The history of Abdullah Öcalan’s search for a solution to the Kurdish question dates back at least 30 years. During this period, he held numerous meetings both with the Turkish state and with international delegations. One of these meetings, largely unknown to the public, resulted in a protocol signed with an international delegation. At Öcalan’s invitation, a delegation traveled to Damascus on 25–26 May 1996. The delegation included Prof. Ulrich Gottstein, then deputy chair of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), an international physicians’ peace movement; Prof. Norman Paech, an expert in international law; political science professor Ulrich Albrecht; and Hans Branscheidt, general director of Medico.

Following two days of meetings as Öcalan’s guests in Damascus, the delegation and Öcalan signed what became a protocol document. The text included calls and demands concerning the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Turkey and Germany, issues that, despite the passage of three decades, remain strikingly relevant today. While Öcalan has responded positively to every constructive step taken toward a solution, the Turkish state and international powers involved in the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom and rights continue to remain trapped in a cycle of deadlock.

The Turkish problem

The characterization of Kurds as a “problem” is an approach developed outside the borders of Kurdistan. When viewed in the context of the institutionalization of imperial interests during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the identification of the “problem” with the Kurds takes on an entirely different dimension. Kurds resisted, rebelled against and sought solutions to these externally imposed policies. Especially after the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the geography of Kurdistan was framed as a “problem” within the logic of divide-and-rule policies. The construction of the Republic of Turkey on the basis of the nation-state model, and the development of this process through the assimilation of ethnic and cultural identities,o produced the most problematic phase of the issue. During this period, “Turkishness” was imposed as the foundational identity. The matter gradually ceased to be framed as a “Kurdish question” and instead evolved into what could be described as a “Turkish problem,” as Kurdish identity, language and culture were systematically banned. Uprisings such as those led by Sheikh Said, Koçgiri and Ağrı during the 1920s and 1930s emerged in opposition to these policies.

Solidarity from allies

While the Kurdish struggle for existence was suppressed by the Turkish state through the doctrine that “violence is the monopoly of states,” the struggle was simultaneously criminalized internationally. One of the clearest examples of this approach, which transforms the victim into the perpetrator in international politics and diplomacy, emerged in Europe, particularly in Germany. Despite the stance of states, solidarity from allies of the Kurdish people never disappeared. After the banning of PKK activities in Germany on 26 November 1993, Kurdish demands for rights were subjected to systematic criminalization.

‘Doctor of peace’ Gottstein

Prof. Dr. Ulrich Gottstein, who spent many years as a peace activist, was among those who stood in solidarity with the Kurdish people. While campaigning for the lifting of the PKK ban and for Kurdish rights, Gottstein carried out activities under the umbrella of the German section of the IPPNW, where he served as honorary chair. Together with Prof. Norman Paech, Prof. Ulrich Albrecht and Hans Branscheidt, Gottstein visited Öcalan in Damascus in May 1996. Ulrich Gottstein, honorary president of IPPNW, who passed away on 30 December last year at the age of 99, was also widely known as the “doctor of peace.”

Please convey my greetings to Abdullah Öcalan

Alongside his work for peace and in medicine, Gottstein also showed solidarity in Germany for the lifting of the PKK ban and for Kurdish rights. On 17 October 2014, during the days when ISIS was attacking Kobanê, he invited me to a seminar at his home. I was surprised to encounter nearly 40 doctors there. During that evening, marked by both excitement and solidarity, Ulrich Gottstein also spoke about his meeting with Öcalan in Damascus. Whenever we sought solidarity or consultation from Gottstein, whether personally or institutionally, he never left us unanswered. During the hunger strike process led by Leyla Güven between 2018 and 2019, demanding an end to the isolation imposed on Öcalan, a friend and I visited him to discuss what could be done. We consulted him on many different issues. Gottstein said, “I do not know whether he would remember me, but if the conditions allow it, I would like you to convey my greetings to Abdullah Öcalan.” Although a limited number of lawyer visits took place after the hunger strikes, the conditions necessary to deliver his message never emerged as the isolation deepened over the years. During our meeting, Gottstein once again recounted his 1996 visit to Öcalan in Damascus, saying: “Abdullah Öcalan is a leader very open to a solution.”

How the document resurfaced

During our conversation, Gottstein explained that Öcalan had called on the German state to develop solution-oriented policies, emphasized that Kurds should organize within the framework of German law and signed a text addressing these and other issues. When we asked him what had happened to the document, he replied: “After returning from Damascus, I delivered the document signed by Abdullah Öcalan to the German foreign minister. A copy remained in my archive.” According to the document, Öcalan was already calling on international institutions at that time to take peaceful initiatives. Signed exactly 30 years ago, the text still retains its relevance in the context of the Kurdish people’s struggle for existence. Despite the policies pursued by Turkey and Germany over the past three decades, policies marked by persistent deadlock, Öcalan’s solution-oriented approach remains as relevant today as it was then. Last November, when I visited Gottstein and asked to receive a copy of the document, we had arranged a meeting. However, due to his deteriorating health conditions, the meeting had to be postponed. After his death, the document was eventually delivered to me from among the files archived by his family.

