KurdistanObserver.com

Aysel Tugluk: The PKK and Ocalan are realities. You can't do politics if you ignore realities

Nursun Erel
The New Anatolian/Ankara

Dec 12, 2005

Ahmet Turk: We don't have any organic ties with the PKK, but we do share a common stand

- A conference on the Kurdish issue must be held

- Violence can end if democratic channels are opened

- The Constitution must be amended

We're not looking for separation, we're happy with the unity of this country. But we ask for our democratic rights and want to be identified as Kurds.

Ahmet Turk and Aysel Tugluk, co-chairs of the new Democratic Society Party (DTP), said even though their party doesn't have any organic ties with the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) or Abdullah Ocalan, they have common stands, and in Turkey the Kurdish issue can't be solved if the reality of Ocalan and the PKK is ignored.

Turk and Tugluk also said that a Kurdish conference should be organized to discuss the issue comprehensively, but due to various pressures such an initiative wouldn't be easy.

Turk, a veteran Kurdish politician, also spoke about his conversation with the late Turgut Ozal during his presidency, what Ozal said, and what the response of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan was.

Tugluk, Ocalan's former lawyer, defended herself like so: “Now I have a different responsibility, dealing with politics, so this can't be connected to my old activities. But Ocalan is a reality in Turkey. Some think that he's a hero, others that he's a terrorist.”

Here's what the DTP heads had to say to us:

TNA: How do your see the recent debate about primary and sub-identities?

TURK: This isn't a recent argument, the controversy has been going on for years. In the past, there was a refusal to recognize a group of people belonging to a certain geography. If there hadn't been this rejection, we wouldn't still be dealing with the issue today. But Kurds aren't the same old Kurds as before, they're politicized, they're aware of their rights and freedoms, they're determined to go after those rights. So whatever their population is, there's a Kurdish reality in Turkey. There are some people -- according to some circles 20 million, according to others 15 million -- who speak Kurdish and see themselves as Kurds. So if you insist on refusing their demands, you can't solve the problem. And their demands aren't happening just today, they've asked for these rights for years. Even in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, in Article 34, these rights are mentioned, but Turkish governments didn't provide them to Kurds. In fact Turkey hasn't even taken the necessary steps towards democratization in its European Union membership process.

The prime minister sometimes makes talks like he did in Diyarbakir this summer: ‘The state has been at fault on the issue, the Kurdish problem is my problem. There's a primary identity but there's also a sub identity.' Then all of a sudden it's so sad that we see a different prime minister who speaks differently on the way to Australia. He says, ‘There's no Kurdish issue, in fact the issue is terror,' and he tries to make Islam out as the primary identity. So how will excuse yourself to minorities, then? So at this point we're really having a hard time understanding how our premier came to that point. In Turkey, there's the democracy, and Parliament and the government reflect the people's choice. There can't be anything above that choice. But in fact we see it's not like that, there are some powers superceding the Parliament and government. Let alone the deep state, we see that there are elephants here bigger than camels.

TNA: And what are the practical solutions to that identity crises?

AYSEL: These conflicts and dilemmas must be solved democratically. But the basic thing is changing the nationalistic and chauvinistic approaches. So with our own language, identities and culture, Kurds have to be accepted as a resource of this society, and all the democratic channels have to be kept open so they can express themselves in every way. For many years we faced violence on that soil. The main reason for that violence was that rejection of Kurdish identity and existence. So all the policies based on force and rejection must come to an end.

Constitution must be amended

TNA: What practical steps do you propose?

AYSEL: First of all, the practice of looking at all Kurds as a possible threat has to be changed. They have to change their view that Kurds are a threat to the unity of Turkey. If there's an article in the Constitution saying that all the citizens who have a relation of citizenship to the government are Turks, this doesn't allow other identities to be freely expressed. This is antidemocratic and so the other parts of society can't see themselves in such a Constitution. In fact this Constitution is very much outdated and it doesn't fit the needs of today's society. This Constitution must be changed. Kurds have to see themselves as a part of this state in that Constitution. As an identity, as a cultural society they must be accepted by the Constitution.

TNA: Can you really say that your party really embraces everyone in Turkey, or is it for the Kurds only?

TURK: Our aim is embracing everyone in Turkey, all 70 million people. But we can't give up on the problems of Kurds. Because we see the Kurdish issues as an issue of all of Turkey, not only the Kurds. If we can't reach democratic solutions, there can't be a peaceful process and a real dialogue between the peoples, and that's why we put a great deal of importance on the Kurdish issue. Some circles still see us as a regional party, but in fact the DTP is a party of all of Turkey.

TNA: Hard statistics are lacking, but estimates say there are 20 million Kurds living in Turkey. Doesn't that mean a Kurdish party should be able to get 1 million votes and so cross the 10 percent election threshold?

