After Abdullah Öcalan's call on February 27, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) held its 12th Extraordinary Congress. The congress took place between May 5 and 7, and its decisions were shared with the world on May 12. With the resolutions announced by the PKK, the discussions on resolution and dialogue, ongoing since October, have entered a new phase.

Attention now turns to what steps the government and the state will take in response to those initiated by the Kurdish side.

Idris Baluken, a member of the Imralı delegation during the 2013–2015 process, answered ANF’s questions regarding the matter.

The PKK announced the outcomes of its 12th Congress, declaring an end to the armed struggle and the cessation of all activities carried out under the PKK name. How do you evaluate this decision taken within the context of the ongoing resolution process?

We are witnessing historically significant days that will leave a lasting record. Especially after Mr. Öcalan’s “Call for a Democratic Society and Peace” on February 27, developments have taken place that give concrete form to hopes for peace. This represents a major source of hope. There is a tendency to describe this as the first step, but, in my view, it is the final step of a path that has been followed for a long time. The Kurdish Movement and Mr. Öcalan has, since the 1992–1993 period, consistently sought to replace armed struggle with democratic political struggle. Over the years, opportunities for dialogue have occasionally emerged.

Could you elaborate on that? What exactly do you mean by the final step? The Turkish state has yet to take the expected steps. What would you like to say about this?

From the Kurdish side, the paradigm of peace has never been seen as a tactical move or a temporary political stance. It has always been pursued as a strategic objective. Particularly in recent years, both the regional developments across the Middle East and the fact that this geography has become one of the clearest arenas of the Third World War have made such a strategic peace decision necessary and urgent. Even after the negotiation table collapsed during the 2013–2015 resolution process, Mr. Öcalan’s stance and commitment to peace remained clear. The side that resisted or sought alternative methods was primarily the state and the government. They carried out a massive “collapse plan” aimed at eradicating the Kurdish people and their demands for freedom. But in the end, it became clear that such a policy could not succeed. Now we can say that this realization has forced the state and government to reconsider their position.

So, what needs to be done from this point forward?

At this stage, there are certain steps that must now be taken. We need actions that will reinforce and strengthen one another, and that will ensure there is no turning back from what we have described as the final step. These steps must be clearly articulated and put into practice.

What are those steps?

These steps are already known from the experience of the previous resolution process, as well as from the content of the February 27 “Call for a Democratic Society and Peace.” They have been clearly declared to the public. What is needed now are legal and political steps. After all, peace is not just the silencing of weapons. It is the construction of an equal, dignified, and democratic future. Peace begins when hearts start to speak when guns fall silent. We are facing a Kurdish issue that has persisted for over a century. The Kurdish people have fundamental rights they demand simply by virtue of being a people, and those rights align fully with the universal values recognized by all of humanity. I speak of the Kurdish people, but in truth, the scope of this struggle extends to all excluded, marginalized, and unrecognized groups in Turkey. In this context, it would be highly beneficial for parliament to take initiative in the coming days to establish the necessary legal and political framework. Institutions or commissions designated by the state and government officials must begin working urgently to create this foundation.

What needs to be done on a societal level?

There is also a need to improve the social and societal foundation. From the very beginning, we have spoken of the importance of restorative and reparative steps, but it cannot be said that this transitional period has been particularly productive in that regard. The social and societal grounds could have been better remembered and addressed. There could have been stronger efforts to expose the marginal elements that promote war and to amplify the voice of peace across broader segments of society. These areas remain lacking. Therefore, it is crucial not only to establish the legal and political groundwork but also to prepare all sectors of society for a new climate, for a new chapter dedicated to peace.

How did you view the initial statements and reactions from the government following the announcement of the congress decisions?

We are going through a highly sensitive period. Therefore, everyone in positions of responsibility must act with an awareness of the historical significance of their words. Every sentence spoken in this context can have serious consequences, either constructive or destructive. That is why, when the Kurdish Movement has declared such an important and historic decision, it is vital that responses be equally constructive and forward-looking, both in discourse and in action. There have been statements from the government side. Some of them contained messages that could be seen as positive. However, there are also positions that remain ambiguous or lack clear direction. Let us not forget that at the beginning of this process, public commitments were made about what would happen if the Kurdish side took the necessary steps. When Mr. Öcalan made a call, and the Kurdish Movement aligned itself with that call. We heard direct promises from the highest authorities, especially regarding the “right to hope” and Mr. Öcalan’s conditions. Back then, there were also grand declarations about what this process would mean for democratization and Turkey’s future. Now, we are at a stage where those promises must not be left unfulfilled. There is an urgent need to improve Mr. Öcalan’s conditions, first and foremost regarding the right to hope, and to immediately restore channels of communication with the outside world. The policy of severe isolation must come to an end. Beyond that, Turkey’s legal and constitutional framework remains a source of ongoing problems. From the existence of the Anti-Terror Law and continuing restrictions on freedom of thought and expression, to constitutional barriers to mother tongue education and the absence of a definition of equal and dignified citizenship, there are many issues that still demand discussion and negotiation. I believe that in the coming period, constructive and positive developments must take place in these areas, and that they are indeed possible.

