Disarmament of PKK; What's really going on?
Although PKK's "laying down of
arms" is a development the importance of which cannot be underestimated for
Turkey, if we leave aside the government's tactic of recovering its lost power
from Kurdish voters, the question of the
extent to which this (disarmament) is widespread, or rather if it is possible, is an
important question that can affect both Turkey and the Middle East, and
indirectly Iran, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, that is, the transition to a
multipolar world order. The Kurdish population, which has a presence that
extends to Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and to some extent even to the
Caucasus, and local movements in which are mostly extensions of the PKK, have
an important force to be reckoned with.
The
fact that 30 "guerrillas" laid down their arms is a symbolic
demonstration, does not and cannot give any information about the pro-Turkey,
pro-US-Israel, pro-independence and similar alignments within the PKK, and the
distribution of power of these alignments, which ones have laid down their arms
which ones have not. In other words, although the political development in
question is related to Turkey in particular, a correct analysis cannot be made
without considering the developments in an integrated manner with their
dialectical external connections in general. Political developments of this
nature are developments that are a part of the whole and cannot be
handled independently of the conflicts of interest and wars that continue in
the current period. This development is somehow linked to geopolitical
conflicts around the world, from the ongoing Ukraine war to the dismemberment
of Iran, the containment of Russia, and the prevention of China's development.
Because such an "event" is not an "event" that develops
"spontaneously", but is "developed" and applied to life
in the interests of one or more groups of larger state powers involved
in these conflicts. The narratives that it is the "free will" of PKK is a total nonsense. "Determinism," said Lenin, "sweeps narrow-minded morality off its feet. Determinism, which assumes the necessity of human practice and rejects the absurd fable about free will, in no way destroys human reason, conscience, or the evaluation of human practices. On the contrary, only the deterministic view makes a strict and accurate evaluation possible, instead of attributing everything to free will." *
It is impossible to make an
objective assessment without having concrete data on these issues yet. What can
be done is to make predictions by
looking objectively at the history and development of the PKK and by
looking at the developments both in particular and in general. This prediction
will certainly not be absolute, but will be variable depending on
the changes in the region and the world.
Without going too deep, it seems
that this "demonstration of peace" and "disarmament" finds
itself in two aims. First, internally, fundamentally, the fact that
the government in Turkey is gradually declining at the grassroots, its declining approval,
and the possibility of losing the next elections, thus it is a balancing policy and practice with the expected
votes of Kurdish voters or a partnership with the Kurdish bourgeois party. Secondly,
it is related to Turkey's very dangerous policy and practice on the Zangezur
Canal project, which will be the transit from Azerbaijan to Central Asia, and its being in line with the interests of the US-West
and Israel as a foreign policy.(1) Because
this project is profoundly in line with the strategic plans of the US-West and Israel, aiming
to create a new front and proxy wars in
the underbelly of Russia and the north of Iran, and to weaken Russia and
Iran. The alignment of Kurdish
formations according to the regions they are in, may make a ground attack
against Iran possible, as well as it may initiate the sparks of a war between Turkey
and Iran due to the Zangezur Canal. This self-interested theater game of
"peace" and "disarmament" by the government in Turkey may
bring results that could set the region on fire, as well as bring about a
conflict with Russia.
Neither Russia nor Iran can
remain silent and benefit from a proxy
war in the Caucasus but US-West-Israel does. And dialectically, dependent on that
problem, neither China nor North Korea can afford to let Iran be defeated and
dismembered, and they cannot remain silent in the face of such a development.
In this sense, Turkey's "peace" policy and the theater play of "disarmament"
is a very dangerous development that may
bring about extensive "armament"
in the final analysis.
