BERLIN – On June 18 and 19, 2022, the forum “28 years PKK ban on activities. Now let’s talk!” instead. The organizer was the Association for Democracy and International Law (MAF-DAD eV) together with the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights (ELDH), the Committee for Fundamental Rights and Democracy eV, the legal aid fund AZADÎ eV and the Association of Democratic Lawyers Lawyers registered association (VDJ).
A jury took part as observers and has now published a final statement. Members of the jury are Dr. medical Gisela Penteker (IPPNW), Yvonne Franke and Sebastian Bähr from the Board of Directors of the Basic Rights Committee, as well as the political scientist and publicist Heinz Michael Vilsmeier from the Munich Alliance against War and Racism.
In the statement, the jury reports on the background and course of the forum and draws the conclusion that the ban on PKK activities in Germany is politically motivated and is in stark contrast to the German Basic Law and the political, social and cultural rights guaranteed therein. Finally, clear demands for the classification of the Kurdish liberation movement and how to deal with Kurds living in Germany are formulated.
Against the background of the numerous reports from those affected and the statements by lawyers and experts presented during the forum, the jury made the following statement:
1. Summary of the forum
For two days, around 300 guests, those affected by repression and experts discussed the consequences of the ban on the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been in place since 1993. The law introduced by the then Minister of the Interior, Manfred Kanther, not only includes the PKK itself, but also various sub-organizations and numerous Kurdish cultural and social initiatives that can be linked to the PKK. Showing PKK symbols or symbols used by the PKK from the point of view of the security authorities also constitutes a criminal offence.
The personal reports of those affected on the first day of the conference made it clear that the repression against Kurds has not eased in recent years – and has even intensified in certain areas. It can be seen in a wide variety of measures taken by state institutions: politically active people reported, for example, how they were persecuted as members of a terrorist organization under Sections 129a and 129b. Kurds from different cities also spoke impressively about how their residence status was revoked because of their commitment. This means of pressure creates enormous uncertainty among those affected – life planning is hardly possible. Activists with prison experience reported in writing about the tightened conditions in prisons, which included, among other things, that they were not allowed to receive the newspapers and books they wanted. Those affected also had to serve their prison sentences, although it was often not possible to prove that they had committed any personal crimes. Activists who were released from custody reported harassment, such as the imposition of very strict reporting requirements, which severely restricted freedom of movement.
On the second day, experts dealt with the legal and political background of the PKK ban on activities. It was explained how ministerial executive powers are used for criminal prosecution. In addition, the speakers also addressed the alignment of German Kurdish domestic policy to the interests of Turkey: The so-called refugee deal of 2016, Turkey’s strategically important position as the south-eastern NATO border and the economic and military cooperation between the two countries, which has existed for decades result in the Turkish President being able to put pressure on Germany and other EU and NATO partners. The reports showed the close cooperation between the police authorities and secret services in Germany and the security authorities in Turkey.
The lawyers referred to a court decision from Brussels as a possible political solution. The court of cassation there, the highest court in Belgium, decided in 2020 that the dispute between the Kurdish movement and the Turkish state was an internal conflict. The PKK is therefore not classified as a terrorist organization and enjoys corresponding protection under international law.
2. Summary
The federal government’s ban on operating the PKK was and is politically motivated. It stands in stark contrast to the German Basic Law and the basic political, social and cultural rights guaranteed therein. The criminalization under association and criminal law associated with the ban and the investigations initiated on this basis are consistently accompanied by repression of political activists, close surveillance of Kurdish associations and even the breaking up of media publishers. The ban blatantly violates the freedom of assembly, association, opinion and media in Germany. This means that the Kurdish community in Germany is being denied basic democratic rights. The consequences can be felt in society: The current policy criminalizes the Kurdish community and everyone who works for them. It refuses to recognize the rights of Kurds. And it prevents a legal and political equality of Kurds with the majority society in Germany. The resulting racist attributions further restrict the basic rights of Kurds. An end to the ban on PKK activity is necessary in order to defend basic democratic rights for society as a whole and to stop the authoritarian delimitation of the security authorities. The resulting racist attributions further restrict the basic rights of Kurds. An end to the ban on PKK activity is necessary in order to defend basic democratic rights for society as a whole and to stop the authoritarian delimitation of the security authorities. The resulting racist attributions further restrict the basic rights of Kurds. An end to the ban on PKK activity is necessary in order to defend basic democratic rights for society as a whole and to stop the authoritarian delimitation of the security authorities.
The judgment from Belgium, which carries out a new evaluation of the PKK, shows that another way is possible. Such a move would also be appropriate for political reasons: not least during the peace negotiations in Turkey until 2015, the group proved that it is interested in resolving the conflict with the government there. With the rescue of thousands of Yazidis from genocide by the Islamic State, she also showed the constructive and democratizing role she can play in the region.
So far, however, the federal government is sticking to its one-sided side with the Turkish government. This makes it difficult to find a peaceful solution to the internal conflict in Turkey through negotiations. If the new traffic light federal government in Germany takes its self-declared alignment of foreign policy with human rights and humanitarian values seriously, it would be well advised not only to realign its policy towards Ankara. It is just as important that it also overcomes its anti-Kurdish ban practice domestically and finds a way of dealing with the Kurdish community that is independent of Turkish interests and conforms to the constitution.
3. Claims
- Apart from this political evaluation, the jury supports the demands of lawyers, those affected by repression and activists to the political decision-makers in Germany:
- Classification of the Kurdish liberation struggle as a domestic conflict, according to the judgment of the Belgian Court of Cassation.
- International legal recognition of Kurdish organizations as organs of a liberation movement.
- Lifting of the PKK ban on activities.
- Suspension of German-Turkish security cooperation – arms deliveries stopped.
- Prevention of informers and secret service activities – no extraditions.
- No deportations of Kurdish activists.
- No restrictions on the right of residence for politically active Kurds.
- Repeal of executive powers as the basis for the Justice Ministry’s prosecution of Kurds.
- Removal of the PKK from the European Union terror list.
- Condemnation of attacks contrary to international law and war crimes.
