NEWS CENTER -  Murat Karayılan said they are seeking a resolution to the Kurdish issue and the democratization of Turkey, adding, “We have made far-reaching decisions to that end. The state must take the same approach. Only then can a solution emerge.”

 

Murat Karayılan, a member of the Command Council of the People's Defence Centre (HSM), spoke to Sterk TV about current developments. Referring to the process started by Kurdish Leader Abdullah Öcalan on 27 February 2025, Murat Karayılan described it as both significant and historic, saying: “It is important not only for us but also for the Republic of Turkey and the Turkish state. The Kurdish issue is one of Turkey’s oldest and most fundamental challenges. That initiative was a highly significant step. As a movement, we believe that the struggle should henceforth be carried forward through democratic and social means. We took those steps out of conviction. We believed in the Democratic Society Struggle Strategy and acted accordingly. We remain committed to that. Our actions demonstrated this commitment. Over the past year and a half, our movement’s stance, the decisions it has taken, and the steps it has implemented have all shown how firmly both the movement and its leadership are committed to this path. We have acted in full accordance with our own rules. We have made decisions that are irreversible. However, the Turkish state has yet to take any legal steps. That is not to say it has done nothing. There have been visits to İmralı, a parliamentary commission has been established, and after some time the cease-fire became mutual, bringing the fighting to a halt. These are, of course, meaningful developments. However, the measures necessary to move the process forward and prevent it from dragging on have still not been put in place. It appears that the Turkish state has yet to reach a clear decision on this issue. They continue to raise various issues, but from what can be seen, they remain caught between saying yes and saying go.”

 

‘THE STATE MUST ALSO CHANGE ITS OWN PARADIGM’

 

Pointing to the mistrust created by the state, Karayılan continued: “Another issue is that there is a great deal of mistrust. For example, so far the state has not taken any step to build trust. There has been no gesture of coming together. We dissolved the PKK and ended our strategy of armed struggle. In other words, we have ended the hostility. We said, ‘We are starting a new chapter, we no longer want hostility, but friendship.’ It is true that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and figures such Devlet Bahçeli speak of Kurdish-Turkish-Arab brotherhood. State officials make statements along these lines from time to time. Yet in practice, there has been no reconciliation. The necessary legal steps have still not been taken. Of course, the fact that it has taken so long is itself a matter of debate. There are, no doubt, reasons for this. But the problem begins with the approach itself. For example, they talk about a ‘terror-free Turkey.’ The Kurdish issue is a historical and social issue. It is one of Turkey’s fundamental issues. How can this issue be resolved by reducing it to a matter of ‘terror’? That is where the real problem lies in the mindset. Clearly, there is a problem with the state’s mindset; it is not clear on the issue. For example, we decided that from now on we want to resolve this issue through dialogue. We have changed our paradigm for resolving the issue. But the state must also change its own paradigm. If the state continues to act with its old mindset of destruction and annihilation, such attitudes will continue to prevail. They still see the Kurds as a threat. Yet we want to be friends. How can there be a brotherhood? Friendship must come first; only then can there be a brotherhood. But you call us brothers while at the same time seeing us as a threat. You call us brothers, yet you do not grant us our rights or recognize those rights. Instead, you treat us as if we have surrendered. How can that work? That is where the real problem lies.

 

We want to make peace with the state, transform the republic into a democratic republic, and become part of it. We do not want to stand against the republic. This is the fundamental approach of our Leader and of our movement. But we do not see the same approach from the other side. Instead, they approach the issue with suspicion, concerns and anxiety. We have made our decision; we stand by the decision of the Congress. These are not ordinary decisions. Yet we see that the other side continues to approach the issue with suspicion and concern. As long as the approach remains like this, and as long as we continue to be seen by the Republic as a threat, trust cannot develop on our side either. There is a problem, but there is no confidence that this problem will be resolved. In my view, this stems from the state’s approach.”

