KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) Executive Council Member Mustafa Karasu commemorated Rıza Altun, one of the founding members of the PKK, on the 6th anniversary of his martyrdom, and Musa Anter on the 33rd anniversary of his assassination. Karasu spoke to Medya Haber TV.
You can read the first part of this interview here.
The Turkish Parliament is about to open. The commission has been holding meetings throughout the summer recess. Discussions on laws to be passed are now on the agenda. What can you say about the role of the commission, the Parliament, and possible laws?
The Grand National Assembly of Turkey is an important institution. This massive, century-old problem can only be solved by the Assembly. That is what Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan consistently said in 2012 and again in the years 2013-2014. He always highlighted the necessity to involve the Assembly, for a commission to be established in the Assembly, and for it to be the place where proposals and projects for a solution would be put forward. It was Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan’s particular wish that the issue be resolved by the parliament. Because it is the organ that represents the Turkish people, elected by vote. We truly value the parliament. Some time ago, the presidents of the past 50 years of parliament came and spoke to the commission. They spoke positively. They emphasized that Turkey needs to solve this problem. This is also, in fact, the will of society, the desire of society.
The parliament needs to get more involved. Yes, parliament has set up a commission; it had discussions, talks, and hearings, but now this commission needs to draft certain laws. At the very least, laws on democratization need to be drafted. There is no democratic environment in Turkey right now. But with this process, we want democratization to develop. Now, parliament as a whole has to get involved. Numan Kurtulmuş said that they would “prepare some laws,” and they seem to be discussing them and that they will bring them to the agenda. But what kind of law will the parliament prepare on this issue? This is also important. If the issue is now only addressed as “what will happen to those who have weapons,” this is wrong. This does not solve the problem. The weapons were burned, and it was clearly stated that armed struggle was abandoned. Also, the will to engage in democratic politics in Turkey has been clearly expressed.
So how can this be implemented in practice? If friends from the mountains were to go to Turkey now, they would immediately be sent to prison. Not because they have committed crimes, but because of the existing so-called anti-terror laws. It’s not just about these laws, but they must be repealed. Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan speaks of “democratic society laws” and “freedom laws” that must be passed. But they are talking about “transitional laws,” saying, “Let them lay down their arms and come.” But such laws will not solve the problem. Those who lay down their arms shall go to Turkey, and the court will release them. Okay, but to what kind of Turkey? This is important. Why would they lay down their arms and go to Turkey if there is no ground for democratic politics? The so-called Anti-Terror Law needs to be abolished, and instead democratic laws need to emerge. In other words, an environment where democratic politics can be practiced needs to be realized. If that happens, the hundreds-of-years-old problem can be solved. If that happens, everyone will return to Turkey with ease. It’s not about those in the mountains being tired and simply wanting to go home; it’s about continuing the struggle at the level of democratic politics. That’s why the weapons were symbolically burned. Turkey has to do what is necessary for us to participate in democratic politics. It has to take steps towards democratization. This is decisive. Just passing a law guaranteeing that who comes won’t face punishment won’t work out – the problem cannot be solved with such a limited law. With such a law, one can’t say the problem is solved.
This issue really needs to be discussed thoroughly. The topic of democratic politics needs to be approached correctly. The problem is not just that some people come and lay down their arms. We want to resolve this issue through democratic political means. We have to talk about democratization. There must be no deception of the public. “Look, we are passing a law; let them lay down their arms and come!” This is not the right approach. We are talking about democratic integration. What is democratic integration? The Kurds have not been integrated with this Republic for a hundred years. They remained separate from the Republic; they objected to this Republic. They objected to these laws, these practices. Thus, there has been no integration with the Republic in Turkey. There has been no common ground, no unification based on shared values. Integration is the unification and commonality of different forces. When we talk about democratic integration laws, it means that Kurds, who have been excluded for a hundred years or who are dissatisfied with the current Republic and who do not accept the current Republic’s practices, approaches, and policies, will integrate with the Republic of Turkey through democratic laws, democratic integration laws. Otherwise, this integration will not happen.
For a hundred years, the Kurds have made their position on this very clear. Always pointing out that as long as their identity, existence, and education in their mother tongue are not accepted, they will not integrate. And they are fighting against this rejection, this denial.
The Assembly will open on October 1. It has to discuss this issue thoroughly. If a law is to be passed, its consequences need to be considered. There should be no cunning approaches. It must be serious and sincere. We will enter into democratic integration with Turkey. And they say that they want to include the Kurds, but they are trying to weaken them. If we are to be part of democratic integration, then we will be part of this Turkey; we will be part of a Democratic Republic. Our existence, the existence of the Kurds, will strengthen the Democratic Republic. The parliament must take the right approach. The democratic political arena must also take an approach that correctly guides the laws that will be passed and that sets out how the laws should be.
