Why does Berkeley and the Europeans support the Palestinians, but not the Kurds

Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds when the US was aiding Iraq in its war with Iran.

The US aided in the capture of Ocalan and the destruction of the PKK.

Much of the "Left" in the US and Europe opposed US aid to Iraq and many on the radical left supported the PKK.

Here is a statement by Ocalan about supposed US aid for the Kurds after the Gulf War:

The following is a speech by Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)
Chairman Abdullah Ocalan during a panel programme on MED-TV,
October 13, 1997:

We cannot describe this latest war as a new war. It is a war
which started over five years ago in October 1992. And now we see
that it has reached a new stage. Of course the situation has
changed completely. From the point of view of all the people of
Kurdistan and of the whole region, a new era has been entered. It
is not only our own people, but also people of other nations who
now ask: What is all this Kurdish in-fighting about? How long
will it go on for? They want to know how it will all end.
It is necessary to throw some light on the situation,
without which we can have no sincere politics. The Kurdish
problem is already a long-standing problem. Who does not want to
make progress with the Kurdish problem? We need to carefully
distinguish between friend and foe in this matter. We need to
carefully determine what is right and what is wrong, and separate
the two. We need to clarify our ideas as to what can be done to
advance the interests of the Kurdish people taking into
consideration all accumulated knowledge. We need to overstep
personal points of view. By now we even need to overstep group
opinions. People who think on a subjective level or prioritize
personal interests must be excluded from this problem. We need
to take the problems and interests of this nation as the basis
for a solution which goes to the very root of the problem. No
matter how intense the pain people endure in war, no matter how
great the enemy appears to be, in times such as these we need to
set all this aside. We need to rise to a new level. We need to
address the issues. We need to carefully identify shortcomings
and bottlenecks. Again, we need to know who our real friends
and enemies are. We have to take yet another good look at
it and re-evaluate things in this way.
I would like to expand on these points. Following the Gulf
War in 1990, the Kurdish problem arrived at a special position.
In 1991 there was a Kurdish intifada. This grew strong both in
the North and the South. In 1991, the intifadas in the North grew
even stronger. When similar intifadas occurred in the South, they
occurred in their full Kurdish colors. And in the North and the
South, the two intifadas worked in parallel, coinciding in many
aspects. In response to this the Turkish state wished to commence
new policies. In his last days, the late President Ozal declared:
"Let's develop our dialogue with the Kurds. The Kurdish problem
cannot be solved by military methods. A political dialogue is
essential." Naturally there were those in the Turkish army who
would not accept this, and Turkish policies were changed
accordingly. Ozal was also changed and removed from the picture.
A new policy then raised its head, that of Demirel and
Inonu. This policy was set up not just to stifle the Kurdish
awakening and decimate the Kurdish movement in North Kurdistan,
but it was extended to all the parts of Kurdistan. The period at
the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 was one in which the
Kurdish movement developed, and the change in Turkey's government
at that time was a response to this. The aim in bringing Demirel
and Inonu to power was to bring about a repeat of the Kurdish
massacre of 1925. At the very inception, Demirel himself
declared: "We recognize the Kurdish existence." But of course,
under cover of this, they were making their plans for a massacre.
The burning of dozens of villages and the murder of dozens of
people were all a part of this plan.
This was not just the work of mafia gangs, but a movement
planned from above. Later they tried to carry this over to the
South as well. How did they aim to do this? The Southern Kurds
had a demand for autonomy. The Iraqi army had withdrawn in any
case. The situation was favorable. This was when there was a
momentary balance of forces present in which it was possible to
note the early stages of the formation of a state or federation.
Of course Turkey could not oppose this openly. It did not have
the power to do so, but it did one thing. It said: "We will help
you, but we want one thing from you; we want you to maintain your
distance from the PKK." This is a very important point for us.
What is the PKK? What does "stay away from the PKK" really mean?
Without a clear understanding of this, it is not possible to
properly understand the stage which this war of five years has
reached. We said at the time: "The demands of Turkey are not
paved with good intentions. The Turkish state will not accept a
federal Kurdish state, other than in words. Maybe they will give
you a few million dollars, but this is in order to achieve the
massacre of the Kurds." We said this many times, and the history
of Northern Kurdistan corroborates what we said.
The Turkish state has only ever had one aim: that no one
part of the Kurdish problem be solved. Their thinking is as
follows: if the Kurdish problem is solved in one of its parts, it
will also have to be solved in Turkey. For this reason, it sees
itself as having to take an interest not only in its own part of
Kurdistan, but also in the other parts. Anyone who does not
understand this policy of the Turkish state well cannot operate
Kurdish policy. Ozal wanted to do this, and this brought about
his end. The policies forced on the government in 1992 were
entirely in conformity with the plans of the Kurdish massacre in
mind. They wanted to do in the South at that time what had been
done in Diyarbakir around 1925 and Dersim in 1938. They brought
about the Kurdish massacre in the guise of recognition of the
Kurdish identity, and claiming to be helping the Kurds both in
the North and in the South. The parties of the South said: "We
have some need for the Turkish state."
The U.S. has its own aims. They want to exclude the PKK from
the problem. And not just exclude it, but put it outside of the
whole of the Kurdish problem. The PKK was not to be permitted
within the Kurdish problem. They wanted a new Kurdishness. They
wanted to accommodate other Kurds within the problem. This is a
treacherous plan. Of course there were those who wanted this
badly - and they were very pleased. They thought: "If there is no
PKK, we can take control." This is a very misguided idea. And
this idea was the cause of today's war. I hope that these
Southern organizations are listening very carefully. I would
particularly like the KDP to pay attention. They will be
responsible for what will happen to them if they do
not listen carefully in the next couple of days. Let this also be
a warning to the other parties in case they distance themselves
from the PKK when the U.S. intervenes. I say one thing to the
U.S.: You come all the way from the other side of the Atlantic
Ocean and concern yourself with the Kurdish problem. You have
your own rights, you have your own place. The PKK does not have
its own place. I say again to the Kurdish parties: If you include
the U.S. in the problem, if you again develop plans against the
PKK, your end will surely come. And if you develop plans for the
Turks, you will meet the same fate. Do not do things which are
not good. The U.S. comes from the other side of the ocean.
Turkey has entered with its bloodsucking plans, which have
their place, their value, and yet there is no place for the
guerrillas who fight heroically, who give their lives for the
people who hunger and thirst after freedom. We want brotherhood!
How many times have I told you (the KDP) that the Turks are the
enemies even of your donkeys, let alone yourselves. I said this
in 1992, too. Why do you form alliances with your enemies? We
are a party ready to sacrifice much. We can say that we are a
force which, taking our lives into our own hands, fights in this
world. If you are unwilling to develop friendship with your own
people, you will have to accept the consequences. If the U.S. and
Turkey had really loved the Kurds, would they have perpetrated so
