Since its foundation, the Republic of Turkey's view of Kurds has not changed. In the 101 years it has left behind, the Kurdish issue, which has been denied and “assumed to exist” in periods of deepening crises, has not been resolved. This situation continued during the 22 years of AKP rule. The Kurdish issue, which was considered to exist in Amed (Diyarbakır), was always ignored in Ankara. This time the Kurdish issue was brought to the agenda by Devlet Bahçeli, the chair of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which ignores, denies and targets it in every speech. He went to the desks of the DEM Party, which he targeted at every opportunity, and shook hands. Even though he said “there is no Kurdish issue” and he admitted that there is one by starting a debate on “interlocutor”. Bahçeli’s alliance partner President Tayyip Erdoğan also supported his statement. Emphasizing Kurdish-Turkish unity through “internal peace”, calls were made to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan, who is being held in severe isolation in İmralı. 

 

These discussions were reminiscent of PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan's Road Map titled “Problems of Democratization in Turkey, Solution Models in Kurdistan”, which reveals the historical dialectic in Kurdish-Turkish relations. In the Road Map he presented in 2009, Abdullah Öcalan sheds light on the historical background of Kurdish-Turkish relations, which have been the talk of the ruling wing in recent days, addresses the Kurdish issue and points to its solution. 

 

Underlining that a closer and concrete evaluation of the relations and contradictions in the Turkish-Kurdish dilemma would illuminate the problematics and solution possibilities, Abdullah Öcalan stated that neither the problems nor the solutions would be sufficiently conscious in the relentless vortex of necessity. Abdullah Öcalan said: “If enlightenment, consciousness itself is close to the truth, it means that half of the solution has been reached. The other half is to walk with appropriate steps on the path opened.” 

 

THE GATES OF ANATOLIA OPENED WIDE

 

Discussing the historical background, Abdullah Öcalan reminded that when the Seljuks reached the borders of Kurdistan as tribes and beys, they proposed a joint war against Byzantium with the weapon of Islamic brotherhood. Abdullah Öcalan stated that the Kurds themselves embraced Islam as the overwhelming majority and supported the strategy of joint warfare as they had often experienced a state of regression against Byzantium. Öcalan gave the following reminders about the developments during this period: “In May 1071, Sultan Alparslan was seeking an alliance with Kurdish beys and tribes in Meyafarqîn (today's Silvan), which was considered the Kurdish capital at the time. With the addition of forces from both beys and tribes, estimated to be half Kurdish, he would achieve the landmark victory of August 1071. Without a proper analysis of the role of Kurdish tribes and beys in this war, the relations between Kurdish and Turkish tribes and beys cannot be adequately analyzed. The victory was strategic. It opened the gates of Anatolia wide open for the Turkish tribes and beys. For the Kurdish tribes and beys, it eliminated the Byzantine threat and its consequences. Such a basis for relations is very important and will play a major role in determining the future.”

 

CULTURE OF COMMON LIFE

 

Abdullah Öcalan stated that during this process, while Turkish tribes and beys were mainly concentrated in Central Anatolia, the Western Mediterranean and Anatolia opening towards the Black Sea, Kurdish tribes and beys did not hesitate to develop their settlements and power. “The Turkish tribes and beys never attempted to take over and own the places where the Kurds were sovereign and settled and their cultural traditions in these places. The strategic alliance, solidarity and culture of coexistence between them required this. In the meantime, the Armenian and Assyrian peoples continued their friendly presence in the cities,” he said.  

 

POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP MORE DOMINANT

 

PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan said that during this period some Turkish principalities were established in Kurdistan, namely the Artukoğulları, Karakoyunlular and Akkoyunlular, but these were short-lived and the tribes they were based on mostly melted into Kurdish culture through natural assimilation. Abdullah Öcalan pointed out that traces of this reality can be seen even today, and noted that the Kurds continued their social life as tribes and clans with many local principalities in the Islamic period, with aggravating problems. Abdullah Öcalan stated that, as in the Turkish tribes, the upper stratum developed their principalities in the service of various civilizations, while the lower stratum was divided into a separate category as Kurmanc, and that a separation similar to the Arab-Bedouin and Turkish-Turkmen dichotomy gained momentum in Kurds during this period. 

 

 

 

PKK Leader Öcalan reminded that in the relations between Turkish and Kurdish beys and tribes until the Ottoman reign period in the early 1500s, respect for each other's law, even if tacit, and a common strategy against external threats to both main groups and acting accordingly predominated, and said: “The positive relationship side is more dominant than the negative contradiction side. There is no systematic period of contradiction and conflict between them.” 

 

TURKISH-KURDISH EMPIRE!

