World order

Fuat Önen

Guys, world order isn’t really an old concept. It’s a 150-year-old concept. It’s about globazism, it’s about capitalism, it’s about moderinite. You know, in 1910, Hilferding’s Finance-kapital was published, in 1916-17, lenin’s Imperialism, Bukmatin’s Imperialism and World Economy books were published in succession. Here’s what’s being said all around here for the end of the 19th century:

Capitalism has now become a world system. Capitalism has gone from competitive to monopoly. The main feature of this phase is the issuance of capital and the sharing of the world by these capitalist states is complete. There is no longer a region in the world that is not shared. Now the world order is due to this need. The first major wave of globalization was after the 1870s. In summary, 1870 was marked exclusively by both Rudolf Hilferding and Lenin and Nikolay Bukour. Why was there a need for a world order in the 11th century, in the 12th century, in the 5th century, and the concept was not born, but at the end of the 19th century there was a need? That’s why. Capitalism has now become a world system, and since it has become a world system, they need to give it order.

Empires do not have such a need, because in the era of empires, the world is not already in such a globalized order. This is what this need is due to. Here’s a point I’d like to point out:

In all these analyses, the words as a world mainly mean Europe and Western Europe, especially Western Europe. Western Europe is the world where capitalism is the dominant system. But because these Western European capitalist states invaded, divided and shared the whole of the world, and in this sense, the capitalist system has become a world system. How to set up a world order, now a normal mind says. This is the leading global power of the world, the states that sit, they give the world a fair, egalitarian order, but this is contrary to the nature of capitalism’s relationship to the sovereignty of imperialism. Since this is against nature, a World War II has emerged to give the world order.

The main dynamic of this World War II is this: Britain is the main sovereign power of that era, there is a france that is getting stronger right next to it, there is a Germany that comes from the back and disputes this picture. Germany, along with the weakened Austro-Hungarian Empire and the crediquid Ottoman Empire, began a World War II with a demand for re-sharing.

It is said that World War II ended in 1918. Did World War II really end in 1918? If we accept the world as Europe again, yes it’s over, European states have ended up fighting in Europe. But Italy, deep in Libya, France deep in Algeria, Britain continued to fight deep in Iraq-India. Therefore, it is not right to perceive World War II as completely over in 1918. The upper part of this is over. European states ended the war in Europe by agreeing to govern both sides in World War II. With the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Society-i Akvam was established and a system of world states was imposed on the world by the winners of the war with the ingenuity of the Society-i Akvam. This system of states is not a system of fair states formed spontaneously by the usual development of the world. A colonialist system of world states imposed on the world by the victors of the first war was built with the ingenuity of the Society-i Akvam. Here is the main issue in connection with the topic:

Political boundaries have been drawn in the world through these states. A political boundaries manzumesi has been imposed. And these political boundaries, for example, when we consider our region, are not compatible with the historical-social boundaries in this region. Those who have already crossed borders do not need to create a boundary that is in accordance with the historical-social boundaries here. It has a political map drawn up to share natural resources around the world, share oil reserves and produce population zones based on the victors of war in the world. It has a political map created through these states. The Society-i Akvam is mainly a colonialist organization. It’s not to say it’s called the League of Nations. It is an organization that adopts the Society of Akvam or the Union of Nations mandate as a law. And there are many states created by the ingenuity of this organization. More than 10 states have been established in the Arab geography. There are states built according to the needs of the victors of the war, which have no historical history. The socialists of that time actually accepted the Society-i Akvam as a colonialist organization, and it is very interesting that there are 21 conditions that cominter has put forward for any communist party to become a member of the Cominterin, one of which is that the Society-i Akvam objected to false peace. In other news, objecting to the Society of Akvam was one of the basic principles of the International Socialist Movement until 1926. As long as you say it lasted, in 1932, the Soviet Union became a member of this colonial organization, Cemyet-i Akvama, and after that we do not find any information or any description of the imperialism of colonialism of this organization.

Now, My Friends, this is the main picture of kurdistan in the 20th century.
The victors of the first war impose a system of states on the region, and the Kurds are not allowed in the system. Instead, Kurdistan, formerly divided between Safavids and Ottomans, is divided so that the order established in the region can function well; Iran, Turkey, Britain’s Iraq and France’s Syria were divided and dismeased and this nation’s stateing on its territory was prevented by this interstate system by the order of the world at that time.

This is what we call the main Kurdistan issue. And because it’s also about the point at which recipes are distorted, I have to say, there are a number of peace talks here. And one of the reflections of the recent Turkish wave in the Kurdistan National Liberation struggle is the fetish of peace. Peace everywhere, everyone faces a peaceful picture. However, the vast majority of peace agreements recorded in inter-state history are colonial peaces and imperialist peaces.

If we discuss this through Sevr and Lausanne, what we see is that they are both peace agreements. The Sevr Agreement is a peace treaty, and the Lausanne Agreement is a peace treaty. But as The Official History of Turkey heavens Lausanne, it sinks Sevr to the ground. However, the Sevr Agreement itself is a peace treaty that was a whoa by the time it was already signed. You know, the President of the United States approved this agreement, but the U.S. Senate didn’t sign it. Although the Ottoman representatives signed this agreement, the Ottoman Sultan did not sign this agreement. The French have signed an agreement with Turkey on this Syrian-Turkish border. Therefore, this agreement is already a women’s agreement. But in an agreement to bring the Lausanne Agreement to the skies, it treats it as a serious agreement, the Turkish and Turkish Historical Thesis. And he’s screwing this up, Sevr. Now if they’re both peace deal and peace is something that’s so much to defend, why is one so bad and the other so good? But is it possible for us to evaluate these two treatys equally in terms of the reality of the Kurdish Nation and in terms of the state of the Republic of Turkey? No, it’s not possible. The Treaty of Lausanne, which has taken turkish official history to the skies, is a treaty for us in which our country is torn apart, shared and divided. So why is peace so fetished here if you allow me to make a brief determination or two, you see this banner at some rallies recently, The worst peace is better than the best war. Well, why is it better? The answer is because people are dying, but they’re being jumped over, the worst peace is throwing away the seeds of the next war. So when you’re convinced of a bad peace, when you try to compromise on a bad peace, you don’t eliminate the danger of war. On the contrary, you are planting the seeds of a new, bloodiest war. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, is such a treaty. It is a very bad peace for Germany, and one of the main arguments for the rise of fascism in Germany is this Versailles Peace Treaty.

It should not be the work of Kurdish politicians or Kurdish intellectuals to fetishize peace and war by isolizing it from their own concrete existence. Because it is not Koçgiri, Agri, Şex Said Rebellion, Dersim Defense or the PKK’s 83-93 war, which eliminates the peace environment in Kurdistan. Kurdistan is already in a war environment; Occupation itself is already a violence, and you can neither do nor sustain the invasion without war. Therefore, not seeing that the main war dynamic in northwestern Kurdistan is the invading presence of the Turkish state there, transferring the main dynamic of the war to the Kurds is a Turkish thinking system. If there is a war environment in northwestern Kurdistan, it is that the Turkish state, which leads to this war environment, invades and occupies it. To construct peace without objecting to it is a bad peace-fiction. And it has nothing to do with an egalitarian, libertarian peace. The similar issue is about violence.