What is expected from the ‘Terror-Free Turkey’ strategy? (Contemporary democratisation? Step-by-step federation?)

The political authority has stated that the goal of ‘Terror-Free Turkey’ is to ensure that the PKK terrorist organisation disbands and lays down its arms. In this context, during the process carried out by the DEM Party delegation with other components, the leader of the separatist organisation, Abdullah Öcalan, called on the PKK's leadership in Kandil to dissolve the PKK and lay down arms on 27 February 2025.

Following these developments, a meeting was held between the DEM Party delegation and the President at Beştepe on 10 April 2025. After the meeting with the President, all eyes and ears turned to Kandil, and everyone began to wait for news from there. Indeed, the PKK held its 12th congress on 5-7 May 2025 and announced the decisions taken on 12 May 2025 to the public. The ideological language of the organisation is the most striking feature of the statement at first glance. In addition, it is understood that the PKK's expectation from its goal of a ‘Turkey without terrorism’ is to build a process leading step by step to federalism in exchange for laying down arms and disbanding, and as a natural consequence of this, a federal state structure.

In response to this expectation of the PKK, the Republic of Turkey must discuss Articles 4, 47, 66 and 68 of our Constitution, which were not subject to the referendum, and adopt a decision to amend the Constitution in line with the principles of the Turkish Republic and the principles of democracy, secularism and the rule of law. without making Articles 42 and 66 a subject of debate; to demonstrate its determination to achieve the goal set by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, namely, ethnic unity and solidarity, and a contemporary democratisation and secular state in line with the spirit of the times, and to realise this.

The goal of a ‘Turkey without terrorism’ was planned and coordinated by the leaders of the political parties in power, MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli and AKP Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and brought to the public agenda on 22 October 2024 with the speech of MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

The goal of ‘Terror-Free Turkey’ is to get the PKK terrorist organisation to disband and lay down its arms. To this end, Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the separatist organisation who is currently imprisoned in Imralı, has been directly addressed, and the political power has agreed that he will lead the process. For this purpose, the parties to be involved in the process have been determined as the separatist organisation leader Abdullah Öcalan, who is currently imprisoned in Imrali, the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM), the PKK leadership in Kandil, and the components of the political authority. Within this framework, a delegation consisting of Sırrı Süreyya Önder (who passed away on 3 May 2025 due to heart problems), Pervin Buldan (DEM Party Van Deputy) and Ahmet Türk (replaced by a trustee as Mayor of Mardin Metropolitan Municipality) was formed.

During the process carried out by the DEM Party delegation with other components, separatist organisation leader Abdullah Öcalan called on the PKK's leadership in Kandil on 27 February 2025 to dissolve the PKK and lay down arms. Following these developments, a meeting was held between the DEM Party delegation and the President at Beştepe on 10 April 2025. During this meeting, it was understood from the statements made to the public that the parties were in agreement and consensus on the current state of the process, what steps should be taken next, and what the government should do (in terms of legal regulations). Throughout this process, the DEM Party delegation held informational meetings with other political parties, primarily the main opposition party, regarding the developments in the process (some parties, including the İYİ Party and the Zafer Party, declined these meeting requests).

As a result of the process briefly summarised above, the PKK held its 12th congress on 5-7 May 2025 and announced the decisions taken on 12 May 2025 to the public. The text that was announced pleased those who unconditionally support the process (those who say that whatever the government says or does is right), but it upset a large segment of the population that is sensitive to the fact that the first four articles, as well as Articles 42 and 66 of our Constitution, cannot be subject to debate. Indeed, the text contains conditions and accusations that could be imposed by a victorious state on the defeated party.

Before proceeding to a detailed assessment of the statement in question, I would first like to emphasise that the goal of a ‘terror-free Turkey’ and, within this framework, the PKK's decision to disband and lay down its arms are welcome and positive developments. As citizens of the Republic of Turkey and as human beings, there is no doubt that a Turkey free of violence, a Middle East free of terrorism, and a world free of terrorism are our common goals. What is important is that the peace, brotherhood, equality and tolerance that will be achieved are based on justice and fairness, without distorting historical facts and without being built on lies.

In this section, I will try to express my views and assessments regarding the statement made public under the title ‘PKK 12th Congress Divani Statement’ as a patriotic citizen and a person of integrity.

