"Kurdistan" becoming a reality?!
- Thread starter T.C.
- Start date
Its not total independence :
We remain [a part of Syria], but declare a federation," he said.
Damascus refuses to support this. I think it’s the right move. The Kurdish people deserve a place at the table both in Iraq and Syria but they have to play this smart. ''United we stand, divided we fall''
All parties need to understand that Kurdistan is also something Israel and the US desires. Which is part of their overall plan of Balkanisation (divide and conquer) and weakening of the Middle east. When this proxy invasion is finished and stabilized, both Iraq and Syria need to form a front against Turkey.
This conflict has shown that the Kurdish people do not stand alone against Turkey. If they play this right after this conflict, they should together place significant military hardware along the Turkish border. Making any attack against the Kurdish people in Syria and Iraq impossible once and for all. The Russians should make the Kurds clear that the US only uses them and could never support them fully since Turkey is in NATO. The Russian could support the Iraqis, Syrians and Kurds with all the support they need to checkmate Erdogan once and for all.
Syria and Iraq both need to take the Kurds in their decisions. Ignoring them would be unjust and also very unwise. But this is not the time of seeking independence, everyone should stand united against the Empire. There future depends on it.
We remain [a part of Syria], but declare a federation," he said.
Damascus refuses to support this. I think it’s the right move. The Kurdish people deserve a place at the table both in Iraq and Syria but they have to play this smart. ''United we stand, divided we fall''
All parties need to understand that Kurdistan is also something Israel and the US desires. Which is part of their overall plan of Balkanisation (divide and conquer) and weakening of the Middle east. When this proxy invasion is finished and stabilized, both Iraq and Syria need to form a front against Turkey.
This conflict has shown that the Kurdish people do not stand alone against Turkey. If they play this right after this conflict, they should together place significant military hardware along the Turkish border. Making any attack against the Kurdish people in Syria and Iraq impossible once and for all. The Russians should make the Kurds clear that the US only uses them and could never support them fully since Turkey is in NATO. The Russian could support the Iraqis, Syrians and Kurds with all the support they need to checkmate Erdogan once and for all.
Syria and Iraq both need to take the Kurds in their decisions. Ignoring them would be unjust and also very unwise. But this is not the time of seeking independence, everyone should stand united against the Empire. There future depends on it.
I have mixed feelings for the same reasons Bjorn brought up. Id be okay with the Kurds taking chunks out of Turkey to form a state, since the Kurds NEED to protect themselves against the government in Ankara. But AFAIK Kurds seem to be faring okay in Syria and Iraq a far as ethnic relations are concerned. I think it's largely the destabilization of Damascus' rule in Syria that pushed the Kurds to defend themselves against Daesh and Turkomen. Thanks to the USA the Kurdish federation will definitely have a seat at the negotiating table. If Syria and Iraq can stay united in purpose and show they will stand up for the Kurds, Balkanization is unlikely. Even if Kirds declare independence (hopefully through democratic and pro-social means) they won't be divided against their neighbors so easily.
I think in the coming days we can expect a LOT of demands, refusals, and other statements like this while the Geneva talks go on. Many are probably feints in order to use as leverage in negotiations. It'll be fun to keep them all in mind, then look back at them if/when an agreement is finally reached.
There's also the chance the Kurds are being played (as usual). From Moon of Alabama:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/03/syrian-kurds-risk-their-gains-with-new-federalization-demands.html
There's also the chance the Kurds are being played (as usual). From Moon of Alabama:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/03/syrian-kurds-risk-their-gains-with-new-federalization-demands.html
Approaching Infinity said:
Yep. I think the Kurds will ask for a lot and accept a lot less. Standard negotiation tactic. This will no doubt make Erdogan and Co. even more hysterical and push them to more egregious acts of violence against the Kurds in Turkey and Syria. But their scope is very limited, both inside Turkey and in Syria. In Turkey they have to walk the line of acting all 'democratic' so they can still have a chance of manipulating and bribing their way into the EU. This is why they've resorted to false flag 'suicide bombings' that they blame on the Kurds. Inside Syria they can do very little given Russia's continuing control over most of the air and land space along the Syrian Turkish border. Payback for Turkish ownership of the shoot down of the Russian jet is being applied, although in the typically quiet Russian way.
angelburst29
The Living Force
T.C. said:
I'm not sure, how they think - they are going to accomplish "a Federalization in Northern Syria" when Damascus is totally against it?
Might be hyped-up Wishful Thinking on their part?
Russia, Syria 'Absolutely Opposed' to Introducing Federal Gov't in Damascus
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941223000594
Neither Moscow nor Damascus will back Syria's federalization, which is totally out of line with the concept of territorial integrity,
according to writer and media host Stephen Lendman.
In an interview with Sputnik, writer and media host Stephen Lendman ruled out the idea of Moscow and Damascus supporting federalization of Syria, which he said is fully out of sync with the principle of territorial integrity.
His remarks came ahead of the beginning of a new round of peace talks between the Syrian government and the opposition, where the possible federalization of Syria is expected to be high on the agenda. The talks are scheduled for March 14.
"I think Russia and Syria are absolutely opposed to this. I cannot imagine Moscow or Damascus will support federal division of Syria," Lendman said.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Syrian Kurds declare new federation in bid for autonomy
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/kurdish-pyd-declares-federalism-northern-syria-1311505605
Leaders say Federation of Northern Syria for all peoples and religion, but move is swiftly rejected by Syrian government and other parties.
Syrian Kurds have declared a "Federation of Northern Syria" that unites three Kurdish majority areas into one entity, in an announcement swiftly denounced by the Syrian government, opposition and regional powers.
