ANKARA - Noting that the commission members returned from Imrali convinced Gulistan Kilic Kocyigit from DEM Party said: “While stating there is an agreement with the state, Ocalan also said that the fundamental pursuit today is a political agreement and that when this political agreement is achieved, many things can actually be overcome.”

 

A commission delegation comprising one member each from the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), and Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party travelled to Imrali Island on 24 November and held talks with Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Ocalan. The meeting is said to have made history as the first meeting within the framework of the resolution process. In a statement issued by the Parliamentary Presidency after the meeting, it was stated that the meeting had yielded important results in terms of social integration, strengthening step is considered a significant move in terms of Turkey’s democratisation and the process of building a democratic society. 

 

The meeting with Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Ocalan on Imrali Island was followed with great interest. Member of the delegation Gulistan Kilic Kocyigit from DEM Party shared the details of the meeting. 

 

As three political representatives of the Commission, you met with Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Ocalan. Could you tell what happened from the moment you set off for the island? 

 

The commission meeting was held on Friday, and the decision was made that day. We were then told that preparations would be made. Ultimately, there were necessary permission procedures. The relevant authorities had to carry out these permission procedures because and application had to be made to the Ministry of Justice. The Presidency of the Assembly carried out these procedures, and then on Sunday, we received information that the visit would take place on Monday. We got up very early on Monday morning. The three members of the delegation met in Ankara and then travelled to Istanbul. 

 

What time did you set off? How long did the journey take, and what was the atmosphere like there?

 

We travelled to the island by air from Istanbul. Of course, security personnel from the accompanying institution were also with us, and we were met on the island by the relevant officials. We quickly proceeded to the Imrali High Security Prison located on the island. We did not experience any problems during the journey. Our delegation was welcomed in a very normal manner, in accordance with procedure, and we proceeded to the prison. We then went to the meeting room. 

 

Did you enter the meeting room first, or did Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Ocalan? 

 

Yes, we entered the meeting room as a delegation and took our seats. At that point, the officials briefed us briefly. There was a preparation period of a few minutes. Shortly afterwards, Mr Ocalan entered the room and greeted each of us individually, shaking hands. We then sat down together and the meeting began. 

 

What was the seating arrangement in the room where the meeting took place? 

 

 Mr Ocalan was opposite us. The three of us, the delegation members, were on the other side of the table, sitting opposite him.

 

How did the greeting take place? How did the Kurdish People's Leader welcome you? Who spoke first? Who asked the first question?

 

He said "Welcome" to us in return. He said he had been following us and recognised us. Then the delegation members explained the purpose of our visit, that we were there as members of the commission, and described our parties and our representation. They stated that today's meeting was ultimately a commission meeting. And the meeting continued in detail.

 

Was the meeting recorded on video?

 

No, only an audio recording was made for the minutes.

 

After the discussion that took place before the visit, how did the delegation address Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Ocalan?

 

Mr. Ocalan addressed each member by name, saying "Mr. Fethi, Mr. Huseyin". As a delegation, we also addressed Mr Ocalan as "you". 

 

What was the state of health and morale of Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Ocalan? Could you share your observations? 

 

Mr Ocalan was very strong and in high spirits. He entered the room smiling and looking very energetic. He greeted each member. I specifically asked about his health. He looked very well, healthy and in good spirits. Overall, he was very well.

 

You were the only woman on the parliamentary committee. Did Ocalan comment on that? Or did he say anything about women's participation in the process?

 

Mr Ocalan generally spoke about the historical journey of the PKK, the periods when Kurds and Turks had historically formed alliances, and how all these alliances benefited the Turkish people, Kurds and Turks, as well as the historical turning point. He also gave a broad assessment of the PKK’s search for peace after its emergence, the peace initiatives that came from the government and state side each time, and how all these peace initiatives ultimately failed. Naturally, the members of the delegation also had questions for him about the process. I finally had the opportunity to convey the women’s special greetings to him and asked if he would like to say anything specifically on this subject, given that it was just before 25 November. He made a brief assessment from the perspective of women: He spoke in particular about the culture of killing in the streets. He mentioned that women were being murdered. In this sense, he made a very brief assessment that his perspective on women's freedom and his approach to women was very different, that it was based on women's freedom. And he greeted everyone.