Norman Paech: Still relevant today

Norman Paech, the 88-year-old jurist and retired professor who taught political science and public law at the University of Hamburg, continues to stand in solidarity with oppressed peoples, particularly the Kurdish people. Summarizing this commitment, Paech said: “We placed solidarity at the center of our philosophy of life as both a responsibility and a conscious choice. Together with Ulrich Gottstein and all our other friends, we stood with the Kurdish people and their struggle for freedom on the basis of this responsibility, and I will continue to do so.”

A document of the meeting

Paech described the impressions of the visit as follows: “When Ulrich Albrecht, Ulrich Gottstein and I set out in May 1996 to visit Abdullah Öcalan in Damascus, the PKK, just as today, was being treated by politics, the media and the judiciary as a ‘terrorist organization,’ while its undisputed leader Öcalan was regarded as a ‘terrorist.’ Public opinion in the Federal Republic of Germany had never shown much sympathy for liberation movements, particularly those in Africa. Leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Sam Nujoma, Agostinho Neto and Luis Cabral were all regarded as ‘terrorists’ until they defeated colonial systems of oppression and assumed leadership in their newly independent countries. For this reason, establishing contact with such ‘terrorists’ at that time, as today, was considered dangerous, and Ulrich Gottstein, who was then president of the IPPNW, did not think it appropriate for this to become a political statement on behalf of the organization. He therefore asked that no one be informed and that his name remain confidential, and this request was respected. Ulrich Gottstein was a courageous, independent and internationalist-minded figure. He was able to approach without prejudice the goals, evaluations, ideas and decisions developed by Abdullah Öcalan and shared with us during our meeting. At the end of our meeting, it was also Ulrich Gottstein who drafted the short text signed by Abdullah Öcalan. For him, this text served almost as a guarantee, a form of evidence, a document of our discussions on peace, independence, equality and the future of the Kurdish people.”

Abdullah Öcalan’s two decisions

Paech also said: “Specifically, there was discussion at the time about two decisions taken by Abdullah Öcalan: abandoning the goal of struggling for an independent Kurdish state and renouncing violence and armed guerrilla warfare. From that point onward, the objective was to become autonomy and self-government within the borders of each respective state. These two decisions were closely interconnected.

Abdullah Öcalan had concluded that the Kurdish people, divided among four states (Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria), had not yet developed a common sense of national belonging and therefore were not yet ready for a common state. This approach also coincided with the conclusion reached by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in the late 1970s. The OAU determined that the internationally guaranteed right to self-determination should no longer aim at separation and the creation of an independent state, but instead at securing autonomy and self-government within the borders inherited from colonial rule.

Öcalan was already rejecting Europe’s classical nation-state model and advocating a confederation of free peoples. He also recognized the dangers that peace and security would face if Kurds living across four states were to rise up for a common state. Abdullah Öcalan did not express this progressive and entirely peace-oriented approach only during our unforgettable meeting. These views were also broadly voiced throughout the Kurdish movement. However, European media outlets and governments ignored them because they conflicted with the policies they pursued on the basis of their close relations with NATO ally Turkey.

At the very least, Ulrich Gottstein was deeply influenced by this perspective and planned to establish closer relations between the German section of the IPPNW and its counterpart organization in Turkey. I accompanied him on his first visit to Turkey. However, we encountered only limited and hesitant interest. Still, thanks to him, the IPPNW did not withdraw, and over the years friendly and close relations were built through mutual visits and exchanges between Kurdish society and activists struggling for human rights and peace. Dr. Gisela Penteker in particular invested tremendous effort in this work, thereby continuing Ulrich Gottstein’s ideas and legacy.”

The protocol between Öcalan and the delegation

We are publishing the Turkish translation of the document in full:

Meeting with PKK General Secretary Abdullah Öcalan. Damascus, 26 May 1996

“We want to end the war, but the Turkish army continues its attacks,” PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan said during a meeting held on Whitsun Saturday with German academics including political science professor Ulrich Albrecht, Ulrich Gottstein from the IPPNW, public law professor Norman Paech and Medico International Director Hans Branscheidt. Öcalan stated that the PKK was not pursuing separatism. He said that an independent Kurdish state would not be economically viable and “would lead to a war lasting more than a hundred years.” Instead, he explained that the goal was full political and social equality for Kurds, along with cultural autonomy, within a federal democracy in Turkey. In this way, he added, a “federative bridge” could also be established with other Middle Eastern states where large Kurdish minorities live.

Öcalan explicitly described democratic institutions such as those in the Federal Republic of Germany positively. He stressed that PKK sympathizers were absolutely obliged to comply with the legal order of the democratic countries in which they were guests.

Öcalan strongly demanded that war crimes committed in Turkey, regardless of who was responsible, be prosecuted under criminal law before an international court. Unlike Turkey, the PKK has signed Protocol I of 1977 additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Öcalan stated that attacks against civilian institutions would under no circumstances be carried out. He also said that the ongoing massacres against Kurdish civilians and the forced displacement of people from their villages should be brought before international human rights courts such as the ECtHR.

The PKK is striving for the establishment of an open international dialogue and believes that the best method for this would be the organization of a peace conference on Kurdistan. As in the peace process between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, it is hoped that the broadest possible active international mediation can play a role.

Finally, Mr. Öcalan once again emphasized that the Turkish government had unfortunately not responded to the PKK’s December 1995 ceasefire.

“I confirm that my main statements have been accurately conveyed.”

A. Öcalan, 26.5.1996 – Signature

This article was also published in Turkish by the Kurdish daily newspaper, Yeni Özgür Politika.Email