KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) Executive Council Member Mustafa Karasu commemorated Rıza Altun, one of the founding members of the PKK, on the 6th anniversary of his martyrdom, and Musa Anter on the 33rd anniversary of his assassination. Karasu spoke to Medya Haber TV about the ongoing isolation of Abdullah Öcalan, the “Freedom for Abdullah Öcalan, a Political Solution to the Kurdish Question” campaign, the stage reached in the year following Bahçeli's call, the Turkish Football Federation's (TFF) penalty against Amedspor for using a Kurdish slogan, and other developments on the agenda.

The first part of the in-depth interview is as follows:

In the course of the 12th PKK Congress, the martyrdom of Rıza Altun was announced. September 25 was the anniversary of his assassination. You had known Rıza Altun since he took his first steps in this struggle. What significance did he have and still does have for your Movement?

First of all, on the occasion of the 6th anniversary of his martyrdom, I respectfully and gratefully commemorate our comrade Rıza. My comradeship with Rıza was very close. We worked together in many different areas of the struggle. Comrade Rıza was one of the early friends to join the Apoist group back then in Ankara. He joined the group in his time in Tuzluçayır. And not only did comrade Rıza join, but under his influence, many other friends from this district of the city joined the Movement. Ali Doğan Yıldırım was the first of them who was martyred. Later, Şahin Kılavuz and Doğan Kılıçkaya followed. They had joined the movement under comrade Rıza’s influence; actually, I assume one could say that they joined the struggle of comrade Rıza.

The way comrade Rıza was able to form relationships with people was impressive. He had this ability of gathering people around him. He truly had precious traits in his character that are rarely found. This is what made comrade Rıza a leading cadre in our movement. After he and the group surrounding him joined the movement in Tuzluçayır, Ankara, Kılıçkaya and I went to Antep together. It must have been in July 1976. Then, shortly after, I think it was September, comrade Rıza also came to Antep. We worked together for a couple of years in Antep. There he played an important role in the struggle against the fascists and also had a significant influence on the organization of youth and workers. He showed his strength of organizing and being capable of gaining influence in society. Yes, he was a primary school graduate, but he had already been intensively involved in the political struggle in Tuzluçayır. Tuzluçayır was the district of Ankara, where revolutionary movements and political struggle were most intense. It was a political, revolutionary neighborhood; they called Tuzluçayır ‘Little Moscow’. Comrade Rıza was a socialist from the core and continuously educated himself ideologically and theoretically. I remember that no one believed that Rıza that only had finished primary school – they called him a university graduate. He had a great ideological and theoretical depth and strength. Throughout the years, he worked in many different areas of the struggle and was always successful. Wherever comrade Rıza went, he always carried out the task he was given successfully. Because he was capable of organizing, of gaining influence and of bringing people together. And he had great influence on both the cadres of the movement, as well as on the people themselves. He made a very important contribution to the struggle.

Comrade Rıza was truly a unique personality. People like him are hardly found. With their different characteristics, they added color, richness, and strength to the struggle. In a way comrade Rıza was like a Kemal Pir with a different character. And comrade Kemal Pir was a friend who fully embodied the characteristics of revolutionism. That is why he so greatly contributed to our struggle.

And again, not only did comrade Rıza participate himself, but his whole family also made a great contribution to the struggle. His brother fell as a martyr, and two of his nephews are martyrs. He always involved those around him. In a way, comrade Rıza managed to drag Tuzluçayır into the Movement. On this occasion, on the 6th anniversary of his martyrdom, I again commemorate comrade Rıza with respect and gratitude. We have so many shared memories and a shared struggle. He was always part of the organization’s leadership. He greatly contributed to this struggle; therefore, he will not be forgotten and will always be remembered. We will keep his memory and his struggle alive in the struggle for freedom and will definitely achieve the aspirations of these comrades.

