KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) Executive Council member Mustafa Karasu spoke to Medya Haber TV addressing a great variety of topics, stretching from the report prepared by the commission of the parliament, the statement of Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah on the first anniversary of his ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society,’ the current situation in Syria, and the upcoming March 8, International Working Women’s Day, and Newroz on March 21.
The English translation of Karasu’s assessments is as follows:
The abduction of Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan didn’t diminish the crucial role that he is playing for the Kurdish people and their struggle for freedom. Even in imprisonment, he continues to show crucial effort. He never abandoned the struggle and never surrendered to the prison and isolation. On the contrary, he sought to find the answer to the question, “Why was I imprisoned?” While finding the answer to this question and focusing on it, he also entered into a significant focus on how to achieve a free and democratic life for the Kurdish people. The past 28 years represent a great intellectual focus for Leader Öcalan. Not only from the perspective of the Kurdish people, but also from the perspective of the peoples of the Middle East and humanity, he reached important conclusions through intensive research on how to achieve a free and democratic life.
Leader Öcalan presented the result of his research and evaluation in 2004 by proclaiming the paradigm of women’s freedom, social ecology, and radical democracy. He thereby put forward a new philosophy of life, a non-statist understanding of socialism, a socialist understanding based on women’s freedom, and an eco-industrial approach against capitalism, real socialism, and industrialism that destroys nature. And still, he continues his efforts for the implementation of this paradigm today.
After being imprisoned in Imrali, Leader Öcalan declared a ceasefire. This absence of armed conflict lasted for a significant period. But then again, the war started because his calls for a lasting bilateral ceasefire were not responded to by the Turkish state, and so a new guerrilla struggle emerged on June 1, 2004. Then again in 2006, a new unilateral ceasefire was declared. Again, an environment of no armed conflict was created. A few years afterward, negotiations took place, and these negotiations actually led to important discussions and certain results. However, due to the AKP government’s failure to adopt the right approach, it decided to wage war after the June 7, 2015 elections. And from that day until the day that Leader Öcalan issued the call on February 27, 2025, there has been more than 10 years of intense conflict and war.
Leader Öcalan responded to the call made by MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli by saying, “I can bring the conflict environment and the Kurdish issue to legal and political ground. I have that power.” He accordingly issued the ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society’ on February 27, 2025. It was brief but contained decisive points. It revealed the historical reasons for the conflicts. It explained why our struggle began and what contradictions and shortcomings led to this struggle. In other words, it revealed that such a struggle was directed against the state’s denial and oppression. It showed that during this process, the influence of real socialism and the negativities it created were present, but at this stage, it was clear that the most correct method was a democratic solution rather than resolving problems through conflict and armed struggle. In this sense, it was a call for a solution within the framework of Turkey’s democratization. It put the search into practice. To this end, Leader Öcalan called for the dissolution of the PKK and for an end to armed struggle. Upon this, the party convened its 12th Congress and responded to Leader Öcalan’s call: the PKK was dissolved, and armed struggle was halted. This was a very important step. No one could have imagined it. No other force would have been capable of doing the same. And when Leader Öcalan made this call, he clearly stated, “I take responsibility for this.”
At the congress held between May 5 and 7, 2025, the decision was taken to dissolve the PKK and to end the armed struggle, and for Leader Öcalan to manage the process from now on. He is our chief negotiator, and we expressed that this process could only move forward under his leadership. This party was founded by Leader Öcalan, who has set its direction until today. All of us had carried out our struggle in line with Leader Öcalan’s ideology and policy. And so we decided that the new period of struggle after the dissolution would be led by Leader Öcalan. Because this dissolution was a new period of struggle. We entered a new era. In a way, the Apoist line entered a new era. Of course, it is a very important process. We took important steps in this regard. Under the leadership of our comrade Besê, 30 friends symbolically burned their weapons. Again, our comrade Sabri held a press conference with the armed forces coming from northern Kurdistan and Turkey. Not a single weapon has been fired since that day. A completely conflict-free environment, in fact, a de facto peaceful environment, has been realized. This is important. It has reassured Turkey and everyone else. In fact, we can see how valuable such a step, such a process, is in this atmosphere of peace and the effects it has produced. It has been reassuring both for Turkey and for the Kurdish people. However, the serious problem is that the call of Leader Öcalan was not responded to sufficiently by the Turkish state. If such serious steps have been taken, if an organization like the PKK, which has been fighting for 50 years, dissolves itself, or if the 45-year-long guerrilla struggle ends, then, of course, this should be valued. The Kurdish issue is a very important issue, but the necessary approach was not taken.
