Ocalan Declares Cease-Fire

 

 

London MED TV Television in Turkish 1850 GMT 28 Aug 98

 

"Teleconference" with PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan by telephone from an unidentified location, moderated by Gunay Aslan, including Duygu Leloglu from NTV, Tayfun Talipoglu from ATV, Huseyin Aykol from Ulkede Gundem, Ali Haydar Yurtsever and Fikret Aydemir from Milliyet, Mehmet Comert from Ihlas News Agency, Dogan Ozguden from Info-Turk Belgium, MED TV Stockholm correspondent Mahmut Baksi, Nuray Bayindir from Ozgur Politika, Cemal Ucar from Dem Agency, Ahmet Yumrukaya from Dunya, as well as Greek, Norwegian, Belgian, Romanian, Arabic, and AFP correspondents and a Soviet official, Kurdish parliament-in-exile chairman Yasar Kaya, and Haci Ahmet from eastern Kurdistan in the studio -- live

 

(The transcript has been translated by FBIS)

 

[Aslan] Good evening, Mr. Ocalan.

 

[Ocalan] Good evening.

 

[Aslan] Without wasting too much time, I would like you to express your thoughts to the Turkish and Kurdish media on this historic day.

 

[Ocalan] Esteemed media representatives, I would first like to extend my thanks and respectfully greet you with a holy call for peace through the MED TV channel.  For some time now, we have been encouraged by requests from the EP [European Parliament] to lay the grounds of favorable conditions for a political solution.  In addition, we were also encouraged by sympathetic sectors in Turkey that favorable results may result if the PKK [Workers Party of Kurdistan] launches an initiative for a political solution.  I must quickly add that war, if not triggered by an important conflict and issue, is insanity.  Moreover, meaningless terrorism and violence should never have anything to do with human relations.  Our most important concern is that we, with roots dating back hundreds of years, must not be victims of violence that can even lead to genocide.

 

In reply to constant questions on whether the PKK is capable of taking a step on the Kurdish issue in particular as well as on the fundamental issues in Turkey and regional peace, we say the following: I believe that there are no other people and organization with a greater longing for peace than we if this great violence is stopped, even if for a limited period of time, and if the method of dialogue is adopted in basic human relations, in human rights issues, in furthering democracy, and in resolving political issues. Consequently, I hope that those circles who seek the same goals as us are consistent in their desires and not involved in petty accounts.  I hope that we will not be deceived. We are only too glad to be able to launch such a step.  The initiative we seek to launch is similar to the one we launched in April 1993 during the Ozal period.

 

That initiative created hopes, even if limited.  I decided after consulting with my organization that it is appropriate to launch such a step in view of the conditions reigning outside and inside in Turkey.

 

I would like it to be clear, however, that this step should not be interpreted as though we are very strong or very weak or cannot bear the situation any longer. I sincerely believe that taking such a step meets what is required of a civilized and modern administration and is the most appropriate initiative to be launched at this most critical stage in Turkey's history.  This step is connected to securing a lasting democracy, which is the most important issue on Turkey's agenda even though there are claims that the Kurdish issue is the biggest problem, and human rights.

 

We have full faith that peace will be secured in Turkey, in the region, and in the world if we can only advance this sensitive step, which is similar to the one we took in 1993 and which gives a chance to the Turkish public if it only does not let itself be provoked by those circles who think that their interests lie in war.

 

I have to stress that there are preparations under way for the 75th anniversary of the Turkish Republic.  I would like to add that we are not against the Turkish Republic.  Moreover, the republican system, which means a people's government, is our choice of government as well. It has to be admitted, however, that this republic did not really embrace democracy for the past 75 years.  The main problem faced by Turkey is to instate democracy in the republic -- in other words, to democratize the state. All the political circles in Turkey, both the left and the right wing, voice this opinion every single day. All the political parties and civilian organizations in Turkey repeatedly call for democracy.  The shortcomings of the republic on this issue should be assessed honestly and realistically. I am not blowing the issue out of proportion and am not saying all this just to debase the republic.  The 75-year-old republic did not let its people have a taste of democracy.  It did not give too much of a chance to democracy.  Except for a high-level oligarchic circle, nobody understood anything about democracy.  The people, in particular, did not have a taste of democracy.  The word democracy was used all the time; however, its requirements were never met.  On the contrary, the republic imposed the concept of antidemocracy through its constitution, legislation, and various organizations including the leaderships of political parties.  This state of affairs created a demagogy around democracy.  The main issue faced by Turkey is to free democracy from being a subject of demagogy and to have it embraced by the people.  This is not tantamount to defaming the republic and certainly does not mean dividing the republic; it is tantamount to seeking to democratize the republic.

 

This is in Turkey's interest.  In this way, Turkey, which is gasping for breath now, will start breathing once again. Those acting on behalf of the republic should set themselves antidemocracy as a target.  One should not forget that since its establishment, the republic has subjected the Kurdish people to a great injustice, using uprisings and antidemocratic actions as an excuse.  A great injustice was committed against various ethnic and religious circles as well. Injustices were committed against all the poor people of Turkey as well.

 

Since the 1970's, in particular, something like tens of thousands of persons lost their lives in a period of violence and oppression similar to what happens in the worst fascist regimes.  We were the products of this situation. We were not the ones who created the Kurdish problem. The Kurdish issue has been part of the Turkish Republic since its establishment.

 

I believe it is important that I talk about a couple of articles in the Amasya circular, which is the first document that laid the grounds for the establishment of the Turkish Republic and which was personally formulated by Mustafa Kemal.  I want to refer to this circular because everybody in Turkey, in particular the army, thinks they are Ataturkists.  They claim they are Ataturkists.  This may be true; however, we should not forget that the grounds of the Erzurum, Sivas, and Ankara congresses and the opening of the Assembly were laid by the Amasya circular.

 

The Amasya circular was written during a most difficult period in Turkey.  The naked truths were revealed during the period of the Amasya circular. In other words, the Amasya protocol or circular belongs to a period which should have been be treated extremely delicately because it laid the grounds for the republic. I would like to read one or two articles of the Amasya protocol.

 

The borders of the Ottoman Empire consist of the land settled by both the Kurds and Turks.  The Kurds are an integral part of the Ottomans.

 

All the national and social rights of the Kurds have been acknowledged in order to guarantee their free progress.

 

All the decisions at this meeting were adopted jointly.  In reply to a question by Edip Adivar in Izmit on September 1921, Ataturk said it is essential that the Kurds assume the post of mayorships in those neighborhoods where they are a majority.  In this process, those were the views of Mustafa Kemal.  In other words, the Kurds have at least as much of a share as the Turks in the foundation of the republic. The later process, as I have stressed, is antidemocratic.  It also runs counter to the foundation on which the republic rests.  I stress that this must be realized.  I emphasize that the honorable politicians and army members must assess the foundation of their republic correctly.

 

Here lies the misunderstanding.  The word brotherhood is being uttered frequently, and it is also being said that, despite the sharing and the brotherhood, Turkey's unity and sovereignty must not be questioned.  Fine, but who is involved in this unity?  And who is attacking the rights of those involved in this unity?  Why should it be separatism to ask you to understand this?  Why should it be an attack on Turkey's sovereignty?  On the contrary.  Who is hurting the essence of the sovereignty by not acting in line with its foundation? I stress that this must be understood. By resorting to the greatest violence regarding this point and by erasing even the name of a people from history -- as was done in the beginning -- certain circles attacked both Turkey's unity and its sovereignty.  Consequently, we are not guilty.  Those who deny the reasons for all this must be held accountable.  I will leave this aside, too, as a significant historical problem.

 

Currently, it is impossible to deny that Turkey is going through a grave crisis -- one at least as bad as the one in the 1920's.  The nation may not be in danger, but society and democratic life are at least as important as the nation, and that is what is in the greatest danger today.  I stress that all this must be kept in mind and that the chances for a democratic effort in the name of our peoples must not be wasted.  Just as the Turks needed the Kurds in the early 1920's, they need them today for democracy.  The term brotherhood, which is being uttered so frequently today, can become concrete only on the basis of democratic sharing.  Everything else is demagogy.

