💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › songul-karabulut-against-world-war-iii.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:04:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Against World War III Author: SongĂĽl Karabulut Date: April 7, 2020 Language: en Topics: Komun Academy, democratic confederalism, modernity, Turkey, Syria, Rojava Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-07 from https://komun-academy.com/2020/04/07/social-organization-beyond-power-structures-as-an-alternative-to-the-capitalist-state-system/
The year 2019 was marked by wars and resistance, and it is already clear
that 2020 will be even more eventful.
Only three days after New Year’s Eve, the commander of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, Qasem Soleimani, was assassinated in Baghdad by the
USA, and at the end of January Trump published his “Peace Plan of the
Century” for the Middle East conflict. While Turkey is occupying further
areas in Northeast Syria and is currently struggling for Idlib, ErdoÄźan
had the mandate for a Turkish military operation in Libya approved by
the Turkish parliament on January 2 and sent fighters to intervene in
the Libyan conflict on his behalf. One after the other Libya conferences
take place sometimes in Istanbul under Putin and ErdoÄźan, then in Berlin
under Merkel, then in Geneva under UN orientation, all without any
noteworthy success. The Syrian regime is expanding its power in the
country and is currently taking action against armed militias in Idlib
despite resistance and criticism. Military clashes are taking place
between Turkey and the Syrian regime. Is the tide finally turning for
Turkey in Syria?
Undoubtedly, events are not limited to those in the Middle East; a
whirlwind is also sweeping the world. In Latin American countries
protests against police violence, social inequality, autocratic
leadership and manipulation and corruption are increasing. The EU is
changing due to the departure of Great Britain and EU states are
struggling with both economic crises and the strengthening of right-wing
parties. Climate protests and women’s uprisings decorate the streets.
The USA declares war on China economically by blocking its own door from
the competition. In addition to political developments, natural events
and diseases such as the forest fires in Australia or the coronavirus
dominate the agenda.
It is hardly possible to capture developments on the basis of daily
political events if the strategic driving force behind all these changes
is not taken into account.
Before we look at current developments and try to put them into context,
it might be useful to recall some key points:
We are dealing with a systemic crisis and with the capitalist system’s
attempt to use military, political, economic and psychological means to
build a new political system in its interests. Even if the New World
Order is cemented with the reorganization of the Middle East, it is by
no means just a regional conflict. The transformation of the world
order, led by the hegemonic power of capitalism, the USA, in the form of
a new world war, the Third World War, is currently being carried out
with full violence and destruction in the region. This project is
meeting with resistance. The regional nation states, for example, with
their regimes, which were brought to power in the 20^(th) century with
the support of the West and kept there, and which are now defending the
status quo, are resisting because they are now being disempowered one by
one. These regional regimes have done their duty in the eyes of
capitalism and are now an obstacle to be overcome.
Then there are the population and social groups, the masses who have
been deprived of breath, both under capitalism and under their
governments, are oppressed and exploited, who now stand up for their
interests and rights and fill the streets.
The fact that we are dealing with a systemic change is not only
noticeable because of the disempowered regimes, but also because all
international institutions, organizations and “values” as well as
political and diplomatic practices are changing and losing their
original meaning. Since the Kosovo war in 1999, the UN has had a serious
identity problem; it is much more appearance than reality. NATO, which
actually lost its basis of existence with the disintegration of the
USSR, cannot be clearly defined either. It is no coincidence that Macron
declared them brain dead. The EU, too, is in a process of
transformation, especially after the departure of Great Britain. Who
still talks about martial law or international law today? These were all
20^(th) century institutions and “values”. These changes will also
affect existing borders and will bring with them the emergence of new
structures, institutions and customs.
