White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that a key item on Bush’s agenda was encouraging Turkish leaders to pursue a “long-term political solution” to the PKK problem, cooperating with Iraqi leaders who also are concerned about the group’s activities. Yet she made it clear that the US did not have any particular solution or process in mind, but wanted to play a constructive role in ending a long-standing dispute. Despite Gül’s denial, the issue has been widely discussed in the Turkish media, with columnists’ pondering over what is meant by a political solution to the PKK problem. Milliyet’s Fikret Bila points to the contradiction in the notion of a political solution to Turkey’s PKK problem between the line taken by the PKK and the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) and the line taken by the government. For the PKK-DTP, he explains, a political solution means restructuring the Turkish Republic under the name of a “democratic republic” and recognition of this new structure in the new Constitution. “This means mentioning in the Constitution that the Turkish Republic is composed of two nations. The purpose of this demand is to open a hole in the ‘nation-state’ structure of the Turkish Republic. Another demand is Turkey’s division into autonomous regions. The meaning of this demand is actually the granting of autonomy to the southeast region, with Diyarbakır as the capital city for the autonomous region,” writes Bila, adding that all these demands are aimed at forming a ground for a future federation by damaging Turkey’s “unitary nation-state” structure. As for what the government understands by a political solution to the PKK problem, he says that the government means the expansion of individual rights and liberties, the taking of economic and social measures in the southeast to stop it from becoming a recruiting pool for the PKK and legal amendments that will bring PKK members down from the mountains -- things that are totally different from what the PKK-DTP has in mind.
Yeni Şafak’s Fehmi Koru also points to the confusion about what is meant by a political solution to the PKK issue. He writes that the social, economic and legal measures the government is considering implementing to improve the circumstances in Turkey’s Southeast could be regarded as a “political solution.” “In the American jargon, there are times that such approaches are termed ‘political solutions’; yet, such a precise naming cannot find much room in Turkey, naturally. This stems from the fact that no single issue is being concentrated on when a solution is sought for the PKK problem,” he says, stressing that naming all the social and political steps aimed at ending the PKK problem with a single term is not reasonable. “Turkey is learning to solve its own problems. This is the real ‘political’ attitude and the real ‘solution,’” he adds.
According to Referans’ Cengiz Çandar, a political solution to end the Kurdish issue is not likely as long as this problem is associated merely with the poor economic circumstances of the Southeast and its roots in ethnicity are ignored. In light of this, he does not think economic and social measures planned for the region can be part of a political solution. “As long as the Kurdish issue is not seen as an identity problem and legal arrangements are made thusly, you cannot talk about an extensive political solution. To achieve this, a very clear strategic vision and political determination are required,” says Çandar, voicing pessimism about the existence of such vision and determination on the government’s part.
