Two Kurdish parliamentarians read the letter of Abdullah Öcalan the jailed leader of Kurdistan

Workers Party (PKK) in Kurdish and Turkish languages to more than one million people who
gathered to celebrate Newroz, the first day of Kurdish year in the city of Diyarbekir in Turkey
on March 21, 2013. This letter by many political analysts described as historic. For the first
time Turkish government publicly acknowledged that Öcalan should be considered as a political
leader of Kurds in Turkey, not a terrorist, to solve the Kurdish issue with him. This letter was
the result of meetings of Öcalan with Turkish government and exchanges of letters with PKK
leaders in Qendil Mountains and Peace and Democracy Party. The message of Öcalan gained
international media attention. Statements of European Union and United States following
the letter of Öcalan clearly indicate the historical aspect of this letter. On the other hand,
Turkish government for the first time accepted the ceasefire declared by Öcalan on the letter.
Furthermore, the United States for the first time directly addressed the PKK in its statement.

The statement of Öcalan raised hopes for ending to one of the longest and bloodiest insurgencies
in the world.

Following the letter of Öcalan, Turkey and EU officially declared in separate statements that the
PKK, according to the statement of Öcalan will withdraw its forces from Turkey and will lay
down its arms.

The statement of Öcalan says: “The period of armed struggle is ending, and the door is opening
to democratic politics.”, “we have now reached the point of “silence the weapons and let the
ideas and politics speak” and “we have now arrived at the stage of withdrawing our armed forces
outside the borders.”

The message of Ocalan clearly means that the PKK armed forces should withdraw outside the
borders but nothing stated about disarmament of PKK or laying down its arms in the letter of
Öcalan. Therefore, the Turkey and the EU’s statements are indeed without base in this regard.

On the other hand, this statement reads: “The period of armed struggle is ending, and the door
is opening to democratic politics.” The statement of Öcalan did not mention that if the period
of democratic politics failed by the Turkish government soon in the future, there would not be a
new door for armed struggle. Therefore, the door for armed struggle was not closed if Kurds by
democratic politics cannot achieve their rights. Kurdish Communities Union (KCK) Executive
Council President Murat Karayılan at a press conference on March 25 warned that they were
ready for war should the Kurdish issue not be solved by peaceful means.

Even if the Kurdish demands were met peacefully in Turkey still the goals of Kurdish
Communities Union (KCK), will remain unfulfilled.

The goal of KCK is Confederation of Kurds in Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria; While Kurds in Iraq
and in Syria both gained an effective autonomy from their respective countries, Kurds in Iran
still remained under the rule of central government of Iran and a powerful armed and political
struggle would be necessary there for achieving autonomy in Eastern Kurdistan. For the KCK
these borders that divided Kurdistan between the four countries, as the statement of Ocalan also
said, are fake, imaginary and brutally imposed to the Kurdistan. Thus, if the peaceful struggle
could not be sufficient to achieving to the goal of Confederation, armed struggle would be a clear
option for the KCK via the Kurdistan’s Free Life Party (PJAK), the member of KCK who is
struggling against Iran. The guerrillas who would be withdrawn from Turkey would focus on the
armed struggle against Iran and would protect Kurdish areas in Syria (western Kurdistan) from a
brutal civil war that is going on there.

Then, the Kurdish armed forces would remain an integral part of KCK for achieving and
protecting ‘Confederation of Kurdistan’.

In another paragraph, Öcalan writes: “The Turkish people who live in what is called Turkey
today – the ancient Anatolia – should recognise that their common life with the Kurds, under the
flag of Islam, rests on the principles of amity and solidarity. The rules of amity have and should
have no room for conquest, denial, rejection, forced assimilation, or annihilation.”

In this paragraph while Öcalan rejects the Republic of Turkey that was established by Ataturk
in 1923 because of its vigorous policy of denial and assimilation of Kurds , he prefers the period
of Ottoman Empire and pre-Turkey when Kurds enjoyed a high great degree of autonomy, as
Kurdistan was shared among several Kurdish principalities.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in an Interview with CNN Turk on March 29
said: “If you look to the strong Ottoman Empire, there were a Lazistan state and a Kurdistan
state,” repeating that he was willing to discuss an eventual transition to a more federal system.”

The statement of Öcalan also says: “The Turks and Kurds who fell as martyrs together at
Çanakkale also went through the War of Independence together, and together they opened the
1920 assembly.”

Autonomy of Kurds in pre-Turkey period and power sharing of Kurds and Turks during 1920 is
in fact can be considered as an internal self-determination of Kurds in international law.

In this relation Resolution 2625 (XXV) of United Nations provides “territorial integrity of States
conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples ... and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the
territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour should be respected”.

The practice of international community regarding Soviet Union, Pakistan and Yugoslavia
clarified the meaning of this Resolution. In those countries grievances of their national groups
finally led to the disintegrations of these countries and independence of their nations as the final
way to save themselves from the oppressions and grave violation of human rights by the central
governments.

Thus, according to the statement of Öcalan, Kurds in “a new Turkey and new Middle East”,
base on the ‘Democratic Modernity’, should enjoy equality, freedom and effective autonomy
in ‘Kurdistan and Mesopotamia’ and to be represented in the central government.

If this conditions be met, that was based on the ‘common’ life and history of Kurds with Turks,
as Öcalan says they can live with the rules and principle of ‘amity and solidarity’ that would
have no room for oppression, denial and forced assimilation.

United States and European Union admitted in their statements that it has been injustice and
suppression of Kurds by the Turkish government, led to the PKK insurgency and they hoped
that Kurds could gain their rights by political ways. If Turkey refuses to address the demands
of Kurds, the EU and US can no longer blindly condemn the rebellion of PKK and disregard
decades of policies of injustice and denial of Kurds by the Turkey.

By any account, In the volatile region of Middle East which a long and brutal civil war is going
on in Syria, in a world that even the most secure, democratic and strong countries emphasize
in strengthening their armies for national self-defence, disarmament of PKK not only put the
Kurds entirely defenseless but also it prevents Kurds to use their right to rebel according to
international law to achieve their right to self-determination.

International law provides the right of people to struggle peacefully and by force to assert their
right to self-determination. Then, use of force by the PKK should remain an option, if Turkey
peacefully would not solve Kurdish question. Laying down arms essentially means defeating and
surrendering of the Kurdish movement at the hands of a government who still largely sees the
existence of Kurds as a threat.

The Kurdish society largely support and glorify rebellion and see it as the last and the most
important way for its dignity and freedom.

In spite of these interpretations, still it is not clear exactly what concessions Turkey will make in
response to the withdrawal of PKK forces and what are the Kurdish movement’s demands?

The essential slogan of Kurdish movement during Newroz has been “Freedom for Ocalan
and Status for Kurds”, in international law there are two different Status for every nation;
International Status and Internal Status.

Article 1(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly provides:

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Right to self-determination is “the right of peoples to freely and without interference of other
people choose and determine their own political status in internal and external destiny and to
determine their international status”.

The letter of Öcalan indicates that the Kurdish demand is in fact determining their internal status
(a regional autonomy) rather than their international status (independence).

The PKK and BDP in this important and historic period should inform the Kurdish community
about the details of the ongoing negotiations.

*

Noory Fakhry is a graduated from Lund University, Faculty of Law in International Human Rights Law