Tweet
Maybe this article, which was published by Kurdish Aspect earlier this year, will make clear where I stand on the issue of PKK. Lal, I thank God that PKK does not have the military strength to rule anywhere because I see their leadership and structure as a mafia style organisation. I do not wish that sort of governance on anyone in this world.
Here's the article (and it didn't go down too well in some Kurdish circles but truth hurts doesn't it?):
PKK, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? By Peter Stitt
The dominant world powers at the end of the First World War made some disastrous decisions in their search for a lasting peace that only guaranteed further conflict that continues to this day. Indeed, the very astute Winston Churchill said of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) that it ensured another world conflict within twenty years. He was just one year out in his prediction. Versailles imposed reparation payments and other penalties upon Germany that undermined any chance of the German people being able to build a strong economy. Through the provisions of the Versailles Treaty the Germans were repeatedly humiliated and reminded that they had been defeated and, as hyper inflation demoralised the German people further, they reached for a strong leader to restore their national and ethnic dignity. What they got was Adolph Hitler.
Remember that key word “dignity” because, along with “potential to build for the future”, preserving the dignity of all parties is a key requirement of any deal that seeks to solve a conflict. The allies had learned this lesson by the end of World War II when they installed the Marshall Plan and other schemes to help Germany and Japan to rebuild their economies with dignity. However, some terrible decisions made following the Great War still stand and still cause conflict nearly a hundred years later.
As a proud Celt who has been involved with the Kurdish nationalist movement for eight years, I see another two of the major decisions made around that time as closely related, the fracture of Ireland into two separate states (1921) and the rape of Kurdistan and its division into four subjugated entities (Lausanne, 1923). Both decisions left a proud population with no dignity, both tried to force a foreign identity and culture upon them, both ensured ongoing conflict. Neither situation is fully settled yet but Ireland’s first steps towards peace might provide some hope and inspiration for more moderate Kurds and Turks.
In such a situation, can anyone who takes up arms against the occupying force be called anything but a “freedom fighter”? In this piece I aim to show how freedom fighters can become terrorists and to emphasise how important it is for a genuine cause that this transition is avoided. The phrase “terrorist” is a politically charged term now and we have seen Vladimir Putin use it as a convenient justification for crushing the independence movement in Chechnya. Following 9/11, everyone is pulling out the phrase “terrorist” to refer to their political enemies. What leaders of freedom movements must be aware of is that, sometimes a “false” perception of their organisations can undermine their ability to succeed. “Freedom fighting” is as much a public relations war as a military one these days.
In Turkey the security services have dressed their own soldiers up as PKK peshmerga and “acted out” attacks on their own troops in order to justify reprisals against Kurds. They have also planted bombs and blamed the PKK for them. In Northern Ireland the British security services did deals with Loyalist paramilitary groups to organise the killings of leading Catholics. These are examples of very dirty dealing by governments that claim to be “democratic”. I would call these government actions “terrorist” so what does a group such as the IRA or PKK have to do to truly justify the labelling “terrorist”? This is not a simple question and many people will have different opinions on the answer.
My Mother was Irish Catholic, my Father was Scottish Protestant so I was very much in the middle of that conflict emotionally but I could never understand how England could claim ownership of a land separated from England by water, history, ethnicity and culture. Scotland, Ireland and Wales, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar are, in fact, the last colonies of the English Empire. In addition, I was aware that Catholics were treated like second class citizens in Northern Ireland, unable to get jobs in the largely Protestant owned businesses. I have seen the same discrimination in North Kurdistan. The further east I travelled in Turkey, the more economically depressed the towns and villages became. This did not happen by accident, it is the result of years of Turkish government policy.
I went into a Turkcel shop in Diyarbakir and explained to the man there that I could not top up the credit on my mobile because my O2 telephone had switched to Turkcel when I arrived in “Kurdistan” and he went crazy. “There is no such thing as Kurdistan!” he kept shouting until I shouted back “This is Kurdistan, you are living and working in Kurdistan!” before I left. I noticed quite a few people in the shop were smiling proudly when they heard the argument I had just put up, it was a small victory for the acknowledgement of Kurdish culture and ethnicity and, indeed, right to nationhood. They were happy that a westerner had learned what generations of Kurds have always known: Kurdistan is real and will not go away just because other countries are labelling the maps and drawing the borders. At some point Turkey, Syria and Iran are going to have to talk with those they refer to as “terrorists” if they are to ever know peace.
