By Nergis Demirkaya
Following the PKK’s decision to lay down arms, the newly launched “peace process” has become tangled up in tensions over Syria. The military operation by the Damascus regime that pushed the SDF/YPG out of two Kurdish neighborhoods in Aleppo has strained relations between the AKP–MHP alliance and the DEM Party, ending a cautious rapprochement as part of the process. It has also disrupted a positive atmosphere that had lasted for nearly a year, raising fresh doubts about the prospects of success.
In my earlier piece titled “One step forward, two steps back,” which examined the Syrian dilemma within the PKK’s disarmament process, I pointed to signs of looming tension. What was anticipated has now materialized: as the Syrian army forced the SDF out of Aleppo, discussions began over new operations east of the Euphrates.
DIFFERENT READINGS OF ÖCALAN
At the heart of the expected tension lies differing interpretations of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s call for disarmament. According to the AKP and the MHP, the call also includes the SDF/YPG in Syria, which Ankara views as an extension of the PKK. The SDF, which is expected to lay down arms in line with the March 10 Agreement with the Damascus government, is resisting this step, according to the ruling alliance. This resistance is seen as an act of sabotage against the process unfolding in Turkey. MHP Chair Devlet Bahçeli, who had previously wrapped the process in cotton wool, hardened his tone during a parliamentary group meeting, insisting that the SDF is not independent from İmralı and urging the organization to “comply with the agreement.”
According to the DEM Party, however, while the SDF/YPG may be influenced by Öcalan’s remarks, it is not the PKK. A senior DEM Party figure playing an active role in the process described the SDF as “a structure organized to protect its local population,” adding: “Just because Turkey labels it terrorist does not make it terrorist. On the contrary, it is fighting terrorism there.”
According to the official, the party that is in fact unwilling to compromise in Syria is the Damascus government. The aim of the operations is to discipline the SDF and force it to the table on Damascus’s own terms—in other words, to compel it to accept a settlement under the worst possible conditions. By turning the SDF into a target, the goal is to confer legitimacy on whatever steps are taken thereafter.
CALLS TO ACCELERATE THE PROCESS
While DEM Party officials stress that developments in Syria have further eroded the already low level of trust, they say they do not want the process in Turkey to be derailed. Following the events in Aleppo, a DEM Party delegation visited Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş and called for the joint report work to be accelerated.
This view is also shared by some within the AKP. Pointing to the fragility exposed by developments in Syria, an AKP MP from the region commented: “The longer the process drags on, the greater the risk of it becoming infected. The events in Aleppo showed this clearly. We saw how quickly the tone of Bahçeli and [DEM Party joint Chair Tuncer] Bakırhan began to change. The process must be accelerated. The planned steps should be taken without delay.”
WHAT’S NEXT?
A new date has been set for the rally calling for “free living and communication conditions for Öcalan,” which had been postponed—officially due to adverse weather conditions—following negative reactions from the AKP and the MHP. How the rally, scheduled to take place in Diyarbakır on Jan. 25, will affect the already strained relations remains an open question.
The parliamentary commission is expected to finalize its report toward the end of January. However, the report will only include recommendations on the administrative and legal arrangements required following the PKK’s decision to disarm. With this, the commission will have completed its assigned task. Attention will then turn to how the AKP and the MHP will convert these recommendations into a legislative proposal. The stance of the CHP and the DEM Party during this phase will also be crucial.
It remains unclear to what extent politics will live up to its responsibilities, but the developments in Syria that brought an end to the 2015 peace process also have the potential to determine the fate of the 2025 process.
