A Socialist Analysis
The arrest of Abdullah Ocalan the leader of the PKK (Workers Party of Kurdistan), has
brought the oppression of the Kurdish people to the attention of the whole world. The
Turkish government has attempted to portray Ocalan, as a bloody terrorist, responsible for
the deaths of thousands of Turks. It is true that many Turkish soldiers and civilians have
died in the 15 year war against Kurdish separatism. But that is not the responsibility of
one man. It is the result of the national oppression of the Kurds meted out by the Turkish
ruling class, the same class that oppresses all workers in Turkey, whether Kurdish or
Turkish. Thousands of Kurds have also died as a result of the operations of the Turkish
army in South East Turkey.
Workers around the world must support the struggle of the Kurdish people against the
oppression they suffer at the hands of the Turkish regime. However, it is not sufficient
to simply support the cause of the Kurdish people. It is also necessary to explain what
lies behind the oppression of the Kurds and show a concrete way out of the impasse they
are facing.
The capture of Abdullah Ocalan, is part of a continuing onslaught on the Kurdish
minority in Turkey. The fact that no European power was prepared to give Ocalan asylum
shows that they all tacitly supported Turkey's demand for his arrest.
Ocalan had appealed to several European countries for political asylum, or at least an
international trial. No one was prepared to give him asylum and yet the right to asylum is
inscribed in all their constitutions. In reality they give the right to asylum to suit
their purposes, but denied it to Ocalan.
Ocalan's quest for asylum
Germany, initially called for the arrest of Ocalan. When he arrived in Italy last year,
seeking asylum, he was arrested because of the German request. But once arrested the
German authorities did not request his extradition. The Germans did not want to be left
with the hot potato. The Italian government was then left to try and solve the problem. It
could not extradite Ocalan to Turkey because the Italian Constitution forbids extradition
to countries that have the death penalty. So it resorted to putting pressure on him, to
make him understand that he was not wanted. Forced to leave Italy he then spent weeks
travelling around half the world looking for another safe haven. He appealed to the Greek
government, but all they could come up with was their embassy in Kenya. And that turned
out to be a trap.
This shows how the governments of the West all talk of self-determination for the
smaller nations, but in reality they treat them as so much small change in their own
manoeuvrings.
The CIA was clearly involved in tipping off the Turkish authorities of the presence of
Ocalan in the Greek embassy in Nairobi. The Greek government also collaborated in tricking
Ocalan into leaving the embassy, letting him believe that he was about to be flown to the
Netherlands. It is obvious that the Greek government was put under enormous pressure by
the United States. Turkey is an important ally in the area for the US.
However, the collaboration of the Greek government in the arrest of Ocalan has already
destabilised the situation in Greece. The Greek Prime Minister, Costas Simitis, has been
under fire at home for letting Ocalan fall into Turkish hands. Greece's foreign minister
and two other ministers were forced to resign over the affair. It has caused widespread
discontent at what is seen as a betrayal. Simitis is facing opposition inside his own
party, the Pasok. The youth of Pasok have organised demonstrations in solidarity with the
Kurds, in open opposition to the party leadership.
According to the New York Times, "Papandreou [deputy foreign minister of the Pasok
government] did not hide his dismay over the government's bungled diplomacy. 'By whatever
mistakes, Greece has partial responsibility for turning Ocalan over to Turkey,' he said.
'There is an obvious feeling of humiliation in public opinion that has to be recognized.'
The arrest of Ocalan, who was under Greek protection in Nairobi until he was seized by
Turkish agents, was devastating to most Greeks, who sympathize with the Kurdish
cause..." (New York Times, 19.2.99)
The popularity of Simitis was already lagging. This latest affair will further increase
opposition to his government. In fact in the face of this opposition he has attempted to
save his face by increasing anti-Turkish demagogy, and this is bound to increase tension
between these two countries, both members of the NATO alliance.
Thus all the European governments share in the responsibility for the fate that now
awaits Ocalan. In Turkey the authorities have managed to get a 36-page confession out of
the man. We can but guess at the methods used to extract this confession. As The Guardian
(26.2.99) commented, "Only Mr Ocalan's interrogators know what he has really
said" obviously implying that torture may have been used.
Ocalan has now been charged with treason and the state is seeking the death sentence.
