The right of Self-determination or on the way to become land grabbing satellite nation?

“But we cannot be in favor of a war between great nations, in favor of the slaughter of twenty million people for the sake of the problematical liberation of a small nation with a population of perhaps ten or twenty millions!” Of course not! And it does not mean that we throw complete national equality out of our Programme; it means that the democratic interests of one country must be subordinated to the democratic interests of several and all countries.”” Lenin, The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up

Amberin Zaman‘s September 26, 2017 dated interview with the Commander in chief of SDF, published with the heading” Syrian Kurdish commander: We're 'ready to engage' with Damascus” has been the most revealing article in reference to the question of  where the  “Kurdish self-determination” in Syria is heading to. 

Although there were so many earlier indications - aside from the bourgeois nationalistic ideology of PKK- after alliance with the US, right and intention of “self-determination” has gone far beyond it and turned into a claim for "liberated areas" even if it means war with Syria.

Let’s first point out the fact that there is no Kurdish population in the city of Raqqa, or in Deir Al Zour and vast majority of areas to those cities, and in fact they are not the majority in most northern areas. (See the latest ethnic division map)

Alliance with the US imperialism reveals the bourgeois ideology and its inevitable expansionist policy on this interview. Interestingly enough, the phrases used is identical to those of US Imperialism; we are there “at the request of people”, “our promise to liberate the people”. 

There are three fundamental thesis to pay attention to in this interview; “we were invited, we liberated, we have the right to keep where we liberated”.

Raqqa;

Kobane: In the city center; I mean the eastern and western parts at the city’s southern gate have been liberated. There is the center and a bit of the north left. We have liberated 75% of the city.

Deir El-Zor

Al-Monitor: Looking beyond Raqqa, the move for Deir ez-Zor has already begun. There are reports that regime forces have crossed the Euphrates River and that a race is underway between the SDF and the regime. What is your strategic objective after Raqqa? It seems that you launched the Deir ez-Zor move earlier than the United States and the coalition had planned.

Kobane: That’s true. The liberation of Deir ez-Zor is a wish of the Syrian people. The Deir ez-Zor military council was established two years ago. The people of Deir ez-Zor took part in the battles for Manbij and Raqqa, and gave many martyrs. They are a fundamental component of the SDF as well. We launched this operation earlier on their request, and it is going on.

How far they want to “liberate”?

Al-Monitor: Are you planning to go all the way to al-Bukamal?
Kobane: Our goal is to go as far as we can. 

Their purpose is “to Liberate”, but Syrian government has different purpose than liberating its own land. So, even though this is Syria and population is Arab, we will fight the Syrian Army to liberate these areas.

Kobane: We don’t want to clash with anyone other than [IS]. There are some very sensitive balances here. Various forces are intertwined. There are the plans of the Syrian regime, the Iranian militia and Hezbollah on one side, and our liberation promise to the local people we support on the other.
Up until now, there was no boundary between the regime and us. We had [IS] between us. Both of us were fighting [IS]. Now we have met up. Things have come to a critical threshold. We are trying to avoid fighting with anyone other than [IS], but we will defend ourselves if need be.

Just in case, we want the USA stay here to help us control the areas we liberated.

Kobane: We want the United States to stay here.

Even though they were miles away, we had to defend ourselves, that’s why we are in Raqqa and Der El Zor. Syrian regime and Shiites are threat to us.

Kobane: We, the Kurds, liberated our areas from the regime first — without much loss of life. I’m talking about 2012. Our intention was to stay away from the war between the regime and the opposition and to develop, strengthen and defend our own areas. But the areas we liberated came under attack [by] the groups known as Jaish al-Hour, then [Jabhat Fattah al-] Nusra and now [IS]. And all those attackers were our neighbors. Most of the attacks came from Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. So, we were forced to fight to defend ourselves. That’s the essential reason why we are currently fighting in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.
The regime is a threat to us at present. There are also the Shiite groups aligned with the regime, which are a threat to us as well. 

We liberated, and are responsible for these areas, either there will be an agreement or war .

Kobane: …. at the end of the day, the future of the areas we liberated is important to us. Our essential objective is to negotiate with the central government and get a certain status for the areas we liberated. If required, we are ready to engage in dialogue with the central government on this.

Kobane: We are responsible for the [Kurdish majority and mixed] areas that we govern under the leadership of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, as well as for the areas that we newly liberated. If we fail to come to an agreement with the central government in Damascus, the status quo in this region will prevail. And there will either be an agreement or war,

This one is a related yet different subject that hits the heart of ideology worth to mention. Establishing an ethnic base country beyond the current borders.

Kobane: ………… Leader Apo is a reality of this region that cannot be ignored. Let me explain. Leader Apo is a philosophy, an ideology
Kobane: All the Kurds dream of uniting the four parts [in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria] and to establish an independent Kurdistan. That is the goal.

Leadership is Serving the interest of oppressed nations' people?

“”” Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organization, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism?””” Lenin, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism

Erdogan A

September 28, 2017