Adem Uzun, âLiving Freedomâ: The Evolution of the Kurdish Conflict in Turkey and the Efforts to Resolve it. Berghof Transitions Series No. 11. Berlin: Berghof Foundation, 2014. 48 pp., (ISBN: 978-3-941514-16-4).
With more than 25 years of experience in the Kurdish liberation movement in Turkey and currently a leading member of the Administrative Council of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), Adem Uzun has authored a succinct report âto explain the emergence and internal evolution of the PKK [Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan or Kurdistan Workersâ Party] within the Kurdish struggle for freedom and democracy against the repressive and nationalist policies of the Turkish stateâ (p. 9). His report has three main parts: 1.) An examination of Kurdish history and the post-World-War-II bipolar world in which the present Kurdish movement developed; 2.) The global changes involving the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s and their impact on the Kurdish movement; and 3.) The current era which began with the Oslo meetings between Turkey and the PKK in 2007 and presently involves the peace process since 2013 on Imrali island where Abdullah Ãcalan, the founder and current leader of the PKK, has been imprisoned since his capture in 1999. Given his qualifications and dedication to a peaceful approach, Adem Uzun is particularly well suited to analyse these subjects, both the development of the PKK and particularly the currently stalled peace process.
In his opening section Uzun offers an upper limit estimate of the worldwide Kurdish population: âUnofficially, 20 million Kurds live in Northern Kurdistan (Turkey), 10 million in Eastern Kurdistan (Iran), 7 million in Southern Kurdistan (Iraq) and 2.5 million in Western Kurdistan (Syria) â with approximately 2 million Kurds more scattered across the globe. This means that there are almost 40 million Kurds worldwideâ (p. 10). In his second section Uzun somewhat confusingly tells his reader about âthe establishment of the PKK in 1973â (p. 13), but then a few lines later states that âthe PKK was officially founded on 27 November 1978, largely because its cadres believed that all legal ways of organising a national movement had been exhaustedâ (ibid.). However, what Uzun clearly means is simply that the PKKâs immediate roots go back to the earlier date.
The main part of Uzunâs report deals with the current pursuit of a peace process, which he traces to the beginning of the PKKâs transition from an armed independence movement to the presently much more socially and politically sophisticated and broadly constructed organisation that began with the 1993 cease-fire during the last days of the Turkish president Turgut Ãzal. The implication is clear; if Ãzal had not suddenly died on 17 April 1993, the current peace process that only began in 2013 might have started two decades earlier. The enormous costs and sacrifices thus suffered over this dismal period might not have occurred. Alternative histories, however, are not reality, but only lost shades of what might have been.
Claiming that âforces in Turkey that were hostile to peace killed President Ãzal to reignite the warâ (p. 17) Uzun describes the subsequent renewal of military struggle and 7 more unsuccessful PKK cease-fires in 1995, 1998, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2010. âUnfortunately ⦠the Turkish state viewed them [the cease-fires] as signs of weakness and responded to them with conspiracies and provocationsâ (ibid.).
As many other Kurdish nationalists do, Uzun then describes what he calls âan international conspiracy to capture Ãcalan. ⦠The world had united to conspire against Ãcalanâ (pp. 17 and 19). Uzun is probably referring to declarations made by governments such as the European Union (EU), the United States and Israel that could indicate that they were involved in Ãcalanâs arrest. However, true or false, in an ironic development and specific example of the law of unintended consequences, Ãcalan and the PKK turned what seemed their death knell with Ãcalanâs capture in 1999 into a new Kurdish empowerment. Adem Uzunâs report is strongest in explaining how these developments occurred.
Initially, âthe Turkish state continued its efforts to annihilate the PKK ⦠and wanted to exploit the international conjuncture dominated by the post- 11-September 2001 âwar-on-terrorismâ rhetoricâ (p. 20). In short order, the EU and the US joined Turkey in placing the PKK on their respective terrorist lists, actions that âdealt a massive blow to peace effortsâ (ibid.). This is because âthe AKP government, who had just come to power in Turkey, interpreted the EU decision to list the PKK as a terrorist organization as international support for taking a violent approach to the Kurdish issueâ (ibid.).
