The documentary “The PKK in Europe – Freedom fighters or terrorists?” by Candan Six-Sasmaz tries to outline more specific characteristics of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), claiming to offer an investigative exploration of the organisation, its historical background and its influence in Europe. But it is a prime example of etatist-bourgeois propaganda.
Although it is a film based on research, the history of the PKK and its ideological change as well as its role in the Kurdish struggle are presented in a one-sided manner. An examination of the political leanings and the employment history of the documentary’s director Candan Six-Sasmaz raises concerns about the objectivity of the film. In particular, their social media posts and connections to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) suggest that they may not have the necessary distance to address a topic as sensitive as that of the PKK, raising the possibility that the content of the documentary may have been shaped by political views.
However, adhering to the fundamental principles of journalism, we will refrain from conducting a detailed examination of Six-Sasmaz’s personal views and past, and instead focus on evaluating the content of the documentary itself.
The credibility of the film as a serious journalistic endeavour is undermined by its reliance on unfounded allegations and its palpable anti-communist agenda. Instead of providing a balanced analysis, the film reinforces existing prejudices and misconceptions about the PKK and thus fails to provide a thoughtful presentation of the organisation and the wider Kurdish question.
This analysis seeks to highlight the aforementioned issues, particularly focusing on a distortion of Kurdish history, an oversimplification of the ideological evolution of the PKK, and a questionable portrayal of the organisation within the context of modern Turkish state policies.
Distorting the historical context: the founding of the PKK reduced to a simplistic narrative
Indeed, one of the most glaring flaws in the documentary is its oversimplification and distortion of a proper understanding of the origins of the PKK. The film begins with a story of how Abdullah Öcalan, the founding leader of the PKK, single-handedly created the organisation in 1979. Not only does it downplay the wider socio-political environment in which the PKK came into being, but it also conveniently overlooks the efforts of a number of other Kurdish and Turkish activists who were instrumental in its formation. In the 1970s, there was a high level of political repression in Turkey against ethnic minorities and left-wing political movements. The Kurdish population was subjected to systematic discrimination, policies of cultural assimilation, and violent repression of any form of political expression. After the military coup of 1980, thousands of political dissidents, many of them Kurds, were arrested, tortured and executed.
It was in this atmosphere of fear and repression that the PKK was born, not as a product of individual ambition, but as a response to decades of state violence and the Kurdish people’s struggle for self-determination. By ignoring these very important historical facts, the documentary reconstructs a biased narrative and portrays the armed struggle of the PKK as a gratuitous, irrational act of violence against the Turkish state. In doing so, it further justifies the Turkish government’s long-standing portrayal of the PKK as a terrorist organisation, which of course conveniently omits to mention any trace of the state-sponsored violence and oppression from which the PKK was originally born.
Furthermore, the documentary’s portrayal of Kurdish resistance is alarmingly one-sided. For instance, while it mentions the PKK’s attacks on Turkish military and police targets, it fails to adequately address the severe human rights abuses committed by the Turkish state against the Kurds, including massacres, forced displacements, and the destruction of Kurdish villages. Notably, the film omits the Dersim Massacre of 1937-1938, in which thousands of Kurds were killed by the Turkish military, and many more displaced in one of the most egregious examples of state violence against the Kurdish population. This omission reflects a broader pattern within the documentary of downplaying or ignoring the legitimate grievances that have fuelled Kurdish resistance over the decades.
The PKK’s ideological evolution: an inconvenient truth for the documentary
The ideological evolution of the PKK is an inconvenient truth for the documentary. Another major flaw is its failure to show how the PKK has changed and developed its ideology through the years. While the film briefly describes the Marxist-Leninist origins of the PKK, it almost completely overlooks the evolution of its ideology in the 1990s to become all-inclusive and democratic. This ideological change is not just some kind of footnote in the history of the PKK; it is an important part of the organisation’s development and characterises its current political and social strategies. In its early years, the PKK was strongly influenced by the Marxist-Leninist way of thinking and promoted a Kurdistan that would be both independent and socialist. However, with the paradigm shift on the global political platform and the lessons learned during a decade of armed struggle described above, the PKK would begin to reassess its approach.
It was in the 1990s that the PKK, through Abdullah Öcalan, adopted democratic confederalism, a political theory that emphasises grassroots self-government, grassroots democracy, gender equality and ecological sustainability.
Democratic confederalism is quite a leap from the PKK’s previous Marxist-Leninist framework. It rejects the notion of a nation-state with centralised power and instead advocates a system in which different ethnic and religious communities can live together amicably under one political roof. This new ideological line has also led the PKK to work towards a political solution to the Kurdish question, first through peace talks with the Turkish government and then through peaceful actions. But the documentary’s omission of this ideological evolution is nothing more than a blatant attempt to present a simplistic, even fossilised view of the PKK as a rigid and dogmatic organisation. By neglecting to show the PKK’s genuine efforts to change with the times, to find political solutions and to act in accordance with them, the documentary continues to add insult to injury for the sake of denigrating the Kurdish struggle, thus failing to serve its audience well.
