Written by Nasser Kandil,
The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (KDP) faces the most difficult political moments since its presence in the Syrian war and after it succeeded in reserving a seat of power as a major player, away from accepting, refusing, or objecting the policies which it pursued, but this party which is affected by the ideas and the tendencies of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party which fights in Turkey defending for the rights of the Kurds has taken into consideration the public mood of the Kurds of Syria by seeing Turkey as an enemy and a power of occupation, it has refused to get involved in a deal that ensures a role for it as a secondary player in the militias run by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. So as a result of that it bore its being alienated away from the negotiation formulas in Geneva without losing its place in the field, on the contrary it succeeded in proposing the solicitations of the major countries in Moscow and Washington in particular, towards being the right hand of the Americans in the Syrian war, it granted them security military and strategic privileges in the areas of its dominance.
If some of the Kurdish leaderships in Syria as the leaderships of the Iraqi Kurds have suggested that the Americans will support the emergence of an independent Kurdish entity, but after the passage of fourteen years of the US occupation of Iraq without the implementation of that promise, then this proves to those Syrians who bet on the US position for the emergence of a Kurdish entity what is awaiting them, but the other Kurdish leaderships which are the majority are certain after their experiences with the Americans that the promises of the formation of an independent or federal entity are not real due to the presence of internal, regional and international Syrian complicated equations, that do not allow the thinking of those options just after having the US words, which the days proved that they are changeable. These leaderships just consider the fruitful outcome of the relationship with Washington through the prevention of the Turkish exclusiveness of the Kurds of Syria and making them a goal of their war in Syria after their failure in achieving the original goal which is the dominance on Syria and after their recognition of the red lines drawn by the Russian role. Therefore the Turkish-Kurdish conflict based on how Washington will draw its red lines and whether the Kurds will be included in these lines?
The Kurds presented to Washington whatever it wants, they granted it the geography on which they control, along with popular legitimacy for their intervention that allows them to claim that they are not an occupying force, according to the official Syrian discourse which gave them the legal legitimacy. The Kurdish militias fought against the Syrian army under US demand through driving it away from Al Hasaka, but they got the anger of the Syrian factions which share with them and will share with them throughout the years the future of the common living, so they were obliged to meet the requirements of the expansion of the US military geography to expand their political geography by force by including areas that do not include Kurds to the range of what they called the self-management, and their war on terrorism which was against ISIS and Al Nusra in the areas of their presence and which they modified its course to conform with the US agenda, so it was restricted with ISIS, including the areas which they will enter as a foreign force and maybe an occupying force under the title of the war in Raqqa . The Kurdish leaders have accepted to give concessions demanded by the Americans about their relation with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in order to be closer from the Turks, but the Turks have surprised them with the Turkish war against them under the US observation.
Today the Kurds of Syria stand in front of two different examples in their dealing; the US example which does not protect them when it is the hour of confrontation as has happened in Manbej, and before it in Jarablos And as what is happening today, in exchange of giving everything, and the example of the Syrian country which they abused and harmed, but it forgave them as happened in Manbej and is happening today by opening the road of Qamilshli –Damascus, but with the expansion of the Turkish battles against the Kurds, they are forced to stand at the crossroads either to accept the transition into a mere US tool, where the international and the regional interests game decide their fate, or to anticipate towards a national role, its essence and pivot is to stick to the Syrian identity,y and to be protected under Syrian national discourse that stems from considering the Syrian country a homeland for all its sons, a reference for them and to consider the role of the Syrian army a ceiling for every security and military equation. Today no one asks the Democratic Union Party for a war on the Americans, but to be convinced of the danger of the transition into a US tool and to go step backward to say that there is no war on Raqqa without a full deterrence of the Turkish aggression.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,