an article from Yeni Demokrasi:
The events of the last two weeks in Syria are interesting by showing the features of the struggle for power in that country. The movement, which initially developed as a struggle for freedom and revolution by the Syrian people against the autocratic and fascist Assad regime, quickly came under the control of groups that intervened in the process from outside, particularly ISIS, and the whole of Syria was drawn into internal turmoil organized according to the interests of regional and international reactionary states. The current activities indicate that this turmoil has been left behind and is being replaced by a new ‘order.’ This is, of course, not a final statement. It is understood that a general consensus has been reached on the formation of a provisional government and the forces that will accomplish this task. Although at the beginning of this process, the role of the Turkish side was seriously and continuously distorted, the developments have revealed quite different facts.
The Lackeys Are Still in Service
As stated above, almost all Middle Eastern states have close ties with Britain and the U.S. The main forces of the Palestinian national resistance and Hezbollah in Lebanon have an anti-imperialist stance to some extent because they are anti-Zionist. To date, Britain and the U.S. have gone to great lengths to preserve Israel and ensure its survival as a strong Jewish collectivity. The last step taken with the Abraham Accord is likely to further this effort. The Palestinian resistance prevented this from happening by flooding the Aqsa on October 7 and proved to be a major obstacle in the way of this goal. After a year, the Palestinian resistance has suffered heavy blows, followed by Hezbollah in Lebanon. These blows have weakened the nationalist forces that act relatively independently of imperialism. Today, imperialism has established more effective domination in the region, and it can be said that there is no obstacle that will prevent it from taking its next steps. Preparations for the Abraham Accord are underway again. It will mean the consolidation of Israel’s power in the region. The usual reactionary balance in the Middle East will be restored, and it seems that Iran’s role in this process will be extended to other powers. For imperialism, this means a more manageable region. This outcome is a repetition of the long-standing practice of imperialism. Every time imperialism has difficulty governing, it creates or instigates chaos and builds a new structure with a collaborative character, only to descend into chaos again. It is impossible for them to build a system of peace and reconciliation between peoples. The need for exploitation and plunder forces them to use tyranny to rule everywhere, but especially in the semi-colonies. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria is the fall of a system based on tyranny. However, the control of the process that led to the fall of the Assad regime was clearly the result of a movement detached from the U.S. and Britain. It is already clear that the new regime to be established under their control will not be a democracy because the main feature of a democratic regime is that it is independent of imperialism and based on the initiative of the people. It is already clear that the forces that overthrew the fascist regime in Syria do not have such a character. The events in Syria show how important national issues are today and that they can be a far-reaching instrument of manipulation. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) operates with a religious rather than a national identity. With the latest operation, the organization’s line seems to have evolved toward a majority identity. This situation highlights the external dependency of HTS. In Syria, the state could not survive without the support of imperialism. This is the reality in almost all semi-colonial states. Of course, this incompetence is not equally developed in every country, and the process in Syria has its own peculiarities. The disintegration of the state forces in Syria in a very short time is due to the fact that, as mentioned earlier, they were subjected to an operation based on support for imperialism. Since the state continued to collaborate with imperialism in the formation of the new regime, its destruction took place in a very short time. Almost all elements involved in this process speak of maintaining the state structure defined as the Assad regime and improving it in line with the new process. The Syrian Prime Minister has also stated that they are open to collaborating in the construction of a new regime. It is obvious that these operations are the result of an agreement or a deal. The government forces have abandoned their positions almost without a shot being fired. This should be taken as a sign that the old forces will continue to play a role in the construction of the new regime and that the fundamental relationships of the structure that can now be described as ‘old’ will be preserved. The new regime, which will naturally be built on the foundations of the ‘old’ state, is the product of the ‘power struggles’ that have been waged since 2011 by a variety of different groups known as the opposition. These groups have so far fought not only against the central government but also against each other. Since November 27, the HTS has had clear control over the operation, and the Syrian National Army (SNA) has also participated in the operation under its control. From the outside and on superficial examination, it is natural to speak of a mess that can cause great confusion. However, if one assumes that this operation was carried out in line with the plan of some reactionary regional states and imperialism, one can certainly understand the situation.
