Interview with Abdullah Ocalan "Our First Priority Is Diplomacy"

[Editor's note: The following interview appeared in the January 1999 issue of the Middle East Insight magazine. We thank Tanya Goudsouzian, its Assistant Editor, for granting us permission to reprint the article. This interview took place shortly before Mr. Ocalan's capture.]

MEI: What are the objectives of your movement today, and how do they compare with those of ten years ago?

Ocalan: Instead of comparing the objectives of yesterday with those of today, we should talk about how those objectives are becoming reality. Ten years ago, our goal was to keep the struggle permanent within the borders of Turkey, and this political strategy was achieved by the Kurdish uprising (or "intifada"), as well as militantly, through guerrilla warfare. Ten years ago, we wanted to achieve the reality of a Kurdish nation by means of war and I believe we have achieved that goal. For us, it is an important historic moment, as well as a foundation for a political solution. As for now, although the main issue on the Kurdish agenda is to bring about a political solution peacefully, there are no changes in our ultimate goal. Today, just like ten years ago, we are after a solution, which will be formed by the free will of the Kurdish people. But, things are rather different now than they were ten years ago. Guerrilla warfare and "intifada" had more importance a decade ago, whereas today, more weight is given to political dialogue and peaceful struggle. I think we could consider that to be a development.

MEI: What interests does the PKK have with respect to Turkey and Iraq?

Ocalan: Your question is not very clear, but if the subject for discussion is Kurdistan in Turkey and Iraq, it must be mentioned that since the founding of the Turkish Republic, North and South Kurdistan have been arbitrarily divided and this division is without sound basis. The struggles in both areas are connected. A positive solution for the South affects the North, and a negative approach by the South towards the North will aggravate the conflict. Successful developments on one side may increase the chances of success on the other side. Therefore, there are mutual interests and expectations among Southern and Northern Kurds. It is important to handle this situation properly; all governments and powers that have an interest in this problem should be extremely careful not to manipulate the two sides of Kurdistan against each other. Looking after the interests of South Kurdistan and not treating the North in the same way, in reality, will only mean one thing: breaking the Kurds into small pieces and abandoning them to annihilation. The past 75 years have proven this fact. Now it is highly important for us not to repeat the same mistakes. Neither the Turkish nor Iraqi government has approached the Kurdish problem objectively. They drag the issue surreptitiously within the narrow boundaries of a circle and make the matter worse. This is also the case with all other Middle East countries inhabited by Kurds. Turkey holds a key position in this matter, enforcing pressure to the best of its capacity, so as to prevent the Kurdish problem from being resolved. This is also true of the Iraqi government. We believe the solution to the democratic problems these two countries are facing today depend on resolving the Kurdish problem. Today, anti-democracy and the infringement of human rights are the most immediate problems of the Turkish government. In reality, both these problems are results of the war which is taking place in Kurdistan. In sum, a democratic solution to the Kurdish problem will be a triumph for Turkish democracy. The same applies to Iraq. A democratic solution to the Kurdish problem in Iraq will become a triumph for Iraqi democracy. A peaceful and democratic solution to the Kurdish problem will mark the beginning of an era of peace and democracy in the Middle East.

MEI: What is the nature of your movement's relationship with Syria?

Ocalan: Our party is in touch with Syrian Kurds, who are the real source of our strength. The relationship between our party and the Syrian government has no legal or official basis. This has been exaggerated. Our real source of strength is the precious help of our people, most of whom come from the North. It is not true that the Syrian government officially recognizes our struggle, as is claimed by others. This is just speculation. However, Kurdish people from other Arab countries have been contributing to our cause a great deal. We should also add the Kurdish people who live in Lebanon to this list. This is the source of our strength in the region.

MEI: How will your current legal and diplomatic situation affect the direction of the PKK?

Ocalan: In Europe, I wanted to give priority to diplomatic efforts based on law. If these efforts succeed, it will be an important development, which will benefit all. If these diplomatic efforts fail, we will be compelled to reset our sights towards an objective reality reflecting military and political war. Right now, our first priority is diplomacy, we would like to emphasize this. But, if diplomacy fails, without a doubt, our earlier activities, with all their intensity, will return to our agenda.

MEI: While you were in Italy, both Turkey and Germany filed requests for your extradition. You stand accused of killing thousands of individuals. If you are brought to trial, what will you say in your defense?

