Remzi Kartal said that Hakan Fidan’s policy toward Rojava is hostile to Kurds and blocks peace in both Turkey and Syria.
Remzi Kartal, co-chair of Kongra-Gel, told ANF that the parliamentary commission established in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to address the Kurdish question is significant, but current efforts remain insufficient. He emphasized that Abdullah Öcalan is leading the process, criticized the state’s approach, and highlighted the necessity of building a democratic society and fostering strong public opinion. Kartal also described Hakan Fidan’s rhetoric toward Rojava as harmful to the process and stressed that the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan is a fundamental red line.
A parliamentary commission has been established in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to resolve the Kurdish question, chaired by Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş. However, some politicians argue that this commission has no authority to enact or amend laws and is therefore ineffective. In this context, do you trust that such a deep-rooted issue can be solved by this commission? And do you consider the commission suitable for the process?
This is not a matter of trusting the state. If we look at it from that perspective, it would be a mistake. Because it was Abdullah Öcalan who initiated this process. He took a historic step and created both a foundation and an opportunity. Therefore, both our movement, our people, and the public who desire peace and democracy naturally place their trust in Abdullah Öcalan. There is a firm belief that Abdullah Öcalan has taken this step.
Nevertheless, Öcalan continues to deliver his message both to the public and to the state. To the state, he says: ‘We are ready to take steps; when we take steps, you must also take steps.’ To the people and to those who strive for democracy, he says: ‘We must build a democratic society; we must not wait for the state; we must advance our struggle. Within the country, outside the country, in the Middle East, and across the world, as forces seeking peace and democracy, we must expand our efforts. We must see peace and democracy working as our duty so that the process can move forward.’
At this stage, Öcalan, our party, and our movement have taken major steps. In response, the Turkish parliament established a commission, which is important. Yet this commission is not an answer to the steps taken by Öcalan and our movement. Still, Öcalan calls on us to intensify our work both inside and outside parliament. The greatest shortcoming lies in the lack of strong public opinion. We must build public opinion and create influence over the commission.
So, are you saying that while the establishment of the commission is positive, its progress will depend on the efforts of the public and the demands of the people?
The commission has now been formed. With the participation of both the government and the opposition, meaning that apart from one small racist party, all parties are represented, this is very significant. The commission must conduct debates on behalf of the parliament. It is also important that it listens to all components: Kurds, Turks, all forces that seek democracy, all parties, and intellectuals.
However, it would be wrong to simply wait for the commission’s work in order to bring this issue onto the agenda. We must grow through social efforts and democratic politics outside the parliament, so that we can create influence both over the commission and over the parliament itself. Because when the commission completes its work, it will present its reports to the parliament, and these reports will then be debated there.
In the commission, a mother wanted to express her pain and emotions in her own language, Kurdish. But she was prevented and told to speak in Turkish. She was therefore forced to speak Turkish. In such an important process, how do you evaluate incidents like this?
Of course, this reflects the reality of the Turkish parliament and its system. What has the system been until now? It did not recognize the existence of Kurds. If you do not recognize Kurds as a people, you do not recognize their language, nor do you recognize their social and political rights.
Now in this picture, when we look at the work of the commission, a mother spoke in Kurdish and was met with a negative reaction. This shows the reality of the system and the politics of the state. As I said at the beginning, we must carry out public opinion work. This debate must also continue within the commission, because it is a fundamental issue. If the existence of the Kurdish language is not accepted, then what will you solve? This is a negative step; but at the same time, it is also a reason to carry out work on this issue both in parliament and in the commission, as well as outside the commission.
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Deputy Chair Fethi Yıldız stated that the first four articles of the constitution, as well as Article 66, are their red lines and cannot be changed. How do you evaluate these remarks, and do you also have red lines?
Such approaches will exist in Turkish politics, among some parties, and within the commission. But the real issue is the recognition of the existence of the Kurdish people and the opening of space for democratic politics. For this ground to be established, our foremost red line is the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan. The state must prove this.
What must it prove? For a hundred years, the state has not recognized the existence of Kurds; it has pursued a policy of denial and annihilation. In response to this denial and annihilation, the Kurdish people resisted. The conflicts and wars have continued until today. As Abdullah Öcalan has said, the state must abandon the policy of denial and annihilation. A path must be opened for the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan, who is the leader of the Kurdish people and the key responsible figure today.
The freedom of Abdullah Öcalan means the recognition of the Kurdish question and the construction of a political and democratic society. A ground must be created where armed forces can join democratic society and engage in political and democratic work. These conditions will only come through struggle. Constitutional change and legal reform are part of a struggle process. This is tied to negotiations and may become clearer in the times ahead.
You were elected as a Deputy from Van (Wan) in 1991, and in 1994 you were forced to migrate to Europe. Since then, you have been living in Europe. If the path opens, would you like to return to your homeland, to Van?
Of course, the entire struggle for freedom is for returning to the homeland; it is for a free and democratic life. Today, we are compelled to be outside the country for the freedom of our people and our society. When the conditions for return are established, we will naturally, like everyone else, go back to our homeland and continue our work for the freedom, democracy, and peace of our people there. There is no doubt about this; this is the goal.
But as a movement and as a people, we are questioning the state’s approach towards the Kurdish people, how it recognizes their existence and what principles it is based on. We base everything on the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan. If the conditions for Abdullah Öcalan’s freedom are created, this will also create the conditions for all of us to return. Of course, we will return to our homeland.