many massacres against the Kurds in North Kurdistan? If they had
been true friends of the Kurds, would they have forcibly evacuated
so many Kurdish villages? They have erased Kurdistan from the map
of the world. There was something I once said. Anyone with a
conscience will understand this. They perpetrated the Armenian
massacre in 1915 in just three months. For the last 10 years they
have been perpetrating still greater massacres against us. If you
have a conscience you will understand this. They deny it. They
talk of marks, dollars, the food on your plate, and I don't know
what else. I will tell you again. The Kurds are being massacred,
they want to annihilate the Kurdish nation. They go on and on
about the Ibrahim Halil border point, wherever that may be.
Use your brains! After all these massacres, after annihilation of
all the Kurds, let us be friends first and foremost! I say to you
again, apparently closeness with the U.S. is the right of the
U.S., but closeness with the PKK is not the PKK's right. This is
unacceptable. No one can practice politics in these
circumstances. Go and look. In all the cities in the South,
soldiers of every nation patrol, Turks, Americans, French,
everybody.
We set up a hospital on a humanitarian basis. We set up
certain cultural institutions and these people decided to target
them. They were not places which could be defined by nationality.
The reason for the war which has been going on since 1992 is
this: "You say: Yes to the U.S. - to the end. Yes to Turkey - to
the end. They are our friends, we are with them - to the
end. But we are not happy with the PKK. We are unsettled by the
PKK." This is a very apolitical approach. It is an
incomprehensible approach, a position far from the people, far
from its own reality. At the beginning of this war there was an
alliance between all the forces of the South. We thought
otherwise, that this federation would not work. The parliament
formed did not reflect reality. It was founded upon a conspiracy.
And it was the U.S. and Turkey who set up this conspiracy. They
thought that they would be able to cleanse the world of the PKK
by then, and they nourished this policy. If you divide a person
into two, it is not possible for one part to get up and start
walking. This is the conspiracy. We need to understand this
properly. They thought they were clever. They cannot bring
themselves to ask themselves why it results in this after
doing so much damage.
This is one nation, and all its rights and problems are
inter-connected. These problems must be seen together. It looks
good on one side but not on the other. People should understand
and recognize this. When we ask you to take one step on behalf of
Kurdishness, no, you do not agree. This is the cause of the war.
Our people want to know what kind of war this is. Let us say at
the outset: this is not a war of fratricide ('birakuji').
This is a war waged against the plots which are being woven
around us. We have to defend ourselves. We could not leave
ourselves defenseless. Why did the federation not work? Why were
the government and the parliament unable to run things? And why
did so many people have to die? Over 10,000 people died for this
federation. Whose fault was this? We cannot define it as the fault
of the KDP or of the PUK. The blame lies with those who wanted to
set up these conspiracies. These plans were brought to life by
the hand of the enemy. If you march according to the demands of
the enemy, naturally this is how you will end up. We warned at
the very beginning that it would not work in this way. After the
war they started against us in 1992, they too fought. Naturally,
they did not gain anything. Naturally, if politics are not
developed on the basis of national alliances, there will be wars
of this type. The PKK could not be and was not the cause of this
war. The KDP entered into relations with certain states in
secret. This was how they wanted to run politics. Naturally it
cannot be this way, politics cannot be run on people's lives
and rights. This is immoral. It is a great mistake to say:
"Help me with this, and let's get rid of such and
such a person." This will only bring about the end of humankind.
We didn't start thirty years ago. We started after 1990.
These are the games which have been played in the South over the
last thirty years. They have always exploited this people,
saying: "It is we who are strong, it is we who will rule." But
how can you possibly rule a Kurdistan which no longer exists?
Nothing has been left of the name of Kurdishness, everything
has been plundered, and you stand up and say: "I am sovereign."
You have to have some morality to be able to say this! Maybe
you're fighting against Kurds, but you're fighting for your
enemy, not for yourself. This is not sovereignty, this is
deluding yourself. This is one of the reasons for the war, it was
not for national unity, not for democracy, but a war to take
out everyone but themselves. No matter how much we pleaded, "Let
us secure national unity, let us set up national fronts", they
replied, "No! We will agree to nothing before securing our own
sovereignty". They attacked us together with the Turks in 1995.
In 1996 they got help from the Iraqis and strengthened their
position against the PUK. As you know, they have been
saying to Turkey for the last five months: "Come, let us get rid
of the PKK." What does getting rid of the PKK mean?
Getting rid of the PKK means getting rid of Kurdistan. Let
no one misunderstand this: As long as Kurdistan exists, Kurdistan
in struggle will exist. So long as Kurdistan exists, its martyrs,
its courage, and its heroic fighters will prevail. How will you
stand up for Kurdistan when you stop fighting the enemy and give
up the struggle? Don't let them fool anyone in this. If you do
something for your people and if you are together with your
people in this fiery period, then you can continue to exist. What
the enemy has been running over these years is nothing else other
than massacre. They have implemented this both in the South and
in the North since 1990. We have demonstrated great resistance
against it. And this was not just for the North; history will
tell. Our struggle in the South is for the people of the South.
We're now going to talk about peace. What can be worse for
peace than the tanks and artillery of Turkey? Will millions of
Kurds be free when these have gone? Why do they only support one
force? You need to understand this. They explained it themselves
before this war. Ecevit said: "We will stay on this soil until
Iraq secures sovereignty." What he's really saying is: "I'm
going to keep this land under my occupation until there are no
Kurds left." Iraq itself says, "I'm not coming", and to which he
responds, "Oh yes you are. If you don't kill the Kurds, I will."
Is such a thing possible under the laws of any state? Turkey
nourishes this policy, i.e. it is revealed that the enemy in the
South is also a Turkish move. It is proof that this is why this
operation was executed. They did not want Kurdish unity. This was
what they did in 1992, too. And in the end, we demonstrated a
great resistance. And I can say that this was for the people of
the South. I believe that this civil war in South Kurdistan will
end soon. No one can run policies or national politics in this
way. There can be no democratic structure. In particular, no one
independent could do this. But we have secured this. And this is
how it has to be. Or else they will subject a nation to massacre
and annihilation, for who knows whose benefit. The greatest
obstacle was the enemy. And now they are fleeing.
When this occupation started I made a particular point. I
said that this would be the final operation, that this war we
have fought against treachery would be the beginning of national
unity. It would bring Kurdish peace. What will happen to anyone
who does not accept this? We insist. Why has the KDP become so
constricted? They created the situation themselves. We said very
good things about them. We said to them: "We don't want anything
from you. All we want is the unity and togetherness of this
people. Let go of the hand of the enemy, call us, call the
Kurdish people, call the thousands of Kurdish thinkers. There are
thousands of fighting Kurdish heroes, call all of them. Let
Kurdishness progress a little, let television and radio stations
be set up, let them develop in every way. Let unity be secured
from every angle, nationally and culturally. Let the developments
be recorded. This is what we want."