When the congress decisions were announced, there were also strong statements about the new phase of the Kurdish struggle. What are your reflections on this emphasis on transformation within the Kurdish freedom movement?

This marks a decision of strategic transformation. It is the beginning of a new democratic phase of change and renewal. For the Kurdish people, engaging in a certain level of armed struggle based on legitimate self-defense was, in many ways, a means of preserving their existence, language, identity, and culture. The Kurdish side never viewed this struggle as one aimed at entirely defeating or destroying the other side. At the very least, we have never heard such discourse. Now, we can see clearly that the language, identity, culture, and existence of the Kurdish people are widely acknowledged, both within the public sphere in Turkey and by the international community. Given this reality, it is only natural and entirely legitimate for the Kurdish people to seek new methods for preserving their existence. The next stage will be a search for freedom, freedom for language, identity, culture, and all the values the Kurdish people demand as a people. And considering both the global balance of power and developments in the region, it is evident that the political position the Kurdish people or their organized institutions assume, alongside their unique weight, can lead to significant gains. In this short period alone, we have already seen glimpses of this. For example, since the day this process began to be discussed, even in such a short span, we have witnessed how previous narratives justifying threats against Kurdish gains in other parts of Kurdistan have started to lose their meaning. We have seen how efforts toward Kurdish unity, rather than division, have accelerated. And we have seen how, at a global level, the Kurdish issue is now being addressed by influential centers in a way that surpasses even the past 40–50 years of struggle. I believe this process will gain even more momentum in the near future. The Kurds are transitioning from being a people forced into self-defense to becoming a regional actor that asserts its presence, influences the equation, and helps shape it. If the responsibilities of this democratic transformation are fulfilled, we may finally leave behind the old saying that “Kurds always lose at the table or in negotiations.” For the first time, the Kurds are taking a seat at the table, and in the negotiation process, as one of the most influential actors in the global and regional equation. That is why I believe this moment must be taken seriously.

Until now, the Kurdish struggle has often been criminalized internationally under the pretext of armed resistance. With this development, what kind of changes do you foresee in this area?

When we also consider the current level of war technology, we are in a period where intercontinental ballistic wars and even nuclear warfare are being discussed. In such a context, sustaining a war with light weaponry or expecting this to bring about a final result against all global powers is, quite frankly, unrealistic. What is more aligned with today’s world is a new approach, one that reinforces its own legitimacy, defines its rightful position clearly within influential centers of global politics, demonstrates the justice of its cause effectively, and unites its people on a peaceful foundation. I believe this approach better fits the spirit of this new era. At this stage, the Kurdish people’s struggle must be brought to a final resolution, through political means, diplomacy, institutional representation, and internal peace. Wars cannot continue indefinitely. This is a fact of human history, and it holds true in similar conflicts around the world. Great warriors are often also those who know how to make great peace. History has shown us this. Figures such as Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat, who were once labeled as “terrorists” during their armed resistance, are now remembered as freedom fighters, icons of peace, and historic leaders who secured victories for their people through civil resistance and peaceful methods. For the Kurdish people and the Kurdish movement, which from the beginning has strategically embraced a commitment to peace, this new phase holds the potential to gain strong momentum on a global scale.

Peace is a formula that brings gains to all sides. It means that young people no longer die, that mothers no longer shed tears, and that a new future can be built by learning from the pain of the past. This should not be feared. It is unacceptable that those who never defended the war on the front lines now wear different masks and use language that invokes hatred and appeals to a memory based on enmity. Unfortunately, on both sides, we often see that as peaceful outcomes begin to take shape, such reactions intensify. There are those, on the Kurdish side as well, who feed off war, off blood and tears, who have done nothing but disrupt from behind keyboards, and now adopt an anti-peace stance simply because they cannot tolerate others stepping away from war. We must remain extremely vigilant in the face of such behavior. At this stage, beyond all political analysis, I believe it is time to let mothers speak. Those who have lost their children in this war, mothers of soldiers, mothers of guerrilla fighters, understand the true value and meaning of this process more than anyone else. Young people must also be heard. Their vision and hopes for a peaceful, democratic future must be taken seriously. Women must be given a voice. If possible, since we’ve already spoken about legal, political, societal, and social dimensions, I would even say that the entire process should be entrusted to women. Imagine if all the members of the parliamentary commissions leading this work were women, if the entire civil society structure responsible for guiding this process were handed over to women. With the values brought by empathy, I believe the moral, ethical, and spiritual significance of this process would lead to outcomes far beyond its political meaning at the global or regional level.

As we said earlier, this is not a newly chosen path. It is the threshold of the final step in a long journey. To desire peace is not a retreat by the side calling for it, it is a sign of foresight. This must never be forgotten. Wanting peace does not diminish anyone; it does not cost anyone anything. This holds true for both sides. The more sincerely peace is desired, and the more concrete steps are taken in its name, the more both sides elevate themselves. They gain the opportunity to inscribe their names in the most honorable pages of human history. From this perspective, I hope that in the coming period we will witness more positive developments, clearer, more tangible realities, and a new situation in which hope is anchored in concrete progress.