PKK:s terrorstämpel en eftergift till Nato-landet Turkiet

Terrorism as a concept has been in use for a very long time. The term has always meant to bear negative and destructive potential. Terrorism is usually defined as “the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims”. According to the current definition of terrorism, this “violent action” is meant to strike or hit a vital interest of a nation state. The interest of an ethnic, religious or ideological minority is obviously not included in this equation. This “violent action” is to be carried out by a non-state actor operating beyond nation states’ political boundaries. This current conceptualization of terrorism has created a gap of misunderstanding between a “terrorist action” and other “violent actions” and opened doors of labeling any organization which defies the interests of a nation state’s elite group or challenges a mutual interest of a group of nation states or a political block.

Ignoring the violation of Kurdish minority’s basic rights in Turkey by several democratic nation states is an example for parity of perception of national security between Turkish nationalist elites and these democratic states. The conditioned parity or disparity in the interests of nation states (often renamed as national security) is probably the ultimate international threat to the global security in the post-Cold War era. Conflicts of interests between nation states have generated and nourished organizations like Al-Qaida. It is as well a typical example for the fatal crisis facing the current international relations paradigm after the Cold-War era when democratization of political systems has become a current issue. In fact, the biggest deficit in the current paradigm has always been to match human values of a democratic nation state with its foreign policy. This huge gap has been creating a cognitive dilemma for observers and an ethical predicament for policy-makers.   

Conceived as a sovereign entity a nation state and its use of violent actions (the state’s use of coercive power against internal opponents) was jurisdictionally and internationally not questioned until the resent years. The label of terrorism, noticeably, has not been applied on state’s violent action against its own people or a neighboring country’s territories. One of the reasons has probably been the conceived sovereignty of nation states. Nation states have been the only recognized players at the international political arena. In reality the idea of territorial sovereignty of the states was the foundation of the post-Westphalian international security system.

The concept of terrorism has been modified after nine-eleven attacks but still meant to refer to actions of non-state actors, i.e., a player that lacks the status of nation state. Post-nine-eleven era terrorism has become a synonymous to evil; evil in its religious semantics. In this context, terrorism and terrorists have become a name for an evil and stateless and indefinite organization which cruelly, mercilessly and without any moral barrier or political cause destroys each and every human achievement. Even at this point, nation states’ use of violent was not recognized as terrorism. In point of fact, all actions labeled terrorist actions were apoliticized, irrationalized and demonized and then applied on all groups, gatherings or even individual actions which may question the use of violent by a nation state against its own people. A very vivid example is current accusations of terrorism against two Swedish journalists by the Ethiopian regime.    

It is contextually important here to mention the most known cases in modern and pre-nine-eleven history of describing non-state organizations as terrorists by other nation states. British classification of IRA and American definition of PLO were two known examples. It is historically interesting how these two organizations eventually ended up as partners in peace negotiations and shook hand with leaders of these two countries.

Sometimes have nation states been accused of being harboring and accommodating terrorist organizations but not of being “terrorist states” per se, for example, Taliban’s Afghanistan and Saddam Husain’s Iraq. All killings conducted by Arab regimes against their own people during so called Arab Spring were never called terrorist action of states. This indicates that there is an internationally unacknowledged consensus on the idea of terrorist action carries out only by non-state actors operating beyond a nation state’s boundaries.

The question of labeling PKK as a terrorist organization is however a deviant. It was more suitable for the era before nine-eleven attacks, along with labeling IRA and PLO as terrorist groups. Why PKK as a local organization with defined geography of action and defined political case is still sorted as an organization like Al-Qaida? The PKK case, in a matter of fact, illustrates an example for a political issue left behind from the era of pre-nine-eleven attacks. Labeling PKK as a terrorist organization has not any international security justifications. PKK is not a de facto threat to the international economic system and/or political order. Survival of this label on PKK is obviously because of Turkey’s geostrategic position for NATO.

The post-Cold War era has brought about new perceptions to and illuminated fresh aspects of the international security paradigm which unfortunately have been shadowed by the reactions of nine-eleven attacks. For instance, the idea of military intervention into a sovereign state’s internal affairs for humanitarian purposes was an innovative input changing the old perception of nation state’s territorial integrity and confirmed insufficiency of the current international security system.

The real terrorist action can be carried out by non-state actors, and indeed even by nation states. Terrorism threats not only the very notion of national security but even jeopardizes the global stability. Therefore the issue of terrorism probably needs an inventive approach where the outdated perception of nation states’ territorial sovereignty should be re-examined. A new security paradigm needs to examine even nation states’ terrorism and include some other challenges like global climate changing, international economic crises and enforce and eventually bring about Human Security instead of National Security.