Capitalist modernity with its 5000 year history of power changed and
took new economic and political forms without really changing its
fundamental character. When the form of “leadership” reached its limits,
restorations were made to extend its life span. What remains unchanged
is the urge to accumulate power, which in turn means exploitation and
oppression. Every time it reaches its limits – as it has done again for
several decades – it tries to shed its shell by reorganization, like a
snake shedding its skin. The opening up of new territories, raw
materials, reservoirs of labour, technical innovations, all serve to
ensure the compulsion to accumulate. This in turn means more
exploitation, more oppression, more crisis and chaos, war, poverty,
flight, environmental destruction. This situation is comparable to the
snowball effect – it becomes bigger and more unpredictable when rolling
in snow. The pressure on people and on the environment is becoming more
and more unbearable and stronger. We are currently in this phase in
which capitalist modernity is trying to reorganise the world according
to its own interests.
Against the system of capitalist modernity there is only one true
opponent and one true alternative. And that is social organization
beyond power structures, with its own unwritten ethics, with its own
organizational structures, with its own values, collectivity and
solidarity. The core of this sociality is primarily represented by the
group of women. Capitalist modernity was built on the basis of the
subjugation of women’s gender and has since been structurally
patriarchal. Women are the most marginalised and exploited by this power
system. Then there are the ethnic groups which are disenfranchised and
oppressed as a result of this power system, but which do not accept
this, such as the Kurdish or Palestinian people. Any organised force
that challenges the system is a strategic opponent of capitalist
modernity. Against this background, we can say that the strategic
opponent of capitalist modernity is the ethical-political society, in
particular women. Sociality is still strong in the Middle East, defying
the influences of capitalism with its liberal ideology. Against this
background it is no coincidence that the Third World War was started in
the Middle East. The sociality of the Middle East is one of the main
targets of this war. A New World Order on the basis of the total
conquest of the region by capitalism can only take place when the
sociality has been smashed and the region with its people and ideals as
well as material resources are available for exploitation. It is a war
of the material civilization of the West against the moral civilization
of the East. The AKP has the role of the Trojan horse here. More on this
in a moment. Against this background we can say that the current Third
World War is strategically taking place between capitalist modernity and
democratic modernity (the ethical-political societies).
In this war there is also a struggle for hegemony, which in turn can be
seen as a power struggle between the forces of capitalist modernity. The
USA is trying to assert itself as a hegemonic power, while other powers
want to extend their influence and power and compete with the USA.
Russia and China should be mentioned here. Regional states are also
struggling for regional hegemony, such as Turkey or Iran. While all
states of capitalist modernity defend the system against the strategic
opponent, democratic modernity, they fight against each other in the
question of power and influence. Thus, it is evident that the states are
both fighting against each other and interacting with each other.
The states have to act militarily, politically, economically on a global
level as well as keep their own population in check in domestic
politics.
The states try to control the reactions of their own population, which
is militarily, politically, economically and psychologically affected by
the crisis. Some try it with dictatorial-fascist leadership and with
violence and authority, others with ideological poison such as
nationalism, sexism or religious fanaticism, and even more popular and
widespread as in Europe and Latin America is the emergence of right-wing
populist-fascist parties to make the population defend the old system
(the “choice between plague and cholera”) instead of turning away from
the system completely and looking for alternatives.
A first sign of the Third World War after the collapse of real socialism
was the Gulf War in 1990. After Saddam Hussein’s military intervention
in Kuwait, the USA began to make preparations with military
intervention. Saddam’s influence was limited to Baghdad and the
foundations for the tripartite division of Iraq were laid. The Oslo
peace process in 1993 weakened Palestinian resistance. And finally, with
the support of Tansu Çiller [Turkish Prime Minister 1993–1996], the
total war against the Kurdish liberation movement PKK was started with
the aim of nipping it in the bud and preventing it from expanding
towards Southern Kurdistan (Northern Iraq). Saddam could have been
easily disempowered in 1990, but the conditions were not yet mature, so
it was waited until then. Without these precautions, disempowerment of
Saddam in 1990 could have led to the power vacuum being filled by
actively fighting peoples. At the same time as preparations were being
made for active intervention in the Middle East, attempts were also
being made to integrate the Balkans, the Caucasus, Africa, Asia and
Latin America into the system, which were set against global capitalism
on the basis of real socialism.