 

As for the criticism of the PKK violence, we are the side that suffers the most from this violence.  If, under conditions of a severe imbalance of power, we opted for an essential defense method in order to protect ourselves from destruction and safeguard our most legitimate human rights, identity, and culture, this is called self-defense and is cited in the UN Charter, even in the Turkish Constitution.  Let us not forget everything that we are being denied -- our humanity, our national identity, our human rights.  And I am not even speaking of democracy and human rights.

 

Everything is being denied us.  What were we supposed to do if not resist?  Would it be in Turkey's interest if we had accepted this great injustice?  Would the Turkish people or the Turkish nation emerge from this honorably?  I do not think so.  A nation or people who tramples on another, on the other's identity and name, with such injustice can never be happy.  Such a nation will never see the end of grave problems.

 

Consequently, our violence, which is based on self-defense, must be assessed correctly.  PKK terrorism is mentioned frequently.  If this is very important to you and if you intend to prepare the ground for a political method and a democratic solution, I say today, on the 75th anniversary of the republic and in the face of the difficult problems, especially regarding democracy, that we are ready to do whatever is asked of us in order to set Turkey -- a country that is pressured almost more than any other in the world -- on the right course once again, save it from the heavy war bill, put an end to the grave human right violations, and enable Turkey to stop being a toy in the hands of the mafia, as the press reports daily.  If they insist and if we (?believe) that they are very respectful, we, too, will respect the law on condition that they abide by the word and spirit of the law, basic human rights, and democracy.  We are not afraid of that at all. It is not we who violate it.  Everybody knows who it is that claims to be respectful of the law but violates it daily and commits the gravest crimes.  We alone can offer support in the fight against those people. There is talk about the violation of the republic's basic principles. It is not we who are violating them.  On the contrary, Turkey's elite circles, its administration, has caused this to happen by subjecting us to extreme oppression and boundless violence.  There is talk of the great damage incurred by secularism.  That is obvious; when the Turkish state attacked us with helicopters, we were not distributing religious pamphlets.

 

We did not draw hundreds of thousands of children to Koran courses. It was the state that did that.  I am not saying that I am for or against all this.  That is not what I mean.  I mention this because it is an issue that is being discussed widely today.  We were not the ones who paved the way to the mafia gangs.  Those who granted them unlimited possibilities so that they could kill a revolutionary are responsible.  There are daily reports to this effect in the press. This is not good for Turkey.  I say that we are ready to do whatever is necessary in order to be able to fight all this -- not because we are weak but in order to be able to make even a limited contribution to democracy and to the brotherhood of peoples.  As a step to this end and in response to the longings for peace throughout the world, to the EP decision, and to the quite powerful Turkish public opinion, we have decided to launch an indefinite cease-fire as a first step -- I do not want to describe it as unilateral, even though it can be interpreted that way -- as of 1 September so that some consistent long- or short-term steps can be taken -- and we are not saying that these are the terms -- in order to resolve the issues, including the Kurdish question, under more favorable political conditions.

 

If I elaborate on this a little, and if it is going to be more meaningful in practical terms, our cease-fire may be two weeks, one month.... [pauses] We find it appropriate to have a cease-fire given the current election atmosphere, the amnesty issue that is being debated, and more urgently, to enable the new command levels in the Turkish army to make an assessment of the situation.  Furthermore, most basically, we consider a cease-fire appropriate to ensure that this grave crisis is overcome in a more democratic way, to put an end to this secret war which is really hard on us and is costing a great deal, and because we know that Turkey does not benefit at all from this but rather is hurt by it. All the internal and external conditions indicate that we are in a more suitable position than in 1993.  We want to react sensitively to that.

 

I believe that this is also in line with the expectations of domestic and foreign public opinion.  That is why, if operations are not carried out against us, if operations designed to destroy the guerrillas are not carried out, we are in control of our guerrillas and they will not carry out any attacks. Let me say it again: In order for conditions to improve and a more suitable political struggle atmosphere to be created, we will not allow any acts of violence from our side.  I believe that none of us will resort to any provocations. I do not think that provocations similar to the ones in 1993 will be carried out.  We are in control of our forces in this regard.

 

The length of the cease-fire, I stress once again, will be determined in line with the positive nature of the developments that will occur. The election period may be considered the maximum period, but I am not giving any guarantees.  If the other side resorts to provocations, if operations are carried out, we will obviously exercise our legitimate right of self-defense. Really, though, that would not be our preference.  We say enough to this long-lasting war.  We believe that our peoples will gain a lot from politics, that they desperately need this, and that this is the core of the problem which must be resolved. Today, we are offering the key to the solution of the problem.  That is how this must be understood.

 

The concerned circles, the sensitive circles must not assess this as a tactic.  We do not have such an intention.  We may see this through to the end as a sincere step if guarantees are given, positive conditions are created, and our interlocutors are credible.  Then it will be seen that we are not a separatist power for Turkey and that we do not hurt its unity or sovereignty.  On the contrary, as a side that knows very well what labor is and what liberation means, we will do our share for strong Turkish unity and for a Turkey that is not too dependent on the outside, one that is based on the sovereignty of its peoples. In other words, as I always say, we are a most powerful force of democracy and light for Turkey.  We do not accept anything else. At the same time, however, we are also a force of light and democracy for the Kurdish people.  We are not a separatist force, as is being claimed.  I want to stress that it is important to understand this well.

 

Methods based on violence should really not be upheld much.  If conditions dictate, we can develop our violence more than ever. In fact, violence was implemented to the highest degree, but no results were achieved.  There must be no resort to these methods. The world problems are now being resolved without violence.  Look at the Chechen problem in Russia, the Colombian problem, the Irish problem, and even the Palestinian problem.  Turkey, which needs this modern approach more than anyone else, must fall in step because this is the only way it will achieve happiness.  If we are given a chance -- and I am saying this in front of our public opinion, a public opinion that wants these problems resolved as soon as possible: Give us a chance to show our consistency and our constructive approach toward rights and democracy.  If we are given a chance, we will take steps in the right direction, and everybody will see.

 

I want to end my statement here.  If you esteemed media members want to ask me questions, I will consider it an honor to answer them.  Once again, our thanks and greetings for having heard us.

 

[Aslan] We thank you, sir, for making this announcement on MED TV.

 

[Leloglu] Mr. Ocalan, it is being said that the organization has become marginalized in the southeast.  Can you comment on that please? And the second question is: Will HADEP [People's Democracy Party] take part in the elections?  And if it will, will you support it?  What will your stand be in the general elections?

 

[Ocalan] Greetings.  A lot has been said about the marginalization of the PKK.  As I stressed at the beginning of my speech, I am not making this call and starting this initiative because we are powerless or because we have become marginalized. That is not the reason.  I want to launch this initiative as a response to the desires and demands of internal and external sensitive circles and of the lofty public opinion.  Let me say this about marginalization: As you know, in my previous speeches I pointed out that efforts have been made in line with the 1992 concept to destroy us or marginalize us -- that is, ensure that we turn into groups that disband on their own.  The current situation is definitely not that.

 

There are certain journalists who carefully assess the PKK's internal situation and current power. I gave an example in a recent speech. You honorable press members must follow all that.  Sukru Elekdag, for example, who has reliable sources of information, has said that the PKK is not marginalized.  I cannot give you better proof than that. He says: A 300,000-strong army is on its toes, waiting there day and night. It is not I who is saying that there is a 300,000-strong army. It is the journalist with the reliable sources who is saying it. The situation is even graver.

 

How can you talk of marginalization in such a situation? The presence of such a big army means a very big war.  Otherwise, why should such an army be on its toes for marginalized groups?  In other words, the situation cannot be explained in terms of marginalization.  In fact, it is even graver.  The situation is graver than what it was in 1995 and 1996.