1. First of all, I would like to point out that the statement in question was written in the language of an ideological organisation and that it seeks to justify its own ideological existence.

2. Emphasis is placed on the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the separatist organisation, in an attempt to demonstrate organisational discipline. In this context, it is stated that the process of implementing the decision to dissolve the PKK's organisational structure and end armed struggle will be managed by Abdullah Öcalan (whose detention status will change in this case, I suppose—what kind of deal was made? Right to hope? House arrest? A villa on the island? I don't know!). Furthermore, it is emphasised that only the PKK branch operating in Turkey has ceased its terrorist and related activities (the PKK armed terrorist organisation is currently neutralised and effectively non-existent, so negotiating with and recognising an organisation that is effectively non-existent constitutes a separate contradiction for those in political power).

In other words, it is understood that other structures within the KCK will continue their activities through the PYD/YPG (Syria), PÇDK (Iraq), and PJAK (Iran). In a sense, this statement legitimises these terrorist structures in the eyes of Turkey.

3. In an effort to define themselves as a freedom movement, they state that ‘as a freedom movement of our people, we emerged on the stage of history against the policy of denial and annihilation of the Kurds, which has its roots in the Treaty of Lausanne and the 1924 Constitution...’ This statement reveals both their ignorance of historical facts and their attempt to create a historical existence that does not belong to them.

Neither the Treaty of Lausanne nor the 1924 Constitution mentions a policy of denial and annihilation of the Kurds. They have chosen to distort historical reality on this issue. This distortion of historical reality is absolutely unacceptable, and the government of the Republic of Turkey and all political parties must clearly declare this and share it with the public. Otherwise, in the future, our country may face international pressure, compensation claims, trials, etc.

4. While making these statements, the terrorist organisation PKK ignores and disregards the fact that its founder, Abdullah Öcalan, worked as an MİT agent from the late 1960s to the 1970s. In other words, the founder, so-called freedom fighter Abdullah Öcalan, was used as an agent provocateur by the MIT from the 1968 youth movements and university events until the end of 1978, taking the position of an agent provocateur against the enlightened freedom-seeking youth movements. Everyone knows that the concealment of such facts is impossible. Therefore, an agent provocateur cannot become a freedom fighter; at best, he will join another intelligence organisation and serve as its agent provocateur. In other words, he will work for whoever owns him.

It is precisely at this point that the CIA, under the direction of the MIT, established ethnic-based Marxist-Leninist and Maoist factions (KAWA, DDKD, PKK) were established by the CIA and, under its direction, by the MIT, with the aim of dividing, fragmenting, and neutralising Marxist-Leninist leftist movements in our country. Despite the fact that ethnic-based struggle has no place in Marxist-Leninist ideology, these factions accepted this contradiction and became its servants. This was because the encirclement of the USSR, which was the greatest threat to the US, and the prevention of socialist and Kemalist leftist thought from coming to power in Turkey for this purpose was a necessity. (While dividing and fragmenting leftist thought in this way, the United States also succeeded in incorporating the nationalist Turkish idealist segment into an Islamist ideology, namely the Turkish-Islamic synthesis ideology, starting in the second half of the 1960s. Unfortunately, Alparslan Türkeş became the local actor in this process.)

5. The establishment of the terrorist organisation PKK on 27 November 1978 was based on the aforementioned US objective. The US established the PKK for this purpose. However, immediately afterwards, under the leadership of US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, globalisation and neoliberalism were imposed on the world, and the existence of nation states was considered a threat to the realisation of this new world order. The strategy of fuelling ethnic divisions within nation states to fragment them into smaller states was adopted and implemented (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Iraq, and currently the BOP and GOP).

To this end, the concept of ‘postmodernism’ was simultaneously introduced into the intellectual, academic, and social spheres. While the purpose of the PKK's establishment and who its supporters are are clear, it is unacceptable for it to betray the Republic of Turkey, distort historical reality, and portray itself as a so-called freedom fighter. Finally, I would like to mention two points: The first is that after the 12 September 1980 military coup carried out by the United States and the Turkish Armed Forces command in cooperation and partnership, the PKK was not touched, and how and by whom the escape of Abdullah Öcalan, Duran Kalkan and a few others from the Gaziantep provincial border to Syria was organised. The second is the strategy of the United States to fuel ethnic divisions within nation states in order to fragment them, by applying pressure through military rule after the coup, and then, once civilian rule was restored, opening the way for the PKK to carry out terrorist acts against the Turkish Republic, supposedly as defenders of Kurdish citizens, by claiming that they had legitimate reasons to do so.

