Mücadele Birliği (Struggle Unity, Turkey)
The Syrian regime collapsed faster than anyone expected, even its enemies. The rapid collapse of a state whose modern history spans more than a hundred years has naturally led to polemics. The answers to the questions of how and why this destruction took place are likely to lead to controversy among communist and revolutionary parties, as well as among all parties and sectors.
I. The Correct Approach to the Issue
First of all, let us underline the following in order to avoid any misunderstanding and misinterpretation: It was necessary and correct to support the Syrian state in its war against imperialism, Arab reactionaries, Turkey, and the religious fascist gangs fed and supported by the Turkish government. Revolutionary communists in Turkey and Kurdistan defended this line from the beginning and fulfilled its requirements.
But what did it mean to follow a political line of supporting the Syrian state in this war against imperialism and reaction and wanting the Syrian army to triumph over its enemies, and? Did it mean unconditional support for those holding political power in Syria? Or should it have?
Of course not! Communists cannot, indeed must never, discard class considerations in such cases. In such a situation the question must be asked and the answer must be clear: What is the class character of the Syrian state, the Baathists holding power? For communists, the answer to this question is clear: The Baath government is a bourgeois government. Therefore, the communists’ support for such a government is not and cannot be unconditional and unlimited… Communists’ support for this government must be conditional and limited. The condition is that it is determined in the war against imperialism and reaction; its limit is within the framework of this war. Apart from this, the communists, whether in Syria or elsewhere, carefully protect the independent class interests of the proletariat and defend these interests against any bourgeois class. In fact, this is the political line that the Syrian Communist Party (SCP) must defend. We can go one step further and say the following: Even in the midst of the war, in the struggle against imperialism, reaction and fascism, the SCP should have defended an independent class line, taking great care that the interests of the proletariat were not dissolved in the interests of the bourgeois class.
This does not mean, of course, that one should copy and apply the slogan of “turning foreign war into civil war” that some idiots learned from Lenin. To propose such a policy would amount to the same kind of philistinism that leads to the implementation of imperialist plans, nothing more.
One can ask the question: How is it that bourgeois class is able to fight against imperialism and reaction today? The answer lies in the present conditions of the imperialist-capitalist system and in the policy of “full annexation” which it imposes on dependent and semi-dependent countries or those that not yet been fully integrated into the imperialist-capitalist system. We cannot evaluate imperialism as it was in the past decades. We have to understand and take into account the gigantic dimensions reached by the imperialist finance capital, the resulting crisis and collapse of the imperialist-capitalist system, and the policies pursued by imperialist states to get out of this crisis and collapse.
In short, the imperialist states and imperialist finance capital have reached a point where they cannot be content with exploiting the dependent and semi-dependent countries and countries that are not yet fully integrated into the system with the “old-style” of exploitation in order to overcome the crisis, to continue expanded reproduction and capital accumulation. It is now forcing countries that are not yet fully integrated into the system to surrender, imposing “full economic annexation” on them. To seize the banks, industry, agriculture, land, and natural resources of “neo-colonial” countries, the current imperialist policy increases exploitation to the most intensive level possible and continues the accumulation of capital. Countries and states that do not submit to this policy are destroyed and dismembered. Yugoslavia is one example; Gaddafi’s oil-rich Libya, which was later revealed to have “good relations” with France under Sarkozy, is another example of which there are many more.
Of course, in order to reach the right conclusions, we have to address the problem as a whole and analyze it accordingly. The global civil war launched by the imperialist states, especially the USA, and the imperialist finance oligarchy against the working class and toiling peoples of the world, against the socialist countries, especially Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and against the popular-democratic governments oriented towards socialism, such as Venezuela and Nicaragua, cannot be considered separately from the “full annexation” policy. The main characteristic feature of our epoch is the collapse of the imperialist-capitalist system and the period of proletarian revolutions. In the words of the imperialists (NATO), we are in the “century of uprisings”. In other words, we are in the century of social revolutions. The imperialist states and NATO made this determination just before the 2000s and started political and military preparations for the new period. The provocation of September 11 was also imperialism’s declaration of a global civil war against the world proletariat and toiling peoples and global communist and revolutionary forces. Without placing this phenomenon at the center of our evaluations, it is not possible to correctly understand and analyze all the political developments, wars and all the machinations of the imperialists since then. Global civil war and “full annexation” are the spirit and basis of the policies pursued by the imperialist states and imperialist finance capital today.