Let me state the following: Over the past year and a half, very important steps could have been taken. In response to Leader Öcalan’s call, the political establishment could have taken significant steps, passed the necessary laws, and thus gained the support of society. Turkey would have been more comfortable. It would also have yielded very important results for the Middle East. We cannot say that an approach commensurate with the importance and seriousness of such a call, such a process, was adopted. There is an inadequate approach. If the Turkish state and politics in Turkey are serious about these steps, if, to them, peace in Turkey is a serious issue, and if the democratization of Turkey is a serious issue, then a different approach should have been adopted and a different stance should have been taken. There may be a softening in the political environment. Sometimes there are positive statements and expressions. But sometimes there are also very harsh ones; for example, Ömer Çelik, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, shows approaches that do not fit the character of the process, sabotaging the process. We have always been patient. Leader Öcalan was patient, and so this process has come to this day. We hope that the insufficient approaches shown so far will be overcome and a more responsible approach will emerge.
Regarding the report presented by the commission established in parliament, one can say that no steps commensurate with this process have been taken in the past year and a half, and the process has not been advanced by it. The report is a reflection of the causes for this. Yes, some assessments have been made. It talks about democratization. It says, ‘Security alone is no longer enough.’ It says that certain laws need to be passed. The most interesting thing is that they say the negativity and lawlessness they themselves have committed so far must be overcome. They basically call for a state governed by the rule of law. It’s really very interesting. Everyone was surprised by this. There were comments like, ‘Then go ahead, do it. Is there anyone stopping you?’
The report has serious shortcomings and inadequacies. This issue is not a terrorism problem or anything like that—it is the Kurdish issue. They know this; the world knows this; everyone knows this. Now, such a serious issue needs to be approached seriously. First, it needs to be named. There is indecision, hesitation, and ambivalence; in other words, there is no firm stance.
A true process needs to be developed. How do you want to reach the Turkey that you are talking about when you do not name the main issue? The right decisions cannot be made if you don’t name the issue. The report should not have been like this. The Kurdish issue, the Kurdish existence, should have been acknowledged.
There have been many reports before. There is the CHP’s report, which has acknowledged the Kurdish issue. There are others that have acknowledged the Kurdish issue. Süleyman Demirel also said, “I recognize the existence of the Kurdish issue.” In other words, there have been so many prime ministers and parliamentary speakers over the years who have said that this is the Kurdish issue. This is a serious situation, and it must be overcome. Again, this issue is not a terrorism issue. If these shortcomings are not addressed, if these inadequacies are not overcome, the report will not yield any results. It is said that there are some positive statements and indications in the report. However, only if these shortcomings are overcome will those statements gain meaning and become a result of what is stated. Otherwise, if we do not get rid of the approach of not naming things, of not saying “terrorism” – even if democratization is mentioned 50 times – then democratization will not happen. Because for decades, for a century, democratization has been avoided on the grounds that it would benefit the Kurds and that it would open the way for the Kurdish issue. The reason Turkey has not democratized is the Kurdish issue. Because when steps toward democratization are taken, steps will inevitably be taken toward resolving the Kurdish issue as well. For this reason, there is no real democracy in Turkey, and there never has been. The Kurdish issue remains unsolved. Naturally, we will criticize these aspects. Yes, it is important for the parliament to establish such a commission and invite people to speak. Because the people invited are all related to the Kurdish issue. The consequences of the Kurdish issue have been discussed. They spoke with 150 or 170 people and institutions. And in this regard, such a commission will be established, and people will be summoned, but then what? What is this? How will this be responded to? It can’t be like that. The government, the state, needs to take a clear stance. If it does, it will receive public support. Statements like the one by the İYİ Party are meaningless.
