The war that ends the war
by
MÜMTAZ’ER TÜRKÖNE

An important indicator was the Abant Platform, which held its annual meeting last week. This platform is Turkey’s most colorful and all-embracing stage for democracy. Every view is represented, and the debates held on it summarize the mood of the country.

Peace efforts

During its 22nd meeting, the Abant Platform discussed “Tutelage and Democracy.” This subject matter produced beneficial debates parallel to its significance and weight. Nothing is coincidental. The tutelary system introduced by the military to the country is the result of long-term efforts, hairsplitting legal and administrative arrangements and most importantly the psychology that induces weariness and disappointment in the general public. So its end will come as a result of equally profound workmanship, courage and determination.

As the country’s prominent intellectuals were discussing the tutelary system in Turkey and how it can be abolished, a similar call was made from Diyarbakır. Thirty-two nongovernmental organizations came together in front of the Grand Mosque (Ulu Camii) after Friday prayer, and, in a press release, called on the PKK to lay down arms. This organized voice was not lost or isolated among the gunfire. Man and Wisdom Association (İED) President Ahmet Ay said, “Arms will be silenced in all cases,” making a call for civilian resistance. He indicated that if arms are not silenced, they will launch a hunger strike. This call is made sincerely to get rid of arms-based tutelage. Those who believe that the Southeast is captivated by the PKK should understand that this brave call is very precious.

Then, a stronger voice came. The statement read by Diyarbakır Chamber of Industry and Trade (DSTO) President Galip Ensarioğlu last week on behalf of 90 NGOs showed the strength and persistence of the anti-violence trend. The most crucial sentence of this statement was: “All kinds of operations must be stropped, and the PKK must de-escalate the situation.” This sentence should be assessed in connection with the prime minister’s remark made last week in which he said, “If terror stops, operations will automatically stop.” If 90 NGOs that represents Kurds in Diyarbakır come together and issue a statement which urges the PKK to “de-escalate the situation,” this statement is mainly targeting the PKK. This is because this demand was made not while military operations were underway, but after the PKK launched the “medium-intensity war.” Another statement this time issued by the NGOs in Batman, similarly asking for the PKK to stop its violent attacks and for the military to halt its operations, relies on the same “language of non-violence” used by the prime minister, doesn’t it? Moreover, we must realize that the NGOs of the Southeast use this language in spite of pressure from the PKK, asking them to “make the call on the state, not on us.”

Armed tutelage

A country dominated by armed people is a primitive and backward country. No progress or development can be made in a country where fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly including human life, are under armed threat.

The call made by intellectuals participating in the Abant Platform and in NGOs in Diyarbakır is the same: We must get rid of armed tutelage over the country. How? Exactly the same way it was established. The bonds that made this tutelage possible should be removed one by one so that society can lead a normal life.

The Kurdish issue is the result of the military tutelage system. The soldiers do not have legitimate means or foresight to govern the country. They have tried to narrow the gap created by their lack of foresight by multiplying the threats upon which their existence was predicated. They have dragged the country into conflicts and polarization just to be able to rule the country. As conflicts grew, weapons were needed. As fear increased and chaos grew, an iron fist was needed to correct it. The street clashes between leftists and rightists in the 1970s were fueled and exacerbated by this tutelary system. The Kurdish issue was a question made more complicated by the military dictatorship of Sept. 12, which perpetrated the need for military tutelage. The soldiers ruled the country by banning everything. Why? Because every ban is there to be violated. And when someone breaches these bans, those who imposed them will have the right to speak up against those who breached them. The ban on the Kurdish language imposed by the military dictatorship of Sept. 12 at the last moment was not intended for anything but to provoke Kurds.

The two-day Abant Platform meeting proves that Turkey has now the strength and maturity to jettison this tutelage. Everything is discussed at length. Cause and effect relationships are put forward. Mechanisms are decoded, and most importantly, there is the courage to put an end to this tutelage. Intellectuals perform their task: they sketch the methods and ways to boost democracy and expand freedoms.

On the one side, there are breathtaking developments. Turkey seems to be trapped once again in a spiral of terror. On the other side, efforts and faith that will abolish the vast marshes of terrorism are developing with hopes and courage. The reactions from NGOs in the Southeast and the extended debates conducted by intellectuals during the Abant Platform should be viewed from this perspective.

The peace language of politics

The language used by the prime minister as the PKK continues with its attacks against security forces was strikingly constructive. In his address to the nation, the prime minister said, “We believe that what will bring about the end of terror is more democracy, more justice, fairer sharing, more balance and more widespread development,” adding that they, as the state, will not give into the language of violence and that they will not lose their common sense and composure.

No one except the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) is using the language of violence. Sentences imbued with blood and gun power, threats and cheap heroism only dominate these two opposite poles. But is this language of violence helpful? Polls show a significant decrease in the electoral support of the MHP. The BDP is receiving strong reactions directly from Kurds. PKK terrorism is a different matter, but people who use this language of violence do not gain anything. Society and opinion leaders use the language of non-violence and insist on using it.

The PKK is now waging a storm in a narrower area. The terror storm cannot widen this area. How can it do this? The BDP’s politicians should explain why no extrajudicial killing has been seen in the region for several years as they tell Kurds that the “democratic initiative” is empty. Many things have changed in Turkey, and some of these changed in the region despite resistance from the PKK. The force that sent the NGOs to raise their voice and urged the PKK to “de-escalate the situation” despite many threats is the result of people’s faith and longing for peace.

Looking at the fact that this language of nonviolence has permeated the entire society, including the state, except the BDP and the MHP, and that it has not lost its claim and courage in spite of a month of terrorist attacks, I will reiterate my conviction: This time terrorism will not last long.

Terror can be influential on people if it can lead them to rage and enmity. Is there any indication of a Kurdish-Turkish conflict despite all the violence? If it cannot be influential on people, terror is useless. Why should it continue if it does not work and is not beneficial to those who mastermind it?