A Brief Overview of PKK History
Although the PKK has remained
essentially the same as a bourgeois-democratic movement since its inception, it
has gone through many stages in its perspectives and approaches since 1970s. The
1970s' Marxist Leninist assessment of the PKK was widely known at the time which stated that "the PKK was created through fighting against the democratic struggle, that
is, against the left and those who lead this struggle", has had different characters
in its forms during its long life. Pro-Turkish aligned Ocalan had insisted from
the beginning that the policies he proposed would help Turkey grow its
influence and power. In the summary of Garbis Altınoğlu, Apo stated in his "Defense”
and “Defence on the Merits" that after the "resolve" of the
Kurdish question, the power and possibilities of the Kurdish people and the PKK
will be placed at the disposal of the Turkish ruling classes, so that
Turkey will "gain the power to act as a leading country in the region", rise to a position of "leadership in the
Middle East", and have the opportunity to "be effective from
Central Asia to the Balkans and the Caucasus". In other words, he emphasized the "bourgeois" content
of the "hostile-brothers", and proposed to "join hands". What
was proposed "has nothing to do with the brotherhood of the working
peoples, it was the brotherhood of the bourgeoisie that was proposed from the
beginning. This manifested itself
clearly in the PKK's flirtation practices, sometimes with the Turkish
bourgeoisie and other times with the US imperialists.
On December 22, 2018, Garbis
Altinoglu wrote about the PKK's practice of flirting with the United States in
his article "Walking with the United States". "Born as a
national revolutionary movement," he said, "since the early 1990s,
it has winked countless times at the
imperialist system, sometimes led by the United States, and sometimes at
the reactionary cliques that rule Turkey, and has called for reconciliation and even integration with them
again and again."
The PKK, which admitted in its
founding documents, such as the pamphlet “The Path of the Kurdistan Revolution
(Manifesto”), that the United States was the main enemy of the peoples of
the world, later quietly changed this position and did not condemn the
aggressive actions of the United States for a long time. (2)
"US
imperialism, which entered the war at the last moment and did not suffer much
due to its geographical position, also became a very powerful state because of
the profiteering it made in the war. When the United States took over
imperialism, it had to repair these ruined economies on the one hand, and in
return protect the colonial legacy of capitalism." "(3)
On the contrary, in 2002 and
early 2003, when millions of people participated in anti-war
demonstrations in many countries of the world before the impending US attack on Iraq, the
Kurdish national movement's silence on this issue, and even a
demonstration in favor of intervention in Iraq in Brussels, was extremely
instructive in terms of its approach to imperialism, military intervention,
war and peace.
In a letter to U.S. President
Bill Clinton on October 13, 1995, Öcalan swore that they were not
communists and expressed his
expectation that the peoples of the world would provide peace, democracy, and stability from their archenemy (5)
"I would
like to undertake once again that our Party is ideologically different from the classical
communist parties, and that we do not have a persistent effort to change
the current borders of Turkey and not necessarily to secede. We also reject all
forms of terrorist activity. I would like to put an end to this painful
situation of the Kurdish and Turkish peoples and convey that we, as the Party,
are ready for a peaceful solution for the sake of peace and stability in the region.
I sincerely believe that your support is very important to stop the massacre of a people, to
preserve their cultural identity, to win their democratic and political
rights." (6)
In July 1999, Öcalan wrote in a
letter to the Turkish state authorities to the prison administration which
stated; "What I can do is to put a
stop to this trend, which has already exceeded the purpose of the PKK
and has become a tool of great foreign power and self-interest...
At the state level, it is more dangerous for foreign powers to use it,
and it is rapidly moving towards that track." (11) Way before he stated that fact, 1990s,
Marxist-Leninists in Turkey, taking into account the alignments within the PKK, made a revision in their
assessments as follows: "The PKK, which came to existence through fighting against the democratic struggle, that
is, against the left and those who lead this struggle,
at the current conjuncture not only its attacks against the democratic
struggle and the left, but also the purpose of being used by foreign
powers in the games played for both the Middle East and Turkey is the reason for its existence".
The inevitable alignments (with
foreign powers) within the PKK, which have not had a homogeneous structure both
ideologically and practically since its inception, manifested itself in the
process.
