If They Want Me To Play My Role Then They Must Fullfil the Conditions of 'Health, Security and Freedom to Move'

I can only say to those who enquire about my health that here I am struggling with problems.

Abdullah Ocalan 27.07.2011

I can only say to those who enquire about my health that here I am struggling with problems. They may ask how I do that. But what is really important is how we shall come out of this struggle. 

I can guess that Turkey is also involved in the military operations taken up by Iran against Qandil since 16 July. This attack by Iran is despicable. It is a hideous attack. Iran has undertaken such an attack for the moment. This is not an attack directed only at Qandil, this is aimed at the freedom streak of the Kurds in four parts. They are trying to finish them off. The guerilla will know how to protect itself and fight.

The present situation of Iran is similar to that of Saddam. Iran would like to eradicate the Kurdish freedom streak totally. This is really dangerous. This attack has regional dimensions. Turkey is making use of Iran but Iran is unaware of the dangers. Iran is playing a dangerous game. There is no one who can understand this in Turkey. When it comes to the government it has different worries and agenda. It is trying to just save the day. But Iran shall not stop there. It shall try and apply pressure to Turkey after it is finished with the Kurds. This is because Iran is trying set up its own hegemony against Israel. Turkey does not understand what is happening and is playing a dangerous game. The policies of the USA are not right. They are, objectively, helping Iran. They are on the same side. 

The civillians in Qandil should be protected and the security of the families should be provided for. They should make sure that the civillians there are not harmed. If there is a need they can get the civillians out of the area. International organizations too should focus on Iran and these issues. The Southern forces too should not keep their silence in the face of these developments.

Turkey is trying do away with the problems of the Kurds through Iran. This is a regional plan. They want to remove the gains of the Kurds. Iran on the other hand is sending message of cooperation to the US and Israel through its attack. Ahmedi Necad and the Mollas, on the other hand are also sending a message to Turkey against the US and Israel and thus pull Turkey to its own side.

I already said that I could not keep up with the duties of being a day-to-day leader under these conditions. Both sides are telling me things. What the state and the AKP are up to can clearly be seen. Both sides are keeping me at a certain point. Indeed this is blackmail. Qandil uses me like a sub-contractor. The state uses the delegation like a sub-contractor. Both sides use me like a sub-contractor. I end both sides using me like a subcontractor. As of today I put an end to this.

I have done all that I could. In order for me to continue with my role there is a need to provide for health, security and area of free movement. In the absence of these I shall no longer do anything. Such position of mine  damages both the state and the Kurds. Some used to say that “Öcalan can not be a day-to-day leader under these conditions”. They are right. Under these conditions dialogues for peace can not be done. 

My situation is quite similar to that of Mandela in South Africa. Desmond Tutu used to tell Mandela 'do not take this before you are free because it is dangerous'. He was right. But later they paved the way for Mandela. I, too, shall not attempt at making peace before I am free. It is no longer right to do this. Mandela was given the necessary conditions after which he played his role.

There is no one to play the role of De Clerk in Turkey. Instead of the role of De Clerk, Erdo�an at present is trying out the role of Çiller. He had multipled military operations. The delegation too did not do what was expected of them. Neither did the KCK. We can not make headway this way. Besides it harms us. They talk about the “vital intersts of the state”; it harms the state as well. It harms the Kurds as well. I can not continue this under these conditions as it is no longer for the benefit of the Kurds.

I tried to ease the work load of both sides; I made them proposals and showed them the way to resolve the problem. I prepared protocols and took steps that eased their work. What else could I do? Am I to do more then I have by talking an hour each month or so! What else can I do? Both sides have different attitutes. They are using me like a sub-contractor. Both sides are trying to manage me. I am not someone to be managed. They should be aware of this. I will not allow anyone to play with Kurdish people's honour, I shall not allow this in any way. 

Kurdish politicians are continously saying “we are unable to stop the people, it is really difficult to hold them off and that the people are at a point of explosion. If the question is not resolved we shall start the revolutionary people's warfare thus we are ready both for peace and war.” Who is holding you, whether you do it or not it is your decision. But you can no longer leave  the decision to me. Turkey keeps on saying “I have finished them, I shall finish them now for sure this way”. If you are going to eradicate them then just do it. 

