On February 27, 2025, the statement of Abdullah Öcalan, the Leader of the Kurdish National Struggle, titled “Call for Peace and Democratic Society” was made public. Abdullah Öcalan, who was imprisoned on 15 February 1999 with a large-scale organization of the imperialist powers and the fascist dictatorship, has been struggling with the fascist dictatorship with the line of “reconciliation and peace” since 1993. After being taken prisoner, Abdullah Öcalan had created the paradigm of “Democratic Autonomy” with a line defending coexistence by building a democratic society and that the “right to establish a state” was no longer valid in solving the national question. For 26 years, Abdullah Öcalan has maintained his approach that the “armed struggle” must end in exchange for the realization of “democratic rights and freedoms”. After all, the line of armed struggle led by the PKK has long been pursued with the goal of “peace”, “national democratic rights” and “coexistence on democratic grounds”.
TC With A Corrupt Record İn “Seeking Peace And Reconciliation”
The fascist dictatorship is locked on the goal of preserving the sovereignty of the “oppressor Turkish nation”, the absolute rejection of full equality of rights, the limitation of democratic gains and the usurpation of the right to make politics in all the processes it continues with Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK under the name of “solution”. This attitude of the fascist TR has led to the blockage of the processes developed for the purpose of “peace and reconciliation”. For the fascist TR, the “peace and reconciliation” talks also continued with the weakening of the Kurdish organization, the escalation of chauvinist hysteria, arrest-detention attacks, military operations, the use of all kinds of reaction, the protection and continuation of İmralı isolation. For the TR, the “peace and solution” process has always been a means of liquidation, an argument for war in order to suppress the Kurdish movement more strongly.
In 1993, the PKK’s struggle for a ceasefire and peace was met by the TR’s burning and evacuation of villages, the extermination of guerrillas and the imprisonment of thousands of Kurds in the democratic sphere. In 2000, the result of the process of withdrawal and laying the groundwork for “peace” was again the extermination of the retreating guerrillas, the denial of the existence of the Kurds, the tightening of the Imrali isolation, the closure of the legal Kurdish party, the arrest and detention attacks on democratic areas. The process of “reconciliation and peace” that began in 2007-2008 was accompanied by the destruction of the guerrilla, massacres during serhildans, the arrest of thousands of people in the democratic field through KCK operations, and the definition of Kurdish national rights as an “existential” problem. The period that started with the Oslo talks in 2009 and was systematized in March 2013 and called the “Resolution Process” was accompanied by the Roboski massacre, the arrest of thousands of people and the murder of Sakine Cansız and her friends in Paris. With a series of meetings and negotiations with Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK, the process of guerrilla withdrawal began, especially the pressures on the democratic sphere and “outposts, fortresses and area domination works” in guerrilla areas have been carried out uninterruptedly. One of the main pillars of the “Resolution Process” that started in 2013 for the TR is the Syria and Rojava pillar. It has been caught in the paradox of overthrowing Assad on the one hand and not expanding Kurdish national gains on the other. The line that focuses on keeping Rojava on the axis of its own political interests is also focused on making the Kurdish movement a prisoner by encouraging jihadist attacks. During this period, Kobane was tried to be strangled with the support of the TR and mass uprisings were organized in Turkish Kurdistan in support of Kobane. In October 2014, the Kobane uprising was met with the massacre of dozens of Kurdish youth by the TR. The TR launched the concept of ‘total war’ in July 2015 with the approach that the expanding Kurdish gains in Rojava and the preparations for a larger-scale war in the ‘negotiation process’ had turned into an advantage for itself. Arrest glut against the democratic-legal field, attacks against guerrilla areas and Rojava, and the destruction process was initiated with tanks, artillery and planes in the cities against the self-resistance that developed against the attacks in August 2015. The fascist TR has treated the period it calls the ‘Resolution Process’ as an ideological-political-organisational liquidation move.The period of total war was organised with the usurpation and arrest of parliamentary deputies and municipalities, the imprisonment of thousands of people in the democratic field, tending towards destruction of guerrilla areas, the military occupation of Rojava and Iraqi Kurdistan, and chauvinist campaigns based on non-stop Kurdish hostility.
