International support continues to grow for the ongoing “Peace and Democratic Society Process” aimed at the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question. Italian lawyer Ezio Menzione, a member of the International Independent Legal Mission, who recently carried out a series of visits in Turkey to observe the current stage of the process, spoke to ANF about his impressions.
Request to meet Abdullah Öcalan
You recently carried out a series of visits in Turkey with a group of legal experts to observe the process being conducted for the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question on the ground. What kind of picture did these meetings present to you regarding the current state of the process?
It was a mission of six legal experts. We were five lawyers and one human rights defender. We came from different countries in Europe, and there was also a participant from Asia, as one of us was an Indian legal expert.
Our aim was to understand what stage the peace process, which was launched a year ago, has reached through the meetings we held with parties, institutions and groups. In fact, this process was initiated last August with the establishment of a Commission within the Turkish Parliament. I can say that we met with nine or ten parties. Therefore, we obtained a general picture of the process, as the parties and institutions we met represented both the parliamentary majority and the opposition.
We also met with the lawyers defending Mr. Öcalan. We also wanted to meet with the Ministry of Justice, but they did not want to meet with us. However, it could have been interesting to hear what the new Minister of Justice would say. Nevertheless, we submitted an official request for our mission to meet Mr. Öcalan at Imralı Prison, and we hope that permission will be granted. If our request is approved, we will return to Turkey again solely for this purpose.
Concrete steps are expected
The commission, which has been carrying out its work within the Parliament for more than a year, announced its report just before your visit. How do you evaluate this report? What was the approach of the political parties and institutions you met toward the report?
Yes, the main focus of our meetings during the visit was this report. Our mission took place between the commission’s report and the anniversary message of Mr. Öcalan. Of course, our discussions were always centered on the work carried out by the commission and the debates and exchanges of views on the report it presented.
We asked all our interlocutors, meaning everyone we met, what they thought about the report. We received very different opinions. I must say that, in general, they all had a positive view of the work that had been done. However, most people said that the process was progressing a bit too slowly and was not fast enough.
Despite this, their reactions were generally positive. They all said that it was valuable for this work to continue. It was expressed that steps should be taken in different ways and in a more concrete manner. Roughly with the same logic: that concrete steps should be taken within the framework of a parliamentary structure that could oversee meetings, discussions and similar processes. This was the point on which everyone generally agreed.
PKK is not the cause but the result
There was no complete division regarding the report, but there were different views. Some, particularly the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), said that the report focused too much on the issue of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). They stated that the government and the parliamentary majority seemed to focus only on the disarmament of the PKK.
These groups also emphasized that the entire Kurdish people and the broader issue should be taken into account in this process and that their voice must be heard. Because, as they expressed it, the PKK is not the cause of the conflict, but its result.
I would like to underline that I am essentially conveying what they told us, that is, what our interlocutors said. As a mission, our own assessments are, of course, still being examined on the basis of the meetings we have conducted. So far, we have published a press statement regarding our visit, which you have probably seen. What matters is to present the realities that the circles we met wanted to convey to us and what they wanted to say.
Legal framework is essential
In his statement marking the anniversary of his February 27 call, Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan emphasized that the process has entered a second phase and that establishing a legal and political framework is vital from now on. How do you, as a delegation, evaluate this message and its impact on the process?
Everyone we met, like Mr. Öcalan, emphasized that a legal framework must be established and implemented for the conflict to end, to truly end. This is not only a matter of silencing weapons. It is also important to monitor that the disarmament process is genuinely continuing and will be completed within a short time.
However, the issue we discussed was this. Should this process be monitored only by the government, or should the groups in parliament oversee it? This is the first point. There is also another framework that everyone demanded, meaning all our interlocutors expressed this. The people we met were quite numerous, and each of them was important.
For example, a group called “Women for Peace,” which is not a parliamentary group but was heard by the commission, emphasized that a general legal framework is necessary in which those within the PKK and those who will emerge, and even those who may still be in the mountains, can be included within a safe and legal framework. They said that we must find a solution path for each member of the PKK. Because, of course, unless you create a framework for everyone, you cannot say that the conflict has ended. This is true, but the issue is not only a matter of security.
The process cannot be reduced solely to disarmament
At this point, views begin to diverge. We could not meet anyone from the Justice and Development Party (AKP); they said they were out of the city and could not meet with us. However, through former members of parliament from the AKP, we were able to hear their views. Indeed, the AKP and the government often seem to adhere to the idea that the only issue is the disarmament of the PKK and the procedure for monitoring it.
Others, however, and I must say that I agree with this view and emphasize it in particular, do not think that this is only a matter of disarmament. Because, in fact, disarmament can be considered to have effectively taken place, as there has been no conflict, no armed conflict, across the country over the past year. This is quite significant, especially when compared to neighboring countries.
