Mustafa Karasu, a member of the KCK Executive Council, made important evaluations on current developments while participating in a special program broadcast on Medya Haber TV.
The first part of this interview can be read here.
You already, to a certain extent, assessed the importance of the Peace and Democratic Society Process. The Parliamentary Commission’s report has been prepared. The public is now wondering whether Parliament will fulfill its responsibilities. What can you share with us regarding the current stage of the Peace and Democratic Society Process?
The parliament was in recess, which just ended after the holiday. Now, of course, all eyes are on parliament. The committee prepared a report, and it called on the parliament to enact laws in line with freedom and democracy. If there is genuine sincerity in what that committee proposed, and if they truly aim to achieve the goals outlined there, then parliament must enact freedom laws and laws promoting democratization. They say the parliament represents the will of the society of Turkey. Then what is Turkey’s most fundamental problem? It is the Kurdish issue. If the parliament cannot play a role regarding Turkey’s most fundamental problem, what is the point of that parliament? If this parliament is to be a true parliament, it must demonstrate a sincere will to resolve the Kurdish issue. A parliament that does not demonstrate a sincere will to resolve the Kurdish issue can never be a true parliament of Turkey. It will always remain a parliament under guardianship. Because if it cannot resolve the Kurdish issue, if it does not take steps toward its resolution, it means it is not taking those steps due to the influence of others.
In this regard, of course, we, our people, and society all want the parliament to step in. Now they’re talking about disarmament. They’re talking about everyone engaging in democratic politics. But how is democratic politics to be practiced? According to the current Turkish constitution and the existing laws, can democratic politics be practiced in Turkey? Absolutely not. Then the laws enabling democratic politics in Turkey must be enacted. Are we supposed to just go home and sit there? Or are all these people—the guerrillas, those waging this struggle—supposed to just sit at home? Or will those who went to Europe return and just sit at home? Democratic politics must be practiced. Therefore, the laws enabling this must be enacted. Constitutional amendments are needed; legal changes are needed. Because under the current constitution and laws, free, democratic politics cannot be practiced. Thousands of politicians are abroad, thousands are in prison, and politicians are still under threat. What did Numan Kurtulmuş say? He said that if this process does not succeed, politics will be crushed. What he meant was, in a way, he probably threatened the DEM Party, but yes, what happens if this process does not proceed in the direction of democratization? Courts, prisons, and detention centers will once again overflow. So this process must succeed. That’s what we understand from Numan Kurtulmuş. How will it succeed? The path to success lies in a genuine democratic political struggle, where freedom of association, freedom of thought, and the ability to organize freely are guaranteed, and every idea is free to be expressed.
You may agree with it or not, but an idea has to be enabled to organize itself and fight through democratic means. But right now, this right does not exist in Turkey. In this regard, the parliament must step in. It must do this not just for the Kurds but for the Turkish people. The lack of a solution to the Kurdish issue is also restricting the freedom of the Turkish people. Turkey’s democratization is being blocked—either because steps toward democratization aren’t being taken for fear that Kurds might benefit or because the Turkish people are also suffering as a result. From this perspective, we have demonstrated our resolve: we dissolved the organization, accepted disarmament, and ended armed struggle, but the necessary laws must now be enacted. Pioneered by comrade Besê, a group of friends have symbolically burned their weapons, and the guerrilla forces from within the borders of the Turkish state have withdrawn; now, the parliament has to pass the necessary legislation. The status of Rêber Apo must be clarified. Rêber Apo must attain a status that enables him to lead the process. Discussions are currently underway; the state is engaging in de facto talks and recognizing him as a counterpart. He must now be recognized as an official counterpart. Official negotiations must take place.
Rêber Apo’s status must be clarified. The time for this has come. Some party or some marginal circles may say what they want—that is not important. There are always those who oppose such things everywhere. Not everyone will agree 100%. It’s like that everywhere in the world. Rêber Apo’s freedom is decisive, his ability to work freely is crucial, and his status as a counterpart must be clearly defined. Parliament must make a decision on this in the political arena. This is what is being discussed. Freedom must be granted to him so that the issue can be resolved. On the one hand, they say Rêber Apo should do this or that, yet on the other hand, they keep him confined. That won’t work. Our leader can only do so much there. He cannot do more. We cannot do more either. If our leader is free, everyone will believe the process will succeed and be convinced accordingly. As long as Rêber Apo’s position remains like this, there is hesitation; people are not convinced, and they won’t be. The parliament must clarify Rêber Apo’s situation. The government must take the lead on this issue. But also the main opposition party has to play its role. This process can no longer continue this way. Everyone must take responsibility.
Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan had repeatedly emphasized that prolonging this process would only exacerbate the dangers, and looking at the events following the February 27 call, this has been amply proven. Do you see that the Turkish state truly aware of this situation?
As I already mentioned, this is a serious matter, and it requires a serious approach. You cannot approach such a process with tactics, stalling, deception, trickery, or underhanded schemes. It won’t work by buying time. They must be clear and assert their will. They’re saying it themselves, after all. They say this process is important. The pot is boiling in the Middle East. In such an environment, strengthening the internal front is crucial. The path to strengthening the internal front lies in making peace with the Kurds. It lies in the Peace and Democratic Society Process. You cannot achieve internal peace by fighting the Kurds. It will consume you. That is why Rêber Apo has consistently emphasized that throughout history, when Turks have formed alliances with the Kurds, they have won, and when they have been at odds with the Kurds, they have lost. The Turkish state must take this seriously. This is everyone’s expectation. But if it drags on, there will certainly be those who sabotage it. We are in favor of a solution and open to any reasonable approach. But we cannot tolerate such things. We are a movement with 53 years of history. We’re not a one- or two-year-old group; we have extensive experience. We have a great history behind us. We have a responsibility. We’ve been in this for 53 years. Can we take a casual approach? In this regard, the Turkish state must also recognize this reality and adopt the correct approach.
Honestly, sometimes one has to wonder about the seriousness of this whole situation—it’s just so frivolous. They’re not aware of the developments in the region, nor of the future. Some people are still fantasizing about “fatherland, nation, Sakarya”—“we’ll crush them this way, we’ll crush them that way,” or “we’ll wipe out the Kurds.” You can’t get anywhere with such a mindset. In a struggle, there will always be losses and difficulties. But the struggle continues and must be sustained. So why should this process come to a standstill? Why should it drag on? Why shouldn’t it be resolved? Why should it be left unresolved? Reason and logic demand that we respond to the reasonable approach put forward by Rêber Apo and resolve the issue. Otherwise, the problem isn’t that the Kurds will lose. The Kurds are already fighting. As Marx said, the workers have nothing to lose but their chains. Yes, the Kurds have nothing to lose but oppression and repression. In this regard, the Turkish state must approach this process correctly.
The Kurdish people’s own position is decisive within the events unfolding in our region. In this context, the ‘Call for National Consensus’ issued by over 200 figures in South Kurdistan and the response by the Foreign Relations Committee of the KCK to it have been shared with the public. Unity is important for the Kurds, but what kind of unity?
Unity is crucial for the Kurds. This is something everyone has always said. The situation during World War I is clear. There was no unity back then. Instead, there were highly fragmented, tribal-based approaches. No common political will emerged that represented the entirety of Kurdistan. This led to negative consequences. Now, no one wants to fall into that situation again. The realization of Kurdish unity is very important. The people have, in fact, achieved unity at the social level. The Kurdish people have demonstrated this unity when they took responsibility for Rojava. They demonstrated it during Newroz and continue to do so. A democratic unity is necessary. And this must also be realized in the political sphere. In the political sphere, a tendency to want to control everything still prevails. This contradicts the fundamental principles of democracy. For example, in Başûr [South Kurdistan], someone says, “I must be in control.” Why should you be in control? A democratic Başûr is possible. Every region can have its own distinct characteristics.
That central state mentality is a relic of the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, we need to establish unity through a democratic understanding. We need to build political relationships. We need to ensure the unity of the people. Let’s say, for instance, in the liberation of Kurdistan, let’s say Botan has its own local identity. Local democracy is possible. Local characteristics can exist. Dersim, for example, could have its own local democratic characteristics. Within the unity of Kurdistan. It could exist within the unity of Turkey. In relation to the Kurds. The Kurds already represent a unity. There are borders right now. But the Kurds are still a whole. Are borders an obstacle to the Kurds’ shared unity? No. When we speak of a democratic approach, democratic culture, and democratic unity, both the democratic unity of the Kurdish people and, of course, a democratic approach from these powers are necessary.
