KCK leader: ‘We are ready to fight on the same front with everybody who is against ISIS’

26.08.2014 rusencakir.com
Translated by: Esma Baran /
Orjinal Metin (tr-8/26/2014)

Interview with Cemil Bayık: Full text
Translated by: Esma Baran

On Aug. 20 2014, along with my photo-journalist fellow İlker Akgüngör, I conducted an interview of nearly two hours with Cemil Bayık, member of the Executive Council of Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), at a village house in the Qandil region.
We are bringing to your attention the full and unedited text of this interview, transcripted by Semih Sakallı, some important parts of which we published in Vatan daily newspaper on Aug. 23, 24 and Aug. 25, 2014.

Here, it is like a brand new era has started, both in Iraq and in Syria. There is a process that has begun with Mosul’s fall. According to my observation, there are two rising powers in the region: ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, recently renamed as the Islamic State or IS] and the PKK [outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party]. And these two powers are currently fighting with each other. Am I right?

Cemil Bayık: It seems like that but there are both regional and global powers behind ISIS. Without having support from these powers, ISIS could not have fought, grown and improved like this. Maybe we are seemingly fighting against ISIS, but this is just the apparent part of the matter. There is a behind-the-scenes element of the matter. Essentially, some regional powers are directing ISIS against us.

What is their goal?

Bayık: Of course, they have various goals. Speaking of only one goal would not be true. ISIS was a small power, but it has grown. It wouldn’t reach a power to this extent without support from international and regional powers. Why was it nourished, and what was aimed at through ISIS? There is a need to focus on these questions. In our saying, the Third World War is going on. Others may name it in other ways but we name it as the Third World War. The capitalist-modernist system intervened in the Middle East but these interventions haven’t yielded any result. They have yielded a result neither in Libya and Syria nor in Iraq and Egypt. The interventions here were different from each other but none of them yielded a result and the crisis in the Middle East further deepened. The capitalist-modernist system wanted to rule the Middle East in this chaotic environment but it couldn’t and the crisis has become graver. I can even say that the existing crisis led to new crises. This is how the crisis has grown. The system has been involved in different quests since it couldn’t manage the crisis this way. This is from where nourishment of ISIS has developed. Because the crisis cannot be managed and the crisis is growing further and different powers are emerging out of this crisis, it attempts to manage the crisis via growing ISIS. The system is promoting a sectarian war with ISIS. Sectarian war is something very dangerous because it destroys fraternity and unity of the peoples. It pits the people against each other and it builds up conflict and war among the peoples. Therefore, it leads to disintegration. Additionally, it destroys histories and cultures of the peoples. It destroys the ground on which democracy and freedom would be based. It weakens the peoples and merely tries to have them dependent upon itself. It wants to turn itself into a savior. In this way, it wants to retake control of the Middle East. The capitalist-modernist system never wants stability. Stability is against the character of the system. It rules the system from within the crisis, but the crisis in the Middle East is no longer manageable. Why? Because the system in the Middle East that is based on the state has collapsed. This system had emerged for the first time in the Middle East, and now it is collapsing for the first time in the Middle East again.
There is an effort to manage the crisis in this collapsed system, -- which is not possible. The solution cannot be from within the collapsing system. It can be from outside of this [system].

With the fall of Mosul, it was argued that splitting of Iraq into three parts had been finalized. Do you believe that disintegration of Iraq was the goal of such a project?

Bayık: No, the issue is not only about dividing Iraq. It is about Syria, Iran and Iraq. It is about Turkey if it doesn’t change its stance. After all, one of the purposes of their building up ISIS is providing this disintegration. It wants to eliminate obstacles before the system and establish a regime that can gain control. There is no other force than ISIS that can do it. Sectarian war is waged, destruction is done and peoples are weakened via ISIS. Furthermore, the obstacles before the system are being removed in the form of disintegration. Additionally, via destruction of the ground on which it is based, the Rojava revolution in Syria is hoped to be neutralized.
[The system] wants to carry these out via ISIS. I want to draw attention to one more point: ISIS is doing all of these in the name of Islamism, but it doesn’t have a tiniest side that complies with Islamism. Although it is taking as basis the history and the ideology of Islam—and it is finding support in this regard to a certain extent, particularly among the Sunni segment—what it has been doing is entirely against humanity. It is against cultures, religions and sects. Thus, the capitalist-modernist system is trying to weaken current ties of the peoples with Islamism through ISIS. It wants to retake control in the Middle East on this basis because the Islamic culture and tradition in the Middle East is strong. Democratic and socialist values are strong. The capitalist-modernist system is actually attacking the socialist and democratic values. It is carrying this out through ISIS. Hence, it is trying to weaken resistance of Islamic culture, history and tradition against the capitalist-modernist system in the Middle East through ISIS. What ISIS has been doing is making everybody think and pose questions. It is also prompting Islamic circles to a questioning.

It also creates fear.

Bayık: Some are already comparing [ISIS] to Moguls. Perhaps they have similar sides, but rather than comparing them to Moguls, there is need for thoroughly understanding the ISIS reality. As a matter of fact, ISIS is conducting the psychological war well. It comprehends the balances very well. And from there, it is actually getting improved. Needless to say, it gets the backing of history a little bit, gets the Islamic culture as basis a little bit and it appeals to the society. It finds reciprocation here a little bit. There are also gaps. The capitalist-modernist system wants to realize some of its goals through ISIS. ISIS is getting improved via all of these. In my opinion, ISIS has grown to its limits in Iraq today. Now, it has reached its limits. It cannot improve beyond this, and moreover, it will gradually deteriorate. With ISIS, Iraq has split into three parts. America has already thrown its weight around and it is trying to eliminate [this situation of split] in the form of three federates. Maybe, it can do it in the form of a confederation. There are efforts to this end, but the extent to which it yields a result, it is not that clear indeed.

