Turkey: The Scorched Earth Policy Does Not Create Solutions or Internal Cohesion

by Tariq Hemo

The Turkish state has begun launching comprehensive and targeted attacks on the infrastructure in Northern and Eastern Syria, destroying dozens of electricity and water stations, grain silos, hospitals, police headquarters, and civilian facilities belonging to the Autonomous Administration. In addition to causing infrastructural destruction, these attacks have resulted in the deaths and injuries of dozens of civilians, including children.

These assaults on infrastructure facilities (whose locations and details are catalogued within Turkey’s military target database) come just days after a political maneuver by the Turkish government and opposition, which seemed designed to convey to both domestic and international audiences that Ankara, in view of regional events and discussions of potential map redrawing, seeks to resolve the Kurdish issue and end the armed conflict with the Kurds and their movement, the Kurdistan Workers’  Party (PKK).

Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), called on Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan to address the Turkish parliament and announce the PKK’s renunciation of arm. Additionally, Özgür Özel, head of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), made statements about peace, suggesting that “26 million Kurds should sit at the negotiating table and become citizens with a state of their own which is  Turkey.”

Despite the vague nature of these calls and the general rethoric lacking any clear solution points or preliminary steps, the general atmosphere appeared positive, sparking hope among some that peace talks and negotiation rounds could genuinely begin between Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK,  the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), on one hand, and the Turkish state, represented by both the government and the opposition, on the other.

However, the opposite occurred. The Turkish state escalated its military actions and immediately began launching extensive and targeted attacks on infrastructure in Northern and Eastern Syria, the Shengal district in the Kurdistan Region, and what it claims are ‘PKK bases’ in the mountainous areas of Qandil and elsewhere.

The attacks were justified by the Turkish state as a response to the assault on the TUSAŞ Aerospace Industries Company, which the PKK claimed was planned and executed by a militant group affiliated with them in retaliation for the Turkish military campaigns, asserting that it had no connection to the ongoing dialogue between the Turkish state and the Kurdish side. Although the initial attack targeted a military facility, the Turkish state responded by bombarding civilian and service facilities in Northern and Eastern Syria, as well as symbols of the Autonomous Administration in the Shengal district. Ankara perceived this attack as an opportunity to dismantle any previous claims of addressing the solution of the Kurdish issue, the construction of what it termed a “state of law and citizenship,” and the consolidation of “internal cohesion.” Consequently, it initiated a destructive military campaign, exploiting the attack to intensify acts of sabotage and displacement, further deepening the atmosphere of hostility and animosity.

The Turkish attacks on the infrastructure in the regions of Northern and Eastern Syria and the Shengal district overshadowed a significant event: the meeting between Ömer Öcalan, a parliamentarian for the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party, and Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan, who has been held under heavy isolation by the Turkish state in the prison island of Imrali since 1999, without any contact with lawyers or family for the past 40 months. Ömer Öcalan conveyed the Kurdish leader’s readiness, in theory and in practice, to resolve the Kurdish issue peacefully and democratically and to end the state of war between the Kurdish people and the Turkish state. However, instead of seizing this opportunity and translating previous statements by state officials from both the government and the opposition, the government in Ankara turned the tables on everyone and started bombing, destroying, and sabotaging as part of a scorched earth policy, where the constant aim is to uproot and displace the Kurds.

Senior officials of the PKK (Bese Hozat, Murat Karayilan, and Mustafa Karasu) have expressed deep suspicions regarding the intentions of the Turkish state, warning of an ‘ambush’ that Ankara aims to set for the Kurds and their movement to weaken them in preparation for any developments that may arise in the region, particularly in Iran and East Kurdistan, due to the significant escalation and conflict between Israel, Iran, and its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. This warning comes at a time when the sudden discourse of ‘brotherhood,’ ‘internal cohesion,’ and ‘resolution’ starkly contrasts with the reality of the Turkish war machine bombing the Kurds, occupying their towns, displacing them, and empowering outlaw militias over them. This rhetoric does not appear sincere and does not reflect a genuine commitment to peace and a democratic solution; rather, it seems more like a ‘temporary tactic’ that might suggest some hope but also risks weakening resolve and leading to diverging positions while Turkey prepares for and assesses the magnitude of the anticipated regional changes.

The Kurdish movement’s perspective focuses on the fundamental changes that must take place in Turkey if it genuinely seeks peace and democratization. These changes include lifting the isolation imposed on Öcalan, initiating official peace talks, preparing for constitutional recognition of the Kurds, and ending military campaigns, occupation, and displacement against Kurds both within and outside Turkey. Discussion of ‘regret’ and leveraging the ‘Right to Hope,’ as well as calls for the movement’s leader to end armed struggle and disarm without a solution plan and constitutional changes enacted by a parliament in which the Kurdish party is fully included, is seen as a deception by Ankara. This approach is regarded as a tactic to gain time and an ‘ambush’ that the Kurdish side will not fall into, as was the case between 2013 and 2015.

Turkey is now faced with a critical choice: either to opt for peace and a genuine political solution or to continue the war and gamble on a military solution. The notion that the PKK is weak and incapable of responding is nothing but a fantasy and a form of self-deception. Attempting to bypass Öcalan and the movement will not succeed now or in the future. Ankara has the opportunity to abandon its war policy, let go of the belief that the other side has become weak (as it has been convinced for over 40 years), and approach the negotiating table with sincere intentions to engage with Öcalan and his comrades in order to resolve the Kurdish issue. This path would lead to the end of the war, cessation of the waste of billions of dollars, the establishment of a true ‘state of citizenship and law,’ and the realization of genuine ‘internal cohesion,’ rather than the ambushes and conspiracies that only result in deeper fractures, economic collapse, and the shedding of innocent blood.

Author

  • Tariq Hemo

    Dr. Tariq Hemo is a research associate at the Kurdish Center for Studies. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and specializes on researching the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam. He has co-authored a book with Dr. Salah Nayouf titled ‘Freedom and Democracy in the Discourse of Political Islam After the Recent Transformations in the Arab World’. He is currently a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the Arab Academy in Denmark.

    View all posts
You might also like

Comments are closed.