 

‘HISTORICAL OPPORTUNITY’

 

Criticizing the fact that the legal arrangements have not yet been brought before parliament despite the rhetoric, Karayılan said: “Over the past few days, there have been statements saying that a decision has been made to bring the framework law before parliament this month. That would be a very important step. If the framework law is not one-sided and is instead inclusive, it would represent a historic opportunity for Turkey. It is widely acknowledged that the Kurdish issue has existed since the founding of the Republic. In fact, the issue also existed during the final century of the Ottoman Empire. Before that, there was a period of peaceful coexistence. But for the past 220 years, since Abdullah Babanzade’s rebellion in Silêmanî-Koye (Köysancak) in 1806, there has been a conflict between the Kurdish people and the Ottoman state, and following its establishment, the republic of Turkey. I should point out that the Ottoman period was somewhat more conciliatory. At times they made peace, at times they fought and at times they reached agreements. The Ottoman state was better able to produce solutions in this regard. Its approach was more conciliatory; those who rebelled were generally pardoned, and they were given positions. That was the case with Bedirxan Bey and Sheikh Ubeydullah, for example. The Republic, however, approached the issue through violence and executions. During the Republican era, the issue became much more severe, it has continued through the Republic’s 102-year history.”

 

WILL THIS LAW BE COMPREHENSIVE OR NOT?

 

Karayılan continued: The Republic of Turkey can resolve this issue. How? When the Republic was first established, conservatives were excluded and the Kurds were made a target. Later, conservatives struggled in one way or another and became part of the republic. What remains unresolved now? The Kurds. The Kurds are one of the oldest people of Mesopotamia, and a significant part of Kurdistan lies within Turkey. They live both inside and outside  Turkey’s borders. Today, they want to be equal and free citizens within the framework of a democratic republic. The Republic, in turn, must embrace them as well. That is why a fundamental approach is needed. If the Turkish Parliament, or those drafting this framework law, approach the issue on that basis, it will usher in an entirely new era in Turkey. It will be an important step towards making Turkey a centre of democracy in the Middle East and allowing it to rise and shine. We are waiting to see what this law will look like. Will it cover everything, or will it not?

 

THE ISOLATION CONTINUES

 

For the 42 days, no one other than the state delegation has been able to see Rêber (Leader) Apo. Clearly, Rêber Apo remains under isolation. This is not an ordinary isolation, it is a political one. There is a purpose behind it. We know that the state delegation has been visiting İmralı and holding meetings with Rêber Apo, sometimes apparently with the participation of the other prisoners as well. It appears that this isolation has continued because no outcome has been reached so far. That is the situation.

 

There was also a period of isolation from 27 March to 15 May. Now, for the past 42 days, no delegation from outside has visited Rêber Apo. Yet this is precisely the period when such visits should have been taking place most frequently. Rêber Apo, we, and many people in the public all want this isolation imposed on Rêber Apo to be lifted and for visits to become more frequent. Before this, there was also a 49-day period of isolation. Now it is the same again; it has been 42 days. But we know that the state delegation has been visiting İmralı. They are holding meetings with Rêber Apo there. The other comrades with Rêber Apo may also be taking part. There is an ongoing discussion. But because those discussions have not produced a result, the isolation continues. Now, some people close to the government have told the media that Rêber Apo has approved the framework law. They are making such claims but it is not true, these are lies. This is also psychological warfare. They want to create expectations and hope. If an agreement had been reached, they would have opened the way, and the DEM Party delegation would have gone to İmralı the very same day. So why are they still not allowing anyone to go? Because the discussions have not produced a clear outcome. That is why they do not want Rêber Apo’s views and opinions to reach us or the public while the process remains unresolved. They believe they are taking such a measure with this. They know that, if a meeting were to take place, Rêber Apo would assess, comment on and criticize the current situation. This shows that no outcome has yet been reached, and that is why things continue in this way. That is how we understand it.

