The “Sri Lanka Model” in Northern Kurdistan: Counterinsurgency As Genocide

Photo: A memorial for Mullivaikkal Remembrance Day at University of Jaffna in Tamil Eelam (Northeast Sri Lanka) on May 18, 2016 – Credit: Tamil Guardian

The “Sri Lanka Model” in Northern Kurdistan: Counterinsurgency As Genocide

Every year on May 18th since 2009, Tamils come together for “Mullivaikkal Remembrance Day” to remember all Tamils who died in the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. During this period, the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) perpetrated unprecedented levels of violence on Tamils, both combatants and civilians alike, to push through a decisive military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The fact that a recent investigative report by Vice magazine claimed that 146,000 Tamils disappeared is enough to show why Tamils consider the so called end of the Sri Lankan Civil War as a genocide that is still not recognized by many. What is distinctive about the conclusion of the military conflict between the SLA and the LTTE though is not only its brutal nature but also how it was the culmination of implicit and explicit support by regional and world powers, especially the U.S. and India. Such international backing enabled the Sri Lankan state to destroy Eelam Tamils’ counter-hegemonic force, the LTTE, and thus turn the balance of power in favor of the Sri Lankan state’s genocidal solution to the Tamil national question.

Since then many other governments racked with similar conflicts, especially Turkey, have expressed a desire to replicate Sri Lanka’s so-called success. Thus, it comes to no surprise that the AKP-led government is currently attempting to pursue a military solution to the Kurdish question. Similar to justifications put forth for the Sri Lankan state’s “last war”, the discourse constantly reiterated in rationalizing the Turkish state’s war policy is that the government wants to destroy terrorism in Turkey by annihilating the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) and its affiliates. Since the U.S. and EU have refrained from taking the PKK off their list of proscribed terrorist organizations, Turkey’s “War on Terror” discourse still has some legitimacy. In contrast to Turkey’s position on the war in Northern Kurdistan, the Kurds and their supporters claim that Turkey is repeating its habits of conducting genocidal war against the Kurds to suppress them as a meaningful political force. In supporting this claim, evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and analyses of the Turkish State’s present behavior as a continuation of past atrocities against the Kurds have been put forth.

And so, the present conflict between the Turkish State and the Kurds is not only a war between NATO’s second largest army and Kurdish militants, but also a war of words. On the surface, the narratives of both sides are competing to be the view of what is really happening on the ground. When one considers the Counterinsurgency (COIN) dimensions of the conflict though, Turkey’s claims of fighting terrorism just ultimately lends more support to the Kurdish discourse.

What the Kurdish struggle in recent times has reminded the world of is how the so-called War on Terror is used as one of many other ideological and repressive state apparatuses to justify neo-imperialism at the expense of the rights of peoples struggling against oppressive states. While much of alternative media has played a large role in exposing this systemic trend, what is often missing in writers’ analyses is just how pervasive the theory and practice of COIN is in our international world order from the military practice of states to the ideological language used by so called independent observers and more. Therefore, discussing the COIN dimensions of the conflict between the Turkish State and the Kurds helps us understand the more hidden political machinations behind Turkey’s wish to do a “Sri Lanka” on the Kurds.

COIN As An Ideological and Repressive State Apparatus

It was the late Tamil journalist Dhameratnam ‘Taraki’ Sivaram who largely wrote about how COIN was a salient feature of the war between the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE. He was especially instrumental in demonstrating how the Sri Lankan state’s last war against the LTTE and the peace process prior to it was an internationally sanctioned and coordinated COIN campaign intended to obliterate the LTTE in the short term and set the stage to keep Tamil resistance permanently suppressed in the long term. In theorizing about COIN, he contended that modern nation-states are never interested in genuinely resolving a conflict with an insurgent group when engaged in a COIN campaign because doing so would require fundamentally restructuring the state in such a way that cedes power away from the state-controlling group, especially its monopoly on violence. The state’s monopoly on violence was especially important to Sivaram’s discourse on COIN since he argued that the persisting challenge to the state’s monopoly on violence by an insurgency with its ‘counter-violence’ was what made an insurgency a potent threat to the state. Thus, the monopoly on violence is the last aspect of its power that a state-controlling group will give up.

As a practice, COIN originates in colonial wars of the 19th century. It began to take shape as a body of knowledge during this period as a way of colonial powers figuring out how to suppress rebellions that frequently took place in colonies and fighting forces of Communism. It is only during Britain’s successful war in Malaysia and other colonial wars after World War II that COIN started to assume the more modern form as we know it today. The writings of British army commander Frank Kitson gives a disturbing but reliable history of what went on in COIN campaigns including counter-terror by the army, recruiting informants, and torture. Furthermore, COIN has continued to be refined in the post-Cold War era with studies on terrorism, with the very idea of terrorism becoming part of the conceptual tool box of COIN theory and practice.

It must emphasized though that COIN is not a purely military phenomenon, but a politico-military phenomenon. It is about “forcing the target population to lose its collective will to achieve the objective you are trying to destroy or head off…the state is always focused on destroying the political will of the target population, and…the art and science of doing that is counter-insurgency, including its political components”. [1] The political components of COIN goes beyond the parties to the conflict within a given country since there are always geopolitical conditions. Other states may either support the main state fighting against an insurgency or support the insurgents in order to destabilize the state they are fighting against depending on their interests.  Furthermore, while each COIN campaign has its own circumstances and particularities, in each case the State is ultimately looking to maintain the status quo for the most part. Usually this means only reduce the insurgency to a more tolerable level rather than substantially incapacitate their organization as Sri Lanka did in its last war against the LTTE while at the same time keeping obscured the real key issues that caused the insurgency in the first place. [2]

A Summary of the Sri Lanka Model as a COIN Strategy

In developing his discourse on COIN, it must be kept in mind that Sivaram articulated all this in the context of the conflict between the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE. In fact, by the mid-nineties Sivaram had come to view Sri Lanka’s civil war as “a kind of military-political laboratory in which the various repressive forces of late modernity (local and international) were testing their clever, often cruel, counter-insurgency tactics”. [2] The results of the last of these experiments, Sri Lanka’s final war against the LTTE, was militarily successful due to a confluence of international support for the Sri Lankan government while the LTTE was largely isolated in the international arena and the genocidal intentions of the Sri Lankan state serving as an ideological motivator.

Traditional COIN theory would not deem Sri Lanka’s military success over the LTTE a complete victory since Sri Lanka has failed to resolve the underlying political causes of the conflict to this day, the Tamil national question, in any decisive manner. However, many people from the COIN establishment have gone as far as hailing Sri Lanka’s military defeat of the LTTE as a complete success, saying that the traditional “winning-hearts-and-minds” precept may need to be reconsidered in light of the Sri Lankan experience. [3] It is these kind of arguments that are being used to justify a “Sri Lanka Model” of COIN, which can ultimately be reduced to the following axioms as articulated by Tamil academic R.M. Karthick:

- Military solution first. Display ruthlessness in securing your hegemony and the population will be willing to accept any political solution you throw at them later.

- Winning ‘hearts and minds’ is outdated. Break the spine of the population; throw fear in their hearts and numb their minds. They will be grateful to you for letting them to just live.

- The press does nothing to influence public opinion that you don’t want it to. If they are against you, they are with the ‘terrorists’ and are to be dealt accordingly. [4]

While genocidal violence against an opposing group it not anything new within human history, the COIN establishment’s embrace of Sri Lanka’s methods of war sets a dangerous precedent for all resistance movements that have been forced to take up arms. Furthermore, the above principles seem very much to be in play in the Turkish state’s COIN campaign against the PKK and its affiliates with tactics being used such as massacres of civilians and crackdowns on any press and civil society that would dissent from the Turkey’s official line on the war. But it must be emphasized that there is no pure model of COIN so it not should be assumed that Turkey is simply “applying” the Sri Lanka model to its conflict but is implementing it in its own way with a mind towards the specific context it is operating in as well as the specific tools it has at its disposal. Thus, in order to discern how Turkey is implementing the Sri Lanka model, we must analyze how its COIN campaign is operating.

Key Issues and Geopolitical Conditions of Turkey’s COIN Campaign

In discussing the macro trends of Turkey’s COIN campaign that help us to make sense of the State’s violence against the Kurds and their supporters, there are two sets of questions that need to be answered: 1. What are the real key issues from which the PKK and other Kurdish insurgent forces are given a reason to exist, and what are the ways in which the state tries to conceal these key issues?  2. What geopolitical conditions exist, who are the actors connected to these conditions, and where do their interests lie with respect to the conflict? The key issues of the conflict between the Turkish State and the PKK can be summed up in the following manner: a historical denial of the Kurds as a distinct people different from the Turks due to how the modern Turkish State was founded on a centralized state which included in its ideological foundation a concept of “Turkishness” as being the only nationality that really existed within the borders of the modern Turkey. Such a monocultural conception of the Turkish state can be gleaned from how Ataturk himself referred to the Kurds as “Mountain Turks”. In the past, the way the Turkish State attempted to make this national myth a reality with respect to Kurds includes policies of forced assimilation and even outright denying that the Kurds ever existed as a people ethnically distinct from the Turks. Such state practices not only constitute structural genocide of the Kurds but are also processes of obfuscation enacted by the state to hide how the state’s foundations on a conceptual level as well as the political tradition of the state generates the Kurdish national question in Turkey despite repeated attempts to suppress the Kurds as a political force.

