Voice of Revolution - Issue No. 11 (August 1999)

• Kurdish movement's direction of development

The Turkish bourgeoisie's war threat to Syria with the support of US imperialism, the driving of the PKK leaders out of Syria, and the bringing of A. Ocalan to Turkey through an international operation -all these events have inflamed discussions about the Kurdish question both in Turkey and in the international arena. Although it is not the first time it appeared on the agenda, the question which arises now is: "What will happen next?" Besides their declarations about the "importance of co-operation against terrorism", the leaders of the US, the EU countries, Russia, the Arab and Balkan states expressed their views that "Turkey should utilise this opportunity to recognise the cultural rights of the Kurds". It was obvious that they all were concerned about their own bourgeois imperialist interests and objectives, and that they were making plans as to how and to what extent they could benefit from this question.

The ruling classes of Turkey have chosen to use the "Apo operation" (Apo is the nickname for Abdullah Ocalan) as an instrument to conceal the Kurdish question and the country's social problems. The authorities, including the Military General Council, the President and government officials, claimed that there is no such thing as a Kurdish question, and intensified propaganda about the "elimination of terror". Military and police attacks have been intensified and the state of emergency has been spread over the whole of Turkey.

Following Ocalan's flight from Syria with the intervention of US imperialism and his arrival in Rome, the Turkish authorities sought to create a "national mobilisation" with the propaganda that Italy and Germany as well as Syria and Greece "support separatist terrorism". Chauvinist and reactionary propaganda was designed to promote reactionary prejudices amongst the most backward sections of the working people and to cover up the attacks and repression on the Kurds. The collaborator bourgeoisie and the top officials of the dictatorship too knew well that the "Apo operation" would in no way keep the Kurdish question out of the agenda.

Nevertheless, this operation was a military and political success. Thus, it could be used as an efficient instrument of propaganda about the power and the greatness of the state both within the country and internationally. They tried to use this fully for their objectives such as the consolidation of the bourgeois influence and control over the masses, the postponing or denial of the demands of the working people through repressive means, and the implementation of economic policies in favour of international capital and the collaborating monopolist bourgeoisie. The collaborating ruling classes have mobilised all reactionary forces. They also mobilised every means with the aim of strengthening the policy of denial of the existence of the Kurdish nation and their rights under the new conditions and on the basis of their supposed success.

The Military General Council have bullied neighbouring countries; repeated once again the demagogy of a "single state, single nation, single language under a single flag"; and declared its determination "not to allow" any development opposed to this. All the institutions of the system and its political and military forces have been brought to bear in this aggressive campaign.

One of the objectives of the collaborating reactionary forces has been the hindrance of the development of the Kurdish movement, which is one of the reasons of the economic and political dilemma and instability, into an advantage in favour of the reactionary forces. This was in line with the plans of US imperialism for the Middle East and the Caucasus and the role it has given to Turkey as its imperialist subcontractor. The line followed by the Kurdish bourgeois reformist movement and the line of struggle which considered Kurdish popular masses as logistic support has led to a setback and tiredness in the Kurdish movement since 1992. This has facilitated the implementation of the policies of the ruling classes.

The PKK has deliberately identified itself with the Kurdish people and movement, and on behalf of them it called Western imperialist states to "intervene to solve the question". While the propaganda about "Turkey's gates could only be opened by Washington" and the obligation of the intervention of "civilised Europe" raised the Kurdish people's expectations from the imperialists, it has orientated towards a line which is increasingly tied to policies of big Western states in the name of diplomacy.

Ocalan's arrival at Rome and his application for political asylum was presented by the PKK and the Kurdish liberal reformist circles as the Kurds "entrance into the EU from Rome before Turkey". Imperialist reactionary forces were esteemed as civilised democrats. With all this they revealed their trust in and expectations from the imperialists who are the most dangerous and the main enemy of the oppressed peoples. In this sense "diplomacy" was everything now. The phrase "let's become diplomats" has been turned into a slogan by these circles. Ocalan was going to lead these diplomatic activities; relations with the US and the EU countries were going to be improved; Turkey was going to be forced through their influence; and "political solution" was going to be ensured. This is one of the most important tendencies in the Kurdish movement.