Whatever the government can do to finish them off it should do; they say they are bringing in the special teams, the police force and that all the four different forces are being centralized in one place or that they are creating a third force. I don't care what you do. They had another summit at the prime minister's office. I do not know what decisions they took. But I am not in if that is how they are handling things. They say that they will do “as was done in Sri Lanka”.  They are saying that they shall have three hundred war planes to bomb Qandil and finish them off. What are you waiting for if that is what you will do! Then of the organization is ready it shall show that it is not Sri Lanka.

I shall not play the role of a sub-contractor. I told the delegation too, and called on Erdo�an. I had stated that I would pull the guerrilla forces to secure areas. But they did not even give the opportunity for that.  Öcalan said “I shall pull the armed forces to a secure area”. However they are not even responding to that.  What more can I do. AKP wants war it does not want to resolve the question. This is not the way to stop the cries of the mothers the prime minister says he values. I on the other hand am saying that I can pull the armed forces to secure areas and this is the way to stop mothers crying. But I am not given a reply. On the contrary there are miltary operations every day and ongoing clashes where both soldiers and guerrillas are dying. How can peace develop when there is still bloodshed. This is an open letter to the government. If you want to stop mothers crying then pave the way for me so that I pull the guerrilla forces to secure areas. If this is done then we can solve the matter in one week. 
Some say that a big warfare is nearing and that the only person to stop it is me. But let me just tell them that this can not be done through an hour of visitation every month or so. If they think it can be done then they should come and try it out under these conditions. In order for Öcalan to play his role the government must take a step and show its will to do something. They must do their own part. How can things work out under these conditions and if things are done unilaterally? I call on the liberal intellectuals and ask them is this feasible then? Everyone expects things of me but what can I do under these conditions? I do not have a magical wand to resolve things. My present situation is like a person trying to swim in a waterless swimming pool. There is no water in the pool but they are telling me to swim, they are continously telling me to swim.  How can I swim this way? What more can I do under these conditions. Why can't this be seen? There is no one else who takes on any responsibility and to top it they want me to swim in a waterless pool.

Everyone has placed all responsibilities on me for the last 30 years. For the past 30 years that was the case while I was outside and in the last 13 years this still is the case while I am in here. They have become accustomed to this way of leadership. They are so used to getting help from this leadership manner of mine. They make me work all the time. But I can no longer help them out. I do not accept their approach. I do not accept their manner of being a guerrilla. I do not know whether they will fight or not and whether they have the strength to do it or not. But I can not continue with things the way they are any longer. Guerrilla should also understand the period they are going through, if need be they should not abide by anyone and should be bound only by our values. Politicians should take proper decisions and implement them. 

I explained this delegation that I will no longer be able to continue under these conditions. I shall meet up with the delegation one more time I think. I shall let them know of my decision as well. If the two sides are able to come to an agreement then they should. Under these conditions I shall no longer do anything. If they are able to reach an agreement amongst themselves then great. If they want to fight each other then they can. I shall not intervene. If they want me to resume a role then I have three conditions; health, security and an area where I can move freely. If these three conditions are provided then I shall continue. If both sides agree on what my role should be and provide health, security and an area I can move freely then I can play my role. If they can not provide these conditions I can no longer continue.

I do not want tears to roll down the cheeks of a single mother. It gives me pain to see a mother cry. I want the public in Turkey to know that I told the prime minister that we can “gather the guerrillas in a certain location” and then to “immediately resolve the question in a week”. But the prime minister has not responded. I accuse the prime minister for not wanting peace. Although I have made many things convenient but he still is not ready for peace. What else can I do?

Kurdish history is being examined but the present is not being profoundly examined. Celadet Ali Bedirhan knew the matter well, he had understood it well and had examined it well. He had written a letter to Mustafa Kemal. But there was nothing he could have done. He was not so strong at the time. He was not able to do much. Despite all I did so much under these conditions. Can't it be seen? There are those who write and explain things but they do not understand it profoundly. They are insufficient. They are all alike. Birds of a feather flock together. 

