"Fear of solution"

One should not think that the process that began to blow with the Imrali talks will go smoothly, or that everyone is awaiting it with great excitement and goodwill. The optimism of those who decided on the process, and of those with expectations from it, does not mean that the risks and threats in this regard are being ignored.

At this stage optimism should be seen as a political-philosophical attitude expressing only sincerity in the role that falls to one's own share within this process. In fact, in this sense, sincerity and optimism also function as an element of pressure, as a constitutive element, toward a process proceeding in the desired direction.

On the other hand, the risks of the process will continue to exist in this process as in all earlier ones. There are segments whose hair stands on end the moment they hear of this process, whose interests have been harmed. Orhan Miroglu is not wrong when he openly points to those who have fallen into a "fear of solution." Indeed there are interest groups, political tradesmen, warlords or status quo loyalists produced by a process that has been going on for 35 years. One should not think either that everyone is tired of weapons and blood. There are many political and social positions produced by the present environment, and one must take into account that a possible solution would turn all these positions upside down.

Of course one must also avoid an accusatory discourse that would harm the process, but one must be aware of the sociological reality of this matter too. There are many people, even in the civil sphere, who have found a position for themselves because only weapons were speaking, and one should not think that they would be happy with a possible solution process.

The execution of three PKK women in France, in an environment where precisely the Imrali talks were setting the agenda, shows, from whichever side you look at it, that a hidden hand is trying to deliver a message addressed to a specific recipient. Where is this message directed, what does it say? Those of us not directly concerned probably do not know. But it indicates that one may step outside the familiar methods tried so far to undermine this process. The attack launched on Cukurca in those same days with hundreds of PKK militants, which ended in fiasco with the death of 14 militants, is the known, rote path. It is understood that this path too is not, and will not be, completely closed.

Meanwhile there are segments that the conflict process continuing for years has radicalized to the extreme, and they, even if it harms them, even if it is not at all rational for them, will not want to leave the cycle of revenge and hatred.

In this process reason alone will not be decisive, and emotions have become too complicated to be optimistic about. Unfortunately we have a problem of overstimulated nationalism, and this is an entirely emotional matter. Even if the demand that Ocalan be treated as an interlocutor is taken very seriously, especially by thoroughly radicalized Kurdish nationalists, one must not forget that they are also loading onto Ocalan the weight of expectations suited to these emotionalities of theirs.

In essence this is an indisputable fact in terms of the social psychology of leadership. No leader has, or can have, absolute and unquestioning authority over the segments he leads. Although Ocalan is the most influential name over the PKK, this authority is not unlimited and he is not entirely cut off from the expectations of the PKK base. Still, the most important element that legitimizes all hierarchical positions within the organization at present is loyalty to the person of Ocalan. But one should not expect that those who have risen to somewhere by showing this loyalty will always display unconditional obedience to Ocalan with a calm heart.

That is why, as progress is made in the process, new voices begin to come from every direction; even the fact that those who until now pointed to Ocalan as the sole interlocutor suddenly, once the process began, put forward themselves, Imrali, Europe, the KCK, the DTK and many other actors as interlocutors shows what kind of threat the fear of solution constitutes.