A Look at the Message of
Abdullah Öcalan, Leader of the PKK, and Lessons from
the Failures of the Kurdish Movement in Recent Decades
Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned
leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), recently issued a statement
calling for the disarmament and dissolution of the Party. This statement has
sparked significant international attention and raised questions about the motivation
behind such a declaration. While Öcalan’s message
does not necessarily signify the definitive dissolution of the PKK, it clearly
indicates that, after decades of imprisonment, he has developed a new
understanding of the political developments in the region and the world. He proposes a "new solution" for the realization of the
Kurdish people's democratic rights.
To evaluate both the PKK and Öcalan’s
message, it is important to delve deeper into the core issue of national rights
in multinational countries during the age of imperialism, examining the roots
of past failures and political setbacks. Undoubtedly, the dissolution of the
PKK would mark the beginning of a new era for the various Kurdish forces in the
region. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of this subject, we will
address several key points:
1-) In 1977, Öcalan
published a manifesto titled "The National Path to the Kurdish
Revolution." This document became known as the roadmap for the PKK. One
year later, the party was founded in Diyarbakır,
a city in southeastern Turkey with a predominantly Kurdish population, and Öcalan was chosen as its leader. In its early years, the
PKK carried out armed operations in various forms against the repressive and
reactionary military forces of the Turkish government.
In 1979, amidst social unrest, Abdullah Öcalan, along with some of his supporters, traveled to
Syria, where he began training guerrilla forces that would eventually form the
core of the PKK. From the outset of his activism, Öcalan
sought the unity of all Kurds and the creation of a Greater Kurdistan in the
region. His ideology emphasized the "right of nations to
self-determination, including secession."
In the 1990s, Öcalan began
developing a vision for the future of Kurdish society, which he referred to as
"Democratic Modernity." In his articles and books, he introduced concepts such as "shared homeland,"
"democratic republic," "democratic autonomy," and
"democratic confederation." He fully abandoned the idea of
establishing a nation-state and instead advocated for a negotiated agreement to
grant Kurdish autonomy within Turkey.
In 1998, Turkey intensified its pressure on Syria to
expel Abdullah Öcalan, who had been living in exile
there for nearly two decades. Under this pressure, on October 9, 1998, Öcalan was expelled from Syria and sought refuge in
countries such as Greece, Russia, Italy, and Tajikistan. On February 15, 1999,
he was captured in a covert operation at Nairobi’s airport in Kenya and
subsequently transferred to Turkey.
2-) After some contradictory reports and a period of
uncertainty, Abdullah Öcalan’s statement titled
"Call for Peace and a Democratic Society" was finally published. Part
of the statement reads:
"In the 20th century, the most turbulent period in
history in terms of violence, marked by the World Wars and the Cold War, the
denial of the Kurdish reality, and widespread restrictions on
freedoms—especially freedom of expression—occurred. Our organization was deeply
influenced by the socialist realist system of that era in terms of theory,
program, strategy, and tactics. However, with the collapse of 'actually
existing socialism' in the 1990s due to internal problems, coupled with the
increase in freedom of expression and the reduction of identity denial in the
country, the PKK entered a crisis of meaning and excessive repetition.
Therefore, like many similar organizations, its time has come to an end, and
its dissolution has become necessary."
In this message, Öcalan
addresses the "historical relations between Kurds and Turks" and
emphasizes the need to foster brotherhood between the two peoples, promising
the revival of new relations. He writes:
"Kurds and Turks, over more than a thousand years of
shared history, have always recognized the necessity of a voluntary union to
preserve their existence and resist hegemonic powers. However, in the last two
hundred years, capitalist modernity has sought to undermine this union. The
forces influenced by this process, especially those shaped by their class
foundations, have accepted this goal and moved toward it. The one-dimensional
interpretation of republicanism has accelerated this process. Today, as these
historical relations have reached a fragile stage, it is essential that we
redefine these relations based on the spirit of brotherhood, while taking
religious beliefs into account."