Question: Mr. Chairman, comparing the 1992 situation with the
present, in 1992 the KDP and the PUK were against the PKK, but
now we see that on the one hand the PKK and on the other the PUK
are fighting indirectly against the KDP. How do you evaluate
this?


The PUK has come on to the true path. In 1992 the PUK was
not on the true path. But it has now found it. We are pleased. We
thank them, but we also state the facts. We said it then, too.
When the Turks came in 1992 we said: "This is not for
Kurdishness." And the PUK saw this clearly. The other parties,
i.e. the United National Forces, saw this too. It became clear
that the Turkish army wanted something else. Was it for a Kurdish
federation? No! For Kurdish unity? No! On the contrary, it was in
order to stop these developing. This became very obvious. For
this reason we are glad. The best thing now would be a democratic
alliance. An alliance between Kurds of the North and of the
South. The results of this will be very positive.
Now we shall make a call to the KDP. We shall reiterate what
we said in the beginning. Do not summon the enemy of the Kurds,
we don't want any part of that, become a great party again. All
we ask is a democratic structure for the Kurds. Keep your money,
keep your power, but let us develop democracy among the Kurds. We
cannot leave our people like this. Do not send our enemy against
us. They say: "We had to." Why did you have to? Why don't you
call us? Why have we not heard anything like: "Apo and the forces
with you, we have need of you, help us!" Instead you have to call
on the fascists, you have to call the vampires. The only people
you don't need are the Kurdish people. Who do you think you will
convince with these ideas and these actions? They say: "We don't
like the PKK." The issue is not whether or not you like the PKK.
We are a people's movement, we are fighting for a people. We are
fighting for the Kurdish people. Have we surrendered to the
enemy of the Kurds? No! Have we not fought the enemy of the Kurds
to the very end, both in the mountains and in the dungeons? Yes!
Is this right? Yes! Was this for the Kurdish people? Yes! Did we
not say with our ideology, "We will fight to the end for
independence and freedom"? Yes! Do the people of the world know
this? Yes! So what do you say? "We are a democratic party, we are
a party of Kurdistan." So you're a party of Kurdistan, you feed
so much on the blood of Kurds, you collect so much money, you
have left the people in such misery, and you claim that you are
a party of Kurdistan! Why do you need the enemy so much but not
the voice of the Kurdish people? You get aid, you collect money,
and you gain power on their behalf, why don't you take these
things into account?
This is what is incomprehensible. This is what has to be
drummed into their brains. They believe in the historical enemy,
why don't they believe in us? We have said this to them a hundred
times. OK, you're the Aghas, the landlords, the squires, the
bosses, you are great, be whatever you want to be. This people,
these people are the land beneath your feet. This people
is necessary to you. Show some respect for this people. Do not
trust the enemy so much. Do not trust the U.S. or any other
state. They are not seriously concerned about the plight of the
people. They have no attachment from the heart. They appear as
and when they need to from the point of view of their strategy,
but we need each other. We need each other from the heart. And we
cannot separate from each other physically.
They do not really understand. The Southern organizations
did not understand this for a long time. They kept connecting the
problem of the parts to who knows what problems. The KDP's
politics have been like this for years. It saw itself as very
big, and did not recognize the other parties or anything else.
And because of this they were always fighting, fighting against
Kurds. In the beginning we said: "Give this up!" We said it
to the PUK, too. I wonder what the situation in South Kurdistan
would be now if the PUK had kept out the war in 1992, if they had
entered into an alliance with us instead. I wonder at what stage
the whole of Kurdistan would be at. If this alliance had worked,
how much Kurdish power would have grown. It would have become a
reality in the Turkey of today, too. Of course the Turkish
plotters prevented this in 1992. They got rid of Ozal. We need
to understand some things very well. Don't keep saying: "Apo says
this, and Apo says that." That is all history. People's brains
should work a little. They put South Kurdistan into this
position. 50,000 people of South Kurdistan have died. All this
came about through a Turkish conspiracy, as a result of the 1992
plot.
If the alliance we have formed today had come about in 1992,
Kurdistan would really have been founded by now. A democratic
federation would have been founded in the South by now. 50,000
people would not have died and so much of Kurdistan would not
have been destroyed. North Kurdistan too would have been
liberated by now. The Turks would have been forced to accept
North Kurdistan. All Kurds would be marching in the Middle East
with great strides. We missed that opportunity for a few dollars
and as a result of Turkish plotting. We have to work hard on
this.
Naturally this latest alliance is very good, and it will
bring results. This alliance was formed on the basis of the
interests of the people. This alliance will be to the benefit of
the people in the region as a whole. Let no one play with this.
We make another call to the KDP: "Why do you keep calling on the
enemy and fighting against these organizations? Stop! What
you are doing is wrong! How far can you go on with these
mistakes? You will march a little further and then you will be
finished. You trusted Turkey, and they can't do it. You called in
Iraq, and they did not come. Iran is not there, Syria is absent.
Who will come to your side?" We have said all this to you. "Who
do you think you are? Accept some facts."
Naturally an historical step has been taken. The arrival of
today will be a great moment, and we are celebrating. We have a
conscience too. We do not want to kill one peshmerga, one Kurdish
fighter. But we march on the basis of the truth and the interests
of the Kurdish people. We want to make policies along the lines
of the interests of the Kurdish people. On this basis, we are on
the side of the unity of all Kurds, a democratic alliance.
Let the KDP not run from this. Let the other parties not run from
this. I say again: "Look, everything is in place. Come let us
form a unity." Why don't they come? Come, let us secure peace very
soon.
We are not saying: "We have captured such and such a place,
gained control of such and such, we've got this city, we've taken
that town, or you've got this city." This is not serious. These
cities, these lands, belong to our people. Let democracy flourish
here. No one owns cities on this soil, these cities need
governors. These can be secured with national unity and a
oneness along the lines of the demands of the people. Let the
people elect who they wish. No one can ever say "this city
belongs to me". We just cannot say this. The cities belong to the
people. Neither can we say "these regions are ours". The regions
belong to the Kurdish people. We cannot march on saying
arbitrarily "such and such a place is mine". If you
do this you do not recognize democracy, you do not recognize
the nation, and this is a cause for more war. Let democracy and