However, it is important to be concerned not only with members of the PKK but with the entire Kurdish population. When I read the first anniversary message sent by Mr. Öcalan, I had the impression that more attention was given to the Kurds and to the Kurdish Turkish conflict compared to last year’s message. Perhaps there is a growing awareness, and Mr. Öcalan is certainly aware of this, that this dimension of the conflict must be addressed openly and evaluated as it deserves.
The freedom of Öcalan is a political issue
The very points you draw attention to, namely that despite the time that has passed the process has still not been given a legal and political framework, are among the main criticisms voiced by the Kurdish side. Likewise, the issue of the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan, who is seen as the main actor of the process, is also at the center of the debate. If a lasting solution and a democratic negotiation process are aimed for, why has a clear legal and political mechanism that would secure this process still not been established?
I am a lawyer, and some of the others in the mission were also lawyers. For this reason, we attached particular importance not only to the issue of Mr. Öcalan’s freedom, but also to the issue of the freedom of political opponents. In my view, the freedom of Mr. Öcalan is a political issue, and I hope it will be resolved politically in a short time.
There are many possible ways for this. Some speak of already finding a house for Mr. Öcalan and allowing him to continue his work and maintain his dialogue with parliament. In fact, this is what Bahçeli said one and a half years ago.
‘Let us bring Mr. Öcalan to parliament and listen to what he has to say.’ No one can say that Bahçeli is not a strong nationalist; he is one of the most well-known representatives of nationalism.
However, I asked each of our interlocutors the following question. What will be done about the thousands of political opponents, most of whom are not members of the PKK and have not been involved in any armed action?
Most of our interlocutors said that a legal framework must be established before people are released. However, there is one point on which everyone agrees.
ECtHR and Constitutional Court rulings must be implemented
This point concerns the implementation of the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This is very important, because in this way many significant political opponents can be released. For example, Kavala, Demirtaş, and others. Perhaps the number is not very large, but it is still a significant number.
However, I am not speaking only about these individuals. There are also many people who have not yet applied to the Constitutional Court or the European Court. What are we waiting for? Some say that the penal code and the anti-terror law must be amended. Of course, these laws need to be changed.
But the question I asked our interlocutors was this. Is it not possible to find certain solutions through decrees or administrative decisions? It is possible to proceed step by step. Perhaps a large number of people will not be released immediately, but a certain number could be released. It is important for the government to demonstrate a sign of goodwill. When it is said that a conflict has ended, this is usually what is done. This strengthens the possibility that the conflict will truly come to an end. This was also the case for the Basques.
It was also the case for the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Ireland. At a certain point, one must begin to shake hands with one’s former enemy, one’s former rival. I think such a time has come for Turkey as well. On this issue, the views of our interlocutors were quite different. Some said that nothing can be done without changing the penal code and the anti-terror law. Based on my experience in the Italian Parliament, I said this. If that is the case, one would have to wait years to see someone released. We must find a shortcut.
However, there was one point on which everyone agreed, which I proposed and they accepted as possible: resolving the issue of mayors who have been replaced by government-appointed trustees.
Mayors can return to their duties. The trustee practice can be abolished. In addition, new local elections can be held, and the same mayors or different individuals can be elected.
They also agreed that a new law may not necessarily be required to resolve this issue. These steps can be taken through administrative decisions.
As you can see, there are different views regarding the legal framework. However, this is natural when you are dealing with a structure that represents the entire parliament through a commission of 51 members.
Views differ. But our mission was not only to collect information; it was also to make certain proposals based on the experiences of other countries and different possibilities.
I want to meet Abdullah Öcalan
Has there still been no response to your application to the Ministry of Justice to visit Imralı?
We requested permission to go to Imralı about two weeks before traveling to Turkey, that is, before the mission took place. Because we believed it was important to have a direct meeting and to listen to Mr. Öcalan in his own voice and with his own words. A few weeks before the mission, we requested a meeting with Mr. Öcalan, not all six of us but at least a few of us participating. However, we did not receive any response to this request, that is the situation.
Perhaps the fact that the Minister of Justice changed within these two weeks may be one of the reasons why our request was not considered. Before leaving Ankara, that is, at the end of the visit, a few days before our departure, we repeated our request and emphasized this in particular: the moment our request is accepted, we are ready to go to Bursa at any time and from there board the boat to Imralı.
Because I have seen the experience of the meetings held between the DEM Party and Mr. Öcalan; these were very productive and highly important meetings. I would have liked to have a discussion with Mr. Öcalan on international legal standards, on what has been done in other countries, even if not in the same situation but in similar ones, and on what could be done in Turkey.
I think this would be important not only culturally but also politically. Because there are examples in the world where significant conflicts have been resolved in quite short periods of time. Therefore, I hope that one day the Minister of Justice will call me, I left my phone number. He can call me whenever he wishes, I can go within six or seven hours.
Leave a Reply