Karayılan: Dialogue is important but there is also supposed to be a resolution concept.

KCK Executive Council President Murat Karayılan talked to ANF reporters Deniz Kendal and Rosida Mardin about the meeting with Kurdish People’s Leader Öcalan in Imrali Island.  He, by stressing to monitor the initiative carefully said,  “the initiative launched for a dialogue is both important and accurate approach.”

KCK Executive Council President Murat Karayılan said that meetings have been taken place with Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan since November and he continued as “of course the visit of Ahmet Turk and Ayla Akat by going to Imrali brought seriousness to the process of meetings.” This is a new dimension and we are aware of its importance. However, whether these meetings and dialogues will be turned to a process of resolution to Kurdish issue or not will be understood in coming days. For now, the state of consultation may be mentioned. More data is needed for a new process. The attitude of AKP government is especially important in this regard. In terms of whether the process of dialogue will be turned into resolution process or not, the government’s attitude will be absolutely decisive.

Karayılan listed the practical steps fort he development of resolution process as “The first step in this context can be formulated in the form of creation of opportunities for freedom of movement. For sure, this is already a crucial need to move the process forward. There is a great need for seriousness and responsibility. If they, instead of tackling with the resolution of Kurdish issue, but again develop policies to target the PKK’s dissolution by producing some delaying tactics as they did in the past, it will be an unfortunate loss. Because this issue has been irritated enough and created a crises of confidence. Once again, the political manoeuvring that will irritate and inducements must be avoided“.


Karayılan said that as it is well known by public, there has been a series of dialogue processes in 1993 and the last one containing systematic meetings has taken place both in Imrali and Oslo over a period of three years and he continued as “the main reason for not getting any result out of such processes, mainly out of the last Oslo and Imrali negotiation process, is the fact that the required mental state for the resolution of Kurdish issue has not formed in both the state and government which have also not taken any precise and clear decision regarding the issue and have not formulated any resolution project. This is the main reason why the Oslo and Imprali processes have remained inconclusive.

If the state and government has decided to resolve the main issue of Turkey, they, first of all, need to take a practical step and put forth the resolution project. In other words, if they want to resolve, how they will?, and what is their project?  Without putting forth such a project, neither a healthy debate, dialogue, and a basis for negotiation will be formed, nor a resolution strategy can be developed.  There is a constant talk of an integrated strategy but no one explains what it is? I mean what kind of resolutions to the Kurdish issue are there that Turkish state considers? We, as the Kurdish side, want to know this as much as the public does.


Our leadership has submitted protocols to Turkish delegation to be presented Prime Minister as a result of discussions on the process of Imrali on 5 May 2011. As the Kurdish side, these protocols are our resolution project. There is also “Road Map” prepared by our leadership. I mean we have our project. The Turkish side also needs to disclose, put forth their project. This is a must for the resolution. Without this, through the approaches in advance such as  “ weapons must be laid down, the laying weapons down must be targeted” cannot be reached to somewhere. No body has been armed for fun or for any other reasons for enjoyment. There is a reason of the presence of such armed forces.

However, a process can be developed in parallel with certain steps to be taken to solve the Kurdish issue. These are the things that can be done step by step on the basis of a road map. Therefore, the resolution of Kurdish issue is not only about disarming and there is no value of assessments as some do such as “Kurdish issue and PKK’s armed forces are different from each other.” If the Kurdish issue was not intertwined with the armed struggle that much, would there remain any sort of armed forces? Despite all the moves based on the concepts of wide variety of international forces, if there is a stronger armed structure today, that means it really rests on a strong social base.


At this point, I would like to make it clear that Turkish side does not want us to lay our guns down. They might explain it to the press like that; I cannot say anything about this. But it is not what is wanted from us. I want to emphasize; both during Oslo-Imrali process and now, what is wanted from us is not laying down the guns but removal of the armed forces beyond the borders of Turkey. Then to where we should move? To South Kurdistan. They bombard South Kurdistan everyday. We already have some forces over there. If we move all the forces in North, that will mean we are all gathered at the same place. What is the security of this? They say to us  “give a decision beyond the ordinary ones and withdraw your forces as you did in 1999. Prime Minister and government are determined this time. They will also step up.” It is nice but they should take their initial steps right now. Why they do not take any steps right now? How we can trust the discourse developed in a persistent manner “first the forces should be moved beyond the borders, then we shall take steps?”  What is the assurance of such a discourse? This is a serious issue. For example, they say, in this regard, “we will take the necessary measures to avoid what has happened in 1999.” I mean they say “we will provide convenience and do not let them make any operation while you switch your forces from Black Sea, Dersim, Bingol, Erzurum, Kars to the South.”  If you are so determined to resolve this issue, here you are, you can take the first steps. For other matters, we can make a schedule.


First of all, to start the dialogue with Leader Apo is very crucial and well-directed approach. Because Leader Apo is adopted as Leadership by this movement as we define as Kurdish National Movement and its all other illegal-legal components. But in this context, they say, “we met and the resolution will come.” No, meeting is the first step for a resolution. This is accurate. But the steps need to be taken by you are also required. In this regard, the first step that can be taken should be changing the position of Leadership in Imrali. In order to move the process forward, this is certainly a must.


