Berdan Öztürk, an MP for Diyarbakir (Amed) from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), evaluated the latest developments in Syria and the Rojava-centered process, criticizing international powers for limiting their response to statements of “concern” and warning that steps taken without securing a political solution and constitutional guarantees could plunge the region into a new cycle of chaos. He stressed that the common stance demonstrated by the Kurdish people across the four parts of Kurdistan and in the diaspora has become a reality that can no longer be ignored.
Öztürk said that opening space for structures such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) amounts to a grave injustice, adding, “Kurds are now an actor in the Middle East.” He said that a solution is only possible through sincere, courageous, and concrete steps, and underlined that policies of division would not produce results.
Öztürk also provided detailed remarks on the 27 February call and the ongoing process in Turkey.
The Kurdish people were left alone by both the coalition and world powers during the conflict. Did you have any contacts regarding this, and what conclusions do you draw from those contacts?
When we look at the recent developments in Syria, we see that many states, from France to the United States, from Germany to other countries, have limited their response to expressions of ‘concern.’ This can be understood to a certain extent, because states act in line with their own interests. States ultimately take steps based on their interests.
Over the past fifteen years, however, a very serious struggle has been waged together with coalition forces to eliminate the ISIS, and heavy sacrifices have been made in this process. Even if the issue is approached from the perspective of interests, the fundamental point I want to underline here is the values being defended. This struggle was not carried out for the values of a single state or a single country, but for the defense of the shared values that humanity has accumulated to this day. From this perspective, merely expressing concern is not enough. Especially in the early stages of the process, more active and determined initiatives should be taken. Unfortunately, no such steps were taken.
These ambivalent policies are clearly visible within the concepts and social structures of those countries themselves, and it is evident that they will create serious problems for those countries in the period ahead. Without achieving a genuine political solution in Syria, without drafting a new constitution, and without securing the rights of all differences, foremost the Kurds, opening space for structures such as HTS and handing the process over to such groups is unacceptable.
HTS is not a single, homogeneous structure; it is composed of different organizations, and some of these organizations stand on a line even more radical than ISIS. For this reason, imposing such a surrender on the Kurds is a grave injustice, and this point must be emphasized.
Against this injustice and imposition, the common stance displayed by the Kurdish people across the four parts of Kurdistan and in the diaspora, from Europe to Armenia, from the United States to Canada and Australia, has mobilized our people and our friends. These actions have forced other international powers to take steps in the same direction.
In the end, although the agreement that was reached does not meet all the expectations of the people in Rojava, it is still an important gain. The regions of Raqqa and Tabqa were known to be predominantly Arab-populated areas. It was already widely known that these areas would eventually be handed over by the Rojava administration to the local Arab population. It was never conceivable that these areas would be administered by Kurds. However, a certain mechanism should have been put in place during the withdrawal process. After the withdrawal of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), serious disorder and chaos emerged in the region. Unfortunately, the peoples of the region will pay the price for this chaos in the years to come.
The mindset and structure of the forces that entered the region are known. What matters most here is not a debate about trust or distrust but trusting in our own strength. The fundamental factor that will determine the outcome is the people’s confidence in themselves and in their own power. This reality has once again been confirmed, and it must be strengthened.
How do you view the policy pursued by the Kurdish people in response to conflict and policies of division? How should this be assessed in terms of the process in Turkey?
This process has once again shown that what is truly decisive is not trust or distrust toward external actors, but the people’s confidence in their own strength and in their legitimate rights. The fundamental factor that will determine the outcome is the people’s confidence in themselves and in their own power. This reality has been confirmed once again, and this confidence must be strengthened. Because unless a clear stance is demonstrated, no international power will provide lasting support or even develop tactical relations in this sense. For this reason, the stance put forward by the people must be particularly underlined and appreciated. From Sulaymaniyah to Kirkuk, from all Southern Kurdistan (Başur) to Rojava, the growing participation of young people in the resistance has clearly shown that the people cannot be subdued in a fragmented manner. These developments have demonstrated that the policy of ‘suppressing piece by piece’ that was pursued in the past no longer works. The approach of subduing one part in order to silence the others and then moving on to the remaining areas one by one is no longer possible. This reality has been stated many times before.
In the geography of the Middle East, Kurds are now an actor and a significant force. It is not possible to achieve results by ignoring this force, imposing surrender, or resorting to coercion; just as this approach did not produce results in the past, it will not do so in the future. This was also clearly stated during the talks. While attacks on Kurdish gains in Rojava continue, it is unacceptable to simultaneously develop a discourse of a ‘process’ in Turkey. It is not possible to reach a result by dividing. Policies of division and containment have produced no results to date.
