The conditions for the struggle against imperialism are developing day by day. While its connection to the economic crisis is decisive, its visible manifestation primarily emerges in political conflicts. The possibility of war, which is being discussed in many regions of the world more than ever before, shows that the threat against the peoples is also growing. Especially in Palestine, Ukraine, and Syria, the attacks carried out against the peoples of these countries (these should not be understood only as attacks from the outside; attacks from within must also be taken into account) are a harbinger of a heavier toll for the near future. After attacks that reach the level of massacres, “peace” comes onto the agenda, and the negotiations for peace end in deadlocks. The most striking example of this was the negotiations for Ukraine. The process in Ukraine, which was supposed to advance from a ceasefire to peace, also appears to be stalled. Neither Trump, who is being declared the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize these days, nor Putin believes that there is a possibility of a genuine peace here. Declarations are being made, especially from Europe, that draw attention to Russia’s aggression. French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated his doubts that the process is advancing towards “peace,” saying that Trump may have been outplayed by Putin once again. It is necessary to recall that the fundamental disputes in this tension stem from different interpretations of Russia’s attack and subsequent occupation. As is known, the current occupation in Ukraine was justified by Russia with the claim that a “Western-backed” coup had taken place and that the aim was the step-by-step encirclement of Russia. Europe, on the other hand, evaluates this occupation as part of Russia’s aggressions toward Europe. Today’s discussions also revolve around the same arguments. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that the supposed progress in the “peace” talks continues without producing any resolution.
The sudden rises and falls in the balance of war and peace across the world show that every kind of threat is possible in the coming days. Based on the truth we have stated from the very beginning, we must succeed in acting consciously and in an organized manner in the face of this trajectory. We are undoubtedly on a difficult path; we must learn to persevere on this path, knowing the risks that failures carry for the peoples.
In our country as well, the prominence of the “peace” agenda has made it especially important to evaluate the staggering developments in the balance of war and peace. Where we discuss the dynamics, conditions, and possibilities of the struggle against imperialism, we are at the same time living through a practical process that is being tested by the peace agenda. Proposals that must be taken seriously stand before us, such as “supporting peace,” “organizing joint efforts for peace,” and “uniting the people against the unjust war on the basis of democratic rights.” The primary condition for being able to respond correctly to these proposals and to advance on a revolutionary path in this process is to correctly grasp this “rise in the ‘peace’ discourse” that has come to the fore.
What is the reality of this “peace” discourse led by Trump, which he even claims to be putting into practice? Let us ask more openly: To which new massacres are the world’s most reactionary monsters opening the door with the mask of peace?
THE INVASION OF UKRAINE WAS A CHALLENGE
The process that began with the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed that a new climate of war has formed throughout the world. Of course, it cannot be said that the cause of this climate was the invasion itself. Long before it, world capitalism had begun to grapple with the insurmountable problems created by the deepening economic crisis. The Ukraine issue was a part of this crisis. But this part was not insignificant; on the contrary, it was a critical development that revealed Russia had entered the new era prepared as an imperialist center. The policy of neutralizing Russia was met with failure by the invasion itself and, more importantly, by the consequences of the invasion. Although Russia fell back at times and suffered heavy economic and diplomatic attrition, it did not retreat. Today, while not having the strength to directly measure up to the US, it acts from a much more effective position and assumes an important role in the weakening of US hegemony. Despite comments that it has remained in the background in the developments in the Middle East, or has even been pushed away from this region, Russia proves it is one of the most critical centers of power in the joint appearances it makes with India and China. The photo of Putin with Trump in Alaska a while ago also reinforced this image. The discomfort of the European imperialist powers with this photograph can also be clearly seen in the shots where they appear side by side with Trump.
This situation should be evaluated not as an ascent, but as an indicator of a decline. The claim that US hegemony has been in decline for some time has become concretely visible in the recent period. The USA, experiencing the effects of the world economic crisis together with its loss of hegemony, has moved completely away from inspiring confidence after the failure of Trump’s aggressive policies. Its efforts to prove its economic superiority by increasing tariffs, its threats of war, and its “architect of great peaces” rhetoric have yielded no results; the US has been unable to change its image as a declining power. Most recently, its fatal attack on a Venezuelan commercial vessel under the pretext that it was “carrying drugs” is also part of this process. While Venezuelan President Maduro declared this to be a serious threat, the UN contented itself with merely stating that “the situation is serious,” and did not condemn this open “lawlessness.” This stance by the UN is reminiscent of its helplessness in the face of similar violations by Israel and shows once again that it is one of the essential components of US hegemony.
