I missed this story in 2005, but thought it was still worth mentioning as I just read some counter-terrorism information from the Turkish police accusing the PKK of changing their name in 2002 to avoid being listed as a terrorist group:
Turkey’s armed rebel Kurdish movement has decided to revert back to its original name of PKK after two name changes in three years, a pro-Kurdish news agency reported on Monday.
Note that the story does not mention “terrorism”, just rebellion, separatism, etc.
The PKK, founded by Ocalan in 1978, waged an armed campaign against the Ankara government from 1984 to 1999, which claimed some 37,000 lives in souutheastern Turkey.
The group, which describes itself as marxist-leninist, proclaimed a unilateral ceasefire in September 1999 after Ocalan was captured in Nairobi, tried and sentenced to death. The sentence was later commuted to life in jail.
It seems unusual to me that the Turkish special forces apparently “captured” Ocalan in the Greek embassy in Kenya. Probably some complex political science to that security affair.
Anyway, the US State Department seems to have felt that the name changes were enough of a threat to the “terrorist list” criteria that they had to issue a statement:
“A recent clash between PKK/KADEK forces and the Iraqi Border Police and U.S. forces, as well as the group’s recent attacks in Turkey, demonstrate its terrorist nature,” said State Department Deputy Spokesman J. Adam Ereli. “The PKK/KADEK, under any alias, is a terrorist organization, and no name change or press release can alter that fact.”
I am not so sure about that definition. A clash with US and Turkish forces may be a symptom of terrorism, but surely it is not sufficient on its own to demonstrate the “terrorist nature” of a group. In fact, if you consider Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d), as cited by the US Navy, you might find that the State Department could have brought forward a much more meaningful definition:
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
[…]
(1) For purposes of this definition, the term “noncombatant” is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following U.S. military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, U.S. defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty U.S. Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against U.S. bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.
Maybe it is just me, but I do not think using a definition like this one hinders the State Department from trying to show solidarity with the Turkish government — using the US military to prevent the PKK from running into/through northern Iraq.
I have not yet found a good reason why people accuse the PKK of trying to evade the terrorist list by changing its name. In other words, if it were not possible, then why announce it is not possible? And what could be their reason for changing it back again?