The Kurdish question was no longer "an internal question" of Turkey. Although the collaborating bourgeoisie and state officials claimed "not to let anybody intervene in our internal affairs", it was inevitable that slavery or struggle for liberation of a nation in a region where there is intense imperialist rivalry and in capitalist imperialist conditions was going to turn into an international question. The reasons for this is not only the fact that conciliatory rulers of Turkey deny the existence of the Kurdish nation, their rights and the Kurdish question; and that the governments of the western imperialist countries' recognition of the question and the possibility of its solution within the system. Also the existence of the Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria as well as Turkey is one of the objective factors for the expansion of this question to a regional and international dimension. Among other factors are the "migrant status" of the Kurds in Europe; and the fact that the Kurdish question could have a role in the imperialist fight for hegemony over the Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus.

The question which direction will the development of the Kurdish movement take is directly linked with the Kurdish social reality. The level that capitalist development has reached in Turkey and Turkey-Kurdistan, and the synchronous development of capital accumulation and poverty in opposite directions make the struggle inevitable between the bourgeoisie and reactionary forces and the proletariat and the working people as opposite forces. Objective developments and the sharpening contradictions give rise to this struggle in the form of antagonistic contradictions between the two opposite classes. An opposition line to the reformist, conciliatory and collaborating line within the Kurdish movement is becoming more and more clear. Amongst the Kurdish working people, mainly the most advanced sections of the workers, the tendency to take up the question of national liberation together with political and economic demands, and to establish a firmer unity with the Turkish workers and working people against the attacks of capital.

This tendency has to be strengthened further for a democratic and popular solution of the Kurdish question. This is possible. The most advanced sections of Kurdish workers and working people have begun to organise in and around a revolutionary working class party. Tiredness, hopelessness and setbacks caused by a certain understanding of the struggle of the parties and organisations in the Kurdish movement, like the PKK and HADEP, which do not pay attention to the daily economic and political demands of the working masses and which do not bother to develop the mass movement, is being replaced by the tendency to struggle and the determination of advancing the movement of the Kurdish working people who understand through their political experience that the problem can be solved through unity of all working people from all nationalities of Turkey and on the basis of a struggle against the dictatorship and imperialism. It is possible that reformism and "terrorism" whose aims and targets have become blurred and whose implementors do not count who they are serving with it could continue to co-exist by feeding each other. Nevertheless, what we are going through is a process where the differentiation of what is revolutionary from the conciliatory and reformist will accelerate.

The fact that the Kurdish bourgeois reformist and liberal circles opening the door to the imperialist bourgeoisie in the name of "diplomacy", and that the imperialist states use this unsolved question as an instrument of pressure on their servants in the region poses a serious threat to the present and the future of the Kurdish movement.

Fortunately, Kurdish workers and working people have learnt much from the developments of the last 15-20 years and from the experiences of the struggle. Apart from the long past, they also take into account the experiences of Kurdish uprisings since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. They have seen in practice the inevitability of peoples' united struggle against the provocations, attacks and colonial oppression of the collaborating bourgeoisie and of the imperialists. The advanced sections of Kurdish working people have become mature enough to understand that national, political and economic rights can only be obtained through a line of struggle independent from the bourgeoisie and the reactionary forces.

This is the basis and the guarantee for the development of the movement in a revolutionary direction. The Kurdish question is not a new question; it has not come onto the international agenda for the first time; and it is not directly related to PKK's existence or non-existence. For almost a century the Kurdish people have been demanding their national rights through a struggle with ebbs and flows and interruptions. The fact that the Kurdish people is increasingly getting rid of being a divided and closed society strengthens the mass basis of their demand for national liberation and ensures the growth of the forces of the struggle. Also, the conditions have become ripe for the Kurdish working people to draw a thick demarcation line with the bourgeoisie and the reactionary forces. This is the main direction of the development. The Kurds can obtain their national liberation with the success of the struggle of the Kurdish workers and working people -hand in hand with the Turkish workers. This is the direction of the development in the movement of the Kurdish working people.

• International Conference of Trade Unionists held in Turkey

An International Conference for Trade Union Solidarity was held in the Oren town of Balikesir, Turkey, from 14 to 16 May 1999. Altogether 300 trade unionists and shop stewards participated in the Conference. The countries represented were the US, Colombia, Benin, Algeria, Spain, France, Britain, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Russia and India. From Turkey there were 120 trade union branch chairs and more than one hundred shop stewards as well as the general secretaries and presidents of some trade unions and trade union confederations.