Speaking of Iraq’s split into three; Shiite Arab in the South, Sunni Arab in the middle, and Kurds in the North. Sunni Arabs are de facto being ruled by ISIS. Can this go on like this? Can Kurds or Shiite Arabs live together with a Sunni state established here with ISIS mentality?

Bayık: I don’t think so. ISIS is being used by capitalist-modernist powers at the moment. Perhaps, they will be used for another period because there are [goals] that they want to reach through ISIS and it is not over yet. After these are realized, I assume ISIS will gradually get neutralized. Will this be easy? No, it won’t happen that easily because it [ISIS] has a ground on which it is based but they will narrow [its ground] and neutralize it [ISIS]. Former Baathists may be carried to the forefront of the agenda, mostly among Sunnis, and a Sunni state or formation can be developed probably with them. This is what makes sense anyway. At the moment, Baathists are getting use out of ISIS’ power tactically because they have created a certain fear among the society. As a matter of fact, ISIS is also getting use out of the Baathists. They are getting use out of others too. Actually, getting use out of each other is very strong. Who gets use out of whom more and who will be dominant in the end—this is not very clear though. 

When we look at al Qaeda’s history, we generally see that those who believed that they used al Qaeda were actually used by al Qaeda. Examples of Afghanistan and Pakistan are obvious. They dealt the biggest blow in its history to the U.S., but they were used against Soviets in the past with support from CIA. A mentality which says “These are weak anyway, we can get rid of them when needed after using them,” didn’t succeed in the case of al Qaeda.

Bayık: This didn’t happen only in Afghanistan. Not only in the case of al Qaeda either. A similar situation took place with Hizbullah [an outlawed Islamist Turkish group which is unrelated to the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah]. In Israel, it happened in the Palestinian case. They couldn’t succeed in any of them. The forces which they said they wanted to use became the biggest problem for them afterwards. Now, it is happening in ISIS’ case too. For example, Turkey is one of those who strengthened ISIS to the biggest extent. This is concrete. MİT [Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization] staff was personally training ISIS members.  They were training strategically and tactically. There is concrete information about this issue. Turkey wanted to enhance the Sunni front with ISIS. It assumed that it would become a power in the Middle East via reliance on it but at the current stage, the force which it tried to use is getting in the way of Turkey. It is at the moment becoming the biggest danger for Turkey. Everybody is wondering how Turkey will get through this problem. This is a situation that happens almost everywhere. For whoever tried to use some others, the power that it tried to use behind the scenes has created very serious problems for itself. That’s actually what is going on with ISIS.

As for your war, forces close to you in Rojava were fighting not only against ISIS, but also against al Nusra. But this was going on a certain routine basis. It was not like the Mosul case. It was a war that was going on at a certain level. However, first with the fall of Mosul and then with the operations into Sinjar and Makhmur, you have become directly involved in the war.  There was a statement by Murat Karayılan after the fall of Mosul, which called on Arbil’s administration for being in coordination for “a joint fight.” This call didn’t find a positive response then. You had foreseen that ISIS would head towards Kurdistan at a time when everybody else said it would head towards Baghdad. Later, you took the same position with Barzani [the president of Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Massoud Barzani] too. Could you tell us about this process a little bit?

Bayık: It’s true. As a matter of fact, looking at ISIS’ practice so far, it has no serious conflicts with the states. It always got involved in clashes with the dissidents. It is dominantly fighting against us. ISIS’ real target is Kurds and it is the PKK within Kurdish movement because the only movement that tries to create an alternative is the PKK movement. It is the PKK that doesn’t seek a solution within the existing state-system, that seeks a solution outside of that [system], that creates alternative, and that concretely puts it before everybody in the form of a model in Rojava. That’s why; ISIS’ main target is Rojava and the PKK line. This is the case in particular and in general their target is all of the Kurds. ISIS has grown, ISIS has been grown. It has grown quite stronger by seizing arms of an army in Mosul and big money from banks. We made a call when Mosul fell. Particularly to the South Kurdistan; we said: “ISIS will front Kurds. It will not remain limited to this. A danger against Kurds is enhancing. Let’s develop a defense together against this danger. This danger is not only directed against Rojava. This danger exists also for Bakur [North in Kurdish], it exists against all of the Kurds. That’s why, let’s establish a joint defense force, a joint command and confront this attack.” But the South administration didn’t take this seriously. A new attack happened afterwards. A closer look would show that the real target of this last attack was Makhmur and Sinjar. It aims at seizing these places, committing massacres and attacking the Rojava revolution. It has such a goal. Just as they didn’t take it seriously during the Mosul attack, they didn’t take it seriously during this last attack either. Also before this last attack, we said that the danger has been growing.
We said: “ISISD will attack South Kurdistan, that’s why, let’s rapidly develop a joint defense.” But they didn’t take it seriously again. We tried to take some measures for us. If the South [Kurdistan] government, parties who are in the government, parties who are outside of the government and political formations had taken what we said seriously, then ISIS would not have proceeded to this extent in the last attack. They would not have been able to cause destruction but it was them [South Kurdistan] who faced the biggest damage because they didn’t heed [our warning]. The PKK wasn’t harmed. On the contrary, the PKK has grown stronger in the eyes of the society. Not only in the eyes of the Kurds, but it has also grown stronger in the eyes of peoples and religions other than Kurds because it [the PKK] made a timely intervention into Sinjar. It carried out an evacuation which a state would not have been able to do. Even a state would not be able to do to that extent. A closer look would tell that, the PKK is defending not only Kurds, but also the peoples, the religions and the cultures. When nobody is able to confront ISIS and everybody is running away, the PKK, the YPG [the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units], the HPG [the PKK’s armed wing, the People’s Defense Forces] and similar formations are jointly fighting against ISIS, and ISIS is losing power in many places.  ISIS is not attacking only the Kurds. It is attacking Yazidis, Assyrians and Armenians. It is attacking various sects of Islam. It is attacking everything and everybody who don’t have its understanding. It is destroying everything. It is attacking sacred places. It is attacking not only Christians’ sacred places, but also Muslims’ sacred places. It is destroying culture and history. There can be nothing more dangerous than that. ISIS is in a position which is entirely against humanity. It doesn’t have any relation with Islamism. It wants to accomplish result by separating people from their roots and history. This is a very dangerous development.

