Green Light: Erdogan, Trump and the Threat of Ethnic Cleansing
In some ways, recent history appears
to be repeating itself. It wasn’t so long ago in December 2018 that the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, Donald Trump, announced that he would be pulling all troops
from Syria.
This followed a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which was apparently sufficient to convince him of the fact that Ankara could lighten Trump’s “burden” in Syria by taking over responsibility for "security" there, including the threat of any remaining cells of fighters from Daesh (the so-called Islamic State).
Of course, that planned U.S. withdrawal didn’t happen. Back in Washington, Trump was almost immediately met by a backlash among a prominent section of the U.S. ruling class, specifically within the Pentagon, who argued that it would be in the interests of national security to keep some forces in Syria. Many were baffled at the notion that Erdogan’s Turkey – a country that has long been proven to have helped facilitate the transfer of Daesh fighters and logistics into Syria – was being trusted with fighting against these same forces.
As we now fast forward roughly ten months, the events of the past few days seem strangely familiar. Another phone call. Another withdrawal announcement. More bizarrely worded tweets. This time, however, the withdrawal was rapidly carried out, at least in areas along the Syria-Turkey border where roughly 50 to 100 U.S. troops had been overseeing a so-called “safe zone” that was ostensibly set up to keep the peace between Turkey on the one hand, and the Kurdish forces of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), on the other.
Now, it appears that Erdogan is on the cusp of fulfilling his promise for aggressive action. Thousands of troops are amassed at the border, with the threat of imminent airstrikes and a ground invasion on the table. Mercenaries from Turkish-backed "Free Syrian Army" groups are mixed in among regular troops. More significantly, the threat of ethnic cleansing – which Erdogan has promised to deliver under the guise of ‘humanitarianism’ (re-settling Arab refugees from other parts of Syria in Kurdish-majority areas) – looms.
This followed a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which was apparently sufficient to convince him of the fact that Ankara could lighten Trump’s “burden” in Syria by taking over responsibility for "security" there, including the threat of any remaining cells of fighters from Daesh (the so-called Islamic State).
Of course, that planned U.S. withdrawal didn’t happen. Back in Washington, Trump was almost immediately met by a backlash among a prominent section of the U.S. ruling class, specifically within the Pentagon, who argued that it would be in the interests of national security to keep some forces in Syria. Many were baffled at the notion that Erdogan’s Turkey – a country that has long been proven to have helped facilitate the transfer of Daesh fighters and logistics into Syria – was being trusted with fighting against these same forces.
As we now fast forward roughly ten months, the events of the past few days seem strangely familiar. Another phone call. Another withdrawal announcement. More bizarrely worded tweets. This time, however, the withdrawal was rapidly carried out, at least in areas along the Syria-Turkey border where roughly 50 to 100 U.S. troops had been overseeing a so-called “safe zone” that was ostensibly set up to keep the peace between Turkey on the one hand, and the Kurdish forces of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), on the other.
Now, it appears that Erdogan is on the cusp of fulfilling his promise for aggressive action. Thousands of troops are amassed at the border, with the threat of imminent airstrikes and a ground invasion on the table. Mercenaries from Turkish-backed "Free Syrian Army" groups are mixed in among regular troops. More significantly, the threat of ethnic cleansing – which Erdogan has promised to deliver under the guise of ‘humanitarianism’ (re-settling Arab refugees from other parts of Syria in Kurdish-majority areas) – looms.
How Should the Left Assess Events?
But how should leftists and
anti-imperialists - who are supporters of the Kurdish national liberation
struggle and who take inspiration from the Rojava Revolution which has aimed to
created a grassroots, feminist democracy rooted in the fraternity of nationaliaties
across Syria - view events.
After all, many of us on the left have supported the Rojava project not because of U.S. involvement, but in spite of it. We have followed closely the revolutionary transformation in the northern part of the country from the proclamation of autonomy in 2012, long before Washington began airstrikes against Daesh while under tremendous international pressure during the 2015 Battle of Kobane.
The YPG itself has been keenly aware of the dangers of any kind of military alliance with the imperialists – no matter how tactical or tentative – and have pursued talks between their political wing and the Syrian government to find to a political solution that would see the Syrian Arab Republic rebranded as a multi-ethnic entity. There was limited YPG-Syrian government cooperation in Afrin during the Turkish invasion of early 2018, and a call subsequently made by the YPG for Damascus to take over security of Manbij.
In addition, Kurdish forces have consistently stated their position that no foreign troops should be based in Syria whatsoever. Contrary to the the mistaken idea that assumes the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is a nationalist or separatist entity, they have demanded that the territorial integrity of the country be maintained and that "Balkanization" be taken off the table.
In December of 2018, when Trump announced what would become a botched withdrawal, the Kurdistan Communities Group (KCK) said that the U.S. move would strengthen the character of the revolution, writing that it has been distorted “by the presence of external forces. In this way, all external forces and inhuman gangs such as ISIS have prevented the struggle of the peoples of Syria from taking its original direction.”
The dizzying pace of events of the past few days vindicate what the Kurdish Freedom Movement has said from the beginning – that such a relationship with a “frenemy” was always weak and riddled with contradictions, and always one that would at some point be "here today, gone tomorrow."
After all, many of us on the left have supported the Rojava project not because of U.S. involvement, but in spite of it. We have followed closely the revolutionary transformation in the northern part of the country from the proclamation of autonomy in 2012, long before Washington began airstrikes against Daesh while under tremendous international pressure during the 2015 Battle of Kobane.
