Cengiz Çiçek, MP for the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), spoke to ANF about the international conspiracy that began on 9 October 1998, when Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan was forced to leave Syria, and about the developments that followed this process. Çiçek said the conspiracy was defeated through the perspective put forward by Abdullah Öcalan, together with the Rojava Revolution and the alliance of the oppressed in Turkey and added: “Now it is time to open the doors of the era of freedom.”
What matters is how much is mobilised for a peaceful solution!
Çiçek began his remarks by referring to the process regarding the solution of the Kurdish question, which started one year ago and has been progressing slowly: “We are aware of the difficulties of resolving an ancient issue such as the Kurdish question in this geography on a peaceful and democratic basis.” He stressed that what matters is not whether the process is progressing as expected or not, but rather to what extent there is mobilisation for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question and to what extent positive contributions are made, and that the debate should be conducted in this direction. He continued, “The Kurdish question is a historical issue. It is a systemic issue, a state issue; as the republic enters its second century, it is a question of whether it will democratise or not. Removing the Kurdish question from the ground of conflict and bringing it to the political sphere also represents a significant threshold in Turkey’s struggle for democracy. From this perspective, yes, it is a difficult, multilayered, multidimensional and historical issue. It is not only a political issue but has also been turned into one of the main factors of social polarisation. There are those who profit from the deadlock of this issue, those who exploit it politically, those who profit from it economically. For this very reason, we must overcome all obstacles patiently, stubbornly and step by step. To do this, we need political creativity, determination and conviction that can disrupt the games of those who feed on the deadlock of this problem.”
We must disrupt the game of those who profit from the deadlock of the Kurdish question!
Çiçek stated that it is the political establishment that is responsible for confining the Kurdish question within a framework of deadlock. By the political establishment, he said he referred not only to all the parties represented in the parliament in Turkey, but also to all political circles and groups outside the parliament. He said that this process should also be seen as a process in which the political establishment must confront itself and offer its own self-criticism. Çiçek continued: “For perhaps the first time, the political establishment will be compelled to address not deadlock, but a solution. Everyone must develop a position around a solution. In this respect, first of all, we must disrupt the game of those who benefit from the deadlock of this problem in Turkey, those who exploit it for political and economic gain.
Second, the social opposition, of which we are also a part, has already been struggling for the democratic solution to this issue for many years. But in this period, each of us must demonstrate more effort and greater performance around the idea of socialising peace. Yes, there is objection and criticism against the anti-democratic practices of the Justice and Development Party (AKP)–Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) government, and in some ways we find this legitimate and correct. In this respect, this process must be approached from a perspective of democratisation. However, if we are truly to disrupt this game and I say this by including the Republican People’s Party (CHP), all opposition forces, especially the democratic opposition, must clarify and articulate the language of solution and the practice of solution regarding the Kurdish question much more clearly, and must come forward more strongly on this issue.”
Çiçek also said, “We must also oppose those who seek to turn the issue into a political tool, a tool for so-called national survival. Social democratic opposition must be braver than ever before, more constructive, more organised. It must seek more ways to weave the mind of peace and the organisation of peace socially. Third, the ruling bloc must finally take steps with a perspective of resolving the Kurdish question in these lands. Yes, the Kurdish question is not an issue limited to Turkey; it has become a regional and even an international issue. The Peace and Democratic Society Process that developed with Turkey has been discussed and addressed in many dimensions, especially in Syria. But from the beginning, we have always said this: the organisation in question is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK took root in Turkey, declared its formation in Turkey, waged an armed struggle in Turkey, and now states that it has ended its armed struggle and dissolved itself, addressing the Republic of Turkey as its interlocutor. In essence, the subject we are discussing is domestic to Turkey. Therefore, those who govern the Republic of Turkey must focus on a solution within Turkey and organise the mindset for a solution here.”
Linking the processes in Syria and Turkey is not a correct approach!