Everybody in the world is closely following ISIS and the region. Thus, they are closely following you too. Your fighters have photographs with Barzani in Sinjar and Makhmur. There are frequent discussions about you in foreign media. Your being dropped from the terrorist list is being discussed. Isn’t this situation helping elimination of negative views about your movement?

Bayık: Of course, there is need to understand an organization’s reality within its practice. The PKK’s reality is the practice that it developed.  The PKK can be understood through looking at its practice. If there was not a timely intervention in Sinjar, if ISIS’ proceeding could not be prevented, then genocide would take place there. If it [ISIS] had succeeded this, not even a single Yazidi could have been able to get out of there alive. An intervention was immediately made and, furthermore, this was possible through a conflict on the Mount Sinjar. On one side, they [PKK fighters] tried to reach people, on the other side, they tried to confront ISIS’ attack while also meeting the people’s needs and carrying people to Rojava via a corridor which they opened. This was fulfillment of a very difficult assignment. As I said, only a state organization could overcome this but the resistance forces there and the YPG forces that went there tried to conduct these endeavors under a joint command as they put their hearts and souls. In fact, I believe it would be useful to state here that if this intervention didn’t take place in Sinjar and if the massacre happened, then neither the humanity nor the Kurds, the Arbil government and the KDP [the Kurdistan Democratic Party led by Barzani] would be able to come through this as it is the KDP which is dominant there. Although it is there on behalf of the government, the forces there are the forces of the KDP. The KDP was sovereign in Sinjar. If a massacre had taken place, none of these powers would be able to get through this massacre. They would end up going down in history as criminals.

In a way, you saved them.

Bayık: That’s what I mean. We have actually saved the honor of the Kurdish politics. We saved the honor of the Arbil government and the KDP. We saved the honor of humanity. Everybody needs to thank us in this regard.

In Sinjar and Makhmur, there was a rapprochement that stemmed from conditions. Perhaps, the Arbil government didn’t want to get closer to you but you have become sort of a pioneer force of the Kurdistan forces. What will happen from now on? Is a joint action possible from now on?

Bayık: A closer look would tell that Leader Apo [jailed PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan] has been calling on and wants the National Kurdish Congress to be carried out for a long time. He wants a common diplomacy and a common defense force to be formed and transformation of this into a peace force for the Kurds. He exerted efforts to this end. These efforts were progressed to a certain extent. Afterwards, it came to a deadlock. Now, the ground for gathering the National Congress has taken shape in a stronger way than the past. Again, the ground for forming a common defense force and conducting a common diplomacy has become stronger. Our efforts and calls are to this end: We don’t want to fight against ISIS on our own. We want forming of a common defense struggle against ISIS along with all powers that are against ISIS. We want to do this under a joint command.

Are regional forces included in this?

Bayık: Whoever says that it is against ISIS, says that ISIS is dangerous and really wants to fight against ISIS; we said that we are ready to fight with them on a joint front and our view is still the same. We don’t want to fight against ISIS on our own. We don’t have an understanding such as having our forces enter in a certain place, stay there and not let other forces enter there. We want to protect people’s interests and gains. This is a danger posed to everybody. It is posed not only to us and the South, but also to Yazidis, Arabs and everybody who is loyal to democratic values. It is posed to real Muslims because everybody is being harmed. We are ready to fight on the same front along with everybody who is harmed by ISIS and who is against ISIS.

What is your expectation?

Bayık: In my opinion, the old status quo is overcome in regards to some of its dimensions. Nobody should be persistent on this. None of the parties should prioritize its own interests over national interests, people’s interests. Whoever brings this, it would lose. Every party should defend interests of both the Kurds and the people. They should be against ISIS via taking democratic nation as basis. This is what we concretely ask for. We are not asking for commanding the struggle anyway. Conditions are in our favor.  Our reputation in the international field and in the eyes of Kurds and other peoples has grown stronger because we are the only power that is resisting. Others didn’t resist and ran away. We gained applause from everybody as the sole power resisting against ISIS. The environment is in our favor if we solely consider the party’s interests. Yet, we consider the national interests and the people’s interests rather than the party’s interests and we want everybody to take this as basis. If approaches based on this ground exist, then it would really take [us] to fraternity of the peoples. Then, only then, the sectarian war in the Middle East can be tackled. The war gets settled on its real basis. It turns into the war between those who want freedom and democracy and the forces against this, -- which is the right form.

It is obvious that there is a discrepancy between ISIS and the Kurds in regards to weapons and in regards to Kurds’ being able to succeed the fight against ISIS. Messages on this matter started coming from the West. Military aid to Kurds is being discussed. Here, you are also a part of that war. Heavy weapons may be sent to you.

