Zwei Journalistinnen, Anna und Liza, die ein paar Jahre in der Region Rojava verbracht haben, unterhalten sich über den Kampf gegen Islamisten, über die dortigen Selbstverwaltungsstrukturen, darüber, wie die Revolution die Gesellschaft und wie die Gesellschaft die Revolution verändert und das merkwürdige Verhältnis Rojavas mit der Außenwelt.Manches an der Folklore ist Agitprop, manches aber tatsächlich nur Folklore.
Pt.1:
But there are many sort of rosy… very rosy accounts of what’s happening in Rojava that are being produced by sympathetic leftists for a good reason: we need to build more international support for Rojava. But at the same time, I met several international volunteers who went to Rojava to support the movement on the ground – who were rather disappointed by what they saw when they got there because of all those rosy accounts that they had read before they decided to make the trip.
I think we, outside Rojava, have to be realistic about how revolutionary change takes place and at what pace. What you see in Rojava is that a revolution is not a finished event. It’s been more than 10 years since they started building and working on the revolution, and they have not achieved all their goals yet. One example that becomes quite obvious to internationalists who travel to the region is the situation with the communes, the situation with the new political system that’s supposed to function based on the principle of direct democracy. If you go there, you realize that the entire territory under the control of the Autonomous Administration has been administratively subdivided into communes. Every neighborhood has a commune through which residents of that neighborhood are supposed to govern themselves, to make decisions about whatever issues concern their collective affairs. So formally, those communes have been created. But in reality, it’s very easy to observe that the participation of the people in these communes is rather low or it’s not high enough for these bodies, for these mechanisms to become the main decision-making units as they are supposed to be in theory that the Kurdish movement has developed and has been trying to implement.
But that does not mean that the revolutionary movement has failed, that does not mean that they are not trying hard enough, nor does it mean that they are not genuinely committed to transforming the political system. That just means that inevitably, it takes a very long time to create a culture of popular participation, direct participation in politics that did not exist in Northeast Syria before the revolution, and that does not exist in many places where we are organizing. Try to set up a commune in your neighborhood in New York City and see how many people will show up. First, you need to convince the people that it’s something in their interest and that it’s a more effective form of governance, that their time will be put to good use. Rather than going to vote for someone once a year, you have to commit to attending regular meetings, perhaps every month, that tend to last for hours because everyone wants and is supposed to speak. You have to convince them that this time commitment will pay off. And especially under the circumstances that we are witnessing currently in Northeast Syria, given all the other hardships that people have to deal with daily. I already mentioned that the economic situation is a big factor. People have to get more than one job just to feed their families. You don’t even have time to engage in politics on such an intimate level. Thus, it’s a project in progress. But what’s important is that there has been a lot of education. Education is central to the revolutionary strategy in the region. You have to first and foremost convince people why they should adopt, should engage in these new revolutionary institutions, and this is what the movement has been trying to do. (…)
Because Northeast Syria is a tribal society, the opinion of the sheikh [traditional tribal leader] remains very important even now, even during the revolution. When I give interviews in the Western media and mention something about tribes, let’s say that Arab tribes and sheikhs met with the Autonomous Administration’s representatives, they say, ‘’How? How is that possible?’’ because the tribal system seems to them something so different, so patriarchal, and undemocratic. But working with the tribal system, especially in the Arab regions, is an important part of this revolution. The revolution in Rojava is happening without destroying the actual way people live, how people used to live for centuries. And it is not top down. The way the Western media often sees it, the Autonomous Administration kicked out Assad, then started to implement its ideas, and the people accepted this. But in reality such things don’t work out so neatly because it’s the Middle East. It is the tribes that traditionally decide things. They decide, for example, “We will protect this region. We will protect this front line. We will create this council. We will open the Women’s Association in Raqqa, the ex-capital of Isis.’’ This is something we have to understand. Or to give you another example, when Westerners, when foreigners see women in Raqqa, in these women’s associations, see that they cover their heads, that they wear hijabs, they say, “No, this is not a feminist revolution. This is bad. This is not real feminism, this is not real democracy.’’ But it’s not like that. This is the main problem of Western society, you know — it sees itself as a more progressive society, as more conscious and more developed. But actually, it’s not always true.
