With its terror tactics, the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has been trying to create the appearance of a civil war in Turkey like the one going on in Syria to justify the establishment of a Turkish Kurdistan but has failed to do so, according to a security and foreign policy analyst.
“The PKK’s reckless attacks started with the Şemdinli attack, then we saw the attack in Beytüşşebap, and the attacks will continue until the weather gets colder in the area. They were hoping that in a safe zone they could oust the Turkish security forces and get the support of the Kurdish public,” said Sedat Laçiner, rector of Çanakkale 18 Mart University, for Monday Talk.
“They hoped to get control of some region and administer it autonomously,” he said. “But the PKK was not able to manage this because the Kurdish public [of Turkey] did not stand behind the PKK.”
The popular movements of the Arab Spring — have given the opportunity to the PKK to create a Kurdish Spring, but to no avail; yet, the PKK has been armed like it has never been armed before and fights fearlessly, Laçiner said, adding: “The PKK’s attacks today are a result of the Middle East policies of Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Turkey faces a war. Even though it seems like Turkey fights with the PKK, Turkey has actually been at war with many countries.”
Since June of last year, nearly 800 people have died in the conflict, including about 500 PKK operatives, more than 200 security personnel and about 85 civilians. The conflict is focused in the mountainous region bordering Iraq and Iran, but the PKK has also carried out attacks in Turkish cities. The long-lasting conflict has claimed the lives of more than 40,000 people since the PKK launched their fight 28 years ago with the aim of establishing a separate Kurdish state in the predominantly Kurdish Southeast.
Elaborating on the issue, Laçiner answered our questions.
What is your evaluation of the attack in Bingöl? Some observers say that officials failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent such an attack. Some critics say that officials failed in their gathering or evaluation of intelligence. Your views?
If there are losses involved in such an attack, it means that there are failures. Unfortunately, our institutions are closed to criticism. On the other hand, our criticism is not constructive. As one side is critical for the sake of being critical, the other side takes all criticism as an insult, and as a result, there is no environment that is conducive to learning lessons. Obviously, there is a failure because an attack occurred, and either you did not have prior knowledge about it, or you did not take precautions to prevent it. This is the job of the military and the government. And the result is not a sign of success. The soldiers could have been transported by airplane, or if there was a necessity to transport them by land, then the vehicles should have been armored, and security checks in the area should have been made thoroughly. If there was air cover during the land transportation, then attackers could have been spotted. Unfortunately, the Turkish military, like many militaries, is clumsy and the chain of command system of the military ensures that work is not done effectively, especially when you are dealing with terrorists. That’s why I’ve advocated a separate unit to fight terrorism effectively. There are also problems related to intelligence gathering.
What are those problems?
Our intelligence service works like correspondents; they gather information and take pictures. It lacks strategic thinking and analysis. It is not enough just to gather information; there needs to be thorough analysis of this information, and it can be too late if it happens in the clumsy system of chain and command.
Where do you think Turkey is headed while there is escalation of violence by the PKK? And what is it the PKK is trying to do?
Let’s not forget that the PKK was established as an armed organization that uses the methods of terrorism. In the meantime, the PKK has come to seek an independent state. However, the state in the meantime has taken democratic steps. The PKK has been trying to start a Kurdish movement in Turkey, but it has not been successful in getting the Kurdish people on its side. It has remained a marginal group. After [Abdullah] Öcalan’s capture, the PKK hit bottom. However, after Turkey’s refusal to allow the US military to stage attacks against Iraq from Turkish soil in 2003, the United States set the PKK free in order to punish Turkey for its choice of not allowing US troops. This was George Bush’s decision, and the PKK has found a safe haven in northern Iraq. Israel and the United States have also armed the PKK to use it against Iran through PEJAK [Iranian offshoot of the PKK]. Now the PKK has an agreement with Iran against Turkey.
‘PKK ended negotiations’
How about Syria?
