Are we ever closer to a Kurdish solution amid violence?

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is committing suicide. It kills civilians, both Turkish and Kurdish, in various parts of Turkey. This obviously points to a desperate position on the part of the PKK.

As a result of the killings both in Ankara and Siirt last week, the PKK has received very harsh criticism and reaction from the Turks and the Kurds. A group of Kurdish activists started a campaign and called on the PKK “to not kill on my behalf.”

This indicates that the PKK is losing its moral high ground among the Kurds, who are denouncing the violence that is being directed at civilians. Even among the ranks of the BDP strong criticism has been voiced pointing out that even in times of war there are moral limits not to kill civilians.

It is therefore hard to understand the rationale and objective behind this new wave of terror. From an optimistic point of view, one could think the PKK is trying to put pressure on the government by using such violent acts in order to force it to accept a negotiated settlement. But we know that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government is engaged with both Abdullah Öcalan in prison and the PKK’s other leaders to facilitate a solution. The leaked tape recordings of a dialogue between the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and the PKK shows that even at a time when the Kurdish opening seemed publicly abandoned by the government, in practice, the same government was trying to negotiate with Öcalan and the PKK. Therefore, it is hard to question the government’s willingness to address the Kurdish question and even engage with the PKK for this matter.

We also know that negotiations with Öcalan continued right into the summer as Öcalan declared substantial progress in the talks with the state. What bothers many observers is that the PKK’s attacks were intensified following a message from Öcalan, where he claimed to have reached an agreement with the state and that there was no need to continue the war.

This gives rise to speculation that it is not the state but the PKK that is turning away from a negotiated solution. If this is not true for the entire PKK, there are at least some radical elements within the organization that may not approve the peace process conducted by Öcalan. Instead, by intensifying violence, they could be trying to convey a message that the counterpart of the state for negotiation is not Öcalan, but the warlords who effectively control the PKK on the ground. This takes us to a vicious circle. It took decades for the state to talk with Öcalan for peace and settlement, now if it appears that Öcalan is not the right person to speak with because he is not in control of the PKK then there could be no one on the table to talk to.

Anyway, it is a fact that the PKK can survive as a terrorist organization without Öcalan, but it cannot enjoy social and political support among the Kurds. So, Öcalan may not be in total control of the PKK, but the PKK warlords cannot survive without Öcalan’s blessing. If they, both Öcalan and his warlords, want peace and want to exist without violence they should stop wrestling with each other by killing innocent people, which has turned into a way of showing muscle, not only to the state but also to each other.

The PKK has come to a crossroads. While using violence can never be justified, the terrorist organization has even expanded the use of violence against civilians. This is self-defeating, irrational and inhuman. This should be stopped at once.

Despite the confusion over the objectives, rationale and actors behind the recent PKK violence I’m still keeping my hopes high. The rising violence may be heralding that peace is ever closer. Before a full-scale peace talk, both sides are trying to raise the stakes and signal that the current state of violence is not sustainable, affordable or favorable for either side.

Secularism for Arabs and Turks

Will the Arab Spring countries embrace secularism as described by the Turkish prime minister?

It is certainly odd to hear Recep Tayyip Erdoğan preaching about secularism in Egypt and Tunisia given that he comes from a political tradition that was constantly suppressed in the name of secularism and that his party, described as the center of anti-secular activities, was threatened with closure by the Constitutional Court only three years ago.

Now Erdoğan is advising the Arabs not to be afraid of secularism. What he has in mind, however, is of course not the secularism of the Kemalists or the Nasserites or the Baathists. He, in fact, is putting forward a notion of reformed secularism, the kind that is emancipatory and non-interventionist.

This is a departure from the one implemented in Turkey by the Kemalists. Turkey's experience with secularism is not a happy one. From its inception during the republican era, secularism was conceived as a “device” to exclude and oppress religious groups. Exclusion on the grounds of secularism served to delegitimize social and political actors and their demands while elevating the Kemalist elite as the legitimate vanguard of the system. Secularism was thus a shield behind which the Kemalists conducted a struggle for power vis-à-vis the conservative periphery.