Anti-communism as a blunt instrument: reinforcing negative stereotypes
But perhaps the most problematic aspect of the documentary is how it attempts to discredit the PKK through anti-communist rhetoric. Throughout the film, the overtly Marxist roots of the PKK are repeatedly highlighted, implying that there is an inherently dangerous and extreme ideology within the organisation. Such a tactic is intellectually lazy and plays on the Cold War fear of communism, which has little relevance in the modern political landscape.
The problem with this is that it uses anti-communism as a weapon to thoroughly delegitimise the PKK, ignoring the organisation’s current ideological position. As noted above, the PKK’s embrace of democratic confederalism speaks to values such as gender equality, environmental sustainability and grassroots democracy – values that appeal to many progressive movements around the world. By fixating on the PKK’s Marxist past, the documentary seeks to undermine these values and reinforce negative stereotypes about the organisation.
This anti-communist bias is further reinforced by the way the documentary portrays the PKK’s supporters and sympathisers. The film creates a one-sided link between any support for the PKK’s goals or any declaration of solidarity with the Kurdish struggle and an extremely dangerous and extremist ideology. Guilt by association is not only an unfair tactic but, more importantly, another effective way to muzzle valid political expressions and dissenting voices.
It is also clear that the anti-communist agenda of the documentary is partly represented by the interviews and sourcing. People who appear in the film are identified as well-known anti-communist voices, while those voices with a more nuanced or even sympathetic view of the PKK are left out or at best marginalised. This in itself undermines the credibility of the documentary by calling into question the motives behind its construction.
Unsubstantiated allegations: Lack of evidence and credibility
Perhaps the greatest weakness of this documentary is the lack of documentation to support such claims. Some further serious allegations made against the PKK in this film are those of drug trafficking, recruitment of child soldiers and links to international terrorism. In fact, these allegations depend on unreliable testimonies, made by so-called “insiders” whose credentials have not been adequately verified.
The documentary’s unsatisfactory handling of such allegations is deeply problematic from a journalistic point of view. In any serious investigation, let alone one dealing with sensitive and complex issues, there needs to be verifiable evidence to support any accusation.
In this documentary, however, the audience is simply expected to take these accusations at face value, without really analysing or corroborating the information. For example, the documentary repeats the mantra that the PKK is involved in drug trafficking – an accusation that has been part of the Turkish state’s discourse for decades. However, it does not provide a shred of concrete evidence to support this claim, relying instead on anonymous “sources” and vague allegations.
In addition to this lack of journalistic rigour, the film also tells a one-sided story that serves the interests of the Turkish state rather than independent analysis. The presentation of the alleged recruitment of child soldiers by the PKK was also highly inaccurate in the documentary. While it is true that some minors have joined the ranks of the PKK, in most cases for reasons such as fleeing violence or seeking protection, the organisation has denied ever allowing children to take part in armed combat. However, the documentary echoes the state narrative, focusing on emotional testimony from parents, mostly taken out of context, to try and demonstrate systematic exploitation of children by the PKK.
But such sensationalism only serves to distort reality and detracts from more meaningful reflection on the challenges facing Kurdish communities in conflict zones.
The heavy reliance on unverified allegations and the failure to give equal weight to each side of the story alone speak volumes about the serious ethical concerns of this documentary. By presenting such allegations without any critical analysis or evidence, the film effectively speaks for state propaganda – reinforcing negative stereotypes about the PKK and the Kurdish struggle. The lack of journalistic integrity is a disservice to the audience, but also undermines the broader goal of promoting understanding and dialogue on complex political issues.
The timing of the documentary and its political implications
The documentary’s release comes at a critical juncture, as Turkey’s military incursion into the Kurdistan Region of Iraq continues to grow, leading to widespread accusations of war crimes, including the killing of journalists, the burning of forests and the forced displacement of villagers. This context is crucial for the understanding of the potential impact of the documentary, which may serve to justify or obscure these ongoing human rights abuses.
By presenting a narrative that vilifies the PKK and, by extension, Kurdish resistance as a whole, the documentary risks reinforcing the Turkish state’s justification for its military actions in Iraq and Syria. This is of particular concern given the broader geopolitical implications of Turkey’s actions, including its role in destabilising the region and its increasingly aggressive posture towards those same Kurdish forces who played such a significant role in the fight against ISIS.
Conclusion: A missed opportunity for objective journalism
The bottom line is that the documentary “The PKK in Europe – Freedom Fighters or Terrorists?” does not even come close to the ideal of objective journalism. The film distorts the history of the PKK, ignores its ideological development, leads with anti-communist rhetoric and relies on hearsay. Instead of a real understanding of the PKK and the Kurdish struggle, the documentary only reinforces prejudices and misunderstandings and thus contributes to the demonisation of the Kurdish freedom movement. It is a film that is little more than a retelling of the official line, and is no help to people trying to genuinely understand the undercurrents of the PKK and the deeper Kurdish malaise.
One should look beyond such one-sided portrayals for more balanced and informed viewpoints that represent the full range of historical, political and social factors involved. Only then can one move towards a just and fair understanding of the Kurdish struggle and the PKK’s place in it.