 

The situation in the south has also been reversed.  Turkey's military force is trying to the protect the KDP [Kurdish Democratic Party] there.  Not only has Turkey not destroyed the PKK, but it is spending a tremendous amount to keep an army of some 30,000-40,000 men there to protect the KDP.  The same is true for the village guards.  The guards do not guard; on the contrary, the army is trying to guard and protect them.  That is how grave the situation has become.  It may be that we have weakened.  A careful journalist or anybody who is interested in the issue, however, will accept the seriousness and gravity of the situation.

 

My answer to your second question is that more than with HADEP, our policy is concerned with the establishment of a general democratic platform.  We approach the matter from a wider perspective.  We do not approach it only in terms of a narrow election framework.  We say that Turkey desperately needs a democratic leap forward.  This [word indistinct] exists in HADEP. We believe that anyone who believes in democracy must work for such a platform.  I believe that one aim of our initiative is to strengthen such a political and democratic effort.  I believe that this will really take place.

 

[Talipoglu] As a person who visits the area frequently, I want to ask you the following.  I understand that you are not abandoning arms but merely silencing them.  You say that you do not know for how long and that the period will depend on the stand the other side will adopt. What kind of specific steps are you expecting?  That was my first question.  My second question is: What has changed to cause you to reach this decision?  After all, martyr cemeteries have been dug in almost all the villages and districts of this country for the past 15 years.  The bodies of the guerrillas are nowhere to be seen.  A lot of blood has been shed.  Everybody in the country wants the bloodshed to stop.  What was the change that made you come to this decision?  What are we going to tell history?

 

[Ocalan] Greetings to Mr. Talipoglu.  We did not create this historical problem.  It is not the first time blood is being shed. Remember the Dersim uprising; some 60,000 persons were killed.  Let alone cemeteries, their bones are nowhere to be found.  In fact, nobody knows exactly how many were killed and where.  Remember the Agri uprising, the Seyh Sait uprising.  Who is responsible for all that bloodshed?  I do not think that we can say it was only the Kurds who were responsible.  It would be greatly unfair to always blame the Kurds.  As I showed you in the document, the Kurds helped you establish this republic.  The Kurds gave the Turks most critical support during a most difficult period for the latter. You must see that.  The honorable press members must remind their public of certain historical truths.  That is the first thing.

 

It is true that there is a martyrs cemetery in every village and that the cemeteries of the PKK guerrillas are unknown.  Let me reiterate, however, that unless there is democracy or even a freedom of expression -- and this is not true only for the Kurds... [pauses] Any intellectual who says something honestly is in prison.  Those who illegally make millions are out free, but those who want to write the truth are imprisoned.  This is true in connection with the Kurdish issue.  People whose only crime is to write a few articles are in prison.  So what do you expect us to do under such conditions?  On the one hand you say that the Kurds are as much the owners of these lands as the Turks, that all their national and social rights will be recognized; on the other hand, even our name is denied.  That is what led to the violence.  We are surely the side that should be held least responsible.  We wanted our identity.  We wanted our democracy.  We wanted our culture.  Can anybody live without culture?  Can anybody live without democracy?  What do you expect us to do after even our name has been denied? Despite that, I say that the best option is to live together, and I am not saying it out of fear.  I wish there had been no bloodshed on either side, that there had not been any of the incidents that daily break our hearts, and that we could have resolved the problems by discussing them in a broad democratic platform.  Who is shunning the democratic platform? When were we asked to participate in such a platform that we refused? Look at Ireland, look at the bloodiest of enemies -- the Arabs and Israel, look everywhere in the world.  The Turks and Kurds have shared a common history.  No other people helped the Turks as much as the Kurds. Read in all the history books, you will see that it is true.  In return, we should not have gotten a unilateral denial of our rights.  That is what caused the bloodshed, the martyrs.  I respect the martyrs of both sides, but I say: Enough, there must not be another drop of bloodshed.

 

If the Turkish administration, or those who rule the Turkish Republic today, intend to destroy the Kurds, if they think that the Kurdish identity has been obliterated, that the Kurds are fast disappearing, and will soon be completely annihilated, then you cannot expect any honorable Kurd who is loyal to his language and culture and who respects the hundreds of thousands who shed their blood, to meekly extend his neck to be massacred. You Turks uphold your honor and national honor.  I do not belittle that. Every nation must be like that.  I know that Mustafa Kemal is a great symbol of national honor. I respect that too.  But why do you deprive the Kurds of that?  Why do you not accept that the Kurds have a national honor and an identity honor?  I am not the only one saying that; it is cited in the foundation of the Turkish Republic.  If you accept that, and some say they do, then I say let us stop this violence.  Let us not use violence for another second.  It is I who wants that.  This must be given a chance.  I repeat, I am not saying this out of fear or because we are incapable of using violence.  It is because we really must.  If the other side stops violence, you will see our real demands.  We will be able to show you what real brotherhood means.  This opportunity is not being given.  That is why blood is being shed. That is why there is meaningless violence.  We are very sad about that.  You must also be sad.  Why do you not organize press campaigns to stop it?  Is this not the most basic problem?  You do not write it, but sometimes 50 soldiers are killed a day, and sometimes 50 PKK members.  Are these not terrible figures?  Why do you not make an issue about that?  Why do you not organize a campaign to stop it? The press is using banner headlines daily in connection with a smuggler, a Mafia smuggler.  What is the value of that?  On the other hand, you write only a few lines when 10, 20, or 30 soldiers are killed.

 

Is the value of a Turkish soldier so low?  Why do you not dwell on the pain involved?  Why do you not come up and say enough?  I think that is the answer to the first question.

 

As for the duration of the cease-fire, or why we felt the need for that..  It is certainly not because we were obliged to.  It must be seen as a goodwill step we took with the hope that it will lead to a positive echo from the circles we must take into account.  We found it appropriate to take this step not because we were unilaterally obliged to, but because certain circles conveyed indirectly to us that positive steps may or should be developed and that it would be useful if we contributed to that.

 

I think that in the coming couple of weeks we will see if this is true, if positive developments will really take place.  If that happens, it will be very good.  If not, we will have no choice but to go on with the process that we have been going through for years.

 

[Talipoglu] What do you mean by concrete developments?

 

[Ocalan] The most important aspect of that...  [pauses] I find the fact that you are here today as meaningful.  You will notice that this is our second important news conference with honorable Turkish reporters.

 

Let me repeat: I find this meaningful and I respect that.  As far as I am concerned, this is a positive step, and it must be developed.

 

The second positive step is to prevent any harm from coming to a single soldier.  This is important.  We think of the soldiers more than our guerrillas.  The death of even one soldier disturbs us.  We do not rejoice in that at all.  It is very difficult for us.  If the Turkish state does not attack us, the soldiers will not die, the mothers will not cry.  What is wrong with not sending soldiers to attack us and not having soldiers die?  Regardless, the Kurds are Kurds and will continue to exist.  More civilized methods are resorted to everywhere in the world.  If that is done, the mothers will stop crying.  What is the meaning of all that?  Enough of military operations!  Two armies carried out an operation and achieved no results.  Enough!  I think that this has no place in the logic of war. This can go on for 50 years, 100 years....  Some 60,000 have been killed so far, and if it continues, another 600,000 will be killed. There is no end to that.  That is why I say: Enough!  To stop the death of so many Anatolian youths, more than the guerrillas, who were killed -- something that grieves us...  [pauses] And the numbers are not important; 10 on our side or one from the other side -- it is the same pain.  We must not rejoice in the deaths.  Stopping this will really put an end to our suffering.  Unless we are attacked.... [pauses] The army can stay where it is, we are not saying that it must withdraw completely.  You will notice that some people say: The Turkish Army must withdraw and then we will declare a cease-fire.  That is not what we are saying.  In fact, we say that we are going to implement the cease-fire unilaterally.  If the other side attacks us, it means it has ill intentions.  Then we will surely not bow our heads meekly and be massacred.  We will defend ourselves.  I have said this before.

