We know by the tone of language employed that the approach of the top command remains unchanged. In two recent appearances before the press, Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ, not entirely disguising his concern about the possible social impact of the strength of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), spoke of the need to disarm the armed group on the mountains, but evaded elaborating on how this would be done. The old rhetoric still has its attractive power. Then it was the PKK’s turn. After a bloody incident in Lice in the Southeast in which nine soldiers in an armored vehicle were killed by a huge remote-controlled mine explosion, Murat Karayılan, the PKK commander in the Kandil region of Iraqi Kurdistan, gave a rare interview to Hasan Cemal of the Milliyet daily. It was timely because of the ongoing efforts towards disarmament and extended operations against Democratic Society Party (DTP) structures as the closure case against what is seen as the political wing of the PKK is looming.
What Karayılan told Cemal was also built on old rhetoric. He was keen on telling Cemal that the PKK was not the “old PKK,” that it no longer supported separatism and that it was time for the weapons to “turn silent.” Karayılan complained that there was an immediate, coordinated attack against the PKK and the DTP as soon as the results of the elections were known. It was a “political massacre” although the message of the Kurdish voters was “democracy,” he told Cemal, assuring him that the PKK would never be “finished,” neither in Turkey, nor in Iraq.
Karayılan is clear: He wants us to believe the Kurdish problem will never be solved without input from the PKK. Laying down weapons must happen with, not without, preconditions. He sees a certain change “for the better” in the military, but questions whether there is political resolve and leadership there. He also questions the determination of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan not to leave the initiative to the armed forces.
Where does this leave us?
The picture is rather unchanged: The military leadership is keen on drawing a red line between individual and collective rights and is rather determined to stop trespasses on the latter, limiting the government’s room for maneuver. Mobilization in the region immediately after the local elections signaled a deeper concern that the Kurdish resolve around the PKK and its jailed leader, Abdullah Öcalan, would be fought primarily in the language of arms. The statement by Başbuğ that shorter military service may be abolished soon could be seen as a step in escalation in that context. After the recent attacks by the PKK, a land operation on Iraqi soil must not be seen as a remote possibility.
The PKK is doing its best to escalate the situation, too. The remote-controlled mine explosion could not, despite Karayılan’s regrets, be explained as an act of “defense”: it was meant to provoke, as a show of strength in a turf battle. No regular army could fail to respond to it. In that context, Karayılan’s call of “let us silence the guns” -- as he talks about the cease-fire that ends on June 1 -- loses its meaning entirely. He lost credibility as soon as he spoke.
He makes no sense either when he blames Germany and France for taking advantage of the violence in Turkey by putting the blame on Ankara for unwillingness to conduct political reforms. He avoids the issue of the PKK as the sabotaging actor in the European Union process by abusing the popularity of the DTP as an avenue in a peaceful policy-making process in this bloody issue. Perhaps, he is encouraged by the fact that the European Commission does not speak in clearer language to condemn and invalidate what the PKK stands for in today’s world. The meek stance of Brussels, unhelpful for the government, even vis-à-vis the military, only extends the suffering due to the standoff.
Will we have to wait for another spring to see a change of mood? It looks as if political boldness must be combined with some creative thinking. Yes, the American role will make a difference, as much as the Iraqi Kurds’ line of pressure. But, if we are to seriously talk about disarming a group standing as a stumbling block before possible stability in the region, realism is needed rather than petrified “red-line” thinking. People like Karayılan are of less importance as key players: one would have to turn to the jailed leader, Öcalan, and start a carefully orchestrated dialogue process in parallel with a dialogue process with the DTP leadership. Will the jailed leader sacrifice himself for the enhanced collective rights of Kurds or does he see it as a path of self-liberation? It will be a test for Öcalan at the end of the day. He may choose the unselfish alternative -- no one knows.
In the given impasse, the reality is that many Kurds are voluntary hostages of a cult. The mythology of the leader is only strengthened by each act of violence, no matter which side it stems from.