Addressing Öcalan's words above,
Garbis Altınoğlu made the following comment;
"The
PKK/KADEK administration's inclination
into a 'collaborative Kurdish formation' in A. Öcalan's words,
its determination that 'all strategic powers' (i.e. states such as the USA,
Britain, Israel, Iran, etc., which are interested in the region) have 'prepared plans to parcel out the PKK'
apart from the initiative of the Turkish reaction, which speaks through its
mouth, and A. Öcalan is silent about the US operation in Iraq, which the
Turkish General Staff does not favor.
The fact that the PKK/KADEK administration fervently supports
this and even demands a role in this operation, etc., are all signs of
this alignment." (7)
Garbis Altinoglu’s assessment
that "this pro-US/pro-Turkey alignment within the PKK/KADEK/Kongra-Gel has
never been definite and clear" was correct for the period he stated,
and most importantly, he emphasized that there was an "alignment".
Over time, this alignment began to manifest itself clearly. On January 19,
2003, two months before the U.S. attack on Iraq, Cemil Bayık, one of the
leaders of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and KADEK (PKK), said in an interview published in Ö. Politika:
"The intervention of the United
States in Iraq together with its allies will create new conditions
throughout the region. There will be an opportunity to lead the Kurdish
people's struggle to success," he said, adding, "In the period
following the invasion of Iraq, we can say that this 'pro-US' approach has
deepened and reached its peak." (7)
Not years, but months later,
Garbis Altinoglu discussed the news titled "KADEK's Historical Move"
in the August 9, 2003 issue of the same newspaper and said, "In the
news, this tactical approach of the organization, which seems to have
tied its rope to the rope of the USA,
is formulated in an even more striking way."
"According to the report,
the resolution titled 'Democratic Solution for Peace' adopted at the meeting of
the KADEK Enlarged Board of Directors held on 25-31 July 2003 stated:
"This
revolutionary breakthrough that we have made in order to achieve the goal of a
democratic solution will be successful with the efforts of our people, our
cadres, our militant and warrior structure, and patriotic and democratic
circles. The international community and democratic forces will value
this and play their part in the success by offering their contribution.
Outdated regimes and structures will become a thing of the past faster, and the
victory will be for the democratic forces.
"The fact
that the regimes are facing disintegration and the opposition is falling into a
vacuum and is forced has also created
a broad front of reactionary resistance against the US intervention.
The U.S. intervention in the Middle East has the feature of being a dynamic of external change. It will see democratic development as indispensable, even on the basis of dependency. Therefore, overcoming the dominant status quo and replacing it with a democratic development is an urgent need for the restructuring of capitalism." (7)
The process of preparing the
ground for the PKK's ideological approach to choosing sides to become a
practice took a few months. In the article titled "Kongra-Gel
Established" published in the November 16, 2003 issue of Ö. Politika,
which reported the establishment of Kongra-Gel,
it was explained that the Declaration defined the puppet
administration formed by the US occupiers as a force "in favor of
democracy" and supported the US invasion of Iraq and that Kongra-Gel would
act together with the US in "regulation", that is, occupation and
intervention operations in the region. In the words of Garbis Altınoğlu:
"In the
final declaration, which also touched upon the new situation in Iraq, it was
stated that the Democratic Federal Iraq is an important milestone in the
development of democracy in the Middle East, and called on all parties,
organizations and communities in favor of democracy, especially the interim
administrative council, to meet and form an alliance on the denominator of
democracy...
"In the
declaration, which was also addressed to the United States, it was stated
that it was positive for the United States to intervene in the Saddam regime
and start a new process in the Middle East,
and that this approach could reach a constructive dimension with
a permanent solution to the Kurdish problem. The declaration also pointed out that the establishment of
Kongra-Gel will contribute to the US
regulations for the region." (7)
Garbis Altinoglu, who discussed
and examined the reactionary alignments within the PKK, made the following
statement in support of his words, "It would not be an exaggeration to say
that there is some kind of civil war between these two reactionary tendencies
within the PKK/ KADEK/ Kongra-Gel, which cannot be considered as very covert."
