Evaluation of one year protocol between the DHKP and the PKK

[dhkc at ozgurluk.xs4all.nl]

THE PROTOCOL OF DHKP-C-PKK AND THE DEVELOPMENTS

The struggle improves with alliances
through practice in everyday life
not by propagandising

The protocol between the DHKP-C and the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party)
was discussed, signed and announced to the public under the name of
"'This is Our Call to Build the Revolutionary Front" during the last
month of 1996, and became a source of fear for the oligarchy and
happiness and new hope for democrats and revolutionaries.

The period since then has clearly not met up to these expectations.
Obviously this can be evaluated from several angles. But those
responsible for this failure continue to criticise and adopt a
superior attitude to the left wing in Turkey (in their words, 'the
Turkish left wing") about the concept of unity, as if the left wing
does not exist and they themselves bear no responsibility. This is a
matter that should be debated separately.

For instance, to give a recent example, the ARGK (People's Liberation
Army of Kurdistan, military wing of PKK) said in the latest issue of
Alternatif magazine that; "Towards this force (DHKP-C) our approach
was under the concept of unity. The deficiencies in their
understanding of struggle are holding them back from unity.  In
particular, there has been the war in Kurdistan, its effects on the
masses and again, new improvements in the situation in Turkey, and
despite all these, their inactivity apart from organising a front has
created uneasiness even among their cadres. But they still insist upon
their known attitude and line regardless of all these. In fact, the
main principle of Marxism is to favour the broadest possible unity. At
this point they could not tolerate our presence in Turkey. If they
call themselves `democratic and revolutionary', they should
participate in regional and local unity - if nothing else is
possible."  (Alternatif, January-February 1998, issue no: 6-7)

The Revolutionary Front is the necessity for the Revolution of
Turkey. It will be built one way or another. We have not changed our
mind about it.  Within struggle and war, there is no place for
disappointments. If this time there was no success, next time we'll
try again.  We will continue our struggle against an attitude which
has a negative impact on unity and fronts. This also shows our
persistence and determination about unity.

Let's look at this passage.  There is no trace of the "Call for the
Revolutionary Front". It says that "they should participate in
regional and local unity". In fact, we declared that we could go
beyond this point. Why does the commander speaking on behalf of the
ARGK ignore this fact?

He ignores it, Because there is no such idea or formation of such
unity, a revolutionary front, on the agenda of the ARGK, ERNK
(National Liberation Front of Kurdistan) or the PKK.

Whoever says that we do not participate in unity should read the
protocol once more. Whoever had forgotten or did not pay enough
attention should check again. What did we say, what happened and why
did it not work?

(1) We gave our word to build the Revolutionary Front.  We reached an
agreement to put it into practice and initiate it. We declared and
signed that"we are ready to show the necessary effort and
self-sacrifice". This was covering all areas of struggle. Of course,
the Revolutionary Front would not be created with intentions but with
concrete steps, organisations and institutions that cover life and
practice. The problem occurred at this point.

(2) Firstly, a joint committee would be formed, which will control and
make sure the protocol will be put into practice. This was brought on
the agenda right after the formation of the protocol and agreement had
been reached.  The decision was made about how and where this
committee would be formed.  The PKK asked for 1-1.5 months to organise
the place where the committee would be formed.  We agreed.  It took
one year.  Nothing was done.  Our questions of "what happened, why did
it not start?"  did not make a difference. And our questions have
received no answers even now.

Unity for the construction of the Revolutionary Front is a serious
business.  In a situation where the matters agreed upon are not
carried out and they do not bother to explain the reasons, the
required seriousness is no longer present.

(3) Despite this, we wanted to take some steps in these areas. We
pushed harder. In almost all these areas, they did not want to be in
unity.

Besides, we said in the protocol "Our alliance that aims to form and
develop the unity of our peoples in a front, undertake...the
development of the collective organisations and struggle against the
common enemy for the interests of our peoples and revolution in all
legal institutions, trade unions, professional boards, democratic
positions like associations, among workers and civil servants, the
press and cultural front, in the villages, among student youth, in the
jails and residential areas and abroad, where our parties are in
charge or are participating."

