KCK Executive Council Member Mustafa Karasu spoke to ANF about the first year of the process shaped by Abdullah Öcalan’s Peace and Democratic Society perspective, the responsibilities of the state and society, and how to struggle against forces opposed to a resolution.
The first part of the interview can be read here and the second here.
As Kurdish freedom movement, you place great importance on the participation of both the opposition and society in the process and want them to take an active role. CHP Chairman, Özgür Özel, and his administration displayed a more positive and constructive approach at the beginning of the process. However, they did not provide members for the commission that would go to Imrali. There are even allegations that the CHP and Özel’s administration were interfered with. How do you asses the CHP’s current approach to the process? And how would you define the positioning of the opposition, primarily the CHP, regarding the process?
Before answering your question, I would like to commemorate the late, dear revolutionary Hüseyin Aykol with respect, love, and gratitude; and offer my condolences to his family, comrades, and all those who feel connected to him.
Hüseyin Aykol was both a friend and a comrade. Hüseyin Aykol dedicated his entire life to the struggle for freedom and did not hesitate to pay the price for it. Seeing the democratization of Turkey in the freedom of the Kurdish people, he spent the last 36 years of his life continuously within the Free Press. With this stance, he became a true patriot and revolutionary of Turkey. Through his work in the Free Press, he became the voice of the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom, sharing in their sorrows and joys. As a revolutionary who experienced torture in prisons during the fascist military coup of September 12th, he made the voices of the freedom prisoners heard by everyone through his writings. If one were to ask how to be a Turkish socialist, revolutionary, journalist, and patriot, comrade Hüseyin Aykol’s stance and struggle would be shown as an example. The Kurdish people, true Turkish patriots, his comrades in struggle, the Free Press, and the Kurdish journalists trained by him will not forget Hüseyin Aykol, nor will they allow him to be forgotten. We, as his comrades, reiterate our promise to fulfill his yearning for a free and democratic Turkey.
In conflict resolution worldwide, support of society is considered crucial. Governments with the will to resolve conflicts pursue policies that increase the support from within society. In this respect, they make special efforts to ensure that all opposition groups support conflict resolution. Undoubtedly, as a movement that has sought a solution for decades, we operate with the understanding that anything can only be secured with the support of society. We also particularly value the support of the democratic forces, because we believe that the solution to the Kurdish issue and democratization are inseparable. Therefore, we aim for all segments of society to support this process.
It is also important for the CHP to play a role in the solution of the Kurdish issue and the effort towards democratization. The CHP is the founding party of Turkey. It maintained a single-party rule for about 30 years. CHP policies have played a significant role in the existence of the Kurdish issue. However, apart from the socialist left in Turkey, other political movements in Turkey have not had different policies on the Kurdish issue either. This political situation has a major impact on the unresolved nature of the Kurdish question. From this perspective, creating change in the political arena is crucial in the reality of Turkey. The unresolved Kurdish issue has held the political arena hostage. In this sense, our struggle is also a struggle to put Turkish politics on the right foundation.
Because the CHP has maintained a single-party rule for many years, it has encompassed various political tendencies. On the other hand, it has been a party influenced by Western modernity. While this political stance negatively affected its relations with society, it was also influenced by some positive aspects of the West. The perception of the Democratic Party, which came to power in 1950, and its successor, the Justice Party, as right-wing, made the CHP partly problematic with them. In particular, the Justice Party’s negative attitude towards the revolutionary youth of 1968 and their active role in the execution of Deniz Gezmiş and his comrades sort of led to a situation in which the left wing came to support the CHP after the March 12th coup. In the conflict-ridden environment of the 1970s, the CHP’s adoption of some left-wing rhetoric led to the emergence of a democratic current within the party.
Democratic forces and the Kurdish people have approached the CHP with the aim of encouraging it towards democratization. In turn, recently, the CHP has spoken about the existence and need for a solution to the Kurdish question in order to gain the support of the Kurdish people and the democratic forces. However, when the need for a concrete stance on the solution of the Kurdish issue became pressing, the tendency within the CHP that aims to perpetrate genocide against the Kurds reared its head. They adopted a reactionary stance against the reality of being a separate people with their own language, identity, and culture. Those with a classic denialist mentality and a desire to assimilate Kurds into Turkishness have imposed themselves, undermining the democratic tendency and attitude within the CHP. Although some explain this situation as opposition to the AKP, such an explanation is unacceptable in the face of Turkey’s most fundamental problem. It serves no purpose other than to cover up this reactionary element within the CHP.
Undoubtedly, we also say that the AKP government has not fulfilled its responsibilities for the socialization of the process. However, the CHP’s use of the AKP as an excuse does not explain its stance. However, if the CHP had taken a correct and active stance on the Kurdish issue, its influence in a society desiring democracy would have increased with its approach to fundamental democratization, and it would have become a real alternative to the ruling power. All parties that came to power after the single-party era have first and foremost emphasized democratization. This includes the AKP government as well. In this respect, the CHP’s current stance represents missing a historical opportunity. If the CHP does not play a positive role in the current process in the coming period, its rhetoric on democracy and freedoms will completely lose its credibility.
It has become clear during this process that some circles are very uncomfortable with the fact that the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, is being engaged as a negotiating partner. There are individuals and groups who are seeking interlocutors other than Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan. What do you think is the reason for that? What are those involved in such a discussion aiming for?
Those who are uncomfortable with the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, being engaged as a negotiating partner do not have an approach that seeks to engage another Kurd and resolve the Kurdish issue. They are enemies of the Kurds. They are the ones who do not want to see the Kurds as a political will. Their occasional mentioning of certain names is only to create confusion among the Kurds. They are opposed to any Kurd and the demands of Kurdish politics.
