The process that began with Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan’s 27 February call continues. Despite the steps taken by the Kurdish Freedom Movement at this stage, no legal steps have been introduced, nor has any legal definition been made regarding the status of Abdullah Öcalan. As discussions emerged claiming that “the process has been frozen,” statements made by Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli under seven headings regarding the peace process drew public attention.

 

Speaking to Mezopotamya Agency (MA), Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD) Co-Chair Serhat Çakmak evaluated the developments in the process.

 

Çakmak stated that the resolution process had been stalled for some time, recalling recent developments and noting that what had been expected afterward were certain legal steps, yet there had instead been continuous postponement. Referring to previous resolution efforts regarding the Kurdish issue that eventually collapsed, Çakmak said: “But each initiative was terminated through the intervention of extra-legal forces both outside and within the state. The main expectation now is for the issues discussed at the negotiation table to be transformed into concrete legal steps.”

 

ABDULLAH ÖCALAN’S STATUS

 

Touching on debates regarding Abdullah Öcalan’s status within the process, Çakmak said that both in the past and today the state had treated both PKK members and Abdullah Öcalan as interlocutors, but had never placed this on a legal basis.

 

He said the reason Abdullah Öcalan and Kurds demand a legal status is because it would impose responsibilities on both sides. Stating that a legal status could prevent the process from collapsing as previous ones had, Çakmak said: “A legal definition imposes responsibilities on the parties and creates appropriate working conditions. These conditions mean communication channels remain open. There has been no meeting with Mr Öcalan for two months. This lack of communication is unhealthy for the process. Yes, there is currently a state of non-conflict, but there are also different power centres within the state that may want to sabotage this non-conflict situation. The actors capable of neutralising such sabotage attempts are the state and Mr Öcalan, who are the interlocutors of the process. Therefore, taking the necessary steps to establish the conditions for this status is essential.”

 

DEVLET BAHÇELİ’S STATEMENTS

 

Çakmak said it was important that Devlet Bahçeli’s statements came at a time when the process had stalled, although there were parts of the proposals concerning necessary steps that they did not agree with. Çakmak said: “We find valuable Bahçeli’s references to Mr Öcalan as an interlocutor, his evaluations on why his conditions should change, and the steps that need to be taken. However, reducing the status solely to the dissolution of the organisation, and the absence of in-depth and sufficient evaluations regarding the steps the state must take and the position of a chief negotiator, are matters of criticism. Although the fact that his previous statements have still not been reflected within government policy remains a question mark, such an intervention was needed at this stage.”

 

Referring to shortcomings in Bahçeli’s remarks, Çakmak criticised the approach that sees the Kurdish issue merely as the existence of the PKK. Çakmak said: “This is an incomplete evaluation. The PKK emerged as a result of denial. Reducing all responsibility to the existence of the PKK and failing to adopt a self-critical approach toward the state’s century-long history is, for us, a fundamental criticism.”

 

Çakmak noted that Abdullah Öcalan has significant authority and influence over the PKK, adding: “We must support the discussion of all issues through democratic means at a negotiation table, but it must also be recognised that the primary responsibility for creating the conditions for this lies with the state, and its failure to take any steps is the problem.”

 

Criticising the perception in Bahçeli’s statements that the complete end of the PKK would democratise the country, Çakmak continued: “There is an ambiguity here: the Kurdish issue must be clearly expressed. Fundamental discussions must be conducted regarding the basic rights and freedoms of Kurds, whether linked to the PKK or independent from it. Even if the PKK had not been founded 50 years ago, we would still be discussing the existence of the Kurdish issue, the fundamental rights and freedoms of different identities and beliefs, and the steps the state must take. Therefore, although the statement is extensive and broad, we could speak for hours separately about each section within the framework of methodological shortcomings and criticisms. Previously, the MHP leader also made statements concerning trustees, the Kobani case, and the release of Mr Demirtaş and Ms Figen Yüksekdağ. Yet these too have still not been implemented. In this respect, while the statement should be seen as contributing to the process and deserving support, it remains a statement whose shortcomings and mistakes continue to exist from our perspective.”

 

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PRACTICES

 

Çakmak stressed that although there have been no clashes since the process began, anti-democratic practices still persist in Turkey. “These will continue as long as legal steps are not taken during the process. In addition, the continued non-implementation of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe rulings demonstrates that the principle of the rule of law is not being applied. We are going through a period in which the relationship between the judiciary and political power is deeply felt. Therefore, in the report we submitted to the Parliamentary Commission, we addressed the legal steps that need to be taken regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Before discussing freedom laws, democratisation, and rights and freedoms, it is saddening that certain anti-democratic and unlawful practices that require no legal amendment still continue,” he said. Çakmak reiterated the calls in their report, saying steps must be taken.

 

RIGHT TO HOPE

 

Finally, Çakmak spoke about the deadline given to Turkey by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in June regarding Abdullah Öcalan’s “right to hope” decision. Criticising the absence of any evaluation concerning the “right to hope” in the Parliamentary Commission’s report, Çakmak said it was now necessary to take action. 

 

He added: “Let us say the Parliamentary Commission’s term has ended at this point — who will the Committee indicate, who will be the interlocutor? Therefore, the Committee must avoid ambiguity and set a clear date. In a sense, it should implement its own Constitution. We also believe this would positively contribute to the process. In that respect, we see it as a step that should no longer be postponed. As ÖHD, we also submitted our application to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding the necessity of this regulation, and based on our application we believe the Committee must take a substantial step on this issue.”

 

MA / Habibe Roza Arpa