"The U.S. attack on
Afghanistan in October 2001 after the September 11, 2001 attack, the revelation
that it would attack Iraq and become a more or less permanent force in the
region, brought the PKK/KADEK
administration closer to the U.S. and the KDP-PUK line, while the Turkish
reaction – or a section of it – intensified its criticism of the PKK/KADEK
through the mouth of A. Öcalan . In this
regard, I will present some of the many statements made by A. Ocalan.
In his article published in the
November 9, 2001 issue of Ö. Politika, when it was discussed that Iraq would be
on the agenda after the Afghanistan operation, A. Öcalan, while talking about
these developments, equated the nationalism of the oppressor nation with the
nationalism of the oppressed nation, as he often did, and even portrayed
the nationalism of the oppressed nation as the main danger. He ignored
the fact that, in Lenin's words, "the bourgeois nationalism of every
oppressed nation" "has a general democratic content directed against
oppression", and therefore criticized Kurdish nationalism from the point
of view of Turkish reaction (7):
"Foreign
powers, the United States, Britain will not leave this area, they will
continue their games. The British have been playing since the 1920s and even
the 1800s, the game has been going on
for two hundred years. Whoever plays will play, and the pumpkin will
explode on the heads of the Kurdish and Turkish people again." He then
condemned nationalism, which he described as "the disease of the
age":
"The
fake Kurds have not been able to get as far as their pursuit of
nationalism. They ate, drank, practiced cultism and sheikhdom, and they still continue. They made an agreement
with the state, with the British, with the United States, for themselves,
to keep their families alive. But the Kurds also have rights, laws, and
democracy. They ignored them. The Kurdishness of the fake Kurds brings
trouble..."
On October 13, 2002, A. Öcalan
wrote in an article published in Ö. Politika:
"Barzani
and Talabani are still playing the game of the British. The game that
was played in the 1920s is wanted to be played again. We've got to break the
game."
In two separate statements,
published about two months after the US attack on Iraq, A. Öcalan would put
these views even more strikingly, condemning the Barzani-Talabani line and defending
the "Turkish-Kurdish alliance" against the "US-Kurdish
alliance":
"Most
importantly, there are two ways for Turkey. Behind the Kurds settled a great
strategic power. Tanks were supplied with artillery. The U.S. is doing this
on purpose. More will be given. You can take up arms as much as you want and
defend your arguments with weapons, you can say that you can develop Kurdish
separatism as in Iraq, this is a dangerous path. It is a line that consumes
peoples. It is a dangerous road, as is Israel-Palestine....
"They
solved Iraq with the Kurds, tomorrow they will solve Iran with the Kurds, they
will solve Turkey in the same way...
"We want
unity and integrity on the basis of a democratic republic... Reassure the
Turkish people. In fact, we have not been able to explain ourselves well to the
people of Turkey in the past. We do not take a stand on the side of the United
States. We take a stand on the side of the people of Turkey. Explain this well
to the people and public opinion of Turkey." (8)
In another statement published a
week later, Apo said that it would
not be the U.S.-British alliance that would bring democracy to the Middle East,
but the peoples of the Middle East and the Kurdish-Turkish alliance.
"The
U.S. will not bring a British alliance. They will shape the Middle East in
their own interests. The Arabs can't bring it either... Can Iran bring it?
Neither can it. So who can do it? Kurdish-Turkish alliance will bring
democracy... Neither chauvinistic Turkish nationalists nor primitive
Kurdish nationalists understand this. There is a trend and tradition of
democratization in Turkey. The Kurds also have it. I wanted to develop this
with the PKK, but I couldn't quite succeed..."
The U.S. will
try to bring Turkey into line with its Kurdish stick...
"KADEK
enters the Kurdish parliament in the south. They give tanks and cannons. They
also include members of the council. If it is in the interest of the United
States, it will also establish a state. He can also leave it face down
later. As a result, the peoples inherit badly." (9)
After the U.S. attack on
Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, and at a time when it became clear that it
would attack other Middle Eastern countries, especially Iraq, the PKK Party
Assembly held its 5th Assembly in January 2002. The General Meeting was held.
The final declaration of this meeting stated:
"Regardless
of the methods of change, the new
international system, which will ultimately leave its mark on the 21st century, will have a more democratic, peaceful and
cooperative character in accordance with the global integration experienced
by humanity in all areas..."