What stands at the forefront of Turkey’s current attempt to obscure the key issues that lie at the heart of its conflict with PKK is its narrative that its current military campaign against the Kurds is seeking to end terrorism in South East “Turkey” once and for all. The Turkish State is essentially saying the Kurdish national question will be resolved in due time once the PKK and its affiliates are eradicated. This War on Terror rhetoric is a common COIN tactic today since the concept of “terrorism” or “terrorists” allows a state to posit that the insurgent group fighting them are actually separate from the people they claim to be fighting for since they are merely “terrorists” that need to be either contained or destroyed entirely.

But Turkey’s efforts to make this conceptual dichotomy as representative of the reality of the situation are not holding water as the war progresses. Unlike the LTTE, which was isolated internationally in Sri Lanka’s last war, the PKK has some degree of international support even though it remains proscribed as a terrorist organization by significant regional and world powers.

Furthermore, the Kurdish people also have enough international awareness and sympathy for their plight that is growing by the day than Tamils did in 2009 that the assertion that the PKK is essentially a terrorist organization that has no legitimate cause to fight for can be constantly challenged. Concurrent with this process of growing sympathy with the struggle of the Kurds is the increasing international isolation of Turkey which further delegitimizes its criminalization of the PKK.

While discerning the key issues and how the Turkish state obfuscates them helps to lend support to that Turkey wants a genocidal solution to the Kurdish Question, it is important to also consider the geopolitical conditions. As a particularly important actor in the current geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East, the Kurds not only have to contend with the state and non-state actors they are fighting against on the ground but also the geopolitical battles played out between regional and world powers. Considering that the people-centered resistance and political paradigms of the PKK and Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Syria are anathema to maintaining Saudi Arabia and Turkey as regional hegemons that provide a counterbalance to the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance, the lack of significant action by the US and EU to force Turkey to halt its genocidal war on Kurds can be construed as nothing less as an implicit endorsement of Turkey’s wish to resolve the Kurdish question in a genocidal fashion. The support of programs of extermination enacted by states like Sri Lanka and Turkey is part and parcel of the current world order where the interests of regional and world powers are prioritized above all else. With respect to oppressed nations like Tamils and Kurds, neo-imperialism ultimately seeks to subjugate or keep subjugated any national liberation movements fighting for people-centered political paradigms that run counter to the status quo and interests of regional and world powers. Thus, not only is the destruction of Kurdish resistance and autonomy in Turkey in the cards, but also dismantling the PYD’s governance and its military arm, the YPG and YPJ, is also on the agenda of the West-Saudi-Turkish alliance in addition to continuing efforts to overthrow the Assad regime. [5]

Solidarity with the Kurdish Struggle as a Necessary Solidarity

Recently, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein urged Turkish authorities to allow independent observers unimpeded access into “South-East Turkey” to verify reports of severe human rights violations committed by Turkish military and security forces. While this is a welcome development from the UN since it means that all the evidence put forth by media, activists, and human rights organizations is forcing them to respond, one should still keep a critical eye at what is said by mouthpieces of establishments like the UN. What is interesting is how Zeid puts forth concerns over reports of human rights violations in Northern Kurdistan while at the same time adhering to Turkey’s line that they are fighting against terrorism and not the armed resistance of the Kurds in using terms like “terrorist acts” and “counter-terrorism operations”. What this choice of words reveals is the integral part COIN plays in our international world order today. This is why it is all the more important to be in full solidarity with the Kurdish struggle and revolution at this critical juncture. Given their place in the Middle East right now, the Kurdish people are not just fighting for their people’s freedom. They are fighting to preserve all peoples’ right to resist oppression, including armed resistance when need be, against an international world order that seeks at every interval to keep national liberation struggles and other people-centered movements subdued for the benefit of the oppressors over the oppressed even to the extent of supporting the genocidal programs of nation-states like Sri Lanka and Turkey.

[1] Mark P. Whitaker, Learning politics from Sivaram: the life and death of a revolutionary Tamil journalist in Sri Lanka (London: Pluto Press, 2007), 135-150.
[2] Whitaker, 118.
[3] Ibid., 138-141.
[4] R.M. Karthick, “UK author eulogising  Sri Lanka COIN backfires exposing USA”, http://tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=36295
[5] R.M. Karthick, “Genocide as Counterinsurgency – Brief Notes on the ‘Sri Lanka model’,” http://sanhati.com/excerpted/5663/
[6] “West endorses regional allies as State violence against Kurds escalates”, http://tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=38179

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rojava Solidarity Worldwide.

The author of this article Sitharthan Sriharan is an Eelam Tamil American activist, political writer, and graduate student at Columbia University.

Call For International Solidarity To Stop The War In Kurdistan From The LGBTI Peace Initiative

LGBTI Peace Initiative is a group of activists who have been involved in various social and grassroots movements with anti-sexist, anti-fascist and anti-capitalist agendas. After the Suruç Bombing on July 20, 2015, the war between Turkish state and the Kurdish Freedom Movement escalated, the politics of the ruling party AKP (Justice and Development Party) lead to the death, injury, imprisonment and torture of our friends. 

With the elections in June 7, 2015, a pro-Kurdish party, HDP, gained 80 of 550 MPs, despite attacks against the party and its supporters during electoral campaign period, including multiple arson attacks to party buildings and a bombing in the rally in Diyarbakır, on June 5, killing 5 people. The visibility gained by the minority and progressive groups of Turkey with the success of HDP frightened AKP, which lost its absolute majority in the parliament for the first time since 2002, the year when they first came into power. Nonetheless, none of the parties in the parliament were able to come up with a coalition, hence the parliament not being able to function lead to another general election on November 1, 2015. 

Right after the deadly suicide bombing in Suruç district of Urfa, a town 10 km from Kobanî, Turkish government one sidedly ended the ceasefire with the outlawed Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK). The bombing lead to the death of 33, the majority of whom were university students. On 10 October, in Ankara, another bombing lead to the death of 102. Those who were killed in this attack, were gathered for the “Labour, Peace and Democracy March” to protest against the growing conflict between the Turkish Armed Forces and PKK.

After highly controversial elections, AKP once again gained the power in 1 November 2015, as the ruling party. 

As the legal political activity of HDP grew weaker under war conditions, PKK guerrillas took the initiative as Turkish Army continued bombing the rural areas and mountain bases. PKK started declaring autonomy in the cities of Turkish Kurdistan. Turkish army attacked civilians as well as the PKK members, with devastating and ruthless military operations in the cities. In 7 cities, more than 60 curfews have been declared since June 2015, lasting for more than 100 days in some areas. Humanitarian aid groups were prohibited to access the wounded civilians who get caught in the crossfire, the wounded were left to die. The official numbers do not reflect the correct number of casualties (both civilian and armed), as observers and journalists were denied access to the conflict areas, with threats of deportation or physical force. The locals who communicated with the press had to take the risk of brutal consequences. According to the Turkish Human Rights Foundation (TIHV), at least 310 civilians were killed in the conflict during the various curfews imposed in parts of the region between August 2015 and March 2016. As of 16 August 2015, at least 1,642,000 people in the curfew areas are deprived of their fundamental rights, including right to life and health care. 355,000 people had to leave their homes as a result of the conflicts. At least 59 unidentified bodies were buried by the state in Cizre district of Şırnak.

Instead of employing peaceful means to respond to these conflicts, AKP used ISIS as a means to weaken the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Syria and let ISIS forces to have access to weapons and military equipment, health care in hospitals in Turkey, and allowed ISIS to recruit people to join their forces by opening the border between Syria and Turkey.

The free press is the biggest enemy of AKP in this war, so journalists Can Dündar and Erdem Gül are now facing terrorism charges for  publishing documents and footage proving the transportation of weapons to ISIS soldiers under the supervision of Turkish Intelligence Agency (MIT). They were arrested and imprisoned for a while. They are released now, but there are still 29 journalists who are in prison in Turkey.

AKP also favoured the repression of free speech: In January 2016, a group of academics called for a petition to the campaign “We will not be a party to this crime,” claiming this war was a crime committed by the Turkish state. More than 2000 academics signed the petition, and Erdogan accused them for being terrorists. With Erdogan’s call, the academics were with terror charges and four of them were arrested and have been held in prison since then. Their case is still on trial.

Recently, with a “decree” of Erdogan, the definition of terror in Turkish penal system will be extended so as to include “terrorist activities without arms,” which clearly targets to silence those who speak up for peace in non-violent ways despite the oppression and the threats they face.

CALL FOR ACTION AND SOLIDARITY

Creating international pressure on Turkish government is crucial for the peace talks to start again, a ceasefire between the Turkish State and PKK to be declared, and curfews in the Southeast of Turkey to end. 

Please share the information above, and organize your own solidarity actions.

The asylum seekers face threats of deportation as a consequence of the refugee agreement made between the EU and Turkey. We should break the silence of the EU-member states and their institutions, show them that they shouldn’t turn a blind eye to this violence and human rights violations with the aim of stopping the refugees coming to Europe. Refugees are a result of this war, in which Turkey plays an important part. 

SAY NO TO WAR IN TURKEY, SAY NO TO WAR IN SYRIA!

What can you do?