 

A year ago, such a meeting at this political level would have been unimaginable. Yet it happened. Considering the context of resolving the issue, what is the significance of this meeting?

 

We are talking about a process that has spanned 14 months. In this sense, we can say that 1 October 2024 itself is a historic day and that we have been in the midst of a process that began on that day. We have now left a year behind us, and there have been many critical developments within this process. In this sense, after Mr Bahceli came to the DEM Party benches on 1 October and shook hands with us, Mr Ocalan made a very important, historic gesture and took action that did not leave this hand unanswered. In this sense, it is important to emphasise both the significance of his first message to the public on 23 October, in which he stated that he had the theoretical and practical power to shift the Kurdish issue from a platform of conflict and violence to a legal and political one, and the fact that he has truly fulfilled the requirements of this theoretical and practical power throughout the process. We must emphasise that Mr Ocalan's role in developing and overcoming the thresholds throughout this process played a significant part in the background of the meeting with Mr Ocalan on Imrali on 24 November as a delegation on behalf of the commission.

 

In particular, we should emphasise that the call of 27 February itself and the fact that his organisation stood behind this call and fulfilled its requirements paved the way. Of course, we have also stated that the commission established in Parliament on 5 August is of historical importance. This is because, from day one, Mr Ocalan had stated that this process needed to be discussed in Parliament, that a commission needed to be established in Parliament, and that various segments of society and the broadest possible spectrum of politics needed to be involved in this process and take the initiative in it. In this sense, this commission was also historic.

 

Naturally, after the commission was established, extensive consultations took place. However, it would have been a significant omission not to have met with Mr Ocalan, the main actor in this issue and the architect of the process and peace. It would have been an attitude incompatible with the needs and requirements of the process. Let us emphasise that the commission’s visit to Imrali on 24 November and its meeting with Mr Ocalan were of historic significance. In fact, a process was experienced in which another important threshold was crossed and another critical threshold was left behind. Secondly, the state has had various contacts with Mr Ocalan to date. The DEM Party delegation went to the island and held meetings. Similarly, before the 27 February call, a large delegation, including our co-chairs, had visited the island and held a meeting with Mr Ocalan. However, our visit to the island on behalf of a commission established in Parliament and our meeting with Mr Ocalan is of great historical importance in terms of Mr Ocalan’s political power. The meeting on 24 November itself confirmed that the issue should be removed from the axis of being solely a security issue and solely a matter of laying down arms, and that it is also a political issue and that political solutions must be developed for this political issue. In this sense, let us state that we held a very important, historic meeting. 

 

The term "critical threshold" was consistently used in reference to this meeting. Looking at it, what was overcome when the government and the state reached this point? What was this "critical threshold" we refer to?

 

One group has an approach that seeks to limit Mr Ocalan's representation and power, viewing him only as a counterpart in the matter of the organisation laying down its arms and disbanding. However, we have always said that Mr Ocalan is not only a counterpart in the matter of laying down arms, only in the matter of the PKK disbanding. He is also a party to the democratic and peaceful resolution of the Kurdish issue. If this issue is to be resolved politically, if it is to be resolved legally, if we are seeking a solution within the legal framework, then we need to hear directly from Mr. Ocalan what kind of transformation he truly wants to make, his proposals and views on the democratic resolution of the Kurdish issue. We have seen that Mr Ocalan is not merely someone who will 'eliminate armed forces', but is in fact a political force and a political counterpart. It is important to emphasise this. We see a mindset that seeks to limit Mr Ocalan's role and power, to confine him solely to being someone with whom the state's security units engage. However, the commission stated, "I was established for the democratic resolution of the Kurdish issue, I have taken steps, and today I want to discuss the issue with its real interlocutors, discuss the solution, and discuss the new stages that may come." This decision was taken by a qualified majority, and we expressed this while conducting the meeting. It is important to note that this is very significant.