However, the PKK more sensibly and unexpectedly responded with a âtransformation and ⦠new paradigmâ by which it âwas reconstructed with a new identity ⦠based on a democratic, ecological and gender-emancipatory system, and switched from being a party to a congressional systemâ (p. 21). After going through a number of name changes that reflected this paradigm renewal, the PKK became âthe ideological centre of the new systemâ (ibid.) termed the Koma Civakên Kurdistan (KCK) or Kurdistan Communitiesâ Union. âKongra-Gel became the legislative assembly of the systemâ (p. 21), while the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) sought to âincarnate the moral unity of the Kurdish nationâ (p. 23). In addition, Ãcalan identified the womenâs struggle for liberation as âthe fundamental contradiction preventing societal freedom and championed womenâs liberation as the only way to bring about social enlightenment, democratic change and an emancipatory mentalityâ (ibid.). Indeed, even the most casual observer can readily see how uniquely important women are in the PKK as contrasted to any other movements in the Middle East.
Encompassing this new paradigm, âdemocratic autonomy was developed for Turkish Kurdistan: a voluntary joint existence that did not require changing the borders of the current nation-state or demanding a separate state was desirableâ (p. 22). While clearly praising these paradigm alterations, Uzun admits that âit was not easy for an organization that for so long had aspired to and struggled for an âindependent, united and democraticâ Kurdistan to change its aspirationsâ (ibid.). On the other side, however, these reviewers find that the PKKâs ability to transform itself according to internal and external changes and then communicate these alterations to ordinary people is exactly what empowers the organization and the Kurdish liberation movement as such.
With this background, Uzunâs report then enters the current Imrali peace process in which the still imprisoned KCK/PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan nevertheless declared on 21 March 2013, âthe start of a new era. ⦠He called upon the KCK to declare a ceasefire and withdraw its armed units from North Kurdistan. He also made detailed suggestions to the government, noting the necessary legislative amendments and steps required to advance the processâ (p. 31). However, Uzun finds that âthe Turkish stateâs mentality prevents even the most basic laws being passed to support the peace processâ (p. 33) and thus argues that âit is incumbent upon the EU to persuade Turkey to adopt a principled paradigm shiftâ (ibid.) to correct this negative situation.
Uzun concludes that his âpaper has sought to show that the Kurdish people have sought to solve the Kurdish question through peaceful dialogue and negotiation, while the Turkish stateâs approach has used policies of assimilation, delay and oppressionâ (p. 34). Admirably, however, he still believes âthat only negotiations will lead to a solutionâ (ibid.).
In addition to its main sections, Uzunâs report contains a limited bibliography consisting mostly of online sources, but missing most of the now voluminous scholarly literature of the past two decades. He does have a useful list of very apropos Kurdish acronyms, which are sometimes difficult to find defined elsewhere and four annexes. The first annex is a letter written in October 2011 by Murat Karayilan â the then president of the KCK Administrative Council â criticizing the Turkish stateâs approach for âimprisoning the very people who are the political force behind the solution as members of the KCKâ (p. 39), and concluding that âit is now clearly evident that the opposing forces cannot eradicate one or the other through warâ (p. 40).
The second annex analyzes the current revolutionary situation in Syria and Western /Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), an on-going conflagration that also impacts the current peace process in Turkey. Here Uzun argues that âthe Turkish state secretly supports Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, both logistically and militarilyâ (p. 41). On this point, Uzun has been verified by such prestigious sources as the British news magazine The Economist in October 2013, among many other sources. Given the extremist conduct of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) â actions in Syria and now Iraq that challenge secular Turkeyâs very existence â Turkey has clearly come to regret its earlier clandestine actions.
As for the Kurds in Syria, Uzun accurately insists that âthey prefer peaceful methods for solving the current problems, and refuse to side with either the regime or the opposition, because neither recognises the Kurdish peopleâs natural and democratic rightsâ (ibid.). He also notes how on 21 January 2014, the vast majority of the Kurds in Syria âdeclared the Kurdish cantons â inspired by the Swiss model â to be autonomousâ (p. 43). Uzunâs second annex also contains a map that details relevant cities in Rojava. Following a useful lengthy chronological list of relevant events from 1973â2013 that runs for more than four pages, another map shows the much larger pan-Kurdish area of the Middle East and lists numerous cities in all four stares that contain Kurdistan.
According to the prestigious scholarly publisher Berghof, Uzunâs most enlightening report âis one of a series produced by participants in a Berghof research project on transitions from violence to peaceâ (p. 8). The purpose of Berghofâs scholarly project âwas to learn from the experience of those in resistance or liberation movements who have used violence in their struggle but have also engaged politically during the conflict and in any peace processâ (ibid.). The publisher further explains that âwe believe these case-studies are significant because they reflect important voices which are usually excluded or devalued in the analysis of conflictâ and that âwe are convinced that these opinions and perspectives urgently need to be heard in order to broaden our understanding of peacemakingâ (ibid.). The present reviewers strongly feel that Berghof is right on with this intention. Adem Uzunâs report will richly reward the reader and is highly recommended to policy makers, academics, and the lay public.