In his message, Öcalan
ultimately addresses the "necessity of a democratic society" and the
democratic rights of the Kurdish people within the framework of Turkey's
territorial integrity and in relation to the other peoples of the region. He
asserts:
"Solutions such as a separate nation-state,
federalism, autonomy, and others are incapable of providing a solution to
historical sociology. Respect for identities, freedom of expression, and the
democratic organization of all social groups can only be achieved within the
framework of a democratic society and political system."
According to him,
"The second century of the Republic of Turkey can only achieve
sustainability and brotherly coexistence if it is rooted in democracy. There is
no path, nor can there be, other than the democratic path to seek and realize
such a system. Democratic agreement is the only viable method. The era of peace
and a democratic society requires a language that aligns with this reality."
3-) Given Abdullah Öcalan's
statement and the historical failure of the PKK in its struggle against the
central government of Turkey, along with the unfulfilled national rights of the
Kurdish people, the theoretical reasons and deviations of the party can be
outlined. Once again, it is essential to emphasize the communist principles
that, in the age of imperialism, the resolution of the Kurdish question in
Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran—despite differing developments, the diversity of
official languages, and the various forms of anti-democratic governments—should
not be considered separate or isolated from the broader strategic politics of
imperialism. On the contrary, this struggle must be specifically viewed as part
of the larger revolutionary anti-imperialist struggle, within the context of
the growing contradictions in the world and the global conflict between
revolution and counter-revolution.
National chauvinism, political ignorance, and the
shortsightedness of Kurdish leaders, who have failed to learn from numerous
similar experiences, have led to the unfortunate situation where Kurds have
continually been manipulated by reactionary and imperialist forces. In this
way, they have become tools used to undermine the shared revolutionary struggle
of the peoples of the region.
4-) The developments and events of recent decades in
Turkey, Abdullah Öcalan's statement calling for the
disarmament and dissolution of the PKK, and the eventual policy of integrating
Syrian Kurds ("Rojava") into the terrorist and neo-colonial Daesh
(ISIS) regime led by Al-Jolani—created by Turkey and supported by the U.S.—show
that in the age of imperialism, which shapes the current political landscape of
the world, it is misguided to address the national question and its resolution
today separately, without considering the domination and interests of
imperialism. The solution to the national question, since the 20th century and
following the October Socialist Revolution, must be
understood in the context of the anti-imperialist struggle and can only be
assessed within this framework, with its revolutionary quality determined by
this context.
Supporting any national chauvinistic and separatist
movement that serves imperialism and Zionism is a reactionary and
counter-revolutionary act. To serve socialism and advance the class struggle,
communists must relentlessly fight against such movements. The lived and tragic
experiences of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan are before us. We must expose these
reactionary, imperialist-Zionist ethnic movements and avoid considerations of
"friendship, ethnicity, and lending a hand." The cooperation and
relationship of Kurdish national chauvinist movements with the Zionist regime,
along with their shameless silence regarding the genocide in Gaza, further
illustrate the reactionary and degenerate nature of these movements, which have
separated themselves from other peoples and chosen the path of division and
complicity with imperialism and colonial powers.
5) The Theoretical Aspect of the National Question:
Lenin, in his analyses concerning the right of nations to
self-determination during the era of colonial domination, had a heated debate
with the national chauvinists of the Second International. These chauvinists
supported the imperialist European countries' dominance over their colonies,
viewing the colonization of nations as the natural right of their own country
and being essentially unwilling to recognize the right of self-determination
for other nations.
At the heart of this discussion lies a bourgeois concept—the
realization of democracy in a country, or the acceptance of the bourgeois
notion of democracy. It goes without saying that this right is a bourgeois
concept, expressing the realization of democracy in a country through the lens
of bourgeois democracy. However, for communists, democracy is not an absolute,
pure, "inviolable," non-class, or sacred concept. Democracy is always
a social and class concept, and its approach must be grounded in the interests
of class struggle.