From this perspective, the discomfort of these circles is not with the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, being engaged as a negotiating partner; it is with the fact that someone who advocates for the free and democratic life of the Kurds is being engaged as a negotiating partner. When examining the approaches of these groups to the Kurdish question, it can be seen that they are the ones who do not accept the idea of engaging with a Kurd who is resolute and who demands and defends the fundamental democratic rights of Kurds.
In his February 27th call, the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, emphasizes the thousand-year-old Turkish-Kurdish relations and states that “reorganizing the historical relationship, which has become very fragile in our day, in a spirit of brotherhood is the main task.” Of course, the government and the state have responsibilities in this regard. How can achieving genuine peace be possible in the social sphere? On what principles can a new social order be developed? Through what kind of struggle can the prejudices and the obstacles be overcome?
In the Middle East, peoples have lived as neighbors for centuries. Indeed, until the formation of nation states, peoples lived under the political sovereignty of various empires. The Kurds, too, lived under the political sovereignty of Iranian empires for a period, then Arab Islamic empires, and later the Ottoman Empire. For empires, acceptance of their political sovereignty was sufficient. Every people living within an empire could live with their own language, culture, and identity. Local authorities are also recognized within empires.
The Kurds have lived together with the Turks since 1071. They maintained their existence within Turkish principalities or empires by protecting their own identities. Relations between Kurds and Turks continued for centuries without serious problems. Indeed, they did not experience any significant conflict until the beginning of the 19th century. Within the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds held a strong and strategic position in every respect. The Ottoman expansion into Arab territories and Europe was also a result of good relations with the Kurds. The Ottoman Empire was aware of this reality.
The disruption of the relationship and balance established with the Kurds played a significant role in the problems experienced by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, which was strong for centuries based on its relationship with the Kurds, owes even its survival as Turkey after its disintegration to the Kurds as well. With the support given by the Kurds at the Erzirum (tr. Erzurum) and Sêwas (tr. Sivas) congresses, Anatolia was liberated, and the Turks continued their existence in the new Turkey.
Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, while seeking a solution to the Kurdish issue with Turkey, attempts to base this on historical Kurdish-Turkish relations. The dialectic of Kurdish relations is the main dynamic of the Turks’ presence in the region. Such a historical reality exists. If this history is taken seriously and relied upon, a strong Turkish-Kurdish relationship can be re-established. Both Turks and Kurds will benefit from this. Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, is trying to create a solution in the form of the Democratic Nation. The Kurds are ready for such a solution. If the Turkish state and generally the political forces also accept this as a solution that is based on historical reality, it will be realized. The Turkish people do not actually harbor animosity or hostility towards the Kurds. However, through century-old policies, hostility towards Kurds has been fostered within the Turkish population, and the Kurds’ demands for freedom have been portrayed as anti-Turkish sentiment. If the political will abandons this century-old policy, a historical Kurdish-Turkish solution will be achieved in a short time, and that even stronger than before, because Kurds are now settled all over Turkey. Of course, this is only possible if all obstacles to Kurds living freely with their own language, identity, and culture are removed.
In his meeting with the DEM Party’s Imrali delegation and in his message to the public, Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, put an emphasis on the transition to what he called the second phase of the process. What does the second phase fundamentally encompass? Government representatives have also made statements in this context, but no concrete progress has been made. Why has the state not responded to expectations so far? As freedom movement, you have taken many steps to facilitate the process. How do you evaluate it, that your counterparts are not taking steps?
As the public knows, we have taken many important and radical steps. We made the decision to dissolve the PKK and to set an end to the armed struggle, and we withdrew our guerrilla forces from areas within Turkey and along the border where there was a risk of conflict. Turkey now needs to move this process to a political and legal framework. These steps must have legal and political consequences. This is how peace can be made permanent. If the legal status of the guerrillas and the cadres of the dissolved PKK is not clarified, and if laws that will create conditions for free and democratic political activity are not enacted, this process will get in a deadlock at a certain stage. Therefore, the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, has demanded that the second stage be initiated.
This stage is the process of bringing both the organizational structures, those who have symbolically burned their weapons, and the Kurds within the framework of the law. For the healthy progress of the second stage, the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, needs to have the conditions to live and work freely. Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, needs to be able to meet with everyone and include them in the process of achieving the solution. It is also important that Turkish society is made part of this process. For this reason, the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, meeting with these circles and individuals and listening to their views on the matter will prove to be an effort that strengthens the solution.
The fact that the government has not moved to the second stage in response to the steps we have taken inevitably raises questions about the government’s intentions and goals. The government’s use of forces against the process as a pretext is also unconvincing. In fact, those who openly oppose the process are marginal. Apart from these, support by society can be increased. However, the AKP government is not putting forward the necessary political approaches in this regard. Therefore, it is not correct for them to use the shortcomings created by their own policies as an excuse.
In their New Year’s messages, they say they are embracing the process. However, the fact that the government has not done many things it should have done during this process does not align with their claim of embracement. Even Devlet Bahçeli said, “This process cannot proceed unilaterally”, and that “one cannot walk with one leg.” That is why the government should ensure that laws that are realistic and aimed at resolving the issue are passed in parliament, thereby increasing the belief in the success of the process throughout society.
If this fundamental problem is to be solved with the relevant interlocutor, then the Kurdish people’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan, must urgently be provided with the conditions in which he can work and live freely. Along with this, the issue of the so-called ‘Right to Hope,’ promised by Devlet Bahçeli, must also be addressed. The ECHR and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also demand the implementation of the Right to Hope. According to the Turkish constitution, such decisions are legal decisions that must be complied with and implemented.