EMP Klute: PKK cannot be excluded from talks - Interview
EMP Klute: PKK cannot be excluded from talks - Interview
A couple of weeks ago a delegation from Europe went to Diyarbakir and was denied access to the prison. The delegation was principally constituted of Members from German left party, DIE LINKE, from European Parliament, Jürgen Klute, from the National Parliament (Bundestag), Ms. Ingrid Remmers and from Members of the regional Parliament of Nordrhein-Westphalen (biggest region in the North-West), Ms. Bärbel Beuermann (head of the parliamentary group), Mr. Rüdiger Sagel. Additionally, Mr. Martin Dolzer journalist and expert on the region and Michael Knapp, human right activist, also were part of the delegation.
ANF has spoken to European MP Jürgen Klute, who underlined how it is clearly impossibile for the Turkish government to envisage a solution to the Kurdish question without involving the Kurds and the representatives they will choose.
Let’s start from the recent statements by Turkish government ministers who admitted that indeed government officials are meeting and talking with Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan.
Before the summer I had sent an open letter to Prime Minister Erdogan asking him to call for an halt to military operations and to indeed work for the commencement of some sort of dialogue with the Kurdish representatives. It is clear that the Turkish government cannot exclude the PKK or indeed Abdullah Ocalan from this dialogue, because they are both part of the conflict. And if you really want to work for a solution you must talk to all the parties involved in the conflict, and you must let all of the parties involved to have the possibility to say what they think. In this sense I think the fact that the Turkish government has admitted that they are indeed talking with Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan is a positive development. The European Union and in general the European public I think should support the process of dialogue. European MPs should encourage this process.
On 12 September there will be a referendum to change the Constitution but the amendments do not tackle the Kurdish demands at all. What is your opinion on this?
Not long ago the Turkish Minister of Justice, Sadullah Ergin, came to the European parliament to explain at length what the Constitutional amendments will mean. I think that in principle it is a positive development the fact that the government has started to address the issue of the need for change in the Constitution. On the other hand we cannot avoid noticing that what is proposed is not a new Constitution. What the people are asked to vote for on the 12 September referendum are small changes. I specifically asked the minister about the Kurds, and the Kurdish demands. Because clearly the proposed amendments do not tackle the Kurdish issue at all, there is no mention of Kurdish people rights or recognition of the Kurdish people rights. And I think we should closely follow the developments after the referendum, because clearly the fact that there is no mention of the Kurdish people rights could be a way to avoid the issue altogether.
The BDP is proposing the Democratic Autonomy model. In Europe also there are discussions going on, and I think in particular of the Basque country, about an alternative model for the society. Why is Europe, and the left in particularly so scared about addressing this issue?
Let me first outline the relevance of this concept that has replaced the "old" seperatism position. The swift to the Democratic Autonomy model has been an imporant step from the Kurdish side that makes a political solution to the conflict possible. Nevertheless, I have the impression that, in European public debate, the concept is still far from well-known. When it comes to the left point of view, there are doubts that relate or confound the concept to nationalism. And, indeed, in many European cases, there are rich regions, and I think of Italy for example, which are only talking about autonomy because they ultimately want to separate from the poorer regions. Regional autonomy sometimes can end up in nationalism.
Yes, but, should it not be the role of the left to avoid this risk indeed promoting autonomy as an alternative model of society, a model which goes beyond the defunct nation-state model, for example. Because it looks to me that avoiding to address and debate the autonomy models proposed hiding behind the fact that there is the risk of ending up mixing with right wing nationalism, is the easy way out. In other words, nationalism of the risk of it is the fig leaf for the left which does not probably have an idea about autonomous projects and proposals.
This is true, I agree with you. And I think it should be important for the left to debate these issues, but still I think is important to keep in mind the risks. Look at Belgium for example, the Flemish speaking community basically is saying that they don't want to pay for the French speaking community, but in the end is an economic question.
You went to Diyarbakir and were denied access to the prison.
We had meeting with several people, including Diyarbakir mayor, Osman Baydemir, and Sur mayor, Abdullah Demirbas. When we asked to visit the politicians and human rights members held in prison the authorities started a kind of game basically sending us from one person to the other, from one office to the other. In the end we understood that clearly the authorities did not want us to visit the prison.
What will you do now?
We will write out questions to present to the European Parliament on different issues, including the allegations about the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army. We could not have satisfactory evidence on this issue, but other MPs and groups claim they do or they are going to be able to proof that chemical weapons were indeed used. Also we will underline to the parliament that the PKK has once again called a unilateral ceasefire until the 20 of September. We will ask the European Commission to act and do everything in its power to put pressure on the Turkish government which we think should grasp this opportunity. Finally we will be back in Diyarbakir on 18 of October as observers at the trial of the Kurdish politicians still in prison.
ANF has spoken to European MP Jürgen Klute, who underlined how it is clearly impossibile for the Turkish government to envisage a solution to the Kurdish question without involving the Kurds and the representatives they will choose.
Let’s start from the recent statements by Turkish government ministers who admitted that indeed government officials are meeting and talking with Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan.
Before the summer I had sent an open letter to Prime Minister Erdogan asking him to call for an halt to military operations and to indeed work for the commencement of some sort of dialogue with the Kurdish representatives. It is clear that the Turkish government cannot exclude the PKK or indeed Abdullah Ocalan from this dialogue, because they are both part of the conflict. And if you really want to work for a solution you must talk to all the parties involved in the conflict, and you must let all of the parties involved to have the possibility to say what they think. In this sense I think the fact that the Turkish government has admitted that they are indeed talking with Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan is a positive development. The European Union and in general the European public I think should support the process of dialogue. European MPs should encourage this process.
On 12 September there will be a referendum to change the Constitution but the amendments do not tackle the Kurdish demands at all. What is your opinion on this?
Not long ago the Turkish Minister of Justice, Sadullah Ergin, came to the European parliament to explain at length what the Constitutional amendments will mean. I think that in principle it is a positive development the fact that the government has started to address the issue of the need for change in the Constitution. On the other hand we cannot avoid noticing that what is proposed is not a new Constitution. What the people are asked to vote for on the 12 September referendum are small changes. I specifically asked the minister about the Kurds, and the Kurdish demands. Because clearly the proposed amendments do not tackle the Kurdish issue at all, there is no mention of Kurdish people rights or recognition of the Kurdish people rights. And I think we should closely follow the developments after the referendum, because clearly the fact that there is no mention of the Kurdish people rights could be a way to avoid the issue altogether.
The BDP is proposing the Democratic Autonomy model. In Europe also there are discussions going on, and I think in particular of the Basque country, about an alternative model for the society. Why is Europe, and the left in particularly so scared about addressing this issue?
Let me first outline the relevance of this concept that has replaced the "old" seperatism position. The swift to the Democratic Autonomy model has been an imporant step from the Kurdish side that makes a political solution to the conflict possible. Nevertheless, I have the impression that, in European public debate, the concept is still far from well-known. When it comes to the left point of view, there are doubts that relate or confound the concept to nationalism. And, indeed, in many European cases, there are rich regions, and I think of Italy for example, which are only talking about autonomy because they ultimately want to separate from the poorer regions. Regional autonomy sometimes can end up in nationalism.
Yes, but, should it not be the role of the left to avoid this risk indeed promoting autonomy as an alternative model of society, a model which goes beyond the defunct nation-state model, for example. Because it looks to me that avoiding to address and debate the autonomy models proposed hiding behind the fact that there is the risk of ending up mixing with right wing nationalism, is the easy way out. In other words, nationalism of the risk of it is the fig leaf for the left which does not probably have an idea about autonomous projects and proposals.
This is true, I agree with you. And I think it should be important for the left to debate these issues, but still I think is important to keep in mind the risks. Look at Belgium for example, the Flemish speaking community basically is saying that they don't want to pay for the French speaking community, but in the end is an economic question.
You went to Diyarbakir and were denied access to the prison.
We had meeting with several people, including Diyarbakir mayor, Osman Baydemir, and Sur mayor, Abdullah Demirbas. When we asked to visit the politicians and human rights members held in prison the authorities started a kind of game basically sending us from one person to the other, from one office to the other. In the end we understood that clearly the authorities did not want us to visit the prison.
What will you do now?
We will write out questions to present to the European Parliament on different issues, including the allegations about the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army. We could not have satisfactory evidence on this issue, but other MPs and groups claim they do or they are going to be able to proof that chemical weapons were indeed used. Also we will underline to the parliament that the PKK has once again called a unilateral ceasefire until the 20 of September. We will ask the European Commission to act and do everything in its power to put pressure on the Turkish government which we think should grasp this opportunity. Finally we will be back in Diyarbakir on 18 of October as observers at the trial of the Kurdish politicians still in prison.
