By Nergis Demirkaya
Two years into the PKK’s disarmament process, fears of stalling have resurfaced. DEM Party Co-Chair Tuncer Bakırhan put it plainly: “The pace of the process has slowed.”
The statement from the PKK was tougher. Bese Hozat, the executive who threw her weapon into the fire as a symbolic step in the process, voiced her concern: “The process has frozen and stalled. Time is being played for by creating different perceptions.” Is that really the case?
In the government’s view, the process is not aimed at resolving the Kurdish problem. For an AKP politician who plays an active role on the parliamentary commission, it is merely “the dissolution process of the armed terrorist organization PKK.”
Nor is the issue framed as Turkey’s alone; it is cast as an international matter that also takes in Syria, Iraq and Iran. Looking at the steps taken on the ground, the most significant developments so far have indeed occurred in those three arenas outside Turkey. First came the YPG/PYD’s integration into Syria’s central government, then Kurdish groups in Iran stayed on the sidelines despite the war, and most recently the YBŞ (Sinjar Resistance Units) in Iraq’s Sinjar began integrating into official forces. In other words, the process dubbed Terror-Free Turkey has in practice advanced as a “Terror-Free Region.” The process inside Turkey has even been put on pause several times because of developments in these countries. The government is still watching movements in Syria and Iraq closely.
The Iraqi dimension also matters because that is where the PKK’s camps and caves are. With the government fixated on the organization’s disarmament, it is now watching developments there. Judging by statements from both the organization and the government, the withdrawal that began in Turkey and stretched from the Iraqi border to Metina is now moving toward Qandil.
The government is pleased. Officials stress that, compared with conflict resolutions elsewhere in the world, the Terror-Free Turkey process has reached in two years a stage that took other countries eight to ten years.
Nor, according to governmental officials, has there been any slowdown. A senior AKP lawmaker responds to such criticism by pointing out that the developments in Syria and Iraq, outlined above, take time. “The framework law was adopted on Aug. 10. It is moving forward step by step. People say ‘hurry up,’ but in fact you could even say it is moving very fast right now. Nothing is running late,” he says.
DEMANDS ABOUT ÖCALAN
None of this has happened by itself, of course. PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan, whom the DEM Party calls the “chief negotiator,” has contributed a lot to reaching this point. But both the organization and the DEM Party want Öcalan’s status clarified if the process’s main phase, inside Turkey, is to succeed. They have two core demands. The first is better communication and working conditions for Öcalan, including the opportunity to speak with the press. The second is for the Disarmament and Strategic Coordination Subcommission, which the DEM Party describes as a “Peace and Politicization Council” and which they say Öcalan will chair, to begin working without delay.
According to DEM Party sources, once these demands are met, the disarmament process can be completed faster, clearing the way for the National Security Council (MGK) decision needed before the law can be implemented. Once that decision is issued, the framework law can take effect, leading to the release of PKK detainees and convicts from prison and to returns from Europe and Qandil. Yet the fact that not a single step has been taken inside Turkey under the process so far is also raising concerns about how the framework law will be implemented.
Judging by the way things have gone, the government appears in no hurry over the MGK decision either. While DEM Party sources expect it in November, AKP sources point to the end of the year, or even the first months of next year.
NO STEPS ON DEMOCRATIZATION
In fact, from the outset, the government and the organization have never shared either the same approach or the same timetable. When the parliamentary commission was set up, when its report was drafted and when the framework law was written, it was always to the government’s timetable. Despite calls to speed up, the same looks set to happen again.
Disarmament matters, but what the public really expects is steps toward democratization. MHP Chair Devlet Bahçeli once defined success for the process in words that have become almost a catchphrase: “The Ahmets back to office, Demirtaş back home, hope for Öcalan.” To these we could add further expectations: the removal of the government-appointed trustees who replaced elected mayors, the release of politicians through implementation of European Court of Human Rights and Constitutional Court rulings, the lifting of obstacles to freedom of thought, expression and association, and press freedom.
But the government’s record over the past two years is solid grounds for concluding that it will fall short of these expectations. Whether the process slows down or runs “like clockwork,” as government figures put it, the outcome, if it succeeds, looks set to be nothing more than the dissolution of an armed organization. As one opposition MP who fully backs the process put it, that is no small achievement. Indeed, removing the weapons that have cast a shadow over politics is a huge gain. But for a democratic Turkey, the real struggle now has to be stepped up.
