WHAT CUMA SAID

" . . . to say that the United States is supporting the PJAK is not right."
~ Cemil Bayik.

Cemil 'Cuma' Bayik, one of the main leaders and a founder of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

What Cuma says is what I said, from The Daily Star, with thanks to the hevals at KurdishInfo:

MOUNT QANDIL, Iraq: The United States government is in contact with Kurds struggling against Iran, a top rebel leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) said Thursday. Cemil "Cuma" Bayik, a founder of the movement that has struggled for Kurdish self-determination for the past 30 years, said the United States was in touch with the Party for Freedom in Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) in Iran, but that it was not helping actively.

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed recently in the New Yorker magazine that American forces were supporting the PJAK as part of their strategy to destabilize the Tehran government.

"American authorities want to have contact with PJAK, and as a matter of fact they do have contact with PJAK," Bayik said in an exclusive interview at his headquarters deep in Iraq's remote Qandil Mountains on the Iranian border.

"But to say that the United States is supporting the PJAK is not right," he added. "PJAK is until now continuing their struggle just with the support of the Kurdish people and the PKK."

[ . . . ]

"If the US is interested in PJAK, then it has to be interested in the PKK as well," Bayik said. "The PKK is the one who formed PJAK, who established PJAK and supports PJAK."

[ . . . ]

Bayik also called on the international powers and Turkish parties that urged the PKK to announce its unilateral cease-fire to do more to put pressure on the Turkish government and military to reciprocate.

[ . . . ]

Fearing Turkish threats to invade northern Iraq in a bid to deal with PKK bases, the US and Iraq pushed the PKK to reinstate its cease-fire in September. Bayik told AFP that rather than reciprocating, Turkish forces have increased their attacks on the PKK in Turkey.

"Since we called the cease-fire, we are at a point of no war, no peace," he said. "Before we called for a cease-fire, the forces who asked for the cease-fire said they would work for the Kurdish question to be solved peacefully."

[ . . . ]

Bayik said the cease-fire would continue until after Turkish general elections in May, when the PKK would re-evaluate the situation.

"We are very realistic because there are elections, and we know before elections there is no one to make steps toward a cease-fire," he said. But he added that measures such as scaling back military operations would help create a better atmosphere. "If these steps are taken, we will be able to continue our cease-fire and this will start our dialogue."

[ . . . ]

"We fought against Turkey, and as you know Turkey is a member of NATO and during this war NATO supported Turkey and that's how Turkey stood up to us," Bayik said. "Because of that, whether NATO forces come here or not doesn't change anything for us. If NATO forces come here and stand against us, this will increase the tension of the Kurdish people against NATO."

You go, boyfriend.

Those last remarks are in response to a suggestion earlier this week that NATO troops be sent to South Kurdistan to prevent a Turkish invasion. They must think we are stupid if they think we don't know that TSK is the second-largest army in NATO. To put NATO troops in South Kurdistan is merely a ploy to put Turkish troops there.

But I doubt NATO would be able to get together any kind of force to place in South Kurdistan. They're having a hard enough time to maintain troop strength in Afghanistan, and can't seem to get anyone to go into Lebanon. It may be that NATO has fallen into the vortex of irrelevancy and is spiralling toward oblivion.

Too bad for all those smiling faces on the boards of directors of the defense industry, who are in control of the warmongers in Washington and Ankara. They are the ones that have refused any possible peaceful solution to the Kurdish situation. In particular, we should remember the words of Lockheed Martin's "PKK coordinator." Let's review.

From TDN:

Days before the declaration of the truce, the United States publicly said that a PKK cease-fire would have little value and that the terrorist group instead should lay down its arms and renounce violence. Cease-fire sort of implies an act that is taken between two states, two actors, to do that. And I don't want to confer that kind of status on the PKK by saying a cease-fire, Joseph Ralston, the newly appointed U.S. special envoy for countering the PKK . . .

From the US Embassy, Ankara:

Like Turkey, the United States has been the target and victim of terrorism for many years, and we have developed a clear strategy for dealing with terrorism. That strategy does NOT involve talking to or negotiating with terrorists.

I want to be clear on this point: the U.S. will not negotiate with the PKK. We will not ask Turkey to negotiate with the PKK And I pledge to you that I will never meet with the PKK.

[ . . . ]

Second, as I have said on my previous trips to Turkey, we have not taken any option off the table for dealing with the PKK. The military option is on the table. At the same time, as a former military commander, I know that the use of military force must always be the last option for addressing a problem, not the first option.

[ . . . ]

I know from years of personal experience that the Turkish military is skilled, effective, and courageous. They have previously made great efforts in Iraq to defeat the PKK, but the results of those efforts have been limited. To defeat the PKK, we will need to employ all the assets in our counterterrorism arsenal -- diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, and financial, and military. We are working on all of these fronts. [Note: The results of TSK efforts in South Kurdistan have not been limited; they have been total failures for TSK.]

[ . . . ]

Q. The US intends to use the IRA model in dealing with the PKK.
A. You are comparing two very different situations, and mixing apples with oranges. In the case of the PKK, our objective is to enhance cooperation with the Turkish and Iraqi governments to fight the PKK. We are also working with European governments to cut the PKK's financial and logistics lifeline. We will use all of the tools at our disposal: law enforcement, intelligence, diplomacy, financial pressure. And we have not taken any other option off the table.

Q. Why are U.S. officials meeting with PKK officials?
A. We do not. I will not.

Meanwhile, back in the States, there are a number of lawmakers who have been specifically agitating for wide support for the anti-Kurdish MEK. These lawmakers include Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY), and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).

The single biggest difference between MEK's position on The List and PKK's position on The List is that MEK targeted and killed US military personnel in the 1970s and supported the takeover of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. PKK has never targeted or killed Americans.

Why is Seymour Hersh covering up high-level US support for MEK while making up stories about PKK?