Since 1993, the fascist TR has constantly increased the dose of aggression every time it has sat at the table for peace and reconciliation with the Kurdish Movement, and has carried out non-stop attacks on democratic rights and the possibilities of making legal politics. The war against the Kurdish National Movement continued as a war of extermination without a break. In these periods, fascism has been on the path of keeping not only Kurds but also all segments of society that it could not bring under its hegemony under severe oppression. On the one hand, while paralysing the masses by poisoning them with chauvinism, on the other hand, it used all the tyranny of the state machine. It has closed the channels of struggle for reforms and jealously preserved its fascist character required by the social-political-economic conditions in which it found ground. For the TR, democratic gains, rights that will erode Turkish national sovereignty, and the opportunities that legal politics will offer for progressive struggle are coded as an existential threat. It has taken a position by updating its hostility to the Kurdish nation and other oppressed nationalities, oppressed beliefs, oppressed beliefs, workers and labourers, based on preserving all the elements of its founding principles and philosophy, regardless of the period of peace or war.
Abdullah Öcalan’s Explanation and Idealist Understanding of History
Now, in such a situation, it is necessary to look at some of the determinations that led to Abdullah Öcalan’s call and take a stance. This is because the explanation is dominated by idealist and erroneous approaches to the national problem and its solution, and readings of the historical process. In this sense, he has the right to take a political-ideological position on determining the fate of the political movement he leads. It is at his disposal. The mistake to be made is, of course, binding on him. It has declared that it takes full responsibility for the call for laying down arms and liquidation. In terms of its position in the political sphere and social life, and even on a regional scale, its decisions have the quality to influence and determine the future. From this point of view, its justification of the problem will have an impact on the consciousness and movement of the masses.
Revolutionaries and communists, seeing and knowing this effect, go to the way of forming an attitude, prepare for the consequences of the process and attach importance to the right approach, appropriate criticism and ideological struggle.
Öcalan has developed the following perspective on Kurdish-Turkish relations from a historical perspective: ‘Kurdish-Turkish relations; throughout the history of more than 1000 years, Turks and Kurds have always considered it necessary to remain in a voluntary alliance in order to maintain their existence and survive against hegemonic powers. The last 200 years of capitalist modernity have made it their main aim to break up this alliance.’ Since Öcalan misreads the process of nationalisation of nationalities and their gaining their national integrity and consciousness, he makes the mistake of treating the feudal fragmentation and domination under the Seljuk-Ottoman rule with today’s nationalised structure. In the Ottoman period, the economic structure, political character, form of government, state structure and social relations of feudal society were dominant. Not only the Kurdish nation but also many other nations and beliefs remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire in feudal relations and in line with its principles and rules. These nations are under the domination of the serfs created by feudal fragmentation, under the rule of big landlords, under the domination of closed social relations, under land-dependent relations. At the dawn of capitalism and the dominance of commodity production and relations, nations became nations by achieving territorial, economic, linguistic and spiritual unity. The nation is not a racial or tribal unity. From this point of view, in the feudal period, there was no structure or community under the name of Kurdish or Turkish nation, in the sense that we understand it today, which includes political unity and integrity. There are Kurds and Turks, but they do not have the character of a nation at that historical stage. There is no political structure or network of relations representing them. The separation and disintegration of societies as nations and their efforts to gain political unity in their own territories is an objective result of capitalist relations. The separation of Turks and Kurds as different nations was not the result of an external sedition or the effort of a higher will, but of the introduction of capitalist relations that dominate the world. This must be recognised as a historical development and result. The contrary approach would lead to a distancing from grasping the situation, from the definition of nation to the requirements and conditions that will shape the will of nationised communities to live together. Yes, Turks and Kurds have a 1000-year relationship, but there is a form of relationship under the domination of feudal relations without a national consciousness, without distinction and opposition based on nationalisation, or without unity. This historical reading will not be sufficient to explain the relations, unity, opposition and divergence between the Kurdish and Turkish nations that exist today. In this respect, Öcalan, while referring to historical relations, has an approach that covers up the historical nature of the relationship between the Kurdish and Turkish nations today and designs an unwarranted common history. This will harbour the Turkish sovereignty’s distorted understanding of history to legitimise itself. Arguments such as the opening of the gates at Malazgirt and fighting on the same front at Gallipoli are to give cover to the reactionary character of the history of Turkish sovereignty. It is wrong in this respect.
