Whether we should refer to this by putting a label on it that reads “subcontracted” is what I wish to discuss today.Turkey is at present more openly coming to terms with its past. This process includes, of course, joyfully celebrating many of her great achievements as well as shedding light on those darker moments. In this context, it is only logical that government and citizens alike begin to wonder whether the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is acting alone or perhaps benefiting from both domestic and international support.
Parts of the PKK seem to be well organized and, unfortunately, all too well trained, larger clustered groups with hundreds of activists. Some analysts argue that at present the inner circle of the PKK consists of around 5000 members, a number which is, of course, difficult to verify.
In an exclusive interview with the Anatolia news agency this Friday, whilst in Dubrovnic, Turkey’s minister for EU negotiations, Egemen Bağış, said, “The escalating acts of violence staged by the terrorist organization, PKK, attempted to undermine the government-backed constitutional amendment package, which is set to be put to a vote in a referendum on Sept. 12, and the government’s democratization initiative.”
What the minister hinted at, and if I may paraphrase, is that every PKK attack has a master plan (and mastermind) that takes into consideration the consequences and the public’s reactions. Those people know only too well that once social inclusion has become the order of the day in Turkey’s southeastern region, as well as all over the country, and a more civilian-based constitution is in place, domestic terror will have become totally unsustainable because there will be no new recruits forsaking peace and prosperity for civil war.
Whether acting alone or cosponsored by third parties, the terrorists want to create mayhem first and martial law second, as under these conditions more people would want to join their ranks to “justifiably” fight the state, its institutions and its people. In modern democracies this is, however, an outdated belief; if it had any credibility, anarchism would have become the most prominent way to run a country.
Today, it seems arguments put forth by various stakeholders of society are beginning to focus on an extremely vital matter: Was the PKK able to prepare and carry out its attacks individually, or was there contract with what is often referred to as the “deep state?” Some went even so far as to suggest the state of Israel could have had a hand in some of the more recent attacks, in particular referring to the İskenderun incident which took place nearly at the same time as the attack on the Gaza flotilla and the Turkish registered vessel, the Mavi Marmara, a suggestion I strongly reject.
The danger with putting blame for violence, all too easily, on outside support is that it opens the door for overlooking something much more important: Even if traces of active, financial or verbal external support could be detected, the order to provide it would, nevertheless, have come from the inside. It would not make sense that someone or a group of people or even an entire state, not coordinated by Turkish citizens, would one day wake up and decide to destabilize a non-related nation.
Much more interesting to analyze is whether, and if so which, groups or individuals in Turkish society are benefiting from ongoing terror activities always fatal and heinous, but never too big as to target, even by mistake, those who might be silently or actively supporting those criminal acts. They are always aiming at the armed forces (with very few exceptions when the target became “soft,” such as the McDonalds in Antalya or a minibus carrying tourists in Kuşadası, both attacks happened some years ago) with the full knowledge that every soldier killed becomes a hero and stirs up national sentiment.
To sum up my observations: Even if the PKK has, or is, a subcontractor, the “terror contracting” body or group must be based within the country. It is a very good sign, from a democratic perspective, that this debate has now begun in earnest. Perhaps a public enquiry would make sense?