national politics run in the whole of Kurdistan. That is the
right idea. Let all the parties accept this. Once national
politics run in Kurdistan, the area of Barzan will in any case
belong to all of us. And anyone patriotic will belong to
it. Our duty is to secure national unity. It is to render
obedience to the will of the sovereign people and not just in one
city or one part. That is why I say it is not so important to
hold a specific place. Of course, we'll hold it for the
revolution, it will be done in order to secure the unity of
this people and a national peace. The KDP had better not take
this as a personal matter.
I am sure the new alliance will record great steps forwards
politically. It is not just an alliance formed for the war. We
are going to turn this into a political alliance with the PUK and
the other parties. Let us make the call again. If the KDP is
ready to make a Kurdistan alliance, let them come too. Let them
not think this is a matter of finishing them off. You are
wrong, this is what you are dying for. It is you who are killing
yourselves. You are killing yourselves off with your erroneous
policies. No one told you to do it that way. You did it entirely
yourselves. No matter how much you claim to be a national force,
we have to march with our people. Naturally you do not accept
this. But we have a conscience, and we do not want to get rid of
you. Of course if you persist in these erroneous policies, if you
do not approach national unity, if you do not approach national
peace, then, in any case, you will be marching to your end.
History will not accept anything so reactionary. Let us not
exaggerate these personal, tribal differences. I can say that
this alliance is not just for South Kurdistan, it is an alliance
for the whole of Kurdistan. Who was the alliance formed against?
This alliance was formed against the army occupying Kurdistan.
Where did this army come from? It came from the North. We have
done most of the fighting in the last five months and the last
six years against this occupying force. We have fought against
those attaching themselves to and those acting with the enemy.
This is a war for Kurdistan. It is not a war for a part of it,
for one neighborhood. And the alliances formed for this reason
are alliances of Kurdistan.
We find that the U.S. says "do what you used to do" and
Great Britain says "do what you used to do". What did we used to
do? They say: "Do what you did in 1992, do what you did in 1996."
But wasn't 1996 the murder of the Kurds? Wasn't 1992 the reason
for the deaths of tens of thousands of Kurds? Let the U.S. and
Great Britain pay close attention and take account a little of
the plight of the Kurdish people when they speak. From now on let
them not try to break up the Kurdish alliances. Let them distance
themselves from the KDP. Let me here make another call. Let none
now make cheap calculations. We shall not accept anything which
is not for Kurdish national unity and a democratic alliance. We
shall not take one step backwards. We shall go as far as we can,
we shall go on until the Kurdish alliance is formed. We shall
march on until national security is secured. We shall struggle
until the time when we believe that all the Kurds have come
together in one body. Any state which does not accept this is
our enemy. Let them not say they are practicing subtle policies.
There will be no more of that. As long as the Turks have no
policies relating to the Kurds, you cannot participate in
politics with them. If they do have any policies, they are
aiming at spilling Kurdish blood.
They tried to re-establish the plot of 1992. But I don't
believe that anyone will ever fall into the trap of 1992 again.
The people will not forgive anyone who does. We are in a great
struggle with ourselves. Before anyone else, I say to the KDP,
keep your distance from this plan. I say to the PUK, if the PUK
were to fall into this plan as they did in 1992, we shall fight
them too. We will not accept this under any circumstances. The
PKK itself should keep its distance from this plan. If anyone
brings such a thing down on us, we will start fighting him on the
very next day. I wish to reiterate yet again, we want unity. We
have fought against the real enemy for five years. We have fought
this war for the Kurds, for peace, for unity. This is absolutely
undeniable. If anyone wishes to deny this or joins the
imperialists' games, we shall bring them down. The peoples of the
region will not accept them either. I do not think that a single
Kurd will fall for the 1992 plan again. Let all the Kurdish
parties keep their distance from this plan. And still more, let
them keep their distance from Turkey's plans. If the Turks wish
to enter into relations with the Kurds, let us form a Kurdistan
Front and a National Congress. Let the Turks make their plans
relating to the Kurds clearer. They come to South Kurdistan and
accept a few Kurds, but they do not accept the 20 million Kurds
in the North. How can we possibly approve this idea?
Let the Turks and the Americans accord the Kurds a little
value, and first and foremost let them stop the massacre of the
20 million Kurds. The Turks have bombed the South on a number of
occasions. Why didn't the U.S. speak up? On average they bombed
20 times a day, everywhere, but the Americans did not once say:
"Stop!" But when a bomb explodes anywhere else, the U.S.
immediately cries: "Terrorism!" Bombs fall on our people like rain
every day. Why don't you call this terrorism? Is this not the
greatest terrorism? I have to make this clear to the U.S.: Give
up these plans and stop the massacre immediately! All these
helicopters are yours. I am against terrorism, but there is
nothing in history which can be likened to what you are doing.
The Kurds in the South should say this to the U.S. first and
foremost: You have so far allowed this dog to drop its curses on
us. They have decimated the Kurds. The U.S. must understand this.
Before we can agree to an alliance with the U.S., before we can
agree to their meetings, let them bring an end to this great
tyranny against us. The sins you have perpetrated, they are
enough! You have demolished all our villages. They were populated,
too. They talk of PKK terrorism. Has the PKK ever attacked an
American city? Has it killed an American or an European? But our
country has been destroyed with your weapons. What is terrorism?
Who is the terrorist? The Southern parties should understand this.
We want to live in a country which is at peace. We want respect
for human rights They have removed us from history and extracted
us from humankind. We want our rights. We have, before all, to
communicate all this to the U.S. Let us not gossip and make
plots. All of these are subtle policies, subtle diplomacy.
Look at the state the KDP has fallen into! Politics and
diplomacy are not run like this! They did this secretly and with
great hopes. They have no weapons, but they have a lot of money.
Come, let them save you. They said they would arrive in two days
and save you themselves. Let them come and save you. We are not
stupid. Do not approach such erroneous plans. Quick, distance
yourselves! If the KDP was to rise now, today, and say, "we want
peace with you, we want a national congress", we are ready for all
of this. We are just waiting for a statement from them. But if
they do not wish to make a statement, but carry on with the war,
we too will fight. And you cannot escape this war.