The states that refuse to submit to the policy of “full annexation” are forced to fight imperialism in order to protect their conditions of existence. Syria is one of these states. The imperialist states (USA, UK, EU) first wanted to subjugate Syria and make the religious fascist gangs their “partners in power.” Turkey was given the task of implementing this policy; In 2011, just before the fundamentalist fascist gangs mobilized against Syria, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu traveled to Damascus with a proposal to bring religious fascists into the government. In fact, the imperialists and the reactionary regional states, including Turkey, had prepared everything to mobilize the religious fascist gangs. If Assad had accepted Turkey’s offer, the imperialists would have overthrown the government without the need for war. Assad and his government did not submit to this. Because they resisted the gangs were mobilized. The Syrian government in the person of Assad resisted imperialism and reaction in order to protect itself, that is, to maintain its own conditions of existence.
II. Syria in the Crosshairs
Why Syria, one may ask? The answer is very simple: Because Syria occupies an important position in the Middle East (West Asia). The “full annexation” of Syria was above all important for Israel’s security. Likewise, the “fall” of Syria was vital for the imperialist states in order to cut the lines of communication between the forces and states resisting imperialism, to destroy the logistics lines and cut the arteries of the Palestinian revolution; to tie Russia’s hands in the region by completely destroying its influence in the Eastern Mediterranean; and to make Lebanon fall completely into the lap of the imperialists. And of course, one of the most important goals was to turn Syria into a country that nourishes and breeds religious fascists. With the fall of Syria, we can see with our naked eyes how the lines of communication of the forces resisting the imperialist states were broken and how they were dragged into a vortex of great difficulties.
The question of “why Syria?” can be answered not only in terms of “full annexation” or oil, but more importantly, Syria was one of the most suitable places to become the “religious fascist production and distribution farm” that the imperialists needed for their war against the world proletariat, working peoples, revolutionary and communist forces, against socialist and socialist-oriented popular-democratic states. We know that they sent these religious fascist gangs from Caucasian countries to Ukraine through Turkey, and from there to African and Central Asian countries. Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab in countries such as Mali, Niger, Chad, Libya and ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. in the Middle East are just some of them. Undoubtedly, the Hitlerian fascists called “Neo Nazis” organized by the secret services in Europe are part of all these in terms of purpose and function.
These religious fascists, which some revolutionaries and communists wrongly describe as “jihadists,” could and are being used as a counter-revolutionary force capable of committing all kinds of war crimes and atrocities. Ukraine is no exception. We see everywhere, from Africa to Ukraine, how much the imperialists need and use such a counter-revolutionary mob.
Like every government, the Baathist regime has a past and a present. Leaving aside its founding years, especially after the 1960s, the Ba’ath Party was an Arab nationalist, secularist party strongly influenced by socialism and that embraced Pan-Arabism. After protracted internal struggles, the Syrian Ba’athist government, identified with Hafez al-Assad, was established in November 1970 as a result of a military coup led by Hafez al-Assad.
The Ba’athist government led by Hafez al-Assad aimed at Pan-Arabist goals and used the discourse of socialism. As can be seen from this, the socialism of the Ba’ath government was not scientific socialism, but petty bourgeois socialism. The power was in the hands of petty bourgeois forces influenced by socialism, thanks to the great prestige and sympathy that socialism and the Soviet Union had gained worldwide. Syria had an economic structure based on agriculture with backward industry. Despite the developing capitalist mode of production, feudal institutions, such as the “clan,” were not completely dissolved, especially in rural areas. The sum of all these reasons, despite the existence of the Syrian Communist Party, did not allow the working class to become an effective force.