The Turkish The Jam He Is Experiencing And The Line Of Denial
Again, Abdullah Öcalan justifies the laying down of arms and the liquidation of the PKK by turning to the solution of political and social problems with the following approach: ‘The collapse of real-socialism in the 1990s for internal reasons, the dissolution of identity denial in the country, and developments in freedom of expression led to the PKK’s lack of meaning and excessive repetition. Therefore, it has completed its life like its peers and necessitated its dissolution.’ How and on what basis the PKK repeated itself is another matter. However, the approach that ‘the denial of identity in the country has been resolved and freedom of expression has been achieved’ is an approach that can only be explained by closing one’s eyes to reality.The Turkish ruling classes accepted the Kurdish existence under the influence of the social struggle and especially the armed struggle waged by the PKK with its national programme. This is because the fascist republic was founded on the philosophy of ‘one language, one nation’. It was based on the thesis that Kurds are also Turks and formed a line of denial. Today, it is on a line of denial that Kurds exist, have a language, but do not have national rights as a community. Here, it is necessary to see the thaw as the resort to a new definition of denial in order to govern. And this is nothing new in the history of the Turkish hegemons. M. Kemal and his friends resorted to a similar hypocrisy in the ‘National Struggle’ period. M. Kemal could say at the Sivas Congress, ‘Kurds and Turks live in Turkey’, and İsmet İnönü could say at Lausanne, ‘I am the representative of Turks and Kurds’. The difficulties of the current period can and have carried the ruling classes to this point. However, when conditions changed, it quickly returned to a strict line of denial, massacre and extermination. Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya gave us an advice that we must not forget: ‘At every opportunity the bourgeoisie demands inequality in favour of its own nationality, demands privileges, violates the most natural trampel of other nations, etc… The bourgeoisie of the dominant nation may recognise the existence of other nations and may even grant them certain rights when it is forced to do so. Like the Arab bourgeoisie in Iraq. But it violates these trampel at every opportunity, and wants to crush other nationalities at every opportunity.’ In other words, the hegemon classes of the oppressor nation preserve the essence of hostility towards oppressed nations. The approach that the aforementioned denial has been resolved should be seen as an efford to define the Kurds in new conditions of slavery. At the same time, if we look at it from the rule that the nation that oppresses a nation can never be free, it also includes the enslavement of the Turkish nation with chauvinism and the bribe of national privileges. As for freedom of expression, the fascist dictatorship has never taken a step back. Especially since 2015, there has been a strict choice such as police-gendarmerie oppression, detention, arrest, unemployment, isolation and murder in exchange for freedom of speech, action, association and expression.There is a state reality that abolishes freedom of expression even from the rostrum of the parliament. Any talk of the abolition of denial or of progress in freedom of expression can only be based on a fallacy and disrespect for the truth.
