Hüseyin Küçükbalaban said that the parliamentary commission had shortcomings and stressed that all actors.
The Human Rights Association (IHD), one of the institutions participating in the fifth session of the Parliamentary Commission established to resolve the Kurdish question, submitted an 11-point proposal to the commission.
In an interview with ANF about the commission, IHD Co-chair Hüseyin Küçükbalaban shared his criticisms and proposals, particularly regarding the refusal to allow the Peace Mothers to speak Kurdish.
The ban on Kurdish weakened the commission’s strength and hope for a solution
Hüseyin Küçükbalaban said that while the use of Kurdish in public life, one of the fundamental steps for resolving the Kurdish question, is already under pressure, the rejection of the Peace Mothers’ request to speak Kurdish in the commission was both “surprising” and “incomprehensible.” He noted that this situation weakened the commission’s strength as well as hopes for a solution and added: “The issue of Kurdish is already one of the main steps that must be resolved within the Kurdish question. Speaking, writing, and publishing in Kurdish in public spaces is under heavy pressure. The fact that this situation occurred within the commission is especially interesting and surprising. After all, the reason this commission was established is to create public awareness for resolving the Kurdish question, to prepare draft laws, to present them to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, and to meet with all parties.
But we cannot understand how this commission, especially one that should have allowed a group like the Peace Mothers, who have lost their children in war and conflict, to speak Kurdish, could impose such a ban. This, of course, weakened the strength of the commission, lowered expectations from it, and somewhat diminished hope for a solution. We hope and wish that the Speaker of Parliament and the commission will offer the necessary apologies. From now on, at the very least, we expect them to take the necessary measures to avoid repeating such a mistake and wrongdoing.”
The commission must be based on law
Hüseyin Küçükbalaban emphasized the importance of their invitation to the commission, saying that they are both witnesses and, in a sense, defendants of the 39-year war. He also underlined that the commission’s lack of a legal framework poses a major risk.
Küçükbalaban also said: “As the IHD, we are an organization that has borne witness to, documented, and in a sense stood trial for war, conflict, grave human rights violations, village evacuations, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances in custody, mass graves, and almost systematic torture. I say defendants because our association both reported these processes and conveyed them to the public, and in doing so, was subjected to much repression and violence. Twenty-three of our colleagues fell victim to extrajudicial killings. Dozens, even hundreds of our colleagues were sentenced to prison. Ten of our colleagues are still imprisoned, and many others are still on trial.”
He added that IHD has consistently struggled for peace: “Therefore, we are one of the associations that for 39 years has waged a serious struggle for the use of peaceful methods in resolving the Kurdish question and for giving peace a chance. In this respect, when one looks outside the state, among civil society organizations, it is we who hold the most extensive archives of war and conflict.”
Küçükbalaban also recalled that the process which began on October 1 advanced through the calls of Mr. Öcalan: “The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) convened its congress, decided on dissolution, and subsequently, a symbolic disarmament ceremony was held, crossing many critical thresholds. Yet despite all these critical steps, the state did not take any action until July 11. The only will it showed was the establishment of this commission.
Of course, this commission was also the proposal of Mr. Öcalan. Later, it became a proposal that included opposition parties, and on July 12 the President announced the idea of forming such a commission. Afterwards, the Speaker of Parliament held meetings with political parties, and a commission was established.”
He stressed, however, that the commission was not based on law: “But this commission is not one established by law. We made this clear there as well. The absence of a legal basis carries risks: even during the 2013–2015 resolution process, flawed as it was, there was still a law. At that time, not many parties joined the commission in parliament; a commission was formed that worked with the then HDP, and a law was enacted.
Even that law did not protect the delegations after the table collapsed. One of the reasons Selahattin Demirtaş, Figen Yüksekdağ, and many other politicians are in prison today is the work they did during that process. All of that work was later brought against them as crimes, and prosecutions were carried out. People ended up spending decades in prison.”
Finally, Küçükbalaban warned about future risks: “Based on that experience, if this commission had been formed not by the Speaker’s decision but on a legal foundation, it would have been much healthier. After all, even if members of parliament have immunity, this is not a process carried out only by parliamentarians. We also express our views, make our proposals, and recount many incidents where the state or public officials are perpetrators. Is there any guarantee that tomorrow these will not be brought before us as an indictment?
Even at this stage, civil society organizations are limited in their ability to express themselves freely within the commission. This stems from the lack of a legal framework, and in an arbitrary situation, the commission could be dissolved. The commission is in a state of uncertainty; in other words, it lacks legal assurance.”
This issue cannot be solved in six months
IHD Co-chair Hüseyin Küçükbalaban said that it was insufficient for the commission to attempt to resolve a century-old, deeply complex issue, forty years of which have been marked by conflict in as little as six months. He also emphasized that all actors in the issue, beginning with Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, must be heard: “The commission has set itself an initial period of six months to solve a century-old issue that has gone through forty years of war and conflict; this is not enough time. Because such a multi-dimensional issue cannot be solved in six months. You cannot listen to society, you cannot socialize peace, you cannot prepare the necessary laws. Even if it was said that ‘we can extend it by two months each time,’ this remains insufficient.”
Küçükbalaban also said that one of the commission’s biggest shortcomings was its failure to hear Mr. Öcalan: “The commission has held five meetings so far. But one of the things that should have been done before all these meetings was to hear Mr. Öcalan. He is one of the most critical actors in this process, and the decisive steps taken after October 1 were initiated by his call. Yet we are facing a commission that has not even undertaken the effort to listen to Mr. Öcalan. He is one of the key sides, and he should have been consulted. Only after that could meetings with civil society and the people take place; but this was not done. We already proposed this, and in our view, this is one of the commission’s shortcomings.”