The petty bourgeois Ba’athist government, which had existed in Syria for many years, never outlawed private ownership of the means of production, although it limited it. The influence of socialism paved the way for the Ba’athist government to maintain close relations with the Soviet Union on all fronts: military, economic and political. The reverse is also true. Close and intimate relations with the Soviet Union kept the Syrian Baathist government close to socialism. However, contrary to the claims of the Baathist government, this fact did not mean that the relations of production in Syria were socialist relations of production. The capitalist mode of production on the basis of private ownership of the means of production, despite the restrictive measures taken by the Baathist government, continued to develop, and thus, at one pace or another, to develop a bourgeois class.
Nevertheless, the relationship between the Baath government and the Soviet Union prevented the Soviet Union from being encircled by the imperialist states. Because of the same tendency towards petty bourgeois socialism, the Baath government for many years functioned as a “front line” for both the revolutionary forces in the region and the Palestinian revolution. Suffice it to say this much: Hafez al-Assad’s government played an active role in protecting the revolutionary and communist movement in Turkey and Kurdistan from the military fascist coup of September 12, 1980. The fact that Palestinian revolutionary organizations used Syria as a source of material income and as a training, and logistics area with armed training camps, educational, health institutions and workshops for the Palestinian people in Syria is an example in itself.
But all the while, a section of the petty bourgeoisie was accumulating capital in various forms, becoming bourgeois all while trying to influence the government. This is what actually happened in Syria in the 1980s, when Hafez al-Assad said “we are preparing for the transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat”. This change in class relations also had an impact on political power. Although Hafez al-Assad’s strong personality balanced this effect, it was not enough to eliminate it. Against the backdrop of capitalist relations of production, capital, despite the restrictions imposed by law, always finds a canal to flow through, a way to develop. We know that small private property, and the capitalist mode of production based on it, incessantly gives rise to capitalist production.
The capitalist class in Syria was growing and accumulating its capital through gold and foreign currency smuggling, bribery, embezzlement of state property and many other means, and trying to centralize it by driving small producers and small capital owners into bankruptcy. By the years in question, the bourgeois class had reached a power that was influential on the government and was forcing the government of Hafez al-Assad to develop relations with European imperialists, especially France, instead of the Soviet Union.
It cannot be said that these efforts of the bourgeois class, which gradually swelled and turned its face towards the imperialist states, were fruitless. Especially from the second half of the 80s onward, the Syrian state, under pressure from the bourgeois forces that wanted to establish ties with the imperialists, began to take measures to restrict the movement of Palestinian revolutionary organizations. The same measures were applied to the revolutionary organizations of Turkey and Kurdistan, but more stringently. Their freedom of movement was significantly restricted and their political activities were put under control. This was the reflection of the change in class relations on revolutionary organizations.
III. Breaking Point
Of course, this does not mean that the bourgeoisie completely took over the state and dominated everything. This was a process that took years, and the first practical effects of this process were beginning to emerge. However, the Kurdish Freedom Movement (KFM) continued to exist on the Lebanon-Syria corridor until the end of the 90s and the leadership of the KFM remained in Damascus, Syria. Despite all the pressure and insistence of Turkey, the reactionary Arab states and the imperialists, the Hafez al-Assad regime did not remove the leadership of the PFLP from Syria-Damascus until the end of 1998.
It is important to note here how petty bourgeois governments have changed over time. Not only in Syria, but in every country where they have been in power, petty bourgeois governments have changed over time and turned into bourgeois governments. This is because the petty bourgeoisie itself, as an intermediate class between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is not a permanent but a temporary class. Within the relations of capitalist production, a large part of this intermediate class falls into the proletarian stratum, while a small part rises to the bourgeois stratum. The reflection of this change in class relations on power is an inevitable development. This reality shows how fragile victory becomes when we limit the struggle for independence to the anti-imperialist struggle without taking it to an anti-capitalist level. In our age, it is no longer possible for any “national” bourgeois power to survive by preserving this characteristic.