 

Ours is a most innocent, a most moderate demand.  The army can stay with all its force.  We are not questioning the Turkish state's sovereignty.

 

We are submitting various assessments on the right foundations for a sound unity.  Why is this not being taken seriously? The number of IRA members is maybe one-thousandth of the British army, or even one-ten thousandth.

 

But what did Britain want?  Only that the IRA should declare a cease-fire.  The IRA refused for a long time, but we have seen that after it declared a cease-fire, the problem has been moving toward a solution.  It is similar to our case.  We are declaring a cease-fire even though our firing force is greater than the IRA's and our capability to use violence is far greater.  I say that certain positive steps must be taken.  I want to sincerely believe it will happen.  If it happens, it will be a truly historical development.  It will be a great step toward democratization on the 75th anniversary of the Republic.  It will mean the speedy improvement of human rights and of Turkey's image both at home and abroad.  Democracy is at a deadlock at the moment.  The basic characteristics of the Republic are being challenged.  They can be reinforced in a more meaningful and democratic framework.  A very high financial price is being paid. It can stop.  And most importantly, the economy is at a standstill in the war areas.  The economic crisis is going from bad to worse. Stopping the war can bring great economic relief.  These are not gains that can be underestimated for Turkey.  And what will be the price of that? Turkish soldiers will not die, and PKK members will not die.  Is this not a good thing?  It must be encouraged. I hope that the value of our initiative will become obvious.  I do not want to say anything else.

 

[Baksi] Does this cease-fire concern only the TC [Turkish Republic], or does it involve the KDP as well?  Is there such a desire on both sides in south Kurdistan?  Are you ready for such a thing?  Not only I, but the Kurdish public, our neighbors, and Europe are curious about that.  Such a cease-fire would be as important as the one with the TC.

 

[Ocalan] Greetings to you Mr. Baksi.  It is true that there is a serious problem here.  Earlier, I had issued insistent calls in the south both for a cease-fire and for a political dialogue for the solution of certain important internal problems between us. Unfortunately, such a will was not observed on the other side.  It still is not.  Of course, I would have liked a cease-fire followed by a political dialogue process.

 

However, the will for that is not observed on the other side.  If I say something unilaterally now, it will have no meaning.  There is no organization that will reply to us.  Consequently, I cannot give you a clear answer regarding this issue today.  If the other side's will clearly emerges, if they say: "There is a peace problem among the Kurds, the Kurds have certain domestic political problems, let us solve them, for example by holding a peace conference," then my answer will be positive.

 

On this occasion, I reiterate my call once again to the concerned power circles, mainly the KDP: Let us stop the violence in order to discuss and resolve the problems between us both in the democratic and in the political dimension.

 

However, the Kurds have the mentality of feudal lords.  If the KDP leaders think that they can finish us off by relying on the great enemy, I cannot do anything.  I hope that we will start a normalization process with the Turkish Republic on which they rely. Maybe then they too will see the light and be inspired by the positive atmosphere.  What else can I say?

 

[Yurtsever] What was the greatest factor that led you to declare a cease-fire?  Was it the changing political balances in the region, the fact that the United States introduced a new dimension to the Syrian-Israeli relations, any possible changes in the Ankara-Damascus ties, or were you given an advanced recipe for the solution of the Kurdish problem say through the EU or the United States?  What were the signals you say you received from the internal and external public opinion? Can you be more specific about that?

 

[Ocalan] Greetings Yurtsever.  I tried to answer this question very openly.  The reason you say that the answer is still unclear concerns the essence of the issue: I cannot be more specific because there is nothing clear to be specific about, or because that is what the situation dictates.

 

There are indeed certain decisive factors.  In more general terms, I can talk about a deep crisis.  The concerned circles also talk about that.  It is true even if they are not explicit about it.  You must all see that.

 

More specifically, I believe that the solution of the political deadlock in Turkey can be speeded up by means of PKK initiatives. The start of a political process depends on the taking of certain steps by the PKK.  It is because I believe in that that I declared my initiative today.

 

Also, a new military command level has now assumed office. Certain assessments have been about Kivrikoglu.  It has been pointed out that he has a civilian and political aspect.  I hope that it is true.  The military does not mean only violence.  It was pointed out at the military ceremonies held in Ankara today that the Turkish army is one of peace, of honorable peace.  There was talk of its political and civilian sensitivities.  So the initiative we took today can give the army this chance.  In other words, giving this a chance cannot be considered a bad step. Furthermore, there have been remarks to this effect since the late President Ozal's time.  It is being said that it is appropriate to revive this once again.  It is even being said that the conditions are graver than in 1993 and thus make such an initiative more essential.  These are the assessments being made. Earlier, I quoted assessments made by certain sensitive columnists.  Circles that feel more responsible about this issue may value such an initiative.  So, I think that my initiative is appropriate.  Let me repeat once again that I cannot be more specific, because as you know no party in Turkey, including the army, can speak openly and truly.  They say one thing and do another.  It is obvious that there is an extensive demand for a peace process.  There is an extensive belief that the issue must be moved to a political channel. I believe in that too.  This has also been effective in my taking this step.  These are the factors that played a role.  Our step has nothing much to do with marginalization, with the south, with the latest US initiatives, or with the relations between Turkey and Syria.

 

I would like to make a point here: the assessments made about us are merciless.  It is being said that even if the PKK wants to, it cannot implement a cease-fire because it does not have the will.  This was mentioned by Sukru Elekdag in his article about certain circles.  This is a view expressed by many.  I am now showing that we have the will to declare and implement a cease-fire.  I have started this initiative with the freest of wills.  In other words, the assessments are not true.

 

Contrary to claims, the PKK is not dependent on outside forces.  This is an important issue that must be well understood.  Certain sensitive circles are concerned about this point.  With our initiative, they will see that they can believe us.  There is no other factor.  The essence of the issue is as I have said.  I believe that certain circles in Turkey who do not want to give up the war rent will want to continue with the war, claiming that so much blood has been shed, or that there are martyrs ceremonies in every village. They are not acting logically.  They act this way because they are very involved in the war rent.  We must be careful about their provocations.  There will definitely not be any games or provocations on our part.  We are sincere.  I think that the sensitive circles in Turkey are now leaning toward such a tendency.  This has become a strong view in Turkey. That is my hope, and that is the right thing to do.

 

[Yurtsever] Did you receive a very concrete sign from Ankara that led you to reach this decision?  Is Ankara involved in this?

 

[Ocalan] It would not be right for me to speak on behalf of Ankara. Furthermore, this issue is widely exploited in Turkey. We are faced with the danger that a demagogy can be resorted to in order to hurt the conditions and to prevent any positive developments.  What I want to say is that the view that is interested in a political process has matured since 1993.  That is my guess.  I do not want to speak on behalf of others. Such a tendency is developing in all the circles. Reports to that effect have reached us.  I do not only mean the army. I am observing all the important establishments, including the public opinion.  This must be assessed well. I wish everything were more open, that there were a more suitable method, but the reality of Turkey does not allow for more than that.  Actually, you press members have a duty to perform in this regard.

 

You must tell the broad public of your democratic opinion that such initiatives must be started.  I am begging you to do that.  This is not a propaganda.  At the time, we were suspected of exploiting the leave in the army.  This is not a matter of leave.  It has gone beyond that.  We will not exploit that.  It is appropriate for the press to be more sensitive so that a democratic and political process may start on this basis.  There are no serious obstacles.

 

And if there are any obstacles in connection with the PKK -- as is being claimed -- we are eliminating them now by taking this step.  I believe that the sensitive circles in Turkey view this positively. That is why you must encourage that.  The press is said to be the fourth force. This force must use its power in connection with Turkey's most fundamental problem.  There are no obstacles.  This is a duty.  It is a patriotic duty and democratic duty.  I hope that you will be brave about that.  [passage omitted on repetitive material in reply to a Greek correspondent's question on how Ocalan thinks Turkey will react]

 

[Johansen from Klassakampen, in English with simultaneous translation into Turkish] Mr. Ocalan, in October, the route of the pipeline that will transport the oil from Baku to Ceyhan will be determined.  Can you comment on that please?