TURK: But there are various influences on the people. Tribal relations, for example. Some of them prefer to stay close to the state and they want to survive this way, that's why they don't want to support such activities. Under the pressure of the state, village guards are widespread, these are the biggest obstacles to our party. For example if any Kurdish businessmen try to get close to this party they lose. Many people sympathetic to our party were branded PKK sympathizers, they were blackmailed, they were put onto hit lists, and they couldn't win any government tenders, for example. So society is under this pressure. If you try to guess the number of totally independent people, you can be sure that they aren't more than the 50 percent of all Kurds. If Turkey was a truly democratic country, we wouldn't have this. I can give you various examples, while we were campaigning, the gendarmerie barred us many times from entering certain areas. Sometimes they were meeting with villagers and threatening them, saying if you vote for this party we'll set all the houses here on fire. So if you consider all this, you can imagine the people who vote for us are people in fact risking their lives. But can you say that 2 million votes is a small number? If 2 million people are voting for us under such pressure, taking such serious risks, then this can't be minimized. If there's no real democracy it's not easy to get the votes of the people.

TNA: Many political observers are predicting early elections next year. Do you?

TURK: Even though they (the government) doesn't have problems in Parliament, they seem to be worn out politically. I think they will choose that way.

TNA: You mentioned other kinds of pressures too, but the 10 percent elections threshold is also a serious barrier isn't it?

TURK: I think this is a barrier put there especially to frustrate Kurds. If the threshold weren't there, I firmly believe that our votes would be more than 10 percent. Our premier says that the ruling AK Party is the number one party in the southeast. In fact our party is the number one party there, because we got 2 million votes. But even representing those 2 million votes, we don't have even a single deputy in Parliament. Is it fair? So putting all these barriers before Kurds, you just encourage them to find different places to help themselves. What kind of a democracy is this?

If you really want this issue to be solved, let's do away with the 10 percent threshold, let the people come to the Parliament and let them talk. It's a shame that parties like the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), Republican People's Party (CHP) and Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) also favor the threshold, just because they don't want us to get into the Parliament. If you ever go to the region and ask people why the threshold still exists, they'll tell you it's just to keep Kurds out of Parliament.

TNA: But practically speaking there's no chance for the 10 percent threshold to be abolished and elections may be around the corner, so what's your strategy? There are rumors that the government is planning additional 100 seats in Parliament falling outside the threshold system. Do you support this?

TURK: No, we reject this. What's the use of just four or five of our deputies going to Parliament? In fact our party isn't set up to get into Parliament in the first place. Certainly it's also important, but at the same time we're a missionary party. That mission is crucial for us. If we really wanted to get into Parliament, during the last elections we could have sent 30 people there. We could get in with independent candidates, because we have this power. So five seats under such a system doesn't mean anything for us.

Kurdish deputies in Parliament

TNA: Are there many deputies in Parliament from your region? Do they help to tackle its issues?

TURK: Yes, today there are many Kurdish deputies in Parliament, but they can't really voice our problems there. The moment they talk about the issue, they risk being treated like the former Democracy Party (DEP) members (who lost their political immunity and were sentenced to prison).

TNA: But we still face the terror problem. Even though there's a new political movement, don't you think they should give a chance to counter these developments?

AYSEL: Turks and Kurds lived in the area together for 1,00 years, they don't need any new adventures. They simply want to live together peacefully and democratically. So such changes of strategy must be taken seriously and we need new formulas. In fact when Ocalan was captured six years ago, there was such an opportunity. If they had been allowed to express themselves freely and their identities had been accepted, all their arms would be laid down. Because in those days, at Ocalan's call, all the (PKK) armed forces left Turkey's borders, so there was a peaceful period for four or five years. But it's a pity that government officials and intellectuals couldn't see what this opportunity meant, and today once again we've started talking about the same thing. Anyway this is a positive development and may lead to a solution. In fact we have to properly assess the change among the (PKK) armed forces. For years, they (government officials) acted like they didn't see or accept the existence and the identity of Kurds, and the problem grew worse

TNA: But the terror is still continuing.

AYSEL: If all the pressure and policy of rejection is done away with and democratic channels are opened up, and all the necessary amendments are made to the Constitution and other places, the violence will stop, society will refuse it too. For years there was no fight between the peoples because their partnership has roots in history. So once everyone comes to realize that Kurds aren't a potential threat to Turkey, and that they should have equal rights and freedoms, violence will lose steam. So at this point I believe that they have to read the undercurrents in the PKK. This is an important opportunity, but if they go on with the same old policies, Turkey will lose 50 more years. That's our fear too and we'll do our best for peace and a solution process. We lost many people, many assets in that war, and now society is asking for a solution. And all the politicians and government officials must see this too.

Are the orders coming from Imrali?

TNA: But when you talk to the man on the street, they openly say that DTP is getting its orders from Ocalan on Imrali. How do you respond to that?