A protocol was signed for the workers and civil servants sector only
with great difficulty. This was also full of comedy. No matter what,
they wanted to put the word "peace" in the protocol papers. It came to
the point where the words "peaceful struggle" were put in. And they
did not obey any of the principles or concepts of this protocol. They
did not keep their promises in the General Congress of SES (Trade
Union of Health Workers). By breaching the agreements they rejected
the revolutionary alliance out of fear of losing union positions. When
we asked for their self-criticism, they grew aggressive. Nobody
accepted responsibility.  In Maliye-Sen1 "The Patriotic Workers"
denied the alliance by declaring that the protocol has no significance
for them. Even the lack of seriousness about the protocol did not
bother them. In Genel-Is 2 they signed the resolutions whose objective
was liquidation. In the Congress of DISK 3, they were not in unity
against the MGK 4 efforts at liquidationism within DISK.

(4) Unity efforts among youth were left to fail. They said, "either
what we say willl be done, or nothing". In the end, this did not
happen. Their understanding was that everything revolves around them.
Anything else was wrong.

(5) They did nothing to establish the People's Councils, and did not
even attend them.  This is what we said in the protocol: " WE AIM TO
SPREAD THE ALLIANCE TO ALL AREAS . In the light of today's concrete
duties, to organise the democratic opposition of our peoples, we aim
and take it as a duty to develop a council which will cover all
forces, to enable our peoples to participate and make decisions
through these councils, to create opportunities for
self-determination, and therefore to establish the local People's
Councils, from the smallest residential areas to the biggest cities,
in every area." All revolutionary popular opinion can bear witness to
this: since then in many places the councils have started to function,
but the PKK did not participate in the work, including in the areas
where they have a presence, and in some other places it was not clear
whether they have been participating or not, where they display an
unserious attitude.

(6) To write a new Constitution and have people acknowledge it as
their own was our collective idea. This was also mentioned in the
protocol. " ... We take it as a duty to prepare a draft constitution
that aims for independence and democracy, and have people acknowledge
it by providing for the participation of all anti-imperialist,
anti-fascist organisations and individuals who want freedom and
justice."

We prepared the Draft Constitution and gave it to them. They said they
have no objection but only The Right of Self-Determination of Nations
should be detailed. There was no problem. When it was time to continue
the campaign, they were not interested. During the debate they said
things like "they are busy, it is not today's job and you do it". And
it is not certain what to say and to whom. In almost each contact the
responsible ones on their side were different.  The newcomer says,
"he/she does not know anything about it". Some of them would even say,
"People's Councils? What are they?"

(7) We made suggestions about collective practical organising. It was
clear that this would also develop the implementation of the protocol.
For example, the occupation of territory in Iraq by the Turkish
oligarchy was on the agenda. We said, let's do something
together. They did not accept this.

We said, let's celebrate Newroz (Kurdish new year) together.  They did
not accept this.

(8) We said, let's organise the struggle of the captives in the
prisons collectively. They accepted it. In fact, they (at the top
level) suggested the establishment of "the United Resistance
Committees" in the prisons. We asked them how they were thinking of
doing it. They did not reply. Later we suggested that the prisoners"
central structures should debate it themselves and a collective
organisational model would be implemented.  The prisons debated.  At
the end the PKK captives said, "there is no common point to agree on
in the prisons."

In the reply to the document submitted by the DHKP-C captives, the PKK
prisons central structure said: " First of all, our approaches towards
the prisons and the foreseen roles of the dungeons are different.  Our
understanding of the actions and the foreseen roles of the dungeons
are far apart.  ... On this basis to form a collective platform and
centre for coordination is very difficult.  We do not think that your
suggestion of the establishment of a coordination centre for all
prisons is realistic. Neither would it function."

It said in the document, "You made a suggestion during the talks at
central level about united resistance committees, but you did not
mention how they would be formed."  However, what they wrote back to
us said nothing about them. So why was the suggestion made in the
first place?