Because the first terrorist acts carried out on 15 August 1984 in the districts of Eruh in the province of Siirt and Şemdinli in the province of Hakkâri, and the subsequent statements that ‘the Kurdish people are being persecuted for being Kurdish’ were cited as the main basis for their claims. The book ‘Kurds’ by journalist Hasan Cemal has also been one of their main sources of reference on this issue.

Now, when we examine the chronological sequence and cause-and-effect relationships regarding the strategic planning of the United States, the establishment of the PKK, the military coup of 12 September 1980, the practices carried out under martial law, and the PKK's initiation of terrorist acts, everything becomes much clearer. This fact is that the PKK is a subcontracted terrorist organisation established in line with the strategic interests of the United States. During this period (6 November 1983 - 17 April 1993), Turgut Özal was prime minister, and on 15 August 1984, the first terrorist attacks were carried out in the districts of Eruh in Siirt province and Şemdinli in Hakkâri province. Instead of taking these attacks seriously and seeing their true purpose, perhaps he did not want to see it, and instead described them as ‘an incident carried out by a few looters.’ , thereby delaying the state's necessary organisation and response to the terrorist organisation and its actions. Özal's approach paved the way for the terrorist organisation to gain supporters among the local population through its policy of intimidation. This is because the sociological trait of ‘siding with the powerful and obeying the powerful’ is evident in all communities, but is more pronounced in Middle Eastern communities. When we evaluate all these events within the framework of the alliance between the United States and Turgut Özal, it becomes clearer that nothing was a coincidence.

In summary, the PKK is not a freedom movement dating back to 1923, as stated in the statement, but one of hundreds of terrorist organisations established, nurtured and grown by the United States for the purpose of world domination. This reality has been clearly proven by the terrorist acts carried out by the PKK from 15 August 1984 to the present day (the ruthless killings of babies, innocent civilians, unarmed soldiers, teachers, health workers, and Kurdish citizens who claimed to be fighting for freedom, in village raids that spared neither women nor children).

In the 6th Declaration, ‘... starting in 1978, it based its struggle for freedom on gaining recognition for the Kurdish existence and ensuring that the Kurdish issue was seen as a fundamental reality of Turkey... In the 1990s, Turkish President Turgut Özal developed an approach to resolving the Kurdish issue through politics...’ It ignores the fact that it is a terrorist organisation and turns a blind eye to the fact that it is a tool of the United States' strategy of globalisation and the fragmentation of nation states. It speaks highly of Turgut Özal, who was the prime minister's chief of staff in the government that was the target of the military coup, he was the planner and implementer of the economic decisions of 24 January 1980 (the harsh measures that condemned workers and wage earners to poverty), and despite this, he served as deputy prime minister in the coup government established after the coup, responsible for implementing the entire economic programme, and that all of this was done at the behest of the United States, and that after the return to civilian politics (the elections of 6 November 1983), it is necessary to note that the United States supported Özal's party becoming the leading party and Özal becoming prime minister.

This Özal became the main figure in the implementation of the United States' strategy to dismantle nation-states in Turkey. Upon becoming president (9 November 1989), he sought to play an active role in the United States' strategy to dismantle nation-states in the Iraq project, but the General Staff and the National Security Council opposed this policy; they did not want to be complicit in the foreign military intervention and occupation of a neighbouring country. Following the military intervention in Iraq, Iraq entered a process of fragmentation, with the area north of the 36th parallel being removed from Iraqi sovereignty and placed under the control of the Hammer Force. The heavy weapons and military assets of the Iraqi army remaining in the region fell under PKK control, and the PKK was trained, equipped, and deployed in this region by the Hammer Force. The General Commander of the Gendarmerie, General Eşref Bitlis (who was of Kurdish origin), who identified the activities of the Hammer Force in supporting the terrorist organisation in terms of logistics, intelligence and operations, and who drew up plans and programmes to prevent this, was martyred on 17 February 1993 when his plane crashed/was shot down.