Some of those who think they are Kurdish intellectuals still thrive on me. They exist because they use me. We used to meet the expensed of those who used to live here. We used to give them all the possible opportunities. In Europe too they used to live off us. Now too, in the past 13 years they are living off my back. They do nothing but they still attack me. Even now they are living off me. Because of it they are able to return back to Turkey and are still attacking me!
I make my evaluations in memory of Evrim Demir, I devote them to her. Evrim Devrim has understood what is happening presently the best. She is a young woman, at the age of 18 but she is the one who has understood best what is happening. And the moment she has understood what is happening she has taken a decision. There is no need for words. Evrim had undestood what was happening but KCK, PKK, BDP, DTK have not. The leader and the person who have really understood the period is Evrim Demir. Mustafa Malçok can also be evaluated as such. Both of them are quite young and are respectful leaders. But I would have prefered that they would have tried to create conditions of life where they would express themselves freely. I commemorate them with respect. 

I receive some questions in relation to my defences. I can only give short replies to these questions due to the conditions under which I am kept. There are some epistemologic novelties in my defences. I am told that the paradigm based on mutualism and the theory of class conflict have not been understood all that well. I am asked whether it is possible for classes to  foster one another. A new interpretation of the dialectic can be seen in my defences. From a class angle I think Marx had approached the problem through his own conditions. Thus he had developed a vulgar and strict dialectical interpretation. Discussions on antoganism are of importance.  But antagonism as Marx understands it is not correct. Accordign to our view nothing in nature gets lost for ever. Mutualism is more important. Destructiveness is not right. It is not right to completely destroy one another. Indeed there is no absolute nothingness in the nature. There is also no absolute certainty. The struggle of two poles to eradicate one another is not right either.

At the same time this struggle is creative and frees. But what is essential in the nature is 99% mutualism. Conflict is perhaps one percent. Thus one should critisize Marx. Everything is black and white with him. Politically and from a class perspective as well it is not correct to be in absolute contradiction. I talked about this in detail in my defences. This leads to the dictatorship of the proleteriat. We however are in favor of democratic modernity.

The other question is in relation to me using the terminology of social market which has been used by Keynes and his successors and that it has been worn out as well as the fact that economic area has been left in the background. They are asking me whether I can think of a new terminology or not. I have also focused on the economic area in my defences. I have taken some concepts from Braudel in relation to economy. Braudel criticies capitalism as well. He too focuses on being anti-monopoly. The economic area can be enriched by examining Braudel in detail. The “Social market” concept that I use also belongs to Braudel. I have developed and enriched it according to my thoughts. This is a concept that is pro-worker instead of market economy and exploitation of capitalism. It may just be that the World Bank and others have used this concept but what I am talking about has nothing to do with what they are saying. Bogus liberals give a different meaning to this concept. They are using this concept as their mask. This social market concept is one of the unique aspects of my defences. The market exists and should exists in socialism as well. Everyone brings their best quality goods to the market but this is not a market for profits. This is a market for the benefit of the society. It is a place where high-quality cultural values are presented to the society. But capitalism is negation of the market. Thus I have re-defined capitalism in relation to this as well.

The third question was in relation to me making a special emphasis on the institution of politics in relation to the reconstruction of the society and that I have stated in accordance that politics frees the individual in my defences. Thus I am asked how politics shall free individuals?

Yes, I defend that politics free individuals. This is one of the more unique aspects of my defences. The source of this goes back to Hannah Arendt. I have not completely investigated Arendt but she has gone well in depth into this, it has unique aspects. I believe that politics makes us free.

Marx says consciousness and class frees. Hegel says mind and state frees. But I say that politics frees. They ask me what I mean by this. Yes, politics is complete anti-state. I can evaluate this issue in long details but due to my conditions I shall have to be short and to the core of the issue. In its essence state is anti-politics. Thus politics frees. Socialits experiences have shown us that class does not make us free as Marx says. Hegel said that state frees but as we understood from Hitler fascism that did not free us either on the contrary it is destructive. Under these conditions state is absolute and the citizen is nothing but a dot. Onbe should fight against being a dot. Because it is nothingness. The stronger the state the weaker is the citizenship. The smaller the state the bigger gets the citizenship. The state itself is anti-freedom and anti-politics in its essence. In state systems the citizen is nothing but a dot, it is nothing. Thus in order to be free it is important to defend politics against the state. The ability to be involved in politics is to become free. 