We do not think that this report has remained vague because of the opposition of the İYİ Party. It is because those who wrote it, the ruling mind itself, is vague, unclear, and has not demonstrated a consistent, determined will; inevitably, this is how it appears in the report. In this respect, we find the report inadequate and incomplete. We demand that the report be revised. We do not question why the commission had been established or why a report was written; that was important, but we demand that the text be revised. There is talk of democratization. It is said that this problem cannot be solved by security alone. This is correct, of course, but the report should be comprehensive and lead to the correct solution. Otherwise, it will be indecisive and ineffective. If that happens, it will serve no purpose other than as a means of delay. We do not want this process to be a voting process. We do not want this process to end negatively, like previous processes. For this reason, we want a clearer, more explicit stance to be taken.
Devlet Bahçeli had made a call. He said, “Come, dissolve your organization, and take advantage of the right to hope.” This is a serious issue. It is the Kurdish issue. The Kurdish people name Leader Öcalan as their chief negotiator. We are the Kurdish freedom movement. We are responsible for decades of guerrilla struggle. That is the kind of movement we are. As such a large movement, we have declared Leader Öcalan our chief negotiator. Now our situation is being discussed. Our chief negotiator is Leader Öcalan. How will the issue be resolved? Of course, it will be resolved by negotiating and discussing with Leader Öcalan. The process will not proceed without serious official interlocution with Leader Öcalan, who is the interlocutor to the issue.
Yes, some government officials are going to Imrali and holding talks. But that is not enough. Leader Öcalan needs to be in the position to freely state his thoughts to the public. He needs to present them to the political parties, as various of these parties are expressing doubts about this process. They can learn what this process is about directly from Leader Öcalan himself. There are various civil society organizations and democratic institutions. They also want to learn about this process directly from the person involved, what is intended to be done. Journalists want to conduct talks. Leader Öcalan needs to be free and able to work. Devlet Bahçeli said that he can be free everywhere except for going abroad. Now, Devlet Bahçeli is again saying that Leader Öcalan’s political position needs to be clarified. It is good that he mentioned this, but this statement falls short of Devlet Bahçeli’s previous statements. Because he had previously said that he would be free, able to work, able to go anywhere, and only unable to leave the country.
Now, the critical question is whether the process will move forward or not. This will be determined by the approach to Leader Öcalan. If the right approach is not taken, it means that the problem is not wanted resolved. If the problem is to be resolved, then of course, the chief negotiator must be consulted. There is no serious approach to this issue in the report either. The narrative of ‘terrorism’ is still being used. That’s not how it works. Yes, there are conflict resolutions. There have been conflicts everywhere. In the end, they sat down and resolved them. It cannot be resolved by accusing each other like this. Yes, there have been war, deaths, and losses. There have been losses on our side and on the side of the state military. There have been unacceptable incidents during the war. That is why we want to resolve the issue. In this regard, it is necessary to approach Leader Öcalan in the right way. His situation needs to be clarified without delay. In other words, Leader Öcalan needs to be accepted as the negotiator, as the interlocutor. For this, the parliament and politicians need to make a decision. Now, it is accepted in words, but accepting it in rhetoric is not enough. Tomorrow, someone might show up and say that it has no value. Because there is no official status, no decision by the parliament or the cabinet. In this regard, Leader Öcalan’s situation must be clarified. Leader Öcalan must be able to work freely. He must be able to meet and talk with everyone. He must be able to express his thoughts freely. Leader Öcalan wants to talk to the press and political party leaders. He wants to meet with their delegations. He wants to meet with society. He wants to make contact with the Turkish people. Leader Öcalan wants to meet with the families of the martyrs and veterans too.