 

Abdullah Öcalan underlined that the second important strategic stage in Kurdish-Turkish relations began with the Ottoman Empire's expansion into the Middle East and said, “In the early 16th century, the tensions between the Safavid Dynasty, which had risen in Iran on the basis of Shi'ism, and the Kurdish principalities had increased with sectarian contradictions and had an increasing influence on Anatolia. The same contradiction was being experienced with the Mamluk sultans centered in Egypt. The influence of the Mamluks was also increasing through the Mediterranean and the Southeast. The position of the Kurdish principalities played a strategic role. Whichever side they allied with, they would be the hegemonic power in the Middle East. Ottoman Sultan Yavuz Selim's approach of a strategic alliance between two almost equal powers was not long in yielding its historical results. The alliance granted the Kurdish principalities wide autonomy and the authority to become a government. More than an alliance, it paved the way for a Turkish-Kurdish Empire like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A careful observer of history will be able to see the strategic nature of the Anatolian-Mesopotamian partnership in the first attempts at civilization by the Hittite-Hurri-Mitanians as early as 2000 BC. One cannot do without the other. Economic-political relations are rapidly integrating with each other. This historical fact proves itself again in the magnificent century of the Ottomans.”

 

THE NON-SEPARATION OF KURDS FROM TURKS 

 

The PKK Leader stated that with the new status, the Sunni Kurdish principalities increased their weight within the Empire, the situation of Alevi and Yazidi Kurds and the problems of the Kurmanc Kurds worsened, and class and sectarian contradictions increased. Pointing out that this partnership status, which lasted for about 300 hundred years, began to deteriorate with the infiltration of capitalist modernity into the Middle East in the early 19th century, he said: “The British Empire, which increased its influence in the region through Iraq and Egypt, tried to develop a nationalism centered on Sulaymaniyah. The first rebellion was led by the leaders of the Baban tribe from the Sulaymaniyah region. This process, which has been going on for nearly two hundred years with differentiations, continues in Southern Kurdistan today with the practice of half a nation-state. The 19th century Kurdish revolts were pro-capitalist nationalist due to their class character. As mentioned, there are historical reasons why the Kurds did not differentiate from the Turks, even though all nationalities within the empire separated on the basis of the nation-state. There is a state mentality that stems from the bi-national upper stratum partnership of the state core of the empire.”

 

 

EXPERIENCES CONFIRMING THE HISTORICAL DIALECTIC 

 

Emphasizing that strategic reasons have made it necessary for every civilization that has risen in the two areas since the birth of the state to act in common, Abdullah Öcalan said that otherwise the existence and interests of the societies in both areas would be threatened. Noting that every political and economic formation that emerged expressed the invaluable value of being in partnership, the PKK Leader pointed out that the Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish sultanate experiences once again confirmed this historical dialectic. 

 

FIRST ENCOUNTERS IN THE KURDISH ISSUE... 

 

PKK Leader Öcalan stated that in this period, the partnership between the bey and the sultan at the top turned into a relationship between sheikhs, aghas and merchants, and continued as follows: “With Sultan Mahmut II (1808-1839), these relations deteriorated further. The disruptive effect of modernity increased the contradictions between both sides and turned the century into a century of rebellion. The inconclusiveness of the revolts and the nation-state reconstruction efforts of the Ottoman Empire disrupted the traditional nature of relations between the two nationalities. The rupture increased when the Young Ottomans, the Young Turks and its most nationalist section, the Committee of Union and Progress (1889), began to advocate Turkish nation-statism, first implicitly and then explicitly. In response, Kurdish nationalism began to assert itself. The Kurdish issue in its modern sense coincides with this period.”

 

AGGRAVATING FACTOR: TURKISHNATIONALISM! 

 

Abdullah Öcalan emphasized that the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti) started committeemaking, and that the problem was aggravated when it openly turned to Turkism instead of Islamic nationalism. “Two groups emerged: Genealogical Turkish nationalism and Islamic nationalism. Kurds tried to maintain their traditional unity with Islamic nationalists. Naqshi sheikhs, Mevlana Halit and Said-i Nursi represented this tendency as the mainstream. They insisted on the common nature of the empire and subsequent state formation. Islam, the ideology of the ummah,” he said. 

 

COMMİTTEE OF UNION AND PROGRESS NATIONALISM 

 

Reminding that the Committee of Union and Progress, especially after its defeat in the Balkan Wars (1912-13), turned towards a racist nationalism within the state without considering the historical commonality between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, the PKK Leader said, “There was no place for Kurdishness in this nationalism. Like the Armenians, they would either leave the lands where they existed or be destroyed in some way. French positivism fueled this policy. Only the strong had the right to live; Darwin's determinism of 'the strong survive' was to be applied to society as if it were a scientific reality. The brutality of capitalist modernity reflects itself here in all its horror. This strict positivist ideology, which made the position of not only Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and Kurds, but also Turks and Arabs unlivable, resulted in the end of the Empire at the hands of the Committee of Union and Progress. However, their influence continued to prevail in Republican Turkey.” 