For this reason, the dictatorship of the proletariat is
seen as the most democratic form of government for the majority of the working
masses. In his discussions on the right of nations to self-determination,
written over various periods, Lenin points out two key points:
First: Lenin’s first discussion in his work “The Right of
Nations to Self-Determination” concerns those who fundamentally do not
recognize this right. This discussion is rooted in a time when nation-states
were emerging and seeking their independence. In the context of the debates
about the right of nations to self-determination, which trace back to the era
of bourgeois-democratic revolutions, Lenin argues that those who fundamentally
deny this right and support the interests of the oppressor nation cannot be
considered social democrats. They are, in fact, colonizers and anti-democratic.
Recognizing the right to self-determination and accepting
that all nations in the world have equal rights is crucial. The condition for
sincerity in this recognition is the acceptance of the right to secession for
all nations. This distinction must be drawn between democratic and socialist
forces on one hand, and anti-democratic and colonial
forces on the other—between the interests of the oppressor and the oppressed
nations. Those who fundamentally refuse to recognize this right, as many did in
the Second International, cannot claim to be social democrats.
Of course, there were individuals who did not
fundamentally oppose this right but did not accept the right to secession.
Recognizing the right of nations to self-determination naturally implies the
acceptance of the establishment of separate states, which includes the right to
secession. However, Lenin never gave the bourgeoisie a blank check. In response
to opponents, he emphasized that recognizing the right to self-determination of
nations does not automatically mean supporting the right to secession under all
conditions. The decision of communists to support the secession of a particular
nation, despite recognizing its right, depends on a specific analysis of the
conditions at the time and is always based on the interests of the class
struggle.
Communists recognize the right of nations to
self-determination. Anyone who fundamentally denies this right is merely
defending the national yoke. Lenin’s view on this issue refers to the disputes
he had before World War I and the Great October Socialist Revolution with the
leaders of the Second International, who did not recognize the right of
colonized nations to self-determination. They did not believe that the fate of
the proletariat’s struggles in imperialist countries was linked to the
struggles for liberation in colonized nations. For this reason, Leninism upheld
the slogan: "Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World, Unite."
Therefore, from the perspective of communists, during the
era of imperialism, national separation cannot be supported unless it serves
the interests of the proletariat. The partition of Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya,
Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Congo, and others serves the strategic interests of
imperialism by dividing nations and asserting control over them. Contemporary
history still remembers the divisions of Vietnam and Korea. The "divide
and rule" policy, which aims to strip these countries of their ability to
exist independently and survive according to their own will, cannot be endorsed
by communists.
When the Great October Socialist Revolution succeeded,
imperialist policy aimed to unite fragmented and divided countries unable to
resist the influence of communism, strengthen their central governments, and
bolster them against socialism. The coup by Reza Khan (the father of the Shah)
in Iran, the suppression of Sheikh Khazal (a secessionist in Khuzestan, Iran),
and the establishment of a central government in Iraq under King Faisal must be
viewed in this context and analyzed accordingly. Now that the Soviet Union has
collapsed, the socialist rival power has been destroyed, and the imperialist China
can no longer play the global role the Soviet Union once did, the division and
fragmentation of countries for imperialist purposes has become part of their
agenda. It is much easier to subjugate several weak countries, such as
Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, and Serbia,
than a powerful country like Yugoslavia. It is also worth noting that the
breakaway regions of the former Yugoslavia are not truly independent nations,
and their existence is, at best, tenuous.
Comrade Stalin, in describing Lenin’s theories and the
Marxist-Leninist understanding of the national question during imperialism,
wrote:
“It was formerly the "accepted" idea that the
only method of liberating the oppressed peoples is the method of bourgeois
nationalism, the
method of nations drawing apart from one another, the method of disuniting
nations, the method of intensifying national enmity
among the labouring masses of the various nations. That
legend must now be regarded as refuted. One of the most important results of
the October Revolution is that it dealt that legend a mortal blow, by
demonstrating in practice the possibility and expediency of the proletarian, internationalist method of liberating the oppressed peoples, as
the only correct method; by demonstrating in practice the possibility and
expediency of a fraternal union of the workers and peasants of the most diverse
nations based on the principles of voluntariness and internationalism. The existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, which is the prototype of the future integration of the working
people of all countries into a single world economic system, cannot but serve
as direct proof of this”.
