Saturday, February 17, 2007


"What do we do then to get any result? Then neither I will have the power to make a call, and find that strength in myself, nor would PKK listen to me. Therefore this ceasefire period is crucial and must truly be taken advantage of."
~ Abdullah Ocalan, Call for Ceasefire.

So, Buyukanit is not all too bad and Erdogan is our friend? That's the analysis coming from KurdishMedia and Vladimir van Wilgenburg. But there are problems with this analysis, so let's go to it.

First of all, Erdogan's lies in Amed in August 2005 are whitewashed over as being undermined by the Turkish general staff and the Northern Kurds by their justified serhildan in the following March. Yes, the Amed Serhildan was justified as a mass protest against the Turkish use of chemical weapons against Kurdish gerîlas and the usual military provocations during and following the funeral of the şehîds. How convenient that Erdogan's words about Amed during the serhildan are completely forgotten. Let's review Erdogan's words, since the entire world has forgotten:

“The events are under control... Security forces will intervene with every possible means indiscriminately, including against women and children.”

From the BBC:

Mr Erdogan urged parents not to allow their children to be used by what he described as terrorist organisations.

"If you cry tomorrow, it will be in vain," Anatolia quoted him as saying.

"The security forces will intervene against the pawns of terrorism, no matter if they are children or women. Everybody should realise that."

His government has praised the security forces for their handling of the situation, saying they have acted with restraint.

But it's always the fault of those bothersome Northern Kurds, isn't it? How irresponsible and provocative of them to allow their children on balconies or to walk to a relative's home, to be shot dead by Turkish security forces. But what can be expected from such backward and ignorant people, eh?

There's a little discussion of how badly murderers like Richard Holbrooke, Erdogan, and Buyukanit want to cooperate and dialog, how badly they want political solutions. Political solutions for what? Certainly not for the Turkish genocide of the Kurdish people because those who are on the direct receiving end of genocide are not mentioned at all in regard to these alleged burning desires for "cooperation." The inclusion of a token comment by DTP's Ahmet Turk is followed by a cynical remark about "these people" not listening to each other. Here's a newsflash: PKK was striving for a political solution within Buyukanit's sacred "territorial integrity" long before Ahmet Turk said anything about it. On top of that, who has not listened to the ceasefire? Who has not listened to the democratic solution proposal?

While Ahmet Turk's comment is listed under "Buyukanit not all too bad," PKK's struggle for solution within a "unitary framework" is discussed under "PKK part of the problem?" thus implying that when Buyukanit lies about the reality of the Kurdish struggle, he's a good guy--kind of like Ali Kaya, who bombed the Umut Bookstore in Semdinli--but when Ocalan or Murat Karayilan propose the same as part of PKK's consistent approach to a political solution, the implication is that PKK's solution is problematic.

We should consider who it was who begged PKK for a ceasefire last summer. It was Talabanî and the two main Başûrî parties. They are responsible for the set-up which then allowed Ankara and Washington to completely reject the ceasefire and the offer of a democratic solution, both made by PKK. This fact is hypocritcally highlighted by another fact: Washington appointed a board member and documented lobbyist for Lockheed Martin as Washington's "special envoy" to coordinate the PKK for Ankara. Lockheed Martin itself is a member of the American Turkish Council, which has been under FBI counter-intelligence investigations for some time. What does this mean in practical terms? It means that, once again, the KDP and PUK have sold out 20 million Kurds in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, not in order to secure the people of South Kurdistan, but to secure the personal interests of the two dominant Başûrî clans.

A far more interesting question yet to be answered is this: What did Talabanî and the KDP/PUK get out of this arrangement?

Recent developments indicate that Turkmen leader Karhi Altiparmak insists that "Turkey has to be present in the Kurdish region in all forms ranging from business activities to social affairs and help all ethnic groups." How is that remotely possible given that Turkey cannot equitably handle its own ethnic groups? Really, this is a huge joke that no one seems to understand. Turkey is a genocidal state that has worked consistently since 1923 to genocide its own enslaved Kurdish population through forced assimilation, through policies adopted to wipe out Kurdish culture, through ethnic cleansing, and, when all else fails, through outright mass murder--and Turkey is going to "help all ethnic groups" in South Kurdistan? A person is either very stupid or paid very well to suggest such a thing.