According to Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) official Idris Nassan, the plan will involve "areas of democratic self-administration" under the federal banner, encompassing all ethnic and religious groups living in the area.
Two officials at talks involving Kurdish, Arab, and other parties in the town of Rmeilan told the AFP news agency that delegates had agreed a "federal system" unifying the three mainly Kurdish cantons in northern Syria. According to the pro-Kurdish Firat News Agency (ANF), the “Rojava and Northern Syria United Democratic System Document Text” was approved after a vote from 200 delegates, which included Arab, Kurdish, Armenian, Turkmen, Chechen, Syria and other ethnic groups. The boundaries of the federalised region have yet to be established, according to a delegate to the talks on Twitter.
The Syrian government and members of the opposition said they rejected the declaration.
Citing a foreign ministry official, Syria's state news agency SANA said the declaration "has no legal basis" and would "encroach on Syria's territorial unity".
The opposition National Coalition meanwhile warned against "any attempt to form entities, regions, or administrations that usurp the will of the Syrian people".
A Turkish official was quoted by Sky News Arabia as saying his county would "not accept the establishment entities based on ethnic lines in northern Syria".
The US has also previously stated it would not recognise a declaration of autonomy in northern Syria.
Though many have accused Syria's Kurds of attempting to establish an independent Kurdistan in northern Syria, the PYD has repeatedly stated its opposition to such a move, claiming it favours a policy of "Democratic Confederalism", an ideology formed by Abdullah Ocalan - the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) - after publicly rejecting the original Marxist-Leninist roots of the PKK.
A draft of the federalism proposal document seen by Middle East Eye set out the plans for the new entity in northern Syria. “The era of nation states is over," read the document, signed by the preparatory commission. "Now we are in the era of democratic society – it is time to form democratic states and unions. ”It added that each canton would be able to “take and implement its own decisions, as long as they do not contradict” rulings from the central power. It also said that representatives of each canton will be subject to annual scrutiny by the people who elected them.
Water and energy will be communally owned – exploitation of capital and monopolies will be rejected. Thirty-three members of an executive committee to organise a constitution for the region are to be elected. According to activists on social media, two co-chairmen - one Arab, one Kurd - have already been elected for the committee.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/kurdish-pyd-declares-federalism-northern-syria-1311505605
Leaders say Federation of Northern Syria for all peoples and religion, but move is swiftly rejected by Syrian government and other parties.
Syrian Kurds have declared a "Federation of Northern Syria" that unites three Kurdish majority areas into one entity, in an announcement swiftly denounced by the Syrian government, opposition and regional powers.
According to Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) official Idris Nassan, the plan will involve "areas of democratic self-administration" under the federal banner, encompassing all ethnic and religious groups living in the area.
Two officials at talks involving Kurdish, Arab, and other parties in the town of Rmeilan told the AFP news agency that delegates had agreed a "federal system" unifying the three mainly Kurdish cantons in northern Syria. According to the pro-Kurdish Firat News Agency (ANF), the “Rojava and Northern Syria United Democratic System Document Text” was approved after a vote from 200 delegates, which included Arab, Kurdish, Armenian, Turkmen, Chechen, Syria and other ethnic groups. The boundaries of the federalised region have yet to be established, according to a delegate to the talks on Twitter.
The Syrian government and members of the opposition said they rejected the declaration.
Citing a foreign ministry official, Syria's state news agency SANA said the declaration "has no legal basis" and would "encroach on Syria's territorial unity".
The opposition National Coalition meanwhile warned against "any attempt to form entities, regions, or administrations that usurp the will of the Syrian people".
A Turkish official was quoted by Sky News Arabia as saying his county would "not accept the establishment entities based on ethnic lines in northern Syria".
The US has also previously stated it would not recognise a declaration of autonomy in northern Syria.
Though many have accused Syria's Kurds of attempting to establish an independent Kurdistan in northern Syria, the PYD has repeatedly stated its opposition to such a move, claiming it favours a policy of "Democratic Confederalism", an ideology formed by Abdullah Ocalan - the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) - after publicly rejecting the original Marxist-Leninist roots of the PKK.
A draft of the federalism proposal document seen by Middle East Eye set out the plans for the new entity in northern Syria. “The era of nation states is over," read the document, signed by the preparatory commission. "Now we are in the era of democratic society – it is time to form democratic states and unions. ”It added that each canton would be able to “take and implement its own decisions, as long as they do not contradict” rulings from the central power. It also said that representatives of each canton will be subject to annual scrutiny by the people who elected them.
Water and energy will be communally owned – exploitation of capital and monopolies will be rejected. Thirty-three members of an executive committee to organise a constitution for the region are to be elected. According to activists on social media, two co-chairmen - one Arab, one Kurd - have already been elected for the committee.
angelburst29
The Living Force
How can Syria deflect the US-UK "Federation" Spin?
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/how-can-syria-deflect-us-uk-federation.html
Planners of the war on Syria are surely wearing a “macabre smile” on their faces as they see their ruse achieve the desired outcome.
As expected, the declaration of a “democratic federation” in northern Syria has created quite wide-scale confusion and controversy, and has re-charged a lot of the previously charged emotions. The move was surely a malevolent one, and if ignored it will entail dire consequences for Syria’s unity and viability, and if fiercely faced and repelled it will lead to another trap of more in fighting and feuding. So how should Syrians react?
The move is obviously a smokescreen designed to obscure vision so that several objectives are lost in the fog. Why do I say this?
Firstly, the announcement was made at "al-Remailan" city (basically an Oil Field, where the US was reportedly building a military base under the pretext of its on-going alleged activities to fight ISIS/Daesh). Secondly, “forces” already receiving full US support, bearing a striking resemblance to the ill-famed previous announcement of the so-called Opposition “National Syria Council”, made the announcement. So the move should be seen as a US-UK one and not a “Kurdish” one, especially as it includes “representatives” (proxies) of so many other ethnicities and “communities”. It is essential to take this key element into consideration when analyzing the move; otherwise we fall in the trap time and time again.