Among the initial callers of the Conference were Sabri Topcu, General Secretary of TUMTIS (Transport Workers Union) from Turkey; Jorge Galindo, member of National Executive Committee of Oil Workers Union from Colombia; Sabine Leidig, DGB Karlsruhe Region Chair; Roger Nadaud, former General Secretary of CGT Health Federation from France; Ken Cameron, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union from Britain; Valentin Ruiz de Pablo, member of Executive Committee of Madrid Region of the CC.OO (Confederation of Workers Commissions) from Spain; and Petros Papapetros, Deputy General Secretary of the Paper and Print Workers Union from Greece.

Some of the initial signatories of the statement to call the Conference were not able to participate because of some technical and other problems. Some of the trade unionists, on the other hand, were faced with the hindering attempts of international trade union bureaucracy.

The Conference discussed the following themes:

- The effects of unemployment, casualisation, privatisation and sub-contracting on the working class and trade unions; the demands of the working class vis-a-vis the consequences of these practices, and the struggle to be organised against these attacks;

- The situation of trade unions, the problems they are faced with, and what to do to confront capital's attacks, mainly in the form of non-unionisation and the attempts to turn trade unions into "consultation institutions";

- The prospects for the consolidation of international relations vis-a-vis the attacks of capital;

- Imperialism's new strategies, MAI, MIGA; the war; and the tasks of the workers and trade unions.

Following the opening speech of Ismail Hakki Onal, General Secretary of General Workers Union from Turkey, trade unionists from each individual country gave a short talk regarding the workers' and trade union movement in their country. Among other speakers were Levent Tuzel, President of the Party of Labour (EMEP); Murat Tokmak, General Secretary of the Confederation of Revolutionary Workers Unions (DISK); and Siyami Erdem, General Secretary of the Confederation of Public Employees Unions (KESK).

Following the statements presented on each item on the agenda, four workshops were set up in accordance with these subjects, where the participants had debates and discussions based on their experiences in their own countries.

On the final day of the Conference the proposals from each group were presented to the general Conference which highlighted the fact that although there are differences between countries the problems of the world workers' and trade union movement are common, which makes it inevitable for the workers and trade unions to have mutual solidarity and a common struggle against the attacks of international capital. The participants considered the Conference as a "hopeful beginning" and agreed to continue to organise such conferences.

The Conference ended with the reading of the following Communique which was announced to the public in Aliaga, Izmir, in a jubilant festival with 2000 workers and trade unionists from different factories and sectors.

• Participants of the Conference:

Trade unionists from:

GERMANY:

Journalists Union (IG-Medien)

DGB-Karlsruhe

Public Employees Union (OTV-MŸnich)

IG Medien - Dortmund

Commerce, Bank and Insurance Union (HBV-Stuttgart)

IG Metall - Augsburg

IG Metall - Berlin

Labour Solidarity Assoc

Education and Science Uni. (GEW)

Shop Steward, IG Metall

Youth Cmte, IG Metall

BRITAIN:

Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union (RMT), Harlesdon Engineering Branch

Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU), London

TGWU North East London Textile Branch

FRANCE:

CGT Health Federation

CGT Construction Workers Federation

SPAIN:

Madrid Region Executive Cmte, CC.OO (Confederation of Workers Commissions)

CC.OO Education Union

CC.OO Health Union

GREECE:

Paper and Print Workers Union

Confederation of Public Employees

Labour Action Centre

Teachers Union

Accountants Union

SWITZERLAND:

SMUV-Metal, Machine and Watch Workers Union

AUSTRIA: 

Left Syndical Block

BOSNIA-HERZAGOVINA:

Mine Workers Union

RUSSIA:

Sachita (Defence) Union

INDIA:

Indian Worker Peasant Council

BENIN:

CSTB (Confederation of Benin Workers Unions)

U.S.A:

Executive Board of San Francisco Local 10, International Longshore and Warehouse Unit (ILWU)

COLOMBIA:

USO (Oil Workers Union)

Cmte. for Solidarity with the Struggle of the People of Colombia (France)

