International Initiative
Freedom for Ocalan Peace in Kurdistan
P.O. Box 100511, D-50445 Koeln
E-Mail: info@freedom-for-ocalan.com
Url: www.freedom-for-ocalan.com
Cologne, 2 October 2002
INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE BRIEFINGS:
An interview with Hiwa Abdullah, European
Representative of the Democratic Solution Party of Kurdistan (Parti
Chareseri Demokrati Kurdistan) from the Co-ordination Bureau of
International Initiative "Freedom for Ocalan - Peace in Kurdistan":
II: Can you give us some information about your party?
H.A.: We are a new party and it is only six months (April 2002)
that we have appeared on the political stage. We have an armed force
of 2,000 and as much cadres and members. We also have members abroad.
Being an new party, though, we have only just started to make ourselves
known. We are ready to work and deal with all parties which stand
for the democratisation of Iraq.
II: The US wants to get rid of the Iraqi regime. A war seems
inevitable. What do you think are their intentions regarding the
future of Iraq, and what will be the role of the Kurds in this?
H.A.: The planned US operation against Iraq is not a new scenario.
From the aftermath of 1958-63 the Americans have tried to gain control
over this region because Iraq has a strategic importance for the
USA. They have always tried to implement their plans concerning
the Middle-East from Iraq. Before that this region was under British
control. In 1921 Britain had created a central government. The followers
of the Shia faith whose number is higher than that of the Sunni
population were left aside in that nor were the Kurds granted their
rights. In order to be used in future plans they were forced to
rank among the opposition groups. In the early 1960s the Americans
tried to bring to power a stratum that was composed mainly of Arab
Sunni chauvinists. They started to oppose a new revolution in Iraq
in 1958 led by Abdulkarim Qasim. When these came to power, i.e.
the Arab Ba'ath Party, the Americans wanted to use the Kurds for
their own benefit, so in the beginning they supported a Kurdish
uprising which was known as the September Revolution under the leadership
of Mullah Mustafa Barzani. When the movement expanded and grew stronger
the Americans ignored the chauvinist behaviour of Ba'ath towards
the Kurds. This sort of policy towards the Kurdish movement is still
being continued. The Americans have shown all along that they are
in favour of an Arab state in Iraq provided it is not a strong one.
They accept Kurdish parties and Kurdish uprisings, but they have
not allowed the Kurds to reach their goals. On the other hand there
is the narrow minded nationalism of Kurds which has been a pretext
for this policy of the US in the region. But the current American
policy in the region and concerning Iraq is different to a certain
extent. Today the US, while not in control of the Middle East, needs
to change the present structure of the region which it laid down
itself in the last century because today its interests in the Middle
East are threatened. This new line is going to be carried out by
changing the current Iraqi regime, because Iraq is the key of the
door to the Middle East.
Our party believes that the American operation against Iraq is surely
going to take place but we can not say anything about its date.
II: Why do PUK and KDP fear an American military operation?
H.A.: The fear of Kurdish political parties specially PUK and KDP
of an eventual operation against Iraq stems from the fact that even
they are in favour of the ancien régime. They are not self-reliant
and do not consider themselves to be able to play a role in changing
the regime in Iraq. They have never taken a real decision based
on their own free will and among themselves. Instead of forming
national unity and relying on the Kurdish masses they have acted
on the basis of instructions of the US, Britain, Europe, Iran, Turkey
and Syria, and have ignored their own masses and hampered the dynamics
of their society. This is why they are fearful of changes and why
they only think in terms of their own interests and do not give
any consideration to any solution whatsoever.
II: How do you assess recent proposals for a federative Iraq?
H.A.: Until now neither the US nor any other country have officially
mentioned a federative solution for Iraq. The solution for the current
problems in Iraq and in South-Kurdistan, however, lies in a federal
system. We as the Democratic Solution Party of Kurdistan ( P- CH-D-K)
do not believe that an ethnical federation which might even deepen
the conflicts between Kurds and other ethnicities can be a proper
solution, because an ethnic federation based on geographic distributions
cannot solve the existing problems, on the contrary: It might pave
the way for further ethnic or religious conflicts. It cannot democratise
the central power and this situation in turn does not curb the foreign
interventions but it can increase that. We as (P-CH-D-K) do have
a different view of this federation concept than have the other
parties in South-Kurdistan (the part of Kurdistan which is under
Iraqi control in North-Iraq). We consider an administrative federation
based on a pluralistic party system on the level of provinces a
proper solution capable of ensuring cooperation and free friendship
between nations, ethnic groups, and various religions on the principle
of democracy and coexistence. And it blocks foreign interventions.
H.A.: While the US is preparing for a war in Iraq one of its
main allies in the region, Turkey, seems strongly opposed to these
plans. What is the part of Turkey in this scenario?