In this process, China and the powers around it present a different picture. The conditions of the crisis are valid for them as well; however, because they do not have a hegemonic position to protect, this situation is transforming into an opportunity for ascent for them. The images from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit confirm this interpretation. Subsequently, China reinforced this image of a rising power with a grand ceremony where it displayed its military capacity. In addition to Putin, the leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kim Jong Un, was also present at the ceremony; leaders from countries such as Indonesia, Iran, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Serbia, Slovakia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, the Republic of the Congo, and Myanmar also attended. This picture lays bare China’s positioning as a rising power not only on a regional but also on an international scale.
In the background of these emerging images lie the new characteristics of comprehensive and deepening economic conditions. The economic crisis, whose peace agenda and political effects we observe today, is in reality a crisis that has not been and cannot be overcome. Evaluations made without taking this fact into account will lead either to surrendering to the illusion that a genuine peace is being discussed, or to the image that we are helpless in the face of invincible, very powerful states.
MALICE IN EVERY PEACE
This tension and these debates regarding the “possibility of peace” are, in fact, valid for all recent peace initiatives. Even when voiced at the most advanced level, peace remains an argument subject to the evaluation of possible opportunities, rather than being a genuine possibility.
All peace experiences in recent history clearly show this reality. This situation must be evaluated by proceeding from the phenomenon of imperialism. While there is no reasonable justification to consider any geography independent of it under the conditions where imperialism holds sway, not to do so leads to great illusions. The so-called peace initiatives in our country and our region should also not be handled independently of imperialism. So much so that it is seen that those who say, “enough, we have fought too much; from now on let’s act with peace to get results,” and who, with this argument, try to be a “remedy” for the disappointments of the peoples of oppressed nations in particular, want us to evaluate peace separately from imperialism.
The claim that the proposed “peace” carries a content that “excludes” imperialism is, in this respect, in need of interrogation. We think that no such possibility exists. Because no matter what anyone says, as long as one side of the peace is the Republic of Turkey, a step taken in spite of imperialism cannot be in question. Of course, the claim that the other side of the peace is also “acting in spite of imperialism” is debatable. When the various relationships arising from the current forms of struggle and the need to protect the statuses that have been obtained are considered, along with the class character of the relevant organizations and institutions, it would be naive to accept this claim as true. Perhaps one cannot speak of “total dependence,” that is, of possessing no characteristics whatsoever that are independent of imperialism; however, the existence of a serious relationship that has been developed in almost every field is indisputable. In this form of relationship, “acting in spite of imperialism” is an impossibility. Therefore, the process conducted for peace is also included within the scope of this impossibility.
WHOSE PEACE AND PEACE FOR WHAT?
Behind the claim of peace in spite of imperialism lies the discourse of invalidating an imperialist plan designed for the Middle East. According to this plan, which is alleged to have been developed especially by the USA and its close ally, Britain, the Turkish, Arab, and Kurdish communities are being pitted against one another; and a achievable unity among these communities is being made impossible. For this reason, it is claimed, for example, that the Kurds’ aspiration for “independence” is being incited by these powers, and in parallel, that the Republic of Turkey is being made aggressive towards the Kurdish nation. Similarly, it is argued that the same kind of polarization is being encouraged between Arabs and Turks. The prominent view in this context is that the polarization that serves imperialism must now be brought to an end, and that unity can even be made possible in spite of imperialism.
At first glance, this approach appears to be a clear, understandable, and strong argument. However, this perspective ignores the reaction, the enmity to the people, the opposition to unity, and the collaborations with imperialism developed at the most advanced level within these communities themselves. It cannot be doubted that imperialism is the source of many evils; indeed, it is an indisputable fact that it is the supporter of most evils. Nevertheless, imperialism is weak at creating “enmity out of nothing,” and is generally unsuccessful in doing so.
Within the aforementioned communities, there have always been both ruling tyrants and the oppressed. It is true that imperialist powers were behind the revolts of the Arabs against the Ottomans; however, this situation does not negate the righteous character of the revolt. The imperialists, just as in other geographies, went no further than exploiting a just uprising for their own interests. It is also an undeniable fact that the Kurdish nation’s aspiration for independence, especially in Iraq and partly in Turkey, has been encouraged by imperialism. Yet, alongside this fact, there is a more fundamental reality: In both Iraq and Turkey, the Kurds have been deprived of all their fundamental rights and have been forced to live in conditions of denial and oppression. For this reason, their rebellion is just, and it is natural for them to seek support for their rebellion, just like other nations.
Historical experience shows that since the last century, almost no nation has achieved a genuine liberation without resorting to or receiving external aid. At some point in the struggle, solidarity, support, or encouragement has occurred. The real problem here is the nature of the support provided by the imperialists and by the hands of which class forces this finds a response. When the freedom struggle of oppressed nations intersects with the imperialists’ calculations of interest, an inevitable contradiction arises. Because imperialism does not want any people to be liberated; it only offers support to the extent that it will serve its own interests. Therefore, the issue is not to reduce just national resistances to the “encouragement” of imperialism, but to bring to the fore the internal dynamics, class orientations, and popular character of these resistances.