 

1) Support and spread our campaign on Indiegogo: https://www.generosity.com/emergencies-fundraising/room4life-in-turkey-support-rebuilding-sur-cizre/x/13564537 

2) Organize fundraiser events, and contribute to the campaign supporting the reconstruction of Sur and Cizre. (All activities under this campaign will be shared on the website: http://en.kampanya.barisicinkadinlar.com) 

3) Organize demonstrations and sit-ins in front of the Turkish Embassy buildings in your city/county. Join the LGBTI groups from all around the world who will protest this war in front of the Turkish Embassy buildings on 10 May 2016. You can choose the most suitable time for you. Please shoot the announcement and take beautiful pictures of your demonstration. And don’t forget to send us the text of your announcement, and any other news on the media. :)

Contact us via lgbtibarisgirisimi@gmail.com if you require further information. 

Press Release: Kurdish activist Mustafa C arrested in Bremen (Germany)

November 13, 2015

By order of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Celle, Kurdish activist Mustafa C. was arrested on November 11 and his apartment was searched. Since the opening of the arrest warrant the following day, the Kurdish man is being held at Sehnde prison under pre-trial detention.

Mustafa is accused of being a member of an overseas 'terrorist' organization and it is being claimed that he was the leader of the PKK in Oldenburg from June 2013-July 2015 and that since the beginning of August 2015 he was responsible for the areas of Hamburg, Stade and Lüneburg. As with all other accused PKK activists, Mustafa is being criminalized for allegedly organizing rallies, meetings, demonstrations and other events as well as renting buses, collecting donations and enlisting young recruits.

With the ban on the PKK now in it's 22nd year in Germany, including Mustafa there are now eight Kurdish political prisoners in criminal and pre-trial detention.

The consequences of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit two weeks before the elections in Turkey have become noticeable. Shortly after her  return Kurdish politician Kenan B. was arrested on October 21 in the Pegida stronghold of Dresden.

We protest in the strongest terms against Germany's policy of assisting and encouraging the Turkish authorities in it's war against the Kurdish movement and it's civilian population.

We demand the release of all political prisoners and the immediate cessation of all politically motivated processes against them.

AZADÎ e.V.

Kurdish Legal Aid Fund for Kurds in Germany, Cologne.

(via nadir, translated by Rojava Solidarity Worldwide & slightly edited for clarity)

War & revolution in the trenches of Rojava: The position of the revolutionary anarchists

The following article is an English translation of a position paper that was published by the Anarchist Popular Unity (UNIPA) group from Brazil in March, 2015. This translated version originally appeared on the UNIPA blog which can be viewed HERE. 

War & revolution in the trenches of Rojava: The postition of the revolutionary anarchists

The struggle for the freedom of Kurdistan did not start today. The Kurdish people has a struggle for self-determination that covers centuries of combat in the region of Mesopotamia. Among wars and uprisings, external domain or control and repression by the own oligarchies, the history of fight of this people, particularly the recent history, begins to create interests all over the world. After all, who are these men and women which today combat and resist to the advance of the Islamic State in the north of Syria? The international press and the governments do not have interest in divulging information

Today, the eyes of the world turn toward the heroic resistance and victories of the popular masses in Kobanê against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The recent clashes in this region which embraces the Turkey, Iraq and Syria is target of the imperialist intervention and control and of jihadist groups which dispute the geopolitical redesign of the North Africa and Middle East.

The armed resistance in Kobanê is inserted today in a complicated theater of political-military operations and which imposes on the agenda the theoretical, strategical and programmatic debate of the revolutionaries and anarchists. The warm solidarity around the world and the waving of the black flags once more in the trenches of Kobanê show us the importance of the international solidarity to the advance of the struggle and of a anarchist line which does not run away the tasks of the revolution.

However, more than just a simplistic defense (and even aesthetic) or an irresponsible and purist criticism (pacifist or sectarian), today is fundamental a position of the revolutionary anarchists in order to influence in the events, for defending and advancing in the conquests of the Kurdish people and of the working masses of the entire world. It is seeking to contribute with a revolutionary and anarchist analysis and with a militant goal that us from UNIPA release this communique.

The wars in Iraq, Syria and Turkey: the ground of the struggle

We must situate that the current clash in Kobanê is intimately related to the war in Iraq, to the Syrian civil war, as well as to the guerrilla warfare developed and directed by the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and others Kurdish organizations that are active in Syria and Iraq.

After the Twin Tower attacks in the USA in 2001, the government of George W. Bush, from USA, the one of Tony Blair, from England, invaded the Iraq in 2003 and destroyed the State ruled by the Baath Party (Arab Nationalist, Sunni majority – a branch of Islamism) of Saddam Hussein under the false justification of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. Seeking for a quick action which could serve the interests of imperialism, of control of the energy reserves, petroleum, and of political-military control of the region, supported by Israel and by the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, the Americans and the British destroyed the Iraqi State, one of the few secular and non-aligned with the USA, dividing it.

From then on, a civil war for control of the “new” Iraqi State and a resistance struggle against the imperialist troops had begun. A part of local ethnic-political groups, Kurds and Shiite, which were out of the power during the government of Saddam Hussein, supported the invasion. In its turn, the USA and the England sustained the formation of a puppet government composed by Kurds, Shiite and Sunni. However, the conflicts grown as far as the old groups that were out of power (mainly Sunni) started to avenge themselves. There was no possible alliance for the shared control of the neoliberal state proposed by the USA and accepted by the ruling classes of these ethnic and religious groups.

Thus, the policy of the NATO, of Israel and of the USA for the Iraq passes per the redesign and per the division of the entire Middle East. The dismantlement of Iraq grown the resistance to the occupation with groups bound to Al Qaeda. From Sunni origin, composed by jihadists from several parts of the world, this group created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), with laws based in religious texts of Islam, forming a new Caliphate, also sponsored by the USA. The rebels from the Al Nusra Front (ramification of Al Qaeda in Syria) and from the ISIS are bound to the paramilitary forces trained and sponsored by the western military alliance for the civil war in Syria. Not by coincidence, they broke with Al Qaeda for concentrating in the formation of this state that comprehends the North-East Syria and almost all the regions of Sunni Arab majority of Iraq.

Therefore, let us make it very clear, the Islamic State is a cub of the North-American imperialism. For this reason, it is correct when the Turkish organisation Revolutionary Anarchist Action (DAF) affirms that: “Spineless states whose only expectation is income, would be founding ISIS yesterday, repenting it today and recognizing the Islamic State tomorrow. And people will always be fighting for their future and their freedom, just like in the past. ” That phrase defines much the imperialist acting in the region of Middle East in the last decades, supporting contradictory actors, “good” oligarchies against “bad” oligarchies, coup plotters against democratic governments, and modifying these definitions according to their political interests.

The foundation of the ISIS, the Caliphate, is bound to the agenda of the USA to chop the Iraq and the Syria into two more separated territories: a Shiite Arab republic and the Republic of Kurdistan (of bourgeois and pro-imperialist feature). This project counts with the support of the Israeli and of the dictatorships and absolute monarchies of Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Emirates.

The current Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), also known as Iraqi Kurdistan, attends to this geopolitical agenda and is supported by the USA and the State of Israel. The KRG is controlled, through elections, by three Kurdish right-wing parties and maintains a policy of support to the multinational companies that exploit this region with huge oil reserves. The political forces of the Kurdish bourgeoisie that currently controls the Iraqi Kurdistan collaborated in the combat to the the PKK and to the guerrilla warfare, reaching to entering in conflict during the beginning of the 1990s.

The current civil war in Syria, initiated in the first semester of 2011 under the form of large street demonstrations that in some months got the feature of armed conflict, gained regional and world contours with the intervention of the main imperialist powers (USA, France, Germany, England, Russia and China) and of semi-peripheral countries like Turkey. After a threat of direct intervention in the Syria by the United States president Barack Obama (Democratic Party), disapproved a priori for the own parliament, the Russian government articulated an agreement of delivery of Syrian chemical weapons with the UN. Thus, Putin reinforced the position of the axis Moscow-Beijing against the military intervention defended by the European leaders, headed by the “socialists” François Hollande and Angela Merkel, Obama and the Turkish government of Erdogan.

The Syrian opposition is divided between Salafist groups, Sunni jihadists (Brigades Liward al Tawhidi, Ahrar al Cham, Souqour al Cham) which formed the Islamic Council, the moderate Islamists (Brigades Al-Farouk), Kurdish groups and the Free Syrian Army (FSA, coalition more pro-Western) which formed the Syrian National Council. In the beginning of the year 2014 it was formed the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change which negotiates with the Western powers and with the Arab League.

Contrary to what many had said, the radicalisation of the class struggle in the North Africa and in the Middle East, through the popular uprisings, not only did not lead to “democratic revolutions” as served to worsen the living conditions, increasing the misery and the authoritarianism, leaving room for the acting of fundamentalist military groups and successive military coups and ethnic conflicts. Today there exist more than 300 thousands refugees of the civil war. Furthermore, according to data from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), more than 200 thousand of people already died since the beginning of the conflicts in 2011. The deaths increased year on year, and in 2014 reached to 76.012 dead people, with a high rate of death of children and civilians in general. One of the main reasons for the uprisings of the North Africa had failed is the conservative-religious domain in the direction of the oppositions (which reestablished new oligarchies in the dominion of the state power) and the absence of mass revolutionary organisations able to question the foundation of this power of exploitation and oppression over the people.

The disputes in course both in Iraq and in Syria were within a game of economical and political interests of the central countries and of regional powers (as Turkey and Iran). There are strong energetic disputes around the gas supply for Europe. Lastly, there are the political disputes for the control of the North Africa, Middle East and Central Asia.