 

Did Mr. Ocalan make any assessment regarding the Republicans People Party (CHP) not sending a representative to the commission and not participating in the vote?

 

Mr. Ocalan’s thoughts on the CHP are actually known. He had made assessments about the CHP through our Imrali delegation. Some of these assessments were also reflected in the public sphere. It is well known that he considers the CHP, as the founding party of the Republic, to be important and that he believes the CHP must be part of this process. In this meeting, he specifically commented on the CHP’s absence and said, “I wish the CHP had come too.”

 

What topics did Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan address? What did he tell you? 

 

Mr. Ocalan discussed the historical background of Kurdish-Turkish relations during this meeting. In this context, he first assessed the 1071 alliance at Malazgirt and Sultan Alparslan's relations with the Kurdish principalities. He also assessed the period of Sultan Sencer-Seljuk in the 1500s. He stated that the uprising of the Kurdish principalities during the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was effective in its dissolution, and that Abdulhamid realised this and established Hamidiye regiments to prevent it. Then there was an assessment of the War of Independence and the participation of the Kurds in it. He presented a comprehensive historical background. He stated that the conquest of Jerusalem by Salading was achieved as a result of the joint struggle of Kurdish and Turksih forces during that period, and then moved on to the present day. 

 

From the perspective of the history of the Republic, he made a brief assessment of the Sheikh Said Rebellion and focused on the reason why this rebellion took place in the 1925s rather than the 1921s. This is because, ultimately, the Kurds also joined the War of Independence with a sense of ummah, and this war was fought jointly by the Kurds and Turks, precisely because of this sense of ummah. However, he stated that moving away from this sense of ummah and the rise of the nation-state ideology subsequently led to an uprising. He then recounted how he began the process of founding the PKK, his journey that started with six people in Çubuk, and finally the historical development of the PKK and the process up to the present day.

 

What were his main points?

 

Of course, we can say that his main points rested on two things. In this sense, he emphasised how historical Kurdish-Turkish relations were symbiotic, how they nourished and developed each other, how they gained when they were in alliance, and how they lost together when they drifted apart.

 

He placed great emphasis on peace efforts. He explained how, since 1995, he had begun to move beyond the ideology of real socialism and sought peace. He described how every peace process or peace effort had failed, both at the state level and on his own side. The Özal era, the Erdal İnönü and Demirel government periods, the Erbakan era... He described the practices that followed each of these, the interventions that took place, and how all these peace efforts were thwarted each time. He also cited Özal's death as an example of how international powers, which did not want a Kurdish-Turkish alliance or peace to happen, could intervene from outside and sabotage the process. He stated that he did not consider the death of Mr Turgut Özal to be a coincidence and that it should be viewed with suspicion.

 

 So, what is his approach to this process? In what ways does he see this process as different from other processes? Did he make an assessment in this regard?

 

Of course, he also assessed the one-year process. He mentioned many things, from the President's speech in Ahlat to Mr Bahceli coming to the DEM Party benches and shaking hands, to the group speech on 22 October, and said that all of these were very valuable and that, in this sense, a will had been formed. He stated that he also wanted to respond to that handshake or that peace effort. In this sense, he stated that he had formulated the organisation's call for dissolution and laying down of arms on 27 February within this framework. He said that the most important aspect of the 27 February call was that it was an agreement, an agreement reached at the state level, and emphasised that every sentence, every line was programmatic in nature. This was one of the most important parts. He said that during this process, the PKK complied with all calls, the ceasefire came into effect quickly, and since that day, there had been no reports of any martyrs. He stated that he considered this very important and meaningful, and emphasised that the issue was not just about laying down arms, but that the fundamental problem was one of construction. In this sense, we can say that he has a perspective that centres on democratic transformation and construction.

 

*How does Abdullah Ocalan describe this construction, did he convey it to you? Will the state and the Kurdish people do it together? Will the Kurdish people do it on their own?