(9) This is what these concrete developments show; all their words are
for propaganda only.  They are just words. They cannot be in unity
with anyone.  The aims of the articles in their publications like
"let's unite and establish a collective headquarters" are for
propaganda.  Within this propaganda, the most striking one is the
words of "whoever wants whatever, we'll give it" and it is repeated
frequently. In fact, the PKK do not join in such relations with
anyone. The PKK only want useful forces that support and revolve
around them.

These are the realities we live with concretely.  Before the protocol,
in a guerrilla zone, we were facing great difficulties. Again the PKK
were talking from on high. We asked for certain minimal things from
them, whether through them selling them to us, lending or giving them
as solidarity. They did not even reply.

Besides, after some time, two of our fighters escaped from this same
zone with their weapons. The PKK seized these weapons and did not give
them back.  We demanded them, one year passed and still they did not
reply .

Where are solidarity, revolutionary behaviour and principles?

While this is the situation, what shall we do together and how?

The PKK will be comfortable if we say; "If you want you can lead our
troops", "let's share the delegates in such and such a place"
etc. The reality of politics and organisation cannot be like this. We
remind them to be realistic. But their involvement is a matter of
propaganda.

(10) The legal organisations within the PKK orbit wanted to be with
reformists like the ODP (Freedom and Solidarity Party) and did not
want to be seen with revolutionaries.  Therefore there could not have
been any alliance in actions. We insisted, but to no avail.

The alliance in legal and democratic areas that was also foreseen in
the protocol became impossible as a result of such politics. In this
subject no political resolution could be made and the signature under
the protocol did not carry any weight for anyone within these
areas. The main problem is not the non-recognition of central
decisions in the regions but far more the unwillingness of their
centre to act in unity and collectivity.

(11) They say, "let's publish a daily paper together and use TV"
etc. OK, but suggest a project to us and let's talk about it, we say.
When concreteness is required, the subject is forgotten. In reality
the PKK want only "workers", not sharing or collective administration.

(12) We were open and took seriously every subject and every
word. Whenever it was necessary, in certain subjects, we told them
they were wrong or had wrong information and gave the correct
information. We said, if there is a problem, first ask us.

As if nothing had happened, we were been sold via TV. They prepared TV
programmes to fawn upon Sabanci and compliments were broadcast.  (The
Sabancis are the owners of one of the biggest trusts and are members
of the oligarchy in Turkey.  One of them, Ozdemir Sabanci, was
executed by the DHKP-C in 1996.) Our actions were announced as
suspicious. When the name of a country was mentioned in the Middle
East and connected with Mustafa Duyar's capture, they panicked and
that country was fawned upon, we were sold again (Duyar was one of
those who punished Ozdemir Sabanci. He later turned traitor and
surrendered to the Turkish embassy in Syria, where he had taken
refuge.)

(13) They suggested to us the making of a TV programme about March
30. We accepted it.  The programme was prepared. Two days later the
programme was cancelled without asking our opinion. The reason was
obvious. Everything had to be theirs.  Later, the mentioned programme
was put in the archives, another programme was prepared with three or
four untrustworthy reformists, they talk about March 30 and meanwhile
by using them as shop-windows, they bring themselves to the fore. Is
unity possible with such a mentality?

(14) A revolutionary front would consist also of the armed forces, the
guerrillas. But the reality is, the ones who cannot establish unity in
minor things can never establish unity among guerrillas. The alliances
that have allegedly succeeded have nothing to do with proper alliances
and fronts.  Everything is obvious. "The United Forces" is mentioned.
There is no such thing. There are only a few men of the TDP 5. They do
not even mention them.