Denial of the Right to Self-Determination is a Utopia
A.Öcalan stated the following in his statement: ‘The PKK’s gaining strength and base has resulted from the closed channels of democratic politics. Separate nation-state, federation, administrative autonomy and culturalist solutions, which are the necessary result of its extreme nationalist drift, cannot respond to the historical sociology of society.’ Further, he made the following striking observations on the way to a solution: ‘The second century of the Republic will have a permanent and fraternal continuity only when it is crowned with democracy. There is no way other than democracy for system searches and realisations. There cannot be. Democratic reconciliation is the basic method. The language of the period of peace and democratic society must be developed in accordance with reality.’ Undoubtedly, closed channels of democratic politics, intolerance of different political thoughts, in other words, the fascist structuring of the whole state will bring forms of struggle, tactics and strategies, and positioning that are unique for social or national revolutions. In this context, in the face of the fascist state structure shaped by semi-feudal semi-colonial social reality, national or social revolutions act in a way that adopts the line of armed struggle from beginning to end. Ultimately, the social structure shaped in alliance with feudalism, deeply dependent on imperialism, and the hegemon classes that maintain its sovereignty do not proceed on the path of ‘democracy’. This structure makes it necessary to use the state as an all-consuming mechanism of violence, to form laws, statutes, regulations and state power in a fascist character. This is not an intention or a preference, but a necessity. Freedoms and democratic rights are a challenge for the hegemon classes in such countries. It is the inability to create the conditions imperialism wants for its exploitation. This is also true for the Turkish hegemon classes. Even for democratic rights, force and violence take shape as a form of struggle for the oppressed.
In addition, the economic-social basis and historical political formation of such systems in the age of imperialism has made them miss the train of “bourgeois democracy”. Its relationship with imperialism is on the ground of absolute reaction. The political form of this reaction is fascism. This makes democracy in Turkey a question of revolution. The big bourgeoisie, which missed the train of “bourgeois democratic revolutions” in the era of imperialism and became reactionary and comprador character, established political domination by allying with the landlords. In the state mechanism dominated by this hegemon class alliance, the possibility of bringing democracy in social problems, including the national question, has historically disappeared. On this basis, the question of democratization on a social or national basis in Turkey has become the question of the revolution. Öcalan points to the reconciliation of class, national and social antagonisms with the emphasis that “there is no path other than democracy”. The problem that needs to be understood and grasped is that the hegemon classes, as the determinant in the contradiction between the two nations, create all undemocratic conditions and circumstances. For this purpose, they create all mechanisms of oppression, armament, forms of organization and maintain their position. On the oppressed front, to say that there is no “non-democratic” way against this positioning is to facilitate the work of the ravaging reaction.
In the national question, it must be said that the concessions of the hegemon classes on issues such as language, culture, the right to legal politics, etc. are progress, but they do not include the democratization of the social and social structure as a whole. The complete and definitive solution to the national question is for the oppressed nation to take the right to secede freely into its own hands. When the oppressed nation does not have the Right to Secede freely, the democratic equality of the nations together will only be a “Utopia”. Free coexistence based on full equality of rights will only happen when the nation wins the right to secede. In his statement, Öcalan forms a “Utopian” line in the solution of the Kurdish national question by rejecting the Right to Separate Freely and even expressing partial statuses such as federation and autonomy as an attitude of extreme nationalism. Let us not forget that the borders based on Turkish sovereignty were drawn by the imperialists and “by the tyranny and privileges of the landowners and bourgeoisie of a nation”. To ignore every change of these state borders and the most fundamental right of the Kurdish nation is to legitimize the annexation carried out by the Turkish rulers by force. Historically, there have been approaches that have called Marx’s position on this shift in the British-Irish question and Comrade Lenin-Stalin’s position on the solution of the national question utopian. Today, Abdullah Öcalan approaches this solution to the problem in the same way. With this approach, he gives his approval to the borders historically drawn by the imperialists and Turkish rulers through oppression and tyranny. Communists are against this attitude because today it opens the door to the usurpation of the rights of the oppressed nation within the borders determined by the hegemon nations.
The New Process Entered is Imposed by Regional Developments
In the latest “Resolution Process”, Abdullah Öcalan is finally building his position around the framework announced in the Dolmabahçe Consensus. In the text announced to the public, it is stated in summary that the PKK’s presence with its armed forces has become an obstacle to the democratization process. While in the previous process, disarmament was considered as a consequence of the democratization process that would develop, the call of February 27, 2025 adopts the approach that disarmament will pave the way for democratization. This is a step back for Abdullah Öcalan. It is a deffend that armed struggle is no longer necessary for peace, for winning democratic rights. It is argued that these rights can be won through legal-democratic means of struggle.