The 1990s were a period when the Republic of Turkey was divided along ethnic lines (both racial and religious); a secular, democratic, social, and legal state, a unitary state, a fully independent anti-imperialist stance, and the indivisible unity of the country and its people, as well as secular theologians with different perspectives on Islam, military and civilian bureaucrats holding important positions within the state, important businesspeople, and journalists and writers with different worldviews, were killed in unsolved assassinations.

These assassinations were intended to undermine the will of society to live together and to plunge society and the state into chaos and disorder by targeting writers, journalists, businesspeople, military and civilian bureaucrats, and academics with different worldviews. In a sense, the concept of ‘shaping the battlefield’ in military literature was put into practice. The ‘battlefield’ that was shaped

Turkey, and the type of operation to be carried out was the United States' attempt to divide the Turkish nation-state and transform it into a moderate Islamic state based on the Turkish-Islamic synthesis, and in this way bring political Islam to power. It is worth noting that the Turkish-Islamic synthesis ideology was implemented as a policy by the National Security Council immediately after the 12 September military coup. In other words, it is important to remember that nothing was coincidental, but rather the result of a long-term, detailed plan and project.

The most notable of these assassinations were: On 31 January 1990, the founder of the Atatürkist Thought Association and former member of parliament and law professor Muammer Aksoy was shot dead in front of his home; on 7 March 1990, the editor-in-chief of the Hürriyet newspaper, Çetin Emeç, was shot dead in front of his home; On 4 September 1990, the assassination of Turan Dursun, a religious scholar who criticised Islam and advocated atheism, in front of his home, On 6 October 1990, the bombing of a parcel sent to the home of Bahriye Üçok, a theologian and academic, On 7 April 1991, retired General Memduh Ünlütürk was shot dead at his home, On 29 July 1992, former Navy Commander Admiral Kemal Kayacan was shot dead at his home, In 1992, Kurdish writer Musa Anter was assassinated, On 13 January 1993, the Kurdish trade unionist Zübeyir Akkoç, On 24 January 1993, the Kemalist patriot and investigative journalist Uğur Mumcu, On 2 July 1993, during the Pir Sultan Abdal Festival in Sivas, the Madımak Hotel was set on fire by a radical Islamic group, resulting in the burning and killing of 33 writers, poets, and thinkers, most of whom were Alevi (two hotel employees also died in the fire), On 4 November 1993, the assassination of JİTEM Commander Major Cem Ersever, on 11 January 1995, the assassination of writer and poet Onat Kutlar in a bomb attack on a hotel, on 8 January 1996, the beating of left-wing journalist Metin Göktepe by Turkish police (the police officer was convicted of murder), On 9 January 1996, businessman Özdemir Sabancı was killed in an armed attack at his office, On 21 October 1999, Kemalist patriot, researcher, writer, journalist, academic and former Minister of Culture Ahmet Taner Kışlalı was killed when a bomb was detonated in his car, On 24 January 2001, the assassination of Diyarbakır Provincial Police Chief Ali Gaffar Okkan, who was on his way to the governor's office for a memorial event for Uğur Mumcu, as a result of an ambush and armed attack.

During this period, the PKK, equipped with heavy weapons, acted as a tool for the United States' objectives in our country, causing the most harm to our citizens of Kurdish origin, whom it claimed to be fighting for freedom. By 1998, the PKK's terrorist activities had been neutralised by security forces and brought to the brink of collapse.

The success achieved by the Turkish Army against terrorists in the field was transformed into political success through diplomacy with neighbouring countries, and the leader of the separatist organisation, Abdullah Öcalan, was rendered unable to find refuge in Syria, Russia, Italy, Greece or Kenya, and was forced by his sponsor, the United States, to be handed over to the compassionate arms of the Republic of Turkey.

During this process, PKK leaders should ask themselves, ‘So many countries have used us as pawns. For years, we have lived in fear of death in the mountains and rocks, sacrificing our lives for their interests. Despite this, they will not allow our leader to live in their countries. They have tossed him from place to place and then handed him over to the Republic of Turkey, which they have dragged us into conflict with. Why did they do this? Are we doing something wrong?’

