In the second part of a previously unpublished interview from 1997, Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan describes Turkey as a society in crisis. Speaking to Turkish journalist Fatih Altaylı, he calls for a comprehensive political dialogue that goes beyond violence and state ideology. His vision even then was an equal partnership between Kurds and Turks—based on mutual respect, historical reconciliation, and democratic participation.
You now act as if you could enter active politics in Turkey. Has anything changed for you, Abdullah Öcalan?
No, nothing fundamental has changed in me. We have been experiencing extraordinary developments lately; you could say it is a kind of interregnum, like in the early 1400s in the Ottoman Empire. Turkey is also going through such a period, and I bear one of the main responsibilities for this. At that time, Musa and Mehmet Çelebi were the dominant figures; there were uprisings, for example, under Şeyh Bedreddin. A similar situation exists in Turkey today. We should try to find a solution not through mutual purges, but through understanding—I think that is the most sensible approach. I mean this seriously: a broad democratic consensus could bring great benefits.
You wrote a letter to Mesut Yılmaz. Did you receive a reply? Did you rely on him, and was there any concrete progress?
Mesut Yılmaz said in Iğdır, “We will definitely resolve the Kurdish question.” What happened next is well known: there was an assassination attempt. At the time, he appeared distant; he clearly had expectations. He must make a public statement: How much responsibility does he bear? Was it the work of criminal gangs, and if so, who financed or covered for them? There are indications of connections to Çatlı; the matter is extremely serious and would far exceed Susurluk. Enormous sums of money were involved—at the time, 500 billion were said to have been lost. Most likely, the money was intended to have me killed. Tansu Çiller said that disclosure could trigger a war, but this must be explained. After that, the war escalated further.
You once said that a government led by Necmettin Erbakan would likely take a more sensitive approach to the Kurdish question. Has this impression been confirmed?
I think we should give Erbakan a little more time. There are signs that he is making some attempts. Perhaps something will become public in the coming days. I will conduct some exploratory talks myself in the near future. After that, I will publicly call on Erbakan to clarify his actual intentions in a press conference.
Fethullah Erbaş (former member of parliament for the Refah Party) had already engaged in some initiatives at that time – there were also other initiatives. This phase was characterized by the development of some political relationships. (Allusion to Erbaş’s visit to the PKK-controlled Zap region in 1996 to see captured Turkish soldiers.) We cared for the eight captured soldiers for two years under difficult conditions – they remained unharmed and were eventually handed over to their families. To this day, these soldiers speak respectfully of the PKK members.
The decision to release them was made on humanitarian grounds, to show that even the children of Anatolia do not want this war. I deliberately dragged out this process to send a signal—it was a first initiative for dialogue. Later, we deliberately scheduled further releases to coincide with Human Rights Week. Representatives from IHD, Mazlum-Der, and Erbaş came together. I wanted this to happen publicly to show that the people want reconciliation and that the mothers’ tears must end.
One of the most striking scenes from those years was the embrace between a mother and her son—one of the soldiers. Images like this are important because thousands have already died. We have not harmed these soldiers. The PKK has no interest in simply “killing soldiers.” What we demand are fundamental democratic and human rights. Isn’t it tragic that so many Kurds are unemployed, disenfranchised, and deprived of their language? We want to open a path that will change that.
But before the PKK, the Kurdish language was not banned; people still spoke it. And the country was not destroyed.
Yes, the language was banned. And when a language is banned, how can a person’s mind work freely? People couldn’t write a simple letter in their mother tongue. For me, this is not a minor issue: when someone loses their language, they also lose their dignity, their identity, their pride.
I’m not trying to invent some kind of “Kurdishness.” My mother’s side of the family is of Turkish origin—my mother, for example, looks more Turkish than Kurdish. Anyone who really analyzes me can see that. As a child, I often wished I were Turkish. But later, when I developed my political awareness in Ankara, I realized that denying my own origins was degrading.
I could have had a traditional career—I was almost finished with my studies at the Faculty of Political Science, among the top ten in my class. The professors knew me. I could have gone far—probably further than someone like Mehmet Ağar. At that time, there was a lively, democratic youth movement. But denying your own origins is wrong. Turks should not deny their identity either. We have never attacked Turkish identity—that would be a violation of human rights.
My goal was to end the Kurdish question, and the suffering associated with it. Because there were and still are many who demean themselves and their culture. “Kurd” became a term of abuse – disparaged as “kıro” (lowbrow). The result was intellectual and social impoverishment. This, in turn, also harmed Turkey: through mass internal migration, ghettos, and social imbalances. I addressed this issue in order to stop this development – not because I am crazy.
Turkey’s problems cannot be resolved with the official state ideology. Even back then, there were people who recognized this: Deniz Gezmiş, for example, who shouted the slogan “Long live the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples” before his execution and triggered the trapdoor himself. Or Mahir Çayan, who said, “There is a Kurdish question—we must not deny it.” I sympathized with them at the time—they were Turkish youths who had the courage to say this. How could I, their fellow student, have ignored that?
Professor İsmail Beşikçi also wrote openly about this reality in his work “The Order of Eastern Anatolia – Socioeconomic and Ethnic Foundations.” A university lecturer taught me my own identity, so to speak. Could I have denied it? No – I had to face up to this task.
As a result, a kind of death sentence was imposed on me. I had to fight for my life—and I have survived to this day. My story is simple: I wanted to create a place for myself in a better, freer Turkey—and to make the Kurdish regions places where people could live with dignity. I still stand for that. What else could keep me going in such difficult circumstances?
Do you intend to divide or split Turkey?
