The conflict in Southeastern Turkey between the government of the Republic of Turkey and the Kurdish rebel group (specifically the PKK) has been going on for more than three decades. The recent government and the PKK peace process is welcomed; but it is not the first time that the Turkish government has not kept its pledges; for example, in 1920, after World War I, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and foreign powers invaded the Anatolian heartland, the Kurds were promised independence. Ataturk unified all inhabitants against the foreigners after Turkey got its independence, declaring it one nation, but in the process he denied the existence of the Kurdish people, calling Kurds “Mountain Turks.” The other example is that soon after the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2003, the AKP suggested a repentance plan asking for rebels to lay down their arms and join the political process; however, the plan never floated. What assurance does Turkey give that it will not do the same thing its predecessor did? We all hear that the PKK will lay down their arms, and that rebels will withdraw from Turkey, but we have not heard anything about what the government will do. The government may still call the PKK a terrorist group. It never solved the Uludere massacre in which Turkish jets bombed and killed thirty-four Kurdish people who were traveling back to their villages in Sirnak. Instead, the Turkish government released a report, saying that the attack was an “accident. “
We all know that making peace is difficult. There is ample evidence, however, that third-party involvement and facilitation are effective ways to make a peace process sustainable, so that both parties keep their pledges. We know each peace process contains its own complex and contextual particularities. We have seen this in Israel and Palestine, in Banda Ache, in the Philippines, and in Ireland. According to Ambassador Thomas Greminger, the Head of the Political Affairs and Human Security for the Swiss Federal Department of Foreigner Affairs, a peace process can be divided into three phases: the pre-negotiation, the negotiation, and the implementation phases. In the pre-negotiation phase a third-party will try to build trust between each of the conflicting parties and attempt to understand their positions, demands, and interests. In the negotiation phase the parties are actually sitting at the table and talking with each other. At this point the parties work through the issues and then sign an agreement. In the implementation phase the agreement is then put into practice. That is the hardest phase, yet the most important part of the negotiation.
According to a study in the 90s, about 50% of all peace processes or agreements fail. In the years between 2000 and 2005, only 2 of the negotiated 17 peace agreements failed, because the success was mostly attributed to specific reasons; first, the third-party efforts were more substantive and more inclusive of various components of the society. The second reason is that greater international support was given to the negotiation and implementation phases of the peace process. However, third-party involvement in a peace process raises the question of trust and transparency because the Turkish government’s hegemonic power over the peace process and its control over the flow of information can manipulate the news and easily get what it wants, later blaming the lack of success in the implementation of the plan on the Kurds. To prevent this from happening, the process should have credible mediation. The third-party intervention is the usual response to violent and persistent conflicts when parties involved are unable to manage their differences. The question is will Turkey and the PKK manage their differences? How can we be assured that both parties will obey the rules of the peace process and not break them? The Turkish government does not welcome a third-party intervention because it sees it as interference in its domestic affairs. But, interestingly, Turkey will interfere in other states’ domestic affairs, such as in Iraq, Syria, etc. The participation of a third party gives a peace process more legitimacy and has contributed in many cases to the sustainability of the peace agreement as recent empirical research suggests. The involvement of a third party is valuable in not only bringing together conflicting parties to talk about peace and to break the deadlock, but also in seeing that every provision is implemented, not just for compliance but with the spirit of addressing the real causes of the Kurdish problem. This examination of the root causes helps to avoid a relapse in the conflict and to build and consolidate sustainable peace, as well as to monitor and guarantee the agreement. The Turkish government easily can blame the Kurds after they get what they want as we saw in the example in previous agreements, in which the Turkish government promised that if the PKK lay down their arms, they would not be prosecuted, but when one group of the PKK rebels answered the call, came from the mountains, and were celebrated by the Kurdish people, the Turkish government blamed the Kurds and gave some petty reasons that people should not welcome the rebels or celebrate their coming from the mountains. For this kind of incident not to be repeated, the European community must act as referee to make both parties implement the plan and to set benchmarks to guide the Turkish government and the PKK in the agreement.
At this point I do not know whether the goals of the peace process are realistic because we do not know what is going on, since the government is talking to only one person. This person has been in jail for more than fifteen years and has had no communication with the outside world because the government has had total control of whoever and whenever people can visit the PKK leader Ocalan, The only solution to the Kurdish problem is very simple: it must be genuine. I do not know if the government is genuine about ending the Kurdish problem because it has never been genuine in matters related to the Kurds. The Turkish government worked hard internationally to make sure that the Kurdish question was framed as a terrorism question, rather than as social, political, economical, and human rights questions. Yet, whoever defends Kurdish rights is considered a terrorist, and that is what has harmed the Kurdish cause internationally.
Neither the Turks, nor the Persians, nor the Arabs will solve the Kurdish question but only the pressure of the international community. If Kurds want to have power against a strong Turkish government, Kurds must win the support of the international community. Turkey is a member of NATO; therefore, the European Union and America are allies of Turkey, and consequently, a PKK member should not be anti-American nor against any international community. The Kurdish people should have worked hard to internationalize the Kurdish question, but that part has not developed or maybe they did not work hard enough.