 

[Ocalan] Greetings.  This is a detail.  As far as we are concerned, there are issues of higher priority.  Undoubtedly, political solutions reached under peaceful conditions will make important contributions to economic problems as well.  In that case, such pipeline initiatives can be implemented more easily. The solution of the Kurdish problem will also create a positive and moderate atmosphere for the solution of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.  The same is true for the Aegean and Cyprus issues too.  We believe that our path for a peaceful solution will positively affect Cyprus and the Aegean problems as well.  We are considering the issues as a whole.  I believe that this is the right thing to do.  When there will be wholesale regional peace, there will be a resulting stability, and economic activities will be developed mutually.  And this does not mean only the pipeline; there is a tremendous economic potential in these war zones.  This will lead to tremendous riches.  That may be the result, of course.  The key, however, lies in the political solution of the problem.

 

[Ahmad Kamal from WTV, in English with simultaneous translation into Turkish] What is the best solution for the Kurdish question? Self-rule or autonomy?

 

[Ocalan] Greetings.  You have asked me a question the answer to which must be considered much later.  If the step we have taken is understood correctly, it is a step to start a political process.  We are not discussing the essence of the problem here. Once the political process starts, once this very oppressive military tension is replaced by a political debate atmosphere, then we can hold comprehensive discussions on whether it will be independence, or federation, or autonomy, or identity and cultural rights, and so on.  In very general terms, however, I can say that we will not act with prejudice.  We recognize the concepts stressed by the sensitive circles, such as Turkey's territorial integrity or integrity in general, and the state's sovereignty. We do not want to eliminate these concepts. However, the content of these concepts must be filled.  And it is not only we who say it.

 

Some circles say that the state wants to take a democratization step but is afraid of the PKK.  With our initiative today, we are eliminating the grounds for this fear.  It is being said that unity and sovereignty must be kept in mind.  We find this meaningful.  Some circles in Turkey are saying that there should be democratization, that extensive autonomy must be granted to the local administrations, and that constitutional amendments must be made.  We are taking all this into consideration.

 

I believe that there is one single basic principle and it is that if the Kurdish identity is placed under constitutional guarantee, a rich solution will be reached in Turkey provided operations are not carried out to obliterate the Kurds or other ethnic groups.  We will not have a rigid and narrow nationalistic approach to the issue.  The issue of the borders is not very urgent.  The tendency in the world is that borders are becoming meaningless.  For us, the most important borders are human rights, democracy, and looking for solutions to problems through political channels.

 

If you notice, national borders and geographic borders are not an issue.  There is no need to be frightened or defensive about that. More riches will be possible in unity.  The Kurdish problem was pushed to a difficult spot by means of a narrow and nationalistic approach. Turkey was also placed in a difficult spot as a result of its own denial of the Kurdish identity.  I say that these two dangerous approaches must be abandoned.  The more we keep away from narrow nationalism, and the more Turkey keeps away from its policies of destruction and annihilation, the more possibilities will be for a comprehensive solution package.  We will not be very insistent or pushy.  We will not set too many conditions.  I repeat, however, that in our debates, we will attach importance to the human right and democracy boundaries, to an extensive political dialogue, to sound constitutional and legal guarantees.  This is connected to the restructuring of the state too.  Everybody in Turkey wants that.  I am convinced that within this framework we can reach a solution at an advanced level. [passage omitted on a question in Russian by Nikiforenko Louri from the Russian Duma Geopolitical Desk, its Kurdish translation, and Ocalan's reply in Kurdish]

 

[Aslan] I would like to summarize.  Our guest said that he and his deputy friends sincerely support Mr. Ocalan's cease-fire decision, and asked him if any international conferences will be held to make the international public aware of the decision.  Mr. Ocalan said that he wanted to take a step to enable the Turks and Kurds in Turkey to solve the problem with their free will.  He pointed out that there is close interest from the EU and other institutions to the Kurdish problem in Turkey and to the Kurdish problems in the other regional states.  He stressed that the Kurdish question has gained an international dimension.  He noted that international conferences to be held on the issue will help Turkey solve the Kurdish problem, and that the Turkish state should not feel disturbed by them.  He said that ever since the Kurdish problem gained an international character, the regional countries, Russia, the EU, and others have been showing an interest in this problem.

 

[Ahmadi from Al Jazirah Television, in English with simultaneous translation into Turkish] What kind of international or regional reaction do you expect to your cease-fire decision? From Syria, for example?  How will your decision affect the regional states?

 

[Ocalan] I believe that it will have a positive effect.  There is a misconception.  It is being said that Syria uses the PKK as a trump card in its relations with Turkey, that it uses it with a bad intention.  As far as I am concerned, this is not correct.  I do not think that Syria makes special efforts to this end.  Turkey acts too suspiciously regarding this issue.  It is frequently being said that the PKK does not have the will to declare a cease-fire.  On this occasion, I have shown that this is not true. Based on my long years in the Middle East, I can say that contrary to allegations, none of the Arab countries, specially not Syria, intend to create confusion or chaos inside Turkey.

 

If that were true we would have known.  Syria could have done this openly too.  It does not do that but it would like to see... [pause] It is afraid of the alliance developed between Turkey and Israel. That is what it is questioning.  There is also the water issue.  It has reservations about that.  Just as in the Aegean and Cyprus issues, Syria wants a dialogue.  I have not noticed that it uses the PKK as a trump card for that dialogue.  I have not heard that it is imposing this.  I underline this. I have not seen anything negative in its approach to our step.  In fact, the impression I have indirectly gotten is that Syria is pleased with this step.  Earlier, when similar initiatives were taken in 1993 and later, Syria did not oppose them. In fact, it indirectly indicated that it would help. It would be unrealistic to claim the opposite.

 

[Aykol] Mr. Ocalan, you said that the cease-fire is unfortunately not relevant for the south.  There are developments in connection with the Turcoman state project which you talked about in the past.  Even the KDP is beginning to fear that.  There are reports that some 400 Turcoman militia have been armed and trained.  A while ago, we heard that the KDP attacked the Turcomans because of that.  While inviting Turkey to remain in its lands in order to help it fight the PKK, how will the KDP prevent the Turcomans?  A second question: does the cease-fire in the north mean that the guerrillas in the north will be withdrawn to the south?

 

[Ocalan] Greetings.  No, it does not mean that the guerrillas will be withdrawn.  The guerrillas will remain where they are. They will merely not launch attacks.  They will not go on with the planned war. That is what the cease-fire means.  If there is an insistent attack from the other side, the guerrillas will exercise their legitimate right of self-defense.

 

This is the issue that must be explained most clearly.  As for the south, the situation is complicated.  Not only that, but the KDP does not want to bring a meaningful political solution to any of the problems.  It is constantly exacerbating the problem.  It is trying to solve the problem unilaterally.  For example, even though the relations it establishes with every neighboring country are against the interests of all the Kurds, the KDP resorts to secret methods and claims that the issue concerns part of the area.  In the past, for example, it hit the Iranian Kurds and then claimed it was a problem of the south.  It then hit the Kurds in the north, and then claimed it was a problem of the south.  If you notice, the KDP has an extremely wrong approach.  The secrecy of its relations surely do not mean that the relations are right.  The KDP is developing very dangerous and wrong ties with almost every country connected to the Kurds. Consequently, the KDP should realize that it cannot deceive anyone.  It is conducting very dangerous relations that concern all the Kurds.  These relations constitute a great danger for the Kurds and concerns almost all of them.  History is full of similar examples. Based on this, I say that the KDP must put an end to this period.  It must put an end to the violence aimed against all the Kurdish segments, and accept an internal peace and internal political law among the Kurds.  For this, it must come to a dialogue and even to an urgent peace conference. I renew my appeal: The Kurdish people are no longer the old Kurdish people. While things are moving toward a political solution, the KDP must abandon its policies that are against other Kurdish segments and come to a dialogue on issues that concern all the Kurds.  It must do that openly.  It must accept the cease-fire as a step toward that.  I hope that this new initiative will lead to that too.

