Notes from the MLKP Alişer Deniz Regiment

(The following report is from the August 2019 International Bulletin of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party Turkey/Kurdistan. It explains some of the political and ideological measures taken by the MLKP and the Kurdish Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) to educate Communist male fighters on issues associated with the women’s revolution in Kurdish Syria. Photo shows YPJ women greeting male comrades.)

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) took a decision on its last conference to organize the administration of the whole military forces in North and East Syria through “military assemblies”. Following this decision, which aimed to implement a democratic manner and practice even in the military field, the military assemblies have been founded with several commanderships from cantons, provinces, brigades, regiments and YPJ, as well as with several expertise bureaus.

After shifting to the regiment system, which has merged the forces of YPG and SDF, several committees have been organized for the recruitments. These committees have done a kind of a mass work, going door to door to inform locals about the new military system. As the peoples of North and East Syria adopted this system, the numbers of new recruitments started to increase.   One of these regiments, which is composed of 4 brigades and a headquarter, is being organized by the MLKP forces in Serekaniye/Rojava and is named after comrade Alişer Deniz. Alişer Deniz is the nom de guerre of Hüseyin Akçiçek, an MLKP commander whose contributions to the defence and construction of the Rojava revolution remain unforgettable. After finishing his revolutionary duty in Rojava, he passed to the mountains of Northern Kurdistan as the commander of MLKP Rural Guerrilla Units, and on August 2017, he marched to immortality in the struggle against the colonialist Turkish army.

Most of the fighters of the Alişer Deniz Regiment are Arabic youth, who have been taking not only a military but also an ideological-political training. Along with basic courses on socialism and revolutionary struggle, the fighters of the Alişer Deniz Regiment are being educated in “Rojava Revolution”, “The History of the Middle East”, “Kurdish National Revolution”, “Participation of Arab People to the Revolution”, “The United Character of the Revolution”, as well as “Women Revolution”, “Women Liberation Struggle”, “Masculinity”, “Fighting against Masculinity in the War Field” etc. In order to manage the intellectual and practical development of the fighters on the women’s liberation issue, the Alişer Deniz commandership urge each fighter to give a personal report every two months. The questions of the first report the fighters were being asked for have been the following: “How do you define the concept of women’s revolution?” “What would you say about your perspective towards your mother, sister and wife within the family and society?” “What do you think about issues like bride exchange, child marriage, polygamy, bride wealth?”  

Here are some outlines from an interview made with 3 Arab fighters of the Alişer Deniz Regiment: Mazlum, Ebu Leyla and Dijvar. All these three Arab fighters have similar answers for the reasons they joined the MLKP Regiment: “Communists are fighting for freedom and equality. They are defending the fraternity of peoples.” What about their opinions on the women’s revolution of Rojava?

Mazlum responds: “The revolution has changed my opinions towards women. Now, also I do believe in the equality. However, we need more time to put this view in practice.” Mazlum is married and has 3 children. When he was asked about how he would feel if his wife becomes a fighter like him, he states: “My wife used to work in various institutions of the revolution. But now we have children. What would our children do if she joins to the regiment as a fighter? But if the revolution would organize a common place for the childcare, then why not?”

How do you as young Arabic fighters feel to be in a revolution led by the Kurdish people.”? Ebu Leyla responds: “It was the Kurdish people who rose up first and became the vanguard of the revolution. The Assad regime was always telling us that the Kurds will oppress us. But afterwards we realized that this was wrong because the YPG was fighting for us. My family had suffered the oppression of both ISIS and the Assad regime as well. However, we took no side with the Assad regime, nor the ISIS. We stood by the revolution.”

Also, Dijvar did point out that Rojava revolution is owned by the peoples of Northern Syria: “YPG has fought for all peoples” he says and adds: “Even though ISIS has lost its dominance in the field, it is still a danger for us because its influence on some parts do still exists.”

Last words come from Mazlum, with a criticism: “We have to fight more against poverty. We cannot continue with the same poverty as we had during the years of the Assad regime. We must find a solution for this.”
 