"It is
clear that the struggle intensifying on Iraq has a regional and
international character, and it is
a struggle between the old system and the new system, between the old status
quo and the new status quo. In such a struggle, which will try to create a solution by sharpening at the
political and military level in the coming period, the place of our Party
and our people will undoubtedly be on the front of change that wants to create a new system, not on the
old status quo front that denies the Kurds and wants to destroy them."
(10)
Conclusion
Despite all the narratives of the United
States, which no longer have any value and credit, there is no possibility of
relinquishing its control of Syria's oil resources, and its never-ending and will never-end
showdown with the Turkish government is too strategically important to allow
the dissolution of its proxy forces in northern Syria. Since I do not know
enough about those who support Turkey,
as far as I perceive, the
alignment may manifest itself in the form of shifting both to the "left"
and "to the right". However, apart from a handful of Marxist-Leninist
parties and organizations in Turkey, the definition of "left" can distinguish itself from the "right" only in
terms of "secularism", "rights", and "justice". I think Erdoğan government's
expectation from this initiative is to
blur this "right-left"
difference even more and to maintain its power most likely by introducing
"innovations" on these issues before the elections.
As a result, if we leave aside
the positive aspects of it in Turkey, neither "peace" nor
"disarmament" ,is a "positive development" that should be
exaggerated, but on the contrary, it is a development that could bring about the
possibility of the PKK and its subsidiary organizations being dismembered by
the supporting countries and used as a proxy force. As I mentioned
in a previous article, the policy of the government in Turkey dancing between
the two blocs in line with the interests of finance capital by ignoring the interests
of the people is rapidly moving in a very dangerous direction for the peoples
of both Turkey and the world. The "petty imperialist" dreams
of the government in Turkey may push Turkey towards a very dangerous situation
that exceeds the possibility of turning it into a new Ukraine. The
"deal with the PKK" is part of Turkey's petty imperialist dreams.
The steps taken in the direction of the "alliance" of Turkey, Armenia
and Azerbaijan, the possibility of this and the calls of the Iranian and Iraqi
Kurdish formations to the Azerbaijanis for "unity" and
"alliance", Azerbaijan's assistance to Israel in the attack on
Iran, the sudden tensions with Russia are not accidental and
spontaneous developments. The alignment of the PKK in the context of the
countries that support it by dividing it into fragments, the uncertainty about
the attitude of the PKK affiliates in Iran and Iraq, the rumors
circulating that preparations are being made for a land attack from Iraq to
Iran, and the sudden emergence of the tension between Azerbaijan and Russia (and Iran) constitute a
situation where a bomb ready to explode.
Especially if we take into account the
historical fact that the U.S. is waging war by using the sons of other
peoples without endangering its own soldiers, the delusional practices of
Turkey, which is a NATO member and where there are U.S. bases, the so-called "disarmament " of the PKK, in essence, is the possibility of "arming through integrating"...
These are indications that the government in Turkey is in the direction of
taking steps that can bring about the disaster for the people of Turkey and of all its neighboring peoples.
Erdogan A
12 June, 2025
Notes
* Lenin, What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are, And How They Fight the Social-Democrats,
(1) Erdogan A, where will the
waves of U.S. decline lead Turkey; Continue the double play or patch it to one
side?
(2)
Garbis Altinoglu, Walking with the USA
(3) Kurdistan Uprising Road
(Manifesto), Colognes, Independent Publications, 1984, p. 73
(4) Garbis Altınoğlu, Kurdish
Style Dance on the Middle East Stage
(5) Garbis Altinoglu, Walking with the USA
(6) Ö. Politika, October 22,
1995
(7) Garbis Altinoglu, What Does
Demir Küçükaydın Want to Do?
(8) Ö. Politika, "If there is no dialogue,
there will be losses",11 May 2003
(9) Ö. Politika, , 18 May 2003
(10) Ö. Politika, "New Step", February 6, 2002.
(11) Ö. Politika, , July 7, 1999
.jpg)