[...]


In the beginning, we said that this war would move on to a
National Congress. We stated that we would march on to national
unity. And we also said we would get results. I believe that they
will come round to our way slowly. But after the spilling of so
much blood, we wanted this to be bloodless. Why? Because this is
the right thing to do. We Kurds have no other hope. All the other
parties have stopped. You know that when they attacked us on
May 14th they said they would finish us within a week and that
they would obtain a place in Kurdistan. They did not make any
statement or any call in relation to the occupation of the South
by the Turkish army. Everyone's voices fell silent. This was of
course not right. Whereas if they had stood up for the ending of
the war, for a National Congress, if they had made a plan, it
would have been very good. But they did not do this. What did
they do?
When the war started they secretly sent Serafettin Elci to
Sweden and set up a bogus meeting. They said to the thinkers of
Europe to the European states: "The PKK is finished, come let us
make a plan for Kurdistan." This was 100% their aim. Anyone who
followed the matter closely will be able to evaluate the period
following May 14, 1997 in this way. Where is Serafettin Elci
now? Is the PKK finished? Are you going to establish Kurdistan on
the blood of the PKK? Do you really think that is possible? What
they did was very wrong. And the other parties were waiting for
this. Is the PKK finished or not? Has it fallen or not? Would
there be such a thing as Kurdistan now if the PKK had fallen?
We have to try and understand the Turks a little here. Ozal
only asked a question and look what happened to him! There is not
one person within the Turkish state who accepts the Kurdish
problem. How can you await the end of the PKK and think they will
give you a place in Kurdistan? This is great foolishness. This is
virtual treachery. They misunderstood the constrictions of the
PKK. We told those in the South, particularly the KDP officials,
everything. They asked: "What are you doing here?" We replied:
"If we weren't here, you would not survive a single day. You need
us 100% until there is a federation. If we withdraw our hand
from the South, you would not be able to do a thing. If you
get support from the Turks, we are the reason for
that, too. If the other countries in the region are not fighting
with you, we are the main reason for that, too. For this reason,
you need us. We see you as brothers. We conduct policies based
on research. We are on your side from necessity."
If they had understood this, they would have succeeded. And
they would have been able to do a lot. Kurds who are insincere do
themselves so much harm. Of course if they want to join us in the
end, let them come. Where is the conscience of Kurdish thinkers
and the Kurdish parties? Even if they are only a little attached
to their own people or have a little respect for them, they
should start slowly marching. Let them understand this a little.
What is it that prevents our unity and peace? Now we have
good relations with five parties in the South, because we know
each other. We have got to know each other in war. We fought, and
they fought, and finally they came to the alliance. There is no
other way. The other party must understand this. Do not wait on
the enemy. After the evil the enemy will do to Kurdistan there
will be no one left. No one with treacherous policies can be
sincere.
No state will say in sincerity: "Here is your Kurdistan,
take it! Here is your Kurdish unity!" Everyone wants to set up
his own party. For this reason, we say, forge an alliance for an
alternative Kurdistan. There is no other hope. No matter how much
any state helps us, there is no other chance. How much have they
helped so far? They should have helped ten times as much. More
Kurdish blood will flow. If two states supported us, one
state supported the PUK, however many states supported the KDP,
and some others support some others, this will not secure unity,
the war will only grow. It is at this point that we politely
pointed out to the Southern parties that they understand, that
they run their politics in friendly countries, they have policies
and ideologies, but these are not for our unity, i.e., if you
insist on saying it is to the benefit of your party, this is the
cause of the war. What is the national problem? What is the
unity of peoples? If they cannot be secured, you will not be able
to stand on your feet. Why haven't we learned yet, why don't we
learn from history? What have we gained from these policies?
Nothing! 100,000 Kurds have been destroyed, they have all been
killed by the state to which they are bound.
Kurdistan has been reduced to ruins. If there had been
Kurdish unity from the beginning, if we had said from the
beginning: "Unity! We will not accept the decimation of our
people. We do not support the politics which are not in the
interests of our people and our country. We will never be
the slaves of another state! Any state which wishes to set up a
dialogue with us will do this on the basis of respect for our
friendship and unity, we will not allow it any other way!". If it
had been like this in the beginning, Kurdistan would be something
else now. We believe 100% that Kurdistan would have been founded
by now.


(Source: Kurdistan Information Center, Amsterdam)


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arm The Spirit is an autonomist/anti-imperialist information
collective based in Toronto, Canada. Our focus includes a wide
variety of material, including political prisoners, national
liberation struggles, armed communist resistance, anti-fascism,
the fight against patriarchy, and more. We regularly publish our
writings, research, and translation materials on our listserv
called ATS-L.

Why are there protesters in the street for Palestine but not the Kurds?

The US supports Israel and therefore a change in US policy can help Palestinians.

Israel is "on the move" in Palestine and the situation is rapidly changing. Support now is important since the situation seems to be spiraling out of control.

The US does support Turkey but gives it far less aid (European governments have put some pressure on Turkey regarding human rights but not nearly enough).

The situation in Turkey is somewhat static. There are no big events to spur protests. (Palestinian protests in the US and Europe only happened when thing started changing fast and people felt a need for quick pressure on their governments.) That said, protesters should have done more when Ocalan was captured (see http://www.middleeast.org/archives/1999_02_16.htm)

But, there is a harder part with respect to leftists protesting for the Kurds. The US could use such protests as a pretext for an attack on Iraq. A US attack on Iraq would have nothing to do with helping the Kurds, and a new regime could be every bit as bad since the US would not want a base for PKK like groups bordering Turkey. Supporting those fighting enemies of the US is dangerous since it can very easily be co-opted by those in the US with very different ends in mind. Also, protesting for those fighting US enemies is pointless; policy has nowhere to go. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die if the US invades Iraq, pressuring the US on Iraqi Kurds would be similar to pressuring the US to invade Tibet. Tibet would be better off with independence but almost nobody would consider a US invasion of China since the results would be disastrous.

Activists in the US and Europe should stand strongly for things we can change for the better, we should oppose European and US support for Turkey. We should also make sure we do nothing to aid in the PR campaign being waged to ready the world for another Gulf War.

I think you people missed my point. I'm talking about the Kurds in Iraq. Why are there no rallies in Europe today, about the plight of the Kurds in Iraq. I'm not talking about the PKK in Turkey. I want to know, why there are no rallies and marches for the horrific persecution of the Kurds by Iraq. For instance, if Saddam right now, sends his army to murder and gas the Kurds. Will there be any rallies in Europe. Will there be any protests against this.

You can not seperate the struggles in Iraq and Turkey. I'm guessing that if you are so willing to do this you are either misled or an American who cares nothing for the real interests of the Kurdish people.

As Ocalan said before the US and Israel aided in his capture:

"You say: Yes to the U.S. - to the end. Yes to Turkey - to
the end. They are our friends, we are with them - to the
end. But we are not happy with the PKK. We are unsettled by the PKK." This is a very apolitical approach. It is an incomprehensible approach, a position far from the people, far from its own reality. At the beginning of this war there was an alliance between all the forces of the South. We thought otherwise, that this federation would not work. The parliament formed did not reflect reality. It was founded upon a conspiracy.

And it was the U.S. and Turkey who set up this conspiracy.

This is a war for Kurdistan. It is not a war for a part of it,
for one neighborhood. And the alliances formed for this reason
are alliances of Kurdistan.
We find that the U.S. says "do what you used to do" and
Great Britain says "do what you used to do". What did we used to
do? They say: "Do what you did in 1992, do what you did in 1996."
But wasn't 1996 the murder of the Kurds? Wasn't 1992 the reason
for the deaths of tens of thousands of Kurds? Let the U.S. and
Great Britain pay close attention and take account a little of
the plight of the Kurdish people when they speak. From now on let
them not try to break up the Kurdish alliances. Let them distance
themselves from the KDP. Let me here make another call. Let none
now make cheap calculations. We shall not accept anything which
is not for Kurdish national unity and a democratic alliance. We
shall not take one step backwards. We shall go as far as we can,
we shall go on until the Kurdish alliance is formed. We shall
march on until national security is secured. We shall struggle
until the time when we believe that all the Kurds have come
together in one body. Any state which does not accept this is
our enemy. Let them not say they are practicing subtle policies.
There will be no more of that. As long as the Turks have no
policies relating to the Kurds, you cannot participate in
politics with them. If they do have any policies, they are
aiming at spilling Kurdish blood.

