Adnan Boynukara
“You can’t go anywhere with the cars of the past…”
Maxim Gorky
One of the main issues that has marked the last 40 years in Türkiye is the terrorist activities carried out by the PKK. Of course, this is not merely a security issue—it stands as a multifaceted matter with political, economic, and social repercussions. The path to addressing all the problems stemming from these terrorist activities is directly tied to the removal of arms from the equation. The most fundamental outcome of disarmament is the ability to discuss the existing tangle of problems and to produce solutions. Therefore, Öcalan’s call—“The reasons for the organization’s foundation no longer exist; lay down your arms and dissolve the organization”—is meaningful. What we are talking about here goes beyond an ordinary demand; it is a call shaped by the spirit of our time, by geopolitical needs, historical conditions, and social transformation.
The Excuse-Making Mechanism
The content of the call is quite clear. What is being discussed and the road map are both very clear. Nevertheless, what those who adopt an excuse-making approach are serving is their own concern. The people of this country are well acquainted with this attitude and those who engage in it. Let us recall the process of February 2015.
There were two key statements made during Türkiye’s resolution process. The first was in March 2013, which called for “the organization to lay down arms and withdraw from the country.” The second came on February 28, 2015, and it urged the organization to “cease using weapons against the Republic of Türkiye.” Both of these statements were texts that laid out the position of the founder of the organization. Those who took responsibility during the process on behalf of the political party, as well as those in Qandil, know this very well. To understand the main source and motivation behind today’s excuses, it is useful to recall the statements made by the organization after February 28, 2015, and the excuses they put forward at the time.
What Happened After the Dolmabahçe Statement?
February 28, 2015: A call was made in Dolmabahçe for the PKK to lay down arms.
February 28, 2015: Immediately after the disarmament call in Dolmabahçe, KCK member Mustafa Karasu made a statement saying, “If the government is serious, let them allow us to meet with Öcalan.” He went on to say, “Approaches such as the PKK will lay down arms or the PKK will convene a congress and decide to disarm before this issue is resolved are demagoguery.” Representing a different wing of the organization, Karasu took it even further: “Now the resolution of the Kurdish question is being discussed, and the AKP is even trying to create the perception that the PKK will abandon armed struggle. Without a meeting between Apo and the PKK, and without resolving this issue, approaches suggesting the PKK will disarm or hold a congress to make that decision are pure demagoguery…” With these words, he clearly positioned himself as a representative of deadlock.
March 5, 2015: Cemil Bayık stated, “First the solution, then the disarmament.”
March 11, 2015: Cemil Bayık and Bese Hozat declared, “The statements that the PKK will lay down arms are part of the AK Party’s election propaganda.” Both figures insisted that “a decision on disarmament could only be made at a congress attended in person by Öcalan.” They further stated, “The PKK will not announce this decision until Öcalan is released. Unless these steps are taken, and without building trust in our movement, in the people, and in Türkiye’s democratic forces, it is unthinkable to convene such a congress or for the congress to make the kind of decisions they envision.”
A journalist asked Cemil Bayık: “If Öcalan were to participate in the congress via teleconference or send a message, would that be enough for you to decide to end the armed struggle against Türkiye?” Bayık responded, “No. We can hold a congress whenever we want, but we will not make that decision unless the leadership personally meets with the guerrillas.”
Bese Hozat stated, “Realistically speaking, the conditions for continuing the resolution process outside have not been prepared. Our leadership will conduct the process from İmralı as the chief negotiator. But very naturally, if we are to convene a congress, our leadership must address that congress.”
On March 12, 2015, Sabri Ok declared, “Following the February 28 Dolmabahçe statement, no agreement, peace, or new step toward a solution has taken place. The statements that the PKK is laying down arms are the opinions of a dogmatic faction…” thereby revealing his stance.