US imperialism losing control of Japan-ROK relations

(Contributed)                                      28 August 2019

The escalation of diplomatic tensions between Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) has revealed the rapid transition from the sphere of US-led trade war with China into wider defence and security considerations.

The old order of passive, compliant US allies, is breaking down.

Earlier this year a series of legal challenges lodged in law courts in Seoul resulted in the ruling that some Japanese companies were liable for war-time exploitation of Korean workers; they were subsequently required to pay for what was regarded as 'forced labour'. The legal judgement also rested upon long-held grievances in Korea about the illegal Japanese occupation of their country during the 1910-45 period, where widespread human rights abuses of a horrific nature were commonplace.

The present Japanese government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did not take the legal judgement kindly; his administration refused to accept the verdict. Then they retaliated and removed the ROK from a so-called white list of favoured countries which received preferential export treatment. Other factors, however, have to be taken into consideration; behind the scenes the US-led trade war on China was being played-out. The position underpinning the decision taken by Japan raised questions concerning the security of exported products to the ROK, particularly chemical coatings of electronic components used in part-assembly with manufacturing organisations.

The ROK, in recent years, has developed strong diplomatic links with China.

China, likewise, has strong links with the northern DPRK, resulting in a triangular relationship which has been strengthened with the election of President Moon Jae-in in the ROK. The presidential Blue House administration in Seoul have every intention of re-opening trade links with their northern neighbour, and the Kaesong Trade Park which was closed due to US-imposed sanctions on the DPRK. 

The decision, by the Abe administration in Tokyo to effectively interrupt manufacturing supply-chains with the ROK and elsewhere, led to an official diplomatic statement issued by Kim You-geun, a national security official for the Moon Jae-in administration. It was noted, diplomatically, that the Japanese decision had been taken 'without presenting clear justifications'. (1) The reference indicated that Japan was questioning the nature of ROK trade links with China; the Trump administration have been seeking to prevent what they regard as sensitive materials and so-called 'dual-use technology' being acquired by China through normal trade relations.

The so-called trade war then rapidly escalated directly into the main defence and security arena with Seoul cancelling an intelligence-sharing pact with Japan. (2)

The escalation of the diplomatic stand-off between Japan and the ROK has direct implications for the US-led Trilateral Security Dialogue (TSD), a three-way centralised defence and security relationship linking the Pentagon with Japan as a northern hub for 'US interests' and Australia as a southern counterpart. Both hubs have the responsibility of maintaining close intelligence-collection roles for the US and developing localised alliances along lines of 'pursuing deeper and broader defence co-operation, including joint exercises, strategic visits, trilateral co-operation with the US and further sharing of defence equipment, science and technology'. (3)

The diplomatic stand-off is particularly embarrassing for the US, coming at a time when the Trump administration wants to resolve problems with the DPRK. They clearly never expected their trade war rhetoric to be played-out in this manner; strategy and tactics were never a strong-point for the administration.

In fact, the bigger picture has revealed the crass ineptitude of Trump and his cohorts:

• US-led regional defence and security provision has rested upon the role of Australia, for example, strategically-placed with the Indian Ocean and Pacific. Sensitive intelligence facilities on Diego Garcia are directly linked to Pine Gap, Central Australia. The same arc connecting the two facilities also swings through similar facilities based on Guam in Micronesia. In recent times both Diego Garcia and Guam have been developed into major logistics hubs for US-led military planning and operations, linked to Darwin Harbour as a support centre (4);

• sensitive US military facilities based in the ROK since the early 1950s form part of the Defence of Japan doctrine; rapid deployment facilities for the defence and security of Japan.

Shortly before the Trump administration began diplomatic initiatives with the DPRK, however, assessments were conducted about the feasibility of moving the US facilities based in the ROK to Guam, as a major shift in regional US foreign policy. 