With that, the instability in the region caused by the downfall of the dictatorial government of Bashar Al-Assad can bring troubles to Israel, due to the action of fundamentalist Islamic groups, and even to the Iran, that seeks to establish new relations with the world powers. But for China, Russia, USA and European Union arises the need of keeping the political and economical domain over the region. The working people of Syria was in the hands of the western powers, of the autocracy of the Syrian Baas Party and of Islamist (like the ISIS), military and national bourgeois sectors, with the support of collaborationist socialist movements which compose the opposition.

However, the control on the part of Kurdish revolutionary organisations of the territory at the north of Syria, so-called Rojava, and of the military fighters in Kobanê, announced the appearance on the scene of a new social subject in the geopolitical conflicts of the region, the armed popular masses.

The war in Kobanê against the jihadist invasion and the defense of the social revolution

The formation of the territory of Rojava and of its political ans strategical challenges is inexorably related to this regional and world context. The attacks over Kobanê did not begin three months ago. Taking advantage of the opportunity that was opened by the Syrian civil war, several political-military conflicts developed in the region, since July 2012, until the Kurdish popular self-defense militias, YPG – People’s Protection Units and YPJ – Women’s Protection Units (female fraction of YPG), freed the territory that is recognized as the Syrian part of Kurdistan and organized a new policy, ecomy and culture.

About the reasons of the beginning of the territorial conflict, the Minister of the Self-defense for the Kobanê Canton, Ismet Sêx Hesen, in a interview, affirms that:

“(…) the Battle of Kobanê has been going on for around a year and six months. Before it was mostly groups like the El-Nusra Front and Ahrar-i Sham and others that were attacking Kobanê. Kobanê has been surrounded for a year and a half. Kobanê has been deprived of its basic needs such as water, electricity and trade. The battle which today is entering its third month is part of this history. I do not look at the attacks upon the Kobanê Canton as a battle with ISIS. We look upon ISIS as the agent of an international partnership. This agent has such partners in many parts of the world. It has partners in Afghanistan, China, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Turkey and many other places. Many different states have a hand in this group. For example they received a lot of support from places such as the Baath regime and Turkey. It was from there that they got the courage to attack Kobanê.”

Therefore, according to the minister of the self-defense, the current combat against the Islamic State must be understood within an international context in which many groups and States are intervening and seeking to be benefited from the conflict.

An important datum of this conflict are the battles among the very Syrian non-jihadist opposition over the territorial control of the Syrian Kurdistan. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) aligned to the North-American imperialism, combated Rojava during three months, being defeated by the YPG in the end of 2013, leading to the armistice and to the recognition of the Kurdish territory by the FSA. Thus, apart from being attacked by the jihadists of the front Al-Nusra and of the Baath Party (of Assad), the Kurdish popular militias had to combat the so-called “democratic opposition” financed by the USA.

The Turkey of Erdogan, with its pro-western Islamist policy, has been a key piece in the political structuring of the region. Ally of the North-American imperialism, the Turkish government has developed for years a hunt against the Kurdish people and to the struggle of the PKK and to the Democratic Union Party (PYD – Kurdish Party currently in Syrian soil, and that directs the YPG-YPJ militias). The Turkey classifies, alongside the USA and the European Union, the organisation for the Kurdish freedom as terrorists.

The role performed by the Turkey in this conflict is extremely important. Rojava is a territory that today is being attacked on one side by the ISIS and in its rearguard has border with the Turkey. Before the beginnig of this conflict between the Kurdish militias and the Islamic State, the border Turkey-Syria was already an important means of passage of the arms dealers, equipment and personnel for the jihadists, all this with the support of the “moderate” Islamism of Erdogan. During the beginning of the Syrian civil war and with the large crowds of refugees that were moving for running away from the war, Erdogan tried the tactic of opening the frontiers for the ethnic pulverization and overpopulation of the region of the Syrian Kurdistan. Tactics that failed.

With the start of the attacks of the Islamic State against Kobanê (one of the cantons of Rojava), the policy of the Turkey was to close the frontiers for the support, forbidding the passage of people and equipment for the resistance in Kobanê. Meanwhile, the Turkish frontiers remain opened for the jihadist murders of ISIS. This policy was partly circumvented in the passage of hundreds of people between unionists, communists, anarchists and solidarity people in September 2014. Moreover, by direct pressures of the North-American president Barack Obama, the Turkish prime minister Erdogan had to assume some measures of the western coalition contrary to the ISIS, one of them having been to permit the passage of fighters of the KRG and of the FSA to support the resistance in Kobanê.

Since the beginning of the conflict in Kobanê, the coalition of the imperialist powers (International Coalition) that have undertaken to combat the advance of the ISIS, did not perform this role when it meant to support directly the arming of the Kurdish people organized in the YPG militias. The policy of the imperialist coalition of do not act by land, only through shellings and air strikes, was coward and derisive faced to the task of combating the advance of the heavily armed and equipped jihadist army.

Since the middle of October Obama covenanted with Erdogan, president of Turkey, for an “orientation change” which consisted in a more energic and heavy acting in support of the Kurdish fighters of Kobanê. In the day October 2oth, 2014, airplanes from the United States launched 28 containers containing armaments on a territory controlled by the Kurds, in despite of 2 ended up falling on territory controlled by the jihadists and one of them have been destroyed by the Kurdish militias.

On the day before, October 19th, it had been launched a communique by the General Command of the YPG, which affirmed the political-military agreement with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), ally of the USA. Following this orientation, the Turkey released the border for the passage of Peshmerga fighters (military forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government – KRG, of the Iraqi Kurdistan). Nevertheless, as it was expected, the border policy of Turkey in relation to the revolutionary left-wing, especially the PKK, remained unaltered.

Therefore, we must understand the war scenario in Kobanê. On one side of the front the allied forces of YPG combat, FSA and Peshmergas, on the other side the ISIS combats. However, within the allied forces of Kobane there exist interests in latent geopolitical conflict. Both the FSA and Peshmerga are regional and military representatives of the imperialist bourgeoisie. The alliance of these sector in the resistance of Kobanê is cynical and opportunistic, such as the support of the USA and Turkey. The Kurdish popular militias already militarily faced all the agents that today declare themselves allies against ISIS. And for the Turkey it is clear: the victory of the fundamentalist terrorism in preference to the victory of the “terrorists” of Rojava. For the USA the situation is not different. Yet, neither the ISIS performs the demands of the imperialism for the North Africa and Middle East, especially in what concerns to the hegemony and alliance to the State of Israel.

In this context, the support of the International Coalition and of the military deployments of the FSA and of the Peshmerga has a strategical importance for the imperialist bourgeoisie. The states intends to dispute the direction of the resistance and reinforce their positions in the territories of Kobanê for, in the short term, put an end to the political and economic conquests of the popular masses of Rojava. After all, in the Syrian territory released by the Kurds there also exist large oil reservoirs.

This discussion, about the war of national defense, was always present in the struggles of the proletariat. The workers have been faced with this situation in several moments, whether it be in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 (situation in which it emerged the worker and popular uprising that built the Paris Commune), passing by the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the fight against the invasion of more than ten foreign countries in the context of the World War I, or during the Spanish civil war in which the struggle against Fascism took on international contours which required a policy of national defense.

Faced with these episodes, it is worth to point out here the historical experience, the policy and the theory of the revolutionary anarchists: Mikhail Bakunin and the Alliance, the Makhnovshchina and the Dielo Trouda group, Jaime Balius and the Friends of Durruti. All these anarchists defended a course of political independence of the proletariat as a key piece for the triumph, not only of the revolution, but also of the anti-imperialist war, in other words, defended the inseparability of the two spheres (national international) of the social conflict. According to Bakunin in his Letters about the situation of the Franco-Prussian war:

“One must not count on the bourgeoisie (…) The bourgeois cannot see, cannot understand anything outside the State, ouside the regular means of State. The maximum of their ideal, of their imagination, of their abnegation, and of their heroism, is the revolutionary exaggeration of the power and action of the State, on behalf of the public salvation. But I have sufficiently demonstrated that the State in this hour and in the current circumstances – with the Bismarckians abroad and the Bonapartists inside –, far from being able to save France, cannot more than defeat it and kill it.

Faced with mortal danger from within and without, France can be saved only by a spontaneous, uncompromising, passionate, anarchic, and destructive uprising of the masses of the people all over France. Be sure: without it, there is no salvation for your country.” (Bakunin, p. 112-113)

The theoretic elaboration of Bakunin concerning to the consequences of the war of national defense in a period of decadence and counterrevolutionary turn of the bourgeois liberalism, whereupon the main interest of the bourgeoisie is the maintaining of the State and the permanence of the labour exploitation, is clear and fundamental. The defense of the country which is colonized or victim of imperialist invasion requires an autonomous action of the proletariat. This autonomous action, organized in armed popular resistance (whether it be in the form of militias or revolutionary army), for expressing truly its potentiality and social strength, must not be guided by the political ideals of the patriotism and of the State’s grandeur which animated the bourgeoisie in the past, but by the internationalist ideals and by the practical construction of the socialism and freedom. The anti-imperialist or antifascist war must become the socialist revolutionary war. Merely like that it is possible to defeat not only a particular Fascism/imperialism, but resolutely advance in the universal struggle for the proletariat’s emancipation.