Leader Öcalan demanded that a Truth Investigation Commission should be implemented. It should conduct investigations on what has happened. How will brotherhood be achieved? How will brotherhood be achieved without approaching Leader Öcalan correctly? How can there be a solution without approaching Leader Öcalan correctly? Our people look to Leader Öcalan and to what he says. We look to him. All Kurds look to him. Even the Kurds who are against us look to him. How will the state approach this? From this perspective, this situation really needs to be clarified in a short time. Devlet Bahçeli stated this in his speech. Then he needs to do what is necessary. This situation needs to end. This situation cannot continue like this. The issue is not that he should be sent to a new prison. It is not about putting him in a new prison. That is not how it works. It is not about prison; it is about a law or decision that grants Leader Öcalan freedom through political status, clarifying his position, and ushering in a new era.
In fact, a major problem is the failure to correctly identify the source of the problems. Turkey’s War of Independence was fought together with the Kurds. There were Kurds in the first parliament. If it weren’t for the support of the Kurds, if the Kurds hadn’t stood firm on the eastern front, that war of independence could not have been fought. What happened? After 1923, after the Treaty of Lausanne was signed, the Kurdish identity and existence were denied. The Kurds lived side by side with the Turks here for a thousand years. The root of the problem is this denial. If the identity and existence of a people are denied, of course it will protest. There can be no more natural outcome than this. There are millions of Kurds, and they are told, “No, you are Turkish.” Of course, they will protest. Who is in the wrong here, the ones protesting or the ones denying the Kurds? This is clear. And it’s not just against the Kurds. The policy towards religious people was also wrong. This is where the West’s understanding of secularism is used very rigidly. In other words, it is not religious freedom, but pressure on beliefs that has caused discomfort. Isn’t that what the AKP government is saying now? So, were their objections unjust, or was the state’s policy wrong? Now the state is pursuing the wrong policy. It is pursuing the wrong policy towards the Kurds; it is taking the wrong approach to beliefs; it is pursuing a policy of pressure against socialists. There is something anti-democratic. Then blame those who want democracy. In this respect, of course, that approach is wrong. It needs to get out of that situation. The source of the problems experienced over a century is not the objections of the Kurds. It is not the grievances of the Kurds. Yes, the Kurds reacted; they protested. Why was there protest? One has to focus on this. It is wrong to get up and blame this oppression, cruelty, and denialist order on the Kurds, on those who are fighting. In this respect, the state must question itself. In this respect, the state must also question itself. We also have our shortcomings and mistakes. We always question ourselves. The state must also question itself. It is necessary to reveal the wrong policies and practices that created the objection, rather than to focus on those who objected.
Regarding the question of why the report of the commission insisted on emphasizing the PKK’s decision to disband and lay down arms in response to the decision to dissolve the PKK and lay down arms – there is confusion and ambiguity on this issue as well. We dissolved the organization and stopped the armed struggle. We also demonstrated our will to lay down arms and return to Turkey. Why did comrade Besê and 30 comrades burn their weapons? It was about democratic, free politics and the opportunity to organize and to return. We want to abandon armed struggle. We want to abandon the old understanding of the organization. We want to fight with a democratic understanding of politics, with a democratic organization and understanding of politics. We are clear and determined on this issue. We do not have an approach of returning to the old ways. But the Turkish state must also present an approach. It must respond to our steps. Let the guerrillas come. What will happen? Will they be able to engage in democratic politics? Or will there finally be a change for the Kurds? Or will they come, say ‘Kurdish freedom struggle,’ and be thrown in jail? We dissolved the PKK. Despite taking so many steps, there are still demands, but for what in return? Doesn’t the report say, “In the past, only security-oriented policies were pursued; there was no democratization, and democratic steps are needed.” Action must follow such words. Let these happen so that objections do not arise again. The dissolution of the party and the ending of the armed struggle were not a tactic; we believed in this as a strategic decision. We changed our paradigm and strategy. In this regard, it is necessary for Turkey to create an environment that will truly provide a democratic solution, create a democratic political environment, and create a solution without falling into a situation that creates justifications and drags the issue uphill, an environment where armed struggle and armed fighters are no longer necessary and where the old organizational concepts are no longer necessary. We are ready for this. Turkey has to create this environment. It is in Turkey’s hands to create this environment.