 

There were too many topics, so he couldn't elaborate much. But I think this point is very important: It's not just a matter of laying down arms. It is actually also somewhat a matter of construction. His emphasis on democratic construction here is very important. It is necessary to understand that he is pointing to a process based on the democratic transformation of the state rather than a unilateral process. But of course, there was no opportunity to explain this at length. However, we know this very well from his previous assessments. In other words, the democratic transformation of the state, the empowerment of society, the establishment of society's self-organisation, and the emergence of a platform on which we can fight together for a truly democratic republic are necessary, and for this, a legal basis must be established. In other words, he referred to the need for legal recognition and legal regulation. But most importantly, he emphasised the need for a political consensus. While stating that there is an agreement with the state, he said that the fundamental quest today is a political consensus and that when this political consensus is achieved, many things can actually be overcome.

 

Both Devlet Bahceli and Feti Yıldız have been making statements and sharing their views on the "right to hope" since the beginning of the process. Was the "right to hope" discussed at this meeting?

 

He clearly stated that he valued Mr Bahceli's assessment of the right to hope. His assessment on this subject remained within this scope.

 

Another point of interest is Democratic Integration. Were there any assessments on this subject? How will Kurds be included in the state? What is his perspective on this?

 

We can express this more in the context of Syria. The Syria issue formed the main axis of the meeting. The delegation members also asked more questions related to Syria. This is because many of the groups we listened to in the commission had specifically discussed Syria. The possible effects of the process in Syria on the process here and developments in Syria itself were somewhat more central to the discussion. In the Syrian context, he also stated very clearly and unequivocally: 'The Assad regime was in power for a very long time, and the defining characteristic of the Assad regime was ultimately dictatorship, and they lived like that for years. Today, there is a Shara regime. If there is no real democratisation, this will ultimately lead to a dictatorship too." In that sense, we need to emphasise that one of the fundamental things he described as essential is local democracy.

 

Democracy, the organisation of society, the commune, the council, the formation of one's own civil society – as he stated in the Syrian context, for example, for the Bayırbucak Turkmen, the Kurds, the Circassian communities – everyone must build their own community, their own commune, their own council, their own civil society, and in this way participate in the system with their own identity.

 

He stated that democracy is necessary for this and that without democracy, Syria would once again become a dictatorship, which would not bring peace, prosperity or happiness to the Syrian people. I can say that he expressed this roughly, not sentence by sentence. In that sense, it is necessary to emphasise once again that the question of 'What will they integrate into?' is a fundamental issue for all of us in terms of democratic integration. So, what will the Kurds or other peoples integrate into? What kind of system will they integrate into? One can only integrate into something that is truly democratic. One can be part of something democratic. He added that if the state becomes democratic and achieves a democratic transformation, the peoples can also exist within that democratic system by establishing their own self-organisation. This also applies to Turkey, but as I said, the assessment developed more in the context of Syria in response to the questions asked. Democracy is also indispensable there. He stated that an approach that protects and recognises the Kurds' right to exist must be adopted, both from the perspective of Turkey and Syria, as well as from the perspective of all countries where Kurds live.

 

*Another issue that has been most prominent and intriguing is Syria. Developments between the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and Damascus. Turkey is also insisting that the SDF lay down their arms. The latest AKP spokesperson also touched upon this issue in his statement. Did Abdullah Ocalan say anything about this?

 

In Turkey, the issue is being debated in terms of a dichotomy: will the YPG lay down its arms or not? The entire debate is centred on this issue in the Syrian context, and the answer is being framed as 'yes' or 'no'. It is being approached with an attitude of 'will they lay down their arms, say yes or no'. However, Mr Ocalan addressed this issue at some length and in detail. He spoke about democratisation and what Shara would become if democratisation did not happen. Regarding the issue of laying down arms, he said that he considered the 10 March agreement important and that it should be implemented. It should be noted that this is perhaps the most fundamental point that needs to be emphasised in the Syrian context. He stated that the 10 March agreement, the agreement between the SDF administration and the interim government there, that is, the agreement signed between Mazloum Abdi and Shara, must be implemented and that he considered this important.