From this Bakuninist theoretical consideration we may reach some conclusions for understanding the war in Kobanê. The military support coming from the imperialist powers, however great it was (but it wasn’t), does not have any relation to the interests of liberation of the Kurdish people or of the Middle East from the yoke of authoritarianism and of exploitation. And it will not be that support that will guarantee the Kurdish victory. What the USA, or any capitalist State, intends with the combat to the Islamic State is to handle the Syrian civil war to its interests and remodel the geopolitics of the North Africa and Middle East. Sure that it is also a dangerous for the imperialism arming the popular militias of Kobanê if it cannot control or neutralize this revolutionary force. That is the importance of the FSA and of the KRG as a mean of internal dispute in the interest of the bourgeoisie.

The Kurdish Liberation Struggle: federalism or statism?

“Not being attached to land, the bourgeoisie, as the capital from which it is today the real and alive incarnation, do not have nation. Its nation is wherever the capital brings to it larger profits. Its main concern, not to say the unique, is the profitable exploitation of the proletariat’s labour. From its viewpoint, when this exploitation advances undisturbed, everything is perfect, and, on the contrary, when it is interrupted, everything is terrible. Therefore, it cannot have another idea apart from setting in motion, by any possible means, even if this means is dishonorable, implies the decadence and submission of its very country. And, however, the bourgeoisie has the need of the political nation, of the State, for guaranteeing its exclusive interests in opposition to the legitimate and more and more threatening requirements of the proletariat.” - Mikhail Bakunin, Letters, p. 197.

Was we said at the beginning of this communique, the Kurds experimented a long process of struggle. Excluded from the negotiations and betrayed by the Lausanne Agreement of 1923, after having been promised a own State by the Allies of the World War I and with the sharing of the Ottoman Empire. The Kurds were divided since then in the states of Turkey,Iraq, Syria and Iran, being the biggest ethnic minority with no State, oppressed by several States. It is worth to note that other peoples also share with the Kurds the national and ethnic oppression of these States.

According to Abdullah Öcallan, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) was founded in 1978 in Turkey, under the theoretical and political orientation of the Marxism-Leninism. The PKK is until today the main organisation in defense of the Kurds in the region. The defense, during the 1970s and 1980s, of the USSR and of the international communist line for the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries was within the context of the Cold War and of global polarisation. The beginning of the armed struggle, through the guerrilla warfare, occurs in 1984 and has as strategic goal the defense of the national liberation, by means of the formation of an independent Kurdish State. After that, with the end of the USSR, the PKK approximates the international Maoism.

The formation of PKK occurred in a period of specific ethnic identification during the 70s, especially oriented by a new student movement with leftist ideas. This young movement was attacked since its beginning not only by the Turkish State but also by the Turkish aristocracies, which felt threatened by the new Kurdish ethnic identity of popular character that questioned the feudal “traditional” ethnic identity defended by this aristocracy.

During the war of 1991 in Iraq, there was an important modification in the national liberation struggle of the Kurds. The United States supported the formation of a Iraqi Kurdish government which would be governed by this bourgeois and pro-imperialist Kurdish aristocracy. This support of the USA since the 90s will result in what is nowadays the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) located in the north of Iraq. Was we already affirmed, the KRG is ruled by three parties of the Kurdish right-wing, through parliamentary elections, and maintains in its territory huge oil reservoirs which are explored by multinational companies. The Iraqi Kurdistan is reported in the western press as a “civilized, modern, democratic”. The antagonism to the PKK evident, reaching to take to direct conflicts between this political forces.

However, some years ago, an important change also occurs in the Kurdish liberation movement. With the arrest of the founder and leader of PKK, Abdullah Öcallan, moment in which he was sentenced to death by the Turkish State for the crime of treason (modified after for life imprisonment), this one begins to operate a process of self-criticism related to the general conceptions on which the Kurdish national liberation struggle was being developed. Is in this process that he develops his thesis of Democratic Confederalism.

The Democratic Confederalism is based on the self-government of the masses, through decentralized base organisms and that are unified from bottom up, forming the central organisms. The autonomy and the equality of rights among different peoples and ethnic-cultural collectives is complemented with the religious freedom and the gender equality. Above all, such equality of right and fact (with concrete organs and spaces for the exercise of the popular power) has been shown much more advanced and real in this corner of Middle East than in any constitutional charter, as beautiful as useless and deceiver, of the western and “liberal” countries.

This new political-strategical line of the PKK and of the Kurdish national liberation movement is, above all, a self-criticism of the statist and industrialist line of the international Marxism, in which the classical model of national liberation struggles converges to the formation of a strong and independent nation-state, aiming the industrial and economic development in capitalist terms, as a previous step to the socialism. Occurs that the historical fate of the “popular democracies” and of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions along the 20th century, although important schools for the international proletariat, developed towards the restoration of the working masses’ exploitation by new dominant classes and bureaucracies. The proletariat that actively participated, and even directed those revolutions in the 20th century, experimented enormous successes (Vietnam, China, Nicaragua, etc.) and, also because of this, historical defeats.

The defense of a politically federalist, culturally feminist and multi-ethnic revolution, must be necessarily complemented by an economic program of socialization of the means of production-distribution-consumption under the control of the working masses. This social revolution does not have step mechanically determined by the acting of the State/party, from the top down. Much less has to accomplish firstly an industrial and state-national step for thereafter becoming internationalist and socialist. There lies all the historical importance of the Rojava’s experience and the revolutionary potential of this struggle, in other words, the possibility of pointing out a north not for the formation of a Kurdish nation-state, but for overcoming the statist model of self-determination of peoples and thus bind to the international revolutionary struggle.

The “cease fire” with the State of Turkey, about two years from ago, and the defense of the strengthening of autonomous and released territories is result of this new line of the PKK. By all indications, due the happenings of Rojava, it does not mean an adoption of a pacifist or bourgeois-democratic line. This is so that the cease fire was recently broken by the government of Turkey at an attack to the bases of PKK in the day October 14, 2014. However, one must analyse the development of the events, the policies of alliance, etc. After all, neither the revolution in Rojava is exempt of contradictions and disputes.

It is important observing that this was not the first line rupture or revision of Marxism towards to the federalism in the context of anti-colonial struggles. In the late twentieth century, the Guevarist groups in Mexico also performed a revision of line, suiting up to the life conditions of the peoples with no State of the south of Mexico, and from this process was born the modern Zapatismo, with the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (ELZN). Similarly to the Kurds, the indigenous peoples of the South Mexico, colonized and opressed by several States, generated a new practice of struggle and territorial liberation. Another enlightening example was the Paris Commune, in which the statist republicans abdicated to their policy in favour of a federalist policy, thus enabling the emergence of a new anti-statist model of revolution.

The debate and the fight of tendencies in the bosom of the “left” and of the international anarchism

Since the beginning of the war against ISIS in Kobanê, several organisations all over the world (communist, social-democrats and anarchists) have positioned themselves under different points of view. The omission was also a type of position, in general coward. A militant position, that is developed in internationalist solidarity, has a great importance, and that because upheavals and revolutions have causes and effects that extrapolate the geographical localities where they happen. We must understand that the struggle for the social revolution in Rojava is part of the long march of learning and advances of the working class, being an obligation of a revolutionary organisation to act unhesitatingly in its defense and for its victory.

The omission and/or negligence of the international left faced to the revolutionary war in Rojava concerns especially to the position pro-alliance of the Stalinists, Trotskyists ans social-democrats. They act like the international bourgeois press and the governments, pretend not to know the process and treat of isolating and disregarding the struggle of the Kurdish people. This occurs in part because of the simple fact that they are not in the “direction” or in any combat posts of the popular struggle in the region. Unable to take place in the struggle and dispute its direction (because of their reformist methods and traditions that do not apply to this reality) “accuse” the PKK of being Stalinist and fall into the purest idealism, turn their political-moral judgement more important than the analysis of the real process and its contradictions. However, this omission and undervaluation is only one cynical face of this reformist and bureaucratic left.

The international debate around the war in Kobanê presented at least two erroneous branches of interpretation. The first of them is the position of some parties and organisations that for some time has saluted the so-called “Syrian opposition” of the Syrian National Transitional Council (SNC) and of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and it is no coincidence that they began to pronounce themselves more decidedly in defense of the struggle in Kobanê after the unit of the YPG militias with the FSA. According to the PSTU (Brazilian section of the IWLfi): “(…) the political-military unity between the Kurdish combatants and the Arab Syrian rebels is not just progressive as, in our opinion a condition for the victory, both in the field of the struggle for overthrowing the dictatorship of Al Assad and advancing towards a independent State for the entire Kurdish nation.”. Such position is defended not only by the PSTU, but also by currents of PSOL and another Brazilian and European reformist parties. Presenting themselves under the banner of “progressive” reveals to be an appendage of the pro-imperialist bourgeois policy in the practices of the geopolitical dispute.

Futher more, the Trotskyist position reveals two elements at stake in the resistance of Kobanê: 1) the formation of a nation-state (and the pan-Kurdish speech), in other words, the unity of the entire Kurdish people under the centralised power of the State; 2) the submission to the North-American policy for the Middle East. It means the submission of the revolutionary process in Rojava through the alliance with the pro-imperialist Kurdish bourgeoisie, in the Iraqi Kurdistan. This is the old Marxist and reformist policy, and in this case it enters into perfect harmony with the imperialist interests for the region.