Having said that, I am a firm believer in the notion that there is no such thing as a military solution to a conflict, the political is everything. Let’s be clear, the IRA could never have defeated the British army and the PKK will never defeat the Turkish military, so why is the Kurdish conflict continuing in its current form when nothing can be achieved through it? Ironically, the longer the PKK-Turkish conflict goes on, the longer it will take Turkey to become “acceptable” as a member of the European Union and yet, if Turkey were an EU member state, the Kurdish population within Turkey would definitely get a better deal. Once Turkey becomes used to the benefits of EU membership, it will find it difficult to ignore European demands for increased human and civil rights for Kurds and Armenians within current Turkish borders. In my opinion this is not the right time for any armed conflict. Does this mean there is a conflict of interests between what is right for the Kurdish people of Northern Kurdistan and the PKK? I think it does and I will refer to it later.
In the years leading up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, the leadership of Sinn Fein had increasingly distanced itself from the Provisional IRA and was effectively providing a political interface by which English politicians could deal with Republicans. Without dialogue there is never any chance of progress in a conflict situation. Britain always referred to the war in Ireland as “The Troubles” just as Turkey refers to “The Kurdish issue” when we all know these are “wars” and it doesn’t matter if you give war a polite name, war is war. Quite early on in the Irish conflict the Provisional IRA lost a great deal of Republican support due to its tactics of planting bombs in locations where they were likely to cause great civilian loss of life. These bombs were not the acts of a military organisation, they were terrorist actions. I still supported the IRA’s aims but I increasingly questioned their methods until the killing became absolutely indiscriminate and I could no longer support the IRA. Even Irish Republicans were now favouring the political approach of Sinn Fein rather than the military option of the IRA. Most Republicans could see that their argument was with the English government and security forces, not with the English people. Kurdish nationalist leaders must be aware that public support for military action only goes so far.
By the 1990s it had become clear that the people of Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant, Republican and Loyalist, were simply tired of the endless killings of civilians, soldiers and paramilitaries. The Catholic and Protestant families of victims started coming together to protest against the “men of violence” and the IRA and all the Unionist paramilitary groups realised they no longer had the support of their own communities. It had also become obvious that the IRA would never defeat the British and drive them out of Ireland and the British government had realised that, for every IRA member they killed, another ten would take up the gun. What we have in Turkey right now seems very similar to me.
All Kurdish nationalists, of all parties, must be aware of how many Kurds voted freely for the AK Party in the recent elections, something has changed in the chemistry of Kurdish politics in Turkey and PKK must take note of this sea-change. So, too, must the Turkish government and seize the opportunities this change presents. If the Turkish leadership were to ask my advice right now I would tell them to stop the military operations, concentrate on economic development in the Kurdish area and push forward with the programme of ethnic and cultural reforms the AK Party has always promised. They were given a clear mandate in the election by the citizens of Turkey and I cannot imagine the Turkish military overthrowing a Turkish government now as it has done in the past. The world has changed and even the Turkish military High Command recognises this fact, backing down over Gul’s election in face of the Turkish public’s popular support of the AK Party.
I have very close Kurdish friends in Diyarbakir and Silopi and they know me well enough to be able to talk openly about PKK and politics. When the PKK orchestrated demonstrations start and the Turkish security forces go out onto the streets to crush the protests, most of my friends are more concerned with being able to get to work and support their families rather than politics. The fact that so many Kurds voted for the AK Party may also mean that that many Kurds believe that Gul and Erdogen are people who are not Kemalist and anti-Kurdish, maybe many Kurds feel that Kurdish politicians can do meaningful business with the AK Party and improve the situation for Kurds in Northern Kurdistan. Any party that genuinely cares about the wellbeing of the normal Kurdish people should surely give the newly emboldened democratically elected Turkish regime the chance to show what it is willing to do.