This thesis is one of the more unique thesis of my defences. I am laying freedom in the foundation in the construction of the society which is different to Marx and Hegel. Thus I conclude that politics brings about freedom. All these are present in my defences but I doubt that they are sufficiently read or regarded or implemented. 

Some also compare these efforts of mine with that of Lennin. He criticized as well, proposed a new system and tried to implement it. Lennin too tried developed a theory and implemented it. He had the opportunity. But I do not have the opportunity here. But no one understands this.

Another question was in relation to the “accumulation of political power”. Many have used capital accumulation but I am being told that “accumulation of political power” is being used for the first time. Capital accumulation is an important concept in my defences. But just as important is the concept of accumulation of political power. They are not independent of one another. For as long as capital accumulation exists political power accumulation is inevitable. Both Braudel and Marx have talked about capital accumulation. But both have not seen the next step which is the political power accumulation. They were not able to see political power accumulation which is related to capital accumulation. We saw what happened with Hitler. He was the peak of accumulation of political power. These should be adapted well into politics. 

All these are things that are well related to modernity. We have a theory called democratic modernity. We are defending democratic modernity against capitalist modernity. This model is important against the destructiveness of capitalism and for the problems of workers. We are defending the ecological production society against the industrialism of capitalist modernity. We are defending the democratic society or the democratic nation blok against the nation-state or the nation of the state. Democratic nation shall protect its existence in small units. For example we can use Democratic Nation units of Turkey in the case of Turkey. Everyone can contribute to this with their own language, colour and uniqueness. One can think of a circle that does not enclose. The enclosure of such circles pave the way to becoming a dot. One should not become a dot. None of the circles shall completely enclose and there will accesibility to other circles. There will be overlaps with other circles. It shall be open to influence from the other, and be accessible to one another. A circle is the Kurdish people, another is Turkish people, the other Arab people, Persion people they all intertwine, have areas that overlap thus there are common values and cultures. These are democratic nation units. These thus shall have self-government to represent them. These issues can be discussed in various journals including Dipnot. 
These are the foundations of the defences. Ertu�rul Kürkçü and the others can also focus on this. How did it happen that capitalism exploited labour and nature so much in Turkey and began to destroy everyhing? Why can't there be a struggle against this and why can't they organize themselves? The work on the construction of the Blok can be accelarated. The left could not come together for the past 70 years, this is clear. They have also left their dueties on me. If they make use of my defences they shall at least have twenty percent of the votes. 

I would like to say a few things on Dersim and Bingöl. These are areas that we were not able to attain what we had expected in the elections. I regret that this result has not been evaluated and the issue dealth with. There is a Gladio that deals with Dersim and gives it a direction. Similarly there is also a Gladio that has settled in Bingöl and gives it its present direction. But these two seperate Gladios are administrated from the same center. Those like Kamer Genç and the likes of him say “we are Alevi Turks not Kurds”.  These are Gladio personnel, they have sent their children to America for an education. Kamer Genç is the man of the 1980 coup. Kamer Genç has been sustained from the secret funds. Despite all things that he has done no one has said anything why? Because they are able to contain a part of Dersim this way and it is made dependent on Gladio. Those in Bingöl say that “we are not Kurdish but Shafi Zaza”. In Dersim too they are advancing Alevi and Zaza mentality against us. In Bingöl too there are advancing Shafi and Zaza mentality. The source of both is Gladio. These must be evaluated well, and focused on well. They are both the same. They are both special-warfare implementations directed against the eradication of Kurdishness. Precautions against these should be taken. Both are administrated by the same center, the same Gladio and the same mentality. This situation must be evaluated well. In the absence of its evaluation one can not make headway. This must be seen.

In the aftermath of some of my articles some have criticized that “a freedom philosopher is being created from APO”. What philosopher! I am not in need of such things.

There were news that prisoners were being evacuated from certain prisons. They say that a new KCK operation is on its way. They may have a bigger and more comprehensive arrests then before. They may take up more comprehensive military operations. This shall make things more complicated then before. 

I follow the Dipnot journal. I find it quite successful. I wish them the best. I convey my deepest affection and greetings to our people.