Many of the actions in the Black Sea region and Taurus Mountains were
claimed by the ARGK in their publications.  But in the recent issues
of Alternatif magazine, in articles like "Conversation by radio", it
has been said that the actions were carried out by the United
Forces. For example, in Ülkede Gündem (The Agenda in the Country) and
Ozgur Politika (Free Politics) daily newspapers of August 17-18, it is
published that in Mesudiye/Ordu the guerrillas organised a checkpoint
action and a policeman was shot. The news was headed as "The ARGK
guerrillas, who have intensified activities in the Black Sea
region..." The same action was claimed by the United Forces in the
November-December '97 issue of Alternatif.  There are dozens of
similar examples. The majority of the actions that are claimed by the
United Forces and written about in Alternatif were also claimed by the
ARGK in the mass publications.  What is the aim?  In the
mass-circulation publications, ARGK, in the others, United Forces. Is
this kind of unity possible, is there a serious attempt at unity here?
And after that, it is said that there is no formation and programme of
the United Forces yet.  In November 1997, in Alternatif, while the
actions were claimed by the United Forces, in Yurtsever Genclik
(Patriotic Youth) magazine in November 1997, Semdin Sakik wrote that
"The name of this organisation is not formally announced yet. But such
activity will take place."

These things are lacking in seriousness.

As a participant in the United Forces, the DHP is also mentioned. In
fact there is no such organisation called DHP. The PKK, in order to
enlarge the scope for manoeuvre, is using this name through some of
their men. This route is dangerous and forces the concept of unity
into a cul-de-sac. It is not too difficult after all.  Everybody can
establish "organisations" internally and use such
names. Revolutionaries do not cheat each other.

(15) In the beginning of the passage in Alternatif, it says that; "In
the last 4-5 years, the DHKP has been present in the areas like Ovacik
and Dersim.  We acted together.  A period of winter was spent
together..."  Unserious comments.  As with announcing "the United
Forces" and comfortably claiming the actions by the ARGK, they used to
talk as they wish and not be made accountable and explain their
actions. Announcing our presence in Dersim in the last 4-5 years is
not because of ignorance but follows their logic, which is to belittle
others. Since 1991, for the last 8 years, we have had guerrillas in
Dersim. The lines of "we spent the winter together" have nothing to do
with Dersim.  The mentioned togetherness happened in Tokat. Because of
the operations in Sivas, they came to Tokat, in a chance meeting they
said they had no contacts and required help, and all kind of
facilities were provided, including a shelter. (Photographs of this
shelter were also published in the media during an operation by the
state in Turkey.)  Even then they were at such a stage in relations
that they introduced themselves as DHKP-C guerrillas to peasants,
rather than using their true identities. How can an organisation use
another's name, what kind of understanding is this?

(16) In an interview with the ARGK, they say"they helped us". This
subject was mentioned in several other articles and speeches.  They
should reveal how they helped us. These kind of comments are written
and said very often. We repeat: it is not correct. If the other way
round is claimed, they should reveal it.

(17) The "Spreading to Turkey" programme of the PKK is not new. In
this matter the comment of "the left-wing could not do it, we waited,
therefore we are doing it now" is wrong. Since 1990, to establish an
organisation for Turkey and develop DHP is on their agenda. They could
not succeed at it.

The function of the DHP was only to make the propaganda of the PKK and
to swear at the left wing, especially us, in PKK style. They had no
other significant work to do. During the period when our organisation
was facing an internal conflict, they shamelessly invited our
militants to go over to their organisation and, using the same tactics
as the putschists, announced that "the DS (Devrimci Sol, Revolutionary
Left) is finished" A very opportunist and primitive way of
understanding.  The DHP, naturally, cannot develop within the logic of
the PKK and cannot achieve an original line. It can only function as
an advertisement for the PKK.  There is either the PKK or the
DHP. Both cannot exist. They are producing a caricatured version of
the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union's attitude.

(18) The PKK do not participate in any partnership unless they are in
control. Relations on the basis of equality are not to their taste
neither.  They will be in charge and in control.  The functioning of
an alliance involving the PKK is subject to this condition.  Where the
PKK has no control, the agreements and signatures are invalid as far
as the PKK is concerned.

"Administrative unity? Let's do it," they say. The questions of how it
will happen and what the function is are left uncertain.  When we say
let's concretise, they are silent. We have faced many examples of
this.

The protocol is here, let's put it into action.  Why was it not
applied?  Let's discuss it, render an account and renew it.