Despite the reality of the process and the facts, the efforts of separatist organisation leader Abdullah Öcalan to claim credit for his surrender in Kenya on 15 February 1999 as an international conspiracy are futile.

The PKK is a terrorist organisation and has caused the deaths/martyrdom of nearly 60,000 Kurdish/Turkish citizens and the injury/disability of just as many. It has caused hundreds of thousands of citizens of Kurdish origin to leave their villages and migrate to western provinces. The security concerns created by the PKK and some of the measures taken by state forces to ensure security have also had a partial impact on this migration. However, the root of the problem lies in the security concerns created by the PKK and its terrorist actions on the people of the region.

7. The aforementioned statement says, ‘... Apo, referring to the period before the Treaty of Lausanne and the 1924 Constitution, which caused problems in Kurdish-Turkish relations, adopted the perspective of a democratic Republic of Turkey and a democratic understanding of the nation, based on a common homeland and the Kurdish and Turkish peoples as founding elements, as a framework for a solution...’ This statement disregards the Republic of Turkey and implicitly calls for a federation by referring to the administrative structure of the Ottoman Empire in its final years, which included decentralised autonomous regions. The Government of the Republic of Turkey must never accept such an article; it must be crossed out and deemed null and void. Can such recklessness be possible? A separatist organisation leader sentenced to life imprisonment is denying the establishment of our state and calling for a return to the past. This is unthinkable. Anyone who says such things clearly does not know the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, has not read it; they do not know and do not want to know the founding philosophy of the Republic of Turkey, or more accurately, they deny it and are obsessed with the delusion of establishing a new state. Article 66 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey states that ‘Everyone bound to the Turkish State by a bond of citizenship is a Turk’; Mustafa Kemal Atatürk also stated that ‘The people who established the Republic of Turkey are called the Turkish nation.’ When we consider these two statements together, we see that a definition of the nation based on voluntary affiliation, free from ethnicity, and founded on common and equal citizenship has been established, and that the Turkish nation has been accepted as the superordinate identity (as is the case in all modern states).

8. When we examine the introductory provisions and the first four articles of our Constitution, it is clear that all our citizens are equal citizens. This has been the case throughout the 102-year history of the Republic, as no ethnic origin has been treated differently in the public or private sectors or in professional life; every citizen has been able to hold any position, office or profession they desire within the framework of their abilities and opportunities, demonstrating that there is objective equality of opportunity (although the economic opportunities of individuals and families may differ). For example, among our citizens of Kurdish origin: Turgut Özal became President, Eşref Bitlis became a general, Şerafettin Elçi, Abdulkadir Aksu, Muammer Güler, and Zafer Çağlayan became ministers, and Ahmet Türk, who is currently playing a role in this process, has been a member of parliament since the 1970s. In summary, no citizen of the Republic of Turkey has been subjected to any negative discrimination on the basis of their ethnic origin. Nearly half of the members of the Grand National Assembly elected over the last 50 years have been citizens of Kurdish origin; approximately half of the current members of the Grand National Assembly are citizens of Kurdish origin.

Since the transition to a multi-party political system in 1946, and especially since the 1950 elections, all citizens have had the right to vote and be elected, thereby playing a role in political representation. No one from Aydın has been elected as a member of parliament for Siirt (except for the last 25 years, i.e., the AKP era), nor has anyone been elected as mayor. With the 1961 Constitution, a proportional representation system was introduced, and in every electoral district, people's different preferences determined the election results, strengthening justice in representation, just as it is today. Given all these facts, to say that Kurds were not equal citizens is nothing short of ignorance and self-denial.

Of course, in the interest of the nation's survival, the state has occasionally implemented wrongful practices. We know that, according to the current legal framework, those who have committed crimes have been tried before the law and punished accordingly. Because no one has the privilege to commit crimes, and no one can be treated differently on the basis of their ethnic identity, nor can positive or negative discrimination be practised. However, these wrongful practices have not only been directed against our citizens of Kurdish origin, but also against citizens of different ethnic origins, regardless of their origin, and even more so against our citizens of Turkish origin. We cannot and must not ignore this reality. Niyazi Berkes, Behice Boran, Hasan Ali Yücel, Aziz Nesin, Sabahattin Ali, Fakir Baykurt, Rıfat Ilgaz, Ahmed Arif, Yılmaz Güney, Nazım Hikmet, Cem Karaca, Zülfü Livaneli, Ahmet Kaya... Can we distinguish these beautiful people from one another? Of course not, they are all our people, our values. But they all faced different challenges and pressures in different periods!