The YPG itself has been keenly aware of the dangers of any kind of military alliance with the imperialists – no matter how tactical or tentative – and have pursued talks between their political wing and the Syrian government to find to a political solution that would see the Syrian Arab Republic rebranded as a multi-ethnic entity. There was limited YPG-Syrian government cooperation in Afrin during the Turkish invasion of early 2018, and a call subsequently made by the YPG for Damascus to take over security of Manbij.
In addition, Kurdish forces have consistently stated their position that no foreign troops should be based in Syria whatsoever. Contrary to the the mistaken idea that assumes the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is a nationalist or separatist entity, they have demanded that the territorial integrity of the country be maintained and that "Balkanization" be taken off the table.
In December of 2018, when Trump announced what would become a botched withdrawal, the Kurdistan Communities Group (KCK) said that the U.S. move would strengthen the character of the revolution, writing that it has been distorted “by the presence of external forces. In this way, all external forces and inhuman gangs such as ISIS have prevented the struggle of the peoples of Syria from taking its original direction.”
The dizzying pace of events of the past few days vindicate what the Kurdish Freedom Movement has said from the beginning – that such a relationship with a “frenemy” was always weak and riddled with contradictions, and always one that would at some point be "here today, gone tomorrow."
The U.S. Ruling-Class: No Friends of the Kurdish Nation
The
fact that the YPG, the Kurdish Freedom Movement as a whole, and the autonomous
administration are not
ignorant to the fact that the U.S. never had the true interests of the Kurdish,
Arab and Assyrian masses at heart seems to be lost of many commentators who can’t
seem to see them as anything other than mindless pawns of imperialism.
One case in point is an October 8th editorial on RT.com which reads of the tentative alliance with the U.S, “If Kurdish leaders thought this would somehow translate into support for statehood, or dominion over traditionally Arab-majority territories, they were dangerously deluded.” But statement after statement from said “Kurdish leaders” made clear that such a “delusion” was never held.
Today, there are those in the halls of power in Washington who are crying afoul that there has been betrayal on Trump’s part of "our Kurdish allies”. Among these are some of the most vile reactionaries one can conceive of. Senator Lindsey Graham was so appalled by his fellow Republican’s decision that he went on the only news network he would be sure Trump would watch – Fox News – to vent his frustration at the White House. This is the same man who just days earlier visited an immigrant detention center on the U.S.-Mexico border and made clear that he didn’t care if they had to be held in cages "for 400 days." If anybody thinks such a grotesque person has an ounce of humanity in his body and genuinely cares for human life, let alone the Kurdish nation, they should probably think again.
It doesn’t bare repeating here some of the most prominent historical cases of U.S. targeting of the Kurdish revolutionary movement over the span four decades, namely the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which the YPG takes ideological inspiration from. It’s enough to remind the reader that despite some U.S. politicians calling “the Kurds” their “allies” in Syria, the U.S. has still been at war with the PKK through intelligence cooperation with Turkey through the entire period of the Syrian war.
Yes, there are many in the halls of Congress from Nancy Pelosi to the much-celebrated progressive Ilhan Omar who are (it must be said, opportunistically) decrying Trump's decision to play into the politics of impeachment and Russia-bashing (since they seem mostly obsessed with stating that Trump's decision was a gift to Putin, Assad and Iran).
But to state what should be the obvious - it's delusional to think the United States was ever going to choose an alliance with Kurdish radicals who they never supported politically, instead of a long-standing one with NATO's second largest military. The tragedy here then is not necessarily the United States pulling out of Syria, but its green lighting of Turkey's impending assault on Rojava, which would be an extension of Turkey's prevailing war that all important arms of the U.S. ruling-class already support within Turkish and Iraqi borders. To say it bluntly: the U.S. under Trump is extending its already existing support for ethnic cleansing policies in these parts of the Kurdish nation into the Syrian sphere.
Pure Enough for You?
Whoever wishes to see a pure social revolution
will never live to see it. Vladimir Lenin, often considered to be among the purest
of revolutionaries, once uttered this expression, and it’s a sentiment has been
proven correct across the past century. National liberation struggles and social
revolutions, especially in the context of encirclement by hostile forces, are
never simple processes. Tactical alliances are made, then discarded. “Friends” today
can become enemies tomorrow. The Kurdish movement is no novice student of
history, especially since it has endured a wealth of knowledge on the subject through direct confrontation with the imperialist beast.
Thus, the question is whether or not sections of the left that has so far kept its distance from supporting the most dynamic social revolution of this decade, is finally willing to support the anti-fascist struggle now that the U.S. has made clear where its long-term allegiance lays.
For its part, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria has restated its willingness to continue the process of negotiation, saying it remains committed to “dialogue to reach negotiated solutions. We once again state that it is for the unity of Syria and society. We will protect our people against all kinds of attacks.”
Erdogan’s plan is to resettle two to three million refugees in Rojava, essentially changing the demographics for Serekaniye, Gire Spi, Qamishlo, Kobane and other cities the line the border, much in the way he did so in Afrin last year. It would be just the latest in a long-standing history of Turkey’s campaigns to engage in ethnic cleaning – not very different from the Israeli practices in Palestine that Erdogan hypocritically denounces without feeling any sense of irony or shame.
Erdogan claims he wants “fountains of peace” in northern Syria; yet he also claimed his mass murder campaign in Afrin was an “olive branch” of sorts. Hiding behind such beautiful expressions can’t obscure the heinous and bloody reality, however. Rojava understands the current juncture as one full of the danger of more heartache, pain and sacrifice. As the Autonomous Administration has said, "we gave 11 thousand martyrs in the struggle for revolution…The invasion threats that the Turkish state has issued have no justification and have actually now become a major obstacle to peace and security in Syria."
For those who hold revolutionary socialist or democratic principles, now is the time to hold them higher than ever before. Solidarity cannot be a matter of mere well-wishing; the time for militant action is upon us.
