Kurdish hunger strike stopped without results

The hunger strike by Kurdish prisoners in Turkish jails is over; 67 days after the action began on September 12. The end came after a call from the Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan, who is himself a prisoner on the island Imrali where he has been held since 1999. He made his call through his brother, Mehmet, who visited him in prison. Everyone who lived through the Irish hunger strikes of the 1980ties feels a sense of relief when a hunger strike ends without people dying. But we find it necessary to make some remarks with regard to this particular hunger strike, which could be important for future actions. At first we must take a good look at the words of Öcalan which ended the hunger strike.

Abdullah Öcalan said that he feels that the weapon of the hunger strike is not the right way to ensure that demands are met. He added that in his opinion hunger strikes should take place outside prisons en not behind bars. In his opinion the action could now be stopped because it had reached its goal. First of all it is strange that the Kurdish leader now rejects the hunger strike as a form of action, because since its foundation the PKK has made us of the hunger strike on many occasions. The hunger strikes in the past must have had the approval of Öcalan, because he has never acted to stop hunger strikes taking place. On the contrary. Furthermore it is ridiculous to say that hunger strikes must not take place in prisons, but outside. This is not a revolutionary way of looking at the issue.

A revolutionary who is not in prison tries to stay alive and fit as long as possible to continue the struggle against the enemy in the best possible way. You don’t try to undermine or weaken yourself, what clearly happens during a hunger strike. Going on hunger strike outside prison is wrong because you have many other ways to put pressure on your enemies or attack them. In prison it is a different story. There may be circumstances which make active resistance necessary and in such a case the hunger strike, as well as the uprising, are the only alternatives. You have no other weapons at your disposal. The only available weapon is your own body, and under special circumstances this weapons can be used. For example, when the prison regime is so inhuman that a struggle for improvement is the only way forward. The main demand in Ireland was that prisoners should be treated as prisoners of war, not criminals. That was a just demand, which in the end was met.

In the case of the Kurdish hunger strike you must ask yourself if the action was justified. The demands were very wide-ranging; Abdullah Öcalan should once again have the right to see his lawyers, the Kurdish language should become more accepted in Turkey and prison conditions must be improved. The third demand may justify a hunger strike, under certain conditions; the two other demands do not. Of these demands none has been met, so how Abdullah Öcalan can say that the goal has been reached is a complete mystery. Another point is that the first demand is not based on reality. The visit by his brother on November 17 was not the first time. Mehmet Öcalan was also on Imrali in September. So there was no question of total isolation.

To make one thing clear; it is good that the hunger strike is over and that no one has lost his or her life. But the question must be raised why all these sacrifices were necessary, if the action could so quickly be called off without any visible results. We must not forget that a long term hunger strike means terrible hardship, which is hard to understand by someone who has not experienced it from close by. Even now the hunger strike is over; many of the hunger strikers will have suffered enormous damage to their health. Organs are damaged and some of the damage becomes visible many years later. This is the bitter truth for everyone who has taken part in a long term hunger strike.   

We must note that the weapon of the hunger strike in the last few years have lost its sharpness. The authorities often ignore this form of action, and the press, both local as international, has little interest. It happens more often than not that the terrible sacrifices made by the hunger strikers are in vain. This is even more the case when the authorities suspect that a hunger strike will not be carried through until the end. For them this makes it easy to lean back en wait for the finish.

The conclusion must be that the weapon of the hunger strike must be used carefully and not too often. More ill-considered actions will make the damage only bigger and create more health problems to the people taking part. For the hunger strike the criteria is in fact the same as for the armed struggle in general. You don’t seek the direct confrontation unless you have at least a chance to score a victory. Without this chance it is just a waste of revolutionary lives.