Then we have the example of a collaborator and former Başûrî government minister, Hussain Sinjari, who claims "We need Turkey more than anyone else, and Turkey needs us." He admits that Turkish companies dominate the construction market in South Kurdistan and that the market is flooded with Turkish goods. What this traitor fails to realize is the greater meaning behind his statements.

As a result of the policies of the collaborationist KRG--i.e. the KDP and PUK--is that food production (the very basis of a nation's survival through the ability to feed itself) is non-existent in South Kurdistan. The very survival of the Kurdish people in the South is now dependent upon a state whose policy for decades has been the removal of the Kurdish people from the face of the earth--Turkey--and, to a lesser extent, those Kurd-killers to the east, Iran. This fact of life is the direct result of the personal business decisions of the Barzanîs and Talabanîs.

For more on the dire situation of the people of South Kurdistan, see the recent opinion by Benaz Qwestani or the commentary and translation of Peshraw Hamid.

In the meantime, just to hedge Daddy's bets, Qubad Talabanî has run off, like a slave to his master, to seek US protection. Given the history of American betrayals of the Başûrî and American backing of Turkey's program of genocide, how stupid is it for Qubad to beg the very people who are directly responsible for much Kurdish suffering? And this is in spite of recent incidents in which the US murdered a number of PUK pêşmerge in Mûsil, or the example of US disregard for its Kurdish "allies" by its violation of Kurdish sovereignty in order to capture a handful of Iranians in Hewlêr. That last was part of the current effort to doctor-up evidence to justify a US attack against Iran . . . much in the same way that the US doctored-up evidence of Saddam's non-existent WMDs to justify the invasion of Iraq.

While we're at it, let's note that the upcoming PUK public relations campaign in the US should be scrutinized carefully to see if it will reflect the reality of life for the ordinary Kurd under US and KRG domination or whether it will be another made-by-Hollywood fantasy.

Brendan O'Leary seems to be close to the truth, however:

"It is of course a matter of resentment in Kurdistan that roughly the message seems to be that if you bomb US troops, you will get money spent on you, but if you are peaceful, if you are an American ally, you will get nothing," said Brendan O'Leary , a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who serves as an adviser to the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Translation: If you are peaceful and an American "ally," you will get screwed. Likewise, if you attempt to use "democratic" methods to end unjust repression, you will get screwed. Forget the part about the money; more importantly, if you bomb US troops or civilians, will you just get the US to leave you alone? If nothing else, will the US then fear you, which may lead to a measure of respect for your offers of political solutions or your ceasefires?

Kani Xulam's remark on Kurds fighting a "Turkish invasion just as fiercely as Sunnis fought Americans in Fallujah," is dependent on the degree of emasculation that the KDP and PUK have carried out against the ordinary people. Nothing has been done so far to fight the "soft" invasion of Turkish business interests, an invasion which is fairly complete at this moment. Turkey only lacks access to the oil.

Let us not forget that the shameless collaborators of eight years ago (US-Turkey-Israel) began more terrorist operations against the Northern Kurdish communities of Europe in the last two weeks. These Kurdish political leaders and intellectuals are the ones who have been pushing for a positive response to PKK's ceasefire, along with certain quarters of DTP, and to the acceptance of a political solution as presented by the PKK. These leaders have been attempting to promote the legitimate struggle of the Bakûrî through the so-called democratic process of the West. The results of these peaceful, democratic efforts have been the detention, arrest, possible extradition to a country widely known to use torture routinely, and application of the term "terrorist" by the real terrorists, all under the War on Terror, Inc. trademark. Why?

The reason is that there is a complete misunderstanding of what "democracy" really is. In reality, democracy is a marketing gimmick, a buzz-word, used by the US to sell its own interests to potential victims. Democracy is the name of the method by which the US seeks to control and exploit the natural resources of others in order to enrich the elites. As such, it is a game whose rules are made up and then changed as events unfold in order to specifically further US interests. The result is that the Kurdish people are doomed if they play the game of democracy, for the simple reason that they have the very bad fate to have been born on a part of the Earth through which flow oil below and water through the mountains. The misfortune is compounded by the fact that the Kurdish people also stand in the way of NATO's poppy fields farther to the east and NATO's heroin export point--Turkey.

The failure of Kurdish diaspora so-called leadership to condemn the joint US-Turkish attacks against the Bakûrî in Europe is an indication that this so-called leadership has acquiesced--as the British government put it--to the continued repression of the Bakûrî. The attempts this week to silence demonstrations for the situation of Kurds under Turkish occupation in South Kurdistan is an indication that the KRG is fully on-board with Ralston's own trilateral commission to "coordinate" the PKK for Turkey. Thus, it too is an official member of the shameless collaborators of 1999.