It must be based on a democratic approach and a democratic understanding. Especially in the environment of the ongoing World War III, partnerships in governance may exist everywhere, but there is no such thing as one party saying, “I will be in control; everyone will come under my supervision—Bakûr [North Kurdistan] will come under my supervision, Rojava will come under my supervision, and Rojhilat will come under my supervision.” We believe that everywhere, on a democratic basis and through the will of the people, everyone can participate in self-administration. A democratic Kurdish unity is crucial. Rêber Apo insists on this. This is the call that has been made. And we support this call. We find this call to be appropriate. All Kurdish intellectuals, artists, and everyone else have to play their roles in this process of establishing democratic unity. We consider this to be decisive. In an environment where the Middle East is being redesigned and the new status quo of Middle Eastern balances is being determined, if the Kurds unite, this will keep them strong and strengthen their position. This does not necessarily mean that all parts will merge into a single state. But this unity strengthens the position of Kurds in every region. It brings Kurds closer to freedom and democratic life. This is what we mean by democratic unity.
The war between the US and Israel on the one side and Iran on the other continues in full force. How do you assess the current stage of this war?
The current stage of the war is truly terrifying. Yes, nuclear weapons aren’t being used, but the technology is so advanced that even without nuclear weapons, the weapons being used are truly destructive and devastating. This technology is primarily in the hands of the US and Israel, but Iran is using it as well. Science has advanced; technology has advanced. Technology is in everyone’s hands; engineering is in everyone’s hands; physics, science—it’s all in everyone’s hands. Now there is something this destructive. The level the war has reached actually shows this. The Middle East shouldn’t be like this. The approach to problems shouldn’t be like this. Both the international powers’ approach to the region and the regional powers’ self-definition are wrong. Their understanding of how to solve problems is wrong. Neither the US-Israel approach is correct nor Iran’s.
Surely, the US and Israel can be criticized. They are reshaping the Middle East according to their own vision. But a state can also not, under the pretext of national sovereignty, do whatever it wants within its own borders. This is precisely what leaves Middle Eastern problems unsolved. That is not national sovereignty. What is national sovereignty? It is the preservation of a society’s democratic will and its will for freedom. The situation the war has led to is grave. It is spreading throughout the region. This war is actually quite thought-provoking. It reveals how hegemonic wars operate, how they create intractability, and how the political approaches of such states—both nation-states and regional states—are fundamentally flawed. The fact that the Middle East has come to this state is truly our problem. It is the problem of the people of the Middle East. Why has the Middle East come to this? Why has it become vulnerable to interventions? Why does it serve as a pretext for interventions? Of course, the peoples of the Middle East must also question this.
As this war continues, how do you view the position of the forces capable of creating a genuine environment of freedom and democracy? What path should the peoples—who are the true victims of the clash of interests between international and regional powers—follow?
There is a war; there is intervention. The Middle East is being designed this way. The US wants to strengthen its position this way, and Israel wants to do the same. Iran wants to strengthen its position in this way, to make it effective in this way. The war is ongoing. The solution to this is undoubtedly a democratic and political solution based on the concept of the Democratic Nation put forward by Rêber Apo. It is a solution based on the brotherhood of peoples. Our leader has put forward this alternative. Rêber Apo opposes the project of resolving issues through war and reshaping the Middle East through war, arguing that the Middle East should reshape itself in this way. Here is the Peace and Democratic Society Project carried out with Turkey. All countries can implement this for their own communities. This policy can stand against that war. This policy can thwart that project. The third way is to block the path of the international hegemonic powers as well. It is to expose the futility of the policies pursued by the regional states. And it is the third way put forward by Rêber Apo. It is the issue of peoples resolving their own problems through democratization. It is the issue of recognizing the will of the peoples. One people must not break the will of another. The peoples of the Middle East must create a shared life without breaking each other’s will. On Newroz, we wish to reiterate this message once again. The peoples must articulate what their own solution will be. They must assert their own free and democratic will. They must not accept either the international policies of the ruling powers or the policies of regional states. They must assert their own democratic will. Only if this democratic understanding develops and is put into practice can the problems in the Middle East be resolved. In this regard, what Rêber Apo has put forward—and what he has emphasized during Newroz—actually constitutes a project for resolving the problems in the Middle East.