prevented. In that case, the communist revolutionaries pursue a policy of transforming the reactionary war, in which ‘their’ state is also a subject, into a revolutionary civil war aimed at defeating and overthrowing the capitalist Turkish state. Even if this war is waged within the borders of the Turkish state, it is unacceptable to support the reactionary Turkish Republic in a reactionary-imperialist war under the name of national defence. Within the borders of which state the war is being waged, where the armies are located is a secondary question. The essence of the question is which classes and states wage the war for which class interests, aims and policies. (15) In the event of a possible land war spreading to Turkey and Northern Kurdistan, communist revolutionaries assume the task of defending the homeland against imperialist-reactionary aggression and continue to implement the policy of transforming the war into an anti-imperialist revolutionary war.
The task of preventing a reactionary civil war in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan
To maintain its political power by taking more reactionary measures and increasing state violence, the AKP is not only instigating a regional inter-state war but also provoking a reactionary civil war by fuelling chauvinist Turkish nationalism and Kurdish enmity. An aggressive expansionist war, in which the Republic of Turkey will be one of the direct parties, not only causes the classes and strata with different ethnic and sectarian identities living in Syria to suffer in many ways but also causes the state to increase further its oppression in the geography of Turkey and Northern Kurdistan. The events indicate that the political environment in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan will become increasingly harsh. For example, depending on the developments in the Middle East, martial law may be declared, especially in some provinces and districts of Northern Kurdistan. There is also the possibility of a military coup. The reactionary-imperialist war of division may sharpen the polarisation on ethnic and religious-sectarian grounds and provoke a civil war that will develop on ethnic and even sectarian grounds rather than on class grounds.
The classes and social strata, which are the subjects of socialist revolutionary struggle, i.e. which are capable of fighting for socialism, must refuse to fight against each other for national rights, which are essentially bourgeois. It is among the most burning tasks of the communist revolutionaries to prevent the workers of Turkish, Kurdish and other ethnic origins and the urban and rural poor from becoming parties to a reactionary civil war. The propaganda and implementation of policies that, on the pretext of the defence of national rights, can lead to the outbreak of civil war between peoples must be criticised and rejected. The ‘slaughter’ of peoples must be prevented, among other things, by organising and spreading the revolutionary political struggle of the workers of all ethnic origins and the urban and rural poor.
The war waged by the Turkish Republic in Northern Kurdistan to strengthen the colonialist yoke and to consolidate the 'home front' and the Kurdish national movement's war of resistance against colonialism are among the most burning current problems for the communist movement in today's conditions. However, the fact that the war against the war to strengthen the colonialist yoke within the borders of the Turkish Republic and the war in Syria, which tends to spread and intensify, is a burning current task cannot cause the communist movement to divert its attention from its essential tasks. The communist movement cannot use its forces recklessly. Communist revolutionaries determine their policy priorities from the communist point of view. They try to organise a communist political workers' movement, placing the unification of the communist movement with the working-class movement at the centre of their policy. The communist movement, which intensifies and tries to strengthen its daily work, especially in the big capitalist enterprises in the big cities, does not put specific current tasks, for example, the task of preventing the war for the redistribution of the Middle East from evolving into an inter-state war, ahead of the socialist struggle based on the working class. They consider propaganda and agitation against the danger of a reactionary-imperialist regional war and a reactionary civil war within the working-class movement and the organisation of an anti-war movement as part of the socialist revolutionary struggle. They consider the work of exposing political realities and the campaign to expose political power as a component of this struggle.
Let us consolidate the secret revolutionary organisations!
Since the military-fascist dictatorship of 12 September 1980, the geography of Turkey and Northern Kurdistan is experiencing for the first time a political climate full of great dangers for the working class and other labourers and progressive, democratic-revolutionary and communist-revolutionary political forces, and in particular for the Kurdish people.
The communist revolutionaries, calculating the worst possible consequences of the current political crisis while trying to fulfil their daily revolutionary tasks in the best possible way, must consolidate their organisations using the means at their disposal most efficiently and expediently. The increasingly harsh political situation, which may lead to the declaration of martial law in some provinces and districts and even to the establishment of a military dictatorship, puts before the communist revolutionaries the task of taking ‘more than ordinary’ measures to review and strengthen their secret organisations. Only in this way can the security of communist organisations and the continuity of their work be ensured. Among these tasks, the organisation of the underground press, both written and unwritten, is of special importance.
Communist revolutionaries take long-term aims/tasks as their starting point in the problem of using means and in the question of priorities. They utilise their limited cadre possibilities, mass relations, the opportunities created by these relations, money and technical means most efficiently. They carry out every day's political struggle against the colonialist war waged by the Turkish Republic in Northern Kurdistan and its warmongering aimed at intensifying and spreading the war in Syria by calculating the political priorities and the possibilities in the most detailed way.
Can the communist-revolutionary movement show the necessary political vigilance in such a political crisis and consolidate its secret organisations by making the most efficient and purposeful use of its possibilities?
A. H. Yalaz
March 5, 2016
---------------
(1) The term ‘Middle East’ is a product of a Eurocentric perspective. Due to its widespread use, this characterisation is also used in this article for convenience.