TURK: If there wasn't a Kurdish issue today, maybe the PKK wouldn't exist, not even our party would exist. We're a democratically established party. But in fact we have a mission to solve the issue. So in accordance with the same problem the PKK also gives the same messages. The same truth is expressed by two different bodies and they say that we have organic links, but it's not true. We don't have organic ties but we have a common stance and common demands and there's a Kurdish issue that we're both trying to solve.

But the PKK has been around for years, and they chose to seek a solution by arms. So it's an existing reality. Without seeing this, acting as if there isn't such a movement, where do we go? In fact, we must be more realistic. But once we declare the truth now, we become anathema.

TNA: Let me ask you more directly, even among some Kurdish circles, Aysel Tugluk serving as co-chair is seen as a millstone around your neck, organized by Imrali. How do you respond?

TUGLUK: Well I don't take all these rumors seriously.

TNA: But you were Ocalan's lawyer.

TUGLUK: In fact I wasn't that far from politics. I was always in the heart of politics. There's no relationship between my lawyer status and my being co-chair here. I came here at the invitation of the party. My mission here is dealing with politics. I don't believe I'm a millstone, on the contrary I'm here to contribute also as a woman in politics.

TNA: But Ocalan is still taking a stand even from Imrali, so how do you see his position on the Kurdish issue?

TUGLUK: This is a reality. One part of society believes that he's a hero, the other part calls him a terrorist. So there's a controversy. In my opinion he's a reality, having political, social and emotional dimensions. I remember British Prime Minister Tony Blair once saying, ‘I can't reject the feelings of some citizens who sympathize with the IRA.' So this reality must be evaluated in the right way. Instead of deepening the separation we have to try and find a compromise. You can't develop any solutions without seeing this reality. On TV I once saw a Kurd say, ‘Even if you get rid of the PKK, what will you do to their sisters, brothers and parents? A new group will take its place.' I believe that the PKK or Ocalan aren't the reasons but the results. And the results stem from reasons.

Visit to Ocalan

TNA: Mr. Turk, in 1993, as a People's Labor Party (HEP) member you visited then President Turgut Ozal and went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon to talk to Ocalan. Would you tell us more about this initiative?

TURK: During Ozal's presidency, the bloodshed was still going on, so we made a call for peace. As HEP members we asked for an appointment with Mr. Ozal, he accepted us at the Cankaya Presidential Palace, and we said someone must do something to stop this bloodshed, we feel the responsibility so if necessary we can go to Bekaa. He told us this exactly, I'm quoting him verbatim: ‘I'm not as chicken-hearted as (Suleyman) Demirel, I only have a fear of God. So we don't want to lose time fighting over all those internal issues. These people (Kurds) are our people, with their rights and with their wrongs, and we must win them back. I have an idea: A kind of a law of general pardon. We'll take petitions for pardons from those people (the terrorists) and give them their freedom. If they don't commit any crimes in five years' time, then all these petition letters will be destroyed. So I have such a plan.' After talking to President Ozal, a group of HEP deputies we went to Damascus first, and we sat together with the Turkish ambassador there. Then we went to Bekaa and talked to Ocalan. His response to Mr. Ozal's plan was very positive, but it's a real shame that when we were on our way back home, we heard about the death of Ozal. So the chance to apply this policy was lost.

TNA: Even today there are expectations for a penitence or pardon law. Do you think it would help?

TURK: The issue can't be reduced to a pardon alone. If so, it can create tension. First of all, a new democratic policy must be designed, all the political and psychological infrastructure must be prepared for a solution. Otherwise if you just propose this law it can be rejected by many circles. We mustn't create new tension in society. So an overall package needs to be proposed. For example like they did for the Armenian issue, we also want a Kurdish conference to be organized. All the issues can be discussed comprehensively in such a conference, and this would be very fruitful.

TNA: Why doesn't the DTP do this?

TURK: Somebody has to. But we don't want to discuss the issue just among the Kurds. All other bodies must be represented in such a conference.

TNA: What's stopping it from happening?

TURK: Maybe you think it's very simple, but in fact it's not. Don't you remember all the controversy around the Armenian conference this spring and summer?

TNA: Did you get a response from the letter you wrote to Danish Premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen concerning Roj-TV?

TURK: No, we didn't get an answer yet.

TNA: What about if challenges to your party's co-chair system grow more serious? What will you do?

TURK: Well it's not something new for us, we knew before that there could be some hurdles. But we wanted to bring a positive example for the sake of women. Even though women are our society's cornerstones, they can't get the place they deserve in politics. We just wanted to bring a breath of fresh air to political life. So if we get an official warning (on having co-chairs), we'll discuss the issue in our decision-making bodies, and try to take a stand.

TNA: But if one of you has to step down, which will it be?

TURK: We won't have any problem.

AYSEL: We'll discuss this within the party.