One of the most important breaks in Baathist rule occurred in October 1998. As a result of Turkey’s threat of war, Hafez al-Assad, realizing the seriousness of the threat of war with the intervention of Hosni Mubarak, was forced to ask the leader of the KFM, Ocalan, to leave Syria. The threat of war was taken seriously because Turkey had made it on the basis of NATO, the US, Zionist Israel and British imperialism. This is what Hosni Mubarak’s intervention meant. On October 9, 1998, the leader of the KFM, Öcalan, left Syria and was subsequently caught by the CIA-Mossad duo in Nairobi, Kenya, on February 19, 1999. It was clear that the arrested of the KFM leader was the work of NATO, the USA and Zionist Israel. Even Ecevit, the Turkish Prime Minister then, admitted that he was not aware of the situation when he said, “I don’t understand why the US gave us Öcalan”.
The pro-imperialists in the Baathist government had obviously gotten rid of a “weight”. Without wasting any time, the “Adana Memorandum” was signed with Turkey on October 20, 1998. Syria had now closed its door to revolutionary forces. Soon Syrian security forces captured five Kurdish revolutionaries who wanted to cross the border to the Turkish side and handed them over to Turkey. Thus, Syria, which hosted revolutionary forces and protected them from fascism, turned into a Syria that captured revolutionaries and handed them over to fascism.
The imprisonment of Öcalan, the leader of the KFM, was the result of the plans and efforts of the NATO-US-Israel triangle; there is no debate about this. In addition to this major blow to the KFM, Turkey received the greatest support from the US, Germany and NATO in particular, against the great revolutionary uprising of the 90s, which took the form of a civil war. In the 1990s, it was these imperialist powers that saved the fascist state from the revolution of Kurdistan in particular and the united revolution of Turkey and Kurdistan in general. One of the major aims of the US in the Middle East (West Asia) was, and still is, to liquidate the KFM and the united revolution.
In an interview with Deutsche Welle in 2021, James Jeffrey, Special Envoy for Syria under the first Trump administration, summarized US policy on this issue.
The journalist asks:
“There have been very serious accusations against the United States from Turkey at the highest level. Let me ask you bluntly: Does the US support the PKK? Is it paving the way for the PKK to establish a state in Syria with its support for the SDF?”
The answer to this question among social chauvinists is “yes”. But the US representative, J. Jeffrey, responds a bit angrily:
“Wait a minute, hold on here… The US has a long history of treating the PKK as a terrorist organization. There is a very serious and extensive support from the United States, much of it classified as secret, for the Republic of Turkey’s fight against the PKK. The United States is on the side of the Republic of Turkey in this struggle, there is no doubt about that.”
But there are those who doubt this. The social chauvinist parties and organizations that indirectly support the Turkish state in the struggle against the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination, were “doubting” and propagandizing that the US was not on the side of Turkey but on the side of the KFM.
It is worth quoting James Jeffrey’s “valuable” confessions. Elsewhere, this bloodsucking representative of the US, describing its policies regarding the PKK, says the following:
“We want to see PKK cadres out of Syria. This is the root cause of the tension with Turkey in northeastern Syria. We want to reduce this tension. Because we work in very close coordination with Turkey in all regions except the northeast. Even in the northeast, as I said, we have a military agreement with Turkey.”
Yes, they have a military agreement with Turkey even in Rojava. A secret agreement, of course. We will return to James Jeffrey’s confessions and explanations later.