 

What will happen if the KDP fails to come to a dialogue?  Its position will exacerbate in the south.  We are not happy about that.  I repeat: we want to reach an agreement on the political principles that are valid for the Kurds.  This is the right of all the Kurds as well as a duty that they must all fulfill.

 

[Ozguden] Mr. Ocalan, I want to ask you three questions.  The first is about your timing.  Is your timing realistic?  The Turkish Republic is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. The celebrations have already turned into ultranationalistic ceremonies.  Another point is that the Turkish society is currently hysterical about its flag, land, national anthem, Ataturk and so on.  Also, there is an election atmosphere in Turkey.  During the election campaign, even the most powerful parties refrain from proposing a political dialogue with the Kurdish national movement.  Lastly, have the recent changes in the upper echelons of the army really encouraged you?  Will the fact that Kivrikoglu became the new chief of the General Staff bring any significant changes?  My second question concerns the international economic crisis which started in the Far East and now reached Russia. This situation will lead to authoritarian tendencies in many countries, including democratic ones.

 

This may be used as a good pretext by the Ankara regime.  What do you think?  My third question is whether you have received an encouraging signal regarding your initiative from the European countries, particularly from the Scandinavian countries that have become specialized in the field of peaceful solutions? Last, but not least, if the answer to your appeal will be negative, how will the Kurdish national movement's power of resistance carry to the third millennium? How is the national congress developing?

 

[Aslan] Thank you, Mr. Ozguden. You have asked a very comprehensive question.  Yes, Mr. Ocalan.

 

[Ocalan] Good evening, Mr. Dogan Ozguden.  My response to your first question is that there may be efforts to crush difficult problems and cover them up with chauvinistic stands. The other side is also striking, however.

 

The Republic does not find itself in such a healthy situation during its 75th anniversary.  The nature of the crisis is out in the open. This is where these chauvinistic feelings stem from.

 

What we are doing is offering a choice.  We are saying that there is no reason why one cannot talk about this democratic republic in its 75th anniversary.  We are saying that there is no reason why we cannot view these steps as a method of solution. We, the politicians have to keep our hopes up.  I do not believe that chauvinism can give rise to too many hopes.  The chauvinism pursued for 75 years did not yield any results.  I am not talking about the exacerbating situation.  The crisis under way encompasses all the institutions of the Turkish Republic.  What we are doing is giving them a chace during the 75th anniversary of the Republic.  I hope that this will be taken into consideration. It is their business if they do not take it into consideration.

 

There is another issue.  The political parties are constantly talking about democracy and democratic alliances.  They claim that no political party can come to power without forming a democratic alliance.  In my opinion, it is evident that such a step will have a positive impact on developing healthy democratic alliances. Politics and political alliances will gain in importance and there will be certain political parties, which will be encouraged to take progressive steps.  A democratic alliance, which includes in its program Turkey's most important issue, can even come to power because it will be the best option.  Those political parties that exclude the main problem from their program cannot exist in Turkey.  And such an understanding cannot take hold in Turkey.  An alliance, which avoids tackling such an important issue, can gain the support of its grassroots only by force.  Turkey's option for 2000 will be those who can engage in a democratic discussion, those who bring solutions to Turkey's main problem, and those who set up an alliance to this end. >From wherever you look at it, a broad-based democratic alliance is the best option available for Turkey.  For this reason, I believe that our step will have a positive impact on this process.  In my opinion, the period of those parties who reject and remain indifferent to such alliances are over.

 

With regard to the development of the Kurdish national movement and the PKK in 2000, nobody should have any doubts that we will survive. I believe that Turkey's enlightened circles know this very well. This is the most backward move that the Kurdish national movement will ever make.  The Kurdish national movement has the ability to advance, but it will never go backwards. Everybody is aware of this. The Kurdish issue will become bigger in 2000 and later.  We should take into consideration the world conditions surrounding us before this issue becomes too big to handle and turns into the main problem in 2000. Consequently, limited minds may regard the possibility we presented of securing a solution as a dream.

 

For great minds who already think about the year 2000, however, it is the best thing.  [passage omitted on economic crisis in the world] I can answer any other questions if there are any.

 

[Aslan] I believe there is the question of your expectations from Europe, in particularly from the Scandinavian countries.

 

[Ocalan] I would like to say that contrary to popular belief, the Scandinavian countries are not that interested in the Kurdish issue. They may have their own way of showing their interest, however.  We did not receive too much support from them and do not have too much expectations.  Our expectations are with the Turkish public.  We attach more importance to the steps that are taken by the public and sensitive circles in Turkey than those abroad.  The Scandinavian countries, however, can also assume a role on this issue.  They can extend us their support, and we expect them to do so.  I believe that this is the right time to show this support. I think that another part of the question was the element of timing.  The timing of this initiative is very good, even though Turkey may not show too much willingness. In my opinion, the transfer of duties at the military command is very appropriate.  I know that the Turkish Army is having a difficult time with this issue.  It is being said that the grounds of Kivrikoglu's stands are based on civilian politics.  This actually has nothing to do with us.  Supposedly, he is moderate.  I hope, for our sake, that he is so.

 

This is not a choice, but a reality.  I think that it will be good if it is so.  We are also giving a chance.  This is a good thing even if it does not work.  In this way, we will have made our mark on history.

 

The Turkish Army is having a very difficult time.  In particular, those soldiers who are fighting are having a very difficult time. For this reason, I think that the timing is very appropriate.  In my opinion, launching a peace process toward 2000 is very befitting the situation in Turkey.  Until when can this war continue?  Why should we insist on this war when not even a slight distance has been covered and when the situation has been exacerbated?  This situation helps us to think about this issue from another angle.  This situation actually tells us that our way is the right way.  I am not wrong.

 

Undoubtedly, there are numerous circles in Turkey who seek to expand the war.  The chauvinistic circles are very strong.  It is true that the political parties are competing with each other and provoking each other.  The realities, however, are stronger than demagogies and provocations.

 

It is neither out of weakness nor resignation that we are proposing a more lasting method.  I am talking about moral issues here.  Launching such an initiative for the World Peace Day is not a sign of weakness. It also does not mean that we are dreamers.  This initiative is a message to the discerning circles.  It will be very good if they understand this message.  Nobody will lose from this.  The Turks will also not lose.  The only people who will stand to lose from this issue are the profiteers. In my opinion, everybody except them will gain from this.  We will be very happy if this step will succeed.  If this step does not yield successful results, however, we are at a better military position today than yesterday.  We are capable of fighting a legitimate war of self-defense in a more organized manner.  As I said before, we are actually at a better position today to carry out our military operations the way we like.  I think it is important to draw your attention to this fact.

 

[Aslan] I would like to remind our guests that there is a new process launched here.  There will be intensive discussions on this process in the coming days.  There will be discussions in MED TV and we hope that the Turkish media will also take up this issue.  Our time is getting short and we do not want to take up more of Ocalan's time.  Is there anybody who waives the right to ask a question?  We can proceed.

 

[Comert] I will ask a short question.  Good evening Mr. Ocalan.  I would like to ask the following question at first.  You say that the Kurds were not even mentioned in the Turkish Republic and that the statistics never included us.  My question is as follows: A lot of Kurds claim that they did not exist until Apo [Ocalan] created them. Why are there so many Kurdish citizens getting killed in southeast Anatolia if you created them?  My second question is that Belgium had 330,000 soldiers some 10 years ago.  The number of these soldiers was lowered to 50,000 because of the cost to the state.  There are reports from various sources that you have 10,000-15,000 militants.  Where do you acquire the financial resources for these militants?  How will you explain this to our nation?  There are doubts concerning the origins of these financial resources.