Operation to Prevent Aggression
When the HTS-led opposition group launched an attack on Syrian army fortifications in eastern Idlib on November 27, the process was not expected to be so rapid. A command center called the Military Operations Command (MOC) was set up, and the operation was given the name ‘Operation Prevent Aggression,’ which is clearly modeled on the well-known U.S. ‘doctrine of preventive strikes.’ Colani, the leader of HTS, is a Syrian who was sent to Syria by ISIS to establish the Damascus front. Colani is the nephew of Farouk al-Shara, who was a member of the Central Committee of the Syrian Ba’ath Party, Foreign Minister for many years (1984-2006), and most recently Vice President (2006-2014). Colani, whose real name is Ahmed Hussein, in addition to his family’s political identity based on ‘Arab nationalism,’ converted to political Islam. The name Colani comes from the Golan region. The family is from the Daraa region in Syria, near the Golan Heights, and was forced to leave their home on the Golan Heights in 1967. This identity of the HTS leader, which shows that he is no stranger to politics and state organization, should be seen as further evidence that the U.K. and U.S. are prepared for this restructuring process. Colani has conveyed the image of a leader who will fulfill the task set for him, with his conciliatory, rational, civilized, and pluralistic style. The fact that a former Al-Qaeda member, who has a $10 million price on his head, is now being presented as the leader of the ‘new Syria’ reveals the fundamental nature of imperialism and all reaction. From the outset, the strategy of HTS under the leadership of Abu Mohammed Colani was to overthrow the Assad regime. In doing so, it pursued the same goal as the U.S., Great Britain, and Israel. The situation was not so clear-cut with the Syrian National Army (SNA). In contrast to HTS, the groups that formed the SNA had limited goals. Today, the HTS is presenting itself as a more coherent and disciplined army, maintaining order in the places it controls and avoiding the ‘brutality’ of the ISIS era. This ‘change’ is undoubtedly also linked to the approval of imperialism in the new Syria. HTS includes brigades named after Talha, Ali, and Zubayr, as well as HTS-affiliated groups such as Jaish Muhajiroun, Ansar al-Islam, Ansar al-Tawhid, and the Turkistan Islamic Party. In addition, small units formed by foreign elements, such as Xhemati Alban, Muhojir Tactical, and Yurtugh Tactical, also operated under HTS. Under the Syrian National Army (SNA) and others, there are groups that are frequently heard of in Turkey, such as Jabhat al-Sham, Joint Forces, 50th Division, Ahrar al-Sharqiya, Ahrar al-Shams Eastern Wing, Shukur al-Sham, Faylaq al-Sham, Jaish al-Nasr, Jaish al-Ahrar, and Jaish al-Izzeh.
To what extent will the HTS, especially the SNA, which includes so many different groups, be able to function in a harmonious and capable manner in the future, especially with regard to running a state? Although this question may seem very controversial, it is not difficult to answer. Given the composition of these groups and the limited options under the given circumstances, Syria will once again descend into chaos and confusion. There is no good reason to believe that Colani could successfully govern Syria where Assad failed. On the contrary, due to the intensity and growing authority of the ‘foreign forces,’ the state under Colani will be characterized by even more problems and thus by failure. Another point should be emphasized in this context. Assad’s departure does not mean that the Syrian state has disappeared. Rather, Assad has ensured the continuity of the state structure by applying a tactic of protecting state forces with an order not to fight and by giving the ‘old’ forces of the state the opportunity to get involved in the new government. This is another strong reason for deep contradictions. It is clear that there are no healthy conditions for the unity of Syria in the coming period. The Syrian reality is therefore even more difficult to manage. It can be said that this problem can be partially overcome by ‘autonomous’ or ‘federal’ administrations. While Assad has stubbornly resisted the autonomy demands of the Kurdish nation and some Sunni tribes, refraining from ‘concessions’ on the grounds that such a development would be detrimental to the unity of the state, the new Colani government will not take the same approach. By allowing autonomous and even federal administrations, it will be able to create a ‘governable’ Syria. To some extent, this is a reasonable interpretation. However, we must not forget that autonomy or a federal union presupposes a developed understanding of statehood and national rights. The general reaction in the region lacks both in principle. The history of Colani and HTS provides a thousand and one indications that they are not very healthy in this respect.
The New Syria Is Worse Than the Old One
It is obvious that the main force that brought down the Assad regime in Syria is HTS and its allies. Since the YPG has always claimed autonomy as its goal and wanted to establish autonomous relations with the central state system, it has not acted in favor of ‘overthrowing the regime’ until today. Today, it is acting in this direction. Yesterday, it tried to reach an agreement with the Assad regime on the basis of ‘autonomy.’ Today, it is expected that it will continue these efforts with the ‘new’ government. The ‘Syrian National Army’ (SNA), which is clearly supported by the Republic of Turkey, acted both as an ally of the HTS and as an aggressor in some YPG-controlled areas, which suited the interests of the Republic of Turkey in the overthrow of the Assad regime. Since the fall of the Assad regime, this stance of the SNA, which differs from that of the HTS, is likely to be part of the debate about the nature of the ‘new regime.’ Of course, the extent to which the SNA can act in an integrated manner and the extent to which the Turkish Republic is able to convince the U.S., Great Britain, and Israel will be crucial. At present, it is clear that the YPG’s authority, particularly in northern and eastern Syria, is protected by the imperialist centers and Israel. The U.S., in particular, cannot be expected to take a step back on this issue. We can say that they will act in a way that others accept the initiative they give to the ‘autonomous administration’ by having a say and authority over all segments. It is also no secret that the YPG has a much better-prepared force in this area. The military means provided by the U.S. show that the U.S. is aware that it is dealing with an ‘indispensable’ power and that the YPG is capable of playing an effective role in the region.
