An intricate strategy
 
 
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
RSS
  |  
  |  
  |  
23 May 2013 Thursday
 
 
 
 
 
 
Columnists 26 June 2012, Tuesday 3 0 0 0
DOĞU ERGİL
d.ergil@todayszaman.com

An intricate strategy

A Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) attack took place at the Dağlıca (Oramar) military post last week. Eight soldiers and 23 PKK militants died. An interview by a Turkish journalist with the acting head of the PKK, Murat Karayılan, was published last week by online sources. In the interview Karayılan expressed regret that negotiations between Turkish officials and the PKK operatives had been scuttled by the attacks. He mentioned “unidentified” perpetrators who wanted to drive a wedge between Turks and Kurds. A day after his seemingly sincere admission (that was the impression of the interviewer), the PKK attacked with 300 men and revealed its real aim: continuing its spree of violence.

Indeed the PKK still believes that violence pays. If it wasn’t for violence, Kurdish grievances would not be heard by the Turkish government, nor would the organization be invited to the negotiating table. Once again it is made evident that the PKK’s primary aim is not reconciliation with Turkey. The organization wants to share: to share the national territory and to manage the Kurdish-dominated provinces. The PKK’s systematic sabotage of the peace process is a political strategy that will continue until it realizes its aim of managing the entire Kurdish political geography, beginning with Turkey.

Two things facilitate the maximalist approach of the PKK. One is the docility and obvious support of some Kurdish people who vote for the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and lend their sons and daughters to the militant organization. The other is the Turkish establishment’s refusal to understand that the “Kurdish problem” is indeed a matter of a lack of democracy and rule of law. This deficiency rendered the state an almighty Leviathan and dwarfed citizens who had to suffer whenever they demanded the rights and freedoms stolen from them. In sum, the “Kurdish problem” is one of many similar problems that arose from the non-popular nature of a regime built on the primacy of the state over society. Hence its solution rests on the emancipation of the citizen.

PKK leaders penned their grand design in the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) convention. In this convention -- presented as the constitution of the “free and united” Kurdistan encompassing Kurdish communities in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. “KCK citizenship” denotes allegiance to a new political entity apart from present territorial citizenships. The convention drew up a state apparatus that is parallel and alternative to the current state formations in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria.

So far the only semi-independent Kurdish community is in Iraq, and it is run by local actors. Iran and Turkey are too strong to allow local Kurdistans. However, Syria is in turmoil, and the best chances to create a Kurdistan are there. Already Kurds led by the PKK hold northern Syria along the southern Turkish border.

According to visitors to Kandil, PKK leadership is making plans to evacuate the Arab towns and villages in the north and create a Kurdish province. The Turkish government knows of this design and wants to intervene in Syrian politics to fashion a post-Assad government it can influence. However, neither Israel nor Iran wants this. Together with a desperate Bashar al-Assad they are aiding the PKK in Syria.

Needless to say neither the Iraqi KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government) leadership nor the Turkish government is happy about this relationship. That is why both Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani are trying to reconcile the PKK with Turkey. However, the PKK is trying to consolidate its foothold in Syria where it will declare its autonomous administration with the blessing of the aforementioned governments.

Two things began to be discussed. The first was an unprecedented uttering of the phrase “resolution of the Kurdish problem within Turkey and between the peoples by peaceful means.” Leyla Zana, a respected veteran of the Kurdish imbroglio, and Selahattin Demirtaş, co-president of the BDP, spoke on this matter. The first said the problem could be solved under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and that we must all help him. The second called on the PKK to lay its arms down and said let us not anticipate a cease-fire or a peace initiative either from the PKK or the Justice and Development Party (AK Party): The people must reconcile amongst themselves. Both statements are devoid of violence.

The second topic of conversation was a Turkish military operation at Kandil. This is exactly what the PKK wants: to pull Turkey into a fight with the Kurds. So the Turkish military expedition will conveniently be transformed into an all-out Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Furthermore if Turkish troops annihilate fewer militants than expected, the operation will look like a failure that will definitely be presented as the victory of the PKK. The ensuing psychology will weaken the AK Party government.

It is with these sentiments that we have concluded a week full of heated debates and soul searching in Turkey.