Ocalan: There is no terrorism on the individual level that is powerful enough to kill 30,000 people. Yet, this is Turkey's allegation. In Turkey and Kurdistan, the total amount is more than that. This is the balance sheet of a war, which has been instigated by Turkey unilaterally. Over time, the code of war has been infringed. Turkey has demanded an investigation of the war which is taking place in Kurdistan, yet the kind of investigations which took place in Kosovo or Bosnia are not taking place in Kurdistan. There is a double standard being practiced by the United States and Europe. It is very obvious who is really massacring people: consider the obliteration of nearly 4000 Kurdish villages from the face of the map, and nearly 3,000 unsolved murder cases, which the official Susurluk Commission Report describes. The Kurdish language has been barred. It has been expunged not just culturally but also physically. All academia agree on this fact. The annihilation of the Kurdish language is based solely on chauvinistic politics. Kurds are simply not recognized as an identity. This is an infringement of human rights in its crudest form. This is against all democratic principles. There can be no more serious crime then denying the existence or identity of a nation. We are facing a genocide which has spread over time and is being carried out through many different techniques. We want this exposed. There are two sides to every war. If we are one side, then we demand that those who have committed this crime on the other side be found. These are our expectations from the United States and the United Nations, and this is what is just and right. Why would it not be possible for the United States to form an International Commission of Law for Kurdistan instead of insisting on my one-sided prosecution? This would be more suitable for the historical legal traditions of the United States, and that is what our expectations are. In 1990, Germany issued a warrant for my arrest. Yet, after my arrival in Europe, Germany did not enforce this warrant, and has not requested my return. This is because they are aware of how much this would complicate the problems at hand. Not to mention that their case against me is not strong enough to ask for my prosecution. However, they chose a path which kept the problem from growing worse and avoided creating a bigger obstacle on the road to a political solution. We look at this favorably.

MEI: Regarding statements you have made about renouncing terrorism, are there any conditions on such a pledge?

Ocalan: We have never accepted the accusation that we are terrorists. As an organization, we have never resorted to military warfare for arbitrary reasons or personal pleasures. Yes, we are fighting with weapons, but this is due to the state terror inflicted upon our people. Our identity, political culture, and linguistic heritage have been brutally suppressed by state terrorism. This terrorism consists of physical as well as ideological and cultural facets. In light of these facts, we did not have any alternative other than military warfare. This must be clearly understood. If today, the Republic of Turkey said, "We accept the identity of the Kurds, and we will approach their national, democratic rights as well as their cultural requests with total understanding," we would immediately give up our armed struggle. But in the face of genocide? Which nation, which population, can forfeit its spoken language, or deny its own cultural existence? This is globally unheard of, yet Turkey is forcefully practicing this. There can be no terrorism bigger than that. This must also be clearly understood. Persistently labeling us as terrorists is not a reasonable argument. I believe this must be rectified before anything else. Armed struggle is the only way for us to exist as a nation. Once again, I repeat, if even limited peace efforts and political advancements were made by Turkey, we would silence our weapons. I would like to see the United States as vanguard, the United Nations as mediator, and the European Union as watchdog in this process. I can assure you of my sincerity. Because violence is applied persistently by the opposite side, it would be nonsense for us to propose terms and conditions to give up our armed struggle. NATO, as well as the political and economical support of the United States, is behind the violence the Turkish government applies. Resistance to such aggression is our sacred right to survive. Humanity must look at this matter objectively and handle it the proper way. MEI: But are there types of PKK activities you would continue to encourage, and activities you would no longer permit? Ocalan: I believe that the question you are really asking is whether some of the PKK's actions warrant ethical disapproval. I have always had great respect for the line that the PKK draws, and as one of its founders, I will always stand by that line. The PKK demands Kurdish national democracy and freedom. These demands are fundamental rights of humanity, which cannot be relinquished by any nation -- nor by me. But, in our struggle, there have been some lax approaches on the individual level, and this has elicited my criticism. There were also many crimes committed by a number of people who are employed by the Turkish government today as provocateurs. In reality, the no one can deny the fact that I disapprove of unacceptable acts, and also fight against them vehemently. Anyone who studies the PKK will see the type of struggle I carry on. I wish there were a way to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, yet there is an individualist and arbitrary side to the Kurdish character, which sometimes determines otherwise. For instance, we all know that thousands of Kurdish people died needlessly during the struggle led by Barzani and Talabani in the South (Northern Iraq). Even though we have not reached that extent - problems still exist. Recently, we have begun taking precautionary measures, by punishing those who are responsible for taking unacceptable actions against civilians. This has to be investigated because these actions have not only tainted the war, but have also created an uncontrollable situation. It is for this reason that we have taken all necessary steps to avoid a repetition of such unacceptable actions, and to ensure that if the war need continue, it continues in accordance with a proper code of law and justice. We have successfully put these precautionary steps into practice. But the Turkish government's dirty war tactics are immensely frightening. The Turkish government neither respects nor follows any code of war whatsoever. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that the Turkish government is conducting the most tainted war of all times in Kurdistan, and I must draw your attention to this matter. If there were an international court of justice, nothing could stop me from proving these facts. But, if the Kurdish problem were placed on the international agenda, without a doubt, we would seek redress through diplomacy. I place high priority on a dialogue with the Turkish government which could bring a political solution to the situation inside and outside of Turkey. I do insist on a solution which would reconstruct the Turkish government along democratic principles within the existing borders of Turkey. The Kurdish issue must be resolved by means of pluralistic democracy. In order to achieve this objective, I am aiming to receive active support from the democratic forces of Turkey, as well as international democratic forces. This is my current strategy. I sincerely hope that the steps I've taken will find success. If not, without a doubt, our struggle will continue. This would mean a Kurdish war extending to the year 2000 and beyond. No one will gain anything from it and the peace process in the Middle East will be delayed.

