Full Text

INSIGHT TURKEY VOLUME 16 NO 1, 2014 The current Turkish-Kurdish peace process that began with cautious hope early in 2013 stalled soon after it was launched. What caused this situation and what might be done to restart the process? Peace can be a relative concept. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is first and foremost an adept politician. Thus, his main purpose appears to maintain and even expand his electoral mandate as Turkey enters its next electoral cycle in 2014. In so doing, he has many opposing constituencies to appease and satisfy. If he goes too far in satisfying the Kurds, he will surely alienate other, maybe even more important elements of the electorate. As a result, he seems to have treated the mere agreement to begin the peace process as the goal itself, rather than as a part of a process to address the root causes of the conflict. His so-called democratic package released on September 30, 2013 failed to implement any of the reforms the Kurds were looking for. Gone were the earlier hopes of a new, more democratic Turkish constitution. Instead, Erdoğan seemed more interested in women’s headscarves Where then do we now stand? Is the cup of peace half empty or half full? The evidence is mixed. Thus, on the positive side, while urging Erdoğan to move faster and further, the Kurds also should remember that he has done much more to begin trying to solve the Kurdish issue than all his predecessors combined. In addition, the Kurds should recall Erdoğan’s bold declaration when the peace process began that, “if drinking poison hemlock is necessary, we can also drink it to bring peace and welfare to this country.” However, from June 30-July 5, 2013, the Peoples Congress of Kurdistan (Kongra-Gel), a PKK affiliated body, held its 9th General Assembly and declared that the first stage of the peace process had been completed by the PKK withdrawals from Turkey. Thus, it was now time for the Turkish state and government to take concrete steps and make the required legal arrangements for the second stage of the peace process by presenting a democratization package of legal reforms. Instead, the Turkish government was constructing new military posts and dams, increasing the number of village guards, and failing to ensure the connection between the PKK head Abdullah Öcalan and democratic circles. Thus, concluded the Congress, the Turkish government was raising doubts about the peace process and creating the risk of a deadlock and failure. In line with the gender equality principle, the Kongra-Gel assembly also elected Cemil Bayik and Bese Hozat as the co-chairs of the Koma Civaken Kurdistan (KCK) or Kurdistan Communities Union to succeed Murat Karayilan who, however, supposedly was appointed as the new leader of the Hezen Parastina Gel (HPG) or Peoples Defense Forces. At the time, there was much speculation about what these new appointments might mean for the peace process with some thinking that Bayik would be more hawkish than the supposedly more moderate Karayilan. However, it soon became clear that the reshuffling of leaders did not represent a policy change, but merely a procedural organizational restructuring. Öcalan, for example, was reelected the Serok or President of the KCK/PKK, and it was inconceivable that the switch of co-chairs between Karayilan and Bayik could have occurred without his approval. Thus, the leadership change probably did not signal a repudiation of the peace process.