Ocalan, I think what he's saying is, the European left seems to support the Kurds in Turkey. But when it comes to the Kurds in Iraq, there silent. One can say, the only reason they support the Kurds in Turkey, is because they see Turkey as an ally to the U.S. The European left is ofcourse anti U.S. While, when it comes to the Kurds in Iraq. The European left is silent, when it comes to Saddam's mass killing of the Kurds. A perfect example. There was an article in the Times last year, that documented how Saddam was trying to ethnic clease the Kurds. Not one single European organization would protest what Saddam was doing.
This is the question. Why were there no rallies in Europe, when Saddam was doing this. While if Turkey did what Saddam did, there would be rallies in Europe against Turkey.

'New York Times, Dec 11, 2000.
Iraq Is Forcing 1000s of Kurds From Their Homes, By BARBARA CROSSETTE

More than a decade after President Saddam Hussein began a murderous campaign against the Kurds, Thousands of Kurds today, are being driven from their homes, United Nations officials in the region say. Much of the forced migration is taking place within northern Iraq, from government-controlled locations like the oil-producing area around Kirkuk, which the displaced people say President Saddam Hussein is trying to "Arabize."

They are being resettled in Kurdish areas in the north. The relocation, which the United Nations is beginning to quantify, adds to an already large refugee population in the north. The earlier refugees are Iraqis displaced by sporadic outbreaks of Kurdish infighting, families who fled or were forced north from government-controlled areas of central and southern Iraq during the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and others from Iran.

Officials say the 805,000 displaced people there, about 23 percent of the population, are putting strains on international relief efforts and local populations. They have asked Baghdad to stop the flow.

In a briefing to the Security Council last Monday, Benon Sevan, who directs all of the United Nations programs in Iraq that are not related to weapons, said he was "greatly concerned with the increasing numbers of internally displaced persons." He said conditions at refugee centers were "abominable."

Officials working in the Kurdish region say about 59,000 people have been surveyed, mostly Kurds and some Turkomen, and report that they have been displaced from homes near Kirkuk, an oil-producing city about 200 miles north of Baghdad near the border of Kurdish areas, where there is also a huge military base and airfield.

They have told officials that the Iraqi government apparently does not want them in that strategic area. This round of expulsions has been going on to varying degrees for two years, human rights groups say, but has attracted little attention until now, when the concentrations of people arriving at refugee camps has made the trend obvious.

In its 2001 world report, the private group Human Rights Watch said this week, that Kurds were being expelled from at least half a dozen districts as part of a government program that has forced ethnic minorities to sign forms renouncing their ethnic identities and declaring themselves to be Arabs.

Some refugees arriving in the north say that even that was not enough to avoid expulsion and the seizure of their properties.
Human Rights Watch documented more than 800 expulsions from January to June of this year. At the State Department, the office of the ambassador at large for war crimes, David Scheffer, has been watching the forced relocations as officials prepare evidence for a possible war crimes indictment of President Hussein.

The Kurds have particular reasons to fear the central government. In 1987 and 1988, 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds were gassed to death with chemical agents by Mr. Hussein's government.
At a refugee camp at Kani Shaitan, east of Kirkuk in Kurdish territory, 1,375 people, 994 of them children, have been crowded into a settlement built for 550 people. People continue to arrive at the camp, officials say, sometimes in groups that appear to have been driven out of government-controlled regions en masse. "Unfortunately, the number of families at the Kani Shaitan camp appears to be increasing," Mr. Sevan said. Arrivals are getting ahead of efforts to build homes for newcomers. At another nearby camp, Chamchamal, plans to build nearly 500 houses in time for the harsh winter of mountainous northern Iraq have been held up by a dearth of materials. In other settlements the United Nations has been putting up tents and supplying them with heaters.

The latest report of the United Nations program under which Iraq exports unlimited quantities of oil to buy civilian goods says the presence of so many refugees is taxing the ability of the United Nations housing agency, Habitat. Housing experts are looking for ways to encourage local builders to provide labor and material for crash programs.

In the Kurdish north, comprising the three Iraqi provinces of Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaimaniya, the United Nations, not the government, administers the oil for food program. Because the Hussein government has a record of abuse against Kurds, money is specially earmarked for them.

Direct United Nations administration appears to have meant a better targeted, more carefully monitored relief effort in the Kurdish areas, and Iraqi officials contend that per capita, the Kurds are spoiled in comparison with other Iraqis.

In the last six months, United Nations officials say, economic improvements have continued in Kurdish areas, especially in livestock breeding and poultry farming, as money from the oil-sales program provides food and new stock. More than 43,000 chicks were distributed in recent months, and 10 million fish larvae were introduced into local waters. A million fruit tree seedlings were introduced, and 2,000 farmers and 640 agricultural workers were trained.

But electricity remains in short supply in the north, while it is becoming more available in government-controlled areas. In June, Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, found a mixed pattern in studying malnutrition. In Kurdish areas chronic malnutrition dropped to 14.5 percent of children under 5, from 18.3 percent a year earlier. But the incidence of underweight children rose and acute malnutrition doubled. Officials attribute that to diarrheal diseases that could be corrected with more education about hygiene. Cholera has been all but eliminated in Kurdish areas through a campaign to teach sanitation and good health practices, the United Nations says.

Despite condemnation from the UN and Amnesty (both of which are biased against America and its allies) Berkeley protestors cannot generate the moral will to forcefully speak out against human rights abuses in Arab countries. We give Egypt over $2 Billion in aid annually and we protect the Saudis with our military. If you hold the Israel's neighbors up to the same standard that you are holding up Israel to, then you are going to have to either start protesting against the Saudis and Iraqis and Egyptians and Syrians, or you are going to have to put your criticism of the Israelis in the proper context.

The United Nations Committee against Torture has criticised Saudi Arabia over the amputations and floggings it carries out under Sharia Islamic law.
At a meeting in Geneva, the committee said such penalties violated international conventions against cruel and degrading treatment.

It recommended that the Saudi authorities re-examine their penal code.

The criticism was presented to Saudi delegates who immediately rejected it, saying Sharia law expressly forbade torture.

It is the first time Saudi Arabia has reported to the committee.

All signatories to the Geneva conventions are required to inform the committee about their records in upholding international laws on the treatment of prisoners.

Long-established practice

The BBC correspondent in Switzerland, Imogen Foulkes, says it is perhaps not surprising that Saudi Arabia came in for criticism, given its well-known policy of corporal punishment.

But the Saudi delegation in Geneva said it could not accept interference in its legal system, aspects of which have been practised in the region for more than 1,400 years, it said.

The committee dismissed Saudi protestations that Shari law expressly prohibited torture, pointing out that if this was the case it was not reflected in Saudi Arabia's domestic law.

The human rights group Amnesty International issued a major report on Saudi Arabia in 2000.

It said the kingdom was guilty of widespread human rights abuses, with the silent consent of western powers which are reliant on Saudi oil.

