Serhat Çakmak, Co-Chair of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD), said the resolution process can move forward only on a foundation that acknowledges historical memory, places equal citizenship at its center, and goes beyond security-focused approaches. He said fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be made conditional solely on steps to be taken by one side, adding that transitional laws could pave the way for social peace.
Çakmak said commission efforts should expand debate rather than shut it down, and that trust-building steps could be concretely realized through measures concerning sick prisoners and those held for long periods. He also stressed that what accords with the spirit of the process is not unilateral imposition, but reciprocal steps that take into account the sensitivities of both sides.
No solution without historical memory
Serhat Çakmak assessed the legal and political dimensions of the resolution process, addressing its historical background, the issue of equal citizenship, and the steps required to ensure non-conflict. Çakmak said: “I believe this issue needs to be approached from two different perspectives, both legal and political. When we look at how this issue began, for what purpose it began, and the conditions of that period, we see that the real aim was social peace and securing Turkey’s internal peace. This process has been defined in different ways in various bodies of literature; expressions such as ‘the law of brotherhood’ have also been used. However, in our view, these remain timid approaches and show that a courageous step has not yet been taken. Similar reflexes have guided the process from the beginning. Of course, there was a fundamental intention: to build an internal peace consensus in Turkey that would include all citizens. In this context, very strong statements were made at the outset. For example, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) said that Mr. Öcalan should ‘speak in parliament’ and that the ‘right to hope’ should be applied to him.”
Çakmak also said: “However, when the issue is detached from historical memory, it is not possible to reach a genuine solution. We consider it important to establish a commission in parliament with the participation of all parties, for this commission to work collectively, to create an environment of non-conflict, and for both sides to remain committed to it. Discussing the issue through a security-focused policy means ignoring the fundamental sensitivities of Kurdish society. We are talking about a history of 100 years. The root of the problem lies in the fact that the state founded 100 years ago failed to establish equal citizenship, did not define citizenship on the basis of equality, prioritized a single identity, and prevented other identities from existing in this country with their own cultures and values.”
A security-focused approach still prevails
Serhat Çakmak said that a security-focused approach continues to shape the resolution process, that fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be made conditional, and that the debate has drifted away from a legal framework. Çakmak said: “What is being said now is this: let this be done, let that be done, and then we can talk about regulations concerning fundamental rights and freedoms. They say ‘let’s talk’ under a heading whose scope is not even defined. This is where the main paradox emerges. We have not seen the content of the reports directly, but from the perspective reflected in them, it is clear that a security-focused approach still prevails and that there is no visible will to take a courageous step.
If the issue is to make a legal assessment, we know this much: in this country, fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be addressed by indexing them to security policies, with a logic of ‘if this happens, then that will happen.’ We do not find it right to discuss fundamental rights and freedoms that should be granted to a segment of society by tying them to steps to be taken by an organization. There are universal legal norms and international conventions on this issue, conventions to which Turkey is a party, and even ones to which it has entered reservations. Even when viewed from this framework, it is clearly evident how far removed the issue is from the plane of law.”
We do not find it right to proceed through ‘effective remorse’ or amnesty
Serhat Çakmak said that in discussions on the resolution process, fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be made conditional, and that regulations concerning members of an organization should be addressed within the framework of transitional laws. He said political parties’ proposals, based on public statements, even though the reports themselves have not been seen, reduce the issue to security-focused policies by detaching it from its historical context. Çakmak said: “The steps that need to be taken regarding fundamental rights and freedoms in this country must not be tied to any condition. Regulations concerning organization members, on the other hand, should be evaluated under the heading of transitional laws. As I mentioned earlier, we have not fully seen the parties’ reports; we are making our assessments solely on the basis of information reflected in the press and statements by party officials.
From these statements, it appears that the MHP believes steps should be taken within the scope of Article 221 of the Turkish Penal Code, at least this is how it comes across in its discourse. Within the Justice and Development Party (AKP), there is the impression of an intention to introduce a special law targeting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). However, the scope of this proposed special law does not seem very different from the MHP’s proposal. While the MHP brings the application of ‘effective remorse’ provisions to the agenda, the AKP, under the appearance of a special law, in fact points to the same place.
The proposals of both parties, even though we have not seen their reports, show that they detach the issue from its historical memory and reduce it to security-focused policies. If we are speaking of internal peace and a law of brotherhood, then the regulations to be made must be substantive. We foresee that proposals concerning the execution law will remain far from what universal legal norms require.
Moreover, regulations concerning organization members already exist in current legislation. For this reason, we do not find it right to conduct the discussion through the concepts of effective remorse or amnesty. If we are talking about social peace, we believe certain concepts must be named openly.”