Since the PKK has not been able to garner much public support, it is trying to hurt Turkey by forming international alliances. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to convince Turkey to do something using hard power. The Turkish government had many democratic reforms initiated, not during times of war with the PKK but in times of peace and economic prosperity. In the past, before Öcalan was captured, the PKK was established in Syria, which supported the PKK. In the 1980s and 1990s, Iran supported the PKK as well. The reason for that is Tehran’s desire for a regime change in Turkey; it has been trying to export the Islamic revolution to Turkey. With the start of the Arab Spring and its effect in Syria, Damascus started to support the PKK quite openly. The message of the Damascus regime to Turkey was that if you support the Arab Spring, then I’ll support the PKK. It was quite strange that the PKK started its attacks right at the time of the government’s Oslo initiative. The attacks were not meaningful. The PKK ended the process of negotiation and initiated a war. Syria, in order to protect itself from Turkey’s interference, set the PKK free. The plan was to set up a safe haven for Kurds near the Turkish-Syrian border — as was done in the US occupation of Iraq — and Turkey would have to deal with Kurdish movements and not interfere with the affairs of Syria.
Co-chair of the [pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party] BDP Selahattin Demirtaş said recently that about 400 square kilometers of the Çukurca-Şemdinli area in the Southeast is under the control of the PKK.
The BDP works like the PKK’s PR agency. About Syria again, we understand why it is reacting this way. On the other hand, Iran’s role is very important because Tehran believes the Arab Spring has the potential to arrive in Iran, and there is also the belief in Tehran that the West has some plan in the Arab Spring in order to weaken Iran. Tehran believes that it should stop the Arab Spring before it reaches Iran. That’s why it is supporting the PKK. There are reports that police stations along the Turkish-Iranian border have been left to the PKK. PKK members are now trained in Iran, and they are most probably armed by Iran. In addition, there is a Shiite government — formed in Iraq after the US troops left Iraq — which is very close to Shiite Iran. It seems like Maliki [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] feels quite close to Damascus and Tehran. At this point, the PKK freely moves at Turkey’s borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. Plus, the Russian and Chinese stances on the issue are the opposite of Turkey because they feel like they have not been consulted in relation to international intervention into the affairs of Syria, and they think that what happens in Syria can happen in their countries as well, so they don’t want to leave control of the Middle East to the Western powers altogether. What if there are Arab Spring-like movements in Russia or China? What if the UN makes a decision about intervening in those cases without the consent of Russia and China? This is how they perceive the situation. Again at this point, the PKK has been armed — Russian-made arms of the PKK are in abundance, and they can probably be obtained through Syria, Iraq and Iran — as it has never been armed before, and it has been engaged in Kamikaze-style acts. They are having big losses — [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] PM Erdoğan’s mention of the number of PKK losses of around at least 500 this summer is quite right as opposed to the exaggerated numbers of past years — and the PKK doesn’t even care about it; and 80 percent of the PKK losses are under 18 years of age even though their commanders are gray-haired middle-aged people.
‘Kurdish education soon to be as normal as Turkish education’
In another interview, you indicated that the PKK has been getting ready for a “golden strike.” Would you elaborate on this idea?
Actually, the PKK thinks that it has a golden opportunity in the current turmoil of the Middle East. The PKK has been given assurances internationally that if it can manage to be a hard opposition force again and establish a safe and free zone inside the borders of Turkey, no matter how large or small it is, then it will get more support for its struggle to establish an independent state. The PKK’s reckless attacks started with the Şemdinli attack, then we saw the attack in Beytüşşebap, and the attacks will continue until the weather gets colder in the area. They were hoping that in a safe zone, they could oust Turkish security forces and get the support of the Kurdish public. They hoped to get control of some region and administer it autonomously. If they managed this, this could have been a golden strike. But it was not able to manage this because the Kurdish public [of Turkey] did not stand behind the PKK.
What if Turkey implements more radical reforms in order to meet the demands of its Kurdish citizens? Doesn’t it help to marginalize the PKK more and more?
Reforms have already been done, and even more reforms can still be done. However, the problem we have has no relation to the Kurdish problem.
You see no ties between the PKK and the Kurdish problem at all?