Here we have to remember these key elements:
- “Kurds” have recently gained worldwide sympathy as Turkish atrocities against them have been widely reported and exposed.
- Some of the “Kurdish” militias have been extensively propagated by mainstream media, and others as a “key force” in the fight against IS/ISIS (Daesh).
- The timing of the announcement comes just shortly after joint Syrian-Russian operations managed to cut the oil smuggling routes to Turkey.
So, the US-UK war planners wanted to capitalize on the first two key elements by deflecting condemnation away from their NATO ally, Turkey, and pre-empting any potential counter move by the Syrian government, which is already under a fierce media campaign. And at the same time, they wanted to provide an alternative oil-smuggling route for the on going plundering of resources.
In other words, the move is an obvious political spin.
Secondly, the US-UK war planners are now in need of a “fresh horse” to ride, after their old one (ISIS) has been totally exposed and can no longer serve their objectives. Remember, in this respect, the recent statement by the US Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he described Daesh atrocities as “genocidal”. This statement was made shortly after the US Congress unanimously voted for a similar classification.
Thirdly, the move should NOT be viewed as a “Kurdish” one for several reasons, mainly because there is no “Kurdish consensus” on the move.
The Kurds, as we know, are not a single unitary mass. There is an array of political parties and organizations carrying “Kurdish” flags who are presumed to be serving “Kurdish aspirations”, but not all of them agree on everything, and many of them have been “infiltrated” by one of more regional or international “Intelligence” service apparatus.
Even as a “community”, not all Kurdish communities are the same. There are several confessions and affiliations within their ranks. Over and above, not all of them share the same historical, religious, cultural, or demographic background. So to deal with them as a “lump sum” is unfair and unrealistic.
What is more important to bear in mind is the fact the Kurdish issue is a time-bomb left by the post-WWII colonial powers (mainly the British and French) who deliberately carved the Middle East map in a way that would retain certain “ticking bombs” that could be detonated at will.
So, if the Kurds have any grievances, they should lay their complaints and grievances at the doors of these forces that deliberately put them and the region in such a fiasco, instead of sparking feuding and inter-fighting with their fellow compatriots of other ethnicities and faiths.
It remains to be said that many Kurds who live in Damascus, Homs, and elsewhere in Syria have been enjoying full citizenship rights all along, and Syrians have never practiced any discrimination against them. That is why you may see many of them as leaders of functioning political parties and many others in key government positions. Let us remember that Syria’s highly esteemed religious leader, the Late Sheikh Mohammad Said al-Bouti, was a Kurd, and the Syrians following him never viewed his ethnicity as something to be wary of. To the contrary, he has been viewed with a lot of due respect and reverence.
Some of the Kurds who had experienced some difficulties are the ones who have taken refuge in Syria and were not properly accommodated for in the 1961 census (population statics). This took place before the current Ba’ath Party assumed power (just to be fair). Yet, our President has instructed for their complaints and legal status to be properly settled.
We should also bear in mind that the war planners have deliberately created a multi-layer, multi-phased circle of fire around Syria, so once she overcomes one she will be trapped in another. One commentator rightfully said: Syria would find it extremely difficult to repel this barrage of concerted attacks against her simultaneously from all directions.
All these points and more should be taken into account before jumping to any conclusions in terms of this newly detonated “time bomb”, which we hope that Syria, its people, and leadership will wisely work together to defuse.
Syria’s Democracy Is The Last Defense Against Federalization
http://katehon.com/article/syrias-democracy-last-defense-against-federalization
he Syrian Kurds dropped a bombshell this week when they unilaterally announced the tentatively titled “Federation Of Northern Syria” between themselves, Turks, Arabs, and the other ethnicities of the region, or in other words, what they envision will one day become a ‘federation within a federation’. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina inside the absolutely dysfunctional country of the same name is an apt comparison, although the “Federation of Northern Syria” and the rest of the country might horribly break up into a kaleidoscope of separate identity-based groups if the federalization virus isn’t snipped in the bud soon enough.
Regardless of how far it might eventually go or not, the fact remains that the Kurds’ self-interested declaration flies in the face of everything that the Syrian Arab Army and its people have been doing over the past five years to preserve the unitary nature of their state, and it’s sure to lead to a lot of tension at the ongoing Geneva III talks. What the Kurds have done in one move is dramatically change the nature of the intra-Syrian reconciliation conversation and formally introduce the idea of Identity Federalism, the pitfalls of which the author earlier analyzed in a research report for Russia’s National Institute for Research of Global Security.
As destabilizing as the Kurds’ announcement was and might eventually turn out to be, it’s still far from certain that they’ll achieve their stated objective by the time everything is said and done, and it’s much more likely that they took the steps that they did as part of a calculated political gambit in securing a seat at Geneva. Regardless of their motivations, however, it’s undeniable that the genie of federalization has been released from the think tank bottle and is now oozing into the mainstream, but the doom and gloom pertaining to this scenario doesn’t mean that it’s irreversibly inevitable and that there isn’t time left to stop it.
Here’s a strong possibility that the Syrian people, as they have historically done and especially in the context of the past five years, will make their voices heard in voting against federalization and in favor of pro-unitary candidates during the upcoming UNSC-recognized elections on 13 April, which would send the most powerful signal yet that the people totally oppose this foreign-concocted idea. Nevertheless, the West has a final trick up its sleeve in that the EU-member states might recognize Syria’s legitimate government prior to the vote so that pro-federalization Syrians there can skew the elections and advance the unipolar agenda.