The second phase began with the attacks of 11 September 2001, which were
used to take military action against Afghanistan (Taliban) and Iraq
(Saddam Hussein). The PKK’s power of action was quite minimised by the
international conspiracy in 1998 and later by the attempts to split in
2003, so that it was considered “harmless” when Iraq disintegrated. In
its place, a “Kurdish state” was virtually founded in northern Iraq with
system-compliant Kurds.
The third phase began in 2010 with the so-called Arab Spring. Tunisia,
Egypt, Yemen, Libya and most recently Syria – the popular uprisings were
used to control the civil war countries in order to shape the change
according to their own interests.
As a fourth phase we can name the period after the liberation of Raqqa,
i.e. after the victory over Daesch (the “Islamic State”, IS). The USA
tried to claim the achievements of the struggle against the IS for
itself and addressed new opponents. These are now undoubtedly Iran and
the Kurds who are acting according to the paradigms of Abdullah Ocalan.
Let’s take a brief look at key points of what happened after Raqqa:
Kerkûk, occupation of Efrîn, Serê Kaniyê, Girê Spî, attacks on al-Hashd
ash-Shabi, 2018 embargo against Iran, civil war-like developments in
Iraq and Iran, US bounty on three high-ranking PKK leaders.
The USA wants to prevent the PKK from using the war between the USA and
Iran to extend its influence and strengthen it as it did when it
attacked Iraq. Therefore, an increase in attacks is expected.
This is also the reason why Turkey is supported despite differences. It
will be supported for as long as a club against the Kurds is needed.
After these basic constants and the brief historical background, we now
turn to the political developments and try to classify them.
After the attacks on 11 September 2001, the then US President Bush
declared Iran to be part of the “Axis of Evil”. In 2017, Trump
underlined this once again and in 2018 he reinforced the sanctions. Iran
has greatly expanded its influence in Iraq and Syria. The Hash-ash
Shaabi forces he has created are active and effective. For this reason,
the war between the USA and Iran in the form of a proxy war in Syria and
Iraq has been going on for some time.
This changed when on January 3, at Trump’s order, the commander of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Qasem Soleimani, was killed by a US
missile at Baghdad airport. Soleimani had coordinated Iranian foreign
operations in the region. Iran was able to expand its influence in Syria
and Iraq. Previously, the war between the USA and Iran had been
concretely observed in Iraq. While pressure increased to persuade the
Iranian government to resign, Iran used Shiite forces in the country
against the USA and demanded their withdrawal. For months, mass
uprisings continued in Baghdad and other areas (mainly Shiite cities)
and attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad [see the interview with Sait
Ervan in the last issue]. Even if the expected military escalation
between the US and Iran did not occur after the attack on Soleimani,
this does not in any way mean that the conflict has been resolved. The
fuse is lit. In view of the statements on both sides, we can say that
both want to prevent a direct war. Iran reacted to the assassination
with threats of retaliation, not with the unleashing of open war. It
seems that the US will try to break Iran’s influence in the region, to
contain it so that it no longer poses a threat to Israel. Against this
background, they will shift their activities more from Syria to Iraq.
Iran is to be limited to its core country and persuaded to make
concessions. Against this background, military activities against each
other outside Iran and the USA are to be expected in the region from
both sides. Furthermore, the USA will act economically and
psychologically against Iran.
Although this attack has harmed Iran externally, it has been more
beneficial to Iran domestically. The existing and active resentment of
the population against the regime could be silenced with “enemy rhetoric
and nationalism” by means of the US attack. But for a long time Iran
cannot ignore the legitimate demands of the population. It could escape
outside intervention if it seriously addresses the problems, if it
develops sustainable solutions involving the various ethnic and
religious groups and women. But as with all other rulers, this option is
unlikely. Either the country will be integrated into the New World Order
system with limited violence, economic and political pressure through
concessions, or it will also be confronted with direct war.