MEI: Do you anticipate negotiations with Turkey in the near future?

Ocalan: Realistically speaking, Turkey's only alternative is to resolve the issue through political dialogue. There has never been any political dialogue in order to bring about a solution to the Kurdish issue, and this is the sole reason why the problems Turkey faces today are weightier than ever. As I have repeatedly pointed out in answering your previous questions, I am trying hard to emphasize a political solution to this matter. In order to keep the problem from reaching a dead-end, I am trying to keep our demands down to a modest level. For instance, I propose a unilateral cease- fire, and the start of dialogue with Turkey concerning military demands within existing borders. Yet, relying on their military power, Turkey is still refusing to recognize the Kurdish identity. This is a great injustice, and it fuels the conflict. Such a strategy will only create special interest groups, which subsist on the perpetuation of war. This will not benefit anyone. I have stepped up my final efforts to draw the attention of international public opinion, and I hope international forces will stop Turkey's attempt at an unfair and one-sided military solution to this problem. If NATO, the European Union, and the United States cease supporting Turkey as they have in the past, we could work out a political solution with Turkey. That would be the most appropriate course of action.

MEI: Could you support a negotiating process where the PKK might not be officially represented?

Ocalan: The important factor here is the PKK's objectives. Assuming the Kurdish problem were laid out on the table in a serious manner, it is possible to start the discussions and bring about certain developments towards a solution with the contributions of fellow Kurds, without actually involving the PKK officially. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if the Turkish government has a policy against talking to the PKK and its leadership, that is not a very hard problem to overcome. It is possible to form a committee which all the organizations would accept. The political parties of Northern Kurdistan have already requested to form a united committee of representatives, and the PKK is playing an active role in the process. If no one else, at least Turkey should be able to sit at the table with this committee. In the meanwhile, we would show them all the support we could in the background. But I do believe, in the end, that our active participation will also be necessary.

MEI: What specific role do you see the U.S. and other international parties playing in future dealings between Turkey and the Kurdish movement?

Ocalan: Not just in the future, but even at present, I believe that the United States, the United Nations, and other international agencies can play significant roles in fostering relations between the Kurds and the Turks. In reality, that is the reason I came to Europe, to suggest the type of participation these parties can engage in. In fact, if there were assurances of diplomatic immunity, I would like to come to the United States. I am certain that the explanation of the Kurdish issue that I would offer in the United States would play a great role in reaching a solution. I do not believe that the United States can deny the Kurds their identity or their rights. There are important principles in the American democratic tradition, which could help resolve the Kurdish problem. In my opinion, the United States has been distancing itself from the PKK and the Kurdish issue due to the perception of its strategic interests in the Middle East. We could shed light on these issues. I could show the United States how their strategic interests are not in conflict with the national war of the Kurds in Northern Kurdistan. Or, at least, I could prove how bringing about a political solution to the problems the Northern Kurds face would be in the best interests of the United States. There is a vital role to be played here, and I could show the U.S. how to play this role There cannot be stability in the Middle East without peace in Kurdistan, and needless to say, a Middle East without peace would be a perplexing situation not only for the United States but for the rest of the world. Therefore, I believe the global powers should visualize their interests clearly, and should contribute to the solution with objectivity. I believe that taking immediate action today towards finding a solution to the problem, even by taking small practical steps, would be better than waiting for the future.

[Editor's note: For subscription details to Middle East Insight e-mail Tanya at tanya@mideastinsight.org ]