The US administration is determined to intervene in Iraq, its main
aim being a change of Iraq's political structure. They have not
yet come to terms with Iraq's neighbouring countries, since what
they actually want is a powerless Iraq. Meanwhile they keep thinking
of using the Kurds in order to achieve this. Turkey, however, does
not accept in any way that the Kurds might play a part in this plan.
Now the US is trying to sort of provide compensation for the Turks.
This is why they insisted on including the PKK on the EU list of
terrorist organisations. We fear that Turkey might inflict a tragedy
upon the Kurdish people under the pretext of eliminating terrorist
organisations and that they might use the opportunity to curb the
efforts of the Kurdish people to ensure their rights. In this context
Turkey is set on eliminating KADEK as the vanguard of national struggle
and in the South it is aiming at KDP, but in this delicate situation
PUK has sided with Turkey and wants to defend its interests single-handedly.
II: What is going to happen with the Kirkuk region?
H.A.: Both Turkey and the US have laid their eyes on Kirkuk's oil.
This is a reality, but we think one should not make politics based
on oil or geography.
II: What position does your party take towards a US-sponsored
political change in Iraq?
H.A.: We would like changes to take place in Iraq. These changes,
however, should originate from the will of the peoples living in
Iraq and should not threaten the their common interests. We do not
want these changes to be imposed from outside because then we would
have to be afraid that once again our people might experience a
tragedy. We are prepared to collaborate with whosoever does work
in the interests of the Kurds, but we shall not be a playing card
in a game and we shall not be used against other peoples and groups.
Unfortunately, it is still not clear to what degree the US has changed
in this respect. This is why we do not support anybody just out
of blue.
II: Do you have any contacts to those forces preparing for an
intervention?
H.A.: After 1991 South-Kurdistan or the part of Kurdistan ruled
by Iraq has been an arena for foreign intelligence services of virtually
every country, in particular, however, the US and Israel, Iran and
most vividly Turkey. These kind of activities have increased in
connection with a possible American operation in Iraq. The US are
engaged in preparing the ground for their attack through various
groups and organisations. We do not have further information in
this respect, though.
II: Have you been contacted by the US or its allies?
H.A.: We as a newly formed organisation have not been approached
by the US or any other side and we have not been asked for support
in a operation against Iraq.
II: Has the situation in South-Kurdistan changed following September
11?
H.A.: Prior to September 11 the political equilibrium in South-Kurdistan
was a different one. KDP on the basis of opposing the PKK was collaborating
with Turkey. PUK on the basis of eliminating PDK-Iran was collaborating
with Iran and was engaged in a power struggle with KDP. After the
strategic transformations which took place in the PKK, KDP felt
that it could not go as far as they had done before, which is why
they kept their distance to Turkey. This time PUK started to fill
this vacuum trying to come to terms with Turkey. This policy is
contrary to the interests of the Kurds. They have followed this
line since September 11.
The big western powers want to create a new scenario by engaging
the Kurds with the Iraqi regime. They want to use the Kurds for
the regime of Saddam Hussein to have a pretext to perpetrate a massacre
in Kurdistan. It is truly a repetition of Kurdish tragedy like what
happened in Halabja during the Anfal campaign with its chemical
bombardments. We as P-CH-D-K want to raise the awareness of Kurds
and other peoples in order to prevent such tragedy.
For hundreds of years the Kurds have been terrorised by occupying
powers, especially by Turkey. The US, the West, and the East have
kept silent, how come we are now on their agenda?
Why have the Kurdish revolutionary organisations been included in
the terrorist list? Why do the US-Americans ignore the terror perpetrated
by Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria and only cry out when their own
interests are involved?
We do not agree with the view that whosoever does not share American
views is a terrorist. If there is terror at all, then it is the
kind we have mentioned above. It is true that terrorism poses a
problem, but it is not just a problem for the US. A fight against
terrorism cannot be carried out by only one side, and it is not
appropriate to act indiscriminately under the pretext of the necessity
of this fight.
II: What can be done, in your opinion, to establish democracy
in Iraq?
H.A.: In our view, the best alternative is to first change the
system in Iraq and then to establish a pluralistic government based
on recognition of the rights of all nationalities, ethnicities and
beliefs through a general election.
The interests of all Iraqi peoples and parties must be safeguarded.
To this end our party has formed the slogan: A democratic Iraq and
a free Kurdistan. We see a federal Iraq based on Provinces as a
proper solution.
We make our efforts to bring about this aim through the collaboration
of an independent Iraqi front.
There is a danger, nonetheless, that once again mass influx and
immigration might occur. We believe, however, that the negative
effects can be reduced if the opposition parties get together in
order to act more freely upon their own will.
|