Who is responsible for what and what are the limits of authority?
Let's define them.  Let's make detailed and concrete programmes how
the Revolutionary Front will be formed in all areas. As far as we are
concerned, there is no obstacle to these. We took the necessary steps
in these and are ready for new ones.  But steps which meet with no
response cannot go forward in a one-sided manner.

The idea of "left-wing congress" was brought. We said, it is not
realistic.  But if you can do it, do it.  If the result is positive
and unity is established, the necessary action will be taken. They did
not even go a step further. Those who cannot be in unity with us, can
be in unity with nobody.

(19) At the level of international relations, the PKK do not show the
attitude of solidarity, continuously spreading the politics of
blackening others, especially us. In July 1997, during the
International Youth Festival in Cuba, the bulletin they distributed is
a striking example.

"...  Turkish revolutionaries could not free themselves of the
official ideology of the Turkish state, Kemalism. They have no power
to do this and therefore they are the captives of chauvinism. They are
on the side of the Turkish state and they do not fulfil their
internationalist responsibilities towards the Kurdish guerrillas.

... Meanwhile the Turkish leftists formed a basis for the military
coups taking place every 10 years... First of all, we want to comment
on that reality. Kemalism is a secret fascism administrated by western
imperialists.  Its mission is to organise massacres against Armenians,
Greeks and Kurds and protect the capitalist system. If the Turkish
leftists cannot understand this, they cannot perform their
internationalist responsibilities"

Is unity possible when such a style and logic exists that sees the
"Turkish left" as set out above? In spoken terms they do not hesitate
to blacken others and come up with such comments.  While the reality
is obvious, the words about help in every area, solidarity and "we'll
give and do what you want" are only misleading.

(20) In most cases the politics of the PKK leadership are based upon
belittling the Turkish left. There are several consequences of this
logic, one of them is always being in search of a unity that will be
subservient to it. Because the ``Turkish left' is seen as forces to be
administered and directed.  This logic was also used to send several
messages to the oligarchy.

In an interview with Cumhuriyet (Republic) paper, the following
question is asked to (PKK leader Abdullah) Ocalan, "A protocol between
the PKK and Dev-Sol is mentioned. Is Dev-Sol an extension of the PKK
in the cities?"

Ocalan replies, "In general, the type of environment that I created
gave the left the chance to breathe. But to say that we gave a mission
to Dev-Sol consciously is exaggeration. It is correct that Dev-Sol
gets power from us.  But we do not have such directives like kill such
and such.  I clarify it openly.  We could use them properly.  The
Turkish left is unbelievably backward..." (Cumhuriyet, 7.12.1991,
Semin Idiz)

The definition is clear: "They do not give missions to Dev-Sol
consciously" but they can, that is, they can direct it. The PKK is
ready for an agreement with the state, the PKK also has the power to
affect Dev-Sol, so the state should use this opportunity! This is what
is said.

Here is another interview. IHA interviewed Ocalan, it was not
broadcast on IHA, but broadcast on MED TV.  "The late (Turgut) Ozal
(Turkish prime minister) had a will. I value it. We should make it the
topic of the day.  Erbakan also has made some approaches. This should
be on the agenda as well.  There are even some voices in the military,
with all my true feelings these should be clarified. I want a
beautiful Turkey with all my heart. I also had relations with the
Turkish left. Even with Dev-Sol and such.  I believe in the necessity
to introduce them to the political arena. There are many such groups.
I will endeavour to solve all their problems within democratic
boundaries. Some should not be uncomfortable about this."

That is, who is pulling whom and where? Who is giving duties and to
whom?  There is no such thing.  More importantly, the mentality is
unhealthy.  Relations with revolutionary organisations cannot be used
as tools for giving messages to the bourgeoisie.

(21) This approach in the PKK, looking down on the other organisations
as forces to be directed and administered is also widespread among
their rank and file. Each of them acts like a coarse overseer who sees
others as being there to take orders. The words have no meaning.
Whatever is said today is denied the next day. "Forget it, let's look
at the future...Let's look at such work..  " is said. Another one
comes and denies what the previous one said too. That is, whatever is
on their agenda they try to engage you to it.  They want you to be in
a position of a simple supporter.