The real divisive forces emerged later—they are the armed networks and mafia structures. Is there anything more destructive to Turkey’s unity than these gangs? They are destroying the country at all levels—in its heart, in the south, in the very core of its people.
When so many people are killed, when the whole country is plunged into chaos, isn’t that a form of division? Today, there is complete confusion: everyone is talking at once, no one is listening to anyone else – isn’t that division? Corruption, abuse of power, greed – all of these things tear apart the social fabric.
In contrast, my proposal is a realistic model of unity. A unity based on mutual respect and dignity. I have often compared the relationship between nations to a marriage: imagine a strong man and a very poor woman—and the man beats her constantly. What kind of marriage is that?
Today’s “unity” between Kurds and Turks is exactly the same – a violent, oppressive union. When it breaks down, something better can emerge: a voluntary, equal partnership. That would be the healthiest form of unity.
Isn’t everyone oppressed in Turkey – Kurds and Turks alike?
Not at all. Of course, there is inequality in many parts of the country—including in Central Anatolia and in the west. But the relationship between Turks and Kurds is more specific and profound. This inequality is the root of many other problems: religious divisions, regional imbalances, cultural disparagement. The fact that people hold each other in low esteem, that part of the population is permanently left behind, is due to this fundamental imbalance between Kurds and Turks. That is why I am putting all my weight behind finding a solution to this core issue.
If this issue is resolved, other divisions can also be overcome. I firmly believe that when people come together of their own free will, stable, peaceful communities emerge. The populations have long been inextricably intertwined: Hakkari and Istanbul, Kars and Izmir—people live side by side everywhere. It makes no sense to separate them artificially. But there are massive problems: the influx from impoverished regions is poisoning the west of the country, and Aegean and Çukurova regions are also affected. This is not something I have invented – many people say the same thing. I want to remedy these injustices – that is my motivation, not division.
What specific steps could be taken to find a solution?
First of all, courage is needed—on all sides. Then mixed commissions must be formed at the military, political, economic, and cultural levels. There are thousands of political cadres who are ready for action. I can activate them—but on the basis of the right principles.
I did not engage with Kurdish issues in order to weaken Turkey. On the contrary, I wanted to gain a better understanding of the problems facing the Turkish people and help to resolve them. People have lost faith in politics—surveys show that 90 percent no longer believe in the political elite.
Some see my elimination as the solution—that is a mistake. If I disappear, thousands like me will follow. I am not the cause of the problem—I am a reaction to a historical injustice. My role should be seen as an opportunity. I have political experience, I am 48 years old—what am I missing? If the other politicians are truly convinced, they should face the debate.
Tansu Çiller has been claiming for some time that both you and the PKK are losing influence. But in my opinion, the opposite is true. International support seems to be growing. How do you see your current position?
You are right—the PKK has found a clear line today. Within the organization, at the diplomatic level, and also in terms of our broad social anchoring, we are in one of our strongest phases. Çiller is spreading this claim to deceive the public. Yes, we have limited our military forces—originally, 50,000 fighters were planned, but currently there are about 15,000. If some people consider that a success, they are entitled to their opinion. But the fact that we have restricted our urban activities does not mean that we are weakened. We currently consider them to be ineffective – but when the time is right, we will see what is possible in the cities.
I have certain intuitions and concrete experiences – I say clearly: the PKK is at the height of its power. I am not someone who welcomes every visit from abroad – but believe me: if I opened the door, representatives of some country or other would come to me every day. For fear of Turkish pressure, they often do so unofficially, but they come on behalf of their governments: from the US, from Russia, even from China. I turn down many of these visits because it tires me. We currently have no diplomatic difficulties. Çiller claims that our financial channels are blocked – I say: let her come, I will give her and her husband a sack full of money. Apparently, they like that sort of thing.
Your critics accuse you of financing yourself through drug trafficking. Is that true?
That is completely unfounded. If anyone can prove that a single PKK member has been convicted of drug trafficking, I will accept any form of public accusation. There is no such thing.
It is alleged that you were involved in drug trafficking with the brother of Syrian President Hafiz al-Assad. Is that true?
No. That is also completely fabricated. There is no such connection whatsoever.
How is the PKK financed then?
We have no economic ties with Syria. Our resources come mainly from Europe. That’s where we organize campaigns and collect donations – quite openly.
And that works?
Of course. You know how strict German authorities are with their controls. Our needs are covered for the next ten years. We also have solid financial resources in the Middle East. We live very modestly—no one demands money for their own comfort. That saves enormous costs. Our biggest source of funding is our people. No state supports us. On the contrary, the German state has confiscated 500,000 marks from us. But we are strong in material terms, and our social base is also solid. If you want, ask the people.
What is the PKK’s annual budget?
I haven’t calculated it exactly, but it’s probably over $100 million.
Is this budget sufficient?
We even have a surplus. Since we live extremely frugally, there are no financial problems. However, if you are referring to a luxurious lifestyle, no budget in the world would suffice. But as far as our organization, our fighters, and our diplomatic channels are concerned, we have no deficits. We also have hardly any internal conflicts. The PKK is currently experiencing one of its most united phases.
There are rumors that Şemdin Sakık has been executed. Is that true?
No, that’s not true. He did commit serious crimes, which are also public knowledge—such as in the case of the 33 soldiers who were killed. But he acted on his own authority at the time.
Did you know anything about this action?
No. That was a decision made at the regional level. The soldiers were transported unarmed, escorted by armed units. It was a war zone—the background to this must be investigated. I suspect deliberate provocation: it could be that ours were deliberately put in this situation in order to sabotage the ceasefire.