I think there’s an interesting parallel, perhaps, that we can draw with what’s happening in Ukraine right now and with the role that the United States is playing there. On one hand, as many Ukrainian leftists have insisted, the US military aid to Ukraine is crucial in putting a limit to Russia’s invasion and Russia’s occupation of Ukraine. Putting a limit on how many people it can kill and torture. They say, international support for US military aid constitutes support for the right of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves. But then, on the other hand, what the Left has to grapple with here in the US is the costs with which this military aid comes. The costs that the US’ greater involvement in that war may have in the long term. Because again, as Liza said, I don’t think anyone has any illusions about what the United States’ real intentions are, either by maintaining its presence in Northeast Syria or by providing military aid to the Ukrainian government. Clearly, for the United States, Russia’s war on Ukraine has been an opportunity to shore up its weakening global hegemony, to increase defense spending, increase weapons production, and oversee a renaissance of NATO. So we’re all clear on that. Then, the question becomes sort of a trade-off. If we support the US’ continuous military aid and continuous involvement in that war, what does it mean for the future of that war? And what does it mean if we don’t support it? I’ve heard similar conversations within the Kurdish movement. No one has any illusions about the role of the United States, and there are very honest discussions happening as to whether this alliance is the right way to go in the long run. In the short term, the United States is the only guarantee, even though it’s not a perfect guarantee, that the project is not completely wiped out by Turkey or taken over by the Assad regime. But if this relationship goes on and if the United States at some point wants to cultivate a similar project in Syria as they did in Iraqi Kurdistan – a sort of a proxy statelet– what will that mean for the revolutionary movement? (…)
In Rojava, it’s not just the Kurds doing the fighting. Right now, it will be mostly Arabs and Arab tribes who will fight in case of another Turkish invasion or in case of Assad’s return. Arabs also know what will happen to them if Turkey comes. It will be the Turkification of every city in the region. We can say that because of what we see happening with Afrin, what is happening with Tel Abyad, what is happening with Ras al-Ayn [the areas Turkey occupied and from which it either cleansed or marginalized Kurds—editors’ note]: everything has Turkish names right now. Most of the cities have Turkish names. Of course, Arabs don’t want Turkey to come because they don’t want Turkification nor do they want to live under Turkish authorities. This is why they started to join the SDF and the Autonomous Administration. And, of course, the Arab population also knows what would happen if Assad came back. Even Amnesty International’s official statistics show how many people disappeared in Assad’s prisons. More than 100,000 people were tortured to death in Assad’s prisons, and it was mostly Arabs who were tortured to death. I’m sure that in the long term, the United States and all other big powers stationed in this region, if they want to maintain their presence, to have their military troops in this region, they will have to deal with the Arab population as well, not just the Kurds. Maybe you have heard about the recent escalation of fighting happening recently in Deir ez-Zor. Most Western media said that Kurds are fighting Arabs in Deir ez-Zor, but it was the SDF doing the fighting, and the SDF consists predominantly of Arabs. So there were SDF Arabs who fought against the Arabs supported by the Syrian regime, ISIS elements, as well as different counter-revolutionary groups such as Shia militias. So it’s very important to emphasize that it is not just a Kurdish project anymore. It’s wider. It’s no longer a national Kurdish project, it has brought together other ethno-religious groups of the region. (…)
When you have a Syrian passport, you cannot travel anywhere. You cannot do anything. Let’s say, you open your business, a cooperative, a factory to produce something. But how will you do this if you depend on the Syrian regime in the official Syrian state? And look at all these international humanitarian organizations, the UN. Just one camp is recognized as a [refugee] camp by the United Nations. Many camps are not recognized by the United Nations. This is why only a few NGOs can provide help; all the humanitarian aid comes from the Syrian regime. But the regime is corrupt, and it takes everything, and it doesn’t want to give anything.
They impose an embargo on regions like Shahba [where people of Afrin have been displaced to – editor’s note], even on the district in the city of Aleppo where Kurds and Arabs live together who support the autonomous region: they are under embargo, and you cannot bring anything inside– no medical help, no fuel, nothing. And what can we do when even the United Nations cannot recognize different refugee camps?
So it’s very good if people will do more demonstrations, more support for Rojava, more solidarity. But we have to focus on this: official recognition of Autonomous Administration because otherwise, it will not work. After all, this is the world we live in. Unfortunately. (…)
I would also add Turkey to this list of sources of hope because any changes in Turkey, I mean political changes inside Turkey, will be good for Rojava and will be good for Northeastern Syria. In general, Turkey is a very dangerous state, even for its own people. It’s getting worse and worse, and any changes in Turkey would be good.
It will be such a relief for all the groups that live in Turkey and Syria, as well as in the Caucasus region. Turkey affects many different countries, and Turkish troops are stationed in many countries of this region. We have such an aggressive state that spends a lot of money on this extreme militarization, being the second army of NATO, creating new and new weapons to bomb civilians. It’s something that we have to always keep in mind: something has to happen in Turkey as well, to make the Middle Eastern region function somehow, you know, better.
