While the talks with the Kurdish Leader Abdullah Öcalan in Imrali are being debated, member of the KCK Executive Council, Cemil Bayık, evaluated the subject in his column published at the Yeni Özgür Politika and Azadiya Welat newspapers.

Bayık, in his article written in Kurdish, entitled ‘the last chance for AKP’, stated that as a result of the resistance of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan against one and a half year of threats and blackmailing, the AKP had to restart the talks. Stating “resistance of the Guerrilla and the People also forced the AKP to talk with the Kurdish People’s Leader”, Bayık’s article is as follows:

“No matter what might be its intentions, the start of these talks shows how much AKP has struggled. It’s the PKK and the Kurdish People who wanted to have these talks with the Kurdish People’s Leader. With this respect, the desire of the PKK and the People are realised. Kurds have always wanted to achieve results by talks anyway. Kurdish People’s Leader, with regards to resolving this issue in a reasonable and democratic fashion, shows the greatest effort. Kurdish People’s Leader now, also, shows these efforts. If AKP approaches to this correctly, it could get good results. In resolving the Kurdish issue in a democratic way and achieving a just peace, the approach of the Turkish state will be the determining factor. Because, there will be no approach from the Kurdish part to create an obstacle to the solution.”


Bayık, stating that if Öcalan is going to be at the centre of the talks, a suitable environment must be provided for these efforts, and underlines that in the case of not providing the necessary environment for the Kurdish People’s Leader Öcalan to play his role, the approach to the talks will be questioned. Bayık’s evaluations are as follows: “If there is going to be a solution, first of all, collocutors of the solution must be approached with respect. With this point of view, the approach to Kurdish People’s Leader is very important. If Kurdish People’s Leader is going to be at the centre of this dialogue, a suitable environment needs to be provided for his efforts in this regards. Reasonable people, and the ones who favour talks to take place, would think likewise, too. If there are no changes to the position of the Kurdish People’s Leader, and the necessary environment to play his role in the talks are not provided, this situation will cause the approach to the talks to be questioned. Foremost, there must be a serious progress in this matter. It was due to this reason that both the Kurdish People’s Leader and the PKK brought the health, security and freedom conditions to the agenda.


If the Turkish state has an intention of solving the Kurdish issue, these talks could evolve into a negotiation process. The Kurdish part is ready in this regard. There is a will for the solution amongst the Kurds. Nobody could say that this willpower does not exist.


However, as put forward by the AKP government and the media, if the issue is described as disarmament and armed forces’ abandonment of their positions, this approach will show that there is not an intention for solution. Because, in this kind of issues, firstly the political topics are negotiated. If willpower to solution and a project is put forward, after which, what will happen to the situation of the armed forces will be debated.

Bayık states that the AKP government, until now, did not considered the opportunities provided by the Kurdish People’s Leader Öcalan and the Kurdish Freedom Movement, and wasted these opportunities inline with party gains, and reminds that the AKP did not built its Kurdish politics on solution; Bayık  says “AKP continued its ruling on ‘I will deceive the Kurds best, I will crush the Kurdish Freedom Movement better’. It based the existence of its ruling on this. That is how it was taking the military and civil bureaucracy of the state for backing. By creating expectations in solving the Kurdish issue, it was trying to distract the Kurds and the democracy forces. But, these politics also have their use by dates.  When AKP, after the 12 June elections, saw that it could not continue with this policy, it put its weight onto the politics of elimination of the Kurdish Freedom Movement. However, when it realised that this politics was fruitless and was going to cost dearly, talks with the Kurdish People’s Leader was put on the agenda.”


By stating “in fact, this is the last chance for the AKP”, Bayık continues his writings with these warnings: “if it goes to distraction tactic again, it would become clear that willpower for solution does not exist. The political end of the AKP will come as it neither resolves the issue, nor shows any success to crush. For an important subject like the Kurdish issue, to be in a political selfishness and not showing willpower for solution would mean a narrowness of political capacity. A party with a narrow political capacity would find it difficult to govern Turkey any longer. Governments with such a level of narrow political capacities may survive a little bit more but at the end, as a requirement of the conjuncture, cannot escape from falling. The Kurdish People’s Leader presented another chance to the AKP. He says to AKP that if you want to be lasting in the politics of Turkey then we are ready for the solution, but you need to show courage to put a step forward. Because, the existence of the AKP is linked to the democratisation of Turkey. Approach of the Kurdish People’s Leader to the talks and AKP should be understood in this way. If AKP understands it correctly, these talks could develop. If it thinks to take this process just like in the past years, then it will hit a brick wall. Kurdish People’s Leader approaches to all of his works responsibly and seriously. For a reasonable solution, he would show willpower as well. But he would not lend credence to trivialities, nor to frivolity or irresponsibilities. Everyone should know this like that.


This issue would be resolved sooner or later. Resolving it through negotiations is of course preferable. That is why these talks are meaningful. The PKK, the Kurdish people and the forces of the democracy all would be backing the Kurdish People’s Leader and would be supporting these talks. Because, it is meaningful to appraise all opportunities for the democratic solution.  In fact, the politics of AKP would become clear in a short period. It cannot keep anyone, like in the past, in an uncertainty and expectation that spreads into years.

To reiterate, the problem is resolving the Kurdish issue. Kurdish issue cannot be reduced down to disarmament of the guerrilla. That would mean reducing the Kurdish issue to something like a ‘terrorism’ problem. Consequently, the debates on the coming days would be concentrated on how the Kurdish issue might be resolved.”

07.01.2013 / ANF