Bayık: Actually, weapons should be given to those who are fighting. Who is fighting against ISIS? Others are also fighting. I don’t deny this but it is our movement who carries the main burden of the war. Then, if weapons will be given, it should be given to those who truly resist. This is appropriate. Giving weapons to those forces who ran away and who didn’t fight is meant to give the weapons to ISIS while there are forces which truly fight against ISIS. Weapons should be given to them. I want to touch upon a very important point here: There is no power greater than the human being. The biggest power is the human being itself. Whoever wins the human being wins everything. It is human being who made all of those weapons too. Those weapons were in the hands of the Iraqi army in Mosul but the army didn’t resist. It left behind all of those weapons. That’s to say, it is the human being who is decisive here.  The human being exists with its faiths, goals and thoughts. If the goal, the faith and the thought is powerful, then human beings or these kinds of movements can defeat even the biggest technique. Practical examples of this are obvious. The YPG and the HPG are battling against ISIS, but neither the YPG nor the HPG has the kind of weapons which ISIS has. However, they are able to confront ISIS with very simple weapons too. The South’s approach -- as saying, “We don’t have sufficient weapons. ISIS has very strong weapons. We cannot fight against ISIS without weapons being given to us,” -- is not a fair approach. Perhaps, it may be true in line with their positioning, but in general, it is not true. The South has as many weapons as ISIS has. Furthermore, they have weapons at the same level as ISIS, but ISIS is fighting, while they [the South] are not fighting. It is not right to attribute it to technical supremacy. ISIS is an ideological power, a power that has dedicated itself. In addition, there are international and regional powers behind it and they are constantly supporting it. That’s why, it is successful but the Peshmerga force against it is messed up. Recently, it is after things like cars, money, trade, villas… A force that is after these things cannot fight. Here is the reason why the Peshmerga couldn’t be successful. It is not because of its technical weakness. A closer look would tell that capitalism has entered strongly into the South Kurdistan. Capitalism is opening huge wounds and weakening socialism. It is improving individualistic life. Hence, the Peshmerga doesn’t have its former aura; it has declined. Capitalism created this. Everybody began thinking about its own individual interests instead of societal values. That’s why the Peshmerga is in this situation. It should swiftly be taken out of this situation. It has no ideological and organizational training. Its military training is very limited. These trainings should be rapidly conducted. Then, it may turn into a resisting force.

In a video that I watched recently, Kirkuk people were welcoming you with a great enthusiasm. PKK forces were invited there by the local authority, weren’t they?

Bayık: Yes, people made a call. A large part of people made a call, saying: “The PKK’s guerilla should come and protect us. We can only trust the PKK guerilla because the Peshmerga is not able to protect us. There are ISIS attacks. The PKK should send the guerilla and protect us.” On the other side, there were calls from Kirkuk to Sinjar. No doubt, we couldn’t have remained indifferent to these calls.  After this stage, we sent some forces. We sent them upon the people’s demand. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have been able to send them.

But these things that happened form a situation that could turn political balances upside down…

Bayık: No, we don’t want to act opportunistically. We don’t have such goal. We sent those forces just for protecting the people, developing a joint defense fight with our brothers from the South and protecting the South, its people, its values and its gaining. We don’t have a plan for changing the balances and acting opportunistically. We have principles. One of our fundamental principles since the PKK was found is openness—both to ourselves and to the outsiders. A closer look would tell that we are doing politics in an open way, not in a veiled way. We are doing politics via relying upon the people. We wouldn’t go there if the people didn’t ask for it. We will not stay there either if the people don’t want us to do so. You watched how the people greeted those who went there. It was also covered in the press. Can the guerilla go there if the people don’t have confidence for them to this extent and doesn’t want the guerilla? It [The guerilla] cannot even take a step in that case. It is welcoming [the guerilla] with open arms and it is feeling assured. For example, the atmosphere in the South has changed with the guerilla’s arrival there. Now, both the people and the Peshmerga are developing a tendency to resist. There was no such tendency earlier. Everybody was trying to escape somewhere. There was such tendency. There was a tendency to abandon its land and house. With the arrival of the guerilla, this tendency has been quelled. Now, everybody is discussing that ISIS can be eliminated b  y leaning on the guerilla—and this is what we wish for.

Particularly the West has been following the women in your movement closely and with interest. On the other hand, there is a fight against a movement like ISIS, which is entirely the contrary to the issue of women. The women are at the very forefront in your movement. At bottom, this is not quite a usual thing in Iraqi Kurdistan. I don’t know if there are female Peshmerga.

Bayık: Not much. Even if so, they are present only in offices and bases. There is no woman in war fronts.

In the Middle East, there is no other movement in which the women are at the forefront to this extent, and in which the women take responsibility.

Bayık: I don’t think so. Although women are at the forefront in some movements, the level within the PKK doesn’t exist in any organization and field. Leader Apo is taking history and society as the basis. A power that takes history and society as the basis has to take the women as basis because sense of community and history is being formed around the women. Taking the women as the basis means taking history and the society as the basis; means reaching her. All slaveries and sovereignties are based on women’s slavery. Slavery and sovereignty is developed with women’s loss of their freedom. A movement which targets freedom must definitely take women’s freedom as basis. The level of women’s freedom is the level of society’s freedom. In the Middle East, women are substantially being kept in the background. The balance is entirely in favor of the sovereignty of the man. All powers are based on mentality of the masculine sovereignty. The movement that has the ideal of freedom must take women’s freedom as basis. Taking women’s freedom as basis means taking the society as basis. True freedom, democracy and equality pass through women’s freedom. Just like how the European renaissance developed the reforms and caught today’s level via providing development through that, the reform and the renaissance of the Middle East passes through women’s freedom as well. Liberating the Middle East and creating a democratic and libertarian society is possible through women’s freedom. A closer look would tell that ISIS is against women. It kills women and it sells them at slave bazaars. The presence of women in the war against ISIS in various places of Kurdistan has political, moral and humanitarian dimensions. Women are really outraged against ISIS because ISIS is considering the women like war booty, like goods and selling them. Nothing worse can happen. It is the women who should primarily fight against this. If women are at the forefront within the PKK, this has an impact too. Having lots of women within the PKK is also changing the society’s mentality.  It is turning the society into a more democratic one. There is need to wage a battle of democracy and freedom against ISIS.

[Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister] Beşir Atalay said the roadmap is coming out as of Sept. 1 and disclosed some details. Öcalan’s notes have also been brought to you. New delegations are being formed and there are statements saying that these delegations will go to Qandil. But there is a situation in which Öcalan in general delivers positive statements, while you deliver statements with question marks. Is this a misinterpretation or is there a problem here?

Bayık: You are not misinterpreting. Leader Apo’s role and our role are different from each other. Neither can we play Leader Apo’s role, nor can Leader Apo play our role. These are complementary elements. Understanding it this way is more appropriate. Some say that; “There are problems, contradictions and different approaches between Leader Apo and the organization.” And some say that; “No, it is not so. There is a division of tasks.” What is right is the division of tasks. Understanding it this way is more appropriate. Leader Apo is the leader of a people and the chief negotiator. Our position is different. These should not be confused with each other. Neither seeking identicalness between the two nor pitting them against each other is appropriate. Maybe, some are putting the two in opposition to each other on purpose. But what is true is the fact that Leader Apo and we have different roles, and these roles complement each other. There is no contradictory situation and there cannot be either.  The government is talking about resolution but the government has no right to mention this. Everybody can mention this, but not the government. As a matter of fact, the government has waged a psychological war under the name of resolution process. It occupied everybody with this, it deceived everybody and it fueled expectation. It tried to fulfill its own goals; this is what they have done. The government hasn’t taken serious steps for resolution. It tried to reinforce itself via using the ground that we have introduced. I can say that the best thing it has done along this process has been conducting the psychological war. It didn’t take steps on the way to resolution.  It is Leader Apo who is insistently and unilaterally pushing for resolution. If we are to speak of the resolution process, Leader Apo’s unilateral effort can be spoken of. These efforts took the resolution only to a certain point. For going beyond that, the government needs to take a step too. In regards to discourse, the government is telling nice things but is not taking step. It is fueling everybody’s expectation but it is not developing practical steps. That’s why, what has been said has no value either for us or for the society. At the beginning, we were taking it seriously but, gradually having seen that there is nothing more than a psychological war, neither us nor the society takes what has been said seriously now.

Legal arrangements and a new roadmap concerning them, having news negotiators and involvement of the Undersecretary of Public Order and Security in the issue…

Bayık: A framework law was adopted by the Parliament, but there is also need to look at how and for what it was adopted. Leader Apo said: “I cannot anymore manage this process in this way. I can proceed if my conditions change. I am not in if framework for resolution is not developed.”  Our movement said this all along and some endeavors were made towards this direction. We said that the movement would take a stance if the framework is not set. There is a war in Iraq and Syria and a dangerous situation is emerging for Turkey too. If Leader Apo had withdrawn, and if the movement had taken a stance and waged a battle, then this would not be good for Turkey, and this would not lead up to positive results. Perhaps, situations similar to the ones in Syria and Iraq might have emerged. Since the government has seen this, and also because the ceasefire needed to continue, and no clashes should have erupted for having Tayyip Erdoğan elected as president, because his presidency would be jeopardized in a clashing environment. They had to bring that law to the Parliament for not jeopardizing this. Not because they wanted to, but developments and the struggle forced Turkey to take this step. That’s why the government enforced that law, but what is the name of the law? The law to end terrorism. It is not ending the war and it is not ending the Kurdish problem, ending terrorism. This shows that the mentality within the government and in Turkey hasn’t changed. It shows that they are still approaching the problem with the old mentality because the name of the law gives a direction to the law. All along, it was said: “There is no Kurdish problem in Turkey; there is terrorism problem in Turkey.” It was said: “Some states are destroying Turkey with the PKK since they don’t want Turkey to develop. That’s why Turkey faces terrorism and fights against this. The fight against terrorism includes security issue and ending it with the army, the police and the intelligence.” A closer look would tell that it is what has been said and done since from the very beginning. They have never regarded the problem as a political issue and as natural rights of a people. Thus, they have never considered resolving the problem politically. They have always considered it as ending terrorism because if they had regarded it politically, then it would have to handle and resolve it politically.  It has to appropriately and fairly see the struggle that is being conducted. It has to consider its leader as the leader of a people. Since Oslo [secret talks between intelligence officials and PKK representatives, which were held in Oslo between 2009 and 2011 and collapsed because of a leak that hit the Internet in 2011], up until today, the government has always resorted to intelligence for advancing the matters; it is conducting it with the army and the police. It is never bringing in a political content to the meetings. It doesn’t want to conduct the meetings with politicians.

It seems like the process which you mentioned is beginning now?

Bayık: Although unwillingly, Turkey is heading towards this; it has to. This is independent of Turkey’s willingness.

You mean the government when you say Turkey.

Bayık: Of course, I mean the government. Developments are forcing them. There is no other way either. Now, nobody in Turkey is anymore speaking of terrorism. They don’t regard the PKK as a terrorist organization. Those who at the time feverishly regarded it as terrorist are today saying that the PKK should be dropped from the terrorist list. There are discussions in favor of this. Additionally, there is the PKK practice in Syria and Iraq. It is backing peoples, cultures and sects. From now on, Turkey cannot show the PKK as terrorist. Even if it does so, it cannot have anybody taking it seriously because there is an apparent identity, language and culture problem of a people. There is their problem of freedom. Everybody is seeing this now. It [Turkey] will have to accept this problem as political.

Will it have to, or did it have to?

Bayık: It is heading towards that direction. Turkey can no longer go on this way. If it does so, it will be against Turkey and it will really face very serious problems.

Just a while ago, you said “We had to take a stance and the government was scared.” You have a serious presence in Syria and Iraq; this is happening also because of technical opportunities provided due to the absence of conflict in Turkey and to the international perception to which this situation led. If you had continued fighting in Turkey, would your activities in Rojava and in Iraq be welcomed with same amount of warmth?

Bayık: We would do it again.

Perhaps you would do it, but would the Western public perceive it as the same as today?

Bayık: I cannot know how they would perceive but we would do again the same thing that we did in Rojava and Sinjar. We have the power for doing this. We have ideological power and the power of people as well as the power for fighting. We always want to resolve problems through democratic politics. We have announced unilateral ceasefire exactly for nine times. No power can announce this much unilateral ceasefire. The last one is a situation beyond ceasefire. We have resorted to methods that weren’t used by any movement in the world. And we did this unilaterally. This shows both our self-confidence and that we are in favor of democratic politics. If they don’t incline to resolution while we insist on these to this extent, then of course, we would develop legitimate defense fight too. This is our natural right. However, at the stage that has been arrived now, we are saying that it should be resolved through democratic politics, but not through war. This is what is in favor of Turkey too. If Turkey doesn’t take a step towards this direction, Turkey will encounter very serious problems. The situations in Iraq and Syria can also happen in Turkey. That’s why; I believe that Turkey has noticed this. If Turkey is taking certain steps, they are beyond its will but they are obligatory; they are steps which should be taken. Turkey is being forced to take these steps; developments are imposing this. Turkey cannot retreat from this. If it does, it becomes like Syria and Iraq.

You say that, somehow, the government has to arrive at this point.

Bayık: Yes, it is arriving. Of course it is not meant to say that we should not fight since the government is arriving at that point. No, on the contrary, there is need for facilitating the steps that Turkey needs to take through more fighting. This is for the benefit of both Kurds and all peoples and cultures in Turkey.

Then, you keep the door open to Beşir Atalay’s proposal to send a new delegation to Qandil.

Bayık: We are always open. We always acted openly with everybody. We haven’t refused anybody up until today. This may be press, delegations or international organizations. We haven’t refused anybody who asked for meeting us. We are not refusing in principle. We don’t believe that refusal is appropriate. 

In our last conversation, we had touched upon the Gülen community [a community led by U.S.-based Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen]. What you said then sparked  wide interest[DR1] . You had said: “We wanted to meet but they didn’t want it.” Is there a change or attempt on this matter since then?

Bayık: No, it didn’t happen. He is still distanced.

Well, I believe that you have followed the fight between the government and the Cemaat [Community in Turkish, a reference to the Gülen Movement] in the meantime. Is the process going on as you expected, or were there incidents which surprised you?

Bayık: No, we are not getting surprised. It is ending up like how we estimated. Because two powers made an alliance and it came to power on this basis, after eliminating the powers against them, they were involved in a struggle for power. As forces who fight for power cannot share the power, one of them definitely eliminates the other and wants to have more power. It is what happened between the government and Fethullah Gülen. They marched together to a certain point and later were involved in a struggle for power. Can it disband it entirely? This is not possible because there is a societal segment on which Fethullah Gülen relies. It cannot entirely neutralize the Gülen Movement. Targeting the entire Cemaat would be against the AKP. I don’t think that they will do it. It aims at targeting its certain segments and eliminating its potential as a competitor and it wants to draw certain segments closer. It is conducting such a policy. It is a correct policy for the AKP, and it is yielding some results. 

As far as is understood from your statements after the election, [Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP) co-leader, presidential candidate] Selahattin Demirtaş’s performance made you quite happy. Were you expecting this result?

Bayık: Our expectation was from 10 to 13 percent. The result he got is good. The picture that has emerged shows that the HDP can develop and that HDP is the real opposition for Turkey. If the HDP can transform this into an organizational [capability], then a strong opposition emerges out of this. The HDP shouldn’t content itself with the percentage that it got. It should turn it into an organizational power. What needs to be done for the HDP is concentration on organizational endeavors. If it does so and embraces, let’s say, Kurds, Alevis, democrat Muslims, leftists and liberals, then it can become the biggest opposition power of Turkey. The HDP should get rid of some marginal approaches. 

Can you give an example?

Bayık: For example, there is a group in Beyoğlu.

In Cihangir…

Bayık: I don’t want to name. I assume it is being understood. If it does so, -- and those segments that I mentioned have certain sensitivities and laborers in Turkey also have sensitivities. If it embraces them and if it doesn’t solely remain at a discourse level and turns these into practice, then the HDP becomes a big opposition power.

We all know that Tayyip Erdoğan wants to switch to presidential system.

Bayık: It is obvious.

Some figures from your movement said this would be a good option for solution of the Kurdish problem. There was a debate on this too. But I haven’t seen any clear statement from you, as the headquarters. Are you warm towards this system change? They will need your support or at least they will need you not to block for such system change. Will you help?