The Western governments who all refused him asylum are now putting pressure on the Turkish
government for a "fair trial". Behind this lies their understanding that if
Ocalan were to be executed this would aggravate the situation among the Kurds even
further.
Historical background
Before these events unfolded many people had probably not even heard of the Kurds. But
who are the Kurds? The number of Kurds totals about 24-27 million. Kurdistan has a
territory the size of France. The bulk of Kurdistan is divided between Turkey, Iran, Iraq
and Syria, with smaller enclaves in the ex-Soviet republics of the Caucasus. The borders
that divide Kurdistan are artificial borders that have been drawn against the will of the
Kurdish people according to the interests of imperialism. These borders have divided
villages, towns, even families.
The Kurds are one of the most ancient peoples of the Near East. They have been living
in the area known as Kurdistan for about 2,500 years, long before the Turks arrived. They
have their own language, which is divided into various dialects, and is unrelated to the
Arabic or Turkish languages. Of the dialects the most widely spoken is Kurmanci. This is
spoken by about 60% of all Kurds, and 90% of the Turkish Kurds speak it. The other main
dialect, Sorani is spoken by about 25% of the Kurds, mainly in Iran and Iraq. There is a
vast literature in the Kurdish language going back to the tenth century A.D. The
overwhelming majority of Kurds are Moslems, about 75% of whom are Sunni and 15% are
Alevite Moslems.
The Kurds have played a significant role in the history of this region going back to
ancient times. According to Arab, and Armenian sources, the Kurds founded several
important states during the Islamic epoch between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, as
well as in the distant past. Sultan Salahaddin (Salâh al-Dîn) a Kurd was the founder of
the Ayyûbid state, which included Egypt, Syria, and Kurdistan, and played a particularly
significant role in history.
The Turks, whose roots are in Middle Asia, arrived in what is now known as Turkey much
later, after the eleventh century, and founded the Selchuk and subsequently the Ottoman
states. Kurdistan was fought over between the Ottoman and the Persian empires. The Kurdish
princes, in this period, managed to maintain a certain autonomy by siding first with one
then the other. However in 1638, Kurdistan was officially divided between the Ottoman and
Persian empires in the Treaty of Kasri Shirin. From then on Kurdistan has been prey to
foreign domination.
The betrayal of French and British imperialism
At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Kurds fought for the unity and
independence of Kurdistan, but were always defeated. But at the end of the First World War
the Kurdish question re-emerged. The Ottoman Empire collapsed and the areas it previously
dominated were carved up into new states. In 1920 the Treaty of Sèvres, was signed by
Turkey and the Allied powers.
Article 64 of the Treaty stated that: " If within one year the Kurdish people
within the areas defined in Article 62 [the area known as Kurdistan] shall .... show that
the majority of the population of those areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the
Council [of the League of Nations] then considers that these people are capable of such
independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to
execute such a recommendation and to renounce all rights and title over these areas."
Turkey initially defined its new borders as those "which include the areas settled
by the Turkish and Kurdish majority". About 70 Kurdish Members of Parliament were
present at the first session of the Great National Assembly in Ankara and were officially
designated as the "MPs of Kurdistan". The Turkish representative, Ismet Pasha,
declared at the signing of the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 that, "The Kurds are not a
minority but a nation; the government in Ankara is the government of the Turks as well as
of the Kurds."
That was simply to dupe the Kurds in Turkey. Both the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty
of Lausanne were dead letters from the moment they were signed. British and French
imperialism had no intention of allowing the Kurds to have their own state. In the
building up of the modern Turkish state there was no room for the Kurds. British
imperialism tore up the Treaty of Sèvres and proceeded to deploy RAF aircraft against the
Kurds in their mountain strongholds.
Subsequently the existence of the Kurds was denied. The Kurdish language, the practice
of Kurdish culture, even the concepts of "Kurdish" and "Kurdistan"
were forbidden. Article 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne, according to which the citizens of
Turkey had the right to freely use their respective languages in all areas of life, was
trampled upon, and the Kurdish language was totally forbidden in the educational system
and the printed media. Speaking about the Kurds and criticising the oppression of them was
held to be a severe crime and was massively punished.
The betrayal of the Kurds by British and French imperialism was embodied in the Treaty
of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923 which parcelled out the region between Turkey, Iran
and Iraq, with no mention of the Kurds. Thus those areas of Kurdistan which had been part
of the Ottoman Empire were carved up once more. Part of them were included in the British
and French Mandates, where Syria and Iraq later came into being. The biggest area of
Kurdistan remained within Turkey.