COMMENTS
David, PKK leaders are mostly the product of the political turmoil of the 1960s/70s Turkey, which itself was a product of the cold-war and the spirit of 68, creating highly politicised youth, some of which took to armed struggle, culminating in tens of deaths every day. PKK leadership's inital goal ...
Baris
Very good article, as usual, Mr Ergil, which captures the overall picture in a concise manner.
Baris
Which government or the leader of which country doesn't believe that "violence pays"? Look at various country's "defense" budgets. For better or worse, violence is a part and parcel of Turkish cultural heritage and PKK leaders are products of Kemalist education system. ...... However, a solution pre...
David
Click here to read all user comments
Columnists Previous articles of the columnist
20 May 2013
Syria in the eye of the beholder
19 May 2013
Syria between a rock and a hard place
14 May 2013
Syria exploding
12 May 2013
Awakening
7 May 2013
Iraq in turmoil (1)
5 May 2013
Questions and sincerity
30 April 2013
Poisonous questions
28 April 2013
Pride and Prejudice
23 April 2013
Scenes from Central Anatolia
21 April 2013
Official vs. Civic
16 April 2013
Iraqi Turkmens
14 April 2013
Oh Kurd (2)
9 April 2013
Oh Kurd (1)
7 April 2013
Oh Turk, (2)
2 April 2013
Oh Turk,
31 March 2013
Syria and Kurds
26 March 2013
Israel's apology
24 March 2013
Time to celebrate
19 March 2013
Meltdown
17 March 2013
A new phase in globalization
12 March 2013
A day for women
10 March 2013
EU membership: realities and aspirations
5 March 2013
The leak and the aftermath
3 March 2013
Where to tap?
26 February 2013
Syrian stalemate and the tragedy of inaction
24 February 2013
Presidency and the ‘grand peace’ offer
19 February 2013
Hope and caution
17 February 2013
Political perceptions
12 February 2013
Europe vs. Asia; elite vs. public
10 February 2013
Scenarios in the Syrian conflict
5 February 2013
Assessment of political and economic trends
3 February 2013
From Brussels to Shanghai
29 January 2013
Egypt and Iran
27 January 2013
‘Open Networks, Closed Regimes’
22 January 2013
Kurdish landscape is bustling
20 January 2013
Dividends of peace
15 January 2013
Peace with the dragon
13 January 2013
Dangers ahead
8 January 2013
Changes and challenges to understanding the Kurdish problem
6 January 2013
New year, new constitution?
1 January 2013
The 8 most interesting things we learned in 2012
30 December 2012
A 2012 account of Turkish foreign policy
25 December 2012
Interesting developments
23 December 2012
Iraqi prospects in Kurdish parentheses
18 December 2012
Turkey’s popularity in the Middle East
16 December 2012
Civil war in words and deeds
11 December 2012
Suicides in the army
9 December 2012
The pro-coup makeup in our DNA
4 December 2012
The secret army
2 December 2012
Violence against women
27 November 2012
The Kurdish house
25 November 2012
After the hunger strikes
20 November 2012
Is this a war?
18 November 2012
Life is a mirror: You get what you give
13 November 2012
Remembering and contemplating Atatürk
11 November 2012
Ending hunger strikes and political folly
6 November 2012
Elections and US foreign policy debate
23 October 2012
A slightly different competition
21 October 2012
Syria tough test for goals of ex-Ottomans
16 October 2012
Strategic depth (1)
9 October 2012
On war
7 October 2012
Another name for Syria: uncertainty
2 October 2012
Regional dynamics at play at the AKP congress
30 September 2012
The AKP congress
25 September 2012
Turkey, Israel and Egypt
23 September 2012
Systemic flaws
18 September 2012
On extremism
16 September 2012
Shadow boxing
11 September 2012
Tenacity of Syrian regime
9 September 2012
Questions and prejudices
4 September 2012
The Syrian enigma
2 September 2012
A bold new world?
28 August 2012
Here we stand?
26 August 2012
Questioning the Kurdish question
21 August 2012
US elections frivolous games
19 August 2012
One more time
14 August 2012
Syrian challenges
12 August 2012
Turkey’s Kurdish imbroglio as seen from outside
7 August 2012
Brotherhood?
5 August 2012
Syria unfolding
31 July 2012
Syria and Turkey: a friendship that went astray
29 July 2012
Whither goes the regime change in Syria
24 July 2012
Two-tier war in Syria
22 July 2012
Living with the hegemon
17 July 2012
Differing official rhetoric and common problems
15 July 2012
Turkey in the Syrian ‘problem’
10 July 2012
Strangers in their own land
8 July 2012
Russia and Israel on Syria
3 July 2012
The princess and the phoenix
1 July 2012
Reciprocity
26 June 2012
An intricate strategy
24 June 2012
Egypt’s hijacked spring
19 June 2012
Hopeful developments
17 June 2012
Dynamics of the Syrian conflict
12 June 2012
Kurdish issue redux
10 June 2012
The other world
5 June 2012
The abortion debate and beyond
3 June 2012
Conquest and discovery
29 May 2012
NATO’S near future
27 May 2012
Qualities of power
...