 

THEY ARE IMPOSING THEIR OWN APPROACH ON THE RÊBER APO

 

What else can be seen? There (in İmralı), the state is trying to impose its own approach on Rêber Apo. It appears that through the discussions and through one-sided efforts, it is trying to impose its own approach and have it accepted. That is how the situation appears. The state should not act in this way! It is not right to impose its own position on Rêber Apo or to insist on certain issues. Nor is the isolation justified. This is a matter of criticism; it is a source of concern.”

 

Pointing out that Abdullah Öcalan is the chief negotiator, Karayılan stated: “He can make decisions on every issue. We, our comrades and our movement have made that clear before. However, we decide on matters concerning Rêber Apo. In other words, the guerrillas make that decision. The Congress entrusted that initiative to the guerillas. What decision did the PKK’s 12th Congress adopt? What were its decisions? In particular, the Congress decided that Rêber Apo must direct the process of laying down arms. It means Rêber Apo will have his physical freedom and will put those decisions into practice. This initiative has been entrusted to the guerillas. That is why our movement’s and the guerrillas position regarding Rêber Apo is clear.

 

THE KURDS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LAW

 

Nothing can move forward without Rêber Apo. There should be no insistence on this point. To persist any further would only make the process more difficult. That way, no result can be achieved. As I said earlier, there should be a comprehensive law that resolves this century-old issue. A solution must be developed with that mindset. If the leader of the Kurdish people remains in prison, the Kurdish people will not be free. Our people voiced this reality as a slogan at their most recent rallies. Their representatives also expressed it. We have been saying this all along. This is the view of our people, our guerrillas and our movement. Brotherhood develops on the basis of mutual acceptance. It cannot be achieved through denial. First of all, this reality must be recognized. Another point is, they say ‘The Kurds exist, and the Kurds and Turks are brothers.’ If they say that, then the Kurds do exist. If that is the case, then the Kurds should alsı be included in the law and brought  within the scope of the law. They should not remain outside the law. Only then they can become democratic and free citizens. If that does not happen, then introducing a narrow law that applies only to the guerrillas, and even then by dividing them into categories will not bring a solution, it will only deepen the deadlock. This is a historical issue and it requires a historic sense of responsibility. For our part, we are trying to approach it responsibly. We want the issue to be resolved at its roots. We genuinely want to see a democratic republic develop in Turkey, with the Kurds participating in it wholeheartedly and no longer being regarded as enemies. That is why we have taken far-reaching decisions. But those on the other side must approach it in the same way. The state must do the same. Only then can a solution emerge.”

 

Referring to political opportunism and psychological warfare by certain quarters during the process, Karayılan said: “In the past, such things were done fr political opportunism or as part of psychological warfare. One could understand that. But now the issue is on the table, and there is an agenda for a democratic political solution. Raising such claims and making them part of the agenda is not right. It is an exaggeration, it is a lie. The reality is that neither side achieved the outcome it wanted in this war. In other words, there is neither a winner nor a loser. If the Turkish state had achieved the result it sought in Zap and Metîna, despite four years of insistence, and had not reached a deadlock, this process would not have developed. Things are not as they claim. It is self-aggrandizement and refusal to acknowledge reality. Now is not the time to wage psychological warfare against one another. What is needed is a more genuine and realistic approach. The Kurdish people were right, and they did resist. This is not something that has developed solely through guerrillas. A society as a whole is resisting. The strength of this movement does not consist only of its armed force. It also has social, organizational, political and diplomatic strength  and strength in every other sphere. The movement has grown. That is why the other side’s claims that ‘we weakened them’ are not true.

 

A JUSTICE AND TRUTH COMMISSION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED

 

It is not right to categorize the guerrillas as guilty or not guilty. If we were to open the files, we would see that your crimes far exceed ours. If a Justice and Truth Commission were established, which we also propose, then let us see who is responsible for what.  17,500 of our people were assassinated under the label of ‘unresolved killings.’ More recently, in 2015, 270 of our people were burned in the basements of Cizre. If we are talking about crimes, then who committed them? If we were to open the case files, that would be a different matter altogether. That is not the issue. These are not the kinds of things that should be said by those who genuinely want to move the process towards a solution. The discussion should focus on how a solution can be achieved. Otherwise, I too could say many things.”