 

In this sense, he stated that armed forces should be integrated into the army, but that local security forces should also exist. He referred to one as the Ministry of the Interior and the other as the Ministry of National Defence. 'You can think of it as twofold,' he said. One will be integrated into the army under the Ministry of National Defence. Local security forces will be local security forces under the Ministry of the Interior. 'You can think of it that way,' he said. He stressed that this issue needed to be discussed thoroughly.

 

I must say that his stance on Syria is very constructive. Mr Ocalan believes that the problems there can be overcome through dialogue. And he has stated very clearly and unequivocally that he himself will be very effective in this regard. In fact, when asked this question, he said, 'Yes, they listen to me there too'... But of course, he emphasised that 'the conditions must be right' for this. Ultimately, he specifically stated that if the conditions are right, if the groundwork for dialogue is laid, if they can meet, he can overcome many problems and contribute to the resolution of many issues.

 

What did Huseyin Yayman and Fethi Yıldız ask in particular? What questions caught your attention?

 

The other two members of the delegation prioritised questions that are debated in public, that the public is very curious about, and that come up most often in Turkey when the Kurdish issue is mentioned or this process is discussed. As I said, Syria forms the main axis of this. The issue of integration in Syria or the implementation of the 10 March agreement. Certain specific topics were also raised and discussed, of course. For instance, numerous questions were posed, ranging from 'What will happen to oil revenues?' to 'Will the YPG lay down their arms?'

 

Do you believe the delegation members were convinced following their conversation with Abdullah Ocalan?

 

They were convinced. I think they were satisfied. In terms of this process, they saw for themselves Mr Ocalan's determination, his support for the 27 February call, his perspective on the democratic solution to the Kurdish issue not only for Turkey but for the region, and his readiness and willingness to do everything in his power as a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin to achieve a democratic solution to the Kurdish issue. I can say that they returned very convinced on this matter. I observed this personally. As a result of this meeting, as the National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission delegation that went to the island, we had the opportunity to personally observe Mr Ocalan's determination to carry out this process, his efforts to fulfil the requirements of the 27 February call, and his resolve, and I can say that we returned as commission members who were convinced.

 

The process is currently at a different stage. Until now, the state was negotiating, but now politicians have also begun to negotiate. What kind of assessments did he make regarding the current stage? Did he assess its importance?

 

His most general assessment on this matter was that this meeting was historic and, in this sense, he stated that he was seeking consensus for a political solution and that he saw us as a political delegation there, saying to our delegation: 'You are here as politicians. Until now, we have always been meeting with the state. This time, for the first time, we are meeting with a political delegation. This is a search for consensus on a political solution and the problem.'

 

Of course, Mr Ocalan explained the Kurdish issue by going far back in time within this entire historical journey. He explained its historical roots. He explained the historical alliance between the Kurds and the Turks. But he also made the following statement: 'For the first time, we have brought the Kurdish issue from the gallows to the table,' he said. I think it is necessary to emphasise that this was one of the most fundamental points of this meeting. All Kurdish uprisings to date have ended on the gallows. They have always been suppressed in one way or another and have been repeated because no fundamental solution has been found. This has had very painful consequences. But for the first time, regarding the emergence of the PKK, referred to as the 29th Uprising, he said, "We have brought a Kurdish uprising from the gallows to the table, and we will bring it to a peaceful conclusion." I think this is very important.

 

Legal regulations are among the most debated issues. What is his assessment of the legal regulations?

 

Mr Ocalan stated that he attached great importance to the weapons burning ceremony on 11 July and the withdrawal of PKK forces from Turkey on 26 October. He also emphasised that the ceasefire that has been in place since 1 March and the fact that there have been no casualties is gratifying and very important. He said that the fact that those who laid down their arms and burned them had not returned to Turkey was due to a lack of legislation, and again, referring to Bahceli, he said, 'Mr Bahceli had also said this. I wish they could have come'. He stated that there was a need for legal regulation to create the conditions for them to come in that sense.