We must determine that the discussions between the TR and A.Öcalan have developed in the context of regional developments, and that they have developed with the imposition of these conditions. In particular, the discussions have matured with the Al-Aqsa Flood operation of the Palestinian resistance on October 7, 2023 and the regional developments that will take place as a result. The regional change and naturally the ground of war have been conducive to such a development. In this context, it is safe to say that Abdullah Öcalan has shaped his attitude by considering the process within the regional integrity. Especially the developments in Syria and similar developments in Iraq, Iran etc. are part of the struggle to shape alliances accordingly. The regional change and naturally the ground of war have been conducive to such a development. In this context, it is safe to say that Abdullah Öcalan has shaped his attitude by considering the process within the regional integrity. Especially the developments in Syria and similar developments in Iraq, Iran etc. are part of the struggle to shape alliances accordingly. At the very least, it is seen that the TR is dealing with this process in an effort to harmonize with the US regional policy at the highest level.
Contrary to expectations, Öcalan shaped his statement without mentioning the Rojava and Syria axis, and while he talked about laying down arms, it should be noted that he shaped his attitude under the shadow and perhaps under the insurance of the military-political-administrative power in Rojava. He also stated that the PKK should convene a congress.
Murat Karayılan, commander of the HPG Main Headquarters, stated the following on February 6, before Öcalan’s call: “The PKK Congress must convene and take such a decision. Who can do all this? Leader Apo can do it. For this, first of all, Leader Apo must be free, and he must work on this kind of work in a free manner somewhere, whether it is through technical means, through different methods, through delegations, etc. In short, a process of persuasion must develop, and only Leader Apo can do this. In short, a process of persuasion needs to develop and only Leader Apo can do this. Anyway, it is not possible for such a thing to happen under the isolation in İmralı Prison.” Karayılan’s statement shows that there is coordination and work between the PKK and Abdullah Öcalan.
This is because the PKK responded positively to Öcalan’s call, mentioning the security of the Congress and Öcalan’s leadership in addition to the declaration of a ceasefire. This situation shows that the TR needs to take some steps to create favorable conditions and evolve the process to the point it wants. In this respect, Abdullah Öcalan has positioned himself at a pivotal point in the process.
It is clear that the fascist TR has a plan in terms of the steps to be taken in the negotiations and the stages of the process. However, it is still unclear how and in what form it will manage the process, whether it will be able to take the expected steps. The statements of AKP officials and Tayyip Erdoğan are full of threats and provoking chauvinism, adding Rojava and Syria to the process. The process will undoubtedly be determined by regional developments and new situations. The Turkish state’s holistic calculations regarding the region include the settlement of the Kurdish issue in some way. The sum total of its calculations is to expand its influence in the region, to create opportunities to expand its borders, if possible, in addition to its economic and political interests. Fascism is shaped in accordance with its deep-rooted Kurdish hostility and its definition of the expansion of Kurdish national rights as an existential threat. The existing antagonism focuses the fascist dictatorship on reducing the Kurds to an unarmed, disorganized and disorganized position. This concentration pushes its peace and reconciliation processes into an argument for war and an attitude of creating opportunities. It constantly organizes chauvinist campaigns inciting the Turkish people against the Kurds in order to strengthen this foundation. It adopts a policy that incites and provokes not only the Turkish people, but also the rulers of Iraq, Syria and Iran and other forces to hostility towards the Kurds. With this approach, fascism plans not to make peace with the Kurds, but to attack them more strongly and to keep the Kurdish nation under the yoke by expanding its scope. With these calculations, fascism has no approach to building a sustainable “peace”, let alone a solution to the Kurdish question.
