The most serious event of the last century, both regionally and globally, is undoubtedly the Kurdish question. This reality rests on two fundamental reasons. The first one relates to the essence of the problem: the Kurdish question is defined by a multi-faceted genocide imposed on the Kurdish people. Today, a nation of more than fifty million faces a century-long policy of physical massacres, forced displacement, demographic engineering, and assimilation. The existence of the Kurdish people has been denied, with every method employed to destroy them, while Kurdistan has been transformed into an area of Turkish national expansion through Turkification.
The second reason why the Kurdish question carries such gravity, is its regional and even global character within the Middle East. In fact, the First World War effectively ended with the Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923. Through this treaty, the capitalist system gained a global hegemonic structure. Britain and France, as the leaders of global capitalist hegemony, accepted the foundation of the Turkish state on the basis of Kurdish genocide. On this basis, the Republic of Turkey was established on October 29, 1923, and immediately imposed genocide on the Kurds, a policy that the global capitalist system has consistently supported. The political order of the Middle East over the past century was built upon this foundation of genocide against the Kurdish people.
There can be no event more serious than the genocide of a people numbering fifty to sixty million, carried out over a century and legitimized by a global treaty. This is why we say the gravest event of the last hundred years is the Kurdish genocide. The fact that this campaign of extermination was conducted covertly and concealed from humanity for so long does not alter this truth.
It is this very reality that transformed Abdullah Öcalan, once the leader of a small student group, into the National Leader of the Kurdish people, and ultimately elevated him to the level of a global figure. His ability to reveal this truth and approach it with the seriousness it demanded is also what made the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) undefeatable. The reason why both Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK were subjected to an international conspiracy lies in the seriousness and courage they displayed in exposing this reality.
Today, Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan and the Kurdish Freedom Movement continue with the same seriousness to develop the Peace and Democratic Society Process and to resolve this century-old problem. Öcalan emphasizes at every opportunity that he is serious, that seriousness is essential, and calls on everyone else to adopt the same stance. Because the Kurdish question, as the most serious issue of the last century, can only be resolved through the utmost seriousness. Among all the concepts that can bring success, seriousness stands at the forefront.
But is the same seriousness being shown by the state and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in addressing the democratic and political solution of the Kurdish question? Is the Peace and Democratic Society Process, which is approaching its first anniversary, being approached with the seriousness it requires?
Unfortunately, the answer to these questions cannot be “Yes.” Under the rule of the AKP, no such serious approach can be seen. For this reason, we doubt whether there is a genuine intention or understanding of a realistic solution. No matter how optimistic and hopeful we try to remain, the actions of the AKP government undermine this hope and reveal the absence of a serious and positive approach.
Several fundamental points highlight that the AKP does not approach the Kurdish question or, in other words, the Peace and Democratic Society Process with the seriousness it requires.
This issue is, first of all, essentially tied to the democratization of Turkey, which can only be achieved through broad unity and internal consensus. Yet at such a critical time, the policy pursued by the AKP leadership is not one of unity, but rather one aimed at eliminating alternative powers. Its attitude toward all opposition parties, particularly the Republican People’s Party (CHP), makes this clear. With such a policy, it is impossible to democratize Turkey or to resolve the Kurdish question. This demonstrates that the current AKP government is not approaching the process with seriousness.
Secondly, the approach of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, the architect of the Peace and Democratic Society Process and the chief negotiator on behalf of the Kurds, has been anything but serious or solution-oriented. Yet Öcalan himself has shown the utmost seriousness and determination, taking steps no one could have foreseen. Under his leadership, the PKK was brought to decisions concerning its dissolution and the end of its armed struggle strategy. He fostered the will for disarmament within the PKK. On the side of the state and government, however, the only response to these historic steps has been nothing more than a token monthly meeting with delegations. Öcalan’s position as a hostage on Imrali Island remains unchanged. In spite of this, the AKP government continues to demand new steps from him, applying intense psychological pressure.
This raises pressing questions: What more can a person held under such hostage conditions do? Clearly, anything beyond this would amount to surrender, and it is evident that the state and government are in fact trying to impose surrender. To attempt such demands upon a force like Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK, which has resisted for fifty years and sacrificed fifty thousand martyrs, is devoid of any seriousness. These very methods were already applied by the fascist junta of September 12, only to end in its own defeat. The government would do well to draw lessons from its own history of failure, rather than descending into a line even more regressive and fascist than that of the September 12 regime. It must cease insisting on further bloodshed and the creation of new martyrs.
Clearly, the AKP is not changing course. It is not seriously committed to democratizing Turkey or to resolving the Kurdish question. A force genuinely committed to a solution would long ago have dismantled the Imrali system and provided Abdullah Öcalan with the physical freedom required to lead the process in practice. It would have created the conditions for him to engage in free political activity. Under current hostage conditions and with only a single, tightly supervised monthly delegation visit, what can Abdullah Öcalan realistically do to manage the process? Therefore, the way Öcalan is treated most clearly indicates how seriously the process is being taken.
Third, the AKP government’s handling of the guerrillas, who clearly demonstrated their intent to disarm by burning weapons on 11 July, shows a lack of seriousness towards the process. Even after two and a half months, the government has not taken any steps to bring that thirty-person guerrilla group back into the country. Yet it continues to demand and wait for further groups to burn or abandon their weapons. Consider for a moment: what seriousness is there in burning weapons in Sulaymaniyah and then returning to Qandil? Clearly, the AKP government seeks to make the guerrillas complicit in its own lack of seriousness.
Finally, it must be noted that the work of the parliamentary commission has steadily lost its seriousness. Since its formation, the commission has been active and has conducted numerous hearings. Yet, for some reason, it has still not listened to Abdullah Öcalan, the primary party to the issue and the one leading the process. Whether it will ever do so, and if so, when, remains unclear. It can be said that in order to resolve such a serious problem, the broadest possible consensus must be created, and this requires listening to all voices. Undoubtedly, such an approach carries meaning. However, a commission that has not yet made clear what it is dealing with, that has not named the problem, and that has drafted no plan, cannot inspire confidence. Its activities, instead of signifying seriousness, amount to little more than delay.
The democratization of Turkey and the resolution of the Kurdish question are matters of great seriousness, demanding the highest level of commitment from all who engage with them. For this reason, it is most appropriate to call on everyone, above all the AKP government, to act with seriousness. If we truly want to develop solutions, rather than simply wasting time or managing the existing situation, then there is no alternative but a serious and determined approach. Above all, it is crucial to expose and reject insincere attitudes.