Çiçek commented on the recent statement by Devlet Bahçeli, Chair of the MHP, who called for disarmament regarding the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) during the latest parliamentary group meeting. He said that as the DEM Party, they have from the beginning argued that these two issues must not be conflated. He stated that the timeline and interlocutors of the Peace and Democratic Society Process developed in Turkey are fundamentally different from the timeline and interlocutors of the new process developing in Rojava and Syria. Çiçek emphasized that while the process in Syria involves more regional and global actors, the process in Turkey involves Kurdish politics, Abdullah Öcalan and the state. Çiçek continued, “Syria has become the centre of a global hegemonic war. In this sense, Syria is not a field that will be determined solely by the Republic of Turkey and the Kurdish Movement. For this very reason, we have never found it correct to tie the fate of these two processes together, the Syrian and Rojava process and the Peace and Democratic Society Process in Turkey. Binding their fates to each other means obstructing the Peace and Democratic Society Process in Turkey and ultimately destroying the process here.” Çiçek added: “Once the process in Turkey is resolved around its main interlocutors, within certain principles and parameters, the climate for a solution here will naturally reflect on the region. This must be understood. Since 1993, in other words for thirty-two years, all attempts for a democratic and peaceful solution to this issue have been obstructed. Perhaps this time, we need to do things differently from what was done in the past. Our thirty-two years of experience have shown us this: first, we need to build a ground for a solution that will strengthen and expand belief in resolving this issue through certain partnerships and shared efforts. Yes, the Kurdish question is a regional and global issue, but once it is truly resolved on a desired basis in Turkey, I believe that a path to resolution will open in Syria, Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. For this reason, we must first pass the test in Turkey. If the test is not passed in Turkey, we do not believe that the tests in Syria, in Rojava, and in the region will be passed either.”
Mr. Öcalan’s 27 February call was centred on Turkey
Cengiz Çiçek underlined that the call for Peace and a Democratic Society made by Mr. Öcalan on 27 February was a call centred on Turkey. Çiçek said: “Mr. Öcalan’s call was very clear. In his call, there is a historical objection to the system in Turkey and, in fact, an effort directed towards addressing this. The centre of the Kurdish question in the Middle East is Turkey. Bringing the process here to a conclusion will, in time, with the establishment of greater trust, naturally pave the way for more regional and lasting solutions. Therefore, we do find significant the proposal by Mr. Bahçeli that the parliamentary commission should hear Mr. Öcalan, as well as his call and his thoughts on this matter. However, if he ties such a hearing to a condition of disarmament in Rojava, we do not consider this to be the correct approach. We do not agree with treating Syria and Turkey as if they are mutual preconditions for one another. But as I said, of course, the interlocutor of this call is Mr. Öcalan and his own movement.”
Using a domineering and optionless language goes against the nature of things
Çiçek said that there is still no established regime in Syria and recalled that the transitional government recently carried out massacres against Alawite and Druze communities and also attacked Kurdish neighbourhoods in Aleppo. Çiçek emphasized that the current regime is an interim one and continued: “There is a transitional government in Syria. The future of the regime is still uncertain. Israel’s attacks are clear, Iran and Russia’s positions are clear, and the role played by the United States and the British is clear. A call to integrate into a regime whose near future is unknown is not realistic. In other words, the call that goes ‘Hey Kurds, lay down your arms and join them’ is nothing but an insistence on the logic of the traditional state mentality and on deadlock. The Kurds also have a memory. Turkey is a member of NATO, yet it also says it could join an alliance with Russia and China, does it not? Even the Republic of Turkey looks for its own path at times or debates it. At the end of the day, it draws attention to the global system, to global power relations, and tries to proceed by taking them into account. In a period when even states search for their own paths in the war of hegemony, develop policies about which camp to engage with, and maintain relations with every camp, using a domineering and optionless language toward the Kurdish movement and the Kurdish people, telling them ‘make your choice here,’ ‘cut your ties there’ is against the nature of things. When states keep every option on the table and maintain relations with every state and economic power, why do you want to leave the Kurds or the Kurdish movement without options? Çiçek also added, “If you impose your own predetermined option on the Kurds, this means you do not accept their political identity, their political agency or their political rights, and this is one of the root causes of the deadlock of the Kurdish question. What did Mr. Öcalan say in his 27 February call? He said that a process of disarmament and non-conflict naturally requires legal and political recognition. If you impose your own solution recipe on the Kurds in a domineering language, what you are really saying is: ‘I do not recognise the independent, autonomous mind of Kurdish politics; if you accept what I say, then I will recognise you as an interlocutor’ and that is denial. In this sense, denying Kurdish politics, denying the Kurdish mind and trying to confine it with a domineering language is, above all, not a mentality of peace. This language and this approach must be abandoned. If the Kurds had thought according to states, according to the spheres of sovereignty of states, according to their language and their impositions, then today there would be no Kurdish question, because there would be no Kurds left.”
