Would the PKK change?
In the past year we all lived through a major experience; while we were talking about the resolution process, we found ourselves in a grave war environment. The number of killed soldiers has exceeded 300; the number of terrorists killed is past 3,000, it is reported.
How was it like a year ago? The resolution process was a hope. The prime minister was saying, “The resolution process is the single success story in the Middle East.” And the president in his Elazığ speech, was asking for support both for the presidential system and for the resolution process.
There was also optimism in the Kurdish movement. Reflecting this optimism, Selahattin Demirtaş said, “The society of Turkey has given the HDP [Peoples’ Democratic Party] a major opportunity.” He also emphasized that “The KCK [Group of Communities in Kurdistan] leaders are smart,” meaning that they would not disrupt this good course by resorting to terror.
There is no need to explain in what kind of an environment we are today. Shouldn’t we learn lessons from past experiences?
While the resolution process was continuing, it was an important sign that despite Öcalan’s instructions, the PKK had not withdrawn across the border. There were statements from Kandil involving arms. One of KCK executives Murat Karayılan, later gave his militants (the ones they did not withdraw across the border) the instructions for “ditches and barricades.”
“Siege the neighborhoods, not the cities. Communal forces should take control in neighborhoods…”
A couple of days later, in a statement issued by the youth organization of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Nur neighborhood of Cizre and Sur neighborhood of Diyarbakır were declared, “self-administrating neighborhoods where we will be able to live freely.” (DHA, Oct. 26, 2014)
The same Karayılan made a new statement three days ago. He criticized the operations of the Turkish army to remove the ditches and barricades: “As a matter of fact, there was no need to make war to this extent in these cities. On the contrary, if they had approached ordinarily, then this ditch issue would have been solved one way…”
This statement of Karayılan was published by Fars News Agency (FHA), which is known to be close to the PKK, on March 28.
Could it be possible that the PKK or the chiefs of KCK at Kandil decide that “There is no need to make war; the issue will be solved one way?” Karayılan is one who speaks more politically compared to others. KCK does not have the slightest sign of such a thought.
Only in developed countries, were armed ethnic issues able to, in the end, enter a democratic process “without warring,” the typical examples of which are the U.K. and Spain.
Kandil, which has a totalitarian structure, will not give up terror voluntarily. For it to reach that point, first the effectiveness of the military operations matter. Second, the Kurdish public should actively impose political pressure on the PKK to stop their violence and third, it also depends on Turkey increasing its diplomatic allies to put international pressure on the PKK.
Unfortunately, HDP has given a bad performance on pressuring the PKK that “there is no need for a war; the issue can be solved one way or the other.” The HDP, which has seen that this is possible within the resolution process, boosted its votes in the June 7 elections with this hope; when Kandil started terror, the HDP tagged behind Kandil. On Nov. 1 elections, it was crossed the election threshold with difficulty.
For this idea to develop within the HDP, there lies a huge responsibility on those in the party who have not lost their independent stances and for Kurdish businessmen and artisans.
The government also has to keep this in mind in all of their statements, instead of pushing the HDP toward the line of Kandil; rather, the HDP has to be drawn into democracy. To be able to enact diplomatic pressure on the PKK, Turkey’s friends should increase. It is a vital necessity that for this matter Turkey develops an image of democracy, not an authoritarian one.