(The International Aspect
of the October Revolution / Leninism,).
Second:
Lenin’s next discussion is not one in which he debates
anti-democrats, anti-socialists, or colonial supporters in Europe. Instead, his
focus is on the conditions of separation. Here, the second boundary is
drawn—the boundary with the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations. Lenin never
gave a blank check to the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations. Communists set
conditions for supporting separation, meaning that the separation must serve
the interests of the class struggle and not undermine the unity and interests
of the proletariat. Communists are never allies of any side in a bourgeois
conflict. They do not sit idly by on the sidelines, observing the struggle of
the bourgeoisie of different nations with neutrality or impartiality.
The proletariat always conditionally supports the
bourgeoisie’s struggle, but this support is contingent upon the struggle having
democratic and anti-oppression content.
Regarding the policy of the proletariat in the oppressed
nation, which is exploited as wage labor in any capitalist system, Lenin states
that for this proletariat, it does not matter which bourgeoisie exploits them:
“In any case
the hired worker will be an object of exploitation. Successful struggle against
exploitation requires that the proletariat be free of nationalism, and be
absolutely neutral, so to speak, in the fight for supremacy that is going on
among the bourgeoisie of the various nations. If the proletariat of any one
nation gives the slightest support to the privileges of its “own” national
bourgeoisie, that will inevitably rouse distrust among the proletariat
of another nation; it will weaken the international class solidarity of
the workers and divide them, to the delight of the bourgeoisie. Repudiation of
the right to self-determination or to secession inevitably means, in practice,
support for the privileges of the dominant nation”. (The Right of
Nations to Self-Determination) , Lenin
“Thus, the proletariat of the oppressor nation must
recognize the right of nations to self-determination and fight against the
national chauvinism of the oppressor nation. Conversely, the proletariat of the
oppressed nation must fight against the national chauvinism of their own nation
so that the democratic unity of the proletariat of all nations is strengthened
and proletarian internationalism shines over bourgeois nationalism”. Ibid
“What every bourgeoisie is out for in the
national question is either privileges for its own nation, or exceptional
advantages for it; this is called being “practical”. The proletariat is opposed
to all privileges, to all exclusiveness. To demand that it
should be “practical” means following the lead of the bourgeoisie, falling into
opportunism.
.
“The demand for a “yes” or “no” reply to the
question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very “practical”
one. In reality it is absurd; it is metaphysical in theory, while in practice
it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie’s policy. The
bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in
categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are
subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot
say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given
nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the
latter; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to
ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to
hamper this development by pushing the aims of its “own” nation before those of
the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to
the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination,
without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to
give anything at the expense of another nation”. Ibid
Lenin clearly critiques the nationalism of the oppressed
nation and conditions its support. According to Lenin, the democratic and anti-oppression
aspects of this struggle are of particular importance for communists.
Therefore, he defends the nationalism of the oppressed nation only
conditionally.
Lenin clarifies that the struggle of the oppressed nation
against the oppressor should not be evaluated solely within the framework of a
bourgeois struggle. Instead, it must be examined in terms of how this struggle
contributes to democracy and combats oppression. This content is what
strengthens the proletarian struggle within the oppressed nation. The
bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation must deepen and expand the democratic and
anti-oppression nature of this struggle in society. Otherwise, communists would
be supporting the demands of the bourgeoisie without considering the future
implications of this struggle for the proletariat. In such a case, communists
would merely play a secondary and propaganda role for the bourgeoisie, acting
as its fifth column.