While commemorating the anniversary of comrade Rıza’s martyrdom, I also commemorate with respect and gratitude his comrades who were martyred on September 24, 1996, in the prison of Amed (tr. Diyarbakır). Their names stand symbolically for our prison resistance. They were truly brutally murdered. Therefore, it is important to always remember these comrades, to remember them as great values of our struggle, not only as values of prison resistance but as values of the struggle for freedom. In this sense, while remembering them, our people must also know about their resistance, that they never gave up on the struggle for freedom and their beliefs. The Freedom Movement, the Apoist movement, and the PKK movement are of such character. It is a movement of such belief. It is crucial to keep their legacy alive.

From the outside, it appears that the ongoing process in Turkey has not made any significant progress recently. At least, Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan was recently granted a meeting with his lawyers. How do you view the state’s rapprochement with him?

The fact that he is allowed to see his lawyers should not be seen as the result of a process and should not be a political decision; it is actually a fundamental, self-evident right that everyone has. Nevertheless, he has been denied contact with his lawyers for years. It is important to consider this issue carefully. Allowing meetings with Leader Öcalan should no longer be seen as a form of concession.

Devlet Bahçeli said, “Let him dissolve his organization; let him come and speak in parliament.” Accordingly, Leader Öcalan gave the order to dissolve the PKK and called for an end to armed struggle. We fulfilled the requirements as instructed by our leader, but the consideration from the state that Devlet Bahçeli spoke of has not been fulfilled. They should have been met; just as we fulfilled the requirements, Devlet Bahçeli and the AKP-MHP government should have fulfilled theirs. At this point, Leader Öcalan should have long since benefited from the so-called ‘Right to Hope’ that they have to implement; the conditions should have long since been created for him to work freely, but this has not happened. If we are to call what is going on a process, then Devlet Bahçeli laid the groundwork for it by making his speech, and Leader Öcalan responded to it and fulfilled the necessary requirements. But still, what is the situation? They talk about resolving the Kurdish issue, about setting an end to the decades-long period of violence, but still Leader Öcalan, who is the leader of this struggle, is being isolated. Still, isolation continues. Yes, there are meetings; now the lawyers went to Imrali, and sometimes delegations go, but through such meetings a process cannot be successfully developed.

Now, a year has passed, but Leader Öcalan is still not enabled to work freely and openly or meet with whoever he deems necessary. We assess this as a failure to approach the process correctly. Leader Öcalan is not just any person. He cannot be approached as just any person. Nor can this process be advanced by approaching Leader Öcalan as just any person.

If the government, the AKP administration, and the state truly want to resolve the Kurdish issue, democratize Turkey, and completely end the decades-long conflict in Turkey, if they truly want to resolve it once and for all, then the approach to Leader Öcalan must change. Leader Öcalan also calls for a serious and correct approach towards him. Thus, the current approach does not inspire confidence. While Leader Öcalan shows every kind of confidence-inspiring approach, genuinely wanting to develop the process, it is unacceptable that the AKP government does not change its approach. Neither our people nor our international friends accept it. Because of this approach to Leader Öcalan, some are concerned about how the process will end. There are those conducting surveys on the process, saying that there is a decline in support for it. Further similar things are said. If the state does not present an approach that reflects the importance of this process, of course, inadequate approaches will emerge in the perception of this process.

As is known, a campaign for the physical freedom of Leader Öcalan has been carried out since October 10. So, we are approaching its anniversary. Surely our people everywhere will take the anniversary as an occasion to show strong support for this campaign and take action to further strengthen it. It was our international friends in Europe who were the first to launch this campaign, and they achieved significant results and had a significant impact. This October 10th, again, actions will be taken in the framework of the campaign, primarily in Europe but also in many other areas. It is essential to participate strongly in these actions.

Actions are being taken, struggles are being waged, and efforts are being made for Leader Öcalan’s freedom, but more needs to be done for the campaign to truly achieve its goal. It must be ensured that steps are taken in this regard. The freedom of Leader Öcalan is a matter of struggle; it is not something that will happen on its own. Every step, every development in the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom has been achieved through struggle. Any progress to be made regarding his freedom will also be achieved through struggle. In this regard, on the anniversary of October 10, I call on our people to embrace this initiative and participate in actions that will strengthen it.

