Karasu: Our paradigm’s three pillars are women’s liberation, social ecology, and democratic society
Karasu saida that “just as women’s freedom is important to us, so is social ecology.”
In the third and final part of this in-depth interview, Mustafa Karasu, member of the KCK Executive Council, spoke about current events in Syria as well as the Kurdish movement’s paradigm.
The first part of the interview can be read here and the second here.
What is your general view of the current administration in Syria and of the developments to form a new Syria?
The current Syrian administration’s policies are wrong. Sure, the old Syrian regime was also authoritarian and oppressive, and the people were dissatisfied. It was also insensitive to the demands and freedoms of the people, but the current regime has the same approach. Both follow a centralist approach.
The old Syria, the criticized authoritarian, centralized, and oppressive Syria, had no problem with beliefs. There was no problem with the Druze, the Sunnis, or the Christians. And a significant part of the Alawites were part of the ruling elite. Of course, it was not only the Alawites who were in power; the Sunnis were also involved. And now, the current regime is also engaging in such sectarian hostility. We know what they did to the Alevi sheikhs. We know what they did in Suwayda. What are you doing? Now Ahmed al-Sharaa said that they will hold the perpetrators accountable, but these are just empty words. It is the mindset. The mentality has not changed. The centralist mentality needs to change. What is going on is unacceptable. Democratization means, in certain respects, abandoning centralism. Where there is centralism, where everything is decided at a central point, there can be no democracy. Democracy is achieved through local democracy and the acceptance of freedom of differences. This does not exist in the Damascus government. They approached the Alawites in this way, and they approached the Druze in this way. When they attacked the Druze, they said, “Next is the northeast.” They said, “Next is Rojava.” Let’s leave aside democratic understanding and accepting the freedom of differences; they will try to crush everything. Damascus cannot achieve stability with this.
Despite all this denial, the administration of North and East Syria is actually taking a positive approach. Because they put forward a social contract, they formed an administration on their own. They did everything themselves. North and East Syria also wants to be part of the constitutional discussions and of the new administration. And not just them; they also want to involve the Syriacs, the Alawites, the Druze, different groups representing all Arabs, and particularly women.
But they do not listen. Everything is done through al-Sharaa’s decrees. That is not how it should be.
In contrast, North and East Syria want to unite with Syria, to be part of Syria’s unity, to find a solution, and even to have a place in the government and ministries. They will accept the will of the communities.
There is an administration in North and East Syria. They fought against ISIS and have over ten thousand martyrs. They also took a stand against the Baath regime. They rejected its impositions. Yes, Northern and Eastern Syria constantly conveyed their demands, but the Baath regime did not accept them. And so, no compromise was reached. Now, there is a similar situation with the Colani government.
International powers should take the right approach. Syria’s democratization should be decentralized. The Druze want freedom and life for themselves. The Kurds want it too. These are not about dividing or fragmenting Syria; they are about ensuring Syria’s integrity. The integrity of Syria can only be achieved with the consent and satisfaction of all peoples. In this regard, the most appropriate course of action for all international powers is to focus on establishing a democratic system that secures the consent of all Syrian peoples and to bring Damascus and other communities to an agreement on this basis.
Let’s move on to another topic, the ecological situation. Man-made climate change and ecological destruction are currently demonstrating impressively what consequences they entail. How do you assess the situation? And above all, how do you assess the struggles that are taking place for the environment?
One of humanity’s most fundamental problems today, perhaps the most important one, is ecological destruction. If this cannot be stopped, the chains of evolution will be broken, and the living environment of all living beings may be destroyed. Humanity is in true danger. Not only some, but all of humanity face the risk of losing the basis to live. This is a serious situation. Industrialism is what has created it. In this regard, industrialism must be strongly criticized, and it must be exposed for what it has caused and how it did so. It must be made clear that this is not progress but hostility toward society, hostility toward nature, and hostility toward the future of humanity.
It is a betrayal of the future of humanity. It is a betrayal of our children and grandchildren. This cannot be allowed to continue. And all this, just for some people to become a little bit richer. Everything is being turned upside down so that a few can increase their wealth. An entire region is being destroyed just for a thousand tons of gold. This is a very serious issue. It is a question of existence. And that is the most fundamental task of humanity. Just as it is a question of existence for all peoples, it is also a question of existence and ecology for humanity. This too stems from industrialism.
In the past, industrialism was viewed positively in the left-socialist approach. It was seen as progress, as development. That’s why they said, “Socialism equals electrification.” A mindset emerged that didn’t consider nature or the future. They justified that so and so much mining must be done, that so and so many factories must be built. However, socialism is an ideological concept that prioritizes thinking about and planning for the future. If it is an ideology that will lead humanity to freedom, democracy, and the best possible life, then an open stance against industrialism is necessary. There is insufficient effort, ideological struggle, and evaluation in this regard. It is very limited.