 

[Aslan] Thank you, Mr. Comert.  Yes, Mr. Ocalan.

 

[Ocalan] There is an unfortunate saying with regard to the Kurdish people.  It says that the Kurdish people have a lot of traitors.  We did not invent this saying.  Those who brought into being such a saying should be ashamed of themselves.

 

I take this opportunity to issue a call to the village guards. I believe that both the state and we will take up their situation once again.

 

Their position will gain importance, particularly, during the period of this cease-fire.  We believe that they should be approached immediately with offers of establishing political and social relations.  The state will anyhow not have any more need for the village guards.  We say that they should no longer be afraid of us and improve their relations with us.

 

I think that our forces will show understanding on this issue.  We are thinking of issuing an additional call in the future, if the cease-fire proceeds. The village guard system is a very important issue for Turkey.  It is a very important economic, social, and political issue.  We will show understanding so that this issue is resolved.

 

The connection of this issue with your question is as follows: No Kurd will die.  We will even try to pardon the Kurd who fought the bitterest of wars with us.  It is not us, however, that pit the Kurd against another Kurd.  Let he who pits a Kurd against another Kurd be ashamed of himself.  I hope that this cursed weapon used against us for hundreds of years will not be used against us any more.  We are resigned to a hellish sufferance for the sake of an honorable life as a Kurd.  Why should we shoot at a Kurdish child or a miserable Kurdish woman?  What have we got to gain from this?  We are feeling great pain.  We hope that this pain will end as soon as possible.

 

With regard to the origins of our resources, I believe that the Turkish press knows very well who had a good stroke of fortune with mafia-like methods.  There are questions as to why the European Kurds are assisting the PKK to this extent.  The German police declare the amount of money contributed to the PKK.  Yes, it is true that the people are assisting us greatly.  I must add, however, that we live a meagre life and are satisfied with very little.  You can rest assured that we did not receive any money from any state and any illegal money. I hope that correspondents like yourself can investigate into this matter.

 

There is not even one PKK member who is incarcerated on charges of drug smuggling.  On the other hand, international courts are talking about the high-level politicians, who are involved in drug smuggling and state-gang connections.  There is not even one PKK member imprisoned on drug smuggling charges.  I want to draw your attention to this fact.  We have not forced anybody to contribute money to us. No state has extended us help.  On the contrary, they want money from us.  This is the situation.

 

The Kurdish people has organized itself in the international platform, which is really extending support.  I take this opportunity to offer my appreciation.  Rest assured that the Kurdish people is capable of sacrificing all that it has for the sake of this movement.  This is the situation and it is wrong to look for other reasons.  I greet you.

 

[Ucar] Good evening, Mr. Ocalan.  The Turkish Government officials said a day before your cease-fire declaration that they will not [word indistinct].  They said that they will respond only after you declare your cease-fire.  What kind of a response would you like the Turkish government to make in face of your cease-fire declaration?  What kind of a statement would you like the Turkish Foreign Ministry to issue in reply to your call?  My second question concerns the appointment of Kivrikoglu as the chief of the Turkish General Staff.  The European public describes Kivrikoglu as moderate.  You yourself has assessed him in this manner, as well.  Is this appointment dangerous? Do you think that Turkey appointed Kivrikoglu as the chief of the General Staff out of tactics, in order to improve its relations with the EU? Do you think that this move will have an impact on the cease-fire?  My third question concerns the United Revolutionary Forces Platform. The leftist movement in Turkey, the PKK, and the ARGK [People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan] are active in this platform.  How do you think this cease-fire will affect this platform?

 

[Ocalan] The Turkish Foreign Ministry will most probably issue a classic statement tomorrow. They will probably reiterate the already known political stand.  I do not think that we will be faced with a balanced self-confident statement.  It would have been better if we could have received another kind of statement.

 

There are other things that concern us, however.  We do not take such initiatives on the spur of the moment.  We are taking these steps in order to bring solutions to some important problems faced by Turkey. Those who are involved in this issue will most probably give a thought to our initiative.  In my opinion, they have a lot to gain from an affirmative response.  Otherwise, it is not too difficult for us to continue on our way.  We are anyhow immersed.

 

With regard to improving the relations with Europe, the appointment could be used as a tactic.  The General Staff can say that they are ready to establish relations with the PKK after the declaration of cease-fire.  They can, on the other hand, also launch efforts to eradicate the PKK as soon as possible.  Such a stand is tantamount to deceiving one self.  I suppose that the ruthlessness of war has by this time proved to both sides that the conflicts can not be resolved with cheap tactics.  I believe that cheap tactics will not be enough to undermine such a initiative, however.

 

I believe that this process will meet with more understanding than the 1993 process.  I do hope it will be so.  Of course, the opposite may happen as well.  We are ready for the other eventuality, as well.  The whole world and Turkey will know that we are in favor of peace.  I do not think that this will hurt us.

 

[Aslan] There was also the question concerning the United Revolutionary Forces.

 

[Ocalan] It is obvious that this initiative will not harm the United Revolutionary Forces. This is mostly a political organization with a democratic platform.  I believe that they will also take into consideration our assessments.  There are very important points they have to discuss. Democracy in Turkey is very important for the revolutionary forces.  A political development and platform can pave the way to other developments. I believe that they will have a favorable reaction.

 

[Liviu Papescu, in English with superimposed translation into Turkish] Mr. Ocalan, you have been optimistic in your approaches and assessments.  Will you adopt a different war strategy in the event that Turkey's response to your initiative is negative?

 

[Ocalan] Good evening.  It is not like we are not thinking about this as well.  I would like to point out that we are very intensive on this subject.  We are increasingly developing our understanding of war and implementations.  We will adopt a diverse outlook on war in the event that this initiative of ours will not meet with a positive response. We will, principally, reorganize our military forces.  We will introduce a better understanding of command and unity for our military forces.  We will also take into consideration the possibility of carrying out more comprehensive actions.  It is not like we do not have any alternatives on this issue.  Our military forces can be advanced to a higher level of military standard after reorganization. We have initiatives launched along these lines as well.  I want to make it clear that this is not my preferred choice.

 

I take this opportunity to admit that I forced myself to concentrate on war in the last period.  I did this against my wishes.  I forced myself into this.  I want to specify that our military forces will take more organized steps if our initiative and the political conditions will not yield solutions.  We should not be the only ones to lay down the arms.

 

Let there be no miscalculations.  It is not right to expect us to lay down our arms without first resolving the fundamental problem. Weaapons lose their importance once a difficult situation is on the way to be resolved.

 

This is more meaningful.  It is inevitable for the Kurds to become soldiers when the issue is at a stalemate and when there is no serious solution in view. This is a first step we are taking.  There may be significant ensuing developments.  There are important competent authorities.  I believe that these authorities can secure developments.

 

This, however, should not be a preferred choice.  In my opinion, what is right is to accept this initiative as it is.

 

[Sofia Iordauldou, in English] Mr. Ocalan, with all respect because I do not think my previous question was all translated, I do not know if it was, I will stay at the right timing and the chauvinist attitude of the Turks.  I will repeat that in the recent few days President Demirel talked about a 132 rock islands that belong to Turkey and not to Greece.  I would like your position on that.  My second question is that the PKK and you personally always accused the Turkish state, government, and the people for the genocide of millions of Syrian and Greeks from Asian Minor.  Will the political solution also imply the end of the genocide issue?  And, while Ataturkism is still alive and strong in Turkey, do you really think that there could be democracy? Thank you.

 

[Ocalan] Demirel delivers these kinds of speeches all the time.  This initiative, however, does not reinforce the statements issued to the neighbors.  A political dialogue with the Kurds will definitely have a positive impact on the Aegean and Cyprus issues. In other words, the initiatives launched by the Greek and the Cypriot people to secure friendship will only be reinforced.  The Kurdish-Turkish friendship will also become a true friendship. With regard to the Cypriot people, the chauvinistic prejudices will be eliminated and the two peoples will approach each other. We will take care that this happens. Actually, this is the basis of our initiative.