He added that the Kurdish diaspora must also be part of the process: “Due to past experiences, many Kurdish politicians, members of parliament, mayors, and party administrators have had cases opened against them, and some of them were forced to leave the country. There is now a significant Kurdish diaspora in Europe, along with political institutions and media organizations. They must also be heard. The commission must listen to all actors in this issue.”
Küçükbalaban further noted that ignoring those who laid down their arms is a major obstacle: “A group of 30 PKK militants laid down their arms. This group called itself the ‘Peace and Democratic Society Group’ and declared, ‘We want to do politics in Ankara.’ Besê Hozat said this in the statement she read. Without listening to this group, how can you ensure further disarmament?”
It can be a common point of solution for many issues
Küçükbalaban said that problems such as the suppression of the democratic environment in Turkey, the economic crisis, the appointment of trustees, enforced disappearances, and village evacuations are directly connected to the Kurdish question, and that the commission must build these links to produce solutions: “We point out that this peace is not only between the Kurds in Turkey and the Republic of Turkey, but actually between the Republic of Turkey and the Kurds of the Middle East and the whole world.
One of the issues blocking Turkey and the Middle East in diplomacy, politics, the economy, and international relations is the Kurdish question. Even in relations with Southern Kurdistan (Başur), the approach toward the PKK is taken as a measure; it is the same with the issue in Syria. These are fundamental points of crisis in relations with the European Union and also with the United States.”
Küçükbalaban also stressed that real peace must go beyond Turkey’s borders: “Therefore, a genuine, realistic, and honorable peace here will in fact be a peace between the Republic of Turkey and the Kurds all over the world, together with the peoples who live alongside them.
For example, Mr. Öcalan’s issue of the ‘right to hope’ and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which recognized this as a violation of the prohibition on torture, should not be forgotten. This problem is no longer limited to Mr. Abdullah Öcalan alone, but has become an issue that concerns 4,000 political prisoners.”
He added that peace would pave the way for the recognition of Kurdish rights: “This peace will open the way for the country and create an environment in which the Kurdish language, identity, and cultural rights are recognized. In other words, it will be a peace that creates an environment in which all peoples can freely live their identity, faith, and choices.
But if you restrict this only to disarmament, the process may stall at some point. The table may collapse, and after it collapses, how the process unfolds can be seen in the closest example of the years 2013 to 2015. We witnessed an eight-year period marked by unimaginable violence and human rights violations. The losses during those eight years far exceeded the human and economic losses of the previous 32–33 years. All of this must be acknowledged and addressed.”
Küçükbalaban further noted that justice and guarantees are essential: “There are underlying grounds and reasons that gave rise to this violence and conflict. These must be investigated, confronted, and reckoned with. Justice must be ensured, including transitional justice, and this table must evolve toward that. Afterwards, legal arrangements and constitutional guarantees must follow.
The issues of trustees, enforced disappearances, and village evacuations, as well as the suffocation of Turkey’s democratic environment and the ongoing economic crisis are all issues tied to the Kurdish question. Without recognizing these and linking them, simply ending violence will be insufficient. Of course, violence must end first; in international literature this is called ‘negative peace.’
But afterwards, the steps of ‘positive peace’ must be taken. These steps require measures and guarantees in legal and administrative frameworks. Disarmament itself has a procedure. The international community and the United Nations Development Programme have disarmament principles, and in different parts of the world, there are models of how conflicts have been resolved.”
Finally, Küçükbalaban emphasized the need for truth and reconciliation: “What is needed is a process in which these models are analyzed, appropriate rules are set, and commissions are formed. The final step is confrontation.”
An important peace opportunity despite all shortcomings
Küçükbalaban pointed out many shortcomings of the commission yet stressed that it should still be seen as an opportunity for peace: “The IHD has always stated, even during the most intense periods of war and conflict, that peace is the only way. Today this commission has been established; it has shortcomings and inadequacies. It has made mistakes, such as preventing the use of Kurdish. But despite all this, we view it as an opportunity for peace.
We know that this peace opportunity is not ultimately a gift that those in power will grant to society. It is society itself that must strengthen this commission through criticism and constructive proposals and also share in its responsibilities. Society must guide the commission. In this regard, civil society organizations, human rights and legal organizations, women’s and environmental organizations, and many intellectuals, writers, and the press have important roles to play.”
The IHD’s proposals to the commission
The Co-chair of the IHD, Hüseyin Küçükbalaban, stated that they would later present a more detailed version of their proposals to the commission. At the fifth meeting, they submitted the following 11-point set of proposals:
1. The abolition of the Anti-Terror Law.
2. The implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court (particularly the rulings concerning Osman Kavala, the Gezi case, and the “right to hope”).
3. The establishment of Truth and Justice Commissions.
4. The opening of mass graves and the identification of remains.
5. The facilitation of the repatriation of the bodies of militants who lost their lives abroad.
6. The abolition of the Administrative and Observation Boards.
7. The release of ill prisoners.
8. The end of the appointment of trustees to municipalities and the prevention of restrictions on political participation.
9. The judiciary must not be used as an instrument of politics.
10. The constitutional and legal guarantee of Kurdish language, culture, and identity rights.
11. Disarmament must be conducted in line with international procedures and through a process that involves civil society and the wider public