The attacks on Rojava, on North and East Syria, were attacks on democratization, on democracy. It was intolerance of democratization. The international powers supported the attacks because it was in their interests. And still there is a big risk and danger, because Rojava is a region where one of the most important democratic revolutions in history has taken place. There is women’s freedom, and there is respect for everyone’s rights. It is not fully institutionalized, but there is a democratic mindset and understanding. Is Damascus ready for this? Neither its constitution nor its practices are democratic. The understandings of the current Damascus government and the Rojava administration naturally do not coincide. There is democracy in Rojava; there is a democratic approach, and there is freedom. Damascus is not like that. Therefore, the points of tension continue. The reason for these points of tension is the conflict between the democratic and the undemocratic. The conflict between the current Damascus administration and Rojava is a conflict between democracy and anti-democracy. It is a conflict between a free way of life, a free understanding, and an authoritarian understanding. In this respect, the tension continues. Of course, we don’t know exactly what is happening in concrete terms, but we see that the tension is continuing. Is this tension unfolding within the process or within the struggle, or will this contradiction be resolved through war? Time will tell. Of course, the forces in Rojava, the Kurdish people, and the democratic forces want this issue to be resolved within a certain democratic struggle, within a legal democratic struggle. They want to resolve it within the process. Now, of course, will the Damascus government adopt an approach based on such a struggle, a democratic struggle, or will it adopt a harsh approach? The upcoming process is somewhat like that.
Of course, there is currently a ceasefire. There are ongoing talks and relations. So, it seems there is an approach to resolve the issues through discussion rather than conflict or war. But considering the nature of the regime, one always approaches it with suspicion. The siege on Kobanê still exists. The siege on Kobanê has not been lifted. It is even said that the siege around Kobanê has been intensified, that there is movement in this direction. In this respect, both the people of Rojava and all the Kurdish people around the world, the people in the four parts of Kurdistan, need to stand up and take responsibility for Rojava. They must not let up on this issue. A united stance must be taken against the attacks in Başûr, Bakur, and Rojhilat. Embracing Rojava was important. It had a significant impact. This sensitivity must be increased. The people in Rojava also need to be sensitive. No one in the Middle East will grant rights to the Kurds without resistance and struggle. The position and status of the Kurds in this geography requires this. In this respect, it is most appropriate for them to resolve their problems through democracy, democratization, and negotiation. These efforts are appropriate, but without ignoring the realities, the people must also be prepared for any kind of attack. The people in the four parts of Kurdistan must be prepared. The gains of the Kurdish people in Rojava must be protected with the common stance and struggle of the Kurdish people in all four parts.
Speaking about the upcoming March 8, International Women’s Day, socialists have always attached importance to the issue of women’s freedom. But we must admit that the issue of women’s freedom has never been addressed as deeply as Leader Öcalan has done. This is very important. Women today are the most energetic, pioneering force in humanity’s struggle for freedom and democracy. Especially in this day and age, when capitalism is so conclusively attacking humanity, society and social life have hit rock bottom. Freedom and democracy are in grave danger in every respect. Women are the ones who see this danger most clearly. Because they have experienced oppression most intensely throughout history, they feel the lack of freedom and democracy deeply in their lives. They are the ones who understand best, who grasp most deeply, what capitalism’s attack on freedom and democracy means, what it means for them. In this respect, the issue of women, the issue of women’s freedom, is the most fundamental revolutionary issue, a revolutionary stance. Or it is the issue that revolutionaries must focus on. The position of women is one that will bring about the most radical revolution, the most profound revolution, the most profound freedom. Women’s freedom cannot be fully achieved through reforms within this male-dominated system. Women’s freedom can only be achieved through a revolutionary transformation of the male-dominated system. Because all systems up to now have been male-dominated. Today, all systems are male-dominated. They bear the stamp of men. In this sense, women are also fighting to change this. They are more aware of this than ever before. Women are now aware of their position. This brings out a great energy for freedom and democratization in them. Because they have deeply experienced slavery and despotism. The first slaves, the colonies, bring out this great natural revolutionary energy the moment they feel this depth. Right now, the most revolutionary class, the most revolutionary stratum of humanity, is women. This is certain.