The Consequences of Making Excuses
When these statements are taken into account, it becomes clear that the organization put forward technically impossible conditions and made excuses in order to undermine the call to disarm. This attitude is nothing but stalling. The sole focus of the statement made in Dolmabahçe on February 28, 2015, was for the organization to convene and announce that it was laying down arms. This was also the demand and expectation of the people. In other words, weapons and violence were no longer to be tools for dialogue. In response to this demand, Qandil chose to make excuses instead of simply saying “We are not participating.”
So what happened? The organization issued orders to declare self-governance. These instructions were attempted to be implemented by certain figures. Qandil took it a step further and attempted to bring terrorism into the cities. It tried to spread the perception of weakness by establishing so-called “liberated zones.” Qandil’s stance cost thousands of lives and caused cities to be devastated. A broad segment of the Kurdish population began to question the organization’s existence and what it truly served. The figures in Qandil who had been making daily statements about the resolution process fell silent and faded from view in the aftermath of these events.
What Is Happening Today?
What is happening today is that Qandil is repeating the past. We all know that the main topic of the negotiations—and therefore of the entire process—is the laying down of arms. Because once the weapons are put aside, there will be a great deal to discuss. But the priority is removing weapons from the equation. The leader of the organization has clearly expressed this. So either the contents of the statement written by the leader will be implemented, or it must be openly stated that both the leader and his statement are not accepted. This is a serious issue and cannot be managed based on unspoken demands. Above all, it is unacceptable to use such matters as fodder for domestic political polemics and petty debates. This issue, which is critical for the safety of our people’s lives and property, is extremely valuable. No one should exploit the step taken, keep the Kurds in the line of fire, or establish tutelage over the Kurds.
The first step in the process was the announcement; the second step is for the organization to decide on its dissolution. That is what is expected. All political action will begin after a decision is made regarding the organization. The government and relevant institutions are firmly committed to the process that began with Bahçeli’s statement and was approved and supported by President Erdoğan. Meanwhile, some figures within the organization are scattering the issue, diluting the call, and overshadowing Öcalan’s appeal. Phrases like “Öcalan is our will, Öcalan is the decision-maker, and we stand behind Öcalan’s call” are meaningless. There is only one meaningful thing to do: to carry out the call. That is what is expected and desired.
What We Need Is Genuine Responsibility
Whether the organization will convene or not is, of course, their decision. But it will go on record that the hand extended for peace has been pushed away for the second time. Instead of making excuses, it would be more appropriate to explain why they do not want to disarm and why they have responded negatively to the call for a dissolution decision. Because this concerns the entire country. More valuable than the decision to take up arms is the decision to lay them down. The call not only involves the dissolution of the organization but also envisions a civil political struggle to follow. Political struggle, however, must be carried out by generating politics and adapting to conditions. Those who fail to develop a tactic and strategy aligned with the flow of history will lead the masses behind them not toward the goal, but into the abyss. The way to prevent this is for Qandil to properly read the call and reasoning of the organization’s leader, to grasp the extended hand, and to allow space for tomorrow.
What comes next is the easier part. The question of what kind of shared future all the peoples living in the country and the region will build will be determined through mutual understanding and empathy, on democratic ground, by talking, persuading one another, but with composure and patience. In such a process, every political actor, group, circle, and individual will be able to present their views on equal footing and eventually meet on a common ground that will mature over time. This will happen whether or not the organization/Qandil decides to lay down arms. From this point forward, a process will begin that is shaped by the collective will of the peoples—a process in which no one has the right or authority to speak on behalf of anyone else. It is useful to state clearly: this is not a matter of ‘victory’ or ‘defeat.’ It is not a ‘war’ or a ‘civil war.’ The issue is to build a new climate of coexistence in a completely different world without carrying the burden of the previous century, and to focus on the future by learning from the past. And this requires genuine responsibility.
Let us hope that the mistakes made in the past will not be repeated, and that the process proceeds soundly so that an environment can be created in which “we” can discuss our own issues. Because this is a process with no losers and no others. It has no goal other than to build a Türkiye and a region without loss and without exclusion—for Turks, Kurds, Arabs, and all the peoples of the region.