(22) The expansion of the guerrillas on the mountains of our country
is a threat to the oligarchy. And one of the necessary actions to
clear the obstacles in front of the class war and develop revolution
is clearly to provide this expansion. But it is also clear that,
bringing this expansion on the agenda for "tactical" purposes will not
develop the revolution. For the PKK, making "extending to Turkey" a
reality means extending to the Black Sea Region. The PKK show it as
proof. But the PKK have no significant forces in the Black Sea
Region. The oligarchy exaggerated the present situation in order to
intensify oppression there, and they also succeeded in their
objective.

(23) Their comment about extending towards the Black Sea and Taurus
Mountains as "strategic", not "tactical" means the failure of the
principal strategic thesis of the PKK.

The colonialism thesis has failed and extending to Turkey was born as
a result of the failure.

As we mentioned, "extending to Turkey" is not a new concept for the
PKK. But extending to Turkey is a political preference, and sending
guerrillas to several mountains of Turkey alone does not mean there is
an extension to Turkey. In a different area, the line of HADEP and HEP
was that "we are parties of Turkey". And these parties had branches in
almost every city of Turkey.  Despite this they could not extend to
Turkey and stayed Kurdish parties. Because they do not have the
mentality of being from Turkey and on the contrary, their political
method is limited within the bounds of Kurdish nationalism.  The
essence of the problem is the same in all areas of struggle.

To hide the failure of the separate revolution (in this sense separate
organising, a separate struggle) and to hide the bankruptcy both of
``extending to Turkey" and the colonialism theory, they are now
claiming that they had this perspective from the start.

For instance; "the relations between our revolution with the
revolution of Turkey is not like the relations between the revolutions
of two countries.  The futures of our peoples are to be
interwoven. This and some other reasons are compelling the uniting of
our revolution's development." (September 14, 1997, Ülkede Gündem, M
Can Yuce) and again "if there will be revolution, it will happen in
Turkey and Kurdistan together" (Semdin Sakik)

In the Kurdish nationalist press, you can read many similar
comments. We have been saying such things for years.  But these were
ignored and criticised as "Kemalism". An understanding, which puts the
Turkish people on the same level as the Greek people in their party
programme, and which is now saying things of the type we have quoted
above, requires that an evaluation be made of the past. If such an
evaluation is not made, it will have no power to persuade; moreover,
unifications and alliances will not meet with a response.

Finally;

The protocol carrying signatures at the central level is known. Up to
now, we were faithful towards all our signatures. We also showed the
same fidelity in the protocol.  Whatever we have done is
known. Despite our concrete suggestions and persistence, whatever the
PKK did not do is also known. In order to reach the goals of the
protocol, we have almost run after the PKK in areas.  We prepared the
constitution and presented it. We made suggestions in practical
matters.  We showed openness. What we got in return is the same
attitude, behaviour and insensitivity as was the case before the
protocol.

The necessity to discuss the problems was stated to them but we could
not get a reply. Therefore this explanation became essential.

The signature was disowned. They used methods with us that cannot be
used in revolutionary relations.

As long as attitudes do not change, building the revolutionary front
becomes impossible. Minds should be changed. Political methods should
be changed.

The Revolutionary Front is a must for the revolution of Turkey. One
way or another it will be established. We will not give up.  There is
no place for disappointment in the struggle and war. This time, if it
did not happen the right way, we'll try again.  We will continue our
struggle against understandings failing to result in fronts or
unification. This is also a sign of our determination and persistence
with regard to the concept of unity.

For the text of the protocol see:
http://www.ozgurluk.org/dhkc/pub/dhkpppk.html

--
Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Parti-Cephesi
Revolutionary Peoples Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C)
mailto:dhkc at ozgurluk.org 
http://www.ozgurluk.org/dhkc 
List info: english-request at ozgurluk.xs4all.nl