Iran has so far been able to successfully keep itself out of the
spotlight by engaging in confrontations outside the country. This is
also the reason why it is once again active in Idlib and has offered
itself as a mediator between Turkey and the Syrian regime on the Idlib
question. Iran has no interest in such conflicts being resolved.
Iran and Turkey are competing for regional hegemony. While Iran bases
its power on the Shiite presence, Turkey is relying on the Sunni
presence. Despite deep historical differences, both have often proved
that they can ignore them when it comes to fighting the Kurds.
Developments in Iraq will follow Iranian policy. The protests continue
and a solution does not seem to be in sight. Due to the US attack, the
Shiite forces in Iraq have been stirred up and the South Kurdish
political forces do not want to antagonise neither the USA nor Iran.
They are afraid of being faced with the choice. Therefore, they bet on a
balanced policy. But that Iran has chosen US bases in HewlĂŞr for its
retaliation shows that it will not be easy. Moreover, rumours say that
the Democratic Party of Kurdistan PDK was involved in Soleimani’s death;
this uncertainty may provoke new crises.
It is also not unlikely that Turkey will start a military occupation
adventure in Southern Kurdistan in the course of its neo-Ottoman
hegemonic policy. Contrary to contrary statements of Nêçîrvan Barzanî
(the President of the Autonomous Region), who legitimised Turkey’s
occupation war in Rojava with the same argumentation as Turkey itself,
the population has perceived the danger emanating from Turkey as being
directed against all Kurds. Many people said that Turkey would turn to
Iraq and occupy its territory after a success in Syria. The mistrust of
the population is becoming increasingly visible in the form of protests
and campaigns against Turkey. Thus, for the first time in Southern
Kurdistan, a very effective boycott against Turkish goods was carried
out. Besides the economic damage for Turkey, it has a significance
beyond that.
Another unresolved and ever-increasing source of conflict is Libya. On
18 March 2011, the country was attacked from the air by the USA, France
and Great Britain following a UN Security Council decision. On 22 August
2011 Muammar al-Gaddafi was finally disempowered and since then the
country has been in civil war. After the 2014 elections, the country
will be divided in two between the troops and militias of the
transitional government of Fayiz as-Saraj (GNA) and the military ruler
of eastern Libya, Chalifa Haftar.
In this relatively small country with a population of six and a half
million, a proxy war for oil is also being waged because of its oil
wealth. While the government under as-Sarraj enjoys the support of
Turkey, Qatar, the EU and the UN, Haftar is supported by Egypt, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, the USA, the United Arab Emirates and France. As in Syria,
it is the regional and international powers that are waging war there.
On 2 January, the Turkish Parliament voted in favour of sending Turkish
soldiers to Libya to help the government in Tripoli. The truth is that
it is the jihadist groups, the al-Qaeda and Daesch remnants used against
the Kurds in northern Syria. As in Syria, Turkey is one of the first
countries to take military action and take sides in another country.
Erdoğan had previously concluded a “security and military agreement”
with the government on November 27. At the same time, the Libyan side
granted Turkish forces the right to be present in the Libyan part of the
Mediterranean Sea as part of a security cooperation. As the Turkish
President put it: “All projects which had the aim of keeping Turkey out
of the Mediterranean and excluding it have been smashed by our latest
steps. With the planned support of the legitimate Libyan government in
Tripoli, we will ensure that the agreements with all their components
are implemented.
Turkey’s partisanship for as-Sarrad supports the opposition to the
Russian-backed party. Russia, for its part, has a military presence in
Libya through the security firm Wagner. This could further strain the
already tense relationship with Russia in Idlib. In addition to its
military presence, Turkey has also tried to take the political
initiative with Russia to negotiate a ceasefire between the parties to
the conflict and prevent Haftar’s troops from advancing towards Tripoli.
The meeting was unsuccessful, with the result that the conflicting
parties and their supporting states decided to hold a broad Libya
conference in Berlin just a week later, at which a cease-fire, an arms
embargo and the withdrawal of all foreign combat units were decided.