While the concrete facts are like this, the propaganda of the social chauvinist parties and organizations―TKP (“Communist” Party of Turkey) being the most prominent among them―claims that the US supports the KFM, that support for Kurds is pro-US.” This is a great deception and only serves the Turkish state! The truth is that the US and EU imperialists are the biggest enemies of the united revolution in Turkey and Kurdistan, and therefore the biggest enemies who want the liquidation of the KFM. To think otherwise is to not recognize imperialism. Imperialism works not for the freedom of the people, not for the right of self-determination, but to enslave people. It is the basic characteristic line of imperialism to divide the nations of the world into oppressor and oppressed nations. Imperialism and imperialist finance capital do not seek freedom but domination. It is this revolutionary theory that will enlighten our path about the Kurdistan question.
IV. Attempts at Reconciliation
Soon after the “Adana Accord” and the imprisonment of the leader of the KFM, Ocalan, there was a significant change in the Baathist government. The father Hafez al-Assad died and was replaced by his son Bashar al-Assad. In the first years of his rule, Bashar al-Assad always turned his face towards the “West”, that is, towards the imperialist states. The fact that one of his first foreign trips was not to Moscow but to London in 2002 points to this. His relations with Erdoğan and the religious fascist government went so far as to vacation together in 2008. Assad visited France and then Moscow in the same period.
There is no doubt that the bourgeois class was behind this change in the policy of the Baathist government, which has accumulated capital in various ways and is constantly getting fatter and fatter. Because the capitalist class could only develop and consolidate its rule in relation to imperialist capital, Assad’s turn towards “liberal economic policies” and the opening of the country’s territory to imperialist capital were the result of this. These policies led to a deep impoverishment of the Syrian working class and laborers. Where capital accumulated, the spread and increase of poverty is inevitable.
There is no doubt that the war in Syria that started in 2011 is a counter-revolutionary war organized by the US-France-Britain-NATO, the reactionary Arab states in the Middle East (West Asia) and Turkey. However, as true as this is, it is also a fact that the religious fascist gangs deployed on the ground have found a certain mass support in Syria. Without forgetting the existence of religious fascist gangs recruited from all over the world by the intelligence services of the imperialist countries and Turkey, it is not wrong to say that these gangs have found more or less mass support in various regions of Syria. Idlib, Hama and Homs are among the places where religious fascist gangs have found mass support. To explain that this support stems from the religious-sectarian divide is to take the easy way out. Although such a distinction has an effect, the essence of the conjuncture is the reaction to factors such as poverty, exploitation, corruption in the state, etc.
We also know that behind this mass support is the decades-long activity of the “Muslim Brotherhood” gang in Syria, which enjoys the full support of the Turkish intelligence services. The counter-revolutionary uprisings in Hama and Homs in 1982 and the bombings that killed dozens of people in Damascus in 1986 were some of the results of the activities of these gangs.
It was on this basis that the US-NATO and other imperialists, the reactionary Arab states and Turkey organized a counter-revolutionary war in 2011. We can easily assert the following: While Assad was on a family vacation with Erdogan in August 2008, Turkish intelligence services were preparing the religious fascist gangs that would be deployed for a bloody war three years later. The 2011 bloody counter-revolutionary war was not prepared in a day. Likewise, the armed and well-organized religious fascist gangs that are springing up everywhere did not acquire the capacity for such a war in a month or a year. It is clear that such an organization requires a long period of time.
The imperialists imposed full annexation on Assad and his government, demanding his submission and surrender. Assad and the main cadres of the government rejected this and chose the path of fighting back against the imperialist plans. This was a path that should have been followed by the Syrian working class and communist forces, and it was. However, while the communists and the working class are going to war against the imperialists and the religious fascists, they are obliged to implement these policies without dissolving the independent class interests of the working class in the interests of the bourgeois class. The same distinction applies to the world communist parties and revolutionary forces. The communists could have taken part in this war against the imperialists by protecting the independent class interests of the proletariat and relying on their own forces just as the Bolsheviks protected the independent class interests of the proletariat by acting separately from the Kerensky forces also fighting against, when fighting against Kornilov.