In this sense, without incorporating the paradigm of women’s freedom and women’s energy into the struggle, a strong fight cannot be waged against capitalist modernity, against despotism, against the enemies of democracy and freedom. In this regard, it is necessary to incorporate the struggle of women’s freedom, the liberating understanding of women, into the struggle. This is very important. The issue of women’s freedom concerns the future of humanity. If humanity wants to be free and democratic in the future, it must take the issue of women’s freedom seriously and focus intensely on it, and all segments of society must participate in this.
Men are also slaves today. Slaves to what? They are slaves to male domination. Men have a domination complex. This is a very bad thing. Almost all men have this dominance complex; they see themselves as different, as dominant. They take a dominant stance towards women. In this respect, women’s freedom will first and foremost free men from this complex, from this slavery. It is a struggle that will free them from these chains. Men also need to realize this. It is this male-dominated understanding that creates all masculinity. Without breaking this, men cannot free themselves from their backwardness, even if they are revolutionaries or democrats. It is not enough to simply say, “I am a revolutionary, a socialist, a democrat.” Only by rejecting male dominance and the dominance complex on the basis of women’s freedom can one be revolutionary, libertarian, and democratic. In this regard, it is necessary to truly grasp the depth of this reality. How well is this understood? Yes, we talk about women’s freedom, we talk about women’s liberation, but we do not sufficiently reveal the complex of the understanding of dominance that it brings out in us.
In this regard, this March 8 should be taken as an occasion to understand more deeply the importance of this line of women’s freedom, the line put forward by Leader Öcalan. We need to delve deeper. This is the most fundamental work of Leader Öcalan, who wants to resolve all kinds of evil, all kinds of backwardness, and all kinds of inadequacy here and bring them to a conclusion. No issue that is not resolved here can be resolved. As each issue related to women is resolved, other issues are also resolved. This includes the system of genocide imposed on the Kurdish people. To resolve these, it is important to deeply understand women’s freedom, to understand the backwardness created by male domination and, of course, to use the energy of women’s freedom correctly in resolving it. In this sense, this March 8 must be very powerful; the whole society must participate, and of course, from our point of view, it must be the day before Newroz. We must see Newroz on March 8. We must see what kind of surge we will make on Newroz.
Indeed, women were at the forefront of the actions for Rojava. This is very important. In his latest interviews, Leader Öcalan said, “If the freedom movement is moving forward, it is the women who are driving it. Without the women’s freedom line, without women’s understanding of freedom, this movement would not be moving forward”—the exact words may not be these, but he is making assessments along these lines. In other words, he says that the struggle for freedom he led has reached this point today because the understanding of women’s freedom was put forward, because the male-dominated system was dismantled to a certain extent, because this was reflected to some extent in the organization, or because the line of women’s freedom and women themselves brought this stance to the fore. In this regard, the entire Kurdish society should value and understand the line of women’s freedom. Freedom, the freedom of the Kurdish people, mother tongue, and self-administration are being discussed. To strongly achieve and embrace all of these, it is necessary to deeply understand the line of women’s freedom and to deepen oneself in freedom, democratization, belief, and struggle. Deepening the struggle, creating militancy, and bringing forth the power of determined struggle also comes from correctly understanding this line of women’s freedom. Those who correctly understand the line of women’s freedom become militants; they become invincible. They do not flee in the face of any difficulty; they walk over difficulties. In this respect, our entire people should renew themselves and cleanse themselves with the understanding of women’s freedom on March 8. All men should cleanse themselves with the spirit of women’s freedom, purify themselves, and free themselves from that male-dominated understanding. On this basis, I celebrate March 8th for women in the Middle East and around the world, especially Kurdish women. I believe their struggle will bring freedom to all of us.
Leave a Reply