This conference also remained largely without consequences. The
ceasefire was not respected, and countries such as Turkey did not comply
with the embargo and increased their military presence. The United
Nations is currently trying to negotiate a ceasefire.
Many observers agree that Turkey is playing dangerous poker in Libya.
The concern not to seize opportunities as they arise leads to hasty
reactions that could have adverse effects. We should mention Syria,
Egypt and now Libya.
As has been emphasized many times before, ErdoÄźans party, the AKP, was
supported and developed as a “liberal Islamic model” for the region
within the framework of the Greater Middle East project. The USA turned
away from its hitherto strategic ally, the Kemalist elite, and decided
to play an Islamic card.
The AKP was literally pushed onto the political stage by the USA, the EU
and the Arab countries and propagated as an Islamic stronghold of
freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law. All the
possibilities of the system were opened to it. She has chaired
international institutions, been invited to the most important meetings
and political events, and has performed at them. This went so far that
ErdoÄźan was celebrated as the saviour of Arab states.
While on the one hand, the AKP presented itself according to the US
project of liberal Islam, on the other hand, it received the support of
the colonial-fascist Turkish state because of its promise to eliminate
the Kurdish question. It used the advantages of this support to
consolidate its power within Turkey and infiltrate the state. She has
succeeded in this in the last years. She has expanded her power in a
fascist manner.
The contradictions of the US-EU-Arab “pact” with the AKP began to reveal
themselves with the Syria policy and have become more and more obvious
since then.
Turkey pursues its hegemonic policy and in this context makes claims on
territories that it had to give up after the First World War. The
claimed territories include western and eastern Black Sea areas, Cyprus,
Thessaloniki, Sofia, Batumi and Nakhchevan, as well as Mûsil, Kerkûk,
HewlĂŞr, SilĂŞmanĂ®, Aleppo up to the border with Iran.
ErdoÄźan has begun to describe the Treaty of Lausanne as a betrayal and,
by occupying these territories on the centenary of the founding of the
republic, wants to establish its hegemony in the region and, in 2071, on
the thousandth anniversary of the annexation of Anatolia, prove itself
as an important force in the region.
Its occupation wars in Rojava and its military, economic and political
presence in South Kurdistan as well as its policy towards Libya have to
be seen against this background.
The AKP’s anti-Kurdish attitude in its Syria policy has damaged its
relations with the USA to such an extent that it made a hundred and
eighty degree turn and turned towards the Russian dominated camp. Russia
managed to position Turkey as a NATO state against its own allies, which
was further reinforced by the sale of S-400 missiles. But even this
short-term ACP-Russian alliance seems to have reached its limits in
Idlib and possibly also in Libya.
The city of Idlib has been in the hands of rebel groups since March
2015. Besides the Al-Nusra successor organization Haiat Tahrir asch-Sham
(Committee for the Liberation of the Levant), Islamist groups such as
Failak al-Sham or Ahrar al-Sham also belong to it.
he conditions for the inclusion of Turkish President Tayyip ErdoÄźan in
the Moscow Declaration (December 2016), the Astana Declaration (January
2017), the de-escalation agreements in May 2017 and the Sochi Consensus
(September 2018) by Russian President Vladimir Putin were obvious from
the beginning.
In each declaration, reference was made to the fight against terrorism
and to Syria’s territorial integrity. Turkey took over the coordination
of transporting armed groups from Eastern Aleppo, Daraa, Eastern Ghuta,
Qunaitra to Idlib. Why? To be able to continue to sit at the table and
have a say, to be able to play along and get involved, to be able to
keep armed confrontations in the background and, most importantly, to
have a trump card in hand that can be used against the Kurds.