There is no direct tie between the two today. The PKK has lost touch with the realities of Turkey. About 30 percent of PKK forces are now Syrian Kurds. The PKK’s main goal is not to protect the rights of Turkey’s Kurds; there are other factors. Even if Turkey becomes the most prosperous and democratic country in the world, the PKK will continue its attacks because it has different goals.
Doesn’t the PKK still get Kurdish people from Turkey’s Southeast to join its cadres?
In the Southeast, yes, it is still quite easy to recruit people for the PKK. We are talking about a troubled, deprived region. However, what I’m trying to say is quite different. The PKK’s attacks today are a result of the Middle East policies of Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Turkey faces a war. Even though it seems like Turkey fights with the PKK, Turkey has actually been at war with many countries. In order for Turkey to move on with democratic reforms, it needs to stop this war. When it comes to democratic reforms — for example, education in Kurdish — Turkey has already been moving in that direction. It is now training people who can provide an education in Kurdish in Turkey. In the years to come, education in Kurdish is going to be as normal as education in Turkish.
‘Israel lends significant support to PKK’
Do you think the Kurds of Turkey desire an independent state since half of them live in the west of Turkey and the other half lives in the east of Turkey?
Kurds, who are doing well in Turkey, do not seek an independent state. There might be some Kurds who do want it. And if there is a demand for a referendum in that regard, I do not think that PM Erdoğan would be against it. The PKK seeks an independent Kurdish state in Turkey, but its problem is that it cannot get the Kurdish people’s support. Despite all the threats from the PKK, it is obvious how much support the BDP can get from Turkey’s Kurds. Therefore, the PKK is using more violence in order to create deep divisions, rifts, ethnic hatred between Turks and Kurds so it can further its goal, and the goal is, as I said, to establish an independent Kurdish state.
Talking about Iran’s support for the PKK, and knowing that the West is not so favorable toward Iran, shouldn’t we expect the utmost support from the West in Turkey’s fight against PKK terrorism?
This is a good question. It is very interesting that the United States and Israel have been silent about the deal between the PKK and Iran. Obviously, Israel sees no problem in regards to the deal. When it comes to the United States, either it does not care, or some elements in the US see the problem like Israel does. In US foreign policy and defense agencies, there are quite a number of people who think identically with Israel — which is a worrisome fact for Turkey.
You once said that “the liking” between the PKK and Israel turned into “deep love” after the Davos incident. Is there evidence of that?
Yes, I believe Israel lends significant support for the PKK — Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles circle the region and sometimes enter Turkish airspace. We have to be really naïve to think that they don’t share the information that they gather with the PKK.
So, what shall we expect in regards to the future?
Turkey faces a very serious situation. If Turkish security forces leave the area for two or three weeks, the PKK can gain control. But if Turkey continues its effective fight against the PKK until the cold weather arrives, the PKK attacks will stop. But then, there are risks in the cities. Cities should be protected from provocative incidents and attacks. If Turkey continues to fight effectively in spring as well, then the PKK would start to lose its remaining power because the Kurdish public is quite concerned that large numbers of children are dying in the PKK fight. The Kurdish public will see even more that the PKK is not out there to protect the rights of Turkey’s Kurdish people but that it acts under directions from other states and wants to form a state. The PKK uses children in the fight, and when it starts to lose 1,000, 1,500 of them, they cannot go on. They are using hit-and-run tactics right now, not engaged in a guerilla war. But when they try to be engaged in a guerilla war, they will have more losses.
‘PKK cut Öcalan off’
Parliament Speaker Cemil Çiçek suggested recently that even if the PKK wants to lay down its arms, it cannot. What do you think of this idea? Is it not possible to have a solution with the PKK like in the cases of the IRA [Irish Republican Army] and ETA [a Basque separatist terrorist organization]?