It is not easy to discuss about disarming the PKK. These forces should be persuaded by the consistency of the state. As long as Leadership is under the system of Total Isolation, you cannot persuade a single person. In this matter, first of all, the position of the leadership should be changed and the opportunities allowing him to move freely should be provided. The meeting and being able to meet with those from BDP is of course very significant.

This is necessary for the persuasion and actions of the political structure. However, the armed force is the essential one. To do this, we need to have a direct dialogue with leadership. There is a problem of the persuasion of not only the management but wide range of command and the armed structure. Therefore, if the state and government is really sincere about the resolution, they, first of all, need to pave the way for the Leadership. As our Leadership says  “there is a pool in which there is no water, you say me to swim. How I will swim?”  This is exactly the case. If they talk about our Leadership as major player, which is true, then you need to open the way for him. The first step in this context can be formulated in the form of development of opportunities for freedom of movement.


The second issue is that if a project happens and a negotiation process enters into the agenda based on this project, then the things that must be done and steps that need to be taken would be practised by the parties on the basis of a calendar. It is clear that the Kurdish problem is a constitutional matter. Since the reconstruction of the constitution is on the agenda, then the resolution perspective should be reflected to the constitution too, and in this way the basis of the social consensus must be rebuilt through a steady-radical resolution. It would be an important approach to include the existence of the Kurdish people in the new constitution and pave the way for a resolution within the perspective of democratic nation.

So an approach that reflects the frame, which I draw, has not yet been revealed yet. There are just meetings. I hope that some clarifications in this direction would be developed in the next few days. We are more waiting for that. So in the case of clear, sincere and honest approaches developing; and in this regard concrete, visible and a clear resolution frame is put forward; this process can significantly be mentioned to be in a resolution direction.

In addition, the view of our Leadership on this matter and outlined common framework, and again the framework of the discussion of our Leader next to the BDP delegation are important to us. When the state which is the one to resolve the issue without taking any concrete-practical steps makes requests from us to abandon our emplacement or impose demands or forces to weaken our position, this will lead to very serious doubts in our society, public and our line.  These doubts still constitute the leading side. We do not want to make an early remark on this but “instead of holding politics to resolve Kurdish issue” there are findings and assessments in the direction of “attempting to deactivate, weaken and dissolve Kurdish Freedom Forces, by doing that, including them to their own resolution line by force.”  


For this purpose, Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan tells us, “either you will accept our one nation, one state, one nation motto, meaning that accept the Turkification and surrender, or else walk out of here. Go to wherever you want. And if you don’t go, you will be doomed to remain in your caves, we will find and destroy you over there too“. This statement of Erdogan is, in essence, one way of expressing this concept. Nobody here is a child. If not (which they will immediately say “this is not the case” and that this assessment is exaggerated and false), on behalf of the State of the Republic of Turkey, Prime Minister Erdogan shall say in front of the whole world public opinion that “we will not use violence anymore to solve the Kurdish problem, we will not take violence and destruction as the base. We are putting front the resolution through the methods of dialogue to solve the problem” just as I said. If they declare this openly in public, then we can understand that they are approaching seriously and sincerely, and thus a climate of trust would begin to build. Once again, I would like to invite everyone to sincerity and seriousness regarding this issue; go ahead if you are serious, do not spoil it if you are not. Nobody would pull out their forces and redirect them into a trap, without a step from the opponent side. Imposing this to us, and later on when a deadlock happens, claiming, “look the PKK has not taken any steps” should not be followed. Because everything is crystal clear.


We are in favour of the dialogue and negotiation process being open to the public. If they come to it, we welcome it and we want it. During the previous Imrali-Oslo meeting process, we have been told that “this is going to be closed, nobody will never ever reflect anything, reflecting would sabotage the process, the results would be conducted to public by the parties only if a conclusion is reached.” The mediator/friend group specifically put this on the agenda as a strict rule. Since we are an organized power, we have strictly obeyed this rule in an organized and disciplined manner and never ever reflected it to anyone, not even to our own structure. Even though we have adhered to the promise we gave since the beginning and never reflected anything, a well-known group from the other party have deciphered these meetings and reflected them to the public.


We lean towards a democratic resolution only when we are in a strong position. After all, we are committed to the strategy of Democratic Republic and Democratic Autonomous Kurdistan within the current borders of Turkey. This resolution perspective is still the official resolution perspective of our movement today. Yes, sometimes there can be different pursuits. The state’s shutting off everything and imposition of slaughters would naturally lead us to different pursuits. This is an option. But the point we still stand on is the point to solve the Kurdish problem within Turkey’s borders.


We will insist on this point. So if the state really lived a serious level of decision and will step in this manner, we would not leave it unanswered. But there is no such apparent indication that the state is living such a decision. What is seen is more like an application of a formulation that will weaken and disable the Freedom Movement. Today, the PKK is an actor in the region. The possibility of this is being a manoeuvre to remove the PKK out of its role as an actor, is a highly likely situation on the agenda. If a sign or a light towards the solution actually appears, we would develop policies to take it to the end. But we will be in a situation to execute the preparations and planning we are developing for 2013 with no loosening. Everyone should know this, all our friends, all our people should be aware of it.

4-1-2013 ANF