NORTHERN CYPRUS:

Teachers Union

TURKEY:

Transport Workers Union: 

Communication Workers Union: 

Print Workers Union: 

Road Workers Union: 

Miners Union of Turkey: 

Military Equipment Workers Union:

Textile Workers Union: 

Celluloise Workers Union: 

Oil Workers Union: 

Council Workers Union: 

Confederation of Revolutionary Workers Unions (DISK):

DISK General Workers Union:

DISK Publishing Workers Union: 

DISK Textile Workers Union: 

DISK Allied Metal Workers Union:

Confederation of Public Employees Union (KESK):

Teachers Union: 

Energy, Construction and Road Workers Union:

Allied Finance Union: 

Allied Council Workers Union: 

Health Workers Union: 

Press Union: 

Writers Union: 

+ Shop stewards from different unions affiliated to the four confederations

Among those who signed the initial statement to call the Conference but could not come are:

BRITAIN: Fire Brigades Union; Bakers, Food & Allied Workers Union; RMT Harlesdon Engineering Branch Sec.

GERMANY: Wood & Plastic Workers Union; Postal Workers Union - Munich; IG Metall-Sprockhšvel; BR-Bayer AG, Leverkusen; Commerce, Bank and Insurance Union

FRANCE: CGT Teachers Federation; CGT Energy Federation; CGT Chemical Workers Union

SPAIN: CC.OO union delegates

ITALY: Class-based Trade Unionism Opposition Movement

BURKINA FASO: CGTB (General Workers Confederation of Burkina)

RUSSIA: Workers Union Defence (Zachita); Strike Cmte. of Yasnogorsk Machine Plant; Russian Union of Dockers (St. Petersburg Port Cmte.)

COLOMBIA: Conf. of Allied Workers Unions, Finance Sec. of National Feder. of Teachers; Bank Workers Union

VENEZUELA: Caracas Electric Workers Union; Allied Graphic Workers Union; Caroni Aluminum Workers Union; Caracas Metro Workers Union; Sucre state Health Workers Union; Zulia state Oil Workers Union; Caracas Allied Teachers Union; Venezuela Central University Employees Union.

• On the hidden inter-imperialist war and the imperialist plan for Yugoslavia

The Nato operation on Yugoslavia has in fact proved once again to be a concealed and indirect inter-imperialist war. It seems that all imperialists were united behind this operation which was claimed to be for humanitarian reasons. However, different plans set for the solution of the problem continue to show the conflicts between Russia, European Union and the US.

In this process, old conflicts between the EU and the US have emerged with new appearances. Especially after the disintegration of the USSR, Germany, planning to be more influential in Central Asia and the Caucasus and to get its share from the oil and natural gas resources, tried to control the conflict in the Balkans to open the path for its own interests. This led to a confrontation with the US which has similar objectives in mind. While the US has won the support of Britain, Germany received the occasional support of Italy, Austria and France, in accordance with the changing balance of power. While the US tried to use Nato as an instrument for achieving its plans, the EU tried to keep Nato under its control via the UN. Faced with this complicated and changing combination of allies Russia supported Yugoslavia in order to strengthen its influence in the Balkans, and to create the ground for an alliance against Nato. Based on the fact that this problem was not a regional one but a problem related to imperialist plans on the Caucasus, the Middle East and Central Asia, Russia's aim was to stop the attack at its beginning and to spoil the US and EU plans on Yugoslavia.

Obviously, the US and Britain, its closest ally, are more concerned about the new status of Kosova vis-a-vis Yugoslavia, than the sufferings of the Kosovar people.

A divided Kosova with a lose connection with Albania is the most desired result for the US. In terms of the "post-war status-quo", the KLA will be the most suitable base for the US, playing the role as a military and political power tied to the US. This puppet organisation, which is as racist and nationalist as Serbian aggressors, is a suitable instrument for provoking new conflicts and wars in the region.

The US is planning to create a strong base in Albania and Montenegro to control the Adriatic with Kosova in the east and Macedonia in the south.

In terms of this "ultimate goal", the "solution" of the problem in Kosova will actually be the beginning of new problems. Because it is very likely that, after Kosova, the US will spread its expansionist policies towards Montenegro, resulting in internal problems there to break its weak link with Serbia. However, attempts in this direction will obviously encounter the resistance of Europe and especially Greece. That is why the European powers were opposing the US, and stressing the idea of restricting the Nato operation and stopping it as soon as the minimum objectives were achieved.