“Self-interest”, in the same sense of the word “private interest”, is a principle of bourgeois society. The bourgeoisie pursues its own private interests first and works for the realization of these interests under all circumstances. This does not change under conditions of war, nor does the bourgeoisie sacrifice his private interest for his “homeland”. On the contrary, the bourgeoisie seeks to make the most of the conditions of war. Throughout the long years of war in Syria, the bourgeoisie has not deviated from this principle. The working class and toiling masses were intensively exploited by the bourgeois class itself; they were left in hunger and poverty. The material and moral burden of the war was borne not by the bourgeois class, but by the working class, laborers and poor masses. It was inconceivable that the material destruction, war fatigue and low morale of the working class and laboring masses in the long years of war would not affect soldiers who were closely linked to the masses. The relations of some cadres in the upper bureaucracy of the state, including the army, with the bourgeois class, and the reaction to the decay and corruption in this section of society had broken the desire and will of the army to fight.
No one can help an army that does not want to fight. In this sense, if the allegation that Russia and/or Iran “sold Syria out” is not a deliberate lie, it can only be the result of deep-seated “Russophobia.” Neither Russia nor Iran had any interest in negotiating or “selling” Syria. On the contrary, it is these two states that have suffered the most from Syria falling into the hands of Zionist Israel and Turkey, and thus into the hands of the US, NATO and other imperialists. But we have to reiterate once again: No one, including Russia and Iran, can help an army that does not want to fight.
Undoubtedly, Palestine, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Russia and Iran, as well as the Kurdish people, have suffered the most from the fall of Syria. However, far from being over, the fight is just beginning.
V. Rojava in Danger
At this point, it is necessary to dwell on Rojava, albeit briefly. The Rojava issue is an issue that social chauvinist parties and organizations―once again the TKP being the most prominent among them―often use to stand on the side of “their own state”, Turkey, in the fight for the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination. The main argument they use in this regard is the Rojava administration’s relations with the US. Turkey’s social chauvinist parties and organizations point to these relations and use the US as an excuse to oppose the Kurdish nation’s fight for freedom.
Is the US really behind the freedom struggle of the Kurdish people of Rojava? We have already mentioned that theoretically this cannot be so; the character of imperialism will not allow this. Now let us briefly look at what is the reality.
The practical image is that the US is equipping the armed forces of Rojava, the SDF, with trucks full of weapons. The truth is admitted by James Jeffrey as follows:
“Is there any evidence that we have given the YPG, the SDF, any weapons that would allow them to take action against Turkey? Look at what the Turkish army has done, what they have been able to do to the YPG in Afrin and then in northeast Syria. We didn’t give them any heavy weapons other than machine guns. We didn’t give them guided anti-tank missiles, the kind of weapons that ISIS used against the Turkish army in al-Bab. We didn’t give them heavy weapons, artillery… They don’t have an effective military force, they don’t have the capability to attack Turkey, they haven’t launched any attacks on Turkey from northeast Syria, and we have been very careful about that.”
These words are facts, nothing more, nothing less. Every fighter on the ground, especially those fighting against ISIS, can testify to this.
It is known that the invasions of Afrin, Tel Abyad and Serakaniye by the Turkish army took place with the permission, approval and all kinds of military technical and intelligence support from the US. Without such permission, approval and support, Turkey could not even think of attempting to occupy territory. The fact that the invasion was halted instantly as a result of Trump’s insulting letter to Erdogan, which read “be smart, don’t be stupid,” is the biggest proof of this claim.
“No one in Washington gave military guarantees to the Kurds against Turkey,” James Jeffrey said, while admitting the following about troop withdrawals:
“Troop withdrawals? There has never been a troop withdrawal. When the situation in northeastern Syria became quite stable after defeating ISIS, Trump was inclined to withdraw. Each time we decided to develop five better arguments for why we should stay in the region, and each time we succeeded. That’s the story.”