Smoke And Mirrors - While it initially appears as though the Kurds are dead-set on establishing a quasi-independent self-rule federal statelet in northern Syria – and many of them might very well hold these intentions – it’s also likely that the timing of the announcement was meant to give them bargaining leverage at gaining a seat in Geneva. Both Russia and the US are in favor of this, but the organizational framework of the talks is such that all sides need to agree on the inclusion of another participant, and it’s here where Turkey stands as the only visible obstacle to that.
To be more specific, it’s not necessarily Turkey that’s the problem, but President Erdogan, and it’s quite telling in fact that he’s resisting the joint will of both Russia and the US, which have unprecedentedly come together in the New Cold War to support the Syrian Kurds. Seeing how much political and military capital the US has invested in the Kurds up until this point, it’s reasonable to ponder whether they’re considering turning on Erdogan in the near future and tacitly siding with the anti-government and/or military forces against him, which in any case would implicitly put them once more on the same strategic side as the Russians.
In any case, the Kurds have played their ultimate card by announcing a federal state because there’s no realistic way that they’ll transgress UNSC Res. 2254 by declaring independence and experiencing the dual wrath of Russia and the US, the two most significant guarantors of that agreement. Therefore, the logical circle once more returns to the point of emphasizing that this is all part of a larger geopolitical game that's playing out in Syria right now, one in which the Kurds are trying to maximize their political, military, and territorial gains of the past five years as much as possible concurrent with the legitimate Syrian authorities doing whatever they can to restore the unitary nature of the state that almost every single family has sacrificed to defend.
In connection with the latter’s motivations the news that Syria wants to include the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights into the reconciliation format can be seen in a pragmatic and relevant light. While it’s extremely unlikely that this historic territory will be returned anytime soon (let alone as a result of Geneva III, no matter how proudly commendable it is that the issue was once more raised to global attention), it’s much more probable that bringing it up at this specific time is one of Damascus’ chief negotiating ploys. There’s a high chance that Syria will tactically walk back from this later in exchange for the US convincing the Kurds to concede their federalization ambitions and accept a much more mild form of simple autonomy.
The Voice Of The People - What just about all commentators are forgetting to speak about is that the current Syrian Constitution does not allow for federalization or autonomy, so any such declarations are technically illegal under the country’s present law and can only be implemented after amending the constitution or writing a new one. As it would be, the aforementioned UNSC Res. 2254 specifically mandates that the document be reviewed and that a new one take its place, implying the possibility of the required changes being made in order to legalize federalization or autonomy.
There’s no clear deadline for how long this should take other than vaguely stipulating that it occur sometime within 18 months (meaning by June 2017), so it’s entirely possible that agreeing to the details of any federalization and/or autonomy clause could require protracted negotiations that go on for months. In that case, the forthcoming 13 April elections in Syria would take place before any formal decision is made pertaining to the country’s internal (re)division and the new constitution, but that doesn’t mean that they’re inconsequential to the overall process.
Because the upcoming vote is recognized by the UNSC and will certainly generate global media coverage, patriotic Syrians have the unique opportunity to make their voices heard in resolutely coming out against federalization by voting for pro-unitary candidates that make the issue an explicit part of their electoral platform. In this manner, Syrians can reverse the Western information momentum against them by capitalizing off of the worldwide attention that they receive to show the international community just how strongly they oppose federalization and the determination with which they want to retain their country’s unitary identity.
The patriotic population came out in droves in 2014 when they reelected President Assad by the huge margin of 88.7%, and with their history of civic partition as a precedent, there’s no reason to doubt that they won’t do something similar in saving their country from the latest foreign plot that’s being actively directed against it. The reader should bear in mind that regime change against President Assad is a lot less important to the US and its allies right now at this critical juncture than ‘legally’ reengineering the Syrian state to their long-term and sustainable geostrategic advantage via the enshrinement of Identity Federalism into a new constitution, and keeping with this imperative, it’s crucial to explain the grandmaster trick that the West might try to play in actualizing this sought-after objective.
Playing Dirty - Predicting that the Syrian people will treat the upcoming elections as a de-facto referendum on federalization and that they’ll overwhelming vote against such a scheme, the US might order its European allies to play the ultimate card in their deck so as to offset this process in a desperate last-bid attempt at derailing Syria’s sovereignty. As is known, most of the major European countries do not recognize the legitimate and democratically elected leadership of President Bashar Assad, and as such, they don’t have any formal diplomatic interactions with Damascus or any bilateral ambassadorial presence with Syria.
This creates a major complication for them in trying to disrupt the electoral process by having anti-government and pro-federalization Syrians that have immigrated to the EU (many of which satisfy this criteria) go to their embassies and vote for likeminded candidates. Without the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Syria, preconditioned of course on the EU recognizing President Assad, there’s no way that these people can vote and they’ll thus remain disenfranchised like they were in the 2014 election.
Therefore, it’s quite possible that the US will command its European proxies to take the bold move in recognizing President Assad’s legitimacy prior to 13 April so that the anti-government and pro-federalization Syrians can partake in the upcoming election at their host country’s newly reopened embassy and throw off the results of the vote.
Even if they don’t succeed in having a majority of the parliamentary figures be anti-government and pro-federalization individuals, if they can command at least a convincing plurality of around 20-33%, then they can proceed with their argument that some sort of federalist clause must be included in the constitution to satisfy the will of the substantial political minority. A possible workaround that Damascus could proactively enact in this instance would be to decree that only Syrians with legitimate documents can vote in their embassies, and that all others must return to the country to receive their documents and/or vote there. This could cleverly weed out the patriots from the opportunists, the latter of which would likely remain in their cherry-picked EU welfare resort of choice instead of relocate back to their native homeland.