As a result, in 1925 there was a large-scale revolt in southern Turkish Kurdistan and
two years later a resistance movement developed that lasted three years in the north and
east. These revolts were put down by the Turkish army, but only after fierce fighting and
heavy casualties. The Turkish Government then introduced a series of measures aimed at
absorbing the Kurds into the Turkish nation and wiping out their distinct national
identity and culture. Most significantly, the study of the Turkish language was made
compulsory, and the Kurds became known officially as " Mountain Turks".
This oppression of the Kurds led to further uprisings, the major ones taking place in
Ararat in 1930 and in Dersim in 1938. The Turkish state waged war in Kurdistan on a
permanent basis. And since 1979, Turkey has ruled Kurdistan through military law, a State
of Emergency, and a dirty war.
To this day the Kurds in Turkey are not recognised as a minority because recognised
minorities would have the right to teach in their respective languages. A ban imposed by
Turkey's last military government on the use of Kurdish in everyday life was lifted in
1991, but Kurdish is still illegal in broadcasts and in educational or political settings.
A court case to ban Turkey's main pro-Kurdish party is under way at this very moment. Even
to defend the rights of the Kurds in a peaceful manner is considered a crime.
The plight of the Kurds in Iraq and in Iran
The Kurds living within the borders of Iraq, have also been resisting oppression since
World War I. They staged uprisings in 1919-1923, and again in 1933 and later. The greatest
Kurdish uprising in Iraq began in 1961 and lasted until 1970. Iraq's rulers formally
recognised a Kurdish identity after the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958. But there has
been a constant conflict between the Iraqi state, increasingly centralised and
totalitarian since the Ba'ath party came to power in 1968, and the Kurds with their
mountain tribal traditions and growing self-awareness as a potential nation.
In 1970 the government of Iraq reached an "agreement" with the Kurds
concerning an autonomous region. But this was simply a stalling tactic on the part of
Baghdad which ignored the conditions of the agreement, thus provoking a new war in 1975
which lasted until 1991. Iran was supporting the Iraqi Kurds. As has always been the case,
Iran supported the Kurds in Iraq while it continued to oppress its own Kurds. Saddam
Hussein, under pressure, initially made territorial concessions to Iran. Then, to win back
these areas, it started the destructive eight-year war against Iran which devastated the
Kurdish areas of Iraq. Using the excuse that some of the Kurdish factions had supported
Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein reacted by razing villages and attacking
peasants with chemical weapons killing thousands of Kurds.
Saddam Hussein suffered a massive defeat during the Gulf War of 1991 and the Kurds
rebelled again. Spontaneously they rose in the northern industrial towns - Suleymania,
Hawlir and Kirkuk - where the oil industry is concentrated. Inspired by the Iranian
revolution against the shah in 1979 they set up shoras only to be crushed by Iraqi troops,
and western imperialism did nothing to help them. Again, we see how the fortunes of the
Kurds were dependent on the interests of imperialism, this time US imperialism.
Faced with the spontaneous uprising of the Kurds in Northern Iraq US imperialism left
Saddam's elite republican guard untouched, which then moved to reoccupy the Kurdish towns
in the north. The imperialists preferred Saddam in power, compared to a socialist
revolution. However, even the republican guard was defeated and thrown out of Suleymania,
the centre of the uprising.
The problem was that nobody had a clear strategy of what was to be done next. The
leaders of the PUK and KDP, having a purely nationalist outlook, were incapable of
developing a class strategy and appealing to the workers of the whole of Iraq to unite
with them in the struggle to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Once the Kurdish rebellion had been crushed, the United States created a so-called
"safe haven" for the Kurds within Iraq by imposing a "no-fly" zone
north of the 36th parallel. The refugees expelled previously were able to return to their
homeland. But not before a new war had been fought among the Kurds of Northern Iraq. From
1994-98, two Iraqi Kurd factions &endash; the Kurdistan Democratic Party, led by
Massoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Jalal Talabani &endash;
fought a bloody war for power over northern Iraq. In September 1998, the two sides agreed
to a power-sharing arrangement and created a "parliament" and a "national
government".
US imperialism, in its usual cynical fashion, made use of the Kurdish people's struggle
against Baghdad in order to establish its "protectorate" over the north of Iraq.
