How ironic. I was among those who followed their painful trials, such as that against the great author Yaşar Kemal, or my colleague, Oral Çalışlar. I was among those who followed another colleague, Ragıp Duran, to the gates of the jail in Saray. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment for “terrorist propaganda.” What he did was to analyze -- in bold language -- the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) as of 1995. Times change, and sometimes ideas must await the best time for their realization. This is exactly what happens in the bleeding Kurdish question. I recall time and time again stating that the only possibility for an “opening” in that problem would not reveal itself until the sides of the conflict accept the notion that none of them will win.
This is, it seems, where we are now.
Turkey's Interior Minister Beşir Atalay launched what many see as a historic initiative on the issue. Without revealing much on the content of what his government would aim to do – thus disappointing some – he instead pointed to the modalities.
“We are moving forward with views and contributions from others. We are also taking into account books, analyses and speeches on this issue. We are making use of these works. As we conducted this project, our goal was to ensure the widest possible consensus on the issue. We expect contributions from all political parties. They will all be visited. We also think that the opposition's positive statements have been important. We will also talk to them. We will make an effort to hear opinions and secure the involvement of civil society organizations, academics, media representatives, journalists and writers. Everyone will embrace our efforts,” he said.
Seeking a national consensus is fine. But, as the executive power, the government could have been clearer on the strategy. It is too cautious. It should know that too much caution might backfire, as it did before. It should have been prepared to meet the expectations once it raised them. So the minister would do better than to waste too much time with endless meetings in which people will simply repeat what they have said and written for years, and move on to the level of action. The opposition, with which the government is again unreasonably preoccupied, will cry foul and treason however it proceeds.
It will be argued that the government has not wasted its time in the past months and has a plan. That may be true, but if it looks like a race between Ankara and Abdullah Öcalan, the jailed leader of the PKK, to be the first to come up with a plan, it might destroy much of what the government seriously intends to do.
There are steps that can be taken without consensus, and there are those that demand a wider agreement within the society. The more quickly the government launches minor but meaningful “confidence-building measures,” the easier it will be to draw the attention of the weary Kurds in the region to the intent. We all know they felt repeatedly cheated in the past by successive governments, and the first point to be dealt with is to dispel the idea that “this government starts things but cannot complete them.” They want to feel secure that the evil deeds of the past will never be repeated.
So there are some “yes, it can” steps for the government.
Can it enforce a lasting cease-fire? Yes, it can.
Can it issue an apology for all the suppression, wrongdoing and ill treatment of the Kurdish population over the decades? Yes, it can.
Can it create a “reconciliation and truth commission” to deal with the dark past? Yes, it can.
Can it turn the notorious Diyarbakır Prison into a memorial for past crimes? Pledge a return of the remains of slain Kurdish militants? Relocate Kurdish villagers to their devastated villages by paying reparations? Yes, it can.
Can it allow Kurdish broadcasts in the private media? Stop harassing the Kurdish press? Ease that part of the legislation? Yes, it can.
Can it return the original Kurdish names of villages, towns and cities? Yes, it can.
Can it actively organize a regional meeting with all the Kurdish deputies and elderly wise men and business leaders from across the political divide?
Yes, it can.
These are the steps that should be taken independent of what should come later, in terms an amnesty, of administrative reform and of a new Constitution.
It should be aware that the process will be long, arduous and risky. A change of heart or a disruption of the process have the potential to make things worse.
