It is worth saying from the beginning that it is a matter of humanity to support any non-conflict resolution initiative, whether it is called ‘peace’, ‘Turkey without terrorism’ or ‘brotherhood for a thousand years’. However, discussing the political orientations of the process is just as important. Especially if those who labeled all criticism as ‘fascist‘ in the previous ’resolution process' and those who prefer to continue this process behind closed doors are prone to make similar mistakes... In other words, those who remain silent for various reasons or who are among those who play the role of cheerleaders are candidates to become dumb devils who do not care about the future of both Turkey and the peoples of the region these days...
SYRIA WILL BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE ISSUE
Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), PKK as we have known it since 1978... This is an organization where even the question “PeKaKa or PeKeKe?” has sparked heated debates... One of the longest-lasting organizations in the region and even in the world to wage armed struggle decided to dissolve itself at its 12th Congress held on May 5-7.
The final declaration of the congress, which was shared with the public, is silent on whether other PKK-affiliated organizations will cease their activities. It is probably only possible to say that the People's Defense Forces (Hêzên Parasina Gel-HPG) will be disbanded. The Union of Communities of Kurdistan (Koma Civekên Kurdistanê-KCK), on the other hand, will be involved in active politics either in the DEM Party or perhaps in a new party to be established.
In the statements of the spokespersons of the People's Alliance, it is left ambiguous which organizations will be dissolved with a somewhat evasive rhetoric. Apparently, the PYD (Partiya Yekitiya Demokrat) and the YPG (Yekineyen Parastina Gel - People's Defense Units), as well as its larger organization QSD (usually in Arabic, it stands for ‘Quvvat Suriya Demokratik’, What kind of a transformation the Hêzên Sûriya Demokratik (Kurdish for ‘Hêzên Sûriya Demokratik’) will undergo will be determined by the negotiations between the Hayat Tahrîri al-Sham (Hay'at al-Tahrîri al-Sham) and its affiliates, which are currently in power in Syria, and the QSD, or SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) as we know it.
The future of Syria, what kind of political system of governance it will adopt, and how long those who are currently in power will be able to stay in power is a complete mystery! We know that the SDF demands some kind of autonomy. Druze and Arab Alawites also want autonomy. If such a system is adopted, it must be assumed that Turkmens will have similar demands. In other words, in a few years, maybe sooner, we may be discussing a Syria with at least four, maybe six parts!
IS A SINGLE INTERLOCUTOR THE RIGHT CHOICE?
Everything is uncertain in Syria, but what primarily concerns us now is Turkey and the fact that the PKK has dissolved itself... As expected at the 12th Congress, the PKK leadership announced in clear words that the organization had dissolved. This development is the most important turning point after MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli's call on October 22, 2024... According to the statement, the congress discussed the issues of ’leadership‘, ’martyrs‘, ’veterans‘, ’PKK's organizational existence and armed struggle method‘ and ’building a democratic society‘ on the agenda of the congress, and it is stated that historical decisions were taken that mark the beginning of a new era for the Kurdish freedom movement.
Immediately afterwards, a discourse was preferred to convince the Kurdish political base and to prevent a perception of ‘defeat’ or ‘surrender’: “The 12th Congress has shattered the PKK's policy of denial and extermination against our people and brought the Kurdish problem to the point of solving it through democratic politics, thus completing its historical mission”. In short, it concludes that the organization has completed its mission. And a decision is taken to dissolve the organization and end the armed struggle. The most important emphasis here is on Abdullah Öcalan's leadership... Öcalan will be the only one to lead and manage the process. Exactly as the People's Alliance wants! Most likely a decision to prevent any criticism from Kurdish politics during the process, but also a practical solution that will make the government deal with a single person! In other words, an undemocratic transition to a ‘democratic republic'!.
IF THE 1921 CONSTITUTION IS DISCUSSED, WHERE DID THE EMPHASIS ON LAUSANNE COME FROM?