This insolent act had nothing to do with the defence of self determination, but was aimed
at crippling Iraq. US imperialism is the main counterrevolutionary force in the world. It
was naive and stupid of the Kurdish leaders to expect it to uphold their interests. As we
have seen on many occasions, especially in the Middle East and in the Balkans, the
bourgeois leaders of small nations, under the guise of "self-determination" end
up as the agents of one imperialist power or another.
The problems of the Iraqi Kurds have still not been solved today. The two factions, KDP
and PUK are mere puppets of rival imperialist interests in the area. This is revealed by
the fact that over the years the PKK has come into conflict with Barzani's KDP faction in
Northern Iraq, which controls the Turkey-Iraq border. Barzani has criticised the PKK for
establishing military bases inside Iraqi-Kurd territory to launch attacks into Turkey! The
KDP controls the road carrying goods between Iraq and Turkey, and it has benefited from
the taxes it is allowed to impose on goods travelling through this route. This includes
oil sent abroad from Iraq in defiance of United Nations sanctions. To preserve this
profitable activity and to maintain good relations with Turkey, the KDP leader, has
cracked down on the activities of the PKK inside Iraq. As a token of gratitude the Turks
have helped the KDP in its struggle against the PUK. In 1997 a large Turkish force helped
the KDP to block a PUK assault.
More recently the Turkish authorities have been trying to cobble together a deal
between the two opportunist tribal based Kurdish guerrilla movements, KDP and PUK, in
Northern Iraq so that the PKK bases there can be closed down.
Without bases in Syria and Iraq, and without a sympathetic population to supply them
food, shelter and arms transport, thanks to the mass deportations, the PKK is finding it
more difficult to sustain its guerrilla warfare.
None of this, of course benefits the ordinary Kurdish workers and peasants on both
sides of the border. In the meantime the whole country is being subjected to a UN embargo,
and the Iraqi Kurds are suffering like the rest of the Iraqi population.
The state of Iran has practised a policy of oppression against the Kurds similar to
that of Turkey. After World War II, Iran was occupied in the north by the Soviet Union and
in the south by Great Britain. The Kurds were able to proclaim the Kurdish Republic of
Mahabad in the territories occupied by the Soviet Union. But soon thereafter, once the
Soviet troops had withdrawn, the government in Tehran, with the support of Britain and
America, annihilated the Republic of Mahabad.
Again when the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979, the Kurds of Northern
Iran could enjoy relative freedom with the setting up of an autonomous region. But this
did not last long either. The new regime of the mullahs clamped down militarily on the
Kurds and the armed resistance to the Islamic fundamentalist regime that began in 1979 is
still continuing today.
The hypocrisy of US imperialism
What had alarmed the Turkish government was that by the early 1990s, Ocalan's movement
had a certain control over large parts of eastern Turkey, appointing local officials,
collecting taxes and administering its own legal system. It had developed genuine mass
support in these areas. That explains the Turkish government's savage military campaign in
which many Kurdish villages were burned and many suspected rebel sympathisers were
tortured or killed or disappeared. Between 1991 and 1997, some 1,500 Kurdish nationalists
died in what until January 1998 were classified as 'unsolved crimes.' Then a government
report revealed that the killings were the work of state-sponsored death squads.
In all this the hypocrisy of the US, is sickening. While they continue to talk of the
plight of the Kurds in Iraq they turn a blind eye to the oppression of the Kurds in
Turkey. They even allow the Turkish army to enter Iraqi territory to hound the PKK, in
spite of the so-called protection of the Northern Iraqi Kurds against the "evil"
Saddam Hussein.
Because Iraq and Iran are considered opponents of US interests in the Middle East, US
imperialism is prepared to give some limited aid to the Kurdish minorities in these
countries. So Kurdish nationalists in Iraq are portrayed as "freedom fighters"
while Kurdish nationalists in Turkey are "terrorists". It is true that the Kurds
in Iraq have been brutally oppressed. Saddam Hussein has even used chemical weapons
against them, killing thousands. But what has the Turkish army been doing for the last 30
years in South Eastern Turkey against its own Kurds? The Turkish generals have mobilised
between 200,000 and 300,000 men, about half the forces of the Turkish army in their
operations against the Kurdish separatists, maintaining a permanent force of about 50,000
in South East Turkey.
