Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
94STATE19514
1994-01-25 17:24:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

PKK AND "INSURGENCY"

Tags:  PHUM PREL PTER TU US 
pdf how-to read a cable
O P 251724Z JAN 94
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY ANKARA IMMEDIATE
INFO AMCONSUL ISTANBUL PRIORITY
AMCONSUL ADANA
C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 019514 


E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
TAGS: PHUM PREL PTER TU US
SUBJECT: PKK AND "INSURGENCY"

REF: ANKARA 0285

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 019514


E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
TAGS: PHUM PREL PTER TU US
SUBJECT: PKK AND "INSURGENCY"

REF: ANKARA 0285


1. CONFIDENTIAL - ENTIRE TEXT.


2. SUMMARY: THE PKK DOES NOT BECOME ENTITLED TO ANY OF
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS' BENEFITS BY THE U.S. USE OF THE
TERM "INSURGENCY." THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS DID
NOT/NOT CHANGE THE CUSTOMARY AND CONVENTIONAL LAWS OF WAR
REGARDING "INSURGENCY," AND, THEREFORE, CHARACTERIZING THE
PKK.S ACTIVITY AS A "SEPARATIST INSURGENCY" DOES NOT/NOT
IMPLY THAT THE PKK ENJOYS A RECOGNIZED LEGAL STATUS. END
SUMMARY.


3. MOST OF THE POINTS BELOW ARE DRAWN FROM A 1988 LEGAL
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE USG TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN THE CASE OF U.S.

V. SHAKUR. EMBASSY MAY PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING POINTS IN
RESPONSE TO AMBASSADOR TURMEN.S COMMENTS (REFTEL).


4. BEGIN POINTS:

- SOME STATES RECOGNIZE A CATEGORY OF "INSURGENCY" BUT
ONLY FOR DOMESTIC POLITICAL OR LEGAL REASONS, IN ORDER TO
AVOID TREATING SOME REBELS AS MERE LAWBREAKERS. SUCH A
PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IS SPORADIC AND, IN ANY EVENT' NOT A
MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

- THE CUSTOMARY LAW OF WAR THAT EXISTED BEFORE ADOPTION
OF THE FOUR GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949 DID NOT PURPORT TO
REGULATE CIVIL WARS EXCEPT IN VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES.
UNDER THAT LAW, CERTAIN INTERNAL ARMED CONFLICTS COULD
BECOME INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE
LAWS OF WAR IF A STATE OF "BELLIGERENCY" WAS RECOGNIZED BY
STATES.

- IN TRADITIONAL TERMINOLOGY, AN "INSURGENCY" WAS A REBEL
MOVEMENT NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS OF
WAR. "BELLIGERENCY" WAS A CONDITION THAT RESEMBLED AN
ARMED CONFLICT BETWEEN STATES, WITH EACH PARTY
ADMINISTERING TERRITORY ETC. (SEE BELOW). BELLIGERENCY
WAS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF WAR WHICH REGULATED CONFLICTS
BETWEEN STATES.

- THE TERM "INSURGENCY" APFLIED TO CONFLICTS LACKING THE
FEATURES OF INTERSTATE CONFLICT. USE OF THE TERM HAS
NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED AS CONFERRING STATUS ON THE
PARTICIPANTS UNDER THE LAWS OF WAR.

- BELLIGERENCY EXISTED ONLY IF CERTAIN FACTUAL CONDITIONS
WERE PRESENT: "... THE EXISTENCE OF A CIVIL WAR
ACCOMPANIED BY A STATE OF GENERAL HOSTILITIES; OCCUPATION
AND A MEASURE OF ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF NATIONAL TERRITORY BY THE INSURGENTS; OBSERVANCE
OF THE RULES OF WARFARE ON THE PART OF THE INSURGENT

FORCES ACTING UNDER A RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY; THE PRACTICAL
NECESSITY FOR THIRD STATES TO DEFINE THEIR ATTITUDE TO THE
CIVIL WAR."