What do all these conditions and developments show us in terms of responsibility, and what political stance should we take? This must be the crucial question to be answered. What should the revolutionary attitude be when, on the one hand, there is a fascist regime that must be overthrown, which is absolutely positive, and on the other hand, a new reactionary and collaborationist regime is taking its place? It is obvious that we cannot defend the fascist Baathist regime, which was most recently embodied by Bashar al-Assad. If this regime had taken a clear and open stance against imperialist interventions, it could have been viewed positively to some extent. However, in the last 13 years, it has been unable to develop a clear stance against these interventions, nor to pursue a political line by emphasizing the open stance of the people against such interventions. It once again sought concessions for itself by collaborating with the imperialists and reactionary states against the imperialist intervention. It rejected the attempts of the YPG to conclude an agreement to guarantee the national interests of the Kurds for this very reason and, of course, in order to avoid sharing power. It has also made no effort to unite with the Arab people in Syria. On the contrary, it tried to cooperate with Russia, but also with the reactionary states of the region. It preferred to use the ‘means of resistance’ provided by Russia and Iran to protect and consolidate its own interests. This is an inevitable feature of all reactionary, especially fascist, regimes, born of arrogance. This reactionary and corrupt understanding, which arises from the illusion that their masters need them, was evident yesterday in the personalities of Saddam and Gaddafi and today in the personality of Assad. In the coming years, we will get to know dozens of other personalities. The attitude they display even under the most difficult conditions shows that such governments and personalities have no qualities that they can contribute to the benefit of the peoples and the revolution.
One quality that can be considered positive for the Baath regime is its attitude towards Israel. It should be emphasized that the source of this position, which gives the impression of pursuing an anti-Zionist line, is the protection of the balance in the region. We have recently adopted a similar position on Iran: Syria, like Iran, is adopting this position as a party to the balance in the region. In this respect, there is no position based on the interests of the people and the brotherhood of peoples, but on the contrary, an anti-Israeli position based on collaboration with imperialism. We saw clearly how, in the last operation in which Israel was directly involved, the same state took the road to surrender and vacated the scene when it did not have the support of the imperialist and reactionary states behind it. Therefore, in a discussion of this kind, it is necessary to evaluate the reactionary balance in the region and the parties of this balance in essentially the same way. It would be wrong to favor one over the other, except under very specific circumstances.
The Self-Confidence of the Peoples Must Grow
It is also necessary to look at this process from a more general perspective. As is well known, the process began with the Aqsa flood. With the Aqsa flood, the Palestinian resistance forces and Hezbollah, pursuing a relatively national cause, adopted an anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist political line. At a time when imperialism and Zionism were putting the Abraham Accord on the agenda in order to consolidate and impose the aforementioned reactionary balance on the peoples of the region, this political line thwarted their plans. Resistance came to the fore and terrorized the reaction. From that day to the present, the aim of reaction has been to suppress this resistance and the zeal of rebellion that it spreads. Perhaps not so much in practice, but it is clear that they have made progress in this direction through propaganda. Israel has a strong image in Lebanon mainly because of its role in Syria, albeit an unsuccessful one.
We must look at the new process in Syria and evaluate it without separating it from the attacks on Palestine, which aim to ‘dehumanize and destroy the resistance.’ The process is being carried out in the form of fragmentation and regression of the national will and consolidation of imperialist hegemony. Our fundamental approach should be to highlight the struggles for independence against these policies and to draw inspiration from them. We must support these struggles wherever we see them and work to develop them. We must also adopt a positive attitude towards the movements that pursue policies that suit their own national interests, and we must not forget the need to relate to these movements, knowing that ultimately they cannot be independent.
In the face of propaganda and developments that destroy the self-confidence of peoples, it has become especially important to turn to work and policies that emphasize the strength of the people and explain their interests. The Aqsa flood is a noteworthy development in this regard. Since then, there have been many developments in the same direction. We must persistently turn to these developments and familiarize ourselves with them. The source of real fears is not trust in people. This mistrust is the source of the power of imperialism. Syria is a mirror of this reality.
from red herald
No comments:
Post a Comment