 

Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan states in his books that "the Turks can neither make peace nor wage war on their own behalf." In short, he is referring to the influence of regional and global powers. However, there is currently a process that could also be described as a peace process. How are regional and global powers approaching this process?

 

We can say that Mr Ocalan interprets the process that began with the President's speech in Ahlat and Malazgirt and the process that began with Mr Bahceli's outreach on 1 October as a kind of 'state mind'. In this sense, he interprets this newly developing process as one developed by the state mind and expresses his belief that politics is also part of this process. At least, I can say that I have made this inference for myself. He emphasised that this process must be successful, that there are structures that do not want it to succeed, and at least highlighted the possibility of a coup mechanism. In other words, he drew attention to the danger that if this process is not successful, a coup mechanism could ultimately come into play.

 

There are also views that Israel poses a threat to Turkey. It is even stated that this process began for this reason. Did he draw attention to the balances between Israel–Turkey and the Kurds and Israel?

 

Yes, he made certain points about what Israel wants to do in the Middle East. He explained how they want to design the Middle East, particularly through the Abraham Accords, and how they want to become a regional power. It stated that Israel wants to rely on a Kurdish power to exist in the future. In this sense, it made an assessment that all regional developments need to be read carefully and added that there have been many powers constantly calculating against the Kurds throughout history.

 

Did it make an assessment on how the Kurds should act if the process does not progress on a sound basis and is not implemented?

 

Mr Ocalan's entire assessment was for the success of the process. He drew attention to the requirements for the process to be successful and made a special assessment that it must succeed this time. His most general assessment regarding failure was as follows: 'If it fails, the coup mechanism will be activated, and this will ultimately target many groups,' he said. He briefly recalled the previous solution process, namely the 2013–2015 solution process, and how the anti-solution forces sabotaged the process. He said that it is imperative to succeed in the process today to prevent this from happening again.

 

What kind of work will the Commission base itself on when it meets on Wednesday? How will the solution proposals and discussions on the legal framework proceed? Most importantly, how was this issue discussed on İmralı?

 

We wanted this meeting to take place much earlier. In fact, we had discussed holding this meeting on Wednesday. That was our expectation too. Because we attach great importance to informing the Parliamentary Commission first-hand and very quickly. At least, we, as the DEM Party, expressed this and said it was important that this meeting be held without delay. Every day of delay leads to different speculations and manipulations in the public sphere, and we have seen this slowly beginning to happen.

 

We consider next Thursday's committee meeting to be important. There may be compelling reasons for the delay. However, in that case, it was necessary to come forward and explain these compelling reasons. In that sense, I must say that we do not find this appropriate.

 

Will the minutes be shared with the public?

 

As the three commission members, we signed the minutes created from the audio recording and submitted them to the Speaker of Parliament. I believe that this signed version of the minutes must be conveyed to the commission exactly as it is. We believe that these minutes should also be open to the press. The entire public must be aware of the minutes so that there is no room for speculation. We believe that it is very important for the entire public, for the people of Turkey, to be aware of Mr Ocalan's contributions to the commission regarding the democratic solution to the Kurdish issue. If these minutes are made public, everyone will see much more clearly how Mr Ocalan's perspective on the solution values the people of Turkey and the region, and his view on the democratic solution to the Kurdish issue, and in this sense, all speculative discussions will be left behind.

 

Another task of the commission is the report it will prepare as a result of its work. By 28 November, all parties were to quickly submit the general framework and main headings to be included in the report to the Speaker of Parliament. In this sense, we are also making our preparations. On Thursday, there will be negotiations on the general headings that should be included in the report.

 

Afterwards, there will be discussions on how the general report should be written and drafted, and then the report will be completed quickly, sent to the General Assembly, and the legislative process will begin.

 

MA / Mehmet Aslan - Selman Guzelyuz