One major difference between Kurdish politics in general and that of Ireland is the cult of personality. When Abdullah Ocelan became leader of PKK he expressed the desire to avoid the tribal family business approach of Barzani and Talabani and yet, to many Kurds, Ocelan is a virtually mythical figure for admiration. Sinn Fein/IRA have had charismatic leaders but they were never seen as being “above” the cause and certainly they were never seen as “being” the cause so I find it quite worrying that one person can assume so much power and influence within Kurdish political organisations. We know that other people have replaced Ocelan within PKK but they are still ruling with a stern hand that implies complete unquestionable “rightness”. In a complicated brave new world of politics such self-certainty is both simplistic and dangerous.
I mentioned the “public relations” war of modern freedom fighting and PKK has not done well in marketing itself. To say that a PKK fighter cannot be permitted to have a relationship with a colleague is to defy humanity and alienates many independent observers. We don’t choose who we fall in love with, it just happens to us. The pseudo-Communist ethos of the PKK also puts people off because we have seen Communism fail wherever it has ruled and yet PKK cling to failed ideas.
Another miscalculation PKK makes is its insistence that once you have joined PKK you cannot be allowed to leave. This resulted in the assassination of Kani Yilmaz in Suleimania in 2006 following his realisation that PKK’s course of armed conflict was not going to succeed and his active involvement with PWD. Now what was his “crime”? He had made an informed choice to leave PKK and seek a solution to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict through peaceful political means. Some people may dispute who murdered him but there is quite a body of evidence pointing to PKK involvement and who else wanted him dead anyway? This sort of assassination does not win friends and influence people, especially those who would support Kurdish rights in the west. Similarly, the PKK practice of taking “tax” from Kurdish workers in Britain, even non-PKK members, by threat just turns westerners off. Genuine political movements do not behave like that.
Way back in 1921 IRA man Michael Collins was given the job of negotiating with the British government to produce the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a document that would provide a free Irish state but at the cost of creating a Northern Ireland that would later vote to remain “British”. It was the best deal the Republicans could get but Collins, never a negotiator, did not want the job because he knew the deal would divide the whole Republican movement. Upon signing the Treaty, Collins was heard to say “I have signed my own death warrant”. Sure enough, Michael Collins was assassinated by anti-Treaty IRA Republicans in 1922. There is a suspicion that Collins was given the negotiating job because other members of the Irish leadership did not want their signature to agree the deal and they were “sacrificing” Collins. He has since been recognised as a hero of the entire Republican movement whilst those who murdered him are now seen as traitors. In a few years time I suspect the entire Kurdish liberation movement may well see Kani in such terms, he was a heroic and intelligent man and the movement is poorer for his death.
What really brought Sinn Fein to the bargaining table in the 1990s was the public revulsion at some of the attacks being made in mainland Britain and in Ireland itself. The Irish people, Catholic and Protestant were sick of the violence which was increasingly claiming more and more civilian lives. Now, whilst PKK denies any connection with TAK, when Turkish civilians and European tourists are being murdered by bombs left in bins in Western Turkey, any Kurdish parties involved in armed conflict will fall under international and Turkish suspicion. What makes things worse in terms of perceptions for PKK is the fact that the TAK leadership swears allegiance to one Abdullah Ocelan. Whether PKK is involved with TAK or not, TAK activity means that further military action by PKK will be seen by many as directly related to the TAK activity. Again, and for another reason, now is not the time for further military conflict. For me, the TAK activity is a clear example of terrorist activity.
So is PKK a terrorist organisation or a freedom movement? Well, I see North Kurdistan as a part of Kurdistan occupied by the Turkish military. Therefore the existence of PKK is as a liberation force. I certainly have a great deal of admiration and respect for the men and women who take up arms in the PKK, they are a brave and determined people. I do, however, think they are obsessed with what amounts to a lie. The PKK leadership has sold them a belief in a Communist idealism that doesn’t work in practice and set up a rule/belief system that doesn’t match the human needs of anyone and alienates outside observers. The assassination of “defectors” or political opponents definitely falls within any definition of terrorist action and also gives the impression of a weak and insecure leadership that is not convinced its political arguments will stand up to debate. Similarly, the TAK activity is terrorism and association with it, if only in the perception of the Turkish people and the greater European population, is damning for any organisation.
