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.