What follows is the most controversial statement... And as a matter of fact, you can feel the postmodernist influences! It is also significant in terms of seeing where a movement that started out with the national question has evolved: “Our party, the PKK, emerged on the stage of history as the freedom movement of our people against the politics of Kurdish denial and extermination, rooted in the Treaty of Lausanne and the 1924 Constitution. It experienced the effects of real socialism at its birth, and by adopting the principle of the right of nations to self-determination, it waged a legitimate and just struggle based on the strategy of armed struggle. The PKK was shaped under conditions of rigid Kurdish denial and the politics of annihilation, genocide and assimilation. With the freedom struggle it waged starting in 1978, it took as a basis the acceptance of the Kurdish existence and the recognition of the Kurdish question as the fundamental reality of Turkey’.
I GUESS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS NOT SO IMPORTANT!
First of all, it is a determination that evolved from the national question to the struggle for ethnic identity and amorphized by the woke culture... Putting the 1924 Constitution and the Treaty of Lausanne in the same category is already a categorical problem in itself. It is of course possible to say that the 1921 Constitution was more libertarian and democratic, but to say that it was magnificent in everything is a bit of a shallow historical and constitutional law background... For example, the principle of separation of powers does not exist in that constitution, and the issue of secularism is also problematic... If you dig a little more, it is easy to understand that those who portray this constitution as ‘magnificent’ are political Islamists and neo-Ottomanists! In other words, there is not much difference between those who say “We will not eat the 1924 Constitution” and those who say “If the 1921 Constitution had been the foundation of the republic, the Republic of Turkey would have been much more democratic”. Especially when one remembers that the secularism clause was not included in the 1924 Constitution, but was added later, both sides need to eat forty loaves of bread to make this debate productive. But no matter, once you become a supporter, it is free to throw without support!...
EVALUATING LOZAN WITH AN ANACHRONISTIC APPROACH
Let's talk about the Treaty of Lausanne... This treaty is one of the most important documents in the formation of the republic. Anachronistic approaches are, of course, one of the irrational legacies of postmodernism... Shouldn't the Treaty of Lausanne be evaluated from the perspective of a country that has just completed its national liberation war and is in the process of establishing a state? Not if you like to twist history!... You have just come out of an anti-imperialist war, you are transitioning from a multinational empire to a secular republic. Under your nose, the situation in Europe is uncertain and fraught with danger, a rematch of the First World War is not far away. And a treaty called the Treaty of Sevres was imposed beforehand. In other words, it is not possible to accept a fragmented Anatolia, no matter who fought against imperialism! Moreover, when the goal has evolved to the establishment of a unitary state... Discussing the impact of the rebellions on this evolution is a very complex issue, I will not go into it, but it is worth remembering that a federal structure was not completely excluded before the rebellions.
DESIGNING WEST ASIA ON THE BASIS OF CONSERVATISM
In other words, if you attribute the PKK's raison d'être to the 1924 Constitution and the Treaty of Lausanne, then which republic will you democratize? You will say that you have no problem with the unitary state, you will renounce federalism and even partial autonomy, you will even state that ‘culturalist’ approaches (whatever that means, it must be cultural autonomy) are unnecessary, and then you will oppose the Treaty of Lausanne! It is impossible to even conceptualize this approach.
Unless, of course, the issue is something else... Unless, for example, you are a candidate to be part of a plot to change the maps in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and, most recently, Iran! For instance, is it possible to pursue a policy of establishing a federal structure in Syria that pretends to be a unitary state while turning a blind eye to the actions of a sectarian political Islamist government that aims at the expulsion of Arab Alawites, potential allies of the Axis of Resistance? Is the tactic of sacrificing some minorities for an unnamed federalism part of this strategy? We will see, in fact we have already been seeing it for a few months.
The Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (IKYB) is already very inclined to eliminate or pacify groups that could support Iran, namely the Hashd al-Shaabi and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (Yekîtiya Niştimaniya Kurdistan-YNK). Then, in the process of the US, EU and Israeli alliance overthrowing the mullah regime in Iran and then dividing it into several parts like Iraq, are these events a turning point in the plan to pave the way for the Turkish and Kurdish peoples to at least remain neutral in these developments or to be taken in by the ‘put one in, take three’ hook? If this is going to be the case, that is, if a new fire will fall on the region, it will be difficult to talk about peace!