PKK should disarm with honour as the IRA did and their membership should move to South Kurdistan to avoid the dirty and devious Turkish security service “cleanup” that would follow such a disarmament. PUK and PDK should welcome these people and provide housing, benefits and re-education for them. There should be a pan-Kurdish view of things in the Hewler Parliament that takes into account the aspirations of Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria, not just the benefits of western investment to the houses of Barzani and Talabani.
The PKK, or any other Kurd involved in military operations against Turkish troops in Northern Kurdistan is by definition a freedom fighter and not a terrorist. I believe that land is Kurdish and has been for millennia which is why such action cannot possibly be labelled anything other than defence of one’s own land. Is there any point to continuing such conflict? I do not think so. Circumstances have changed and I suspect the PKK’s real reason for continuing is that, if the conflict stops, what is the point of PKK? The leadership will cease to have any purpose or influence. I would ask them to put their people before their dogmatic rigid political ideology and call a halt to the armed phase of the quest for Kurdish recognition in North Kurdistan.
With legal bans in Europe and America, the PKK has certainly lost the PR war and any further action the organisation takes will be seen in a negative light in the west so they may actually now be harming the Kurdish cause by continuing. To illustrate the gap between perception and reality I refer to a British BBC TV series. “Spooks”, a fictitious drama programme that claims to show how the UK’s intelligence services work, featured an episode that involved PKK taking control of the Turkish Embassy in London and holding diplomats hostage. PKK has never done anything like that but now many people in Britain have confused the fiction of the drama with what they see and read about. Their perception of PKK is now 100% negative and, in marketing terms, the PKK brand is dead in the water as far as the west is concerned. Nothing they can do now can save the PKK’s reputation, it is too badly damaged.
Has PKK ever done anything that could be described as a “terrorist” action? Yes I am sure they have and that undermines the very valid argument for Kurdish civil and human rights that should be the real battleground in this conflict. Such activity should not be allowed to distract from the fact that, in essence, we are dealing with an occupied territory. I pray for Kurdish freedom but, more than ever, I cannot see guns achieving that. Maybe Kurdish and Turkish leaders ought to look more closely at the Northern Irish experience. The ballot box is stronger than the Kalashnikov when it comes to making a lasting peace.
Here's the article (and it didn't go down too well in some Kurdish circles but truth hurts doesn't it?):
PKK, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? By Peter Stitt
The dominant world powers at the end of the First World War made some disastrous decisions in their search for a lasting peace that only guaranteed further conflict that continues to this day. Indeed, the very astute Winston Churchill said of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) that it ensured another world conflict within twenty years. He was just one year out in his prediction. Versailles imposed reparation payments and other penalties upon Germany that undermined any chance of the German people being able to build a strong economy. Through the provisions of the Versailles Treaty the Germans were repeatedly humiliated and reminded that they had been defeated and, as hyper inflation demoralised the German people further, they reached for a strong leader to restore their national and ethnic dignity. What they got was Adolph Hitler.
Remember that key word “dignity” because, along with “potential to build for the future”, preserving the dignity of all parties is a key requirement of any deal that seeks to solve a conflict. The allies had learned this lesson by the end of World War II when they installed the Marshall Plan and other schemes to help Germany and Japan to rebuild their economies with dignity. However, some terrible decisions made following the Great War still stand and still cause conflict nearly a hundred years later.
As a proud Celt who has been involved with the Kurdish nationalist movement for eight years, I see another two of the major decisions made around that time as closely related, the fracture of Ireland into two separate states (1921) and the rape of Kurdistan and its division into four subjugated entities (Lausanne, 1923). Both decisions left a proud population with no dignity, both tried to force a foreign identity and culture upon them, both ensured ongoing conflict. Neither situation is fully settled yet but Ireland’s first steps towards peace might provide some hope and inspiration for more moderate Kurds and Turks.
In such a situation, can anyone who takes up arms against the occupying force be called anything but a “freedom fighter”? In this piece I aim to show how freedom fighters can become terrorists and to emphasise how important it is for a genuine cause that this transition is avoided. The phrase “terrorist” is a politically charged term now and we have seen Vladimir Putin use it as a convenient justification for crushing the independence movement in Chechnya. Following 9/11, everyone is pulling out the phrase “terrorist” to refer to their political enemies. What leaders of freedom movements must be aware of is that, sometimes a “false” perception of their organisations can undermine their ability to succeed. “Freedom fighting” is as much a public relations war as a military one these days.