It’s integral that the Syrian people see through the charade that the EU might try to pull on them. While it would be normatively and emotionally significant if the Europeans reestablish ties with Syria after once more recognizing President Assad, it needs to be remembered that this is just a psychological ploy designed to lower the defensive guard of every Syrian as the war on their country transitions into a fifth generational form. The US and its allies want to transform the hitherto non-weaponized process of internal administrative reorganization into a unipolar bludgeon that can knock out Syria’s multipolar resistance by dividing the entire country into a checkerboard of separate identity-feuding states.
From there, the formerly unified country would be easy picking for the vultures to divide and rule between themselves, with it eventually being likely that only the security crescent between Damascus, Homs, and the littoral governorates would essentially remain under the Syrian Arab Army’s protection, if that. All the other areas would probably receive their own federalized status and accompanying ‘regional army’ (constitutionally legitimized armed “opposition”), thus making them totally susceptible to being ‘traded’ between Syria’s many enemies as they jockey to boost their geopolitical position in the strategic Levant region.
Concluding Thoughts - Generally speaking, while the Kurds’ unilateral declaration of the “Federation of Northern Syria” is definitely worrying, it appears to be a premeditated move timed to coincide with the resumption of the Geneva III talks and designed to ensure them a seat at the negotiating table. Whether they’ll stubbornly insist on this administrative entity or pragmatically temper their ambitions by conceding to a much more realistic autonomous status, it’s ultimately up to the Syrian people themselves to decide if they’ll even grant their government the right or not to bestow such constitutionally unprecedented privileges.
This opens up the foreseeable possibility that the forthcoming elections on 13 April can essentially become a referendum on the federalization question, and if patriotic Syrians overwhelmingly vote for pro-unity candidates in the same enthusiastic manner as they reelected President Assad in 2014, they’d be able to convincingly show the world just how strongly they reject the pressured imposition of this external plot on their country. In parallel with this, the US might direct its EU subordinates to recognize the Syrian government and President Assad in the run-up to this event so that the anti-government and pro-federalization Syrians that they host could be bribed or pressured to vote for corresponding candidates in order to offset the patriotically unifying results that are otherwise to be expected.
Syrians shouldn’t allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the US and its allies’ recognition ploy, no matter how overdue and morally ethical the action itself would be, because they’re actually only doing it for morally repulsive reasons in order to achieve what they feel is their long overdue right to subjugate the country in full. Instead of a diplomatic victory for Syria, it would really be a pyrrhic one that just ends up causing much more harm than good in the long run. The Syrian people must therefore ask themselves whether it’s better to have a Western-recognized President Assad symbolically preside over a watered-down presidency in a fractured federation or to have a multipolar-recognized President Assad proudly stand as the strong president of a still-unitary state, albeit one which might tactically have to concede mild Kurdish autonomy in order to stave off the destructive chain reaction of federalization.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/how-can-syria-deflect-us-uk-federation.html
Planners of the war on Syria are surely wearing a “macabre smile” on their faces as they see their ruse achieve the desired outcome.
As expected, the declaration of a “democratic federation” in northern Syria has created quite wide-scale confusion and controversy, and has re-charged a lot of the previously charged emotions. The move was surely a malevolent one, and if ignored it will entail dire consequences for Syria’s unity and viability, and if fiercely faced and repelled it will lead to another trap of more in fighting and feuding. So how should Syrians react?
The move is obviously a smokescreen designed to obscure vision so that several objectives are lost in the fog. Why do I say this?
Firstly, the announcement was made at "al-Remailan" city (basically an Oil Field, where the US was reportedly building a military base under the pretext of its on-going alleged activities to fight ISIS/Daesh). Secondly, “forces” already receiving full US support, bearing a striking resemblance to the ill-famed previous announcement of the so-called Opposition “National Syria Council”, made the announcement. So the move should be seen as a US-UK one and not a “Kurdish” one, especially as it includes “representatives” (proxies) of so many other ethnicities and “communities”. It is essential to take this key element into consideration when analyzing the move; otherwise we fall in the trap time and time again.
Here we have to remember these key elements:
- “Kurds” have recently gained worldwide sympathy as Turkish atrocities against them have been widely reported and exposed.
- Some of the “Kurdish” militias have been extensively propagated by mainstream media, and others as a “key force” in the fight against IS/ISIS (Daesh).
- The timing of the announcement comes just shortly after joint Syrian-Russian operations managed to cut the oil smuggling routes to Turkey.
So, the US-UK war planners wanted to capitalize on the first two key elements by deflecting condemnation away from their NATO ally, Turkey, and pre-empting any potential counter move by the Syrian government, which is already under a fierce media campaign. And at the same time, they wanted to provide an alternative oil-smuggling route for the on going plundering of resources.
In other words, the move is an obvious political spin.
Secondly, the US-UK war planners are now in need of a “fresh horse” to ride, after their old one (ISIS) has been totally exposed and can no longer serve their objectives. Remember, in this respect, the recent statement by the US Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he described Daesh atrocities as “genocidal”. This statement was made shortly after the US Congress unanimously voted for a similar classification.
Thirdly, the move should NOT be viewed as a “Kurdish” one for several reasons, mainly because there is no “Kurdish consensus” on the move.
The Kurds, as we know, are not a single unitary mass. There is an array of political parties and organizations carrying “Kurdish” flags who are presumed to be serving “Kurdish aspirations”, but not all of them agree on everything, and many of them have been “infiltrated” by one of more regional or international “Intelligence” service apparatus.
Even as a “community”, not all Kurdish communities are the same. There are several confessions and affiliations within their ranks. Over and above, not all of them share the same historical, religious, cultural, or demographic background. So to deal with them as a “lump sum” is unfair and unrealistic.
