Tweet
Kurdish Aspect, Colorado
Feb 16 2008
PKK, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
Kurdishaspect.com - 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.
http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc021608PS.h tml
Feb 16 2008
PKK, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
Kurdishaspect.com - 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.
http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc021608PS.h tml