Author: Nistiman » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:01 am
Hi Cheryl,
I've been wanting to reply to your posts for some time. I guess I've been busy, but overall I generally agree with you so there's little for me to add. But, still, I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my question about the armed struggle.
Now I have started to wonder about a related point and that is - why is Ocalan so hated by 'outsiders' - and by this i mean Western governments, leaders, etc? The reasons that are given generally:
- he's a ruthless terrorist
- he's authoritarian
- he is responsible for the death of other Kurds and dissenters
- any leader of a subversive, armed movement is seen as an enemy of the leaders of sovereign states
But these factors would only hold water if we are to accept the image of the PKK as relentlessly propagated by the Turkish state. As I've tried to explain elsewhere, I don't think the PKK nor Ocalan can be properly classified as 'terrorist'. As far as I'm concerned, only ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can push someone to that conclusion.
He is authoritarian, but so are Barzani, Talabani and nearly every other leader in the Middle East whom the West ostensibly has great relations with.
I won't even bother making an explanation about the killing of dissenters (although there's many legitimate points to be made) because it would rest on the assumption that the West cares that Kurds are being killed...they don't...
On the last point, I think it is legitimate but many exceptions are made...
However, if you ask PKK supporters, they would likely give different answers as to why Ocalan has earned the enmity of the West, such as:
- he's an ideologue who does not support the status quo and cannot be 'manipulated' by the interests of foreign powers (he does not forsake the interests of Kurds)
- he represents a way of life that is antithetical to the materialistic way of life epitomized in Western society - for example... his search for 'natural man' stripped of his ties to society and more in tune with humanity simpliciter
- in a way, he is seen as an "alternative" to the very essence of the kind of superficial lifestyle (bound to crude economics and self-interest) exemplified in the West
- all these combined make him the kind of leader one wishes to avoid in supporting...
There is also the factor which is downplayed by both sides and really it boils down to dumb (bad) luck:
- Ocalan's main struggle is against Turkey and Turkey is a friendly ally, therefore, her enemy is the West's de facto enemy
- so we must ask, had Ocalan been the leader of the PKK in Southern Kurdistan, would the West have viewed him and the PKK differently? The answer seems obvious to a certain extent.
One could make the challenge that Ocalan would not have behaved as the KDP and PUK's leadership and tensions would have developed early on.
(But, we saw Ocalan willing to compromise in Turkish captivity so I don't know whether this challenge would hold. Would he have behaved any differently with American interlocuters?)
These are just my initial thoughts. What do you think? What is it about him and the PKK that radically bothers the West? And are there other factors that are worth mentioning?
(I have purposefully avoided the question of why Kurds might be bothered by him to make the question simpler...)
Nistiman[/i]
... not at all... He has his own plans...
. Every Kurd who thinks by himself is a TRAITOR.