The Kurds in Turkey
The largest part of Kurdistan, which in terms of both its population and its territory
makes up about one-half of the total, lies inside Turkey. This part amounts to one-third
of the total territory of Turkey. About 13 million Kurds live within the borders of
Turkey, 8 to 10 million in Iran, 5 million in Iraq, and 1.5 million in Syria.
About one-third of the labour migrants who have left Turkey in the past 20 to 30 years
and came to the countries of Europe are Kurds. If we add to this the number of Kurds from
Turkey and the other parts of Kurdistan who have fled to Europe in recent years for
political and economic reasons, the number of Kurds living in European countries comes to
about 1 million.
Of the roughly 10 to 12 million Kurds that live in Turkey, 70 to 75 percent now live
mostly in the slums of Ankara and other cities to the west of the capital, together with
millions of Turkish workers. Hundreds of thousands more have gone to cities in Kurdistan
or migrated, often illegally, to Europe. Of those who left their villages some 560,000,
according to an estimate accepted by the State Department, were forcibly evacuated by
government forces. [The purpose of emptying villages was to deny the PKK resources,
including food and men who might join it.] According to Turkish government sources, 80
percent of the villagers turned urban dwellers are unemployed.
A journalist from The Guardian visited a village in south-eastern Turkey at the
beginning of the year and reported on the situation facing the Kurds:
"The men from the village of Kalkum in south-eastern Turkey gather at the same
coffee house at the same time every day...
Their village was burnt and evacuated more than six years ago by the Turkish army, at
the height of its battle against the PKK, the Kurdish separatist movement. The coffee
house is in the centre of the teeming city of Diyarbakir, where the villagers have joined
hundreds of thousands of other refugees forced out of the surrounding countryside.
The intensity of the Kurdish war has faded as the military has saturated the region
with tens of thousands of troops. But the sense of dislocation is as strong as ever.
Conflict still rages in the minds of the dispossessed.
'We've all been evacuated,' said a man with sad eyes, 'and no one has a permanent job.
Some of us try to sell goods on the street; some even beg'." (The Guardian, January
2, 1999)
Mass support for the PKK
Only by taking account of this situation can we understand how the PKK, the most
militant wing of the Kurdish nationalist movement in Turkey, was able to emerge as a mass
force in South Eastern Turkey. The PKK has the backing of millions of Kurds inside Turkey.
We cannot condone, of course, the bombing of civilians in the cities, or the vendetta
killings of anyone who does not abide by the decisions of the PKK. These methods have not
served to further the cause of the Kurdish people. In fact they have strengthened the hand
of the Turkish generals who can use these attacks as an excuse for their own military
campaign against the Kurds, and in particular against the PKK.
The aim of the Kurdish workers and peasants should be to build unity with the Turkish
workers against the common enemy, that is the capitalists and landlords that rule Turkey.
This cannot be done with terrorist bombing campaigns. They must win over the Turkish
workers who are also oppressed by the Turkish regime. This is even more the case now
considering that millions of Kurds have been proletarianised and live in cities like
Istanbul and Ankara side by side with Turkish workers. They work in the same factories and
workshops. The solution to the problems of the Kurds lies in a joint struggle against the
oppressive Turkish regime together with the Turkish workers.
Initially the PKK had proclaimed that its aim was not only the total separation of the
Kurdish speaking areas from Turkey, but also that of a state uniting all the Kurds, of
Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. None of the regimes in the area would allow this. And
neither could Western imperialism tolerate such a thing. All the regimes in the area are
prepared to give limited support to this or that group of Kurdish nationalists, when it
suits their interests, but they will never accept the creation of any Kurdish independent
state.
Inter-imperialist conflicts
Support for this or that Kurdish nationalist movement that each regime in the area may
give only reflects their own narrow national interests. The Iraqi regime has supported
different factions at different times, the same goes for the Iranians, Syrians and Turks.
But to help them in creating their own state would mean creating a precedent whereby their
own Kurds would begin to call for separation. This would lead to the break up of Iraq, and
Turkey. In this Iran would stand to benefit. That explains why US imperialism gives mild
support to the Northern Iraqi Kurds but will not allow them to set up their own state,
because this would put enormous pressure on Turkey that could break up in the process.
That is why the Kurdish people can place no confidence in any of the imperialist powers
who may periodically appear to side with their cause. They will only use them as so much
small change in their own manoeuvrings in the area.