What is more important to bear in mind is the fact the Kurdish issue is a time-bomb left by the post-WWII colonial powers (mainly the British and French) who deliberately carved the Middle East map in a way that would retain certain “ticking bombs” that could be detonated at will.
So, if the Kurds have any grievances, they should lay their complaints and grievances at the doors of these forces that deliberately put them and the region in such a fiasco, instead of sparking feuding and inter-fighting with their fellow compatriots of other ethnicities and faiths.
It remains to be said that many Kurds who live in Damascus, Homs, and elsewhere in Syria have been enjoying full citizenship rights all along, and Syrians have never practiced any discrimination against them. That is why you may see many of them as leaders of functioning political parties and many others in key government positions. Let us remember that Syria’s highly esteemed religious leader, the Late Sheikh Mohammad Said al-Bouti, was a Kurd, and the Syrians following him never viewed his ethnicity as something to be wary of. To the contrary, he has been viewed with a lot of due respect and reverence.
Some of the Kurds who had experienced some difficulties are the ones who have taken refuge in Syria and were not properly accommodated for in the 1961 census (population statics). This took place before the current Ba’ath Party assumed power (just to be fair). Yet, our President has instructed for their complaints and legal status to be properly settled.
We should also bear in mind that the war planners have deliberately created a multi-layer, multi-phased circle of fire around Syria, so once she overcomes one she will be trapped in another. One commentator rightfully said: Syria would find it extremely difficult to repel this barrage of concerted attacks against her simultaneously from all directions.
All these points and more should be taken into account before jumping to any conclusions in terms of this newly detonated “time bomb”, which we hope that Syria, its people, and leadership will wisely work together to defuse.
Syria’s Democracy Is The Last Defense Against Federalization
http://katehon.com/article/syrias-democracy-last-defense-against-federalization
he Syrian Kurds dropped a bombshell this week when they unilaterally announced the tentatively titled “Federation Of Northern Syria” between themselves, Turks, Arabs, and the other ethnicities of the region, or in other words, what they envision will one day become a ‘federation within a federation’. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina inside the absolutely dysfunctional country of the same name is an apt comparison, although the “Federation of Northern Syria” and the rest of the country might horribly break up into a kaleidoscope of separate identity-based groups if the federalization virus isn’t snipped in the bud soon enough.
Regardless of how far it might eventually go or not, the fact remains that the Kurds’ self-interested declaration flies in the face of everything that the Syrian Arab Army and its people have been doing over the past five years to preserve the unitary nature of their state, and it’s sure to lead to a lot of tension at the ongoing Geneva III talks. What the Kurds have done in one move is dramatically change the nature of the intra-Syrian reconciliation conversation and formally introduce the idea of Identity Federalism, the pitfalls of which the author earlier analyzed in a research report for Russia’s National Institute for Research of Global Security.
As destabilizing as the Kurds’ announcement was and might eventually turn out to be, it’s still far from certain that they’ll achieve their stated objective by the time everything is said and done, and it’s much more likely that they took the steps that they did as part of a calculated political gambit in securing a seat at Geneva. Regardless of their motivations, however, it’s undeniable that the genie of federalization has been released from the think tank bottle and is now oozing into the mainstream, but the doom and gloom pertaining to this scenario doesn’t mean that it’s irreversibly inevitable and that there isn’t time left to stop it.
Here’s a strong possibility that the Syrian people, as they have historically done and especially in the context of the past five years, will make their voices heard in voting against federalization and in favor of pro-unitary candidates during the upcoming UNSC-recognized elections on 13 April, which would send the most powerful signal yet that the people totally oppose this foreign-concocted idea. Nevertheless, the West has a final trick up its sleeve in that the EU-member states might recognize Syria’s legitimate government prior to the vote so that pro-federalization Syrians there can skew the elections and advance the unipolar agenda.
Smoke And Mirrors - While it initially appears as though the Kurds are dead-set on establishing a quasi-independent self-rule federal statelet in northern Syria – and many of them might very well hold these intentions – it’s also likely that the timing of the announcement was meant to give them bargaining leverage at gaining a seat in Geneva. Both Russia and the US are in favor of this, but the organizational framework of the talks is such that all sides need to agree on the inclusion of another participant, and it’s here where Turkey stands as the only visible obstacle to that.
To be more specific, it’s not necessarily Turkey that’s the problem, but President Erdogan, and it’s quite telling in fact that he’s resisting the joint will of both Russia and the US, which have unprecedentedly come together in the New Cold War to support the Syrian Kurds. Seeing how much political and military capital the US has invested in the Kurds up until this point, it’s reasonable to ponder whether they’re considering turning on Erdogan in the near future and tacitly siding with the anti-government and/or military forces against him, which in any case would implicitly put them once more on the same strategic side as the Russians.
In any case, the Kurds have played their ultimate card by announcing a federal state because there’s no realistic way that they’ll transgress UNSC Res. 2254 by declaring independence and experiencing the dual wrath of Russia and the US, the two most significant guarantors of that agreement. Therefore, the logical circle once more returns to the point of emphasizing that this is all part of a larger geopolitical game that's playing out in Syria right now, one in which the Kurds are trying to maximize their political, military, and territorial gains of the past five years as much as possible concurrent with the legitimate Syrian authorities doing whatever they can to restore the unitary nature of the state that almost every single family has sacrificed to defend.