The Russian anarchist Bakunin, when he fought in France against the Prussian invasion in 1870-1871, had already positioned himself in relation to the policy of sectors of the “left” which supported the political direction of the republican bourgeoisie, all this on behalf of the national unity and strength. Bakunin talks about the republican radical left:

“And did the left contest? It did absolutely nothing. It stupidly acclaimed this ominous ministry that, in the most terrible moment that France could have passed, presented itself, not as a political ministry, but as a ministry of national defense. (…) The radical left believed or seemed to believe that one could organize the country defense without doing policy, that one could create a material potency without inspire it by any idea, without support it by any moral force. (…)

For patriotism or fear of paralysing the over-human efforts for the salvation of France of these dignified men, the radical left abstained from all recrimination and all criticism. Gambeta believed to be his duty to direct warm greetings and express his full confidence in the General Palikao. After all, should not they ‘maintain at any price the unity and prevent baneful divisions that would only benefit the Prussians’? Such were the excuse and the main argument of the left, that served from them for cloaking all its imbecilities, all its debilities, all its cowardice.” (Bakunin, Letters, p. 200)

The second erroneous form of political line for Kobanê was presented by anarcho-syndicalist groups in the text: “Rojava: an anarcho-syndicalist perspective”. After this text, some responses and replies were made, among them we highlight the text written by the organisation Revolutionary Anarchist Action (DAF), from Turkey, called: “A response to the article ‘Rojava: An anarcho-syndicalist perspective’”.

The anarcho-syndicalist text is based on partial information and on a sectarian conception in relation to the Kurdish liberation struggle. The accusations that the PKK is patriarchal, centralist, nationalist, among others, are based more on the history of this party and on falsifications than on the present and on the potentiality of the struggle waged in Rojava. They confound then an organisation with the diversified set of social groups in struggle, of the class. Aside from that, the sectarianism of the anarcho-syndicalists’ position, condemning the anarchist participation in the struggle for the self-determination of the peoples expresses a strategic, programmatic and theoretical deviation. The most contradictory is that many of these groups “supported” the Zapatismo when it was “fashion” in the 1990s, being that the same criticisms directed to the Kurdish resistance could be directed to the Zapatismo.

For the revolutionaries, it does not matter a priori if the party in the head of a struggle process is social-democrat, Maoist or nationalist, or even if it does not have an organic direction of the struggle. For the revolutionary anarchists, which defend the materialism and the dialectics as method of analysis, what matters is the concrete character of the struggle that the people is waging, if it is fair or unfair for the interests of the social revolution. An anarchist organisation must never abdicate its ideological, strategical and theoretical principles. This, contrary to the “purist” abstention, implies the participation and internal dispute within the mass movement, understanding the particularities of every trend and party, its history and its present. The anarchists participate in the struggles of the working masses for strengthening and guiding the positive features, and combating the bourgeois and bureaucratic deviations and misrepresentations, whether it be combating parties, military organisations or sectors of the very popular masses.

In the same manner that a struggle can be fair even though it is directed by a late sector, it is also correct to affirm that such direction (if it persists) will have direct implications for the victory or defeat of the struggle, and that, therefore, is task of the revolutionaries the dispute and re-organisation in order to the overcoming of this direction by the masses. As we already said in other documents, the role performed by the anarchist organization is of initiator-director, in other words, to become vanguard of the masses in struggle, it means acting as friend of the people, and above all do not move away from the masses, and nor run away from the contradictions.

The concept of active minority emerged historically for expressing such position. Considering that the political forces oriented by the principle of authority tends to be, at first, hegemonic and the directions in the organisations, the anarchists must act like an active minority within the movement, pointing out the mistakes and contradictions of these sectors. It is valid for many situations. In other words, to act with the class, its struggles, as minority autonomous organisation.

The purism and the sectarianism are a great trap. It leads an organisation or a individual to not comprehend the ground in which one fights, because it is indifferent for him and for his unique and closed “formulas”. There exists above all a reformist sectarianism and purism, typical for the western parliamentary lefts (but that also reaches the revisionist sector of anarchism), which ignoring and despising the conditions of the struggle in the periphery of capitalism, prefer the more convenient road of the “moral condemnation”. But we must note that the same anarcho-syndicalists do no self-criticism about the capitulation of the anarcho-sydicalism to the nationalist Popular Front, policy that remains in effect in Europe, with the accommodation of several organisations to the capitalism. The same happens in relation to the post-modern ideology, in which great part of the anarcho-syndicalism has capitulated to the Euro-centrism and racism of the bourgeois-imperial feminism.

For the revolutionary anarchists it is not just a matter of mere contemplation, one must comprehend the conditions of the class struggle in every reality (also comprehending what is universal in every particular reality) precisely for taking part in the struggle for the victory of the proletariat, independent of the difficulties to be faced.

Both the reformist way and the sectarian and purist way complement each other for defeating the Kurdish liberation even before it happens. One reinforces the bourgeois and pro-imperialist sector and the other reinforces the apathy, the indifference and the sectarianism of the revolutionary sectors, the only ones that can make the struggle in Rojava advance.

For the current conditions of the struggle in the Kurdistan or in any part of the world the anarchists must not abdicate their organisation, whether it be for the benefit of the direction of PKK or for the benefit of any nationalist or state-bourgeois perspective. Despite one struggles together to the Maoists, nationalists and other sectors which are supporting the revolution in Rojava against the reactionary invasion, it is fundamental to construct and strengthen the revolutionary anarchist organisation as a means of deepening the socialist and anti-statist process and combating the bureaucratic and collaborationist sectors.

The women’s liberation is in the rifle’s tip and beside the people

“The resistance in Kobanê is being directed by women that at the same time combat the ISIS, also destroy sexist values and favor a libertarian attitude for the women so that we can occupy a place in a new society” Commander Meryem Kobane

One of the factors that gave a huge repercussion to the Kurdish resistance in Kobanê was the active participation and the leader and fearless role of the women in all fronts. Although it has been divulged in the western mass media almost merely as a superficial and aesthetic factor (sometimes serving to the sexist imagination with the image of armed women), and although the accusations of patriarchalism on the part of sectarian sectors of anarchism, despite that, a wide female movement has been formed and id advancing in the Kurdistan.

The fact is that the armed women have a new level of dialogue at the construction of a new society. Thus it occurred in the Paris Commune of 1871, thus it occurred in the Spanish civil war of 1936, thus it occurred in other proletarian experiences in which the women had decisive participation. The women’s potential for struggle always suffered prejudice, even in the socialist and revolutionary ranks. However, the historical experience is a school for the people, and the requirements for the women’s rights was never far from the needs of the revolution. Therefore, although the central importance of the female action in Rojava, we cannot forget that women have always been present in the most diverse struggles, armed or not, around the world.

The YPJ, female fraction of the YPG militias, that today brings together more than 8.000 militia members, expresses a central issue in what regards to the women’s liberation: the struggle for the women’s liberation is not detached from the struggle for the emancipation of the entire working class. This issue is expressed in a very clear form in the case of Kobanê, but is does not cease to be present as an universal dilemma in the struggle of the women. In the case of the men and women of Kobanê win the war and the revolution against the oppression of capitalism and jihadism, the feminist conquests are guaranteed and deepened; in the contrary case the sexual slavery, the femicide, and other forms of brutal repression against the women will crown a without precedent setback. Therefore, the social revolution and the women’s liberation have a relation of potenciation: without the victory of the whole people, and with that the transformation of the social bases, the women’s liberation is impossible, without a feminist societal and organizational basis it is impossible to advance in the tasks of the revolution.

In the words of Agirî Yilmaz, a fighter of the YPG:

“In the mentality of ISIS women are deficient. They cannot fight. However when they hear the shouts and calls of the YPJ women they leave their positions and their weapons and they flee. They are afraid to fight against women. They tell themselves ‘let me die fighting a man, not a woman.’ This comes from their conception that women cannot do anything. But our conception is of women who organize themselves, manage themselves and are organized.”

The struggle of the Kurdish women, however, does not mean only a danger to the religious fundamentalism. The struggle of these women is a great danger to the liberal and bourgeois conception about the women’s role and the women’s liberation. The central issue for understanding this conflict is the power.

The policy of the “empowerment” in the capitalist society per the selective arrival of women to posts of power and repression (entrepreneurs, governors, police officers, security guards, etc.) is a counterrevolutionary policy. This “empowerment” of the woman is fake, as fake as the possibilities of equality through the social climbing of poor people, because it is circumscribed to an unequal societal structure. The speech of the bourgeois empowerment has as goal the systemic integration of the female bureaucracies and personalities and the stoppage of the revolutionary potential of the broad female masses.

The “empowerment” for the proletarian feminism means the strengthening of popular power’s organisms (labour unions, councils/soviets, student movement,people’s assemblies, etc) and at the same time the strengthening of the participation and direction of women in these organizations. The popular, democratic, federalist and socialist power is the only that is able to guarantee completely the political, economical and cultural rights for the working women. But this is a new power, that can only flourish and triumph (as Kobanê demonstrates) over the wreckage of the old fundamentalist or bourgeois power and over the stingy dreams of “empowerment” of the liberal-feminism.

For an Internationalist and Classist Trend

Are there contradictions in the revolutionary processes, in the Kurdish one and in the revolutionary process in general? Yes. The contradictions were pointed out in this text. But the solution is not in the support of the bourgeois state projects of independence, nor in the cold absence of international solidarity of a sectarian libertarian reformism. It is in the organization of the revolutionary anarchists for acting in the revolutionary processes and put their project into practice. That is why we call the construction of an Internationalist and Classist Trend (ICT), which can conjugate the tasks of the people’s organization and local resistance with the internationalist militant solidarity. The task in the current moment is to act in order to reorganize a revolutionary unionist alternative, pointing out new horizons of action and organization for the working class faced to the current international crisis and to the radicalization of the class struggle.

Liberdade ao Povo Curdo!