- THIS TRADITIONAL TERMINOLOGY HAS FALLEN INTO DISUSE IN
FAVOR OF THE TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS USED IN THE FOUR
GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949 AND IN THEIR 1977 PROTOCOLS.

- BECAUSE OF THE FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY OF CIVIL WARS'
THE STATES THAT MET IN GENEVA IN 1949 DECIDED TO ADOPT
COMMON ARTICLE 3 TO GOVERN "ARMED CONFLICT NOT OF AN
INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER." ARTICLE 3 PROVIDES A GENERAL
REQUIREMENT THAT PERSONS NOT TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN
HOSTILITIES BE TREATED HUMANELY, AND IT SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBITS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MURDER, TORTURE,
HOSTAGE-TAKING AND HUMILIATING AND DEGRADING TREATMENT.
HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT GRANT REBELS THE BENEFITS OF
PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS AND THUS IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
UNDER LOCAL LAW FOR LEGITIMATE COMBATANT ACTS. THUS. A
REBEL IN A CIVIL WAR MAY BE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER IF HE
KILLS A MEMBER OF THE REGULAR FORCES OF A STATE.

- IN ANY EVENT, APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 3 DOES NOT DEPEND
ON WHETHER OR NOT AN "INSURGENCY" IS INVOLVED.

- AFTER THE CONVENTIONS WERE ADOPTED, SOME ARGUED THAT
INTERNAL ARMED CONFLICTS COULD BECOME "INTERNATIONAL"
ARMED CONFLICT IF "BELLIGERENCY" WERE RECOGNIZED BY
STATES. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PRACTICE OF STATES DURING
THE PAST FOUR DECADES, HOWEVER, THAT STATES HAVE NOT
ACCEPTED THIS THEORY UNDER THE CONVENTIONS.

- THE 1977 PROTOCOLS TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS CLASSIFY
SOME INTERNAL ARMED CONFLICTS AS INTERNATIONAL AND THUS
COVERED BY THE CONVENTIONS. THIS WAS LARGELY MOTIVATED BY
THE DESIRE OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES (ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT
HAD FOUGHT COLONIAL WARS) TO OBTAIN PRISONER-OF-WAR RIGHTS
FOR THOSE WHO WERE FIGHTING IN SO-CALLED WARS OF NATIONAL
LIBERATION. THEY SOUGHT TO CLASSIFY SUCH CONFLICTS AS
INTERNATIONAL FOR PURPOSES OF THE LAWS OF WAR, IN LARGE
PART BECAUSE OF THE FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE RIGID BUT
SENSIBLE STANDARDS OF THE 1949 GENEVA PRISONERS OF WAR
CONVENTION.

- PROTOCOL I' AS IT FINALLY EMERGED, PROVIDES IN ARTICLE
1 THAT SUCH CONFLICTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
INTERNATIONAL. THIS WAS A MAJOR REASON FOR THE U.S.
REJECTION OF THE PROTOCOL. TURKEY ALSO HAD MAJOR PROBLEMS
WITH ARTICLE 1 DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THAT PROTOCOL.
NEITHER THE UNITED STATES NOR TURKEY IS A PARTY TO
PROTOCOL I.

- NONETHELESS, THE TERM "INSURGENCY" DOES NOT APPEAR IN
THE 1977 PROTOCOLS. THE FACT THAT A GROUP IS
CHARACTERIZED AS AN INSURGENCY WOULD NOT AFFECT ITS
MEMBERS' STATUS UNDER THE PROTOCOLS.

- THUS. UNDER THE CUSTOMARY LAWS OF WAR, THE 1949 GENEVA
CONVENTIONS AND THE 1977 PROTOCOLS' USE OF THE TERM
"INSURGENCY" TO DESCRIBE THE PKK.S ACTIVITY DOES NOT IMPLY
OR CONVEY ANY RIGHTS OR BENEFITS ON THE PKK. THEREFORE,
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE UNITED STATES NOT TO USE THE
TERM SINCE, ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY, "INSURGENCY"
ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE PKK'S ACTIVITY.

END POINTS.


TARNOFF