José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
NATO against the Kurds
The battle for A’zaz
As the siege tightens around the armed fundamentalist reactionaries in Syria, the Ankara regime that has generously sponsored them throughout five years of butchery is beginning to get nervous. The forceful eruption of the Kurdish guerrillas of the YPG against the Islamic State, the Russian intervention and the determined participation of Hizbullah militias is winning the battle against that motley alliance of opportunists and armed fundamentalists whose only goal is to overthrow Bashar Al- Assad and smash the Kurdish militias.
That is why the Turkish army has intensified the bombings against the Kurds, who operate in the northern area of the country, when at every moment they show every sign that they are seeking a direct intervention in the Syrian conflict, in order to extend the life of a military criminal adventure that has only succeeded in inflicting pain and death.
Here they finally drop their masks. NATO, represented by the Turkish State, for the last two days has been bombing the Kurdish militias of the YPG that had advanced to the north of Aleppo towards the cities of A’zaz and Tal Rifaat [1]. The bombings, which have killed at least 23 civilians [2], are concentrated around the military airbase of Menagh, conquered in 2013 by a coalition of “rebels”, including Al — Qaeda (Al- Nusra Front) and others that later would end up as the Islamic State. That is a key point to supply the “rebellion,” which serves the petro-theocracy and the interests of the USA and the EU. Ahmet Davutoğlu said that he has informed the vice-president of the USA Joe Biden about the bombings. Although Biden has not publicly approved Turkey’s military intervention, he has neither condemned it nor taken any action to restrain the Turkish State, which would never act without the absolute certainty that the U.S. would end up supporting them.
Let’s remember that NATO had said, in the midst of the crisis with Russia, that it would defend tooth and nail the “territorial integrity” of the Turkish state, an argument that the Ankara regime uses to justify its attack on the Kurds, saying that they are a threat to their monolithic concept of national unity. This can be only the beginning of a direct intervention on the ground for Erdoğan’s troops, something he already threatened last week. The facade of the supposed unity against the Islamic State is a joke: the Turkish State, and with them NATO, are gambling on destabilization of Syria and prolongation of the Syrian bloodbath, at the same time as they fight against the Kurdish liberation movement.
Betting on the anvil and hammer strategy, as they strike the Kurds in Syrian territory, and supply the armed reactionaries to wipe out the YPG militias, the Turkish State is also striking the Kurds in their own territory, looking to destroy their rebellious morale. For months they have imposed a state of siege in the Kurdish territory in the Turkish state, escalating repressive military operations, bombing. While the Western medias are scandalized by the Islamic State’s destruction of the cultural, historical and archaeological heritage in places like Palmyra (Syria) and denounce it up and down, they have remained silent about the Turkish State’s systematic destruction of the human heritage in the Kurdish region within Turkey’s borders: according to information from Diyarbakir municipality (10 /12/16), the District of Sur in Diyarbakir has been bombed and its historical walls, considered heritage from the UNESCO, have been severely destroyed. 70% of the buildings of the east section of the old city also have been affected, while 50.000 inhabitants from Sur had to move out of their homes due to state violence and terror.
The West believed, they could use the Kurds to fight against the fundamentalist factions they consider “uncontrollable,” but this failed. The Kurds are a mature political protagonist, with too much experience of fighting in the hills to be used as simple pawns by the Western powers. When the U.S. began to employ its strategy of restructuring the Middle East, expecting that puppet regimes would emerge in all areas, regimes similar to the Gulf theocracies that would willingly give their oil in exchange of nearly nothing, they didn’t take into account the Kurds nor their libertarian social projects and their radical democracy; nor did they count on the enormous popular forces that theses interventionist strategies unleashed. It is true that there has yet to flourish in the Middle East the kind of popular power that starting from Kurdistan then radiated out to the region, but it is also true that the U.S. has been incapable of imposing its rule and has ended up by eroding its hegemony in the region, and its cronies have exposed themselves naked: there has not been a moment in the last few decades that the sheiks have been more nervous than they are now. That’s where the violence of the Caliph of Ankara against the Kurds comes from.
The same way that the battle for Kobane was a key point to slow down the advance of the Islamic State, today, the battle for A‘zaz is also a key point to eradicate armed fundamentalism and to defend the expansion, consolidation, and the right to exist of an autonomous, free and confederated Kurdistan.