Morte ao Imperialismo e ao Estado Islâmico!

Vitória as milícias de autodefesa popular!

Pelo Socialismo e Autogoverno das massas!

Avante o Anarquismo Revolucionário!

Anarchist Popular Unity (UNIPA)

Brazil, March 2015

The Forgotten Secular And Feminist Fight In West Asia

It's been quite a while since we have updated this blog and the main focus since we last posted here has been on our Facebook page, however we've decided to revive this page and begin posting on here more regularly. For our first post we present you with an article that originally appeared on The Citizen Bureau, an independent daily that is based in India. 

The world, it seems, is preoccupied with the Islamic State. The militant group has established a self-proclaimed caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, and media headlines are dominated by the US-led coalition’s fight to recapture this territory. The Kurds find themselves at the centre of this narrative, with the battle for Kobani, home to a largely Kurdish population, becoming symbolic of the influence and power of the Islamic State. However, somewhere along this obsession fuelled narrative, a key part of the Kurdish fight against the militants has been forgotten. 

Few have ever heard of Rojava, a de facto autonomous region in northern and northeastern Syria, that gained autonomy in November 2013. As the Islamic State is a self-professed quasi-state, so is Rojava, with the two not only battling for the same territory in Syria but also reflecting two competing models of governance in a country with the state’s authority has effectively collapsed. 

The Islamic State is predicated on a perverse interpretation of the Sunni fold of Islam, based on the enforcement of Sharia. It is fundamentalist, extremist, intolerant and anti-women, defining nationhood on the basis of a narrowly interpreted religious identity. In contrast, Rojava highlights its multiethnic and multiconfessional diversity, including Muslims, Christians, and Yazidis. 

There is another, perhaps most interesting, difference between the so-called Islamic State and Rojava. While the former is known for being anti-women, one of the key tenets in Rojava’s identity and governance, is that of gender equality. The political representation allows for a 40 percent quota for women’s participation in government, and another provision written into the constitution mandates that each municipality must elect Kurdish, Arab and Christian representatives, and one of the three must be a woman. 

A key role in the defence of Rojava is played by the YJA STAR (Kurdish: Yekîneyên Jinên Azad ên Star), the women’s military wing of the PKK. The YJA, the linked YPG (People’s Protection Units) and the YPJ (Women’s Defense Forces), are at the forefront of the defence of Kurdish territory in Syria. It is also worth mentioning that these militias are not the same as the Iraqi peshmerga, although western media uses the term to encompass all Kurdish militias. 

In recent months, the YPG and YPJ have seen major victories, the most important of which was the retake of Kobani. Other victories have included the strategic towns of Tel Hamis and Tel Tamr (on the edges of Cizîre canton). 

There are two important points relating to the above. One, already alluded to, is the role of women in the fight against the Islamic State -- representing an interesting contrast given the Islamic State’s anti-woman stance. Women fighters said they did not only see the YPJ as a defence front, but that they also saw it as a source of freedom. 

Destan, who is in the front line, explained that before she joined the ranks of the YPG two years ago: “my life was between four walls. I had no social or economic life.”

Radical changes after the revolution affected Destan and her cousin of the same age, and they decided to join the YPG. A few months later, with the formation of the YPJ, they joined its ranks. 

Destan replied to our question as to what had changed after she had joined the YPG/YPJ, saying: “I never used to believe a woman could be the equal of a man before. For instance, in our family the man was always deemed the dominant one and I always considered that normal and legitimate. Here there is a genuine understanding of equality and freedom. I understood in the ranks of the YPJ that male domination was not a normal part of life but was, on the contrary, against the natural order. This created a great feeling of freedom in me.” 

Destan is one of those who has been in the front line against ISIS attacks that have intensified since July last year. She explained the defence of the “Şehit Xabur tepesi” [Martyr Khabur hill], a significant event in the Kobanê resistance thus: “Our women comrades fought to the end to prevent their weapons falling into the hands of the ISIS gangs.” 

Two more of her cousins, Shervan and Ruhat, have also died in clashes this year. She concluded: “Being in the YPJ is not just a matter of defending the land, but is also a love for freedom”. 

Berfin has not been in the YPJ as long as Destan. She joined up after calls to mobilise were issued following the launch of the Kobanê resistance. As she is new, she has not yet been allowed to take part in fighting. 

“I supported the YPJ and when the latest attacks began I knew I could not remain on the sidelines”, is how Berfin described how she joined the YPJ.

Berfin said: “before joining the YPJ we experienced serious assimilation. We were alienated from our language and our culture by the regime which imposed Arab culture. Here I have become acquainted with my own language and culture.” 

“The YPJ has changed the perception that women are lacking and cannot do anything. I studied 7 years at school then they took me away. If it hadn’t been for the revolution, I would probably have got married and been a child mother.” 

A woman fighter named Roza, who joined the ranks of the YPJ 6 months ago, sums up women’s resistance thus: “The most important gain of this conflict has been, in my opinion, the breaking of feudal value judgments. In the last month women have been fighting on the frontline. It may be said that women have inflicted the most crushing blows on the ISIS gangs. Many women have died after putting up heroic resistance. It is now up to us to carry on the struggle in the path of all those who have fallen, first and foremost the women.” 

The second point worth noting relates to how these victories highlight a relatively new dynamic to conflicts in West Asia. Instead of states and national armies fighting each other -- a primary component of conflict in the region since the establishment of Israel in 1948 -- the region is now dominated by new types of actors, specifically that of quasi states with non-conventional militaries. In fact, in the fight against the Islamic State, these quasi state armies such as the YPJ and YPG, have seen the most success, with national militaries such as the Iraqi army seeing limited gains. 

In conclusion, within the sectarian narrative pitting Sunni versus Shia identity, another smaller but extremely important facet of conflict in West Asia has been forgotten -- that of an intolerant, anti-woman, monolithic conception of an “Islamic” State versus Rojava’s secular, multiconfessional, gender-equal and multiethnic state.

The Social Revolution Will Sweep Through Turkish Kurdistan Sooner Or Later!

The Social Revolution Will Sweep Through Turkish Kurdistan Sooner Or Later!

by Zaher Baher (KAF)

Below is the outcome of my visit to Northern Kurdistan in Turkey between 02/11/14 to 08/11/14 as one of a delegation from United Kingdom, organised by Peace in Kurdistan Campaign (PIK), People’s Democratic Party (HDP) and Democratic Society Congress (DTK). 

Throughout the visit we had a chance to meet many organisations, including political parties, local and regional Trade Unions, co-Mayor of Diyarbakir and Suruc, the Coordination of humanitarian aid to the refugees, Refugees Camps, villages at the border of Kobane, representatives of Democratic Free Movement of Women, Human Rights Association, representatives of democratic Region’s Party, the Bar Association of Diyarbakir and finally meeting with the Federation of the Families of Detainees. 


During our meeting with the people we had total freedom to ask the relevant questions about the situation, their responsibilities, their approach to the problems they are facing, and their current and future tasks. 

There is no doubt that each of the above organisations was overloaded with work, shortage of funds, humanitarian aid and lack of support from the central government. These were because of the following reasons: 

1. The war in Kobane had created a big problem in the region due to the overwhelming number of refugees form the city and by the Eyazidis from Shangal (Sinjar Province). This has created a big problem for each of the above departments
 
2. The slow pace of the peace process between PKK and the Turkish government, which is nearly halted. This obviously made the people angry, frustrated and disappointed. 

3. Continuing the war in Kobane has caused more killing and displacement of people, while there is no clear sign of defeating the Isis. There is evidence that the Turkish government is supporting Isis. These are reasons for more demonstration and protest and vicious response from the police that destabilizes the situation further. 

The most important observation in our visit is the fragmentation of organisations, and the formation of a variety of bodies in different places. A few of these were old but many had developed during the last couple of years. Each of them is working for progress of the society towards stability situation, peace, freedom, social justice, human rights, There was some signs of coordination among them. 

Many of these bodies have been formed as a default and forced themselves over the situation and the central government. This is a reason for seeing some tension between them and the government. It is amazing to notice that while the Municipality of Diyarbakir is elected by the Kurdish people but has no contact with either the head of the police or the governor of Diyarbakir. This is the case with other departments. For instance, when we asked the Human Right Association whether they have written to the police about their behavior and harassment of local people, they replied saying that “There is no point to write to them as they never answer us.” 

There are many Kurdish schools but the state does not recognize them. The people however strongly support these and are confident that one day they can force the state to recognize them. 

It is interesting the people are defying and challenging the power and the state. There is a power within the power. There is ‘’people’s power’’ that people believe in, work with, have forced themselves through the actual state’s power and have made it workable and powerful. This is the way for them to gradually take back the power form the elite minority. While this is not difficult in the cities that overwhelming majority are Kurdish and believe in changes. This is how the social revolution starts from the bottom of the society, and not from the top. 

After 28 years of war, PKK has realised that they must change their direction of their struggles, their aims and their strategy otherwise their future won’t be better than the future of other movements, 
In my opinion PKK or at least the dominant faction or group within the PKK, has taken the right decision and the right direction by silencing their weapons and opening their minds, changing from military forces to people’s power and from political revolution to social revolution. The wave of the social revolution is so strong it will be extremely hard for anybody or any political party to change its direction let alone to stop it. It became a culture, custom especially for the young generation, they have realized that is the only way to defy the power, to challenge the system and make major changes. 

Through talking to people, they are so confident that they can make changes. 