Looking at the fact that the process is about to conclude its first year, what stage has it reached so far? How do you assess the steps that have been taken so far, the few decisions that have been made, the ongoing talks and the approaches that are emerging?

It is not possible to say anything definite about the stage that has been reached. Even the parliamentary leaders, when they went to the commission to speak, made assessments that this process needed to be named. In other words, if there truly is to be a process, its purpose must be fully clear, the program must be clear, the public must know what is being done and what is planned to be done, and all uncertainty about the process must be eliminated. Sure, the commission was formed, and the government says that it “takes upon the responsibility for this process,” that it will “bring it to a conclusion in the spirit of brotherhood,” but we cannot say that any truly tangible steps have been taken by them. Nor can it be said that any steps have been taken by them that influence or advance this process.

On the other side there are the steps taken by Leader Öcalan, namely the dissolution of the PKK and the cessation of armed struggle. This contrast needs to be brought to the agenda and discussed. It needs to be acknowledged and appreciated. What steps has the government taken in response? The fact that some talks and discussions are taking place does not mean that a serious step has been taken.

Generally speaking, we see the developments as positive; we see a change. We do not underestimate the developments, but when compared to the steps taken by our Freedom Movement, when we consider what we have done in response to Leader Öcalan’s call, what the state has done is not very significant. We are not saying that there is nothing, but it is clear that the necessary steps have not been taken in terms of democratization, the resolution of the Kurdish issue, or even the public’s responsibility towards this process.

So yes, there has been some kind of a process for a year. The clashes have stopped, and expectations have been created in society. Also yes, there has not been much progress recently, but expectations continue. There is still a discussion, an expectation about what will happen and how it will happen. This situation has developed. The conflict situation or the political environment and tension of a year or two ago no longer exist. There is a certain softening in the political environment. In other words, there is a certain softening in the conflict between the Kurdistan freedom movement and the state.

There are circumstances that cause real serious concern regarding Turkey’s other problems. The appointment of trustees to CHP municipalities and the arrests are points that raise serious questions. We want to develop the process. We are determined on this issue, and Leader Öcalan is determined. But when such things are done to the CHP, of course, the process will inevitably be questioned. Those are points that also need to be mentioned when one assesses the situation after one year.

So regarding the conclusion of this year, we can say that we have taken important steps. They had an important impact, and they will continue to do so. Leader Öcalan’s thoughts have been reflected in the global public. His assessments and approaches to solutions have been reflected in the global public. An important perception has developed in society that Leader Öcalan and the PKK have crucial views and projects on democratization and the solution to the Kurdish issue. An important sense of taking responsibility and appreciation has developed. These are decisive. Again, these steps taken have also affected the general developments in the Middle East. We see that this process is being followed everywhere very closely and with great interest. There is a great expectation, and many wonder what the outcome of the process might be. But there have not been the important developments in the past year that would have been necessary. There are serious problems in this regard. There were steps that should have been taken within a year; they were not taken. And a year is not a short time. Time is very valuable in solving such problems. There are some who say things like, “If it is not resolved in time, there will be provocations, negative situations will arise, and the process will be poisoned,” and these assessments are correct.

And let me reiterate this; what Devlet Bahçeli said would be necessary to happen during this process didn’t happen either. What does this mean? What was said at the beginning didn’t happen. His initial words, his initial statements, remain. At the end of the year, we expected to see more significant developments. We made calls in this direction, but the government and the state did not take such steps. This inevitably raises some questions in our minds regarding the true intention of the state. But still, we are striving for this process to be successful. That is our approach. In this sense, the decision for the dissolution of the party has been taken. And that is also why we have abandoned armed struggle against Turkey. We did not do this just for the sake of saying it. We did it because we believed in it. We did these things believing that democratic politics is the most correct path for Turkey’s democratization and that it is the most correct ground for political struggle.

In this respect, what I want to emphasize in particular is that we have done our part to a significant extent within this year.