The road map from the Sochi Agreement of 17 September 2018 provided for
a demilitarised zone in Idlib, fifteen kilometres wide, to be cleared of
heavy weapons by 10 October 2018 and for all armed groups to be able to
leave the region by 15 October. Within this framework, Turkey had
positioned itself as the protective power of the “opposition” in Idlib
and had taken on the task of dividing the jihadists in the region into
“moderates” and “radicals”; the M4 and M5 motorways were to be opened by
31 December 2018. Under this agreement, Turkey maintains twelve
observation posts in the Idlib and Russia thirteen.
After Turkey failed (or did not want) to disarm the groups in accordance
with the Idlib agreement, Assad troops with Russian air support began a
military attack on the Idlib and recaptured the city. In the process,
Russian and Turkish troops clashed. There were casualties on both sides.
Even though Russia does not take responsibility for the attack on
Turkish soldiers and blames it solely on the Syrian regime, nobody
seriously believes that it happened without Russia’s knowledge. Turkey
has been forced – to save face – to declare that this incident was
caused by the regime and that it therefore sees no reason to take action
against Russia.
Turkey’s and the USA’s plans with regard to Idlib are identical. Erdoğan
wants to maintain the status quo here, because he knows that if the
front in Idlib is closed, it will be the turn of the territories
occupied by it (through Operation Olive Branch, Operation Shield
Euphrates and most recently Operation Fountain of Peace). He will not
give up until all the fruit from the Astana-Sochi meetings has been
collected. The USA, on the other hand, also wants to maintain Idlib, as
a bleeding wound that the Syrian regime is working on. If Idlib is
closed in any way, they also fear that their military presence will be
on the agenda.
The United States cites Iranian influence as the reason for its presence
in Syria, and Israel also justifies its attacks in Syria. Against this
background, Iran had also been somewhat reluctant to act on Moscow’s
advice. But after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran intervenes
again in Idlib and talks about chasing the USA out of Iraq and Syria in
revenge.
It is of course no coincidence that Turkey is supported by the USA in
its Idlib policy and that ErdoÄźan visited the Ukrainian city of Kiev on
February 6^(th) and greeted the soldiers here with “Glory to Ukraine”,
who in turn responded with “Glory to the heroes! This show is considered
as provocation and retaliation for the eight Turkish soldiers killed in
Idlib. This could also be the beginning of the end of Russian-Turkish
relations. It seems that the contradictions between the Russian camp and
Turkey are no longer there. The short-term alliance seems to have come
to an end. Turkey could once again turn to its strategic ally, the USA.
A renewed change of course in his alliance policy would also have an
impact on domestic policy. Both Russia (Eurasia) and the USA (West)
correspond with corresponding forces in Turkey. It remains to be seen,
but the current polemic between former Chief of General Staff Ilker
BaĹźbuÄź and ErdoÄźan could also be seen as an indication of this.
As soon as the Ergenekon people have been “pardoned” with the
rapprochement with Russia, a rapprochement with Fethullah GĂĽlen can be
expected.
While the AKP is sticking to its armchair more firmly than ever before,
its support among the population is all the weaker. It is continuously
losing support. The country is divided, economically and morally at its
lowest level.
In Turkey everyone is still a terrorist who does not support ErdoÄźans
politics. The Kurds have always been the main terrorists of the country.
The AKP, with the support of the capitalist system, makes sure that no
field of articulation remains for them. The total isolation of the
Kurdish representative Abdullah Ocalan continues. Only briefly during
the death fast, his lawyers were allowed to visit him in May (after
eight years). Ă–calan called on the hunger strikers to end their death
fast. On his initiative it was ended in May and since August the talks
on Imralı are again prohibited.
The former co-chairs of the Democratic Party of Peoples (HDP), Figen
YĂĽksekdaÄź and Selahattin DemirtaĹź, are still in prison. The AKP
government continues to depose HDP mayors and appoint forced
administrators, now 24, and dozens of mayors are currently in prison.
The military operations against the Kurdish guerrilla both at home and
in Southern Kurdistan continue unabated. High-tech attacks are being
carried out and the guerrilla’s ability to move is being limited. The
struggle against the Kurdish liberation struggle as one of the strategic
opponents of capitalist modernity is being carried out with
international support. Despite the court decision from Brussels that the
PKK is not a terrorist organisation, the Belgian government, for
example, declared that nothing will change. In other words, it was
confirmed once again that the terrorist classification and ban is a
political decision and not a legal one.
