But, there is a plain truth irrespective of whether you call him a chief terrorist or distinguished: Öcalan’s influence over the PKK continues, newly established Kurdish parties tend to take into consideration his possible reactions and a significant segment of the Kurdish population, or at least of the supporters of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), is sympathetic toward him.As we meditate upon the Kurdish issue and ways of settling it in the least destructive manner, we must pay close attention to the Öcalan factor. Here, what we should do, regardless of our political views or ideologies, is to follow the sociological method, namely of distinguishing between “what is” and “what should be.” In our opinion, Öcalan may be a killer of infants who rightfully deserves the titled of chief terrorist, but if about 40,000 PKK militants have been killed up to date and if the PKK can still exist as an armed and active organization and if Öcalan is the only person influential on this organization, then we will have to choose between killing another 40,000 PKK militants and at the same time losing five more soldiers or taking into consideration the Öcalan factor. If a leader of a terrorist organization that is serving his prison term for life can change the course of events with a single nod, it is not wise to ignore this and it is more advisable to think about the contributions he might make to the settlement of the issue at hand. It is my conviction that some units of the state already take into consideration this factor. Indeed, Öcalan has confirmed that some state officials intend to meet with him with respect to some “intelligence matters.” Yet, the process does not make any progress and armed clashes go on and the children of this country continue to die. The important thing is that the intellectuals who sincerely contemplate on the solution to the Kurdish issue should think about this factor in a cool-headed manner.
One may wonder: Where does Öcalan’s power come from? How can he be so influential? Why do Kurdish politicians and intellectuals fail to hold sufficient sway over the Kurdish movement? These questions really deserve deep thought.
In the first place, we need to emphasize that the Kurdish movement is basically very different from other separatist movements around the world, particularly in the UK and Spain. In these countries, it was the “political” organizations that made the first appearance with certain demands for autonomy or separation. When they failed to get their demands accepted through politics, they either started the armed struggled or maintained the political and armed struggle simultaneously. In both cases, the armed wing of these movements was strictly controlled by the political wing and the militants who resort to terror and violence were always guided by the course of action followed by civilian politicians. In other words, in these secessionist movements, political parties or political figures who act in the legitimate sphere would sit atop the pyramid while armed organizations were dependent on them. For this reason, even if the UK or Spain conducted secret talks or negotiations with the armed wings of these movements --indeed, they never severed contact with them -- they openly addressed their civilian or political wings.
However, this is not the case with the Kurdish movement. The armed struggle first started in 1984. The PKK’s first move was to purge all other Kurdish movements and allow only those parties that would act within the limits set by itself to be established and function. You may not like it, but this is the truth.
Obviously, the state or opinion leaders or political parties cannot be expected to talk to Öcalan openly. This is the case from the perspective of political reality. Yet, we also have to stop the bloodshed. Within this framework, the BDP was established in place of the now-defunct Democratic Society Party (DTP). This is another reality. The things that can be discussed with the BDP do not include the laying down of arms, sending armed PKK militants outside the country and stopping the clashes. The BDP is concerned with the political aspects of the issue. Although he demands that he must be addressed at all times, Öcalan also concedes that “he should not be consulted about everything” or the “BDP [formerly DTP] may be consulted.” This must surely be taken into consideration.