They try to say that the Kurdish uprisings of the 10th Republic period also had their precursors and were part of the struggle for freedom with the following words: ‘…the Kurdish uprisings that took place throughout the history of the Republic, the 1000-year-old dialectic of Kurdish-Turkish relations and the 52-year struggle for leadership have shown that the Kurdish question can only be resolved on the basis of a common homeland and equal citizenship...’ First and foremost, it must be emphasised that the last Kurdish uprising of the Republican era was the Dersim uprising, which took place in 1937-1938. No uprisings occurred between this date and the PKK's attack on Eruh/Şemdinli in 1984.

At the core of the Dersim uprising and all previous uprisings was the refusal of feudal lords to relinquish their feudal power and influence to the central state authority, or more accurately, their desire to maintain the feudal structure.

Because our people, who have transitioned from servitude to equal citizenship, must also be freed from the inequalities of the feudal structure and the feudal servitude it has created. The young Turkish Republic is striving to establish state authority in every corner of the country, in every village, town, district and province, and to bring the benefits of the republic to its citizens. It is precisely this effort that has led the feudal lords to rebel against the state, either individually or regionally, as it threatens their existence and influence. This is the essence of the Kurdish rebellions during the Republican era.

Furthermore, the two largest of these rebellions had external connections. The first was the Sheikh Said Rebellion, which began on 13 February 1925 in the village of Piran, coinciding with negotiations between Britain and Turkey over the resolution of the Mosul-Kirkuk issue. This uprising was instigated to ensure that Turkey would be preoccupied with internal rebellion and remain ineffective on the issue of Mosul and Kirkuk, thereby providing support for Britain's argument that ‘Turkey, which is unable to obtain the consent of its Kurdish citizens and is incapable of governing them, cannot govern the Kurds in Mosul and Kirkuk.’

The second was the Dersim Rebellion of 1937-1938. This rebellion also involved France and the Hatay issue. France had ended its mandate in Syria, and the status of Hatay had become uncertain. The Dersim rebellion was instigated to ensure that Hatay would be annexed to Syria by force. The objective was the same: to distract Turkey with internal uprisings and prevent it from focusing on Hatay, thereby ensuring Hatay's incorporation into Syria. There is a reality demonstrated by the fact that there have been no Kurdish uprisings since 1938: all Kurdish uprisings have been instigated and supported by states seeking hegemony and interests in Turkey and the Middle East.

Other small-scale local uprisings were the result of feudal lords rebelling against the establishment of republican values and central state authority, as well as the abolition of feudal structures and feudal authority over the people. This incitement and support were provided when those imperialist states believed that they no longer needed Turkey. It was not done at other times. For example, war years are the most suitable times for such uprisings; however, coincidentally, there were no uprisings during the years of the Second World War (1939-1945). This is because all the imperialist states involved in the war needed Turkey and acted according to the principle that ‘if Turkey is not on my side, it is enough that it is not on the other side,’ thus protecting Turkey like the apple of their eye. PKK leaders and writers, academics, politicians, and ordinary citizens who respect them must be aware of these realities. A freedom fighter cannot emerge from a proxy terrorist organisation, especially in this region!

11. The most positive statement in the declaration, when considered independently of the statements before and after it, is the following: ‘...the Kurdish uprisings throughout the history of the republic, the 1,000-year-old dialectic of Kurdish-Turkish relations, and the 52-year struggle for leadership have shown that the Kurdish issue can only be resolved on the basis of a common homeland and equal citizenship...’ This statement is the phrase ‘the Kurdish issue can only be resolved on the basis of a common homeland and equal citizenship.’ If we expand on this phrase: a common homeland means a single homeland, a single flag, a single state, and the acceptance of the continuity of the unitary state structure. Equal citizenship means that there is no constitutional deficiency in this regard; all our citizens are equal before the law, in the public and private spheres. However, this is an issue that can be addressed through a comprehensive process of modern democratisation at the implementation level (strengthening local governments - strengthening their executive powers without the authority to make legal regulations, transferring local public services to local governments as much as possible and developing the financial resources to carry out these services, allowing private schools that provide education in Kurdish to open, and introducing Kurdish as an elective subject in state schools). Although it is late, these steps must be taken as soon as possible in a systematic and comprehensive manner.