Amnesty said the criminal justice system facilitated torture - often to extract confessions and enforce discipline - while lack of judicial supervision, denial of access to relatives, doctors and lawyers leave prisoners extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Israeli Arab Woman Shot Dead in Palestinian Ambush Friday When Her Car Passed near West Bank Town of Tulkarm

We Berkeley terrorist lovers will surely figure out a way to blame this on the Israelis.

It is nice to know the Palestinian terrorists don't discriminate between killing Israeli Arabs or Jews.
Discrimination is wrong ya know. We hate that. But we don't mind the senseless murder of civillians.

A search on Google for groups organizing against the repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or even Afghanistan (before 9/11) ONLY returns left wing groups.

Conservatives talk about how bad dictatorships and monarchies are in the Middle East, but when push comes to shove they are those regimes main backers. Egypt doesn’t receive as much aid as it does due to the US left. Saudi Arabia wasn’t supplied weapons by the US for the past ten years because of the US Left.

Most of the real resistance to governments in the Middle East are either by socialist/communist groups or by Islamic fundamentalists. The Left in Europe and the US stands behind the socialists in most of these struggles and the US stands firmly on the side of the governments. Take a look at Iran. They did have a democratic secular leader in the 1950s but he was too proSoviet and the US overthrew him (see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/ for recently released classified documents showing the extent of US involvement).

If you had carefully read that quote from Ocalan above, you would have noticed that he WAS talking about Iraq . The US told the Kurds to rise up in Iraq but then crazy right wing kooks in the US State Department couldn’t stand the Kurdish groups' politics so they got massacred.

I would support a Kurdish state in southern Turkey and northern Iraq but not a US puppet state intended solely for US operations in southern Iraq. The problem is that when any real alternative to dictatorship emerges in the region (like Ocalan and the PKK), it is crushed and usually crushed with US support.

In answer to the US apologists asking “Why are there no protests in Europe about the Kurd in Iraq?”
There are protests you just don’t support them since you support the US and don’t really support the Kurds:

KURDISTAN: Protests Against Turkish Invasion of Iraq in Europe
By Gustavo Gonzalez
GENEVA, May 22 (IPS) - The Turkish army offensive against the Kurdish guerrilla position in the North of Iraq had repercussions in European cities today, where Kurdish demonstrators called for international condemnation.
In Geneva, the Kurdish militants occupied one wing of the United Nations (UN) building in Geneva for five hours. Other demonstrations were held in Brussels opposite the European Union headquarters, and in Strasbourg, France, opposite the European Parliament building.
The Turkish army launched a combined attack on May 14, penetrating up to 200 km into Iraqi territory.
In one week, the Turkish troops killed more than 1,300 Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas and many civilians, according to international despatches.
The occupants of the UN building accused the international community of indifference. ''War for Kuwait. Silence for Kurdistan. Why the double standards,'' read a sign in the hall which normally houses press conferences with foreign dignitaries.
A declaration distributed by the demonstrators said the attack ''of the colonial and fascist Turkish army'' had been supported by the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP).
The Turkish Foreign Minister said last week the sally into Iraq had been requested by Massoud Barzani, the KDP leader, to dislodge the PKK fighters from the frontier zone.
The third fighting group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), has so far kept out of the affair. A deeply entrenched rivalry separates the UPK from the KDP.
Under pressure from the United States, Britain and Turkey, Barzani's KDP and the PUK, led by Jalal Talabani, agreed a treaty last October, the details of which are still being worked out.
The Kurd nation, with an estimated population of more than 20 million people, is spread across territory in four states of the region: Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.
Those occupying the UN building said Turkey had carried out similar armed operations in 1992 and 1995. On both occasions, the European countries and the European Parliament threatened Turkey with sanctions in order to make it withdraw.
The Kurdish rebels said that from the initiation of operations, a hundred or so people had been killed in the offices of various Kurd organisations in the town of Erbil.
The Turkish soldiers and their KDP collaborators killed the sick and injured in a hospital of the Red Crescent in Kurdistan, and employees of the publications ''Welat'' and ''Welate Roj,'' of the Cultural Centre of Mesapotamia and the Socialist Party of Kurdistan, they added.
However, the Turkish army simply declared Wednesday that more than 1,000 PKK fighters had fallen during the first week of the military offensive in Iraqi territory.
The declarations of the Kurdish demonstrators distributed around Geneva, omitted all mention of these supposed deaths, but recognised that ''more than 1,000 Kurds are in the hands of the Turkish army, the Turkoman forces and the KDP bands.''
''The lives of these people is in danger,'' they added.
The occupation of the UN building ended after nearly five hours of negotiations, with the participation of the head of the Office of Legal Affairs, Ulrich von Blumenthal, and officials from the human rights areas.
''We tried to solve the problem in a peaceful manner and we achieved it,'' explained Jameleddine Ben Yahmed, one of the UN representatives in Geneva.
But ''this violation of the United Nations headquarters is unacceptable,'' he added.
The demonstrators said they were satisfied with the draft declaration on the Turkish attack on Iraq made last week in Vienna by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General.
''The integrity of Iraqi territory must be respected and I have demanded the withdrawal of the Turkish troops as soon as possible,'' he said. (END/IPS/tra-so/pc/dg/sm/97)
from:
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/may/turkey2.html

I've tried to figure that out myself. And after researching the left's apathy re Kurds I've come to the conclusion that it is because they haven't figured out how to manipulate it to benefit their agenda which is at the heart of everything they do. If they truely cared about human rights they wouldn't ignore things under the usually pretexts.
As far as the ISraeli's shooting the Arab woman- Palestianians do that all day to Jews and you support them. And before you start rambling about settlers, who does the land you live on belong to, settler?

I don't think that 'the left' ignores the situation of the Kurds, and I don't know what you mean by mentioning only Berkeley within the US. Noam Chomsky is a pretty prominent anarchist leftist and he just traveled to Turkey and spent some time at a trial of a writer who had quoted him criticizing the turkish government's oppression of the kurds. He has written quite a bit about this, emphasizing the support the US provides the Turkish government, and Turkey had this writer on trial for criticizing the gov't. His presence helped get her off.
the US hasn't permitted many kurdish people to immigrate to the US. in Germany, I saw marches of up to 30,000 for the kurdish situation and there were people doing hunger strikes on the central downtown street by the Gedachtniskirche in Berlin, and a woman died there.
Here... basic human psychology plus time constraints limits us to focusing on one thing at a time. It would be so overwhelming and depressing to really contemplate and embrace the extent of the horror of what is going on in the world at this time. That doesn't mean that only palestine should register on the radar, but that is what some people have been organizing with right now, plus that is where US citizens can make a change. It would be hard for us to organize for change in North Korea, but we are responsible for what our tax dollars go to fund. Not that every single country that is called 'third world' is in misery, but it isn't just palestine and kurdistan, but many countries in Africa are going to have 10-20% of their people die of AIDS. Can you fathom what 40-70 million people look like?
Here is an essay describing what is going on in Angola. Angola has already had more than a million die, and it is definitely an extension of our country's foreign policy. A quick summary is that the US has been supporting the right wing UINTA group led by J. Savimbi ( who thankfully recently was killed after decades of terror) along with the South African government, and they slaughtered all these people and impoverished the whole country since the 70s in the name of anticommunism. Due to this being done with our money, in our name, americans definitely bear the moral burden of solving it, but do you even hear about it?