In Turkey the security services have dressed their own soldiers up as PKK peshmerga and “acted out” attacks on their own troops in order to justify reprisals against Kurds. They have also planted bombs and blamed the PKK for them. In Northern Ireland the British security services did deals with Loyalist paramilitary groups to organise the killings of leading Catholics. These are examples of very dirty dealing by governments that claim to be “democratic”. I would call these government actions “terrorist” so what does a group such as the IRA or PKK have to do to truly justify the labelling “terrorist”? This is not a simple question and many people will have different opinions on the answer.
My Mother was Irish Catholic, my Father was Scottish Protestant so I was very much in the middle of that conflict emotionally but I could never understand how England could claim ownership of a land separated from England by water, history, ethnicity and culture. Scotland, Ireland and Wales, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar are, in fact, the last colonies of the English Empire. In addition, I was aware that Catholics were treated like second class citizens in Northern Ireland, unable to get jobs in the largely Protestant owned businesses. I have seen the same discrimination in North Kurdistan. The further east I travelled in Turkey, the more economically depressed the towns and villages became. This did not happen by accident, it is the result of years of Turkish government policy.
I went into a Turkcel shop in Diyarbakir and explained to the man there that I could not top up the credit on my mobile because my O2 telephone had switched to Turkcel when I arrived in “Kurdistan” and he went crazy. “There is no such thing as Kurdistan!” he kept shouting until I shouted back “This is Kurdistan, you are living and working in Kurdistan!” before I left. I noticed quite a few people in the shop were smiling proudly when they heard the argument I had just put up, it was a small victory for the acknowledgement of Kurdish culture and ethnicity and, indeed, right to nationhood. They were happy that a westerner had learned what generations of Kurds have always known: Kurdistan is real and will not go away just because other countries are labelling the maps and drawing the borders. At some point Turkey, Syria and Iran are going to have to talk with those they refer to as “terrorists” if they are to ever know peace.
Having said that, I am a firm believer in the notion that there is no such thing as a military solution to a conflict, the political is everything. Let’s be clear, the IRA could never have defeated the British army and the PKK will never defeat the Turkish military, so why is the Kurdish conflict continuing in its current form when nothing can be achieved through it? Ironically, the longer the PKK-Turkish conflict goes on, the longer it will take Turkey to become “acceptable” as a member of the European Union and yet, if Turkey were an EU member state, the Kurdish population within Turkey would definitely get a better deal. Once Turkey becomes used to the benefits of EU membership, it will find it difficult to ignore European demands for increased human and civil rights for Kurds and Armenians within current Turkish borders. In my opinion this is not the right time for any armed conflict. Does this mean there is a conflict of interests between what is right for the Kurdish people of Northern Kurdistan and the PKK? I think it does and I will refer to it later.
In the years leading up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, the leadership of Sinn Fein had increasingly distanced itself from the Provisional IRA and was effectively providing a political interface by which English politicians could deal with Republicans. Without dialogue there is never any chance of progress in a conflict situation. Britain always referred to the war in Ireland as “The Troubles” just as Turkey refers to “The Kurdish issue” when we all know these are “wars” and it doesn’t matter if you give war a polite name, war is war. Quite early on in the Irish conflict the Provisional IRA lost a great deal of Republican support due to its tactics of planting bombs in locations where they were likely to cause great civilian loss of life. These bombs were not the acts of a military organisation, they were terrorist actions. I still supported the IRA’s aims but I increasingly questioned their methods until the killing became absolutely indiscriminate and I could no longer support the IRA. Even Irish Republicans were now favouring the political approach of Sinn Fein rather than the military option of the IRA. Most Republicans could see that their argument was with the English government and security forces, not with the English people. Kurdish nationalist leaders must be aware that public support for military action only goes so far.
