There is consensus among state organs, particularly the army. With Deniz Baykal's emphasis on the fact that an amnesty may come if the armed conflict ends, there is also consensus in Parliament, except for the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Optimism prevails despite the existence of pessimists. The departing point for everyone is the president's statement that "good things will happen." However, everyone says something different in response to the following question: How will these "good things" be realized?As we are not expecting miracles, "good things" will be realized with patience, labor and caution. We need the patience of saints and some quiet in order to undo the knots formed over many years. Most importantly, we need an atmosphere of trust that will encompass everyone.
I have been optimistic about the settlement of the Kurdish issue for a long time, and I have frequently expressed my optimism. There are two basic reasons for my hope. First, the policies that have been imposing lack of settlement have objectively been exhausted. Second, we have the experience for creating a common wisdom for settlement. First there are our experiences that urge us to seek for settlement, particularly the one that caused the loss of about 40,000 people and that consisted of 25 years of violence. By saying that "whatever is done with weapons is done," Cemil Bayık of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is actually implying that violence has exhausted itself as a means of politics. Although Bayık argues that "this is the case for both sides," it is flawed to claim a parallelism between the state and the PKK. If the PKK does not engage in violent attacks, no one will suggest that the state will promote the "military solution." For instance, what military measures can be taken against a Kurdish movement which is conducted purely through civil disobedience or passive resistance methods -- or which is purely political? What ends is not the era of blood feuds between two clans, but the era of political violence. It is for this reason the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party's (DTP) frequently reiterated suggestion that "both sides must lay down arms" means nothing but an implied threat for "maintaining the policy of violence." Likewise, the MHP's stance that is poised to define every attempt for settlement as treason has no meaning in the light of our quarter-century-old experience.
The PKK is aware of the fact that given the international conjuncture, a goal that can be reached by use of violence is no longer possible. Maintaining the violence will not do any good to any side. Obviously, this will not be beneficial to the PKK or to the mission it represents or to the Kurds. What will the state gain by pursuing a "strict" military solution by announcing that they will find and destroy the last terrorist in the face of violent action? As violence grows so human rights violations will increase. Economic costs will increase. Eventually, the Kurdish issue will turn into an international issue. A Kurdish issue that has acquired international dimensions will be beneficial not to the Kurds, but to those who are against Turkey in the international arena. As a country whose social peace is undermined inside and which is cornered outside, Turkey will suffer great losses. Let us reiterate: such an end will not do any good to the PKK, the Kurds, Turkish republic, or this country's 72 million citizens. This is the common-sense perspective on seeking settlement. For what reason can a war be waged with no winner?
A plan for settlement
The PKK and the DTP are pursuing the reason produced by Abdullah Öcalan in İmralı. The state of "lack of attacks" declared by Murat Karayılan in Kandil until July 15 has been extended further by Öcalan to September 1. The PKK leader has a political mind with sharp ideological corners. He produces theories based on concepts and develops strategies. He seeks to see that the plan he develops corresponds with the initiative developed by the state. In the efforts exerted for settlement, the ideological mind of a terrorist organization leader fashioned by Marxist literature is pitted against the pragmatic mind of a state that has perfected its struggle against ethnic revolts for the last two centuries. What we face is a Gordian knot, consisting of separate knots of intricately entwined issues. We have defined the issue as follows: Turkey has a "Kurdish issue," and there is also a "terrorism issue" stemming from the Kurdish issue. We must try to reach the center of the knot by starting first from the external layer. So, we must start with the terrorism issue. What does that mean? We must first solve the PKK issue. How? By passing an amnesty bill specifically aimed at the PKK which is considering the option of laying down arms. The stance expressed by Deniz Baykal as a great contribution to the settlement of the issue is correct. If the PKK buries the hatchet, then we may start to discuss the amnesty bill.
In the past, we missed the opportunity for settlement in 1992, in 1999 and finally in 2003, but this time, we must take pains not to miss the current opportunity. In 2009, when the new parliamentary term starts, Parliament must pass a comprehensive and persuasive amnesty bill. This will be a critical step that will put an end to the PKK issue, i.e., terrorism, and that will make it possible for us to concentrate on the Kurdish issue. Then, we can rephrase our question: Can Parliament pass such an amnesty bill for the sake of settlement? If we reverse the question, the reasonableness of it becomes self-evident. Can those who prevent the passage of such a bill that will give Turkey a fresh start assume the responsibility for their actions?
Answer: The amnesty bill will be passed before the end of 2009. In summer, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) will support such a bill. The MHP is filling the gap after the military shifted toward settlement. The MHP is still trying to claim possession of the yoke of the Kurdish issue. Yet, it has a dilemma. In order to maintain its sensitivities for a unitary nation-state and its stance that reduces the issue to terror, the MHP must not raise objections to the amnesty bill.
Solution: democratization
For all of the Kurds who do not dream of an independent Kurdish state, the issue is one of democratization. In a Turkey where democratic institutionalization, human rights standards and the rule of law are implemented at the universal level, there will be no such thing as the Kurdish issue.
Turkey cannot undertake the restructuring of the central administration and the local administration reform on the pretext of the Kurdish issue. In a country where governors are elected and provincial councils can take decisions on every issue except for justice and external security, there will be no demands for federation or autonomy. For those who demand federation, how can they persuade the Kurds living in western provinces? It is true that with the establishment of the republic, Turkey decided to be a unitary nation state. Even the fact that we currently do no follow the case of France from which we had derived this model is sufficient to end the debates. The current age forces us to shift from centralism to decentralization.
The Kurdish issue is a democratization issue. At the core of this democratization issue is the Kurdish language issue. We must sweep aside what we have memorized and what we have been parroting for years. Some 60 million people whose mother tongue is Turkish should wear the shoes of Kurds before making assertions about Kurdish. Those who raise objections to geographical names in Kurdish and to the use of the names local people use in parenthesis should explain how this will undermine the nation state.
We are untangling a complicated knot. We should stop staring at each other's faces with worries and concerns and concentrate on what we must do. Love develops and grows not when two people look at each other's faces, but when the two look at the same thing.
Perhaps “good things” do not happen in Turkey. But let us ask those who agree with this statement: Who then will block these good things?
