‘PKK is ready for peace’
by
ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ

“Dear Orhan,

“I saw your column and was pleased both that my book was so well liked by the unnamed Kurdish human rights activist. I also look forward to your thoughts after you read the book.

“I wanted also to briefly comment on your analysis on Ocalan's role and the difficulties this will make for ending the PKK's war. You say support for Ocalan is an impediment to a peace process. While it will be difficult to maneuver around Ocalan in any peace agreement or democratic reform process, it is not impossible. There is a way to do this. The Kurdish problem can be solved without freeing Ocalan, or without negotiating directly with Ocalan.  PKK supporters, of course, will not agree with this openly. But after a long trip through the Southeast and Iraqi Kurdistan last summer (including meetings with PKK supporters and members) I am convinced that there is a way to satisfy both Ocalan's supporters and Turkey's need not to directly include him in any final deal. I believe to make this work both the Turkish government and the PKK will have to agree to a certain amount of fiction making. Turkey will pretend it is not talking to the PKK (and instead will work with legal Kurdish politicians who, in fact, get their votes from PKK supporters so they have to be responsive to how the PKK is thinking) and the PKK will act like it is not involved in negotiations.

“Unlike you, I do think the PKK is ready for peace. It just does not know what to do to get to that point. The arrest of the so-called peace activists who crossed from Habur in 2009 is a sign to the PKK that the government does not want even a disarmed PKK. The closure of [the Democratic Society Party] DTP, and the arrests of the party's mayors and more than 100 other political activists, makes average Kurds wonder where the role for peaceful, legal politics is. There is no question that the PKK's attacks that sadly killed 16 soldiers and a young girl over the weekend makes it harder for the Turkish public to consider any government initiative that would include talking to the PKK to settle the Kurdish problem. But both sides need to put aside their anger and try to focus on a solution. Otherwise, I fear the killings on both sides will simply continue.

“Regards, Aliza Marcus”

I would like to thank Ms. Marcus for her explanations and expectations that she shared with us. She is a PKK expert, and therefore I would like to give huge credence to her remarks, especially the one indicating that the PKK is ready for peace. However, my last article's focus was on a fictional question. Namely, would Abdullah Öcalan be willing to accept any peace deal if this deal would somehow diminish his role in Kurdish politics? And I gave a negative answer to this question. In my previous article I wanted to show some other dimensions that are inherent to this problem and somehow ignored by some segments that are sensitive to the Kurdish question. My intention was not by any means to show the PKK and Öcalan as the only obstacles for reconciliation. This government also made some mistakes; I agree with Ms. Marcus in that regard. The Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) passive and even supportive attitude towards the closure of a pro-Kurdish party, the arrests of mayors and some other developments, of course, were amongst some factors that affected this process negatively.

I really believe that we should definitely be fair towards each party in this conflict. The AK Party government is trying to solve a problem it has not created. The AK Party's somewhat opportunist approaches or some nationalist segments operating in this party may be impediments before any peace deal. But we should never underestimate the steps taken by the AK Party, which does not have total control over the military or judiciary. They, for example, spent a tremendous effort to prevent the arrest of PKK members who entered Turkey from Habur. Not to mention the AK Party's taboo-breaking steps, such as lifting the ban on the Kurdish language and initiating a Kurdish broadcasting channel, TRT 6.

The Kurdish question came to this gangrenous point because of the military's disastrous and inhumane politics in the region. The destruction of villages, torture, disappearances, executions and so many other grave human rights violations became routine in the region. These “politics” only made the PKK bigger and bigger. However, I do not think that these barbaric acts can justify anything and everything the PKK has done. The PKK's adventure from a Marxist-Leninist organization to a purely ethnic nationalist one needs to be analyzed thoroughly. Its endless executions of its members, its terrorist methods, its archaic political discourse and blind worship of its leader are just some elements that show us what kind of future this organization promises Kurdish people.

My conclusion is that: Yes, Turkey has to negotiate with the PKK. Not because the PKK is being a “freedom fighter” but because there is no other way of ending this conflict. How can intellectuals contribute to this process? By seeing and explaining the situation and positions of the parties as they are. Intellectuals should criticize any attitude that creates an obstacle before any peace deal. This is all I am trying to do.