Of course, the repression of legitimate "democratic" expressions of political will is not new to the KRG. Over the last couple of years, repression of demonstrations by the KDP and PUK has become the norm in South Kurdistan, indicating that these two parties are becoming more and more like US-backed militias that have committed incredible atrocities on indigenous populations in Central America, for example.

Because the ceasefire and all peaceful political efforts on the part of Northern Kurds have been rejected by the same groups calling for these efforts--including the Southern Kurdish leadership--it is utter stupidity to suggest that "more violence would only result in backlashes and more nationalism" when it is clear that peaceful efforts have only resulted in "backlashes and more nationalism." It is equally ridiculous for Buyukanit to suggest the unification of those who want to solve the Kurdish situation without violence unless Buyukanit subtracts himself from his own equation.

As for the accusation that PKK murdered Kani Yilmaz, let's review an examination of the facts here, here, and here. Let's not forget this one, either. As for the proof of PKK's involvement in the murder, we are still waiting for the evidence that we were promised by PWD . . . or was that claim of evidence a simple matter of Sheri Laizer's beating around the bush?

Put up or shut up.

Throughout Vladimir's article, and all the other articles discussing the close relationship that is being cultivated between Ankara and Hewlêr, and all the solicitude for this cosiness, there is one huge void: There is no mention of the will of the Kurdish people under Turkish occupation. There is no reference to them at all. They have been totally cut out of a process which is supposed to alleviate their suffering. This is more evidence for the case against "democracy" as the West defines the term.

For another example of a collaborator's total disregard of the existence of Kurds under Turkish occupation, see TNA's interview with Sami Shoresh. According to him, there is a 300 km border between Turkey and Iraq, but the distance between Ankara and Hewlêr passes through a huge void. Where in the hell does Shoresh think 20 million of his claimed 40 million Kurds are? Here, too, we are exposed to the nauseating platitude which calls Turkey to solve its own Kurdish "problem" through "peaceful means." Peace, like democracy, is another advertising gimmick.

Thus we return to the remarks of Brendan O'Leary. Since "democratic" means do not apply to 20 million Kurds under Turkish occupation, it is time to seriously consider playing a different game, one in which Kurds themselves make the rules and bend them at will. In this consideration, it is good to keep in mind the words of Rêber Apo from his call for ceasefire:

Ocalan emphasized that his ideas must be taken into consideration, otherwise he warned that the situation could reach the point of irreversible developments. He said, "What do we do then to get any result? Then neither I will have the power to make a call, and find that strength in myself, nor would PKK listen to me. Therefore this ceasefire period is crucial and must truly be taken advantage of."

Yes, indeed.

[On NATO's narco-trafficking: one should question praise of mass murderer Richard Holbrooke's role in the Dayton Peace Accords and his general handling of Bosnia. Within months of the signing of those accords in December 1995, the heroin business was booming in Bosnia. By 2005, under NATO "protection," heroin production was flourishing. Furthermore, NATO refuses to become involved. The refusal creates a situation for Marc Grossman's (The Cohen Group) old company, Dyncorp, to step in and "save" the day. Dyncorp was also involved in a forced prostitution scandal in the Balkans and has helped to promote cocaine production in Colombia, but that's another long story. Note that Grossman, former US ambassador to Turkey, is no longer on the board of Dyncorp. He had to resign recently because The Cohen Group has become an official lobby firm for Dyncorp.]


Anonymous said...

Silav Mizgin

I hope you've been well. I have been absent for some time...I guess the more our views diverged, the less I became inclined to leave my comments here. I do however, commend the work that you do on this website.

I found your article very difficult to digest. Not that I agree (or have ever agreed) with Vladimir's unrealistic views but because I find it difficult to see how you can be so harsh on KRG and call them "collaborationists".

I don't find their actions exemplary but at this time and juncture I don't see the logic behind making it seem as though they are all too willing participants in appeasing Turkey or the United States.

Only one person comes to mind whom I think is all too willing to appease Turkey for his benefit. It is the person who warns Turkey that everyone else -- Europe, US, the world -- is out to play a dirty game on Turkey. For a long time I tried to hold my tongue because I thought it was for the greater good. And, I honestly liked the developments in the past year. But, when i read one of Ocalan's latest statements, I found it even more difficult to blame KDP or PUK.

