Fréderike Geerdink
Surely I haven’t been the only journalist anticipating a call by jailed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan to start a process steering away from armed resistance towards democracy this weekend. We were all ready to analyse the text, to compare it to earlier speeches and to gather and contextualise the reactions of Turkey’s government, its largest opposition party the Republican People’s Party (CHP), and the general public. Instead, we are reporting the news about yet another Kurdish municipality falling into ‘trustee’ hands, this time robbing the people of Van of their legitimate vote. Öcalan’s call was postponed. But it will happen, I am sure of that.
Let’s first draw attention to why this weekend was about to be so full of hopeful news. On 15 February 1999, an international conspiracy led to the capture of Abdullah Öcalan in the Kenyan capital city of Nairobi. Ever since, he has been locked up, mostly in solitary confinement, in Imralı Prison. But this year, there was to be a hopeful commemoration of that event: it was on that symbolic date of 15 February or a few days earlier or later, that Öcalan was going to make a call for peace.
Self-defence
We don’t know yet of course what the call would entail, but educated guesses are not difficult for those who follow the issue. We know Öcalan no longer considers armed resistance the way to struggle for Kurdish rights. Which is not the same as calling on the PKK to hand over its arms to the Turkish state. For that, first a comprehensive peace deal is needed. After all, Kurds have the right to self-defence, a concept in which Öcalan fiercely believes, and for that, arms are needed, especially in the state the region is in now. So, his address would include a call to embark on a road towards democracy, with the state, the armed movement, all political parties and civil society taking on their responsibilities.
We don’t know for sure why the call was postponed. I’ve been told that it has to do with another round of consultations being necessary. This weekend, the Imralı delegation, which went to visit Öcalan twice, in December and January, is in Kurdistan in Iraq. They are meeting with the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and with the Patiotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), the two most important parties. This does make sense: they were also involved in the previous road towards a peace process, and the KDP has good relations with the Turkish state, so their position is relevant.
Symbolism
After that, another consultation with Öcalan is expected, although no specific details about that have been announced. And then, the call can be made. I hear late February being mentioned, or early March. But since these developments are so full of symbolism, I wouldn’t be surprised if 21 March will be the new date to focus on, the day of Newroz, Kurdish New Year. This was also the day that the call was made [for peace talks] in 2013.
We have to be critical, of course. Is the consultation with Kurdish leaders in Başur (Kurdistan in Iraq) really the reason for postponement? To be honest, it sounds strange to me, because that would suggest very poor initial planning and that just isn’t logical. More likely, the attitude of the [Turkish] state is creating hurdles. The appointment of a ‘trustee’ in Van is yet another example of the recently intensified crack-down on politics and media that are not fully in line with what the state wants. That apparent lack of sincerity on the part of the state has triggered the need for further consultations, and therefore caused the delay, I think.
Or will there be no call at all? After all, as the saying goes, delay leads to cancellation. And it may sound logical. Why would the most important leader of the Kurdish people call for a road towards peace if the state is so clearly not investing in creating the right atmosphere and circumstances at all? But this is a misjudgement, I think. The absurd actions of the state only make a call for peace and democracy more urgent. So no, I don’t think for a second that in this case, delay will lead to cancellation. Also because for Öcalan, this call would not be the outcome of a pre-negotiation, but something he deeply believes in.
Gates
Öcalan could make this call any time. The whole political and societal process requires solid preparation, but his objectives have been clear for decades. It’s not he, and also not the Kurdish political movement or the armed movement, that need to be convinced to get on board. Also, the Kurdish people are ready: they want peace and justice, and they know that Öcalan’s call will only kick-start a process, and that the process will be long and hard.
The question is: is the state ready? It doesn’t look like it, and there is a chance the state sees grounds to halt the process and lock the gates of Imralı securely once again, making it impossible for Öcalan to speak. But let’s take Sırrı Süreyya Önder, part of the Imralı delegation, seriously, when he says: “The road to peace is never smooth, sometimes there are even peaks and bottomless pits.” In other words: however absurd and illegitimate the actions of the state, they are no reason to lose hope and no reason to stop working towards better times.
The call will come.
Fréderike Geerdink is an independent journalist. Follow her on Bluesky (or X) or subscribe to her acclaimed weekly newsletter Expert Kurdistan.