Chairman Mohaqher Iqbal and several commissioners of the Bangsamoro Transition commission received a high level delegation from Turkey on Thursday June 25, 2015 in Cotabato City. The 15-person delegation included members of Parliament from Turkey’s main political parties; as well as policy makers; removed journalist and media personalities; senior academics and members of Turkey’s Wise Person Commission. Turkey’s governing AK Party in April 2013, to trying to bring a final solution to the social problems in Turkey, initiated the Wise Men group. The group included respected intellectuals, civil society leaders, businessmen, and politicians selected by the government scanning the whole spectrum of Turkish society. In early 1913, Turkish government launched the Turkish. The Kurdish peace process was part of the country ‘s resolution process which was initiated in 2012, to end a decades-old conflict with the PKK, an organization founded in the late 1970s by Abdullah Ocalan, who has now been jailed and isolated on the Island of Imrali near Istanbul since 1999. The only public messenger to hear from him is his lawyer, who is permitted to visit him only intermittently. The world has changed significantly since 1999; it is no longer a unipolar world but is a multipolar one. The Turkish government should create a channel for Oçalan to communicate with the PKK, the BDP, and other groups; otherwise the talks will not have legitimacy. Instead, as mentioned, the PKK is still recognized as a terrorist organization by Turkey as well as NATO and the EU. The Turkish delegation visit was made to explore knowledge and insights from the MILF- GPH peace process regarding issues on constitutional accommodations, the art of negotiation, the protection for minority groups, as well as the role of media, civil society, and third parties.
If the Turkish government really wants peace with the Kurds, they should learn lessons from the Philippine government about what it means to be genuine about the peace process. Peace negotiations take time to heal the pain and distrust between both parties, in this case the Kurds and the Turks. For decades, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) with its more than 11 thousand guerilla fighters, have been fighting the Philippine Army to establish a self-ruled Muslim sub–state in the Southern Philippines, a predominantly Catholic area. The Philippine government has been proposing an enhanced autonomy to address the conflict in the southern Philippines. The MILF, on the other hand, is asking for a sub-state where the Bangsamoro people will run their own government but still be under the Philippine government. After fifteen years of negotiations, the Philippine government finally reached an agreement with the Muslims’ Liberation Front in the country’s southern region to end the more than three decades of conflict that has killed at least one hundred thousand people. Yes, there is still more work to be done, but credit must be given to the Philippine government and the MILF leaders who are genuinely working on the peace process despite the troubled road to reach the peace agreement.
Significantly, the Philippine President Benigno Aquino met with the leader of the MILF, Murad Ebrahim, in Japan and took a political risk convening with the organization. It was the first time in several decades that a Philippine President had met face to face with a secessionist leader. This shows the political will to find common ground that has proved to be the foundation for success for the MILF and the Philippine government. They want an agreement on a peace framework built on key decision points. This agreement forged a roadmap to create a new sub-state in the autonomous region in Southern Mindanao. Although it is mainly Catholic Christians, it gives the Muslim–dominated area greater political power and more control over their resources. Both sides want to convey to the world that they have reached a landmark in the peace talks. Turkey has been active in the GPH- MILF peace process. It sits in the International Contact Group (ICG) together with the government of the Untied Kingdom, Japan and Saudi Arabia and four internationals NGOs. An international NGO from Turkey is also represented in the third party monitoring team that monitors compliance to a signed agreement for the government and the MILF. But it is ironic that the Turkish government does not allow third parties to be involved in its own Kurdish–Turkish peace process.
How genuine is Turkey’s President, and is the peace plan contrary to the agenda of the Turkish government? Will the Prime Minister of Turkey have the same courage, like the Philippine President, to visit the PKK leader Ocalan and to listen to what the Kurds want? Thus, in its own struggle with the PKK guerillas, Turkey can learn important lessons from the Philippine peace process. One is that outside assistance at the beginning is pivotal to success. The Kurds and Turks, the BDP, PKK, AKP, and KCK--all lack the mutual trust that is a fundamental prerequisite to launching a peace process.
In summary, Turkey should allow third party involvement in Turkey’s peace process with the PKK; Turkey should also set up a decommissioning body which tasks the decommission of the PKK forces and weapons. The Turkish government should release PKK leader Ocalan and his close associates and negotiate with the freed men. Before the Philippine government started the peace process, President Aquino met MILF leader Murad al Haj in Japan to listen to what he wanted and to show that he was genuine and respectful about the peace process avoiding the use of language that would harm the negotiations. The Turkish government must cease calling the PKK terrorists and free its leader However, the Turks, and especially influential hard core Turkish Muslims, and nationalists lack the mindset that would permit them to think outside of the box and to go beyond their zero sum game mentality. The Turkish government, instead, is keen to begin a peace process with the limited involvement of other Kurdish parties such as the BDP, KCK, and other Kurdish civil societies.
The Turkish government is sensitive about Kurdish collaboration because it fears that Kurds might come together in a strong collusion to harm national interests. Unfortunately, President Erdogan has not grasped the nature of real peace. Instead, he still wants a quick fix and refuses to give up his maverick style of governance.
It is true that adopting one peace process to be a model in resolving the Kurdish conflict may not work because each conflict has its own distitinctive characteristics or dynamics. However, there are some moral lessons that can be useful in determining how to solve a protracted conflict. The Philippine peace process offers relevant lessons that are worth looking into. Against the backdrop of its social problems, Southeastern Turkey is the homeland for the majority of Kurds and endows them with plentiful natural resources, highly rich cultures, and a strategic location in a complex and rapidly growing region. The Kurds would improve economically because of their control of the oil and water, two of the most important resources that the world needs. It is clear that without an inclusive and holistic solution to the Kurdish issue, peace will not be achieved there. The Turkish authorities that are responsible for the peace process need to take lessons from the peace achievements in the Philippines. At the moment, the government is still flip-flopping with the Kurds and is still without a sense of direction or a genuine desire to move forward with a peace process. It is time to make a positive move and to create new resolutions beginning with learning lessons from other groups who have been successful.
Dr. Aland Mizell is President of the MCI and a regular contributor to Mindanao Times. You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com