"ABD, kuresel sermaye Turkiye'nin teslim olmasini istiyor. bunlar Turkiye'yi kuresel sermayeye teslim edecekler. Zaten turkiye'nin dortyuz milyar dolar borcu var. avrupa birligi de bu konuda Turkiye'yi saglam kaziklara baglamak istediklerini soylemislerdi. Yani 'saglam kaziklar' deniliyor. bunlar turkiye'nin kiyilarina egemen olmak istiyor."

When Reber Apo has such worries in his mind, why does it bother you so much, for example, that Qubad Talabani is asking protection from the US? He is at least not begging for protection from Turkey.

What is it that Ocalan did that was so radical that KDP and PUK should be stamped as collaborationist? Declaring a ceasefire only a couple of months after resuming the armed struggle is hardly an action I'd deem revolutionary.


Anonymous said...

i hate you i hate kurds. i wish they would all burn.

Mizgîn said...

It is good to hear from you, as always, Nistiman. I also hope that you have been well. Since I know that you have always been sincere in your desires for Kurdistan (a characteristic that I think we share), then I take your comments in that spirit.

Because you are familiar with the problems of the South, I don't need to go into detail about them. You know that I'm not the only one who has anger over corruption or the fact that the basic survival of the ordinary people is subject to the whims of the surrounding states (as has been the survival of the Kurds in those states). But the South has a window of opportunity and I'm afraid it is now quickly closing. Instead of focusing on the foundations of the nation and taking a lead in strengthening unity--for which the KRG (short for KDP/PUK) was in the prime position--I see that strength slipping away on business ventures that do not serve the interests of the people. Dream Cities and uber-malls are for established economies, not for those in which a lack of basic services is widespread.

Then there is a lack of transparency with regard to the situation of the PKK. From what we know, PKK agreed to a ceasefire after talks with KDP/PUK. Perhaps KDP/PUK had some impetus behind the declaration for a democratic solution, although I most of the points in that document were ideas that had floated around PKK circles for some time. . . at least going back to older ideas of KNK and KADEK. But I have not seen any serious discussion of those points by KDP/PUK as regards Ankara and we know for certain that PKKs overtures have been rejected out of hand by both Washington and Ankara.

There is also the fact of the very serious and documented conflict of interest with the "PKK coordinator." It is a very big problem, and a very cynical one, for the US government to appoint a known Lockheed Martin board member, registered Lockheed Martin lobbyist, advisory board member of the ATC for a corporation that is a member of the ATC, to find a solution to a long-standing low-intensity conflict. . . at the same time, coincidentally (?), that Ankara was wrapping up some $13 billion in Lockheed Martin business.

There has been no discussion of these facts. What am I to think, then, when I know all this and I know that Lockheed Martin directors have publicly admitted as far back as three years ago, now, that they are involved with the policy-making process of the US government?

In addition, there have been several incidents of a personal nature that help me to trace the threads to their origins.

As for the US, well, it has backed Turkey for a very long time and it knows very well what Turkey has done with all the billions of dollars of weapons that it eagerly sold, subsidized, and gave gratis to Turkey. It is on a par with Turkey as far as genocide goes.

For the sake of the Kurdish people, I do not want to see another disaster. This is why I am very harsh. In spite of the severe repression in the North, I feel that the people there are in a better situation because they are forced to turn to each other to take care of their problems and to create something for themselves. It's an enforced grassroots movement, if you will, that I hope is building new habits and compelling communities to engage in unorthodox thinking that will serve them in a better future. They do not exist in a vacuum and still have to deal with the state, but in a certain way, they are beginning to do it on their terms. I would like to see the same in the South.

As for Ocalan's quote, I do not know the context, but he is correct if this is in reference to the process of globalization, and the effects of that will not only be detrimental to Turkey. A National Intelligence Estimate from 2000 admits that globalization, especially in its impact on the Middle East, is going to create a much more polarized global society (between rich and poor)--and this is written by the guys who are tools of the system, not a bunch of anti-WTO anarchists. Economic polarization is already a problem in Turkey and how much does it contribute to the intensity of nationalism? It is already a problem in South Kurdistan; what will happen if the trend continues?

There are wider factors involved as well, especially with regard to Iran, but as for globalization and the World Bank and related organizations and processes, the whole purpose of those things is to dominate everything they touch. In that respect, I have to agree with Ocalan.