Not from a one-sided view, but by recognizing both sides’ sensitivities
Serhat Çakmak said that what accords with the spirit of the process is mutual agreement, trust-building steps, and broad social consensus. Çakmak said: “If we are talking about a stage at the end of the process that both sides agree on, then a regulation like this could have been introduced: a clear provision stating that members and executives of an organization that has dissolved itself would not be subjected to any prosecution in Turkey. We do not believe that arrangements based on ‘effective remorse’ under Article 221 of the Turkish Penal Code, or measures that point to the same article under the guise of a special law, would be in line with the spirit of the process.
What truly matters is the existence of a state of non-conflict in the country and, within such an environment, the ability to conduct all debates openly and transparently within parliament, with the public also able to take part. It is known that the reports will be merged, finalized by a commission, and that discussions will continue. For this reason, we say that the way for debate should not be blocked, that the sides should not erect barriers against one another, and that the issue must be addressed within a broader framework. The approach must not be from a one-sided perspective, but from a place that recognizes the sensitivities of both sides.
For this reason, we believe that what will deliver a substantive solution is social consensus, and that social peace will be possible together with such consensus. These can be called transitional laws; however, such laws should not impose unilateral obligations on either the organization or the state. Both sides must take reciprocal, trust-building steps. As we have seen so far, the dissolution decision taken following the call of 27 February, the weapons-burning that took place in July, and the subsequent withdrawal process have been examples of these trust-building steps.”
Submitting reports is not the final stage
Serhat Çakmak outlined how trust-building steps in the resolution process could be concretely realized through measures concerning sick prisoners and those held for long periods. Çakmak said: “What is expected here is the removal of legal and administrative bureaucratic obstacles concerning sick prisoners, as well as the lifting of bureaucratic barriers related to administrative and observation boards. In this way, ending the situations of prisoners held for 30 years, and ensuring the release of detainees still imprisoned under PKK trials whose files are pending before appellate courts, the Court of Cassation, or courts of first instance, would be seen as trust-building steps.
Progress on this issue must be made gradually, step by step, through reciprocal actions. Voicing the most radical rhetoric or debating the most extreme measures today would not be appropriate. The commission has carried out its work, certain steps have been taken as a result, and we see that some matters are now becoming clearer from the commission’s perspective. At the same time, I believe it is essential not to close off debate or the possibility of mutual understanding. We see that the AKP, the MHP, the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) have all submitted their reports to the commission. From this perspective, the submission of reports is not an end point or a final stage; rather, we are at a juncture where discussions can be reopened and carried forward.”
Syria must cease to be a precondition
Serhat Çakmak said imposing conditions related to Syria and Turkey’s unilateral demands are blocking the resolution process, stressing that progress is possible only through reciprocal steps. Çakmak said: “It is worth repeating this point: we must avoid rigid, process-blocking rhetoric such as ‘if this does not happen, then that will not happen.’ The PKK dissolving itself was a step. We do not find sectarian approaches such as ‘no steps will be taken until all weapons are laid down’ to be correct. Likewise, statements presenting the issue of integration in Syria as a red line risk pushing the process into a deadlock.
If courageous steps are truly intended, they cannot be unilateral. Turkey’s authorized institutions are in constant contact with the Ahmed al-Sharaa (Al-Jolani) government, yet they refrain from engaging with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). There is no difference between the legal position of the SDF administration and that of the organization to which the al-Sharaa government is linked. If the aim is to resolve this issue through bold steps, then both sides should be engaged to identify what is actually blocking the process and why steps are not being taken. By listening to both sides, a facilitative and solution-oriented role can be assumed.
The Al-Sharaa administration has not yet proven that it can uphold Syria’s territorial integrity or fulfill such a role and mission. Granting extensive tolerance to an unproven administration while expecting the SDF, unconditionally, to integrate into it does not align with realities on the ground. At present, the al-Sharaa administration has not achieved internal peace to the same extent as the SDF, nor has it demonstrated a structure that embraces all dynamics within its areas or incorporates them into governance. How, then, can we expect a fragmented structure, one that does not even endorse a secular system, to respect other ethnic identities, different religious communities, or women, given what is known of its approach?
Expecting the SDF to integrate unconditionally into an administration that has not overcome these shortcomings, while Turkey refrains from proposing or recommending steps to address them, does not correspond to realities on the ground. Presenting Turkey’s red lines as constant obstacles at the table is also incompatible with the spirit of negotiations.
From global conflict-resolution experiences, the most important lesson we know is that parties should not be imposing demands. Rather than being coercive, they should act as facilitators. If the necessary sensitivities are observed, we believe this process, during which such historic and significant steps have been taken, can continue and move forward.”