Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, in a message sent from the Imralı High Security Prison where he is held in isolation on the first anniversary of the process launched for the resolution of the Kurdish question, once again underlined that a legal framework is essential to ensure democratic politics and integration during the phase of positive construction.
Newroz Uysal Aslan, MP from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), spoke to ANF and emphasized that in order to move to the process of democratic integration, which constitutes the phase of positive construction, it is essential for Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, the chief negotiator, to work under equal conditions and through a mechanism that would allow him to convey his ideas directly.
Steps toward democratization must be taken to open the door
Newroz Uysal Aslan, a lawyer for Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, emphasized that in his February 27 call made one year later, Öcalan conveyed that the process of democratic integration must be supported by legal and political guarantees. Aslan also referred to the meeting Öcalan held with members of the Imralı delegation who visited him before this message was sent. She noted that Öcalan began the meeting by saying, “This meeting is the introductory meeting to democratic integration.” Aslan said: “Mr. Öcalan underlined that the integration he described as the beginning of the second phase of construction must be secured with a legal infrastructure in order to enable the transition from the period of armed conflict to the process of democratic politics. He had explained at length in his manifesto that the process of democratic integration is a matter with multiple dimensions. He expressed the perspective of living together not as a one-sided issue, but within a framework of mutual change and transformation, and the recognition and protection of denied rights. He also drew attention to the necessity of recognizing Kurds within the founding paradigm of the state and building a common legal ground for living together. In this latest message, Mr. Öcalan reiterates the manifesto he published, emphasizing the importance of the developments over the past year. He states that both he and the Kurdish movement have demonstrated the will to advance the process, and that corresponding steps must now be taken within an appropriate legal framework.”
Aslan also noted that in his latest message, Abdullah Öcalan once again expressed a commitment to a future based on Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood. In her assessment of the parliamentary report, she said that Öcalan described the current moment not as a situation of unilateral accusations or mutual complacency, but rather as “a door that has been left ajar.” Aslan emphasized that Öcalan renewed his call for politics to take the necessary steps to fully open this door and said: “We can interpret this call as a call to initiate the phase of positive construction by taking steps toward democratization, establishing a clear timetable and institutionalizing the process. As we see in the statement made one year after the beginning of the process, Mr. Öcalan insists on his political position. At the same time, this statement contains both a warning and a roadmap regarding the vision for the future.”
Mr. Öcalan’s warning targets those profiting from the mechanics of conflict
Aslan commented on Abdullah Öcalan’s warning in his message: “Acting according to short-term and narrow political interests, rather than recognizing the historicity, seriousness and the risks the issue may generate, weakens us all.” Aslan noted that Öcalan had previously conveyed a similar message through the Imralı delegation and said: “In his earlier messages, Mr. Öcalan had also stressed that politics must play a constructive role and avoid narrow calculations of political interests. I believe this warning is mainly directed at those who benefit from what he describes as the ‘mechanism fed by blood and conflict’, those groups, segments, political parties and paramilitary forces that derive profit from this mechanism. This may be political profit, or economic profit… Mr. Öcalan essentially emphasizes that this very mechanism must be broken. Because he does not evaluate the issue merely as a process of one and a half years; he approaches it from a perspective that addresses its historical dimension. In a negative sense, he is trying to create a ground where the issue will not repeat itself again. The mechanism fed by blood and conflict has always been in operation. Throughout the history of the Republic, it has appeared under different names, parties, and governments. For a long time, this mechanism has also manifested itself through methods of special warfare. Breaking this mechanism, also referred to as the coup mechanism, requires both political parties and society to become involved in the process. One of the most important aspects of Mr. Öcalan’s message, in my view, is the necessity and foundation of a democratic society and democratic politics; the second is the guarantee of a process based on law. In other words, law alone cannot complete this process, nor can political will alone. On the contrary, it must be a process in which the two strengthen one another, where parallel steps are taken and where both elements complement each other. This is true both for oppressed Kurds and for the attitude of the state itself in this process. If it proceeds on a mutual basis, it can both truly ensure integration and pave the way for what we call peace laws.”
The Kurdish question is also a lack of democratic law
Aslan stated that in his message evaluating the one-year process, Abdullah Öcalan essentially reminded the state of its responsibility and emphasized that he described the Kurdish question also as a lack of democratic law. Aslan also noted that the existence or absence of such law reflects the legal logic shaped by the parties in power. She said: “If this lack of law is the cause of the problem, then there are legal necessities today alongside the political will that can eliminate it. The most important indicator of moving to the second phase, which is democratic integration, is a legal solution. Its greatest driving force will be the legal changes and guarantees that are to be introduced.”
Ensuring Mr. Öcalan’s freedom is indispensable for the process
Aslan stated that the final three sections of the parliamentary commission report, on which the DEM Party placed a dissenting note due to distortions in defining the Kurdish question, could in fact constitute a starting ground. She emphasized that concrete scheduling must be established on issues such as trustee appointments, fundamental rights and freedoms, rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the Right to Hope. Stressing that ensuring the freedom conditions of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, the chief negotiator, is indispensable within this timeline, Aslan said: “Mr. Öcalan has been held under conditions of isolation for many years, and he has conveyed the difficulties of conducting this process under such circumstances to the Imralı delegation. The Kurdish people have long said that Mr. Öcalan’s freedom is one of the fundamental thresholds and criteria of trust for this process. Even before the Right to Hope ruling was issued, people were already in the streets and organizing campaigns for Mr. Öcalan’s freedom. If this process is to move forward today, Mr. Öcalan, who must guide it as the chief negotiator, must be granted physical freedom and the conditions to work. Especially at a time when there is widespread disinformation and manipulation, it is essential that Mr. Öcalan be able to work as the chief negotiator under equal conditions and through a mechanism that allows him to convey his ideas directly. Now we see that whenever the Right to Hope is discussed, speculation arises claiming that Mr. Öcalan does not want freedom, that society is not ready, or that there cannot be a law tailored to one individual. Then one must ask: when the Right to Hope ruling was issued, was it not issued specifically in relation to Mr. Öcalan? Yes, it was. Since Mr. Öcalan was the very source behind the introduction of this law, he will also be the source regarding its amendment. This is not a privilege, nor a demand for a special law. On the contrary, it is a necessity of the process, an indispensable requirement and also a requirement of law.” Aslan also said: “Even though a legal ground and framework for the process has not yet been established, the state of isolation imposed on Mr. Öcalan must come to an end. There are journalists who wish to meet him. There is the process concerning the disarmament of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and Mr. Öcalan must closely follow this process. There are also many discussions about the transition to democratic politics. Every day headlines are written, yet no one asks Mr. Öcalan directly what he will do or what he thinks, nor do they consider establishing direct contact with him. A mechanism is necessary through which Mr. Öcalan can speak directly, guide the process and convey his ideas without intermediaries. Mr. Öcalan’s ideas are not ideas that cannot be conveyed or understood. On the contrary, he is the most constructive, the most serious, the most sincere and the most consistent figure in this process. In this sense, we see that the issue does not stem from Mr. Öcalan’s ideas but from a government that avoids the positive impact his ideas could create. This also shows that the process is still not being addressed as it should be and has not yet been removed from the sphere of political interests and profit.”
Leave a Reply