While new potential laws are being discussed, we continue to see fundamental rights being violated, above all the right to one’s own mother tongue. Most recently, Amedspor received a penalty for publishing an advertisement in Kurdish. What do you think about that?
We were surprised to hear that Amed Spor was penalized for a Kurdish slogan. Especially in the current environment. The Kurdish issue is being discussed; there is a process, they say, but a sports team’s advertisement is penalized because it is in Kurdish. This is their approach against the Kurdish language. This is actually an approach against the Kurdish people. The existence of the Kurdish people is embodied in the Kurdish language. A people are known by their language. Just recently, mothers were invited to speak to the commission, but they were not allowed to speak their mother tongue.
As the president of the Amed Bar Association put it, “This is the Kurdish issue.” Indeed, this is the Kurdish issue. It is this mentality. Amedspor applied to take this advertisement—it is their sponsor’s advertisement. Imposing such a penalty is not a penalty against Amedspor. This is a penalty against the entire Kurdish people. The penalty against the Kurds is a penalty against the Kurdish language. The problem is not Amedspor. If they had written it in English, they probably wouldn’t have cared. This is a serious aspect. Of course, our people should react to this. It is truly valuable that so many organizations in Kurdistan have made a statement and reacted. The entire Kurdish people should react. Marches should be held, protests should be held; this should not be accepted. And we strongly condemn this attitude, this approach.
One topic that is being fiercely debated is whether the commission will meet with Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan. What is your view on this discussion?
Numan Kurtulmuş says that meeting with Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan “is not on our agenda.” How can this be? So, will the Kurdish issue not be resolved? Will there be no democratic integration of the Kurds into the Republic of Turkey? Or is this not the goal? Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan is at the center of this issue. Previously, assessments were made that a meeting would take place. Even some from the MHP said this. This is what the Kurdish community expects. They talk about “Turkey’s sensitivities.” Well, the Kurds have sensitivities too. The Kurds want this commission to meet with Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan in particular. Meeting with Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan is decisive. It is not just any demand. In fact, it is a measure of how sincere the approach to the process is.
We will do whatever is required of us for this process to develop. We can take some steps, but Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan needs to manage and direct the process. Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan needs to be free. We have always made this clear. We made many steps, but now the Turkish state has to take steps. We need to see concrete steps. The approach to Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan must change. Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan must be treated as an interlocutor. Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan’s position is not just any position. If the approach to Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan does not change, or rather, if Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan’s current position does not change, how will we develop this process, and how will we carry it out? This is the measure. Some state officials are questioning whether we have abandoned armed struggle or not. We have clearly stated that we have abandoned armed struggle against the Turkish state, against Turkey. There can be no hesitation on this issue. We have taken clear steps in this regard. The Turkish state must take steps now. And first and foremost, the situation of Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan must be clarified without a doubt. This must happen quickly, not be drawn out over time.
If the process is to develop in the second year, if the democratic solution to the Kurdish issue and the democratization of Turkey are to accelerate in the second year, they have to take a serious approach. This is not an issue without a counterpart. It is not an issue that can be resolved simply by the Turkish state or government saying, “I said this, so it will be this way.” Certain things are expected of us. Of course, we do not have a rigid approach regarding reasonable matters. But the Turkish state must take certain decisive steps. There cannot be unilateral steps. What we demand is for the benefit of Turkey. These are things that are desired for the democratization of Turkey and for the relaxation of Turkey. Things that will weaken Turkey, render Turkey powerless, divide Turkey, or fragment Turkey are not desired. The demands are not of that nature. They are demands for Turkey’s democratization and a democratic solution to the Kurdish issue. Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan is the one who can best manage, direct, and put this into practice. In this regard, the current approach to Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan is inadequate and wrong. Some talks are taking place, and people are going back and forth, but that’s not how it should be. Such a limited approach is not the right approach to Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan. Our people think so, and we think so too. The discussion about whether or not a meeting will take place must be abandoned; it is inevitable either way, and the issues that really need to be discussed go far beyond that.
Let’s say they will pass a law, saying that these people should lay down their arms and join politics. Can such a law exclude Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan? What would a law passed without clarifying Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan’s position mean? A law that does not clarify the situation of the organization’s leadership, that does not make it clear, that categorizes and excludes, has no meaning. A law that does not include the leadership has no meaning either. I want to emphasize this in particular.