By the 1990s it had become clear that the people of Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant, Republican and Loyalist, were simply tired of the endless killings of civilians, soldiers and paramilitaries. The Catholic and Protestant families of victims started coming together to protest against the “men of violence” and the IRA and all the Unionist paramilitary groups realised they no longer had the support of their own communities. It had also become obvious that the IRA would never defeat the British and drive them out of Ireland and the British government had realised that, for every IRA member they killed, another ten would take up the gun. What we have in Turkey right now seems very similar to me.
All Kurdish nationalists, of all parties, must be aware of how many Kurds voted freely for the AK Party in the recent elections, something has changed in the chemistry of Kurdish politics in Turkey and PKK must take note of this sea-change. So, too, must the Turkish government and seize the opportunities this change presents. If the Turkish leadership were to ask my advice right now I would tell them to stop the military operations, concentrate on economic development in the Kurdish area and push forward with the programme of ethnic and cultural reforms the AK Party has always promised. They were given a clear mandate in the election by the citizens of Turkey and I cannot imagine the Turkish military overthrowing a Turkish government now as it has done in the past. The world has changed and even the Turkish military High Command recognises this fact, backing down over Gul’s election in face of the Turkish public’s popular support of the AK Party.
I have very close Kurdish friends in Diyarbakir and Silopi and they know me well enough to be able to talk openly about PKK and politics. When the PKK orchestrated demonstrations start and the Turkish security forces go out onto the streets to crush the protests, most of my friends are more concerned with being able to get to work and support their families rather than politics. The fact that so many Kurds voted for the AK Party may also mean that that many Kurds believe that Gul and Erdogen are people who are not Kemalist and anti-Kurdish, maybe many Kurds feel that Kurdish politicians can do meaningful business with the AK Party and improve the situation for Kurds in Northern Kurdistan. Any party that genuinely cares about the wellbeing of the normal Kurdish people should surely give the newly emboldened democratically elected Turkish regime the chance to show what it is willing to do.
One major difference between Kurdish politics in general and that of Ireland is the cult of personality. When Abdullah Ocelan became leader of PKK he expressed the desire to avoid the tribal family business approach of Barzani and Talabani and yet, to many Kurds, Ocelan is a virtually mythical figure for admiration. Sinn Fein/IRA have had charismatic leaders but they were never seen as being “above” the cause and certainly they were never seen as “being” the cause so I find it quite worrying that one person can assume so much power and influence within Kurdish political organisations. We know that other people have replaced Ocelan within PKK but they are still ruling with a stern hand that implies complete unquestionable “rightness”. In a complicated brave new world of politics such self-certainty is both simplistic and dangerous.
I mentioned the “public relations” war of modern freedom fighting and PKK has not done well in marketing itself. To say that a PKK fighter cannot be permitted to have a relationship with a colleague is to defy humanity and alienates many independent observers. We don’t choose who we fall in love with, it just happens to us. The pseudo-Communist ethos of the PKK also puts people off because we have seen Communism fail wherever it has ruled and yet PKK cling to failed ideas.
Another miscalculation PKK makes is its insistence that once you have joined PKK you cannot be allowed to leave. This resulted in the assassination of Kani Yilmaz in Suleimania in 2006 following his realisation that PKK’s course of armed conflict was not going to succeed and his active involvement with PWD. Now what was his “crime”? He had made an informed choice to leave PKK and seek a solution to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict through peaceful political means. Some people may dispute who murdered him but there is quite a body of evidence pointing to PKK involvement and who else wanted him dead anyway? This sort of assassination does not win friends and influence people, especially those who would support Kurdish rights in the west. Similarly, the PKK practice of taking “tax” from Kurdish workers in Britain, even non-PKK members, by threat just turns westerners off. Genuine political movements do not behave like that.
Way back in 1921 IRA man Michael Collins was given the job of negotiating with the British government to produce the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a document that would provide a free Irish state but at the cost of creating a Northern Ireland that would later vote to remain “British”. It was the best deal the Republicans could get but Collins, never a negotiator, did not want the job because he knew the deal would divide the whole Republican movement. Upon signing the Treaty, Collins was heard to say “I have signed my own death warrant”. Sure enough, Michael Collins was assassinated by anti-Treaty IRA Republicans in 1922. There is a suspicion that Collins was given the negotiating job because other members of the Irish leadership did not want their signature to agree the deal and they were “sacrificing” Collins. He has since been recognised as a hero of the entire Republican movement whilst those who murdered him are now seen as traitors. In a few years time I suspect the entire Kurdish liberation movement may well see Kani in such terms, he was a heroic and intelligent man and the movement is poorer for his death.