Oil is an important element in the conflict. A large part of Iraq's oil resources is in
Kurdistan. A part of Iran's oil resources is also in Kurdistan, in the region around
Kirmanshah. Turkey's oil resources are almost exclusively in Kurdistan (in the regions
around Batman, Diyarbakir, and Adiyaman). Syria's oil resources are also mainly in
Kurdistan, in the region around Cezire. The territories of Kurdistan are also rich in
mineral resources such as iron, copper, chrome, coal, silver, gold, uranium, and
phosphates.
There are also plans to develop oil fields in the Caspian Basin. How is that oil to be
transported? Proposals are being considered for various new pipelines. One, would pass
through or close to Turkish Kurdistan, carrying oil from Azerbaijan and other Caspian oil
producing countries of the ex-Soviet Union to a terminal at the Turkish city of Ceyhan
near the eastern end of the Mediterranean.
That is one reason why the Turkish ruling class will not relinquish control of this
area. The other is that the bourgeoisie of Turkey has big ambitions after the fall of the
Soviet Union, especially to its east. It has annexationist ambitions over the Northern
Iraqi oil fields. These are also in Kurdish territories. In fact the incursions into Iraq,
while serving the purpose of hounding PKK forces, also serve as an excuse to establish a
military presence in Northern Iraq. The Northern Iraq no-fly zone, imposed by western
imperialism, in fact aids Turkey in working towards this goal.
Syria also has its own ambitions. But it has been weakened by the collapse of the
Soviet Union, its former ally. If the Soviet Union had still been a superpower, most
likely Turkey would not have been able to threaten Syria with war if it did not expel
Ocalan. The Turkish government forced Asad of Syria, under threat of war, to end his
support for the PKK. PKK militants were obliged to quit the facilities he had provided for
them in Syria and the Bekaa valley in Syrian-controlled Lebanon. This was a humiliation
for Asad.
There is a long standing dispute between Syria and Turkey over the Turkish province of
Hatay on the Syrian border. It is one of the reasons why Syria, until October 1998,
supported the PKK, fighting the Ankara government (while of course silencing its own one
million Kurds in the north). The power game that is being played out in the area can be
seen by the fact that a month after his capitulation to the Turks, Asad of Syria received
the promise of military assistance from Russia.
US imperialism is very worried about Turkey's position because, after Israel, it is its
main ally in the area. A simmering conflict has been going on for years between Greece and
Turkey. The imperialist aspirations of the Turkish ruling class are adding to growing
tensions with Syria, Iraq and Iran. That explains why Turkey has now, a de facto alliance
with Israel. Israel is supplying Turkey with arms and Turkey has allowed Israel to carry
out military air training operations over Turkish territory. In this line up the United
States is backing Turkey. It was in fact the pressure of US imperialism that forced Greece
to hand over Ocalan to the Turks. Russia, is also watching, the situation carefully, with
its historical allies, Syria and Iraq, as we have already seen.
The struggle of the PKK in difficulty
The huge military onslaught on the part of the Turkish army, together with the mounting
pressure on the PKK to dismantle its bases in Syria now means that the PKK is militarily
on the retreat. But this was already the case before Ocalan's capture. In fact, the irony
of the situation is that Ocalan was proposing a "political solution" to the
conflict. The PKK, basing itself on the examples of Northern Ireland, the Palestinians,
and ETA in the Basque Country declared, for the second time, a unilateral cease-fire in
September 1998.
Ocalan abandoned the call for an independent Kurdistan and appealed to the European
Union and the European governments to give the Turkish Kurds limited autonomy. That is not
the way one would expect a genuine communist leader to behave. You cannot expect any real
help for the oppressed Kurds from the bourgeoisie of Western Europe. The EU has important
economic trade links with Turkey and is planning to bring it into the Union at a later
stage. The European governments are supplying Turkey with weapons which are killing and
maiming Kurdish men, women and children!
Back in November when Ocalan had fled to Italy seeking asylum, The Guardian reported
the following: " 'I have come to Italy to open the way to a political settlement,'
Ocalan has announced on the PKK's web site. 'I am opposed to all terror, even if it
originates from us. I am ready to do whatever I can so that it will be stopped
immediately.' But although Italy's president and Germany's foreign minister have suggested
that Ocalan's arrival in Europe could form the catalyst for action to solve Turkey's
Kurdish crisis, it is obvious that Ankara will never negotiate with people it calls
'bloodthirsty PKK murderers'. (The Guardian, 25.11.98).