The main issue here is whether this democratisation is possible given the current government's authoritarian approach to governance. There are two questions here. First, do the DEM Party and the PKK believe that the steps towards democratisation discussed in their talks with the government will be implemented permanently? And what are their predictions regarding whether this democratisation process will be limited to protecting the personal power of the current autocrat? The second question is whether this democratisation process will encompass all citizens. Will the current dual legal system, which treats those who are ‘one of us’ differently from those who are ‘not one of us,’ continue, or will democratisation be achieved in line with contemporary Western standards?

12. What does it mean that Turkey is entering a democratisation process imposed by the PKK, and how can such a thing or statement be accepted? There is democracy in Turkey, and undoubtedly there are also wrong practices in the name of democracy. Nevertheless, no one can say that there is no democracy in Turkey. Without denying deviations from democracy or mistakes made in institutional and/or political terms, it is necessary to correct these mistakes with a progressive and developmental approach, as this is a requirement of being a modern state. Now I ask you, will Turkey and the Turkish nation truly embark on the path of democratisation with the PKK's help, while this situation remains hidden?

What will emerge as a result of the PKK's imposition? Have any predictions or alternative plans been made in this regard? Division? A federal republic? Civil war? A new state based on a Turkish-Kurdish-Islamic synthesis? A new version of the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat period? What kind of reflexes are anticipated in response to these possibilities? Have the political authorities and institutions exercising the sovereignty of the state prepared a roadmap on these issues? If not, I believe they should do so immediately.

13. The aforementioned statement reads, "...The PKK was shaped under conditions dominated by the rigid denial of the Kurds, the extermination policy based on this denial, and policies of genocide and assimilation. Starting in 1978, it has pursued a struggle for freedom with the aim of gaining recognition for the Kurdish existence and ensuring that the Kurdish question is seen as a fundamental reality of Turkey...". I have previously mentioned how it was established, for what purpose, and by whom, as well as the fact that its founder, Abdullah Öcalan, was an agent of the Turkish National Intelligence Organisation (MIT). Therefore, I will not repeat this here. The bloody terrorist organisation known as the PKK has inflicted the greatest pain, suffering, and harm on our Kurdish citizens, whom it claims to be fighting for freedom. It has virtually destroyed agriculture and animal husbandry, which are the main sources of livelihood for the people of the region.

Fearing encounters with terrorists and for their lives and property, people cannot go to their fields and gardens, cannot take their animals to the pastures, and cannot keep bees, and as a result, they have been deprived of the income they need to survive. Terrorist attacks on schools and teachers have deprived children of their right to education. Through threats, arson, murder, and abduction of children, the terrorists have sought to secure the support of the people and establish authority over them. The following statement, frequently used by the people of the region during the period of terrorism, is sufficient to reveal the true face of the PKK terrorist organisation: "Commander, what should we do? We are helpless and helping them. At night, they come to our doors with guns and take whatever they want. If we don't give it to them, they will kill us and take it anyway. Even if you hear about it and get angry and beat us, we know you won't harm us. What I'm saying is that the state may get angry and beat us, but the organisation has no mercy; it kills, burns and destroys. Tell me now, what should I do? If you were in my place, wouldn't you do the same?‘ This complaint is more than enough to reveal the true face of the PKK terrorist organisation.

’Genocide and assimilation policies" is a phrase that, as far as I understand, they felt the need to use in order to present an argument against Turkey, the state that consciously uses them as a tool. Because whoever eats someone's bread must wait at their door. This loyalty is expressed in the statement: "We call on the democratic public, especially our friends who are leading the global freedom movement, to increase international solidarity within the framework of the theory of democratic modernity. We call on international powers to recognise their responsibility for the century-long policies of genocide against our people, to refrain from obstructing a democratic solution, and to contribute constructively to the process...‘ In other words, they are saying, ’Do not abandon us, continue to support us in this process, everything depends on you.‘ They are sending a message to their owner, ’Do not forget me."

