Washington Kurdish Institute

October 13, 2019

In the wake of the ongoing Turkish incursion into Northern Syria (Rojava), Narin Briar, the Washington Kurdish Institute’s contributing analyst did the following interview with Professor Noam Chomsky. The well-known American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist corresponded with Narin via email. As long time advocate of all marginalized and oppressed people globally, Professor Noam Chomsky severely criticizes the US pullout from Rojava, calling for the maintenance of “a small contingent in Rojava with the mission of deterring further Turkish aggression and providing mostly air support for the Kurdish-led struggle against the Islamic state.” The following is the full text of the interview.

Narin Briar: What do you make of President Trump’s decision to give Turkey the green light to invade Northern Syria? What is Erdogan seeking with this invasion of mostly Kurdish-inhabitted areas in Northern Syria?

Professor Chomsky: Trump’s sudden decision is yet another shocking US betrayal of the Kurds, a contribution to the long and appalling list that is particularly disgraceful after the Kurdish forces led the US-backed campaign against ISIS, suffering many thousands of casualties.

Erdogan seeks to expand his bitter repression of Kurds from Turkey itself, to the areas of Syria he has already conquered, now on to as much of Rojava as Turkey can conquer, meanwhile driving Kurdish autonomy as far as he can from Turkey’s borders — which may well expand into Syria, in practice. Any form of Kurdish autonomy is regarded as a grave threat by Turkish nationalists because it is likely to encourage the struggle of the Kurds in Turkey to attain elementary rights. Rojava is a particular threat because of the remarkable achievements there in developing a free and egalitarian society, under the horrific conditions of Syria. These factors aside, Erdogan is also rallying his Turkish supporters in what he depicts as a patriotic defense of Turkey against terrorism — this from the man who even before the outright Turkish invasion was expediting the flow of jihadis and arms for them into Syria. Similarly Trump, a canny politician, is appealing to his voting base, who are deluded enough by years of propaganda to believe that it is time for Americans to stop expending their blood and treasure to protect unworthy and ungrateful foreigners — who didn’t even come to our aid in the Normandy landing in 1944. And both of these disgraceful figures appear to be succeeding in their domestic political calculations.

Narin Briar: What could be said to the many leftist internationally that chose to view the genocide as practicing “anti-imperialsim”

Professor Chomsky: We should not be deluded by abstract formulas that are divorced from real world conditions. No issue of “anti-imperialism” arises if the US leaves a small contingent in Rojava with the mission of deterring further Turkish aggression and providing mostly air support for the Kurdish-led struggle against the Islamic state. It is a serious failure of the anti-imperialist left not to have joined in the meager efforts to warn against the likely Trump betrayal and not to have organized in advance to prevent it.

Narin Briar: Given that ISIS emerged following the Iraqi invasion, does providing economic aid to SDF count as “American intervention” if the SDF’s sole responsibility was to defeat ISIS?

Professor Chomsky: Again, we should not be victims of abstract formulas divorced from the real world. As just mentioned, Turkey had intervened massively even before its direct invasion. The Gulf dictatorships have done so as well in support of their favored jihadi elements. The Islamic caliphate was another intervention, a severe threat to the people of the region, let alone beyond. That’s only a bare beginning. Rojava was the one area of Syria that had been largely spared the ravages of the murderous Syrian conflicts. Under the circumstances, deterrence of further Turkish atrocities and support for the Kurdish-led struggle against ISIS can hardly be criticized as illegitimate intervention.

Narin Briar: I think it’s critical to emphasize that there are alternative, and moreover strategic ways to withdraw from the United States. What do you think?

Professor Chomsky: US and other external forces should not be in the region, but — once again — one has to think carefully about the mode of withdrawal, not just apply abstract formulas. We have ample historical experience in this regard. The British role in India was horrendous — 250 years ago, well before the onslaught reached full force, Adam Smith condemned the “savagery” of the British conquerors. But the manner of the withdrawal was yet another terrible crime, with bitter consequences to the present. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan was brutal and destructive, but it also had some accomplishments for rights of women and others. The manner of withdrawal destroyed what had been achieved, exposing Afghans to the tender mercies of the US-backed Mujahideen, whose murderous assault on Kabul and beyond was so severe that much of the population welcomed the Taliban as saviors. Questions of this nature cannot be overlooked.

Narin Briar: A lot of Bi-Partisan backlash has followed Trump’s decision- do you think the sanctions proposed by several members of congress, in addition to Lindsey Graham could be effective?

Professor Chomsky: Sanctions are a dubious tool. A strong US stand in opposition to this further act of aggression should suffice — just as a small US contingent had deterred Erdogan. We should also have no illusions about the motives of Graham and others. Their concern is not the welfare of the Kurds. Rather, as they make quite clear, it is the regeneration of ISIS and the enhancement of Iranian and Russian influence in a region of great geostrategic and economic importance, long a preserve of the US and Britain before it.

Narin Briar: Do you think public backlash would make a difference? What would you recommend the peace lovers to do?

Professor Chomsky: The most urgent task is to develop a strong international popular mobilization to oppose Turkey’s assault. In the longer term efforts should be directed towards protecting the achievements in Rojava and facilitating the wrenchingly difficult task of seeking reduction of violence and some kind of negotiated settlement, and finding ways to reconstruct Syria from the wreckage, one element of the hard struggle for a measure of peace and justice in the region and beyond. There are quite concrete measures that can be pursued. The threat of major US attack against Iran is not remote, and we need not tarry on the consequences. The threat could be sharply reduced by steps to overcome the alleged concern about Iran’s nuclear programs. The JCPOA, now dismantled by Trump, was a step towards this goal, and it is easy to think of ways that go far beyond. Any such concerns, real or invented, would be overcome by establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region, as has been done with partial success elsewhere. It can be enforced by careful inspections, which, as we have seen in recent years, can be extremely effective There would be no objections from the Arab states, which initiated the proposal decades ago and have been strongly agitating for it. Nor from Iran, which has been vigorously supporting it, backed by G-77, the 134 “developing nations.” Nor from Europe. There is only one problem: the United States, which vetoes the plan regularly at the review sessions of the Non-proliferation Treaty, most recently Obama in 2015. Everyone knows why: it would require the US to acknowledge the existence of Israel’s enormous nuclear arsenal, which would bar US aid to Israel under the Symington Amendment. That’s not graven in stone, and could be an issue to be pursued by the peace movement. Many other initiatives come to mind as well. There is no shortage of opportunities.