From 22 October to 8 December: life fits no theory

The developments of the last few months in Syria, the Kurdish question and the Middle East equation present a very interesting picture of the distance between human plans and what happens on the ground. One side of this picture is of course quite instructive, but another side also shows how at times great social events and human will can be so disconnected from one another.

Of course, when we say disconnected from human will, we can see how the actors to whom we have assigned the leading roles on the world stage can be reduced to extras in the face of what happens, even left entirely outside the film. There are situations in which the scenarios foreseen by the wishes and wills of political analyses, of sociologists and even of some politicians are rendered void and another scenario comes into play. It is in fact among the first lessons taught to sociologists: life does not fit into any theory. When you see that life often flows outside meticulously crafted theoretical scenarios, at least do not be late for it; catch up, catch it.

For instance, no one is in a position to say, about what has been happening in Syria since November 27, "we were prepared, we were waiting, we foresaw it." As we wrote before, all the actors were building the future Middle East scenarios and plans, Syria included, within a framework in which Assad was fully restored with all his power. When, at the latest joint summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League, Assad gave the shameless speech accusing Israel of genocide and of aggression contrary to human rights, both the European countries and, with a few exceptions, all the Arab countries were preparing to open embassies in Damascus. As for Israel, Assad was always the neighbor preferable to all others. In point of fact, an Assad-run Syria was Israel's sphere of influence. That is why, on the day Assad fled Syria, it set about destroying all the military sites in Syria. Because in an Assad-run Syria these weapons were in safe hands.

Now, after the Syrian revolution that began on November 27 and came to an end on December 8, we are on a wholly different ground, in a wholly different world. At a point where everyone can draw up their profit-and-loss balance, all the objective data indisputably say that the biggest winner of the process is Türkiye.

Türkiye's greatest gain actually means the closing of the doors of loss until now. Otherwise, Türkiye's clear stance on Syria, unlike what others have done, is Syria's independence with its own people and its territorial integrity. Türkiye has no designs at all on Syrian territory. A Syria governed by the Syrian people looking after their own peace, prosperity and interests will be a gain big enough for Türkiye. The regime that ruled Syria until now not only did not look after its own people's peace, stability and prosperity but also handed the country's territory over to foreigners, and so the unrest that resulted affected Türkiye greatly and negatively. Türkiye has no expectation other than, and beyond, the removal of these factors. Two brother and neighbor countries strengthen each other enough, and benefit each other without being one-sided anyway.

After December 8 the region and the world are another world, and we are now talking in Türkiye about Öcalan's call to the PKK to lay down arms, addressed to the DEM Group in the TBMM, in the process launched by Devlet Bahçeli's courageous initiative. It can be said that it is not at all rational, from the standpoint of an organization's existence, for the PKK to respond positively to such a call from Öcalan, to dissolve itself. Especially if behind it there is a world power like the United States, which finances it and pampers it by assigning it certain imaginary roles.

Interestingly, however, after October 22, when Bahçeli made this move, the December 8 Revolution took place and the conjuncture in Syria changed radically against the PKK and the mountains it trusts, and in favor of Türkiye. From now on it will not be easy for the United States to support the PKK with the old comfort and informality against the so-called ISIS threat. The United States had no legitimacy to begin with, but under its agreements with the Baath regime, the country's legitimate ruler, it could keep troops in Syria. From now on "fighting terror" will, as an excessively forced pretext, have made the United States' legitimacy indefensible, because the current regime has, for the first time in years, established control on behalf of the central government across all of Syria except the places controlled by the United States.

There is no question of the United States making room for itself in this equation, and Trump, who will take office on January 20, has long since made clear his intention to withdraw from Syria. Deep groups in the United States, precisely as sabotage against this intention of Trump, have engineered ISIS attacks spilling out from every side. No one can say that Trump is naive enough not to notice the timing and the sordidness of these actions. One possibility is that, shrinking before the threat messages these actions carry, he would back off. This is not an easy possibility for someone with Trump's personality. This means that the possibility of the United States protecting the PKK in Syria is increasingly running out.

In the resolution process Türkiye began years ago to solve the terror problem, too, the message expected from Öcalan had come. As the process was moving, just as expected, toward a place where the PKK would lay down its arms, was it not the developments in Syria that turned Kandil's head, and the immoral field of offers the United States opened up to it in the context of those developments? In the process Erdoğan entered at the price of drinking hemlock, Kandil, faced with this offer, became an apparatus of imperialism in the region and strayed onto the path of separating its way from the oppressed Syrian people and the Turkish people. This was truly a very tempting road for it, and it worked until the totally unexpected December 8 Revolution. Even then Bahçeli's initiative was an offer for them, but never one they would listen to. Yet now there is a new situation. The cradle that was prepared for them in Syria over 12 years by the United States and the Baath regime not only promises no honorable and peaceful future, but will leave it alone with the shame of cooperating with the Zionist imperialists in the eyes of all the peoples of the region. Bahçeli's offer, which was also adopted by the People's Alliance, was even then offering the PKK a way out of this dirty relationship, but now, in the changed conjuncture, it offers an opportunity to escape a disaster destined to worsen further and further for itself.

The new regime being established in Syria does not distinguish Kurds from Arabs or Turks anyway. It sees the Syrian people as a whole and offers everyone an equal, just, honorable opportunity of participation in which differences and the rule of law are recognized. Against this opportunity of participation, one must not fall into the greed of demanding unjust privileges by relying on US support that will not last forever. But of course, is there a party in front of us that will evaluate this rationality and act of its own will?