Share this
“NATO 2030: The slogan ‘United for a New Era’ does not reflect the reality of the world. In this era, Unity is not really possible. The umbrella organisations which promote the ‘Unity’ of organisations like the UN, NATO, the EU, the EC and the OECD are themselves gradually losing their functionality,” states Nilüfer Koç.
The main item on the agenda in Brussels at the first NATO leaders’ summit attended by US President Joe Biden was the updating of the 2010 Strategic Concept for 2030. It is apparent that the drive for political, economic and military interventions in various parts of the world and the determination to apply them to the new conditions will continue in NATO’s new period.
Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) External Affairs Commission spokesperson Nilüfer Koç in an interview with Yeni Özgür Politika shared her perspectives concerning the Brussels summit communiqué and developments since the summit ended.
Biden tried to patch up damaged relations with NATO members
Koç stated that the strategies to be followed up to 2030 had been defined at this year’s summit: “A pre-NATO-summit consensus must have been arrived at at the G7 summit held in Cornwall, UK, prior to the NATO summit, because the statements made after the G7 summit and the NATO summit were similar to each other. Former US President Trump’s ‘America First’ strategy had damaged the US’s leading position both in the G7 and in NATO. At the summits in question, new US President Biden announced his strategy of trying to patch up these relations and placing more emphasis on partnership.”
Koç: ‘In the current era, Unity is not really possible’
Koç said: “There were attempts to polarise the NATO summit in a way which called to mind the Cold War: the Atlantic allied forces and the Asia Pacific forces. A picture of division was presented to the public: the Atlantic Alliance under US leadership and the Asia Pacific under China. But it was not like that at all in reality, because it was apparent from the consensus and the conflicting policies of those in the Atlantic alliance that they were each prioritising the interests of their own nation states. It is no longer possible to form fronts similar to the period of the Cold War. On the contrary, the expansion of trade and state domination necessitate serious relations. So NATO 2030: The slogan, ‘United for a New Era’ does not reflect the reality of the world. In the current era, Unity is not really possible. The umbrella organisations which emphasise the ‘Unity’ of organisations like the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, the European Commission and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) are themselves gradually losing their functionality. World politics is now multilateral, because the dissolution of the two-headed world system in the 1990s left behind many-headed searches for national state power.”
Koç: ‘The risk of decimation of opposition and left-wing movements’ is increasing
Koç explained that the expansionist politics of China and Russia, displayed at the NATO summit as great threats, also effect the Kurds and other opposition forces: “Like the NATO countries, the Russian state too is one which is becoming stronger in Kurdistan and the Middle East. Whether it is NATO or Russia and China, both will decimate community areas in order to legitimise their own hegemony. After all, this is what they have always done. And the risk of decimation of opposition and left-wing movements who continue to look to the state rather than the community for solutions has increased still more.
NATO ‘places geo-political importance on the geo-strategic position of the Turkish state’
One of the main articles on the NATO summit agenda was relations with Turkey. Turkey’s President Erdoğan waited a long time to meet with the US President. Koç said: “NATO wants to gain strength in the Middle East for its expansionism into Asia, and for this reason it places geo-political importance on the geo-strategic position of the Turkish state. The Turkish state is still trying to use its geographical position as a bargaining point as it did in the Cold War, but it is not very successful. It was clear that Turkey’s statements and offensives prior to the summit were intended to ensure that the Kurds and the Kurdish Freedom Movement were prioritised on the NATO summit agenda. The hasty bombing of a hospital in Afrîn was for just this reason. Before the summit, the Turkish minister for war, Hulusi Akar, frequently sent messages to the US and the Biden administration through various diplomatic channels saying, ‘If support for the YPG (People’s Defence Units) is cut, Ankara could make concessions on the S-400 [missile system].’
Attention must be paid to the Kurdish Movement
Koç pointed out that until the 1990s, Turkey’s geographical position had been a bargaining point against the Soviets, but since the leadership of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Kurdistan Freedom Movement had developed into a national force, becoming more community-based and achieving the status of a very broad defence force, this had rendered the Kurds much more important than the Turkish state.
Koç stated that Turkey could no longer move about as it liked in Rojava, North-East Syria, South Kurdistan and Rojhilat today and connected the reason for this to a great Kurdish resistance. She stressed that whether the reason relates to “the victory in the Garê war or the blocking of the soldiers in Zap, Avaşîn and Metina,” the Turkish state is now at a point where it will no longer ask much more of NATO with regard to the Kurds.
She said: “In order to keep Turkey on side, the US and NATO have used Turkey’s phobia of the Kurds, allowing it to attack the Kurds and the Kurdish Freedom Movement. Despite their continued silence towards and support for Turkey, Turkey has been unable to gain advantage in the war with the Kurds. The Kurds and the Kurdish Freedom Movement under the leadership of the PKK are now visible with their strong organisation, their diplomatic relations and social and community strength, and they have reached a position where attention must be paid to them.”