Conclusion;
Abdullah Öcalan’s approach that through democratization and improvement the conditions for the coexistence of the Turkish and Kurdish nations will be ensured represents a mistake. The problem is the elimination of the Turkish national sovereignty that subjugates the Kurdish nation. The way to achieve this is through full equality of rights and the recognition of the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination, whether through peace or war. The Kurdish Nation’s Right to Self-Determination is not extreme nationalism, but the most fundamental right of a nation in an age divided into nations. The rejection of this right does not mean the freedom of the Kurdish nation, but the continuation of Turkish sovereignty under new conditions.
Abdullah Öcalan’s decision to end the armed struggle with the perspective of legal democratic struggle is his and the PKK’s choice. The Kurdish nation’s right to legal-democratic struggle and its demand for freedom in this respect is legitimate and necessary. However, we know that the fascist dictatorship has a structure that does not tolerate even democratic crumbs and has no ability to bring democracy. The form of struggle that broke the formation based on the denial of the Kurdish nation, forced the acceptance of the Kurdish existence and breathed life into the democratic sphere has undoubtedly been the guerrilla struggle that has been going on for 40 years. This historical experience of the Kurdish National Movement shows us that the Kurdish nation and the people of Turkey have a form of struggle to follow for liberation. We communists embrace this experience of the Kurdish National Movement as the path that must be followed for real liberation.
We maintain that we stand on a line of struggle based on the to make war of the people, and that all other forms are supportive forms of struggle for liberation. We advocate a path of political purification that deepens the deep contradictions experienced by the masses of the people, the oppression of oppressed beliefs, the oppression of the Kurdish nation under Turkish rule, and all social-political contradictions between these sections and the fascist dictatorship, which is pure reaction. We do not advocate that these contradictions be appeased by compromise, that they be restrained by reforms and constitutionalist means, but that they be sharpened with revolutionary anger that will organize liberation. We argue that the Kurdish Nation’s Right to Self-Determination can only be realized through the program and struggle of the People’s Democratic Revolution. Communists embrace the struggle for improvements, but are based on linking it to the strategy of revolution. We will continue our struggle for improvements in Kurdish national rights, but we will condemn the Turkish state’s approach to democratization as a Utopia. Communists will defend and propagandize the Kurdish Nation’s Right to Self-Determination, whether in times of peace or war. Revolutionary, democratic and progressive forces that do not defend and do not do this should know that they lead to the strengthening of Turkish chauvinism.
The current development creates an ideological ground that will erode the idea of armed struggle and revolution. Reformist, compromising currents will take courage from this development and strengthen their approaches that disarm the people and detach them from the consciousness of revolution. The current of liquidationism will strengthen. This development will also create opportunities for revolutionary and progressive forces to attack Turkish chauvinism more strongly. Again, to a certain extent, there will be opportunities to work more actively in the democratic field and to explain political ideas to the masses. In accordance with these positive and negative aspects of the process, the communists will adopt the line of deepening and sharpening the contradictions and strengthening the political alignment.
In the “Age of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolutions” the complete and libertarian solution of the national question was placed on the shoulders of the proletariat.
The liberation of the oppressed nations from the yoke of the oppressor nation and from the grip of the imperialist finance capital that envelops the world is only possible through revolutions led by the proletariat.Having exhausted its progressive gunpowder in the age of imperialism, the bourgeoisie has exhausted its understanding of creating an independent, free national sovereignty. On this basis, even though it struggles on the path of democratic revolution, it is left with two options, either on the path of socialism or on the path of dependence on imperialism. The bourgeoisie by its very nature tends to be part of the imperialist world. Being a ring dependent on the imperialist system, which is plain reactionary, means the disappear of all progressive and democratic qualities. For oppressed nations, as for the masses of oppressed peoples, the way to complete and definitive liberation is to ensure political alignment on the path of People’s Democracy and to organize for liberation on the path of this revolution.
As a final word, Freedom for the Kurdish Nation will come through the People’s War for the Democratic People’s Revolution under the leadership of our Party. Salvation is on the red route of Comrade İbrahim Kaypakkaya.
March 2025
TKP/ML CC-PB
(Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist
Central Committee – Political Bureau)