If our friends are still held hostage, it means our counterparts are not as clear as we are
Çiçek commented on the Ministry of Justice’s objection to the latest violation ruling issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning Selahattin Demirtaş, former Co-Chair of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), despite expectations that necessary steps would be taken in the process. He underlined that above all, the continuation of the process in a determined way is only possible by establishing an atmosphere of trust and taking steps of goodwill. He stated, “It is those who govern the state and those who hold power within the system who must be determined in favour of a truly just, democratic, peaceful and societal solution to this issue. The Kurdish movement has no contradiction on this matter; it has demonstrated this through its historical struggle until today. Mr. Öcalan called on his organisation; the organisation convened and announced that it had ended its armed struggle strategy and declared that it had dissolved itself. There was even a symbolic weapons-burning ceremony, and a declaration of will was made on this matter. These are not simple steps. Therefore, similar steps must also be taken by those who govern the state.” Çiçek also added, “Now, important and influential actors such as Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ, and our friends who have a strong social response among broad segments of society, have been held hostage for years. If no steps are still being taken on this matter, then it means our counterparts are not as clear as we are. We call this a contradictory stance. If there is truly clarity in the mind regarding a solution, then this process has necessities. One of those necessities is the release of politicians imprisoned in the field of democratic politics and of sick prisoners. This is actually a step that could be taken even without requiring a legal amendment. Society’s expectation was also in this direction. If social consent is desired for this process, if trust in society is to be strengthened, and if a real solution is to be achieved, it will already be solved with the support of society. From this point of view, legal interpretations, decisions and initiatives concerning rights and freedoms must be taken.”
Mr. Öcalan’s political line defeated the conspiracy
Çiçek said that the international conspiracy that began when Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan was forced to leave Syria on 9 October 1998 was also foiled, and he underlined that the plot aimed not only at the Kurdish freedom movement but also at the peoples of Turkey and the Middle East. Çiçek added: “Those who wove the plot step by step twenty-seven years ago had a plan. They sought to eliminate the Kurdish freedom movement in the person of Abdullah Öcalan. The fundamental aim of trying to eliminate this movement was to thwart a movement capable of breaking the polarising, divisive and enemy-making ‘divide and rule’ policies in the Middle East, and thus of historically changing the ill fate of the peoples of the region. The architects of this conspiracy plotted not only against Abdullah Öcalan and the Kurdish movement but also against the Republic of Turkey. We were saying this at the time, and Mr. Öcalan himself said it: ‘With my surrender to Turkey as part of the conspiracy, the door was to be opened to an irreversible war in Kurdish-Turkish relations. A war scenario spreading across a century was planned. We tried to foil that game.’ From that day to this, Mr. Öcalan’s stance in Imrali has been to strive, first and foremost for the Kurdish and Turkish peoples, to defeat this conspiracy aimed at pitting peoples against one another. The intention was not merely to purge Kurdish politics. Based on the situation into which Kurdish politics had been driven, a genocidal conspiracy was also attempted, one that would pit peoples against each other, turn them into enemies and make them slaughter one another.” Çiçek concluded his remarks as follows: “The greatest answer to this conspiracy was given in Rojava, in Kobanê, through the internationalism of the peoples’ revolution and the women’s revolution. The greatest response was also given through the HDP and the historic march that reached its peak on 7 June, which embodied the alliance of the oppressed and the unity of the Kurdish people with Turkey’s democratic forces. Perhaps that is what was feared. The 9 October conspiracy was in essence a plot to crush that revolutionary current and that struggle that sought to bring about a spring for the peoples in this country, in this geography and in this region. Looking from today’s perspective, yes, the conspiracy has been historically defeated. Under Mr. Öcalan’s leadership, the Kurdish freedom movement and its allies, the peoples of the Middle East, the peoples of Turkey and the peoples of Kurdistan have largely foiled this conspiracy through the political line of struggle they developed and its achievements. This march has not ended. An effort is underway to open an era of freedom for the peoples against the conspirators. That is why we must struggle harder than ever. Opening the doors to this era of freedom will be the greatest, most effective and most decisive response to the conspirators.”