 

‘NO ONE SHOULD TURN REALITY IN ITS HEAD’

 

Addressing the steps they took immediately after Abdullah Öcalan’s call, Karayılan added: “When Rêber Apo made his historic call on 27 February, we held a meeting the very next day and declared a ceasefire on 1 March 2025, didn’t we? Did the state accept the ceasefire immediately? No. It continued its military operations. It was only after two successive operations were carried out in Zap on 24 and 26 June using swarm drone tactics that the state asked, ‘What do you want us to do in order to stop?’ We replied, ‘You are not observing the ceasefire. Instead, you are using it as an opportunity to encircle our forces, and that is why we are acting this way.’ That was when they accepted the ceasefire. When? On 1 July 2025, they adopted a ceasefire position. Likewise, reconnaissance aircraft continued their flights. It was only after two Akıncı armed drones flying at an altitude of around 11,000 metres were shot down over Qendîl (Qandil) that drone activity over Qendîl came to a halt. Can a movement that has been weakened shoot down drones flying at an altitude of 11,000 metres? As far as we know, the only countries in the Middle East capable of doing that are Turkey, Iran and Israel. There is no one else. The fourth force is our movement. No one should turn reality on its head. It has reached a high level of technological capability. Had Rêber Apo not made his call, we could have expanded the war even further. We could have struck not only nearby targets but also those farther away. We could have targeted economic assets, oil facilities, and locations as far as 800 kilometers deep. Our movement possessed the technological means and capabilities to do so. Yet despite all this, our movement brought the war to halt because it believed in Rêber Apo’s strategy of democratic society and democratic politics.

 

Without question, we still have those capabilities today. If I were to talk about them, they would say, ‘He is threatening us.’ But we do have those capabilities. Our people and society should know that as well. However, we have chosen the path of democratic politics and have adopted the strategy of democratic society. That is the strategy we want to pursue. But if, despite this, we are subjected to military attacks aimed at our destruction, if they seek to eliminate us using the old methods of war, we are capable of responding with three or four times greater force than before.  We have the capacity to respond not only to nearby targets, but also to those farther away. Our movement has that potential. Our people and those watching from afar may not know this, but I believe state officials do. Our movement has that potential. It has devoted and capable cadres who have made this possible. Its tactical experience has grown, and it has developed technological mastery. There is no effective counter to either the tunnel tactics developed in recent years or to the newly deployed FPV fibre-optic drones. Of course, the Turkish military also has capabilities, I do not wish to underestimate them, but there is no effective counter to these systems. Indeed, they were left without one. That is a fact.

 

Another point is that we have acquired these technologies only in recent years. We have been working on them and following developments for a long time. That is why, if anyone says ‘let us go back to the past’, this movement is capable of defending itself.

 

OUR STRATEGY IS DEMOCRATIC POLITICS

 

However, our decision to end the strategy of armed struggle is final. We will not return to that strategy. The decisions of PKK’s 12th Congress are final. There will be no reversal of the decision to dissolve the movement, nor of the decision to end the strategy of armed struggle. What is our strategy? Our strategy is democratic politics. But if we come under attack, we will defend ourselves. We have the capability to do so, and everyone should know that. We are ready to pursue our struggle through democratic politics in a democratic country based on the rule of law. However, if they seek to attack us with the support of foreign countries or certain groups, everyone should know that we have the means to defend ourselves. In fact, we have the capacity to develop those capabilities even further than before. We are not without options, we have alternatives. But our first option, our principal choice and our fundamental decision is Rêber Apo’s decision, democratic politics. We want those on the other side to understand this correctly and approach it accordingly.