 

The moves clearly signified US exasperation with the ROK drifting closer into China's sphere of influence. A series of presidential administrations in Seoul have, likewise, shown the ROK is no longer a fully-compliant state existing under US-led tutelage, but a country wanting to defend its own interests and sovereignty. The recent legal decision about forced labour at the hands of Japan during the Second World War is evidence, itself, of the development; the Abe administration allege the legal matter was resolved decades ago when presidential administrations in the Blue House merely rubber-stamped US directives.    

Three further important considerations have also arisen:

• the fact the diplomatic note from Kim You-geun also included reference to recent developments 'that caused significant change in the nature of defence co-operation. In such a situation, we have determined it is not in the national interest to maintain the agreement that was signed for the purpose of exchanging sensitive military intelligence', is evidence of just how far the ROK has asserted itself in recent times (5);

• coming so soon after the completion of recent joint US-ROK military exercises off the Korean peninsula has revealed the US losing most of its once tight grip on developments in the ROK. Their influence within the presidential Blue House is waning;

• the mere raising of the possibility that the US were even considering the shift in their foreign policy from the ROK to Guam provided the green light for other players to exploit the US position to their own advantage.

It, therefore, came as no surprise to note within hours of severing crucial intelligence-sharing commitments with Japan, the ROK military began a carefully-planned two-day naval exercise over a group of small islands contested by Japan; the Koreans call the small landmasses Dokdo, while the Japanese refer to them as Takeshima. The exercise included drills with aircraft landings on the islets together with warships manoeuvring nearby.

While Japan's Foreign Ministry stated the islets belonged to Japan and that the drills were 'unacceptable', the ROK navy used the opportunity to note their military planning included similar exercises on the twice-a-year basis. (6)

The naval exercise was intended to send a clear message to Japan about the recent diplomatic stand-off and the fact they were originally planned in June but 'delayed.....in consideration of relations with Japan', reveal how close the US-led trade war with China has come to major regional defence and security considerations. (7) 

It should be noted Australia, due to its close relationship with Japan through TSD planning and also as a regional power, stands to get drawn into diplomatic stand-offs like the present one between Japan and the ROK.

             

We, therefore, need an independent foreign policy before the diplomatic rivalries and stand-offs interrupt manufacturing supply-chains throwing tens of thousands, if not millions of ordinary working people out of their employment, and also escalating into real-war scenarios where the working-class will be expected to fight wars in the name of the defence and security of 'US interests'.

 

1.     Intelligence ties with Tokyo cut by Seoul, Australian, 23 August 2019.

2.     Ibid.

3.     Japanese PM set to visit sub war grave, Australian, 13 November 2018.

4.     US intensifies military presence in the Indo-Pacific, The Global Times (China), 24 July 2018.

5.     Australian, op.cit., 23 August 2019.

6.     Kim tests a new 'super-large' multiple rocket launcher, Australian, 26 August 2019.

7.     Ibid.

A Cluttered Australia: Hosting US Military Facilities

(Contributed)                                              24 August 2019

A number of media releases from the Defence Department have revealed a chilling picture of a future Australia hosting endless US military and security facilities for wars in the Asia-Pacific region.

As the present US-led Cold War has intensified, the Asia-Pacific region has come to resemble a future 'theatre of war'.

The US clearly has no intention of relinquishing its dominant regional position without preparations for 'real-war' scenarios.

A recent disclosure that the US was seeking 'a more prominent role for Australia in US security thinking as a potential sanctuary, marshalling area, support base and force multiplier for US forces in the Indo-Pacific', left little to the imagination. (1) US military planning has clearly pushed Australia into the front-line of its regional planning. It includes 'the importance of ports, airfields and defence infrastructure in northern Australia and (will) put pressure on already stretched fuel storage and resupply facilities'. (2)

While South Australia has already been labelled the Defence State due to its extensive defence research and development and manufacturing sector, Northern Australia, being defined in military terms as 'those areas north of the 26-degree south parallel', includes the Darwin and Tindal bases which have 'become critical nodes in global defence supply-chains'. (3)