What really brought Sinn Fein to the bargaining table in the 1990s was the public revulsion at some of the attacks being made in mainland Britain and in Ireland itself. The Irish people, Catholic and Protestant were sick of the violence which was increasingly claiming more and more civilian lives. Now, whilst PKK denies any connection with TAK, when Turkish civilians and European tourists are being murdered by bombs left in bins in Western Turkey, any Kurdish parties involved in armed conflict will fall under international and Turkish suspicion. What makes things worse in terms of perceptions for PKK is the fact that the TAK leadership swears allegiance to one Abdullah Ocelan. Whether PKK is involved with TAK or not, TAK activity means that further military action by PKK will be seen by many as directly related to the TAK activity. Again, and for another reason, now is not the time for further military conflict. For me, the TAK activity is a clear example of terrorist activity.
So is PKK a terrorist organisation or a freedom movement? Well, I see North Kurdistan as a part of Kurdistan occupied by the Turkish military. Therefore the existence of PKK is as a liberation force. I certainly have a great deal of admiration and respect for the men and women who take up arms in the PKK, they are a brave and determined people. I do, however, think they are obsessed with what amounts to a lie. The PKK leadership has sold them a belief in a Communist idealism that doesn’t work in practice and set up a rule/belief system that doesn’t match the human needs of anyone and alienates outside observers. The assassination of “defectors” or political opponents definitely falls within any definition of terrorist action and also gives the impression of a weak and insecure leadership that is not convinced its political arguments will stand up to debate. Similarly, the TAK activity is terrorism and association with it, if only in the perception of the Turkish people and the greater European population, is damning for any organisation.
PKK should disarm with honour as the IRA did and their membership should move to South Kurdistan to avoid the dirty and devious Turkish security service “cleanup” that would follow such a disarmament. PUK and PDK should welcome these people and provide housing, benefits and re-education for them. There should be a pan-Kurdish view of things in the Hewler Parliament that takes into account the aspirations of Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria, not just the benefits of western investment to the houses of Barzani and Talabani.
The PKK, or any other Kurd involved in military operations against Turkish troops in Northern Kurdistan is by definition a freedom fighter and not a terrorist. I believe that land is Kurdish and has been for millennia which is why such action cannot possibly be labelled anything other than defence of one’s own land. Is there any point to continuing such conflict? I do not think so. Circumstances have changed and I suspect the PKK’s real reason for continuing is that, if the conflict stops, what is the point of PKK? The leadership will cease to have any purpose or influence. I would ask them to put their people before their dogmatic rigid political ideology and call a halt to the armed phase of the quest for Kurdish recognition in North Kurdistan.
With legal bans in Europe and America, the PKK has certainly lost the PR war and any further action the organisation takes will be seen in a negative light in the west so they may actually now be harming the Kurdish cause by continuing. To illustrate the gap between perception and reality I refer to a British BBC TV series. “Spooks”, a fictitious drama programme that claims to show how the UK’s intelligence services work, featured an episode that involved PKK taking control of the Turkish Embassy in London and holding diplomats hostage. PKK has never done anything like that but now many people in Britain have confused the fiction of the drama with what they see and read about. Their perception of PKK is now 100% negative and, in marketing terms, the PKK brand is dead in the water as far as the west is concerned. Nothing they can do now can save the PKK’s reputation, it is too badly damaged.
Has PKK ever done anything that could be described as a “terrorist” action? Yes I am sure they have and that undermines the very valid argument for Kurdish civil and human rights that should be the real battleground in this conflict. Such activity should not be allowed to distract from the fact that, in essence, we are dealing with an occupied territory. I pray for Kurdish freedom but, more than ever, I cannot see guns achieving that. Maybe Kurdish and Turkish leaders ought to look more closely at the Northern Irish experience. The ballot box is stronger than the Kalashnikov when it comes to making a lasting peace.
Comment