The Turkish military are not prepared to make compromises with the PKK guerrillas. They
threatened Syria with war, and are on the offensive against the Kurds. The capture of
Ocalan has given them a new confidence. After his arrest, the Turkish military sent
thousands of soldiers into Iraqi territory, together with armoured cars and helicopters,
in pursuit of PKK guerrillas.
Hundreds of arrests were carried out all over the country. Even Ocalan's younger
brother Mehmet, who seems to have nothing to do with the guerrillas, was arrested. This
reflects the ruthless methods of the Turkish military. They wish to break Ocalan with all
means possible and humiliate him before the eyes of the millions of Kurds who look to the
PKK and its imprisoned leader.
For now the army is not prepared to talk of "political solutions". It wishes
to eliminate the problem militarily. They would like us to believe that the Kurdish cause
is a lost cause. However, that conclusion would be a big mistake. For now the PKK is on
the retreat, but if no lasting solution is found the problem will come back again and
again.
The Turkish government with its mass deportations and forced migration of the Kurds
doesn't understand that it has been digging its own grave. By bringing masses of Kurds
together in the cities they have paved the way for a genuine mass movement of all the
workers of Turkey, which in contrast to guerrilla warfare would actively involve the
majority of Kurds. What is more they have also laid the ground for a united struggle by
Kurdish and Turkish workers, something which would really shake the military backed regime
to its foundations.
All workers in Turkey face the same fundamental problems - military repression, bad
housing, unemployment, which are all aggravated by the war in Eastern Turkey - and they
are mainly organised in the same unions. In a movement based on the towns they would unite
against the common enemy.
The solution of the Kurdish problem is an impossible task under capitalism, for so long
as the Kurdish people remain oppressed and without rights the struggle will re-emerge
repeatedly.
Although the Turkish authorities wish to break the back of the PKK, at the same time
they have combined this with some recognition of a Kurdish identity. For instance it is no
longer illegal to use the Kurdish tongue in everyday life, although no newspapers or TV
and radio transmissions are allowed in Kurdish, and the use of Kurdish in schools is still
forbidden. If genuine concessions on these questions had been made 20 years ago, they
might have been sufficient, but, as always, it is a case of "too little, too
late". Half hearted measures will no longer suffice. But, on the other hand, the PKK
also offers no solution.
It lacks an internationalist perspective and a genuine class approach to the problems
of the Kurdish workers and peasants. Without this it is not possible to win over the
workers of Turkey and of all the Middle East to the cause of the Kurdish people. Without
an internationalist perspective the danger of nationalism is for ever present. This is
shown in a recent statement of Ocalan. While continuing to defend the rights of the Kurds
to autonomy, he proposed a drive of Turkey towards the East. But genuine autonomy for the
Kurds will not be achieved in this way: it is not the way to appeal to the workers and
peasants of the countries to the east of Turkey!
What this shows is the impasse facing the leadership of the PKK after 15 years of
guerrilla warfare. The PKK is further than ever from its ambition of self-determination
for the Kurdish people. The fact is that under capitalism this is not possible. As The
Economist (20/2/99) stated, expressing the views of British imperialism, "the Kurds
need to recognise that there is no political room in the Middle East, at present or in the
foreseeable future, for an independent state of Kurdistan." It does add some advice
to the Turkish state: "A lasting peace can be forged only if the Kurds, especially
but not only in Turkey, are given the fair deal that has so far been denied them." Of
course this ignores completely the role of British imperialism over the years and its part
in the consistent betrayal of the Kurds' aspirations.
A solution under capitalism is impossible
Only a prolonged period of economic development would lay the basis for solving the
Kurdish question. If there were enough jobs and houses for all the workers of Turkey, both
Turkish and Kurdish, if there were a steady increase in the standard of living for all the
peoples of this area of the world then one could talk of a "peaceful",
"political" solution. But the world is facing exactly the opposite scenario.
Forty per cent of the world is already in recession and the rest is moving ever closer to
it. Particularly the underdeveloped countries are facing terrible hardship. Unemployment
is going up and the standard of living of the masses is under constant attack.
