The PKK as an obstacle before resolution of the Kurdish issue

The government’s recent Kurdish initiative officially recognizes that the issue is not all about the terrorism problem. The issue is a Kurdish problem rather than a terrorism issue. To resolve the Kurdish issue, democratic standards should be raised -- as argued by the initiative. Both the government and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan insistently stress that the state and military see the presence of the Kurdish issue and acknowledge that there is a Kurdish problem that needs to be resolved.

However, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) still argues that it is an issue of terrorism; but even MHP voters ask their party administrators, why has this problem remained alive? This question, one MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli has been unable to answer, shows that the issue is now an ethnic problem.

However, there are many other actors who view the problem as a terrorism issue; in this period where hopes for a resolution are high, the PKK seems to be decisive in carrying out its fight by relying on violence. The PKK reduces the issue to an issue of violence.

Threatening further violence

Acting PKK leader Murat Karayılan has threatened that the PKK will stick to violence if Ankara rejects dialogue. He argues that they have the support of the Kurdish people and that they could sustain this fight for decades. One issue to consider in order to understand the factors behind the threat is this: The reason behind the threat of further terrorism is not the irresolution of the Kurdish problem or the presence of the democratic initiative. The PKK wants the state to enter into dialogue with it and further asserts that it will spill more blood if this does not happen.

The implicit threats by Abdullah Öcalan, the jailed leader of the PKK, are no different. He asks for the same dialogue process to include him. He threatens to initiate a new wave of violence if the state rejects having talks with him.

All agree violence should stop. Does this threat of violence contribute to the peace process and the achievement of a resolution? Is it possible to search for a resolution at a time when violence is still on the table as an option? Is it possible to find a political actor in Turkey agreeing to submit to the demands of a terrorist organization? Will the government agree to such demands in the presence of strong opposition by the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the MHP? More importantly, the style and discourse of all actors opposed to a resolution bear striking resemblances.

There is a Kurdish problem in Turkey, and there is a terrorism issue connected to this. If the cause disappears, the outcome will also be eliminated. The PKK defends an opposing argument; who does this threatening style target? It addresses Kurds seeking a resolution. I suppose all misinterpreted the joy in the welcoming ceremony held to honor the coming of 34 PKK militants. Those who came left the mountain, meaning these people support the elimination and cessation of terrorism. They do not endorse terrorism.

The PKK’s impasse

The PKK side has a template in mind: to present the democratic initiative as a victory of armed struggle. To do this, the government should be convinced to talk to the PKK as a legitimate party. It seems the PKK will agree with the outcome in such a case even if resolution is not achieved. The PKK’s threat of further violence turns the issue into a terrorism issue in the eyes of the state.

Would the state talk to the PKK? It is an impossible option. The whole issue is not about the state being willing to talk to the PKK. If the state agrees to talk to the PKK, then it will commit two big mistakes. First, it will admit that violence is a legitimate option to ensure the protection of rights. The state submitting to violence is a burden that the initiators of this process cannot bear. It will also be an opportunity opponents would never want to miss. Second, the lasting impact of this option is even more dangerous than the first. If the state agrees to talk to the PKK, it will become the sole legitimate representative of the Kurdish people. The Democratic Society Party’s (DTP) ability to represent the Kurds is only one-third. This means that only one out of three Kurds votes for the DTP. Talking to the PKK will put not only the government but also reasonable Kurds into a difficult position.

An objective response to a very critical question will show why the PKK cannot be accepted as a legitimate party: Is the democratic initiative process a product of the PKK’s armed struggle? It is impossible to say yes to this question at a time when armed struggle is meaningless for even the PKK. PKK violence has led to losses for many people. Turkey’s economy was excessively affected by terror. Even the military agrees that the issue cannot be resolved by military means alone. But the outcome is not the result of violence carried out by the PKK. Quite the contrary, violence has become a meaningless tool for the achievement of goals for the PKK. There is nothing left that the PKK can achieve by relying on violence. The PKK still has the potential to carry out a violent fight. However, there is no reason or justification for the sustenance of such a fight. Reliance on violence from that point on would be suicide for the PKK.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that violent parties cannot talk at the table. The PKK cannot become an actor in the democratic initiative process just as the military cannot contribute to the process. Those who wanted to legitimize their rule and power created the PKK before the Kurds. The military needed a concrete enemy in its combat against terror. The reason the PKK has become an important actor is because the military chose it as an enemy.