Bayık: We don’t lend support to any mentality which seeks hegemony. As far as we saw, Tayyip Erdoğan is seeking hegemony. He is after being a one-man. This is dangerous both for the AKP and for all peoples. There is no democratic and libertarian aspect that this will bring in. Furthermore, it may restrict and jeopardize. In principle, we don’t support somebody who is running after hegemony. [Outgoing President] Mr. Abdullah Gül also made a statement and said he is in favor of parliamentary system. He said he didn’t find presidential and semi-presidential system appropriate for Turkey. Also in our opinion, parliamentary system is more democratic when compared to presidential and semi-presidential systems. We are a movement that exerts efforts for democratization in Turkey. We want a democratic society and politics to be developed in Turkey. Presidential and semi-presidential systems may restrict this. It may jeopardize this. There is a need to look at mentality of the party and its leader who wants to promote presidential and semi-presidential systems. The mentality may create either dangerous or positive results. Somebody who has a democratic mentality can create a more democratic country with presidential and semi-presidential systems. But somebody who wants to run after hegemony and one-man rule may restrict democracy and freedoms in Turkey. It may take [the country] to a more dangerous point. In this regard, presidential and semi-presidential systems are dangerous, they are not safe. It may be drawn away to any side. There is assurance within the parliamentary system. There are checking systems against efforts aimed at leading Turkey to an anti-democratic direction. Accordingly, presidential and semi-presidential systems would take Turkey to proportionately large systemic changes. It would change Turkey. What matters is the changing of Turkey towards democratization. The system should create this, but the current system is not quite promising.

It is almost certain that [Foreign Minister] Ahmet Davutoğlu will become the new prime minister. As a matter of fact, President Gül said this at the reception on Aug. 19. What would you like to say about this development?

Bayık: People don’t matter for us. What matters the organizations and the system. As a person, Ahmet Davutoğlu may be a good person, but if the system is not correctly established, even the most democratic person cannot be successful within that system. That’s why; problems should be handled at the systemic level, but not on the basis of persons. It has become almost certain that Ahmet Davutıoğlu will become the prime minister. It has also become certain that Hakan Bey [Hakan Fidan, MİT’s undersecretary] will become the foreign minister. It is obvious that Mr. Erdoğan wants to carry out a systemic change with a team that is close to him. If he doesn’t appoint people close to him to critical posts, then he cannot carry out the systemic change that he is foreseeing for Turkey. I suppose Erdoğan is dominant in these changes. He is fair while doing this. Since he wants to make a systemic change in Turkey, he can only do this with his own team. Anybody would do the same. Whoever comes to power in Turkey, it arranges its own team and tries to reach its target with them.

The opposition groups other than you are suspicious of the resolution process and the contacts held with Öcalan, saying that this is a give-and-take relationship and you are actually paving the way for Erdoğan. There is such a perception, an impression that there is an agreement on this, as if you will not pose an obstacle to Erdoğan and even as if you will support him. Isn’t it true at all?

Bayık: We are not taking persons and parties as basis. We are taking principles as basis. In the relations we conduct with Turkey, there is no give-and-take; it is about principles and goals. We are conducting meetings on this basis. This should be thoroughly comprehended among the public. For us, it doesn’t matter whether it is the AKP or the CHP [the main opposition Republican People’s Party] and the MHP [the Nationalist Movement Party]. We will discuss the solution with whichever party that comes to power.  We will improve the solution with the government and with the state. No solution is possible with a power other than the state and the government. Of course, while we are trying to improve solution with the state and the government, we want to carry this out by getting support from peoples, cultures, religions and sects. But, eventually, the agreement would be with the state and the government. If we are holding negotiations with the AKP today, the reason is their being in the power. If it was the CHP or the MHP in the power instead of the AKP, then we would also hold the same with them. This should be correctly understood. It is not because we find the AKP righteous that we are conducting negotiations with the AKP or that we are pro-AKP. Precisely, negotiations are held with government. It is why we are conducting negotiations with the AKP. If they are portraying [this] as [being] pro-AKP, it is unjust. For us, [former Prime Minister Tansu] Çiller and Erdoğan are alike. Their methods are different. Çiller wanted to eliminate [the PKK] via militaristic means, while Erdoğan wanted to politically eliminate us. He wanted to eliminate us through psychological war. This is the difference between the two. How can we be pro-AKP? This is absence of conscience. Saying “AKP is being supported and thanks to this support, AKP is succeeding,” is wrong. Today the majority believes that: “By supporting the AKP, the PKK is paving the way for restriction [DR2] of our democratic rights.” This is a big relentlessness. Today, it is this movement that dominantly conducts the struggle for freedom and democracy in Turkey. If a lot of segment is able to get organized, this is the result of the fight waged by the PKK. We have been the ones who dominantly fought against the PKK. It is still us who are fighting. We are exerting unilateral efforts for changing the mentality of the state and the government in Turkey. 

That’s to say, you didn’t give up democracy in return for autonomy, -- because there are such comments.