Salam Zandi (15 artiklar)

Anmäl

Trackback URL: http://www.newsmill.se/trackback/42024

5 kommentarer I kommentarsfältet har kommentatorn juridiskt ansvar för sina inlägg.

It's behind all doubt and supported through evidences in the European countries police forces that PKK devotes to:
-Drug smuggling (Drogsmuggling).
-Human smuggling (Människosmuggling).
-Racketeering (utpressning av kurdiska affärsmän).

PKK has murdered thousands of innocent Kurds and Turks, among these 138 innocent teachers in south east Turkey.

Your statement that PKK has only been labeled as a terrorist organisation due to Turkey’s geostrategic position for NATO lacks ground since PKK was also labeled as a terrorist organisation by the Swedish Government back in 1984-85 when PKK killed two Kurds in Uppsala and Stockholm.

Permalänk | Anmäl #1 Arne, 2012-01-04, 20:11

Put the pre Turkish tyranny behind you! And join up in the Turkish nation. Long live Kemal Ataturk and his ideas.

Permalänk | Anmäl #3 Joakim Nilsson1, 2012-01-05, 17:44

In his article Salam Zandi claims that terrorism is “usually” defined as ”the use of violent action to achieve political aims”. With such a definition there is of course no difference between the use of force by nation states and non-state actors, whether they are called terrorist or liberation organisations. Terror acts and defence wars would morally be the same and, to quote Clausewitz, “the mere continuation of politics with other means”. But terrorism is normally not defined in this way. It refers to the use of indiscriminate and deliberate violence against innocent civilians and can not be justified under any circumstances.

Permalänk | Anmäl #4 Mose Apelblat, 2012-01-05, 22:21

It is very clear that the PKK is a terrorist organisation, There is no doubt that this organisation have killed many innocent turkeys. There are true and real fact that shows that they are terrorist.

The fact that they killed two kurds in Sweden that was ex members of PKK is clearly evidence to put them om the terrorlist.

I dont really
understand Salam Zandi argument that they are not where is your evidence?

Permalänk | Anmäl #5 u_16889, 2012-01-05, 23:37

#1 Arne
Dear Arne, thank you for writing your standpoint in this issue. Your three accusations and your figures are exactly the same accusations and the same figures one can see in Turkish mainstream newspapers on a daily basis. I think your accusations can be explained in two ways; either your sources are derived only from prejudice, or you do not have access to other sources to understand the issue more impartially. This makes your reasoning very selective, and consequently your view on the issue very poor. This is regrettable because it pales the hope to understand the roots of the conflict and to find a solution for the ethnic killings in Turkey.
If we take our prejudicial filters off for some minutes it might be visible that I am not trying to take part in the conflict. Using the case of PKK as a context, I am trying to establish that in our contemporary international relation system, nation states accuse non-state actors of being terrorists while their own terrorist actions are simply described as “coercive power to restore security”. This is applicable to Turkish state and to all other nation states.
I am reflecting on a logic in International Relations that sticks the “Terrorist” label on a person when the person is not fit into some criteria set up by the nation-state system and praises the same person “for his efforts to create peace” when the person complies with these criteria. I am trying to explain why Yasser Arafat was awarded the Noble Peace Prize here in Scandinavia; same Arafat who, along with his organization (PLO), was labeled “terrorist” for a many long time.
Arne, we can discuss the three accusations you mentioned in your comment above. I hope you are able to realize the fact that all these three acts are carried out by many organizations all over the world and even by some institutions within some states. These organizations are internationally called Mafia not terrorist organizations. There is, however, no specific name for those states that accommodate, organize and carry out these three awful operations. If you believe PKK is doing these acts you can call PKK a Mafia organization. What is behind the terrorist label on PKK then? Is it because we are borrowing it from Turkish state-media without reflections?
If you and (as your affirm) Swedish Government accuse PKK of being terrorist because it killed two persons in Uppsala, or 138 teachers in Turkey, what you and Swedish government call the Turkish state who has been killing Armenian, Greeks, Kurds and Christian Groups in millions? What you and Swedish government name American and British army’s killings of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were these killings not terrorist actions because they were carried out by army of nation states? In my writing I was trying to illustrate this inconsistency which is inherent in the contemporary definition of terrorism.
I would have preferred not to end the discussion up at this level. Thank you again for your comment and thank you for tolerating my way of thinking.

Permalänk | Anmäl #6 Salam Zandi, 2012-01-10, 14:38

Kommentarsfältet är stängt på denna artikel.