The USA and Russia are allowing Turkey to occupy the Kurdish
administered areas and to settle “refugees” there. A demographic
cleansing is being carried out in north-east Syria with the support of
the USA, Germany, the UN and others.
The AKP serves as a cudgel against the Kurds and it will be useful
against Iran. The discussion about a split has been on the agenda for
some time. When there was great displeasure among the people, an alleged
new party was immediately propagated and expectations were raised among
the people. Against this background, I think this new “future party”
(Gelecek Partisi) under ex-premier DavutoÄźlu should continue to secure
power ErdoÄźans. It is a precautionary measure to keep the voters under
control. The established parties have used up their credit, so the
system will send new parties into the field for its continued existence.
In addition to the new parties from the AKP corner, there may also be
new foundations in the centre and left.
The country has been ruled under high tension for years. War, elections,
polarisation, militarisation. The problems in the country are not solved
but accumulated and the population is controlled by violence and
nationalist feelings. An important part of the “liberals” is leaving the
country, a part has withdrawn and a part has degenerated. Feminicides
have increased dramatically, young women are disappearing.
With the existing nationalist, militaristic, autocratic, Kurdish and
misogynist policies of the AKP, a dangerous social hopelessness is
spreading. Contrary to the propagated economic success story of the AKP,
the people can no longer secure their everyday lives. A new development
is shaking the country emotionally: people are taking their own lives
because they are no longer able to survive economically. In November
2019, four siblings collectively took their own lives, and a few days
later news of further suicides, this time from Antalya, startled the
public. A father poisoned himself, his wife and the nine and five year
old children. He left a letter full of hopelessness and despair. Finally
a man in Hatay set himself on fire in front of the governor and shouted:
“I can’t feed my children anymore.”
According to a report by the deputy leader of the opposition Republican
People’s Party (CHP), Gamze Akkuş İlgezdi, 233 people took their own
lives for economic reasons in 2017.
Unemployment stands at 13.4% (December 2019) and youth unemployment at
26.7% (April 2019).
According to the Turkish statistical authorities, the inflation rate in
January was 12.15% compared to the same month last year. The inflation
rate thus rose by 1.35 % compared to the previous month.
There is nothing worse for a country than its population not seeing
light at the end of the tunnel. The AKP is responsible for this
resignation because it has a strait-jacket effect on people’s lives.
As mentioned above, the strategic opponents of capitalist modernity are
women and organized population groups. Against this background, it is
also to be understood that the attacks on women have increased during
the thirty-year period of upheaval and the situation is getting worse
and worse. The jihadist terrorist groups such as Daesch, al-Nusra, Boko
Haram and whatever else they are called have primarily attacked women
and reduced them to sexual objects of men. But this extreme form found
its projections in different states. For women in particular, everything
under the AKP has turned negative. The fascism of the patriarchy takes
its free course unbridled. This is how it looks at the moment in Turkey.
An increase in the number of cases of abducted, raped and murdered women
can be observed here. Politics is patriarchy and society is becoming
more misogynist. Everywhere in the world, a deterioration in women’s
rights is evident. This is directly related to the system. Last year was
marked by mass protests by women all over the world in response to this
dangerous development. We can also see that the attacks on the Kurdish
liberation movement or similar social movements have increased. With all
the violence they are trying to prevent an alternative from emerging
beyond their system.
But capitalist modernity has never been so unmasked. People realize that
this system is the cause of all the problems and is not able to develop
solutions. The search for a solution or an alternative becomes more
intense. Women will play a leading role in this century and will not
just leave the field to patriarchy. The “third way” of the Kurdish
movement is also a real alternative to the system. The setbacks in
Rojava do not mean that the alternative is unsuitable, but rather how
much this alternative is feared.