The same approach remains valid today. The struggles of oppressed nations that are not oriented towards socialism, and that do not even develop a consistent anti-imperialist line, sooner or later intersect with the dominant system and become subordinated to it in its entirety. In the present day, this means developing a movement that is directly dependent on imperialism. In this framework, the first thing to be said about the peace policy of the Kurdish National Movement is this: The movement, independent of the claims it puts toward itself, is in a peace process that has received the approval of imperialism. However, this observation alone cannot be considered grounds for condemnation or proof that the struggle has been completely lost. The imprisoned, and isolated leader of the Kurdish National Movement, Ocalan, speaks of a “possibility of an anti-imperialist peace” while arguing that the unity of Turks and Kurds must be realized in spite of the USA and Israel. However, he does not provide a concrete explanation as to in what respects this possibility would be anti-imperialist. Ocalan’s emphasis is essentially a political claim that serves the purpose of winning popular support. In practice, however, both the USA and Israel generally see the existence of Kurdish movement and a possible peace process as a positive development for their own interests. This situation reveals a clear contradiction between “peace in spite of imperialism” discourse and the interests of imperialism. Therefore, the thesis in question, while being a political discourse aimed at convincing the people, goes no further than being the ideological cover for a process that cannot gain existence without the approval of imperialism. It is clear that these observations are important and that is imperative to generalize them. In every situation where coming together for “peace” is frequently mentioned, these assessments of ours regarding peace will be the main points that explain and determine our stance.
THE SCOPE OF THE PEACE IS LIMITED
First, it is necessary to be clear about the scope of the peace. The peace in the question is not, in a general sense, a peace between the Kurdish nation and the Turkish state, because the national rights of Kurdish nation are not on the agenda in this process. The PKK, which voiced the “radical” demands of the national struggle, has dissolved itself by a congress decision. Henceforth, it will only wage a “democracy” struggle on democratic or legal grounds to the extent that it is permitted. It is clear that this struggle will be shaped according to the conditions, for there is a political framework whose boundaries have essentially been determined. Ocalan argues that this framework can be pushed, can be surpassed, and that progress can be made on this path by trying new forms of struggle. Undoubtedly, if the state were not in a real sense an “instrument of the ruling class,” the full and ultimate defense of the people’s interests could have ensured that the struggle waged under “peace” conditions would also conclude in favor of the oppressed. However, it is precisely to block this possibility that the state exists as an apparatus based entirely on arms and coercion. Therefore, this possibility put forward by Ocalan is in fundamental contradiction with the existing reality of the state.
It is a fact that the peace is taking place between the state forces and the combatant forces. For that reason, in formation created for peace, named “National Solidarity, Fraternity, and Democracy Commission,” the problem is not being discussed in all its aspects. Even when an evaluation is made from perspective alone, it is seen that the scope of the peace is kept as narrow as possible. This is beacuse the fact that the national question is a social problem being de facto denied. It is considered sufficient for those who bear arms to be forced to abandon their arms and to participate in a restricted struggle. For this reason, no evaluation is being made about the national question, which should be the subject of the peace. This commission also has no study or evaluation on the Constitutional arrangements, which were much talked about when they came onto agenda and even before. Although the first four articles of the Constitution, which are bound by the unamendable provision, are the fundamental elements before social peace on this issue, “non-negotiable” approach still maintains its validity. Therefore, it is obvious that the “peace,” whose scope is kept as limited as possible, does not include revolutionary-democratic forces, and that they are given only a supporting role.
The national movement and its supporters have not taken any steps for a comprehensive peace plan. What is desired in this regard is that the movement not to be weak in the negotiation process. To be included in the scope in this sense would mean for the movements to negate themselves.
THE “PEACE” NEEDED AND IMPOSED BY IMPERIALISM
This entire game being played is not independent of imperialism’s need for “peace.” The Western imperialist powers, led by the USA, and their reactionary collaborators in the region aim to establish a relative stability in the Middle East. This is because developments on a world scale are not working in their favor. This is the reason for both their attacks and their talk of peace. We can believe neither Trump nor the others are “peace lovers,” just as we do not believe that Bahceli and Erdogan would consider the interests of the people. This is a result that stems not from their personalities but entirely from class reality, a result with objective causes. The chaos in the Middle East can perhaps be alleviated, but it can never be resolved completely. The only way for oppressed nations and peoples to attain their rights under the current reactionary hegemony is perhaps the path of war, a path may seem deadly, perhaps impossible. Nevertheless, the need of the Kurdish people in particular for peace, democracy and free conditions where they can discuss their future and produce policies is indisputable. For this reason, whether they are indexed to peace or not, whether they intersect with imperialist policies or not, it is our duty that cannot be neglected to support the struggles of oppressed nations and peoples for their democratic gains. We cannot refrain from fulfilling this duty with a revolutionary consciousness, method, and perspective.