IF A FRONT IS FORMED AGAINST THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE
The reason for this last point is the sentence in the final declaration of the 12th Congress of the PKK that puts the Treaty of Lausanne in the crosshairs... Because in the process leading to Iran and the destruction of what is left of the Axis of Resistance, the arguments to be used must be anti-Shiite and neo-Ottomanism. In other words, could it be that the opposition to Lausanne is not a reference to the dismemberment of Anatolia, but a grab for something while a new map is being drawn in West Asia? Something like the dream of the millennia-old Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood ‘putting in one and getting three’ in this new map... Isn't this where the hostility to Lausanne of a wing of political Islam comes from? With this method, it is possible to revive Shafism and anti-Shiism or Iranophobia, which have a certain influence in Kurdish politics. I hope that I am wrong and that these statements are not so elaborated in the declaration and are just a populist approach to appease the base. In the near future, we will be able to clarify what was said and for what purpose, especially by carefully monitoring developments in Syria.
‘THE HEAVY EFFECTS OF REAL SOCIALISM AND GANG MENTALITY’
However, the statement goes on to make it clear that it is possible to work with conservatives, in today's terms political Islamists: “Under the conditions of the 1990s, when our resurrection revolution led to great developments for our people, President Turgut Özal of the Republic of Turkey sought to solve the Kurdish problem through politics. Leader Apo responded to this search with the March 17, 1993 Ceasefire and started a new process. However, this new process was sabotaged as a result of the heavy effects of real socialism, the gang mentality imposed on our war line and the deep state's elimination of Turgut Özal and his team, and the escalation of the war by insisting on the Kurdish policy of denial and annihilation’.
‘The heavy effects of socialism and gang mentality’, praise for Özal... A self-criticism of the Marxist approach in the founding principles of the PKK, right? As if it is a result of the necessity to get rid of some burdens while seeking a solution with political Islamists in the new process.
IF THERE WILL BE A THIRD WORLD WAR, IS IT CLEAR WHICH SIDE TO BE ON?
Without giving space to the entire declaration, let me continue with the findings that caught my eye: “...taking the precedents of the Treaty of Lausanne and the 1924 Constitution as a reference, it adopted the perspective of a ‘Democratic Republic of Turkey’ with a ‘common homeland’ and Kurdish-Turkish peoples as the founding elements, and the understanding of a ‘democratic nation’ as the framework for the solution of the Kurdish question. The Kurdish revolts that took place throughout the history of the Republic, the historical dialectic of Kurdish-Turkish relations spanning a thousand years and the 52-year ‘leadership struggle’ have shown that the Kurdish question can only be solved on the basis of a ‘common homeland’ and ‘equal citizenship’. Current developments in the Middle East in the context of the Third World War also make it inevitable to reorganize Kurdish-Turkish relations.”.
The last sentence is almost identical to MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli's call, except that he shifts the focus from regional to global. If something like this is going to happen, which side will the millennia-old Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood take in this war? I think this is the most important question!
IF THIS IS NOT A CALL TO THE OPPOSITION TO ‘BE A FIGUREHEAD’, WHAT IS IT?
If you remember, following Bahçeli's call, the DEM Party spokespersons emphasized that the entire opposition, especially the CHP, and naturally the Turkish Grand National Assembly, should take part in this process. And since that day, neither the opposition nor the Turkish Grand National Assembly has been properly informed, let alone included in this process... They have been visited for a cup of tea, but that's it! At this point, isn't there a contradiction between the way the process was conducted and the declaration? Because the declaration assigns an important role to the Turkish Grand National Assembly: “At this stage, it is important for the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to play its role with historical responsibility. Likewise, we call on the government and the main opposition party, all political parties represented in parliament, civil society organizations, religious and belief communities, democratic press organizations, opinion leaders, intellectuals, academics, artists, workers” unions, women's and youth organizations, ecological movements to take responsibility and participate in the peace and democratic society process‘. The wish is good, but isn't calling on these elements, who were not allowed to be active actors at the beginning of the process, to take ownership of it now a bit of a ’we did it, so let's support them' approach?
Making these criticisms, putting these uncertainties on the table, seems like a necessity in order to avoid hamasacas and to prevent road accidents on the road to peace. Especially if you care about the millennia-old Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood, especially if you want to disrupt the plans to use these two peoples as pawns in imperialist conspiracies against the peoples of the region! It is high time to speak out without fear of being labeled ‘fascist’.