14. What is the fundamental aim and objective behind the PKK's decision to dissolve and lay down its arms? The statement says: "... It is of vital importance that our people, led by women and young people, form their own organisations in all areas of life, organise themselves on the basis of self-sufficiency in their languages, identities and cultures, become capable of defending themselves against attacks, and build a communal democratic society with a spirit of mobilisation. On this basis, we believe that Kurdish political parties, democratic organisations and opinion leaders will fulfil their responsibilities to develop Kurdish democracy and ensure the democratic nationhood of the Kurds..." In other words, the underlying aim and objective of laying down arms and ending PKK activities is to ensure the social, cultural, political and economic development of the Republic of Turkey with all its material and moral resources, and then to demand a federal republic and declare the ‘Kurdish Federal State’ as part of it (as in the process that took place in Iraq).

The reason they do not immediately demand a federal republic is that the development disparities between the geographical regions of the Republic of Turkey are very pronounced; the Eastern Anatolia and Southeastern Anatolia regions, where our citizens of Kurdish origin live in large numbers, are the least developed regions (the effects of geography and climate conditions should not be overlooked among the reasons for this) and the fact that the average per capita national income is in the bottom fifth and fourth 20% brackets. Therefore, I assess that they plan to first achieve a level of balance in these areas using the resources of the Turkish Republic and then make a demand for a federal republic.

To fail to see this, one would have to have lost all rational and intellectual faculties. All political parties, trade unions, professional organisations, civil society organisations, democratic mass organisations, the business world, universities and all citizens who have not lost their love for their country, especially the political power governing the Republic of Turkey and the opposition parties aspiring to govern, must be aware of this situation and clearly declare their stance against it.

There is no need to look far for this stance. It is the ethnic-free national unity and solidarity demonstrated by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the path he paved, and the determination to become a contemporary democratic and secular state in line with the spirit of the times.

Thanks to the Republic established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, our people were elevated from servitude to equal citizenship; as a result, they can now hold any position and enjoy any opportunity they desire and are capable of achieving in both the public and private sectors, regardless of ethnicity, class, caste, or family lineage. They can become President, Prime Minister, Minister, Member of Parliament, General, Officer, Police Chief, Governor, District Governor, Businessperson, professional association president, trade union president, bank general manager, why do our people who have been granted these opportunities by the Republic and its founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk harbour hostility and betrayal towards them? What is the justification for this betrayal and hostility? What is it? Is the reason for this betrayal and hostility the Republic's goal of being an anti-imperialist, fully independent, secular, democratic, social state governed by the rule of law?

16. Of course, we all want a Turkey, a Middle East, and a world free from terrorism, where violence has permanently ceased. We want peace and brotherhood to prevail in our country, our region, and throughout the world. To achieve this, we must internalise honesty, respect, sharing, solidarity, and the principle of not doing to others what we would not want done to ourselves as fundamental criteria and priorities in our thoughts and behaviour, both as individuals, as a society, and as a state.

17. Throughout this process, the political authority must have planned in great detail, including alternative scenarios, what the results of the ‘Terror-Free Turkey’ goal and strategy might be. In this context, it is imperative that all activities be carried out under the umbrella of the Turkish Grand National Assembly with the participation of all political parties and with the principle of transparent information sharing with the public.

Conclusion

It is with regret that I must point out that the main idea behind the decisions announced by the terrorist organisation at its congress is to move step by step towards federalism and declare a Kurdish Federal State. This is my prediction, as has happened in Iraq, is happening in Syria, and will happen in Iran. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we are facing the dissolution process, or rather the ‘game,’ of the PKK, which has adopted the ultimate goal of declaring a so-called ‘Greater Kurdistan’ or a so-called ‘Kurdish Confederation’ within the framework of the Global Powers' Greater Middle East Project, led by the United States and Israel. For some reason, we are not smelling sweet scents in these beautiful spring months. We cannot rejoice at the so-called dissolution of the PKK. We have legitimate doubts and concerns for the future of our country. This is not a process that will give us hope for national unity and solidarity, or bring comfort to our hearts! It is a deception, for there is a trickster at work here! We can see this. Our recent history records that as the Turkish Nation, we have successfully fought against the PKK. Regardless of its guise, rhetoric, or name, our struggle against any attempt to divide this homeland and nation will continue with the same determination. You can be certain of that.