Rezgar Akrawi delivers a rare and uncomfortable truth to the global Left: solidarity with the oppressed cannot mean blind loyalty to their rulers. In an era where progressive movements often conflate ethnic liberation with uncritical support for specific nationalist parties, Akrawi demands a harder, more principled line. He argues that defending the Kurdish people's right to dignity requires holding their own leadership accountable for the very abuses they claim to fight.
The Trap of Uncritical Solidarity
The piece opens by dismantling the comfortable narrative that supporting an oppressed group means endorsing every action of their political representatives. Akrawi writes, "Solidarity with the oppressed Kurdish people... is a foundational principled position of the global Left. This position is grounded in internationalist values that reject national oppression, class exploitation, and all forms of discrimination." However, he immediately pivots to the crux of his argument: "It must be grounded in reliable sources and the reports of international human rights organizations." This distinction is vital. It separates humanitarian aid and political advocacy from the moral surrender of ignoring documented crimes.
Akrawi draws a sharp line between supporting the right to self-determination and granting "absolute endorsement to the practices of specific Kurdish nationalist parties that have been documented as complicit in serious human rights violations." He warns that this conflation "transforms solidarity from a principled humanitarian stance into a narrow ideological alignment that may undermine the Left's moral and political credibility." This is a necessary correction. Too often, the desire to support a marginalized cause leads to a refusal to see the internal authoritarianism that can fester within liberation movements. As Akrawi notes, "Defending national rights does not mean transforming identity into a basis for power, but rather ensuring those rights within a just legal framework that encompasses everyone."
The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality
The author does not dismiss the genuine achievements of Kurdish-led administrations, particularly in northern and eastern Syria. He acknowledges the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as a critical force in the fight against ISIS, noting their "effective military role" and the heavy toll they paid in lives. He also highlights the region's efforts to protect minorities and the "relative progress in women's participation, particularly in military and administrative spheres." These are significant victories in a region defined by brutality.
Yet, Akrawi insists that these positive aspects cannot obscure the darker realities. He points out that in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, governance is marked by "hereditary family rule" where power is monopolized by the Barzani and Talabani families. In Syria, the situation is equally troubling. Akrawi writes, "Reports from neutral international human rights organizations have documented widespread and systematic violations committed by the Syrian Democratic Forces." These include the "forced recruitment of children under the age of eighteen" and "systematic torture in detention centers." The author emphasizes that these are not isolated incidents but reflect an "authoritarian structure in need of fundamental reform."
The use of progressive concepts such as ecology, feminism, and statelessness as a rhetorical shield that lends progressive legitimacy to a unilateral military authority does not serve left thought.
This critique cuts deep. Akrawi argues that the administration in northern Syria has adopted the language of "Democratic Confederalism" and the theories of Abdullah Öcalan, yet in practice, power remains concentrated in the hands of "unelected Kurdish party cadres operating with rigid centralist logic." He suggests that progressive terminology has become a "public relations tool to cover for a nationalist system of rule." Critics might argue that in a war zone, the SDF had no choice but to centralize power to survive against existential threats like ISIS and Turkish-backed factions. However, Akrawi counters that relying on external military and financial support from the United States has fundamentally altered the movement's nature, turning it from a "social force rooted in a popular base into a paid military force."
The Cost of Compromise
The article concludes by examining the recent agreement between the Syrian government and the SDF. While Akrawi acknowledges this deal may reduce the likelihood of war, he is scathing about its substance. He notes that the agreement "contained no clause concerning women's rights, state secularism, halting privatization, protecting the public sector, the rights of workers, or holding democratic elections." This omission reveals, in his view, that "proclaimed progressive principles [are] subordinated to narrow nationalist calculations."
The historical context here is crucial. Just as some on the Left once refused to criticize Saddam Hussein's regime during the Gulf War because it was "anti-imperialist," Akrawi sees a similar pattern today where the urgency of the Kurdish cause silences necessary criticism of its leaders. He writes, "This position is being repeated today with the Kurdish question in different forms." The danger, he argues, is that by refusing to hold these parties accountable, the global Left risks losing its moral compass. The recent withdrawal of non-Kurdish components from the SDF and the decline of popular support signal a deep crisis that cannot be ignored.
Bottom Line
Rezgar Akrawi's argument is a powerful reminder that true solidarity requires the courage to criticize allies when they stray from their principles. The piece's greatest strength is its refusal to let the SDF's military successes against ISIS absolve them of responsibility for human rights abuses. Its vulnerability lies in the practical difficulty of maintaining such a high moral standard in a region where every political actor is compromised by the brutal logic of war. Readers should watch for whether the global Left can actually apply this critical lens to the Kurdish question, or if the comfort of ideological alignment will prevail once again.