 

THE DIVISION OF THE KURDS INTO FOUR 

 

Abdullah Öcalan underlined that the Kurds, like other allies, were a founding element of the Republic and said: “The Kurds, as they have been throughout history, were a strategic partner in both the liberation of the ummah and the building of the Republic. When the British Empire was granted the privilege of a nation-state within the borders of Misak-ı Milli, which remained in exchange for Mosul and Kirkuk, the Kurds were divided into four parts, and the policy to end their existence on the remaining part of the interior was started with relentless speed and this policy has always continued at the same pace. I should also point out that the Treaty of Kasr-ı Shirin with the Safavid dynasty of Iran in 1639 was contrary to the strategic alliance between the two nationalities. Almost all Kurds were within the borders of the Ottoman Empire. The borders of Misak-ı Milli were strictly based on the unity of Kurds and Turks. The treaties with the British and the French are absolutely contrary to the Misak-ı Milli. These treaties, which have locked the Kurds in the most severe existence-disappearance problematic of their history, are absolutely contrary to the much-mentioned thousand-year partnership and brotherhood between Turks and Kurds. But the unasked question is who is responsible for these contradictory treaties. You will both divide the Kurds into four in exchange for the concessions made as a result of relations with some hegemonic powers, and then you will say 'some of the Kurds are disrupting the thousand-year brotherhood'!”

 

BROUGHT TO THE BRINK OF GENOCIDE

 

Underlining that this approach, which ignores the facts, has brought the Kurdish issue to the brink of cultural genocide throughout the entire history of the Republic, Abdullah Öcalan said: “The Kurdish issue has really turned from being just an economic, social, political and military problem into a question of the cultural existence and non-existence of a people, due to understandings and practices that completely discard and deny the spirit of a thousand years of strategic friendship. The revolts (1925-1940) not only stemmed from this question of existence and non-existence, but were also used for this purpose. The Unionist mentality clearly wanted to exclude the Kurds from both the state and society, and imposed that they cease to be a society. For this reason, this policy turned into a question of 'Do Kurds exist or not? With a little empathy, it is necessary to understand how horrifying it is to be excluded from being a founding element of the Republic and put into this process of non-existence. The Kurdish issue is not a question of division, but a question of emerging from the process of non-existence and regaining the position of being a strategic friend, partner and brother worthy of history. Understanding this reality is only possible with a conscientious empathy.” 

 

FIRST CONDITION FOR A SOLUTION: CIVIL CONSTITUTION

 

In the Road Map he wrote in 2009, PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan also showed the way to a solution to the Kurdish issue. Emphasizing the need for a new civilian constitution based on social consensus as the primary condition for a solution, Abdullah Öcalan stated the following: “On this basis, basic individual and social rights, freedom of expression and democratic organizational rights, which will be guaranteed by the consensus of all social segments, gain decisive importance. A constitution that will be based on individual and social freedoms and rights will make the democratic, social, secular and legal character of the Republic truly operational and secure. Within this constitutional framework, the Kurdish issue, like other social problems, can be resolved. A Republic that loosens its rigid nation-state shirt will achieve a real and lasting democratic unity as a result of the Kurds gaining their individual and social rights, further consolidating a fundamental pillar that has always played a role as a founding element in history, let alone being divided. On this basis, it will be free from the severe traumas, endless loss of life and property, pain and tears. This will ensure the security, development and happiness of the country and the nation.”

 

THE WAY OUT OF THE BIGGEST CRISIS 

  

Abdullah Öcalan underlined that the way out of this biggest crisis in the history of the Republic, which is in full swing and is being experienced both within the state and society, will be determined by the attitudes of the existing forces, and said: “The debate and the search for a democratic constitution are both the cause and the result of this crisis. More precisely, the two are in an active dynamism that gives birth to each other. In this situation, the Kurdish issue is again in a dominant position. In fact, this reality is related to a deep principle of history, which is that social problems cannot be suppressed by force, but will make themselves felt more violently than ever as soon as they find the opportunity. In this respect, the period 1920-1925 is one of the most interesting periods in history, almost as if it is being lived in a cycle again, but this time all the founding allies are being called to work, not to be suppressed, but to rebuild the democratic republic that could not be built in time. The thin line between history and the present, and its interpretation as circularity, gives us the opportunity and chance to grasp this reality more accurately and to play historical roles.”

 

DEMOCRATIC SOLUTION IS OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE

 

PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan emphasized the historical importance of the democratic solution and continued as follows: “Turkey's democratization process and the democratic solution to the Kurdish issue are like two sides of the same coin. One face cannot exist without the other. If we try to concretize the dimensions of the solution on Turkey, it will be more enlightening. First of all, the principled approach cannot be ignored. Solutions without a principle and a system are not only incomprehensible, but also do not yield results beyond a day-to-day dressing treatment. The solution being considered is the possibility of a solution that is advocated to be implemented and lived throughout this structural period, whether the Western capitalist hegemonic system disintegrates or continues.”

 

MA / Özgür Paksoy