In connection with the latter’s motivations the news that Syria wants to include the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights into the reconciliation format can be seen in a pragmatic and relevant light. While it’s extremely unlikely that this historic territory will be returned anytime soon (let alone as a result of Geneva III, no matter how proudly commendable it is that the issue was once more raised to global attention), it’s much more probable that bringing it up at this specific time is one of Damascus’ chief negotiating ploys. There’s a high chance that Syria will tactically walk back from this later in exchange for the US convincing the Kurds to concede their federalization ambitions and accept a much more mild form of simple autonomy.
The Voice Of The People - What just about all commentators are forgetting to speak about is that the current Syrian Constitution does not allow for federalization or autonomy, so any such declarations are technically illegal under the country’s present law and can only be implemented after amending the constitution or writing a new one. As it would be, the aforementioned UNSC Res. 2254 specifically mandates that the document be reviewed and that a new one take its place, implying the possibility of the required changes being made in order to legalize federalization or autonomy.
There’s no clear deadline for how long this should take other than vaguely stipulating that it occur sometime within 18 months (meaning by June 2017), so it’s entirely possible that agreeing to the details of any federalization and/or autonomy clause could require protracted negotiations that go on for months. In that case, the forthcoming 13 April elections in Syria would take place before any formal decision is made pertaining to the country’s internal (re)division and the new constitution, but that doesn’t mean that they’re inconsequential to the overall process.
Because the upcoming vote is recognized by the UNSC and will certainly generate global media coverage, patriotic Syrians have the unique opportunity to make their voices heard in resolutely coming out against federalization by voting for pro-unitary candidates that make the issue an explicit part of their electoral platform. In this manner, Syrians can reverse the Western information momentum against them by capitalizing off of the worldwide attention that they receive to show the international community just how strongly they oppose federalization and the determination with which they want to retain their country’s unitary identity.
The patriotic population came out in droves in 2014 when they reelected President Assad by the huge margin of 88.7%, and with their history of civic partition as a precedent, there’s no reason to doubt that they won’t do something similar in saving their country from the latest foreign plot that’s being actively directed against it. The reader should bear in mind that regime change against President Assad is a lot less important to the US and its allies right now at this critical juncture than ‘legally’ reengineering the Syrian state to their long-term and sustainable geostrategic advantage via the enshrinement of Identity Federalism into a new constitution, and keeping with this imperative, it’s crucial to explain the grandmaster trick that the West might try to play in actualizing this sought-after objective.
Playing Dirty - Predicting that the Syrian people will treat the upcoming elections as a de-facto referendum on federalization and that they’ll overwhelming vote against such a scheme, the US might order its European allies to play the ultimate card in their deck so as to offset this process in a desperate last-bid attempt at derailing Syria’s sovereignty. As is known, most of the major European countries do not recognize the legitimate and democratically elected leadership of President Bashar Assad, and as such, they don’t have any formal diplomatic interactions with Damascus or any bilateral ambassadorial presence with Syria.
This creates a major complication for them in trying to disrupt the electoral process by having anti-government and pro-federalization Syrians that have immigrated to the EU (many of which satisfy this criteria) go to their embassies and vote for likeminded candidates. Without the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Syria, preconditioned of course on the EU recognizing President Assad, there’s no way that these people can vote and they’ll thus remain disenfranchised like they were in the 2014 election.
Therefore, it’s quite possible that the US will command its European proxies to take the bold move in recognizing President Assad’s legitimacy prior to 13 April so that the anti-government and pro-federalization Syrians can partake in the upcoming election at their host country’s newly reopened embassy and throw off the results of the vote.
Even if they don’t succeed in having a majority of the parliamentary figures be anti-government and pro-federalization individuals, if they can command at least a convincing plurality of around 20-33%, then they can proceed with their argument that some sort of federalist clause must be included in the constitution to satisfy the will of the substantial political minority. A possible workaround that Damascus could proactively enact in this instance would be to decree that only Syrians with legitimate documents can vote in their embassies, and that all others must return to the country to receive their documents and/or vote there. This could cleverly weed out the patriots from the opportunists, the latter of which would likely remain in their cherry-picked EU welfare resort of choice instead of relocate back to their native homeland.
It’s integral that the Syrian people see through the charade that the EU might try to pull on them. While it would be normatively and emotionally significant if the Europeans reestablish ties with Syria after once more recognizing President Assad, it needs to be remembered that this is just a psychological ploy designed to lower the defensive guard of every Syrian as the war on their country transitions into a fifth generational form. The US and its allies want to transform the hitherto non-weaponized process of internal administrative reorganization into a unipolar bludgeon that can knock out Syria’s multipolar resistance by dividing the entire country into a checkerboard of separate identity-feuding states.
From there, the formerly unified country would be easy picking for the vultures to divide and rule between themselves, with it eventually being likely that only the security crescent between Damascus, Homs, and the littoral governorates would essentially remain under the Syrian Arab Army’s protection, if that. All the other areas would probably receive their own federalized status and accompanying ‘regional army’ (constitutionally legitimized armed “opposition”), thus making them totally susceptible to being ‘traded’ between Syria’s many enemies as they jockey to boost their geopolitical position in the strategic Levant region.
Concluding Thoughts - Generally speaking, while the Kurds’ unilateral declaration of the “Federation of Northern Syria” is definitely worrying, it appears to be a premeditated move timed to coincide with the resumption of the Geneva III talks and designed to ensure them a seat at the negotiating table. Whether they’ll stubbornly insist on this administrative entity or pragmatically temper their ambitions by conceding to a much more realistic autonomous status, it’s ultimately up to the Syrian people themselves to decide if they’ll even grant their government the right or not to bestow such constitutionally unprecedented privileges.