Yes, “this was the story”, which consisted of real facts, and “this was the story” that those who took a stance against the Kurdish people’s freedom struggle did not want to bring to mind or remember.
Now we are at the beginning of a “story of the sale” just like in Serakaniyeh in October 2019. In reality, the “story” began to be written at the beginning of the last Syrian war, when Kurdistan’s forces were driven out of Tel Rifaat and its surroundings, Menbij and the western bank of the Euphrates by the Turkish army and its religious fascist gang SMO. Of course, the religious fascist gang HTS were with them. In all these attacks and occupations, Turkey would not have been able to take a single step without the permission of the US. Trump explains this situation as follows:
“Those who have taken over in Syria are controlled by Turkey. This is not a problem. Turkey is very smart. Turkey carried out an unfriendly takeover in Syria without too many casualties.”
Yes, indeed, the occupation of Rojava by Turkey and its religious fascist gangs, the SMO, was “not a problem” for the US. With the same recklessness, Trump explains why it is not a “problem” as follows:
“The US can be more effective in Syria with its NATO ally Turkey,” Donald Trump said, answering a journalist’s question, “What are you going to do about the 900 US troops in Syria?” Trump replied, “There must be another way to do it. One of them is Turkey.”
One has to admit that this “outspoken” man is too blunt. The US will be “more effective” in Syria not with its own troops, but through the Turkish military! As long as there are Turkish troops, there is no need for US troops to be present. Moreover, it is known from the “Korean War” that the cost of Turkish soldiers is very low. During the “Korean War” it was twenty-three cents; now it is probably a few dollars. Of course, this man who is trying to rule the US with a calculator knows this better than anyone else!
We pointed out that a new sales story is being written in Tel Rifat, Menbij and its surroundings. Trump’s words should be taken as a sign that the story will continue in the second Trump term. The Rojava issue is not a one-and-done process. Therefore, we need to wait a bit to see what kind of a plan US imperialism has in Rojava. But one thing is certain: “The US supports all initiatives between Turkey and Iraq aimed at defeating the PKK.” (J. Jeffrey) In short, the US is against the Kurdish nation’s fight for the right to freedom.
And this is a fact: Within the Kurdish national liberation movement, including in Rojava, there are individuals, sectors and forces in favor of cooperation and alliance with the US. Do these petty bourgeois and bourgeois militant forces of the oppressed nation bear responsibility for the heavy destruction in Syria? No doubt they do, and also they have a share in the great suffering of the Kurdish people now. However, it would be incomplete and therefore erroneous to see the problem only from this point of view. The Baathist government under Assad is as responsible for the heavy destruction in Syria and the great suffering of both the Syrian Arab people and the Kurdish people as these forces are, and even more so.
The chauvinist attitude of the Arab nationalist Baathist government headed by Assad was the biggest obstacle to the unity of struggle of the Kurdish and Arab peoples. We know that Russia has worked hard to bring Assad and the Rojava administration closer to each other because she realizes that the defeat of Turkey’s attempts and plans with and all the religious fascist gangs under its command depends on the unity of struggle of the two peoples and the peoples of other national communities. Russia even prepared a draft constitution envisioning a federal country. This failed. Although Kurdish pro-US factions played a role in the failure, the policy of the Arab nationalist, annexationist, chauvinist Baathist government was decisive.
Once again: The process continues; nothing has gone yet. Even if the gangs and the imperialists that patronize them declare a decisive victory, this is the reality. The Kurdish and Arab peoples will have the last word! Nevertheless, there are important lessons to be learned for the coming period of struggle. Foremost among these lessons is that the victory of the peoples over all exploitative powers, whether in Syria or in Turkey, depends on the unity of the peoples’ struggle.
The Kurdish nation will exercise its right to self-determination. The duty of communists in this regard is to unconditionally defend this right of the Kurdish nation. Communists cannot allow the slightest shadow of social chauvinism to fall on them. This is the basic line of Leninist thought and policy on the national question.