The common stance demonstrated by the Kurdish people across the world is decisive. Wherever Kurds are, they develop a shared reflex in the face of attacks on their gains. This is clearly and unmistakably visible. For this reason, there is no need for ambivalence or insincere attitudes with regard to the process. Sincerity must be demonstrated through concrete steps. Kurds cannot be expected to accept an approach that says, ‘Do not interfere there, let us continue here.’ Such an approach is unacceptable to any Kurd. Even if the process may at times appear to have come to a standstill, this is still a process, and it is not correct to declare it ‘over’ after every development. However, it is also clear that developments in Rojava will directly affect the process in Turkey. Positive developments will generate positive responses, while negative developments will give rise to serious and strong reactions. This has been stated before, and the reactions that have emerged on the ground have proven the accuracy of these assessments. The response given by the people has shown that what is being said is not merely rhetoric but also finds concrete expressions in practice. For this reason, it is not possible to produce a solution through policies of division, hostility, and othering.
If a genuine solution is truly sought, clear, explicit, and concrete steps must now be taken. It must also be acknowledged that there are circles that benefit from conflictual processes. Even if states or certain structures within states do not openly state this, their practices reveal this stance. Those who cannot openly say that they are against peace demonstrate through their actions that they prefer the continuation of conflict.
The role and responsibility assumed by Abdullah Öcalan in this process have been seen by everyone. While some continue to deny this, how can embracing the 27 February call help prevent conflict and political crises?
The 27 February call has raised the question of whether a parallel policy should be pursued. At this point, what needs to be done is to take Mr. Öcalan’s assessments into account. It is important to underline a concrete example in this regard. Even under conditions in which Rojava was subjected to heavy isolation, the leader of the Kurdish people followed developments on the ground in the best possible way, issued warnings about potential dangers, and played a decisive role in reaching the latest agreement. Even under conditions of extreme constraint, he displayed a determined stance. In the face of this determined stance, various disinformation efforts were carried out, and attempts were made to distort the truth. There were even circles that sought to make themselves into political subjects by launching attacks on Mr. Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm and instrumentalizing these attacks. However, these efforts proved ineffective in the face of the truth and gradually lost their impact.
Against the consequences produced by the security- and intelligence-centered paradigm that has been implemented for many years, an alternative model has emerged in Northeast Syria. This model has shown that an alternative way of life is possible not only in the geography of the Middle East but for oppressed peoples all over the world. For this reason, those who have sought to assert themselves through vile attacks have failed and will continue to fail. It is clear that the point of solution must be assessed not only from the perspective of Turkey, but from the perspective of all the peoples of the Middle East. Mr. Öcalan’s proposal for a democratic society stands at a point that concerns all peoples and oppressed segments in the Middle East. The fact that the foresights he has put forward to date have largely materialized also confirms this reality. For this reason, Mr. Öcalan is the most important actor in terms of a solution, and this is a reality. In all future planning, calculations, and changes, a perspective that recognizes Mr. Öcalan’s role and mission must be taken as the basis. This applies not only to Turkey, but also to other countries.
How should the emerging spirit of national unity be strengthened, and what responsibilities fall on politicians and institutions at this point?
It is not possible for this process to move forward through policies of division. The fact that millions of people are taking to the streets today, the slogans they are chanting, and the stance they are displaying clearly demonstrate this reality. In this context, the issue of national unity must also be addressed. When Kobanê was first attacked in 2014, the hearts of the people across the four parts of Kurdistan came together in Kobane. This carried a very powerful message for the Kurdish people.
Although democratic national unity could not be fully achieved in the past for various reasons, recent attacks have once again shown that a common stance has the power to change many things. At this point, the message coming from the people is clear. This spirit of unity that has emerged in the social sphere must find concrete expression through tangible steps at the level of political parties and institutions. These steps must be taken without delay.
Mr. Öcalan has emphasized for many years that national unity is of vital importance for the Kurds, has put forward proposals in this regard, and has played an encouraging role. Although an important stage was reached in this respect in 2013, the process was not completed and was reversed. The Kurdish people are still paying the price for this.
However, at the point reached today, the people are sending a clear and unambiguous message to politicians, institutions, and all civil society structures across the four parts of Kurdistan. In line with this, efforts to convene a national congress must be launched and accelerated. The national congress to be established will serve as a protective function not only for Northern Kurdistan (Bakur) or Rojava, but for all parts of Kurdistan and against developments that may emerge in the future. In this way, progress can be made and a lasting basis for a solution can be built in the geography of Mesopotamia.
At a time when concerns persist, what should be done in this process and what steps should be taken?
The approach of thinking, deciding, and setting up a course on behalf of the Kurdish people must be abandoned. The Kurdish people make their own decisions and determine their own course of action. Although recent statements have created certain expectations among the Kurdish people, words lose their meaning unless they are matched by concrete steps. The continued failure to implement the right to hope of ruling clearly demonstrates this reality. On the one hand, political operations, detentions, and pressure continue; on the other hand, a discourse of solution is being developed. This constitutes a serious contradiction.
For this reason, concrete, courageous, and sincere steps must now be taken. Unless coherence is ensured between discourse and practice, fractures will deepen, and this will benefit no one. If language, policy, and implementation are not brought into alignment, it will not be possible to speak of a genuine solution.
Leave a Reply