In an in-depth interview with Medya Haber TV, Mustafa Karasu, member of the KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) Executive Council, spoke about the ongoing process in search of a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish question in Turkey, which has now been ongoing for over a year.
The first part of the interview with Karasu can be read here.
The process has been underway in Turkey for over a year now. Within this framework, the freedom movement has made many unilateral steps, but there has been no development regarding the so-called ‘Right to Hope’ – its inclusion in the constitution and its application to the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan. His isolation on the prison island of Imrali also continues. What impact does this situation, in particular, have on this historic process?
It was October of last year that Devlet Bahçeli made his appeal, saying, “Let him come, speak in parliament, dissolve his organization, and take advantage of the right to hope.” It is a speech that was held visible to the public. Leader Öcalan responded to this by saying, “I can bring [the Kurdish issue] from the dimension of war to a legal and political level.” And accordingly, on February 27, he made the historic ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society.’ The AKP government, Devlet Bahçeli, and many further political circles evaluated the call as very positive. The most important sentence in regard to that call came from Sırrı Süreyya Önder, the defender of peace and freedom, who pointed out, “For the February 27 call to be put into practice, to be realized, the legal and political ground must be established and realized.” That expresses the reality of the ongoing process. It is the February 27 call; it is what Sırrı Süreyya said. And the AKP government, Devlet Bahçeli, and the MHP viewed it positively. Other parties – except for a few fascist circles, such as the Zafer Party – also approached it positively.
This is a very crucial process. Turkey is now one hundred years old. And this issue has been going on for more than fifty years, that is, half of Turkey’s history. It needs to be resolved. And if the aim is emphasized as being to ensure Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood, then Leader Öcalan’s status as an interlocutor must be accepted. For him to play an effective role in this process, the conditions for him to be free and able to work freely must be prepared. The Right to Hope must be brought to the agenda. This is a legal issue that must be implemented in the constitution. Devlet Bahçeli had said it would be implemented. Keeping Leader Öcalan in such conditions of isolation is an inadequate approach to the process; it is not the right approach to the process. Leader Öcalan is making great efforts and has taken great steps. Not approaching such a leader in the right way means not approaching the process in the right way.
The process is being discussed, and they label it as ‘Turkey without Terror.’ That is obviously unacceptable. We see it as a process that is about democratic integration where Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood will be realized, where the Kurds and the Turkish state, which have been at war for a century, will make peace; that is, a process where the existence of the Kurds will be accepted and given a legal framework. The approach to Leader Öcalan needs to change. Everyone needs to adapt. Devlet Bahçeli called him the “founding leader.” The AKP government and Devlet Bahçeli said that they view the steps taken by Leader Öcalan positively. So, is this your approach to him? From this perspective, continuing to isolate Leader Öcalan, hindering him from playing his role in the resolving of the 50-year-old problem, clearly shows that the process – whatever it may be called – is not being approached correctly.
It was Devlet Bahçeli who made the call first. He was the one speaking of the Right to Hope. The requirements for this must be met. He said, “Let him come, let him dissolve his organization, let him come to Parliament and speak.” Leader Öcalan took steps beyond what Devlet Bahçeli said; he made them happen. So why aren’t the requirements being met? This also shows that the AKP government, which is the counterpart in this process, and the MHP government do not have a very clear will to develop the process and that their minds are confused. No step has been taken regarding the Right to Hope, and there has been no serious development regarding the lifting of the isolation. Undoubtedly, some talks are taking place, and delegations are coming and going, but this is not enough. Naturally, the Kurdish community is uncomfortable about this. The Kurdish community says that if such a process is truly to take place, then Leader Öcalan must be able to conduct the process under free conditions. What they mean is the Right to Hope. In this regard, on January 4, the Kurdish people will take a stance, express their will, and hold a rally demanding the Right to Hope and that Leader Öcalan be physically free and able to work and live freely. What is important is that the will of the Kurdish people must be taken into account. Who represents the will of the Kurdish people? The Kurdish people will take to the streets and will show it.
After the commission of the parliament went to Imrali and met with Abdullah Öcalan, the parties prepared reports and submitted them to the speaker of the Grand National Assembly. How do you assess the content of the parties’ respective reports?
We have not examined the details of the reports submitted by the parties to the commission of the parliament, as they are only being reflected piecemeal in the press. The CHP’s and the AKP’s are being reflected. The DEM Party’s was reflected a little more comprehensively. The DEM Party is revealing the facts; this is what such a report should be like.
There have been so many meetings and so many discussions; the opinions of the parliamentary leaders and democratic institutions have been taken. After all these opinions were heard, everyone knows it’s the Kurdish issue, the democracy issue. It was called the ‘National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission.’ Then an approach appropriate to its name should emerge. Now, nothing like that is visible. Especially the Kurdish people and the democratic forces are criticizing it. How did this happen? They met with so many people, and they heard their opinions. All the speakers of the Turkish parliament over the past 50 years have shown a positive approach. Whether the parliament represents the Turkish people or not is a separate matter of debate, but it is claimed that “the parliament represents the people.” The speakers of the parliament clearly stated that “the name of this issue is the Kurdish issue.” In this respect, these reports are very superficial. Is that how it should be? Does a commission like this, a commission of all parties, approach the issue like this? They are losing their influence. This approach shows that these parties, these politicians, cannot find solutions to the people’s problems, not only on the Kurdish issue and democracy but also on other issues. Or at least that is the impression it gives to the people. The CHP, even though it didn’t go to Imrali, was talking about democracy. Will there be democracy without the Kurds? They say, “It’s even a step back from the old SHP report.” Özgür Özel also said so much about the Kurdish issue, traveled around Kurdistan, said “this problem exists as long as the Kurds exist,” and said, “it must be resolved,” and said many things. Why aren’t these things reflected in practice? This is because political parties, instead of their principled programs and goals, adopt approaches that are influenced by daily politics and take stances based on daily politics.