The aims of the Nato operation had different meanings for its members, and there was no agreement on how it should be conducted. For example, Germany and France suggested that the operation should be conducted under the auspices of the UN, and it should aim to stop the Serbian attack and to secure the return of the Kosovar people to their homeland. They wanted civilian observation groups of the UN in the region, not the Nato military forces. This policy is obviously in line with France's old plan to diminish Nato's role of "world gendarme". France is trying to put Nato under the control of the UN, while the US and Britain want to give Nato a more active role. This conflict of ideas appeared once again in late April at the Washington Summit where Chirac's definition of the UN Security Council as the authority to give official permission to Nato operations taking place outside the territories of its member states was immediately opposed by Solana, the Nato General Secretary.

Another important outcome of the Summit was that it showed that the US plans were not restricted with Kosova and Yugoslavia. In the meetings with the leaders of Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slovenia and Romania, Clinton discussed the "restructuring of the region", and an agreement was reached. When this new plan, agreed at least as a concept, is joined together with the status that is planned for Kosova-Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro, an effective pressure will be put on Greece in the north of the peninsula. For this reason, Greece, is trying to take measures to counter this possible pressure by trying to form alliances against the Middle East policies of the US, and signing nonaggression treaties with Syria, Armenia and Iran.

The post-war plans, on the other hand, remind us the imperialist "aid" packages, classic examples of which were the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine implemented after the Second Imperialist War. Obviously, it is one of imperialism's oldest methods to destroy and control the war-experiencing countries with wide scale economic, political and military programmes in order to make these countries more dependent. It seems that the EU is trying to take measures in order not to let the US get the biggest share in this area. Without doubt, Yugoslavia will be included in this "aid package" as the country suffering most from the destruction of the war. However, this will be with the condition of a change of the regime in this country, which will be used as another means of pressure and which will lead to a new conflict in determining which imperialist power will be the most influential on Yugoslavia.

These two consequences, in fact, contain a lot of contradicting elements, and show that in the forthcoming period the contradictions between the US and the EU will emerge in new forms, not only in the Adriatic region but also in the Balkans and the Middle East, including Turkey and Greece. This means that the Balkans will continue to be a region of new conflicts and wars, meaning more oppression and massacres for peoples.

• News up-date from Turkey

Workers and public employees protesting

For the last couple of months, thousand of workers and public employees all over Turkey have been continuously going onto the streets and protesting against the IMF impositions, inadequate wage increases, privatisation, the attempts to liquidate the Social Security Institution and the plans to raise the retirement age to 62. Public employees are also demanding the right to a trade union with collective bargaining and strike power and an end to the government's repression on their unions, exiling and punishing practices. The Platform of Istanbul Trade Union Branches, TUMTIS (Transport Workers Union), EMEP (the Party of Labour) as well as KESK (Confederation of Public Employees Unions) have been taking active part in these demonstrations and warning the government to stop these practices and the other workersÕ unions confederations not to conciliate with the government.

Final hearing of the Metin Goktepe case

The final hearing on the murdered journalist Metin GšktepeÕs case was held last May. Six policemen (out of 11) have been sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment, first time in Turkey where tens of journalists have been killed. This was because of the huge public outcry in the country as well as internationally. Each hearing (26 in total in three and a half years) was attended by thousands of people all over Turkey as well as international delegations. Mass organisations and trade unions considered this result -although unsatisfactory- as a gain of the determined fight of the democratic forces for justice. Metin Gšktepe, who was beaten to death by police in January 1996, was a reporter for the daily Evrensel.

Freedom of press denied once again

From 4th January 1999 the distribution of Yeni Evrensel daily has been banned in the Southeast of Turkey, Kurdish regions, including the areas declared under a state of emergency. No legal reason was given by the officials. Many national and international democratic organisations have condemned the attack. GermanyÕs IG Medien (Press Union) spokesperson, Werner Pfenig, visited Yeni Evrensel in Istanbul to protest against the attack and show solidarity. A group of RSF (Journalists Without Frontiers) representatives has also condemned the ban on their visit to the paper.