It was not a model in which the state and religion were separated, with each commanding its own realm free of intervention from the other side. In the Turkish secular model the state-controlled religion -- the way in which it was organized, believed in and taught. Thus, while the state, in the name of secularism, kept religion at bay and even controlled it, religion was not supposed to define rules or norms of the state's affairs. As a result, Turkish secularism created its own institution of religion within the state apparatus so it could rule and regulate religious activities. Even in this, the state was not impartial since the institution was only in charge of Islam, and only one interpretation of it. So Sunni Islam became the “official religion,” in practice excluding non-Muslims and Alevis. Moreover, this notion of Islam became compulsory in schools reinforcing the state's monopoly over Islam, its interpretation and teaching.

While regulating the relationship with religion in such a way, on the other hand, Turkish secularism has also attempted to erode paradoxically public displays of Islam. This was conducted through an understanding of secularism as a “way of life.” So, on one hand, the state ran religious institutions, published religious books, employed preachers and taught Islam, but on the other religion/Islam was to be kept to one's self not appearing in social or political life.

To achieve secularism with democracy and social will result in removing the built-in authoritarian political content of radical secularism. There are two important aspects of secularism: impartiality and the equal treatment of all religions by the state. Secularism involves an institutional attitude and method that ensures that the state remains impartial and equidistant to all religions and thoughts, whereby secularism is essentially regarded as the freedom of religion and conscience. On the other hand, secularism guarantees emancipation for different beliefs and lifestyles.

This is an important ground on which secularists and Muslims can reach a consensus in Islamic communities.

Israel’s missed opportunity

I do not understand why the government of Israel finds it so difficult to apologize for a mistake that it has committed. Yes, it expressed regret that nine civilians were killed by its own soldiers and offered its condolences. Why not an apology, then? Is it worth triggering all this tension and provoking a potential hot conflict?

I am afraid that without a change in Israel’s attitude, the tension will continue to increase. The news that the Israeli government is considering countermeasures against Turkey that include extending a hand to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and supporting efforts for the recognition of Armenian genocide claims have agitated the public and Turkish government further. With such news, it will be impossible for the Turkish government to calm down and mend the damage already done. Moreover, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will be touring Arab Spring countries Egypt, Tunisia and Libya this week. In his visits, the Turkish Prime Minister will certainly underline the importance of the people’s will, democratic institutions, and change as brought up by the Arab revolts, but I also expect that Erdoğan will speak up against Israel, denouncing the blockade of Gaza and calling on them to stand against Israel’s aggressive policies in the region. Thus, Erdoğan’s Middle East tour will, at least on a rhetorical level, increase tension between Turkey and Israel. The Arab Spring may turn into an anti-Israeli public and political rally through the efforts of the Turkish prime minister, whose popularity in the Arab street should not be underestimated. Some elements of this could be seen in Cairo in this last week’s demonstration against Israel.

Furthermore, Palestinians are to declare an independent Palestinian state before the UN on Sept. 20, a project enthusiastically supported by Turkey. The declaration will be an occasion to rally international support against Israel’s occupation, continuation to build settlements in the occupied territories and blockade of Gaza.

All these mean that in the coming days, Israel will face increasing pressure from the international community on a series of topics, including that the Israeli position is not defendable under either international law or civic morality.

Another development that places Israel under tremendous pressure is that the tension between Israel and Egypt is growing. The Camp David accord seems to have been demolished. The Egyptian masses are getting out of control, forcing the Israeli ambassador to flee, and the interim government is not willing or able to do anything to stop them. This and other incidents may lead the Israelis to believe that the Arab Spring may not be a “good thing” for Israel. This may be so if Israel is still stuck in the old habits of defying international law and preferring to deal with the autocrats in the region without taking the public mood into account. This “old Middle East” has gone, gone at least in the Maghreb and Mashriq regions. It is time for Israel to understand and act according to the parameters of the new, emerging Middle East, to which Israel can contribute by pursuing a policy of peace. This seems to not be the case so far, as demonstrated in Israel’s policy on Turkey. As a result, Israelis will feel more isolated, and thus threatened, in the coming days. Mending relations with Turkey with an apology over the Mavi Marmara raid would have brought relief for Israel. It seems that the extreme right-wing in the government has prevented such a reconciliatory move to enable Israel to cope with change in the Middle East and Turkey. The long-anticipated change has arrived in the Middle East, but not Israel.