Mehmet Karakuş said that Turkey must recognize the “right to hope” and emphasized the commission’s responsibility for Abdullah Öcalan’s freedom in the peace process.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on 18 March 2024 that keeping a person imprisoned for life without the possibility of conditional release constitutes a violation of the ECHR prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and found that Abdullah Öcalan’s “right to hope” had been violated. The ECHR demanded that Turkey introduce legal regulations to guarantee the exercise of this “right to hope.”
The Court later issued similar rulings for prisoners Hayati Kaytan, Emin Gurban, and Civan Boltan. However, despite the fact that 11 years have passed since the rulings, Turkey has not taken any steps to comply with them.
Recently, the Turkish state announced in its Action Plan submitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that it would not recognize the “right to hope” for prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
Writer Mehmet Karakuş, who was released last year after thirty years of imprisonment, spoke to ANF about the “right to hope” and the ongoing process.
Mehmet Karakuş said: “The state has extensive experience in these matters. If we start from the Ottoman era, it has such experience in relation to the national liberation struggles in the Balkans, the Armenian movement, and the processes concerning us during the founding period of the Republic. The state has never resolved issues by sitting at the table with opposing forces. At the tables it has established, it has mostly engaged in stalling, buying time, and when international conditions became favorable, resorted to suppression and liquidation.
The state recognizes the process here. The ‘collapse plan’ it has implemented since 2014 has failed. It also sees that international hegemonic powers are once again redesigning the region. Rather than being left out of this redesign and facing certain sanctions, its approach is based on entering the process, stalling and rendering it void, and when international conditions become suitable, seeking once again to liquidate the Movement. Despite the steps taken and the promises made, adopting the opposite stance reveals the state’s previous codes and the state that exists in our memory. This shows us that they have never acted sincerely until now.”
Karakuş added: “A commission has been established. However, this commission, from its very name to its stated purpose, has not been set up to resolve the Kurdish question, which is a historical issue. Yet the Kurdish question has a character that deepens the economic, political, and social crises of this state and of both societies and triggers many other problems. Nevertheless, the fact that neither its name nor its purpose has been defined accordingly inevitably reminds people, society, and the public of the negative actions the state has taken in the past.”
Devlet Bahçeli did not keep his word
Karakuş noted that Devlet Bahçeli failed to keep his promise after calling for Abdullah Öcalan’s “right to hope” to be recognized. He said: “At the very beginning, none of the promises that were made were kept. If the people remain silent today and do not take any stance, it is because of the trust they have in the leadership of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Otherwise, the state has never had credibility in the eyes of society, from the past until today.
For the state to regain credibility in the eyes of society, it must recognize the ‘right to hope’ for the PKK leader. Recognizing the ‘right to hope’ would lead to two important developments. First, the involvement of the PKK leader, Abdullah Öcalan, would be persuasive for both societies and would accelerate the progress of the process. At the same time, it would restore the public’s broken trust in the state. There are examples of this in the world. In the case of Mandela, he was released from prison, placed under house arrest, and later freed. Mandela, as a free man, took part in the process, developed proposals, guided his movement, and the process was successfully completed.’”
Karakuş continued: “Here too, for the same to happen, Mr. Öcalan must be free, even within the framework of Imralı. He should be able to meet freely with all sectors of society, with civil society organizations, with his own movement, and above all with the commission. Intellectuals, journalists, and writers who wish to meet him should be able to do so. This would create a synergy within society and inspire confidence.
If the state still does not take this step, it means it has other plans. What is this plan? The heart and bottleneck of this struggle is Rojava. If the Kurdish people in Rojava gain a status and that status is recognized internationally, the state will face a choice. Either it will genuinely run the process and make the necessary legal and constitutional changes to resolve the Kurdish question, or it will remain outside the process and return to the past.
But it must be understood that this process is very different from the previous ones. This process does not resemble any of the earlier ones. While international powers are reshaping the Middle East, neither Iran’s attempts to establish hegemony through Shiism, nor the Turkish state’s attempts to do so through Salafi Islam, will be allowed. If Turkey approaches this process negatively, it will find itself facing a matter of existence or non-existence.”
Turkey is not complying with the violation ruling
Karakuş underlined that although 11 years have passed, Turkey has not taken any steps regarding the ECHR violation ruling. He said: “Turkey’s stance here shows both that it will not comply with the statements made by Devlet Bahçeli and that it openly does not recognize the ECHR. On this matter, Europe must act decisively in order to protect its own prestige, as well as its political and economic interests.
Today they may remain silent, but I believe that when a different situation arises tomorrow, they will impose their demands. At present, especially due to the issue of Iran, they are not making it a problem; they want to keep Turkey close for now. But if there is a regime change in Iran, the state will find itself in a very difficult position on many issues, particularly Cyprus.”
Abdullah Öcalan must be able to reach social groups
Karakuş stressed that Abdullah Öcalan must be able to reach the PKK, different segments of society, and intellectuals in order for the process to progress positively. He said: “The main reason why Turkey does not allow the use of the ‘right to hope’ is because it does not want to resolve the issue. If the ‘right to hope’ were truly exercised, the contributions of the PKK leader, Mr. Öcalan would bring to this process would be beyond dispute.
For the Kurdish people and the forces of democracy, this would be a major breakthrough. The state must fulfill the promise it has made. In this regard, great responsibility falls on the commission established in Parliament