There is a struggle for ecology and nature in the world, but it is insufficient. People are too concerned with trying to handle the end results and do not focus on the origin of the ecocide. The root cause, industrialism, must be dealt with, and a stance must be taken against it. “This destruction has occurred,” “the glaciers are melting,” “the world is heating up,” “it is becoming a desert”. Yes, those are some of the results, but the source of this is industrialism. They draw attention to the extreme aspects of industrialism, such as pollution of the air, and say that many investments, many factories, and many productions have a greenhouse effect, meaning they produce results that will disrupt climate change, but this is directed at only one part of industrialism. Then again, they are speaking about limitation. What they want is to develop certain things without stopping profit and exploitation. We need to take a stance against these as well.
They argue about who signed the Paris Agreement, but those who signed it are still those who perpetuate industrialism. A fundamental struggle is needed on this issue. It poses a real and significant danger. This year, forest fires have increased significantly everywhere. This is related to that. It is a situation created by humans. It is not a natural phenomenon; it is a result of industrialism and capitalism. This issue must be addressed. This issue is truly important and needs to be on the highest agenda. Just as women’s freedom is an important issue in the world today, ecology and ecological struggles also need to be pushed forward. Awareness must be raised effectively.
In previous interviews, you have stated that ecocide is, among other things, part of a targeted special war. Could you elaborate on this? What concept, what intention is being pursued here? And what does patriotic resistance against it mean?
The war waged by the Turkish state against the Kurdish people is a special war. Silencing and suppressing the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom, depopulating Kurdistan, ensuring the displacement of the Kurdish population in Kurdistan… All of these are part of a special war policy. In this way, efforts are being made to break the resistance and power of the Kurds. Again, the construction of so many dams is also part of this. The dams built in Kurdistan are linked to industrialism and exploitation, but at least as much, if not more so, they serve the purpose of depopulating Kurdistan and weakening the Kurdish people’s dynamics of freedom and struggle. Forests are also being cut down for this purpose. Just as dams are built to restrict the guerrillas’ movement, forests are also being cut down for the same purpose. In this way, they aim to gain greater military control over Kurdistan.
There have been fires in Kurdistan for ten years, twenty years. Every year the mountains are bombed, and the fires are spreading. Was there any outcry in Turkey? Our forests are burning, our lungs are burning. No one spoke up. In these mountains, the mountains of Kurdistan, there are constant fires caused by airstrikes and artillery fire. The trees are burning. Still, due to the resilience of oak trees, some managed to survive, but in many places, there are almost no trees left.
Patriotism in this context means loving your country, nature, trees, forests, and protecting your water. Can life exist without these? When there are no forests and no water, then there is no life. How can we say we are Kurds, we are patriots, without owning the geography that created the Kurds? There is a weakness in this regard in Kurdistan.
We have our paradigm. It is a paradigm with its three pillars of women’s liberation, social ecology, and democratic society. Just as women’s freedom is important to us, so is social ecology. We have made great progress on women’s freedom in Kurdistan. Kurdish women have developed the struggle for women’s freedom. They have set an example not only for Turkey but also for the Middle East and the world, but the ecological dimension, which is one of the most important dimensions of our paradigm, has been insufficient and inadequately embraced. This awareness has remained weak. We all have a responsibility in this; we also have a responsibility. Just as we talk about the freedom of our country and the freedom of language and identity, we must protect our nature as much as we protect our language, culture, and identity. We must take a stand against attacks on nature.
Indeed, there is a struggle, but it is very limited. Ecological societies, communes, associations, and institutions should be established everywhere. The whole society must be drawn into the struggle. So far, it is limited. This is a national issue that concerns the whole of Kurdistan. It is an issue of the Kurdish people’s existence. There are so many intellectuals and so much struggle in Kurdistan. It must be drawn into this. In particular, our women’s freedom movement and women’s freedom organizations must push the ecological struggle. They need to integrate the ecological struggle with the women’s freedom struggle. Because just as there is a notion of domination over women and power is produced, there is also a notion of domination over nature. Power is also produced through this notion of domination.
In Turkey, there is a true lack of responsibility. They speak about Turkey, about the nation state, and about how they will not let their homeland be divided, but at the same time they are burning and destroying their homeland. Their homeland is burning; the homeland is turning into a desert. They are destroying the Kaz Mountains and other places to enrich the wealth of a handful of people. Is that how it works? This is not love for the homeland or the country. The Turkish people also need to take a stand on this issue.
Such a severe situation does not exist elsewhere in the world. If it did, societies would rise. In Turkey, the people have been numbed. Their homeland is getting destroyed, the country is turning into a desert, but they do not rise.
On this issue, the ecological movement in Kurdistan, which is struggling against the special war in Kurdistan and these attacks, must unite and collaborate with the ecological movement in Turkey. And by raising the common struggle, they must take a stand against this ecocide in Turkey, against the wealthy getting even wealthier by selling off this nature, this land. This is true patriotism, true democracy, and true socialism. One cannot call himself/herself a socialist while not taking a stance on this issue. These are issues that must be overcome, issues that require more effective struggle. Just as efforts are being made to solve Turkey’s other problems and to democratize, it is also important to organize and struggle against ecocide.