 

The genocide is a reality.  We can never bring back the dead. We will, however, always talk about the injustices they suffered. We will also claim that these people have cultural rights.  The Assyrians, the Armenians, and the Greeks have cultural heritages. We believe that all these peoples should assume their places within the Turkish mosaic.

 

Undoubtedly, this is prevented by the existence of an extreme chauvinism.  There are efforts to prevent the formation of a democratic mosaic under the guise of separatism and with claims that the Sevres Treaty is sought to be revived. Our initiative, however, will most certainly make a positive contribution to this issue.  Only within the framework of this mosaic can Turkey's unity and wealth have any meaning at all. A nice picture will not emerge if the whole of Anatolia is painted over with black.  A mosaic-like Anatolia is really the best of pictures.

 

Allegiances have been part of this land for hundreds of years.  It goes without saying that the cultures and ethnic existence of these allegiances should be respected.  Turkey's unity should be reviewed within this framework.  We will always take care to safeguard this picture and exert efforts to secure a real democracy.  Let nobody doubt this.  This should not be used as an instrument to engage in a demagogy that we are undermining and dividing Turkey's unity.  This is wrong and nobody has anything to gain from it.

 

[Talipoglu] [passage omitted on his views on the Greek correspondent's remarks] What will you do during the time until your expectations become true?  Will you wait with your fingers on the triggers on mountains?  Let us say that your initiative was accepted.  What will the PKK do then?  In other words, will the PKK set up a political party?  What will happen when this war is over?

 

[Ocalan] This situation was not my choice.  If you noticed, I offer a cease-fire with the best of conditions for Turkey. You will realize when you look at other similar organizations that our cease-fire has the most favorable conditions. This should be received with understanding.  You correspondents know what is going on in the world and realize the gravity of the issue.  I do not think that there can be any approach more moderate than mine. We made no unjust demands. The army is at its place.  We have not posed any conditions.  There is a great problem at hand.  What can be expected?  Some modern approaches should be adopted.

 

You say that it is not too healthy to wait with arms in hands on mountains.  The guerrilla is seeking for a political solution. Rest assured that the guerrilla can be transformed into a civilian defense force in the event that sensible steps toward a political solution are taken.  The guerrilla can always be transformed into a security force.

 

You can always claim that this is a set up. No, this is not a set up. We can always be a security force for the people, and I believe we can perform these duties better than the village guards.  A force, which sacrificed so much for its people, can probably be good at protecting the people.  If you notice, there is no threat to Turkey here and no claims on borders.  A security force can be transformed into a protective force for the people.  I suppose that the Turkish Army, whose identity is defined in the Constitution and which adheres to democratization efforts, will no longer need to carry out attacks if there is a final solution, which is backed up by a provision in the Constitution.  I want to believe that it will not carry out attacks. For this reason, there is no need for a military force since there will no longer be attacks.  The dissolution will come by itself, but there should be a very serious political solution under way.  The guerrilla issue will most certainly be resolved if there is a very serious political solution process under way. This is the most important issue.  The guerrilla issue will no longer pose a problem if a confidence-building situation is created and earnest political initiatives launched.  As I said before, these efforts can be transformed into an effective democratic undertaking. The politicians' response is up to them.

 

You cannot expect the politicians, who have never told the truth to their own people, to say something meaningful and fair about us.  You know better than me the Turkish political life.

 

[Aslan] Will you meet face-to-face with our other colleagues?

 

[Ocalan] Let me shed light on this issue.  I hope that another discussion of better quality will be held.  There may some difficulties on the way; however, I hope that the possibility of conducting meaningful tete-a-tete and one-to-one meetings will emerge. We will know more in the coming days.  I would like to say that from now on we welcome any meetings with the esteemed press members, if they are interested to hold in-depth discussions on the issue.  I call on them to show sensitivity to this issue and I hope that, in this way, a more positive period will be launched.

 

[Leloglu] Mr. Ocalan, there are rumors that you are presently in Syria.  For how long can you count on Syria's support in the event that Turkey does not give an affirmative response to your call?

 

[Ocalan] Good evening.  This is a prejudiced approach. It is not appropriate with the current situation to comment on Syria's support. We have always counted on ourselves when adopting policies and safeguarded all our relations.  Our willpower is the determining cause in all the relations we developed with all the forces and states.  In other words, we have a strong basis.  This is also true for Turkey. We are talking to Turkey from our own freewill. I cannot say that we are pursuing joint policies and taking joint steps with Syria, because it is not true.  All this issue is misinterpreted in Turkey.  All this could have been conducted out in the open, if they were true.  I could have issued more concrete statements along these lines.

 

I had tried at the time to further the Syrian issue when we received indirect messages. We brought the situation to this stage by our own free will, probably because I am really not interested to put the pressure on Turkey.  Syria could have offered us great possibilities, if it only wanted. I have to say clearly that Syria did not give us permission to bring any equipment. This is the situation.  Which support will it cut off? We only go to Syria from time to time because there is a substantial Kurdish population there. Moreover, the Kurdish population in Syria has a significant political power.  They have real power. It is understandable, therefore, for us to conduct visits to Syria from time to time. It is important to understand Syria's interest in us from this viewpoint.  Syria is not really a problem. It will be better for Turkey to establish healthier relations with Syria. It is wrong to consider us an obstacle in establishing relations with Syria. In my opinion, it is completely justified to think that Syria can assume a more constructive role on this issue.  There have been initiatives to this end in the past.  I hope that this point will be taken into consideration.

 

[Leloglu] Do you agree with reports that Greece is openly supporting the PKK?  There are reports to the effect that the PKK has opened a second bureau in Greece.  What have you got to say on this matter?

 

[Ocalan] The support that may be extended by foreign countries does not comply with international realities.  Turkey has committed a grave error along these lines.  It was Turkey that gave this trump card to all foreign countries and states.  Turkey did everything in its power so that the PKK does not open bureaus. I would like to give the incident in Slovakia as an example. Supposedly, the government approached Slovakia, where MED TV had permission to broadcast, and offered a business credit for $200 million if they suspend the broadcasts.  The Slovaks then canceled the agreement they had with MED TV.  This is not a good thing.

 

It is not good politics to use $200 million as a bribe.  Turkey did the same thing in all the Scandinavian countries.  Norway was the last country in the line.  The government contributed in the construction of refineries and oil pipelines.

 

Norway sought to approach us, but it stopped now.  The same thing was done in Sweden beforehand.  They did the same thing in all the European countries including Russia.  They are also threatening certain other countries.  This is not right.  They are threatening Greece. The Greek people have sympathetic feelings for us.  This is a democratic sympathy.

 

I do not think that the Greek have a very bad impression of the Turks. It is not right to think like that. This is chauvinism. There are points of conflict between the Turks and the Greeks.  Is it too much to ask the friendship of Greeks? There are claims that we went into alliance with the Greeks against the Turks.  Claims that we went into alliance with the enemies of the Turks.  In my opinion, this is an outmoded way of thinking.  It is better to further peace both in the Aegean and Cyprus.  It is better if we do not impose this extreme chauvinism to our peoples.  It has become obvious that this chauvinism poisons political and social relations. My duty is not to feed chauvinism, but to safeguard the friendship among the peoples.

 

[Vanafiadis, in English] I wish you were among us so that we could see your face, your expressions, and see how you react to our comments. After a 14-year struggle, you have been one of the most wanted men in Turkey.  I have the feeling that Turkey describes you as a terrorist in the same way as Israel described 'Arafat as a terrorist.  Do you think that Turkish high-level politicians will one day be ready to shake hands with you?  Will they one day be able to talk about Kurdistan?  How far reaching is the cease-fire you said you will start as of 1 September?  Does it apply in case there are no reactions from the Turkish forces? What is your time limit in the cease-fire?  Do you expect any provocation in the following days?  How long is the logical period for the Turkish Army to abstain fr