(2) Within this bloc exists a sub-bloc in which the Republic of Turkey is the leading player. The main objective of this sub-bloc is the overthrow of the Baath regime and the establishment of a political Islamist political system in its place. Due to the ability of the Baath regime to resist for a long time, the fact that the Baath regime's alternative is ISIS or other political Islamist political and military forces, and mainly due to the changing power relations as a result of the direct participation of the Russian imperialist state in the war, the US bloc may prefer the continuation of a Baath regime without Assad in Syria, even for a temporary period. The Zionist state of Israel is also part of this bloc. It has been one of the belligerents, bombing strategic facilities of the Syrian army, supporting armed groups of political Islamists and organising assassinations against Hezbollah militants. It should be noted that the consolidation of the security of the state of Israel is an element of US policy.
(3) There are also national liberationist or reformist forces, which, mainly because of the ethnic composition of the arena of struggle, are more often de facto part of the Russian bloc and cannot be described as collaborators. In the Syrian war, besides the states, there are many unnamed, according to some estimates, hundreds of politically progressive and reactionary organisations and coalitions of organisations.
(4) Throughout the article, wherever the PYD is mentioned, there are also references to armed forces such as Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG, People's Protection Units) and Yekîneyên Parastina Jin (YPJ, Women's Defence Units).
(5) Regarding the WMI, please refer to my two-part article titled 'An Imperialist Restructuring Project: The Greater Middle East Initiative', which consists of two parts.
(6) The emergence of ISIS and its role in the region and the world must be analysed in detail. ISIS is one of the leading players in the war for the redistribution of the Middle East, specifically Iraq and Syria. The relationship between the Turkish Republic and ISIS has a dual character. They are both in conflict and, at the same time, maintain a relationship of cooperation. In the given situation, ISIS is sometimes a direct and sometimes an indirect ally of the Republic of Turkey.
(7) In addition to fighting to strengthen its political and military influence in Syria, Russia is also fighting for its state security. The Russian imperialist state is also concerned that if the fighters fighting in Syria, who for the sake of convenience can be described as 'political Islamists', return to Russia or Russia's neighbouring countries after the war; they will continue or exacerbate the so-called 'jihadist' war in Russia and the countries under its political-economic influence. In other words, Russia is fighting in Syria not only for its state security but also to prevent possible future intra-state problems.
(8) In addition to fighting to strengthen its political and military influence in Syria, Russia is also fighting for its state security. The Russian imperialist state is also concerned that if the fighters fighting in Syria, who for the sake of convenience can be described as 'political Islamists', return to Russia or Russia's neighbouring countries after the war; they will continue or exacerbate the so-called 'jihadist' war in Russia and the countries under its political-economic influence. In other words, Russia is fighting in Syria not only for its state security but also to prevent possible future intra-state problems.
(9) For those who would like to learn more about the Muslim Brotherhood movement, I recommend my two-part article, ‘Political Islam,’ written in English and the product of a relatively limited study of sources.
(10) The role of the PKK in the outbreak of urban wars in some cities of Northern Kurdistan and the timing of the outbreak of urban wars are also issues that need to be addressed. The role the PKK plays and can play in the region, its relations with the imperialist states and the states of the region.
(11) The content of the concept of ‘democratisation’ is a matter of debate.
(12) The PKK and the PYD (the Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party, Partiya Çareseriya Demokratik a Kurdistan [PÇDK] in Southern Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Free Life Party, Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistanê [PJAK] in Eastern Kurdistan) are part of the Kurdistan-wide organisation of the patriotic Kurdish national movement, which has the same ideological-political line (in essence, the PKK line, which has changed many times over the years). These parties can also be characterised as 'sister' parties. Koma Civakên Kurdistan (KCK, Kurdistan Communities Union) is this ideological-political line's 'umbrella' organisation.
(13) It must be reminded that, even if it is preferred not to be mentioned by patriotic Kurdish organisations such as the PKK and the PYD and those who are ideologically-politically close to them and support them almost uncritically, the involvement of the US imperialist air force played a significant, perhaps decisive role in the defence of Kobani and its liberation from the reactionary ISIS attack. In the given situation, the PYD has a de facto ‘alliance’ with both the US imperialist state and the Russian imperialist state. The political analysis of this relationship and what kind of a path it has the potential to follow should be discussed separately.
(14) As I wrote in the article titled ‘The War of Resistance against Turkish Colonialism in Northern Kurdistan’, ‘The war in Northern Kurdistan, which is basically an urban war, is not a civil war in the classical sense. From the point of view of the Turkish Republic, this war is a colonial war. In contrast, from the point of view of the Kurdish nation and the Kurdish national movement, it is a war of national resistance against the colonial yoke.’
For detailed information about my views on the national question in general and the Kurdish national question in particular, I recommend reading the article referred to above, as well as the booklet 'The National Question and Communist Organisation' on this website (www.bilimselsosyalizm.net), and the articles 'The colonialist Turkish State Get Out of Kurdistan!' and 'The Kurdish nation's right to political self-determination and the "peace process"'.
(15) When is war a war for the defence of the homeland, and when is it a reactionary war? In the given situation where there is a risk of the Republic of Turkey directly participating in a land war, the main question to be asked and answered is the question of which classes, states, et cetera. are waging war and for what purposes? For example, the Battle of Gallipoli, considered a great military success, was not a defence of the homeland for the Ottoman Empire but an imperialist-reactionary war, contrary to what is believed even in circles that define themselves as ‘left’. Why? Because the Ottoman Empire was part of one of the two imperialist alliances waging the First Imperialist Redistribution War. The Battle of Gallipoli was a phase of this imperialist war of redistribution. Let us emphasise that the communist position on the defence of the homeland is also a theoretical problem which must be dealt with in detail.