This opens up the foreseeable possibility that the forthcoming elections on 13 April can essentially become a referendum on the federalization question, and if patriotic Syrians overwhelmingly vote for pro-unity candidates in the same enthusiastic manner as they reelected President Assad in 2014, they’d be able to convincingly show the world just how strongly they reject the pressured imposition of this external plot on their country. In parallel with this, the US might direct its EU subordinates to recognize the Syrian government and President Assad in the run-up to this event so that the anti-government and pro-federalization Syrians that they host could be bribed or pressured to vote for corresponding candidates in order to offset the patriotically unifying results that are otherwise to be expected.
Syrians shouldn’t allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the US and its allies’ recognition ploy, no matter how overdue and morally ethical the action itself would be, because they’re actually only doing it for morally repulsive reasons in order to achieve what they feel is their long overdue right to subjugate the country in full. Instead of a diplomatic victory for Syria, it would really be a pyrrhic one that just ends up causing much more harm than good in the long run. The Syrian people must therefore ask themselves whether it’s better to have a Western-recognized President Assad symbolically preside over a watered-down presidency in a fractured federation or to have a multipolar-recognized President Assad proudly stand as the strong president of a still-unitary state, albeit one which might tactically have to concede mild Kurdish autonomy in order to stave off the destructive chain reaction of federalization.
know_yourself_1234
Jedi
Hello,
I would like to ask you a question regarding information :
On RT, there is this French documentary :
"Sa guerre à elle : les femmes contre l'Etat Islamique"
https://francais.rt.com/programmes/enquetes-speciales/8318-sa-guerre-a-elle
This documentary depicts a small women army (YPJ) fighting against ISIS, and there is a strong sense of "freedom", "heroism", and even "martyrism".
I enjoyed it much, and it is still on the front RT French page.
Then, on SOTT, here is what can be read :
Not really knowing about how to put it correctly...
I have the feeling of having been deceived, but I am not able to clarify it.
Is this a case of spreading disinformation?
Thank you
I would like to ask you a question regarding information :
On RT, there is this French documentary :
"Sa guerre à elle : les femmes contre l'Etat Islamique"
https://francais.rt.com/programmes/enquetes-speciales/8318-sa-guerre-a-elle
This documentary depicts a small women army (YPJ) fighting against ISIS, and there is a strong sense of "freedom", "heroism", and even "martyrism".
I enjoyed it much, and it is still on the front RT French page.
Then, on SOTT, here is what can be read :
Not really knowing about how to put it correctly...
I have the feeling of having been deceived, but I am not able to clarify it.
Is this a case of spreading disinformation?
YPJ is supposed to be a group defending Syria from the bad guys !
Thank you
Hi Know_Yourself. The Syrian situation surrounding the Kurds isnt straightforward. Daesh (what the west calls ISIS, back when they were trying to legitimize it as a state) has a few moderate rebel allies, but generally are on the same path of conquering Syria in its entirety. The YPG Kurd group fights off Daesh not only because they resent the Wahabbism, but also because there is a dream among many Kurds if re-establishing a Kurdish state. The US heavily supports them toward this end (to balkanize the region and create more pawns to set against its neighbors), hence all the "heroic" coverage of the Kurds. The outright invasion of Syrian territory by the US to "help" the Kurds secure territory is another manifestation of this imperialistic intention. Daesh was instrumental in legitimizing these territorial seizures by the YPG.
I'd say the Syrian Arab Army is no less courageous, yet they get relentlessly demonized.
I'd say the Syrian Arab Army is no less courageous, yet they get relentlessly demonized.
Ina
The Living Force
The Iraqi Kurdistan (Erbil) has been a reality, at least from the mining or rather oil and gas perspective for some time (http://rudaw.net/english/business/10062016). Kurdistan as the area inhabited by the Kurdish people covers in addition to northern Iraq, a southwestern portion of Iran, a southeastern part of Turkey and small portion (by comparison to Turkey or Iraq or even Iran) in the north east of Syria. All in all is quite a sizable territory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan#/media/File%3AKurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992)_box_inset_removed.jpg) rich in mineral resources.
Perhaps it is about the people and the secession of a Kurdistani state but for that to happen four sovereign states should part considerable portions of their territory which can happen in a winner/loser scenario where all respective countries are directly involved in war with the insurgent Kurds.
I have only one question though... Why Syria?
Perhaps it is about the people and the secession of a Kurdistani state but for that to happen four sovereign states should part considerable portions of their territory which can happen in a winner/loser scenario where all respective countries are directly involved in war with the insurgent Kurds.
I have only one question though... Why Syria?
Things have changed a lot over the past 5 months, and a lot has been revealed. It seems that the US' "plan b" (or whatever letter they are on now) is to use the kurdish aspiration for a homeland to achieve what they could not achieve through the overthrow of Assad. In short, the idea of a "kurdistan" across northern Syria is a very bad idea, a hopeless one really, although you never know how far the US will push their agenda. The plan seems to be to push for the creation of a "kurdistan" across all of northern Syria in the hope of 'hooking up' with Kurds both in south central Turkey and northern Iraq (where a lot of Iraq's oil is).
The idea seems to be to create a US-compliant state through which Iraqi oil in the north can be shipped to the Med. Obviously Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran would all be against this idea (not to mention Russia). The US' immediate way to enforce this seems to be by "embedding" US troops with YPG forces in Northern Syria, warning the Syrian airforce (and by implications the Russians) that, should they attack these forces they would risk US retaliation. Basically, it's the US' attempt at a 'no fly' zone.
The idea seems to be to create a US-compliant state through which Iraqi oil in the north can be shipped to the Med. Obviously Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran would all be against this idea (not to mention Russia). The US' immediate way to enforce this seems to be by "embedding" US troops with YPG forces in Northern Syria, warning the Syrian airforce (and by implications the Russians) that, should they attack these forces they would risk US retaliation. Basically, it's the US' attempt at a 'no fly' zone.
