It was well-timed because it came at a time when the state was in an advantageous position with regard to the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and it was declared that the rights of Kurds would be granted not as an instrument in the fight against the PKK but because the Kurds deserve them. Thus, the government moved one step closer to my oft-voiced argument that the rights of Kurds should be divorced from any fight against, or negotiations with, the PKK.
Arınç did not make the kind of call that I think jailed PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan was expecting, to restart negotiations between the state and the PKK. Indeed, the PKK responded to Arınç’s statement as harshly as the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). The PKK-affiliated news agency ANF described Arınç’s statement as “disgusting.” This was exactly the statement one would expect from the PKK because the PKK’s real intention is not to ensure that the Kurds are granted their rights but to “earn” them through the PKK’s negotiations with the state. In this way, the PKK will be able to assert its domination over the region. The Kurdish Communities Union (KCK) is already a network founded as part of preparations to create a post-PKK administration structure.
As you might have noticed, although the PKK did not say a single word about the hundreds of PKK militants killed during recent operations, the KCK issued numerous statements about them. In this context, Öcalan, too, says: “My proposal for a solution is the KCK system. If the state criminalizes the KCK, those PKK militants in Europe or in the Kandil Mountains or in the Makhmour camp will not return.”
In order to understand why the KCK is so precious to Öcalan and the PKK leaders, we should have a look at the South African model after which the KCK is styled. It is known that Öcalan likes to liken himself to Nelson Mandela. An examination of the KCK organization and contract reveals that it closely follows the model of Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC).
Mandela attempted to unify many clans and groups under the ANC umbrella while Öcalan seeks to unify the Kurdish communities in four different geographical locations as well as Assyrians, Syriacs and religious people in the region first under the umbrella of the KCK and then of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK). And, the KNK was established in line with the KCK.
Why then did Öcalan need the KCK?
Öcalan modeled it after the organization Mandela founded during the process of his release. With the mechanism he set in place, Mandela made the state dysfunctional in places controlled by the ANC. For instance, courts or the police could no longer operate. Already lacking any legitimacy, the state lost also its functionality, and in the end, it was forced to negotiate with Mandela. At least, this is what Öcalan understands from Mandela’s model. Öcalan put the KCK model into circulation so that the state that lost its legitimacy, at least for some Kurds in the Southeast, could be stripped of its functionality as well. That is why the KCK is very important for the PKK leadership. Turkey will not be like South Africa, some might argue. True. Due to this incompatibility, Öcalan’s KCK model -- stolen from Mandela -- is suffering from problems that pop up every day. Moreover, the PKK fails to implement the model properly as it cannot understand what Öcalan is trying to do.
The most salient parallel between the KCK and the ANC concerns the “self-defense forces,” which are referred to with the same name in both models. In South Africa, the self-defense forces aimed to make the state dysfunctional, unable to govern the country, and they were established as the public security forces and were backed by a popular reaction to state violence. In the case of the PKK, these forces are marketed as part of the KCK organization, yet employ the same strategy. Indeed, you can see street protesters who throw stones at the police carrying placards reading “KCK public security.”
The ANC’s self-defense forces were assigned the task of defending the areas under their responsibility against the state’s security forces by building barricades on the streets, patrolling and employing other methods to block security vehicles. The KCK’s self-defense forces, too, employ similar tactics. Just like its ANC counterpart, the KCK’s self-defense forces try to make the state unable to govern the country by attacking police outposts, district governor’s offices or municipalities with hand-made bombs.
When Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the armed wing of the ANC, stopped its armed campaign in 1990, the ANC’s self-defense forces were established in order to prevent rival groups from filling the emerging gap and to trigger a popular fight against the state. Likewise, the KCK does not want to lose its control over the Kurds in the post-PKK era, and Murat Karayılan, the PKK military wing’s number one, and other PKK leaders state that the PKK militants should merge into these defense forces just as the MK militants were integrated into the army.
Worst of all, inspired by the Arab Spring, the PKK’s hawks also tried to give an Arab-style makeover to the KCK network, which is essentially styled after the South African model. They attempted to turn Diyarbakır into a Tahrir Square. Even before discussing whether the African model is suitable to Turkey, they rushed to add the Arab Spring component to the mix and started a war. As a result, they ended up with the current situation.
Taraf daily Editor-in-Chief Ahmet Altan says the PKK started a war using the wrong strategy. He is perfectly right. The PKK is employing the wrong strategy not only in war, but also in peace. Peace will not come to Turkey with a South African model. Just as Turkey is not South Africa, the Kurds are not the downtrodden African people, and Öcalan is no Mandela.
The PKK leadership fails to explain its wrong war and wrong peace. As long as it continues to say, “Kurdish mothers will bear many more guerrillas,” and as long as the Kurdish people do not hold PKK leaders accountable for their dead children, peace will hardly come to this country.
If the KCK model is Öcalan’s sole model for peace, I must say it is the wrong model for peace. It will certainly fail.