Kurdistan is a particularly backward area from the point of view of economic
development. The people live in poverty in a potentially wealthy country. The colonial
conditions have prevented the country from developing. Any profits made in Kurdistan flow
out of the area. Society has not been modernised, and the feudal structures of the past
have not been completely eliminated. The tribal structure in the rural areas has
persisted. Kurdistan is still ruled by a semi-feudal social system. There is no
significant bourgeoisie or working class in the modern sense of the word. In other words
the Turkish bourgeoisie have not even been capable of completing the tasks of the
bourgeois democratic revolution.
In an attempt to reduce support for the PKK the Turkish government has spoken of the
need for more roads, more schools, more medical facilities for the Southeast of the
country. That is why they have come up with the idea of the "South-Eastern Anatolia
Project". The idea is to develop the economy of South Eastern Turkey. The plan
encompasses the spending of $1.8 billion on transport, health facilities, education,
telecommunications, mining, industry, and tourism. But the Kurdish nationalists, are not
so optimistic. There is insufficient foreign investment and many Turkish businessmen doubt
it will be profit-making.
As the Financial Times reported, "Business leaders of Turkey's backward south-east
can just about keep count of the number of times the government has promised to boost
economic development in the region.
"An 'investment onslaught' announced by Bulent Ecevit, the caretaker prime
minister, to help win over disgruntled Kurds after the capture last week of Abdullah
Ocalan, leader of the PKK guerrilla movement, is by their tally the eighth pledge of its
kind. But the announcement was not accompanied by any calculation of how much money would
be allocated to the region". (Financial Times, 24.2.99)
While the government "talk" of investing money the capitalists understand
that the world market leaves no room for the development of Kurdistan. So the money is
spent on repression rather than on economic development. The war against the PKK is
costing Turkey $8 billion a year.
A Socialist Federation is the only way out
All this shows that there is absolutely no way out for the Kurdish people under
capitalism. So how are the aspirations of the Kurds to self-determination to be achieved?
So long as the interests of the various local and international ruling classes remain, the
road to self-determination is blocked. True autonomy can only be achieved through a
Socialist Federation of all the Middle East, including Turkey.
Within this federation there would be autonomy for all the minorities in the area
including the Kurds. They would have the right to use their own language, to develop their
own culture, etc. Once the interests of capitalism and landlordism are eliminated there
would even be the possibility of having their own state. There is no other road.
All the regimes in this area oppress their own peoples. It is in the interests of
workers across the Middle East to overthrow their own ruling classes. That is why the
struggle must be one for the building of genuine workers' parties in all these countries
that would work for the unity of the working class of all nationalities in the struggle
for Socialism. This is not a Utopia, but the only practical road.
It should be noted that the Kurds have always come close to some form of autonomy at
moments when there was a revolutionary upsurge internationally. The 1917 Russian
revolution overthrew Tsarism and thus led to Russia pulling out of the region. This
together with the general revolutionary wave that followed the First World War raised the
prospect of a state for the Kurds, as embodied in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres. As that wave
petered out reaction was able to get the upper hand and the Kurds of Turkey (and not only
of Turkey) were smashed.
At the end of the Second World War, the presence of Russian troops in Northern Iran,
together with the revolutionary movements on a world scale, allowed for the setting up of
a Kurdish state in Northern Iran, only to be smashed by Iran, a year later, with the
support of British imperialism.
Again, in 1979 it was the revolution of the Iranian workers against the Shah that gave
the Kurds in the north a temporary respite and a certain autonomy, with the setting up of
an autonomous region, only to be smashed again once the reaction of the mullahs had set
in. Had there existed a genuine revolutionary party in Iran at the time things would have
turned out differently. A socialist revolution would have been possible in Iran. This
revolution would have conceded autonomy to the Kurds in the north. This would have
inspired workers across the whole of the Middle East. It would have been the beginning of
the revolution throughout the whole of the Middle East, and within this context the
question of the Kurds and of all the minorities in the area could have been solved.
This shows that throughout history the question of autonomy of the Kurds has been
closely linked to the revolutionary movements of the workers in the region and on a world
scale.
We must base ourselves on the perspective of a renewed wave of class struggle across
the Middle East. Only in this way can we see the possibility of the overthrow of the
despotic regimes that dominate the area, and within that the concrete possibility of
self-determination for all the minorities.
Ted Grant and Fernando D'Alessandro
London, 26th February, 1999
| 
