Insisting on the "Imralı is good, Qandil is bad" mistake

28.10.2014 Habertürk
Translated by: Turgay BAYINDIR /
Orjinal Metin (tr-10/22/2014)

Based on my observations from the writings of the journalists who attended the 11-hour long meeting that Prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu did with the committee of wisemen, we can list the following conclusions about the “official opinion” regarding the resolution process:
-  The government fulfilled or at least tried to fulfill its promises but the Kurdish Political Movement (KPM), and especially Qandil, did not keep its promises.
-  HDP and its co-president Selahattin Demirtaş are also to blame for the recent street clashes that we witnessed in the wake of the siege of Kobane by IS(IS).
-  As long as public order has not been established, it is not possible to fulfill the expectations of the KPM.
-  In contrast to Qandil and HDP, Abdullah Öcalan is acting more reasonably and prudently.

The words of Bayık

These sentiments are nothing new. For example, following the most recent protests, a lot of has been written in news outlets that are known to be close to the government, criticizing PKK/KCK, HDP and Demirtaş, claiming that, in cooperation with some foreign powers, they are trying to eliminate Öcalan or at least limit his influence in the resolution process.

I do not think so. I think that the official approach that suggests that there are serious differences of opinions between Qandil and Imralı, and that tries to present PKK/KCK as “bad” and Öcalan as “good” is a mistake and that it does not serve a function anymore. Before explaining why I think this way, it might be good to remind KCK co-president Cemil Bayık’s response to my question regarding this: “Leader Apo has a different role, we have a different role. Neither we can assume Leader Apo’s role, nor can he assume ours. These are complementary elements. Leader Apo is the leader of a people and he is the chief negotiator. Our position is different. These two should not be mixed with each other. It is just as wrong to equate one with the other as it is to place them against each other. Perhaps some people are intentionally placing them against each other. There is no conflict in question and there cannot be.”

Why are they not different?

As for why I believe that there is not a major difference between Qandil and Imralı:
-  These leaders have been acting together since the mid 1970s. They know each other very well. Even if they are not in direct contact, they know how the other one would act in any given condition.
-  Until now we have witnessed many crises that have been attributed to PKK or BDP/HDP and that have been reportedly resolved by Öcalan. We might learn in the coming days that the reality of these crises is not as it was presented.
-  Öcalan would not resort to weakening the organization in order to strengthen his own position, nor would the administrators of the organization resort to weaking Öcalan’s position in order to gain more power because each side is just as strong or weak as the other side.
-  Öcalan has a pivotal role in preventing conflicts of different inclinations within the KPM; weakening Öcalan, and even worse, eliminating him would lead to a serious crisis within the movement and it might even fall apart.

Insisting on the mistake

Despite all these, the government seems determined in insisting on the “Imralı is good, Qandil is bad” mistake. However, this long-standing approach does not seem to have weakened the hand of either Imralı or Qandil. On the contrary, it is safe to say that the KPM in general and Öcalan and PKK/KCK in particular are in their golden age now. And this upsets the balance of power to the disadvantage of the government. For the sake of the resolution process, it is imperative to eliminate such power imbalances and to make the contact between the two sides as transparent as possible.
 

Destek olmak ister misiniz?
Doğru haber, özgün ve özgür yorum ihtiyacı
Bugün dünyada gazeteciler birer aktivist olmaya zorlanıyor. Bu durum, kutuplaşmanın alabildiğine keskin olduğu Türkiye'de daha fazla karşımıza çıkıyor. Halbuki gazeteci, elinden geldiğince, doğru haber ile özgün ve özgür yorumla toplumun tüm kesimlerine ulaşmaya çalışmalı ve bu yolla, kutuplaşmayı artırma değil azaltmayı kendine hedef edinmeli. Devamı için

Recent articles (10)

21.03.2022	Ruşen Çakır: Laicism out, secularism in
15.03.2021	Turkey’s search for an antithetical foreign policy
03.03.2021	What good can shutting down the People’s Democratic Party do and to whom?
02.02.2021	An example of civil disobedience: Don’t look down people of Boğaziçi University
29.12.2020	Turkey-China relations overshadowed by the Uighur issue
23.12.2020	Erdoğan’s Kurdish issue
24.07.2020	Erdoğan’s greatest strategic mistake
24.06.2020	Turkey-Egypt: The unending fight
27.05.2020	Turkey: Will Erdoğan hold on to his voter base at all costs? Can he retain it?
30.04.2020	Turkey: The search for meaning by children of religious families

19.11.2024		Nihayet birilerinin beklediği ve umduğu gibi Devlet Bahçeli geri adım mı attı?
22.09.2024		Ruşen Çakır nivîsî: Di benda hevdîtina Erdogan û Esed de
17.06.2023		Au pays du RAKI : Entretien avec François GEORGEON
21.03.2022		Ruşen Çakır: Laicism out, secularism in
19.08.2019		Erneute Amtsenthebung: Erdogans große Verzweiflung
05.05.2015		CHP-şi Goşaonuş Sthrateji: Xetselaşi Coxo Phri-Elişina Mualefeti
03.04.2015		Djihadisti I polzuyutsya globalizatsiey I stanovitsya yeyo jertvami. Polnıy test intervyu s jilem kepelem
10.03.2015		Aya Ankara Az Kobani Darse Ebrat Khahad Gereft?
08.03.2015		La esperada operación de Mosul: ¿Combatirá Ankara contra el Estado Islámico (de Irak y el Levante)?
18.07.2014		Ankarayi Miçin arevelki haşvehararı