US imperialism  sees us as a base for their military activity

There is no ambiguity with the nature of the US-led military planning: a recent statement from US Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein that 'Australia's top end bases were seen as a strategic asset by the US in its military planning', should dispel any doubts amongst the less well initiated with developments in regional defence and security provision. (4)

The significance of Australia for US military planning is two-fold:

• US forward deployed forces 'in the western Pacific are concentrated in a handful of bases that are vulnerable to a Chinese first strike and out-of-area reinforcements might not arrive in time to change the course of battle'; (5)

• the US-led Trilateral Security Dialogue (TSD) which has formally linked Australia and Japan as two regional hubs with the Pentagon and real-time telecommunications provision, has increased the significance of US intelligence facilities based at Pine Gap which in turn are linked to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Australia and Japan to compensate for a decline in US influence

Further disclosures following the publication of two military reports, from the Australia Strategic Policy Institute and the US Studies Centre, which reinforce the view that the US imperialists are planning for their two regional hubs to take greater responsibility for the defence and security of 'US interests'. It was noted, for example, in the US Studies Centre report that the US 'no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific and that its capacity to uphold a favourable balance of power is increasingly uncertain'. (6)

It was also noted, furthermore, 'Australia and Japan (had become) southern and northern anchors of a strengthened US alliance'. (7)

The position of the US is quite clear: the statement said that 'as Tokyo and Canberra continue to modernise their militaries over the next decade, they will maintain – and in some cases expand – their collective inventory of assets in several crucial areas: attack submarines, anti-submarine warfare assets and principal surface combatants'. (8)

It was noted furthermore that Australia was required to 'deliver targeted funding' in line with its 'strategic partnership with the US' for expanded air and naval capabilities – to support F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, submarines, upgraded frigates and amphibious assault vessels – ‘which are viewed by defence experts as crucial in enhancing Australia's presence in the Indo-Pacific'. (9)

These moves have also been accompanied by larger groups of US military personnel rotating through Darwin for six-month deployments and training for regional real-war scenarios. Since 2012 more than 6,800 US marines have served in the Northern Territory alongside Australian counterparts. A further 2500 are expected in 2020. (10)

Lily-pads along the island chain

A further dimension of the US-led military planning is the creation of what are called 'lily-pad' facilities: small, safe areas, used by military forces to link 'to another forward location within the Pacific or the first or second chain'. (11)

The small military facilities are already scattered across the wider region, following high-level diplomacy conducted by then President Obama who visited numerous countries to re-open parts of US-led networks which US imperialism had 'abandoned or was evicted from.... decades ago'. (12) It was noted, however, the US had 'no desire to reoccupy any of the massive south-east Asian bases from the last century. Nor do they have the money to create new ones. So they want permission to operate from the old installations as guests, mostly on the temporary basis'. (13)

It should also be noted the smaller-scale military facilities and 'lily-pads', remain easy to hide and are not as conspicuous as formal old-style military bases. They are, therefore, useful for clandestine operations, invariably linked to other organisations for intelligence gathering. It is also significant to note in this context the US intelligence services have a long history in using 'front organisations' within the corporate sector.

The use of smaller-scale military facilities and 'lily-pads' for US-led military planners is four-fold and has included:

• greater flexibility in moving military personnel and cargo to remote regional locations, particularly the sensitive South Pacific countries of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu;

• enhanced facilities for hosting longer-range drone use for intelligence-gathering; while larger drones already have a ten-hour flight-span, intermediary 'lily-pad' facilities increase their range into the wider region. The same facilities are also usable for Nano-helicopters, small surveillance-type drones programmed 'to be able to be used for urban warfare' purposes where they can be flown into and around buildings 'to search for enemy personnel, reporting data including video to a remote operator'; (14)

• the US-led military facilities have already been noted as 'the ADFs ability to see deep into the Indo-Pacific region as an essential enabler for striking deep when necessary; (15)

• when US Defence Secretary Mark Esper recently stated 'America wanted to deploy ground-based intermediate-range missiles in Asia sooner rather than later', it drew attention to the significance of the smaller-scale lily-pad' facilities for siting purposes. (16) When Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated Australia would not be siting US missiles due to the range from Australia to China, a curious further reference from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 'left open the possibility that Australia could be asked to host such weapons', thereby insinuating military facilities across the north of the country were being ear-marked for storage purposes pending rapid deployment elsewhere for real-war 

Island chain theory 

      

The resurfacing of Island Chain Theory is evidence that US-led military planning is drawing heavily upon previous provision from the last Cold War. It was used, initially, against perceived threats from the former Soviet Union into the wider region.