In meeting Democratic Free Movement of Women, there were 9 women present. They told us how they deal with women’s problem in the society, like domestic violence, rape and other abuses, how to support individuals in every ways to make them confident to tackle their problem. A few of them were talking about their own experience and told us since they joined the movement, in fact they have nearly became another person. 

They take part in women’s peace camp, sharing mission, they discuss the books they read and working with Kobane democratic federation women. When we asked them whether there was a gay or lesbian groups in Diyarbakir? In reply they said “ there are a couple of groups in the town, we have contacts with them and we are very supportive to them.” It is amazing to see in a town like Diyarbakir there are women’s movement with very brave and open minded individuals and are very supportive. 

The Federation of the Families of Detainees (Tuhad-FED) is another group we had a couple of hours to meet with. This group was formed in 1996 under the nose of the government. It has 14 volunteers, half of them are women working tirelessly. Most of the foundation members of the group had very bitter experience of being in prison, as they were tortured or detained for a period of time. Its co-president of the federation is still held in prison. This federation is very active and has regular contact with the families and parents of the detainees. They support them by keeping in touch, finding a lawyer for the detainees and fund the families of the poor to visit their beloved ones in prison. 

This group is in contact with the different groups abroad and locally with the Human Rights Association (IHD). In our meeting with the IHD, they confirmed that the police have arrested many people in the demonstration of 06/10 and 07/10/2014 against the Turkish authority. This was when many thousands fled from Kobane to Turkey against the wishes of the government. 

The demonstrations were against the silent policy of the state of Turkey supporting Isis. The head of IHD confirmed that just 5 minutes before our arrival, a couple of people came to their office to inform them that their sons, aged 16 and 17 years, have been taken away by the police. They were informed that during the demonstration 42 people and 2 police officers were killed, some 1128 people were arrested including 53 children, with 221 still in prison. 

In a meeting with co-president of one of the Unions who works in a hospital, she confirmed the arrival of 128 injured and some very sick people at their hospital. The police have raided the Union office and the hospital a few times to find out whether anybody who helped the people at Kobane has been treated in the hospital. When they found the presence of sick and injured people from Kobane they harassed her and other nurses, abusing them verbally and taking their identity documents from them. 

In our meeting with the Bar Association of Diyarbakir, we met 5 Lawyers. They told us that they have about 1000 lawyers in Kurdistan region working in different departments, caring for the rights of women and children or working at legal aid centres funded by the state. They confirmed that no major changes have taken place since the start of the peace process. They were optimistic and felt that the situation will improve by next year when the constitution changes. They pointed out that there was a bail system but this did not apply to people who were involved in politics and their case had to be settled in court. When we asked them about making complaints about the police behaviour, they replied “We do not think it is worth complaining because the police do not listen and they will not change their attitudes.” 

They confirmed that 2000 students were arrested and all over turkey some 3000 to 4000 people are still in prison This is in spite of the constitution which states that people should not be arrested for political activates or opinions. However, if one belongs to a certain political party or found carrying some sort of a banner or placard with slogans inciting hatred, he becomes liable to be arrested. 

The plights of the Refugees continue:

Since the capture of Mosul, in Iraq, by Isis and the genocide of the Eyzidis and the start of war in Kobane, the Kurdistan region in Turkey is overwhelmed with refugees from both Kobane and Sinjar. More than 100,000 Eyazedis have fled, with many of them ending in Iraqi Kurdistan and some 18000 arriving in Turkey.There are also about 4000 of them staying in one of the camps just at the outskirt of Diyarbakir. 

The co- Mayor of Diyarbakir confirmed that there has been no support from UN. People in the region donated money towards the tents, food and clothes. He said ’’ 90% of the donation and help came to Diyarbakir Municipalities from the local people and only 10% from the state.’’ 

He told us they work very hard to provide basic necessities of life such as tents, food, clothes, hot water, electricity, shower facilities, health clink and schools to their children. He mentioned that they have great difficulties as all the services have to be done by volunteers; they do not have enough people. They also lacked skilled labour, doctors, nurses, beds, ambulances and medicine. The Turkish government does not support them in providing the services and everything has been organised by the Municipalities.
 
We also met with the Union of the South East Anatolian Region in which Gabb is in charge of the coordination of humanitarian aid to the refugees. This body consists of 286 members of which 30% are women. They elect 7 people to be part of the active committee. Half of their budget comes from all the Municipalities in the region and they have contacts abroad. Gabb told us that they have an intensive plan for the next 3 months to coordination between refugee camps, between the refugees from Kobane and Shangal and also with Turkey to obtain information and humanitarian support.

They also have to classify the people in the camp in term of their gender, age, health and other problems. They confirmed that they supervise and support 9 camps of refugee in which 4 of them Eyazidis from Shangal. They confirmed that already around 6000 of them returned to Iraqi Kurdistan but received 96000 more who settled in Suruc, and 2840 in Mardin. 

We also visited the refugee camp of Eyazidis where over 4000 people live. These people complained about quality of the food, hot water, doctors and nurses. They told us that due to lack of transport it takes 15 days to be referred to a hospital and moneyless refugees have to pay for their treatment. 

In Surus, we visited the Kobane refugee camp which was set up on 15/09/14. They have the same facilities as the Shangal refugees. It looked they lived in reasonable condition. We were told that they have 15 doctors, 20 nurses and many more on call to look after them. It seems they are happier than the Shangal refugees, probably because of the following factors:
 
1. They are very close to Kobane, where they come from, as this psychologically influence them, compared to the Eyazidis from far away Shangal.
 
2. The Kobane refugees feel their stay is temporary and will returned home soon. Shanglys have little hope of returning while Isis are in control of their region. 

3. The Kobane refugees had time to leave home and some managed to take their valuables with them. The Eyazidis, on the other hand were faced with immediate slaughter. They have left everything behind and many of their relatives were killed. hundreds of their women kidnapped by Isis and sold into sexual slavery following the raids is still unknown. 

4.The refugees from Kobane left while there were still people behind fighting the Isis forces. The Eyazidis people are bitter towards Massoud Barzani’s forces (The peshmarga), They informed us that as soon as the Isis arrived the Peshamrga withdrew and let the Eyazidis face slaughter. The withdrawal of the Peshamarga is a mystery and nobody knows whether it was on the order of Massoud Barzani, an agreement among Isis, the Turkish government and Barzani or something else. When we talked to people in the Eyazidis camp some of them did not hide their anger and frustration against Masoud Barzani’s Peshmarga. 

Turkish government has changed its tactic but not it's strategy against Kurdish people:

Everywhere there people had one thing in common: ‘There has been no major change since the ceasefire of Dec 2012.’ The suppression and the oppression are going on, still the Kurdish community is marginalised, still you can see a major difference between Kurdish and Turkish towns. 
There is not much support from the governor of the cities or from the central government to Municipalities that are controlled by the Kurdish people. The Kurdish community suffers greatly from joblessness and from health problems. People still live in big fear either for their own safety or their children’s being harassed, kidnapped or detained without reason. 

It is true that the Kurdish people are now in control of their Municipalities, and setting up many organisations, association, Unions and a variety of groups. However, they receive very little or no help from the government. It is noticed that the Kurds have forced their case and the Turkish government has no choice but to accept it. This may be due to the government hoping to become an EU member. Also the Kurdish have simply rejected the old situation. They are prepared to fight back and do not want to stop their social revolution which is at its beginning. 

Things can be happened but should not be happened to derail the social revolution:

The situation is very tense and delicate. The peace process seems to have come to standstill. Kobane is still being seized, Isis is still a big threat to the region and it seems removing Assad from power is not possible for the time being. The US and the rest of the western countries can run out of a clear policy or strategy to defeat Isis and the Turkish government is not serious in the negotiation with PKK. These factors have direct or indirect impact on the situation in Turkey.
 
However, factors more important than the above which may derail the social revolution are:

1. Ending the ceasefire by PKK and returning to guerrilla war. This will be a disaster for Turkish society and the Kurdish community. No doubt this may bring more killing, more destruction, more displacement of people, creating the feeling of hatter between Kurds and Turks, increasing the wave of racism and will have a negative impact on the region as whole and the Kurdish region in Iraq, Iran and Syria in particular. 

2. The attitude of US and the western countries treating the PKK as a terrorist organisation does not help the situation. Continuing such a policy will bring no benefits either to Kurdish people or to their allies in the region. These countries need to change their attitudes about PKK, they should understand that it is not the same organisation as it was in the 1990s. They should consider PKK as a main force in the region and is very popular. It has indeed changed and progressed considerably during the recent years. Therefore the PKK cannot be marginalised. The US and the western countries should force the Turkish government not to take the ceasefire for granted, they should all grab this opportunity to end this very long dispute. 

3. The Turkish government has doubtful relations with Isis and the other terrorist organisations in the region. For instance it uses them in a proxy war which may become extremely harmful to Turkey. The president of Turkey, Mr Tayyip Erdogan, and its government should leave behind their dream of establishing the old Ottoman Empire in the Twenty first century. Instead they should concentrate on its internal problems, especially the Kurdish issue. 

4. There is still a big struggle between the military Generals and politicians in Turkey over power. The peace process has never been in the interest of the military Generals. Although currently the struggle is getting less effective, the intervention from spy networks within the region along with the US and the western countries could revive this struggle and strengthen the Generals to do a military kudeta . This obviously is not in the interest of the peace process and the social revolution by bringing back the old polices of suppression, oppression and killing innocent people and to return to the first square. 

In solidarity,
KAF