There are things to learn from the experiences with the IRA and ETA. But each case is different. Most importantly, we cannot ignore the realities of the Middle East today. If the IRA or ETA had been given territory in which to hide, arms to use and continuous support by the states nearby, I doubt that they would have signed peace deals. I am not sure what Cemil Çiçek meant exactly, but today the PKK obviously not only gets arms, money and logistical support from other countries but also orders. The PKK has cut its relations with Abdullah Öcalan [imprisoned leader of the PKK], who was trying to do something positive recently for Turkey’s Kurds, too. Since the PKK wants to form a separate Kurdish state, it invites war. And this is not beneficial for Turkey’s Kurds who are constantly threatened by the PKK. And whoever says something not in line with the PKK, the PKK silences that person, as we have seen in many examples.
‘PKK will soon be divided’
Research shows that the majority of Turkey’s Kurds do not want an independent state, but there are some who do want it…
About 80-85 percent do not support an independent Kurdish state for various reasons, but there are still 15-20 percent of the people who do want it. And they are mostly in the poor segment of society; they are easy targets for the PKK, which can recruit these socially disadvantaged people. For example, think about young women in the Southeast; they are very likely not to get an education and to enter into a forced marriage with somebody whom they do not like. In that case, they will either commit suicide, run away from home or join the PKK. Independent from the PKK problem, this is a socially problematic region that should be handled with care by the Turkish government.
Do you see an independent Kurdish state in the future?
There is almost an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Its survival depends on Turkey. Kurds of the Middle East need an ally like Turkey, which is comparatively democratic, secular and not sectarian. Turkey is like a venting pipe in the region; it is a source of oxygen. Can there be an autonomous Kurdish area in Turkey?
Yes or no, it can be discussed; there can even be a referendum. But the way to achieve it is not through an armed struggle.
What do you think the PKK is going to do as it changes its leadership and tactics?
Last year, the PKK cut its ties with Öcalan. The PKK has the backing of Iran and Syria now. On the other hand, Turkey protects [Iraqi Kurdish leaders] [Massoud] Barzani and [Jalal] Talabani against the Baghdad regime, which has allied with Tehran and Damascus. There are already powerful factions within the PKK, and they are not in agreement with each other on some key issues. Depending on how the United States and Israel view the issue, there might be a breakup in the PKK in the next one-and-a-half years.
‘Sharp maneuvers of Ankara led to misperceptions’
What went wrong with Syria?
Prior to the events of the Arab Spring, Turkey was trying to establish good relations with such countries as Syria and Iran, and Ankara was pressing for democratic developments in those countries. After the Arab Spring started, it was impossible for Turkey to continue to have good relations with the government in Damascus. However, Turkey made some sharp maneuvers in the process, and this led to misperceptions. Prime Minister Erdoğan’s sharp statements led to some misinterpretations in the world. It is important to understand that Turkey tried to form a coalition in the Middle East — like the European Union — by saying that they share the same religion and culture and they have similar problems, so they can find solutions to their problems themselves. Turkey even tried to include Israel in that coalition. This was naïve thinking. In particular, Israel and Iran are pro status quo and religiously oriented states in the Middle East. Turkey does not have enough knowledge of Middle Eastern politics. And it was a mistake that Turkey tried to deal with the problems of the Middle East before it solved its problems inside, especially the problem of Ergenekon [a clandestine organization that has alleged links within the state and is suspected of plotting to topple the government].
PROFILE
Sedat Laçiner
He has been the rector of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University since March 2011. Previously, he was director of the International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), an Ankara-based think tank. Having received degrees from Ankara University, the University of Sheffield and King’s College London, he has taught Turkish foreign policy, international relations and international security courses at Bilkent University in Ankara, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Başkent University and the National Police Academy Security Studies Institute in Ankara since 2001. Together with İhsan Bal, he authored “Ethnic Terrorism in Turkey and the Case of the PKK: Roots, Structure, Survival, and Ideology” in 2004. He also authored “Irak Küresel Meydan Savaşı ve Türkiye” (The Iraq War and Turkey) and co-authored “Türkiyeli Avrupalı, Türkiye’nin Üyeliğinin AB’ye Olası Etkileri” (Europe with Turkey, the Possible Impacts of Turkey’s EU Membership) in 2004.His most recent book is “Dışımızdaki PKK İçimizdeki İsrail” (Inside [Turkey] is Israel, Outside PKK).
(Today’s Zaman)