Bayık: Never. We have given up neither democratization nor democratic autonomy. These are constituents which complement and develop each other. A closer look would tell that we aspire for Turkey’s democratization through the HDP project. We are exerting efforts to this end. As Turkey gets democratized, then Turkey’s Kurdish problem gets resolved too. Democratic solution of the Kurdish problem will bring in democratization in Turkey too. There are some liberal-leftist intellectuals, and they are making comments on television. They say: “The PKK is lending support to the AKP and Erdoğan, and Erdoğan is a dictator. How can the PKK develop a solution with them? Then, it is serving dictatorship.” Nonetheless, if we solve this problem with the AKP, then Turkey will get democratized and democratic autonomy develops in Kurdistan. If the AKP doesn’t accept democratic autonomy and Turkey’s democratization, then we won’t have the chance for negotiating with the AKP anyhow. Then, we would fight against the AKP. In the past, we savagely fought. Now, we are trying to conduct negotiations. If it comes for negotiation, then we would negotiate; if not, then we would fight. We can never coalesce into dictatorship and fascism. No dictator and fascist rule would have democratization and solution of the Kurdish problem as a plan ahead. If it is doing so, then it cannot resume fascism and dictatorship. All problems in the world are solved through ruling powers and the governments. Furthermore, they were solved with the ruling powers which you label as fascist. No problem called the Kurdish problem would exist under democratic governances. There cannot be a politics based on denial and extermination. No doubt, you would fight against those who take denial and extermination as basis, but not democratization, and you would solve problems.

When the statue was built, some launched a campaign asking “How can this statue be allowed?”  After the statue was destroyed, a campaign is being conducted, asking “How can you meet with this government?” Would the incident in Lice lead up to a very serious breakup in the resolution process?

Bayık: Politics cannot be done in black and white. In Turkey, they are squeezing everything into black and white. You will either say black or white. There are tons of colors between them. We are assessing all possibilities and taking whichever is the most convenient one as basis. We are not acting in line with the mentality in Turkey. We are not approaching cases as black or white. The most negative incidents take place when problems head towards being resolved. It is like that in many places of the world. Turkey and Kurdistan are not exempt from this. Some forces want to block transition to negotiations. These [forces] may create provocations, destructions and environments of conflict. Certainly, we assess all of these incidents with its all dimensions. We made a statement about the last incident in Lice. By all means, a power which aspires for solution should approach sensitivities of the Kurdish people appropriately. Those people laid to rest there are children of this people. They were martyred during the struggle. Mahsum Korkmaz [one of the founders of the PKK] was one of these fellows. [Building of Korkmaz’s statue in a cemetery where PKK members were laid to rest in Lice town of the southeastern Anatolian province of Diyarbakır earlier in August led to clashes which left one soldier and one demonstrator dead] These should be behaved in a respectful manner. Going there with tanks and helicopters, pulling up that statue and destroying is surely not serving the process. Shooting at those cemeteries and setting some places on fire don’t serve the process. Each and every Kurdish person would take it like setting himself on fire. He takes a message saying, “If needed, we will set you on fire.” The people would of course resist against this, and they have the right to resist. Just like a Turkish soldier has value for Turkish people, the grave of a guerilla has the same kind of preciousness for Kurds. Infringing those values means infringing Kurdish people and tearing down its values. That’s why; those who truly want to improve the negotiation process should pay attention to these sensitivities of the people. They shouldn’t ruin and provoke the people.  We are paying attention to this, and they should pay attention as well. For example Beşir Atalay says: “The state is sensitive and doesn’t let such things [happen] and it will not let from now on either.” The state wants to display its authority. If it wants to be authoritative this way, the Kurdish people would not accept this authoritarianism. The Kurdish people have fought against this authority for years. Then it means that resolution isn’t aspired for, and war is desired because this approach is meant to invite people to war. Let me speak frankly, we are receiving proposals from our warriors since last few days. They say “Let’s end up this process if this statue is touched.”  We have many fellows saying this. We are urging them to be patient despite this. We told them: “It would not be right to engage in a war immediately upon this incident. You have to overcome these emotional reactions.” That’s to say, we prevented [it]. Some of them may not listen to us because they are truly having difficulty. Just like how a warrior wants to go to Kobani and Sinjar for fighting; the same thing goes for Lice. We are really having difficulty in preventing this. Some of them deserted. Since we are not sending them off, they are trying to go there by deserting. We captured some of them, but some of them had already gone. We brought them back. How long can we continue this?

This event is a very big one…

Bayık: It is of course a big event. There is use in publicizing this. There are many impositions. We cannot accept. Our values have been disrespected. Besides, this is being done in an environment when it is said that it will be transited to negotiations. We cannot accept this. This is an attack against our values and our people. We need to protect ourselves in the face of these attacks.

There are many issues, values and names on which both sides are sensitive. There are also many of those who want to leave the table. How will this process proceed?

Bayık: We are aware of all of them. We are standing against understandings and stances which could regress and sabotage this process, no matter if it is stemming from us or others. But this cannot be unilaterally. The same thing has to be displayed by the Turkish state and the government. If there is a matter, this should be sorted out through dialogue. Doing something without having dialogue would lead to provocation. It would mean helping those who are willing for sabotage, -- if they exist as it is frequently suggested. There is no unilateral sensitivity. In particular, those who are willing for resolving the problem should pay attention to the sensitivities of everybody. Paying attention only to the sensitivities of Turkey, and asking Kurds to pay attention to these sensitivities without paying attention to sensitivities of Kurds is unfair. It is the Turkish state that should particularly pay attention to sensitivities of Kurds. Kurds are not seizing anything from the hands of the Turkish state. They are not insulting, and not seizing, and banning their language, culture and the right to association. It is the Turkish state that bans. We see that they are taking as basis only their own sensitivities without paying any attention to sensitivities of others. They are saying: “We are the state, we have laws, and we do whatever we want. We won’t let our authority be violated.” That’s to say, they are acting upon the old mentality. This mentality is a mentality that makes problems heavier and takes them to a dangerous dimension, instead of resolving them.

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

15.09.2024		Erdoğan’ın “din düşmanları”na ihtiyacı var
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
11.02.2016		Hesabên herdu aliyan ên xelet şerê heyî kûrtir dike
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