By Dr. Ali Farahmand
The recent interview of Rivar Abdanan, a member of the leadership council and spokesman for the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK), with the Indian newspaper The Hindu, should be viewed less as a routine news dialogue and more as a deliberate attempt to redefine the group’s political standing within a transforming regional landscape. In this interview, PJAK seeks to portray itself not merely as an armed organization, but as a political actor that justifies the use of force strictly under the framework of “legitimate self-defense,” conditionally welcomes cooperation with foreign governments, and defers entering any large-scale conflict to future developments.
While this shift in strategic communications is notable, it raises critical questions from the perspective of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL).
First, repeatedly emphasizing the “political nature” of a group does not, in itself, alter its legal status. Under international law, the legitimacy of a non-state armed group is judged not by its media discourse, but by its practical conduct on the ground. Every armed faction, regardless of its political objectives, is obligated to observe fundamental rules of humanitarian law, including the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians, the principle of proportionality, the prohibition of attacks against civilian targets, and the strict prohibition of recruiting and using child soldiers in armed conflicts.
Significantly, PJAK itself has formally acknowledged these principles. In 2010, by signing the Deed of Commitment with Geneva Call, the group pledged to prohibit the recruitment and use of individuals under 18 years of age in armed conflict, strip underage individuals of military functions, exclude children from all combat or logistics roles, and enable independent monitoring and verification by Geneva Call. Consequently, any present assertions of transitioning toward political activity are valid from a human rights perspective only when accompanied by full implementation of these pledges, absolute transparency regarding reports of child recruitment, and genuine accountability for alleged abuses.
Another noteworthy aspect of the interview is PJAK’s refusal to explicitly condemn military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran. Rather than offering clear condemnation or endorsement, the spokesman attributes primary responsibility for conflict to the policies of the Islamic Republic, while characterizing military pressure on the state as acceptable provided civilians are unharmed. This stance illustrates PJAK’s move away from traditional anti-interventionist rhetoric toward political pragmatism—an approach designed to maintain open avenues for engagement with foreign powers.
Similarly, the group’s declared readiness to interact with “all governments” warrants close examination. Although the spokesperson stresses that PJAK is “nobody’s proxy force,” he explicitly asserts that any relationship serving Kurdish political interests is deemed legitimate by the organization. From an international legal standpoint, this posture creates double responsibility: any actor aspiring to play an international political role must accept international standards of accountability and the rule of law.
Furthermore, the spokesperson’s remarks regarding potential expansion of military operations indicate that the option of force remains integral to PJAK’s overall strategy. By asserting that necessary decisions will be taken if the “existence of the Kurdish nation” comes under threat, the group relies on a broad, subjective criterion that underscores the urgent necessity of independent oversight regarding its field activities.
In this context, judicial accountability must not be sidelined. Recent months have seen public disclosures regarding judicial rulings, extradition requests, and Interpol Red Notices involving figures associated with Kurdish armed organizations. Regardless of the outcome of these judicial processes, the fundamental principle of the rule of law requires that these cases be examined independently, impartially, and in full compliance with fair trial standards within their host countries, particularly in Europe.
European governments consistently emphasize the principle of combating impunity for serious human rights violators. This principle cannot be applied exclusively to state actors. If an armed group seeks political recognition, diplomatic engagement, and a role in Iran’s future, it must equally answer to allegations of human rights violations, including the recruitment of child soldiers, attacks affecting civilians, and other potential infractions. Overlooking this responsibility undermines the credibility of the global human rights framework and signals that accountability remains subject to political expediency.
Ultimately, PJAK’s latest interview reflects an effort to reframe its political discourse under changing regional conditions rather than an abandonment of military options. Yet in the realm of human rights, changing vocabulary cannot replace changing behavior. An actor’s credibility is determined not by claims of political commitment, but by practical compliance with international obligations, respect for victims’ rights, and a willingness to accept public and legal accountability. For the international human rights community, the standard remains clear: no armed group, regardless of its declared goals or political rhetoric, can be exempt from scrutiny and accountability.