A party, a movement, must present its own stance without looking at the approach of this or that party. The CHP’s approach is really backward. Thus, it criticized, “The AKP is like this, the MHP is like that,” but it turned out that these criticisms were meaningless. This is truly a lack of seriousness. We don’t know yet how the joint report will turn out. Let’s not say anything negative yet. But it’s not possible to say that the individual reports are so positive.
Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, has expressed that the time has come for this process to enter a second phase. What role do you see parliament playing in this second phase?
The issue of the role of the parliament is important. A commission of the parliament has been formed, and we took it seriously. But one has to look at the history of Turkey. Yes, there is a parliament, but throughout Turkey’s history, it was not the parliament that has addressed Turkey’s fundamental problems. Neither have political parties. They always just dealt with the economy, a little bit with the health issue, and some further topics, but when it comes to fundamental, strategic issues, Turkey’s fundamental problems – for example the Kurdish issue and the Alevi issue – the parliament has always remained silent and has shown no will or stance of its own. Turkey’s history has revealed that the parliament has no stance on Turkey’s fundamental issues and no intention of creating solutions. Instead, there is talk of a deep state, an abnormal state. The circles affiliated with it have a say in such matters. However, that is not how it should be. Politics should have a say. Politics should have a say in all of Turkey’s problems, create solutions, and show an according approach. The parliament has not shown this so far. The parliament has become a kind of facade. Fundamental issues are directed to others, while it limits itself to the economy, to education, and so on.
Now, there is the commission that has been established, and there have been major debates. Will the parliament truly demonstrate the will to solve Turkey’s problems? Will politics demonstrate this? Or will the will of various non-political institutions, the state within the state, the deep state, or a group of oligarchic, gang-like elements prevail in Turkey’s fundamental issues? Will Turkey be governed like that again? One just has to look at what happened when parties, politics, prime ministers, and presidents have tried to influence and get involved in fundamental issues. It is known what happened to Özal or Erbakan. When it comes to Turkey’s fundamental issues, such as the Kurdish issue or the Alevi issue, neither the president nor the prime minister has any influence; they cannot exert that power.
Leader Öcalan has assessed that the process is entering its second stage. The commission went to Imrali and discussed it with him. Leader Öcalan laid out Turkey’s fundamental problems and expressed that the Kurdish and Turkish peoples must become brothers. He evaluated that Turkey exists based on this history and expected politicians to take a corresponding stance. Turkish history is dialectical. There is a historical sociology. That is why Leader Öcalan always emphasizes Turkish-Kurdish relations. He points out that the Turkish state, Turkey’s existence, and its hopeful outlook for the future can only be achieved through this Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood. So, will politicians and parties embrace this historical reality, or will the denial of the Kurds continue? There are so-called Kurds, but their rights and identity are not preserved in law; denial will continue like this. Turkish politics and parties are facing a historical test of whether they will strive for a solution or whether they will continue to ignore the essential issues without speaking on these matters, as they did in the past century, and present themselves as politicians or a party. Such politics and such parties are unacceptable. Not addressing Turkey’s fundamental problems means nothing more than these parties and politicians deceiving Turkish society.
Objectively speaking, the ongoing process is in its second year. Following the initiative of Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan, the freedom movement has, as already mentioned, taken many unilateral steps. Meanwhile, the AKP-led government has not only failed to take any steps within the framework of the process, but has also continued its own prison policies unchanged. One example of this is that those who have been imprisoned for over 30 years are still not being released. What is your opinion on this specific aspect?
What is necessary for this process, which they call the ‘National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Process,’ to succeed? Unilateral steps have been taken. Symbolically, weapons have been burned, our guerrilla units within Turkey’s borders were withdrawn, and our guerrilla forces were withdrawn from certain areas in order to avoid conflict and for the process to run smoothly. So, all this has happened, and how did they respond? They speak about “disarmament” and “an end to terrorism.” Supposedly, democratic politics would be practiced. Even Mehmet Ağa said, “Let them do politics.” There are still thousands of prisoners in Turkey, and there is still a terrorism law. If you mention the Kurds, if you mention Kurdistan, if you mention democracy, they throw you in jail. There is no ground for democratic politics in Turkey. They say, “Let them come”; how will they come? Will there be a ground for democratic politics? Will it be possible to practice democratic politics freely? Or will they throw people in jail for mentioning Kurdishness, democracy, or expressing criticism? There are people in prison for over 30 years and are still not being released! They need to be released. Thirty years in prison! In the past, amnesties were granted every ten years, and political prisoners were released. There seems to be something lacking in confidence, even opposing the release of those who served thirty years in prison. Shameless, black-hearted fascists!
The AKP-MHP government is releasing some prisoners, but many political prisoners who have been imprisoned for 30 years are still not being released. There is no explanation for this! How will the process move forward under these circumstances? Leader Öcalan is making efforts to advance the process, and we are also making efforts. If there is an intention, if there are steps to be taken to resolve the issue, we say, “Come on, we are showing flexibility.” But not releasing those who have been imprisoned for 30 years is not the right approach at all.