Abdullah Öcalan’s call for "Peace and a Democratic Society," announced by the Imrali Delegation on February 27, has resonated not only in Turkey, Kurdistan, and the Middle East, but also at an international level. To discuss this historic stance, which advocates a democratic and political resolution to the Kurdish question, we spoke with former Imrali Delegation member and Kurdish politician Idris Baluken.

Öcalan's long-anticipated call for 'Peace and a Democratic Society' was announced by the Imrali Delegation. With this call, Öcalan has also marked the beginning of a new process. How do you evaluate it?

First and foremost, I believe it is essential to evaluate, from a historical perspective, the fact that after 26 years, Kurdish People’s Leader Öcalan has once again placed the Kurdish people’s struggle for democracy, peace, and freedom at the center of Middle Eastern and global politics. We know that 26 years ago, through an international conspiracy (culminating on 15 February 1999, the day Öcalan was abducted in Kenya), he was targeted for elimination, with the intention of leaving him without a place to seek refuge in the world and severing all ties with his people and organizational structure.

Following this, he was subjected to a system of severe torture and isolation on Imrali. However, despite all this, Öcalan has carried his ideological and intellectual concentration on freedom, democracy, and peace to this day, positioning it at the heart of regional and global politics. This confronts us with a significant and powerful reality. Yesterday, this issue shaped the global agenda, and beyond the content of the message itself, its timing and historical significance were equally crucial. I wanted to emphasize this point in particular.

What emerged was an exceptionally strong message, one that rekindles hopes for peace, advocates for democratic transformation, and asserts that a free future is not only possible for the Kurdish people but also for the Turkish people and all the peoples of the Middle East.

At a time when the Middle East is being reshaped, Mr. Öcalan is not merely addressing the current political situation; he is intervening in the process with a perspective that takes into account fifty, even a hundred years of regional realities. If his counterparts respond positively, it is fair to say that he has presented a proposal package capable of paving the way for significant short-term developments in favor of the peoples. From this point forward, the course of events will depend on whether a response emerges that matches the depth, sincerity, and seriousness of the approach Öcalan has put forward.

You were part of the previous Imrali Delegation. At that time, negotiations were conducted, but due to the state’s stance, the process was disrupted and ultimately failed. If we compare that period with the process being reconsidered today, what would you say? How should we interpret the attempt to rebuild the table that was overturned years ago?

Nearly ten years have passed, and it has been an extremely difficult period. The heavy costs of that time have created immense pressure on society. Regionally, too, significant developments have taken place over this decade. For the Kurdish side, it was a challenging process, sacrifices were made, a 'collapse concept' was implemented, and an attempt was made to completely break the will of the Kurdish political movement. However, at the end of these ten years, it is clear that this attempt has failed, and the Kurdish movement has maintained its will and dynamism in its struggle.

For the state, a different reality emerged. Turkey has descended into an unprecedented administrative, structural, legal, and economic crisis. When we analyze the consequences of overturning the negotiation table from this perspective, we see that, had the negotiation framework set forth in the Dolmabahçe Agreement ten years ago been implemented, Turkey would not be experiencing its current crisis and collapse, and the Kurdish people would not have had to endure such a painful and challenging period.

At the same time, the dynamics in the Middle East have shifted significantly. Developments in the Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria axes have brought the Kurdish issue to a point where it can no longer remain unresolved. When we consider all of these factors together, the resolution of the Kurdish issue has become a matter of vital urgency. The situation has reached a breaking point where a solution is no longer a choice but a necessity.

The Turkish state or the current government’s search for a new approach cannot be considered separately from these developments. Mr. Öcalan has consistently maintained his stance on peace and a democratic political resolution, which has once again drawn global attention. In the 2013–2015 resolution process, he made this clear through the Dolmabahçe Agreement.

Looking at the current situation, Öcalan continues his efforts from where he is, maintaining his commitment to peace and a democratic political resolution. On the state’s side, given both the deepening internal crises and the way the Kurdish issue is forcing its own resolution in the Middle East, we can speak of a new position. From this point forward, what matters is whether the state and the government will take concrete and practical steps in line with this new position. If there is a sincere and serious approach, the peace and democracy solution proposed by Öcalan could open the door to an entirely new process for the whole Middle East.

The Turkish side has particularly highlighted Öcalan’s call for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to lay down arms. Although this statement was not explicitly included in the text, Sırrı Süreyya Önder conveyed Öcalan’s words: 'Undoubtedly, the practical abandonment of arms and the dissolution of the PKK require the recognition of the legal and democratic political framework.' Despite this, some circles still express confusion. What steps should the state take to ensure this process leads to success?

Mr. Öcalan’s stance on this matter has always been very clear. With that statement, Sırrı Süreyya Önder essentially articulated the expectations that Öcalan had conveyed to the state and government regarding the process. The call that has been announced assigns responsibilities not only to the Kurdish side but also to the Turkish state and its government. There is no ambiguity or confusion within the Kurdish movement. The Kurdish people and the Kurdish political movement have already declared that they are ready to seriously engage with the initiative put forward by Öcalan. Their position is clear.

However, when we look at the state and the government’s stance up until now, starting from the widely publicized image of Devlet Bahçeli approaching the ranks of the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) in parliament, we see a contradiction between words and actions. This contradiction has created significant distrust and confusion. No legal or constitutional reforms necessary for democratization have been implemented. Moreover, no substantial progress has been made regarding the isolation imposed on İmralı Island. The restrictions on family and lawyer visits continue.

The Kurds will not lose with Öcalan at the negotiation table

Despite all these challenges, Abdullah Öcalan has once again demonstrated that he is making a historic effort to secure the next fifty, even a hundred years, for all the peoples of the Middle East. However, while doing so, he has also felt the need to remind the state and the government of their responsibilities. If democratic politics is not given room to operate, if legal steps toward resolving the Kurdish issue and democratizing Turkey are not taken, this process will have no chance of progressing.

At the same time, the confusion surrounding Kurdish rights should be seen as an area that certain circles, those unable or unwilling to clearly express their stance on the process, seek to manipulate. Mr. Öcalan’s contributions to the Kurdish people’s struggle for democracy, peace, and freedom are undeniable. The resurgence of a people whose identity, language, and culture had been denied, and their emergence as a political force, is a direct result of Öcalan’s political efforts.

Even after spending the last 26 years imprisoned on an island, behind bars and walls, Öcalan has never wavered from the demands of his people. On the contrary, he has strengthened this struggle with new ideological openings. For this reason, it is impossible to say that the Kurdish people have any doubts about him. Alongside their organized structures, the Kurdish people trust that, just as in the past, Öcalan will guide this process correctly today and in the future.

The people are well aware that in any negotiation process involving Öcalan, the Kurdish people will not lose. Moreover, this process will not only benefit the Kurdish people but also bring gains for all marginalized and oppressed groups in Turkey.