CEMIL BAYIK, second-in-command in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), has set off a firestorm in recent days. 

After granting an interview to Lebanon’s al-Nahar newspaper, in which he spoke of the “close and warm” historical ties between the PKK and former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad, as well as the “legitimate” demand of the Syrian government to expel foreign occupying forces, including the United States, a paradigm shift has occurred in north-east Syria. 

Responding to Bayik’s comments, Aldar Khalil, a leader in the Democratic Union Party (PYD) has said: “The solution must be with the regime, but not in Geneva but in Damascus. What is wrong with us sitting and deliberating as Syrians and proposing possible solutions to reach a formula for a solution to all issues in Syria?”

The de facto news agency of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) – better known as Rojava – Hawer News Agency (ANHA), has since run countless comments from leading political figures in north-east Syria expressing their belief that Bayik has the right idea in promoting Kurdish-Arab unity, and that priority should be given to negotiations and reconciliation. 

This is in sharp contrast to much of the rhetoric that had been coming from the AANES and the region’s leading political body, the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), that seemed to state their preference for a continued — even permanent — relationship with the US. 

Such a shift away from Washington could represent a watershed moment in the quest to reach a conclusion to the Syrian conflict, and would have major ramifications for the entire region.  

Divisions Between the PKK and SDC

The comments made by Bayik, who had a US State Department bounty of $4 million placed on his head in 2018, reveal long-simmering tensions between the PKK leadership in based in Qandil in Southern Kurdistan (northern Iraq) and the political direction taken by the Syrian Democratic Council that is co-led by Ilham Ehmed. 

Her views most often converge with the statements made by Mazloum Abdi, commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). 

Taken together, Ehmed and Abdi are certainly the two most significant voices representing north-east Syria on an international level.   

Ehmed recently embarked on a tour of Western capitals including Washington DC, in which she sought recognition for the AANES, a move that many supporters of the Kurdish liberation struggle have found troubling. 

Not only does seeking such recognition from the leading imperialist power threaten to prolong the Syrian crisis by giving credence to accusations that the Syrian Kurdish leadership is intent on being a “separatist” entity aligned with the US, it is an utterly futile exercise. 

The Biden administration has certainly not shown the slightest inkling that it would recognise a breakaway entity of Syria under any circumstances.  

Ehmed had also previously made comments that caused discomfort for the PKK leadership around the continued presence of the United States military in Syria, saying in March that she hoped that no matter who was president of the US that their military forces should stay in the country. 

Statements from PKK leaders over the course of the Syrian war have often made reference to the fact that the Rojava Revolution is stifled as a consequence of the US presence, and that ultimately their departure from Syria — and the Middle East as a whole — would be vastly preferable. 

In July 2020, when an announcement was made that an oil deal had been struck between the AANES and a US company called Delta Crescent, Bayik was quick to express his disagreement, saying: “Syria is an internationally recognised state. That is why all of Syria’s underground and above-ground resources belong to all its people, and not to anyone in particular. 

“I mean, nobody can take these things away … I don’t know what is exactly happening in reality … [But] nobody has the right [to turn] these things into private property.”

Ehmed has also refused to say that the AANES is for the termination of US sanctions against Syria in the form of the Caesar Act, instead seeing waivers for the region as the path forward. 

She told the UAE’s The National after her recent trip to the US: “We asked again this visit to give us a waiver for north-eastern Syria. I saw more seriousness this time and also more interest in the Congress.” 

What exactly are the concrete ramifications of asking for such a waiver? It would seem that this means Ehmed is willing to throw millions of Syrians under the bus who live outside of the north-east in order to advance a form of co-operation between the AANES and the US. 

Given that part of her dealings in Washington supposedly had to do with infrastructure projects in the region, this can only mean the flouting of potentially lucrative reconstruction contracts for US-based firms. 

If the rationale here is that circumventing US sanctions for the AANES while agreeing to keep them in check against the Syrian government would put pressure on Damascus to come to the negotiating table, the results actually appear to have been counterproductive. 

Don’t confuse your friends and enemies 

The political tragedy of the SDC’s tour through the Western citadels and the timing of Bayik’s statement cannot be mere coincidence, and the pivot in north-east Syria toward Bayik’s position shows that the PKK is attempting to regain a leadership role over their former cadres (as Ehmed and Abdi initially were). 

Turkey has often accused the PYD in Syria, as well as the SDF, of being nothing more than the PKK in different clothing. 

Certainly, there is a great deal of overlap between the two. The PYD and PKK are both part of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), the political umbrella that Bayik is a leading member of. 

Both entities follow PKK founder Abdullah Ocalan’s political philosophy of democratic confederalism, which is his conception of socialism for the 21st century. 

PKK fighters were essential in setting up the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), even though under US pressure the non-Syrian elements began to leave the country last year. 

But there are also clearly differences — major ones, in fact, as the divergent positions around the role of the United States have shown. 

Ehmed and Abdi know all about the historical (and current) war waged against the Kurdish nation by the United States, which spearheaded the campaign to arrest PKK leader Ocalan in 1999 under the administration of president Bill Clinton. 

They know full well that the war waged by the Turkish government today against the PKK in Southern Kurdistan (northern Iraq) is facilitated with the backing of Washington and the other Nato countries, who have been quiet on the alleged use of chemical weapons by Ankara while continuing to supply them with intelligence and logistical support. 

That’s what makes Ehmed and Abdi’s statements and moves all the more baffling.

The short end of it is that the US is a declining imperialist power that should never be banked on. 

For many supporters of the Kurdish freedom struggle, it has been demoralising and disorienting to see the Rojava leadership appear to shift from mere short-term tactical military co-operation with the US to a long-term political strategy. 

Such a move constitutes by far the greater ideological danger to the project, even as Turkey’s occupation and war threats constitute the greatest physical danger. 

The government of Bashar al-Assad opened the door, however slightly, to reconciliation with his comments regarding possible decentralisation of the country in April. 

It has been evident in the period since that what has been the greatest barrier to a political solution at bay is the absurd position of begging the US for a permanent military presence. Bayik’s comments bring a thundering renunciation of that policy. 

At this juncture, at which Turkey again threatens an invasion of Syria, Kurdish-Arab unity is essential. 

Though negotiations will likely prove challenging, the pivot in north-east Syria toward Cemil Bayik’s position is vital. 

It means putting Syria’s sovereignty above opportunistic political calculations, and opens the door wider to the possibility of reconciliation and peace.