Angola: The Crisis You Aren't Hearing About May 27, 2002
By Sean Healy

Out of sight of the world, a humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions is unfolding in Angola, as perhaps
hundreds of thousands of people flee the "grey zones", the 90% of the country which have until now been closed
to outsiders, including humanitarian aid agencies and even civilian medical structures.

Many are dying of starvation on the roads. Others find themselves in towns and regional centres which have no
food and no medical infrastructure and are too weak to go further. Those lucky enough to get to areas where
humanitarian organizations can reach are still in grave danger, as the amount of international aid which has
so far reached the African nation is far less than what is needed.

If there is not a massive mobilisation of humanitarian aid soon, tens of thousands may die.

As part of its 27-year effort to overthrow the government of President Eduardo dos Santos and his MPLA
movement, the rebel UNITA army has long employed terror tactics to force people off the land by raiding
villages, murdering locals, burning crops and mining fields. Rounded up by UNITA, many villagers were forced
into a state of semi-slavery, gathering food or carrying ammunition for the troops and forced from place to
place as the frontline shifted. Many women were forcibly "married" to UNITA soldiers.


Those who fled to the government-held towns found their situation little better, however. The Angolan
military, which ran the towns, paid little if any attention to the food and medical needs of civilians and put
no resources into building the infrastructure required to take care of the local population. Humanitarian
emergencies were routinely ignored, resulting in very high levels of malnutrition and mortality. Those
displaced into these towns found themselves just as trapped as those in the UNITA areas.


Now this is starting to break up and the full scale of the devastation is emerging.

On February 22, UNITA's leader, Jonas Savimbi, was killed in a battle with government troops. Six weeks later,
on April 4, UNITA commanders signed a ceasefire agreement with the government. Since then, the once-powerful
rebel force has begun to break up and its hold on much of the country has slipped.

Now free to move again, Angolans have hit the road, in a desperate search for food and medical care.

International medical relief organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) is only
international agency which has as yet managed to mount exploratory missions into the interior. It has visited
nearly a dozen different towns in the central provinces of Angola and has been horrified by what it has found.

To judge the severity of a humanitarian crisis, aid agencies use a measure called the CMR, the crude mortality
rate. One death per 10,000 people per day is considered crisis level. In the towns it has managed to reach,
Médecins Sans Frontières teams have estimated death rates four, five, in one case even seven times crisis
level.

In the latest town the agency has managed to reach, Galangue, its doctors counted 31 freshly dug graves in two
weeks and estimated a CMR of 5 per 10,000 per day. One-fourth of children are suffering severe malnutrition
and another 18% moderate malnutrition. Four children died on the first day of the team's mission.

Médecins Sans Frontières has established an emergency mobile team in the town and is about to begin food
distribution. Those with the most severe cases of malnutrition are being transferred by truck to one of the
agency's Therapeutic Feeding Centre in the nearby town of Caala.

Some of the agency's workers believe the crisis in Angola is the among the worst they have dealt with in a
decade.

Those few aid agencies who are working in Angola are appealing for an emergency influx of food and medicines
to cope with the tens of thousands who desperately need help.

As yet, there has been little response from the international community, which is apparently suffering from a
severe case of "compassion fatigue" when it comes to Angola. Even UN agencies like the World Food Program are
dragging their feet.

But the international community's culpability stretches beyond turning its back on Angola's current tragedy.
Western governments and corporations have long been involved in stoking Angola's civil war, first as part of a
crusade against leftist and national liberation movements and then as part of a grubby attempt to plunder one
of Africa's most resource-rich countries.

>From the moment Angola won independence from its colonial master Portugal
in 1975, after a long and bloody war, the country has been the venue for an even longer and bloodier proxy
war, in which the United States and apartheid South Africa sought to contain the spread of communism and
national liberation struggles. Despite (or perhaps because of) its terrorist tactics, UNITA was backed to the
hilt with arms, money and even South African troops.

Meanwhile, Cuba intervened on the side of the leftist MPLA government, seeing a victory for a movement backed
by apartheid South Africa as a defeat for left-wing movements through Africa. In 1988, Cuban and MPLA forces
were able to decisively defeat UNITA and the South Africans at the battle of Cuito Canavale, forcing South
Africa's withdrawal. The Cubans themselves withdrew soon after, while Bill Clinton formally ended US support
to UNITA shortly after assuming the presidency in 1992.

While Western intervention into Angola's civil war in the 1970s and 1980s may have been motivated by ideology
and anti-communism, its involvement in the 1990s was far more prosaic. Motivated by greed, Western companies,
particularly in the oil and diamond industries, have willingly participated in the plunder of Angola's natural
resources.

UNITA has long funded itself through the sale of diamonds mined in the country's east. Technically, the sales
have been banned under a UN embargo since. But in practice the international gem industry has showed little
interest in stopping the flow of these "blood diamonds". It's estimated that the illegal trade out of Angola
is worth some US$500 million each year.

Just as damaging to the peace as UNITA's control of the diamond trade, however, has been the MPLA's control of
the oil industry. Once at the head of a genuine national liberation movement, Eduardo dos Santos and the MPLA
leaders have long since abandoned any commitment to socialism and has embraced free-market capitalism with
enthusiasm, enriching themselves in the process.

Taking advantage of the opening to grab a stake in what will soon be Africa's largest oil industry, Western
companies including Chevron-Texaco, ExxonMobil and BP-Amoco have entered the country - and have corrupted the
government with millions of dollars in royalties and payoffs.
The Angolan oil industry brought in revenues estimated to be between US$3-5 billion in 2001. But little if any
of this went to dealing with the country's dire humanitarian crisis - in a report issued in December, Médecins
Sans Frontières noted "Oil production in the country is estimated at close to 800,000 barrels a day ... yet
[in the town of Cuito] there is not a drop of diesel for the hospital generators, the only source of power in
most large hospitals."

In a report released in March, All the President's Men, the NGO Global Witness detailed the extent of the
corruption ("state looting", it called it) and the complicity of the oil companies. It estimated that US$1-3
billion, about one-third to one-half of all state revenues, went missing in 2001.

Unlike in other developing countries, Western oil companies refuse to give any details of their payments to
the Angolan government. The report calls for the introduction of international transparency regulations aimed
at preventing companies from acting in such a way.

The break-up of UNITA presents the best chance Angola has had in a generation for peace and development, but
that won't happen without the help of the international community: first, to end the present humanitarian
crisis and then to rein in those who would plunder the country's wealth. Surely, the Angolans have surely
suffered enough.