Island Chain Theory has also been used by US-led military planners to designate the role of Australia for 'new, high-end military exercises', which will include Canberra to 'acquire robust land-based strike and denial capabilities', which will subsequently provide the Pentagon with an improved regional posture, infrastructure and networked logistics' to 'strengthen Australia's northern posture'. (18)

It is significant to note there was no reference in the official media release to 'US interests', but then, why would those concerned want to draw attention to military planning of a dubious nature?

It is also significant to note most of the decision-making about US-led military planning has taken place behind closed doors, without any real public scrutiny. Those situated in the towering heights of Canberra appear quite content to pursue US-led military planning and clutter this country with equipment for fighting future wars of their making in the name of 'US interests', while using Australian military personnel in the front-line of hostilities.

But then, that is what those sorts of people do; they tend to have tertiary qualifications but do not appear to be able to draw sensible inferences from their studies once in the world-of-work, employed in a decision-making capacity, usually in Canberra.

For the benefit of such people, it should be noted, therefore, that when then President Obama addressed a graduation at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York, in 2014, for example, and called on the US 'to lead through example and by creating international alliances', it was not a promise of a less aggressive foreign policy and a shift away from military might. (19)

It was, in fact, the laying of foundations for the present regional state of play, with all the dangers of real-war scenarios.

For, in the terminology of the last Cold War, the US position has remained quite clear. They believe that 'The Cold War is real war!'; the former is composed of the earliest stages of military planning while the latter is what happens after an escalation of diplomatic rivalries and tensions. (20)

Australia is already passing along this continuum; we are well into a new Cold War, with the war-mongers now amassing their military equipment in preparation for future real-war scenarios.

We need an independent foreign policy!

1.     Conflict on our doorstep, The Weekend Australian, 10-11 August 2019.

2.     Ibid.

3.     Call to bolster north as Beijing threat grows, Australian, 19 August 2019.

4.     Strategic alliance in north enthuses visiting US chiefs, Australian, 22 August 2019.

5.     Weekend Australian, op.cit., 10-11 August 2019.

6.     'Boost north for China threat', Australian, 19 August 2019.

7.     Weekend Australian, 10-11 August 2019.

8.     Australian, op.cit., 19 August 2019.

9.     Ibid.

10.   Ibid.

11.   Ibid, and Diagram.

12.   US eyes return to south-east Asian bases, Guardian Weekly (U.K.), 29 June 2012.

13.   Ibid.

14.   Avalon 2019, Special Report, , 26 February 2019.

15.   Ibid.

16.   Beijing opens fire on 'offensive' US missile plan for Indo-Pacific, Australian, 7 August 2019.

17.   Hosting US missiles not on the agenda, Australian, 6 August 2019.  

18.   Australian, op.cit., 19 August 2019.

19.   US signals foreign policy shift away from military might, Guardian Weekly (U.K.), 6 June 2014.

20.   None Dare Call It Treason, John A. Stormer, (Missouri, 1964), page 7. (The whole publication has provided a significant insight into the nature of US-led Cold War thinking. The copy in possession of the contributor was found in a second-hand bookshop and stamped inside: Distributed by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1297 L. GPO Adelaide, Depot, 15 Hanson Street, Adelaide. The ALOR was a well-known SA-based far-right organisation, prominent for decades following the Second World War. It was an active lobbying organisation within other right-wing and business-orientated bodies. In recent times it has re-morphed itself  and would appear an active entity.)