6) Conclusion:
After several decades in prison, Abdullah Öcalan announced the disarmament and eventual dissolution
of the "PKK" with a statement emphasizing the necessity of a
democratic society and the democratic rights of the Kurds within the
territorial integrity of Turkey, as well as in connection with the other peoples
of this geography. He rejected solutions such as separate nation-states and
federalism. This marks a correct starting point for the realization of
democratic rights and national language. However, as far as we can tell, he did
not address the unity of the peoples of the region or their joint struggle
against imperialism, Zionism, and Israel's crimes in Palestine, nor did he
express solidarity with the people of Gaza. He remained silent on these issues.
U.S. imperialism, as the largest supporter of the Kurdish
forces in Syria, aimed to weaken the Bashar al-Assad government through this
means. However, in 2019, Donald Trump decided to withdraw U.S. troops from
Syria, which in turn gave Turkey the green light to suppress the Kurds. With
the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime, Washington has no intention of preventing
Turkish military operations against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Additionally, due to its strong relations with Baghdad, the U.S. was one of the
countries that did not recognize the illegal referendum for the independence of
the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
All of these points clearly demonstrate that no country
in the Middle East has a stable interest in supporting the Kurdish armed
forces. The reality is that all regional countries, based on their logic of
expediency, view Kurdish armed groups as tools to strengthen their positions
and weaken rivals, rather than as allies to be supported against future
threats. The numerous Kurdish militias in the region lack the weight of a state
and cannot play a role like that in creating permanent alliances. As a result,
regional governments only approach them to achieve short-term goals and will
easily abandon their support once the situation changes.
This is the tragic fate of the national chauvinist Kurds,
whose movement, tinged with "leftist" and "Soviet"
rhetoric, has been led by corrupt and deceitful leaders.
When Syria, under Bashar al-Assad's regime, was attacked
by the forces of global reaction, these individuals refused to support the
territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Syria as a sovereign country
and member of the United Nations. For them, the invasion of Syria began only
when Afrin, not Syria as a whole, was attacked. They shamelessly sided with the
occupying U.S. military and supported the occupation of Syria, as it served
their group's interests. For them, the occupation of the Golan Heights by
Zionism is not considered an occupation; the illegal presence of the U.S. in
Syria, which steals Syria's oil from Arab-majority occupied areas, is not
viewed as an occupation; yet, the brutal Turkish invasion of Syria is
condemned, precisely because it targets Kurdish regions.
The logic of the national chauvinist Kurds is solely to
"pull my own blanket out of the water." For them, it doesn't matter
what happens to Syria. Isn't it shameful that when 50 American soldiers were
ordered by their commander to leave Syrian soil, these national chauvinist
Kurds took to the streets, throwing stones at them and demanding that they not
betray the Kurds? They insisted that the U.S. should continue occupying Syria
for the sake of Kurdish interests, sacrificing the interests of the Syrian
people at the altar of Kurdish national chauvinism?
The bitter, tested experience and betrayal by the Kurdish
leaders of Iraq and Iran have been repeated by the Kurdish leaders of Syria,
who still have not learned from it. They continue to seek the approval of
Zionism and imperialism in the region, hoping to create a "Greater
Kurdistan" as a second Israel.
The only path to the liberation of the Kurdish people
from national oppression in any given country is through cooperation and unity
in struggle with the other peoples of those countries. This must be done within
a unified working-class party, through a united front of the people, and in
common political and social organizations that are non-ethnic, all while
opposing the ruling reactionary forces. The foundation of this struggle must contain
an anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist position. Without this revolutionary
content, which is essential for building a democratic and free country based on
the power of the working people, the victory of the Kurdish people, or any
other peoples in Iran, Syria, Turkey, or Iraq, is not possible.
Turning to imperialism and Zionism and collaborating with
them is a betrayal of the peoples of the region and a betrayal of the Kurds
themselves. We must fight to ensure that any attempt to establish a second
Israel in the region is defeated. One Israel is already too many.
The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan)