Despite repeated calls for a peaceful resolution, the Turkish state insistently pursued a policy of annihilation and genocide. The Kurdish Freedom Movement, aware that standing for peace and dialogue does not mean submission, continued its legitimate resistance.

A year after the first ceasefire, in a 1994 interview with Özgür Gündem newspaper, Abdullah Öcalan defined the nature of the war and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party’s (PKK) approach to it. Öcalan said, “PKK is the name of putting an end to a cursed and unacceptable state. It is the name of saying ‘stop’ to the most ignoble exhaustion. It is a movement of turning toward a homeland, of walking toward national identity and freedom. War is the most effective means of realizing this. If you wish to name the war from the Kurdish perspective, it is not merely a power fighting against a special war, but a revolt against Kurdish damnation, Kurdish shamelessness, Kurdish impoverishment, Kurdish betrayal, Kurdish statelessness, Kurdish slavery, against the material and moral exhaustion of every value.” Through these words, Öcalan emphasized that the struggle being waged was not merely an armed conflict, but also a profound process of transformation.

A call for a path to democracy in Turkey

Öcalan stated that war should not be seen merely as an armed conflict but as a necessity of social resistance and transformation. He stressed that he has always regarded armed struggle as a means rather than an end. In his 1991 interview with Doğu Perinçek from the magazine 2000’e Doğru, while defining the guerrilla, Öcalan said,“These actions are the voice of truth. Guerrilla means: how can one move toward democracy in Turkey? It is a call for that. It is a call for how the peoples can achieve equal and free relations. It is an invitation to independence and freedom for our peoples. Today, the PKK embodies the greatest concentration of sacrifice, courage, and consciousness that humanity can reach, breath by breath.” In the same interview, Öcalan also spoke about the PKK’s resort to armed struggle and said, “Repression without limits leads to great uprisings and great violence. We expressed this only to a limited extent. Such boundless repression would provoke a very strong response. We only showed the tip of it.”

Let us reach a political solution without excessive bloodshed

In a March 1991 interview with Tempo magazine, Abdullah Öcalan set out his views on peace and political struggle and said: “As we stated at the outset, we would prefer to resolve problems in a democratic environment by prioritizing political negotiations. Because that path has been closed to us, we adopted armed struggle as our primary method. If the path remains closed, there is no doubt that the armed struggle will further develop and sooner or later compel them into political negotiations. We want to reach a solution with as little bloodshed as possible and through political means, but if we are forced, we will carry the struggle to the end both with and without arms. The choice is theirs.”

The state’s avoidance of dialogue questioned

Throughout the history of the Kurdish Freedom Movement, Abdullah Öcalan consistently voiced his commitment to an honorable peace at every opportunity. In the same interview with Tempo magazine, Öcalan underlined the absence of a true counterpart for dialogue and said: “Until now, they have always come at us with labels such as ‘bandit,’ ‘terrorist,’ ‘separatist,’ or ‘illegal organization.’ We did not respond. When the press began asking questions, we replied that we trust ourselves and our views; if the other side recognizes the issue as it is, its representatives should be able to develop dialogue. It is the state, backed by such power, holding all the economy and politics in its hands. Then why does it avoid a genuine dialogue on such a serious issue? It must be because it fears its mask will fall, that its unjust position will be exposed, and that it knows it has nothing to offer the Kurdish people. It is not because we impose difficult conditions; on the contrary, we have always said we are open to talks under the most favorable circumstances. In my view, they have cornered themselves. Once again, we will say, ‘The sin is not ours.’ The blood that will be shed lies on the hands of the traditional statist policy that refuses to engage in any peace talks, including ceasefires, and insists on achieving results through unilateral will.”

We are not lovers of arms, it depends on the other side's attitude

Abdullah Öcalan also set out the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s position on armed struggle during the same interview, issuing clear warnings. Öcalan referred to the PKK and said: “We are obtaining good political results through armed struggle. However, Turkey cannot advance much by force of arms and by military means. In fact, its policy has run out in this respect. The army’s use of the club is somewhat blind and produces no political outcomes. (…) Turkey cannot achieve results by force of arms, but we can. Yet that does not mean we hold an understanding of ‘violence to the end.’ It depends on the conditions. I truly say this: we are not lovers of weapons. I am not saying everything must be done by arms, but this truly depends on the situation of the other side. It is they who impose a policy of annihilation and the club on us. We are the ones who defend. What is being imposed on us is capitulation, but the PKK has shown great resistance to surrender. After this stage, it cannot consider surrender; it seeks resolution of issues under free conditions.”

We gave Turkey’s democracy a new lease of life

In a 1992 interview with Yeni Asır newspaper, Abdullah Öcalan directly appealed to the peoples of Turkey and reiterated the reasons for the struggle and what they sought: “If they trust the common sense of the people and the weight of democracy and politics, let them come and pursue solutions. This will not mean a loss for Turkishness, nor will the homeland be divided or broken apart; developments will occur based on the free will of the peoples. Let them come and debate; it will be understood that this is the case. I will repeat these points: if it is accepted, fine; if not, we will not hesitate to escalate the war imposed on us as the only option to determine our own destiny. In saying this again, it never crosses our minds to develop enmity toward the Turkish people. We are not against the Turkish nation; we are fighting against the military-civil bureaucratic, bigoted, conservative faction that insistently places its personal interests above every national interest within the state. From this perspective, we have no special antagonism toward the Turkish nation. Indeed, our struggle has given great momentum and breath to democracy for the peoples of Turkey. It will be even more so from now on. If it cannot be achieved by peaceful means, we believe we will succeed in the path to our peoples’ freedom by means of war as well.”

A very forceful political solution is needed

Öcalan summarized how much the political struggle had been pressed in his April 1993 interview with journalists Hasan Cemal and Ramazan Öztürk, said: “If the armed struggle carried out by the PKK were a blind violence without political purpose, given that a near-global coalition and a general military force stood against it, it would not have lasted this long; and if it had not been the instrument of a very intense political expression, this armed struggle would certainly have been crushed within a few months. In fact, a very forceful political solution is required. That political path was itself violently blocked, but the PKK, at the decisive moment, said: ‘Since you have violently closed this path, I will violently open it.’ Because it was so timely and just, it actually produced results. In other words, it was an attempt to respond to the political path that had been closed with force by using force, and thereby to reopen that path.”

We do not intend to solve everything by military means

In 1994, following the end of the first ceasefire due to state attacks, Öcalan responded to journalist Günay Aslan’s questions with the following remarks: “As we stated before, if the political method is to be respected, if there is a desire to free ourselves from these heavy crises and the ruins of a war that deeply disturbs the Turkish people, we have always believed that a ceasefire would be useful. We are not in pursuit of military superiority, but what has been inflicted on us in the name of a military solution even denies the name of our people. In other words, we can never accept the unilateral continuation of a special war based on a genocide policy and the absence of any response to it. We do not claim that everything should be solved by military means, but rather than consenting to the genocide of a people, we consider it more honorable, dignified, and vital for that people to resist to the last person. Truly, if the political path is honored, we are extremely open to it.”

We want to stop this oppression

In the same interview, Öcalan criticized the ceasefire’s one-sidedness and said: “Why accept a one-sided ceasefire? Why should we meekly offer our necks to the butcher? Where is conscience in that, and where is justice? By what order or what morality are we being asked to become sacrificial sheep? We want to secure our identity and defend our humanity, we ask for nothing else. The other side says, ‘You will disappear; we will deny everything about you, your name, lineage, history and culture.’ Where in the world has such oppression been seen? We want to stop this oppression. If we must show resistance with great difficulty, it is truly to halt that policy of genocide. Look at the history of Anatolian peoples: four-thousand-year-old cultures were slaughtered and eradicated.”

Effort for a peaceful, democratic and political platform

Öcalan reiterated that the Kurdish Freedom Movement does not treat peace merely as a tactic, summarizing his insistence in an April 1993 interview published in Özgür Gündem newspaper: “I will, as far as I can, strive to return the struggle to a peaceful, democratic and political platform; I will try to do so in a truly honorable manner that expresses the equality of peoples and their free unity.”

To be continued…